HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015 - Agenda - PdfAGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
January 5, 2015
Monday, 7 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2.ROLL CALL
3.SWEARING-IN CEREMONY: Ruth Perez, Councilmember Position #6
4.PROCLAMATION
a. National Mentoring Month – January 2015
5.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6.AUDIENCE COMMENT
(Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The
first comment period is limited to one-half hour. The second 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 city of residence 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 12/8/2014. Council concur.
b. City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon
reconsideration regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat (LUA-13-000642) by Brent
Carson, Van Ness Feldman, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and 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 4-8-110.F.6.).
c. City Attorney recommends adoption of a resolution authorizing a Memorandum of Agreement
regarding future operation of the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network (PSERN). Council
concur. (See 9.a. for resolution.)
d. Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of a contract in an
amount not to exceed $100,000 with Reid Middleton, Inc. to review structural plans through
12/31/2015. Council concur.
e. Community and Economic Development Department recommends appointing Michael
Schabbing, General Manager of Marriott Renton and Southcenter Hotels, and Brent Camann,
Senior Asset Manager at SECO Development, Inc., to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Mr.
Schabbing fills the vacancy left by Brad Knutson, and Mr. Camann has made a change in
employer. Council concur.
f. Community and Economic Development Department recommends adoption of an ordinance
amending RMC 4-1-210.C., Rental Housing Incentive, to help leverage additional public and
Page 1 of 410
private funds to support affordable multi-family rental housing development in the Sunset Area.
Refer to Planning & Development Committee.
g. Community and Economic Development Department recommends adopting a
resolution declaring the Sunset Area as a "Redevelopment Area" and an "Investment Priority
Area." Refer to Planning & Development Committee.
h. Community and Economic Development Department recommends adopting a resolution to
authorize application for a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative Implementation grant for up to
$30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan. Refer to Planning & Development
Committee.
i. Community and Economic Development Department requests authorization to
waive development and mitigation fees for Renton Housing Authority’s four Sunset Area
Transformation Plan housing projects, contingent upon the receipt of a HUD Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative Implementation grant. The requested fee waivers expire December 31,
2020 unless otherwise extended by the Council. Refer to Planning & Development Committee.
j. Community Services Department submits CAG-14-100, Cedar River Gabion Repair project; and
requests approval of the project, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release of
retainage in the amount of $10,398.50 to Jansen Inc., contractor, if all required releases are
obtained. Council concur.
k. Public Works Department requests authorization to fill a Lead Water Utility Pump Station
Mechanic position at Step E of the Grade a18 salary scale. Council concur.
l. Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Agreement with the
Washington State Department of Transportation for the obligation of Surface Transportation
Program (STP) grant funding in the amount of $1,237,000; and all subsequent agreements
required to complete the Duvall Ave. NE (NE 4th St. to NE 10th St.) Preservation project. Council
concur.
m. Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Agreement with the
Washington State Department of Transportation for the obligation of Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding in the amount of $707,000; and all subsequent agreements
required to complete the 116th Ave. SE (SE Petrovitsky Rd. to SE 172nd Ln.- extended) Sidewalk
project. Council concur.
n. Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement
with the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board for the obligation of grant funding
in the amount of $1,024,750; and all subsequent agreements required to complete the Main
Ave. S./Downtown Circulation (S. 3rd St. to Mill Ave. S.) project. Council concur.
o. Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Agreement with the
Washington State Department of Transportation for the obligation of Surface Transportation
Program (STP) grant funding in the amount of $2,600,000; and all subsequent agreements
required to complete the Rainier Ave. S. Corridor Improvements - Phase 4 (S. 3rd St. to NW 3rd
Pl.) project. Council concur.
p. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #1 to LAG-14-005, with
Rainier Flight Service, LLC, for the use of a portion of their leased area for Airport equipment
storage with a corresponding monthly rental reduction in the amount of $161.33 per month.
Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee.
q. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 to LAG-14-005, with
Rainier Flight Service, LLC, for lease language modification concerning the removal of movable
office furniture or trade fixtures. Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee.
Page 2 of 410
8.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
9.RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Resolution:
a. Interlocal agreement with various agencies regarding Puget Sound Emergency Radio
Network (See 7.c.)
Ordinances for first reading:
a. Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-101, Applicability of Urban Design
Regulations (Approved via 12/8/2014 Planning & Development Committee Report)
b. Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Docket #10B D-
104, Maximum Lot Area, Building Coverage and Impervious Surface Area Regulations
and Residential Six Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-6) Zone (Approved via 12/8/2014 Planning &
Development Committee Report)
c. Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts for Utilities,
Open Space, Critical Areas, and Other Similar Areas (Approved via 12/8/2014 Planning &
Development Committee Report)
d. Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) Docket
#10B D-106, Wireless Communication Facilities (Approved via 12/8/2014 Planning &
Development Committee Report)
e. Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Retaining
Walls (Approved via 12/8/2014 Planning & Development Committee Report)
f. Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Land Clearing
(Approved via 12/8/2014 Planning & Development Committee Report)
g. Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Docket #10B D-
112, Administrative Code Interpretations (Approved via 12/8/2014 Planning & Development
Committee Report)
10.NEW BUSINESS
(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.)
11.AUDIENCE COMMENT
12.ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
Page 3 of 410
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
January 5, 2015
Monday, 6 p.m.
Economic Development Update (includes Update on Main Street Program)
• 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 RECABLECAST:
Tues. & Thurs. at 11 AM & 9 PM, Wed. & Fri at 9 AM & 7 PM and Sat. & Sun. at 1 PM & 9 PM
Page 4 of 410
4a. - National Mentoring Month – January 2015Page 5 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon
Reconsideration dated 12/5/2014 regarding the
Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-
13-000642)
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
*City Clerk’s letter (12/5/2014)
*Appeal – Van Ness Feldman (11/26/2014)
*HEX’s Final Decision upon Reconsideration
(11/15/2014)
*Reply to Order Authorizing Recon. – Van Ness
Feldman (11/5/2014)
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Clerk
Staff Contact:
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee.
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A
Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A
Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
EXHIBITS CONTINUED:
*City’s Answer on Reconsideration (10/22/2014)
*HEX’s Order Authorizing Reconsideration (10/21/2014)
*Request for Reconsideration by Van Ness Feldman (10/16/2014)
*HEX’s Final Decision (10/3/2014)
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision upon Reconsideration on the Vuecrest Estates
Preliminary Plat was filed on 12/5/2014 by Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, accompanied by the
required $250.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat appeal.
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 6 of 410
Denis Law '
MayorClty ofJL
City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMCDecember5,2014
APPEAL FILED BY: Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated November 15,
2014,regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat located at the 4800 Block of
Smithers Ave. South(File No. LUA-13-000642)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title N,Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearingexaminer's final decision upon reconsideration on Vuecrest Estates land use application has beenfiledwiththeCityClerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, 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 their positions 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 pm, Friday,December 19,2014.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will
notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee
meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the
Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council
meeting.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regardingappealsofHearingExaminerdecisionsorrecommendations. Please note that the City Councilwillbeconsideringthemeritsoftheappealbaseduponthewrittenrecordpreviouslyestablished.
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 further evidence or testimony on this
matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502.
Scerely,
on eth
ity Clerk
Enclosures
cc: Council Liaison
1055 South Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-6510/Fax(425),430-6516•rentonwa.gov7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 7 of 410
City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110—Appeals
4-8-110C4
Filing of Appeal and Fee:The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5-
1-2,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013)
4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council—Procedures
1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the
applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's
decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing
Examiner's decision.A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if
that person(s):
a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or
b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner
regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or
c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior
to the close of the public hearing.
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: 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. 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.The cost of transcription of the hearing
record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made,the applicant is required to provide a copy
to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before
the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012)
S. Burden:The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant.
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 arguments based on the
record by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-0701-11, as it exists or may be amended, and after
examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the
record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-
2012)
8. Decision Documentation: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.
9. 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. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord.4389, 1-25-1993; Ord.4660, 3-17-1997; Ord.
5558, 10-25-2010)
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 8 of 410
CITY OF RENTON
NOV 26 2014
1
RECEIVED
2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8
9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
APPEAL OF HEARING
10 EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION
Preliminary Plat UPON RECONSIDSERATION
11 LUA13-000642
12
13
14
The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat,by and through its counsel of
15 record, Brent Carson and Van Ness Feldman LLP, files this appeal of the Hearing
16 Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated November 15,2014 (the
17 "Decision") and asks the City Council to eliminate or modify Condition 13 of the
18 Decision for the reasons set forth below.
19
I.Standing
20
Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code(RMC)4-8-110(F), the Applicant has
21
standing to appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
22
23
24
25
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 1 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
20 6) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 9 of 410
I H. Substantial Errors Justifying Elimination or. Modification of Condition 13
2 A. Introduction
3 This Appeal is focused entirely on the requirement of Condition 13 in the
4 Decision. Condition 13 forces the Applicant to extend a public road, Smithers Ave. S.,
5
over adjoining private property that the Applicant does not own or control. The record
6
demonstrates that the owner of that adjoining private property refused to grant the
7
Applicant any rights of access. With the condition, asimposed, the Applicant has no
8
9 ability to develop the Vuecrest Estate's plat.
10 No other subdivision previously approved in this area under the same conditions
11 has been placed in this unfair,unreasonable and illegal predicament. These prior
12 subdivisions each extended Smithers Ave. S. through their properties and ended that
13
public road with a temporary cul-de-sac. The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates likewise
14
proposed to extend Smithers Ave. S. through its property and build a temporary cul-de-sac
15
16
at the end of its property. When the adjoining property to the east develops, Smithers
17 Ave. S. will be extended by that owner to Main Ave.S. (102nd Ave. SE)providing a
18 secondary access route for this neighborhood. Unfortunately,unlike each of the prior
19 subdivision approvals, the Hearing Examiner in this case rejected a temporary cul-de-sac
20 and imposed Condition 13, which requires the Applicant,prior to final plat approval, to
21
extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across another owner's private property, to connect to
22
Main Ave. S.
23
24
In addition to the disparate treatment of Vuecrest Estates, as compared with other
25 subdivisions in this neighborhood,the Staff in this case misrepresented to the Applicant
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 2 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 10 of 410
1 that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved. At the very start of the process,the Fire
2 Department's representative stated in writing to the Applicant that: "A proposed
3
temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and
4
5
construction requirements." Exhibit 35,Att. B. The City's senior planner also confirmed
the City's position on the acceptance of a temporary cul-de-sac:6
7 The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the•east but are
not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as
g part of the proposed development. However,without the secondary access
a cul-de-sac would be required for fire turn around . . .
9
10
Ex. 35, Att. C. When the City Staff proposed that the Applicant apply for a variance in
order to approve a temporary cul-de-sac, Staff wrote: "it will be supported by the City."11
12 Ex. 35,Att. H.
13 Based on the Staffs clear representations to the Applicant on the acceptability of a
14 temporary cul-de-sac,the Applicant invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to process
15
this preliminary plat and address all issues raised by the City. If a secondary access were
16
going to be required,the Applicant would not have a proceeded with this project. Yet,
17
when the staff report was issued weeks before the Preliminary Plat public hearing,the18
19 Staff reversed course,rejecting the previously accepted temporary cul-de-sac design, and
20 demanding extension of Smithers Ave. S. to 102 Ave. SE. The Staff s behavior in this
21 matter and their last-minute reversal justifies the City Council to question the credibility
22 of the City's testimony and to strike or revise Condition 13.
23
24
25
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 3 Feldman up
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
20 6) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 11 of 410
I B. A Temporary Cul-De-Sac Complies with RMC 4-6-060.H.1
2 The Hearing Examiner erred by finding that a temporary cul-de-sac, as proposed
3 by the Applicant, and as originally accepted by Staff, failed to meet the requirements of
4 RMC 4-6-060.H.1. The City's dead end street standards prohibit permanent dead end
5
streets unless a future connection is physically impossible. RMC 4-6-060.H.1. However,
6
7
this code provision, as previously interpreted by City Staff, allows a temporary cul-de-sac
8 to be built if, in the future,that road can be extended when the adjoining property is
g developed.
10 The Applicant did not propose a permanent dead end street. Instead, it proposed a
11 temporary cul-de-sac. To mitigate impacts, the Applicant proposed to install sprinkler
12
systems on every home in the development and to provide an internal circulation road
13
within the plat. Moreover, development of Vuecrest Estates would bring this
14
15
neighborhood one step closer to having a completed secondary access. With Condition
16 13, the plat cannot develop and the opportunity to extend Smithers Ave. S. closer to 102nd
17 Ave. SE is lost.
18 C. If Required, a Variance from the Secondary Access Requirement Should have
been Granted
19
20
As presented above, the temporary cul-de-sac should have been approved without
21 the need for a variance. However, if a variance is required, it should have been granted by
22 the Hearing Examiner. Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner and grant the
23 variance.
24
25
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 4 Feldman,,,
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 12 of 410
1 1. The Hearing Examiner Applied the Wrong Variance Criteria.
2 The Hearing Examiner mistakenly applied the street improvement modification
3 provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C)rather than the variance provisions in RMC 4-9-
4
250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied,the unrefuted evidence
5
6
presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner to grant
7
the variance from the secondary access requirements.
8 The subject application was for a Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated
9 under Title IV, Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general
10 and minimum street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-150(D),which imposes the
11 requirements for streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4-
12
6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." (Emphasis Added). The street standards in
13
14
RMC 4-6-060 include those provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets. Thus, in a
15 plat application,the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are.applied through the minimum
16 street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150 and may be varied in the
17 preliminary plat approval.
18 The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the
19
requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7,including variances from the
20
street standards. See RMC 4-7-240(1). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance
21
22
by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(B). RMC 4-7-240(A)
23
states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the
24 Hearing Examiner,pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(B)".
25
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 5 Feldman u,
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 13 of 410
I The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B), seeking a variance
2 from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060,which were being imposed on this
3
subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. Exhibit 35,Att. I. The variance application provided
4
an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9-250(B)
5
6
including, in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b)which states that"the granting of
7 the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
g property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
9 situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification under section
10 RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the street
11
improvement modification provisions,under RMC 4-9-250(C),when a variance was
12
sought under RMC 4-7-240(A).
13
14
2. The Evidence Supports the Granting of a Variance
15
Witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence that the variance criteria
16 had been met and that the variance should have been granted. See Testimony of Mr.
17 Maher Joudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J.
18 Geglia, Exhibit 35,Att. K.
19 Mr, Vince Geglia, a traffic engineer with Traff )e,provided a report
20
demonstrating that the surrounding streets in this neighborhood carry low volumes of
21
traffic at relatively low speeds and concluding that the risk of traffic accidents that would
22
23 block access to emergency vehicles is very low. Exhibit 35,Att. K. His report also
24 confirms that the looped road proposed for Vuecrest Estates will provide opportunities for
25 circulation of emergency vehicles within the plat.
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 6 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 14 of 410
1 Mr. Maher Joudi, a civil engineer with D R Strong Consulting Engineers Inc.,
2 testified that the wide roadways (32.5' of pavement) and adjacent sidewalks (4.5' each
3
side)provide a total width of over 40 feet for an emergency vehicle to travel from the
4
intersection of 102 Ave. SE and SE 186th Street to the proposed development. He noted
5
6
the minimal on-street parking on these streets, given that each home along this roadway
7 has a garage and off-street parking in their driveway.
g Mr. Carl Anderson, a registered Fire Protection Engineer with The Fire Protection
9 International Consortium, Inc.,presented expert testimony regarding the minimal risks to
10 life and safety posed by this development without having a secondary access and the
11
significant reduction in risk by the Applicant agreeing to install sprinklers in every home.
12
His unrefuted testimony was that the addition of 20 lots"would not be a significant
13
14
detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area."
15 The allegation by Staff,that this project would create a dead end street being 2400
16 feet long with 99 homes ori it was fully refuted by Mr. Carl Anderson who demonstrated
17 that only 800 feet of the roadway would have a single access because of internal
18
secondary access loops that are provided off this street along its length. Mr.Anderson
19
also confirmed that, of the 99 homes that Staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are
20
on two different streets, S. 47th PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and
21
22 from Vuecrest Estates. Furthermore, of the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36
23 are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a looped road,which allows for two ways of
24 access or egress within that plat.
25
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 7 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
20 6) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 15 of 410
1 These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklering these homes,
2 led Mr.Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public
3
safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted.
4
If the City Council determines that a variance was required,based upon this
5
6
testimony, the City Council should grant that variance and strike Condition 13 from the
7
Decision.
g D. Condition 13 is Arbitrary and Capricious
9 Requiring.Vuecrest Estates to provide secondary access in this case, as imposed by
10 Condition 13,is arbitrary and capricious. The prior subdivisions in this neighborhood
11 were authorized to extend Smithers Ave. S. through their properties to a temporary cul-de-
12
sac. No secondary access was required for these other projects. Vuecrest Estates merely
13
sought to be treated like all other applicants under similar conditions. There is no basis to
14
15
impose on secondary access requirement on this applicant.
16 It is also arbitrary and capricious to require secondary access given the City Staff's
17 express representations to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required.
18 Those representations were made four separate times. In the second Pre-Application
19 meeting, the City's Fire Department representative stated the Fire Department's position
20
clearly: "A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable . . ." Ex. 35,Att. B. This
21
was reconfirmed in the Fire Department's email: "the actual [secondary access]
22
23
connection does not have to be achieved at this time." Ex. 35,Att. C. After the project
24 was put on hold, and there were further discussions with City Staff and the Mayor and the
25 City attorney's office,the Fire Chief elected to withdraw an earlier letter, and the City
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 8 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 16 of 410
1 informed the Applicant that the application would be processed for approval without a
2 secondary access. According to the testimony of Ms. Higgins, withdrawal of the Fire
3 Chief s earlier letter was done specifically to induce the Applicant to continue processing
4
its plat application. In January 2014,when the City informed the applicant that a formal
5
variance application was required, it was made clear in Ms. Higgins' email that the City
6
7
supported this variance request. Ex. 35,Att. H.
g In light of these representations, Condition 13 should be eliminated and a
9 temporary cul-de-sac authorized.
10 E. Condition 13 Violates RCW 82.02.020
11 RCW 82.02.020 restricts the City from imposing conditions on a plat where there
12
is no nexus and rough proportionality between the condition imposed and the alleged
13
impacts. See City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17,
14
45 (2011). Here,the roads serving this plat are adequate. There is no permanent dead end
15
16 •street proposed,merely a temporary cul-de-sac. This project is providing its fair share
17 contribution to a future secondary access by extending Smithers Ave. S.through its
18 property. This is consistent with the City's approval of the prior plats in the neighborhood
19
that were approved under similar circumstances without requiring a secondary access.
20
The obligation in Condition 13 to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across
21
property that the Applicant does not own or control is a heavy burden that far exceeds the
22
23 impacts caused by the project. The added risk to public safety from approval of these 20
24 homes is negligible. The Applicant attempted,in good faith, to acquire rights from the
25 adjoining owner to extend the road to the east, and that owner would not agree to grant
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 9 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 17 of 410
1 such access rights. Condition 13 is therefore impossible to meet and effectively results in
2 denial of this project. With Condition 13, as written,until the property to the east
3 develops or agrees to dedicate a right-of-way to the City,no reasonable use can be made
4
of the subject property. This raises the potential of a uncompensated taking.
5
6
F.Condition 13 Violates the Applicant's Substantive Due Process Rights
Condition 13 also violates the Applicant's substantive due process rights. A land
7
8 use regulation violates substantive due process where(1)the regulation fails to achieve a
9 legitimate public purpose; (2)the means adopted are not reasonably necessary to achieve
10 that purpose; or(3)the regulations are unduly burdensome on the property owner.
11 Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34(1992). While the City's proposed secondary
12
access requirement may meet the first prong,it fails the second two.
13
A secondary access is not reasonably necessary. The roads serving this plat meet
14
or exceed City standards. There is ample width for emergency vehicles to access this plat.
15
16 The total road and sidewalk width of over forty feet(40'), the low traffic volumes,the low
17 speeds through this neighborhood, and low probability of blocking accidents and the
18 internal circulation demonstrate that the risk of a fire truck or ambulance failing to gain
19 access to this plat through existing access roads is negligible. To mitigate impacts, every
20
home in this development will have a sprinkler system, designed to quickly and
21
effectively respond to a fire emergency. Smithers Ave. S. will be extended through
22
23
Vuecrest Estates eastward to the adjoining property that fronts on 102nd Ave. SE.
24 Vuecrest Estates moves this neighborhood one step closer to achieving the desire for
25 secondary access. The other plats in this neighborhood were approved without a
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 10 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 18 of 410
1 secondary access. Expert testimony from the Applicant's witnesses demonstrated that
2 there is no significant increase in risk from the addition of twenty new homes.
3
Regarding the third factor, courts consider the (a)nature of the harm to be avoided;
4
b) the availability and effectiveness of less drastic measures; and(c)the economic loss
5
6
suffered by the property owner.Presbytery ofSeattle v. King Cy., 114 Wn.2d 320, 331,
7 (
1990). Other nonexclusive factors that may be helpful in the balancing required under
g the third factor include the seriousness of the public problem,the extent to which the
9 landowner's property contributes to the problem, the degree to which the regulation solves
10 the problem, and the feasibility of less burdensome solutions. Id.
11
Here, imposition of Condition 13 effectively results in denial of the project, the
12
loss of over hundreds of thousands of dollars invested to date in the Project and the loss of
13
14 millions of dollars in lost profit. The City already approved neighboring plats on this
15 same road without requiring a secondary access, so the determination was already made
16 by the City that this is not a serious problem. Moreover,the repeated position of City
17 Staff that a secondary access connection would not be required for Vuecrest Estates
18 confirms that City Staff did not observe this to be a serious issue. The Applicant made a
19
good faith effort to either acquire the adjoining property,to the east or acquire a right-of-
20
ight-of20
21
way through that property,but the adjacent owner would not agree to sell or grant such a
22 right-of-way.
23 There are far less burdensome solutions to address the City's concerns and these
24 have been agreed upon. Every home will have a fire sprinkler. An alley has been
25
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 11 Feldman up
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 19 of 410
1 designed to provide a looped system through this plat to provide enhanced
2 maneuverability around the homes. The internal roads have been designed 4 feet wider
3
than the City minimum standards. All of these measures address the City's concern with
4
far less impact on the Applicant.
5
6
III. Relief Requested
For all of the reasons noted above,we urge the City Council to strike Condition 13
7
8
from the Decision.
9 In the alternative,we ask the City Council to revise Condition 13 to allow the
10 Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than extending Smithers Ave. S.
11 immediately to the east and to the specified intersection.
12
As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet 1 of 1,there is one parcel of land(the"Easterly
13
Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S. as proposed to be built
14
by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner of this Easterly Parcel will
15
16 not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on
17 Sheet 1 of 1 another parcel of land(the"Southeasterly Parcel")located between Tract`B"
18 and Tract"C"on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and 102nd Ave. SE. Secondary
19 access might be available through that parcel.
20
Condition 13, as currently written,reads:
21
Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be
22 constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to
Main Ave S(102nd Ave SE). The extent ofstreet improvements necessary to
23 effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City ofRenton Fire
24
Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be
the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for
25 fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 12 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
20 6) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 20 of 410
I As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public
2 access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the
3
specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to
4
a location on 102nd Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other
5
6
parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13.
7 If the City Council does not strike Condition 13,which it should do, Condition 13
g should, at a minimum,be revised to read as follows:
9 Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be
constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S(102"d
10 Ave. SE)to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of
11 street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be
determined by the City ofRenton Fire Department in accordance with
12 applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to
provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency
13 vehicles
14 At least this revised condition will provide the Applicant with some flexibility to seek a
15 secondary fire access route.
16
17
Dated this 2e day of November,2014.
18
19
VAN NESS EL
20Ar;
r .
21 BY:
By t C on,W A#16240
22
23
24
25
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 13 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 21 of 410
1 I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows:
2 That I am over the age of 18 years,not a party to this action, and competent to be a
3 witness herein;
4 That I, as a legal,assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman,LLP, caused true and
5 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below:
6 1. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration; and
7 2. Exhibits 35 and 37 entered into the record in September 16,2014 hearing; and
8 3. This Certificate of Service
9 and that on November 26, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for
10 delivery as follows:
11
12
Mr. Jason Seth x] Via hand delivery
Acting Deputy Clerk
13 City of Renton Clerk's Office
1055 S. Grady Way
14 Seventh Floor
Renton,WA 98057
15
16 Larry Warren x] Via email
Renton City Attorney x] Via U.S. mail
17 Renton City Hall lwarrenArentonwa.gov
1055 S. Grady Way
18 Renton,WA 98057
19
20 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
21 the foregoing is true and correct.
22
EXECUTED at Seattle,Washington on this
26th day of November, 2014.
23
24
J er Sower, eclarant
25
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Van Ness
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 14 Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 22 of 410
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION UPON
12 Preliminary Plat
RECONSIDERATION
LUA13-000642
13
14
15 SUMMARY
16
The applicant of the above-captioned matter has requested reconsideration by letter dated October
17 16, 2014. The reconsideration request is limited to eliminating or modifying Condition No 13 and
also to admitting an exhibit that was erroneously excluded from the administrative record. Condition
18 No. 13 will not be eliminated, but will be modified largely as requested by the applicant. The
19
resume of Carl Anderson is admitted as Exhibit No.38.
20 EXHIBITS
21 In addition to the addition of Exhibit No. 38, the following exhibits are admitted as part of the
22
reconsideration process:
23 Exhibit 39: Order Authorizing Reconsideration, dated October 21, 104.
Exhibit 40: City's Answer on Reconsideration Request, dated October 22,2014
24 Exhibit 41: Sundance response to Reconsideration, dated October 31, 2014.
25
Exhibit 42: Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration, dated November 5, 2014.
26 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION- 1
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 23 of 410
I The issues raised in the applicant's reconsideration request are individually addressed below:
2 1. Applicable Variance/Waiver Criteria. The street waiver standards of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply
3 1 to the applicant's request to waive the secondary access requirement of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). The
applicant argues that the variance criteria of RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) apply because RMC 4-7-240(A)
4 provides that RMC 4-9-250(B) applies to the requirements "of this Chapter". The applicant argues
that since RMC 4-7-150(D) requires compliance with RMC 4-7-060, that this transforms RMC 4-7-
5 060 into a part "of this Chapter", specifically Chapter 4-7 RMC. Reasonable minds could certainly
6 disagree as to whether the RMC 4-7-150(D) mandate for compliance with RMC 4-7-060 makes that
provision a part "of this Chapter". Indeed,the fact that RMC 4-7-0-060 is not expressly incorporated
7 by reference into Chapter 4-7 RMC would lead most people to conclude that RMC 4-7-060 is not a
part of Chapter 4-7 RMC and is simply a requirement in another chapter of the RMC that applies to
8 subdivisions. For the reasons identified in the Order Authorizing Reconsideration, Ex. 39, it is
9
concluded as a matter of law that the street waiver criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to the
applicant's request to waive the secondary access requirement of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2).
10
2. Failure to Provide Secondary Access Significantly Unsafe. As a finding of fact, it is
11 determined that the failure to provide secondary access to the proposed subdivision creates a
12 significantly unsafe condition. The applicant focuses upon the inconsistencies in the City staff
position to argue that the secondary access is unnecessary. As noted in the Final Decision on this
13 matter, the inconsistencies in the staff position are troubling. However, there is nothing in the record
to suggest or explain why City fire personnel had any reason to overstate the dangers of waiving
14 secondary fire access. In several prior examiner decisions, City staff have often taken highly
unpopular positions counter to extensive public opposition in order provide objective
15
recommendations on the application of development standards. There is nothing to suggest in this
16 administrative record that City staff have succumbed to public pressure to require a secondary
access.
17
Despite the odd sounding comments made by Ms. Higgins, it appears likely that staff's vacillation on
18 the secondary road issue arises from the difficulties of balancing past permitting decisions, public
19 safety, recent safety problems (e.g. the wildfires identified by the fire chief) and the applicant's
constitutional nexus/proportionality rights. All these factors pose very complex and challenging legal
20 and policy issues. Given these multiple factors, it is not surprising that staff remained open minded
21
about the secondary access issue until late in the permitting process.
22 In focusing all of its reconsideration attention on the testimony of City staff, the applicant glosses
over the fact that its own fire expert was unable to opine that there would be no safety problems with
23 waiver of the secondary access requirement. As discussed in the Final Decision of this case, Mr.
Anderson was unable to provide any assurance that a secondary fire access was unnecessary for safe
24 and adequate fire response, despite a direct request from the Examiner to provide that assurance. If
25 the City's fire chief takes the position that secondary access is necessary for safe fire response and
the applicant's own fire expert can't dispute that position, it is difficult to see how the applicant can
26 seriously question why a finding is ultimately made that secondary access is necessary for safe fire
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-2
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 24 of 410
I response.
2 3. Unsafe Fire Response is Materially Detrimental to Public; Unsafe Access Not Consistent
3 with Waiver, Modification or Variance Criteria. Unsafe fire access is unquestionably counter to the
public welfare. The applicant takes the remarkable position that unsafe fire access is not materially
4 detrimental to the public welfare, and therefore there is no consistency issue with the materially
detrimental criterion for variances, RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b). The applicant asserts that the examiner
5 erred by requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed single access was safe under the
6 materially detrimental standard. See Ex. 39, p. 5. Under the applicant's reasoning, the public
welfare is not adversely affected if the residents of Vuecrest are left with a street system that prevents
7 fire apparatus from reaching them within the time necessary to safely respond to emergencies. The
applicants are essentially arguing that variances to fire access standards should be approved even
8 when such variances would endanger City residents. This is a patently absurd construction of the
9 "
public welfare" term and the City's variance standards. If the single access does not provide for
safe fire access as determined by the hearing examiner, there is no question under any reasonable
10 interpretation that as a conclusion of law the applicant's proposal fails to qualify for a variance under
the material detrimental criterion of RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b), fails to qualify for a street waiver under
11 the "no detrimental effect" standard of RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) and fails to qualify for a modification
12
under the "safety" criterion (the most obvious, other criteria are unmet as well) of RMC 4-9-
250(D)(2)(b).
13
4. Record Does not Establish that Improved Secondary Access Necessary for Resident Epress.
14 The applicant correctly argues that it shouldn't be responsible for providing for a fully developed
secondary access route and that there should be some flexibility in where the route is located. This
15 position is reasonable. The City's fire chief did not focus his testimony on problems associated with
16 resident egress from the subdivision during emergencies. It is determined as a finding of fact that
there is nothing in the record to suggest that pavement and curb, gutter and sidewalk is necessary to
17 provide safe egress to residents during times of emergency. If the primary access route becomes
unusable during an emergency and residents must leave to protect themselves, it doesn't appear that
18 that they will hesitate to use a dirt road to do so. Given the nexus/proportionality issues associated
19 With requiring the applicant to provide for secondary access beyond its subdivision borders, any
secondary access requirement should be designed to be the minimum necessary to assure for public
20 safety.
21 DECISION
22
The Final Decision of the above-captioned matter dated 10/13/14 is supplemented with the
23 additional findings of fact and conclusions of law made above. Condition No. 13 is also revised to
provide as follows:
24
25 13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed that
extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE). The
26 extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION- 3
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 25 of 410
1 the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and
2 shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire
trucks and emergency vehicles.
3
DATED this 15th day of November, 2014.
4
6
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
7
8
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
9
RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
10 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision
11 to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision.
Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's
12 Office, Renton City Hall—7ffi floor, (425)430-6510.
13 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
14 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-4
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 26 of 410
CITY OF RENTON
1
2
Nov 05 2014 1,11 c
RECEIVED
3 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8
9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
10 RECONSIDERATION AND
Preliminary Plat RESPONSES THERETO
11 LUA13-000642
12
13
14
This Memorandum replies to the Hearing Examiner's Order Authorizing
15 Reconsideration and demonstrates why the variance requested under Renton Municipal
16 Code(RMC)4-7-240 should be granted. This Memorandum also replies to the two
17 responses to the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration received by October 31, 2014.'
18
I.THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE CITY CODE CONFIRMS THAT THE
19 VARIANCE PROVISIONS IN RMC 4-7-240 AND THE VARIANCE CRITERIA
20
IN RMC 4-9-250.B.5 APPLY
21 The Order Authorizing Reconsideration raises questions about the City Council's
22 intent in passing RMC 4-7-240 and whether the City Council intended another code
23 provision, such as the street waiver provision in RMC 4-9-250.C, to be the only means by
24 t These two responses are the October 31,2014 Memorandum from David N.Rasmussen,President,
Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA and the City of Renton's October 22,2014 City's Answer on
25 Reconsideration Request by Applicant.
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman ,,
RESPONSES THERETO 1
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 27 of 410
1 which relief from the dead-end street standard in RMC 4-6-060 may be granted. The City
2 Council's intent,however, is irrelevant.
3
Rules of statutory construction used by courts in interpreting state law apply in the
4
context of interpreting City ordinances. Griffin v. Thurston County, 165 Wn.2d 50, 55
5
6 (
2008). If statutory language is unambiguous, the canons of statutory construction are not
7 to be used. Id. The meaning of an unambiguous statute must be derived from the code
g language. The Hearing Examiner is not permitted to look for the City Council's intent
9 that might be imputed to the Council or to construe the code in a way that the Hearing
10 Examiner believes will best accomplish some legislative purpose. See State v. Tvedt, 153,
11
Wn.2d 705, 732 (2005).
12
RMC 4-7-240 plainly and unambiguously provides that"A variance from the
13
14 requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to RMC
15 4-9-250B." The phrase"This Chapter"used in RMC 4-7-240 clearly refers to Chapter 7
16 Subdivision Regulations, codified in Title IV Development Regulations of the Renton
17 Municipal Code. When the City reviews a proposed subdivision of real property, the
18 application must meet specific requirements for streets as set forth in RMC 4-7-150
19
Streets—General Requirements and Minimum Standards. RMC 4-7-150.1) expressly
20
21
states: "The street,standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved."
22 This language in RMC 4-7-150.D unambiguously incorporates the street standards of
23 RMC 4-6-060 into the provision of Chapter 7. Moreover,by expressly stating that the
24 street standards in RMC 4-6-060 apply"unless otherwise approved,"this code provision
25
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman .,
RESPONSES THERETO 2
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 28 of 410
I offers the opportunity to vary the requirements of RMC 4-6-060 when approving a
2 subdivision. The phrase"unless otherwise approved" cannot be ignored or deemed
3
superfluous. State v. Bunker, 144 Wn.App. 407, 418 (2008). Rather, it demonstrates that
4
approval of a subdivision under Chapter 7 may vary these street standards. The
5
6
mechanism provided to vary any requirement in Chapter 7 is through a variance, as noted
7
in RMC 4-7-240.
g The fact that alternative means may be provided under the City Code to modify a
9 City standard is not unusual, nor does it cause the City Code to be ambiguous. For
10 example, the City's critical area regulations provide multiple options for modifying those
11
requirements. See RMC 4-3-050.N—Alternatives, Modifications and Variances. The fact
12
that the City Code provides a subdivision applicant a means to seek a variance from the
13
14 street standards through a variance under RMC 4-7-240 must be accepted by the Hearing
15 Examiner as an unambiguous requirement to consider and rule on such a request.
16 There is no ambiguity that the Applicant requested a variance under RMC 4-7-240.
17 Exhibit 35, Attachment I is the letter submitted by Maher Joudi entitled"Vuecrest Estates
18 —Variance Request." That letter sets forth the four criteria for a Variance under RMC 4-
19
9-250.13.5.
20
The Applicant demonstrated that these four variance criteria in RMC 4-9-250.B.5
21
22 were met. We again ask the Hearing Examiner to apply the correct criteria, grant the
23 variance, and strike Condition 13.
24
25
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman .
RESPONSES THERETO 3
719 second Avenue site 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 29 of 410
1 II. Response to Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA
2 The October 31, 2014 Memorandum from David N. Rasmussen, President of the
3 Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA, fails to address any of the arguments presented in
4
Applicant's Request for Reconsideration pertaining to the requested variance, other than a
5
conclusory statement that the request should be rejected. The Talbot Ridge HOA has
6
7
apparently failed to understand the Applicant's request—that the Hearing Examiner(and
8 the City Staff) applied the wrong standard in reviewing the variance request, and that
9 based upon the record before the Hearing Examiner, the variance should have been
10 granted. No further response is needed.
11
12
III. Response to City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant
13 The first issue presented in the City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by
14 Applicant("City's Answer") concerns whether the variance provisions should apply. The
15 Applicant has already adequately addressed this issue in its Request for Reconsideration
16 and in the reply above to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration.
17
The City's second issue, concerning the weight of testimony, deserves a response.
18
In particular,the Applicant strongly disagrees with the City's statement that the Applicant
19
20
provided no reason to examine the credibility of Chief Peterson. See City's Answer at 3.
21 As borne out by the record, Corey Thomas, the Plan Review Inspector for the City
22 of Renton Fire Department, expressly informed the Applicant that a temporary cul-de-sac
23 was an acceptable street design. Exhibit 35,Attachment B ("A proposed temporary cul-
24 de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction
25
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman ..
RESPONSES THERETO 4
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 30 of 410
1 requirements."); Exhibit 35, Attachment C{"The road section can be 28-feet if you
2 provide the stub road only for future connection, the actual connection does not have to be
3
achieved at this time."). Chief Peterson reversed these written representations by Fire
4
Department representative Corey Thomas when Chief Peterson wrote in his August 15,
5
6
2013 letter that"any request for a secondary access variance will be denied." (Exhibit 35,
7
Attachment E). Chief Peterson reversed himself two months later when, on October 7,
g 2013, he wrote: "I am withdrawing my letter dated August 15, 2013, regarding Vuecrest
9 Preliminary Plat. Please understand that I reserve the right to reissue the letter based on
10 the final plat design." Exhibit 35,Attachment G. Then, in testimony before the Hearing
11
Examiner, Chief Peterson reversed the Fire Department's position yet again, opposing the
12
requested variance. Chief Peterson never acknowledged his October 7 letter and the fact
13
that there was no change in the plat design justifying reversal of his October 7, 201314
15 decision.
16 The inconsistent statements by Chief Peterson and other Fire Department
17 representatives present the fundamental issue of witness credibility. As courts have noted:
18 "
a person who speaks inconsistently is thought to be less credible than a person who does
19
not." State v. Allen S. 98 Wn.App. 452, 467 (1999).
20
21
The record also demonstrates that the October 7, 2013 letter was written explicitly
22 for the Applicant to believe that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved and to induce
23 the Applicant to continue processing its preliminary plat application. Testimony of
24 Elizabeth Higgins. Past misrepresentations of a witness provide further means to judge a
25
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman «P
RESPONSES THERETO 5
719 Second Avenue site 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 31 of 410
I witness's credibility. In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marshall,
2 160 Wn.2d 317 (2007).
3
Given the inconsistent positions taken by the Fire Department over the history of
4
this preliminary plat application, and the Fire Chief's October 7, 2013 letter, the Hearing
5
Examiner should question the credibility of Chief Pederson's testimony. Moreover, the
6
7 Hearing Examiner heard from three separate experts, Registered Fire Protection Engineer
g Carl Anderson, Civil Engineer Maher Joudi, and Traffic Engineer Vince Geglia on why
9 the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare.
10 The third issue presented in the City's Answer concerns the Applicant's request, in
11
the alternative,to modify Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility. While the Applicant
12
appreciates the City's support for greater flexibility in Condition 13, the Applicant
13
14 disagrees with the City's demand that a fully improved road section be built by Vuecrest
15 Estates on property it does not own or control.
16 To illustrate the importance of greater flexibility in Condition 13, and to address
17 the City's position on the extent of road improvements for a secondary fire access,page
18 one from Exhibit 37 is attached to this Reply Memorandum and marked as "Attachment
19
A". Attachment A shows the two separate parcels of land between the Vuecrest Estates
20
Preliminary Plat and 102nd Ave. SE. For illustrative and argument purposes, these two
21
22
parcels have been marked on Attachment A as Parcel A and Parcel B.
23 To implement the specific language of Condition 13, as imposed in the Hearing
24 Examiner's Final Decision, access would be required through Parcel A. That is because
25
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman LLP
RESPONSES THERETO 6
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 32 of 410
I Condition 13 reads"Smithers Ave. S shall . . . be extended to the east..." The record
2 demonstrates that the owner of Parcel A is unwilling to sell or grant an easement.
3
Testimony of Jamie Waltier.
4
Hypothetically, a temporary alternative secondary fire access might be able to be
5
6
established through Parcel B to 102nd Ave. SE or through some other route. Such a
7 secondary fire access might provide access to fire and emergency vehicles until a full
g public roadway is established through Parcel A when Parcel A is developed.
9 The City's argument against allowing a temporary fire access and requiring a
10 "fully improved road section"is based on an unsupported claim that the"road will never
11
be,built to standards." In fact,under the linkage and connection requirements in RMC 4-7-
12
150(E)(2) and(4), whenever Parcel A develops, the full road section established for
13
14 Smithers Ave. S will need to be continued from the eastern boundary of Vuecrest Estates
15 to 102 Ave. SE. That is a burden rightfully imposed on the owner of Parcel A. If the
16 variance is denied because of concerns for fire access, then Condition 13 should address
17 fire access only and provide Vuecrest Estates with flexibility on achieving that objective.
18
19 IV. Conclusion
20 We urge the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his Final Decision, grant the
21 requested variance and strike Condition 13. If the Hearing Examiner denies the variance,
22 we ask the Hearing Examiner to revise Condition 13 to allow a temporary fire access lane
23 to be established,prior to final plat approval, across any parcel that could provide a
24
secondary means of access for fire and emergency vehicles.
25
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman .,
RESPONSES THERETO 7
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 33 of 410
1
2 Dated this 5th day of November,2014.
3
4 VANANES
SD5By6Bry441624(
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman «P
RESPONSES THERETO 8
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 34 of 410
1 I,Jennifer Sower, declare as follows:
2 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a
3 witness herein;
4 That 1, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and
5 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below:
6 1. Reply on Order on Reconsideration;
7 2. This Certificate of Service; and
8 3. Attachment A
9 and that on November 5, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for
10 delivery as follows:
11
Mr. Jason Seth x] Via hand delivery
12 Acting Deputy Clerk
13 City of Renton Clerk's Office
1055 S. Grady Way
14 Seventh Floor
Renton, WA 98057
15
Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts x] Via email
16 City of Renton Hearing Examiner polbrechts(&omwlaw.com
17
Larry Warren x] Via email
18 Renton City Attorney x] Via U.S. mail
Renton City Hall
lwarren(cyrentonwa.gov191055S. Grady Way
20
Renton, WA 98057
21 1 certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
22 the foregoing is true and correct.
23 EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 5t`day of November, 2014.
24 Ua,gnak
25 Je 'fer Sower, Declarant
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING Van Ness
RECONSIDERATION AND Feldman ,,,
RESPONSES THERETO 9
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 35 of 410
ATTACHMENT A
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 36 of 410
1
LJI
I
it I I
13
I
I oo I D 1
I
II i
p i
I
4g10 17
1 AVESE 2LIS/AbE3
lt3
V$ill E
NARBOURHOMF9 LLC Vl/ECRESTESTA7E3 i Q
APCf88Fai11Bfl
Q Y
1I4l NS1MS7;XM2W WThMMAWS
VI!SF.A77LZ W4 0193 SOU7HOFS4MSIRgP f 1
r")3f"lx ASVTCM(WASAWVG70N '
i8
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 37 of 410
CITY OF RENTON
OCT 22 2014
1 RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
2
3
4
5
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
6
RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
7
Preliminary Plat CITY'S ANSWER
8
LUA13-000642 ON RECONSIDERATION
9 REQUEST BY APPLICANT
10
INTRODUCTION
11
12 This Vuecrest Plat application primarily revolves around a dispute as to
13 whether on extra-long, dead end street should be allowed. The Examiner decided that
14 it should not be allowed.
15 The Request for Reconsideration (Reconsideration) raises three basic points,
16
each of which is without merit. The Examiner should refuse to reconsider his decision,
17
except to rephrase Condition 13.
18
ARGUMENT
19
20 The three points will be rephrased as responses to the Reconsideration.
21 1. The Examiner used the Correct Criteria in Denying the Waiver.
22 The Reconsideration argues that the Examiner erred in denying a Waiver
23 under RMC 4-9-250.C.5, and that the Examiner should have used the variance procedure
24
under
25
Y
City's Answer to Applicant's U j Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration-1 414 1055 South Gradyy Wa Y
ORIGINAL
Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430-6480
NT Fax: (425)430-64987b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 38 of 410
1 RMC 4-9-250.8. However, variances are applicable to only certain land use regulations
2
4-9-250 B.1, none of which are street standards. This point was made in the Examiner's
3
decision footnote 3 at page 27. But even if there was a variance available both waiver
4
and variance criteria require a finding that there will be no detriment to the public
5
6 welfare, 4-9-250.B.5.b for variances and 4-9-250.C.5.e for waiver, a fact that was not
7 established by the Applicant. The Reconsideration also refers to the "modification
8 provisions "(page 4 at line 3 citing to 4-9-250.C.) but modification is dealt with in
9
subsection 4-8-250.1), again noted in Examiner decision in footnote 3 at page 27, as
10
unavailing and requires a finding that public safety is met.
11
2. The Examiner Should Not Give Greater Weight to Testimony of the Applicant's
12 Expert than that of the Fire Chief.
13
The Reconsideration incorrectly states, in several spots,that there is
14
unrefuted testimony that the variance criteria had been met, (page 2, line 2;page 5,
15
line 21). These assertions, of necessity, emphasize testimony about lack of detriment to
16
17 public welfare. They were, of course, refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson about
18 concerns of greater response time and potentially blocked access in case of fire or
19 natural disaster, summarized in the Examiner's decision at page 8. In fact, Chief
20 Peterson's early opposition to this plat was recently reinforced by a wildfire, in the city,
21
that blocked egress for citizens from their homes down a long, dead end access road.
22
Examiner's decision pg. 8)
23
Further,the City has a strongly stated policy against long, dead end roads
24
25 expressed in RMC 4-6-060.H. The policy is clear under RMC 4-6-060.H.2 that any dead
end street over 700 feet in length requires two mean vcc and fire sprinklers for all
City's Answer to Applicant's j Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration-2 ea 1055 South Grady Way
0 Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430- 0
1Vri+0 648Fax: (425)430-64987b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 39 of 410
1 houses beyond 500 feet. The only exception to that policy is for waiver of the
2
turnaround to be ranted b the CED Administrator withgy approval of the Fire &
3
Emergency Services. There is no provision for waiver of the limitations of the length of
4
the dead end street. There is also no room for an expert witness to argue that the
5
6 policy, so clearly enunciated, can be ignored because in the expert's opinion "there
7 would be no material detriment to public safety." (Reconsideration, pg. 6, lines 6, 7).
8 That opinion not only contradicts City policy but also recent experience from the
9
wildfire. It is-also refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson, one of the City
10
Administrators charged with enforcing and interpreting the code section in question.
11
There is also no reason shown in the Reconsideration why the Examiner
12
13 should change his opinion that Chief Peterson's testimony was more persuasive than
14 the expert, Mr.Anderson. The failure to state a reason to re-examine credibility alone,
15 should be.enough to carry the day for the City.
16 3. Public Safety Should Not be Compromised by Changing Staff Positions.
17
The essence of this dead end road conflict is public safety. The Examiner is
18
asked, because of conflicting staff messages, to ignore public safety, City policy and
19
State policy and grant a waiver of code that limits the length of the dead end street.
20
21
The Examiner is asked to ignore by implication, RCW 58.17.110(1) (a)that each plat to
22 be approved, must provide appropriate streets and RCW 58.17.110(1) (b)that the plat
23 would be in the public interest. The Examiner is without jurisdiction to do.
24 The Reconsideration advances an estoppel argument without so stating. That
25
is unsurprising because estoppel generally does not run against the State or its
Y
City's Answer to Applicant's j Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration-3 1055 South Grady Way
0 Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430-6480
NT Fax: (425)430-64987b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 40 of 410
1 subdivisions, such as the City. Estate of Hambelton v. Department of Revenue_
2
Wn.2d.October, 2014 . Estoppel( is even more inappropriate if public safety is
3
clearly implicated, as in this case.
4
5
Applicant can hardly act surprised by Chief Peterson's position. He opposed
6 the plat by letter dated August 15, 2013, and only conditionally withdrew it by letter
7 dated October 7, 2013. He did not state that he would approve the road length if the
8 plat stayed the same. And, subsequently,the Chief's fears were vindicated not only by a
9
wildfire incident in the City but undoubtedly by the OSO landslide.
10
And, applicant knew by State law and City code that approval of the extra
11
length dead end road was not within the power of the mid-level staff. The ultimate
12
13 approval had to come from the Examiner and the Examiner's authority could not be
14 fettered by staff statements. And Applicant should have been aware that any variance,
15 waiver or modification of the road length had to be granted by the CED Administrator in
16 consultation with the Fire and Emergency Services or the Examiner, as the case may be.
17
No statement of mid-level staff can remove the authority of the Examiner and City
18
Administrators to make decisions about this dead end road and the plat itself.
19
The Reconsideration does acknowledge that the applicant was on notice of
20
21 Chief Peterson's opposition to the extra-long, dead end street. But it does not
22 acknowledge that the platting process often involves opposition on one or more aspects
23 of the plat that are ultimately resolved. And such was the case here. Concerns about
24 drainage and set-backs from steep slopes were resolved. The applicant doesn't claim to
25
be naive about the give and take of the process. This preliminary plat has been
Y
City's Answer to Applicant's Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration-4 1055 South Grady Way
0 Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430-6480
NTO Fax: (425)430-64987b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 41 of 410
1 approved in all respects, with conditions. Once the condition of providing a secondary
2
means of access has been met the plat may proceed. It may not be timely today, but
3
may be tomorrow.
4
MODIFIED CONDITION 13
5
6 The City agrees that Condition 13 can be modified to provide the applicant
7 with more flexibility in providing a secondary means of access. But, that condition
8 should not be limited to access by fire and emergency services vehicles only; it should
9
also state that the secondary access must be a fully improved road section so that it
10
would provide an acceptable road surface for egress for citizens in an emergency.
11
Otherwise, the road will never be built to standards as the "final link" development will
12
13 have legal access to developed City streets that are nearby and will not trigger the City's
14 dead end road limitations and thus would not require the later developer to bring
15 Applicants secondary means of access to City standards. There would remain, only an
16 emergency access road, not a completed standard street section.
17
Alternatively, if the Examiner is not willing to modify the conditions as
18
proposed, then the original condition should remain.
19
CONCLUSION
20
21 For the reasons stated,the Reconsideration should be denied, but Condition
22 13 modified as stated above.
23 DATED THISJ2- day of October, 2014.
24
25
awrence J. War , WSBA#5853
Renton Ci o
City's Answer to Applicant's j Renton City Attorney
a%
Request for Reconsideration-5 1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430-6480
N O Fax: (425)430-64987b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 42 of 410
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
RE: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat
10 ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION
11
LUA13-000642
12
13
14 The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned
matter. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties15ofrecordwhotestifiedatthehearingandCitystaffwillbegivenanopportunitytorespondtotherequest
16
for reconsideration before a decision on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be
based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing
17 or entered as an exhibit at the hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request.
18 The Applicant seeks reconsideration of its denial of a variance request to the requirements of RMC 4-6-
060, which prohibits the Applicant's proposed dead end street. The Applicant raises a challenging19reconsiderationissue, because there are three different sets of variance/modification/
waiverl
criteria that
20
each arguably apply to the proposed dead end street. The Applicant argues that the variance criteria of
RMC 4-9-250(C) apply. City staff, in the staff report, asserts that the request is a"modification",which
21 would require application of the RMC 4-9-250(D) criteria. The final decision employed the street
waiver" criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C).
22
23 1 For those not familiar with Renton's variance/modification/waiver standards, RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) allows for the
24 "variance" of zoning standards identified in RMC 4-9-250(B)(1) and other standards in the RMC that expressly
authorize application of RMC 4-9-250(C). RMC 4-9-250(C)allows for the"waiver"of street improvements. RMC
25 4-9-250(D) allows for"modification"of"standards",apparently those standards not subject to the variance or street
waiver process. The Applicant's reconsideration request presents the issue of which of these three types of review
26 processes apply—variance,waiver or modification?
Reconsideration- 1
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 43 of 410
I The weak point in the Applicant's position is that the RMC 4-9-250(C) criteria only applies if RMC 4-6-
060 is considered a requirement of Chapter 4-7 RMC. RMC 4-7-240(A) provides that the criteria of
2 RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to"the requirements of this Chapter [Chapter 4.7 RMC]". Of course, RMC 4-
3
6-060 is a part of Chapter 4-6 RMC. The Applicant notes that RMC 4-7-150(D) requires compliance
with RMC 4-6-060. Through this cross-reference, the Applicant argues that RMC 4-6-060 should be
4 considered a part of Chapter 4-7 RMC. The Applicant's interpretation raises some troubling issues,
notably:
5
1. For the reasons outlined in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision, the variance criteria
6 advocated by the Applicant would not apply if RMC 4-6-060 were not considered a part of
Chapter 4.7 RMC. This means that a dead end road built as part of a subdivision would be7
subject to variance criteria while the waiver criteria would apply for the same dead end street
8 proposed as part of another type of development proposal. For example, under the
Applicant's interpretation the RMC 4-9-250(C) variance criteria would apply to its proposed
9 dead end since it's part of a subdivision, but if the exact same street configuration were
proposed as part of a college campus or apartment complex, the modification criteria of RMC
10 4-9-250(C) would apply instead. Why would the City Council intend that a different safety
11 standard (as applied in the variance/waiver criteria) apply to the same dead end street simply
because it's part of a subdivision as opposed to another type of development project?
12
2. Street waiver criteria, RMC 4-9-250(C), are precisely designed to address the unique
13 circumstances applicable to street improvements. Why would the City Council intend to
forego these specifically applicable waiver standards for the generic variance standards of
14 RMC 4-9-250(B) because a street was proposed as part of a subdivision?
15 3. Subdivision review is subject to numerous development standards that are not cross-
16 referenced in Chapter 4.7 RMC, such as zoning bulk and dimensional standards and
drainage standards. Why would the City Council intend applicable variance criteria to
17 differ depending on whether or not a development standard is cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7
RMC?
18
A response from the City on the issues raised above would be of particular value, due to the City's
19 extensive experience in the adoption and application of the numerous variance/waiver/modification
20
criteria in RMC 4-9-250. The City is also requested to explain why it chose to apply the modification
criteria as opposed to the waiver criteria. The applicability of the modification criteria as opposed to the
21 waiver criteria is already addressed to some extent in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision. Further, if the
issue of which variance/modification/wavier criteria applies has been contested in past examiner
22 proceedings, it would be useful for staff to submit copies of the examiner decisions resolving those issues.
23 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
24
25
a Some, but not all, bulk and dimensional standards are expressly subject to RMC 4-9.250(B)criteria and therefore
26 don't have to be cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7 RMC for RMC 4-9-250(B)to apply. See RMC 4-9-250(B)(1).
Reconsideration-2
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 44 of 410
1 1. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00
pm, October 31, 2014 to provide written comments in response to the request for reconsideration
2 submitted by the Applicant, dated October 16, 2014.
3 .
The Applicant shall have until November 5, 2014 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the
4 responses authorized in the preceding paragraph.
5 3. All written comments authorized above may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw(d),=ail.com
and Elizabeth Higgins at EHiggins(oMentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be
6 mailed or delivered to Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way,
7
Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines
specified in this Order.
8
4. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be
9 drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding, held on
September 11, 2014. Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not
10 considered new evidence and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's
11
request for reconsideration.
12
13 DATED this 21 st day of October,2014.
14 x .
NIT—'k-01hrechis
15
16 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Reconsideration-3
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 45 of 410
CITY OF RENTON
1 OCT 16 2014 .
2
RECEIVED f [
f
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8 .
9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
10 Preliminary Plat REQUEST FOR
LUA 13-000642 RECONSIDERATION
11
12
13
I. INTRODUCTION
14
Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code(RMC)4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-
15
16
110(E)(i3),the Applicant for the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat requests that the
17 Hearing Examiner reconsider his Final Decision dated October 3,2014(the"Decision")
18 with respect to the issue of secondary access. The Hearing Examiner failed to apply the
19 correct criteria to consider the variance,which was sought under RMC 4-9-250(B). By
20 applying the wrong criteria under RMC 4-9-250(C)(5),the Hearing Examiner reached an
21
erroneous conclusion in his Decision and in the imposition of Condition 13.
22
23
24
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 1 van Ness
Feldman up
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
57722-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 46 of 410
1 The Hearing Examiner should also reconsider his decision to accurately apply the
2 unrefuted testimony by the Applicant's expert,Mr. Carl Anderson', demonstrating that the
3 variance criteria was met, and in particular, that granting the variance would not be
4
materially detrimental to public welfare.
5
The Hearing Examiner also should grant the variance and remove Condition 13 to
6
7 remedy the fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations by City staff that secondary access
g would not be required.
9 Finally,in the alternative,the Hearing Examiner should revise the language in
10 Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility to achieving secondary access in the future.
11
12 II. ARGUMENT
13 A. The Hearing Examiner Should Reconsider the Decision,Apply the Correct
Variance Criteria, Grant the Variance and Eliminate Condition 13.
14
The Hearing Examiner Decision mistakenly applied the street improvement
15
modification provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C)rather than the variance provisions
16
17
in RMC 4-9-250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied,the unrefuted
18 evidence presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner
19 to grant the variance from the secondary access requirements. We ask the Hearing
20 Examiner on reconsideration to grant the requested variance and strike Condition 13.
21 The approval considered-by the Hearing Examiner, in the matter, is for a
22
Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated by the City of Renton under Title IV,
23
24 The Examiner also erred by failing to include as an Exhibit in the Decision,Exhibit 38,the resume of
Mr.Anderson,which was offered and admitted(a copy of Exhibit 3 8 as submitted at the hearing is
25 attached).
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 Van Ness
Feldman U
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
57722-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 47 of 410
I Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general and minimum
2 street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-150(D),which imposes the requirements for
3
streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply
4
unless otherwise approved." The street standards in RMC 4-6-060 include those
5
6
provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets,which were the topic of much
7 discussion at the public hearing and are at the crux of the secondary access issue. Thus,in
g a plat application,the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum
9 street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150.
10 The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the
11
requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7,including variances from the
12
street standards. See RMC 4-7-240(1). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance
13
14
by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(B). RMC 4-7-240(A)
15 states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the
16 Hearing Examiner,pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(B)".
17 The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B), seeking a variance
18 from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this
19
subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. See Exhibit 35,Att. I. The variance application
20
provided an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9-
21
22 250(B)including,in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) which states that"the
23 granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
24 injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 3 Ilan Ness
Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
57=-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 48 of 410
1 property is situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification
2 under section RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the
3 street improvement modification provisions under RMC 4-9-250(C).when a variance was
4
sought under RMC 4-7-240(A).
5
6
At the plat hearing, the witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence
that the variance criteria had been met and that the variance should have been granted. In
g particular, these witnesses established that approval of the variance would"not be
9 materially detrimental" as provided in RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b). See Testimony of Mr.
10 Maher Joudi;Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J.
11
Geglia,Exhibit 35,Att. K.
12
The Hearing Examiner erred by applying the street improvement modification
13
14
standards in RMC 4-9-250(C). By applying the wrong criteria,the Hearing Examiner
15 mistakenly applied a"no detrimental effect"standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e)to the
16 facts in the case. See Decision at 27.
17 The Decision acknowledges that the unrefuted testimony from the Applicant's fire
18 expert, Mr. Carl Anderson,was that the addition of 20 lots"would not be a significant
19
detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area." This expert testimony
20
confirms compliance with criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) that the variance would not be
21
22 materially detrimental to the public welfare. By applying the improper"no detrimental"
23 standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e),the Hearing Examiner mistakenly concluded that
24 Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive.
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-4 Vali Ness
Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
57722-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 49 of 410
i
I Repeatedly,the Decision, as written, demonstrates that by applying the wrong
2 criteria the Hearing Examiner reached the wrong conclusions in response to the
3 Applicant's variance request. For example,the Decision states that the burden was on the
4
Applicant to demonstrate that the single access"would be safe." Decision at 15. There is
5
no such criterion within the context of the requested variance. The Decision likewise
6
7
asserts that the burden was on the Applicant that sprinklers would reduce the fire hazard
g "to insignificant levels." Again,these conclusions may be appropriate under the
9 modification criteria of"no detriment,"but these conclusions are erroneous under the
10 applicable variance criteria.
11 The Examiner should apply the correct variance criteria and,based on the evidence
12
in this record, grant the variance as requested and strike Condition 13.
13
14 B. On Reconsideration,the Hearing Examiner Should Give Proper Weight to
15
the Applicant's Experts who Established that Granting the Variance Would
not be Materially Detrimental to Public Welfare.
16 On reconsideration,the Hearing Examiner should give proper weight to the
17 testimony of the Applicant's experts and should discount the exaggerated and
18
questionable testimony presented by staff. The allegation by staff of a dead end street
19
20
being 2400 feet long with 99 homes on it failed to accurately describe the"on-the ground"
21
conditions. Mr. Carl Anderson's unrefuted testimony demonstrated that only 800 feet of
22 the roadway will have a single access because of the internal secondary access loops that
23 are provided off of this street along its length. Mr. Anderson's testimony confirmed that,
24 of the 99 homes that staff alleged to be on this street,42 of those are on two streets, S 47a'
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 5 Van Ness
Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
57722-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 50 of 410
I PL and SE 185`h PL,that have no impact on access to and from Vuecrest, and of the
2 existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a
3 looped road which allows for two ways of access or egress within that plat.
4
These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklering these homes,
5
led Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public
6
7 safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted.
8 In his October 7,2013 letter,Fire Chief Mark Peterson went on record
9 withdrawing his August 15,2013 letter and thereby confirming that a secondary access
10 would not be required for this plat. There have been no.changes in the plat design since
I 1 the time of that October 7h letter that would provide Mr. Peterson with a basis to"reissue"
12
his August 15'h letter. In fact,Mr.Peterson has never reissued that letter. Instead, Mr.
13
14
Peterson testified at the plat hearing as if his October 7,2013 letter never existed and that
15 he had never given his authorization on October 74'for the plat review to continue without
16 providing a secondary access. Given Mr.Anderson's unrefuted testimony and the lack of
17 credible testimony by staff,the Hearing Examiner should, on reconsideration, grant the
18 variance, as requested, and strike Condition 13.
19
20 C. The Hearing Examiner Should Grant the Variance and Remove Condition 13
to Remedy the City Staffs Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentations that a
21 Secondary Access would not be Required.
22 The record in this case establishes that the City staff expressly represented to the
23 Applicant that a secondary access would not be required. Those representations induced
24 the Applicant to process this preliminary plat through the preliminary plat hearing.
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 6 Ilan Ness
Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
57722-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 51 of 410
I The first representations on this issue occurred during the second pre-application
2 conference. Mr. Corey Thomas, on behalf of the Fire Department,prepared a detailed
3 written memo dated November 13,2012 confirming that a temporary cul-de-sac would be
4
acceptable to the Fire Department. He wrote:
5
Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining
6 underdeveloped properties for future extension. It was previously decided
7
to require a 32-foot wide street if the street grid could not be extended. If
this future extension can be achieved,the required 32-foot paved street
8 may be reduced to 28-feet of pavement. A proposed temporary cul-de-sac
would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction
9 requirements."
10 Exhibit 35,Att. B. (Emphasis added)
11 prior to formally submitting the preliminary plat application, the Applicant sought
12
confirmation of the Fire Department's position that a temporary cul-de-sac would be
13
acceptable. For the second time,the Fire Department expressly represented in a January
14
15 23, 2013 email to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required:
16 The road section can be 28-feet if you provide the stub road only for
future connection, the actual connection does not have to be achieved at
17 this time. A temporary 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac is acceptable also. . . .
All homes require fire sprinkler systems . . . . The only way to eliminate
18 the fire sprinklers is to complete the road connection to lVd
right away
19
sic]."
20 Ex. 35,Att. C. (Emphasis added) The City's senior planner,Vanessa Dolbee crystalized
21 the City's position that a cul-de-sac would be authorized:
22 The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the east but are
not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as
23 part of the proposed development. However,without the secondary access
24 a cul-de-sac would be required for fire turn around. ."
25 Id. (Emphasis added)
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 7 Van Ness
Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
572-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 52 of 410
I After submitting the application, and after receiving the August 15, 2013 letter
2 from Fire Chief Peterson,which indicated that a secondary access would be required,
3 there were detailed discussions with the City. These discussions led to the Fire Chief's
4
letter of October 7,2013; a letter that withdrew his August 15 h letter. The Applicant
5
6
accepted the Fire Chief at his written word that, so long as the final plat design did not
7 change, a secondary access would not be required. The Applicant relied on that letter and
g continued a lengthy and expensive process to answer all staff issues to bring the
9 preliminary plat to hearing, including paying for an additional geotechnical report.
10 Ms. Higgins testified at the hearing that the October 7'h letter,informing the
11
Applicant that a secondary access was not going to be required, was solicited by Ms.
12
Higgins in order to induce the Applicant to continue processing the preliminary plat
13
14
application. Fire Chief Peterson's testimony at the hearing indicates that he had no
15 intention of allowing the preliminary plat to proceed without requiring a secondary access.
16 Tragically,this was never disclosed to the Applicant until the staff report was issued in
17 September 2014 proposing Condition 13 to require a secondary access.
18 The Hearing Examiner should be deeply troubled by the actions of City staff in
19
this matter and by Ms. Higgins' testimony about her soliciting Fire Chief Peterson's
20
October 7th letter to induce the Applicant to support a secondary geotechnical study. The
21
22
behavior of Ms. Higgins and the prior representations of City staff that no secondary
23 access would be required may ultimately support a damages claim against the City by the
24 Applicant for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. By confirming that the Fire Chief
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 8 Van Ness
Feldman up
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
57722-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 53 of 410
I was withdrawing his prior letter, Ms. Higgins and Chief Peterson intended for the
2 Applicant to believe that no secondary access would be required. Yet,apparently,this
3 was all a hoax, and Chief Peterson never intended to allow this plat to be approved
4
without a secondary access. This hoax only came to light weeks before the preliminary
5
6
plat hearing after the Applicant spent tens of thousands of dollars to reach the preliminary
plat hearing. The Applicant would have ended this application a year ago had the October
g 15a`letter not been issued.
9 The Examiner correctly notes in the Decision at 16 that these actions by staff strain
10 the credibility of the City's testimony. While the Hearing Examiner may not have the
11
authority to find fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation in this matter,the Hearing
12
Examiner has the opportunity to avoid such future claims by the Applicant and to remedy
13
14
the outrageous behavior of City staff by granting the requested variance and striking
15 Condition 13.
16
D. If the Variance is not Granted,The Hearing Examiner on Reconsideration
17 should,in the Alternative,Revise Condition 13 to Provide Greater Flexibility
for Secondary Access.
18
In the event the Hearing Examiner does not agree to reconsider the standards
19
20
applied to the requested variance, or applies the variance criteria but concludes that the
21
variance should not be granted,the Applicant asks the Hearing Examiner to revise
22 Condition 13 to allow the Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than
23 extending Smithers Ave. S. immediately to the east and to the specified intersection.
24
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 9 Van Ness
Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
57722.7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 54 of 410
1 As shown in Exhibit 37,on sheet 1 of 1,there is one parcel of land(the"Easterly
2 Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S as proposed to be built
3
by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner of this Easterly Parcel will
4
not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on
5
Sheet 1 of 1 another parcel of land(the"Southeasterly Parcel")located between Tract"B"
6
7 and Tract"C"on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and 102nd Ave. SE. Secondary
g access might be available through that parcel.
9 Condition 13, as currently written,reads:.
10 Smithers Ave. S. shall connect to S. 48`h PZ and be extended to the east to
11
provide a secondary access from Main Ave. S(102"d Ave. SE) at its
intersection with SE 18e St.
12
As written,it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public
13
access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the
14
15 specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to
16 a location on
102nd Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel,or through some other
17 parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13.
18 On reconsideration, if Condition 13 is not deleted based upon the granting of
19 Applicant's variance request, Condition 13 should be revised to read as follows:
20
Prior to recording the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be
21 constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S(102'd
Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of
22 improvements for this secondary fire truck access shall be determined by
23 the City ofRenton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire
code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe
24 and effective secondary fire access.
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 10 Van Ness
Feldman,,
57722-7
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 55 of 410
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 The Applicant was induced into proceeding with this plat application by repeated
3 representations by City staff that no secondary access would be required. The Applicant
4 has met its burden to obtain a variance from the secondary access standard. On remand,
5
the Hearing Examiner should apply the variance criteria in RMC 4-9-205(B)(5),not the
6
7
modification provisions in RMC 4-9-250(C), give proper weight to the Applicant's expert
8 testimony that established compliance with these criteria, approve the variance and strike
9 Condition 13.
10
Dated this 16'h day of October,2014
11
12 Vary NESS F MAN
13
By:
14 Brent arson,W BA#16240
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 11 Vail Ness
Feldman
57722-
7719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 56 of 410
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8
9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
10 Preliminary Plat REQUEST FOR
LUA13-000642 RECONSIDERATION
11
12
13 I,Jennifer Sower, declare as follows:
14 That I am over the age of 18 years,not a party to this action, and competent to be a
15 witness herein;
16 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and
17 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below:
18 1. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration; and
19 2. This Certificate of Service
20 and that on October 16, 2014, 1 addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery
21 as follows:
22 Mr. Jason Seth x] Via hand delivery
23 Acting Deputy Clerk
City of Renton Clerk's Office
24 1055 S. Grady Way
Seventh Floor
25 Renton, WA 98057
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- 1 Van Ness
Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle. WA 98104
206) 623-9372
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 57 of 410
1 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts x] Via email
City of Renton Hearing Examiner2 polbrechts(a,amwlaw.com
3
Larry Warren x] Via email
4 Renton City Attorney x] Via U.S. mail
5 Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way lwarren(&,,rentonwa.gov
6 Renton, WA 98057
7
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
8
the foregoing is true and correct.
9
EXECUTED at Seattle,Washington on this 16t'day of October, 2014.
10
11
12
J fer Sower, Declarant
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-2 Van Ness
Feldman
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-93727b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 58 of 410
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10
RE. Vueerest Estates Preliminary Plat
FINAL DECISION
11 Preliminary Plat
LUA13-000642
12
13
14
SUMMARY
15
16 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval, street improvement waiver and possibly a critical
area exemption for a 20-lot residential subdivision. The street wavier is to allow a dead-end road in
17 excess of 700 feet. The critical area exemption is for placing a drainage line across the face of a
steep slope. The preliminary plat is approved. The street improvement waiver is not approved. The
18 applicant was unable to establish that the street waiver would not result in an unsafe fire response
19 condition for residents of the proposed subdivision.
20 The critical area exemption is not considered to be consolidated with the preliminary plat and street
modifications of this proposal. The staff report at no point identifies the exemption as consolidated
21 with the preliminary plat application. The proposal summary makes no mention of the critical area
22 exemption. However, Page 17 of the staff report recommends approval of a critical areas exemption,
suggesting that consolidation was intended. If the exemption was intended to be consolidated with
23 the preliminary plat application, there is insufficient information in the record to assess its merits.
RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(d)(iv) requires a geotechnical report to be prepared that assesses compliance
24 with the exemption criteria and to also propose mitigation. No reference to any such report is made
in the staff report and no such geotechnical report could be found in the administrative record.
25
Impacts of the proposed stormwater vault and retaining walls are assessed in the geotechnical
26 reports, but nothing else in the geotechnical reports could be found that specifically addressed the
drainage line or the exemption criteria. Given the absence of this needed information and the fact
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 59 of 410
1 that the staff report does not clearly identify the administrative exemption decision as consolidated
for hearing examiner review, the exemption decision will not be considered as consolidated with the2
preliminary plat and street improvement modification request.
3
4 TESTIMONY
5
6 Staff Testimony
7
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,-City of Renton
8
Ms. Higgins described the project as a proposed 20 lot single family development in South Renton.9 The original application had 21 lots, but was subsequently revised to 20 lots. The proposal as
10 submitted generally meets the Renton municipal code with the exception of street standards relating
to access. The applicant has submitted a request for a street modification. There are environmentally
11 sensitive areas on or near the property and critical areas regulations apply. The project conforms to
the critical areas code.
12
13 The 9.3 acre site is south of Carr Road and east of Talbot Road in south Renton. The project is in an
area of residential development with various densities. To the east are condos at higher density. To
14 the south and southeast are lower density residential developments. Densities to the north and
northeast are consistent with the project.
15
The project was originally an undeveloped portion of an existing condo development. The site is16isolatedfromthecondosbyasteepslope. The project was submitted in 2013 but was placed on
17 hold for additional geotechnical reports due to concerns about the slope. Three separate geotechnical
reports were submitted by three individual firms. New notification was sent out. The Environmental
18 Review Committee added six additional conditions of approval. No appeals were filed.
19 The site has protected slopes on the west side. Slopes are 45 degrees or more. The site plan was
20 revised to eliminate a rockery retaining wall on the top of the slope and stormwater facilities were
moved farther away from the slope. The project will have a 10-foot No Disturb area on the top of
21 the slope.
22 There are wetlands on site. The depression wetlands are Category II wetlands. These require a 50
23 foot buffer. The project proposes to do buffer averaging. Properties adjacent to the project will be
included in the buffer. Up to 50% of the buffer width will be reduced in places. The north wetland
24 abuts a portion of the wetland that is part of the Stonehaven wetland reserve. Stream studies indicate
there is a stream that is nearby, but not within the project site. The water collects across the subject
25 property but the stream is not on it. The property was vacant except for a temporary cul de sac.
