HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGULAR COUNCIL - 24 Nov 2014 - Agenda - PdfAGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
November 24, 2014
Monday, 7 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2.ROLL CALL
3.PROCLAMATION
a. Small Business Saturday – November 29, 2014
4.PUBLIC HEARING
a. Issaquah, Kent & Renton School District Impact Fees
5.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
a. Anti Auto Theft Public Service Announcement Video
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 11/17/2014 Council meeting minutes. Council concur.
b. City Clerk recommends adoption of a resolution appointing the City Clerk or designee as Public
Records Officer for the City of Renton. Council concur. (See 9.a. for resolution.)
c. Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Paulsen, petitioner, vs. City
of Renton. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services.
d. Public Works Department submits CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Overlay with Curb Ramps
project; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount
of $24,761.68, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of
$57,638.38 to Lakeside Industries, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council
concur.
e. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of a contract in the amount of $134,976 with
Herrera Environmental Consultants for the engineering design of the Lower Cedar River
Restoration Assessment Project. Council concur.
Page 1 of 145
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. Committee of the Whole: Affordable Housing - McOmber Correspondence
b. Committee on Committees: 2015 Council Committee Selections
c. Finance Committee: School District Impact Fees*; 2014 Year-end Budget Amendment
Ordinance*; Vouchers
9.RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Resolution:
a. Appointing the City Clerk or designee as Public Records Officer (See 7.b.)
Ordinances for first reading:
a. School district impact fees code amendment and capital facilities plans adoption (See 8.c.)
b. 2014 Year-end budget amendment (See 8.c.)
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)
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
November 24, 2014
Monday, 6 p.m.
2015 Legislative Priorities
• 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 2 of 145
3a. - Small Business Saturday – November 29, 2014Page 3 of 145
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Appoint City Clerk Public Records Officer
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 24 Nov 2014
Exhibits:
Resolution
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Clerk
Staff Contact:
Jason Seth, City Clerk, ext. 6502
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
RCW 42.56 requires that all state and local government agencies "appoint and publicly identify a public
records officer whose responsibility is to serve as a point of contact for members of the public in
requesting disclosure of public records and to oversee the agency's compliance with the public records
disclosure requirements." The previous Public Records Officer appointment named a specific person,
this new appointment names the position of City Clerk or designee as the Public Records
Officer. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Clerk or designee be appointed to the role of Public
Records Officer for the City of Renton.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution appointing the City Clerk or designee the Public Records Officer for the City of
Renton.
7b. - City Clerk recommends adoption of a
resolution appointing the City Clerk or Page 4 of 145
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK OR DESIGNEE AS THE PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICER
OF THE CITY OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, requires that all state and local
government agencies “appoint and publicly identify a public records officer whose
responsibility is to serve as a point of contact for members of the public in requesting disclosure
of public records and to oversee the agency’s compliance with the public records disclosure
requirements” under Washington law; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the appropriate party to be the public records
officer for the City of Renton is the Renton City Clerk;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The City Clerk or designee is hereby designated as the public records
officer for the City of Renton. Members of the public may direct requests for disclosure of
public records of the City of Renton to:
City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
7th Floor, Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
SECTION III. Notice of the designation of the City of Renton’s public records officer
shall be made in a manner reasonably calculated to provide notice to the public of such
7b. - City Clerk recommends adoption of a
resolution appointing the City Clerk or Page 5 of 145
RESOLUTION NO. _______
2
designation, said notice to include, but not be limited to, the following: posting at City Hall and
other City of Renton buildings, posting on the City’s Internet web site, regular broadcasting on
the City’s government cable television channel, and inclusion in appropriate City publications.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _____________________, 2014.
______________________________
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _____________________, 2014.