26
The property has a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The Applicant submitted a tree
PRELIMINARY PLAT-2
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 60 of 410
I replacement plan. There are 101 significant trees on the property. These are trees measuring 6" in
diameter. 54 trees will be removed for streets and alleys. There are be 120 trees in critical areas
2 buffers, all will be retained. 42 of the significant trees will be retained. 23 significant trees must be
3 replaced with 140 2"trees. All of the new trees will be planted in Tract C.
4
1 The site has three different zoning classifications. They are R-14, a medium density residential
development near the condos, an R-1 zone, a low density designation in the sloped area, and 6.06
5 acres of R-8 in the upper portion. The 20 lots are in the R-6 zone. After deduction for critical areas
6 and roadways there are 4.57 developable acres. With 20 lots the resultant density is 4.23 du/acre,
which is above the 4 du/acre minimum.
7 There will be 20 single family residential lots of 4,500sf to 8,000sf. Tract A is a stormwater tract.
Tracts B and E are wetlands tracts. Tract C is the tree replacement area. Tract D is an open space
8 tract. Tract F is a Native Growth Protection Area on the slope. There will be an alley to provide rear
9 access to abutting lots.
10 Staff recommends formation of a homeowners association to have equal undivided ownership of the
tracts, alley and private road. Another recommended condition of approval (Staff Report#9) lots 17-
11 20 would provide easements to other lots to allow alley to provide through access. With respect to
12 access, Applicant has requested a modification to street standards. Renton requires a secondary
access when primary access is a dead end street over 700 feet in length. Staff does not support the
13 modification request because it does not meet the test that there is no physical way a second access
can be achieved. There are no physical constraints that cannot be overcome. They believe the second
14 access is possible. They recommend a condition of approval requiring construction of a second
15
access prior to recording of the final plat.
16 A portion of the project is included in the Talbot Urban Separator which imposes requirements for
development. With a single exception, these requirements don't apply because the project does not
17 propose development within the Urban Separator. This exception is the drainage facility which will
extend from the top of the slope through the Urban Separator. Vegetation removed during
18 installation of the stormwater conveyance system must be replaced.
19
With respect to drainage, the stormwater system has been revised from the original plan to minimize
20 the impact to the critical slope. Discharge from the stormwater vault will be within a closed 12"
pipe down the slope. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring a stormwater easement.
21
22 The project meets compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, if
the required conditions of approval are met. Staff recommends the Applicant submit a detailed
23 landscape plan. The project complies with the critical areas regulations if the conditions of approval
from Environmental Review Committee are met. With the exception of the street requirement, the
24 project meets the requirements of the subdivision code and the Talbot Urban Separator. In terms of
public services (police, fire, parks, schools), resources are available to provide services to the
ZS property. Students would need to be bussed to school. There are sidewalks available for safe
26 walking routes to bus stops. A certificate of water availability would be required by the Soos Creek
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 3
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 61 of 410
I Water District. A stormwater easement is required to demonstrate that downstream systems would
2
be available. Staff recommends approval of the project with conditions.
3 In response to a question by the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Higgins stated the Applicant would have to
negotiate an agreement with adjacent property owners to acquire an access easement or purchase
4 1 land. The Applicant does not own the property the City will require for secondary access. Staff
stated they would not allow the Applicant to record the final plat without this secondary access, in5theeventtheApplicantwasunabletopurchasetheadjacentpropertyoracquireaneasement.
6
Applicant Testimony
7
8
Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Engineers,Applicant's Agent
9 Mr. Jouei thanked Staff for the thorough review of the project. The Applicant concurs with the
majority of the report with the exception of the secondary access.
10
Public Testimony
11
12
Owen Reese
13 1 Mr. Reese is a civil engineer with Aspect Consulting. He is representing the Campen Springs Condo
Association. He was hired to review the proposed development. Harbor homes approached the
14 Condo Association with respect to the stormwater lines. The Condo Association is on the downside
of the steep slope to west of the proposed development. The Condo Association had questions about
15
stormwater management and protection of the steep slope. Harbor Homes and their agents have
16 been very open and helpful. The Condo Association issued a letter of intent to allow an easement for
stormwater lines. The Condo Association and Harbor Homes are working together cooperatively.
17
The Condo Association has identified several minor issues along the western line of lots. Harbor
18 Homes has been very responsive. The Condo Association is providing testimony today to allow
19 Staff and the Hearing Examiner to hear their issues.
20 There are no current retaining walls proposed. The Condo Association is requesting the City to
allow only engineered retaining walls to be constructed on the proposed development, rather than
21 just erosion control structures. They further request any new fill should be free draining structural
22 fill and not native soils. The native soils will not provide the needed results with respect to drainage.
23 The back yards of western lots slope towards the steep slope. At one point there was a proposed
interceptor trench. The Condo Association requests the City require Harbor Homes to minimize the
24 extent of the western lot that drains to the slope. Whatever does drain there,please make sure it does
25
so in a dispersed manner.
26 The stormwater tight line should be designed using sound engineering practices in a straight line
PRELIMINARY PLAT-4
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 62 of 410
I with high density plastic. The Condo Association is requesting anchors along only the top and
bottom of the pipe rather than along the whole length as the City recommended. This will keep the2pipeinplaceeveniftheslopemoves. The anchors should be designed to allow for tree fall and soil
3 movement. The water should be slowed down before entering the Condo Association property. The
pipeline should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up hill.
4
An engineering geologist from Aspect Consulting reviewed the site. With respect to the ephemeral
5 stream, the stream is in a well-defined channel outside the wetlands and then disperses down the
6 slope, depositing sediment on the downhill side in an alluvial fan. This stream is prone to
movement. The concern is that if the stream changes its channel, it may deliver sediment
7 downstream and overwhelm the Campen Springs stormwater system. The Condo Association is
asking Harbor Homes to monitor the stream and create a more defined channel. In response to
8 questioning from the examiner, Mr. Reese responded that the proposal will not exacerbate the
9
condition of the stream.
10 Eric Hanson
11 Mr. Hanson testified he understands Vuecrest will be developed. He believes the existing proposal
12
is not consistent with the character of the area or Renton. He stated this proposal should be denied
for two reasons. The first reason is because of the variance to extend Smithers Road to another dead
13 end. The second reason is he feels the proposal gives only meager concessions to critical areas.
14 Mr. Hanson noted the Renton municipal code requiring a secondary access. He stated the road is
needed for emergency services and traffic flow. He supports the Staff requirement for secondary
15 access. He does not feel mitigation is adequate because the road is 2,400 feet from the main arterial,
16 more than three times farther than code requirements. He stated the deviation is major. He is not
surprised the Renton Fire Department and Community Development staff does not support the
17 deviation. He stated the traffic will double or triple on local streets due to the proposed
development. He is concerned about pedestrian safety. There are no engineering or geographical
18 reasons for the variance. The only reason is that the Applicant does not own the adjacent property.
19
Mr. Hanson's second concern is environmental sensitivity. The project has steep slopes, a wetland
20 and a stream. He stated the environmental review identified 401 significant trees. Removal of the
trees would create erosion and slide risks. The existing vegetation also sustains deer in the area. The
21 proposed mitigation for the trees is not sufficient. Only 65 trees would be replaced or retained. The
22 emphasis should be on retaining the trees rather than replacing them with less robust trees. He
acknowledges 140 additional 2" diameter trees will be planted. Immature trees are a poor substitute
23 for existing trees and vegetation. They won't effectively prevent erosion.
24 1 David Rasmussen
25 Mr. Rasmussen is the president of the Sundance Talbot Ridge Homeowners Association. He
26 concurs with Mr. Hanson's comments and believes they represent those of the HOA. He is
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 5
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 63 of 410
I concerned about water access during an emergency situation. Sundance abuts green lands on three
2 sides. There are plans to develop one of these sides. His concern with water flow is the chance of a
wild fire on the greenbelt. He's concerned there will be insufficient access for emergency fire
3 protection. Additionally,there must be secondary access.
4 Jim Condelles
5 Mr. Condelles represents the Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association which is adjacent to
6 the Sundance association. Mr. Condelles objects for the same reasons as Mr. Rasmussen and Mr.
Hanson. Secondary access should be required. There is a bottleneck on a dead end road.
7
He urges the development be scaled back. He stated he doesn't feel the wetlands buffer averaging is
8 effective. He wants to see full 50 foot setbacks adjacent to all parts of the wetlands. He notes the
9 varying seasonal character of the wetlands. He stated the small change to the project from the
original proposal is insufficient to protect the critical areas. The character of the northwest is being
10 eroded by piecemeal development. He noted all the types of wildlife he's seen on this property. He
also noted the old growth evergreen trees. This is a virtual rainforest in an urban area that serves as a
11 wildlife corridor. He wants to see a rethinking of the scope.
12
Ellen Brighten
13
Ms. Brighten owns two adjacent properties. She owns property in Campen Springs. She has not
14 been notified of the project. She also owns at Talbot Park. She regularly sees deer. She also stated
there are water problems. The springs at Campen Springs move. She is concerned about drainage
15 issues. Ms. Brighten displayed several pictures of the area(Ex. 34).
16
Travis Martinez
17
Ms. Martinez is the president of the HOA for Talbot Park due north of Campen Springs. They have18awaterproblemthatresultsin $50,000 worth of damage per year due to the springs. They are very
19 concerned stormwater issues will increase. They have received no guarantee that they will not be
adversely affected or reimbursed when they are affected by project related stormwater.
20
Ron Hensen
21 Mr. Hensen lives on Smithers Avenue. Smithers Road is adjacent to the proposed development. He
22 has owned the property for 12 years. He has maintained the property for years. He recounted the
development history of the area. He knew development would happen on this property eventually.
23 He is concerned about his property values and safety. There is a 50 acre Department of Natural
Resources property to the north that is currently for sale. Altogether, there was a single point of
24 access for a couple dozen homes. In the near future, that number could be 150 homes on the same
25 single point of access. This will result in more traffic and a reduced quality of life for existing
residents.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 6
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 64 of 410
I There is an unnoted existing drainage out of the wetlands. There used to be another smaller stream
that was obliterated by the traffic circle. The stream can be observed about 8-9 months of the year.2
During rain events, the system is overwhelmed and water overtops into the stormwater drainage
3 system. There is a subsurface hydrologic connection that connects the wetlands. Proposed Lot 17 is
a seep that will not support a residential development. He is in support of a stormwater system that
4 proactively drains this development and future developments.
Mr. Hensen also described abundant wildlife in the area.
5
6 Staff Response
7 Larry Warren, Renton City Attorney
8 The Hearing Examiner asked the City Attorney if there is a proportionality problem in that the
9 Applicant is being asked to provide secondary access now when it should have been provided by
past developments for developments farther down the road. Are the Applicants being asked to create
10 an improvement that mitigates more than their own impact?
11 In response, Mr. Warren stated he had not considered the question in that framework. He stated he
12 did not feel there was a proportionality problem because each future development along the line
would be required to do their part.
13
The Hearing Examiner asked if the City was considering a latecomers agreement to allow the
14 Applicant to be reimbursed for a portion of the costs when later development took place. Mr.
Warren stated the Applicant must request a latecomers agreement. He stated there was only one lot
15 between the proposal site and the connection point. The expense should not be huge.
16
Elizabeth Higgins
17
Ms. Higgins addressed the request by Mr. Reese related to retaining walls. She stated mitigation
18 measure #4 from the Environmental Review Committee requires a building permit for retaining
19 walls for any proposed wall,regardless of location or size.
20 Steven Lee, City of Renton Engineer
21 Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Reese's recommendations. He stated heconcurred with Mr. Reese. He
22
agreed that all of Mr. Reese's suggestions should be implemented as conditions of approval. He
wanted to add one further condition. With respect to the stormwater pipe on the slope, he suggests
23 the addition of a slip joint at the base of the hill to allow for movement.
24 Mr. Lee stated he felt the project will not affect downstream stormwater. He noted other projects
have been installed on steeper slopes than this. These prior projects have been successful in
25
avoiding erosion. The closed tight line stormwater pipe will eliminate erosion impacts.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 7
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 65 of 410
1 In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Lee stated he was unaware of the small stream that used
2 to be in the location of the temporary cul de sac. The post project result will be a reduction in
surface run off from the project than current conditions. He stated slope stability will be improved
3 post project.
4 Mark Peterson, Chief, Renton Fire Department
5 In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Peterson stated the fire department is opposed to the street
6 modification. He feels the length of the street is too challenging to service to the area by fire
apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling along the electric easement in a nearby
7 neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access point that was cut off by the fire. The fire
department could not get in to help residents and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also
8 concerned about the neighborhood being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary
9 access in roads over 700 feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the
neighborhood. Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this
10 neighborhood.
11 Applicant Response
12
Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent
13
The Applicant disagrees with the Staff with respect to the street modification. In response to Mr.
14 Peterson, Mr. Carson noted the Renton Fire Department has sent the Applicant a letter stating they
would not support the project without a secondary access. He further noted the Fire Department had15rescindedthatletter, with the condition that they could reinstate the letter at any time based on final
16 Plat design. He noted that the fire department reinstated the letter even though there had been no
change in fire access since the time the letter had been rescinded.
17
Mr. Carson introduced a letter into the record (Ex. 35) with attachments addressed to the Examiner.
18 This packet included a letter from the Applicant's traffic consultant. Mr. Carson called several
19 witnesses. Mr. Carson introduced two further exhibits (Ex. 36 and Ex. 37), the resume of Mr. Jouei
Maher and a set of site plans.
20
Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Engineers, Applicant's Agent
21
22 Mr. Jouei stated the Vuecrest Estates project drainage is tight lined to Campen Springs. Talbot Park
drainage goes a different direction than the project drainage. The Vuecrest system will collect all
23 impervious surface drainage and send it to Campen Springs.
24 Mr. Jouei stated the City sent them a letter stating a proposed temporary cul de sac might be
25 acceptable under certain conditions including a stub road for future connections. They would not be
asked to construct the actual connection. The pre-application meetings did not suggest they would
26 be required to provide a completed secondary access. On July 3, 2014 the Applicant received
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 8
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 66 of 410
I preliminary comments with an email note that said the situation regarding the second access had
changed. They subsequently were told they could not construct the project as proposed because the2
Fire Department would not support the project without secondary access. That letter was rescinded
3 in October 2013. In February 2014, they received a letter from Ms. Higgins that stated the City
would support a street modification to permit the project to go forward without secondary access.
4 The City did not mention they would not support the modification until August 2014. There has
been no material change to the layout since October 2013. Mr. Jouei stated the project is a part of
5 the solution by construction a stub for future access. There is one undeveloped property left before
6 the grid system is completed.
7 Mr. Jouei stated the project complies with the road dimension requirements in the code. He stated
emergency vehicles can access the project even in worst case scenarios with cars parked on both
8 sides. The road curvatures meet the requirements. There is a loop road in Stonehaven that provides
9 secondary access.
10 Mr. Jouei reviewed the variance criteria in the street modification. He stated the project suffers from
unique circumstances because Talbot Ridge and the Reserve at Stonehaven were approved with the
11 same variance the current Applicant proposes. He stated the variance will not be materially
12
detrimental to the public welfare because the roads meet the dimensional requirements. He noted the
additional trips from Vuecrest would result in 1.6 additional vehicles per minute in the PM Peak
13 Hour. These roads are all LOS A with no accident history. He stated the project benefits the welfare
of the public by connecting the grid system. The project has an internal loop system with the alley.
14 The alley will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The project will not ask for any
special considerations beyond those already granted to existing developments. The proposal is the
15 minimum requested by the City by providing a stub road. The project provides what the City asked
16 for initially. Nothing has changed since then.
17 Mr. Jouei noted there are not many on-street parked cars. All area homes include two car garages for
18
every lot to accommodate parking.
19 Jamie Waltier, Hansen Homes
20 Mr. Waltier thanked Staff for their efforts on the project. He stated the neighbor to the east is not
interested in selling his property. They will not be able to purchase a right of way or easement. Mr.
21 Waltier stated the City had supported the stub road without a secondary access. They've incurred
22 significant costs in designing this project they would not otherwise have spent if the City has been
consistent on their requirement for a secondary access. As is, the project is not financially viable
23 with the requirement for a secondary access.
24 Carl Anderson, Fire Protection Engineer, Applicant's Agent
25 Mr. Anderson discussed the second access issue from an emergency access perspective. He also
26 suggested mitigation measures. With respect to the public welfare, the proposal is at the end of a
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 9
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 67 of 410
I dead end. It does not materially affect the existing homes in the area. For the new plat, there are
mitigating measures that can be taken. The Applicant is intending to put in a temporary cul de sac to2Citystandards. The internal alley will also provide emergency access, though it is not intended as a
3 primary emergency access. Although not specifically spelled out in the variance request, the
intention is to put fire sprinkler systems in each proposed home. In terms of mitigating fire response
4 to the area, a fire sprinkler system reduces the need for fire responses. The homes will not require
full structural responses. The Staff Report mentions 99 homes are accessed on the dead end. The
5 dead end will be 2,400 feet. However, the actual road network has internal secondary means that
6 reduces the housing served by only the dead end itself. Stonehaven has an internal looped road that
would allow another access into Vuecrest. Only about 800 feet of roadway will be single access.
7 The 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D-107 addresses substitution of fire sprinklers rather
than the provision of secondary fire access. This appendix was not adopted in Renton, though it
8 does support the variance.
9
In response to Mr. Carson, Mr. Anderson stated he is familiar with the International Fire Code
10 Section 503.1.2 which reads the Fire Marshall may require secondary access based on a range of
conditions. Mr. Anderson stated the project does not meet any of the conditions in the
11 aforementioned Fire Code Section. This project will eventually result in improved access.
12
Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Anderson if he is testifying that he has no fire safety concerns over
13 the fact that this subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson responded, "I don't
believe that the addition of Vuecrest is a significant detriment to public safety based on what's
14 already there in the area." The Hearing Examiner stated, "There are a couple points along that '/2
mile dead end route where if the road was blocked there'd be no way for the fire department to
15
get to the subdivision, isn't that correct?" Mr. Anderson responded "That's correct." The
16 Hearing Examiner, "What about the Fire Chief Peterson's concern about if you had people
evacuating quickly that would make it more difficult for the Fire Department to get to the site, is
17 that a problem here at all, really?" Mr. Anderson responded "It could be a concern, but in the
type of isolated events you'd run into, is the likelihood that these additional 20 homes create a
18 significant additional detriment to public safety? I wouldn't think that number would be
19 detrimental, particularly given that this is another piece toward making an eventual connection,
which corrects an existing 1,700 foot dead end."
20
21 Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman,Applicant's Agent
22
Mr. Carson stated his letter goes into detail regarding each of the aforementioned issues. He wanted
23 to highlight a few points. He stated the 11th hour switch in the City's position. The City's code is
clear related to pre-application meetings when submitting long plats in order to avoid the
24 circumstance where applicants are not clear about what codes will apply. The first pre-application
25 stated a permanent dead end street is not approvable given the City code. The second pre-
application meeting allowed a temporary cul de sac with a future stub to allow for eventual
26 completion of a loop system. The Code says once the pre-application is done, the applicant should
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 10
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 68 of 410
I proceed in concert with the City's advice. The Applicant has done that.
2
With respect to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of his letter, this is no minor thing. Mr. Peterson stated in
3 August 2013 that a secondary access would be required for approval. Mr. Carson was hired at this
point. He spoke to the City Staff and the Mayor which led to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of the letter.
4 Mr. Peterson stated he could reissue the letter based on the final design. The design was not changed
and Mr. Peterson did not reissue the letter. Mr. Peterson desires to have a secondary access but has
5 not proven the need. Mr. Carson noted Ms. Vanessa Dolby of the City of Renton stated they would
6 not need to provide secondary access. Ms. Higgins also provided a letter that stated the City would
approve a street modification to allow the project to move forward without a secondary access. The
7 Applicant contends a variance is not required because they are not proposing a permanent dead end,
but are instead providing a temporary cul de sac. However, to the extent a variance is required; the
8 Examiner has the authority to grant the variance. The Applicant supports approval of the variance
9
request(street modification).
10 Mr. Carson notes Stonehaven was approved with a dead end of more than 700 feet because
Stonehaven provided a temporary stub to adjacent properties. No variance was required in that plat.
11 All secondary access will be provided in the future as adjacent properties develop.
12
The adjacent property owner in this case refuses to sell the property or grant an access easement.
13 The Staff requirement of a secondary access point represents a significant hardship to the Applicant.
If this was a significant public interest, they could use their condemnation authority. Otherwise, this
14 represents an unnecessary hardship to the Applicant. The Applicant has offered adequate mitigation
in the form of sprinklers for every residence. The effect of the City's recommendation is legally15arbitraryandcapricious. The Applicant asks to remove Condition 5 and grant the variance and the
16 plat request.
17 Staff Rebuttal
18 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton
19
Ms. Higgins answered a question from the Hearing Examiner regarding the typical condition of
20 requiring a gravel, gated access road as emergency access. Ms. Higgins stated the secondary access
would need to comply with the Fire Code. Ms. Higgins also stated the Fire Department always asks
21 for secondary access. Public Works assumes there will be no dead ends. She stated she doesn't
22 know the history here and cannot discuss the historical interpretation of secondary access.
23 Since February, the City has taken a closer look at developments next to slopes. They have studied
slope stability on existing slopes with respect to vegetation and stormwater.
24
25
She also.stated pre-application conferences allow for recommendations with respect to requirements
but do not provide enough information to set those requirements. Ms. Higgins stated the letter from
26 Chief Peterson was withdrawn at her request to get the Applicant to support a secondary
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 11
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 69 of 410
I geotechnical study. The Applicant suggested they would not invest more money in the geotechnical
2 study if the Chief's letter remained.
3 Lang Warren, Renton City Attorney
4 Mr. Warren addressed the comment of dead end roads. He stated this project extends the dead end
road. There is no way to tell how long before the adjacent property owner will want to develop the5property, if ever. The road may exist as a dead end road ad infinitum. This project creates a longer
6 dead end road that could be blocked at some point. There is no solution to the dead end road as
currently proposed.
7
The City Code on dead end roads (RMC 4-6-060(H)) requires two means of access and sprinklers
8 for roads over 700 feet. There is no waiver of secondary means of access. There is only a waiver for
9 methods of turn around. This code was in place before the Application but after the other existing
subdivision located along the dead end road. There is no definition of a dead end road in City code.
10 Common definitions would call this road a dead end. This is an infill project on a difficult site.
11 Applicant's Rebuttal
12
Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Age
13
Mr. Carson noted RMC 4-6-060(H)(6) regarding the waiver of a turnaround does not apply. Under
14 certain circumstances is related to the circumstances when a turnaround does not apply. The Code
section that does apply is RMC 4-7-240 in the subdivision code. This allows variances to be
15 approved by the Hearing Examiner.
16
This is the same situation as Stonehaven. There is no substantial increased to the public welfare but
17 the Staff recommendation does provide a significant burden to the Applicant.
18 Public Rebuttal
19
David Rasmussen
20
Mr. Rasmussen stated that parking in front of Stonehaven do not represent the true parking
21 situation, especially around the holidays.
22 EXHIBITS
23
24 Exhibits 1-31 listed on page 2 of the September 15, 2014 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report
itself(Ex. 1), were admitted into evidence during the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted
25 during the hearing are the following:
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 12
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 70 of 410
1 Ex. 32 Eric Hanson Testimony Summary
Ex. 33 Owen Reese Testimony Summary2Ex. 34 Ellen Brighten Pictures of Campen Springs and wildlife
3 Ex. 35 Brent Carson Letter to HE(9/15/14)
Ex. 36 Resume of Mr. Maher Jouie
4 Ex. 37 Set of maps showing subject site and surrounding area.
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
6
7 Procedural:
g 11. Applicant. Harbour Homes.
9 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on September 11, 2014 in
10 the City of Renton Council City Chambers.
11 3. Project Description. The applicant has submitted an application for a 20 lot Preliminary Plat.
The application includes a request for the waiver of street improvements to allow a dead-end road in
12
excess of 700 feet. Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of a 9.31 acre property,
13 located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use.
14 The proposed density is 4.23 dwelling units per net acre. The project site is currently undeveloped,
except for a paved, temporary cul-de-sac.
15
The site contains three land use zones, Residential 1 dwelling unit per net acre (du/ac), Residential 8
16 (g du/ac) and Residential 14 (14 du/ac) [Exhibit 3]. Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located
17 within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.06 acre (263,328 sf) portion that is zoned R-8 is
proposed to be developed. The proposed density would be 4.23 du/ac Subdivision into 20 lots would
18 result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet
to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree
19 retention.
20
The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification
21 of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a
dead end" road from the intersection of SE 186th St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400
22 trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as
23 required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be
required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a
24 closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site. The
applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplemental Stream Study, Traffic Impact
25 Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information
26
Report with the application.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 13
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 71 of 410
1
2 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by
adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
3
4
A. Water and Sewer Service. Although the project site lies within the boundaries of the
Renton Water Service Area, the City does not have water service mains near the project
5 site. Water service would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District from
6 an existing water main located at the Smithers Ave S street end at the north portion of the
property. A certificate of water availability from SCWSD must be provided prior to
7 issuance of construction permits. The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City
8 of Renton. There is a sewer main and a manhole at the south end of Smithers Ave S.
9 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police service would be provided by the Renton Fire
10 Department. The Renton Police Department has commented that there would be minimal
impacts from the project.
11
12 Fire service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. Fire Prevention staff
indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development;
13
subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees
14 presumably including fire impact fees) and that a second access be provided to the site in
accordance with RMC 4-6-060H, which prohibits dead end streets longer than 700 feet in
15 length.
16
The need for a second access is the most significant factual issues presented in this
17
hearing. The applicant disputes the need for the secondary access. It is determined that
18 the secondary access is necessary to provide adequate/appropriate fire protection service.
19
The proposed project site is located at the end of an existing dead end street in excess of
20 700 feet. The proposal asks for approval of a temporary cul-de-sac on an extension of this
21 street. The length of the extended dead-end street would be approximately 2,364 feet,
from the point at which it becomes a dead end at Main Avenue South (SE 102nd St) and
22 SE 186th St to the new street end within the proposed project. Currently,there are 99 lots
23 that are accessed by this dead end street.
24 As testified by Renton Fire Mark Peterson, the length of the street is too challenging to
25 service to the area by fire apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling
along the electric easement in a nearby neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access
26 point that was cut off by the fire. The fire department could not get in to help residents
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 14
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 72 of 410
I and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also concerned about the neighborhood
2 being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary access in roads over 700
feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the neighborhood.
3 Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this
4 neighborhood.
5 The applicant presented its own fire expert, Carl Anderson, to provide testimony on the
6 safety of fire access. Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive. The hearing
examiner asked Mr. Anderson if he had any safety concerns over the fact that the
7 proposed subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson did not respond with a
g simple "yes" or "no". Mr. Anderson did not testify that the subdivision would have safe
or adequate fire access with one fire access road. Rather, he concluded that the addition
9
of the proposed 20 lots would not be "a significant detriment to public safety based on
10 what's already in the area". Mr. Anderson's somewhat tortured response leaves the very
strong impression that he did not want to opine on the fire safety of a single access point11
to the subdivision; that instead the most supportive comment he could make for his client
12 was that in the context of the safety problems faced by the 99 other lots in the area, the
safety impact to the proposed subdivision was not that significant. The fact that other
13
subdivisions may have similar safety issues has no bearing on whether the single access
14 to the proposed subdivision is safe and adequate. In short, the applicant has not provided
15 any expert testimony to refute the Fire Chief s testimony that the proposed single access
would be safe or adequate for the proposed 20 lots.
16
17 Mr. Anderson noted that the applicant would be willing to provide sprinkler systems to
mitigate against the single access. He did not testify that this would completely mitigate
18 against the dangers of single access. Mr. Anderson noted that Appendix D to the
19 International Fire Code addresses the use of fire sprinklers to substitute for secondary
access roads. Appendix D was not offered into evidence and the examiner cannot take
20 judicial notice of it because it has not been adopted by the City of Renton. More
21 determinative is that the Renton Municipal Code does not expressly authorize a
substitution of secondary access roads with fire sprinklers. In fact, RMC 4-6-060(H)(2)
22 already requires sprinklers in addition to two access roads for streets longer than 700 feet
23 in length. Clearly, fire sprinklers are not considered an adequate substitute for secondary
access under city standards if they are already required in addition to secondary access for
24 dead end roads such as the one serving the proposed development. If the applicant
25 wishes to use fire sprinklers as a substitute for secondary access, it has the burden`of
26
establishing that the sprinklers will reduce the fire hazard to insignificant levels. The
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 15
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 73 of 410
I applicant has only shown that the fire hazard is reduced, but has not established or even
2 asserted that the reduction in hazard would be reduced to acceptable levels.
3 The applicant's arguments are well noted that the single access road was found sufficient
4 for the other 99 lot served by it and that staff has changed its position on the adequacy of
the access for the proposed subdivision. The inconsistencies in the staff's position does
5 undermine the credibility of their position. However, the reasoning of the fire chief's
6 testimony is highly compelling; that testimony is largely left unchallenged by the
applicant; and the need for the two access points is clearly laid out in the City's
development standards with no express exception for sprinkler systems. Further, it must
g also be acknowledged that circumstances have changed since the approval of other
subdivisions along the dead end road. In prior years development occurred at a much
9
more rapid pace and expectations were high that a looped road would be completed
10 relatively quickly. The length of the dead end road was of course shorter for each
preceding subdivision and the amount of road necessary to complete a looped system was
11
correspondingly longer.
12
The applicant presented testimony that accidents were unlikely to prevent fire access13
given the width of the single access road, but the fire chief was well aware of this
14 condition when he presented his testimony.
15
The preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence in the record establish that two
16 access points are necessary to provide adequate/appropriate and safe fire access to the
17
proposed subdivision.
18 C. Drainage. The applicant submitted a drainage report and drainage plan on July 15, 2014,
19
Ex. 11. Staff have determined that the report demonstrates compliance with 2009 King
County Surface Water Manual and additional requirements, based on specific site
20 conditions, as required by the Department of Community and Economic Development.
21 This proposal is specifically required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface
Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and
22 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration
23 Standard, Forested Conditions. This means that off-site flow volumes and rates may not
be higher than predevelopment levels. The site is subject to full drainage review. The
24 project is required to provide detention and water quality under the current King County
25 Surface Water Manual. The engineer has provided a design for a combined detention and
water quality vault to be located on Tract A of the site. A tightlined stormwater
26
conveyance system shall be utilized to transport discharged stormwater from a vault to an
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 16
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 74 of 410
I existing system at the bottom of the protected slope (Tract F). A recorded easement
2 agreement demonstrating access to the existing system is required by the conditions of
approval prior to issuance of construction permits.
3
4 Owen Reese, a civil engineer retained by the homeowner's association of the neighboring
Campen Springs development, made several recommendations on drainage mitigation
5 during the hearing. City engineering staff confirmed that the stormwater suggestions
6 made by Mr. Reese should be added to the conditions of approval. The suggestions
reasonably protect against slope stability, are made by qualified experts and there is no
7 evidence to the contrary. The drainage and slope stability recommendations made by Mr.
8 Reese will be made conditions of approval'.
9 D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to
10 building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for
residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for
11
residential development in the R-Ior R-8 district. RMC 4-2-115 does impose open space
12 requirements for the R-14 district based upon the number of dwelling units, but since no
dwelling units are proposed for the R-14 portion of the development, no open space is
13
required. RMC 4-3-110 requires that 50% of the portion of the plat within the Urban
14 Separator Overlay shall be designated as a non-revocable open space tract. As
15 determined in the staff report, p. 14, the open space tract proposed by the applicant
satisfies this standard (which appears to be accomplished by Tract F, which takes up most
16 if not all of the Urban Separator property, see Ex. 4) . The impact fees in conjunction
17 with the open space tract required by the Talbot Urban Separator provide for adequate
parks and open space.
18
19
E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. Access to the plat is
proposed via Smithers Ave and the conditions of approval require the applicant to extend
20 Smithers through the adjoining property to the east to 102nd Ave S. Internal access
21 includes looped alley access. The applicant prepared a traffic impact analysis, admitted
as Ex. 30, that was reviewed and approved by City public works staff. The study
22 determined that the proposal would generate 16 am peak hour trips and 21 pm peals hour
23 trips. The study shows that affected intersections would maintain a level of service A
with or without the project. There is no concurrency analysis submitted into the record.
24
25 1 Mr.Reese also recommended that the applicant monitor a migrating stream channel located off-site. Mr.Reese and
staff acknowledged that the-proposal does not adversely affect or exacerbate this condition. Consequently, the
26 project cannot be legally conditioned to address the issue.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 17
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 75 of 410
I However, given the lack of any significant impact on affected intersections it is
2 determined at this time the proposal is consistent with the City level of service standards.
3 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off, street parking
4 for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code.
5 G. Schools. Adequate/appropriate provision is made for schools. The proposal is located
6 within the Renton School District. The staff report notes that it is anticipated that the
Renton School District can accommodate additional students generated by this proposal
7 at the following schools: Benson Hill Elementary, Nelson Middle School, and Lindbergh
8 High School. These schools are not within walking distance of the proposed
9
development. Transportation would be required.
10 A School Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will also be required in order to
mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable
11
to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at
12 5,455.00 per single family residence.
13
5.Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal as conditioned
14 with secondary access. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4. The proposal involves single-family housing at a density 4.23 dwelling units
15 per acre, which is at the bottom end of the 4-8 units per acre required in the R-8 zone. This is a
legislatively set standard of what is considered a compatible density for the area. Consequently,16
there are no issues of compatibility with surrounding development based on density.
17 Many of the public comment letters expressed concern over the loss of trees. There are 401
trees on site with diameters of more than six inches. The applicant proposes to retain 42 of these
18 trees and replace the remaining trees with 140 two-inch diameter trees. Most development of
undeveloped areas involves the removal of trees. What constitutes an acceptable level of tree
19 removal is a highly subjective determination. As with density, the Renton City Council has
20 legislatively determined an acceptable level of tree removal by the adoption of tree retention
ordinance codified as RMC 4-4-130. As noted at p. 14 of the staff report, the applicant's tree
21 retention and replacement plan is consistent with RMC 4-4-130. Consequently, the proposed tree
removal cannot be considered a significant impact of the proposal.
22 There are protected slopes, wetlands, and a stream located within proposed sensitive area
23 tracts (Native Growth Protection Areas) on the site. The anticipated impacts of these areas have been
addressed in technical reports and studies [Exhibits 16-27] and the Environmental Review
24 Committee Report [Exhibit 31]. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all
mitigation measures are met as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. A storm
25 drainage line is proposed across the face of the protected slopes. A critical area exemption is
26
required for placing drainage lines on protected slopes. Staff determined that the proposed drainage
line, as conditioned, would improve slope stability. Staff has found slope stability to improve for
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 18
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 76 of 410
I other proposals under the same conditions. As concluded in the conclusions of law, this resulting
increase in slope stability serves as the basis for approving the critical area exemption.2 Several public comment letters expressed concern over the encroachment of the project onto
3 the fifty foot buffer of a Category U wetland and at least one comment letter asserted there are two
Category H wetlands on-site as opposed to one. As depicted in a site plan attached to the critical area
4 study, Ex. 17, five2 lots encroach onto the fifty foot buffer of the wetland as well as Tract A (the
storm drainage tract) and portions of the interior road. The applicant has proposed to remove these
5 encroachments through buffer averaging, which is allowed by the code and involves the replacement
6 of buffer reduction area by 1:1 increases in buffer area at other parts of the buffer. A total of 10,463
square feet of buffer will be reduced and a total of 12, 198 square feet will be added in the buffer
7 averaging proposal. The buffer averaging proposal has been reviewed and approved by qualified
third party review, Ex. 16, as well as by staff. The critical area studies provide a compelling and
8 thorough justification for the averaging based upon best available science. There is no evidence in
9 the record that the proposed averaging would adversely affect the wetland or that the wetland
delineations are inaccurate. For these reasons, the proposed buffer averaging is determined to be
10 consistent with the City's critical area regulations and will not create any significant adverse impacts
to the wetland functions or values.
11 Erosion and slope stability were also cited in numerous public comment letters as an area of
12
concern. As noted previously, staff have concluded that the proposed drainage line across the steep
slope will serve to improve slope stability. The City has detailed erosion control standards
13 applicable to clearing and grading activities that will protect adjoining properties from erosion
impacts. As previously noted, the City stormwater regulations require off-site stormwater flow
14 volumes and velocities to be at or less than pre-development conditions. The proposal has also been
subject to extensive geotechnical review coupled with third party review designed to assure that the
15
proposal will not adversely affect slope stability, as shown in Ex. 19-26 and 31. There has been no
16 expert testimony to show that the analysis and mitigation pertaining to erosion and slope stability is
deficient, except for some suggestions made by Mr. Reese, all of which have been adopted except a
17 request to monitor stream channel migration that Mr. Reese acknowledged is not affected by the
proposal. For all these reasons, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant slope
18 stability or erosion impacts.
19
20
Conclusions of Law
21
1. Authori . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5)provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold
22 a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies
23 preliminary plat applications as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies development
standard modifications as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to
24
25 2 The site plan actually only shows a buffer reduction in four lots,neglecting to identify a reduction in buffer for Lot
21. The text of the critical areas study,however,identifies at p. 14 that the buffer on Lot 21 will be removed through
26 averaging. Consequently,it is understood that the site plan incorrectly fails to identify buffer removal from Lot 21.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 19
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 77 of 410
I each be processed under "the highest-number procedure", which in this case is Type III review,
2 involving a review and a final decision issued by the hearing examiner.
3 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The developed portion of the property is zoned
R-8. Other portions of the property are zoned R-1, R-1 and the western third is within the Talbot
4 Urban Separator Overlay. The comprehensive plan designations are Residential Low Density
5 (RLD), Residential Single-Family(RSF) and Residential Medium Density(RMD).
6 13. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable
7 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
8 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
9 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
10 2. Access:Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
11 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
12 because offlood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
13
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
14
supplies and sanitary wastes.
15 4. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Conclusion K(2) of the staff report is adopted by
16 reference as if set forth in full. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 37, each proposed lot will directly
access Smithers Ave S., a public road, or indirectly via a private alley. As determined in Finding of17
Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas. No
18 flooding problems are anticipated because as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 the proposal is
19 served by adequate/appropriate stormwater facilities and the project is not located in a floodplain.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
20
5. RMC 4-7-080(n(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general
21 purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards...
22 6. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
23 in Conclusion K(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
24 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
25 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street(according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT-20
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 78 of 410
1 7. All of the internal roads of the proposed subdivision eventually connect to Smithers Ave S.,
2 an existing road.
3 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
4
8. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the
5
administrative record. However, the only other street connections that appear possible with the
6 steep slope and open space limitations to the west are those proposed and required by this decision.
7 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed[sic] trail,
8 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
9
10
9. The subdivision is not located in the area of an officially designated trail.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
11
with the following provisions:
12
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
13 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
14 as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
15 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
16 a. Flooding/Inundation:If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
17 subject to flooding or inundation, thatportion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider18
such subdivision.
19
b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
20 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
21 050JIa, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
22
23
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land24
Clearing Regulations.
25
4. Streams:
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 21
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 79 of 410
I a. Preservation:Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
2
and wetland areas.
3 b. Method:If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow
4 area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
5
c. Culverting The piping or tunneling ofwater shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
6 under streets.
7 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
8
and pollutants.
9 10. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures
that it will not contribute to flooding and that water quality will not be adversely affected.
10 Development will not encroach into critical areas except as authorized by the City's critical area
11 regulations. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by
RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. The on-site stream will be protected by the
12
critical area ordinance compliant buffer that applies to it. The City's stormwater regulations provide
13 for adequate protection of water quality for the on-site stream and wetlands.
14 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
15 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
16 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
17 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
18
19
11. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing20
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
21 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
22 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
23
12. As conditioned,the proposed street system connects existing streets.
24
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
25
13. As conditioned.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT-22
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 80 of 410
1 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
2 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
3 14. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial.
4 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street5
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet(125) are not desirable, but may be
6 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
7
measures.
8 15. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
approved the adequacy of streets,which includes compliance with applicable street standards.
9
10
RMC 4-7-150(E):
11
12 1. Grid:A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
13
2. Linkages:Linkages, including streets, sidewalks,pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
14 within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
15 of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
16 Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
17 3. Exceptions:
18 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the
19 alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
20 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
21 ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
22
4. Connections:Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
23 existing portions of the grid system shall be made.At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
24
25 5. Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT -23
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 81 of 410
I RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
2 evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible...
3 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
4 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically5
possible.
6
16. The proposed and required connections are the maximum that can be included given the steep
7 slopes to the west, critical areas to the south, existing development and the vacant parcels to the
8
south. Lots 11-16 are accessed by an alley.
The proposal as conditioned contains a looped road and no cul-de-sac is proposed. The criterion
9 above is met.
10 RMC 4-7-1500: All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
11 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
12
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
13
17. As proposed.
14
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be
15 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
16 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
17
18. There are no streets that could be extended in the event of future adjacent platting under the18approvedsubdivisiondesign.
19
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
20 to curved street lines.
21 19. As depicted in Ex. 37,the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above.
22 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
23 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
24 20. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
25 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
26 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 24
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 82 of 410
1 development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
2 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
3
21. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-8
4 zone, which includes area, width and density.
5
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
6 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line)shall not be less than eighty percent(80%) of
7 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
8 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35).
9 22. As shown in Ex. 37, the requirement is satisfied.
10 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
11 shall have minimum radius offifteen feet(15).
12 23. As conditioned.
13 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
14 watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
15
24. The on-site wetland and stream is set-aside from the developed portion of the subdivision.
16 The criteria above is met.
17
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
18 and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
19 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8) into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
20 development.
21 25. As conditioned.
22
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
23 surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
24
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
25 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
26 detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street pavingfor the plat.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-25
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 83 of 410
1 26. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage
2 standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are
incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan
3 review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
4 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offire hydrants shall be
5 designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
6
Department requirements.
27. As conditioned.
7
8 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
9 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
10 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
11 maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
12 28. As conditioned.
13
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
14 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
15 by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
16 trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
17 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
18 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
19 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
20 129. As conditioned.
21 RMC 4-7-210:
22 A. MONUMENTS:
23
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
24 the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City ofRenton surveying standards.
25
B. SURVEY:
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 26
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 84 of 410
1 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
2 C. STREET SIGNS.-
3
IGNS.
3
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
4
30. As conditioned.
5
6 Street Improvement Waiver
7 31. RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) requires two means of access for homes served by a dead end street
longer than 700 feet. The applicant wishes to have this secondary access requirement waived for the
8 dead end street that serves it, Smithers Ave. S. The length of Smithers Ave. S. as extended by the
9 proposed subdivision would be 2,364 feet.
10 RMC 4-9-250(C)(2) authorizes the waiver of the installation of street
improvements3
subject to the
11 determination that there is reasonable justification for such wavier. RMC 4-9-250(5) provides that
reasonable justification shall include but not be limited to the following:
12
13 a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a
negative impact on a shoreline's area.
14 b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible.
15
c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties,
such as restricting available access.
16 d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood
that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10)years.
17 e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no
detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not18installed, and that the improvements are not neededfor current or future
19 development.
20
21
22 s The secondary access required by staff may not have to be "improved" since its sole purpose is to provide for
emergency access and no paving or even grading may be necessary. The issue at hand could be characterized as
23 more of a street grid issue than a street improvement issue. Consequently, it is debatable whether the RMC 4-9-
250(C)(2)waiver process applies in this instance. The alternative modification process would be RMC 4-9-250(D),
24 which applies to those standards not covered by RMC 4-9-250(B) or(C). The proposal would also fail to meet the
RMC 4-9-250(D), since authorizing one access point would not meet the intent or safety objectives of the Code.
25 The applicant used the criteria of RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) in its briefing,which clearly does not apply to the requested
modification. The RCW 4-9-250(B)(5) criteria only apply to the development standards expressly identified in
26 RCW 4-9-250(B)(1). RMC 4-6-060(H)(2)is not listed amongst those standards.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-27
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 85 of 410
1 The requested waiver cannot be approved because it fails to meet RMC 4-4-080(C)(5)(e). As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, waiver of the proposed secondary access requirement would2
prevent the provision of safe and appropriate/adequate fire response. Consequently, the proposal will
3 have a detrimental effect on public safety. As testified by the Fire Chief, one access point can prevent
fire apparatus from reaching the subdivision in case of emergency due to large numbers of persons
4 leaving the emergency scene or damage caused by the emergency (such as seismic events and
5
wildfires).
The applicant asserts that the proposed stub ending for Smithers Road does not qualify as a "dead
6 end" under RMC 4-6-060(H), and hence the two access requirement does not apply. The applicant
argues that a stub road should not be considered a dead end because it is only a temporary situation7thatwillberemovedupondevelopmentoftheadjoiningsubdivisiontotheeast. It is concluded that
8 the proposed stub road qualifies as a dead end. This interpretation is supported by both the plain
meaning and the intent of the ordinance. The Meriam Webster definition of"dead end" is "a street
9 that ends instead of joining with another street so that there is only one way in and out of it". The
proposed stub road clearly meets this definition. The idea that a stub road is not a "dead end" road
10 does not meet the intent of the two access requirement, which is to prevent a dangerous situation.
I I The "temporary" road stub could be in place for years and even decades before the adjoining property
to the east is developed. The risk of preventing fire access, which is what the two access requirement
12 is designed to minimize, is not materially reduced by a stub road that could remain in place for this
period of time. It is also noteworthy that the "dead end" situation for development along Smithers
13 Ave. S. could have always been considered temporary, since Smithers will eventually form a looped
14
system. Despite this `'temporary" situation, staff in the Stonehaven development, located along S.
47 St. (which is an extension of the Smithers dead end street ) still required a modification to the
15 two access requirement of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2)4.
See Ex. 37, aft. J,Finding of Fact No. 14.
16 The applicant points out in its briefing that RMC 4-6-060(H)(1) provides that cul-de-sacs and dead
ends should only be authorized in circumstances where no "future connection" to a road grid is
17 physically possible. If"road stub" qualifies as a cul-de-sac or dead end, then RMC 4-6-060 would
have to be read as only authorizing road stubs if no "future connection" to a road grid is possible,
18 which of course makes no sense. The conclusion to be drawn from this language is either that (1) a
19 cul-de-sac or dead end does not include a road stub; or(2) RMC 4-6-060(H)(1) impliedly only applies
to permanent cul-de-sacs or dead ends (i.e. not road stubs). Given the plain meaning of the "cul-de-
20 sac" and "dead end" terms and the fire safety objectives of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2), the latter
interpretation is determinative. The City Council likely intended that RMC 4-6-060(H)(1) would
21 require staff to only authorize permanent dead ends when it was physically not feasible to require a
connection and if any dead ends had to be allowed, the fire safety impacts would be mitigated by the22
secondary access and sprinkler standards imposed by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). Given that a "future"
23
24 4 At the hearing the City Attorney noted that RMC 4-6-060 has been amended several times over the years and its
unclear whether the same two access requirement applied to other subdivisions along the Smithers Ave S dead end
25 road system. A look at the legislative history available to the examiner reveals that RMC 4-6-060(H)has remained
the same since at least 1995,when RMC 4-6-060 was first adopted. The Stonehaven preliminary plat was approved
26 in 2004.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-28
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 86 of 410
I connection could take decades to complete,it is doubtful that the Council would have intended a road
2 stub to remain in place for decades without the mitigation required by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2).
The most difficult issue raised by the applicant is the potential violation of its constitutional property
3 rights. It is logical to presume that the Council does not intend its development regulations to be
4
interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitutional rights of property applicants. At
the least, violation of those rights is counter to the financial interests of the City since property rights
5 violation easily translate into damages claims. An exaction that exceeds the proportional
responsibility of an applicant for a development impact is a violation of the takings clause. See, e.g.
6 1 Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). A strictly proportionate requirement from
the applicant for a looped fire access road system would arguably just be requiring the construction of7thatportionofthelooplocatedonthepreliminaryplatproperty. However, even if this were
8 technically correct for strict proportionality, only rough proportionality is required in exactions cases.
See, Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901, 918 (1995)("it is not necessary for the government to show a
g `precise mathematical calculation" of the connection between the exaction and the impact of the proposed
development.") It is also of high relevance that the public interest at stake is at the high end of the range of
10 compelling government interests, namely public safety. Requiring the applicant to acquire access rights
across private property to mitigate against congestion or aesthetic impacts may be questionable under a
11 proportionality analysis. However, the City is in a very good position to argue that requiring the acquisition
of access rights across one adjoining lot is entirely proportionate to avoiding the dangers identified by the12RentonFireChiefasattendanttoplacinganadditional20homesneartheendofahalfmiledeadendroad.
13 Ultimately, the merits of the applicant's constitutional arguments do not have to be addressed. As
previously discussed, the constitutional issues are relevant to the interpretation of City development14standards. Beyond this, the examiner has no authority to waive City development standards if they
15 violate the constitutional property rights of an applicant. RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) strictly provides that
in no case" shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the
16 public health, safety or welfare. There may be some room to allow constitutional restrictions to
influence what level of risk of harm should be considered "detrimental" under the standard, but that
17 only goes so far. The Renton Fire Chief testified that in case of emergency there was a danger that he
18 may be prevented from dispatching his fire trucks to the proposed subdivision because of the half
mile long dead end road. As determined in the findings of fact, the applicant did not provide any
19 convincing evidence to the contrary. No matter how liberally construed to achieve consistency with
constitutional requirements, there is no way to reach a conclusion of "no detrimental" effect on
20 public safety given the testimony of the fire chief.
21
22 DECISION
23 The proposed preliminary plat and street improvement waiver is approved, subject to the following
24
conditions:
25 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT -29
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 87 of 410
1 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
2
3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
3 minimum radius of fifteen feet(15').
4 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are
5 available, or provided with the subdivision development.
6 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
7 installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting
of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
8 service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall
9 be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may
be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of
10 Public Works.
11
6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
12 installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by
13 Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or
alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The
14 cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore
15 required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land
owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit
16 ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall
17 provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to
18
the City that it is properly installed.
19
7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat
approval.
20
21
8. The easements for the alley shall authorize access to all lots of the proposed subdivision.
22 9. The applicant shall comply with nine the mitigation measures issued as part of the
23
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated August 26,2014 [Exhibit 14].
24 10. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan, meeting all landscape plan submittal
requirements of RMC 4-8-120L. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved
25 by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Street
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 30
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 88 of 410
I trees shall not include Callery Pear and trees on S. 48th PI shall be a different type from those
2 on Smithers Ave S.
3 11. The Replacement Tree Plan shall be revised to show the proposed locations for replanting
4
140 two-inch diameter replacement trees.
5 12. Vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) shall be planted to replace vegetation (trees,
shrubs, and ground cover) removed for installation of the stormwater conveyance between
6
the stormwater vault and the west property boundary of the property. Type and quantities
7 shall be sufficient to ensure erosion control in the protected slope area.
8 13. The primary access road, Smithers Ave S, shall connect to S 48th PI and be extended to the
9 east to provide a second access from Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE) at its intersection with SE
186th St. The completion of this street and its connection to Main Ave S shall be a condition
10 of project approval. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this
11 connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with
applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and
12
effective secondary fire access. The extended street, providing a second access to the
13 proposed development, shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat.
14 14.A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing downslope stormwater
15 control system shall be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits.
16 15.A Homeowners' Association shall be incorporated for maintenance and equal and undivided
17 ownership of the tracts, the private access road, and the alley.
18 16. An easement shall be recorded along the east property boundary for future extension of the
19 sanitary sewer system. The easement shall be at the time of recording the final plat.
20
17. All new fill shall be composed of free draining structural fill and not native soils.
21
18. Drainage from western lots into the steep slopes shall be minimized and all such drainage22
shall be dispersed.
23
19. Anchors for the stormwater tight line shall only be placed on the top and bottom of the pipe.
24
The anchors should be designed to withstand tree fall and soil movement. The pipeline
25 should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up the hill.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 31
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 89 of 410
1 DATED this 3rd day of October,2014.
2
F'h 3 v 01b hIs
3
4 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
5
6 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
7 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
8
Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision
to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision.
9 A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day
10 appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall —11 7th floor, (425) 430-6510.
12
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
13 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT-32
7b. - City Clerk reports appeal of the
Hearing Examiner’s final decision upon Page 90 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Resolution Authorizing a Memorandum of
Agreement related to the Puget Sound Emergency
Radio Network ("PSERN")
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Future
Operation of the Puget Sound Emergency Radio
Network
Resolution Authorizing MOA re PSERN
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Attorney
Staff Contact:
Zanetta Fontes, x6486
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Council approved two interlocal agreements regarding the implementation and the operation of the
Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network System (“PSERN”). However, the PSERN Operations Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement has been revised and is not in the form approved. So as not to hold up the
project any further, the parties agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement to negotiate in good
faith to form the Operations Interlocal Cooperation Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Memorandum of Agreement
Regarding Future Operation of The Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network.
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 91 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 92 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 93 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 94 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 95 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 96 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 97 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 98 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 99 of 410
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
WITH KING COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AUBURN, BELLEVUE, FEDERAL WAY,
ISSAQUAH, KENT, KIRKLAND, MERCER ISLAND, REDMOND, SEATTLE, AND
TUKWILA RELATED TO THE FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS OF A PUGET SOUND
EMERGENCY RADIO NETWORK OPERATOR INTERLOCAL COOPERATION
AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City and the Cities of Auburn, Bellevue, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kent,
Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond, Seattle, and Tukwila and King County (the “Parties”) are
authorized, pursuant to RCW Chapter 39.34, to enter into an interlocal government cooperative
agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Council approved two interlocal agreements regarding the
implementation and the operation of the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network System
(“PSERN”); and
WHEREAS, the PSERN Operations Interlocal Cooperation Agreement has been revised
and is not in the form approved; and
WHEREAS, so as not to hold up the project any further, the Parties have agreed to enter
into a Memorandum of Agreement to negotiate in good faith to form the Operations Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the current version of the Memorandum of Agreement contains provisions
requiring unanimity in voting and all Parties present to constitute a quorum; and
WHEREAS, the Parties continue to negotiate the terms of the Memorandum of
Agreement regarding those provisions; and
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 100 of 410
RESOLUTION NO. _______
2
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Council to permit staff to continue negotiation on those
provisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement, which shall be substantially similar to the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A. This authorization shall be effective in the event that staff is able to negotiate either
a change in the voting from unanimity to majority, or reduction in the quorum requirements, or
both.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _____________________, 2015.
______________________________
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _____________________, 2015.
______________________________
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES:1655:12/4/14:scr
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 101 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 102 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 103 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 104 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 105 of 410
7c. - City Attorney recommends adoption
of a resolution authorizing a Page 106 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Approval of Annual Consultant Contract with Reid
Middleton for Structural and/or Non-Structural
Code Compliance
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Contract
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Craig Burnell
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 100,000 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ 100,000 Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ 100,000 City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City currently does not have a structural engineer on staff to review building plans. Therefore, plan
review for structural and/or non-structural code compliance for new and remodeled buildings within the
City of Renton is contracted to an outside vendor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the consultant contract not to exceed $100,000 with Reid
Middleton to review structural plans submitted to the City of Renton.
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 107 of 410
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 9, 2014
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Denis Law, Mayor
CC: Jay Covington, CAO
FROM: C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Craig Burnell, Interim Development Services Director, x7290
SUBJECT: Annual Consultant Contract with Reid Middleton for
Structural and/or Non-Structural Code Compliance for
Proposed New and Remodeled Buildings Within the City of
Renton
ISSUE:
Should the City of Renton contract with Reid Middleton to conduct structural and or non-
structural plan review for new and/or remodeled buildings within the City?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this Annual Consultant Contract with Reid Middleton.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The City’s contract for structural plan review services has expired. Reid Middleton is on
our list of contractors providing these services and is familiar with Renton City Code.
Sincerely,
C. E. “Chip” Vincent
CED Administrator
cc: Renton City Councilmembers
Craig Burnell, Interim Development Services Director and Building Official
Jason Seth, City Clerk
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 108 of 410
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS CONSULTANT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made as of the day of December, 2014, (the
“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Renton, a noncharter code city under RCW 35A,
and a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Washington (hereinafter “Renton”),
and Reid Middleton, (hereinafter “Consultant”), who are collectively referred to as the
“Parties”, for structural and non-structural plan review services, verifying compliance to Renton
City Code requirements.
Renton and Consultant, for full mutual consideration as more specifically detailed below, agree:
1.Scope of Services. The Consultant will provide professional services, including
but not limited to all necessary labor and/or supervision, as specified in the attached Scope of
Services (Exhibit A), attached and fully incorporated into this Agreement by reference. This
Agreement is 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 Services may be amended only as provided in this Agreement, in
Section 2. “Services” shall mean professional services, work, labor and/or supervision.
2.Changes in Scope of Services. Renton, without invalidating this Agreement, may
order changes in the services consisting of additions, deletions or modifications, and adjust the
fee accordingly. Such changes in the services shall be authorized by written agreement signed
by Renton and Consultant. If the project scope requires less time, a lower fee will be charged. If
additional work is required, Consultant will not proceed without a written change order from
Renton. 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. Consultant shall complete performance for the items
under Consultant’s control in accordance with Exhibit A. If items not under Consultant’s control
impact the time of performance, Consultant will immediately notify Renton in writing.
4.Term of Consultant Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall end at
completion of the Scope of Services identified in Exhibit A, but no later than December 31,
2015. The Parties may, upon mutual written agreement, extend this Agreement to accomplish
change orders.
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 109 of 410
5.Consultant Agreement Sum. Renton shall make payment for services to
Consultant for completed services consistent with and as provided in the attached estimate Fee
Structure, attached and fully incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Such payment
shall be the full compensation for services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies,
equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the services.
The total amount of this Agreement is not to exceed the sum of One Hundred
Thousand and no cents ($100,000). Washington State Sales Tax is not required. Renton, in
entering into this Agreement, does not guarantee that any services will be requested nor
guarantees any specific dollar amount of services during the term of this Agreement.
6.Method of Payment. Payment by Renton for services rendered will be made
after a voucher or invoice is submitted in the form specified by Renton. Payment will be made
within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of such voucher or invoice. Renton shall have the
right to withhold payment to Consultant for any work not completed in a satisfactory manner
until such time as Consultant modifies such services so that the same is satisfactory to Renton.
7.Record Maintenance and Work Product. Consultant shall maintain accounts and
records, which properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and services provided in
the performance of this Agreement. Consultant agrees to provide Renton with access to any
records. 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 Renton, including records, files, computer disks, magnetic media or
material which may be produced by Consultant while performing the services. Consultant will
grant Renton 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 the City of Renton’s express written consent.
9.Hold Harmless. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Renton, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers, from and against any and all
claims, losses or liability, or any portion of the same, including but not limited to reasonable
attorneys’ fees, legal expenses and litigation costs, arising from injury or death to persons,
including injuries, sickness, disease or death of Consultant’s own employees, agents and
volunteers, or damage to property caused by Consultant’s negligent act or omission, except for
those acts caused by or resulting from a negligent act or omission by Renton and its officers,
agents, employees and volunteers.
Renton agrees to indemnify Consultant from any claims, damages, losses, and costs,
including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees, legal expenses and litigation costs,
arising out of claims by third-parties for property damage and bodily injury, including death,
caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of Renton, Renton’s employees, agents or
volunteers in connection with this Consultant Agreement.
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 110 of 410
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to
RCW 4.24.115, (Validity of agreement to indemnify against liability for negligence relative to
construction, alteration, improvement, etc., of structure or improvement attached to real
estate…) then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the contractor
and Renton, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, Consultant’s liability shall be only
to the extent of Consultant’s negligence.
It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided
herein constitute the Consultant’s waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, RCW
Title 51, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. The Parties have mutually negotiated
and agreed to this waiver. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this agreement.
10.Insurance. Consultant shall secure and maintain:
a.Commercial general liability insurance in the minimum amounts of
$1,000,000 for each occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate throughout the duration of this
Agreement.
b.Professional liability insurance, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 for
each occurrence, shall also be secured for any professional services being provided to
Renton that are excluded in the commercial general liability insurance.
c.Workers’ compensation coverage, as required by the Industrial Insurance
laws of the State of Washington, shall also be secured.
d.It is agreed that on Consultant’s commercial general liability policy, the
City of Renton will be named as an Additional Insured on a non-contributory primary
basis.
e.Subject to Renton’s review and acceptance, a certificate of insurance
showing the proper endorsements, shall be delivered to Renton before executing the
work of this Agreement.
f.The Consultant shall provide Renton with written notice of any policy
cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such notice.
11.Independent Contractor. Consultant’s employees, while engaged in the
performance of any of Consultant’s services under this Agreement, shall be considered
employees of the Consultant and not employees, agents or representatives of Renton.
Consultant’s relation to Renton shall be at all times as an independent contractor. Any and all
Workman’s Compensation Act claims on behalf of Consultant employees, and any and all claims
made by a third-party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 111 of 410
Consultant’s employees, while engaged in services provided to be rendered under this
Agreement, shall be the solely Consultant’s obligation and responsibility.
12.Compliance with Laws. Consultant and Consultant’s employees and volunteers
shall perform the services required in this Agreement in accordance with all applicable federal,
state, county and city laws, rules, regulations, and executive orders. A copy of this language
must be made a part of any contractor or subcontractor agreement.
13.Discrimination Prohibited: Except to the extent permitted by a bona fide
occupational qualification, the Consultant agrees as follows:
Consultant, and Consultant’s agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers with
regard to the services performed or to be performed under this Agreement, shall not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual
orientation or preference, age (except minimum age and retirement provisions), honorably
discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical
handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification in relationship to hiring and
employment, in employment or application for employment, the administration of the delivery
of services or any other benefits under this Agreement, or procurement of materials or
supplies.
The Consultant will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and
that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color,
national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, physical, sensory or mental handicaps, or marital
status. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following employment, upgrading,
demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay
or other forms of compensation and selection for training.
In the event of non-compliance by the Consultant with any of the non-discrimination
provisions of the contract, Renton shall have the right, at its option, to cancel the Agreement in
whole or in part. If this Agreement is canceled after part performance, Renton shall be
obligated to pay the fair market value or the contract price, whichever is lower, for good or
services which have been received and accepted.
The Consultant is responsible to be aware of and in compliance with all federal, state
and local laws and regulations that may affect the satisfactory completion of the project, which
includes but is not limited to fair labor laws and worker's compensation.
Renton requires all businesses and individuals doing business in Renton to have and
maintain a valid City of Renton business license. (For information contact licensing at 425-430-
6851).
14.Other Provisions:
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 112 of 410
a.Administration and Notices. Each individual executing this Agreement
on behalf of Renton and Consultant represents and warrants that such individuals are
duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of Renton or
Consultant. Any notices required to be given by the Parties shall be delivered at the
addresses set forth below. Any notices may be delivered personally to the addressee of
the notice or may be deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the
address set forth below. Any notice so posted in the United States mail shall be deemed
received three (3) days after the date of mailing. This Agreement shall be administered
by and any notices should be sent to:
CITY OF RENTON CONSULTANT
Craig Burnell, Building Official
City of Renton
Development Services
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Reid Middleton
728 134th St SW #200
Everett, WA 98204
b.Amendment and Modification. This Agreement may be amended only
by an instrument in writing, duly executed by both Parties.
c.Governing Law. This Agreement shall be made in and shall be governed
by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
d.Joint Drafting Effort. This Contract shall be considered for all purposes as
prepared by the joint efforts of the Parties and shall not be construed against one party
or the other as a result of the preparation, substitution, submission or other event of
negotiation, drafting or execution.
e.Jurisdiction and Venue. Any lawsuit or legal action brought by any party
to enforce or interpret this Agreement or any of its terms or covenants shall be brought
in the King County Superior Court for the State of Washington at the Maleng Regional
Justice Center in Kent, King County, Washington.
f.Severability. A determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that
any provision or part of this Agreement is illegal or unenforceable shall not cancel or
invalidate the remainder of such provision of this Agreement, which shall remain in full
force and effect.
g.Sole and Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement of the Parties and any representations or understandings, whether oral or
written, not incorporated herein are excluded.
h.Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor
shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in the Agreement to anyone other than
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 113 of 410
the Parties, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement
will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties and no one else.
i.Waivers. All waivers shall be in writing and signed by the waiving party.
Either party’s failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver
and shall not prevent either Renton or Consultant from enforcing that provision or any
other provision of this Agreement in the future. Waiver of breach of any provision of
this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach
unless it is expressly waived in writing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement effective as of
Effective Date identified above.
CITY OF RENTON
_____________________________
CONSULTANT
____________________________
Denis Law, Mayor
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Reid Middleton
728 134th St SW #200
Everett, WA 98204
______________________________
Date
Approved as to Legal Form
_______________________________
_____________________________
Date
Attest
_____________________________
Lawrence J. Warren
Renton City Attorney
________________________________
Jason Seth
Renton City Clerk
______________________________
Date Date
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 114 of 410
Attachment 1
Reid Middleton
SCOPE OF WORK
On behalf of the Development Services Division, Reid Middleton will perform structural and
non-structural plan review for proposed new and remodeled building projects within the City.
Qualified consultants subcontracted directly to Reid Middleton may perform the non-structural
plan review.
Structural plans and non-structural plans are reviewed for compliance with structural provisions
of adopted codes and reference standards. Review may include:
Geotechnical engineering recommendations related to project features.
Plan review relating to architectural and/or fire and life safety project features.
Other structural engineering services, such as field evaluation of buildings, client meetings as
specifically requested by the Development Services representative.
Reid Middleton shall complete the specified work generally within twenty-one (21) calendar
days of written notification by the City. (Large and/or complex projects may take longer to
review but require concurrence by the City for a time extension.)
Upon completion of each plan review, Reid Middleton will furnish a summary plan review letter
directly to the City outlining discrepancies in the plans, reports and/or calculations (if any).
Reid Middleton will perform a follow-up plan review within fourteen (14) calendar days as
required by the City to confirm that plans have been corrected adequately according to the
original plan review. In these instances, Reid Middleton will furnish an additional letter directly
to the City summarizing the results of the review.
7d. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 115 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Appointments to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Cliff Long
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
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. Appointments of Michael
Schabbing, General Manager of Marriott Renton and Southcenter Hotels, and Brent Camann, Senior
Asset Manager at SECO Development, Inc., are requested.
These appointments reflect an opportunity for Mr. Schabbing to fill the vacancy left by the departure of
Brad Knutson from the committee, and a change in employer for Mr. Camann.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Appointments of Michael Schabbing, General Manager of Marriott Renton and Southcenter Hotels, and
Brent Camann, Senior Asset Manager at SECO Development, Inc., to the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee. Mr. Schabbing fills the vacancy left by Brad Knutson, and Mr. Camann has made a
change in employer.
7e. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 116 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Amendment to RMC 4-1-210C, Rental Housing
Incentive, for "Affordable Housing" Definition
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Draft Ordinance
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Mark Santos-Johnson, ext. 6584
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning & Development Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Renton Housing Authority plans to use more than $30 million in proceeds from federal low income
housing tax credits to help finance four Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects with 229
units. Amending the definition of “affordable housing” in RMC 4-1-210C, Rental Housing Incentive, will
help leverage additional public and private funds to support affordable multi-family rental housing
development in the Sunset Area and, more specifically, facilitate use of federal low income housing tax
credit financing in new multi-family housing development. The amendment supports the City’s vision as
the “Center of Opportunity in the Puget Sound region where businesses and families thrive” and the
Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt an ordinance to amend the "affordable housing" definition in RMC 4-1-210C, Rental Housing
Incentive, to help leverage additional public and private funds to support affordable multi-family rental
housing development in the Sunset Area and, more specifically, to facilitate use of federal low income
housing tax credit financing in new multi-family housing development.
7f. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 117 of 410
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:December 29, 2014
TO:Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator (x 6588)
STAFF CONTACT:Mark Santos-Johnson, Community Development Project
Manager (x6584)
SUBJECT:Amendment to RMC 4-1-210C, Rental Housing Incentive, for
“Affordable Housing” Definition
ISSUE:
Should the City amend the “affordable housing” definition in RMC 4-1-210C, Rental Housing
Incentive?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt an ordinance to amend the “affordable housing” definition in RMC 4-1-210C, Rental
Housing Incentive, to help leverage additional public and private funds to support affordable
multi-family rental housing development in the Sunset Area and, more specifically, to facilitate
use of federal low income housing tax credit financing in new multi-family housing development.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The City is currently working with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA), the King County Housing
Authority, the Renton School District, Neighborhood House, and other public and private entities
to create a U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Choice Neighborhoods
Initiative (CNI) implementation grant application for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan. The
HUD CNI grant would potentially provide up to $30 million to support the Sunset Area
Community Revitalization efforts and the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment.
RHA has four new multi-family rental housing projects included in the Sunset Area
Transformation Plan. The four projects have a total of 229 new multi-family rental housing units,
including 157 units affordable to households at or below 60% of median income and 72 mixed-
income units affordable to households at or below 120% of median income. See the attached
map for the housing project locations.
7f. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 118 of 410
Don Persson, Council President
Page 2 of 2
December 29, 2014
The four Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects have a total budget of approximately
$75 million. If RHA secures a CNI grant, they expect to use more than $30 million in proceeds
from federal low income housing tax credits as provided for in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue
Code as part of the funding for the four housing projects.
Unfortunately, the federal low income housing tax credits use a different rent standard than
provided for in the definition of “affordable housing” in Subsection 4-1-210C.2.a, Rental Housing
Incentive. To help leverage additional public and private funds to support multi-family rental
housing development in the Sunset Area and, more specifically, to facilitate use of the federal
low income housing tax credit financing in new multi-family housing development, staff
recommends amending the “affordable housing” definition in RMC 4-1-210C.2.a. to read as
follows:
2.a. “Affordable housing” means residential housing that is rented by a low-income household
whose monthly housing costs, including rent and utilities other than telephone, do not exceed
thirty percent of the household’s monthly income. However, if the multi-family housing project
is funded with federal low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) as provided for in Section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code, a unit will be considered affordable housing if it is rented at or below the
rental rate for a household at 60% of the King County median income under the LIHTC program
rules with a deduction for utility costs, if applicable. The King County LIHTC rents are published
annually by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission and are based on unit size
assuming occupancy of 1 person for a studio unit and 1.5 persons per bedroom.
CONCLUSION:
The Renton Housing Authority plans to use more than $30 million in proceeds from federal low
income housing tax credits to help finance four Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing
projects with 229 units. Amending the definition of “affordable housing” in RMC 4-1-210C,
Rental Housing Incentive, will help leverage additional public and private funds to support
affordable multi-family rental housing development in the Sunset Area and, more specifically,
facilitate use of federal low income housing tax credit financing in new multi-family housing
development. The amendment supports the City’s vision as the “Center of Opportunity in the
Puget Sound region where businesses and families thrive” and the Sunset Area Community
Investment Strategy.
Enc.Draft Ordinance
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator
Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
Cliff Long, Economic Development Director
Mark Santos-Johnson, Community Development Project Manager
7f. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 119 of 410
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
4-1-210, WAIVED FEES, OF CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED
“CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON”, BY
AMENDING THE WAIVER OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATION FEES.
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2001, the Renton City Council approved Ordinance No. 4913
(codified in RMC 4-1-210B) to allow certain development and mitigation fees for housing that is
for sale to be waived to encourage new owner-occupied housing in Downtown Renton; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2010, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 5524 (codified
in RMC 4-1-210B) to allow certain development and mitigation fees for housing that is for sale
to be waived to encourage new owner-occupied housing in the Sunset Area; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2011, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 5617 (codified
in RMC 4-1-210C) to allow certain development and mitigation fees for rental housing to be
waived to encourage new multi-family rental housing in the Sunset Area; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2013, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 5668 to extend
the sunset for these development and mitigation fee waivers to December 31, 2015, unless
extended by City Council action; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Subsection 4-1-210B, Owner-Occupied Housing Incentive,
helped to establish the 37-unit “55 Williams” and the 50-unit “Chateau de Ville” condominium
projects as new owner-occupied housing in Downtown Renton; and
7f. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 120 of 410
ORDINANCE NO. _______
2
WHEREAS, the provisions of Subsection 4-1-210C, Rental Housing Incentive, helped to
establish the 8-unit Glennwood Avenue Townhomes project and the 18-unit Kirkland Avenue
Townhomes project in the Sunset Area as new multi-family rental housing; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to encourage additional new multi-family rental housing in the
Sunset Area; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to encourage the use of the federal low income housing tax
credit as provided for in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code to help finance new
affordable multi-family rental housing in the Sunset Area and leverage additional public and
private investment to stimulate new commercial and residential development in the Sunset
Area; and
WHEREAS, the federal low income housing tax credits use a different rent standard than
provided for in the definition of “affordable housing” in Subsection 4-1-210C.2.a, Rental
Housing Incentive; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to amend the definition of “affordable housing” to help
leverage additional public and private funds to support affordable multi-family rental housing
development in the Sunset Area and, more specifically, to facilitate use of federal low income
housing tax credit financing in new multi-family rental housing development in the Sunset Area;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Subsection 4-1-210C.2.a, Rental Housing Incentive, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260
7f. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 121 of 410
ORDINANCE NO. _______
3
entitled “Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington”, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
C. RENTAL HOUSING INCENTIVE:
2.a. “Affordable housing” means residential housing that is rented by a low-income
household whose monthly housing costs, including rent and utilities other than telephone, do
not exceed thirty percent of the household’s monthly income. However, if the multi-family
housing project is funded with federal low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) as provided for in
Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, a unit will be considered affordable housing if it is
rented at or below the rental rate for a household at 60% of the King County median income
under the LIHTC program rules with a deduction for utility costs, if applicable. The King County
LIHTC rents are published annually by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission and
are based on unit size assuming occupancy of 1 person for a studio unit and 1.5 persons per
bedroom.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty
(30) calendar days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2015.
Jason Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2015.