______________________________
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1653:11/12/14:scr
7b. - City Clerk recommends adoption of a
resolution appointing the City Clerk or Page 6 of 145
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
COURT CASE: Paulsen vs. City of Renton; CRT-14-
011
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 24 Nov 2014
Exhibits:
Summons
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Clerk
Staff Contact:
Jason Seth, City Clerk, ext. 6502
Recommended Action:
Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Summons for Land Use Petition Pursuant to Land Use Petition Act filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason
Paulsen, POA for Judith Paulsen, petitioner, vs. City of Renton.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
n/a
7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen
and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 7 of 145
10IIPetitioner,vs.12CITYOFRENTON,aWashingtonMunicipalSUMMONSFORLANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDlISPPFTTTTONACT13Corporation1415Respondent.16PetitionerhasstartedanactionintheaboveCourtrequestingreviewofthelandusedecision17datedOctober27,2014,pursuanttotheLandUsePetitionAct,Chapter36.70C.RCW.Petitioner’s18claimisstatedinthewrittenPetition,acopyofwhichisserveduponyouwiththisSummons.19Youmay,butneednot,fileananswertothisLandUsePetition.Withinfourteen(14)days20afterserviceofthePetitiononyou,youshalldisclosetotheundersignedPetitionerthenameand12345cV0ccI6SUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFWASHINGTON7FORKINGCOUNTY8ROGERAPAULSENANDJASONMPAULSEN,9POAFORJUDITHMPAULSENNO.14-2-31273-3KNT7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 8 of 145
1addressofanypersonwhc)myouknowmaybeneedcdforjustadjudicationofthePetition.The2PetitionershallpromptlynameandserveanysuchpersonwhomthePetitioneragreesmaybe3neededforjustadjudication.ifsuchpersonisnotnamesandservedbyPetitionerpriortotheinitial4hearing,failuretojoinpersonsnccdcdforjustadjudicationshallI)Cwaivedunlessyouraisethisissue5bytimelymotionnotedtobeheardattheinitialhearing.6Aninitialbearingwillbesctnosoonerthanthirty—five(35)daysandnolaterthanfifty(50)7daysafterthePetitionisservedontheparties.SIfyouwishtoseektheadviceofanattorneyonthismatter,youshoulddosoproiptlyso9thatanywrittenresponsemaybeservedonrime.10ThisSummonsisissuedpursuanttoRule4oftheSuperiorCourtCivilRulesoftheStateof11Washington.12Datedthis________dayofNovember,2014._____/15RogerA.PaulsenJasonNI.Paulsen,P01\forJudithNI.Paulsen16ProSeProSe176617SEPlace31MazamaPiinesLane18Renton,WA98059Nlazama,WA9883319(425)228-1589(509)996-$16()20RogcrAPaulsen()cs.coinIasonMPaulsen(iiigmiuLcom7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 9 of 145
Ly3iT;/NOVIiJj0rtiKNTKU’GCOUNTYSUPERiORCOURTVCASEASSIGNM1NTDESIGNATION-andVCASEINFORMATIONCOVERSHEET(cics)InaccordancewithLCR82(e),afaultydocumentfeeof$15willbeassessedtonewcasefilingsmissingthissheetpursuanttoKingCountyCode4A630060.CASENUMBER:2312.73‘IKNTCASECAJ’TION:VIcertifythatthiscasemeetsthecaseassignmentcriteria,describedinKingCountyLCR82(e),forthe:SeattleArea,definedas:AllofKingCountynorthofInterstate90andincludingalloftheInterstate90Vright-of-way;allthecitiesofSeattle,MercerIsland,Bellevue,IssaquahandNorthBend;andallofVashonandMauiyIslands._________KentArea,definedas:VAllofKingCountysouthofInterstate90exceptthoseareasincludedintheSeattleCaseAssignmentAre&SignatureofPtio1er/PlaintiffVDateSignatureofAttorneyforDateVPetitioner/PlaintiffWSBANumber7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 10 of 145