Denis Law, Mayor
7f. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 122 of 410
ORDINANCE NO. _______
4
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
7f. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 123 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Declare the Sunset Area as a "Redevelopment
Area" and an "Investment Priority Area"
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Draft Resolution
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Mark Santos-Johnson, ext. 6584
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning & Development Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Sunset Terrace Redevelopment is the highest priority investment strategy in the Sunset Area
Community Investment Strategy adopted in 2009. To maximize resources to assist with the Sunset Area
Community Revitalization and the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment, the City is pursuing a HUD Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative implementation grant for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation
Plan. Declaring the Sunset Area as a “Redevelopment Area” and an “Investment Priority Area” will help
leverage additional public investment for the Sunset Area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a resolution to declare the Sunset Area as a "Redevelopment Area" and an "Investment Priority
Area."
7g. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 124 of 410
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:December 29, 2014
TO:Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator (x6588)
STAFF CONTACT:Mark Santos-Johnson, Community Development Project
Manager (x6584)
SUBJECT:Declare the Sunset Area as a “Redevelopment Area” and an
“Investment Priority Area”
ISSUE:
Should the City approve a resolution to declare the Sunset Area as a “Redevelopment
Area” and an “Investment Priority Area?”
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a resolution to declare the Sunset Area as a “Redevelopment Area” and an
“Investment Priority Area.”
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Since the late 1990s, the City has viewed the Sunset Area (a.k.a. the Highlands) as a
high-priority redevelopment area targeted for improvement and investment. In
November 2009, Council adopted the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy for
the 269-acre Sunset Area study area. The highest priority investment strategy was
support for the Renton Housing Authority’s Sunset Terrace Redevelopment.
The Sunset Area is a high-priority investment area for the City and the Renton Housing
Authority (RHA). The City, Renton School District (RSD), RHA, and others have invested
or committed more than $66 million to date in public investments in the Sunset Area to
support the Sunset Area Community Revitalization and/or the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment. The City is seeking to leverage additional public investment in the
Sunset Area.
Currently, the City is working with RHA, the King County Housing Authority, RSD,
Neighborhood House, and other public and private entities to create a U.S. Housing and
Urban Development Department (HUD) Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI)
7g. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 125 of 410
Don Persson, Council President
Page 2 of 2
December 29, 2014
implementation grant application for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan. The HUD
CNI grant would potentially provide up to $30 million to support the Sunset Area
Community Revitalization efforts and the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment.
To improve the potential for Renton to secure a CNI grant for the Sunset Area
Transformation Plan, staff is requesting that Council declare the Sunset Area as a
“Redevelopment Area” and an “Investment Priority Area”. The Sunset Area
Redevelopment Area and Investment Priority area designations will help Renton’s CNI
application to be more competitive and help leverage additional public investment to
attract additional private investment to stimulate new commercial and residential
development in the neighborhood.
CONCLUSION:
The Sunset Terrace Redevelopment is the highest priority investment strategy in the
Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy adopted in 2009. To maximize resources
to assist with the Sunset Area Community Revitalization and the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment, the City is pursuing a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
implementation grant for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan.
Declaring the Sunset Area as a “Redevelopment Area” and an “Investment Priority Area”
will help leverage additional public investment for the Sunset Area.
Enc.Draft Resolution
cc:Jay Covington, CAO
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator
Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
Cliff Long, Economic Development Director
Mark Santos-Johnson, Community Development Project Manager
7g. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 126 of 410
DRAFT
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DECLARING THAT THE
SUNSET AREA IS A “REDEVELOPMENT AREA” AND “INVESTMENT PRIORITY
AREA”.
WHEREAS, the Sunset Area (as reflected in the attached Sunset Area Vicinity Map) is
one of Renton’s older commercial and residential areas and is in need of revitalization; and
WHEREAS, since the late 1990s, the City has viewed the Sunset Area (a.k.a. the
Highlands) as a high-priority redevelopment area targeted for improvement and investment;
and
WHEREAS, in December 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5061 designating
the Highlands as a “residential targeted area” for the purpose of allowing a limited property tax
exemption for qualifying new owner-occupied or rental multi-family housing in the Highlands to
help support capital investment and redevelopment in the area; and
WHEREAS, in the Fall of 2006, the City convened the Highlands Task Force on Land Use
and Zoning which resulted in the City Council adopting changes in May 2007, to the City’s land
use policies and zoning codes to stimulate redevelopment in the area; and
WHEREAS, in August 2007, the City convened the Highlands Phase II Task Force to study
additional neighborhood issues which resulted in recommendations that the City Council
prioritized and adopted in the Highlands Action Plan in early 2009; and
WHEREAS, in July 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5400 establishing the
Highlands as a designated residential targeted area for low-income housing serving households
7g. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 127 of 410
RESOLUTION NO. ________
2
at or below eighty percent (80%) of the median income to help support development of new
high-quality affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, in June 2009, the City commissioned a Community Investment Strategy study
to prioritize additional public investment in the 269-acre Sunset Area study area which resulted
in the City Council’s adoption of the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy in November
2009; and
WHEREAS, the highest priorities for the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy
included support for the Renton Housing Authority’s Sunset Terrace Redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, in February 2010, the City Council amended RMC 4-1-210 to allow the waiver
of development and mitigation fees to encourage new owned-occupied housing in the Sunset
area and help support redevelopment in the area; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the City and the Renton Housing Authority partnered together
to conduct a Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact study.
The study was completed in April 2011 and resulted in the City Council’s adoption of the Sunset
Area Community Planned Action in June 2011, to help facilitate and support private and public
investment and redevelopment in the Sunset Area over the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, in August 2011, the City Council further amended RMC 4-1-210 to allow for
the waiver of development and mitigation fees to encourage new multi-family rental housing in
the Sunset area and help support redevelopment in the area; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, 27 percent of the households in the Sunset Area lived in poverty;
the median average household income was $39,318 [more than $16,000 less than the city as a
whole ($55,950) and more than $29,000 less than King County ($68,775)]; 75 percent of the
7g. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 128 of 410
RESOLUTION NO. ________
3
students at the neighborhood elementary school qualified for free or reduced fee lunch; and 35
percent of students at the neighborhood elementary school had limited English proficiency; and
WHEREAS, in April 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution 4214 designating the
Sunset Area as an “Economic Target Area” with the intention to leverage public investment to
attract additional private investment, particularly through the federal New Markets Tax Credit
program, to stimulate new commercial and residential development in the neighborhood and
to facilitate the creation of partnerships with other public and private organizations to help
address disparities in access to education, social services, health care, and economic and
employment opportunities for Sunset Area residents; and
WHEREAS, the Sunset Area is a high-priority investment area for the City and the
Renton Housing Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City, the Renton School District, and the Renton Housing Authority have
invested or committed more than $66 million to date in public investments in the Sunset Area
to support the Sunset Area Community Revitalization and/or the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the City is seeking to leverage public and private investment in the Sunset
Area to help address the needs of Renton’s Sunset Area residents; and
WHEREAS, the City is working with the Renton Housing Authority, the King County
Housing Authority, the Renton School District, Neighborhood House, and other public and
private entities to create a U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) implementation grant application for the Sunset Area
7g. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 129 of 410
RESOLUTION NO. ________
4
Transformation Plan. The HUD CNI grant would potentially provide up to $30 million to support
the Sunset Area Community Revitalization efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.The Sunset Area is declared a “Redevelopment Area” and an “Investment
Priority Area” with the intention to leverage additional public and private investment to
stimulate new commercial and residential development in the neighborhood and to facilitate
the creation of partnerships with other public and private organizations to help address
disparities in access to education, social services, health care, and economic and employment
opportunities for Sunset Area residents.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2015.
Jason Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2015.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
7g. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 130 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Authorize Application for HUD Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative Implementation Grant for
Sunset Area Transformation Plan
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Draft Resolution
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Mark Santos-Johnson, ext. 6584
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning & Development Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Sunset Terrace Redevelopment is the highest priority investment strategy in the Sunset Area
Community Investment Strategy adopted in 2009. To maximize resources to assist with the Sunset Area
Community Revitalization and the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment, the City is pursuing a HUD Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative implementation grant for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation
Plan. Authorizing the Mayor to apply for the CNI grant funds for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan
will help facilitate and support the collaborative CNI application with RHA and KCHA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a resolution to authorize an application for a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
implementation grant for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan.
7h. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 131 of 410
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:December 29, 2014
TO:Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator (x6588)
STAFF CONTACT:Mark Santos-Johnson, Community Development Project
Manager (x6584)
SUBJECT:Authorize Application for HUD Choice Neighborhoods
Initiative Implementation Grant for Sunset Area
Transformation Plan
ISSUE:
Should the City submit a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative implementation grant
application for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a resolution to authorize an application for a HUD Choice Neighborhoods
Initiative implementation grant for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation
Plan.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Since the late 1990s, the City has viewed the Sunset Area (a.k.a. the Highlands) as a
high-priority redevelopment area targeted for improvement and investment. In
November 2009, Council adopted the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy for
the 269-acre Sunset Area study area. The highest priorities for the Sunset Area
Community Investment Strategy included support for the Renton Housing Authority’s
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment.
The City, Renton School District (RSD) and Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and others
have invested or committed more than $66 million to date in public investments in the
Sunset Area to support the Sunset Area Community Revitalization and/or the Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment. The City is seeking to leverage additional public investment in
the Sunset Area.
7h. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 132 of 410
Don Persson, Council President
Page 2 of 3
December 29, 2014
The City is currently working with RHA, the King County Housing Authority (KCHA), RSD,
Neighborhood House, and other public and private entities to create a U.S. Housing and
Urban Development Department (HUD) Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI)
implementation grant application for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area
Transformation Plan. If successful, the CNI grant would provide the following funds for
the Sunset Area Transformation Plan:
Housing – Up to $21 million for RHA’s affordable housing development in the
Sunset Area
Neighborhoods – Up to $3.75 million for eligible targeted neighborhood
improvements in the Sunset Area
People – Up to $3.75 million total over five years for “people” services for Sunset
Terrace residents and the Sunset Area community
Administration – Up to $1.5 million (5% of the grant) for administration,
reporting and accounting by the lead applicant, KCHA
To support Renton’s efforts to secure a CNI grant for the Sunset Area Transformation
Plan, staff is requesting that Council authorize the Mayor to (i) apply for funds and
prepare a HUD CNI grant application for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area
Transformation Plan in cooperation with KCHA and RHA; and (ii) sign all certifications
and provide all information required by HUD for the CNI application for the Sunset Area
Transformation Plan. Furthermore, staff is requesting that Council authorize the Mayor
for the City to be a Co-Applicant and the Neighborhood Lead for the CNI application
with RHA as a Co-Applicant and KCHA as the Lead Applicant and the Housing
Implementation Entity, a role to be fulfilled in conjunction with RHA if the CNI funds are
awarded.
The HUD CNI funds would provide substantial public investment in the Sunset Area, help
facilitate the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment, provide significant neighborhood and
people enhancements, and help leverage additional public and private investment to
stimulate new commercial and residential development in the Sunset Area.
CONCLUSION:
The Sunset Terrace Redevelopment is the highest priority investment strategy in the
Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy adopted in 2009. To maximize resources
to assist with the Sunset Area Community Revitalization and the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment, the City is pursuing a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
implementation grant for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan.
Authorizing the Mayor to apply for the CNI grant funds for the Sunset Area
Transformation Plan will help facilitate and support the collaborative CNI application
with RHA and KCHA.
7h. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 133 of 410
Don Persson, Council President
Page 3 of 3
December 29, 2014
Enc.Draft Resolution
cc:Jay Covington, CAO
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator
Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
Cliff Long, Economic Development Director
Mark Santos-Johnson, Community Development Project Manager
7h. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 134 of 410
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING AN
APPLICATION FOR A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTATION
GRANT FOR THE SUNSET AREA TRANSFORMATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Sunset Area (as reflected in the attached Sunset Area Vicinity
Map) is one of Renton’s older commercial and residential areas and is in need of
revitalization; and
WHEREAS, since the late 1990s, the City has viewed the Sunset Area (a.k.a. the
Highlands) as a high-priority redevelopment area targeted for improvement and
investment; and
WHEREAS, in June 2009, the City commissioned a Community Investment
Strategy study to prioritize additional public investment in the 269-acre Sunset Area
study area which resulted in the City Council’s adoption of the Sunset Area Community
Investment Strategy in November 2009; and
WHEREAS, the highest priorities for the Sunset Area Community Investment
Strategy included support for the Renton Housing Authority’s Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the City and the Renton Housing Authority partnered
together to conduct a Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA
Environmental Impact study. The study was completed in April 2011 and resulted in
the City Council’s adoption of the Sunset Area Community Planned Action in June 2011,
7h. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 135 of 410
to help facilitate and support private and public investment and redevelopment in the
Sunset Area over the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, 27 percent of the households in the Sunset Area lived in
poverty; the median average household income was $39,318 [more than $16,000 less
than the city as a whole ($55,950) and more than $29,000 less than King County
($68,775)]; 75 percent of the students at the neighborhood elementary school qualified
for free or reduced fee lunch; and 35 percent of students at the neighborhood
elementary school had limited English proficiency; and
WHEREAS, the Sunset Area is a high-priority investment area for the City and the
Renton Housing Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City, the Renton School District, and the Renton Housing
Authority have invested or committed more than $66 million to date in public
investments in the Sunset Area to support the Sunset Area Community Revitalization
and/or the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the City is seeking to leverage public and private investment in the
Sunset Area to help address the needs of Renton’s Sunset Area residents; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
issued a Notice of Fund Availability for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI)
Implementation Grant Program and applications are due February 9, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the purposes of the CNI funds are to: (1) replace distressed public
housing and assisted housing with high quality mixed income housing, (2) improve
educational outcomes and intergenerational mobility for youth and their families and
7h. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 136 of 410
(3) create the conditions necessary for public and private investment in distressed
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the City and Renton Housing Authority have asked the King County
Housing Authority (KCHA) to join them in a mutual effort to apply for the CNI grant and,
if successful, for KCHA to administer the CNI grant and build mixed income housing
primarily in the Sunset Area of Renton; and
WHEREAS, the City is working with the Renton Housing Authority, the King
County Housing Authority, the Renton School District, Neighborhood House, and other
public and private entities to create a HUD CNI implementation grant application for the
Sunset Area Transformation Plan. The CNI grant would potentially provide up to $30
million to support the Sunset Area Community Revitalization efforts;
WHEREAS, the City, the Renton Housing Authority, and the Renton School
District have taken significant steps towards planning and implementing substantial
housing and neighborhood improvements already in the Sunset Area, including: (i)
construction completed for the Meadow Crest Early Learning Center, the Meadow Crest
Playground, and 26 units of new affordable housing; (ii) construction under way for a
new Renton Highlands Library, the Harrington Green Connection and water main
improvements, and the Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility; and (iii) relocation
of residents from the Sunset Terrace distressed public housing development;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
7h. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 137 of 410
SECTION I.The Mayor is authorized to (i) apply for funds and prepare a U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
(CNI) grant application for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan in
cooperation with the King County Housing Authority and the Renton Housing Authority;
and (ii) sign all certifications and provide all information required by HUD for the CNI
application for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan. The Mayor is further authorized
for the City to be a Co-Applicant and the Neighborhood Lead for the CNI application
with the Renton Housing Authority as a Co-Applicant and the King County Housing
Authority as the Lead Applicant and the Housing Implementation Entity, a role to be
fulfilled in conjunction with the Renton Housing Authority if the CNI funds are awarded.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2015.
Jason Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2015.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
7h. - Community and Economic
Development Department recommends Page 138 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Request for Fee Waiver - Renton Housing
Authority Sunset Area Transformation Plan
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Sunset Area Transformation Plan Housing Strategy
by Phase (Housing Project Map)
Sunset Area Transformation Plan Housing Project
Waived Fees worksheet
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Mark Santos-Johnson
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning & Development Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
RHA’s four Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects meet the criteria for waiver of certain
development and mitigation fees as provided for in RMC 4-1-210C, Rental Housing Incentive. By
providing the fee waiver for the 229 units as leverage for and contingent upon receipt of the HUD
Choice Neighborhoods Initiative implementation grant application, the City’s commitment will help
facilitate and support the collaborative CNI application between the City, the Renton Housing Authority,
and the King County Housing Authority for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan. The fee waiver will
assist RHA in securing CNI grant funds to construct all four of the Sunset Area Transformation Plan
housing projects in five years rather than 15 to 20 years based on other available funding. The
requested fee waiver for RHA’s four housing projects in the Sunset Area Transformation Plan supports
the City’s vision as the “Center of Opportunity in the Puget Sound region where businesses and families
thrive” and the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a 100% waiver of the development and mitigation fees as provided for in RMC 4-1-210C for
the Renton Housing Authority’s four Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects with a total of
229 housing units. The fee waivers will be contingent upon the receipt of a HUD Choice Neighborhoods
Initiative implementation grant and will expire on December 31, 2020, unless otherwise extended by the
Council.
7i. - Community and Economic
Development Department requests Page 139 of 410
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:December 29, 2014
TO:Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator (x 6588)
STAFF CONTACT:Mark Santos-Johnson, Community Development Project
Manager (x6584)
SUBJECT:Request for Fee Waiver – Renton Housing Authority Sunset
Area Transformation Plan
ISSUE:
Should the City waive certain development and mitigation fees for the Renton Housing
Authority’s Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a 100% waiver of the development and mitigation fees as provided for in RMC 4-1-210C
for the Renton Housing Authority’s four Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects with a
total of 229 housing units. The fee waivers will be contingent upon the receipt of a HUD Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative implementation grant and will expire on December 31, 2020, unless
otherwise extended by the Council.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The City is currently working with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA), the King County Housing
Authority, the Renton School District, Neighborhood House, and other public and private entities
to create a U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Choice Neighborhoods
Initiative (CNI) implementation grant application for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan. The
HUD CNI grant would potentially provide up to $30 million to support the Sunset Area
Community Revitalization efforts and the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment.
To prepare for the CNI application, RHA has requested a waiver of the development and
mitigation fees for the following four new multi-family rental housing projects included in the
Sunset Area Transformation Plan:
7i. - Community and Economic
Development Department requests Page 140 of 410
Don Persson, Council President
Page 2 of 4
December 29, 2014
Sunset Terrace Apartments:
Total Units – 41
Units Affordable to Households below 60% of median income – 29 units
Percentage of units that are affordable – 70%
Site zoning – Center Village
Suncrest Homes/Sunset Court
Total Units – 66
Units Affordable to Households below 60% of median income – 41 units
Percentage of units that are affordable – 62%
Site zoning – Center Village
Harrington Park
Total Units – 10
Units Affordable to Households below 60% of median income – 10 units
Percentage of units that are affordable – 100%
Site zoning – R-14
Edmonds Apartments
Total Units – 112
Units Affordable to Households below 60% of median income – 77 units
Percentage of units that are affordable – 68%
Site zoning – Center Village
The four projects have a total of 229 new multi-family rental housing units, including 157 units
affordable to households at or below 60% of median income and 72 mixed-income units
affordable to households at or below 120% of median income. See the attached map for the
housing project locations.
RHA plans to develop all four housing projects over the next five years IF Renton can secure a
HUD CNI grant. The agency is requesting the fee waivers be approved now so that they can be
considered committed funding for leverage to be included in the CNI grant application for the
Sunset Area Transformation Plan that is being submitted to HUD in early-February, 2015. This
committed funding will significantly improve the City and RHA’s chances of being successful in
the CNI grant competition.
RHA’s four Sunset Area Transformation Plan projects are included in the Sunset Terrace Master
Site Plan that the Council will be acting on in January 2015. The projects all meet the
requirements of the RMC 4-1-210C, Waived Fees – Rental Housing Incentive, for a waiver of
100% of the applicable fees, including:
i.Minimum number of units (either 30 units in the CV zone or 8 units in the R-14 zone);
ii.Minimum percentage of affordable units (at least 50%); and
7i. - Community and Economic
Development Department requests Page 141 of 410
Don Persson, Council President
Page 3 of 4
December 29, 2014
iii.Minimum number of units per building (4 or more),
RHA has committed to provide 100 replacement units for the Sunset Terrace public housing
project, plus 150 additional affordable and mixed-income units. Although they have completed
two small Sunset Terrace replacement housing projects in the Sunset Area, none of RHA’s other
housing pipeline projects are funded at this time. CNI grant funds would allow RHA to complete
all four of the Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects in five years rather than 15 to 20
years based on other available funding. This is particularly important since support of the Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment was the City’s highest priority strategy in the Sunset Area Community
Investment Strategy adopted in 2009.
The “Waived Fees - Rental Housing Incentive,” RMC 4-1-201C, was adopted on August 1, 2011, in
order to encourage new rental housing in the CV, RM-F, and R-14 zones within the Center Village
Comprehensive Plan designation. The fee waiver is intended to provide an incentive for
redevelopment in the Sunset Area and encourage new multi-family rental housing.
As provided for in RMC 4-1-210C, RHA has requested that the following fees be waived for the
four Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects: building permits fees; building permit
plan review fees; water, surface water, and wastewater system development charges; Public
Works plan review and inspection fees; and fire, transportation, and parks impact mitigation
fees.
The value of the requested fee waiver is approximately $1,913,194 for the four projects as
reflected in the attached worksheet – based on the City’s 2016 projected fee schedule. However,
the actual fee waiver may vary if the City’s fees and/or the particulars of the projects change in
the future. This City funding will leverage more than $73 million in capital funding for these four
projects, for a ratio of more than $38 leveraged for every City fee dollar waived. The fee waivers
represent an average savings of $8,355 per unit to help facilitate affordable housing
development in the Sunset Area.
The City’s fee waivers are contingent upon the receipt of a HUD CNI implementation grant for
the Sunset Area Transformation Plan and will expire on December 31, 2020, unless otherwise
extended by the Council. However, the total estimated fee waiver amount of $1,913,194 will be
included in the City’s leverage CNI commitment letter to HUD with the waived fees contingent
upon receipt of the CNI grant.
Per RMC 4-1-210C5, a fee waiver request for an eligible project must be made prior to or by the
administrative site plan review period unless otherwise approved by the Council. The four
Sunset Area Transformation Plan projects are included in the Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan.
Although RHA plans to submit more detailed site information for each housing project in the
future, staff recommends that the Council approve RHA’s request at this time.
Per RMC 4-1-210C6, RHA is required to execute and record a restrictive covenant regarding the
affordable housing unit set aside after the Council approves the fee waiver and before the
7i. - Community and Economic
Development Department requests Page 142 of 410
Don Persson, Council President
Page 4 of 4
December 29, 2014
project is issued a building permit, unless otherwise approved by the Council. RHA plans to
record restrictive covenants on the sites to guarantee affordability for 40 years before each
project is issued a building permit.
CONCLUSION:
RHA’s four Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects meet the criteria for waiver of
certain development and mitigation fees as provided for in RMC 4-1-210C, Rental Housing
Incentive. By providing the fee waiver for the 229 units as leverage for and contingent upon
receipt of the HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative implementation grant application, the City’s
commitment will help facilitate and support the collaborative CNI application between the City,
the Renton Housing Authority, and the King County Housing Authority for the Sunset Area
Transformation Plan. The fee waiver will assist RHA in securing CNI grant funds to construct all
four of the Sunset Area Transformation Plan housing projects in five years rather than 15 to 20
years based on other available funding. The requested fee waiver for RHA’s four housing
projects in the Sunset Area Transformation Plan supports the City’s vision as the “Center of
Opportunity in the Puget Sound region where businesses and families thrive” and the Sunset
Area Community Investment Strategy.
Enc.Sunset Area Transformation Plan Housing Strategy by Phase (Housing Project Map)
Sunset Area Transformation Plan Housing Project Waived Fees worksheet
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator
Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
Mark Peterson, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator
Cliff Long, Economic Development Director
Mark Santos-Johnson, Community Development Project Manager
7i. - Community and Economic
Development Department requests Page 143 of 410
T900
NE 10TH ST
NE 12TH ST REDMONDPLNENE 19TH ST
NE 6TH PL
NE 5TH PL
NE 17TH PL 126THAVESEQUEENPLNEN E 9TH PL
B R O NSON
W
AYNENE 9TH ST
NE 17TH ST
DAYTONAVENESUNSETBLVDNENE 6TH CT HARRINGTONAVENE
ABERDEEN AVE NENE 5TH CTNESUNSETBLVDOLYMPIA AVE NEFERND
A
L
E
AVENENE 13TH PL
QUEE
NAVENEFERNDA
L
ECIRNENE 7TH S T
I
NDEXPLNEMONROEAVENENE1 5THSTHIL L T OPA PARTMENTSAC RDGLENNWOODAVENE
SE 104TH ST
KIR
K
L
ANDAVENEKIR
K
LANDPLNEPIERCEAVENENE 6TH STHARRINGTON PL NENE 11TH ST
NE 10TH PL
HILLC
RESTLNNENE 18TH ST
N E 1 3THSTREDMONDAVENE
S
U
N
SETLNN ECAMAS PL NENE 20TH ST
HARRINGTO N CIRNE
NE 8TH ST
INDEXCTNEDAYTON CT NEEDMONDS AVE NEFERNDALEPLNEN E 8 T H P LPIERCE PL NEI
NDEXAVENEN E 1 6 THALY
NE 10TH CT
NE 7TH PLBLAINE AVE NENE 11TH PL
NE 9TH ALY NE16TH S T
HARRINGTON ALY NECAMASALYNEFERNDA LEALYNEC
A
MASAVENE
NE6THPLALY DAYTONALYNE PRIVATE RDNE 10TH ALY
NE 10TH LNJEFFERSON AVE NEN E P A R K DR
LYNNWOODAVENE111111
240908 2401 1 1
1 1 1105
909
9 5 2 E E 908909
105909
9 2 5
1 6 7
909
240AS
105
909
North HighlandsPark andNeighborhood Center
Highlands Parkand NeighborhoodCenter
May CreekPark´
0 500 1,000250Feet
SUNSET AREA TRANSFORMATION PLANHOUSING STRATEGY BY PHASEDocument Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\Sunset Area\mxds\Choice Neighborhood Grant Application\16B-Housing Strategy by Phase.mxdDate: 12/24/2014
Attachment 21
City Limits
Sunset Area Boundary
Sunset 0.5 Miles radii
kj Health_Care_0.5 miles from Sunset Projects Phase II-IV
")Services 0.5 mile from Proposed Projects
Other Business 0.5 miles from Proposed Projects Phase II-IV
Æa Bus Stop
¯`Park and Ride Station
Proposed Project by Phase
Phase, Project Name
I, Vantage Point
II, Edmonds Apartments
II, Suncrest Homes
II, Sunset Court
III, Harrington Park
IV, Golden Pine Apartments
IV, Sunset Terrace Apartments
All Other Bus Routes
Connect to Renton Transit Center
Connect to Sounder Commuter Rail Tukwila Station
Connect to LINK Light Rail Station
Connect to Sounder Commuter Rail Kent Station
7i. - Community and Economic
Development Department requests Page 144 of 410
7i. - Community and Economic
Development Department requests Page 145 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Cedar River Gabion Repair - Retention Pay
Application
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Notice of Completion
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community Services
Staff Contact:
Todd Black, x-6571
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 10,398.50 Transfer Amendment: $N/A
Amount Budgeted: $ 227,727.15 Revenue Generated: $N/A
Total Project Budget: $ 227,727.15 City Share Total Project: $ 10,398.50
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Community Services Department submits CAG-14-100, Cedar River Gabion Repair, for release of
retainage. the work commenced on July 31, 2014 and was accepted on September 15, 2014. The
contractor, Jansen Inc., completed the terms of their contract by installing new gabions along the Cedar
River.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the project, and release the retained amount of $10,398.50. All required lien releases have
been obtained.
7j. - Community Services Department
submits CAG-14-100, Cedar River Gabion Page 146 of 410
7j. - Community Services Department submits CAG-14-100, Cedar River Gabion Page 147 of 410
7j. - Community Services Department submits CAG-14-100, Cedar River Gabion Page 148 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Request to Fill Public Works Department Lead
Water Utility Pump Station Mechanic Position
(Grade A18) at Step E of the 2015 Salary Schedule
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Gregg Zimmerman, Ext. 7311
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $118,787 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $118,787 Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Authorization is requested to fill the Public Works Maintenance Services Division Lead Water Utility
Pump Station Mechanic position (Grade A18) at Step E of the 2015 Salary Schedule. City Policy 300-41
requires that Council approve the filling of positions at salary ranges above Step C. As a requirement of
this position the selected candidate must possess a current Washington State Journeyman Electrician’s
Card, in addition to advanced levels of knowledge, experience and skill in the electrical field. Based on
the quantity and quality of applications received when the position was initially posted in November, it
is evident the Public Works Department needs to be prepared to offer the maximum compensation
package available to a well-qualified applicant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Public Works Department Maintenance Services Division to hire its Lead Water Utility
Pump Station Mechanic position (Grade A18) at Step E of the salary schedule.
7k. - Public Works Department requests
authorization to fill a Lead Water Utility Page 149 of 410
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:December 19, 2014
TO:Ed Prince, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator, Ext. 7311
SUBJECT:Request to Fill Public Works Department Maintenance
Services Division Lead Water Utility Pump Station Mechanic
Position (Grade A18) at Step E of the 2015 Salary Schedule
ISSUE:
Should authorization be granted to the Public Works Department Maintenance Services
Division to fill its Lead Water Utility Pump Station Mechanic position (Grade A18) at
Step E of the 2015 Salary Schedule?
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Public Works Department Maintenance Services Division to fill its Lead
Water Utility Pump Station Mechanic position (Grade A18) at Step E of the 2015 Salary
Schedule.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The Public Works Department Maintenance Services Division has accepted a letter of
intent to retire effective January 15 from the current Lead Water Utility Pump Station
Mechanic. The incumbent is a 13-year city employee with institutional knowledge of
the city’s well houses and lift stations and is responsible for the installation,
maintenance, operation and repair of the electrical equipment and water quality
systems, including the chemical feed pump systems within the water treatment plants
and distribution systems. This position requires specific skills and licenses, including
possession of a Washington State Journeyman Electrician’s Card.
City Policy 300-41 requires that Council approve the filling of positions at salary ranges
above Step C. Based on the quantity and quality of applications received when the
position was initially posted in November, it is evident the Public Works Department
7k. - Public Works Department requests
authorization to fill a Lead Water Utility Page 150 of 410
Ed Prince, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 2
December 19, 2014
needs to be prepared to offer the maximum compensation package available to a
well-qualified applicant. Only two of the applicants possessed a Washington State
Journeyman Electrician’s Card. One of the applicants opted out of the selection process
and did not interview and the second declined the position even at Step E compensation
level. The position has now been advertised once again by Human Resources and will
remain open until filled. In the interim the Maintenance Services Division is prepared to
contract with an electrician as needed, however the city will not have the control or
guarantee that the electrician will be available should an emergency occur at one of our
well houses or lift stations, which could result in temporary shutdown of the affected
facility and impact our residents and businesses.
Since the retiring Lead Water Utility Pump Station Mechanic is currently receiving a
salary at Grade A18, Step E ($6002/month based on the 2015 Salary Schedule), hiring
the new staff member at Grade A18, Step E (also $6002/month) will have no additional
fiscal impact on the Public Works Maintenance 2015-2016 biennium budget. While this
expenditure is within the budget, hiring a desirable candidate at Step E versus Step C
will increase the cost in 2015 by $7,140.
CONCLUSION:
The Public Works Department recommends authorization to fill the Lead Water Utility
Pump Station Mechanic position (Grade A18) at Step E of the salary schedule to ensure
the city is able to hire the best qualified candidate who possesses the required licenses
and certifications for the position. Based on the quantity and quality of applications
received when the position was initially posted in November, it is evident the Public
Works Department needs to be prepared to offer the maximum compensation package
available to secure a well-qualified applicant.
cc:Nancy Carlson, Human Resources/Risk Management Administrator
Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator
Mike Stenhouse, Maintenance Services Division Director
George Stahl, Water Maintenance Manager
Cathryn Laird, Human Resources Manager
Craig Pray, Water Utility Maintenance Supervisor
Hai Nguyen, Finance Analyst
Brian Sandler, Human Resources Analyst
Carolyn Kraft, Human Resources Assistant
7k. - Public Works Department requests
authorization to fill a Lead Water Utility Page 151 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Duvall Avenue Northeast (Northeast 4th Street
to Northeast 10th Street) Preservation Project
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Local Agency Agreement
Local Agency Federal Aid Project Prospectus
Map
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Juliana Fries, Program Development Coordinator, x
7232
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $241,000.00 Revenue Generated: $$1,237,000.00
Total Project Budget: $ $2,097,000.00 City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Duvall Avenue Northeast (Northeast 4th Street to Northeast 10th Street) Preservation Project was
selected under the countywide selection process for a federal Surface Transportation Program (STP)
grant of $1,237,000.
This grant will provide for the resurfacing of Duvall Avenue Northeast, with plans and bid documents
prepared in 2015 and construction in 2016. The overall condition of the pavement will be improved on
this north-south arterial. This grant requires a 13.5% match. Local funding for the match is from the
Arterial Rehabilitation Program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Local Agency Agreement with the Washington
State Department of Transportation for the obligation of grant funding and all subsequent agreements
necessary to accomplish this project.
7l. - Transportation Systems Division
requests approval of a Local Agency Page 152 of 410
tansportatioaLocalAgencyAgreementAgencyCityofRentonCFDANo.20.205(CatalogofFederalDomesticAssistance)Address1055SGradyWayProjectNo._____________________________Renton,WA98057AgreementNo._________________________________________________________________ForOSCWSDOTUseOnlyTheLocalAgencyhavingcomplied,orherebyagreeingtocomply,withthetermsandconditionssetforthin(I)Title23,U.S.CodeHighways,(2)theregulationsissuedpursuantthereto,(3)2CFR225,(4)OfficeofManagementandBudgetCircularsA-102,andA-133,(5)thepoliciesandprocedurespromulgatedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation,and(6)thefederalaidprojectagreemententeredintobetweentheStateandFederalGovernment,relativetotheaboveproject,theWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationwillauthorizetheLocalAgencytoproceedontheprojectbyaseparatenotification.Federalfundswhicharetobeobligatedfortheprojectmaynotexceedtheamountshownhereinonliner,column3,withoutwrittenauthoritybytheState,subjecttotheapprovaloftheFederalHighwayAdministration.AllprojectcostsnotreimbursedbytheFederalGovernmentshallbetheresponsibilityoftheLocalAgency.ProjectDescriptionNameDuvallAveNELength0.7mlTerminiNE4thSttoNE10thStDescriptionofWorkThisprojectwillresurfaceDuvallAveNEProposedAdvertisementDate:N/AEstimateofFundingTvneofWork(1)(2)(3)‘‘EstimatedTotalEstimatedAgencyEstimatedProjectFundsFundsFederalFundsPEa.Agency20,0002,70017,30086.5%°‘b.OtherConsultant139,16218,787120,375•c.OtherNon-participation76,83876,838dd.State5,0006754,325RatioforPEe.TotalPECostEstimate(a+b+c+d)24100099,000142,000RightofWayfAgency°“°ci.Other•h.OtherFederalAidParticipationI.RatioforRWj.TotalR/WCostEstimate(f+g+h+i)Constructionk.ContractI._Otherm._Othern.Other0/°o.AgencyFederalAidParticipationRatioforCNg.TotalCNCostEstimate(k+l+m+n+o+p)r.TotalProjectCostEstimate(e+j+q)241,00099,000142,000AgencyOfficialWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationBy______________________________________________By_______________________________________TitleMayolCityofRentonDirectorofLocalPrograms_________________________________________________DateExecuted_________________________________DOTForm140-039EF1Revised03/20147l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 153 of 410
ConstructionMethodofFinancing(CheckMethodSelected)StateAdandAwardElMethodA-AdvancePayment-AgencyShareoftotalconstructioncost(basedoncontractaward)ElMethodB-WithholdfromgastaxtheAgency’sshareoftotalconstructioncost(line4,column2)intheamountof$______________________at$____________________permonthfor________________months.LocalForceorLocalAdandAwardiiMethodC-AoencvcostincurredwithoartialreimbursementTheLocalAgencyfurtherstipulatesthatpursuanttosaidTitle23,regulationsandpoliciesandprocedures,andasaconditiontopaymentofthefederalfundsobligated,itacceptsandwillcomplywiththeapplicableprovisionssetforthbelow.Adoptedbyofficialactionon________________________________________Resolution/OrdinanceNo._________________________ProvisionsI.ScopeofWorkTheAgencyshallprovideallthework,labor,materials,andservicesnecessarytoperformtheprojectwhichisdescribedandsetforthindetailinthe“ProjectDescription”and‘TypeofWork.”WhentheStateactsforandonbehalfoftheAgency,theStateshallbedeemedanagentoftheAgencyandshallperformtheservicesdescribedandindicatedin“TypeofWork”onthefaceofthisagreement,inaccordancewithplansandspecificationsasproposedbytheAgencyandapprovedbytheStateandtheFederalHighwayAdministration.WhentheStateactsfortheAgencybutisnotsubjecttotherightofcontrolbytheAgency.theStateshallhavetherighttoperformtheworksubjecttotheordinaryproceduresoftheStateandFederalHighwayAdministration.II.DelegationofAuthorityTheStateiswillingtofulfilltheresponsibilitiestotheFederalGovernmentbytheadministrationofthisproject.TheAgencyagreesthattheStateshallhavethefullauthoritytocarryoutthisadministration.TheStateshallreview,process,andapprovedocumentsrequiredforfederalaidreimbursementinaccordancewithfederalrequirements.IftheStateadvertisesandawardsthecontract,theStatewillfurtheractfortheAgencyinallmattersconcerningtheprojectasrequestedbytheAgency.iftheLocalAgencyadvertisesandawardstheproject,theSlateshallreviewtheworktoensureconformitywiththeapprovedplansandspecifications.Ill.ProjectAdministrationCertaintypesofworkandservicesshallbeprovidedbytheStateonthisprojectasrequestedbytheAgencyanddescribedintheTypeofWorkabove.Inaddition,theStatewillfurnishqualifiedpersonnelforthesupervisionandinspectionoftheworkinprogress.OnLocalAgencyadvertisedandawardedprojects,thesupervisionandinspectionshallbelimitedtoensuringallworkisinconformancewithapprovedplans.specifications.andfederalaidrequirements.ThesalaryofsuchengineerorothersupervisorandallothersalariesandcostsincurredbyStateforcesupontheprojectwillheconsideredacostthereof.AllcostsrelatedtothisprojectincurredbyemployeesoftheStateinthecustomarymanneronhighwaypayrollsandvouchersshallbechargedascostsoftheproject.IV.AvailabilityofRecordsAllprojectrecordsinsupportofallcostsincurredandactualexpenditureskeptbytheAgencyaretobemaintainedinaccordancewithlocalgovernmentaccountingproceduresprescribedbytheWashingtonStateAuditor’sOffice,theU.S.DepartmentofTransportation.andtheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.TherecordsshallbeopentoinspectionbytheStateandFederalGovernmentatallreasonabletimesandshallberetainedandmadeavailableforsuchinspectionforaperiodofnotlessthanthreeyearsfromthefinalpaymentofanyfederalaidfundstotheAgency.CopiesofsaidrecordsshallbefurnishedtotheStateand/orFederalGovernmentuponrequest.V.CompliancewithProvisionsTheAgencyshallnotincuranyfederalaidparticipationcostsonanyclassificationofworkonthisprojectuntilauthorizedinwritingbytheStateforeachclassification.Theclassificationsofworkforprojectsare:I.Preliminaryengineering.2.Rightofwayacquisition.3.Projectconstruction.Oncewrittenauthorizationisgiven,theAgencyagreestoshowcontinuousprogressthroughmonthlybillings.FailuretoshowcontinuousprogressmayresulttheAgency’sprojectbecominginactive,asdescribedin23CFR630.andsubjecttode-obligationoffederalaidfundsandJoragreementclosure.Ifrightofwayacquisition,oractualconstructionoftheroadforwhichpreliminaryengineeringisundertakenisnotstartedbythecloseofthetenthfiscalyearfollowingthefiscalyearinwhichpreliminaryengineeringphasewasauthorized,theAgencywillrepaytotheStatethesumorsumsoffederalfundspaidtotheAgencyunderthetermsofthisagreement(seeSectionIX).Ifactualconstructionoftheroadforwhichrightofwayhasbeenpurchasedisnotstartedbythecloseofthetenthfiscalyearfollowingthefiscalyearinwhichtherightofwayphasewasauthorized,theAgencywillrepaytotheStatethesumorsumsoffederalfundspaidtotheAgencyunderthetermsofthisagreement(seeSectionIX).DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/20147l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 154 of 410
TheAgencyagreesthatallstagesofconstructionnecessarytoprovidetheinitiallyplannedcompletefacilitywithinthelimitsofthisprojectvillconformtoatleasttheminimumvaluesseabyapprovedstatewidedesignstandardsapplicabletothisclassofhighways.eventhoughsuchadditionalworkisfinancedwithoutfederalaidparticipation.TheAgencyagreesthatonfederalaidhighwayconstructionprojects,thecurrentfederalaidregulationswhichapplytoliquidateddamagesrelativetothebasisoffederalparticipationintheprojectcostshallbeapplicableintheeventthecontractorfailstocompletethecontractwithinthecontracttime.VI.PaymentandPartialReimbursementThetotalcostoftheproject.includingallreviewandengineeringcostsandotherexpensesoftheState,istobepaidbytheAgencyandbytheFederalGovernment.FederalfundingshallbeinaccordancewiththeFederalTransportationAct,asamended,2CFR225andOfficeofManagementandBudgetcircularsA-I02andA-133.TheStateshallnotbeultimatelyresponsibleforanyofthecostsoftheproject.TheAgencyshallbeultimatelyresponsibleforallcostsassociatedwiththeprojectwhicharenotreimbursedbytheFederalGovernment.NothinginthisagreementshallbeconstruedasapromisebytheStateastotheamountornatureoffederalparticipationinthisproject.TheAgencyshallbillthestateforfideralaidprojectcostsincurredinconformitywithapplicablefederalandstatelaws.Theagencyshallminimizethetimeelapsedbetweenreceiptoffederalaidfundsandsubsequentpaymentofincurredcosts.ExpendituresbytheLocalAgencyformaintenance,generaladministration.supervision,andotheroverheadshallnotbeeligibleforfederalparticipationunlessacurrentindirectcostplanhasbeenpreparedinaccordancewiththeregulationsoutlinedin2CFR225-CostPrinciplesforState,Local,andIndianTribalGovernment,andretainedforaudit.TheStatewillpayforStateincurredcostsontheproject.Followingpayment,theStateshallbilltheFederalGovernmentforreimbursementofthosecostseligibleforfederalparticipationtotheextentthatsuchcostsareattributableandproperlyallocabletothisproject.TheStateshallbilltheAgencyforthatportionofStatecostswhichwerenotreimbursedbytheFederalGovernment(seeSectionIX).I.ProjectConstructionCostsProjectconstructionfinancingwillbeaccomplishedbyoneofthethreemethodsasindicatedinthisagreement.MethodA—TheAgencywillplacewiththeState,within(20)daysaftertheexecutionoftheconstructioncontract,anadvanceintheamountoftheAgency’sshareofthetotalconstructioncostbasedonthecontractaward.TheStatewillnotifytheAgencyoftheexactamounttobedepositedwiththeState.TheStatewillpayallcostsincurredunderthecontractuponpresentationofprogressbillingsfromthecontractor.Followingsuchpayments,theStatewillsubmitabillingtotheFederalGovernmentforthefederalaidparticipationshareofthecost.Whentheprojectissubstantiallycompletedandfinalactualcostsoftheprojectcanbedetermined,theStatewillpresenttheAgencywithafinalbillingshowingtheamountduetheStateortheamountduetheAgency.ThisbillingwillbeclearedbyeitherapaymentfromtheAgencytotheStateorbyarefundfromtheStatetotheAgency.MethodB—TheAgency’sshareofthetotalconstructioncostasshownonthefaceofthisagreementshallbewithheldfromitsmonthlyfueltaxallotments.Thefaceofthisagreementestablishesthemonthsinwhichthewithholdingshalltakeplaceandtheexactamounttobewithheldeachmonth.TheextentofwithholdingwillbeconfirmedbyletterfromtheStateatthetimeofcontractaward.Uponreceiptofprogressbillingsfromthecontractor,theStatewillsubmitsuchbillingstotheFederalGovernmentforpaymentofitsparticipatingportionofsuchbillings.MethodC—TheAgencymaysubmitvoucherstotheStateintheformatprescribedbytheState,induplicate,notmorethanoncepermonthforthosecostseligibleforFederalparticipationtotheextentthatsuchcostsaredirectlyattributableandproperlyallocabletothisproject.ExpendituresbytheLocalAgencyformaintenance,generaladministration,supervision,andotheroverheadshallnotbeeligibleforFederalparticipationunlessclaimedunderapreviouslyapprovedindirectcostplan.TheStateshallreimbursetheAgencyfortheFederalshareofeligibleprojectcostsuptotheamountshownonthefaceofthisagreement.Atthetimeofaudit,theAgencywillprovidedocumentationofallcostsincurredontheproject.TheStateshallbilltheAgencyforallcostsincurredbytheStaterelativetotheproject.TheStateshallalsobilltheAgencyforthefederalfundspaidbytheStatetotheAgencyforprojectcostswhicharesubsequentlydeterminedtobeineligibleforfederalparticipation(seeSectionIX).VII.AuditofFederalConsultantContractsTheAgency,ifservicesofaconsultantarerequired.shallberesponsibleforauditoftheconsultant’srecordstodetermineeligiblefederalaidcostsontheproject.ThereportofsaidauditshallbeintheAgency’sfilesandmadeavailabletotheStateandtheFederalGovernment.AnauditshallbeconductedbytheWSDOTInternalAuditOfficeinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedgovernmentalauditingstandardsasissuedbytheUnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOfficebytheComptrollerGeneraloftheUnitedStates;WSDOTManualM27-50,ConsultantAuthorization,Selection,andAgreementAdministration;memorandaofunderstandingbetweenWSDOTandFI-IWA;andOfficeofManagementandBudgetCircularA-l33.Ifuponaudititisfoundthatoverpaymentorparticipationoffederalmoneyinineligibleitemsofcosthasoccurred,theAgencyshallreimbursetheStatefortheamountofsuchoverpaymentorexcessparticipation(seeSectionlx).VIII.SingleAuditActTheAgency.asasubrecipientoffederalfunds,shalladheretothefederalOfficeofManagementandBudget(0MB)CircularA-I33aswellasallapplicablefederalandstatestatutesandregulations.Asubrecipientwhoexpends$500,000ormoreinfederalawardsfromallsourcesduringagivenfiscalyearshallhaveasingleorprogram-specificauditperformedforthatyearinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof0MBCircularA-133.UponconclusionoftheA-l33audit,theAgencyshallberesponsibleforensuringthatacopyofthereportistransmittedpromptlytotheState.IX.PaymentofBillingTheAgencyagreesthatifpaymentorarrangementforpaymentofanyoftheState’sbillingrelativetotheproject(e.g.,Stateforcework,projectcancellation,overpayment,costineligibleforfederalparticipation,etc.)isnotmadetotheStatewithin45daysaftertheAgencyhasbeenbilled,theStateshalleffectreimbursementofthetotalsumduefromtheregularmonthlyfueltaxallotmentstotheAgencyfromtheMotorVehicleFund.NoadditionalFederalprojectfundingwillbeapproveduntilfullpaymentisreceivedunlessotherwisedirectedbytheDirectorofLocalPrograms.DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/201437l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 155 of 410
X.TrafficControl,Signing,Marking,andRoadwayMaintenanceTheAgencywillnotpermitanychangestobemadeintheprovisionsforparkingregulationsandtrafficcontrolonthisprojectwithoutpriorapprovaloftheStateandFederalHighwayAdministration.TheAgencywillnotinstallorpermittobeinstalledanysigns,signals,ormarkingsnotinconformancewiththestandardsapprovedbytheFederalHighwayAdministrationandMUTCD.TheAgencywill,atitsownexpense.maintaintheimprovementcoveredbythisagreement.XI.IndemnityTheAgencyshallholdtheFederalGovernmentandtheStateharmlessfromandshallprocessanddefendatitsownexpenseallclaims,demands,orsuits,whetheratlaworequitybroughtagainsttheAgency,State,orFederalGovernment,arisingfromtheAgency’sexecution.performance.orfailuretoperformanyoftheprovisionsofthisagreement,orofanyotheragreementorcontractconnectedwiththisagreement,orarisingbyreasonoftheparticipationoftheStateorFederalGovernmentintheproject,PROVIDED,nothinghereinshallrequiretheAgencytoreimbursetheStateortheFederalGovernmentfordamagesarisingoutofbodilyinjurytopersonsordamagetopropertycausedbyorresultingfromthesolenegligenceoftheFederalGovernmentortheState.XII.NondiscriminationProvisionNoliabilityshallattachtotheStateorFederalGovernmentexceptasexpresslyprovidedherein.TheAgencyshallnotdiscriminateonthebasisofrace,color,nationalorigin,orsexintheawardandperformanceofanyUSDOT-assistedcontractandloragreementorintheadministrationofitsDBEprogramortherequirementsof49CFRPart26.TheAgencyshalltakeallnecessaryandreasonablestepsunder49CFRPart26toensurenondiscriminationintheawardandadministrationofUSDOT-assistedcontractsandagreements.TheWSDOT’sDBEprogram,asrequiredby49CFRPart26andasapprovedbyUSDOT,isincorporatedbyreferenceinthisagreement.Implementationofthisprogramisalegalobligationandfailuretocarryoutitstermsshallbetreatedasaviolationofthisagreement.UponnotificationtotheAgencyofitsfailuretocarryoutitsapprovedprogram,theDepartmentmayimposesanctionsasprovidedforunderPart26andmay,inappropriatecases,referthematterforenforcementunderIXU.S.C.1001andlortheProgramFraudCivilRemediesActof1986(31U.S.C.3801etseq.).TheAgencyherebyagreesthatitwillincorporateorcausetobeincorporatedintoanycontractforconstructionwork,ormodificationthereof,asdeilnedintherulesandregulationsoftheSecretaryofLaborin41CFRChapter60,whichispaidforinwholeorinpartwithfundsobtainedfromtheFederalGovernmentorborrowedonthecreditoftheFederalGovernmentpursuanttoagrant,contract,loan,insurance,orguaranteeorunderstandingpursuanttoanyfederalprograniinvolvingsuchgrant.contract,loan,insurance,orguarantee,therequiredcontractprovisionsforFederal-AidContracts(FHWA1273),locatedinChapter44oftheLocalAgencyGuidelines.TheAgencyfurtheragreesthatitwillbeboundbytheaboveequalopportunityclausewithrespecttoitsownemploymentpracticeswhenitparticipatesinfederallyassistedconstructionwork:Provided,thatiftheapplicantsoparticipatingisaStateorLocalGovernment,theaboveequalopportunityclauseisnotapplicabletoanyagency,instrumentality,orsubdivisionofsuchgovernmentwhichdoesnotparticipateinworkonorunderthecontract.TheAgencyalsoagrees:(1)ToassistandcooperateactivelywiththeStateinobtainingthecomplianceofcontractorsandsubcontractorswiththeequalopportunityclauseandrules,regulations,andrelevantordersoftheSecretaryofLabor.(2)TofurnishtheStatesuchinformationasitmayrequireforthesupervisionofsuchcomplianceandthatitwillotherwiseassisttheStateinthedischargeofitsprimaryresponsibilityforsecuringcompliance.(3)TorefrainfromenteringintoanycontractorcontractmodificationsubjecttoExecutiveOrder11246ofSeptember24,1965,withacontractordebarredfrom,orwhohasnotdemonstratedeligibilityfor,governmentcontractsandfederallyassistedconstructioncontractspursuanttotheExecutiveOrder.(4)TocarryoutsuchsanctionsandpenaltiesforviolationoftheequalopportunityclauseasmaybeimposeduponcontractorsandsubcontractorsbytheState,FederalHighwayAdministration,ortheSecretaryofLaborpursuanttoPartII,subpartDoftheExecutiveOrder.Inaddition,theAgencyagreesthatifitfailsorrefusestocomplywiththeseundertakings,theStatemaytakeanyorallofthefollowingactions:(a)Cancel,terminate,orsuspendthisagreementinwholeorinpart:(b)RefrainfromextendinganyfurtherassistancetotheAgencyundertheprogramwithrespecttowhichthefailureorrefusaloccurreduntilsatisfactoryassuranceoffuturecompliancehasbeenreceivedfromtheAgency;and(c)ReferthecasetotheDepartmentofJusticeforappropriatelegalproceedings.XIII.LiquidatedDamagesTheAgencyherebyagreesthattheliquidateddamagesprovisionsof23CFRPart635,Subpart127,assupplemented.relativetotheamountofFederalparticipationintheprojectcost,shallbeapplicableintheeventthecontractorfailstocompletethecontractwithinthecontracttime.FailuretoincludeliquidateddamagesprovisionwillnotrelievetheAgencyfromreductionoffederalparticipationinaccordancewiththisparagraph.DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/201447l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 156 of 410
XIV.TerminationforPublicConvenienceTheSecretaryoftheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationmayterminatethecontractinwhole,orfromtimetotimeinpart,whenever:(1)Therequisitefederalfundingbecomesunavailablethroughfailureofappropriationorothenvise.(2)ThecontractorispreventedfromproceedingwiththeworkasadirectresultofanExecutiveOrderofthePresidentwithrespecttotheprosecutionofwarorintheinterestofnationaldefense,oranExecutiveOrderofthePresidentorGovernoroftheStatewithrespecttothepreservationofenergyresources.(3)Thecontractorispreventedfromproceedingwiththeworkbyreasonofapreliminary,special,orpermanentrestrainingorderofacourtofcompetentjurisdictionwheretheissuanceofsuchorderisprimarilycausedbytheactsoromissionsofpersonsoragenciesotherthanthecontractor.(4)TheSecretaryisnotifiedbytheFederalHighwayAdministrationthattheprojectisinactive.(5)TheSecretarydeterminesthatsuchterminationisinthebestinterestsoftheState.XV.VenueforClaimsandlorCausesofActionFortheconvenienceofthepartiestothiscontract,itisagreedthatanyclaimsandlorcausesofactionwhichtheLocalAgencyhasagainsttheStateofWashington,growingoutofthiscontractortheprojectwithwhichitisconcerned,shallbebroughtonlyintheSuperiorCourtforThurstonCounty.XVI.CertificationRegardingtheRestrictionsoftheUseofFederalFundsforLobbyingTheapprovingauthoritycertifies,tothebestofhisorherknowledgeandbelief,that:(1)Nofederalappropriatedfundshavebeenpaidorwillbepaid,byoronbehalfoftheundersigned.toanypersonforinfluencingorattemptingtoinfluenceanofficeroremployeeofanyfederalagency,amemberofCongress.anofficeroremployeeofCongress,oranemployeeofamemberofCongressinconnectionwiththeawardingofanyfederalcontract,themakingofanyfederalgrant,themakingofanyfederalloan,theenteringintoofanycooperativeagreement,andtheextension,continuation,renewal,amendment,ormodificationofanyfederalcontract,grant,loan,orcooperativeagreement.(2)Ifanyfundsotherthanfederalappropriatedfundshavebeenpaidorwillbepaidtoanypersonforinfluencingorattemptingtoinfluenceanofficeroremployeeofanyfederalagency,amemberofCongress,anofficeroremployeeofCongress,oranemployeeofamemberofCongressinconnectionwiththisfederalcontract,grant,loan,orcooperativeagreement,theundersignedshallcompleteandsubmittheStandardForm-LLL.“DisclosureFormtoReportLobbying,”inaccordancewithitsinstructions.(3)Theundersignedshallrequirethatthelanguageofthiscertificationbeincludedintheawarddocumentsforallsubawardsatalltiers(includingsubgrants.andcontractsandsubcontractsundergrants,subgrants,loans,andcooperativeagreements)whichexceed$100,000,andthatallsuchsubrecipientsshallcertifyanddiscloseaccordingly.Thiscertificationisamaterialrepresentationoffactuponwhichreliancewasplacedwhenthistransactionwasmadeorenteredinto.SubmissionofthiscertificationasaprerequisiteformakingorenteringintothistransactionimposedbySection1352,Title31.U.S.Code.Anypersonwhofailstofiletherequiredcertificationshallbesubjecttoacivilpenaltyofnotlessthan$10,000andnotmorethan$100,000foreachsuchfailure.AdditionalProvisionsDOTForm140-039EFRevised03/20147l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 157 of 410
WIWashiigtonStateDepartmentofTransportationPrefixRouteFederalAidProjectNumberLocalAgency(WSDOTProjectNumberUseOnlyDate11/24/2014DUNSNumber092278894FederalEmployer916001271TaxIDNumberAgencyCAAgencyFederalProgramTitleCityofRentonIYesLINoIi]20.205LIOtherProjectTitleStartLatitudeN47°291StartLongitudeWI229’23”DuvallAveNEA7°qnQ”EndLatitudeN‘‘‘-‘uEndLongitudeW122924ProjectTerminiFrom-ToNearestCityNameProjectZipCode(+4)NE4thSttoNE10thStRenton98059FromToLengthofProjectAwardTypeNE4thStNE10thS0.7mlliiLocalLILocalForcesLIStateLIRailroadFederalAgencyCityNumberCountyNumberCountyNameWSDOTRegionIIIFHWALIOthers107017KingNorthwestRegionCongressionalDistrictLegislativeDistrictsUrbanAreaNumber911PSRCTotalLocalAgencyPhaseStartPhaseEstimatedCostFundingFederalFundsDate(NearestHundredDollar)(NearestHundredDollar)(NearestHundredDollar)MonthYearP.E.$241,000$99,000$142,00002/2015WConst.$1,856,000$761,000$1,095,00002/2016Total$2,097,000$860,000$1,237,000DescriptionofExistingFacility(ExistingDesignandPresentCondition)RoadwayWidthNumberofLanesVaries-48-66Varies-4-5LocalAgencyContactPersonTitlePhoneJulianaFriesProgramDevelopmentCoordinator425-430-7232MailingAddressWayApprovalByltOflAppinWALg8os71055so:::ProspectusAuthorityTitleTransportationDesignSupervisorDate______________LocalAgencyFederalAidProjectProspectusDuvallAveNEisaminorarterialwith4to5lanesoftrafficanddailyvolumeof13,000vehicles.ItisclassifiedasaT-2truckroute.DescriptionofProposedWorkDescriptionofProposedWork(Attachadditionalsheet(s)ifnecessary)ThisprojectwillresurfaceDuvallAveNE,fromNE4thSttoNE10thSt.DOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014Page1of3•PreviousEditionsObsolete+7l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 158 of 410
AgencyProjectTWeDateCityofRentonDuvallAveNETypeofProposedWorkProjectType(CheckallthatApply)[1NewConstruction[]PathITrail[13-RIi]Reconstruction[1PedestrianIFacilities[12-RElRailroadElParking[IOther[IBridgeRoadwayWidthNumberofLanes48to664-5GeometricDesignDataDescriptionTerrainFederalFunctionalClassificationPostedSpeedDesignSpeedExistingADT--DesiqnYearADTDesiqnYearDesignHourlyVolume(DHV)ThroughRouteElPrincipalArterialliiUrbanIiMinorArterialElRuralElCollectorElNHSElMajorCollectorElMinorCollectorElLocalAccessl]FlatElRollElMountain35mphN/A13000N/AN/AN/ACrossroadElPrincipalArterialElUrbanElMinorArterialElRuralElCollectorElNHSElMajorCollectorElMinorCollectorElLocalAccessElFlatElRollElMountainPerformanceofWorkPreliminaryEngineeringWillBePerformedByOthersAgencyConsultant99%1%ConstructionWillBePerfomedByContractAgencyContract100%0%EnvironmentalClassificationElClassI-EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)IllClassII-CategoricallyExcluded(CE)ElProjectInvolvesNEPA/SEPASection404liiProjectsRequiringDocumentationInteragencyAgreement(DocumentedCE)ElClassIII-EnvironmentalAssessment(EA)ElProjectInvolvesNEPA/SEPASection404InteragencyAgreementEnvironmentalConsiderationsDOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014Page2of37l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 159 of 410
AgencyProjectTitleDateRightofWay[I]NoRightofWayRequiredElRightofWayRequired*AllconstructionrequiredbytheElNoRelocation[]RelocationRequiredcontractcanbeaccomplishedwithintheexistingrightofway.DescriptionofUtilityRelocationorAdjustmentsandExistingMajorStructuresInvolvedintheProjectFAAInvolvementIsanyairportlocatedwithin3.2kilometers(2miles)oftheproposedproject?ElYesIINoRemarksThisprojecthasbeenreviewedbythelegislativebodyoftheadministrationagencyoragencies,orit’sdesignee,andisnotinconsistentwiththeagency’scomprehensiveplanforcommunitydevelopment.Agency______CityofRentonDate__________________________By____________________________________________________Mayor/ChairpersonDOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014Page3013•PreviousEditionsObsolete+7l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 160 of 410
Duvall Ave NE -Typical Cross Section
____________________________
n—I2q
TrwI Lire
+I
Trp4 Ls
467l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 161 of 410
Jurisdiction:Renton
Project Number:REN-34 County:King Title:Duvall Ave NE
Phase Programmed Year Oblig.Date Funding Source Federal Funds State Funds Local Funds Phase Total
P/E-Design 2015 3/1/15 STP $142,000 $0 $0 $142,000
P/E-Design 2015 3/1/15 Local $0 $0 $99,000 $99,000
Construction 2016 2/1/16 STP $1,095,000 $0 $0 $1,095,000
Construction 2016 2/1/16 Local $0 $0 $761,000 $761,000
WSDOT PIN:Totals:$1,237,000 $0 $860,000 $2,097,000
Federal AidIFTA Grant Number(s):
Functional Class:Minor Arterial Over 5,000 Improvement Type:Resurfacing
Location:Duvall Ave NE From:NE 4th St To:NE 10th St
Total Cost $2,097,000 Regionally Significant:No Environmental Status:CE
Year of Expenditure for Total Cost:2014
MTP Status:Exempt MTP Reference(s):N/A
Description:
This project will resurface Duvall Ave NE,from NE 4th Stto NE 10th St.
10/30/14 A -216 Appendix A:Project Descriptions7l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 162 of 410
CityofRentonDuvallAveNE-NE4thSttoNE10thSt1.EstimateforConsultingServices12/01/2014...AverageRateEstimatedItemDisciplineManhoursofPayCost1ProjectManagement120$70$8,4002GeotechnicalExploration/Design120$50$6,0003Environmental/Permitting100$70$7,0004Survey120$50$6,0005Plans,SpecificationsandEstimates520$50$26,000Totals980$53,400OverheadCost200%$106,800FixedFee30%$48,060ReimbursableA.ReproductionExpenses$4,000B.PlotterMylar$2,500C.Other$1,240Total$7,740TotalConsultant$216,0002.EstimateforAgencyServices...AverageRateEstimatedItemDisciplineManhoursofPayCost1ProjectManagement140$50$7,0002PlanReview60$45$2,700Totals200$9,700OverheadCost100%$9,700ReimbursableOther$600Total$600TotalAgency$20,0003.EstimateforStateServices$5,000GrandTotal$241,000H:\Division.s\TRANSPORTAT\PLANNiNG\Juiiana\DuvaIIAve\WSDOT\DesignEstimate_Duvail.xisx7l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 163 of 410
(ij•;_•‘1‘•AI(I)-QLUz0C’)-LUzLUzC>U0:•ci)_1‘100(U00-J0•cl)00-zJC(U>4-,C0>7l. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 164 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
116th Avenue Southeast (Southeast Petrovitsky
Road to Southeast 172nd Lane - extended)
Sidewalk Project
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Local Agency Agreement
Local Agency Federal Aid Project Prospectus
Map
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Juliana Fries, Program Development Coordinator, x
7232
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $118,000.00 Revenue Generated: $$707,000.00
Total Project Budget: $ $818,000.00 City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The 116th Avenue Southeast (Southeast Petrovitsky Road to Southeast 172nd Lane - extended) Sidewalk
Project was selected under the countywide selection process for a federal Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (CMAQ) grant of $707,000.
This grant will provide for the design and construction of a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side of 116th
Avenue Southeast. The project includes a vegetated buffer separating the sidewalk from the traveled
roadway. Plans and bid documents will be prepared in 2015 and construction will take place in 2016.
This grant requires a 13.5% match. Local funding for the match is from the Sidewalk Program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Local Agency Agreement with the Washington
State Department of Transportation for the obligation of grant funding and all subsequent agreements
necessary to accomplish this project.
7m. - Transportation Systems Division
requests approval of a Local Agency Page 165 of 410
faLSPOTtatIOISLocalAgencyAgreementAgencyCityofRentonCFDANo.20.205(CatalogofFederalDomesticAssistance)Address1055SGradyWayProjectNo._____________________________Renton,WA98057AgreementNo.________________________________________________________________ForOSCWSDOTUseOnlyTheLocalAgencyhavingcomplied,orherebyagreeingtocomply,withthetermsandconditionssetforthin(I)Title23,U.S.CodeHighways.(2)theregulationsissuedpursuantthereto,(3)2CFR225,(4)OfficeofManagementandBudgetCircularsA-102,andA-133,(5)thepoliciesandprocedurespromulgatedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.and(6)thefederalaidprojectagreemententeredintobetweentheStateandFederalGovernment,relativetotheaboveproject,theWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationwillauthorizetheLocalAgencytoproceedontheprojectbyaseparatenotification.Federalfundswhicharetobeobligatedfortheprojectmaynotexceedtheamountshownhereinonliner,column3,withoutwrittenauthoritybytheState,subjecttotheapprovaloftheFederalHighwayAdministration.AllprojectcostsnotreimbursedbytheFederalGovernmentshallbetheresponsibilityoftheLocalAgency.ProjectDescriptionName116thAveSESidewalkLength0.2mlTerminiSEPetrovitskyRdtoSE172ndLn(ext)DescriptionofWorkThisprojectwilldesignandconstructamissinglink5-footsidewalkontheeastsideof116thAveSE.Theprojectincludesavegetatedbufferseparatingthesidewalkfromthetravelledroadway.ProposedAdvertisementDate:N/AEstimateofFunding(1)(2)(3)TypeofWorkEstimatedTotalEstimatedAgencyEstimatedProjectFundsFundsFederalFundsPEa.Agency15,0002,02512,97586.5%°‘b.OtherConsultant97,92013,22084,700c.OtherNon-participation8080FederalAidd.State5,0006754,325ParticipationRatioforPEe.TotalPECostEstimate(a+b+c+d)118,00016,000102,000RightofWayf.Agency%g.Otherh.OtherFederalAidi._StateParticipationRatioforRWj.TotalR/WCostEstimate(f+g+h+i)Constructionk.ContractI.Otherm.Othern.Othero.AgencyFederalAidp.StateParticipation—-RatioforCNg.TotalCNCostEstimate(k+I+m+n+o+p)r.TotalProjectCostEstimate(e+j+q)118,000.0016,000.00102,000.00AgencyOfficialWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationBy______________________________________________By_______________________________________TitleDenisLaw,MayorDirectorofLocalPrograms____________________________________________________DateExecuted___________________________________DOTForm140-039EF1Revised03/20147m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 166 of 410
ConstructionMethodofFinancing(CheckMethodSelected)StateAdandAwardLIMethodA-AdvancePayment-AgencyShareoftotalconstructioncost(basedoncontractaward)LIMethodB-WithholdfromqastaxtheAqency’sshareoftotalconstructioncost(line4,column2)intheamountof$______________________at$_____________________permonthfor________________months.LocalForceorLocalAdandAward11MethodC-AaencvcostincurredwithoartialreimbursementTheLocalAgencyfurtherstipulatesthatpursuanttosaidTitle23,regulationsandpoliciesandprocedures,andasaconditiontopaymentofthefederalfundsobligated,itacceptsandwillcomplywiththeapplicableprovisionssetforthbelow.Adoptedbyofficialactionon________________________________________ResolutionlOrdinanceNo._________________________ProvisionsI.ScopeofWorkTheAgencyshallprovideallthework,labor,materials,andservicesnecessarytoperformtheprojectwhichisdescribedandsetforthindetailinthe“ProjectDescription”and“TypeofWork.”WhentheStateactsforandonbehalfoftheAgency,theStateshallbedeemedanagentoftheAgencyandshallperformtheservicesdescribedandindicatedin“TypeofWork”onthefaceofthisagreement,inaccordancewithplansandspecificationsasproposedbytheAgencyandapprovedbytheStateandtheFederalHighwayAdministration.WhentheStateactsfortheAgencybutisnotsubjecttotherightofcontrolbytheAgency,theStateshallhavetherighttoperformtheworksubjecttotheordinaryproceduresoftheStateandFederalHighwayAdministration.II.DelegationofAuthorityTheStateiswillingtofulfilltheresponsibilitiestotheFederalGovernmentbytheadministrationofthisproject.TheAgencyagreesthattheStateshallhavethefullauthoritytocarryoutthisadministration.TheStateshallreview,process,andapprovedocumentsrequiredforfederalaidreimbursementinaccordancewithfederalrequirements.IftheStateadvertisesandawardsthecontract,theStatewillfurtheractfortheAgencyinallmattersconcerningtheprojectasrequestedbytheAgency.IftheLocalAgencyadvertisesandawardstheproject,theStateshallreviewtheworktoensureconformitywiththeapprovedplansandspecifications.Ill.ProjectAdministrationCertaintypesofworkandservicesshallbeprovidedbytheStateonthisprojectasrequestedbytheAgencyanddescribedintheTypeofWorkabove.Inaddition,theStatewillfurnishqualifiedpersonnelforthesupervisionandinspectionoftheworkinprogress.OnLocalAgencyadvertisedandawardedprojects,thesupervisionandinspectionshallbelimitedtoensuringallworkisinconformancewithapprovedplans,specifications,andfederalaidrequirements.ThesalaryofsuchengineerorothersupervisorandallothersalariesandcostsincurredbyStateforcesupontheprojectwillbeconsideredacostthereof.AllcostsrelatedtothisprojectincurredbyemployeesoftheStateinthecustomarymanneronhighwaypayrollsandvouchersshallbechargedascostsoftheproject.IV.AvailabilityofRecordsAllprojectrecordsinsupportofallcostsincurredandactualexpenditureskeptbytheAgencyaretobemaintainedinaccordancewithlocalgovernmentaccountingproceduresprescribedbytheWashingtonStateAuditor’sOffice,theU.S.DepartmentofTransportation,andtheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.TherecordsshallbeopentoinspectionbytheStateandFederalGovernmentatallreasonabletiniesandshallberetainedandmadeavailableforsuchinspectionforaperiodofnotlessthanthreeyearsfromthefinalpaymentofanyfederalaidfundstotheAgency.CopiesofsaidrecordsshallbefurnishedtotheStateand/orFederalGovernmentuponrequest.V.CompliancewithProvisionsTheAgencyshallnotincuranyfederalaidparticipationcostsonanyclassificationofworkonthisprojectuntilauthorizedinwritingbytheStateforeachclassification.Theclassificationsofworkforprojectsare:1.Preliminaryengineering.2.Rightofwayacquisition.3.Projectconstruction.Oncewrittenauthorizationisgiven,theAgencyagreestoshowcontinuousprogressthroughmonthlybillings.FailuretoshowcontinuousprogressmayresulttheAgency’sprojectbecominginactive,asdescribedin23CFR630,andsubjecttode-obligationoffederalaidfundsand/oragreementclosure.Ifrightofwayacquisition,oractualconstructionoftheroadforwhichpreliminaryengineeringisundertakenisnotstartedbythecloseofthetenthfiscalyearfollowingthefiscalyearinwhichpreliminaryengineeringphasewasauthorized,theAgencywillrepaytotheStatethesumorsumsoffederalfundspaidtotheAgencyunderthetermsofthisagreement(seeSectionIX).Ifactualconstructionoftheroadforwhichrightofwayhasbeenpurchasedisnotstartedbythecloseofthetenthfiscalyearfollowingthefiscalyearinwhichtherightofwayphasewasauthorized,theAgencywillrepaytotheStatethesumorsumsoffederalfundspaidtotheAgencyunderthetermsofthisagreement(seeSectionIX).DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/20147m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 167 of 410
TheAgencyagreesthatallstagesofconstructionnecessarytoprovidetheinitiallyplannedcompletefacilitywithinthelimitsofthisprojectwillconformtoatleasttheminimumvaluessetbyapprovedstatewidedesignstandardsapplicabletothisclassofhighways,eventhoughsuchadditionalworkisfinancedwithoutfederalaidparticipation.TheAgencyagreesthatonfederalaidhighwayconstructionprojects,thecurrentfederalaidregulationswhichapplytoliquidateddamagesrelativetothebasisoffederalparticipationintheprojectcostshallbeapplicableintheeventthecontractorfailstocompletethecontractwithinthecontracttime.VI.PaymentandPartialReimbursementThetotalcostoftheproject,includingallreviewandengineeringcostsandotherexpensesoftheState,istobepaidbytheAgencyandbytheFederalGovernment.FederalfundingshallbeinaccordancewiththeFederalTransportationAct,asamended,2CFR225andOfficeofManagementandBudgetcircularsA-l02andA-133.TheStateshallnotbeultimatelyresponsibleforanyofthecostsoftheproject.TheAgencyshallbeultimatelyresponsibleforallcostsassociatedwiththeprojectwhicharenotreimbursedbytheFederalGovernment.NothinginthisagreementshallbeconstruedasapromisebytheStateastotheamountornatureoffederalparticipationinthisproject.TheAgencyshallbillthestateforfederalaidprojectcostsincurredinconformitywithapplicablefederalandstatelaws.Theagencyshallminimizethetimeelapsedbetweenreceiptoffederalaidfundsandsubsequentpaymentofincurredcosts.ExpendituresbytheLocalAgencyformaintenance,generaladministration,supervision,andotheroverheadshallnotbeeligibleforfederalparticipationunlessacurrentindirectcostplanhasbeenpreparedinaccordancewiththeregulationsoutlinedin2CFR225-CostPrinciplesforState,Local,andIndianTribalGovernment,andretainedforaudit.TheStatewillpayforStateincurredcostsontheproject.Followingpayment,theStateshallbilltheFederalGovernmentforreimbursementofthosecostseligibleforfederalparticipationtotheextentthatsuchcostsareattributableandproperlyallocabletothisproject.TheStateshallbilltheAgencyforthatportionofStatecostswhichwerenotreimbursedbytheFederalGovernment(seeSectionIX).1.ProjectConstructionCostsProjectconstructionfinancingwillbeaccomplishedbyoneofthethreemethodsasindicatedinthisagreement.MethodA—TheAgencywillplacewiththeState,within(20)daysaftertheexecutionoftheconstructioncontract,anadvanceintheamountoftheAgency’sshareofthetotalconstructioncostbasedonthecontractaward.TheStatewillnotil’theAgencyoftheexactamounttobedepositedwiththeState.TheStatewillpayallcostsincurredunderthecontractuponpresentationofprogressbillingsfromthecontractor.Followingsuchpayments.theStatewillsubmitabillingtotheFederalGovernmentforthefederalaidparticipationshareofthecost.Whentheprojectissubstantiallycompletedandfinalactualcostsoftheprojectcanbedetermined,theStatewillpresenttheAgencywithafinalbillingshowingtheamountduetheStateortheamountduetheAgency.ThisbillingwillbeclearedbyeitherapaymentfromtheAgencytotheStateorbyarefundfromtheStatetotheAgency.MethodH—TheAgency’sshareofthetotalconstructioncostasshownonthefaceofthisagreementshallbewithheldfromitsmonthlyfueltaxallotments.Thefaceofthisagreementestablishesthemonthsinwhichthewithholdingshalltakeplaceandtheexactamounttobewithheldeachmonth.TheextentofwithholdingwillbeconfirmedbyletterfromtheStateatthetimeofcontractaward.Uponreceiptofprogressbillingsfromthecontractor,theStatewillsubmitsuchbillingstotheFederalGovernmentforpaymentofitsparticipatingportionofsuchbillings.MethodC—TheAgencymaysubmitvoucherstotheStateintheformatprescribedbytheState,induplicate,notmorethanoncepermonthforthosecostseligibleforFederalparticipationtotheextentthatsuchcostsaredirectlyattributableandproperlyallocabletothisproject.ExpendituresbytheLocalAgencyformaintenance,generaladministration,supervision,andotheroverheadshallnotbeeligibleforFederalparticipationunlessclaimedunderapreviouslyapprovedindirectcostplan.TheStateshallreimbursetheAgencyfortheFederalshareofeligibleprojectcostsuptotheamountshownonthefaceofthisagreement.Atthetimeofaudit,theAgencywillprovidedocumentationofallcostsincurredontheproject.TheStateshallbilltheAgencyforallcostsincurredbytheStaterelativetotheproject.TheStateshallalsobilltheAgencyforthefederalfundspaidbytheStatetotheAgencyforprojectcostswhicharesubsequentlydeterminedtobeineligibleforfederalparticipation(seeSectionIX).VII.AuditofFederalConsultantContractsTheAgency,ifservicesofaconsultantarerequired,shallberesponsibleforauditoftheconsultant’srecordstodetermineeligiblefederalaidcostsontheproject.ThereportofsaidauditshallbeintheAgency’sfilesandmadeavailabletotheStateandtheFederalGovernment.AnauditshallbeconductedbytheWSDOTInternalAuditOfficeinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedgovernmentalauditingstandardsasissuedbytheUnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOfficebytheComptrollerGeneraloftheUnitedStates;WSDOTManualM27-50,ConsultantAuthorization,Selection,andAgreementAdministration;memorandaofunderstandingbetweenWSDOTandFl-IWA;andOfficeofManagementandBudgetCircularA-133.Ifuponaudititisfoundthatoverpaymentorparticipationoffederalmoneyinineligibleitemsofcosthasoccurred,theAgencyshallreimbursetheStatefortheamountofsuchoverpaymentorexcessparticipation(seeSectionIX).VIII.SingleAuditActTheAgency,asasubrecipientoffederalfunds,shalladheretothefederalOfficeofManagementandBudget(0MB)CircularA-l33aswellasallapplicablefederalandstatestatutesandregulations.Asubrecipientwhoexpends$500,000ormoreinfederalawardsfromallsourcesduringagivenfiscalyearshallhaveasingleorprogram-specificauditperformedforthatyearinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof0MBCircularA-133.UponconclusionoftheA-133audit,theAgencyshallberesponsibleforensuringthatacopyofthereportistransmittedpromptlytotheState.IX.PaymentofBillingTheAgencyagreesthatifpaymentorarrangementforpaymentofanyoftheState’sbillingrelativetotheproject(e.g.,Stateforcework,projectcancellation,overpayment,costineligibleforfederalparticipation.etc.)isnotmadetotheStatewithin45daysaftertheAgencyhasbeenbilled,theStateshalleffectreimbursementofthetotalsumduefromtheregularmonthlyfueltaxallotmentstotheAgencyfromtheMotorVehicleFund.NoadditionalFederalprojectfundingwillbeapproveduntilfullpaymentisreceivedunlessotherwisedirectedbytheDirectorofLocalPrograms.DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/201437m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 168 of 410
X.TrafficControl,Signing,Marking,andRoadwayMaintenanceTheAgencywillnotpermitanychangestobemadeintheprovisionsforparkingregulationsandtrafficcontrolonthisprojectwithoutpriorapprovaloftheStateandFederalHighwayAdministration.TheAgencywillnotinstallorpermittobeinstalledanysigns,signals,ormarkingsnotinconformancewiththestandardsapprovedbytheFederalHighwayAdministrationandMIJTCD.TheAgencywill,atitsownexpense,maintaintheimprovementcoveredbythisagreement.XI.IndemnityTheAgencyshallholdtheFederalGovernmentandtheStateharmlessfromandshallprocessanddefendatitsownexpenseallclaims,demands,orsuits,whetheratlaworequitybroughtagainsttheAgency,State,orFederalGovernment,arisingfromtheAgency’sexecution,performance,orfailuretoperformanyoftheprovisionsofthisagreement,orofanyotheragreementorcontractconnectedwiththisagreement,orarisingbyreasonoftheparticipationoftheStateorFederalGovernmentintheproject,PROVIDED,nothinghereinshallrequiretheAgencytoreimbursetheStateortheFederalGovernmentfordamagesarisingoutofbodilyinjurytopersonsordamagetopropertycausedbyorresultingfromthesolenegligenceoftheFederalGovernmentortheState.XII.NondiscriminationProvisionNoliabilityshallattachtotheStateorFederalGovernmentexceptasexpresslyprovidedherein.TheAgencyshallnotdiscriminateonthebasisofrace,color,nationalorigin,orsexintheawardandperformanceofanyUSDOT-assistedcontractamlioragreementorintheadministrationofitsDBEprogramortherequirementsof49CFRPart26.TheAgencyshalltakeallnecessaryandreasonablestepsunder49CFRPart26toensurenondiscriminationintheawardandadministrationofUSDOT-assistedcontractsandagreements.TheWSDOT’sDBEprogram,asrequiredby49CFRPart26andasapprovedbyUSDOT,isincorporatedbyreferenceinthisagreement.Implementationofthisprogramisalegalobligationandfailuretocarryoutitstermsshallbetreatedasaviolationofthisagreement.UponnotificationtotheAgencyofitsfailuretocarryoutitsapprovedprogram,theDepartmentmayimposesanctionsasprovidedforunderPart26andmay,inappropriatecases,referthematterforenforcementunder18U.S.C.1001and/ortheProgramFraudCivilRemediesActof1986(31U.S.C.3801etseq.).TheAgencyherebyagreesthatitwillincorporateorcausetobeincorporatedintoanycontractforconstructionwork,ormodificationthereof,asdefinedintherulesandregulationsoftheSecretaryofLaborin41CFRChapter60,whichispaidforinwholeorinpartwithfundsobtainedfromtheFederalGovernmentorborrowedonthecreditoftheFederalGovernmentpursuanttoagrant,contract,loan,insurance,orguaranteeorunderstandingpursuanttoanyfederalprograminvolvingsuchgrant,contract,loan,insurance,orguarantee,therequiredcontractprovisionsforFederal-AidContracts(FHWA1273),locatedinChapter44oftheLocalAgencyGuidelines.TheAgencyfurtheragreesthatitwillbeboundbytheaboveequalopportunityclausewithrespecttoitsownemploymentpracticeswhenitparticipatesinfederallyassistedconstructionwork:Provided,thatiftheapplicantsoparticipatingisaStateorLocalGovernment,theaboveequalopportunityclauseisnotapplicabletoanyagency,instrumentality,orsubdivisionofsuchgovernmentwhichdoesnotparticipateinworkonorunderthecontract.TheAgencyalsoagrees:(I)ToassistandcooperateactivelywiththeStateinobtainingthecomplianceofcontractorsandsubcontractorswiththeequalopportunityclauseandrules,regulations,andrelevantordersoftheSecretaryofLabor.(2)TofurnishtheStatesuchinformationasitmayrequireforthesupervisionofsuchcomplianceandthatitwillotherwiseassisttheStateinthedischargeofitsprimaryresponsibilityforsecuringcompliance.(3)TorefrainfromenteringintoanycontractorcontractmodificationsubjecttoExecutiveOrder11246ofSeptember24,1965,withacontractordebarredfrom,orwhohasnotdemonstratedeligibilityfor,governmentcontractsandfederallyassistedconstructioncontractspursuanttotheExecutiveOrder.(4)TocarryoutsuchsanctionsandpenaltiesforviolationoftheequalopportunityclauseasmaybeimposeduponcontractorsandsubcontractorsbytheState,FederalHighwayAdministration,ortheSecretaryofLaborpursuanttoPartIL,subpartDoftheExecutiveOrder.Inaddition,theAgencyagreesthatifitfailsorrefusestocomplywiththeseundertakings,theStatemaytakeanyorallofthefollowingactions:(a)Cancel,terminate,orsuspendthisagreementinwholeorinpart;(b)RefrainfromextendinganyfurtherassistancetotheAgencyundertheprogramwithrespecttowhichthefailureorrefusaloccurreduntilsatisfactoryassuranceoffuturecompliancehasbeenreceivedfromtheAgency;and(c)ReferthecasetotheDepartmentofJusticeforappropriatelegalproceedings.XIII.LiquidatedDamagesTheAgencyherebyagreesthattheliquidateddamagesprovisionsof23CFRPart635,Subpart127,assupplemented,relativetotheamountofFederalparticipationintheprojectcost,shallbeapplicableintheeventthecontractorfailstocompletethecontractwithinthecontracttime.FailuretoincludeliquidateddamagesprovisionwillnotrelievetheAgencyfromreductionoffederalparticipationinaccordancewiththisparagraph.DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/20147m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 169 of 410
XIV.TerminationforPublicConvenienceTheSecretaryoftheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationmayterminatethecontractinwhole,orfromtimetotimeinpart,whenever:(I)Therequisitefederalfundingbecomesunavailablethroughfailureofappropriationorotherwise.(2)ThecontractorispreventedfromproceedingwiththeworkasadirectresultofanExecutiveOrderofthePresidentwithrespecttotheprosecutionofwarorintheinterestofnationaldefense,oranExecutiveOrderofthePresidentorGovernoroftheStatewithrespecttothepreservationofenergyresources.(3)Thecontractorispreventedfromproceedingwiththeworkbyreasonofapreliminary,special.orpermanentrestrainingorderofacourtofcompetentjurisdictionwheretheissuanceofsuchorderisprimarilycausedbytheactsoromissionsofpersonsoragenciesotherthanthecontractor.(4)TheSecretaryisnotifiedbytheFederalHighwayAdministrationthattheprojectisinactive.(5)TheSecretarydeterminesthatsuchterminationisinthebestinterestsoftheState.XV.VenueforClaimsandlorCausesofActionFortheconvenienceofthepartiestothiscontract,itisagreedthatanyclaimsandlorcausesofactionwhichtheLocalAgencyhasagainsttheStateofWashington,growingoutofthiscontractortheprojectwithwhichitisconcerned,shallbebroughtonlyintheSuperiorCourtforThurstonCounty.XVI.CertificationRegardingtheRestrictionsoftheUseofFederalFundsforLobbyingTheapprovingauthoritycertifies,tothebestofhisorherknowledgeandbelief,that:(I)Nofederalappropriatedfundshavebeenpaidorwillbepaid,byoronbehalfoftheundersigned.toanypersonforinfluencingorattemptingtoinfluenceanofficeroremployeeofanyfederalagency,amemberofCongress,anofficeroremployeeofCongress,oranemployeeofamemberofCongressinconnectionwiththeawardingofanyfederalcontract,themakingofanyfederalgrant.themakingofanyfederalloan,theenteringintoofanycooperativeagreement,andtheextension,continuation,renewal,amendment,ormodificationofanyfederalcontract,grant,loan,orcooperativeagreement.(2)Ifanyfundsotherthanfederalappropriatedfundshavebeenpaidorwillbepaidtoanypersonforinfluencingorattemptingtoinfluenceanofficeroremployeeofanyfederalagency,amemberofCongress,anofficeroremployeeofCongress,oranemployeeofamemberofCongressinconnectionwiththisfederalcontract,grant,loan,orcooperativeagreement,theundersignedshallcompleteandsubmittheStandardForm-LLL,DisclosureFormtoReportLobbying,”inaccordancewithitsinstructions.(3)Theundersignedshallrequirethatthelanguageofthiscertificationbeincludedintheawarddocumentsforallsubawardsatalltiers(includingsubgrants,andcontractsandsubcontractsundergrants,subgrants,loans,andcooperativeagreements)whichexceed$100,000.andthatallsuchsubrecipientsshallcertifvanddiscloseaccordingly.Thiscertificationisamaterialrepresentationoffactuponwhichreliancewasplacedwhenthistransactionwasmadeorenteredinto.SubmissionofthiscertificationasaprerequisiteformakingorenteringintothistransactionimposedbySection1352,Title31,U.S.Code.Anypersonwhofailstofiletherequiredcertificationshallbesubjecttoacivilpenaltyofnotlessthan$10,000andnotmorethan$100,000foreachsuchfailure.AdditionalProvisionsDOTForm140-039EFRevised03/20147m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 170 of 410
CityofRenton116thAveSESidewalk1.EstimateforConsultingServices12/02/2014...AverageRateEstimatedItemDisciplineManhoursofPayCost1ProjectManagement60$70$4,2002GeotechnicalExploration/Design40$50$2,0003Environmental/Permitting60$70$4,2004‘Survey80$50$4,0005Plans,SpecificationsandEstimates200$50$10,000Totals440$24,400OverheadCost200%$48,800FixedFee30%$21,960ReimbursableA.ReproductionExpenses$1,300B.PlotterMylar$1,000C.Other$540Total$2,840TotalConsultant$98,0002.EstimateforAgencyServices...AverageRateEstimatedItemDisciplineManhoursofPayCost1ProjectManagement110$50$5,5002PlanReview40$45$1,800Totals150$7,300OverheadCost100%$7,300ReimbursableOther$400Total$400TotalAgency$15,0003.EstimateforStateServices$5,000GrandTotal$118,000H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\PLANNING\Juliana\ll6th\WSDOT\DesignEstimate_ll6th.xlsx7m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 171 of 410
WashingtonStateVJDepartmentof1ansportationDescriptionofProposedWorkPrefixRoute()JFederalAidProjectNumberLocalAgencyFederalAidProjectProspectusLocalAgency(WSDOTProjectNumberUseOnlyDate12/01/2014DUNSNumber092278894FederalEmployer916001271TaxIDNumberAgencyCAAgencyFederalProgramTitleCityofRentonIllYes[1Nolii20.205[1OtherProjectTitleStartLatitudeN47°26’43”StartLongitudeWI22°1110’116thAveSESidewalk47°26’55”EndLatitudeNEndLongitudeW1221110ProjectTerminiFrom-ToNearestCityNameProjectZipCode(+4)SEPetrovitskyRdtoSE172ndLn(ext)Renton98058FromToLengthofProjectAwardType0.2mi-—Ii]LocalElLocalForcesElStateElRailroadFederalAgencyCityNumberCountyNumberCountyNameWSDOTRegionIIIFHWAElOthers107017KingNorthwestRegionCongressionalDistrictLegislativeDistrictsUrbanAreaNumber911PSRCTotalLocalAgencyPhaseStartPhaseEstimatedCostFundingFederalFundsDate(NearestHundredDollar)(NearestHundredDollar)(NearestHundredDollar)MonthYearP.E.$118,000$16,000$102,00002/2015RNVConst.$700,000$95,000$605,00002/2016Total$818,000$111,000$707,000DescriptionofExistingFacility(ExistingDesignandPresentCondition)RoadwayWidthNumberofLanesvaries-30-42(atintersection)2lanes116thAveSEisaminorarterialwith2lanesoftrafficanddailyvolumeof12,000vehicles.DescriptionofProposedWork(Attachadditionalsheet(s)ifnecessary)Thisprojectwilldesignandconstructamissinglink5-footsidewalkontheeastsideof116thAveSE.Theprojectincludesavegetatedbufferseparatingthesidewalkfromthetravelledroadway.LocalAgencyContactPersonTitlePhoneJulianaFriesProgramDevelopmentCoordinator425-430-7232MailingAddressCityStateZipCode10555GradyWayRentonWA98057By___________ApprovingAuthorityProjectProspectusApprovalTitleTransportationDesignSupervisorDateDOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014Page1of3•PreviousEditionsObsolete•7m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 172 of 410
AgencyProjectTitleDateCityofRenton116thAveSESidewalk12/01/2014TypeofProposedWorkProjectType(CheckallthatApply)IIINewConstructionElPathITrail[13-R[]ReconstructionIIIPedestrianIFacilities[12-R[]RailroadElParking[]Other[1BridgeRoadwayWidthNumberofLanes30to422GeometricDesignDataTerrainDescriptionFederalFunctionalClassificationPostedSpeedDesignSpeedExistingADTDesignYearADTDesignYearDesignHourlyVolume(DHV)ThroughRouteElPrincipalArterialiiUrbanIi]MinorArterialElRuralElCollector[1NHSElMajorCollectorElMinorCollectorElLocalAccess[1Flat30mphN/A12,000N/AN/AN/AIiiRollElMountainCrossroadElPrincipalArterialElUrban[]MinorArterialElRural[1CollectorElNHSElMajorCollectorElMinorCollectorElLocalAccessElFlatElRollElMountainPerformanceofWorkEnvironmentalConsiderationsPreliminaryEngineeringWillBePerformedByOthersAgencyConsultant99%1%EnvironmentalClassificationConstructionWillBePerformedByContractAgencyContract100%0%ElClassI-EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)IIIClassII-CategoricallyExcluded(CE)ElProjectInvolvesNEPA/SEPASection40411ProjectsRequiringDocumentationInteragencyAgreement(DocumentedCE)ElClassIll-EnvironmentalAssessment(EA)ElProjectInvolvesNEPA/SEPASection404InteragencyAgreementDOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014Page2of37m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 173 of 410
AgencyProjectTitleDateCityofRenton116thAveSESidewalk12/01/2014RightofWayIIINoRightofWayRequiredElRightofWayRequired*AllconstructionrequiredbytheI]NoRelocation[IRelocationRequiredcontractcanbeaccomplishedwithintheexistingrightofway.DescriptionofUtilityRelocationorAdjustmentsandExistingMajorStructuresInvolvedintheProjectFAAInvolvementIsanyairportlocatedwithin3.2kilometers(2miles)oftheproposedproject?ElYes(I]NoRemarksThisprojecthasbeenreviewedbythelegislativebodyoftheadministrationagencyoragencies,orit’sdesignee,andisnotinconsistentwiththeagency’scomprehensiveplanforcommunitydevelopment.Agency__________-CityofRentonDate_____________________________By____________________________________________________Mayor/ChairpersonDOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014Page3of•PreviousEditionsObsolete•7m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 174 of 410
a
4
C’
sidewalk
existing
vegetated buffer sidewalk
Proposed improvements
shoulder drive lane drive lane
RENTON -116th Ave SE -Typical Section7m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 175 of 410
WSDOT PIN:
Federal AidIFTA Grant Number(s):
Functional Class:Minor Arterial -Over 5,000
Location:116th Ave SE
Total Cost $818,000
Year of Expenditure for Total Cost:2014
MTP Status:Exempt
Totals:$707,000
Improvement Type:Sidewalk
From:SE Petrovitsky Rd
Regionally Significant:
To:SE 172nd Ln
Environmental Status:
Description:
The project will design and construct a missing link 5-foot sidewalk on the east side of 116th Ave SE.The project includes a vegetated buffer separating the sidewalk
from the travelled roadway.
Jurisdiction:Renton
Project Number:REN-33 County:King Title:116th Ave SE Sidewalk
Phase Programmed Year Oblig.Date Funding Source Federal Funds State Funds Local Funds Phase Total
P/E-Design 2015 3/1/15 CMAQ $102,000 $0 $0 $102,000
P/E-Design 2015 6/1/15 Local $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000
Construction 2015 6/1/15 Local $0 $0 $95,000 $95,000
Construction 2016 2/1/16 CMAQ $605,000 $0 $0 $605,000
$0 $111,000 $818,000
MTP Reference(s):N/A
10/30/14 A-215 Appendix A:Project Descriptions7m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 176 of 410
deUOIDO7pe1OJ(popuox])UPULL.SOTpIc)IST!AOJTOd9-SeAyL49L.L.-UOTU9dWHUOSUOic)iSTIAOJTS!UflU7PULs4iuflS!UflIAi2J-IrJIIIAieuawej:epeseCV-V7m. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 177 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Main Avenue South/Downtown Circulation (South
3rd Street to Mill Avenue South) Project
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Juliana Fries, Program Development Coordinator,
x7232
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $850,000.00 Revenue Generated: $$1,024,750.00
Total Project Budget: $ $2,024,750.00 City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Main Avenue South/Downtown Circulation (South 3rd Street to Mill Avenue South) project was
selected for a Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grant in the amount of $1,024,750.
This grant will provide for a new traffic signal system at Main Avenue South/South 2nd Street/Bronson
Way South, an additional illumination system and urban design elements that will enhance a
pedestrian-oriented environment and create a gateway to the east entrance to the downtown area. The
required match will be provided by the City funds already budgeted for the Main Avenue South project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement with the
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board for the obligation of grant funding and all
subsequent agreements necessary to accomplish this project.
7n. - Transportation Systems Division
requests approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Page 178 of 410
WashingtonStateTransportationImprovementBoard8-1-102(036)-IFuelTaxGrantAgreementCityofRenton8-1-102(036)-IMainAvenueSS3rdStreettoMillAvenueS(SR900)STATEOFWASHINGTONTRANSPORTATIONIMPROVEMENTBOARDANDCityofRentonAGREEMENTTHISGRANTAGREEMENT(hereinafter“Agreement”)fortheMainAvenue5,S3rdStreettoMillAvenueS(SR900)(hereinafter“Project”)isenteredintobytheWASHINGTONSTATETRANSPORTATIONIMPROVEMENTBOARD(hereinafter“TIB”)andCityofRenton,apoliticalsubdivisionoftheStateofWashington(hereinafter“RECIPIENT”).1.0PURPOSETIBherebygrantsfundsintheamountof$1,024,750fortheprojectspecifiedabove,pursuanttotermscontainedintheRECIPIENT’SGrantApplication,supportingdocumentation,chapter47.26RCW,title479WAC,andthetermsandconditionslistedbelow.2.0SCOPEANDBUDGETTheProjectScopeandBudgetareinitiallydescribedinRECIPIENT’sGrantApplicationandincorporatedbyreferenceintothisAgreement.ScopeandBudgetwillbefurtherdevelopedandrefined,butnotsubstantiallyalteredduringtheDesign,BidAuthorizationandConstructionPhases.AnymaterialalterationstotheoriginalProjectScopeorBudgetasinitiallydescribedintheGrantApplicationmustbeauthorizedbyTIBinadvancebywrittenamendment.3.0PROJECTDOCUMENTATIONTIBrequiresRECIPIENTtomakereasonableprogressandsubmittimelyProjectdocumentationasapplicablethroughouttheProject.UponRECIPIENT’ssubmissionofeachProjectdocumenttoTIB,thetermscontainedinthedocumentwillbeincorporatedbyreferenceintotheAgreement.Requireddocumentsinclude,butarenotlimitedtothefollowing:a)ProjectFundingStatusFormb)BidAuthorizationFormwithplansandengineersestimatec)AwardUpdatedCostEstimated)BidTabulationse)ContractCompletionUpdatedCostEstimatewithfinalsummaryofquantitiesf)ProjectAccountingHistory4.0BILLINGANDPAYMENTThelocalagencyshallsubmitprogressbillingsasprojectcostsareincurredtoenableTIBtomaintainaccuratebudgetingandfundmanagement.PaymentrequestsmaybesubmittedasoftenastheRECIPIENTdeemsnecessary,butshallbesubmittedatleastquarterlyifbillableFuelTaxAgreementPage1of5November20127n. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Page 179 of 410
4—..,’WashingtonStateTransportationImprovementBoard8-1-102(036)-IFuelTaxGrantAgreementamountsaregreaterthan$50,000.Ifprogressbillingsarenotsubmitted,largepaymentsmaybedelayedorscheduledinapaymentplan.5.0TERMOFAGREEMENTThisAgreementshallbeeffectiveuponexecutionbyTIBandshallcontinuethroughcloseoutofthegrantoruntilterminatedasprovidedherein,butshallnotexceed10yearsunlessamendedbytheParties.6.0AMENDMENTSThisAgreementmaybeamendedbymutualagreementoftheParties.SuchamendmentsshallnotbebindingunlesstheyareinwritingandsignedbypersonsauthorizedtobindeachoftheParties.7.0ASSIGNMENTTheRECIPIENTshallnotassignortransferitsrights,benefits,orobligationsunderthisAgreementwithoutthepriorwrittenconsentofTIB.TheRECIPIENTisdeemedtoconsenttoassignmentofthisAgreementbyTIBtoasuccessorentity.SuchconsentshallnotconstituteawaiveroftheRECIPIENT’sotherrightsunderthisAgreement.8.0GOVERNANCE&VENUEThisAgreementshallbeconstruedandinterpretedinaccordancewiththelawsofthestateofWashingtonandvenueofanyactionbroughthereundershallbeintheSuperiorCourtforThurstonCounty.9.0DEFAULTANDTERMINATION9.1NON-COMPLIANCEa)IntheeventTIBdetermines,initssolediscretion,theRECIPIENThasfailedtocomplywiththetermsandconditionsofthisAgreement,TIBshallnotifytheRECIPIENT,inwriting,ofthenon-compliance.b)Inresponsetothenotice,RECIPIENTshallprovideawrittenresponsewithin10businessdaysofreceiptofTIB’snoticeofnon-compliance,whichshouldincludeeitheradetailedplantocorrectthenon-compliance,arequesttoamendtheProject,oradenialaccompaniedbysupportingdetails.c)TIBwillprovide30daysforRECIPIENTtomakereasonableprogresstowardcompliancepursuanttoitsplantocorrectorimplementitsamendmenttotheProject.d)ShouldRECIPIENTdisputenon-compliance,TIBwillinvestigatethedisputeandmaywithholdfurtherpaymentsorprohibittheRECIPIENTfromincurringadditionalreimbursablecostsduringtheinvestigation.9.2DEFAULTRECIPIENTmaybeconsideredindefaultifTIBdetermines,initssolediscretion,that:FuelTaxAgreementPage2of5November20127n. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Page 180 of 410
WashingtonStateTransportationImprovementBoard8-1-102(036)-iFuelTaxGrantAgreementa)RECIPIENTisnotmakingreasonableprogresstowardcorrectionandcompliance.b)TIBdeniestheRECIPIENT’srequesttoamendtheProject.c)AfterinvestigationTIBconfirmsRECIPIENT’Snon-compliance.TIBreservestherighttoorderRECIPIENTtoimmediatelystopworkontheProjectandTIBmaystopProjectpaymentsuntiltherequestedcorrectionshavebeenmadeortheAgreementhasbeenterminated.9.3TERMINATIONa)IntheeventofdefaultbytheRECIPIENTasdeterminedpursuanttoSection9.2,TIBshallserveRECIPIENTwithawrittennoticeofterminationofthisAgreement,whichshallbeservedinperson,byemailorbycertifiedletter.Uponserviceofnoticeoftermination,theRECIPIENTshallimmediatelystopworkand/ortakesuchactionasmaybedirectedbyTIB.b)Intheeventofdefaultand/orterminationbyeitherPARTY,theRECIPIENTmaybeliablefordamagesasauthorizedbylawincluding,butnotlimitedto,repaymentofgrantfunds.c)TherightsandremediesofTIBprovidedintheAGREEMENTarenotexclusiveandareinadditiontoanyotherrightsandremediesprovidedbylaw.9.4TERMINATIONFORNECESSITYTIBmay,withten(10)dayswrittennotice,terminatethisAgreement,inwholeorinpart,becausefundsarenolongeravailableforthepurposeofmeetingTIB’sobligations.IfthisAgreementissoterminated,TIBshallbeliableonlyforpaymentrequiredunderthisAgreementforperformancerenderedorcostsincurredpriortotheeffectivedateoftermination.10.0USEOFTIBGRANTFUNDSTIBgrantfundscomefromMotorVehicleFuelTaxrevenue.AnyuseofthesefundsforanythingotherthanhighwayorroadwaysystemimprovementsisprohibitedandshallsubjecttheRECIPIENTtotheterms,conditionsandremediessetforthinSection9.IfRightofWayispurchasedusingTIBfunds,andsomeoralloftheRightofWayissubsequentlysold,proceedsfromthesalemustbedepositedintotheRECIPIENT’smotorvehiclefundandusedforamotorvehiclepurpose.11.0INCREASEORDECREASEINTIBGRANTFUNDSAtBidAwardandContractCompletion,RECIPIENTmayrequestanincreaseintheTIBfundsforthespecificproject.RequestsmustbemadeinwritingandwillbeconsideredbyTIBandawardedatthesolediscretionofTIB.AllincreaserequestsmustbemadepursuanttoWAC479-05-202and/orWAC479-01-060.Ifanincreaseisdenied,therecipientshallbeliableforcostsincurredinexcessofthegrantamount.Intheeventthatfinalcostsrelatedtothespecificprojectarelessthantheinitialgrantaward,TIBfundswillbedecreasedand/orrefundedtoTIBinamannerthatmaintainstheoriginalratiobetweenTIBfundsandtotalprojectcosts.FuelTaxAgreementPage3of5November20127n. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Page 181 of 410
WashingtonStateTransportationImprovementBoard8-1-102(036)-IFuelTaxGrantAgreement12.0INDEPENDENTCAPACITYTheRECIPIENTshallbedeemedanindependentcontractorforallpurposesandtheemployeesoftheRECIPIENToranyofitscontractors,subcontractors,andemployeesthereofshallnotinanymannerbedeemedemployeesofTIB.13.0INDEMNIFICATIONANDHOLDHARMLESSThePARTIESagreetothefollowing:EachofthePARTIES,shallprotect,defend,indemnify,andsaveharmlesstheotherPARTY,itsofficers,officials,employees,andagents,whileactingwithinthescopeoftheiremploymentassuch,fromanyandallcosts,claims,judgment,and/orawardsofdamages,arisingoutof,orinanywayresultingfrom,thatPARTY’sownnegligentactsoromissionswhichmayariseinconnectionwithitsperformanceunderthisAgreement.NoPARTYwillberequiredtoindemnify,defend,orsaveharmlesstheotherPARTYiftheclaim,suit,oractionforinjuries,death,ordamagesiscausedbythesolenegligenceoftheotherPARTY.Wheresuchclaims,suits,oractionsresultfromtheconcurrentnegligenceofthePARTIES,theindemnityprovisionsprovidedhereinshallbevalidandenforceableonlytotheextentofaPARTY’sownnegligence.EachofthePARTIESagreesthatitsobligationsunderthissubparagraphextendtoanyclaim,demandand/orcauseofactionbroughtby,oronbehalfof,anyofitsemployeesoragents.Forthispurpose,eachofthePARTIES,bymutualnegotiation,herebywaives,withrespecttotheotherPARTYonly,anyimmunitythatwouldotherwisebeavailabletoitagainstsuchclaimsundertheIndustrialInsuranceprovisionofTitle51RCW.InanyactiontoenforcetheprovisionsoftheSection,theprevailingPARTYshallbeentitledtorecoveritsreasonableattorney’sfeesandcostsincurredfromtheotherPARTY.TheobligationsofthisSectionshallsurviveterminationofthisAgreement.14.0DISPUTERESOLUTIONa)ThePARTIESshallmakegoodfaitheffortstoquicklyandcollaborativelyresolveanydisputearisingunderorinconnectionwiththisAGREEMENT.ThedisputeresolutionprocessoutlinedinthisSectionappliestodisputesarisingunderorinconnectionwiththetermsofthisAGREEMENT.b)InformalResolution.ThePARTIESshallusetheirbesteffortstoresolvedisputespromptlyandatthelowestorganizationallevel.c)IntheeventthatthePARTIESareunabletoresolvethedispute,thePARTIESshallsubmitthemattertonon-bindingmediationfacilitatedbyamutuallyagreeduponmediator.ThePARTIESshallshareequallyinthecostofthemediator.d)EachPARTYagreestocompromisetothefullestextentpossibleinresolvingthedisputeinordertoavoiddelaysoradditionalincurredcosttotheProject.e)ThePARTIESagreethattheyshallhavenorighttoseekreliefinacourtoflawuntilandunlesstheDisputeResolutionprocesshasbeenexhausted.FuelTaxAgreementPage4of5November20127n. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Page 182 of 410
WashingtonStateTransportationImprovementBoardFuelTaxGrantAgreement8-1-102(036)-I15.0ENTIREAGREEMENTThisAgreement,togetherwiththeRECIPIENT’SGrantApplication,theprovisionsofchapter47.26RevisedCodeofWashington,theprovisionsoftitle479WashingtonAdministrativeCode,andTIBPolicies,constitutestheentireagreementbetweenthePARTIESandsupersedesallpreviouswrittenororalagreementsbetweenthePARTIES.16.0RECORDSMAINTENANCETheRECIPIENTshallmaintainbooks,records,documents,dataandotherevidencerelatingtothisAgreementandperformanceoftheservicesdescribedherein,includingbutnotlimitedtoaccountingproceduresandpracticeswhichsufficientlyandproperlyreflectalldirectandindirectcostsofanynatureexpendedintheperformanceofthisAgreement.RECIPIENTshallretainsuchrecordsforaperiodofsixyearsfollowingthedateoffinalpayment.Atnoadditionalcost,theserecords,includingmaterialsgeneratedundertheAgreementshallbesubjectatallreasonabletimestoinspection,revieworauditbyTIBpersonneldulyauthorizedbyTIB,theOfficeoftheStateAuditor,andfederalandstateofficialssoauthorizedbylaw,regulationoragreement.Ifanylitigation,claimorauditisstartedbeforetheexpirationofthesix(6)yearperiod,therecordsshallberetaineduntilalllitigation,claims,orauditfindingsinvolvingtherecordshavebeenresolved.ApprovedastoFormAttorneyGeneralBy:SignatureonfileGuyBowmanAssistantAttorneyGeneralLeadAgencySignatureofchairman/MayorDateDenisLaw,MayorPrintNameTransportationImprovementBoardExecutiveDirectorDatePrintNameFuelTaxAgreementPage5of5November20127n. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Page 183 of 410
Transportation Improvement Board
ZJ Project Funding Status Form
Agency:RENTON
Project Name:Main Avenue S
S 3rd Street to MIII Avenue S (SR 900)
Verify the information below and revise if necessary.
Return to:
Transportation Improvement Board
P0 Box 40901
Olympia,WA 98504-090 1
PROJECT SCHEDULE
TIB Project Number:8-1-102(036)-I
Target Dates
Construction Approval Date May 2015
Contract Bid Award Jun 2015
Contract Completion May 2016
PROJECT FUNDING PARTNERS
List additional funding partners and amount.
Funding Partners Amount Revised Funding
RENTON 1,000,000
WSDOT 0
Federal Funds 0
TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS 1,000,000
Signatures are required from two different agency officials.Return the originally
signed form to the TIB office.
Mayor or Public Works Director
Signature
Den is Law
Printed or Typed Name
Financial Officer
Signature
Printed or Typed Name
Date
Mayor1 City of RentDn
Title
Date
Title
TIB Project Funding Status Form
7n. - Transportation Systems Division
requests approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Page 184 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Rainier Avenue South Corridor Improvements
- Phase 4 (South 3rd Street to NW 3rd Place)
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Local Agency Agreement
Local Agency Federal Aid Prospectus
Map
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Juliana Fries, Program Development Coordinator,
extension 7232
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $1,200,000 (2015)Revenue Generated: $$2,600,000
Total Project Budget: $ $3,006,000 (2015-2016)City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Rainier Avenue South Corridor Improvements – Phase 4 (South 3rd Street to NW 3rd Place) Project
was selected under the regional selection process for a Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP)
grant of $2,600,000.
This grant will provide for the design to extend improvements from South 3rd Street (State Route 900) to
NW 3rd Place. Improvements include extending a southbound Business Access and Transit (BAT) lane
from South 2nd Street to South 3rd Street, pedestrian improvements with street-scaping, installation of a
pedestrian actuated traffic signal (HAWK), pedestrian-scale illumination, access management and a
new traffic signal. Design completion is anticipated for 2016.
This grant requires a 13.5% match. Local funding for the match is in the approved 2015-2016 budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Local Agency Agreement with the Washington
State Department of Transportation for the obligation of grant funding and all subsequent agreements
necessary to accomplish this project.
7o. - Transportation Systems Division
requests approval of a Local Agency Page 185 of 410
LocalAgencyAgreementAgencyCityofRentonCFDANo..20.205(CatatogofFederalDomesticAasfstanc)Address1055SGradyWayProjectNo______________Renton,WA98057AgreementNo._____—-______________________________________________ForOSCW)OTUseOdyTheLocalAgencyhatingompticsLwherebyagreeingtocomply,withthetermsandconditionssetfothin(I)Tith23,(JSCodeHighrays(2)theregulationsissuedpursuanttherdo,(3)2CFR225,(4)OfficeofManagementandBudgetCircukrsA-lOlandA-131(5)thepoliciesandprocedurespromulgaledbytheWashingtonStaleDepartmentofTransportation,and(6)thefederalaidprojectagreemententeredintobetweentheStateandFederalGoscmmeatelathctotheaboveproject,theWashingtonStaleDepartmentofTransportationiiHauthorizetheLocalAgenc)toproceedontheprojectbyaseparatenotification.FederalfundswhicharetobeobligatedfortheprojectmaysmIesceedtheamountshonhereinonliner.column3.withoutwrittenauthoritybytheState.subjecttotheapprovaloftheFederalhighwayMniinistration.AllprojectcostsnotreimbursedbytheFederalGovermnentshallbetheresponsibilityoftheLocalAgency.ProjectDescriptionNameRainierAveSCorridorImprovements-Phase4Length0.5mlTermini53rdSt(SR900)toNW3rdP1DescriptionofWorkPhase4willextendtheimprovementsfromS3rdSt(SR900)toapproximately1,000feetnorthofAirportWay.ImprovementsincludeextendingasouthboundBATLanefromS2ndSttoS3rdSt,pedestrianimprovementswithstreetscaping,segmentofaregionalped/bikepathtrail(LakeWashingtonLoopTrail)fromAirportWayto1,000feetnorthofAirportWay,installationofapedestrianactuatedtrafficsignal(Hawk),pedestrianscaleillumination,transitfacilityupgrades,accessmanagement,newtrafficsignalandupgradesofexistingtrafficsignals.ProposedAdvertisementDate:N/AIEstimateofFundingT”eofWork(1)i(2)(3)‘‘EstimatedTotalEstimatedAgencyEstimatedProjectFundsFundsFederalFundsPEa.Agency130,78017,655113,125b.OtherConsultant2,860,000386,1002,473,900c.OtherNon-participation..220220dState-___15000202512975RatioforPEe.TotalPECostEstimate(a+b+c+d)3,006,000406,0002,600,000RightofWayf.Agency._gOtherh.OtherFederalAid-,—Participationi.State—RatioforRWj.TotalRIWCostEstimate(f+g+h+i)..,Constructionk.ContractI.Otherm.Othern.Othero.AgencyFederalAid....-.-
.—-——-——--—-—-——----.—-.-—.Participation—...--—RatioforCNg.TotalCNCostEstimate(k+l÷m4-n4-o+p)r.TotalProjectCostEstimate(e+j+q)3,006,000406,0002,600,000AgencyOfficialWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationBy________________________________________________By_________________________________________TitleDirectorofLocalPrograms_________________________________________________DateExecuted_________________________________DOTForm140-039EF1Revised03/20147o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 186 of 410
ConstructionMethodofFinancing(CheckMethodSelected)StateAdandAward[II4exdA-kJvacP,iit-AgcocyShareo1kconslrudioncost(basedoncontractaward)[1MewxlBWktfrontastartheAqency’sshaio1tslbuconcost(ine4,a3hinwt2)theaiwitorS___________________at$__________________pmonthformonths.LocalForceorLocalAdandAwardlitMethodC-AoencvcostincurredwithnartialreimbursementTheLocalAgencyfurtherstipulatesthatpursuanttosaidTiUe23,gulatiorisandpoliciesandprocedures,andasaconMiontopaymentofthefederalfundsobligated,itacceptsandwillcomplywiththeapplicableprovisionssetforthbelewAdoptedbyofficialactionon_____________________________ResolutionlOrdinanceNa__________________Provisions1.ScopeofWorkTheAgencyshallprovideallthework,labor,materials,andservicesnecessarytoperformtheprojectwhichisdescribedandsetlortliindetailinthe“ProjectDescription”and‘TypeofWork.”WhentheSlateactsforandonbehalfoftheAgency,theStateshallhedeemedanagentoftheAgencyandshaltperformtheservicesdescribedandindicatedin“TypeofWork”onthefaceofthisagreement,inaccordancewithplansandspecificationsasproposedbytheAgencyandapprovedhitheStatearidtheFederalHighwayAdministration.WhentheStateactsfortheAgencybutisnotsubjecttotherightofcontrolbytheAgency.theSlateshallhavetherighttoperformtheworksubjecttotheordinaryproceduresoftheStateandFederalllighvayAdministration.II.DelegationofAuthorityTheStateiswillingtofulfilltheresponsibilitiestotheFederalGovernmentbytheadministrationofthisproject.TheAgencyagreesthattheStateshallhavethefullauthoritytocarryoutthisadministration.TheStateshallreview,process,andapprovedocumentsrequiredforfederalaidreimbursementinaccordancewithfederalrequirements.IftheStateadvertisesandawardsthecontract.theStatewillfurtheractfortheAgencyinallmattersconcerningtheprojectasrequestedbytheAgency.iftheLocalAgencyadvertisesandawardstheproject,theStateshallreviewtheworktoensureconformitywiththeapprovedplansandspecifications.Ill.ProjectAdministrationCertaintypesofsorkandservicesshallbeprovidedbytheStateonthisprojectasrequestedbytheAgencyanddescribedintheTypeofWorkabove.Inaddition,theStatewillfurnishqualifiedpersonnelforthesupervisionandinspectionoftheworkinprogress.OnLocalAgencyadvertisedandawardedprojects,thesupervisionandinspectionshallbelimitedtoensuringallworkisinconformancewithapprovedplans.specifications,andfederalaidrequirements.ThesalaryofsuchengineerorothersupervisorandallothersalariesandcostsincurredbyStateforcesupontheprojectwillbeconsideredacostthereof.AllcostsrelatedtothisproiectincurredbyemployeesoftheStateinthecustomarymaimeronhighwaypayrollsandvouchersshallbechargedascostsoftheproject.IV.AvailabilityofRecordsAllprojectrecordsinsupportofallcostsincurredandactualexpenditureskeptbytheAgencyaretobemaintainedinaccordancewithlocalgovernmentaccountingproceduresprescribedbytheWashingtonStateAuditor’sOffice,theU.S.DepartmentofTransportation.andtheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.TherecordsshallbeopentoinspectionbytheStateandFederalGovernmentatallreasonabletimesandshallberetainedandmadeavailableforsuchinspectionforaperiodofnotlessthanthreeyearsfromthefinalpaymentofanyfederalaidfundstotheAgency.CopiesofsaidrecordsshallbefurnishedtotheStateand/orFederalGovernmentuponrequest.V.CompliancewithProvisionsTheAgencyshallnotincuranyfederalaidparticipationcostsonanyclassificationofworkonthisprojectuntilauthorizedinwritingbytheStateforeachclassification.Theclassificationsofworkforprojectsare:I.Preliminaryengineering.2.Rightofwayacquisition.3.Projectconstruction.Oncewrittenauthorizationisgiven,theAgencyagreestoshowcontinuousprogressthroughmonthlybillings.FailuretoshowcontinuousprogressmayresulttheAgency’sprojectbecominginactive,asdescribedin23CFR630,andsubjecttodc-obligationoffederalaidfundsand/oragreementclosure.Ifrightofwayacquisition.oractualconstructionoftheroadforwhichpreliminaryengineeringisundertakenisnotstartedbythecloseofthetenthfiscalyearfollowingthefiscalyearinwhichpreliminaryengineeringphaseasauthorized.theAgencywillrepaytotheStatethesumorsumsoffederalfundspaidtotheAgencyunderthetermsofthisagreement(seeSectionlx).Ifacrtialconstructionoftheroadforwhichrightofwayhasbeenpurchasedisnotstartedbythecloseofthetenthfiscalyearfollowingthefiscalyearinwhichtherightofwayphasewasauthorized,theAgencywillrepaytotheStatethesumorsumsoffederalfundspaidtotheAgencytinderthetermsofthisagreement(seeSectionIX).DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/20147o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 187 of 410
TheAnencanreesthatallstagesofconstructionosar-toprovidetheiniliathphsadcompletefacilityivithinthelimitsofthisprojectisillconformSoatleasttherninhmnrivaluessetbyapprovedstateuidedesignsrilsapp&ahktothisofhighways,e’senthoughsuchadditionalworkisfinanceduithootfederalaidparticipation.TheAgencyagreesthatonfederalaidbiglswavconstructionprojects.thecurrenttèderalaidregulationsbichapplytoliquidateddamagestothebasisoffederalparticipationintheprojectcostshaltbeapplicableintheeemtthecontractorfailstocompletethecontract‘withinthecontracttime.Vi.PaymentandPartialReimbursementThetotalcostoftheproject,includingallreilcuandengineeringcostsandotherespensesoftheState.istobepaidbtheAgencyandbytheFederal(iovernmeniFederalfundingshallbeinaccordancenubtheFederalTYportatiolAct,asamended,2CUR225andOfficeofManagementandBudgetcircularsA-102andA-133.TheStateshallnotbeultimatelyresixsasihleforanyofthecostsoftheprojectTheAgencyshallbetihimatchresponsibleforallcostsassociatedwiththeprojectlücbarenotreimbursedbytheFederalGovernmentNothinginthisagreementshallheconstruedasapromisebytheStateastotheamountornatureoffederalparticipationinthisproject.TheAgencyshallbilltheslateforfederalaidprojectcostsincurredincoidarmitr‘withapplicablefederalandslatetans.Theagencyshallminimizethetimeelapsedbetweenreceiptoffederalaidfundsandsubsequentpaymentofincurredcosts.ExpendituresbytheLocalAgencyformaintenance.generaladministration.supenision,andotheroverheadshallnotbeeligibleforfederalparticipationunlessacurrentindirectcostplanhasbeenpreparedinaccordancewiththeregulationsoutlinedin2CUR225-CostPrinciplesforState,locaLandIndianTribalGovernment,andretainedforaudit.TheStatewillpayforStateincurredcostsontheproject.Followingpayment,theStateshallbilltheFederalGovernmentforreimbursementofthosecostseligibleforfederalparticipationtotheextentthatsuchcostsareattributableandproperlyallocabletothisproject.TheStateshallbilltheAgencyforthatportionofStatecostswhichwerenotreimbursedbytheFederalGovernment(seeSectionIX).1.ProjectConstructionCostsProjectconstructionfinancingwillbeaccomplishedbyoneofthethreemethodsasindicatedinthisagreement.MethodA—TheAgencywillplacewiththeSlate,within(20)daysaftertheexecutionoftheconstructioncontractanadvanceintheamountoftheAgency’sshareofthetotalconstructioncostbasedonthecontractaward.TheStatewillnotifytheAgencyoftheexactamounttobedepositedwiththeState.TheStatewillpayallcostsincurredunderthecontractuponpresentationofprogressbillingsfromthecontractor.Followingsuchpayments,theStatewillsubmitabillingtotheFederalGovernmentforthefederalaidparticipationshareofthecostWhentheprojectissubstantiallycompletedandfinalactualcostsoftheprojectcanbedetermined,theStatewillpresenttheAgencywithafinalbillingshowingtheamountduetheStateortheamountduetheAgency.ThisbillingwillbeclearedbyeitherapaymentfromtheAgencytotheStateorbyarefundfromtheStatetotheAgency.MethodB—TheAgency’sshareofthetotalconstructioncostasshownonthefaceofthisagreementshallbewithheldfromitsmonthlyfuellaxallotments.Thefaceofthisagreementestablishesthemonthsinwhichthewithholdingshalltakeplaceandtheexactamounttobewithheldeachmonth.TheextentofwithholdingwillbeconfirmedbyletterfromtheStateatthetimeofcontractaward.Uponreceiptofprogressbillingsfromthecontractor,theStatewillsubmitsuchbillingstotheFederalGovernmentforpaymentofitsparticipatingportionofsuchbillings.MethodC—TheAgencymaysubmitvoucherstotheStateintheformatprescribedbytheState,induplicate,notmorethanoncepermonthforthosecostseligibleforFederalparticipationtotheextentthatsuchcostsaredirectlyattributableandproperlyallocabletothisproject.ExpendituresbytheLocalAgencyformaintenance,generaladministration,supervision,andotheroverheadshallnotbeeligibleforFederalparticipationunlessclaimedunderapreviouslyapprovedindirectcostplan.TheStateshallreimbursetheAgencyfortheFederalshareofeligibleprojectcostsuptotheamountshownonthefaceofthisagreement.Atthetimeofaudit,theAgencywillprovidedocumentationofallcostsincurredontheproject.TheStateshallbilltheAgencyforallcostsincurredbytheStaterelativetotheproject.TheStateshallalsobilltheAgencyforthefederalfundspaidbytheStatetotheAgencyforprojectcostswhicharesubsequentlydeterminedtobeineligibleforfederalparticipation(seeSectionIX).VII.AuditofFederalConsultantContractsTheAgency,ifservicesofaconsultantarerequired,shallberesponsibleforauditoftheconsultant’srecordstodetermineeligiblefederalaidcostsontheproject.ThereportofsaidauditshallbeintheAgency’sfilesandmadeavailabletotheStateandtheFederalGovernment.AnauditshallbeconductedbytheWSDOTInternalAuditOfficeinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedgovernmentalauditingstandardsasissuedbytheUnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOfficebytheComptrollerGeneraloftheUnitedStates;WSDOTManualM27.50.ConsultantAuthorization,Selection,andAgreementAdministrationmemorandaofunderstandingbetweenWSDOTandFHWA;andOfficeofManagementandBudgetCircularA-133.Ifuponaudititisfoundthatoverpaymentorparticipationoffederalmoneyinineligibleitemsofcosthasoccurred,theAgencyshallreimbursetheStatefortheamountofsuchoverpaymentorexcessparticipation(seeSectionIX).VIII.SingleAuditActTheAgency,asasubrecipientoffederalfunds.shalladheretothefederalOfficeofManagementandBudget(0MB)CircularA-133aswellasallapplicablefederalandstatestatutesandregulations.Asubrecipientwhoexpends$500,000ormoreinfederalawardsfromallsourcesduringagivenfiscalyearshallhaveasingleorprogram-specificauditperformedforthatyearinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof0MBCircularA-133.UponconclusionoftheA-133audit,theAgencyshallberesponsibleforensuringthatacopyofthereportistransmittedpromptlytotheState.IX.PaymentofBillingTheAgencyagreesthatifpaymentorarrangementforpaymentofanyoftheState’sbillingrelativetotheproject(e.g.,Stateforcework,projectcancellation,overpayment,costineligibleforfederalparticipation,etc.)isnotmadetotheStatewithin45daysaftertheAgencyhasbeenbilled,theStateshalleffectreimbursementofthetotalsumduefromtheregularmonthlyfueltaxallotmentstotheAgencyfromtheMotorVehicleFund.NoadditionalFederalprojectfundingwillbeapproveduntilfullpaymentisreceivedunlessotherwisedirectedbytheDirectorofLocalPrograms.DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/201437o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 188 of 410
X.TrafficControl.Signing,Marking,andRoadwayMaintenanceTheAgencywillnotpermitanychangestoberondeiitheprovisionsforpathngregulationsandtrafficcontrolonthisprojectwitlxwnpriorapprosaloftheStateandFederalHighwayAdministration.TheAgemrywillnotinstallorj,crmittobeinstalledanysigns.signals.ormailingsriotfriconfiwmancewiththestandardsapprodbytheFederalHighwayAdministrationandMUTCIITheAgencywill,atitsownexpense..maintaintheimprovementcoezedbythisagreemeilLXi.IndemnityTheAgencyshallholdtheFederalGovernmentandtheStateharmlessfromandshallprocessanddefendatitsownexpenseallclaims,demands,orsnitsndetheratlaworequitybroughtagainsttheAgency,State,orFederalGovernweiit,arisingfromtheAgency’sexecutionperfornianec.orfailuretoperformanyoftheprovisionsofthisagreelmmLorofanyotheragreementorcontractconnectedwiththisagreement,orarisingbyreasonoftheparticipahonoftheStaleorFederalGovernmentintheprojectPROVIDED,nothinghereinshallrequiretheAgencytoreimbursetheSlateortineFederalGovernmentfordamagesarisingoutofbodilyinjurytopersonsordamagetopropertycausedbyorresultingfromthesolenegligenceoftineFederalGovernmentortheSlate.XII.NondiscriminationProvisionNoliabilityshallattachtotheStateorFederalGovernmentexceptasexpresslyprovidedherein.TheAgencyshallnotdiscriminateonthebasisofrace,color,nationalorigin,orsexintheawardandperformanceofanyIJS[)OT-assistedcontractandforagreementorintheadministrationofitsDuEprogramortherequirementsof49CFRPart26.TheAgencyshalltakeallnecessaryandreasonablestepsunder49CFRPart26toensurenondiscriminationintheawardandadministrationofUSDOT-assistedcontractsandagreements..TheWSDOT’sDBEprogram,asrequiredby49CFRPart26andasapprovedbyUSD01,isincorporatedbyreferenceinthIsagreement.ImplementationofthisprogramisalegalobligationandfailuretocarryoutitstermsshallbetreatedasaviolationofthisagreemeniUponnotificationtotheAgencyofitsfailuretocarryoutitsapprovedprogram,theDepartmentmayimposesanctionsasprovidedforunderPart26andmay,inappropriatecases,referthematterforenforcementunder18U.S.C.1001and/ortheProgramFraudCivilRemediesActof1986(3!U.S.C.3801etseq.>.TheAgencyherebyagreesthatitwillincorporateorcausetobeincorporatedintoanycontractforconstructionwork,ormodificationthereofasdefinedintherulesandregulationsoftheSecretaryofLaborin41CFRChapter60,whichispaidforinwholeorinpartwithfundsobtainedfromtheFederalGovernmentorborrowedonthecreditoftheFederalGovernmentpursuanttoagrant,contract,loan,insurance,orguaranteeorunderstandingpursuanttoanyfederalprograminvolvingsuchgrant,contract,loan,insurance,orguarantee,therequiredcontractprovisionsforFederal-AidContracts(FHWA1273),locatedinChapter44oftheLocalAgencyGuidelines.TheAgencyfurtheragreesthatitwillbeboundbytheaboveequalopportunityclausewithrespecttoitsownemploymentpracticeswhenitparticipatesinfederallyassistedconstructionwork:Provided,thatiftheapplicantsoparticipatingisaStateorLocalGovernment,theaboveequalopportunityclauseisnotapplicabletoanyagency,instrumentality,orsubdivisionofsuchgovernmentwhichdoesnotparticipateinworkonorunderthecontract.TheAgencyalsoagrees:(I)ToassistandcooperateactivelywiththeStateinobtainingthecomplianceofcontractorsandsubcontractorswiththeequalopportunityclauseandrules,regulations,andrelevantordersoftheSecretaryofLabor.(2)TofurnishtheStatesuchinformationasitmayrequireforthesupervisionofsuchcomplianceandthatiiwillotherwiseassisttheStateinthedischargeofitsprimaryresponsibilityforsecuringcompliance.(3)TorefrainfromenteringintoanycontractorcontractmodificationsubjecttoExecutiveOrder11246ofSeptember24,1965,withacontractordebarredfrom,orwhohasnotdemonstratedeligibilityfor,governmentcontractsandfederallyassistedconstructioncontractspursuanttotheExecutiveOrder.(4)TocarryoutsuchsanctionsandpenaltiesforviolationoftheequalopportunityclauseasmaybeimposeduponcontractorsmmdsubcontractorsbytheState,FederalHighwayAdministration,ortheSecretaryofLaborpursuanttoPart11.subpartDoftheExecutiveOrder.Inaddition,theAgencyagreesthatifitfailsorrefusestocomplywiththeseundertakings,theStatemaytakeanyorallofthefollowingactions:(a)Cancel,terminate,orsuspendthisagreementinwholeorinpart:(b)RefrainfromextendinganyfurtherassistancetotheAgencyundertheprogramwithrespecttowhichthefailureorrefusaloccurreduntilsatisfactoryassuranceoffuturecompliancehasbeenreceivedfromtheAgency;and(c)ReferthecasetotheDepartmentofJusticeforappropriatelegalproceedings.XIII.LiquidatedDamagesTheAgencyherebyagreesthattheliquidateddamagesprovisionsof23CFRPart635.Subpart127.assupplemented.relativetotheamountofFederalparticipationintheprojectcost,shallbeapplicableintheeventthecontractorfailstocompletethecontractwithinthecontracttime.FailuretoincludeliquidateddamagesprovisionwillnotrelievetheAgencyfromreductionoffederalparticipationinaccordancewiththisparagraph.DOTForm140-039EFRevised03/201447o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 189 of 410
XIV.TerminationforPublicConvenienceTheSecretaryoftheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationmayterminatethecontractinbole.orfromtimetotimeinpart,xbeneei.(I)Thereqiüsilefederalfimdingbecomesua’.ailahklhcoghfailureofaçmpriationorotheraise.(2ibecontractorispreventedfiomproceedingiriththewomLasadirectresultofanEccutiveOrderofthePresident‘ruthrespecttotheprosecutionofiarorintheinterestofnationaldefense,oranExeenliveOrderoldiePresidentorGovernoroftheStalewithrespecttothepreservationofeneiyresources.(3)Thecontractorispresentedfromproceedingwiththeworkbyreasonofapreliminaty,speciaLorpermanentrs*raiithigorderofacourtofcompetentjurisdictionwheretheissuanceolsuchorderisprimarilycausedbytheactsoromissionsofpersoosoragenciesotherthanthecontractor.(4)TheSecretaryisnotifiedbytheFederalhighwayAdministrationthattheprojectisinactive.(5)TheSecretarydeterminesthatsuchterminationisinthebestinterestsoftheState.XV.VenueforClaimsandlorCausesofActionFortheconvenienceofthepartiestothiscontract,itisagreedthatanyclaimsrmdiorcausesofactionntiiththeLocalAgencyhasagainsttheStateofWashingtongrowingoutofthiscontractortheprojectwithwhichitisconcerned,shallbebroughtonlyintheSuperiorCourtforThurstonCounty.XVI.CertificationRegardingtheRestrictionsoftheUseofFederalFundsforLobbyingiheapprovingauthoritycertifies,tothebestofhisorherknowledgeandbelief,that(I)Nofederalappropriatedfundshavebeenpaidorwillbepaid,byoronbehalfoftheundersigned.toanypersonforinfluencingorattemptingtoinfluenceanofficeroremployeeofanyfederalagency,amemberofCongress,anofficeroremployeeofCongress.oranemployeeofamemberofCongressinconnectionwiththeawardingofanyfederalcontract,themakingofanyfederalgrant,themakingofanyfederalloan,theenteringintoofanycooperativeagreement,andtheextension,continuation,renewal,amendment,ormodificationofanyfederalcontract,grant.,loan,orcooperativeagreement.(2)Ifanyfundsotherthanfederalappropriatedfundshavebeenpaidorwillbepaidtoanypersonforinfluencingorattemptingtoinfluenceanofficeroremployeeofanyfederalagency,amemberofCongress,anofficeroremployeeofCongress,oranemployeeofamemberofCongressinconnectionwiththisfederalcontract,grant,loan,orcooperativeagreement,theundersignedshallcompleteandsubmittheStandardForm-LII.“DisclosureFormtoReportLobbying.”inaccordancewithitsinstructions.(3)Theundersignedshallrequirethatthelanguageofthiscertificationbeincludedintheawarddocumentsforallsubawardsatalltiers(includingsubgrants,andcontractsandsubcontractsundergrants,subgrants.loans,andcooperativeagreements)whichexceed$100,000,andthatallsuchsubrecipientsshallcertif’anddiscloseaccordingly.Thiscertificationisamaterialrepresentationoffactuponwhichreliancewasplacedwhenthistransactionwasmadeorenteredinto.SubmissionofthiscertificationasaprerequisiteformakingorenteringintothistransactionimposedbySection1352,Title31,U.S.Code.Anypersonwhofailstofiletherequiredcertificationshallbesubjecttoacivilpenaltyofnotlessthan$10,000andnotmorethan$100,000foreachsuchfailure.AdditionalProvisionsDOTForm140-039EFRevised03/201457o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 190 of 410
CityofRentonRainierAveSCorridorImprovements-Phase41.EstimateforConsultingServices3ProjectDesignCriteriaOverheadCostFixedFeeReimbursableA.ReproductionExpensesB.PlotterMylarC.Other$4,000$6,800$10,00012/03/2014$1,456,000$655,200Total$20,800TotalConsultant$2,860,0002.EstimateforAgencyServicesAverageRateEstimatedItemDisciplineManhoursofPayCost1ProjectManagement______900$50$45,0002PlanReview___________400$45$18,000Totals1,300$63,000OverheadCost100%$63,000ReimbursableOther$5,000Total$5,000TotalAgency$131,0003.EstimateforStateServices$15,000GrandTotal$3,006,000AverageRateEstimatedItemDisciplineManhoursofPayCost1ProjectManagement1,000$70$70,0002SurveyingandBase_Mapping800$50$40,000___________________________________600$55$33,0004TrafficdataAnalysis_____________400$______55$22,0005Outreach_________________500$50$25,0006AlternativesAnalysis600$55$33,0007Geotechnical_Exploration500$50$25,0008Environmental/Permitting400$70$28,0009DesignDevelopment2,200$55$121,00010WSDOT_Coordination600$55$33,00011Constructability__________600$55$33,00012ROWPlans/LegalDescriptions800$55$44,00013UtilityCoordination900$50$45,00014Plans,SpecificationsandEstimates3,200$55$176,000Totals13,100$728,000200%30%H:\Divisions\TRANSPOR.TAT\PLANNiNG\Juliana\RainierPhase2\WSOOT\OesignEstimate_Rainier_4.xisx7o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 191 of 410
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationPrefixRoute()FedAidPmiectt’umberLocalAgencyProectNumberDate12/03/2014DUNSiber092278894TaxIDNwnberAgencyCAAgencyFederalProgramTitleCityofRentonYes[]NoIll211205(]OtherProjectTitleN4784T’[Ldew122i3’2”RainierAveSCorridorImprovements-Phase4EndLatitudeN47°29’14”IEndLongitudeV12213’5”ProjectTenniniFrom-ToPiqectZipCode(+4)S3rdSt(SR900)toNW3rdP198057FromToTLengthofProjectAwardType0.5ml_____II]Local[]LocalForces1]State[]RailroadFederalAgencyCityNumberCountyNumberCountyNameWSDOTRegionIIIFHWAI]Others107017jKingNorthwestRegionCongressionalDistrictLegislativeDistrictsUrbanAreaNumber9137PSRCTotalLocalAgencyPhaseStartPhaseEstimatedCostFundingFederalFundsDate(NearestHundredDollar)(NearestHundredDollar)(NearestHundredDoUar)MonthYear$3,00OOo$4o6oo$2,6oQ000j02/2015pjw$1,500,000$200,000$1,300,00002/2017Const$14,800,0001$6,900,000$7,900,00002/2018Total$19,306,000$7,506,000$11,800,000DescriptionofExistingFacility(ExistingDesignandPresentCondition)RoadwayWidthNumberofLanesvaries-68-76varies-4-6lanesRainierAveS,fromS3rdSttoNW3rdP1isaprincipalarterialwith4to6lanesoftrafficanddailyvolumeof40,000vehicles.LocalAgencyFederalAidProjectProspectus(WSDOT\UseOntyINearestCityNameRentonDescriptionofProposedWorkDescriptionofProposedWork(Attachadditionalsheet(s)ifnecessary)Phase4willextendtheimprovementsfrom53rdSt(SR900)toapproximately1,000feetnorthofAirportWay.ImprovementsincludeextendingasouthboundBATLanefromS2ndStto53rdSt,pedestrianimprovementswithstreetscaping,segmentofaregionalped/bikepathtrail(LakeWashingtonLoopTrail)fromAirportWayto1,000feetnorthofAirportWay,installationofapedestrianactuatedtrafficsignal(Hawk),pedestrianscaleillumination,transitfacilityupgrades,accessmanagement,newtrafficsignalandupgradesofexistingtrafficsignals.LocalAgencyContactPersonTitlePhonePramDeveprnentCoordinator-7232MailingAddressCityStateZipCode10555GradyWayRentonWA98057By—ProjectProspectusApprovalApprovingAuthorityTitleTransportationDesignSupervisorDateDOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014Page1of3+PreviousEditionsObsolete+7o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 192 of 410
Agency:PrtectTitleDateCityofRentonRainierAveSCorridorImprovements-Phase412/03/2014TypeofProposedWorkProjectType(ChercthatApp’y)RoadwayVdthNumberofLaneslNevCoructionljPathlTrafl[]3-R68t764-6I]ReconstructionjPedestrianIFaclities[12-R0RailroadlJParldngI]OtherI]BridgeGeometricDesignDataDescriptionFederalFunctionalClassificationTerrainPostedSpeedDesignSpeedExistingADTDesignYearADTDesignYearDesignHourlyVolume(DHV)ThroughRoute1lPrincipalArterialII]UrbanC]MinorArterialC]RuralC]CollectorC]NHSC]MajorCollectorC]MinorCollector[JLocalAccessLiiFlat[]Roll[1Mountain30mph30mph40,000N/AN/AN/ACrossroadLiPrincipalArterialI]UrbanF]MinorArterial[IRural[]CollectorC]NHSMajorCollectorC]MinorCollectorC]LocalAccessLIFlatLIRollLIMountainPerformanceofWorkPreliminaryEngineeringWillBePerformedByOthersAgencyConsultant99%1%ConstructionWillBePerformedByontractAgencyContract100%0%EnvironmentalClassificationC]ClassI-EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)LiiClassII-CategoricallyExcluded(CE)UProjectInvolvesNEPNSEPASection404IIIProjectsRequiringDocumentationInteragencyAgreement(DocumentedCE)C]ClassIll-EnvironmentalAssessment(EA)UProjectInvolvesNEPA/SEPASection404InteragencyAgreementEnvironmentalConsiderationsDOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014Page2of37o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 193 of 410
RemarksThisprojectwillhavenoaffectontheairportoperations.Thisprojecthasbeenreviewedbythelegislativebodyoftheadministrationagencyoragencies,orit’sdesignee,andisnotinconsistentwiththeagency’scomprehensiveplanforcommunitydevelopment.DateDOTForm140-101EFRevised04/2014AgencyByMayor/ChairpersonAgencyPraedTitleDateCityofRenton116thAveSESidewalk12/01/2014RightofWay1]NoRigIto(WayRequired.lRiglitofWayRequiredAllconstmciionrequiredbythe1NoRelocation[1RelocationRequiredcontractcanbeaccomplishedwithintheexistingrightofwayAtthistimenorelocationisanticipated.DescriptionofUtilityRelocationorAcustmentsaridExistingMajorStructuresInvolvedintheProjectFAAInvolvementIsanyairportlocatedwithin32kilometers(2miles)oftheproposedproject?(IIYes[1NoPage3013•PreviousEditionsObsolete+7o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 194 of 410
TypicalcrossSectionsRainierAveiiueSfromAkportWaytoCentralSoundAerospaceTitáigCenter85’2’Ii’12’W12’IW12SidwaikTruve1LooeTrcwelLameMedicrnJTravelLaneTravelLonePlanSerLakeTurnLaneWoshnonLoopTrailRainierAvenueSfromS2ndStreettoAirportWay8’5’12’11’12’11’12’5’8’SidewalkPlanterTravelLaneTravelLaneMedian!TravelLaneTravelLanePlanterSidewalkTurnLaneRainierAvenueSfromS3rdStreettoS2ndStreet8’5’-13’11’11’12’11’12’5’8’-SidewalkPlanterBusinessTravelLaneTravelLaneMedian!TravelLaneTravelLanePlanterSidewalkAccessandTurnLaneTransit7o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 195 of 410
Jurisdiction:Renton
Project Number:REN-36 County:King Title:Rainier Ave S Corridor Improvements -Phase 4
Phase Programmed Year Oblig.Date Funding Source Federal Funds State Funds Local Funds Phso Total
P/E Design 2015 3/1/15 STP $2 600 000 $0 $0 $2 600 000
P/E-Design 2015 3/1/15 Local $0 $0 $406,000 $4O000
WSDOT PIN:Totals:$2,600,000 $0 $406,000 $3,006,000
Federal AidIFTA Grant Number(s):
Functional Class:Principal Arterial -OVER 5,000 improvement Type:Major Widening HOV
Location:Rainier Ave S/N From:S 3rd St (SR 900)To:NW 3rd P1
Total Cost $19,306,000 Regionally Significant:environmental Status:
Year of Expenditure for Total Cost:2014
MTP Status:Candidate MTP Reference(s):4433
Description:
Phase 4 will extend the improvements from S 3rd St (SR 900)to approximately 1,000 feet north of Airport Way.Improvements include extending a southbound BAT
Lane from S 2nd St to S 3rd St,pedestrian improvements with street scaping,segment of a regional ped/bike path trail (Lake Washington Loop Trail)from Airport Way
to 1,000 feeet north of Airport Way,installation of a pedestrian actuated traffic signal (Hawk),pedestrian scale illumination,transit facility upgrades,access
management,new traffic signal and upgrades of existing traffic signals.
10/30/14 A-217 Appendix A:Prect DescrIptions7o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 196 of 410
JFuturew...-s.t.z.ProposedPh4t.RainierAveSPh11-I---3ToKent/AuburnRegionalUrbanGrowthCenter7o. - Transportation Systems Division requests approval of a Local Agency Page 197 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Amendment 01-14 to Rainier Flight Service LLC
(LAG 14-005)
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Amendment 01-14 to LAG 14-005 Rainier Flight
Service, LLC
Map
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, x7477
Recommended Action:
Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $($2,271)
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Rainier Flight Service, LLC leases the 800 Building for flight instruction and aircraft maintenance
operations. Rainier Flight Service has agreed to allow the use of part of their 800 Building for storage of
Airport equipment, with a corresponding monthly leasehold reduction. An amendment has been signed
by Rainier Flight Service allowing the Airport to use three separate storage areas, each with a different
lease period. Hangar Bay Space 1 terminates on April 1, 2015; Hangar Bay Space 2 terminates on
January 31, 2015; and the Northwest Corner Room will continue on a month-to-month basis. Their lease
terminates on September 30, 2024.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment 01-14 to Rainier Flight Service’s lease (LAG 14-005) for the use of a portion of the
leased area for Airport equipment storage with a corresponding monthly rental reduction, and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the lease amendment.
7p. - Transportation Systems Division
recommends approval of Amendment #1 Page 198 of 410
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:December 16, 2014
TO:Ed Prince, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Jonathan Wilson (ext. 7477)
SUBJECT:Amendment 01-14 to Rainier Flight Service LLC (LAG 14-005)
ISSUE:
Should the Council approve Amendment 01-14 to Rainier Flight Service’s lease (LAG 14-
005) for the use of a portion of the leased area for Airport equipment storage and a
corresponding leasehold reduction?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment 01-14 to Rainier Flight Service’s lease (LAG 14-005) for the use of a
portion of the leased area for Airport equipment storage with a corresponding leasehold
reduction, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the lease amendment.
BACKGROUND:
Rainier Flight Service, LLC leases the 800 Building under lease LAG 14-005, with an
expiration date of September 30, 2024. Rainier Flight Service LLC has agreed to allow
the Airport to store snow removal equipment in the 800 Building on a month-to-month
basis, and other equipment for a defined term. Rainier Flight Service, LLC will receive a
reduction in their monthly leasehold for the square footage that the Airport uses.
There are three separate storage areas in the 800 Building being used to store Airport
equipment. Hangar Bay 1 has a termination date of April 1, 2015 and a leasehold
reduction of $91.74 per month; Hangar Bay 2 with a termination date of
January 31, 2015 and a leasehold reduction of $59.86 per month; and the Northwest
Corner Room with a month-to-month term and a leasehold reduction of $161.33 per
month. The three combined storage areas will result in a revenue reduction of
approximately $2,271.00 in 2015. The materials in Hangar Bay spaces 1 and 2 will be
7p. - Transportation Systems Division
recommends approval of Amendment #1 Page 199 of 410
Ed Prince, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 2
December 16, 2014
moved into the Northwest Corner Room as soon as an exterior roll-up door is installed
in early 2015.