ADOPTION/PARENTAGEAdoption(ADP5)ChallengetoAclow]edgmentofParentage(PAY5)*ChallengetoDenialofParentage(PAT5)FConfidentialIntermediary(MSC5)EstablishPatentingPlan-ExistingKingCountyPaternity(MSC5)4InitialPm-PlacementReport(PPR5)Modification(MOD5)Modification-Support0oiy(MDS5)Parentage,EstahlishlDisestablish.(PAT5)4Parentage/UTFSA(PUR5)*Relinquishment(REL5)RelocationObjectionlModiflcation(MOD5)RescissionofAclmnwlcdgmentofParentage(PAT5)RescissionofDenialofParentage(PAT5)4TerminationofParent-ChildRelationship(TER5)APPEAL/REVIEWEAdministtativeLawReview(ALR2)DOLImpliedConsent—TestRefusal-onlyRCW:46.20J08(IDOL2)*CONThACT/COThRCIkLBreachofContract(COM2)*CommercialContract(COM2)*CommercialNon-Contact(COL2)ThirdPartyCollection(COL2)DOMESTICRElATIONSAnnulmentllnvalidity(LNV3)4withdependentchildren?Y/N;wifepregnant?Y/NCommittedInrimateRelationshirNoChildren(CIR3)4DissolutionWithChildren(DIC3)4DissolutionWithNoChildren(DIN3)4wifepregnant?Y/NEnforcement/ShowCause-OutofCounty(MSC3)EstablishParentingPlan-includesCIRwithChildren(PPSEstablishSupportOnly(PPS3)4£ELegalSeparation(SEP3)4withdependentchildren?Y/N;wilepregnant?YINMandatoryWageAssignment(MV/A3)Modification(MOD3)*Modification-SupportOnly(lvIDS3)4NonparentalCustody(CUS3)4Out-of-stateCustodyOrderReghortion(OSC3)Out-of-StateSupportCourtOrderRegistration(FlU3)RelocationObjectionIModiIiction(MOD3)4DOMESTICPARTNERSHIPS-REGISTEREDDissolutionofDomesticPartnershipWithChildren(DPC3)’DissolutionOfDomesticPartnership-NoChildren(DPN3)4pregnant?Y/NInvalidityofDomesticPartnership([NP3)*withdependentchildren?Y/N;pregnant?Y/NLegalSeparationofDomesticPartnership(SPD3)4withdependentchildren?YIN;pregnant?Y/NDOMESTICVIOLENCE/A.NTIHABASSMENTflCertificateandOrderofDischargeandforIssuanceofaSeparateNo-ContactOrderpursuanttoRCW9.94A637.CivilHarassment(lIAR2)DomesticViolence(DVP2)DomesticViolencewithChildren(DVC2)ForeignProtectionOrder(FPO2)SexualAsssuitProtectionOrder(S)2)LiVulnerableAdultProtection(yAP2)KiNGCOUNTYSUPERIORCOURTCASEASSIGNMENTDESIGNATIONandCASEINFORMATIONCOVERSHEETPleasecheckonecategorythatbestdescribesthiscaseforindexingpurposes.Accuratecaseindexingnotonlysavestimebusalsohelpsinforecastingjudicialresources.AfaultydocumentfeeofSlSwillbeassessedtonewcasefilingsmissingthissbeetpursuanttoAdministrativeRule2andKingCountyCode4A.630.060.7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 11 of 145
JUDGMENTConfessionofJudgment(MSC2)Judgment,AnotherCounty,Abstract(ABJ2)Judent,AnotherStateorCountry(FILl2)TaxWarrant(TAX2)TranscriptofJudgment(TRY2)PROPERTYRIGHTSCondernnafioofEmioentDomain(CON2)*Foreclosure(FOR2)’LandUsePetition(LU?2)PropertyFairness(PFA2)*QuietTitle(QTI2)*ResidentialUnlawfulDetainer(UND2)Non-ResidentialUnlawfilDetainer(UN))2)OTRERCOMPLAiNT/PETITIONActiontoCompellConflrmPrivateBindingArbitration(MSC2)Certlfica±eofRehabilitation(MSC2)ChangeofNarne-Sealed(CNN5)DepositofSurplusFunds(MSC2)EmancipationofMinor(EOM2)FrivolousClaimofLien(MSC2)Injunction(INJ2)*Interpleader(MSC2)VMaliciousHarassment(M}L4.2)*OtherComplaint/Petition(MSC2)*PublicRecordsAct(PRA2)*Receivership(MSC2)SchoolDistrict-RequiredActionPlan(SDR2)SeizureofPropertyfromtheCommissionofaCrime.(SPC2)*SeizureofPropertyResultingfromaCrime(SPR2)*StructuredSettlements(MSC2)*Subpoena(MSC2)VehicleOwnership(MSC2)*PROBATE/GUARDL4NSPHAbsentee(ABS4)DisclaimeroDSC4)Estate(EST4)ForeignWill(FNW4)Gtiardian(GDN4)LimitedGuardianship(LGD4)VMinorSettlement(MST4)NoticetoCreditors—Only(NNC4)RegistrationofTrust(TRS4)Trust(TRS4)TrustEstateDisouteResolutionAct/POA(TDR4)WillOnly—Deceased(WLL4)TORT,ASBESTOSHPersonalInjury(PIN2)*WrongfulDeath(WOE2)VTORT,MEDICALMALPRACTICEHospital(MED2)*HMedicalDoctor(MED2)OtherHealthCareProfessional(MED2)*.TORT,MOTORVEHICLEVDeath(CMV2)*Non-DeathInjuries(TMV2)*PropertyDamageOnly(TMV2)*VictimsVehicleTheft(VVT2)*TORT,NON-MOTORVENICLEImplants(PIN2)Other.{alpractice(IvIAL2)PersonalInjury(PIN2)*ProductsLiability(ITO2)*VPropertyDamage(PRP2)*PropertyDamage-Gang(PRG2)*Tort,Other(-Cr02)WRITHabcasCorpus(C2)Mandamus(WRM2)*LiReview(WRV2)*VVKINGCOUNTYSUPERIORCOURTCASEASSIGNMENTDESIGNATIONandCASEINFORMATIONCOVERSEEETPleasecheckonecategorythatbestdescribesthiscaseforindexingpuiposes.£PatmnizyAdzvitorExistinnfPaternityisnotanissueandNOothercaseeximinKingCounty*Thefilingparryllbegivenananproprirtecaseschedulea!timeoffling.**Caseschedulewillbeissuedafierhearingandfinimas7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 12 of 145
INTHESUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFWASHINGTONINANDFORTHECOUNTYOFKINGROGER&JASONPAULSENNO.14-2-31273-3KNTPOAFORJUDITHPAULSENORDERSEYFINGLANDUSECASESCHEDULEPetitioner(s),vs.ASSIGNEDJUDGE:Thorp,Tanya,Dept.27CITYOFRENTONFILEDDATE:11/17/2014Respondent(s)TRIALDATE:4/20/2015_____________________________SCOMISCODE:*O5CSAPetitionSeekingReviewofaLandUsedecisionundertheRevisedCodeofWashington(RCW)36.70ChasbeenfiledintheKingCountySuperiorCourtandwillbemanagedbytheCaseScheduleonPage3asorderedbytheKingCountySuperiorCourtPresidingJudge.LNOTICESTHEPERSON(PEIITIONER)SEEKINGREVIEWOFALAN])USEDECISIONMUST:1FileaLandUsePetitionwithinthetimeframesasinstructedbyapplicableRCW36.70C.040.2.ServeacopyoftheLandUsePetitionandthisOrderSettingCaseSchedule(LandUsePetition)(includingtheseNotices)onallotherpartiestothisaction.You,asthepersonwhostartedthisPetition,mustmakesuretheotherpersonand/oragencyisnotifiedofyouractionandgetsacopyoftheSchedule.SeeRevisedCodeofWashingtonRCW36.70C.040(5).Yoursignaturemustappearonthisformshowingthatyouunderstandthatyoumustmakesuretheotherpersonand/oragencygetsacopyofthisform.3.PaythestatutoiyfilingfeetotheClerkoftheSuperiorCourtinwhichthePetitionisfiled.NOTICETOALLPARTIES:Allattorneysandpartiesshouldmakethemselvesfamiliarwiththerulesofthecourt--especiallythosereferredtointhisSchedule.InordertocomplywiththeSchedule,itwillbenecessaryforattorneysandpartiestopursuetheirappealsvigorouslyfromthedaytheyarefiled.Alleventsmustoccurpromptly.Iftheyarelate,theSuperiorCourtClerkisauthorizedbytheKingCountySuperiorCourtLocalRulestoschedulethepetitionforadismissalhearing.‘IunderstandthatIamrequiredtogiveacopyofthesedocumentstoallpartiesinthiscase.”7ç6//uIPRINTNAMESIGNNAME7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 13 of 145
INOTICES(continued)STIPULATION/MOTIONTOCI{4NGEINHJALHEARING:PartiesmayfileastipulationoranypartymayfileamotiontochangetheinitialhearingpriortothedeadlineasshownontheSchedule.AcopyofthestipulationormotionmustbefiledwiththeassignedJudge.PreliminaryhearingsmustbesetonFridays.Stipulatedchangeofhearingdatesmustbewithin+1-7daysoftheoriginaldateandmustbeapprovedbytheassignedjudge.MOTIONSONJURISDICTIONALANDPROCEDURALISSUES:MotionsonjurisdictionalandproceduralissuesshallcomplywithCivilRule7andKingCountyLocalRule7,exceptthattheminimumnoticeofhearingrequirementshallbe8days.PENDINGDUEDATESCANCELEDBYFILINGPAPERSTHATRESOLVETIlECASE:Whenafinaldecree,judgment,ororderofdismissalofallclaimsisfiledwiththeSuperiorCourtClerk’sOffice,andacourtesycopydeliveredtotheassignedjudge,allpendingduedatesinthisScheduleareautomaticallycanceled,includingthescheduledTrialDate.Itistheresponsibilityofthepartiesto1)filesuchdispositivedocumentswithin45daysoftheresolutionofthecase,and2)strikeanypendingmotionsbynotifyingthebailiffoftheassignedjudge.PartiesmayalsoauthorizetheSuperiorCourttostrikeallpendingduedatesandtheTrialDatebyfilingaNoticeofSettlementpursuanttoKCLCR4I,andforwardingacourtesycopytotheassignedjudge.Ifafinaldecree,judgmentororderofdismissalofallclaimsisnotfiledby45daysafteraNoticeofSettlement,thecasemaybedismissedwithnotice.IfyoumissyourscheduledTrialDate,theSuperiorCourtClerkisauthorizedbyKCLCR41(b)(2)(A)topresentanOrderofDismissal,withoutnotice,forfailuretoappearatthescheduledTrialDate.NOTICESOFAPPEARANCEORWITHDRAWALAM)ADDRESSCIIANGFS:Allpartiestothisactionmustkeepthecourtinformedoftheiraddresses.WhenaNoticeofAppearance/WithdrawalorNoticeofChangeofAddressisfiledwiththeSuperiorCourtClerk’sOffice,partiesmustprovidetheassignedjudgewithacourtesycopy.NOTICEOFNON-COMPLIANCEFEES:ALLpartieswillbeassessedafeeauthorizedbyKingCountyCode4A.630.020whenevertheSuperiorCourtClerkmustsendnoticeofnon-complianceofschedulerequirementsasperLocalRule4and/ordismissalofactionsasperLocalRule41.KingCountyLocalRulesareavailableforievingatwwkingcountv.ov/courts/clerk.7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 14 of 145
U.CASESCHEDULECASEEVENTSDATETPetitionforReviewofLondUseDecisionFiledandScheduleIssued[SeeRCW36.70C.0401.11/17/2014DEAI)LINEtoContactAssignedJudgetoConfirmInitialHearing[SeeRCW36.70C.080j.11/24/2014TDEADLINEtoStipulateorFileaMotionforChangeofHearingDateorAdjustmentofSchedule12/15/2014[SeeRCW36.70C.080(J);RCW36.70.090)].InitialHearingonJurisdictionalandPreliminaiyMatters(FRIDAYSONLY)[SeeRCW1/9/201536.70C.080)J.JDEAILINEforFilingCertifiedCopyoftheLocalJurisdictionRecord[SeeRCW36.70C.11O1.2/19/2015‘DEADLINEforfilingBriefofPetitioner[SeeRCW36.70C.080(4)}.3/16/2015iDEADLINEforfilingBriefofRespondent[SeeRCW36.70C.080(4)J.4/6/2015‘DEAI)LINEforfilingReplyBriefs[SeeRCW36.70C.080(4)j.4/13/2015ReviewHearing/TrialDate[SeeRCW36.70C.090].4/20/2015TheindicatesadocumentthatmustbefiledwiththeSuperiorCourtClerksOfficebythedateshowmIlLORDERPursuanttoKingCountyLocalRule4(KCLCR4),itisORDEREDthatallpartiesinvolvedinthisactionshallcomplywiththeschedulelistedaboveandthatfailuretomeettheseeventdateswillresultinthedismissaloftheappeal.ItisFURTHERORDEREDthatthepartyfilingthisactionimservethis0,-derSettingLandUsePetitionCaseScheduleandattachmentonallotherparties.DATED:11/17/2014PRESIDINGJUDGE7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 15 of 145