The Airport has spent the past few years acquiring a fleet of snow removal equipment.
In order to keep the equipment in an operable condition, indoor storage is needed. The
Airport shop at the 790 Building does not have sufficient space for storing the larger
snow removal equipment.
At some point in the future if Rainier Flight Service, LLC’s business grows and they
request use of the Northwest Corner Room, the City will have to find an alternative
location for storing the snow removal equipment. This is not expected to be for at least
three years.
cc:Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator
Doug Jacobson, Deputy PW Administrator – Transportation
Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager
Hai Nguyen, Finance Analyst
Josef Harnden, Transportation Administrative Secretary
7p. - Transportation Systems Division
recommends approval of Amendment #1 Page 200 of 410
LAG14-005Amendment01-14AMENDMENTTOBUILDINGLEASEAGREEMENTCityofRentontoRainierFlightService,LLCTHISAMENDMENTNo.1toLeaseAgreementLAG14-005isenteredintoasofNovember1,2014bytheCityofRenton,aMunicipalCorporation(Landlord)andRainierFlightService,alimitedliabilitycompany(Tenant)andamendsthatcertainleaseagreementLAG14-005,datedNovember1,2014.RECITALS:WHEREAS,underSLAG14-005datedNovember1,2014,theCityofRenton(Landlord)hadleasedtoRainierFlightServicesLLC(Tenant)certainlandareaandbuildingspaceontheRentonMunicipalAirport,Renton,Washington,untilSeptember30,2024;andWHEREAS,LandlordhasrequestedandTenanthasagreedtoallowLandlordtousethree(3)separatestorageareasinthebuildingleasedbytheTenantforthepurposeofAirportequipmentstorage,asshownonExhibit“B”(800Building),whichisattachedheretoandincorporatedhereinbythisreference;andWHEREAS,thethree(3)spacesaredefinedas:HangarBaySpace1,consistingof754squarefeet;HangarBaySpace2,consistingof492squarefeet;andNorthwestCornerRoom,consistingof1,326squarefeet.NOW,THEREFORE,INCONSIDERATIONOFTHETERMSANDCONDITIONSHEREINCONTAINEDANDFOROTHERGOODANDVALUABLECONSIDERATION,THERECEIPTANDSUFFICIENCYOFWHICHISHEREBYACKNOWLEDGED,LANDLORDANDTENANTAGREETOAMENDTHELEASEASSETFORTHBELOW:WITNESSETH:LandlordandTenantagreetoamendtheLease,inthefollowingrespects:Threenewparagraphs,a.1.,a.2.,anda.3.,areaddedtoSection4oftheLeaseasfollows:4.RENT/FEES/CHARGES:4.a.1.RentalOffsetforHangarBaySpace1:InconsiderationofTenantpermittingLandlord’suseofHangarBaySpace1,asdepictedinExhibitB,attachedheretoandAmendment01-14toLAG14-005QR161NALCityofRentontoRainierFlightServiceLLC7p. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #1 Page 201 of 410
LAG14-005Amendment01-14incorporatedbythisreference,beginningonNovember1,2014,andendingonApril1,2015,LandlordshallapplyacreditofNinetyOnedollarsandSeventyFourcents($91.74)permonthtowardtheMinimumMonthlyRentpaidbytheTenantundertheLease,asamendedherein,4.a.2.RentalOffsetforHangarBaySpace2:InconsiderationofTenantpermittingLandlord’suseofHangarBaySpace2,asdepictedinExhibitB,beginningonNovember1,2014,andendingonJanuary31,2015,LandlordshallapplyacreditofFiftyNinedollarsandEightySixcents($59.86)permonthtowardtheMinimumMonthlyRentpaidbytheTenantundertheLease,asamendedherein.4.a.3.RentalOffsetforNorthwestCornerRoom:InconsiderationofTenantpermittinglandlord’suseofNorthwestCornerRoom,asdepictedinExhibitB,beginningonNovember1,2014,andcontinuingonamonth-to-monthbasisuntilonepartygivestheotherpartyatleastthirty(30)days’noticetoterminate,LandlordshallapplyacreditofOneHundredSixtyOnedollar5andThirtyThreecents($161.33)permonthtowardtheMinimumMonthlyRentpaidbytheTenantundertheLease,asamendedherein.AllothertermsandconditionsoftheoriginalLeaseAgreementandAmendmentsthereto,insofarastheyarenotinconsistentherewith,shallremaininfullforceandeffect.RainierFlightServicesLICCITYOFRENTONaWashingtonLimitedLiabilityCompanyaMunicipalCorporationT---LD____SdDenisLawMayorTitleJasonSethCityClerkDateAmendment01-14toLAG14-005CityofRentontoRainierFlightServiceLLC7p. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #1 Page 202 of 410
LAG14-005Amendment01-14ApprovedastolegalformCityAttorneyEXHIBITBAniendment01-14toLAG14-0053CityofRentontoRainierFlightServiceLLC7p. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #1 Page 203 of 410
“8OBuilding”800WestPerimeterRoadRenton,WA98057North—EXHIBITBRentonAirport/ClaytonScottField7p. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #1 Page 204 of 410
S’CALU‘CC———--_____————.___0l_——3004”3____—--‘-7--—-r-—28/0ILGAI.DESCRIPTION:)ATI’)),’)hONOFTHE1)1/25”1)i’CTiC’,,‘,IOWNS11IP23NORTH,RANGE000/01’.TM1’)1,11)00)0)1)TI84,)I)AT)TIN.EJFSCIIII)TL)AS10))OW!)(TI)MENT’)N()AT‘III’SD))1)’)I5h3NTIT0041)1(101”SAIl)SCOTION7,01-AC))ROARS2’l)El.l’lTEEF‘NC)))1)10S0I)7)IWFSTQUAI(l)-))01’SAIl)SEC)ION7,-1)111)01NA’)!I’S?”),52)3’)FE)’)ToHI’HONOrI)?11)11)1TAX)WAY“A”THI]’NCFN0$41l’S”WAIlING‘lAS’IAXIII1T“A“.21)/I),lIEli:THENCE565’l1’07”W,1)1)50IEITTOTIllPOINT(OF’HFGINNING;1)1)-NC,CONII’4U)N504710’)7E4,231.01)TIE1,(‘4)NT)’NCI’i‘PI’430)1)5.3”TEAT,IHENCI’,ll’’’’ITl2’S,I?.)75TOO’,1)1)1)01N),134’,IDNE14153TIlT,THENCE1)UO’5$’i,,6C,.7511’T1’O‘)-ITSIIS’l’S’i’Jl/!),,‘7.s,s.,rooT,14150’)’1).5’,5))’5)%28510lOOT(C’11))’POINTornoGINNING))ONSAININGA)‘l1)1I17’IMA(I.EANTS))TSUANI‘FIT01)203ACRES.08327’I3LAG14-N7/2OFSEC.7,ALL.INTh.23N.,RCE.05E.,W.M.III,’,,1)£(FTC”)‘INCHloors,—,,-N003455T‘i-..‘5’‘—I—--NCT——\(pI‘r-a.\,,——,.I63ji’,,‘--‘$ir‘‘‘i-‘-5,1)7.3,,i,LR_.-_-‘‘—,.,.,‘F‘‘‘I[I—’-•]I—I4r’A0,C)1)-—‘‘I‘‘-‘‘I’I.I,A41’51t.,)3,-,‘,‘,;Oirr—‘.,,,i’;.—,,..,—‘ARCEL—.7I)I‘‘‘‘‘.,‘‘‘‘PARC)’],75))“11P5,1)45r,.PI—-Gio’i.’130‘SOT’O”‘,1f31acres0,‘I:‘I,.l‘I,•--‘-kINOTESHAS’,1:0SFAR)NGSISNuJ”48’53”)’,’04)11)700INTHEWASI-IINEITON000R0INATTSYSTEMNA))1)3(11511NONIH‘ONE,AEON).TI))C’LN)LIiLINTOF’THE411)101)A)111’O’4TNUNWA1,ASLGTABS,ISIIT))1)Y(IIIPUBLIC)E))”TS0)I’A)liMFNISINIl)!)MUNI’’0),,/11)50’?I1)1111‘,)CASIJRT’IAENTSIC!)14,55’,I5’.)IR)PFI’FORSICO1517-).1000/.1201TOTALSTATIONINSST.”j)’)i-,,,,‘l,’EI3,4CC10))SXCI’C.)ALi01,iR000SUI’O01”‘-151:,:,A))‘lAM/lAYMEASUREMENT000IPMLNIl)fltI/El)Il/SIITFNCOMPARESANDA0,IIJSTITDTOANA4011/ICTOI)TIIC’SUITVI’)(IA)IL’)”ATE))El/SI)IN),110)11)1HELASYEA),’-LEASEAGREEMENTCityofRentontoRaimcrFlightService.LLC———‘—-13051)0/’!)’1)1))_________—OENTE’?I)NEl,’UNIIAT__________—SECTIONIINC00,1STLINEPOUND0)1/FlIERSECTIONCOlil-lEIlPOUND5).CSONCORNEP‘j\‘30)7p. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #1 Page 205 of 410
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Rainier Flight Service, LLC Lease Amendment 2-14
to LAG 14-005
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 05 Jan 2015
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Lease Amendment 2-14 to LAG 14-005
Map
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, x7477
Recommended Action:
Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 0 Transfer Amendment: $0
Amount Budgeted: $ 0 Revenue Generated: $0
Total Project Budget: $ 0 City Share Total Project: $ 0
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Rainier Flight Service, LLC is undertaking a project to remodel existing office space and add new office
space within the hangar building. Financing for this tenant improvement is coming from Pacific
Continental Bank. Pacific Continental Bank, as a condition of making the loan to Rainier Flight Service,
has asked the City to sign a Landlord Subordination Agreement for certain collateral Rainier has used to
secure the loan. The City has agreed to sign the Landlord Subordination Agreement in exchange for
Rainier Flight Service agreeing to have their lease amended to include some additional language in
Section 18 – Surrender of Premises. Rainier Flight Service has agreed to this request. Lease Amendment
2-14 revises Section 18 – Surrender of Premises. Specifically, this amendment modifies one sentence in
that section. The existing sentence to be changed reads: “Tenant may remove from the Premises
movable office furniture or trade fixtures put in at the expense of the Tenant.” The modified language
will read: “Tenant shall remove from the Premises, upon request of the Landlord, movable office
furniture or trade fixtures put in at the expense of Tenant.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the lease language modification to Rainier Flight Service’s lease (LAG 14-005) concerning the
removal of movable office furniture or trade fixtures and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign
Amendment 02-14.
7q. - Transportation Systems Division
recommends approval of Amendment #2 Page 206 of 410
PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENTMEMORANDUMDATE:December16,2014TO:EdPrince,CouncilPresidentMembersoftheRentonCityCouncilVIA:DenisLaw,MayorFROM:GreggZimmermaiministratorSTAFFCONTACT:JonathanWilson,AirportManager(extension7477)SUBJECT:RainierFlightService,LLCLeaseAmendment2-14toLAG14-005ISSUE:Shoul.dCouncilapprovemodifyingtheleaselanguagetoRainierFlightService,LLC’slease(LAG14-005)concerningtheremovalofmovableofficefurnitureortradefixtures?RECOMMENDATION:ApprovetheleaselanguagemodificationtoRainierFlightService,LLC’slease(LAG14-005)concerningtheremovalofmovableofficefurnitureortradefixturesandauthorizetheMayorandCityClerktosignAmendment02-14.BACKGROUND:RainierFlightService,LLCrecentlysignedalease(LAG14-005)tooccupythebuildingandassociatedrampspaceat800WestPerimeterRoad.RainierFlightServiceisundertakingaprojecttoremodelexistingofficespaceandaddnewofficespacewithinthehangarbuilding.FinancingforthistenantimprovementiscomingfromPacificContinentalBank.PacificContinentalBank,asaconditionofmakingtheloantoRainierFlightService,hasaskedtheCitytosignaLandlordSubordinationAgreementforcertaincollateralRainierFlightServicehasusedtosecuretheloan.TheCityhasagreedtosigntheLandlordSubordinationAgreementinexchangeforRainierFlightServiceagreeingtohavetheirleaseamendedtoincludesomeadditionallanguageinSection18—SurrenderofPremises.RainierFlightServicehasagreedtothisrequest.7q. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 Page 207 of 410
EdPrince,CouncilPresidentMembersoftheRentonCityCouncilPage2of2December16,2014LeaseAmendment2-14revisesSection18—SurrenderofPremises.Specifically,thisamendmentmodifiesonesentenceinthatsection.Theexistingsentencetobechangedreads:‘TenantmayremovefromthePremisesmovableofficefurnitureortradefixturesputinattheexpenseoftheTenant.”Themodifiedlanguagewillread:“TenantshallremovefromthePremises,uponrequestoftheLandlord,movableofficefurnitureortradefixturesputinattheexpenseofTenant.”ThelanguagemodificationhelpsprotecttheCityfrompossiblyneedingtoexpendfundstocleanouttheinsideofthehangarbuildingonceRainierFlightService’sleaseexpires.cc:JonathanWilson,AirportManagerJosefHarnden,TransportationAdministrativeSecretaryISusanCampbell-Hehr,AirportSecretaryIIH:\FiIeSys\AIR-Airport,TransportationServicesDivision\03Projects\01Tasks\AgendaBills\2014AgendaBiIls\AgBill-RainierFlightServiceLeaseAmendment2-14\issuepaper-RainierFlightServiceLeaseAmendment2-14.doc7q. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 Page 208 of 410
LAG14-005Amendment2-14AMENDMENTTOLEASEAGREEMENT(CityofRentontoRainierFlightServiceLLC)THISAMENDMENTtoLeaseAgreementLAG14-005iseffectiveasofthedateofexecutionbyTHECITYOFRENTON,aWashingtonmunicipalcorporation(hereinafter“Landlord”)andRainierFlightService,LLC,aWashingtonLimitedLiabilityCompany(hereinafter“Tenant”).RECITALS:WHEREAS,LandlordandTenantenteredintoaGroundLeasedatedNovember1,2014,LAG-14-005onthepremisesdescribedinExhibit“A”;andWHEREAS,TenantisseekingfinancingfromPacificContinentalBank;andWHEREAS,TenantisrequestingthatthecityexecuteaLandlordSubordinationAgreement(“SubordinationAgreement”)beexecutedamongPacificContinentalBank,theLandlord,andtheTenant;andWHEREAS,PacificContinentalBankwillnotagreetoremove,attheirexpense,CollateralasdefinedinExhibit1totheSubordinationAgreement.AndWHEREAS,theLandlordandTenantdesiretohavetheTenanttakeontheresponsibilityofremovingproperty,attheLandlord’sdiscretion,attheterminationoftheLease,NOW,THEREFORE,ITISHEREBYAGREEDANDCOVENANTEDBYANDBETWEENTHELANDLORDANDTENANTASFOLLOWS:WITNESSETH:A:Section18ofLeaseAgreementLAG14-005isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows:Section18.SURRENDEROFPREMISES:TenantshallquitandsurrenderthePremisesattheendoftheTerminaconditionasgoodasthereasonableusethereofwouldpermit,normalwearandtearexcepted.Alterations,additionsorimprovementswhichmaybemadebyeitherofthepartiesheretoonthePremises,exceptmovableofficefurnitureortradefixturesputinattheexpenseoftheTenant,shallbeandremainthepropertyoftheLandlordandshallremainonandbesurrenderedwiththePremisesasapartthereofattheterminationofthisLeasewithouthindrance,molestation,orinjury.TenantshallremovefromthePremises,uponrequestoftheLandlord,movableofficefurnitureortradefixturesputinattheexpenseofTenant.Tenantshall,atitssoleexpense,properlyandpromptlyrepairtoLandlord’sreasonablesatisfactionanydamageAmendment02-14toLAG14-005CityofRentontoRainierFlightServiceLLCORIGINAL7q. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 Page 209 of 410
tothePremisesoccasionedbyTenant’susethereof,orbytheremovalofTenant’smovableofficefurnitureortradefixturesandequipment,whichrepairshallincludethepatchingandfillingofholesandrepairofstructuraldamage.B.AllremainingprovisionsofLAG14-005,aspreviouslyamended,shallremaininfullforceandeffect,insofarasnotinconsistentherewith.RainierFlightService,[[CCITYOFRENTONaWashingtonLimitedLiabilityCorporationaMunicipalCorporation_-LL_GodonAlvordDenisLawMayorTitleCityClerkDateApprovedastolegalformCityAttorneySTATEOFWASHINGTONAmendment02-14toLAG14-0052of3CityofRentontoRainierFlightServiceLLC7q. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 Page 210 of 410
ss.COUNTYOF_________IcertifythatIknoworhavesatisfactoryevidencethat___________________________isthepersonwhoappearedbeforeme,ands/heacknowledgedthats/hesignedthisinstrument,onoathstatedthats/hewasauthorizedtoexecutetheinstrumentandacknowledgeditasthe_____________________of________________________,a______________,tobethefreeandvoluntaryactofsuch_________________fortheusesandpurposesmentionedintheinstrument.Datedthis____dayof________________________,2014.[SignatureofNotary][PrintNameofNotary]NotaryPublicinandfortheStateofWashington,residingat____________Mycommissionexpires:_________Amendment02-14toLAG14-005°fCityofRentontoRainierFlightServiceLLC7q. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 Page 211 of 410
ss.COUNTYOF_________IcertifythatIknoworhavesatisfactoryevidencethat______________________________isthepersonwhoappearedbeforeme,ands/heacknowledgedthats/hesignedthisinstrument,onoathstatedthats/hewasauthorizedtoexecutetheinstrumentandacknowledgeditasthe______________________of_________________________,a______________,tobethefreeandvoluntaryactofsuch________________fortheusesandpurposesmentionedintheinstrument.Datedthis____dayof_________________________,2014.[SignatureofNotary][PrintNameofNotary]NotaryPublicinandfortheStateofWashington,residingat___________Mycommissionexpires:__________Amendment02-14toLAG14-005of3CityofRentontoRainierFlightServiceLLC7q. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 Page 212 of 410
S’CALU‘CC———--_____————.___0l_——3004”3____—--‘-7--—-r-—28/0ILGAI.DESCRIPTION:)ATI’)),’)hONOFTHE1)1/25”1)i’CTiC’,,‘,IOWNS11IP23NORTH,RANGE000/01’.TM1’)1,11)00)0)1)TI84,)I)AT)TIN.EJFSCIIII)TL)AS10))OW!)(TI)MENT’)N()AT‘III’SD))1)’)I5h3NTIT0041)1(101”SAIl)SCOTION7,01-AC))ROARS2’l)El.l’lTEEF‘NC)))1)10S0I)7)IWFSTQUAI(l)-))01’SAIl)SEC)ION7,-1)111)01NA’)!I’S?”),52)3’)FE)’)ToHI’HONOrI)?11)11)1TAX)WAY“A”THI]’NCFN0$41l’S”WAIlING‘lAS’IAXIII1T“A“.21)/I),lIEli:THENCE565’l1’07”W,1)1)50IEITTOTIllPOINT(OF’HFGINNING;1)1)-NC,CONII’4U)N504710’)7E4,231.01)TIE1,(‘4)NT)’NCI’i‘PI’430)1)5.3”TEAT,IHENCI’,ll’’’’ITl2’S,I?.)75TOO’,1)1)1)01N),134’,IDNE14153TIlT,THENCE1)UO’5$’i,,6C,.7511’T1’O‘)-ITSIIS’l’S’i’Jl/!),,‘7.s,s.,rooT,14150’)’1).5’,5))’5)%28510lOOT(C’11))’POINTornoGINNING))ONSAININGA)‘l1)1I17’IMA(I.EANTS))TSUANI‘FIT01)203ACRES.08327’I3LAG14-N7/2OFSEC.7,ALL.INTh.23N.,RCE.05E.,W.M.III,’,,1)£(FTC”)‘INCHloors,—,,-N003455T‘i-..‘5’‘—I—--NCT——\(pI‘r-a.\,,——,.I63ji’,,‘--‘$ir‘‘‘i-‘-5,1)7.3,,i,LR_.-_-‘‘—,.,.,‘F‘‘‘I[I—’-•]I—I4r’A0,C)1)-—‘‘I‘‘-‘‘I’I.I,A41’51t.,)3,-,‘,‘,;Oirr—‘.,,,i’;.—,,..,—‘ARCEL—.7I)I‘‘‘‘‘.,‘‘‘‘PARC)’],75))“11P5,1)45r,.PI—-Gio’i.’130‘SOT’O”‘,1f31acres0,‘I:‘I,.l‘I,•--‘-kINOTESHAS’,1:0SFAR)NGSISNuJ”48’53”)’,’04)11)700INTHEWASI-IINEITON000R0INATTSYSTEMNA))1)3(11511NONIH‘ONE,AEON).TI))C’LN)LIiLINTOF’THE411)101)A)111’O’4TNUNWA1,ASLGTABS,ISIIT))1)Y(IIIPUBLIC)E))”TS0)I’A)liMFNISINIl)!)MUNI’’0),,/11)50’?I1)1111‘,)CASIJRT’IAENTSIC!)14,55’,I5’.)IR)PFI’FORSICO1517-).1000/.1201TOTALSTATIONINSST.”j)’)i-,,,,‘l,’EI3,4CC10))SXCI’C.)ALi01,iR000SUI’O01”‘-151:,:,A))‘lAM/lAYMEASUREMENT000IPMLNIl)fltI/El)Il/SIITFNCOMPARESANDA0,IIJSTITDTOANA4011/ICTOI)TIIC’SUITVI’)(IA)IL’)”ATE))El/SI)IN),110)11)1HELASYEA),’-LEASEAGREEMENTCityofRentontoRaimcrFlightService.LLC———‘—-13051)0/’!)’1)1))_________—OENTE’?I)NEl,’UNIIAT__________—SECTIONIINC00,1STLINEPOUND0)1/FlIERSECTIONCOlil-lEIlPOUND5).CSONCORNEP‘j\‘30)7q. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 Page 213 of 410
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONRESOLUTIONNO.______ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AUTHORIZINGTHEMAYORANDCITYCLERKTOENTERINTOAMEMORANDUMOFAGREEMENTWITHKINGCOUNTYANDTHECITIESOFAUBURN,BELLEVUE,FEDERALWAY,ISSAQUAH,KENT,KIRKLAND,MERCERISLAND,REDMOND,SEATrLE,ANDTUKWILARELATEDTOTHEFUTURENEGOTIATIONSOFAPUGETSOUNDEMERGENCYRADIONETWORKOPERATORINTERLOCALCOOPERATIONAGREEMENT.WHEREAS,theCityandtheCitiesofAuburn,Bellevue,FederalWay,Issaquah,Kent,Kirkland,MercerIsland,Redmond,Seattle,andTukwilaandKingCounty(the“Parties”)areauthorized,pursuanttoRCWChapter39.34,toenterintoaninterlocalgovernmentcooperativeagreement;andWHEREAS,theCouncilapprovedtwointerlocalagreementsregardingtheimplementationandtheoperationofthePugetSoundEmergencyRadioNetworkSystem(“PSERN”);andWHEREAS,thePSERNOperationsInterlocalCooperationAgreementhasbeenrevisedandisnotintheformapproved;andWHEREAS,soasnottoholduptheprojectanyfurther,thePartieshaveagreedtoenterintoaMemorandumofAgreementtonegotiateingoodfaithtoformtheOperationsInterlocalCooperationAgreement;andWHEREAS,thecurrentversionoftheMemorandumofAgreementcontainsprovisionsrequiringunanimityinvotingandallPartiespresenttoconstituteaquorum;andWHEREAS,thePartiescontinuetonegotiatethetermsoftheMemorandumofAgreementregardingthoseprovisions;and19a. - Interlocal agreement with various agencies regarding Puget Sound Page 214 of 410
RESOLUTIONNO.WHEREAS,itistheintentoftheCounciltopermitstafftocontinuenegotiationonthoseprovisions;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESRESOLVEASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Theaboverecitalsarefoundtobetrueandcorrectinallrespects.SECTIONII.TheMayorandCityClerkareherebyauthorizedtoenterintoaMemorandumofAgreement,whichshallbesubstantiallysimilartotheformattachedheretoasExhibitA.Thisauthorizationshallbeeffectiveintheeventthatstaffisabletonegotiateeitherachangeinthevotingfromunanimitytomajority,orreductioninthequorumrequirements,orboth.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis______dayof______________________,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis______dayof___________________2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyRES:1655:12/4/14:scr29a. - Interlocal agreement with various agencies regarding Puget Sound Page 215 of 410
RESOLUTIONNO._______EXHIBITAMemorandumofAgreementRegardingFutureOperationofThePugetSoundEmergencyRadioNetworkThisMemorandumofAgreementRegardingFutureOperationofPugetSoundEmergencyRadioNetwork(“MOA”)isenteredintopursuanttotheInterlocalCooperationAct(Chapter39.34RCW)byandamongKingCountyandthecitiesofAuburn,Bellevue,FederalWay,Issaquah,Kent,Kirkland,MercerIsland,Redmond,Renton,Seattle,andTukwila,eachapoliticalsubdivisionormunicipalcorporationoftheStateofWashington(individually,a‘Party”)and,(collectively,the“Parties”).RecitalsThePartiesdeterminedthatitisinthepublicinterestthatanewpublicsafetyradiosystembeimplementedthatwillprovidepublicsafetyagenciesandotherusergroupsintheregionwithimprovedcoverageandcapacity,anduniformlyhigh-qualityemergencyradiocommunications.ThisnewsystemisreferredtohereinastheffPugetSoundEmergencyRadioNetworkSyst’ern”or“PSERNSystem.”IhePartiesareenteringintoaseparateagreement(“ImplementationPeriodLA”)thatdesignatesKingCountytoactastheleadagencyforplanning,procurement,financingandimplementationofthePSERNSystemwiththeoversightofajointboardestablishedbytheParties.lAs-authorizedunderRCW39.34tO3O3-fartiesalsowishto-createanewnon-proflt.[iflientt5CAO1):Oel,tedatthecc,witflcorporationtoassumetheownershipandcontrolofthePSERNSystematcompletionoftheaqtivitiesundertheImplementationPeriodLAandthereafterthroughouttheusefullifeofthePSERNSystem.ThePartiesmutuallydesiretocommittotheformationofthenon-profitcorporation,itsgovernancestructure,andothermaterialtermsregardingthefutureoperationofthePSERNSystemwhileallowingtheflexibilitytoworkingoodfaithtowardamorecompleteagreementfortheincorporationofthenon-profitandthefutureoperationofthePSERNSystem.NOW,THEREFORE,inconsiderationofthemutualpromises,benefitsandcovenantscontainedhereinandothervaluableconsideration,thesufficiencyofwhichisherebyacknowledged,thePartiesagreetotheaboveRecitalsandasfollows:Page1oF59a. - Interlocal agreement with various agencies regarding Puget Sound Page 216 of 410
RESOLUTIONNO.1.EffectiveDateimdTermThisMOAshallbeeffectiveonthedateitislastsignedbyanauthorizedrepresentativeofeachtheParties,andshallremainineffectuntiltheearlierofthefollowingevents:(i)theImplementationPeriod[LAisterminatedor(ii)thisMOAissupersededbytheInterlocalagreementdescribedinSections3and4.2.IncorporationofPSERNOperatorThePartiesherebyagreetocreateanon-profitcorporation,asauthorizedunderRCW3934.030,tobeincorporatedinVashingtonStateforthepurposeofowning,operating,maintaining,managingandprovidingongoingupgradingandreplacementofthePSERNSystemthroughoutitsusefulfife.Thefliturenon-profitcorporationtobecreatedbythePartiesisreferredtohereinasthe“PSERNOperator”.3.InterlocalAgreement;MaterialTermsThePartiesagreetoworkingoodthithandusebesteffortstonegotiateandenterintoalhtureinterlocalagreementthatwillestablishthetermsandconditionsapplicabletothefhtureoperationofPSERNandtheincorporationofthePSERNOperator.ThePartiescommitandagreethatthefollowingtermsandconditionsarematerialtothefutureinterlocalagreementandshallbeincluded:a.TheaffairsofthePSERNOperatorshalLbegovernedbyaboardofdirectors(the“Board”)thatshallactonbehalfofallPartiesandasmaybeinthebestinterestsofpublicsafetyandthePSERNSystem.b.ThegovernanceandvotingstructureoftheBoardshallbesubstantially-asprovidedunderSections4.1through4.3oftheDraftPugetSoundEmergencyRadioNetworkOperatorInterlocalCooperationAgreement(“DraftOperationsLA”)attachedasExhibitIandmadeapartofthisMOA.c.AgenciesusingthePSERNSystemshallpaythePSERNOperatoruserfeesasprovidedformtheImplementationPeriodILAandbasedonthecostallocationmodelattachedasExhibit4totheImplementationPeriodILA.4.AdditionalTermsandConditionsofInterlocalAgreementInadditiontothematerialtermsandconditionsinSection3above,thePartiesshallIcontinuetoworkingoodfaithtosupplement.negotiate,-aad-amendandfinalizetheDraftOperationsLAtoincludeadditionalmutuallyagreedupontermsregardingtheincorporationandtransferofoperationstothePSERNOperator,whichareanticipatedtoincludetermsregardingtransferofemployeestoPSERN,insuranceandliabilityrequirements,andservicelevelsforthePSERNSystemuseragreements.WiththeexceptionofthematerialtermsandconditionsinSection3above,theDraftOperationsILA-LAattachedasExhibitIisnotPage2of59a. - Interlocal agreement with various agencies regarding Puget Sound Page 217 of 410
RESOLUTIONNO.________intendedtobelegallybindinguntilsignedbyanauthorizedrepresentativeofeachPartyfollowinganyauthorizationrequfred.byeachParty’srespectivejurisdiction.ThePartiese14committoworkingtofmalizeand-present-theDraftOperationsLAinatimefrainethatwillallowthefinalinterlocalagreementtobepresentedtotheParties’irrespectiveauthoriiingbodies.forapprovalinatimeandmannerthatwillenablethePSERNOperatortobefullyfUnctioningnolaterthanlUllsystemacceptanceasdefinedundertheImplementationILA.INWITNESSWHEREOF,authorizedrepresentativesofthePartieshavesignedtheirnamesinthespacesprovidedbelow.KINGCOUNTYCITYOFAUBURN_____________Name__________Title____________________________Title______________________Date__________________Date______________Attest:CityClerk_____________ApprovedastoForm:ApprovedastoForm:DeputyProsecutingAttorneyCityAttorneyCITYOFBELLEVUECITYOFFEDERALWAYName________________________NameTitle______________________________Title—Date_________________________Attest:Attest:CityClerk____________________CityClerkSPage3ofS9a. - Interlocal agreement with various agencies regarding Puget Sound Page 218 of 410
RESOLUTIONNO._______ApprovedastoForm:CityAttorneyApprovedastoForm:CityAttorneyCiTYOFISSAQUABName__________TitlerteCiTYOFKENTName_______Title_____________Date____Attest:CityClerk________ApprovedastoForm:CityAttorneyAttest:CityClerk_______ApprovedastoForm:CityAttorneyCITYOFKIRKLANDCITYOFMERCERiSLANDName_________Title________________Date_______________Attest:CityClerk________ApprovedastoForm:CityAttorneyNameTitleDateAttest:CityClerk_______________ApprovedastoForm:-CityAttorneyPage4of59a. - Interlocal agreement with various agencies regarding Puget Sound Page 219 of 410
RESOLUTIONNO.CITYOFREDMONDCITYOFKENTONName__________________________Name_____________Title____________________________Title_______________Date____________________________Date_______________Attest:Attest:CityClerk________________CityClerk_______ApprovedastoForm:ApprovedastoForm:CityAttorneyCityAttorneyCITYOISEATTLECITYOFTUKWILAName__________________________Name_____________Title_________________________Title______________Date__________________Date-Attest:Attest:CityClerk________________CityClerk_______ApprovedastoForm:ApprovedastoForm:CityAttorneyCityAttorneyPage5of59a. - Interlocal agreement with various agencies regarding Puget Sound Page 220 of 410
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO._______ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGSUBSECTION4-3-100.B.1OFCHAPTER3,ENVIRONMENTALREGULATIONSANDOVERLAYDISTRICTS,OFTITLEIV(DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS)OFTHERENTONMUNICIPALCODE,BYAMENDINGTHEAPPLICABILITYOFTHEURBANDESIGNREGULATIONS.)()THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Subsection4-3-100.B.1,Applicability,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:1.Applicability:a.Thefollowingdevelopmentactivitiesshallberequiredtocomplywiththeprovisionsofthissection:i.Allsubdivisionsincludingshortplats;ii.Allnewstructures;iii.Conversionofvacantland(e.g.,toparkingorstoragelots);iv.Conversionofaresidentialusetoanonresidentialuse;v.Alterations,enlargements,and/orrestorationsofnonconformingstructurespursuanttoRMC4-10-050,NonconformingStructures.19a. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-101, Applicability of Page 221 of 410
ORDINANCENO.vi.Exteriormodificationssuchasfacadechanges,windows,awnings,signage,etc.,shallcomplywiththedesignrequirementsforthenewportionofthestructure,sign,orsiteimprovement.b.AnyoftheactivitieslistedinsubsectionRMC4-3-100.B.1.aofthisSectionandoccurringinthefollowingoverlayareasorzonesshallberequiredtocomplywiththeprovisionsofthissection:i.District‘A’:AllpartsoftheCityareaszonedCenterDowntown(CD)orResidentialMulti-FamilyUrban(RM-U).ii.District‘B’:AllpartsoftheCityareaszonedResidentialMultiFamilyTraditional(RM-T)orResidentialMulti-Family(RM-F).iii.District‘C’:AllpartsofthcCityareaszonedUrbanCenterNorth1(UC-Ni),UrbanCenterNorth2(UC-N2),orCommercialOfficeResidential(COR).iv.District‘D’:AllpartsoftheCityareaszonedCenterVillage(CV)orCommercialArterial(CA)exceptforthoseareasincludedintheAutomallDistrict,seeRMC4-3-040,asitexistsormaybeamendedCommercialCorridorBusinessDesignations.SECTIONII.Thisordinanceshallbeeffectiveuponitspassage,approval,andfive(5)calendardaysafterpublication.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_______dayof___________________,2014.JasonA.Seth,CityClerk29a. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-101, Applicability of Page 222 of 410
ORDINANCENO.APPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_______dayof______________________,2014.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:Lawrencei.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:________________ORD:1856:11/12/14:scr39a. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-101, Applicability of Page 223 of 410
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO.ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGSECTIONS4-2-010,4-2-020,4-2-060,4-2-100,4-2-110,4-2-115,4-2-120AND4-2-130,OFCHAPTER2,ZONINGDISTRICTS—USESANDSTANDARDS,SECTIONS4-4-080,4-4-090,4-4-095,4-4-100AND4-4-110OFCHAPTER4,CITY-WIDEPROPERTYDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS,OFTITLEIV(DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS)ANDSECTION8-7-4OFCHAPTER4,NOISELEVELREGULATIONS,OFTITLEVIII(HEALTHANDSANITATION)OFTHERENTONMUNICIPALCODE,BYAMENDINGTHEREGULATIONSRELATEDTOMAXIMUMLOTAREA,BUILDINGCOVERAGEANDIMPERVIOUSSURFACEAREAANDCREATINGANEWRESIDENTIALSIXDWELLINGUNITSPERACRE(R-6)ZONE.)t)4WHEREAS,theCityofRentonseekstoensurethatthecharacterandthequalityoflifeinitsneighborhoodsareenhancedbynewdevelopment;andWHEREAS,theCityofRentonalsoseekstoensurethaturbanization,economicdevelopment,andnaturalareaprotectionarebalanced;andWHEREAS,theCityofRentonfurtherseekstoimprovethecorrelationbetweendevelopmentregulationsandtheresultantdevelopment;andWHEREAS,thismatterwasdulyreferredtothePlanningCommissionforinvestigation,study;andWHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonNovember5,2014,andconsideredallrelevantmatters,andheardallpartiesinsupportoroppositiontothematter;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Subsection4-2-010.C,ZoningDistricts,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:19b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 224 of 410
ORDINANCENO.C.ZONINGDISTRICTS:TheCityishcrcbydividedintothefollowingtypesofzoningdistrictsandthefollowingmapsymbolsareestablished:MAPZONESYMBOLResourceConservation(RC)Residential-iDwellingUnitPerNetAcre(R-1)Residential-4DwellingUnitsPerNetAcre(R-4)Residential-6DwellingUnitsPerNetAcreL&Residential-8DwellingUnitsPerNetAcre(R-8)ResidentialManufacturedHome(RMH)Residential-iCDwellingUnitsPerNetAcre(R-iO)Residential-14DwellingUnitsPerNetAcre(R-14)ResidentialMulti-FamilyUrban(RM-U)ResidentialMulti-FamilyTraditional(RM-T)ResidentialMulti-Family(RM-F)LightIndustrial(IL)MediumIndustrial(IM)HeavyIndustrial(IH)CenterDowntown(CD)CenterVillage(CV)CommercialArterial(CA)CommercialNeighborhood(CN)CommercialOffice(CC)Commercial/Office/Residential(COR)UrbanCenter—North1(UC-Ni)29b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 225 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______UrbanCenter—North2(UC-N2)SECTIONII.Subsection4-2-010.D,ZonesImplementingComprehensivePlan,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:D.ZONESIMPLEMENTINGCOMPREHENSIVEPLAN:TheComprehensivePlanDesignationsareimplementedbycertainzones:COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATIONIMPLEMENTINGZONESResourceConservation(RC)ResidentialLowDensityResidential—1DU/AC(R-1)(RLD)Residential—4DU/AC(R-4)ResidentialManufacturedHomePark(RMH)Residential—6DU/AC(R-6)ResidentialSingleFamilyResidential—8DU/AC(R-8)(RS)ResidentialManufacturedHomePark(RMH)Residential—10DU/AC(R-10)ResidentialMediumDensityResidentialManufacturedHomePark(RMH)(RMD)Residential—14DU/AC(R-14)ResidentialMulti-FamilyResidentialMulti-Family(RM-U,RM-T,RM-F)(RM)CenterDowntown(CD)UrbanCenterDowntownResidentialMulti-FamilyUrbanCenter(RM-U)(UC-D)ResidentialMulti-FamilyTraditional(RM-T)CommercialOffice(CO)UrbanCenter—North1(UC-N1)UrbanCenterNorth(UC-N)UrbanCenter—North2(UC-N2)Commercial/Office!Commercial/Office!Residential(COR)39b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 226 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______Residential(COR)ResidentialMulti-FamilyZones(RM-F,RM-T,RM-U)CenterVillage(CV)CenterVillage(CV)Residential—14DU/AC(R-14)CommercialArterial(CA)CommercialCorridor(CC)CommercialOffice(CC)LightIndustrial(IL)LightIndustrial(IL)EmploymentAreaIndustrialMediumIndustrial(IM)(EAI)HeavyIndustrial(IH)CommercialArterial(CA)CommercialOffice(CD)EmploymentAreaValleyLightIndustrial(IL)(EAV)MediumIndustrial(IM)HeavyIndustrial(IH)ResourceConservation(RC)CommercialNeighborhoodCommercialNeighborhood(CN)(CN)SECTIONIII.Section4-2-020,PurposeandIntentofZoningDistricts,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddanewsubsection4-2-020.E,Residential—6DU/ACRE(R-6),toreadasshownbelow.Theremainderofthesectionshallbereletteredaccordingly.E.RESIDENTIAL-6DU/ACRE(R-6):TheResidential-6DwellingUnitsPerNetAcreZone(R-6)isestablishedforsinglefamilydwellingsandisintendedtoimplementtheSingleFamilyLandUseComprehensivePlandesignation.TheR-6zonewillallowamaximumdensityof49b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 227 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______six(6)dwellingunitspernetacre.DevelopmentintheR-6zoneisintendedtobesinglefamilyresidentialatmoderatedensity.SECTIONIV.Subsection4-2-060,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownonAttachmentA.SECTIONV.Subsection4-2-100.B,Tables,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:B.TABLES:Therearefour(4)separatetablesdealingwiththefollowinggenerallandusecategoriesandzones:RESIDENTIAL(RC,R-1,R-4,&R-8,R-10,R-l4rRM)RESIDENTIALMULTI-FAMILY(RM)COMMERCIAL(CN,CV,CA)COMMERCIAL(CD,CO.COR)INDUSTRIAL(IL,IM,IH)SECTIONVI.Subsection4-2-110.A,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialZoningDesignations(PrimaryandAttachedAccessoryStructures),ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCodeisdeletedinitsentiretyandreplacedwiththefollowinglanguage:4-2-11O.ADEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFORRESIDENTIALZONINGDESIGNATIONS(PRIMARYANDATTACHEDACCESSORYSTRUCTURES)59b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 228 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______cMinimumNetDensity5dwelling7dwellingNonedwellingdwellingunits30(pernetunitsacre)”15unitsunitsMaximumNetDensity(pernet1146810dwelling14dwellingacre,exceptdwellingdwellingdwellingdwellingdwellingunits35units35’37pernet10unit36unitsunitsunitsacresinRC)2’14,15MaximumDetacheddwellings:1NumberofDwellings1dwellingwith1accessorydwellingunit7dwellingwith1accessorydwellingunit(perLegalAttacheddwellings:n/aL2DetachedDetacheddwellings:dwellings:Minimum1acre3’9,0004,000sq.3,000sq.10acres32sq.ft107,0005,000LotSize28’31—32sq.ft.34sq.ft.34AttachedAttacheddwellings:dwellings:nLa_____Minimum70ft.’°’150ft.100ft.323260ft.50ft.40ft.30ft.LotWidth3’—MinimumLotWidth31175ft.110ft.3280ft.3270ft.60ft.50ft.40ft.(corner_lots)Minimum200ft.3100ft.’°300ft.323290ft.80ft.70ft.60ft.LotDepth31——Minimum30ft.15ft.,10exceptFront30ft.30ft.12,323320ft.3920ft.39garage25ft.Yard4’5’6’3’mustbe20fMinimum25ft.10RearYard4’35ft.30ft.25ft.20ft.15ft.2’10ft.2’CombineDetachedDetachedMinimumd20ft.CombineUnits:4ft.Units:4ft.SideYard4’25ft.15ft.5ft3,withnotd15ft.AttachedAttachedlessthanwithnotUnits:4ft.Units:4ft.69b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 229 of 410
ORDINANCENO.7.5ft.onlessthanforforeither5ft.onunattachedunattachedside.eitherside(s),0ft.side(s),0ft.side.forthefortheattachedattachedside(s).23side(s).23MinimumSideYard4’5’30ft.1030ft.30ft.12,32,3325ft.15ft.15ft.15ft.31(alongaStreet)MaximumBuildingCoverage10%35%40%50%55%65%(including—PrimaryandAccessory)MaximumImpervious15%25%50%55%65%70%Q2SurfaceAreaI.Residential:Maximum30ft.30ft.Height8’9Commercial:20ft.NomoreMaximumNomorethanfourNumberofthansix(6)(4)unitsUnitsperunitsperBuildingbuilding.building.Attachedunits:4Minimum2significanttreesper5,000sq.ft.significanttreesper!r&SeeRMC4-4-130.5,000sq.ft.DensitySeeRMC4-4-130.MinimumFreeway10ft.landscapedsetbackfromthestreetpropertyline.FrontageSetbackMaximurnWirelessSeeRMC4-4-140,WirelessCommunicationFacilities.AmateurradioantennasCommunicaareallowedamaximumheightofsixfeet(6’)withoutaConditionalUsePermit.tionLargerstructureswillhaveamaximumheightdeterminedbytheConditionalUseFacilitiesPermitprocess,RMC4-9-030,ConditionalUsePermits.Height79b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 230 of 410
ORDINANCENO.(includingAmateurRadioAntennas)DesignSeeRMC4-2-115,ResidentialDesignandOpenSpaceStandards.StandardsLandscapingSeeRMC4-4-070,Landscaping.ExtenorSeeRMC4-4-075,Lighting,ExteriorOn-Site.LightingScreeningSeeRMC4-4-095,ScreeningandStorageHeight/LocationLimitations.ExceptionNothinghereinshallprohibittheconstructionofasinglefamilydwellinganditsforPre-accessorybuildingsonapre-existinglegallot;provided,thatallsetbacks,lotExistingcoverage,heightlimits,infrastructure,andparkingreciuirementsofthezonecanLegalLotsbesatisfiedandprovisionsofRMC4-3-050,CriticalAreas,canbemet.SECTIONVII.Subsection4-2-110.B,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialDevelopment(DetachedAccessoryBuildings),ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:4-2-11O.BDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFORRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT(DETACHEDACCESSORYBUILDINGS)MAXIMUMNUMBERANDSIZEGeneralRC,R-1,R-4,Accessorystructuresshallonlybeallowedonlotsinconjunctionwithaprimary&R-8,R-use.10,R-14andThetotalfloorareaofallaccessorybuildingsshallnotbegreaterthanthefloorRMareaoftheprimaryresidentialuses.ThelotcoverageoftheprimaryresidentialstructurecombinedwithallaccessorybuildingsshallnotexceedthemaximumlotcoverageoftheZoningDistrict.17[AccessoryDwellingUnitRC,R-i,R-4,1unitperlegallot—800sq.ft.or75%ofprimaryresidence,whicheveris10andR-14RMn/a[OtherTypesofAccessoryStructuresAllowedinAdditiontoAccessoryDwellingUnitRCandR-12structures—max.720sq.ft.perstructure,or89b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 231 of 410
ORDINANCENO.R-4,R-6,andR-81structure—max.1,000sq.ft.Inaddition,1barnorstable—max.2,000sq.ft.,providedthelotis5acresormore.R-10andR142structures—max.720sq.ft.perstructure,or1structure—max.1,000sq.ft.1structureperresidentialunit—max.400sq.ft.;provided,thattheyarearchitecturallyconsistentwiththeprincipalstructure.Exceptgreenhouses,sheds,orothersimilaraccessorystructures—max.150sq.ft.[MAXIMUMBUILDINGHEIGHTRCAccessorybuilding—15ft.R-1,R-4LAccessorybuilding—15ft.andR-8Accessorydwellingunits—30ft.,exceptthattheaccessoryunitstructure(dwellingspace,garagespace,etc.)shallnotbetallerthantheprimarydwelling.Animalhusbandryoragriculturalrelatedstructures—30ft.R-10andR-Accessorybuilding—15ft.14Accessorydwellingunit—30ft.RM25ft.,exceptintheRM-UDistrictwherethemaximumheightshallbedeterminedthroughthesiteplanreviewprocess.MaximumHeightforWirelessCommunicationFacilities(IncludingAmateurRadioAntennas)RC,R-1,R-4,SeeRMC4-4-140G.StandardsforSpecificTypesefWirelessCommunication&R-8,R-Facilities.Freestandingverticalmonopoleamateurradioantennasarealloweda10,R-14,maximumheightoffortyfivefeet(45’)withoutaconditionalusepermit.TallerandRMstructureswillhavemaximumheightdeterminedviathcconditionalusepermitprocess,pursuanttoRMC4-9-030,ConditionalUsePermits.LOCATIONGeneralRC,R-1,R-4,R-8,R-6ft.fromanyresidentialstructure.Ifsitedcloserthan6ft.,thestructurewillbe10,R-14andconsideredtobeattached.RMR-14andForanylotthatabutsandalley,vehicularaccesstogaragesandcarportsshallRMUfromthealley.Whenlotsdonotabutanalley,allgaragesandcarportsshallbelocatedintherearyardorsideyard.r,.....-..-MINIMUMSETBACKS[FrontYard/SideYardAlongStreetsRC,R-1,R-4,Unlessexplicitlystatedotherwise,setbacksappliedtotheprimarystructurealsoR-8,R-applytoaccessorystructures;wherethesetbackislessthan20ft.,anydetached99b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 232 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______10,R-14andgarage/carport(orstructurethatincorporatesvehicularparking)shallhaveaRMminimum20ft.setback.SideYardsforAccessoryBuildingsRCandR-15ft.,unlesslocatedbetweentherearofthehouseandtherearpropertyline,then0ft.sideyardisallowed.R-4,R-3ft.,unlesslocatedbetweentherearofthehouseandtherearpropertyline,14and’RMthen0ft.sideyardisallowed.[SideYardsforAccessoryDwellingUnitsRC25ft.R-125ft.R-45ft.R-65ft.R-85ft.R-10andR144ft.,exceptwhenalongastreet,then8ft.RMn/aLRearYardsforAccessoryBuildingsRC5ft.R-1,R-4,R-3ft.,unlesslocatedbetweentherearofthehouseandtherearpropertyline,R-8,R-10,then0ft.rearyardisallowed.R-14andExceptforgarages/carportsaccessed4athroughalleys:toensureadequateRMvehicularmaneuveringarea,garagesandcarportsthatareaccessed4e—throughalleysshallbesetback-asfollows:1.9ft.garagedoorsshallbeatleast26ft.fromthebackedgeofthealley,or2.16ft.garagedoorsshallbeatleast24ft.fromthebackedgeofthealley.[RearYardsforAccessoryDwellingUnitsRC,R-1,R-4,AccessoryDwellingUnitsthatincorporateagarage/carportshallbesetbackas&R-8,R-follows:10,R-14,1.9ft.garagedoorsshallbeatleast26ft.fromthebackedgeofthealley,orandRM2.16ft.garagedoorsshallbeatleast24ft.fromthebackedgeofthealley.RCDeterminedthroughadministrativereview,tobenolessthan10ft.andnogreaterthan35ft.fromthebackedgeofthealley.R-1andR-4Determinedthroughadministrativereview,tobenolessthan10ft.andnogreaterthan25ft.fromthebackedgeofthealley.R-6andR-8Determinedthroughadministrativereview,tobenolessthan5ft.andno109b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 233 of 410
ORDINANCENO.greaterthan20ft.fromthebackedgeofthealley.R-10andR-Determinedthroughadministrativereview,tobenolessthan5ft.andno14greaterthan10ft.fromthebackedgeofthealley.RMn/a[SpecialSetbacksforAnimalHusbandryorAgriculturalRelatedStructuresRC,R-1,R-4,Agriculturalrelatedstructures—50ft.fromanypropertyline.R-8,R-Stablesandotheranimalhusbandryrelatedstructures,seeRMC4-4-010,Animal10,andR-14KeepingandBeekeepingStandards.RMn/a[ClearVisionAreaRC,R-1,R-4,BR-8,R-Innocaseshallastructureover42in.inheightintrudeintothe20ft.clearvision10,R-14andareadefinedinRMC4-11-030.RMPARKINGGeneralRC,R-1,R-4Garagesandcarportsmustprovideaminimumof24ft.ofback-outroom,eitherj3andR-onsiteorcountingimprovedalleysurfaceorotherimprovedright-of-way8surface.SeeRMC4-4-080,Parking,LoadingandDrivewayRegulations.R-10andR-Garagesshallbesetbackaminimumof10ft.fromthefrontofthebuilding14facadeor7ft.fromthebackofaporchorstoop.Garagesshallhaveaminimum18-footdrivewaylengthfromthefaceofthegaragetothebackofthesidewalkoraccesslane,unlessaccessedbyanalleyway.CRITICALAREAS4GeneralRC,R-1,R-4,SeeRMC4-3-050,CriticalAreasRegulationsand4-3-090,ShorelineMaster.‘‘ProgramRegulations.10,andR-14SECTIONVIII.Subsection4-2-110.D.12,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:119b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 234 of 410
ORDINANCENO.12.Whenlotsizeisreducedforthepurposeofachievingmaximumdensity,reducedsetbacksmayalsobeapproved.Setbackreductionsshallbelimitedtothefollowing:a.Front—twentyfeet(20’).b.Sideyardalongastreet—fiftccntwenty-fivefeet(25’)primarystructure,twcntythirtyfeet(230’)attachedgaragewithaccessfromthesideyard.SECTIONIX.Subsection4-2-110.D,ConditionsAssociatedwithDevelopmentStandardsTableforResidentialDesignStandards,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddnewsubsections4-2-110.D.32through4-2-110.D.39,toreadasfollows:32.Whenclusterdevelopmentisallowed,specifieddevelopmentstandardsareallowedtobereduced,asindicatedbelow:a.R-1Zone:Tenthousand(10,000)sciuarefeetminimumlotsize.MinimumlotwidthandminimumlotdepthshallapplythestandardsoftheR-4zone.b.R-4Zone:Minimumlotsize,minimumlotwidth,minimumlotdepth,minimumfrontyard,minimumsideyard,minimumsideyardalongastreet,andimpervioussurfaceareashallapplythestandardsoftheR-6zone.33.IntheR-4zone,thefollowingexceptionsapply:129b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 235 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______a.Whenparkingisprovidedintherearyardofthelotwithaccessfromapublicright-of-wayoralleytheminimumfrontyardshallbetwentyfeet(20’).b.TheAdministratormayreducethesetbackbyamaximumoffiftypercent(50%)oftherequiredsetback,whenallofthefollowingconditionsapply:i.Thesetbackthatwasrequiredatthetimeofinitialconstructionwaslessthanthecurrentrequirement;ii.Areducedsetbackisappropriategiventhecharacteroftheimmediateneighborhood;andii.Therearenootheralternativelocationsthatcanreasonablyaccommodatetherequestwithoutencroachingintoasetback.34.Forshortplatsofparcelssmallerthanone(1)acre,one(1)parcelmaybeallowedtobesmallerthantherequiredminimumlotsizeindicatedin4-2-110.A,ResidentialDevelopmentStandards.Ifallotherparcelsmeettherequiredminimumlotsizestandardofthezone,one(1)parcelmaybeallowedtomeetthefollowingreducedminimumlotsize:a.R-4:Eightthousand(8,000)squarefeet.b.R-6:Sixthousandtwohundredfifty(6,250)squarefeet.c.R-8:Fourthousandfivehundred(4,500)squarefeet.139b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 236 of 410
ORDINANCENO.35.Assistedlivingbonus:Amaximumdensityofeighteen(18)unitspernetacre,forassistedliving,maybeallowedsubjecttoconditionsofRMC4-9-065,DensityBonusReview.36.ForparcelsthatareindesignatedUrbanSeparatorsintheR-1zone,uptoone(1)unitpergrossacremaybepermittedsubjecttoconditionsinRMC4-3-110,UrbanSeparatorOverlayRegulations.37.AffordablehousingbonusintheR-14zone:Uptothirty(30)dwellingunitspernetacremaybepermittedonparcelsaminimumoftwo(2)acresinsizeiffiftypercent(50%)ormoreoftheproposeddwellingunitsareaffordabletolowincomehouseholdswithincomesatorbelowfiftypercent(50%)oftheareamedianincome.38.ForparcelsintheR-8zone,themaximumdensityshallbesix(6)dwellingunitspernetacrewhenalleysareconsideredpractical,asspecifiedinRMC4-7-150.E.5,StreetPattern:AlleyAccess,andarenotpartofthestreetconfiguration.39.IntheR-10andR-4zones:Toensureadequatevehicularmaneuveringarea,garagesandcarportsthatareaccessedthroughalleysshallbesetbackasfollows:a.Nine-foot(9’)garagedoorsshallbeatleasttwenty-sixfeet(26’)fromthebackedgeofthealley;orb.Sixteen-foot(16’)garagedoorsshallbeatleasttwenty-fourfeet(24’)fromthebackedgeofthealley.149b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 237 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONX.Section4-2-110,ResidentialDevelopmentStandards,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddanewsubsection4-2-110.F,toreadasfollows:4-2-11O.FDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFORRESIDENTIALMULTI-FAMILYZONINGDESIGNATIONS(PRIMARYANDATTACHEDACCESSORYSTRUCTURES)RMForanysubdivision,and/ordevelopment:30“U”suffix:25dwellingunitspernetacre“T”suffix:14dwellingunitspernetacre“F”suffix:10dwellingunitspernetacre/laximumNetDensity2”4’15RM“U”suffix:75dwellingunitspernetacre26“T”suffix:35dwellingunitspernetacre“F”suffix:20dwellingunitspernetacre32Assistedlivingbonus:1.5timesthemaximumdensitymaybeallowedsublecttoconditionsofRMC4-9-065.DensityBonusReview.MinimumLotSizeMinimumLotWidth—seesubsection4-7-170.E.“T”suffix:14ft.L__Allothersuffixes:50ft.rMinimumLotDepth—seesubsection4-7-170.E.RM65ft.SETâMinimumFrontYard6RM5“U”suffix:5ft.’8”9exceptgarage/carportsetbackshallbe20ft.“T”suffix:5ft.exceptgarage/carportsetbackshallbe20ft.“F”suffix:20ft.[FvlinimumSideYardRM“T”suffix—AttachedUnits:Aminimumof3ft.fortheunattachedside(s)ofthestructure.0ft.fortheattachedside(s)StandardMinimumSetbacksforallothersuffixes:Minimumsetbacksforsideyards:24LDENSITY-iiIMinimumNetDensity(forproposedsubdivisions)”15Jr159b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 238 of 410
ORDINANCENO.LI:Lotwidth:lessthanorequalto50ft.—Yardsetback:5ft.Lotwidth:50.1to60ft.—Yardsetback:6ft.Lotwidth:60.1to70ft.—Yardsetback:7ft.Lotwidth:70.1to80ft.—Yardsetback:8ft.Lotwidth:80.1to90ft.—Yardsetback:9ft.Lotwidth:90.1to100ft.—Yardsetback:10ft.Lotwidth:100.1to110ft.—Yardsetback:11ft.Lotwidth:110.1+ft.—Yardsetback:12ft.Additionalsetbacksforstructuresgreaterthan30ft.inelevation:Theentirestructureshallbesetbackanadditional1ft.foreach10ft.ofheightinexcessof30ft.toamaximumcumulativesetbackof20ft.AdditionalsetbacksforlotsabuttingSingleFamilyResidentialZones:25ft.alongtheabuttingside(s)oftheproperty.ideYardAlongaStreetRM5“U”and“T”suffixesandonallpreviouslyexistingplattedlotswhichare50ft.orlessinwidth:10ft.exceptgarage/carportsetbackshallbe20ft.Allothersuffixeswithlotsover50ft.inwidth:20ft.IiVlinim!.ImRearYardRM“U”suffix:5ft.18’19,unlesslotabutsanRC,R-1,R-4,R-8,orR-10zone,then25ft.“T”suffix:5ft.“F”suffix:15ft.MLUILDINGSTANDMaximumBuildingHeight,exceptforuseshavinga“PublicSuffix”(P)designationandpublicLwatersystemfacilities8’9RM“U”suffix:50ft.“T”suffix:35ft.“F”suffix:35ft.20[MaximumHeightforWirelessCommunicationFacilities(IncludingAmateurRadioAntennas)RMSeeRMC4-4-140,WirelessCommunicationFacilities.Amateurradioantennasareallowedamaximumheightof6ft.withoutaconditionalusepermit.Largerstructureswillhavemaximumheightdeterminedbytheconditionalusepermitprocess,RMC4-9-030,ConditionalUsePermits.Iri1aximumBuildingCoverage(IncludingPrimaryandAccessoryBuildings)RM“U”suffix:75%“T”suffix:75%“F”suffix:35%Amaximumcoverageof45%maybeallowedthroughtheHearingExaminersitedevelopmentplanreviewprocess.lE169b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 239 of 410
ORDINANCENO.________MaximumImperviousSurfaceAreaRM“U”and“T”suffixes:85%Allothersuffixes:75%[BuildingDesignRM“U”suffix:Modulationofverticalandhorizontalfacadesisrequiredataminimumof2ft.atanintervalofaminimumoffsetof40ft.oneachbuildingface.“U”and“T”suffixes:SeeRMC4-3-100,UrbanDesignRegulations.GeneralRMPropertiesabuttingalessintenseresidentialzonemayberequiredtoincorporatespecialdesignstandards(e.g.,additionallandscaping,largersetbacks,facadeSurfaceMountedorRoofTopEquipment,orOutdoorStorageRMSeeRMC4-4-095,ScreeningandStorageHeight/LocationLimitations.RecyclablesandRefuseRMSeeRMC4-4-09QRefuseandRecyclableStandards.DUMRII—‘ECTIONAREARMSeeRMC4-4-090,RefuseandRecyclableStandards.PARKINGANI9General:SeeRMC4-4-080,Parking,LoadingmdDrivewayRegulations.Pre-ExistingLegalLotsRMNothinghereinshallprohibittheconstructionofasinglefamilydwellinganditsaccessorybuildingsortheexistenceofasinglefamilydwellingortwoattacheddwellings,existingasofMarch1,1995,onapre-existinglegallot;provided,thatallsetback,lotcoverage,heightlimits,infrastructure,andparkingrequirementsforthiszonecanbesatisfied,andprovisionsofRMC4-3-050,CriticalAreas,andotherprovisionsoftheRentonMunicipalCodecanbemet.179b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 240 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONXl.Subsection4-2-115.8.1,Applicability,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:1.Thissectionshallapplytoallnewdwellingunitsinthefollowingzones:ResourceConservation(RC),ResidentialOneDwellingUnitperAcre(R-1),ResidentialFourDwellingUnitsperAcre(R-4),ResidentialSixDwellingUnitsperAcre(R-6),ResidentialEightDwellingUnitsperAcre(R-8),ResidentialTenDwellingUnitsperAcre(R-1O),andResidentialFourteenDwellingUnitsperAcre(R-14).ThestandardsoftheSiteDesignsubsectionarerequiredatthetimeofsubdivisionapplication.ThestandardsoftheResidentialDesignsubsectionarerequiredatthetimeofapplicationforbuildingpermits.ThestandardsofResidentialDesignarerequiredforthebuildingforwhichthebuildingpermitisbeingissued.SECTIONXII.Subsection4-2-115.E,Requirements,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:E.REQUIREMENTS:1.SiteDesign:LOTCONFIGURATION:Varietyintheconfigurationoflotsenhancestheimageofvarietyofhousingstockandhelpsminimizeperceptionsofmonotony.Guidelines:Developmentsshallcreatepedestrianorientedenvironmentsandamplifythemutualrelationshipbetweenhousingunits,roads,openspace,andpedestrianamenities,whilealsoprotectingtheprivacyofindividuals.Lotsshallbeconfiguredtoencouragevarietywithinthedevelopment.Standards:189b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 241 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______RC,R-1,andR-4n/aOneofthefollowingisrequired:1.Lotwidthvariationof10feet(10’)minimumofoneperfour(4)abuttingstreetR-6frontinglots,orIicI2.Minimumoffour(4)lotsizes(minimumoffourhundred(400)grosssquarefeetR-8sizedifference),or3.Afrontyardsetbackvariationofatleastfivefeet(5’)minimumforatleasteveryfour(4)abuttingstreetfrontinglots.R-10Developmentsofmorethanfour(4)structuresshallincorporateavarietyofhomeandsizes,lotsizes,andunitclusters.R-14Dwellingsshallbearrangedtoensureprivacysothatsideyardsabutothersideyards(orright-of-way)anddonotabutfrontorbackyards.Lotsaccessedbyeasementsorpipestemsshallbeprohibited.GARAGES:Theminimizationofthevisualimpactofgaragescontributestocreatingcommunitiesthatareorientedtopeopleandpedestrians,asGuidelines:Thevisualimpactofgaragesshallbeminimized,whileporchesandfrontdoorsshallbetheemphasisofthefrontofthehome.Garagesshallbelocatedinamannerthatminimizesthepresenceofthegarageandshallnotbelocatedattheendofviewcorridors.Alleyweyaccessisencouraged.Ifused,sharedgaragesshallbewithinanacceptablewalkingdistancetothehousingunititisintendedtoserve.Standards:RCandn/aR-1Oneofthefollowingisrequired;thegarageis:1.Recessedfromthefrontofthehouseand/orfrontporchatleasteightfeet(8’),or2.Locatedsothattheroofextendsatleastfivefeet(5’)(notincludingeaves)R-4Lbeyondthefrontofthegarageforatleastthewidthofthegarageplustheporch/stooparea,orand3.Alleyaccessed,orR-84.Locatedsothattheentrydoesnotfaceapublicand/orprivatestreetoranaccesseasement,or5.Sizedsothatitrepresentsnogreaterthanfiftypercent(50%)ofthewidthofthefrontfacadeatgroundlevel,or6.Detached.199b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 242 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______Theportionofanattachedgaragewiderthantwentysix-feet(26’)acrossthefrontshallbesetbackatleastanadditionaltwofeet(2’).R-10Garagesmaybeattachedordetached.Sharedgaragesarealsoallowed,providedtheandregulationsofRMC4-4-080aremet.Carportsarenotallowed.R14Oneofthefollowingisrequired;thegaragemustbe:1.Recessedfromthefrontofthehouseand/orfrontporchatleasteightfeet(8’),or2.Detachedandsetbackfromthefrontofthehouseand/orporchatleastsixfeet(6’).Additionally,allofthefollowingisrequired:1.Garagedesignshallbeofsimilardesigntothehomes,and2Ifsidesofthegaragearevisiblefromstreets,sidewalks,pathways,trails,orotherhomes,architecturaldetailsshallbeincorporatedinthedesign.Ifsharedgaragesareallowed,theymaysharethestructurewithotherhomesandallofthefollowingisrequired:1.Eachunithasgaragespaceassignedtoit,and2.Thegarageisnottobelocatedfurtherthanonehundredsixtyfeet(160’)fromanyofthehousingunitstowhichitisassigned,and3.Thegarageshallnotexceedforty-fourfeet(44’)inwidth,andshallmaintainan_____eightfoot(8’)separationfromanydwellings.2.OpenSpace:OPEN$CE:OpenspaceisasignificantelementinthedevelopmentoflivablecnfnitiesandcreatesopportunitiesforgoodhealthGuidelines:Allopenspaceshallbedesignedtopreserveexistingtrees.ExceptforNativeGrowthProtectionAreas,allcommonopenspaceareasshallbedesignedtoaccommodatebothactiveandpassiverecreationalopportunitiesandbevisibleandopentothestreet.Pocketparksshallbedesignedtoservefour(4)toten(10)homes.Privateyardsarelocatedattherearorsideofhomesandcanincludetrees,plantingbeds,andprivacyfences.Reciprocaluseeasementscanprovidegreaterusabilityofprivateyards.Landscaping:R-10andSeeRMC4-4-070,Landscapingasitexistsormaybeamended.R-14[StandardsforParks:R-10Fordevelopmentsthatarelessthanten(10)netacres:Noparkisrequired,butisandallowed.R14Fordevelopmentsthataregreaterthanten(10)netacres:Aminimumofoneone-half209b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 243 of 410
ORDINANCENO.(.5)acrepark,inadditiontothecommonopenspacerequirement,isrequired.LStandardsforCommonOpenSpace:R-10Developmentsofthree(3)orfewerdwellingunits:Norequirementtoprovideandcommonopenspace.R14Developmentsoffour(4)ormoreunits:Requiredtoprovidecommonopenspaceasfollows:1.Foreachunitinthedevelopment,threehundredfifty(350)squarefeetofcommonopenspaceshallbeprovided.2.Openspaceshallbedesignedasapark,commongreen,pea-patch,pocketpark,orpedestrianentryeasementinthedevelopmentandshallincludepicnicareas,spaceforsmallrecreationalactivities,andotheractivitiesasappropriate.3.Openspaceshallbelocatedinahighlyvisibleareaandbeeasilyaccessibletotheneighborhood.4.Openspace(s)shallbecontiguoustothemajorityofthedwellingsinthedevelopmentandaccessibletoalldwellings,andshallbeatleasttwentyfeet(20’)wide.5.Apedestrianentryeasementcanbeusedtomeettheaccessrequirementsifithasaminimumwidthoftwentyfeet(20’)withaminimumfivefeet(5’)ofsidewalk.6.Pea-patchesshallbeatleastonethousand(1,000)squarefeetinsizewithindividualplotsthatmeasuretenfeetbytenfeet(10’x10’).Additionally,thepea-patchshallincludeatoolshedandacommonareawithspaceforcompostbins.Watershallbeprovidedtothepea-patch.Fencingthatmeetsthestandardsforfrontyardfencingshallsurroundthepea-patchwithaonefoot(1’)landscapeareaontheoutsideofthefence.Thisareaistobelandscapedwithflowers,plants,and/orshrubs.7.Grass-creteorotherpervioussurfacesmaybeusedinthecommonopenspaceforthepurposeofmeetingtheonehundredfiftyfeet(150’)distancerequirementforemergencyvehicleaccessbutshallnotbeusedforpersonalvehicleaccessortomeetoff-streetparkingrequirements.8.Stormpondsmaybeusedtomeetthecommonopenspacerequirementifdesignedtoaccommodateafifty(50)yearstormandtobedryninetypercent(90%)oftheyear.EstrdsforPrivateYards:R-10Developmentsofthree(3)orfewerdwellingunits:Eachindividualdwellingshallhaveandaprivateyardthatisatminimumsixhundred(600)squarefeetinsize.BackyardpatiosR-14andreciprocaluseeasementsmaybeincludedinthecalculationofprivateyard.Developmentsoffour(4)ormoredwellingunits:Eachground-relateddwellingshallhaveaprivateyardthatisatleasttwohundredfifty(250)squarefeetinsizewithnodimensionlessthaneightfeet(8’)inwidth.219b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 244 of 410
ORDINANCENO.Anadditionaltwohundredfifty(250)squarefeetofopenspaceperunitshallbeaddedtotherequiredamountofcommonopenspaceforeachunitthatisnotgroundrelated.[CommonOpenSpaceorParkSubstitutions:R-10andSeeRMC4-1-240R-14idewalks.Pathways,andPedestrianEasements:R-10Allofthefollowingarerequired:n11.Sidewalksshallbeprovidedthroughouttheneighborhood.Thesidewalkmay&14disconnectfromtheroad,provideditcontinuesinalogicalroutethroughoutthedevelopment.2Frontyardsshallhaveentrywalksthatareaminimumwidthofthreefeet(3’)andamaximumwidthoffourfeet(4’).3.Pathwaysshallbeusedtoconnectcommonparks,greenareas,andpocketparkstoresidentialaccessstreets,limitedresidentialaccessstreets,orotherpedestrianconnections.Theymaybeusedtoprovideaccesstohomesandcommonopenspace.Theyshallbeaminimumthreefeet(3’)inwidthandmadeofpavedasphalt,concrete,orporousmaterialsuchas:porouspavingstones,crushedgravelwithsoilstabilizers,orpavingblockswithplantedjoints.Sidewalksorpathwaysforparksandgreenspacesshallbelocatedattheedgeofthecommonspacetoallowalargerusablegreenandeasyaccesstohomes.4PedestrianEasementPlantings:Shallbeplantedwithplantsandtrees.Treesarerequiredalongallpedestrianeasementstoprovideshadeandspacedtwentyfeet(20’)oncenter.Shrubsshallbeplantedinatleastfifteenpercent(15%)oftheeasementandshallbespacednofurtherthanthirty-sixinches(36”)oncenter.5.Forallhomesthatdonotfrontonaresidentialaccessstreet,limitedresidentialaccessstreet,apark,oracommongreen:Pedestrianentryeasementsthatareatleastfifteenfeet(15’)wideplusafive-foot(5’).sidewalkshallbeprovided.IcI3.ResidentialDesign:PRIMARYENTRY:HomeswithavisuallyprominentfrontentryfosterthesensethatthecommunityisorientedtopedestriansFeatureslikeporchesandstoopsatthefrontentryprovideopportunityforsocialinteractionandcancontributetoasenseofplaceforresidentsAdditionally,porcheswcirktominimizetheappearanceofbulkbybreakin.gupthefacade.,.‘“Guidelines:Entrancestohomesshallbeafocalpointandallowspaceforsocialinteraction.Frontdoorsshallfacethestreetandbeonthefacadeclosesttothestreet.Whenahomeislocatedonacornerlot(i.e.,attheintersectionoftworoadsortheintersectionofaroadandacommonspace)afeaturelikeawrappedporchshallbeusedtoreducetheperceivedscale229b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 245 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______ofthehouseandengagethestreetoropenspaceonbothsides.RCn/aandR-1R-4LOneofthefollowingisrequired:&1.Stoop:minimumsizefourfeetbysixfeet(4’x6’)andminimumheighttwelveandinches(12”)abovegrade,orR-82.Porch:minimumsizefivefeet(5’)deepandminimumheighttwelveinches(12”)abovegrade.Exception:incaseswhereaccessibility(ADA)isapriority,anaccessibleroutemaybetakenfromafrontdriveway.R-1OBothofthefollowingarerequired:and1.Theentryshalltakeaccessfromandfaceastreet,park,commongreen,pocketR14park,pedestrianeasement,oropenspace,and2.Theentryshallincludeoneofthefollowing:a.Stoop:minimumsizefourfeetbysixfeet(4’x6’)andminimumheighttwelveinches(12”)abovegrade,orb.Porch:minimumfivefeet(5’)deepandminimumheighttwelveinches(12”)abovegrade.Exception:incaseswhereaccessibility(ADA)isapriority,anaccessibleroutemaybetakenfromafrontdriveway.Guidelines:Buildingsshallnothavemonotonousfacadesalongpublicareas.Dwellingsshallincludearticulationalongpublicfrontages;thearticulationmayincludetheconnectionofanopenporchtothebuilding,adormerfacingthestreet,orawell-definedentryelement.Oneofthefollowingisrequired:1.Anoffsetofatleastonestorythatisatleasttenfeet(10’)wideandtwofeet(2’)indepthonfacadesvisiblefromthestreet,or2.Atleasttwofeet(2’)offsetofsecondstoryfromfirststoryononestreetfacingfacade.Bothofthefollowingarerequired:1.TheprimarybuildingelevationorientedtowardthestreetorcommongreenStandards:FACADEMpULATibN:ThemodulationoffacadescreatesanappeaYanc&oyariety,as,iwellasvisualbreaksthathelptocreatevisualinterest.Standards:n/aRCandR-1R-4LandR-8R-10and239b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 246 of 410
ORDINANCENO.R-14shallhaveatleastonearticulationorchangeinplaneofatleasttwofeet(2’)indepth;and2.Aminimumonesidearticulationthatmeasuresatleastonefoot(1’)indepthshalloccurforallfacadesfacingstreetsorpublicspaces.WINDQWSANDDOORS:Windowsandfrontdoorsareancharacterofahomeandwhentheyincorporatearchitectural_____________________contributetotheoverallbalanceandintegrationoftheentheyrepresentasignificantamountofthefacadeofahome,thecommuniisiiiédtopeople..Guidelines:Windowsandfrontdoorsshallserveasanintegralpartofthecharacterofthehome.Primarywindowsshallbeproportionedverticallyratherthanhorizontally.Verticalwindowsmaybecombinedtogethertocreatealargerwindowarea.Frontdoorsshallbeafocalpointofthedwellingandbeinscalewiththehome.Alldoorsshallbeofthesamecharacterasthehome.Standards:RCn/aandR-1R-41Windowsanddoorsshallconstitutetwenty-fivepercent(25%)ofallfacadesfacing&streetfrontageorpublicspaces.andR-8R-1OAllofthefollowingarerequired:and1.Primarywindowsshallbeproportionedvertically,ratherthanhorizontally,andR-142.Verticalwindowsmaybecombinedtogethertocreatealargerwindowarea,and3.Alldoorsshallbemadeofwood,fiberglass,metal,orglassandtrimmedwiththreeandonehalfinches(31/2”)minimumheadandjambtrimaroundthedoor,and4.Screendoorsarepermitted,and5.Primaryentrydoorsshallfaceastreet,park,commongreen,pocketpark,orpedestrianeasementandshallbepaneledorhaveinsetwindows,and6.Slidingglassdoorsarenotpermittedalongafrontageelevationoranelevation-facingapedestrianeasement.SCALE,BULK,ANDCHARACTER:Residentialcommunitiesareintendedforpeopleandhomesthathaveappropriatescaleandbulkcontributetothesenseoforientationtopeople.Varietyinthecharacterofhomeshelpstominimizevisualmonotànywhilehelpingtofosteraperceptionofuniquenessofplace.249b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 247 of 410
ORDINANCENO.Guidelines:Adiversestreetscapeshallbeprovidedbyusingelevationsandmodelsthatdemonstrateavarietyoffloorplans,homesizes,andcharacter.Neighborhoodsshallhaveavarietyofhomesizesandcharacter.Standards:RCn/aandR-1R-4LAvarietyofelevationsandmodelsthatdemonstrateavarietyoffloorplans,homejjjsizes,andcharactershallbeused.andAdditionally,bothofthefollowingarerequired:R-81.Aminimumofthree(3)differinghomemodelsforeachten(10)contiguousabuttinghomes,and2.Abuttinghousesmusthavedifferingarchitecturalelevations.R-10Allofthefollowingarerequired:and1.TheprimarybuildingformshallbethedominatingformandelementssuchasR14porches,principaldormers,orothersignificantfeaturesshallnotdominate,and2.Primaryporchplateheightsshallbeonestory.Stackedporchesareallowed,and3.Todifferentiatethesamemodelsandelevations,differentcolorsshallbeused,and4.Forsingle-familydwellings,nomorethantwo(2)ofthesamemodelandelevationshallbebuiltonthesameblockfrontageandthesamemodelandelevationshallnotbeabutting.ROOFS:RoofformsandprofilesareanimportantcomOñent•inthearchitecturalcharacterofhomesandcontributetothemassing,scale,andproportionof,thehome.Roofsalsoprovideopportunltytocreatevariety,especiallyforhomesofthesamemodelGuidelines:Roofsshallrepresentavarietyofformsandprofilesthataddcharacterandrelieftothelandscapeoftheneighborhood.Theuseofbrightcolors,aswellasroofingthatismadeofmateriallikegraveland/orareflectivematerial,isdiscouraged.Standards:RCn/aandR-1R-4LOneofthefollowingisrequiredforalldevelopment:1.Hiporgabledwithatleastasixtotwelve(6:12)pitchfortheprominentformandoftheroof(dormers,etc.,mayhavelesserpitch),orR-82.Shedroof.259b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 248 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______Additionally,forsubdivisionsgreaterthannine(9)lots:Avarietyofroofforms____appropriatetothestyleofthehomeshallbeused._____________-R-1OBothofthefollowingarerequired:and1.Primaryroofpitchshallbeaminimumsixtotwelve(6:12).IfagableroofisR14used,exitaccessfromathirdfloormustfaceapublicrightofwayforemergencyaccess,and2.Avarietyofroofingcolorsshallbeusedwithinthedevelopmentandallroofmaterialshallbefireretardant.EVThedesignofeavesandoverhangsactasunifyingelementsinthearchitecturalfacterofahomeWhensizedadequatelyandusedconsistently,theyworktocreatedesirableshadowsthathelptocreatevisualinterestespeciallyfromblank,unbrokenwallplanes.,Guidelines:Eavesshouldbedetailedandproportionedtocomplementthearchitecturalstyleofthehome.Standards:RCn/aandR-1R-4LBothofthefollowingarerequired:&1.Eavesprojectingfromtheroofoftheentirebuildingatleasttwelveinches(12”)andwithhorizontalfasciaorfasciagutteratleastfiveinches(5”)deeponthefaceR-8ofalleaves,and2.Rakesongableendsmustextendaminimumoftwoinches(2”)fromthesurfaceofexteriorsidingmaterials.R-1OThefollowingisrequired:Eavesshallbeatleasttwelveinches(12”)withhorizontalandfasciaorfasciagutteratleastfiveinches(5”)deeponthefaceofalleaves.R-14ARCHITECTURALDETAIUNG:Architecturaldetailingcontributestothevisualappealofahomeandthecommunity.Ithelpstocreateadesirablehumanscaleandaperceptionofaqualitywelldesignedhome.Guidelines:Architecturaldetailshallbeprovidedthatisappropriatetothearchitecturalcharacterofthehome.Detailingliketrim,columns,and/orcornerboardsshallreflectthearchitecturalcharacterofthehouse.Standards:RCn/aandR-1R-4LIfonesidingmaterialisusedonanysideofthedwellingthatistwostoriesorgreaterinheight,ahorizontalbandthatmeasuresatleasteightinches(8”)isrequired269b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 249 of 410
ORDINANCENO.andbetweenthefirstandsecondstory.R-8Additionally,oneofthefollowingisrequired:1.Threeandonehalfinch(31/2’)minimumtrimsurroundsallwindowsanddetailsalldoors,or2.Acombinationofshuttersandthreeandonehalfinches(31/2”)minimumtrimdetailsallwindows,andthreeandonehalfinches(31/2”)minimumtrimdetailsalldoors.R-1OAllofthefollowingarerequired:and1.Threeandonehalfinches(31/2”)minimumtrimsurroundsallwindowsandR44detailsalldoors,and2.Atleastoneofthefollowingarchitecturaldetailsshallbeprovidedoneachhome:shutters,kneebraces,flowerboxes,orcolumns,and3.Wheresidingisused,metalcornerclipsorcornerboardsshallbeusedandshallbeatminimumtwoandonehalfinches(21/2”)inwidthandpainted.Ifshuttersareused,theyshallbeproportionedtothewindowsizetosimulatetheabilitytocoverthem,and4.Ifcolumnsareused,theyshallberound,fluted,orstronglyrelatedtothehome’sarchitecturalstyle.Sixinchesbysixinches(6”x6”)postsmaybeallowedifchamferedand/orbanded.Exposedfourinchesbyfourinches(4”x_____4”)andsixinchesbysixinches(6”x6”)postsareprohibited.MAJERIALSANDCOLORTheuseofavarietyofmaterialsandcolorcontributestose,n$eofdiversItyofhousingstockinthecommunityGuidelines:Adiversityofmaterialsandcolorshallbeusedonhomesthroughoutthecommunity.Avarietyofmaterialsthatareappropriatetothearchitecturalcharacteroftheneighborhoodshallbeused.Adiversepaletteofcolorsshallbeusedtoreducemonotonyofcolorortone.Standards:RCn/aandR-1R-4Forsubdivisionsandshortplats,abuttinghomesshallbeofdifferingcolor.Colorpalettesforallnewdwellings,codedtothehomeelevations,shallbesubmittedforandapproval.R8Additionally,oneofthefollowingisrequired:1.Aminimumoftwo(2)colorsisusedonthehome(bodywithdifferentcolortrimisacceptable),or2.Aminimumoftwo(2)differingsidingmaterials(horizontalsidingandshingles,sidingandmasonryormasonry-likematerial,etc.)isusedonthehome.Onealternative_sidingmaterialmustcompriseaminimumofthirtypercent(30%)279b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 250 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______IcoftheStreetfacingfacade.Ifmasonrysidingisused,itshallwrapthecornersnolessthantwentyfourinches(24”).___________R-1OAllofthefollowingarerequired:and1.R-14IAcceptableexteriorwallmaterialsare:wood,cementfiberboard,stucco,stone,andstandardsizedbrickthreeandonehalfinchesbysevenandonehalfinches(31/2”x71/2”)orthreeandfiveeighthsinchesbysevenandfiveeighthsinches(35/8”x75/8”).Simulatedstone,wood,stone,orbrickmaybeusedtodetailhomes,and2.Whenmorethanonematerialisused,changesinaverticalwall,suchasfromwoodtobrick,shallwrapthecornersnolessthantwenty-fourinches(24”).Thematerialchangeshalloccurataninternalcorneroralogicaltransitionsuchasaligningwithawindowedgeorchimney.Materialtransitionshallnotoccuratanexteriorcorner,and3.Multiplecolorsonbuildingsshallbeprovided.Muteddeepertones,asopposedtovibrantprimarycolors,shallbethedominantcolors.Colorpalettesforallnewstructures,codedtothehomeelevations,shallbesubmittedforapproval.4.Guttersanddownspoutsshallbeintegratedintothecolorschemeofthehomeandbepainted,orofanintegralcolor,tomatchthetrimcolor.IILAILANDNEWSPAPERS:IEuideliiies:Mailboxesshallbelocatedsothattheyareeasilyaccessibletoresidents.TheyshallLaisobearchitecturallycompatiblewiththehomes.Allofthefollowingarerequired:1.MailboxesshallbeclusteredandlocatedsoastoservetheneedsofUSPSwhile&IQnotadverselyaffectingtheprivacyofresidents;R142.MailboxesshallbelockableconsistentwithUSPSstandard;3.Mailboxesshallbearchitecturallyenhancedwithmaterialsanddetailstypicalofthehome’sarchitecture;and4.Newspaperboxesshallbeofadesignthatreflectsthecharacterofthehome.lOTTUBS,POOLSANDMECHANICALEQUIPMEiIFLuidelines:Hottubs,pools,andmechanicalequipmentshallbeplacedsoastonotnegativelympactneighbors.R-1OHottubsandpoolsshallonlybelocatedinbackyardsanddesignedtominimizesightjandsoundimpactstoadjoiningproperty.PoolheatersandpumpsshallbescreenedR014fromviewandsoundinsulated.Poolequipmentmustcomplywithcodesregardingfencing.[UTILITIESR-1OUtilityboxesthatarenotlocatedinalleywaysorawayfrompublicgatheringspaces289b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 251 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______andshallbescreenedwithlandscapingorberms.R-14COLLECTIONAREABothofthefollowingarerequired:1.TrashandrecyclingcontainersshallbelocatedsothattheyhaveminimalimpactonR-10residentsandtheirneighborsandsothattheyarenotvisibletothegeneralpublic;andand2.Ascreenedenclosureinwhichtokeepcontainersshallbeprovidedorgaragesshallbebuiltwithadequatespacetokeepcontainers.Screenedenclosuresshallnotbelocatedwithinfrontyards.SECTIONXIII.TheMinimumRearYardandMinimumSideYardrowsoftheSetbackssubsectionandtheLoadingDockssubsectionofsubsection4-2-120.A,DevelopmentStandardsforCommercialZoningDesignations,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,areamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainasitcurrentlyreads.CNCVCAMinimumNone,except15ft.iflotNone,except15ft.iflotNone,except15ft.iflotRearYard18abutsalotzonedabutsalotzonedabutsalotzonedresidentialzone.RC,R1,residentiale+e.RC,R1,residentialeRe.,RC,R1,R4,R8,R10,R14,orR4,R8,R10,R14,orR4,R3,R10,R14,orRMRMF.RMF.MinimumNone,except15ft.iflotNone,except15ft.iflotNone,except15ft.iflotSideYard18abutsorisadjacenttoaabutsorisadjacenttoaabutsorisadjacenttoalotlotzonedresidentiallotzonedresidentialzone,zonedresidentialzone,RC,zone,RC,R1,R1,R8,RC,R1,R4,R8,R10,RR—1,R4,R3,R10,R14,orR10,R14,orRMF.14,orRMF.RMF.LOADINGDOCKSLocationSeeRMC4-4-080.SeeRMC4-4-080.SeeRMC4-4-080.withinSiteShallnotbepermittedShallnotbepermittedonShallnotbepermittedononthesideofthelotthesideofthelotthesideofthelotadjacentadjacenttoorabuttingaadjacenttoorabuttingatoorabuttingalotzonedlotzonedresidentiallotzonedresidentialzone,residentialzone,RC,R1,299b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 252 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______zonc,RC,R1,R1,R8,RC,R1,R4,R8,R10,RR4,R8,R10,R14,orR10,R14,orRM.314,orRM.3?L-M.3SECTIONXIV.TheMinimumRearYardrowoftheSetbackssubsectionandtheLoadingDockssubsectionofsubsection4-2-120.B,DevelopmentStandardsforCommercialZoningDesignations,areamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainasitcurrentlyreads.CDCOCORNone,unlesstheCDlotabutsalotzonedresidentialeRe,RC,R1,R4,R8,R10,R14,orRMR8,R10,R14,orNonerequired,except,15MinimumRMT,thenthereshallDeterminedthroughsiteRearYard’8bea15ft.landscapedft.ifabuttingalotzoneddevelopmentplanreview.residentialzonc.stripora5ft.widesight-obscuringlandscapedstripandasolid6ft.highbarrierusedalongthecommonboundary.LOADINGDOCKSLocationForpermittedNotpermittedonthesideofDeterminedthroughsitemanufacturingandthelotadjacentorabuttingtodevelopmentplanreview.fabricationuses,alotzonedresidentialzonc,parking,dockingandR-4R1°R10,R14,orIIloadingareasforRM1.3.trucktrafficshallbeoff-streetandscreenedfromviewofabuttingpublicstreets.309b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 253 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______SECTIONXV.Subsection4-2-120.C.16,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:16.Thefollowingheightrequestsmaybeallowedbyanadministrativeconditionalusepermit:APPLICABLEZONEHEIGHTCHANGEREQUESTExceedheightof50feetAlloftheCVZoneExceedheightof45feetwhenabuttingR-6,R-8LorR-10ZoneAlloftheCAZoneExceedmaximumheightInconsiderationofarequestforaconditionalusepermitforadditionalbuildingheight,allrelevantinformationandthefollowingfactorsshallbeconsideredalongwiththecriteriainRMC4-9-030,ConditionalUsePermits.a.LocationCriteria:Proximityofarterialstreetswhichhavesufficientcapacitytoaccommodatetrafficgeneratedbythedevelopment.Developmentsareencouragedtolocateinareasservedbytransit.b.ComprehensivePlan:Theproposeduseshallbecompatiblewiththegeneralpurpose,goals,objectivesandstandardsoftheComprehensivePlan,thezoningregulationsandanyotherplan,program,maporregulationoftheCity.c.EffectonAdjacentorAbuttingProperties:Buildingheightsshallnotresultinsubstantialorundueadverseeffectsonadjacentandabuttingproperty.Whenabuildinginexcessofthemaximumheightisproposedadjacent319b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 254 of 410
ORDINANCENO.toorabuttingalotzonedresidentialdcsignatcdR1,R4,R8,R10,R14orRM,thenthesetbacksshallbeequivalenttotherequirementsoftheadjacentresidentialzoneifthesetbackstandardsexceedtherequirementsoftheCommercialZone.SECTIONXVI.TheSetbacksandLoadingDockssubsections,ofsubsection4-2-130.A,DevelopmentStandardsforIndustrialZoningDesignations,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,areamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainascurrentlycodified.ILIMIHSETBACKS8’11MinimumFrontPrincipalArterialPrincipalArterialPrincipalYardstreets:’220ft.streets:’220ft.ArterialOtherstreets:15ft.Otherstreets:15ft.streets:1220providedthat20ft.isExcept50ft.isrequiredft.requiredifalotisifaletisadjacenttoorOtheradjacenttoorabuttingaabuttingalotzonedstreets:15lotzonedresidentialresidentiallotzonedRft.zoncdR1,R4,R8,RMH,1,R4,R8,RMH,R10,R10,R14,orRM.R14,orRM.MinimumSideYardPrincipalArterialPrincipalArterialPrincipalAlongaStreetstreets:’220ft.streets:’220ft.ArterialOtherstreets:15ft.Otherstreets:15ft.streets:’220Except50ft.isrequiredifExcept50ft.isrequiredft.alotisadjacenttoorifalotisadjacenttoorOtherabuttingalotzonedabuttingalotzonedstreets:15residentialzonedR1,R4,residential4etzonedR-ft.R8,R10,R14,orRM.1,R4,RMH,R8,R10,R14orRM.MinimumFreeway10ft.landscapedsetback10ft.landscaped10ft.FrontageSetbackfromthepropertyline,setbackfromthelandscapedpropertyline,setbackfromthepropertyline.MinimumRearandNone,except20ft.iflotisNone,except50ft.iflotNone,SideYards”adjacenttoorabuttingaisadjacenttoorexcept,50ft.lotzonedresidentialzone,abuttingalotzonediflotabutsa329b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 255 of 410
ORDINANCENO.R1,R4,R8,RMH,R10,R14,orRM;whichmaybereducedto15ft.throughthesiteplandevelopmentreviewprocess.residentialzone,R1,R1,R8,RMHRiflRi4orRM.lotzonedresidentialzonedR1,R4,R8,R10,R14,orRM20ft.iflotabutsalotzonedCN,CV,CA,CD,CC,COR,orP-Suffix.SECTIONXVII.Subsection4-2-130.B.3,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:3.Providedthatasolid6’highbarrierwallisprovidedwithinthelandscapestripandamaintenanceagreementoreasementforthelandscapestripissecured.Asolidbarrierwallshallnotbelocatedcloserthan5’toanabuttinglotzonedresidentialR1,R4,R8,R10,R14orRMF.SECTIONXVIII.Subsection4-4-080.E.2.a.i,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:LOADINGDOCKSLocationNotpermittedonthesideNotpermittedontheNAofthelotthatisadjacentsideofthelotthatistoorabuttingalotzonedadjacenttoorabuttingresidentialzone,R1,R4,alotzonedresidentialR8,R10,R14,orRM1.2zone,R1,R4,R8,R10,R14,orRM1.2339b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 256 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______i.Ifsufficientparkingisnotavailableonthepremisesoftheuse,aprivateparkingareamaybeprovidedoffsite,exceptforsingleandtwo(2)familydwellingsintheRC,R-1,R-4,&andR-8zones.SECTIONXIX.Subsection4-4-080.E.7.b,R-8Zones,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:b.R-6andR-8Zones:Forlotsabuttinganalley,allparkingareasand/orattachedordetachedgaragesshallnotoccurinfrontofthebuildingand/orintheareabetweenthefrontlotlineandthefrontbuildingline;parkingareasandgaragesmustoccurattherearorsideofthebuilding,andvehicularaccessshallbetakenfromthealley.SeeRMC4-2-115,ResidentialDesignandOpenSpaceStandards.SECTIONXX.Subsection4-4-090.C.3,SpecialSetbacksfromResidentialProperties,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:3.SpecialSetbacksfromResidentialProperties:Outdoorrefuseandrecyclablesdepositareasandcollectionpointsshallnotbelocatedwithinfiftyfeet(50’)ofapropcrtylotzonedRC,R1,R4,R8,R10,R14,orRMresidential,exceptbyapprovalthroughthesitedevelopmentplanreviewprocess,or%4athroughthemodificationprocessifexemptfromsitedevelopmentplanreview.SECTIONXXI.Subsection4-4-095.F.2,OutdoorLoading,Repair,MaintenanceandWorkAreas—CommercialandIndustrialZones,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopment349b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 257 of 410
ORDINANCENO.Standards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:2.OutdoorLoading,Repair,MaintenanceandWorkAreas—CommercialandIndustrialZones:Screeningisnotrequired,exceptwhenthesubjectcommercialorindustriallotabutsorisadjacenttoaresidentiallyzonedlot,i.c.,RC,R1,R4,R3,RMH,R10,R14,RM,andtheregulatedactivityisproposedonthesideofthepropertyabuttingoradjacenttothelistedzones.Insuchcases,afence,orlandscaping,oralandscapedberm,oraycombinationthcrcofofthesameisrequiredtoachieveadequatevisualoracousticalscreening.Theseprovisionsmaybemodifiedthroughthesiteplandevelopmentreviewprocess,orthemodificationprocessforsiteplanexemptproposals,wheretheapplicantcanshowthatthesameorbetterresultwilloccurbecauseofcreativedesignsolutions,uniqueaspectsoruse,etc.SECTIONXXII.Thefirstsentenceofsubsection4-4-100.E.5.i,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainascurrentlycodified:i.SpecialRequirementsforSpecifiedUsesintheCommercialOffice(CO),LightIndustrial(IL),MediumIndustrial(IM),andHeavyIndustrial(IH)ZoneswithinOneHundredFeet(100’)ofaLotZonedRC,R1,R4,R8,R10,R14,andRMResidential:359b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 258 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______SECTIONXXIII.Subsection4-4-11O.D.8.c,Classifications,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:c.Classifications:TheClassificationsforUseDistricts(ZoningCodes)oftheCityofRentonshallbeassignedtheEnvironmentalDesignationforNoiseAbatement(EDNA)Codesasfollows:EDNAClassA:RC,R-1,R-4,&R-8,RMH,R-1O,R-14,RMEDNAClassB:CN,CV,CD,CA,COR,CO,UC-Ni,UC-N2EDNAClassC:IL,IH,IMSECTIONXXIV.Subsection8-7-4.A,ofChapter7,NoiseLevelRegulations,ofTitleVIII(HealthandSanitation)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:A.Residentialzones,whichshallincludeRC,R-1,R-4,B,R-8,R-1O,R-14,RM,RMH,areclassifiedasClassAEDNA.SECTIONXXV.Thisordinanceshallbeeffectiveuponitspassage,approval,andfive(5)calendardaysafterpublication.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_______dayof____________________,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerk369b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 259 of 410
ORDINANCENO.APPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_______dayof_____________________,2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:_______________ORD:1857:12/10/14:scr379b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 260 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
USES:RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 RM
}RM IL j IM IH CN CA CD ]CO ]COR
-
-
hI la
A AGR1ULTUREAND NATURAL RESOURCES
Agriculture P35 P35 -
.AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3
Home agriculture 5 5 -—5 5 5 5 5
Naturalresource H H H H HH H H H HHH H H H H H H
extraction/recovery —
Research—Scientific p p p p p p P P P P P P P P P P P P P
(small scale)—
——————---—
B.-ANIMALS AND RELATED USES__,___
----
Beekeeping AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC
Kennels P37 P37 P37
.AD3 AD3
Stables,commercial
EAL -—
Detached dwelling P pj p 1 p p p
Attached dwellings I j P73 P73 p P18 P73 P18 P3 p P18 P87
Manufactured Homes
Manufactured
-P50 P50 P50 P50 so p P50 P50
homes
D.OTHER REsIDENTIAL;LODGING ANb HOME ocCUPATiONS
Accessory dwelling AD7 AD7 AD7 AD7 AD7 AD7 AD7
unit
Adult family home p p p P P P p P P P P3
Assisted living AD AD P P P P3 P40 p P75 P87
Caretaker s AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC
residence
ATTACHMENT A -19b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 261 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
Congregate
residence
AD P P3
Group homes I AD H3
Group homes II for 6 AD P P P P P P P P P P3 P
or less —
Grouphomesllfor7 H H H H H H H H P H H3 —AD
or more —
Home occupations AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6
Live-work unit AD AD AD
E.SCHOOLS :
K-12 educational
institution (public or H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H H H H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H H87
private)
Other higher P29 P29 P29 P P P P21 P H87
education institution
Schools/studios,arts P P29 P29 P P P P
and crafts
Trade orvocational P P H H H77
school
F.PARKS
Parks,neighborhood P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Parks,
regional/community,P P P 0 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P p P
existing
Parks,
regional/community,AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P P
new
G/OTHbMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES -
Community Facilities
Cemetery H H H H H H H H fH H H H IHH H[H
Religious institutions H H H H H H H H H j_H H H H HIH H H H H H
ATTACHMENTA-29b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 262 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
Service and social H H H H H H H j H H H H H H H H12 H21 H27 H
organizations —L
______________________________________________________________________
Public Facilities
City government AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P AD AD AD
offices —
City government H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
facilities —
Jails,existing P
municipal
Diversion facility and
diversion interim H71 H71
service facility
Secure community H71 H71
transition facilities
Other government H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
offices and facilities —
H.OFFICE AND CONFERENCE
--——
Conference centers P29 P29 P29 H P29 P P P21 P P91
Medical and dental P11
P42 P29 P29 P29 AD P p P P P P92
offices 2
Offices,general P42 P13 P13 P13 AD P p P P P P93
Veterinary P11
P P42 P29 P29 P29 P P P29 p P27
offices/clinics 2
-:
I.RETAIL .--
Adult retail use P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43
Big-box retail P P P P29 P79
Drive-in/drive-AC8 ACS AC8 AC8 AC6 AC8 AC6 AC2 AC
through,retail 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7
Eating and drinking AD3
P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P42 P P P P22 P P P P12 P27 P27 P92
establishments —3
Fast food restaurants P29 P61 P P61 P27
ATTACHMENTA-39b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 263 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
Horticultural
nurseries,existing
AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
Horticultural AD
AD2
nurseries,new 9
-
I.RETAIL (Continued)
AD P AD P21 P82 P92
Retail sales AD P29 P29 P29 P22 P p p P54 P21 P82 P82
Retail sales,outdoor P30 P30 P30 P15 P15 P15 P15 P15
Taverns AD P20 AD P21 P82 P92
Vehicle sales,large P P P P29
Vehicle sales,small p p p P68
tENTERTAINMENT AND REREATION
Entertainment
Adult entertainment
business
Card room P52 P52 P52 P52
Cultural facilities H H H H H H H H H AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
Dance clubs P29 P29 P29 AD P20 AD P29 AD
Dance haIls P29 P29 P29 AD P20 AD P29 AD
Gaming/gambling
facilities,not-for-H29 H29 H29 H20 H29
profit
Movie theaters P29 P29 P29 AD P20 P P12 P83 P92
Sports arenas,
auditoriums,P29 P29 P29 P20 p H H96
exhibition halls,
indoor
ATTACHMENTA-49b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 264 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
Sports arenas,
auditoriums,
exhibition halls,
outdoor
Recreation
AD2
0P29P29P29 H H96
Golf courses P P P P p P P
(existing)—
Golf courses,new H P H H H H H
Marinas P P21 H
Recreational
facilities,indoor,H P33 P29 P29 P29 P p P P54 P21 P27 P92
existing
Recreational H P29 P4 P p P92 P12 P21 P27 P92
facilities,indoor,new
Recreational P29 P29 P29 H20 H29
facilities,outdoor
K.SERVICES
Services,General
Bed and breakfast AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P
house,accessory —
Bed and breakfast AD AD AD5 AD P
house,professional
Hotel P29 P29 P29 P P20 P P P P P96
Motel P29 P29 P29 P P20
Off-site services P42 P29 P29 P29 P29
On-site services P42 P29 P29 P29 P22 p p p P54 P21 P27 P92
Drive-in/drive-AC6 AC6 AC6 AC8 AC6 AC8 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC2 AC
through service 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 7
_____
Vehicle rental,small P p p AD P20
ATTACHMENTA -59b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 265 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
Adult day care I AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC P p P p P P p p p P27 P10
Adult daycare II H [H H H H H P p P p P P P P12 P21 P27
Day care centers H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 p p P P P p p P P21 P27 P10
Family day care AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC3 AC AC AC AC
Healthcare Services
Convalescent centers H H H H P AD P3 P40 AD AD9 AD9
Medical institutions H H H H H H H H H56 H56 H56 H H H H P40 H H H
LVEHICIERELATED ACTIVITiES
Car washes P p P AD2 P2
..-.
Express AD2
AD Ptransportation 0
services
H59 PFueldealers
Industrial engine or P28 P28 P28
transmission rebuild
Parking garage,
P P P P P20 P3 P P P P93
structured,
commercial or public
Parking,surface,P29 P29 P29 P20 P3 AD
commercial or public
Vehicle and
equipment rental,
large
Day Care Services
P29 P29 P29
Park and ride,
dedicated
_________________________
LfltRti ACTIVITIES (Continued)
ploplo
5
Plo plo plo plo plo P10
7
ATTACHMENT A-69b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 266 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
_______
Park and ride,
shared-use
P p p p p p p p p P io plo io
7 9 7 p
plo
7
Railroad yards P
Taxi stand P AD AD
Tow truck AD3
operation/auto P36 H59 p 6
impoundment yard
Transit centers H29 H29 H29 P H20 P H29 P p
Truck terminals p
Vehicle fueling p p P P P P29
stations
Vehicle fueling
stations,existing p P P AD P P P29
legal
Vehicle service and AD2 p p
repair,large
Vehicle service and P2 P2 P2 AD2 AD2 AD2
repair,small
Wrecking yard,auto H59 H
Air Transportation Uses
Airplane H59
manufacturing
Airplane
manufacturing,AC AC
accessory functions
Airplane sales and
repair
Airport,municipal P
Airport-related or AC
aviation-related uses
Helipads H29 H29 H29 H H H29
ATTACHMENT A -79b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 267 of 410
Helipads,commercial
M.STO::
Hazardous material
storage,on-site or
off-site,including
treatment
ORDINANCE NO.
H24 H 24 H24
Indoor storage p p p
AC1 AC1 AC1 AC1 AC1 AC1
1 1 1
Outdoor storage,P29 P29 P29 P64
existing
Outdoor storage,P29 P29 P64
new
Self-service storage P29 P59 P H22 H22
-
Vehicle storage 9
Warehousing P P P
N.INDUSTRIAL
Industrial,General
Assembly and/or p p p P86 P86
packaging operations
Commercial P29 P29 P29 P4
laundries,existing
Commercial P29 P29 P29
laundries,new
Construction/contrac p p
tor’s office
Craft distilleries with
tasting rooms,small p p P P P P P P
wineries,and micro
breweries
Industrial,heavy P14
ATTACHMENTA-89b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 268 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
AD5Laboratories:light P29 P29 P29 AD P20 P3 p P864manufacturing
Laboratories:
research,P28 P p H P20 AD3 AD H P P86
development and
testing
Manufacturing and H59 P67
fabrication,heavy
Manufacturing and P67 P67
fabrication,medium
Manufacturing and P P P P
fabrication,light
Solid Waste/Recycling
Recycling collection
and processing P28 P28 P28 P29
center
Recycling collection P P P P P P P P P
station
Sewage disposal and H59 H
treatment plants
Waste recycling and H59 P
transfer facilities
O.UTILITIES --
Communication
broadcast and relay H H H H H H H H H H29 H29 H29 H H H H H H
towers
Electrical power
generation and H H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66
cogeneration
Utilities,small P P P P P P P P 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 AD
Utilities,large H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H H HH H
ATFACHMENTA-99b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 269 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
P.WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES -—
Amateur radio AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 ADS
antenna
Camouflaged WCF AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
Camouflaged WCF
collocation/modficati AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
p-fl
Concealed WCF AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
Concealed WCF
collocation/modificat AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
!Pfl
H4 H4 N47 H4 H4LatticetowersAD4AD4A94494494
support structures ----
Macro facility 42 42 42 -42 42 42 42 4244 4244 4244 4244 4244 4244 4244 4244 4244 4244 49 49
antennas
Micro facility 42 42 42 -42 12 12 12 12 42 12 12 42 42 12 12 42 42 42 42
antennas
Mini facility antennas 4244 4244 P44 -P44 P44 P44 P.44 P44 P44 1244 1244 1244 1244 1244 1244 1244 1244 AD AD
Major alterations to AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
existingWCFtowers ———————
————
Minor modifications
alterations to
existing WCF towers P49 P49 P49 P P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 p4g P49 P49
w4es5 -
communication
facilities
Monopole I support 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 494 494
4244 P44 1244 1244 1244 1244 &
structures on private H47 H47 H47 H47 H47 H47 H47
property H4Z H.i H4Z L!4Z t!47 U4Z !41 t!41 —14Z 1:147 1:147
Monopole I support 494 #94 494 494 #94 494 494 #94 1244
structures on public -
4244 P44 4244 4244 4244 4244
&-
right of way
ATTACHMENT A -109b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 270 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
Monopole II support
structures
494 494 #94
H47 :.
H47 H47 H47 H47
H47 H47
494
H47
H47
#94
H47
H47
Stealth Tower AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
Parabolic antennas —#94 494 494 494 #94 494 P.94 #94 44 4244 j244 4 494 494
Large S S S S S S S S
Q.GENERAI.-—-———
Accessory uses per
RMC 4-2-050 and as
defined in chapter 4 AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC
11 RMC,where not —
otherwise listed in
Use Table
R.TEMPORARYUSES Er
Model homes in an
approved residential
development:one PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO P10 P10 P10 P10 PlO PlO PlO
model home on an
existing lot
Sales/marketing pio io pio pio plo pio iio pio io pio ii0 io ii0 pio io pio iio plo io pio
trailers,on-site —
Sto rage yards or
buildingsusedfor PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO P10 PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO PlO
construction
Temporary uses PlO PlO PlO P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 PlO PlO P10 P10 P10 P10 PlO io PlO io PlO io
ATTACHMENT A -119b. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 271 of 410
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO._______ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGSECTION4-3-050,OFCHAPTER3,ENVIRONMENTALREGULATIONSANDOVERLAYDISTRICTS,SECTION4-6-030,OFCHAPTER6,STREETANDUTILITYSTANDARDS,SECTIONS4-7-130,4-7-190,4-7-200,AND4-7-220,OFCHAPTER7,SUBDIVISIONREGULATIONS,ANDSECTION4-8-120,OFCHAPTER8,PERMITS—GENERALANDAPPEALS,OFTITLEIV(DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS)OFTHERENTONMUNICIPALCODE,AMENDINGTHEREGULATIONSREGARDINGTHECREATIONOFTRACTSTOCONTAINUTILITIES,OPENSPACE,CRITICALAREAS,ANDOTHERSIMILARAREASTHATWARRANTPROTECTIONORSERVEAPUBLICPURPOSE.0-105WHEREAS,theCityrecognizesthatenvironmentallysensitiveareas,suchascriticalareas,areinsufficientlyprotectedbyeasements;WHEREAS,theCityrecognizesthatutilitiesandotherinstallationsprovidingapublicbenefit,suchasstormwaterfacilities,arefrequentlyinadequatelymaintainediflocatedwithineasements;andWHEREAS,theCityrevisesstandardsforlandthatisdedicatedforapublicbenefitorenvironmentalpreservationbyrequiringthelandareabelocatedwithinatract;andWHEREAS,thismatterwasreferredtothePlanningCommissionforconsideration,andthematterwasconsideredbythePlanningCommission,andthetextamendmentrequestsbeinginconformitywiththeCity’sComprehensivePlan,asamended;andWHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonNovember5,2014,andconsideredallrelevantmatters,andallpartieswereheardappearinginsupportorinopposition;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:19c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 272 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONI.Subsection4-3-050.E,GeneralPerformanceStandards,andAllowedAlterations,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedsothesubsectiontitleisrevisedasfollows:E.GENERALPERFORMANCESTANDARDS,ANDALLOWEDALTERATIONSNATIVEGROWTHPROTECTIONAREASANDBUILDINGSETBACKS:SECTIONII.Subsection4-3-050.E.4.c,MethodofCreation,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:c.MethodofCreation:NativegGrowthpProtectionaAreasshallbeestablishedbyoneofthefollowingmethods,inorderofpreference:i.TractandDeedRestriction:ThepermitholdershallestablishandrecordapermanentandirrevocableNoticeofSensitiveAreaonthetitleofanycriticalareamanagementtractortractscreatedasaconditionofapermit.SuchNoticeofSensitiveAreashallprohibitdevelopment,alteration,ordisturbancewithinthetractexceptforpurposesofhabitatenhancementaspartofanenhancementproject,whichhasreceivedpriorwrittenapprovalfromtheCityandfromanyotheragencywithlurisdictionoversuchactivity.Inaddition,theNoticeofSensitiveAreashallpreventthesaleofsuchtracttoanypartywithouttheCityofRenton’spriorwrittenapproval.Eachlotownerofthesubdivisionshallbegrantedanequalandundividedownershipinterestinthetract.29c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 273 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______ku.ConservationEasement:Thepermitholdershall,subjecttotheCity’sapproval,conveytotheCityorotherpublicornonprofitentityspecifiedbytheCity,arecordedeasementfortheprotectionofthecriticalareaand/oritsbuffer.iiProtcctivcEacmcnt:Thepermitholdershallestablishandrecordapermanentandirrevocablecasementonthcpropertytitleofaparcelortractoflandcontainingacriticalareaand/oritsbuffercreatedasaconditionofapermit.Suchprotectivecasementshallbeheldbythecurrentandfuturepropertyowner,shallrunwiththeland,andshallprohibitdevelopment,alteration,ordisturbancewithinthecasementexceptforpurposesofhabitatenhancementaspartofanenhancementprojectwhichhasreceivedpriorwrittenapprovalfromtheCity,andfromanyotheragencywithjurisdictionoversuchactivity.iii.TraandDeedRctriction:Thepermitholdershallestablishandrecordapermanentandirrevocabledeedrestrictiononthepropertytitleofanycriticalareamanagementtractortractscreatedasaconditionofapermit.Suchdeedrestriction(s)shallprohibitdevelopment,alteration,ordisturbancewithinthetractexceptforpurposesofhabitatenhancementaspartofanenhancementprojectwhichhasreceivedpriorwrittenapprovalfromtheCity,andfromanyotheragencywithjurisdictionoversuchactivity.Acovenantshall39c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 274 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______beplacedonthetractrestrictingitsseparatesale.Eachabuttinglotownerorthehomeowners’associationshallhaveanundividedinterestinthetract.SECTIONIII.Subsection4-3-050.E.4.g,ResponsibilityforMaintenance,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:g.ResponsibilityforMaintenance:ResponsibilityformaintainingtheffNativegGrowthpProtectioneasementsorAreatractortractsshallbeheldbyahomeowners’association,abuttinglotowners,thepermitapplicantordesignee,orotherappropriateentity,asapprovedbytheCity.SECTIONIV.Subsection4-3-050.E.4.h,MaintenanceCovenantandNoteRequired,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:h.MaintenanceCovenantandNoteRequired:Thefollowingnoteshallappearonthefaceofallplats,shortplats,PlannedUnitDevelopments,orotherapprovedsiteplanscontainingseparateRNativegGrowthpProtectionAreatractortracts,andshallalsoberecordedasacovenantrunningwiththelandonthetitleofrecordforallaffectedlotsonthetitle:“MAINTENANCERESPONSIBILITY:AllownersoflotscreatedbyorbenefitingfromthisCityactionLabuttingorincludingaftNativegGrowthpProtectionAreaeasement[tract}areresponsibleformaintenanceandprotectionoftheeasement[tract}.Maintenanceincludesensuringthatnoalterationsoccurwithinthetractand49c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 275 of 410
ORDINANCENO.thatallvegetationremainsundisturbedunlesstheexpresswrittenauthorizationoftheCityhasbeenreceived.”SECTIONV.Subsection4-3-050.i,GeologicHazards,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedsothesubsectiontitleisrevisedasfollows:i.GEOLOGICHAZARDSGEOLOGICALLYHAZARDOUSAREAS:SECTIONVI.Subsection4-3-050.J.7.c,NativeGrowthProtectionArea—VeryHighLandslideHazards,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:c.NativeGrowthProtectionArea(NGPA)—VeryHighLandslideHazards:ThelandslidehazardareashallbeplacedinaNativegGrowthpProtectionGArea(NGPA)tractpursuanttosubsectionRMC4-3-O5O.E4ofthisSection,NativeGrowthProtectionAreas,ef—anddesignatedasa“noimprovementarea.”Thetractmaybededicatedtoaconservationorganizationorlandtrust,orsimilarlypreservedthroughapermanentprotectivemechanismacceptabletotheCity.Basedupontheresultsofthegeotechnicalstudy,thebuffermaybeplaceddesignatedrn—aNativegGrowthProtectionAreaandincludedintheNGPAtract,oritmaybedesignatedasa“nobuild”easement,ortheareamaybedesignated,inpart,aNativegGrowthProtectionAreaandincludedintheNGPAtractand,inpart,a“nobuild”easementnotincludedwithintheNGPAtract.59c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 276 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONVII.Subsection4-3-050.K,HabitatConservation,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedsothesubsectiontitleisrevisedasfollows:K.FISHANDWILDLIFEHABITATCONSERVATIONAREAS(FWHCAs):SECTIONVIII.Subsection4-3-050.K.4,NativeGrowthProtectionAreas,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:4.NativeGrowthProtectionAreas:Basedontherequiredhabitatassessment,criticalhabitatareasandtheirassociatedbuffersmayberequiredtobeplacedindesignatedasftNativegGrowthProtectionGAreasubjecttotherequirementsofsubcctionRMC4-3-050.E.4ofthisSection,NativeGrowthProtectionAreas,ordedicatedtoaconservationorganizationorlandtrust,orsimilarlypreservedthroughapermanentprotectivemechanismacceptabletotheCity.SECTIONIX.Subsection4-3-050.L,StreamsandLakes,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedsothesubsectiontitleisrevisedasfollows:1.FISHANDWILDLIFEHABITATCONSERVATIONAREAS(FWHCAs)—STREAMSANDLAKES:SECTIONX.Subsection4-3-050.L.7.a,CreationofNativeGrowthProtectionAreasRequired,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:69c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 277 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______a.CreationofNativeGrowthProtectionAreasTractRequired:AsaconditionofanyapprovalforanydevelopmentpermitissuedpursuanttothisSection,thepropertyownershallberequiredtocreateaNativegGrowthProtectionaAreatractcontainingthatincludesthestream/lakeareaandassociatedbuffersbaseduponfieldinvestigationsperformedpursuanttosubsectionRMC4-3-050.E.4ofthisSection,NativeGrowthProtectionAreas;andSECTIONXI.Subsection4-3-050.M.9,CompensatingforWetlandsImpacts,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedsothesubsectiontitleisrevisedasfollows:9.CompcnatingforWctlandsImpactsRequirementsforCompensatoryMitigation:SECTIONXII.Subsection4-3-050.M.9,RequirementsforCompensatoryMitigation,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddanewsubsection4-3-050.M.9.h,Protection,toreadasfollows:h.Protection:Allmitigationareaswhetheron-oroff-siteshallbedesignatedasNativeGrowthProtectionAreaswithinseparatetractsandpermanentlyprotectedandmanagedtopreventdegradationandtoensuretheprotectionofcriticalareafunctionsandvaluesintoperpetuity.PermanentprotectionshallbeachievedthroughaNoticeofSensitiveAreaontheNGPAtractorotherprotectivecovenantinaccordancewithRMC4-3-050,CriticalAreasRegulations.79c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 278 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______SECTIONXIII.Subsection4-6-030.K.3ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:3.ConveyancesystemstobemaintainedandoperatedbytheCitymustbelocatedinadrainageeasement,tract,orright-of-waygrantedtoCity.Drainagestructures,suchasvaultsorponds,mustbelocatedwithinadedicatedtract.Offsiteareasthatnaturallydrainontotheprojectsitemustbeinterceptedatthenaturaldrainagecoursewithintheprojectsiteandconveyedinaseparateconveyancesystemandmustbypassonsitestormwaterfacilities.SeparateconveyancesystemsthatinterceptoffsiterunoffandarelocatedonprivatepropertymustbelocatedinadrainageeasementthatmaybededicatedtotheCityiftheCitydeemsitappropriatedependingontheupstreamtributaryarea.SECTIONXIV.Subsection4-7-130.C.2,NativeGrowthProtectionEasementandMinimumLotSize,ofChapter7,SubdivisionRegulations,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:2.NativeGrowthProtectionAreasEafcmcntandMinimumLotSize:NativegGrowthProtectioneAreascasementsmaybcincludedintheminimumlotsizeoflotscreatedthroughthesubdivisionprocess;provided,thattheareaofthelotoutsideofthecasementissufficienttoallowforadequatebuildableareaandyardsmustbewithinseparatetracts.SECTIONXV.Section4-7-190,PublicUseandServiceArea—GeneralRequirementsandMinimumStandards,ofChapter7,SubdivisionRegulations,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:S9c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 279 of 410
ORDINANCENO.4-7-190PUBUCUSEANDSERVICEAREA—GENERALREQUIREMENTSANDMINIMUMSTANDARDS:Dueconsiderationshallbegivenbythesubdividertotheallocationofadequatelysizedareasforpublicserviceusage.A.EASEMENTSFORUTILITIES:EasementsmayberequiredforthemaintenanceandoperationofutilitiesasspecifiedbytheDepartment.B.UTILITIESINTRACTS:Utilities,suchastormwatervaults,ponds,orotherstructures,shallbelocatedwithindedicatedtracts.B.C.COMMUNITYASSETS:Dueregardshallbeshowntoallnaturalfeaturessuchaslargetrees,watercourses,andsimilarcommunityassets.Suchnaturalfeaturesshouldbepreserved,therebyaddingattractivenessandvaluetotheproperty.SECTIONXVI.Subsection4-7-200.B,StormDamage,ofChapter7,SubdivisionRegulationsofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:B.STORMDRAINAGE:Anadequatedrainagesystemshallbeprovidedfortheproperdrainageofallsurfacewater.Crossdrainsshallbeprovidedtoaccommodateallnaturalwaterflowandshallbeofsufficientlengthtopermitfull-widthroadwayandrequiredslopes.ThedrainagesystemshallbedesignedpertherequirementsofRMC4-6-99c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 280 of 410
ORDINANCENO.030,Drainage(SurfaceWater)Standards.Thedrainagesystemshallincludedetentioncapacityforthenewstreetareas.Residentialplatsshallalsoincludedetentioncapacityforfuturedevelopmentofthelots.Waterqualityfeaturesshallalsobedesignedtoprovidecapacityforthenewstreetpavingfortheplat.Drainagevaults,ponds,etc.shallbelocatedwithindedicatedtracts.SECTIONXVII.Subsection4-7-220.C,Standards,ofChapter7,SubdivisionRegulations,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddanewsubsection4-7-220.C.3,Tracts,toreadasshownbelow.Thecurrentsubsections4-7-220.C.3through4-7-220.C.5shallberenumberedaccordingly.3.Tracts:Areasofthesubdivisiondeemedtobecriticalareasduetodesignationasprotectedslopesshallbelocatedwithinatractortracts.SECTIONXVIII.Thedefinitionof“FinalPlatPlan”insubsection4-8-120.D.6,DefinitionsF,ofChapter8,Permits—GeneralandAppeals,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddanewsubsection4-8-120.D.6.dtoreadasshownbelow.Thecurrentsubsections4-8-120.D.6.dthrough4-8-120.D.6.mshallbereletteredaccordingly.d.Includeboundariesofutility,openspace,and/orcriticalarea(s)tracts,squarefootage,andpurposestatementofeachtract.SECTIONXIX.Thisordinanceshallbeeffectiveuponitspassage,approval,andfive(5)calendardaysafterpublication.109c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 281 of 410
ORDINANCENO.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_______dayof___________________,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_______dayof______________________,2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:_______________ORD:1858:12/15/14:scr119c. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-105, Creation of Tracts Page 282 of 410
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO._______ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGSECTIONS4-2-060,4-2-080,4-2-110,4-2-120AND4-2-130OFCHAPTER2,ZONINGDISTRICTS—USESANDSTANDARDS,SECTIONS4-4-095AND4-4-140OFCHAPTER4,CITY-WIDEPROPERTYDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS,SECTION4-9-030OFCHAPTER9,PERMITS—SPECIFIC,ANDSECTION4-11-230OFCHAPTER11,DEFINITIONS,OFTITLEIV(DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS)ANDSECTION5-19-5OFCHAPTER19,TELECOMMUNICATIONSLICENSESANDFRANCHISES,OFTITLEV(FINANCEANDBUSINESSREGULATIONS)OFTHERENTONMUNICIPALCODE,AMENDINGTHEWIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONFACILITIESREGULATIONS.P—lObWHEREAS,theCityrecognizesthatstructures,suchaswirelesscommunicationfacilities,canhaveadverseimpactsonabuttingproperties,publicrights-of-way,anddetractfromtheaestheticsoftheCity’slandscape;andWHEREAS,currentdevelopmentregulationsdonotprovidesufficientstandardstomitigateadverseimpactscausedbywirelesscommunicationfacilities;andWHEREAS,theCitysetsrevisedstandardsforwirelesscommunicationfacilities;andWHEREAS,thismatterwasreferredtothePlanningCommissionforconsideration,andthematterwasconsideredbythePlanningCommission,andthetextamendmentrequestsbeinginconformitywiththeCity’sComprehensivePlan,asamended;andWHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonNovember5,2014,andconsideredallrelevantmatters,andallpartieswereheardappearinginsupportorinopposition;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:19d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 283 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONI.Subsection4-2-060.P,WirelessCommunicationFacilities,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownonAttachmentA.SECTIONII.Subsections4-2-080.A.44,4-2-080.A.45,4-2-080.A.47and4-2-080.A.49,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,areamendedasfollows:44.Ifthesetbackislessthanonehundredfeet(100’)fromanyadjacentorabuttingresidentiallyzonedparcel,anadministrativeconditionalusepermitisrequiredReserved.45.Ifthesetbackislessthanonehundredfeet(100’)fromanyadjacentresiaentiaii”““-HearingExam.....permitisrequiredReserved.47.Monopolesareprohibitediflocatedwithinthreehundredfeet(300’)ofresidentiallyzonedpropertyunlesstheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratordeterminesthatallresidentiallyzonedpropertywithinthreehundredfeet(300’)oftheproposedfacilityisundevelopableduetoRMC4-3-050,eCriticalaAreasfRegulations(RMC43050).MonopolcIIfacilitiesmustbeconstructedonpropertywherewirelesscommunicationsupportstructurespresentlyoperateandmustnotexceedtheheightoftheexistingsupportstructures.29d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 284 of 410
ORDINANCENO.49.Emcrgcncyorroutinemodificationsarcpermittedwhenthereisiinimalornochanceinthevisualappearance,asdeterminedbytheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratorReserved.SECTIONIII.TheMaximumHeightforWirelessCommunicationsFacilitiessubsection,ofthesubsectionentitledBuildingStandards,insubsection4-2-110.C,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialManufacturedHomeParkZoningDesignation,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainascurrentlycodified.MaximumHeightforSeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.WirelessCommunicationFacilitiesSECTIONIV.TheMaximumHeightforWirelessCommunicationsFacilitiessubsection,ofthesubsectionentitledHeight,insubsection4-2-120.A,DevelopmentStandardsforCommercialZoningDesignations,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainascurrentlycodified.MaximumHeightforSeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.WirelessCommunicationFacilitiesSECTIONV.TheMaximumHeightforWirelessCommunicationsFacilitiessubsection,ofthesubsectionentitledHeight,insubsection4-2-120.B,DevelopmentStandardsforCommercialZoningDesignations,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV39d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 285 of 410
ORDINANCENO.(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainascurrentlycodified.MaximumHeightforSeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.WirelessCommunicationFacilitiesSECTIONVI.TheMaximumHeightforWirelessCommunicationsFacilitiessubsection,ofthesubsectionentitledHeight,insubsection4-2-120.E,DevelopmentStandardsforCommercialZoningDesignations,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainascurrentlycodified.MaximumHeightforSeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.WirelessCommunicationFacilitiesSECTIONVII.TheMaximumHeightforWirelessCommunicationsFacilitiessubsection,ofthesubsectionentitledHeight,insubsection4-2-130.A,DevelopmentStandardsforIndustrialZoningDesignations,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainascurrentlycodified.MaximumHeightforSeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.SeeRMC4-4-140G.WirelessCommunicationFacilities49d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 286 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONVIII.Subsection4-4-095.E,Roof-TopEquipment,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:E.ROOF-TOPEQUIPMENT:Alloperatingequipmentlocatedontheroofofanybuildingshallbeenclosedsoastobescreenedfrompublicview,excludingtelecommunicationsequipment.SubjecttotheAdministrator’sdiscretion,sShieldingshallconsistofthefollowing:1.NewConstruction:Roofwells,clerestories,orparapets,walls,solidfencing,orothersimilarsolid,nonreflectivebarriersorenclosuresasdeterminedbytheAdministratortomeettheintentofthisrequirement.2.AdditionstoExistingBuildings:Wheretheexistingroofstructurecannotsafelysupporttherequiredscreening,orwheretheintegrityoftheexistingroofwillbecompromisedbythescreening,theAdministratormayauthorizerequirepaintingoftheequipmenttomatchtheapproximatecolorofthebackgroundagainstwhichtheequipmentisviewed,oranequivalentnonstructuralmethodtoreducevisibility.SECTIONIX.Section4-4-140,WirelessCommunicationFacilities,ofChapter4,CityWidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:4-4-140WIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONFACILITIES:A.PURPOSE:59d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 287 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______Thepurposesofthissectionareis—to:establishgeneralguidelinesforthesitingofwirelesscommunicationsfacilities,includingtowersandantennas.1.Provideavarietyoflocationsandoptionsforwirelesscommunicationproviderswhileminimizingtheunsightlycharacteristicsassociatedwithwirelesscommunicationfacilities;2.Encouragecreativeapproachesinlocatinganddesigningwirelesscommunicationfacilitiesthatblendinwiththesurroundingsofsuchfacilities;3.ProvidestandardsthatcomplywiththeTelecommunicationsActof1996(“theTelecommunicationsAct”);theprovisionsofthissectionarenotintendedtoandshallnotbeinterpretedtoprohibitorhavetheeffectofprohibitingpersonalwirelessservicesasdefinedintheTelecommunicationsAct;and4.Administertheprovisionsofthissectioninsuchamannerastonotunreasonablydiscriminatebetweenprovidersoffunctionallyequivalentpersonalwirelessservices,asdefinedintheTelecommunicationsAct.B.GOALS:1.eF-CommercialWirelessFacilities:a.Encouragethelocationoftowersinnonresidentialareasandminimizethetotalnumberoftowersthroughoutthecommunity;b.Encouragestronglythejoint:useofnewandexistingtowerjsite&;69d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 288 of 410
ORDINANCENO.c..Encourageusersoftowersandantennastolocatethem,totheextentfeasiblepossible,inareaswheretheadverseimpactonthecommunityissignificantlyminimizedminimal;d.Encourageusersoftowersandantennastoconfiguretheminawaythatminimizestheadversevisualimpactofthetowersandantennas;ande.Enhancetheabilityoftheprovidersoftelecommunicationsservicestoprovidesuchservicestothecommunityquickly,effectively,andefficiently.2.nor-AmateurRadioAntennas:ThegoalsofthisSsectionaretoensuretheinterestsofneighboringpropertyownersareconsideredwhilereasonablyaccommodatingamateurradiocommunicationssoastocomplywithapplicableFederallaw.Theseregulationsarenotintendedtoprecludeamateurradiocommunications.C.EXEMPTION:ThisSectiondoesnotapplytobuildingmountedamateurradioantennasthataresixfeet(6’)orlessinheightorfreestandingverticalmonopoleamateurantennasthatarcfortyfivefeet(45’)orlessinheight.C.ADMINISTERINGAPPUCABILITYANDENFORCINGAUTHORITY:TheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratorisresponsibleforthegeneraladministrationandcoordinationofthisSectionNopersonshallplace,construct,reconstructormodifyawirelesscommunicationfacilitywithintheCitywithoutanAdministratorissuedpermit,exceptasprovidedbythisTitleorchapter5-19RMC,andaBuildingOfficialissuedpermit.TheAdministrator79d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 289 of 410
ORDINANCENO.shallhavediscretiontoapproveordenyelementsofaWCFwherestandardsprovideflexibilityorsubjectivity;thesamediscretionisgiventotheHearingExaminerforapplicationsrequiringapublichearing.D.COLLOCATIONREQUIRED:1.EvaluationofExistingSupportStructures:NonewsupportstructureshallbepermittedunlesstheapplicantdemonstratestotheAdministrator’ssatisfactionthatnoexistingtowerorsupportstructurecanaccommodatetheapplicant’sproposedWCF.Evidencesubmittedtodemonstratethatanexistingtowerorstructurecannotaccommodatetheapplicant’sproposedantennamayconsistofanyofthefollowing:a.Noexistingtowersorstructuresarelocatedwithinthegeographicarearequiredtomeettheapplicant’sengineeringrequirements.b.Existingtowersorstructuresarenotofsufficientheighttomeettheapplicant’sengineeringrequirements.c.Existingtowersorstructuresdonothavesufficientstructuralstrengthtosupporttheapplicant’sproposedantennaandrelatedequipment.d.Theapplicant’sproposedantennawouldcauseelectromagneticinterferencewiththeantennaontheexistingtowersorstructures,ortheantennaontheexistingtowersorstructureswouldcauseinterferencewiththeapplicant’sproposedantenna.e.Thefees,costs,orcontractualprovisionsrequiredbytheownerinordertoshareanexistingtowerorstructureortoadaptanexistingtoweror89d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 290 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______structureforsharingareunreasonable.Costsexceedingnewtowerdevelopmentarepresumedtobeunreasonable.f.Theapplicantdemonstratesthatthereareotherlimitingfactorsthatrenderexistingtowersandstructuresunsuitable.2.CooperationofProvidersinCollocationEfforts:ApermitteeshallcooperatewithotherprovidersincollocatingadditionalantennasonsupportstructuresprovidedtheproposedcollocatorshavereceivedabuildingpermitforsuchuseatthesitefromtheCity.Apermitteeshallexercisegoodfaithincollocatingwithotherprovidersandsharingthepermittedsite,providedsuchsharedusedoesnotgiverisetoasubstantialtechnicallevelofimpairmentoftheabilitytoprovidethepermitteduse(i.e.,asignificantinterferenceinbroadcastorreceptioncapabilitiesasopposedtoacompetitiveconflictorfinancialburden).Suchgoodfaithshallincludesharingtechnicalinformationtoevaluatethefeasibilityofcollocation.Intheeventadisputearisesastowhetherapermitteehasexercisedgoodfaithinaccommodatingotherusers,theCitymayrequireathird-partytechnicalstudyattheexpenseofeitherorboththeapplicantandpermittee.3.ReasonableEfforts:Allapplicantsshalldemonstratereasonableeffortsindevelopingacollocationalternativefortheirproposal.E.COMPLIANCEWITHTELECOMMUNICATIONSACTOF1996REQUIREDFORCOMMERCIALAPPLICANTS:99d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 291 of 410
ORDINANCENO.________mmunicationsActof1996requirestheCitytocomplywiththefollowingconditions:1.ThcCityzoningrequirementsmaynotunreasonablydiscriminateamongwirelesstelecommunicationprovidersthatcompeteagainstoneanother.2.TheCityzoningrequirementsmaynotprohibitorhavetheeffectofprohibitingtheprovisionofwirelesstelecommunicationsservice.,L.-.......permissiontoplaceorconstructwirelesstelecommunicationsfacilities.4.AdecisionbytheCitydenyingarequestforpermissiontoinstallorconstructwirelesstelecommunicationsfacilitiesmustbeinwritingandmustbebasedonevidenceinawrittenrecord.5.IfawirelesstelecommunicationsfacilitymeetstechnicalemissionsstandardssetbytheFCC,itispresumedsafe.TheCitymaynotdenyarequesttoconstructafacilityongroundsthatitsradiofrequencyemissionswouldbeh,rmfiilti-ithrrnvirnrimrntnrthr’hr,Ithnfrr’ldrnt’ifthn’nrmi’inn’mnr’tFCCstandards.E.ALTERATIONOFEXISTINGTOWER:1.MinorAlteration:Proposedcollocationsand/ormodificationstoalawfullyexistingtower,excludingothersupportstructures,thatdonotsubstantiallychangethephysicaldimensionsoftheWCFshallbeaminoralterationandexemptfromSitePlanReview.“Substantiallychangethephysicaldimensions”means:109d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 292 of 410
ORDINANCENO.a.Height:Acollocationand/ormodificationthatwouldincreasetheoverallheightoftheWCFbymorethantenpercent(10%).orbytwentyfeet(20’),whicheverisgreater;b.Width:Acollocationand/ormodificationthatwouldaddanappurtenancetothebodyofthetowerthatwouldprotrudefromtheedgeofthetowerbymorethantwentyfeet(20’),ormorethanthewidthofthetowerattheleveloftheappurtenance,whicheverisgreater;andc.CompoundExpansion:ExpansionofaWCF’scompoundnecessitatedbytheproposedinstallationofmorethanfour(4)newequipmentcabinetsormorethanone(1)newequipmentshelter.Anexpansionofacompoundnecessitatedbyaminoralterationshallnotconstituteamajoralteration;however,thecompoundexpansionshallbetheminimumnecessarytoaccommodatethealteration.2.MalorAlteration:Anychangethatisnotaminoralterationisamajoralteration.3.OriginalDimensions:Anincreaseinheightand/orwidthofaWCFduetoacollocationand/ormodificationshallbemeasuredagainstthedimensionsoftheoriginallyapprovedWCF.4.ApplicableStandards:Eachcollocationandmodificationshalladheretothissection’sstandards;however,heightlimitationsspecifiedinthissectionshallnotbeenforcedifRMC4-4-140.E.1.a,Height,allowsanincreaseinheight.119d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 293 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______5.ReviewTimePeriod:Requestsforminoralterations,asdescribedinthissubsection,shallbereviewedwithinninety(90)days.F.STANDARDSANDREQUIREMENTSFORALLTYPESOFWIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONSFACILITIES:1.EquipmentSheltersl-oc-Cabinets:a.Location:AccessoryEquipmentsheltersandcabinetsfacilitiesusedtohousewirelesscommunicationrelatedequipmentandassociatedcablingshouldbelocatedwithinbuildingsorplacedunderground,unlessitiswhenpossibleinfeasible.However,inthosecaseswhereitcanbedemonstratedbytheapplicantthattheequipmentcannotbelocatedinbuildingsorunderground,equipmentsheltersorcabinetsshallbescreenedand/orlandscapedtotheAdministrator’ssatisfactionoftheAdministrator.b.LandscapingandScreening:LandscapingforaccessoryEquipmentsheltersandcabinetslocatedonprivatepropertyshallincludeaminimumfifteenfoot(15’)besurroundedbyasight-obscuringlandscapebufferwithacontinuousminimumheightoffifteenfeet(15’);however,existingtopography,vegetationandothersitecharacteristicsmayproviderelieffromthescreeningrequirement.Therequiredlandscapedareasshallincludeanautomatedirrigationsystem,unlesstheapplicantisabletojustifyanexceptiontothisrequirementtotheAdministrator’ssatisfaction.aroundtheaccessoryequipmentfacility.AccessoryRelatedequipmentfacilitieslocatedontheroofofanybuildingneednotbelandscapedbutshallbeenclosedscreenedonallsides129d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 294 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______inamannerthatcomplementsandblendswiththesurroundingssoastobeshieldedfromview.Accessoryequipmentlocatedonpublicrightofwayshallbescreenedand/orlandscapedasdeterminedbytheAdministratorthroughtheconditionalusepermitprocess.AccessoryRelatedequipmentfacilitiesmyshallnotbeenclosedwithexposedmetalsurfaces.c.Size:Theapplicantmustshallprovidedocumentationthatthesizeofanyaccessoryequipmentsheltersorcabinetsistheminimumpossiblenecessarytomeettheprovider’sserviceneeds.Theareaofthecompoundmaybegreaterthanisnecessaryinordertoaccommodatefuturecollocations,buttheareareservedforfutureequipmentshelters/cabinetsshallbetheminimumnecessaryforthedocumentedWCFcapacity.d.Generators:LArchitecturalintegrationisrequired(ifapplicable).ii.Totheextentfeasible,generatorsshallbeenclosedalongwiththerelatedequipment.Similartoequipmentshelters,thescreeningforthegeneratorshallutilizesimilarbuildingmaterials,colors,accents,andtexturesastheprimarybuilding;ifnobuildingsexistonsite,ensurethatthebuildingisdesignedtoblendinwiththeenvironment.iii.Ascreeningwalland/orlandscapingmaterialshallberequiredtomitigatevisualimpacts.iv.Fencesshallbeconstructedofmaterialsthatcomplementandblendinwiththesurroundings.139d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 295 of 410
ORDINANCENO.v.Anti-graffitifinishshallbeappliedtoallsolidfences,walls,andgates.vi.Anoiseanalysisshallberequiredtodemonstratethatthegeneratorwilloperatewithinallowednoiselimitsifthegeneratoristhesolepowersource.2.MaximumHeight:AllwirelesscommunicationfacilitiesshallcomplywithRMC4-3-020,AirportRelatedHeightandUseRestrictions,aswellastheheightlimitationoftheapplicablezoningdistrict,exceptasfollows:a.MonopoleI:Lessthansixtyfeet(60’)forallzones.Antennasmayextendsixteenfeet(16’)abovetheMonopoleIsupportstructure.b.MonopoleII:Nomorethanthirty-fivefeet(35’)higherthanthemaximumheightfortheapplicablezoningdistrict,oronehundredfiftyfeet(150’),whicheverisless.Antennasmayextendsixteenfeet(16’)abovetheMonopoleIIsupportstructure.c.StealthTowers:Themaximumallowedheightofastealthtowershallbeonehundredfiftyfeet(150’);however,theallowedheightforaspecifictypeofstealthfacilityshallbedeterminedthroughtheConditionalUsePermitreviewprocessandthestandardsofthissection.d.RooftopWCF:Concealedand/orcamouflagedWCFserectedonarooftopmayextenduptosixteenfeet(16’)abovetheallowedzoneheight.23.VisualImpact:Sitelocationanddevelopmentshallpreservethepreexistingcharacterofthesurroundingbuildingsandlandscapeuscandthezone149d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 296 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______districttotheextentconsistentwiththefunctionofthecommunicationsequipment.WirelesscommunicationTowersshallbeintegratedthroughlocationanddesigntoblendinwiththeexistingcharacteristicsofthesitetotheextentpractical.Existingon-sitevegetationshallbepreservedorimproved,anddisturbanceoftheexistingtopographyshallbeminimized,unlesssuchdisturbancewouldresultinlessadversevisualimpactofthcsitetothesurroundingarea.Towers,antennasandrelatedequipmentshallbeuniformlypaintedanon-reflectiveneutralcolorthatbestmatchesthecolorswithintheimmediatelysurroundingbuiltandnaturallandscapeinordertoreducethecontrastbetweentheWCFandthelandscape.4.Setbacks:Towersshallbesetbackfromeachpropertylinebyadistanceequaltothetowerheight,unlessanengineeringanalysisconcludesthatareducedsetbackissafeforabuttingpropertiesandtheAdministratordeterminesthatareducedsetbackisappropriateforthesite.5.MaximumNoiseLevels:Noequipmentshallbeoperatedsoastoproducenoiseinlevelsaboveforty-five(45)d-Bdecibelsasmeasuredfromthenearestpropertylineonwhichtheattachedwirelesscommunicationfacilityislocated.Operationofaback-uppowergeneratorintheeventofpowerfailureorthetestingofaback-upgeneratorbetweeneighto’clock(8:00)a.m.andnineo’clock(9:00)p.m.areexemptfromthisstandard.Notestingofback-upgeneratorsshalloccurbetweenthehoursofnineo’clock(9:00)p.m.andeighto’clock(8:00)a.m.159d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 297 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______46.Fencing:Securityfencing,ifused,shallberequiredandshallbepaintedorcoatedwithanon-reflectiveneutralcolor.FencingshallcomplywiththerequirementslistedinRMC4-4-040,FencesandHedges.7.Lighting:Towersorantennasshallnotbeartificiallylighted,unlessrequiredbytheFAAorotherapplicableauthority.Iflightingisrequired,thegoverningauthorityAdministratormayreviewtheavailablelightingalternativesandapprovethedesignthatwouldcausetheleastdisturbancetothesurroundingviews.Securitylightingfortheequipmentsheltersorcabinetsandotheron-the-groundancillaryequipmentisalsopermitted,aslongasitisappropriatelydownshieldedtokeeplightwithintheboundariesofthe&tecompound.&8.AdvertisingProhibited:Nolettering,symbols,images,ortrademarkslargeenoughtobelegibletooccupantsofvehiculartrafficonanyabuttingroadwayshallbeplacedonoraffixedtoanypartofatelecommunicationswcEtower,antennaarrayorantenna,otherthanasrequiredbyFCCregulationsregardingtowerregistrationorotherapplicablelaw.Antennaarraysmaybcdesignedandapprovedtobelocatedonorwithinpreviouslyapprovedsignsorbillboardsasastealthtower,oraconcealedorcamouflagedWCF,shallnotbeconstruedtobeinviolationofthisprohibitionwithoutalterationoftheexistingadvertisingorsign.9.BuildingStandards:WirelesscommunicationsSupportstructuresshallbeconstructedsoastomeetorexceedthemostrecentElectronic169d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 298 of 410
ORDINANCENO.IndustriesAssociation/TelecommunicationsIndustriesAssociation(EIA/TIA)222RevisionGStandardentitled:“StructuralStandardsforSteelAntennaTowersandAntennaSupportingStructures”(orequivalent),asitmaybeupdatedoramended.PriortoissuanceofabuildingpermittheBuildingOfficialshallbeprovidedwithanengineer’scertificationthatthesupportstructure’sdesignmeetsorexceedsthosestandards.840.RadioFrequencyStandards:Theapplicantshallensurethatthewirelesscommunicationfacility(WCF)willnotcauselocalizedinterferencewiththereceptionofareatelevisionorradiobroadcasts.IfgonreviewtheCityfindsthattheWCFinterfereswithsuchreception,andifsuchinterferenceisnotremediedwithinthirty(30)calendardays,theCitymayrevokeormodifyabuildingand/orconditionalusepermit.9.SpccialRequirementsforEquipmentShelters/CabinetswithinthePublicRightofWay:AllequipmentandcabinetswithinapublicrightofwayarcsubjccttotheapprovaloftheDevelopmentServicesDivisionandshallbeassmallandunobtrusiveasispracticable.G.STANDARDSFORSPECIFICTYPESOFWIRELESSFACILITIES:Fordefinitionsofspecifictypesofwirelesscommunicationfacilities,seeRMC411230,asitexistsormaybeamended.Developmentstandardsforspecifictypesofwirelesscommunicationfacilities,exceptfornonexemptamateurradioantennaswhichwillhaveheightandotherapplicablestandardsdeterminedthroughConditionalUsePermitprocess,shallbeasfollc179d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 299 of 410
ORDINANCENO.STANDARDSFORSPECIFICTYPESOFWIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONFACILITIESInadditiontoindividualzoncrcguiremcntunIc.cothcrwhcpccificdbclow189d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 300 of 410
ORDINANCENO.199d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 301 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SupportStructure,Monopoic,TowerorBuildingG&eShallbesameShallbesameShallbcsameNANANAcolorasthccolorasthecolorasthebuilding,polebuilding,polebuilding,poleorsupportorsupportorsupportstructureonstructureonstructureonwhichitiswhichitiswhichitisproposedtoproposedtoproposedtobelocated,belocated,belocated.andscapinNANANASecsubsectionSeesubsectionFSeesubsectionFg-afidFofthisofthisSection,ofthisSection,ScreeningSection,Standards.Standards.Standards.AminimumAminimumAminimumlandscapingarealandscapingarealandscapingof15feetshallbeof15feetshallbeareaof15feetrequiredfeqiife4shallbesurroundingthesurroundingtherequiredfacil#y,orfacility,-orsurroundingequivalentequivalentthefacility,orscreeningasscreeningasequivalentapprovedbytheapprovedbythescreeningasAdministrator.Administrator.approvedbyLandscapingshallLandscapingshalltheincludetrees,includetrees,Administrator,shrubsandshrubsandLandscapinggroundcover.Thegroundcover.Theshallincludefeq4fedrequiredtrees,shrubslandscapedareaslandscapedareasandgroundshallincludeanshallincludeancover.Theautomatedautomatedrequiredirrigationsystem.irrigationsystem.landscapedareasshallincludeanautomated.irrigationsystem.UAIflflfFDtCTflhiFIf’iMC-MfTIftTItAA.A,....i.:....-L....JIL..,ofthirty(30)dayspriortothcissuanccofanybuildingpcrmitforanywirelesscommunicationcuoøortstructureorattachedwirelesscommunicationfacilities.209d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 302 of 410
ORDINANCENO.G.CONCEALEDWIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONFACILITYSTANDARDS:Additionsormodificationstobuildingsshallcomplementtheexistingdesign,bulk,scale,andsymmetryofthebuilding,andminimizetheadditionofbulkandclutter.ConcealedWCFsshalladheretothefollowingstandards:1.BuildingAddition:Allantennasshallbefullyconcealedwithinastructurethatisarchitecturallycompatiblewiththeexistingbuilding.Rooftopadditionsshallbeconcealedonallsides.2.RelatedEquipment:Therelatedequipmentshallbecompletelyconcealedinsideastructureorinsideanundergroundvault.Concretemasonryunit(CMU)wallsandprefabricatedfacilitiesdonotmeettheintentofaConcealedWCF.Equipmentenclosuresshallbedesignedtobecompatiblewiththeexistingbuilding/structure.3.Materials:FiberglassreinforcedplasticorradiofrequencytransparentmaterialsmaybeusedtoscreenandintegrateaWCFwithanexistingbuilding.Visibletransitionlinesbetweentheoldandnewsurfacesareprohibited.4.ArchitecturalElements:Newarchitecturalfeaturessuchascolumns,pilasters,corbels,orotherornamentationthatconcealantennasmaybeusedifitcomplementsthearchitectureoftheexistingbuilding.5.ResidentialBuildings:WirelessCommunicationFacilitiesshallnotbelocatedonresidentialbuildingsexceptformulti-familystructuresconstructedpursuanttotheInternationalBuildingCodeasanoccupancygroupR-2,which219d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 303 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______mayserveasasupportstructureiftheinteriorwallorceilingimmediatelyabuttingthefacilityisanunoccupiedresidentialspace(e.g.,stairwells,elevatorshafts,mechanicalrooms,etc.).H.CAMOUFLAGEDWIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONFACILITYSTANDARDS:Additionsormodificationstobuildingsshallcomplementtheexistingdesign,bulk,scale,andsymmetryofthebuilding,andminimizetheadditionofbulkandclutter.CamouflagedWCFsshalladheretothefollowingstandards:1.ArchitecturalIntegration:Antennasmaybemountedtothesidesofabuildingiftheantennasdonotinterruptthebuilding’sarchitecturaltheme.a.Whenfeasible,camouflagedWCF’sshallemployasymmetrical,balanceddesignforallfaçademountedantennas.Thefirstprovideronastructurewilldictatetheantennalength,width,andplacement.Allsucceedingapplicationswillberequiredtoensureconsistencyandsymmetryinplacingantennasonthestructure’sexterior.b.Whenfeasible,interruptionofarchitecturallinesorhorizontalorverticalrevealsisprohibited.2.Materials:a.MountingHardware:Utilizethesmallestmountingbracketsnecessaryinordertoprovidethesmallestoffsetfromthebuilding.b.Concealment:Utilizeskirtsorshroudsonthesidesandbottomsofantennasinordertoconcealmountinghardware,createacleaner229d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 304 of 410