IV.ORDERONCIVILPROCEEDINGSFORASSIGNMENTTOJUDGEREADTHISORDERBEFORECONTACLNGYOURASSIGNEDJUDGEThiscaseisassignedtotheSuperiorCourtJudgewhosenameappearsinthecaptionofthiscaseschedule.TheassignedSuperiorCourtJudgewillpresideoverandmanagethiscaseforallpretrialmatters.COMPLEXLITIGATION:Ifyouanticipateanunusuallycomplexorlengthytrial,pleasenotifytheassignedcourtassoonaspossible.APPLICABLERULES:Reptasspecificallymodifiedbelow,alltheprovisionsofKingCountyLocalCivilRules4through26shallapplytotheprocessingofcivilcasesbeforeSuperiorCourtJudges.Thelocalcivilrulescanbefoundathttp://www.kingcountv.cov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.CASESCHEDULEANDREQUIREMENTS:Deadlinesaresetbythecaseschedule,issuedpursuanttoLocalCivilRule4.THEPARTIESARERESPONSiBLEFORKNOWINGANT)COMPLYINGWiTHALLDEADLINESIMPOSEDBYTHECOURT’SLOCALCIVILRULES.A.JointConfirmationregardingTrialReadinessReport:Nolaterthantwentyone(21)daysbeforethetrialdate,partiesshallcompleteandfile(withacopytotheassignedjudge)ajointconfirmationreportsettingforthwhetherajuiydemandhasbeenfiled,theexpecteddurationofthetrial,whetherasettlementconferencehasbeenheld,andspecialproblemsandneeds(e.g.interpreters,equipment,etc.).Theformisavailableathttp://www.kinocountv.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx.IfpartieswishtorequestaCR16conference,theymustcontacttheassignedcourt.Plaintiff’s/petitioner’scounselisresponsibleforcontactingtheotherpartiesregardingsaidreport.B.SettlementlMediation/ADRa.Fortyfive(45)daysbeforethetrialdate,counselforplaintiffipetitionershallsubmitawrittensettlementdemand.Ten(10)daysafterreceivingplaintiff’s/petitioner’swrittendemand,counselfordefendant/respondentshallrespond(withacounteroffer,ifappropriate).b.Twentyeight(28)daysbeforethetrialdate,aSettlement/Mediation/ADRconferenceshallhavebeenheld.FAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHISSETFLEMENTCONFERENCEREQUIREMENTMAYRESULTINSANCTIONS.C.Trial:Trialisscheduledfor9:00a.nionthedateonthecasescheduleorassoonthereafterasconvenedbythecourt.TheFridaybeforetrial,thepartiesshouldaccesstheKingCountySuperiorCourtwebsitehttp://www.kinccountv.gov/courts/superiorcourLaspxtoconfirmtrialjudgeassignment.Informationcanalsobeobtainedbycalling(206)205-5984.MOTIONSPROCEDURESA.NotingofMotionsDispositieMotions:Allsummaryjudgmentorotherdispositivemotionswillbeheardwithoralargumentbeforetheassignedjudge.Themovingpartymustarrangewiththehearingjudgeadateandtimeforthehearing,consistentwiththecourtrules.LocalCivilRule7andLocalCivilRule56governproceduresforsummaryjudgmentorothermotionsthatdisposeofthecaseinwholeorinpart.Thelocalcivilrulescanbefoundathttp://www.kinocounty.cov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.Non-dispositieMotions:Thesemotions,whichincludediscoverymotions,willberuledonbytheassignedjudgewithoutoralargument,unlessotherwiseordered.Allsuchmotionsmustbenotedforadatebywhichtherulingisrequested;thisdatemustlikewiseconformtotheapplicablenoticerequirements.Ratherthannotingatimeofday,theNoteforMotionshouldstate“WithoutOralArgument.”LocalCivilRule7govemsthesemotions,whichincludediscoverymotions.Thelocalcivilrulescanbefoundathttp://www.kincountv.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civiI.aspx.MotionsinFamilyLawCasesnotinvokingchildren:Discoverymotionstocompel,motionsinlimine,motionsrelatingtotrialdatesandmotionstovacatejudgments/dismissalsshallbebroughtbeforetheassignedjudge.Allother7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 16 of 145