ORDINANCENO.appearance,andminimizethevisualimpactoftheantennas.Exposedcablingisprohibited.c.Paint:Paintandtextureantennastomatchtheadiacentbuildingsurfaces.3.Antennas:a.Antennasshallbenolongerorwiderthanthefaçadeonwhichtheyareproposed.b.Whenpanelantennasareunscreened,theyshallbemountednomorethantwelveinches(12”)fromthebuildingfaçade.c.Noexposedmountingapparatusshallremainonabuildingfaçadewithouttheassociatedantennas.4.ResidentialBuildings:WirelessCommunicationFacilitiesshall,notbelocatedonresidentialbuildingsexceptformulti-familystructuresconstructedpursuanttotheInternationalBuildingCodeasanoccupancygroupR-2,whichmayserveasasupportstructureiftheinteriorwallorceilingimmediatelyabuttingthefacilityisanunoccupiedresidentialspace(e.g.,stairwells,elevatorshafts,mechanicalrooms,etc.).I.STEALTHTOWERSTANDARDS:Thefollowingstandardsforeachtypeofstealthtoweraretheminimumnecessarytomeettheintentofeffectivelydisguisingthetower.Standardsfortypesofstealthtowersnotidentifiedwithinthissubsectionwillbedeterminedonacase-by-casebasisbytheAdministratorthroughtheConditionalUsePermit239d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 305 of 410
ORDINANCENO.criteriapursuanttoRMC4-9-030.E,DecisionCriteria—WirelessCommunicationFacilities.1.FauxTrees:a.Location:Fauxtreesshallbelocatedwithinonehundredfeet(100’)ofexistingtrees,unlessphotosimulationsshow,totheAdministrator’ssatisfaction,thattheproposedfauxtreewouldbeappropriateforthesite.b.Height:Thefauxtreemayexceedtheaverageheightofnearbytreesbynomorethantwentypercent(20%)orthirtyfeet(30’),whicheverisgreater.c.Authenticity:Fauxtreesshallreplicatetheshape,structure,andcoloroflivetreescommontothearea.Plansshallprovidedetailedspecificationsregardingthenumberandspacingofbranches,bark,foliage,andcolors.Allfauxtreesshallincorporateasufficientnumberofbranches(nolessthanthree(3)branchesperlinearfootofheight)anddesignmaterials(e.g.,fauxbark)sothatthestructureappearsasnaturalinappearanceasfeasible.Branchesshallnotberequiredforthelowesttwentyfeet(20’)ofthetrunk.d.Concealment:i.Allcablesandantennasshallbepaintedtomatchthecolorofthetrunk.ii.Antennasocksaremandatoryforallantennas(andsimilarcomponents)locatedonafauxtree.2.Flagpoles:249d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 306 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______a.LocationandHeight:Theheight,diameterandlocationoftheflagpoleshallbecompatiblewiththesurroundingarea,asdeterminedbytheAdministrator.Theflagpoleshallbetaperedinordertomaintaintheappearanceofanauthenticflagpole.b.Authenticity:FlagsshallcomplywiththeU.S.FlagCode.Allowedflagsincludenational,state,countyandmunicipalflagsproperlydisplayed.Inaddition,one(1)corporateorinstitutionalflagmaybeproperlydisplayedateachsite.c.Concealment:Antennasshallbeenclosedwithinthepoleoraradome.Ifaradomeisused,itshallhaveadiameternogreaterthanonehundredfiftypercent(150%)ofthediameterofthepoleattheheightwheretheradomewillbemounted.Thelengthoftheradomeshallnotbegreaterthanone-third(1/3)oftheheightoftheproposedlightpole.Allcablesshallberouteddirectlyfromthegroundupthroughthepole.Cablecoveringsareprohibited.3.SportsFieldLights:a.LocationandHeight:UtilizationofanexistingorreplacementsportsfieldlightasaWCFsupportstructureshallonlybepermittedonsiteswhereasportsfieldexists.Theheight,diameterandlocationofthesportsfieldlight(s)shallbecompatiblewiththesurroundingarea,asdeterminedbytheAdministrator.259d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 307 of 410
ORDINANCENO.b.Authenticity:Sportsfieldlightsshallbeuniform(style,height,etc.)withtheexceptionoftheWCF.Thesportsfieldlightsshallprovideconsistentilluminationforthesportsfield.c.Concealment:LAntennasshallbenomorethantwentyfeet(20’)abovethelightsource.ii.Allcablesshallberouteddirectlyfromthegroundupthroughthepole.Cablecoveringsareprohibited.iii.Paintantennasandmountingapparatusthesamecolorasthepole.4.FreestandingSigns:a.SignPermitRequired:TowersreplicatingasignshallbesubjecttoRMC4-4-100,SignRegulations,andaseparatesignpermitshallberequired.b.Concealment:LAllantennasshallbecompletelyscreenedbythefacadeofthesignorbyfiberglassreinforcedplasticorradiofrequencytransparentmaterials.ii.Allcablesandconduittoandfromthesignshallberoutedfromunderneaththefoundationupintothepole.Cablecoveringsmaybeallowedinlimitedcircumstancesinsituationswheretheyareminimallyvisibleanddesignedtointegratewiththesign.i.APPLICATIONSUBMITTALREQUIREMENTS:InadditiontoapplicationmaterialsandinformationrequiredpursuanttoRMC4-8-120.C,Table4-8-120C269d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 308 of 410
ORDINANCENO.LandUsePermitSubmittalRequirements,thefollowingmaterialsaretheminimumrequiredtocompleteareviewofanyWCF,otherthananalterationpursuanttoRMC4-4-140.E.1,MinorAlteration.Additionalmaterialsandinformationmayberequired.1.TechnicalAnalysis:a.SiteJustificationLetter:ThisreportshalljustifytheneedorrequirementfortheproposedWCFlocationanddesign.Ananalysisofotheravailablesitesshallbeincludedaswellasdeterminationastowhythesesiteswerenotselected.b.JustificationMap:Amapidentifyingthezoningdistricts,searcharea,alternativesites,theselectedsite,andallexistingandapprovedWCFswithinaonehalf(1/2)mileradius.c.CoverageMap:Map(s)identifyingtheproposedtargetcoveragethatillustratethecoveragepriortoandaftertheinstallation.d.NoiseReport:Forprojectsproposedadjacenttoresidentialuseswhengenerators,airconditioningunits,orothernoise-generatingdevicesareutilized.2.PhotoSimulations:Photosimulationsshallberequiredwitheachplanset.ThephotosimulationsshallillustratetheproposedWCFfromatleastfour(4)vantagepointsandshowtheexistingview(withouttheproposedWCF)andproposedview(withtheproposedWCF)fromeachvantagepoint.279d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 309 of 410
ORDINANCENO.3.MethodofAttachment/Cabling:Dimensioneddetailsshallbeprovidedofantennasandmountinghardwareusedtoattachtheantennastothestructure.4.VisualMitigation:Anyconcealment/integrationtechniquesproposedshallbefullyexplained,illustratedanddetailed.kICOBSOLESCENCEANDREMOVAL:AnywirelesscommunicationsfacilityorattachedwirelesscommunicationsfacilitythatisnolongerneededorisnotoperationalanditsuseisdiscontinuedshallbereportedimmediatelybytheserviceprovidertotheAdministrator.Discontinuedfacilitiesorfacilitiesthatareindisrepair,asdeterminedbytheAdministrator,shallbedecommissionedandremovedbythefacilityownerwithinsix(6)monthsofthedateitceasestobeoperationalorifthefacilityfallsintodisrepair,andthesiteshallberestoredtoitspre-existingcondition.TheAdministratormayapproveanextensionofanadditionalsix(6)monthsifgoodcauseisdemonstratedbythefacilityowner.i.COLLOCATIONREOUIRED:IC.I.•..+nflt.,e,finft...—ICiinnflW#C#FlI+lItfleftflflfitAlwirelesscommunicationssuppostructureshallbepermittedunlesstheapplicantdemonstratestothereasonablesatisfactionofthegoverningauthoritythatnoexistingtowerorstructurecanaccommodatetheapplicant’sproposedantenna.Evidencesubmittedtodemonstratethatan289d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 310 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______plicant’sproposedantennafollowing:a.Noexistingtowersorstructuresarelocatedwithinthegeographicarearequiredtomeetapplicant’sengineeringrequirements.b.Existingtowersorstructuresare-notofsufficientheighttomeetapplicant’sengineeringrequirements.c.Existingtowersorstructuresdonothavesufficientstructuralstrengthtosupportapplicant’sproposedantennaandrelatedequipment.d.Theapplicant’sproposedantennawouldcauseelectromagneticinterferencewiththeantennaontheexistingtowersorstructures,ortheantennaontheexistingtowersorstructureswouldcauseinterferencewiththeapplicant’sproposedantenna.c.Thefees,costs,orcontractualprovisionsrequiredbytheownerinordertoshareanexistingtowerorstructureortoadaptanexistingtowerorstructureforsharingarcunreasonable.Costsexceedingnewtowerdevelopmentarepresumedtobeunreasonable.f.Theapplicantdemonstratesthattherearcotherlimitingfactorsthatrenderexistingtowersandstructuresunsuitable.2.CoopcrationofCommercialApplicantsinCollocationEffortc:ApermittecshallcooperatewithotherWCFprovidersincollocatingadditionalantennasonsupportstructuresand/oronexistingbuildingsprovidedsaidproposedcollocatorshavcreceivedabuildingpermitforsuchuscatsaidsite299d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 311 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______fromtheCity.Apcrmittceshallexercisegoodfaithincollocatingwithotherprovidersandsharingthepermittedcite,providedsuchsharedusedoesnotgiverisctoasubstantialtechnicallevelofimpairmentoftheabilitytoprovidethepermitteduse(i.e.,asignificantinterferenceinbroadcastorreceptioncapabilitiesasopposedtoacompetitiveconflictorfinancialburden).Suchgoodfaithshallincludesharingtechnicalinformationtoevaluatethefeasibilityofcollocation.Intheeventadisputearisesastowhetherapermitteehasexercisedgoodfaithinaccommodatingotherusers,theCitymayrequireathirdpartytechnicalstudyattheexpenseofeitherorboththeapplicantandpermittec.3.ReasonableEfforts:Allapplicantsshalldemonstratereasonableeffortsindevelopingacollocationalternativefortheirproposal.KTL.PERMITLIMITATIONS:1.MaintenanceRequired:TheapplicantshallmaintaintheWCFtostandardsthatmaybeimposedbytheCityatthetimeofthegrantingofapermit.Suchmaintenanceshallinclude,butshallnotbelimitedto,maintenanceofthepaint,structuralintegrityandlandscaping.Iftheapplicantfailstomaintainthefacility,theCitymayundertakethemaintenanceattheexpenseoftheapplicantorterminatethepermit,atitssoleoption.2.CompliancewithFcdcralStandardsforRadioFrequencyEmissionsRequiredforCommercialApplicants:TheapplicantshallcomplywithFederal(FCC)standardsforradiofrequencyemissions.Withinsixty(60)calendardaysaftertheissuanceofitsbuildingpermit,theapplicantshallsubmitaproje309d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 312 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______implcmcntationreportwhichprovidescumulativefieldmcasurcmcntsofradiofrequencyemissionsofallantennasinstalledatthesubjectsiteandcomparestheresultswithestablishedFederalstandards.SpidreportshallbesubjecttoreviewandapprovaloftheAdministratorforconsistencywithFederalstandards.Ifonreview,theCityfindsthattheWCFdoesnotmeetFederalstandards,theCitymayrevokeormodifythispermit.3T2.NoticetoCityofChangeofOperationofFacility:TheapplicantshallnotifytheDepartmentCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentofallchangesinoperationofthefacilitywithinsixty(60)calendardaysofthechange.hM.ALTERNATES,MODIFICATIONS,VARIANCES:SeeTheAdministratorshallhavetheauthoritytomodifythestandardsofthissection,subjecttotheprovisionsofRMC4-9-250.D,ModificationProcedures.MTN.APPEALS:SeeRMC4-8-110,Appeals.SECTIONX.Subsection4-9-030.E,DecisionCriteria—Wireless,ofChapter9,Permits—Specific,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations,oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:E.DECISIONCRITERIA—WIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONFACILITIES:1.DecisionCriteria:InlieuofthecriteriainsubsectionRMC4-9-030.DLDecisionCriteriaofthisSection,thefollowingcriteriashallbeconsideredindeterminingwhethertoissueaConditionalUsePermitforawireless319d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 313 of 410
ORDINANCENO.communicationfacility(WCF);however,althoughthcgoverningauthoritytbAdministratormaywaiveorreducetheburdenontheapplicantofonej)_ormoreofthesecriteriaifthegovcrningauthorityAdministratorconcludesthatthegoalsofRMC4-4-140,WirelessCommunicationFacilities,asitexistsormaybeamended,arebetterservedkythereby,thefollowingfactors:a.HeightandDesign:Theheightoftheproposedtowerand/orantennaaswellasincorporationofdesigncharacteristicsthathavetheeffectofreducingoreliminatingvisualobtrusiveness.2.Tb.ProximitytoSurroundingUses:Thenatureofusesonadjacentandnearbypropertiesandtheproximityofthetowerand/orantennatoresidentialstructuresandresidentialdistrictboundaries.c.NatureofSurroundingUses:Thenatureofusesonadjacentandnearbyproperties.Theproposeduseattheproposedlocationshallnotresultinsubstantialorundueadverseeffectsonadjacentproperty.4d.TopographyandVegetation:Thesurroundingtopography7andtreecanopycoverageandfoliage.e.Ingress/Egress:Theproposedaccessingressandegress.6Tf.Impacts:Thepotentialnoise,lightIR4glare,andvisualimpacts.5g,CollocationFeasibility:Theavailabilityofsuitableexistingtowersandotherstructurestoaccommodatetheproposal.&h.ConsistencywithPlansandRegulations:Thecompatibilitywiththegeneralpurpose,goals,objectivesandstandardsoftheComprehensivePlan,329d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 314 of 410
ORDINANCENO.TitleIVDevelopmentRegulationsoftheRentonMunicipalCode,theZoningOrdinanceandanyotherQypIan,program,maporordinanceoftheCity.9i.Landscaping:Additionallandscapingmayberequiredtobufferadjacentpropertiesfrompotentiallyadverseeffectsoftheproposeduse.2.RevisionstoConditionalUsePermitsforWirelessCommunicationFacilities:InlieuofthecriteriainRMC4-9-030.G,MajorandMinorRevisions,thefollowingcriteriashallbeconsideredindeterminingwhetheraproposedalterationtoawirelesscommunicationfacilityconstitutesamajororminorrevisiontoapreviouslyapprovedConditionalUsePermit.a.MajorRevision:AproposedmajoralterationtoanexistingWCFtower,asdefinedbyRMC4-4-140.E,AlterationofExistingTower,shallbedeemedamajorrevision.MajorrevisionstoanapprovedConditionalUsePermitshallrequireanewapplication.Formajorrevisionsthat,duetoextraordinarycircumstances,wouldresultinahighlyunreasonableandunconscionableburdenontheapplicantorpermitholder,iftheapplicantorpermitholderwererequiredtogothroughanewapplicationprocess,theAdministratormaypermitthemajorrevisiontobetreatedasaminorrevision.b.MinorRevision:AproposedminoralterationtoanexistingWCFtower,asdefinedbyRMC4-4-140.E,AlterationofExistingTower,shallbedeemedaminorrevision.Minorrevisionsmaybepermittedbyanadministrativedetermination.339d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 315 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______SECTIONXI.Thedefinitionof“WirelessCommunicationFacilities—TermsRelatedTo”insection4-11-230,DefinitionsW,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:WIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONFACILITIES—TERMSRELATEDTO:A.AccessoryAntennaDevice:Anantennawhichislessthcntwelveinchcs(12”)inheightorwidth,cxcludingthesupportstructure(examples:testmobileantennasandGlobalPositioningSystem(GPS)antennas).8A.Antenna:Anysystemofpoles,panels,rods,reflectingdiscsorsimilardevicesusedforthetransmissionorreceptionofradiofrequencysignals.Antennasincludethefollowingtypes:1.DishAntenna:SeeParabolicAntenna.2.OmniDirectionalAntenna(alsoknownasa“Whip”Antenna):Transmitsandreceivesradiofrequencysignalsinathreehundredsixtydegree(360°)radialpattern,andwhichisuptosixteenfeet(16’)inheightanduptofourinches(4”)indiameter.3.DirectionalAntenna(alsoknownasa“Panel”Antenna):Transmitsandreceivesradiofrequencysignalsinaspecificdirectionalpatternoflessthanthreehundredsixtydegrees(3600).4.PanelAntenna:SceDirectionalAntenna.S.ParabolicAntenna(akoknownasa“Dish”Antenna):Abowlshapeddeviceforthereceptionand/ortransmissionofradiofrequencycommunicationssignalsinalpattern349d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 316 of 410
ORDINANCENO.6.ParabolicAntenna,Large:Aparabolicantcnnagreaterthan39.37inchesindiamctcrbutnottocxccedtwohundredinches(200’)indiameter.7.WhipAntenna:SecOmniDirectionalAntenna.&B.Antenna,AmateurRadio(alsocalledhamradio)Antenna:Adevicethatpicksuporsendsoutradiofrequencyenergyusedforpurposesofprivaterecreation,non-commercialexchangeofmessages,wirelessexperimentation,self-training,andemergencycommunication.Theterm“amateur”isusedtospecifypersonsinterestedinradiotechniquesolelywithapersonalaimandwithoutpecuniaryinterest,andtodifferentiateitfromcommercialbroadcasting,publicsafety(suchaspoliceandfire),orprofessionaltwo(2)wayradioservices(suchasmaritime,aviation,taxis,etc.).C.AntennaArray:Agroupofantennasconnectedandarrangedinaregularstructuretoformasingleantennathatisabletoproduceradiationpatternsnotproducedbyindividualantennas.D.Antenna,Panel:Transmitsandreceivesradiofrequencysignalsinaspecificdirectionalpatternoflessthanthreehundredsixtydegrees(360°).LAntenna,VerticalMonopoleAmateurRadioAntenna:Atypeofamateurradiodeviceconsistingofasingleverticalelementconstructedofwire,aluminum,orfiberglasswithoutanyattachedhorizontalantennas.Thisdefinitiondoesincludeassociatedguywiresattachednotmorethanhalfwayupthemonopoleforanchoringpurposes.Thisdefinitiondoesnotincludeamateur359d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 317 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______radioantennaswithanymorethanasingleverticalelement(e.g.,towerorlattice-typeamateurradioantennas).C.AttachedWircIcCommunicationFacility:Awirelesscommunicationfacilitythatisaffixedtoanexistingstructure,forexample,anexistingbuilding,tower,watertank,utilitypole,etc.,whichdoesnotincludeanadditionalwirelesscommunicationsupportstructure.F.Collocation:Theuseofasinglemountingofantennasandrelatedequipmentonanexistingsupportstructureand/orsitebymorethanonejjjwirelesscommunicationsprovider.G.Compound:TheleasedorownedpropertyuponwhichallelementsofaWCFreside,whichisdemarcatedwithsecurityfencing.H.EquipmentCabinet:Amountedcasewithahingeddoorusedtohouseequipmentforutilityorserviceproviders.l.EquipmentShelterorCabinet:Aroom,cabinetorbuildingusedtohouseequipmentforutilityorserviceproviders(alsoknownasabasestation).J.FAA:TheFederalAviationAdministration,whichmaintainsstringentregulationsforthesiting,building,marketingandlightingofcellulartransmissionantennasnearairportsorflightpaths.K.FCC:TheFederalCommunicationCommission,whichregulatesthelicensingandpracticeofwireless,wireline,television,radioandothertelecommunicationsentities.369d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 318 of 410
ORDINANCENO.H.GuyedTower:Afrccstandingorsupportedwirelcsscommunicationsupportstructurewhichisusuallyoveronehundredfeet(100’)tall,whichconsistsofmetalcrossedstripsorbarsandissteadiedbywireguysinaradialpatternaroundthetower.I.LatticeTower:Aselfsupportingwirelesscommunicationsupportstructurewhichconsistsofmetalcrossedstripsorbarstosupportantennasandrelatedequipment.i.MacroFacility:Anattachedwirelesscommunicationfacilitywhichconsistsofantennasequaltoorlessthansixteenfeet(16’)inheightoraparabolicantennauptoonemeter(39.37”)indiameterandwithanareanotmorethanonehundred(100)squarefeetintheaggregateasviewedfromanyonepoint.K.MicroFacility:Anattachedwirelesscommunicationfacilitywhichconsistsofantennasequaltoorlessthansixfeet(6’)inheightoraparabolicantennawithanareaofnotmorethanfivehundredeighty(580)squareinchesintheaggregate(e.g.,onefoot(1’)diameterparabolaortwofeet(2’)xoneandonehalffeet(11/2’)panel)asviewedfromanyonepoint.AlsoknownasaMicroccil.L.MiniFacility:Anattachedwirelesscommunicationfacilitywhichconsistsofantennasequaltoorlessthantenfeet(10’)inheightoraparabolicantennauptoonemeter(39.37”)indiameterandwithanareanotmorethanfifty(50)squarefeetintheaggregateasviewedfromanyoncpoint.379d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 319 of 410
“‘sixty(60’)inheight,‘-‘i-ccstandingsupportstructure,-.supportwirelesscommunicationantennasandconnectingappurtenances.N.MonopolcII:Awirelesscommunicationsupportstructurewhichconsistsofafreestandingsupportstructure,sixtyfeet(60’)orgreaterinheight,erectedtosupportwirelesscommunicationantennasandconnectingappurtenances.O.L.Provider:Acompanyprovidingtelephoneorothercommunicationsservice.M.Radome:Aplastichousingshelteringtheantennaassembly.P7N.RelatedEquipment:Allequipmentancillarytothetransmissionandreceptionofvoiceanddataviaradiofrequencies.Suchequipmentmayinclude,butisnotlimitedto,cable,conduitandconnectors.0.SatelliteDish:Amicrowavedishtypicallyusedforreceivingtelevisiontransmissionsfromatleastoneorbitingsatellite.P.SupportStructure:seeWirelessCommunicationSupportStructure.Astructureusedtosupportwirelesscommunicationantennasandrelatedequipment,eitherasitsprimaryuseorasanaccessoryuse.Supportstructuresinclude,butarenotlimitedto,towers,existingbuildings,watertanks,signs,andlightfixtures.Tower:secWirelessCommunicationSupportStructure.Afreestandingsupportstructureusedsolelytosupportwirelesscommunicationantennasandrelatedequipment.Typesoftowersinclude,butarenotlimitedto:ORDINANCENO.P.11ftllnnnv.nlnI•A..,;miner389d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 320 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______1.GuyedTower:Afreestandingorsupportedwirelesscommunicationsupportstructurethatisusuallyoveronehundredfeet(100’)tall,whichconsistsofmetalcrossedstripsorbarsandissteadiedbywireguysinaradialpatternaroundthetower.2.LatticeTower:Aself-supportingwirelesscommunicationsupportstructurethatconsistsofmetalcrossedstripsorbarstosupportantennasandrelatedequipment.3.MonopoleI:Afreestandingsupportstructurelessthansixtyfeet(60’)inheight,erectedtosupportwirelesscommunicationantennasandconnectingappurtenances.4.MonopoleII:Afreestandingsupportstructuresixtyfeet(60’)orgreaterinheight,erectedtosupportwirelesscommunicationantennasandconnectingappurtenances.5.StealthTower:Afreestandingsupportstructurethatisdisguisedasanaturalorbuiltoblecttypicallyappearinginthenaturalorurbanlandscapeandisprimarilyerectedtoaccommodatewirelesscommunicationfacilities.Examplesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,manmadetrees,freestandingsigns,flagpoles,lightfixturesandclocktowers.STR.WCF:seeWirelessCommunicationFacility(WCF).T7S.WirelessCommunicationFacility(WCF):Anunstaffedfacilityforthetransmissionandreceptionoflow-powerradiosignalsusuallyconsistingofanequipmentshelterorcabinet,asupportstructure,antennas(e.g.,omni399d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 321 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______directional,panel/directionalorparabolic)andrelatedequipment,generallycontainedwithinacompound.ForpurposesofthisTitle,aWCFincludesantennas,supportstructuresandequipmentshelters,whetherseparatelyorincombination.U.WircIecCommunicationSunoortStructure:Thestructureerectedtosupportwirelesscommunicationantennasandconnectingappurtenances.Supportstructuretypesinclude,butarcnotlimitedto,stanchions,monopolcs,latticetowers,woodpolesorguyedtowers.T.WirelessCommunicationFacility,Camouflaged:AwirelesscommunicationfacilitythatistypicallyaffixedtothefaçadeofanexistingstructurethatwasnotoriginallyconstructedtobeaWCFsupportstructure(e.g.,anexistingbuilding),inamannerthatintegratesanddisguisestheWCFwiththebuildingbymatchingarchitecturalelements,colors,materials,etc.U.WirelessCommunicationFacility,Concealed:Awirelesscommunicationfacilitythatisincorporatedintoanexistingstructure,thatwasnotoriginallyconstructedtobeaWCFsupportstructure(e.g.,anexistingbuilding),inamannerthatcompletelyhidestheWCFwithintheexistingstructureorwithinanadditiontotheexistingstructurethatisarchitecturallycompatible.SECTIONXII.Subsection5-19-5.B.5ofChapter19,TelecommunicationsLicensesandFranchises,ofTitleV(FinanceandBusinessRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:409d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 322 of 410
ORDINANCENO.5.Iftheapplicantisproposingtoinstalloverheadfacilities,evidencethatsurplusspaceisavailableforlocatingitstelecommunicationsfacilitiesonexistingutilitypolesalongtheproposedroute.Proposedreplacementutilitypoles,forthepurposeofsitingwirelesscommunicationfacilities,shallbenomorethantwentyfeet(20’)tallerthanadjacentutilitypoles;utilitypolesonresidentiallyzonedprivatepropertyshallbenotallerthanforty-fivefeet(45’).SECTIONXIII.Thisordinanceshallbeeffectiveuponitspassage,approval,andfive(5)calendardaysafterpublication.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_______dayof___________________,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_______dayof______________________,2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:_______________ORD:1852:12/15/14:scr419d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 323 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
_______
A1TACHMENT A
4-2-060.P,WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
USES:IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CORUC-N1UC-N2
P.WIRELESS CoMMUNIkrIONHfliEs.
Amateur radio AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8 AD8
antenna
Camouflaged WCF AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
Camouflaged WCF AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
collocation!—
modfication
Concealed WCF AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
Concealed WCF AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
collocation!—
modification
Lattice towers -------44 AD47 4D4 AD4 N4 1447-AD’17 144-7-AIM 144-7---
support structures 7
Macro facility p p p 44 44 p44 44 44 p44 AD AD
antennas
Microfacility
antennas
Mini facility p.p.P4.4 P44 P44 P44 P44 P-44 P44 P-44 42-44 4244 4244 4244 P44 4244 AD AD
antennas
ATTACHMENT A -19d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 324 of 410
ORDINANCE NO.
existing WCF towers —
—
Minor alterations P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
modifications to
existing WCF towers
wire less
communication
facilities —
Monopole I support AQ4 4D4 AD4 AD4 AD45 AD4 494 494 P44 P44 44 AD’15 P44 P44 ADIS P44 494
structures 9*1
5.5.5.5.H47 5.5.5.H47 1147 1147 H47 H47 H47 H47 H47 5.
private property
Z4Z4Z 141t147 4Z
Monopoic I support 494 494 AD45 404 494 494 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 AD45 P44 494
structures on public
5.5.5.5.5.5.5.
right of way ———————————
Monopole II H47 AD47 494 404 H47 H47 AD’17 H47 404 H47
support structures i±Z IJ4Z
tI4Z_
StealthTower ADAD
Parabolic antennas 404 #94 #94 494 AD45 #94 #04 4445.P44 P44 P44 AD45 P44 P44 AD45 P44 494 -
Large
5,5.5.5.5.5.—5”
ATTACHMENT A-29d. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title V (Finance and Business Page 325 of 410
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO._______ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGSECTION4-4-040OFCHAPTER4,CITY-WIDEPROPERTYDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS,ANDSECTIONS4-11-060AND4-11-180,OFCHAPTER11,DEFINITIONS,OFTITLEIV(DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS)OFTHERENTONMUNICIPALCODE,AMENDINGTHEREGULATIONSREGARDINGFENCES,HEDGESANDRETAININGWALLSANDADDINGNEWDEFINITIONSOF“FENCE”,“RETAININGWALL”,RETAININGWALLHEIGHT”,“RETAININGWALLHEIGHT,EXPOSED”AND“ROCKERY”.D1DoWHEREAS,theCityrecognizesthatstructures,suchasretainingwalls,canhaveadverseimpactsonabuttingpropertiesandpublicrights-of-way;andWHEREAS,currentdevelopmentregulationsdonotprovidesufficientstandardstomitigateadverseimpactscausedbyretainingwalls;andWHEREAS,theCityisnowsettingstandardsforretainingwalls;andWHEREAS,thismatterwasreferredtothePlanningCommissionforconsideration,andthematterwasconsideredbythePlanningCommission,andthetextamendmentrequestsbeinginconformitywiththeCity’sComprehensivePlan,asamended;andWHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonNovember5,2014,andconsideredallrelevantmatters,andallpartieswereheardappearinginsupportorinopposition;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Section4-4-040,FencesandHedges,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:19e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 326 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______4-4-040FENCESLANDHEDGES,ANDRETAININGWALLS:A.PURPOSE:TheseregulationsareprimarilyintendedtoregulatethematerialandheightoffencesLend-hedges,andretainingwalls,particularlyinfrontyardsandinyardsabuttingpublicrights-of-way,inordertopromotetrafficandpublicsafetyandtomaintainorcreateaestheticallypleasingneighborhoods.Thefollowingregulationsarealsointendedtoprovideandmaintainadequatesightdistancesalongpublicrights-of-wayatintersectionsLaridtoencouragesafeingressandegressfromindividualpropertiesL.Thcscrcgulationsalsoencouragethefeelingofspaciousnessalongneighborhoodstreets,promotecrimepreventionthroughenvironmentaldesign,andminimizetheclosedcityatmosphcrcLwhichtallfencesalongpublicrightsofwaycancreatereduceconflictinginterestsbetweenabuttingpropertyowners.B.APPLICABILITY:1.Exceptions:TheprovisionsandconditionsofthisSsectionregulatingheightanddesignarcnotapplicabletooffences,retainingwalls,orbarrierstosurroundandenclosepublicsafetyinstallations,transportationfacilities,waterways,stormdrainagefacilities,schoolgrounds,publicplaygrounds,privateorpublicswimmingpools,andsimilarinstallationsandimprovements,arenotapplicableifrequiredbyStatelaworbythezoningprovisionsofthisCodetosurroundandenclosepublicsafetyinstallations,schoolgrounds,public29e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 327 of 410
ORDINANCENO.playgrounds,privateorpublicswimmingpoolsandsimilarinstallationsandimprovements.2.UrbanSeparatorOverlay:FencesLandhedges,andretainingwallswithintheurbanseparatoroverlayarealsosubjecttorequirementsofRMC4-3-.fltheUrbanSeparatorOverlayRegulations(seeRMC43110).3.CityMayRequireModification:Whereatrafficvisionhazardiscreatedorexiststhatendangerspedestrianand/orvehicularsafety,theCitymayrequireamodificationtotheheightlimitationsandlocationoffences,hedgesorretainingwallstoincreaseorenhancesafety.4.PermitRequired:a.Fences:Afencetallerthansixfeet(6’)shallrequireabuildingpermitoranexplicitexemptionfromtheBuildingOfficial.b.RetainingWalls:Aretainingwallthatisfourfeet(4’)ortaller,asmeasuredbytheverticaldistancefromthebottomofthefootingtothefinishgradeatthetopofthewall(i.e.,notmeasuredbyexposedretainingwallheight),shallrequireabuildingpermit.Thisdeterminationdoesnotaccountforotherfactorsthatmaycauseabuildingpermittoberequiredforaretainingwall(e.g.,theadditionofasurchargeorfence).C.GENERALFENCELANDHEDGE,ANDRETAININGWALLSTANDARDS:REQUIREMENTS:1.FcnccHeight—MethodofMeasurement:39e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 328 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______a.Fences:Theheightshallbemeasuredfromthetopelevationofthetopboardrailorwiretotheground.Incaseswhereawallisusedinsteadofafence,heightshallbemeasuredfromthetopsurfaceofthewalltothegroundonthehighsideofthewall.i.GradeDifferences:Wherethefinishedgradeisadifferentelevationoneithersideofafencetheheightmaybemeasuredfromthesidehavingthehighestelevation.2.ii.FencesonBerms:Abermmeshallnotbeconstructedwithafenceonitunlessthetotalheightofthebermplusthefenceislessthanthemaximumheightallowableforthefenceifthebermwerenotpresent.3.GradeDiffcrcncec:Whcrcthefinishedgradeisadifferentelevationoneithersideofafencetheheightmaybemeasuredfromthesidehavingthehighestelevation.4.CityMayReguircModification:Whereatrafficvisionhazardiscreated,theCitymayrequireamodificationtotheheightlimitationsandlocationoffences,hedgesorwallstothedegreenecessarytoeliminatethehazard.b.Hedges:Theheightshallbemeasuredfromthetopmostportionofvegetationtotheground.c.RetainingWalls:Thestandardsofthissectionrefertoexposedretainingwallheight,asdefinedinRMC4-11-180,DefinitionsR,whichisthe49e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 329 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______verticaldistancemeasurefromthefinishgradeatthebottomofthewall(i.e.,lowersoilgrade)tothefinishgradeatthetopofthewall(i.e.,uppersoilgrade).2.RetainingWallStandards:a.FencesonRetainingWalls:Afenceshallnotbeconstructedontopofaretainingwallunlessthetotalcombinedheightoftheretainingwallandthefencedoesnotexceedtheallowedheightofastandalonefence.i.Exception—Guardrail:IftheBuildingOfficialrequiresaguardrail,thecombinedheightoftheretainingwallandrequiredguardrailshallnotexceedninefeet(9’)inresidentialzones,ortwelvefeet(12’)incommercialandindustrialzones.ii.Exception—50%TransparentFences:Fencesthatprovideatleastfiftypercent(50%)transparency,asviewedperpendicularlytothefaceofthefence,maybealloweddirectlyontopofaretainingwall.However,chainlinkfencingshallnotbeinstalled.Thisexceptionshallnotbeappliedtofrontyardsetbacks,orclearvisionareas,asdefinedbyRMC4-11-030,DefinitionsC.b.FencesandHedgesAdjacenttoRetainingWalls:Fencesorhedgesadjacenttoretainingwallswithacombinedheightthatexceedstheallowedheightofastandaloneretainingwallshallbesetbackbyaminimumoftwofeet(2’);thisareashallbelandscapedasifitwereaterrace.Ifafenceisplacedanydistancewithinthepropertyline,thepropertyownercontinuestoberesponsibleforthepropertyonbothsidesofthefence.59e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 330 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______c.Materials:Retainingwallsshallbecomposedofbrick,rock,texturedorpatternedconcrete,orothermasonryproductthatcomplementstheproposedbuildingandsitedevelopment.OthermaterialsmaybeusedwiththeAdministrator’sapproval.d.SetbackfromPublicRights-of-Way:Thereshallbeaminimumthree-foot(3’)landscapedsetbackatthebaseofretainingwallsabuttingpublicrights-of-way.Landscapingshallincludeamixtureofshrubsandgroundcover(treesareoptional)inconformancewiththestandardsofRMC4-4-070.H.4,PerimeterParkingLotLandscaping.e.Terracing:Terracingistheactofforminghillsideintoanumberoflevelflatareas(terraces)betweenretainingwalls,whichisoftenusedwhenthemaximumheightofasingleretainingwallisinsufficient.Thefollowingstandardsshallapplytoterracedslopes:i.TerraceWidth:Noportionofaretainingwallshallbemeasuredaspartoftheterracewidth.Thewidthofaterraceshallbeequaltotheheightofthetallestabuttingretainingwall;however,theminimumterracewidthshallbetwofeet(2’)andthemaximumrequiredwidthshallbefivefeet(5’).Terracewidthshallbemeasuredfromthebackedgeofalowerretainingwalltotheforemostedgeoftheimmediatelysucceedingandhigherretainingwall.ii.TerraceLandscaping:Terracescreatedbetweenretainingwallsshallbepermanentlylandscapedwithamixtureofshrubsandgroundcover(treesareoptional)inconformancewiththestandardsofRMC4-4-070.F,69e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 331 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______Landscaping.LandscapingprovidedinfrontofretainingwallsandwithinterracesshallcontributetoanylandscapingrequiredbyRMC4-4-070.F;theAdministratormaygrantexceptionsforrequiredtreesbasedonlandconstraints.f.Grading:Forlandareathatisnotbetweentwo(2)retainingwalls(i.e.,notaterrace),thelowersoilgrade(i.e.,groundatthebottomofaretainingwall’sexposedsurface)andtheuppersoilgrade(i.e.,groundatthetoparetainingwall)abuttingaretainingwallshallbelevelforahorizontaldistance(measuredperpendicularlytothewall)equalingonefoot(1’)foreveryonefoot(1’)inheightoftheretainingwall.g.Modifications:PursuanttoRMC4-9-250.D,ModificationProcedures,theAdministratormaygrantmodificationstothissection’sretainingwallstandards.Approvalofamodificationspermitmayincludeconditionssuchas,butnotlimitedtoincreasedsetbacks,additionallandscaping,arequirementtoterraceorspecificmaterialstobeused.D.STANDARDSFORRESIDENTIALUSES:1.MaximumHeight:Inanyresidentialdistrict,themaximumheightofanyfence,hedgeorretainingwallshallbeseventy-twoinches(72”),subjecttofurtherheightlimitationsasspecifiedinthissection.2.HeightLimitationsforInteriorLots:a.FrontYardSetbacks:Fences,retainingwallsorhedgesshallnotexceedamaximumofforty-eightinches(48”)inheightmaybeallowedwithintherequiredfrontyardsetback.subjecttotheseprovisions.79e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 332 of 410
ORDINANCENO.b.SideYardLotLinesSetbacks:Fences,retainingwallsorhedgeswithinboth&ftinteriorsideyardsetbackslotlinesandtheefrequiredfrontyard&setbackshallnotexceedforty-eightinches(48”)inheight.Fences,retainingwallsorhedgeswithine-interiorsideyardsetbackslotlinesandnotwithinrequiredthefrontyardssetbackshallnotexceedmaybcamaximumofseventy-twoinches(72”)inheight.c.RearYardLotLineSetbacks:Afence,retainingwallorhedgenotexceedamaximumofseventy-twoinches(72”)maybclocatedonwithintherearyardsetback.lotline.2.3.HeightLimitationsforCornerLots:a.FrontYardSetbacks:Fences,retainingwallsorhedgesshallnotexceedamaximumofforty-twoinches(42”)inheightmaybeallowedoninanypartoftheclearvisionareaasdefinedbyRMC4-11-030,DefinitionsC.Fences,retainingwalls,orhedgesshallnotexceedamaximumofforty-eightinches(48”)89e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 333 of 410
ORDINANCENO.inheightmaybeallowedwithinanypartofthefrontyardsetbackwhenlocatedoutsideofanyclearvisionareaonsaidlot.b.InteriorSideYardLotUncSetbacks:Fences,retainingwallsorhedgesshallnotexceedamaximumofseventy-twoinches(72”)inheightm.aybelocatedewithinanypartoftheinteriorsideyardsetbacklotlinestothepointwheretheyintersecttherequiredfrontyardsetback,inwhichcasetheyshallbegovernedbysubsectionRMC4-4-040.D.2.a,FrontYardSetbacksofthisSection.c.SideYardLotLineAbuttingAlongaStreetSetbacks:Fences,retainingwallsorhedgesshallnotexceedbeamaximumofforty-twoinches(42”)inheightwithinanyclearvisionarea,asdefinedbyRMC4-11-030,DefinitionsC,andforty-eightinches(48”)inheightelsewhereinthefrontyardsetback.Theremainderofthefenceorhedgeshallnotexceedbeamaximumseventy-twoinches(72”)inheightwithinthesideyardalongastreetsetback.d.RearYardLotLineSetbacks:Fences,retainingwalls,orhedgesshallnotexceedamaximumofseventy-twoinches(72”)inheightmaybelocatedalongwithintherearyardsetbacklotlineexceptthefence,retainingwallorhedgeshallnotexceedbelimitedtoforty-eightinches(48”)inheightwheretheyintersectthewidthoftherequiredsideyardalongastreetsetback.ofthesidestreetandwherethefenceabutsthefrontyardofaninteriorlot.99e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 334 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______-—.1jNtEOLOTI•-\LL_.jaoriir4..I5KF.H111K.F—____________________-1‘-2’WXJ4MfiA1r:iiAXtiiIrjc72VMflt4.GateRequired:Residentialfences,retainingwallsorhedgesalongrearlotlinesofinteriorlotsabuttingalleysshallhaveanaccessgatetothealley.45.ElectricandBarbedWireFences:Electricand/orbarbedwirefencesmaybepermittedbyspecialadministrativefencepermitinallresidentialzonesincaseswherelargedomesticanimalsarebeingkept;provided,thatadditionalfencingoranAdministratorapprovedbarrieriserectedalongthepropertylines.E.STANDARDSFORCOMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIALANDOTHERUSES:1.LocationandMaximumHeight:Amaximumofeightfeet(8’)anywhereonthelotprovidedthefence,retainingwallorhedgedoesnotstandinorinfrontofanyrequiredlandscapingorposeatrafficvisionhazard.109e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 335 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______2.ElectricFences:Allelectricfencesshallbepostedwithpermanentsignsaminimumofthirty-six(36)squareinchesinareaatintervalsoffifteenfeet(15’)statingthatthefenceiselectrified.Electricfencesandanyrelatedequipmentandappliancesmustbeinstalledinaccordancewiththemanufacturer’sspecificationsandincompliancewiththeNationalElectricalCode.3.BarbedWireFences:Barbedwiremayonlybeusedontopoffencesatleastsixfeet(6’)highforcommercial,industrial,utilityandpublicuses.119e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 336 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______LA3EETLJ-F’GlF’JN14’’-1’UJJWLLIi-P,-i-Nn-li-lt.(--fJ(-TI-f--‘Nfl-h-t-i-r4.BulkStorageFences:SeeRMC4-4-110,StorageFacilities,Bulk.5.SpecialProvisions:Fencesformobilehomeparks,subdivisionsorplannedurbandevelopmentandforsiteswhicharemined,gradedorexcavatedmayvaryfromtheseregulationsasprovidedintherespectivecodesections.F.ADMINISTRATIVEREVIEWOFVARIATIONFROMHEIGHTRESTRICTIONS:ApropertyownerwishingtovarytheheightrestrictionsorplacementofafenceorhedgeonalotmaymakewrittenapplicationtothePlanningDivisionforanadministrativereviewofthesituation.TheDepartment’sstaffshallreviewtheapplicationandprepareawrittendeterminationbaseduponcriterialistedinthccregulationsRMC4-4-040.G,SpecialAdministrativeFencePermits.G.SPECIALADMINISTRATIVEFENCEPERMITS:1.FencesEligibleforAdministrativeReviewProcess:Personswishingtohaveonefl.ofthefollowingtypesoffencesmaysubmitaletterofjustification,129e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 337 of 410
ORDINANCENO.siteplanandtypicalelevationtogetherwiththepermitfeetotheDepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment:a.Fencesexceedingforty-eightinches(48”)withinfrontyardorsideyardsalongastreetsetbackbutnotwithinaclearvisionareajb.Fencesorhedgesexceedingseventy-twoinches(72”)andlocatedoutsideofrequiredyardsetbacks;-.c.Electricfences;anded.Barbedwirefences.2.EvaluationCriteria:TheDcvclopmcntScrviccsDivisionAdministratormayapprovetheissuanceofspecialfencepermitsprovidedthatthefollowingobjectivescanbemet:a.Theproposedfenceimprovestheprivacyandsecurityoftheadjoiningyardspace;b.Theproposedfencedoesnotdetractfromthequalityoftheresidentialenvironmentbybeingoutofscaleorcreatingvastblankwallsalongpublicroadways;c.Theproposedfencecomplimentstheenvironmentitservesinanaestheticallypleasingmanner;andd.Theproposedfencedoesnotpresentahazardtovehicularorpedestriantraffic.a..3.AcceptableMeasurestoMeetCriteria:Fenceslocatedwithinthefrontorsideand/orrearyardalongastreetsetbackmaybeamaximumof139e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 338 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______seventy:twoinches(72”)inheight,providedtheevaluationcriteriaaremet.Acceptablemeasurestoachievethesecriteriainclude,butarenotlimitedtothefollowing:•a.Permanentlandscapingalongthefrontofthefence;b.Qualityfencematerial,suchascedarfencing;c.Modulationofthefence;d.Similardesignandmaterialasotherfencesinthesurroundingneighborhood;•e.Increasedsetbacksfromtheabuttingsidewalk;f.Ornamentalmaterialsorconstructiontreatment,suchaswroughtiron;•gOrientationofthefinishedfaceofthefencetowardtheStreet;a4h.Thefenceisatleastfiftypercent(50%)transparent;andi.Othercomparableconstructionordesignmethods.4.ClearVisionArea:Thefenceproposedforspecialpermitsmustshallhavenoportionintheclearvisionareaoverforty:twoinches(42”)inheight.Thelocationandheightofthefencemustnotobstructviewsofoncomingtraffic,orviewsfromdriveways.H.COMPLIANCE:149e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 339 of 410
ORDINANCENO.Fenceswhichthatdonotcomplywiththeseregulationsmustbebroughtintocompliancewithinsix(6)monthsfromthedateofnoticeofafenceviolationfromtheCity.SECTIONII.Section4-11-060,DefinitionsF,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddanewdefinitionof“Fence”,toreadasfollows:FENCE:Anoutdoorphysicaland/orvisualbarrier,railing,orotheruprightstructureerectedabovegroundandseparatinganareaofground.ForthepurposeofadministeringthisTitle,awallshallbeconsideredtobeafenceunlessthewallresiststhelateraldisplacementofsoilorothermaterials,inwhichcaseitshallqualifyasaretainingwall.SECTIONIII.Section4-11-180,DefinitionsR,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddnewdefinitionsof“RetainingWall”,“RetainingWallHeight”,“RetainingWallHeight,Exposed”and“Rockery”,inalphabeticalorder,toreadasfollows:RETAININGWALL:Awalldesignedtoresistlateralearthand/orfluidpressures,includinganysurcharge,inaccordancewithacceptedengineeringpractice.ForthepurposesofthisTitle,a“rockery”or“rockwall”isatypeofretainingwall.Structuralcomponentsofstormwaterfacilitiesshallnotbeinterpretedtobearetainingwall.RETAININGWALLHEIGHT:Theverticaldistancemeasuredfromthebottomofthefootingtothefinishgradeatthetopofthewall(i.e.,uppersoilgrade).159e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 340 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______RETAININGWALLHEIGHT,EXPOSED:Theverticaldistancemeasurefromthefinishgradeatthebottomofthewall(i.e.,lowersoilgrade)tothefinishgradeatthetopofthewall(i.e.,uppersoilgrade).Thisheightdoesnotincludethedepthoffootingbelowgrade.ROCKERY:One(1)ormorecoursesofrocksstackedagainstanexposedsoilfacetoprotectthesoilfacefromerosionandsloughing.Thebottomcourseofrocksbearsonthefoundationsoilsandtheupperrocksbearpartiallyorentirelyontherocksbelow.Arockeryisalsoknownasa“rockwall.”SECTIONIV.Thisordinanceshallbeeffectiveuponitspassage,approval,andfive(5)calendardaysafterpublication.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_______dayof___________________,2014.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_______dayof_____________________,2014.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:_______________ORD:1854:11/25/14:scr169e. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-108, Fences, Hedges and Page 341 of 410
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO._______ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGSECTION4-4-130,OFCHAPTER4,CITY-WIDEPROPERTYDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS,SECTION4-8-120OFCHAPTER8,PERMITS—GENERALANDAPPEALS,ANDSECTIONS4-11-080AND4-11-200OFCHAPTER11,DEFINITIONS,OFTITLEIV(DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS)OFTHERENTONMUNICIPALCODE,AMENDINGTHEREGULATIONSREGARDINGTREERETENTIONANDLANDCLEARING,ANDADDING,AMENDINGANDDELETINGCERTAINDEFINITIONSRELATEDTOTREES.0—fOCIWHEREAS,theCityrecognizesthattreesarevaluednaturalresources;andWHEREAS,currentdevelopmentregulationspertainingtotreeretentionandlandclearingareinsufficient;andWHEREAS,theCitysetsrevisedstandardsfortreeretentionandlandclearingregulations;andWHEREAS,thismatterwasreferredtothePlanningCommissionforconsideration,andthematterwasconsideredbythePlanningCommission,andthetextamendmentrequestbeinginconformitywiththeCity’sComprehensivePlan,asamended;andWHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonNovember5,2014,andconsideredallrelevantmatters,andallpartieswereheardappearinginsupportorinopposition;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Section4-4-130,TreeRetentionandLandClearingRegulations,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:19f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 342 of 410
ORDINANCENO.4-4-130TREERETENTIONANDLANDCLEARINGREGULATIONS:A.PURPOSE:Thissectionprovidesregulationsfortheclearingoflandandtheprotectionandpreservationoftrees,shrubs,andgroundcoverplants.Thepurposesoftheseregulationsareto:1.PreserveandenhancetheCity’sphysicalandaestheticcharacterbyminimizingindiscriminateremovalordestructionoftrees,shrubsandgroundcover;2.ImplementandfurtherthegoalsandpoliciesoftheCity’sComprehensivePlanfortheenvironment,openspace,wildlifehabitat,vegetation,resources,surfacedrainage,watersheds,andeconomics;3.PromotelanddevelopmentpracticesthatresultinminimaladversedisturbancetoexistingvegetationandsoilswithintheCitywhileatthesametimerecognizingthatcertainfactorssuchascondition(e.g.,disease,dangeroffalling,etc.),proximitytoexistingandproposedstructuresandimprovements,interferencewithutilityservices,protectionofscenicviews,andtherealizationofareasonableenjoymentofpropertymayrequiretheremovalofcertaintreesandgroundcover;4.Minimizesurfacewaterandgroundwaterrunoffanddiversion,andaidinthestabilizationofsoil,andminimizeerosionandsedimentation,andminimizetheneedforadditionalstormdrainagefacilitiescausedbythedestabilizationofsoils;29f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 343 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______5.Retainclustersoftreesfortheabatementofnoiseandforwindprotection,andreduceairpollutionbyproducingpureoxygenfromcarbondioxide;6.Protecttreesduringconstructionactivitiesfromdamagetotreeroots,trunks,andbranches;and7.Recognizethattreesincreaserealestatevalues.B.APPLICABILITY:TheregulationsofthisSsectionapplytoanydevelopedlot,andpropertywherelanddevelopmentorroutinevegetationmanagementactivitiesareundertakenorplanned.C.ALLOWEDTREEREMOVALACTIVITIES:Treeremovalandassociateduseofmechanicalequipmentispermittedasfollows,exceptasprovidedinsubsectionRMC4-4-130.D.3,ofthisScction,RestrictionsforCriticalAreas—General,andinRMC4-3-11O.E.5.b,UrbanSeparatorOverlayRegulations.ExceptasstatedinsubsectionC9cofthisScction,RMC4-4-130.C.9.f,PermitRequiredtoRemoveTreesinExcessoftheNumbersAbove,noRoutineVegetationManagementPermitisrequiredforthefollowingactivities/work:1.EmergencySituations:Removaloftreesand/orgroundcoverbytheCityand/orpublicorprivateutilityinemergencysituationsinvolvingimmediatedangertolifeorproperty,substantialfirehazards,orinterruptionofservicesprovidedbyautility.39f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 344 of 410
ORDINANCENO.2.Dcad,Dangerous,orDiseasedTrees:Removalofadangeroustree,asdefinedinRMC4-11-200,DefinitionsT,dead,terminallydiscascd,damaged,ordangerousgroundcoverortrceswhichhavethathasbeencertifiedassuchbyaCityapprovedforcster,registeredlicensedlandscapearchitect7orcertifiedarborist.7selectionofwhomtobcapprovedbytheCitybasedonthetypeofinformationrequired,orremovalofwhichisapprovedbytheCity3.MaintenanceActivities/EssentialTreeRemoval—PublicorPrivateUtilities,RoadsandPublicParks:Maintenanceactivitiesincludingroutinevegetationmanagementandessentialtreeremovalforpublicandprivateutilities,roadrights-of-wayandeasements,andpublicparks.4.InstallationofSEPAExemptPublicorPrivateUtilities:Installationofdistributionlinesbypublicandprivateutilities;provided,thatsuchactivitiesarecategoricallyexemptfromtheprovisionsoftheStateEnvironmentalPolicyActandRMC4-9-070,EnvironmentalReviewProcedures.5.ExistingandOngoingAgriculturalActivities:ClearingassociatedwithexistingandongoingagriculturalactivitiesasdefinedinchapterRMC4-11-010,DefinitionsARMC,Definitions.6.CommercialNurseriesorTreeFarms:Removalofonlythosetreeswhichareplantedandgrowingonthepremisesofalicensedretailerorwholesaler.7.PublicRoadExpansion:Expansionofpublicroads,unlesscriticalareaswouldbeaffected,inwhich.casesee(refertosubsectionsRMC4-4-130.C.12-a449f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 345 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______3,Utilities,TrafficControl,Walkways,BikewaysWithinExisting,ImprovedRight-of-WayorEasementsofthisSectioni.8.SiteInvestigativeWork:Siteinvestigativeworknecessaryforlanduseapplicationsubmittalssuchassurveys,soillogs,percolationtests,andotherrelatedactivitiesincludingtheuseofmechanicalequipmenttoperformsiteinvestigativeworkprovidedtheworkisconductedinaccordancewiththefollowingrequirements:a.Investigativeworkshouldnotdisturbanymorethanfivepercent(5%)ofanyprotectedsensitiveareadescribedinsubsectionD2RMC4-4-130.D.3,ofthisScction,RestrictionsforCriticalAreas—General,onthesubjectproperty.Ineverycase,impactsshallbeminimizedanddisturbedareasrestored.b.Ineverylocationwheresiteinvestigativeworkisconducted,disturbedareasshallbeminimized,andimmediatelyrestored.c.Anoticeshallbepostedonthesitebythepropertyownerorowner’sagentindicatingthatsiteinvestigativeworkisbeingconducted,andthattheworkmustminimizedisturbancetothecriticalareasidentifiedinsubsectionD2RMC4-4-130.D.3ofthisSection,RestrictionsforCriticalAreas—General.d.NositeinvestigativeworkshallcommencewithoutfirstnotifyingtheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratorinadvance.9.AllowableMinorTreeRemovalActivities:ExceptasprovidedinsubsectionD2RMC4-4-130.D.3ofthisSection,RestrictionsforCriticalAreas—59f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 346 of 410
ORDINANCENO.General,eeremovaloftreesandassociateduseofmechanicalequipmentispermittedasfollows:attheratesspecifiedwithinthetablebelow,providedRMC4-4-130.C.9.athroughC.9.faresatisfied.ARoutineVegetationManagementPermitisrequiredforremovaloftreesinexcessoftherateslistedbelow.MaximumnumberofsignificantMaximumnumberofsignificantLotSizetrees*allowedtoberemovedtrees*allowedtoberemovedinanytwelve(12)monthperiodinfive(5)yearsLotsupto10,000sq.ft.24Lots10,001to20,000sq.3ft.Lots20,001sq.ft.or6greater*Exceptlandmarktrees(greaterthanathirtyinch(30”)caliper)shallnotberemovedwithoutaRoutineVeeetationManaeementPermit.anytwelve(12)a.Ne.‘—Imonthperiodfromapropertyundcrthirtyfivethousand(35,000)squJn.IL(.LiiisizeandThereisnotanactivelanddevelopmentapplicationforthesite;b.Nomorethansix(6)trccsarcremovedinanytwelve(12)monthperiodfromapropertythirtyfivethousand(35,000)squarefeetandgreaterin&ieThetreesproposedforremovalarenotprotectedtrees;c.PermitRequiredtoRemoveTreesinExcessoftheNumbersAbove:ARoutineVegetationManagementPermitisrequiredforremovaloftreesin69f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 347 of 410
ORDINANCENO.cxccssofthcamountsIistcdaboyc.cc.ManagcmcntPermits.Thetreeisnotalandmarktree;andd.MinimumTreeDensity:i.Aminimumtreedensityshallbemaintainedoneachresidentiallyzonedlot,asspecifiedinthetablebelow.Thetreedensitymayconsistofexistingtrees,replacementtrees,treesrequiredpursuanttoRMC4-4-070.F.1,StreetFrontageLandscapingRequired,oracombination.Ifthenumberoftreesrequiredincludesafractionofatree,anyamountequaltoorgreaterthanone-half(1/2)shallberoundedup;andTypeofResidentialDevelopmentMinimumTreeDensityMulti-familyDevelopment(attachedFour(4)significanttrees’foreveryfivedwellings)thousand(5,000)sq.ft.Single-familydevelopment(detachedTwo(2)significanttrees’foreveryfivedwellings)2thousand(5,000)sq.ft.10rthegrossequivalentofcaliperinchesprovidedbyone(1)ormoretrees.2LotsdevelopedwithdetacheddwellingsintheR-10andR-14zonesareexempt.ii.Propertyownersareresponsibleformaintainingthesetreesinahealthycondition.de.Rights-of-WayUnobstructed:Inconductingminortreeremovalactivities,rights-of-wayshallnotbeobstructedunlessaright-of-wayusepermitisobtained.10.LandscapingorGardeningPermitted:LandclearinginconformancewiththeprovisionsofsubsectionRMC4-4-130.C.9LofthisSection,Allowable79f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 348 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______MinorTreeRemovalActivities,andsubsectionD2RMC4-4-130.D.3ofthisSection,RestrictionsforCriticalAreas—General,ispermittedforpurposesoflandscapingorgardening;provided,thatnomechanicalequipmentisused.11.OperationalMining/Quarrying:Landclearingandtreeremovalassociatedwithpreviouslyapprovedoperationalminingandquarryingactivities.12.ExistingStrectsandUtilities:Modificationofexistingutilitiesandstreetsbytenpercent(10%)orless.12.Utilities,TrafficControl,Walkways,BikewaysWithinExisting,ImprovedRights-of-WayorEasements:Withinexistingimprovedpublicroadrights-of-wayoreasements,installation,construction,replacement,operation,overbuilding,oralterationofallnaturalgas,cable,communication,telephoneandelectricfacilities,lines,pipes,mains,equipmentorappurtenances,trafficcontroldevices,illumination,walkwaysandbikeways.Ifactivitiesexceedtheexistingimprovedareaorthepublicright-of-way,thisexemptiondoesnotapply.Restorationofdisturbedareasshallbecompleted.4443.LandDevelopmentPermitRequired:TreeremovalauthorizedbyaLandDevelopmentPermit.D.PROHIBITEDACTIVITIES:1.TreeCuttinginAdvanceofIssuanceofLandDevelopmentPermit:Thereshallbenotreeremovalorlandclearingonanysiteforthesakeofpreparingthatsiteforfuturedevelopmentunlessaft.and4Development89f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 349 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______Permit,asdefinedinRMC4-11-120,DefinitionsL,fortheCityapprovedsite-hasbeenapprovcdbytheCity.2.TreeCuttingorVegetationManagementWithoutRequiredRoutineVegetationManagementPermit:a.TreecuttinginexcessofthelimitsestablishedinubscctionRMC4-4-130.C.9ofthisScction,AllowedMinorTreeRemovalActivities,isprohibitedunlessaRoutineVegetationManagementPermithasbeengranted.b.RoutinevegetationmanagementonanundevelopedpropertywithoutaRoutineVegetationManagementPermitisprohibited.c.Useofnon-exemptmechanicalequipment(mechanicalequipmentwithmorethantwenty-seven(27)horsepower)withoutaRoutineVegetationManagementPermitisprohibited.3.RestrictionsforCriticalAreas—General:Unlessexemptedbycriticalareas,RMC4-3-050.C.SorShorelineMasterProgramRegulations,RMC4-3-090,notreeremoval,orlandclearing,orgroundcovermanagementispermitted:a.Onportionsofpropertywith:protcctcdcCriticalhabitats,pepursuanttoRMC4-3-050.K1HabitatConservation;ii.S&treamsandIakes,—p-efpursuanttoRMC4-3-050.L,StreamsandLakes;iii.ShorelinesoftheState,pepursuanttoRMC4-3-090,RentonShorelineMasterProgramRegulations;and99f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 350 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______iv.wWetlandsandwetlandbuffers,p.epursuanttoRMC4-3-050.M,Wetlandsandtheirassociatedbuffers;b.OnprotectedslopesexceptasallowedinthisSsectionorintheCriticalAreasRegulations,RMC4-3-050;orc.Areasclassifiedasveryhighlandslidehazards,exceptasallowedinthisSsectionorintheCriticalAreasRegulations,RMC4-3-050.4.RestrictionsforNativeGrowthProtectionAreas:TreeremovalorlandclearingshallnotbepermittedwithinaRNativegGrowthpProtectioncasementAreaexceptasprovidedintheestablishednativegrowthprotectionarearequirementsofRMC4-3-050.E.4,NativeGrowthProtectionAreas.5.TreeTopping:TreetoppingshallbeprohibitedunlesstheCityhasapprovedthetreeforremoval.6.RemovalofLandmarkTree:Theremovalofalandmarktree(atreewithacaliperofthirtyinches(30”)orgreater)isprohibitedwithoutanapprovedRoutineVegetationManagementPermitoraLandDevelopmentPermit.E.REVIEWAUTHORITY:1.AuthorityandInterpretation:TheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratorisherebyauthorizedanddirectedtointerpretandenforcealltheprovisionsofthisSectionRMC4-4-130whennootherpermitorapprovalrequiresHearingExaminerreview.Heorsheisauthorizedto]jAdministratormayrequireretentionabovetheminimumstandards,torequire109f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 351 of 410
ORDINANCENO.phasingoftreeretentionplans,ortorequireanyothermeasurestomeetthepurposeofthisSsection.2.IndependentSecondaryReview:TheAdministratormayrequireindependentreviewofanylanduseapplicationthatinvolvestreeremovalandlandclearingattheCity’sdiscretion.Anevaluationbyanindependentqualifiedprofessionalregardingtheapplicant’sanalysisontheeffectivenessofanyproposedremoval,retention,orreplacementmeasures,toincluderecommendationsasappropriate.ThisreviewshallbepaidforbytheapplicantandtheCityshallselectthethird-partyreviewprofessional.F.PERMITSREQUIRED:1.LandDevelopmentPermitRequiredforSitePreparation:Anapprovedlanddevelopmentpermit,asdefinedinRMC48120D124-11-120,DefinitionsL,isrequiredinordertoconducttreeremovalorlandclearingonanysiteforthesakeofpreparingthatsiteforfuturedevelopment.2.RoutineVegetationManagementPermitRequiredfortheFollowingActivities:a.RoutineVegetationManagementonUndevelopedProperties:Anypersonwhoperformsroutinevegetationmanagement,asdefinedinRMC4-11-180,DefinitionsR,onundevelopedpropertyintheCitymustobtainaRoutineVegetationManagementPermitpriortoperformingsuchwork.b.UseofMechanicalEquipment:Exceptwheremechanicalequipmentistwenty:seven(27)horsepowerorless,anypersonwhouses119f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 352 of 410
ORDINANCENO.mechanicalequipmentforroutinevegetationmanagement,landclearing,treeremoval,landscaping,orgardeningmustobtainaRoutineVegetationManagementPermitpriortoperformingsuchwork.c.TreeRemovalinExcessofMaximumAllowance:ARoutineVegetationManagementPermitshallberequiredfortreecuttingingreateramountsthanspecifiedundersubsectionRMC4-4-130.C.9LofthisSection(entitledAllowedMinorTreeRemovalActivitiesjwheretreecuttingisproposedwithoutanassociatedLandDevelopmentPermit.Anytreecuttingactivitiesshallbetheminimumnecessarytoaccomplishtheintendedpurpose,andshallbeconsistentwithsubsectionD2RMC4-4-130.D.3,ofthisSection,RestrictionsforCriticalAreas-General.TreesremovedinexcessofthemaximumamountallowedundersubsectionRMC4-4-130.C.9,MinorTreeRemovalActivities,ofthisSectionshallbesubjecttoRMC4-4-130.H.1.e,Hlei,ReplacementRequirements,unlessdeterminedbytheAdministratortobeunfeasibleinthespecificcase.d.RemovalofLandmarkTree:ALandDevelopmentPermitorRoutineVegetationManagementPermit,whichexplicitlyapprovestheremoval,ofalandmarktree,asdefinedbyRMC4-11-200,DefinitionsT,fromanyproperty.Replacementtreesarerequirediftheminimumtreedensityforthesubjectpropertyisnotmaintaineduponremovalofthetree.Removalofalandmarktreemaybegrantedforsituationswhere:i.Thetreeisdeterminedtobeadangeroustree;or129f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 353 of 410
ORDINANCENO.ii.Thetreeiscausingobviousphysicaldamagetostructuresincludingbutnotlimitedtobuildingfoundations,drivewaysorparkinglots,andforwhichnoreasonablealternativetotreeremovalexists.Routinemaintenanceofroofsthatisrequiredduetoleaffalldoesnotconstituteobviousphysicaldamagetostructures;oriii.Removaloftree(s)toprovidesolaraccesstobuildingsincorporatingactivesolardevices.Windowsaresolardevicesonlywhentheyaresouth-facingandincludespecialstorageelementstodistributeheatenergy;oriv.TheAdministratordeterminestheremovalisnecessarytoachieveaspecificandarticulablepurposeorgoalofTitleIV,DevelopmentRegulations.3.ConditionalUsePermitRequiredforTimberStandThinning:Whiletimberharvestingshallnotbepermitteduntilsuchtimeasavalidlanddevelopmentisapproved,arequestmaybemadeformaintenanceandthinningofexistingtimberstandstopromotetheoverallhealthandgrowthofthestand.PermitsallowingthinningbeyondthelimitsallowedinsubsectionsRMC4-4-130.C.9aorC9b,MinorTreeRemovalActivities,ofthisSectionshallbeconsideredasaconditionalusepermitbytheHearingExamineraccordingtothefollowingcriteriainlieuofstandardconditionalusepermitcriteria:a.AppropriateapprovalshavebeensoughtandobtainedwiththeWashingtonStateDepartmentofNaturalResources;and139f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 354 of 410
ORDINANCENO.b.Theactivityshallimprovethehealthandgrowthofthestandandmaintainlong-termalternativesforpreservationoftrees;andc.TheactivityshallmeettheprovisionsofsubsectionsH3RMC4-4-130.H.4,Applicability,PerformanceStandardsandAlternates7and444RMC4-4-130.H.5,GeneralReviewCriteria,ofthisSection;andd.ThinningactivitiesshallbelimitedtolessconformtothebasalareadensityrecommendationsoftheWashingtonStateDepartmentofNaturalResources,butshallnotreducethevolumeoftreecanopybymorethanfortypercent(40%)ofthevolumeandtrees.e.ATreeRetention/LandClearing(TreeInventory)Plan,asdefinedinRMC4-8-120.D,DefinitionsT,shallberequired.G.ROUTINEVEGETATIONMANAGEMENTPERMITREVIEWPROCESS:PermitsforroutinevegetationmanagementshallbeprocessedconsistentwithRMC4-9-195,RoutineVegetationManagementPermits.H.PERFORMANCESTANDARDSFORLANDDEVELOPMENT/BUILDINGPERMITS:1.ProtectedTrees—RetentionRequired:SignificanttreesrequiredtoberetainedpursuanttoRMC4-4-130.H.1.a,PercentageofTreeRetentionBasedonZones,areconsidered“protectedtrees.”Protectedtreesmaycontributetoeachresidentiallot’srequiredminimumtreedensity,butanytreesthatareinexcessofanindividuallot’sminimumtreedensityshallnotcontributetothetotalnumberoftreesthatarerequiredtoberetainedfortheLandDevelopment149f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 355 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______Permit.Protectedtreesthatdonotcontributetoalot’srequiredminimumtreedensityshallbeheldinperpetuitywithinatreeprotectiontractpursuanttosubsectionRMC4-4-130.H.2,TreeProtectionTract;protectedtreesonanindividuallotaretheresponsibilityofthelotownerandmayonlyberemovedifincompliancewithRMC4-4-130.C,AllowedTreeRemovalActivities.SignificanttTreesshallberetainedasfollows:a.DamagedandDicascdTrccExcluded:Treesthatarcdangerousorarcsafetyrisksductoroot,trunk,orcrowni.Jiiuii.IidIIIULuCcountedasprotectedtrees.b.ResidentialPercentageofTreeRetentionBasedonZones:PropertiessublecttoanactiveLandDevelopmentPermitorbuildingpermitshallretainthefollowingpercentagesofsignificanttreesbasedontheproperty’szone.Treeswithincriticalareasandproposedpublicrights-of-wayshallnotcontributetothenumberofsignificanttreesrequiredtoberetained.i.RC,R-1,R-4,R-6andR-8Zones:AtleasttThirtypercent(30%)ofthesignificanttreesshallberetainedinaresidentialorinstitutionaldevelopment.ii.R-1O,R-14,RM-F,RM-T,RM-UandRMH:T-eAtleasttwentypercent(10%)(20%)ofthesignificanttreesshallberetainedinaresidentialorinstitutionaldevelopment.asdefinedinRMC411200,‘trurture£_L..II....159f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 356 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______€iii.AllOtherZones:WeAtleasttenpercent{%1(10%)ofthesignificanttreeslocatedonthelotshallbeconsideredprotectedandretainedincommercialorindustrialdevelopments.4iv.UtilityUsesandMineralExtractionUses:SuchoperationsshallbeexemptfromtheprotectedtreeretentionrequirementsofthisChaptersectionifremovaltheapplicantcanjustifytheexemptionbejustifiedinwritingtotheAdministrator’ssatisfactionandapprovedbytheAdministrator.b.PriorityofTreeRetentionReQuirements:Significanttreesshallberetainedinthefollowingpriorityorder:PriorityOnei.Landmarktrees;ii.Significanttreesthatformacontinuouscanopy;iii.Significanttreesonslopesgreaterthantwentypercent(20%);iv.Significanttreesadjacenttocriticalareasandtheirassociatedbuffers;andv.Significanttreesoversixtyfeet(60’)inheightorgreaterthaneighteeninches(18”)caliper.PriorityTwoi.Healthytreegroupingswhoseassociatedundergrowthcanbepreserved;ii.Othersignificantnativeevergreenordeciduoustrees;andiii.Othersignificantnon-nativetrees.PriorityAldersandcottonwoodsshallberetainedwhenallothertreeshaveThreebeenevaluatedforretentionandarenotabletoberetained,unless169f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 357 of 410
ORDINANCENO.thealdersand/orcottonwoodsareusedaspartofanapprovedenhancementprojectwithinacriticalareaoritsbuffer.c.CalculatingTreeRetention:Treeretentionstandardsshallbeappliedtothedevelopableareaofaproperty(i.e.,landwithincriticalareasandtheirbuffers,publicrights-of-way,privatePUDstreets,shareddriveways,andpublictrails,shallbeexcluded).Ifthenumbertoberetainedincludesafractionofatree,anyamountequaltoorgreaterthanone-half(1/2)treeshallberoundedup.d.MinimumTreeDensity:PursuanttoRMC4-4-130.C.9.e,MinimumTreeDensity,eachresidentiallottobecreatedbysubdivisionshallhaveretained,ornewlyplanted,treesthatsatisfythelot’sminimumtreedensityrequirement.Anyprotectedtree,whetherretainedornewlyplanted,thatisinexcessoftheindividuallot’sminimumtreedensityshallnotcontributetothetotalnumberoftreesthatarerequiredtoberetainedforthelanddevelopmentpermit.e.ReplacementRequirements:Asanalternativetoretainingtrees,theAdministratormayauthorizetheplantingofreplacementtreesonthesiteifitcanbedemonstratedtotheAdministrator’ssatisfactionthataninsufficientnumberoftreescanberetained.i.ReplacementRatio:Whentherequirednumberofprotectedtreescannotberetained,ewreplacementtreeswithatleastatwo-inch(2”)179f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 358 of 410
ORDINANCENO.caliperorgreateroranevergreenatleastsixfeet(6’)taIl,shallbeplanted.Thereplacementatarateshallbeoftwelve(12)caliperinchesofnewtreestoreplaceeachprotectedtreeremoved.Uptofiftypercent(50%)oftreesrequiredpursuanttoRMC4-4-070,Landscaping,maycontributetoreplacementtrees.TheCitymayrequireasuretyorbondtoensurethesurvivalofreplacementtrees.ii.Whcnatrecortreeclusterthatispartofanapprovedtreeretentionplancannotberetained,mitigationshallberequiredpersubsectionHleiofthisSection.+w—ProhibitedTypesofReplacementTrees:Unlessreplacementtreesarebeingusedaspartofanapprovedenhancementprojectinacriticalareaorbuffer,theyshallnotconsistofeythefollowingspecies:listedinRMC44130H7d.(a)AllPopulusspeciesincludingcottonwood(Populustrichocarpa),quakingaspen(Populustremuloides),lombardypoplar(Populusnigra“Italica”),etc.;(b)AllAlnusspecies,whichincludesredalder(Alnusoregona),blackalder(Alnusglutinosa),whitealder(Alnusrhombifolia),etc.;(c)Salixspecies,whichincludesweepingwillow(Salixbabylonica),etc.;and189f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 359 of 410