motionsshouldbenotedandheardontheFamilyLawMotionscalendar.LocalCivilRule7andKingCountyFamilyLawLocalRulesgoverntheseprocedures.Thelocalrulescanbefoundathttp://www.kingcountv.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.EmergencyMotions:Underthecourt’slocalcivilrules,emergencymotionswillbeallowedonlyuponentryofanOrderShorteningTime.However,emergencydiscoverydisputesmaybeaddressedbytelephonecallandwithoutwrittenmotion,ifthejudgeapproves.B.OriginalDocuments/WorkingCopies!FilingofDocuments:AlloriginaldocumentsmustbefiledvriththeClerk’sOffice.PleaseseeinformationontheClerk’sOfficewebsiteatwww.kincountv.eov/courts/clerkregardingthenewrequirementoutlinedinLGR30thatattorneysmuste-flledocumentsinKingCountySuperiorCourt.Theexceptionstothee-fllingrequirementarealsoavailableontheClerk’sOfficewebsite.Theworkingcopiesofalldocumentsinsupportoroppositionmustbemarkedontheupperrightcornerofthefirstpagewiththedateofconsiderationorhearingandthenameoftheassignedjudge.Theassignedjudge’sworkingcopiesmustbedeliveredtohis/hercourtroomortheJudges’mailroom.WorkingcopiesofmotionstobeheardontheFamilyLawMotionsCalendarshouldbefiledwiththeFamilyLawMotionsCoordinator.OnJune1,2009youwillbeabletosubmitworkingcopiesthroughtheClerk’sofficeE-Filingapplicationatwww.kingcounty.oov/courts/clerk.Serviceofdocuments:E-fileddocumentsmaybeelectronicallyservedonpartieswhooptintoE-ServicewithintheE-Filingapplication.Thefilermuststillserveanyotherswhoareentitledtoservicebutwhohavenotoptedin.E-Servicegeneratesarecordofservicedocumentthatcanbee-filed.PleaseseeinformationontheClerk’sofficewebsiteatwww.kingcountv.eov/courts/clerkregardingE-Service.OriginalProposedOrder:Eachofthepartiesmustincludeanoriginalproposedordergrantingrequestedreliefwiththeworkingcopymaterialssubmittedonanymotion.DonotfiletheoriginaloftheproposedorderwiththeClerkoftheCourt.Shouldanypartydesireacopyoftheorderassignedandfliedbythejudge,apre-addressed,stampedenvelopeshallaccompanytheproposedorder.PresentationofOrders:Allorders,agreedorotherwise,mustbepresentedtotheassignedjudge.Ifthatjudgeisabsent,contacttheassignedcourtforfurtherinstructions.Ifanotherjudgeentersanorderonthecase,counselisresponsibleforprovidingtheassignedjudgewithacopy.Proposedordersfinalizingsettlementand/ordismissalbyagreementofallpartiesshallbepresentedtotheassignedjudgeorintheExParteDepartmentFormalproofinFamilyLawcasesmustbescheduledbeforetheassignedjudgebycontactingthebaiifforformalproofmaybeenteredintheExParteDepartment.Iffinalorderand/orformalproofareenteredinthefixParteDepartment,counselisresponsibleforprovidingtheassignedjudgewithacopy.C.FormMemoranda/briefsformattersheardbytheassignedjudgemaynoteeedtwentyfour(24)pagesfordispositivemotionsandtwelve(12)pagesfornon-dispositivemotions,unlesstheassignedjudgepermitsover-lengthmemoranda/briefsinadvanceoffiling.Over-lengthmemoranda/briefsandmotionssupportedbysuchmemoranda/briefsmaybestricken.ITISSOORDERED.FAILURETOCOMPLYWITHTHEPROVISIONSOFTHISORDERMAYRESULTINDISMISSALOROTHERSANCTIONS.PLAINTIFF/PEITITONERSHALLFORWARDACOPYOFTHISORDERASSOONASPRACTICABLETOANYPARTYWHOHASNOTRECEIVEDTHISORDER.PRESU)LNGJUDGE7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 17 of 145
NOV1721114/45SUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFWASHINGTON6FORKINGCOUNTY78RogerA.Paulsen,andJasonM.Paulsen,9POAforJudithM.Paulsen,NO._________________10Petitioner,LANDUSEPETITION11vs.PURSUANTTOLANDUSE12CityofRenton,AWashingtonmunicipalPETITIONACT13Corporation14Respondent.1516A.Nameandmailingaddressofthepetitioner(s).171.Petitioner(s):RogerPaulsen,6617SE5thP1.,Renton,WA98059andJason18PaulsenPOAforJudithPaulsen,31MazamaPinesLane,Mazama,WA98833.19B.Nameandmailingaddressofthepetitioner’sattorney,ifany;201.N/A,ProSePetitionersLANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE17c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 18 of 145