ORDINANCENO.(d)AllPlatanusspecies,whichincludeLondonplanetree(Platanusacerifolia),Americansycamore,buttonwood(Platanusoccidentalis),etc.iii.FeeinLieu:WhentheAdministratordeterminesthatitisinfeasibletoreplacetreesonthesite,paymentintotheCity’sUrbanForestryProgramfundmaybeapprovedinanamountofmoneyapproximatingthecurrentmarketvalueofthereDlacementtreesandthelabortoinstallthem.TheCityshalldeterminethevalueofreplacementtrees.f.Trccretentionstandardsshallbeappliedtothcnetdcvclopablcarea.Landwithincriticalareasandtheirbuffers,aswellaspublicrightsofway,shallbeexcludedfromtheabovecalculation.Ifthenumbertoberetainedincludesafractionofatree,anyamountequaltoorgreaterthanonehalf(1/2)treeshallberoundedup.2.TreeProtectionTract:Treesrequiredtoberetained(i.e.,protectedtrees),and/orAdministratorapprovedreplacementtrees(excludingrequiredstreettreespursuanttoRMC4-4-070.F,AreasRequiredtobeLandscaped),thatarenotnecessarytoprovidetherequiredminimumtreedensityforresidentiallots,shallbepreservedbyestablishingatreeprotectiontractthatencompassesthedriplineofallprotectedtrees;however,multipletreeprotectiontractsmaybeapprovedifitcanbedemonstrated,totheAdministrator’ssatisfaction,thatmultipletractsprovideabettersitedesignand/orsupportsotheradoptedgoalsandpurposesofthisTitle.199f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 360 of 410
ORDINANCENO.a.Applicability:Treeprotectiontractsshallberequiredforanyprotectedtreesthatarenotlocatedonanindividuallot.Treeprotectiontractsmaycontributetoopenspacerequirements,ifapplicable.b.Standards:i.Treeprotectiontractsshouldconsistofanaggregationoftreesoccupyingaspecificareaandsufficientlyuniforminspeciescomposition,size,age,arrangement,andconditionastobedistinguishedfromadjoiningareas;ii.TreesshallberetainedandmaintainedpursuanttotherecommendationsofaCityapprovedcertifiedarboristorlicensedlandscapearchitect,asstatedwithintherequiredTreeRetention/LandClearing(TreeInventory)Plan;iii.Amenities,asapprovedbytheAdministrator,maybeinstalledtofacilitatepassiverecreationwithinthetract.Suchamenitiesmightinclude,butarenotlimitedtobenches,picnictables,andsoftsurface(semi-permeable)trails.c.TractCreationandDeedRestriction:Thepermitholdershallestablishandrecordapermanentandirrevocabledeedrestrictiononthepropertytitleofanytreeprotectiontractortractscreatedasaconditionofapermit.Suchdeedrestriction(s)shallprohibitdevelopment,alteration,ordisturbancewithinthetractexceptforpurposesofinstallingAdministratorapprovedamenities,orhabitatenhancementactivitiesaspartofan209f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 361 of 410
ORDINANCENO.enhancementproject,whichhasreceivedpriorwrittenapprovalfromtheCity.Acovenantshallbeplacedonthetractrestrictingitsseparatesale.d.Fencing:TheCityshallrequirepermanentfencingofthetreeprotectiontract.Thisshallbeaccomplishedbyinstallingawood,split-railfencewithapplicablesignage.TheAdministratormayapprovepedestrian-sizedopeningsforthepurposeoffacilitatingpassiverecreationwithinthetractforthebenefitofthecommunity.TheAdministratormayauthorizealternatestylesand/ormaterialsfortherequiredfencing.e.SignageRequired:Thecommonboundarybetweenatreeprotectiontractandtheabuttinglandmustbepermanentlyidentified.Thisidentificationshallincludepermanentwoodormetalsignsontreatedwood,ormetalposts.SignlocationsandsizespecificationsaresubjecttoCityreviewforapproval.Suggestedwordingisasfollows:“Protectionofthesetreesisinyourcare.Alterationordisturbanceisprohibitedbylaw.”f.ResponsibilityforOwnershipandMaintenance:TherelevantHomeowners’association,abuttinglotowners,thepermitapplicantordesignee,orotherCityapprovedentity,shallhaveownershipandresponsibilityformaintainingthetreeprotectiontract(s)andprotectedtrees.g.MaintenanceCovenantandNoteRequired:Thefollowingnoteshallappearonthefaceofallplats,shortplats,PUDs,orotherapprovedsiteplanscontainingatleastone(1)treeprotectiontract,andshallalsoberecordedasacovenantrunningwiththelandonthetitleofrecordforallaffectedlotson219f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 362 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______thetitle:“MAINTENANCERESPONSIBILITY:AllownersoflotscreatedbyorbenefitingfromthisCityactionareresponsibleformaintenanceandprotectionofthetreeprotectiontract.MaintenanceincludesensuringthatnoalterationsoccurwithinthetractandthatallvegetationremainsundisturbedunlesstheexpresswrittenauthorizationoftheCityhasbeenreceived.”3.PlanRequired:WhenaLand4DevelopmentPermit,asdefinedinRMC48120D124-11-120,issubmittedtotheCityitshallbeaccompaniedbyaTreeRetention/LandClearing(TreeInventory)PlantrccremovalandlandclearingplanasdefinedinRMC4-8-120.D.20,SubmittalRequirements—SpecifictoApplicationType..4.Applicability,PerformanceStandardsandAlternates:AlllandclearingandtreeremovalactivitiesshallconformtothecriteriaandperformancestandardssetforthinthisSsectionunlessotherwiserecommendedinanapprovedsoilengineering,engineeringgeology,hydrology,orforestmanagementplanandwherethealternateprocedureswillbeequaltoorsuperiorinachievingthepolicicpurposesofthissection.Alllandclearingandtreeremovalactivitiesmaybeconditionedtoensurethatthestandards,criteria,andpurposesofthisectionaremet.45.GeneralReviewCriteria:AlllandclearingandtreeremovalactivitiesshallcomplywithRMC4-4-060,Grading,Excavation,andMiningRegulations,andshallmeetthefollowingcriteria:229f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 363 of 410
ORDINANCENO.a.Thelandclearingandtreeremovalwillnotcreateorcontributetolandslides,acceleratedsoilcreep,settlementandsubsidenceorhazardsassociatedwithstronggroundmotionandsoilliquefaction.b.Thelandclearingandtreeremovalwillnotcreateorcontributetoflooding,erosion,orincreasedturbidity,siltationorotherformofpollutioninawatercourse.c.Landclearingandtreeremovalwillbeconductedtomaintainorprovidevisualscreeningandbufferingbetweenlandusesofdifferingintensity,consistentwithapplicablelandscapingandsetbackprovisionsoftheRentonMunicipalCode.d.Landclearingandtreeremovalshallbeconductedsoastoexposethesmallestpracticalareaofsoiltoerosionfortheleastpossibletime,consistentwithanapprovedbuild-outscheduleandincludinganynecessaryerosioncontrolmeasures.e.Landclearingandtreeremovalshallbeconsistentwithubscction02.RMC4-4-130.D.3,ofthisSection,RestrictionsforCriticalAreas—General,andRMC4-3-050,CriticalAreasRegulations.f.Retainedtreeswillnotcreateorcontributetoahazardousconditionastheresultofblowdown,insectorpestinfestation,disease,orotherproblemsthatmaybecreatedasaresultofselectivelyremovingtreesandothervegetationfromalot.239f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 364 of 410
ORDINANCENO.g.Landclearingandtreeremovalshallbeconductedtomaximizethepreservationofanytreeingoodhealththatisanoutstandingspecimenbecauseofitssize,form,shape,age,color,rarity,orotherdistinctionasacommunitylandmark.6.Timing:TheCitymayrestrictthetimingofthelandclearingandtreeremovalactivitiestospecificdatesand/orseasonswhensuchrestrictionsarenecessaryforthepublichealth,safetyandwelfare,orfortheprotectionoftheenvironment.67.RestrictionsforCriticalAreas:SeesubsectionD2RMC4-4-130.D.3,ethisSection,RestrictionsforCriticalAreas—General,andRMC4-3-050,CriticalAreasRegulations.8.Tree/GroundCoverRetention:Thefollowingmeasuresmaybeusedinconditioningalanddevelopmentpermitorbuildingpermitproposal,tocomplywiththegeneralreviewcriteriaofsubsectionH4RMC4-4-130.H.5,GeneralReviewCriteriaofthisSection:a.Treesshallbemaintainedtothemaximumextentfeasibleonthepropertywheretheyaregrowing.Modificationofthetreeretentionandlandclearingplan,ortheassociatedLandDevelopmentPermitlanddevelopmentpermits,mayberequiredtoensuretheretentionofthemaximumnumberoftrees.249f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 365 of 410
ORDINANCENO.b.Theapplicantmayberequiredtoreplacetrees,provideinterimerosioncontrol,hydroseedexposedsoils,orothersimilarconditionswhichwouldimplementtheintentofthissection.c.Treesthatshelterinteriortreesortreesonabuttingpropertiesfromstrongwindsthatcouldotherwisecausethemtoblowdownshouldberetained.L.activitiesarcbeingperformed,thcrcmovaloftrccsonthefollowinglistshouldbeallowedinordcrtoavoidinvasiverootsystems,weakwoodpronetobreakage,orvarietieswhichtendtoharborinsectpests:i.AllPopulusspeciesincludingcottonwood(Populustrichocarpa),quakingaspen(Populustrcmuloides),lombardypoplar(Populusnigra“Italica”),ii.AllAlnusspecieswhichincludesredalder(Alnusoregona),blackalder(Alnusglutinosa),whitealder(Alnusrhombifolia),etc.iii.Salixspecieswhichincludesweepingwillow(Salixbabylonica),et€iv.AllPlatanusspecieswhichincludeLondonplanetree(Platanusaccrifolia),Americansycamore,buttonwood(Platanusoccidcntalis),etc.89.ProtectionMeasuresDuringConstruction:Protectionmeasuresinthissubsectionshallapplyforalltreesthataretoberetainedinareassubjecttoconstruction.Allofthefollowingtreeprotectionmeasuresshallapply:259f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 366 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______a.ConstructionStorageProhibited:Theapplicantmaynotfill,excavate,stackorstoreanyequipment,disposeofanymaterials,suppliesorfluids,operateanyequipment,installimpervioussurfaces,orcompacttheearthinanywaywithintheareadefinedbythedriplineofanytreetoberetained.b.FencedProtectionAreaRequired:Priortodevelopmentactivities,tlheapplicantshallerectandmaintainsixfoot(6’)highchainlinktemporaryconstructionfencingaroundthedriplinesofallretainedtreesoratadistancesurroundingthetreeequaltooneandone-quarterfeet(1.25’)foreveryoneinch(1”)oftrunkcaliper,whicheverisgreater,oralongtheperimeterofatreeprotectiontractstandofrctaincdtrccs.Placardsshallbeplacedonfencingeveryfiftyfeet(50’)indicatingthewords,“NOTRESPASSING—ProtectedTreesL”oroneachsideofthefencingiflessthanfiftyfeet(50’).Siteaccesstoindividuallyprotectedtreesorgroupsoftreesshallbefencedandsigned.Individualtreesshallbefencedonfour(4)sides.Inaddition,theapplicantshallprovidesupervisionwheneverequipmentortrucksaremovingneartrees.c.ProtectionfromGradeChanges:Ifthegradeleveladjoiningtoatreetoberetainedistoberaised,theapplicantshallconstructadryrockwallorrockwellaroundthetree.Thediameterofthiswallorwellmustbeequaltothetree’sdripline.d.ImperviousSurfacesProhibitedWithintheDripLine:Theapplicantmaynotinstallimpervioussurfacematerialwithintheareadefinedbythedriplineofanytreetoberetained.269f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 367 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______e.RestrictionsonGradingWithintheDripLinesofRetainedTrees:Thegradelevelaroundanytreetoberetainedmaynotbeloweredwithinthegreaterofthefollowingareas:(I)theareadefinedbythedriplineofthetree,or(ii)anareaaroundthetreeequaltooneandone-halffeet(1-1/2’)indiameterforeachoneinch(1”)oftreecaliper.Alargertreeprotectionzonebasedontreesize,species,soil,orotherconditionsmayberequired.f.MulchLayerRequired:Allareaswithintherequiredfencingshallbecoveredcompletelyandevenlywithaminimumofthreeinches(3”)ofbarkmulchpriortoinstallationoftheprotectivefencing.Exceptionsmaybeapprovedifthemulchwilladverselyaffectprotectedgroundcoverplants.g.MonitoringRequiredDuringConstruction:Theapplicantshallretainaprofessionalcertifiedarboristorothcrqualifiedprofessionallicensedlandscapearchitecttoensuretreesareprotectedfromdevelopmentactivitiesand/ortoprunebranchesandroots,fertilize,andwaterasappropriateforanytreesandgroundcoverwhicharetoberetained.I,.AlternativeProtection:Alternativesafeguardsmaybeusedifdeterminedtoprovideequalorgreatertreeprotection.910.Maintenance:a.Allretainedandreplacementtrees,includingprotectedtrees,shallbemaintainedinperpetuityforatleastfive(5)yearsfromthedateofthefinallanddevelopmentpermitissuedfortheproject,unlesstreeremovalisauthorizedpursuanttothissection;279f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 368 of 410
ORDINANCENO.b.Allretainedtreesandvegetationshallbeprunedandtrimmedtomaintainahealthygrowingconditionortopreventlimbfailure;c.Withtheexceptionofdangerousdead,diseased,ordamagedtreesspecificallyretainedtoprovidewildlifehabitat,anyprotectedtreethatbecomesadangeroustrees,asdefinedinRMC4-11-200,oranyprotectedorreplacementtreethatisstolenLtreesshallbereplacedwithinthree(3)monthsorduringthenextplantingseasonifthelossdoesnotoccurinaplantingseason.I.MODIFICATIONSVARIANCEPROCEDURES:TheAdministratorshallhavetheauthoritytograntmodificationsvariancesfromtheprovisionsofthisSsectionpursuanttoRMC43070DandthedecisioncriteriainRMC4-9-250.D,ModificationProcedures,whennootherpermitorapprovalrequiresHearingExaminerreview.i.VIOLATIONSANDPENALTIES:1.Penalties:PenaltiesforanyviolationofanyoftheprovisionsofthisSsectionshallbeinaccordancewithRMC1-3-2,CodeEnforcementandPenaltiesInaprosecutionunderthisSsection,eachtreeremoved,damagedordestroyedwillconstituteaseparateviolation,andthemonetarypenaltyforeachviolationshallbenolessthantheminimumpenalty,andnogreaterthanthemaximumpenaltyofRMC1-3-2.P,Penalties.2.AdditionalLiabilityforDamage:Inaddition,anypersonwhoviolatesanyprovisionofthisSsectionorofapermitissuedpursuanttheretoshallbeliableforalldamagestopublicorprivatepropertyarisingfromsuchviolation,289f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 369 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______includingthecostofrestoringtheaffectedareatoitsconditionpriortosuchviolation.3.RestorationRequired:TheCitymayrequirereplacementofallimproperlyremovedgroundcoverwithspeciessimilartothosewhichwereremovedorotherapprovedspeciessuchthatthebiologicalandhabitatvalueswillbereplaced.RestorationshallincludeinstallationandmaintenanceofinterimandemergencyerosioncontrolmeasuresthatshallberequiredasdeterminedbytheCity.4.ReplacementRequired:TheCitymayrequire,foreachtreethatwasimproperlycutand/orremovedinviolationof,orwithout,anapprovedj4DevelopmentPermitandassociatedtreeretentionandlandclearingplan,replacementplantingofatreeofequalsize,qualityandspeciesorreplacementtreesatarateofone-to-one(1:1)caliperinches.uptoeighteen(18)caliperinchesoftrccsofthcsamespeciesinthcimmediatevicinityofthetree(s)thatwas/werercmovcd.Thereplacementtreeswillbeofsufficientcalipertoadequatelyreplacethelosttree(s),andataminimumoftwoinches(2”)incaliper.TheCitymayrequireabondtoensurethesurvivalofreplacementtrees.5.StopWork:Foranyparcelonwhichtreesand/orgroundcoverareimproperlyremovedandsubjecttopenaltiesunderthissection,theCityshallstopworkonanyexistingpermitsandhalttheissuanceofanyorallfuturepermitsorapprovalsuntilthepropertyisfullyrestoredincompliancewiththissectionandallpenaltiesarepaid.299f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 370 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONII.Subsection4-8-120.C,Table4-8-120C—LandUsePermitSubmittalRequirements,ofChapter8,Permits—GeneralandAppeals,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCodeisamendedsotheSubmittalRequiremententitled“TreeRemoval/VegetationClearingPlan”isretitledasshownbelow.Therestofthetableshallremainascurrentlycodified.TreeRemoval/VegetationRetention/LandClearing(TreeInventory)PlanSECTIONIII.TheDefinitionof“TreeRetention/LandClearing(TreeInventory)Plan”insubsection4-8-120.D.20,DefinitionsT,ofChapter8,Permits—GeneralandAppeals,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:TreeRetention/LandClearing(TreeInventory)Plan:Acompletedtreeretentionworksheetaccompaniedbyafulldimensionalplan,drawnbyaprofessionalcertifiedarborist7oralicensedlandscapearchitect,orothcrsimilarlyqualifiedprofessional,basedonfinishedgrade,drawnatthesamescaleastheprojectsiteplanwiththenorthernpropertylineatthetopofthepaperclearlyshowingthefollowing:a.Allpropertyboundariesandadjacentstreets7b.Locationofallareasproposedtobecleared7c.Speciesandsizesofvegetationtoberemoved,alteredorretainedandtheboundariesandpredominantspeciesofstandsoftreesconsistingoffive(5)ormoretrees.Thisrequirementappliesonlytotreessixinch(6”)caliperand309f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 371 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______larger,fifty:fourinches(54”)abovegrade,andthelocation,sizeandspeciesofallprotectedtreesonthesite7d.Fortreesproposedtoberetained,acompletedescriptionofeachtree’shealth,condition,andviability;e.Fortreesproposedtoberetained,adescriptionofthemethod(s)usedtodeterminethelimitsofdisturbance(i.e.,criticalrootzone,rootplatediameter,oracase-by-casebasisdescriptionforindividualtrees);f.Fortreesproposedtobepreservedwithinatreeprotectiontract,anyspecialinstructionsformaintenance(e.g.,trimming,groundclearing,rootpruning,monitoring,aftercare,etc.);g.Fortreesnotviableforretention,thereason(s)forremovalbasedonpoorhealth,highriskoffailureduetostructure,defects,unavoidableisolation(i.e.,highblowdownpotential),orunsuitabilityofspecies,etc.,andforwhichnoreasonablealternativeactionispossible(pruning,cabling,etc.);h.Adescriptionoftheimpactofnecessarytreeremovaltotheremainingtrees,includingthoseinagroveoronabuttingproperties;i.Fordevelopmentapplications,adiscussionoftimingandinstallationoftreeprotectionmeasuresthatmustincludefencingandbeinaccordancewiththetreeprotectionstandardsasoutlinedinRMC4-4-130.H.9,ProtectionMeasuresDuringConstruction;319f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 372 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______i.Thesuggestedlocationandspeciesofsupplementaltreestobeusedwhenrequired.Thereportshallincludeplantingandmaintenancespecifications;4k.Futurebuildingsitesanddriplinesofanytreeswhichwilloverhang/overlapaconstructionline7€1.Locationanddimensionsofrights-of-way,utilitylines,firehydrants,streetlighting,andeasements7frn.Wherethedriplineofatreeoverlapsanareawhereconstructionactivitieswilloccur,thisshallbeindicatedontheplan7gn.Forallowedactivities,includingallowedexemptions,modifications,andvariances,showalltreesproposedtoberemovedinprioritytreeretentionareas:slopestwenty:fivepercent(25%)tothirty:ninepercent(39%),highorveryhighlandslidehazardareas,andhigherosionhazardareas7ho.Showtreestoberemovedinprotectedcriticalareas:wetlands,ShorelinesoftheState,streamsandlakes,floodways,floodplainslopesfortypercent(40%)orgreater,veryhighlandslidehazardareas,andcriticalhabitatiftheactivityisexemptorallowedbythecriticalareasregulationsinRMC4-3-050.C.5,SpecificExemptions—CriticalAreasandBuffers;7.Showalltreestoberetainedincriticalareabuffers7and.Inallotherareasofthesite,treestoberemovedmaybeindicatedgenerallywithclearinglimitlinesexceptforprotectedtrees.Thelocation,size,andspeciesofallprotectedtreesonasiteshallbeshown.Theplanshallalso329f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 373 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______showthcplanneddifferentiateanyapprovedreplacementtreesfromtheprotectedtrees.ReplacementtreesmaybeauthorizedinaccordancewithRMC4-4-130.H.1.e,ReplacementRequirements,andthenumberofreplacementtreesshallbedeterminedpursuanttoanyplannedreplantingareasinaccordancewithRMC4-4-130.H.lf.c,CalculatingTreeRetention.SECTIONIV.Thedefinitionof“HazardTree”insubsection4-11-080,DefinitionsH,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCodeisdeleted.SECTIONV.Section4-11-200,DefinitionsT,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedsothedefinitionsof“Tree”,“TreeRemoval”and“TreeTrimming”arerevisedasshownbelow.Thissectionisfurtheramendedtoaddnewdefinitionsof“TreeProtectionTract”and“TreeTopping”inalphabeticalorder,andtoreadasshownbelow.TREE:Aselfsupportingwoodyplantcharacterizedbyonemaintrunkhavingacaliperoftwoinches(2”)orgreater,woodyperennialusuallyhavingone(1)dominanttrunk,or,forcertainspecies,amulti-stemmedtrunksystemwithadefinitelyformedcrown,withapotentialminimumheightoftenfeet(10’)atmaturity.AnytreeslistedontheCompleteKingCountyWeedListshallnotqualifyasatree.A.Tree,Dangerous:Anytreethathasbeencertified,inawrittenreport,asdead,terminallydiseased,damaged,orotherwisedangeroustopersonsor339f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 374 of 410
ORDINANCENO.propertybyaprofessionalforester,licensedlandscapearchitect,orcertifiedarborist.B.Tree,Landmark:Atreewithacaliperofthirtyinches(30”)orgreater.C.Tree,Protected:AsignificanttreeidentifiedtoberetainedasaconditionofapprovalforaLandDevelopmentPermit.D.Tree,Significant:Atreewithacaliperofatleastsixinches(6”),oranalderorcottonwoodtreewithacaliperofatleasteightinches(8”).Treesqualifiedasdangerousshallnotbeconsideredsignificant.Treesplantedwithinthemostrecentten(10)yearsshallqualifyassignificanttrees,regardlessoftheactualcaliper.TREEPROTECTIONTRACT:Arestrictiveareawhereallretainedand/orreplacementtreesareprotected,anddevelopment,alteration,ordisturbancewithinthetract,ortreeremoval,isprohibitedwithouttheexplicitapprovaloftheCity.Treeprotectiontractsmaycontributetoanyrequiredopenspace.TREEREMOVAL:Theactualremovaloftheabovcgroundplantmaterialofatreethroughchemical,manualormechanicalmethodsTheremovalofatree,througheitherdirectorindirectactions,includingbutnotlimitedto:(1)clearing,damagingorpoisoningresultinginadangeroustree;(2)removalofmorethanfortypercent(40%)ofthelivecrown;or(3)damagetorootsortrunkthatislikelytodestroythetree’sstructuralintegrity.TREETOPPING:Theactofremovingwholetopsoftrees,orlargebranchesand/ortrunksfromthetopsoftrees,andleavingstubsorlateralbranchesthat349f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 375 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______resultinthedisfigurementofthecanopy.Treetoppingisconsideredtobetreeremoval.Othercommonnamesforthepracticeincludehat-racking,lopping,heading,roundingover,andtipping.TREETRIMMING:Thepruningofthetreeintentionalremovalofatree’sbranchesinordertoreducethelivecanopyofthetreeyprovidedthatnomorethanfortypercent(40%)ofthelivecrownshallberemovedduringanypruningconsecutivetwelve(12)months.Trimmingmorethanfortypercent(40%)ofatree’scanopyduringanyconsecutivetwelve(12)monthsshallbeconsidered“treetopping.”SECTIONVI.Thisordinanceshallbeeffectiveuponitspassage,approval,andfive(5)calendardaysafterpublication.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_______dayof____________________,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_______dayof___________________,2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:_______________ORD:1853:12/15/14:scr359f. - Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #10B D-109, Tree Retention and Page 376 of 410
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO.ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGSECTION4-1-160OFCHAPTER1,ADMINISTRATIONANDENFORCEMENT,SECTIONS4-2-080AND4-2-110OFCHAPTER2,ZONINGDISTRICTS-USESANDSTANDARDS,SECTION4-3-050OFCHAPTER3,ENVIRONMENTALREGULATIONSANDOVERLAYDISTRICTS,SECTIONS4-4-070AND4-4-100OFCHAPTER4,CITY-WIDEPROPERTYDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS,SECTIONS4-5-040AND4-5-060OFCHAPTER5,BUILDINGANDFIREPREVENTIONSTANDARDS,SECTION4-6-030OFCHAPTER6,STREETANDUTILITYSTANDARDS,SECTION4-8-120OFCHAPTER8,PERMITS—GENERALANDAPPEALS,SECTIONS4-9-060,4-9-150,4-9-200,AND4-9-250OFCHAPTER9,PERMITS—SPECIFIC,ANDSECTIONS4-11-030,4-11-040,4-11-120,AND4-11-150OFCHAPTER11,DEFINITIONS,OFTITLEIV(DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS),ANDSECTION8-7-8OFCHAPTER7,NOISELEVELREGULATIONS,OFTITLEVIII(HEALTHANDSANITATION),OFTHERENTONMUNICIPALCODE,BYAMENDINGCERTAINREGULATIONS,ANDAMENDINGSPECIFICDEFINITIONSPURSUANTTOTHEDEPARTMENTOFCOMMUNITYANDECONOMICDEVELOPMENT’SADMINISTRATIVECODEINTERPRETATIONS.P—HZWHEREAS,pursuanttoRentonMunicipalCodeSection4-1-080,Interpretation,theCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratorisauthorizedtomakeinterpretationsregardingtheimplementationofunclearorcontradictoryregulationscontainedinthisTitle;andWHEREAS,theCityrecognizesthattheregulationsidentifiedinTitleIVcontainunclearand/orcontradictorylanguage;andWHEREAS,thismatterwasreferredtothePlanningCommissionforinvestigation,study,andthematterhavingbeenconsideredbythePlanningCommission,andthetextamendmentrequestsbeinginconformitywiththeCity’sComprehensivePlan,asamended;and19g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 377 of 410
ORDINANCENO.WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonNovember5,2014,andconsideredallrelevantmatters,andallpartieswereheardappearinginsupportorinopposition;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Subsection4-1-160.E.3,ofChapter1,AdministrationandEnforcement,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:3.Forallnewdwellingunits,thetotalamountoftheschoolimpactfeesshallbeassessedandcollectedfromtheapplicantatthetimeofbuildingpermitissuance,usingthefeescheduletheiineffectatthetimeacompleteapplicationforthebuildingpermitissubmitted.Nopermitshallbeissueduntiltherequiredschoolimpactfeessetforthinthefeeschedulehavebeenpaid.SECTIONII.Subsection4-2-080.A.18,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:18.Onlypermittedwithinastructurecontainingcommercialusesonthegroundfloor.Commercialspacemustbereservedprovidedonthegroundfloorataminimumofthirtyfeet(30’)indepthalonganystreetfrontage.AveragingtheminimumdepthmaybepermittedthroughtheSitePlanReviewprocess,providednoportionoftheminimumdepthisreducedtolessthantwentyfeet(20’).Residentialusesshallnotbelocatedonthegroundflooralonganypublicstreetfrontage.exceptforresidentialentryfeaturesunless29g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 378 of 410
ORDINANCENO.determinedthroughthcsiteplanrcvicwprocessthataparticularbuildinghasnostrcetfrontage.ResidentialusesarenotpermittedintheEmploymentAreaValley(EAV)landusedesignation.SECTIONIII.Subsections4-2-110.D.10and4-2-110.D.11,ofChapter2,ZoningDistricts—UsesandStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,areamendedasfollows:10.SmalllotclustersofuptoClusterDevelopment,withamaximumoffifty(50)lotsshallbeallowedwithintheR-4zone7whenatleastthirtypercent(30%)ofthesiteispermanentlysetasideas“significant“openspace”asdefinedinRMC4-11-150.Suchopenspaceshallbesituatedtoactasavisualbufferbetweensmalllotclustersandotherdevelopmentinthezone.Thepercentageofrequiredopenspacerequiredmaybereducedtotwentypercent(20%)ofthesitewhen:a.Publicaccessisprovidedtoopenspace;andb.oftsurfacetrailsareprovidedwithinwetlandcriticalareasorcriticalareabufferspursuanttoRMC4-3-050;andc.Stormwaterpondsaredesignedtoeliminateengineeredslopesrequiringfencingandenhancedtoallowpassiveand/oractiverecreation.AllportionsofasitethatarenotdedicatedtoplattedsinglefamilyIotsLe—adedicatedright-of-way,orutilityimprovementsshallbesetinaseparatetractand/ortractstopreserveexistingviablestandsoftreesorothernative39g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 379 of 410
ORDINANCENO.vegetation.ThetractmayalsobeusedasareceivingareafortreereplacementrequirementsinaccordancewithRMC4-4-130.H.Suchtractsshallbeshownandrecordedonthefaceoftheplattobepreservedinperpetuity.Suchtractsmaybeincludedincontiguousopenspaceforthepurposesofqualifyingforsmalllotclustere4development.Wheretreesareremoved,theyshallbereplacedinaccordancewithRMC4-4-130.H.Allportionsofasitethatarenotdedicatedtoplattedsinglefamilylotsoradedicatedright-of-wayshallbesetinaseparatetractand/ortractstopreserveexistingviablestandsoftreesorothernativevegetation.ThetractmayalsobeusedasareceivingareafortreereplacementrequirementsinaccordancewithRMC4-4-130.H.Suchtractsshallbeshownandrecordedonthefaceoftheplattobepreservedinperpetuity.Suchtractsmaybeincludedincontiguousopenspaceforthepurposesofqualifyingforsmalllotclustere4development.Wheretreesareremoved,theyshallbereplacedinaccordancewithRMC4-4-130.H.11.Deleted.Approvalforlotsize,width,anddepthreductionsmaybeapprovedwhen,duetolotconfigurationoraccess,four(4)dwellingunitspernetacrecannotbeachicvcd.Thereductionshallbctheminimumnccdcdtoallowfour(4)dwellingunitspernetacreandshallbelimitedtothcfollowing49g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 380 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______Lotsize—seventhousandtwohundred(7,200)sq.ft.Lotwidth—sixtyfeet(60’).Lotdepthseventyfeet(70’).SECTIONIV.Subsection4-3-050.i.5.c,ExceptionsthroughVariance,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:c.ExceptionsthroughVariance:Exceptionstotheprohibitionmaybegrantedforconstruction,reconstruction,additions,andassociatedaccessorystructuresofasinglefamilyhomeonanexistinglegallotpursuanttoavarianceasstatedinRMC4-9-250.B.1and4-9-250.B.6.SECTIONV.Subsection4-3-050.J.7.a,ProhibitedDevelopment,ofChapter3,EnvironmentalRegulationsandOverlayDistricts,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:a.ProhibitedDevelopment:Developmentshallnotbepermittedonlanddesignatedwithveryhighlandslidehazards,exceptbyvariance,administeredpursuanttoRMC4-9-250.B.1,forconstructionofasinglefamilyhomeonanexistinglegallot.SECTIONVI.Subsection4-4-070.B.1.b,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:b.Allnewbuildingsandnewstormdrainagefacilities;or59g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 381 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONVII.Subsection4-4-070.F,AreasRequiredtobeLandscaped,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddanewsubsection4-4-070.F.8,toreadasshownbelow.Thecurrentsubsection4-4-070.F.8shallberenumberedassubsection4-4-040.F.9,andamendedasfollows:8.StormDrainageFacilities:Theperimeterofallnewflowcontroland/orwaterqualitytreatmentstormwaterfacilitiesshallbelandscapedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthissectionandtheSurfaceWaterDesignManual,unlessotherwisedeterminedthroughthesiteplanrevieworsubdivisionreviewprocess.98.UrbanSeparatorProperties:PropertieswithinurbanseparatorsaresubjecttolandscapingrequirementsofRMC4-3-11O.EinadditiontotherequirementsofthisSsection.SECTIONVIII.Subsection4-4-070.H,DescriptionofRequiredLandscapingTypes,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddanewsubsection4-4-070.H.6,toreadasfollows:6.StormDrainageFacilityLandscaping:a.TreesareProhibitedonBerms:Treesareprohibitedonanybermservingadrainage-relatedfunction,however,groundcoverisrequiredandsubiecttoCityreview/approval.b.AdditionalLocationsWhereTreesandShrubsareProhibited:69g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 382 of 410
ORDINANCENO.i.Withinthefencedarea;andii.Withintenfeet(10’)ofanymanmadedrainagestructure(e.g.,catchbasins,ditches,pipes,vaults,etc.).c.PerimeterLandscapingRequired:Alandscapingstripwithaminimumfifteenfeet(15’)ofwidthshallbelocatedontheoutsideofthefence,unlessotherwisedeterminedthroughthesiteplanrevieworsubdivisionreviewprocess.d.TypeofPlantingsRequired:PlantingsshallbeconsistentwiththeSurfaceWaterDesignManualandthissection.Additionally,treesmustbespacedasdeterminedbytheDepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment.e.Conflicts:IntheeventofaconflictbetweenthissectionandtheSurfaceWaterDesignManual,thelandscapingprovisionsofthissectionshallprevail.RefertoChapter5oftheSurfaceWaterDesignManual.SECTIONIX.Subsection4-4-100.E.4.a,Churches,Apartments,Subdivisions,andExistingLegallyEstablishedNonconformingBusinesseswithinResidentialZones,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:a.Churches,Apartments,Subdivisions,andExistingLegallyEstablishedNonconformingBusinesseswithinResidentialZones:Churches,apartmentbuildings,subdivisiondevelopments,andexistinglegallyestablishednonconformingbusinesseswithinresidentialzonesandsimilaroccupancies79g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 383 of 410
ORDINANCENO.locatedinresidentialandmixed-usezonesmayhavetwo(2)on-premisesidentifyingsignsofnotoverthirty-two(32)squarefeetinareaonone(1)face.Thesignsmaybeilluminatedbutnotanimated,shallbeforlocationidentificationonlyandshalldisplaynocopy,symbolordeviceotherthanthatinkeepingwiththedevelopment.Freestandingsignsshallbenothigherhaveaheightgreaterthansixfeet(6’)aboveanyestablishedgradeandshallbenocloserthante+fivefeet(105’)toanystreetrightofwayorfivefeet(5’)toanysidepropertyktline.SECTIONX.Subsection4-4-100.L.1.b,ofChapter4,City-WidePropertyDevelopmentStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:b.Withinnonresidentialzones,agroundsignsthatwhicharesixfeet(6’)orlessinheightmaybeinstalledwithinthefrontyardsetbackinthelandscapestripofthefrontyardsetback;provided,thatiftheclearvisionareadescribedinsubsectionC.6ofthisSsectioniskeptclear.Withinresidentialzones,groundsignssixfeet(6’)orlessinheightmaybelocatedwithinthelandscapestripofthefrontyardsetbackifthesignissetbackatleastfivefeet(5’)fromanylotline.SECTIONXl.Section4-5-040,RentonElectricalCode,ofChapter5,BuildingandFirePreventionStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:89g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 384 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______TheJune22,2009mostrecentlypublishedf—editionofTheWashingtonCitiesElectricalCode,Parts1,2and3,aspublishedbytheWashingtonAssociationofBuildingOfficialsandamendedbytheCityofRenton,isherebyadoptedbyreference,andshallbeknownastheRentonElectricalCode.TheCityshallatalltimeskeeponfilewiththeCityClerk,forreferencebythegeneralpublic,notlessthanonejcopyofTheWashingtonCitiesElectricalCode.SECTIONXII.Subsection4-5-060.A.2,101.2Scope,ofChapter5,BuildingandFirePreventionStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:2.101.2Scope.TheprovisionsofthisConstructionAdministrativeCodeshallapplytobuilding,plumbing,andmechanicalpermitsandthefollowing“ConstructionCodes”:a.2012InternationalBuildingCode—WAC51-50b.2012InternationalResidentialCode—WAC51-51c.2012InternationalMechanicalCode—WAC51-52d.2012NationalFuelGasCode(ANSIZ223.1/NFPA54)—WAC51-52e.2011LiquefiedPetroleumGasCode(NFPA58)—WAC51-52f.2012UniformPlumbingCode—WAC51-56and51-57g.20142008NationalElectricalCodeh.2012InternationalPropertyMaintenanceCode.99g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 385 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONXIII.Subsection4-5-060.G.2.h.v(d)of4-5-060.G.2.h.v,PlanReviewRequired,ofChapter5,BuildingandFirePreventionStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:(d)Installationsinoccupancies,exceptone(1)-andtwo(2)-familydwellings,whereaserviceorfeederratedeefourhundred(100)(400)amperesorgreaterisinstalledoralteredorifmorethane.tefourhundred(100)(400)amperesisaddedtotheserviceorfeeder.SECTIONXIV.Subsection4-6-030.A,Purpose,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:A.PURPOSE:1.ThepurposeofthisSsectionisshallbetopromoteanddeveloppolicieswithrespecttotheCity’swatercoursesa4topreservethemtheCity’swatercoursesbyminimizingwaterqualitydegradationfrombyprevioussiltation,sedimentationandpollutionofcreeks,streams,rivers,lakesandotherbodiesofwater,andtoprotectpropertyownerstributarytodevelopedandundevelopedlandpropertyfromincreasedrunoffratesandtoensurepublicsafetyofroadsandrightsofway.2.ItshallalsobethepurposeofthisSsectiontoreduceflooding,erosion,andsedimentation;preventandmitigatehabitatloss;enhancegroundwaterrecharge;andpreventwaterqualitydegradationthroughpermitreview,109g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 386 of 410
ORDINANCENO.constructioninspection,enforcement,andmaintenanceofdrainagefacilities/systems.inordertopromotctheeffectivenessoftherequirements.3.ItshallalsobetheGpurposeofthisSsectiontoregulatetheMunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystem(MS4)regardingthecontributionofpollutants,consistingofanymaterialotherthanstormwater,includingbutnotlimitedtoillicitdischarges,illicitconnectionsand/ordumpingintoanystormdrainsystem,includingsurfaceand/orgroundwaterthroughouttheCitythatwouldadverselyimpactsurfaceandgroundwaterqualityoftheCityandtheStateofWashington,inordertocomplywithrequirementsoftheNationalPollutantsDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)PhaseIIMunicipalStormwaterPermit.4.Itshallalsobethepurposeofthissectiontocreateattractiveandfunctionaldrainagefacilitiesthatdonotreducepublicsafety.SECTIONXV.Subsection4-6-030.C,AdoptionofSurfaceWaterDesignManual,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:C.ADOPTIONOFSURFACEWATERDESIGNMANUAL:The2009KingCountySurfaceWaterDesignManual(KCSWDM),asnoworashereafterLmaybeamendedbyKingCountyortheCityofRenton,andherebyreferredtoastheSurfaceWaterDesignManual,isherebyadoptedbyreference.,withtheexceptionofChapters1and2oftheKingCountySurfaceWaterDesignManualwhicharenotadopted.Chapters1and2oftheSurfaceWaterDesignManual,asamendedbytheCityofRentontospecifylocalrequirementsand119g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 387 of 410
ORDINANCENO.procedures,archcrcbyadoptcdbyreference.References1,2,3,4A,4B,4D,7B,7C,SF,8G,9and10ofthcKingCountySurfaceWaterDesignManualarcnotadopted.Onej.copyoftheSurfaceWaterDesignManualshallbefiledwiththeCityClerk.includinganyamcndmcntsthcrcto.SECTIONXVI.Subsection4-6-030.E.4.d,SpecialRequirement4,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:d.SpecialRequirement4—SourceControl:Allcommercial,industrialandmultifamilyprojects(irrespectiveofsize)undergoingdrainagereviewarerequiredtoimplementapplicablesourcecontrolinaccordancewiththeKingCountyStormwaterPollutionPreventionManualandtheSurfaceWaterDesignManual.SECTIONXVII.Section4-6-030,Drainage(SurfaceWater)Standards,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedtoaddtwonewsubsections4-6-030.Fand4-6-030.G,toreadasshownbelow.Theremainingsubsectionsshallbere-letteredaccordingly.F.CREATIONOFTRACTSAND/OREASEMENTS:1.MethodofCreationforCity-MaintainedFacilityforNewResidentialSubdivisionswithDrainageFacilitiesthatCollectPublicRunoff:Newresidentialsubdivisionsshallplacestormwaterflowcontrolandwaterqualitytreatmentponds,vaultsandothersimilardrainagefacilities,alongwiththerequiredperimeterlandscaping,inastormwatertractthatisgrantedandconveyedwith129g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 388 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______allownershipandmaintenanceobligations(excludingmaintenanceofthedrainagefacilities)tothesubdivision’slotowners,theirassigns,heirs,andsuccessors.AneasementunderanduponsaidtractshallbededicatedtotheCityforthepurposeofoperating,maintaining,improving,andrepairingthedrainagefacilitiescontainedinthestormwatertract.Onlythechainlinkfence(ifrequiredbysubsectionGofthissection),flowcontrol,waterqualitytreatmentandconveyancefacilitieswillbeconsideredforformalacceptanceandmaintenancebytheCity;maintenanceofallotherimprovementsandlandscapinginsaidstormwatertractshallbetheresponsibilityofthetractowner(s).a.Covenants,ConditionsandRestrictions:Covenants,conditionsandrestrictions,whichareapprovedbytheAdministrator,shallberecordedwiththeKingCountyRecorder’sOfficepriortorecordingtheplat.Theapplicantshallprovideacopyoftherecordeddocument.Thesecovenantsshallspecify,ataminimum,thefollowing:i.Ownership,maintenance,andrepairforthecommonlyownedtract,landscaping,andfacilities(excludingmaintenanceofthedrainagefacilities);andii.NomodificationofthetractorlandscapingwithinthetractshallbeallowedwithouttheCity’spriorwrittenapproval.iii.Thesecovenantsshallbeirrevocableandbindingonallthepropertyowners,includingtheirassigns,heirs,andsuccessors.139g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 389 of 410
ORDINANCENO.b.StormwaterEasement:AstormwatereasementshallbegrantedandconveyedtotheCityofRentonforthepurposeofconveying,storing,managingandfacilitatingstormandsurfacewater.TheeasementshallgranttheCitytherighttoentersaidstormwatereasementforthepurposeofinspecting,operating,maintaining,improving,andrepairingthedrainagefacilitiesinthestormwatertract.2.MethodofCreationforPrivatelyMaintainedFacility:AsdeterminedbytheCity,othertypesofnewdevelopmentshallcreatestormwaterfacilitieseitherwithinaneasementorwithinatractnotdedicatedtoCity.Inthecaseofatract,thedeveloperandsuccessorsshallownthetractandassociateddevelopmentsitewithanequalandundividedinterest.3.MethodofCreationforOtherDevelopments:AsdeterminedbytheCity,theCitymaytakeovermaintenanceofthedrainagefacilitieslocatedwithineitheraneasementtotheCityorwithinatractownedbythedeveloperandhissuccessorsinownershiptogetherwithaneasementtotheCity.G.ADDITIONALREQUIREMENTSFORFENCINGANDLANDSCAPING:1.Landscaping:LandscapingshallbeconsistentwiththeprovisionsofSection5.3oftheSurfaceWaterDesignManual,exceptthatwithintheCityofRenton,landscapingofdrainagefacilitiesisnotoptional;itisrequired.Additionally,landscapingshallcomplywiththerequirementsofRMC4-4-070.F.8,StormDrainageFacilities.149g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 390 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______2.FencingAroundNeworExpandedStormDrainagePondsandSignageRequired:Allflowcontrolandwaterqualitytreatmentpondsandsimilarfacilities,asdeterminedbyCityDevelopmentServices,shallbefencedwithasix-foot(6’)tallchainlinkfenceandaccessgate.Fencingisrequiredimmediatelyoutsideeachnewstormwaterflowcontroland/orwaterqualitytreatmentpondandothersimilarfacilities,asdeterminedbyCityDevelopmentServices.Forstormwaterponds,thefenceshallbeplacedatthetopofthebermwiththemaintenanceaccessroadontheinsideofthefence;orfivefeet(5’)minimumfromtopofbermifthereisnomaintenanceaccessroadtoallowaccessforpropermaintenanceofthefacility.ThechainlinkfenceshallbecoatedwithblackorgreenbondedvinylandinstalledasdeterminedbytheCitybetweenthefacilityandtherequiredlandscaping.UnlessotherwisedeterminedbytheCity,thefencegatemustbepostedwithatwelveinch(12”)byeighteeninch(18”)“NoTrespassing”sign.Cedarorotherfencingmaterialsmaybeinstalledonlyifthestormwaterfacilityisaprivatelymaintainedfacilitythatisownedandoperatedbytheowner(s)ofthetract.3.MaintenanceofExistingFacilitiesRequired:OwnersofexistingdrainagefacilitiesnotmaintainedbytheCityarerequiredtocontinuetomaintainexistinglandscapingandfencing.Replacementofdeterioratedfencingandfailedplantingsisrequired.159g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 391 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONXVIII.Subsection4-6-030.J.3.c,currentlycodifiedas4-6-030.H.3.c,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:c.Compliancewiththissubsectionshallbeachievedthroughtheimplementationandmaintenanceofbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)describedintheStormwaterPollutionPreventionManual.TheAdministratoredesigneeshallinitiallyrelyoneducationandinformationalassistancetogaincompliancewiththissubsection,unlesstheAdministratorordesigneedeterminesaviolationposesahazardtopublichealth,safety,orwelfare,endangersanypropertyand/orotherpropertyownedormaintainedbytheCity,andthereforeshouldbeaddressedthroughimmediatepenalties.TheAdministratorordcsignccmaydemandimmediatecessationofillicitdischargesandassesspenaltiesforviolationsthatareanimminentorsubstantialdangertothehealthorwelfareofpersonsordangertotheenvironment.SECTIONXIX.Subsection4-6-030.J.7,currentlycodifiedas4-6-030.H.7,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:7.RecordRetentionRequired:AllpersonssubjecttotheprovisionsofthisSsectionshallretainandpreservefornolessthanthree(3)five(5)yearsanyrecords,books,documents,memoranda,reports,correspondence,andanyandallsummariesthercof,relatingtooperation,maintenance,monitoring,sampling,remedialactionsandchemicalanalysismadebyoronbehalfofapersonin169g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 392 of 410
ORDINANCENO.connectionwithanyillicitconnectionorillicitdischarge.AllrecordswhichpertaintomatterswhicharethesubjectofadministrativeoranyotherenforcementorlitigationactivitiesbroughtbytheCitypursuanttothisCodeshallberetainedandpreservedbythepersonuntilallenforcementactivitieshaveconcludedandallperiodsoflimitationwithrespecttoanyandallappealshaveexpired.SECTIONXX.Subsection4-6-030.K.2,Fees,currentlycodifiedas4-6-030.1.2,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:2.Fees:FeesshallbeaslistedinRMC41180BtheCityofRentonFeeScheduleBrochureonfilewiththeCityClerk’sOffice.SECTIONXXI.Subsections4-6-030.L.2,MaintenanceBond(requiredonlyforthosefacilitiestobemaintainedandoperatedbytheCityofRenton),and4-3-030.L.3,LiabilityPolicy,currentlycodifiedas4-6-030.J.2and4-6-030.J.3,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,areamendedasfollows:2.MaintenanceandDefectBond(requiredonlyforthosefacilitiestobemaintainedandoperatedbytheCityofRenton):AftersatisfactorycompletionofthefacilitiesandpriortothereleaseoftheconstructionbondbytheCity,thepersonconstructingthefacilityshallcommenceatwo(2)yearperiodofsatisfactorymaintenanceofthefacility.Acashbond,suretybondorbona:fidecontractformaintenanceanddefectswithathird:partyforthedurationofthistwo(2)yearperiod,tobeapprovedbytheCityofRentonandtobeusedatthe179g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 393 of 410
ORDINANCENO.discretionoftheCityofRentontocorrectdeficienciesinsaidmaintenanceaffectingpublichealth,safetyandwelfare,mustbepostedandmaintainedthroughoutthetwo(2)yearmaintenanceanddefectperiod.Theamountofthecashbondorsuretybondshallbeintheamountequaltotwentypercent(20%)oftheestimatedcostofconstructionforatwo(2)yearperiodcalculatedusingtheBondQuantityworksheetasdescribedintheSurfaceWaterDesignManual.TheownerofthepropertyshallthroughoutthemaintenanceanddefectperiodnotifytheCityinwritingifanydefectormalfunctionofthedrainagesystemhascometohisorhernotice.FailuretonotifytheCityshallgivetheCitycausetorejectassumptionofthemaintenanceofthefacilityattheexpirationofthetwo(2)yearmaintenanceanddefectperiod,orwithinonefjyearofthediscoveryofthedefectormalfunctionofthedrainagesystem,whicheverperiodisthelatestintime.3.LiabilityPolicy:Beforeapermitshallbeissuedforanyconstruction,insurancewillberequiredasfollows:a.DurationandLimits:Theapplicantshallsecureandmaintaininforcethroughoutthedurationofthepermitcommercialgeneralliabilityinsurancewrittenonanoccurrencebasiswithlimitsnolessthanonemilliondollars($1,000,000.00)foreachoccurrence/twomilliondollars($2,000,000.00)aggregate.b.AdditionalInsured:CopiesofsuchinsurancepolicyorpoliciesshallbefurnisheduntotheCitywithaspecialendorsementinfavoroftheCity189g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 394 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______withtheCitynamedasaprimaryandnoncontributoryadditionalinsuredontheinsurancepolicyandanendorsementstatingsuchshallbeprovidedtotheCity.c.CancelationNoticeRequired:Thepolicyshallprovidethatitwillnotbecanceledorreducedwithoutthirty(30)calendardays’advancewrittennoticetotheCity.d.Waiver:UponshowingofahardshipandatthediscretionoftheAdministratorordesignee,theinsurancerequirementsmaybereducedorwaivedforsinglefamilyortwo-familyresidentialapplications.SECTIONXXII.Subsection4-6-030.M,MaintenanceofDrainageFacilities,currentlycodifiedas4-6-030.K,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:16M.MAINTENANCEOFDRAINAGEFACILITIES:1.DrainageFacilitiesAcceptedbytheCityofRentonforMaintenance:a.ResponsibilityforMaintenanceofAcceptedFacilities:TheCityofRentonisresponsibleformaintenance,includingperformanceandoperationofdrainagefacilitiesinsidethefencethathaveformallybeenacceptedbytheAdministrator.TheCitywillalsomaintainanychainlinkfencesurroundingaccepteddrainagefacilitiesifthefencingisrequiredpersubsectionGofthissection.Alllandscapedareas,woodenfencing,orfencingconstructedforapurposeotherthansafetywithinthetract,mustbemaintainedbytheowner(s)ofthetract.199g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 395 of 410
ORDINANCENO.b.CityAssumptionofMaintenanceResponsibilityforExistingFacilities:TheCityofRentonmayassumemaintenanceofprivatelymaintaineddrainagefacilities,includingtheperimeterfencing,aftertheexpirationofthetwo(2)yearmaintenanceperiodinconnectionwiththesubdivisionoflandifthefollowingconditionshavebeenmet:i.AlloftherequirementsofsubsectionEofthisSsectionhavebeenfullycompliedwith;ii.ThefacilitieshavebeeninspectedandanydefectsorrepairshavebeencorrectedandapprovedbytheDepartmentpriortotheendofthetwo(2)yearmaintenanceperiod;iii.AllnecessaryeasementsentitlingtheCitytoproperlymaintainthefacilityhavebeenconveyedtotheCity;iv.ThefacilityisconstructedonaplatwithpublicstreetsandlocatedontractsoreasementsdedicatedtotheCity;andv.ItisrecommendedbytheAdministratorandconcurredinbytheCityCouncilthatsaidassumptionofmaintenancewouldbeinthebestinterestsoftheCity.c.FacilitiesnotEligibleforTransferofMaintenanceResponsibility:Adrainagefacilitywhichdoesnotmeetthecriteriaofthissubsectionshallremaintheresponsibilityoftheapplicantrequiredtoconstructthefacilityandpersonsholdingtitletothepropertyforwhichthefacilitywasrequired.2.DrainageFacilitiesNotAcceptedbytheCityforMaintenance:209g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 396 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______a.Thepersonorpersonsholdingtitletothepropertyandtheapplicantrequiredtoconstructadrainagefacilityshallremainresponsibleforthefacility’scontinualperformance,operationandmaintenanceinaccordancewiththestandardsandrequirementspersubsectionCofthisSectionandremainresponsibleforanyliabilityasaresultoftheseduties.Thisresponsibilityincludesmaintenanceofadrainagefacilitywhichis:i.Underatwo(2)yearmaintenancebondperiod;ii.Servingaprivateroad;iii.Locatedwithinandservingonlyonejsinglefamilyresidentiallot;iv.Locatedwithinandservingamulti-family,commercialsite,industrialormixedusepropertysite;v.NototherwiseacceptedbytheCityformaintenance.b.AdeclarationofcovenantasspecifiedintheSurfaceWaterDesignManualshallberecorded.Therestrictionssetforthinsuchcovenantshallinclude,butnotbelimitedto,provisionsfornoticetothepersonsholdingtitletotheproperty.ofaCitydeterminationthatmaintenanceand/orrepairsarenecessarytothefacilityandareasonabletimelimitinwhichsuchworkistobecompleted.i.Intheeventthatthetitleholdersdonoteffectsuchmaintenanceand/orrepairs,theCitymayperformsuchworkuponduenotice.ThetitleholdersarerequiredtoreimbursetheCityforanysuchwork,with219g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 397 of 410
ORDINANCENO.interestandincludingthecostoflabor,benefits,materials,timeandanyotherrelatedcostsorfees.TherestrictionssetforthinsuchcovenantshallbeincludedinanyinstrumentofconveyanceofthesubjectpropertyandshallberecordedwiththeKingCountyRecorder’sOfficeDivision.ii.TheCitymayenforcetherestrictionssetforthinthedeclarationofcovenantprovidedintheSurfaceWaterDesignManual.3.SeparateConveyanceSystemRequiredforOffSiteDrainage:ConvcyanccsystemstobemaintainedandoperatedbythcCitymustbelocatedinadrainagecasement,tract,orrightofwaygrantedtoCity.Offsiteareasthatnaturallydrainontotheprojectsitemustbeinterceptedatthenaturaldrainagecoursewithintheprojectsiteandconveyedinaseparateconveyancesystemandmustbypassonsitestormwaterfacilities.SeparateconveyancesystemsthatinterceptoffsiterunoffandarelocatedonprivatepropertymustbelocatedinadrainageeasementthatmaybededicatedtotheCityiftheCitydeemsitappropriatedependingontheupstreamtributaryarea.4.MaintenanceofLandscapingandOtherImprovementsLocatedintheDrainageFacilityILandscapingTract:Theowner(s)ofthetractshallmaintainthelandscaping,andotherimprovementsinstalledwithinthetract.Allimprovementstothedrainagefacility/landscapingtract,includinglandscaping,shallrequirethesubmittalofalandscapeand/orrecreationplanapprovedbytheCity.229g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 398 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______45.OtherCases:Wherenotspecificallydefinedinthissubsection,theresponsibilityforperformance,operationandmaintenanceofdrainagefacilitiesandconveyancesystemsshallbedeterminedonacase-by-casebasis.SECTIONXXIII.Subsection4-6-030.N,RetroactivityRelatingtoCityMaintenanceofSubdivisionFacilities,currentlycodifiedas4-6-030.L,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:1N.RETROACTIVITYRELATINGTOCITYMAINTENANCEOFSUBDIVISIONFACILITIES:IfanypersonconstructingdrainagefacilitiespursuanttothisSectionand/orreceivingapprovalofdrainageplanspriortotheeffectivedateoftheordinancecodifiedinthisSsectionreassessesthefacilitiesand/orplanssoconstructedand/orapprovedanddemonstrates,totheAdministrator’ssatisfaction,totalcompliancewiththerequirementsofthisSsection,theCitymay,afterinspection,approvalandacknowledgmentoftheproperpostingoftherequiredbondsasspecifiedinsubsectionMOofthisSsection,assumemaintenanceofthefacilities.SECTIONXXIV.Subsection4-6-030.R,ViolationsofThisSectionandPenalties,currentlycodifiedas4-6-030.P,ofChapter6,StreetandUtilityStandards,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:R.VIOLATIONSOFTHISSECTIONANDPENALTIES:AviolationofanyoftheprovisionsofthisSsectionshallbeacivilinfractionuponthefirstoffensepursuanttoRMC1-3-2.SeealsoRMC4-6-110.239g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 399 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______SECTIONXXV.ThesubsectionentitledAffidavitofInstallationofPublicInformationSign,ofsubsection4-8-120.C,Table4-8-120.C—LandUsePermitSubmittalRequirements,ofChapter8,Permits—GeneralandAppeals,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasshownbelow.Therestofthesubsectionshallremainascurrentlycodified.LANDUSEAPPLICATIONSSUBMITTALREQUIREMENTSTYPEOFAPPLICATION!PERMITAffidavitofInstallationofPublicInformationSignSECTIONXXVI.Subsection4-9-060.C.9.d,AmountofPaymentofFeeinLieuofStreetImprovements,ofChapter9,Permits-Specific,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:d.AmountofPaymentofFeeinLieuofStreetImprovements:IneachinstancewheretheCityapprovesaproposedfee-in-lieuundertheprovisionsofthisSsection,theamountofthefee-in-lieushallbeonehundredperccnt(100%)ofthethenestimatedcostofconstructinGthestreetimprovementsthatwouldotherwiseberequiredunderthisChapter,basedon-‘ormatior.n,4I,,.,+,,,.,+k,+k,D,,kIDcnartment“i-’—-II.I_1II11.111I..LILAIILIflL_JI._LIIII..IISLASIIILIIJIVVLAlfl_I——‘..flISIcostofstreetimprovementconstruction,establishedatonehundredthirty-threedollars($133)perlinearfootforsidewalksonlyandtwohundredtwoPUDPreliminaryPUD,Finaldollars($202)perlinearfootforcurb,gutterandsidewalk.Anadditionalthirty249g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 400 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______dollars($30)perlinearfootwouldbeassessedwherethereisanexistingditchthatwouldbepipedwithactualfrontageimprovements.Additionalfeeamountswillbedeterminedonacase-by-casebasisforothersignificantstreetelements,suchascatchbasinsandcurbramps.SECTIONXXVII.Subsection4-9-150.B.2,CodeProvisionsThatMayBeModified,ofChapter9,Permits-Specific,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:2.CodeProvisionsThatMayBeModified:a.Inapprovingaplannedurbandevelopment,theCitymaymodifyanyofthestandardsofchapter4-2RMC,RMC4-3-100,chapter4-4RMC,RMC4-6-060andchapter4-7RMC,exceptaslistedinsubsectionB.3ofthisSsection.Allmodificationsshallbeconsideredsimultaneouslyaspartoftheplannedurbandevelopment.b.AnapplicantmayrequestadditionalmodificationsfromtherequirementsofthisTitle,exceptthoselistedinsubsectionB.3ofthisSsection.ApprovalformodificationsotherthanthosespecificallydescribedinsubsectionR?infthi-Sr’rtinn‘.h-iIIhr’,nnrnvr’rlnrinrtn‘iihmittilnfpreliminaryplannedrr”ocvcopmcntplan.Allmodificationsshallbeconsideredsimultaneouslyaspartoftheplannedurbandevelopment.SECTIONXXVIII.Subsection4-9-200.D.1,ofChapter9,Permits-Specific,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:-I--259g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 401 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______1.AllmasterplansexceptthosecoveredbyaplannedactionordinancethatincludedapublichearingthatwasdeterminedbytheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratortohaveprovidedthepublicanddecision-makerswithsufficientdetailregardingtheproject’sscale,design,bulkanduses.WhereaMasterPlanisapproved,subsequentSitePlanssubmittedforfuturephasesmaybesubmittedandapprovedadministrativelywithoutapublichearing.SECTIONXXIX.Subsection4-9-250.B.c.iii,SteepSlopesFortyPercent(40%)orGreaterandVeryHighLandslideHazards,ofChapter9,Permits-Specific,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:iii.SteepSlopesFortyPercent(40%)orGreaterandVeryHighLandslideHazards:Thcconstructionofonesinglefamilyhomeonapreexistingplattedlotwherethereisnotenoughdevelopableareaelsewhereonthesitetoaccommodatebuildingpadsandprovidepracticaloffstreetparking.VariancesfromthegeologichazardrequirementsofRMC4-3-050,CriticalAreasRegulations.SECTIONXXX.Thedefinitionof“Cluster,Residential”insection4-11-030,DefinitionsC,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:CLUSTER,RESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT:Theplacementofmorethanonebuildingenvelopeonasinglelotorparceloflandforthepurposeofconstructingsinglefamilyresidentialdwellingunitsineitherattachedordetached269g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 402 of 410
ORDINANCENO.constructionarrangement,andwhcrcthcpropertyownershipoutsidethcbuildingenvelopesiscommonlyheldbyallsinglcfamilydwellingsonthatlotorparcelofland.Aresidentialsubdivisioncomprisedofagroupingofsinglefamilydwellingsonsmalllotsdesignedtoincludesignificantopenspaceorpreservesignificantnaturalfeatures,whicharecommonlyheldbytheresidents,inexchangeformodificationstocertaindevelopmentstandards(e.g.,lotdimensions,setbacks,andbuildingstandards).SECTIONXXXI.Thedefinitionof“Density,Net”insection4-11-040,DefinitionsD,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:DENSITY,NET:Acalculationofthenumberofhousingunitsand/orlotsthatwouldbeallowedonapropertyaftercriticalareas,i.e.,veryhighlandslidehazardareas,protectedslopes(exceptevaluateonacase-by-casebasisthoseprotectedslopescreatedbypreviousdevelopment),wetlands,Class1to4streamsandlakes,orfloodways,andpublicrights-of-wayandlegallyrecordedprivateaccesseasementsaresubtractedfromthegrossarea(grossacresminusstreetsandcriticalareasmultipliedbyallowablehousingunitsperacre).DevelopmentsmeetingthedefinitionofaShoppingCenterarenotrequiredtodeductareaswithinaccesseasementsfromthegrosssiteareaforthepurposeofcalculatingnetdensity.Requiredcriticalareabuffers,streamsthathavebeendaylightedincludingrestoredriparianandaquaticareas,publicandprivatealleys,andtrails,shallnotbesubtractedfromgrossacresforthepurposeofnet279g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 403 of 410
ORDINANCENO.densitycalculations.Allfractionswhichresultfromnetdensitycalculationsshallbetruncatedattwo(2)numberspastthedecimal(e.g.,4.5678becomes4.56).Calculationsforminimumormaximumdensitywhichresultinafractionthatis0.50orgreatershallberoundeduptothenearestwholenumber.Thosedensitycalculationsresultinginafractionthatislessthan0.50shallberoundeddowntothenearestwholenumber.SECTIONXXXII.Thedefinitionof“Lot,SmallCluster”insubsectionFofthedefinitionofLotTypesinsection4-11-120,DefinitionsL,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:F.Lot,SmallCluster:AclusterofsmalllotsinnewplatsthatarcdesignedtoprovideatransitionandbufferbetweenusesintheR4Zones.SmallclusterlotsarcallowedintheR4Zonewhenlocatedwithinsixhundrcdfcct(600’)ofabuttingandcontiguouspropertiesintheResidentialSingleFamilylandusedesignationoftheComprehensivePlanandarcpartofadevelopmentthatinrIiiHr.‘.irrnifir,ntnnnn‘-.nrrirnequaltoatleasttwentypercent(20%)nf•0&ie-SeeCLUSTERDEVELOPMENT.SECTIONXXXIII.Thedefinitionof“OpenSpace”insection4-11-150,Definitions0,ofChapter11,Definitions,ofTitleIV(DevelopmentRegulations)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:OPENSPACE:Anyphysicalareathatprovidesvisualrelieffromthebuiltenvironmentforenvironmental,scenicorrecreationalpurposes.Openspacemayconsistofdevelopedorundevelopedareas,includingurbanplazas,parks,289g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 404 of 410
ORDINANCENO.pedestriancorridors,landscaping,pastures,woodlands,greenbelts,wetlandsandothernaturalareas,butexcludingstormwaterfacilities,driveways,parkinglotsorothersurfacesdesignedforvehiculartravel.SECTIONXXXIV.Section8-7-8,VariancesandAppeal,ofChapter7,NoiseLevelRegulations,ofTitleVIII(HealthandSanitation)oftheRentonMunicipalCode,isamendedasfollows:8-7-8VARIANCESANDAPPEAL:A.Jurisdiction:TheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratorLorhis/herdesigneeshallhearanddeciderequestsforvariancesfromtherequirementsofthisChapterthatdonotrequireapublichearing.TheHearingExaminershallhearanddeciderequestsforvariancesfromtherequirementsofthisChapterthatrequireapublichearing.B.Application:PartiesseekingavariancefromthisChapter,oradulyauthorizedrepresentativeofthepartiesseekingthevariance,shallfileanapplicationforthevariance,whichapplicationshallsetforthfullythegroundsthereforandthefactstheapplicantdeemsmaterialtojustifythegrantingofsuchavariance.Theapplicantforanoisevariancemustbetheownerorjurisdictioninchargeoftheproject.Innocasesshalltheapplicantforthenoisevariancebethecontractorfortheconstructionproject.C.PublicNoticeandHearing:Apublichearingshallberequiredforallnoisevarianceswhicharegreaterthantwo(2)daysinduration.Forthosevariancerequestsoftwo(2)daysorlessinduration,thevariancedecisionshallbemade299g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 405 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______bytheAdministratororhis/herdesigneefollowingthepublicnoticeprocess.Ifrequired,thehearingforanoisevarianceshallbeapublichearing,thedateofwhichshallbenotmorethanforty-five(45)daysfromthedateoffilingandacceptanceoftheapplicationforthevariance.NoticeofthetimeandplaceofpublichearingshallbegiveninatleastonejpublicationintheCity’slegalnewspaper,whichpublicationshallbenotlessthanten(10)dayspriortothedateofsaidpublichearing.Inaddition,three(3)writtennoticesofsuchpublichearingshallbepostedatleastten(10)dayspriortosuchhearingwithin,onoraboutthelocationwhichwillgeneratesuchnoise.Additionally,writtennoticeofthehearingshallbegiventoanyresidentorpropertyownerthatwillexperienceanincreaseinnoise,orpotentiallyhaveanincreaseinnoise,suchthatthisvariancewillincreasethequantityofnoisereceivedbythatpropertyownerorresident.Theburdenofprovidingthiswrittennoticeshallbeupontheapplicant.TheCommunityandEconomicDcvclopmcntAdministratororhis/hcrdc5ignccdecisionmakershallnotconsideranyvarianceforwhichwrittennoticeshavenotbeengiven,orgrantanyvariancethatwouldcauseanincreaseinnoiselevelsbeyondthatpermittedinthisChapterunlesstheaffectedpropertyownerorresidenthasbeennotified.D.FactorsForGrantingVariance:TheCommunityandEconomicDcvclopmcntAdministratororhis/hcrdcsignccdecisionmaker,inpassinguponanapplicationforavariance,shallconsideralltechnicalevaluations,allrelevantfactorsandstandardsspecifiedinothersectionsofthisChapter,andinaddition309g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 406 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______theretoshallconsiderthefollowing,noneofwhichismandatoryforthegrantingofthevariance:1.Thattheapplicantw144sufferspracticaldifficultiesandunnecessaryanunduehardshipandthevarianceisnecessarybecauseofspecialcircumstancesapplicabletotheapplicant’spropertyorproject,andthatthestrictapplicationofthisChapterwilldeprivethesubjectpropertyownerorapplicantofrightsandprivilegesenjoyedbyothers.2.Thatthegrantingofthevariancewillnotbemateriallydetrimentaltothepublichealth,welfareorsafety,orundulyinjurioustothepropertyorimprovementsinthevicinityofthelocationforwhichthisvarianceissought.3.Thatthevariancesoughtistheminimumvariancewhichwillaccomplishthedesiredpurpose.4.Thatthevariancecontainssuchconditionsdeemedtobenecessarytolimittheimpactofthevarianceontheresidenceorpropertyownersimpactedbythevariance.Thevarianceapprovalmaybesubjecttoconditionsincluding,butnotlimitedto,thefollowing:a.Implementationofanoisemonitoringprogram;b.Maximumnoiselevels;c.Limitationontypesofequipmentanduseofparticularequipment;d.Limitationonback-upbeepersforequipment;e.Requireduseofnoiseshieldsorbarriers;319g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 407 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______f.Restrictionstospecifictimesanddays;g.Specificrequirementsfordocumentationofcompliancewiththenoisevarianceconditions;h.Specificrequirementsfornotificationtonearbyresidents;i.Requiredcashsecuritytopayforinspectionservicestoverifycompliance;j.RequiredaccesstotheprojectbytheCitytoverifycompliancewiththenoisevarianceconditions;k.Specificprogramtoallowfortemporaryhotelvoucherstoeffectedresidents;I.Requirementsforwrittenverificationthatallworkersunderstandthenoisevarianceconditionsfortheproject;andm.ProvisionallowingtheCitytoimmediatelyrevokethevarianceapprovalifthevarianceconditionsareviolated.5.Theimportanceoftheservicesprovidedbythefacilitycreatingthenoiseandtheotherimpactscausedtothepublicsafety,healthandwelfarebalancedagainsttheharmtobesufferedbyresidentsorpropertyownersreceivingtheincreasednoisepermittedunderthisvariance.6.Theavailabilityofpracticablealternativelocationsormethodsfortheproposedusewhichwillgeneratethenoise.7.Theextentbywhichtheprescribednoiselimitationswillbeexceededbythevarianceandtheextentanddurationofthevariance.329g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 408 of 410
ORDINANCENO._______E.FindingsandConclusionsOfCommunityAndEconomicDcvclopmcntAdministratoroftheDecisionMaker:TheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratororhis/herdcsignccdecisionmakershallreducehisorherdecisiontowrittenfindings,conclusionsandadecision.Thewrittenfindings,conclusionsanddecisionshallincludeasectionnotingtherightofappealfromthedecisiontotheCityCouncil.F.Appeals:AnypartyparticipatinginthepublichearingfeelingaggrievedbythedecisionoftheCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratororhis/herdesigneeHearingExaminermayappealthedecisionoftheAdministratortotheCityCouncilwithinfourteen(14)calendardaysofthedecision.Theappealdocumentshallnotetheerrorsinfindingsorconclusionswhichtheappellantbelievesarematerialtotheappeal.TheHearingExaminerCityCouncilshallconsidertheappealandshallaffirmthedecisionoftheAdministratorHearingExaminerunlesstheHearingExaminerCityCouncilfindsthattherearematerialerrorsinthefindingsorconclusions,orthatthedecisionisnotsupportablebythefindingsandconclusions.IftheHearingExaminerCityCouncilfindssucherrorsitshallreduceitsdecisiontowritingspecifyingthefindingsandconclusionsthatareinerrororstatingthatthedecisionisnotsupportablebythefindingsandconclusions.AnypartyremainingaggrievedbythedecisionoftheHearingExaminerCityCouncilmayfurtherappealtotheKingCountySuperiorCourtwithintwenty-one(21)calendardaysfromthedateoftheHearingExaminer’sCityCouncil’sdecision.339g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 409 of 410
ORDINANCENO.SECTIONXXXV.Thisordinanceshallbeeffectiveuponitspassage,approval,andfive(5)calendardaysafterpublication.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_______dayof_____________________,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_______dayof___________________2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:_______________ORD:1849:12/15/14:scr349g. - Title IV (Development Regulations) and Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) Page 410 of 410