IC.Nameandmailingaddressoflocaljurisdictionwhoselandusedecisionisat2issue.3CityofRenton4Attention:CityClerk51055SouthGradyWay6Renton,WA980577D.Decision-makingbodyorofficeranddecision.BThedecision-makingbodyistheCityofRentonCityCouncilbywayoftheirOctober28,92014lettertransmittingtheirwrittendecisionadoptingtherecommendationofthe10PlanningandDevelopmentCommitteetoaffirmtheHearingExaminer’sFinalDecision11withconditionsonthepreliminaryplatofEnclaveatBridleRidge.Acopyofthe12October28thwrittendecisionletter,theOctober27RecommendationandHearing13Examiner’sFinalDecision,theHearingExaminer’sFinalDecisiononReconsideration14datedAugust13,2014andtheHearingExaminer’sFinalDecisiondatedJuly18,2014,15collectivelythe“Decision”,areattachedasExhibitAtothispetition.16E.IdentificationofParties.171.JustinLagers,PNWHoldings,LLC,Applicant182.G.RichardOuimet,Landowner193.SallyLouNipert,Landowner20F.Factsdemonstratingstanding.21PetitionerRogerA.PaulsenandPetitionerJasonPaulsenPOAforJudithMPaulsen22havestandingtoseekjudicialreviewpursuanttoROW36.700.060(2)oftheLand23UsePetitionAct(“LUPA”)astheyareadverselyaffectedbythedecision.LANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE27c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 19 of 145
1Asadjacentlandownersresidingat6617SE5thPlace,Renton,WA98059whohave2asinglepointofaccesstotheCityofRentonstreetsystembywayofSE5Place3and156thAvenueSE,Petitionersareprejudicedbythedecisiontoapprovethe4preliminaryplatoftheEnclaveatBridleRidge.5PetitionershaveassertedintereststhatareamongthosetheCityofRentonwas6requiredtoconsiderwhenitmadethelandusedecisionrelatedtotheirhealth,7safetyandgeneralwelfareasitrelatestotheCity’stransportationsystem,aswellas8theirrightstoanappealbeforetheCityCouncil.9AjudgmentinfavorofPetitioners,denyingthepreliminaryplatorconditioningitsuch10thatnonewtrafficimpactsareaddedtotheCityofRentontransportationsystem11includingthe156thAveSE!SE142ndintersectionbytheplatuntilsuchtimeas12adequatecapacityisavailabletoservethedevelopmentwouldsubstantially13eliminateorredresstheprejudicecausedorlikelytobecausedbythelanduse14decision.15PetitionershaveexercisedallappealrightsmadeavailabletothembytheRenton16MunicipalCodeincludingtheappealresultinginthefinaldecisionofOctober27,172014andthereforehaveexhaustedalladministrativeremediestotheextent18requiredbylaw.1920G.Statementoferrorsandsupportingfacts.211.ThecityerredinissuingtheOctober28,2014affirmationofthePlanningand22DevelopmentCommittee’srecommendationoftheHearingExaminer’sFinal23Decisionwithconditionsbecausethecityengagedinunlawfulprocedureorfailedto24followaprescribedprocessinthefollowingways:LANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE37c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 20 of 145
1A.TheCity’sappealprocessRMC4-8-110FprovidesthatappealsofaHearing2ExaminerdecisionaretobemadetoandheardbytheCityCouncil.By3definitiontheCityCouncilmeansallseven(7)membersoraquorumthereof:4“TheCityofRentonisanonchartercodecityunderthelawsand5statutesoftheState,anditsCityCouncilshallconsistofseven(7)6memberswhoshallbeelectedatlarge.”(RentonMunicipalCode7Section1-5-1(A).8Byneglectingaprescribedprocess,andbyhavingtheappealheardbyjusttwo9(2)membersoftheCityCouncil(lessthanaquorum)actingasafurthersub-set10ofCityCouncilmembersservingontheCity’sPlanningandDevelopmentIiCommittee,whodeliberatedinprivateandofftherecord,Petitionerswere12deniedtheCityCouncilappealopportunityintendedbyandsetforthinthe13RentonMunicipalCode.14B.TheCityfurthererredinissuingtheOctober27,2014affirmationofthe15PlanningandDevelopmentCommittee’srecommendationoftheHearing16Examiner’sFinalDecisionwithconditionsbecausethecityengagedinunlawful17procedureorfailedtofollowaprescribedprocesswithrespecttotheCity18Council’sOctober27,2014decisiontoamendtheHearingExaminer’sdecision.19CityofRentonMunicipalCodeSection4-8-110(F)(7)clearlyprovidesthatany20decisiontoamendtheHearingExaminer’sdecisionistobeaccompaniedbya21findingthat“asubstantialerrorinfactorlawexistsintherecord”.22LANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RC\V.PAGE47c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 21 of 145
1Inanapparentrecognitionofthetransportationsystemdeficienciesidentifiedin2therecord,theCityattemptedto“splitthebaby”onthisissuebybothamending3theHearingExaminer’sdecision,andbymakingafindingthatthePetitioner4failedtoestablishthatany“substantialerrorinfactorlawexistsintherecord.”5TheCity’serrorindepartingfromitsprescribedprocessinanapparentattempt6tocraftapoliticallyexpedientsolutiontotheconcernsraisedbyPetitionerhas7furtherconfusedtheCity’sdecisionandrecord,andreflectsanunlawful8proceduralerror.9102.ThecityerredinissuingtheOctober28,2014affirmationofthePlanningand11DevelopmentCommittee’srecommendationoftheHearingExaminer’sFinal12Decisionwithconditionsbecausethecity’sdecisionisanerroneousinterpretationof13thelaw,and/orisaclearlyerroneousapplicationofthelawtothefactsinthe14followingways.15A.TheCityhaserredinthatithasbaseditsapprovalofthepreliminaryplat16uponafindingthatsatisfactionoftheCity’stransportationconcurrencytest17requirestheCitytoapprovethissubdivisionwithoutconsiderationofthe18otherrelevantintersectionlevelorservicedatadevelopedduringSEPA19reviewandincludedaspartoftherecord.20TherecordshowsthattheCitydoeshavetheauthoritytorequiremore21specifictrafficanalysesasitevaluatestheimpactofadevelopment22proposal,andthattheCitystaffproperlyexercisedthisauthoritytoanalyze23theimpactsofthisproject.Infact,theCity’sownpolicygoverning24site-specifictrafficanalysesrequiresthistypeofLevelofServiceanalysis.LANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGES7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 22 of 145
1Petitionerbelievesthatifthesetrafficanalysesareproperlyconsidered,2theyrequiretheCitytofindthattheaffirmativefindingsrequiredbyRCW358.17.110(2)(a)and58.17.11O(2)(b)cannotbemadeabsentacommitment4tohavethetrafficsignalatthe156th!142ndintersectioninplacepriorto5newtrafficfromtheproposedsubdivision.Toignoreamoresite-specific6analysisinfavorofthebroaderanalysis,whichhasacknowledged7deficiencies,defiescommonsense.8Therecordclearlydoesnotallowforaffirmativefindingstobemadeinthis9regard,because,astherecordshows,NOprovisionisactuallybeingmade10aspartofthisapprovaltoaddressastreetintersectionthatlackscapacity,11andwhichthissubdivisionwillimpact.12Followingisasummaryoffactsfromtherecordthatdemonstratethe13proposedsubdivision’sfailuretomeettheappropriateprovision14requirementsofRCW58.17.110:151)TheCityacknowledgesthat156thAve.SE!SE142ndPLintersection16currentlyoperatesatafailinglevel---LOSlevel“F’;172)TheCityacknowledgesthattheproposedsubdivisionwillcontribute29718averageweekdayvehicletrips,andbetween23and31peak-hourvehicle19trips,intheimmediatevicinityofthefailedintersection;203)ATrafficImpactAnalysisprovidedbythedevelopernotesthat“...itwas21observedthatinthePMPeakhour,existingsouthboundvehiclequeueson22156thAve.SEsometimesextendbeyondSE5thPLwhichislocateda23distanceofapproximately760feetnorthofthestopbarattheSE142ndPL.24/156thAve.SEintersection”;LANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE67c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 23 of 145
4)Inresponsetoconcernsaboutcongestion,theCityproposedthe2installationofatrafficsignalatthe156thAve.SE!SE142ndPL3intersection,andestimatesthesignalwillimprovecongestiontoan4acceptablelevel—LOSlevel“C”;55)Acknowledgingtheproposedsubdivision’simpactontheintersection,the6Cityimposedmitigationonthedevelopertopayaproportionateshareofthe7costfortheproposedsignal:86)ThereisnothingintheCity’sapprovalthatguaranteesthatanymitigation9imposedbytheCitywillactuallybeimplementedaspartofthesubdivision10approval.117)IntheCity’sPlanningandDevelopmentCommitteeOctober27th12Recommendation,theyconcludethat:13“TrafficoperatingatLOSF(theworstpossiblelevel),isnot14desirableandneedstobecorrected.Furthermore,thePDC15understandsthattrafficalong156thAveSEisaproblemnow,16andwillcontinuetobeaprobleminthefuture,evenwithout17thisdevelopment,andthattheadditionofupto9moretrips18duringrushhourwillnotmakeitbetter”1920TheCityhasclearlyidentifiedontherecordthatthereisnotcapacityfor21additionaltrafficatthe156thAve.SE!SE142ndPLintersection,absentatraffic22signalinstallation.Recognizingtheproposedplat’simpact,theCityimposed23mitigationthroughSEPAtoensurethatthedeveloperparticipatesfinanciallythis24improvement.Unfortunately,theCityhasnottakenthenecessarystepstoLANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE77c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 24 of 145
1ensurethatanyintersectionimprovementisactuallyinplaceintimetoserve2trafficfromthisdevelopment,andthereisnothingintherecord,northeHearing3Examiner’sapproval,toguaranteethatdevelopmentisdelayeduntilsuch4capacityimprovementsaremade.Absentsomemechanismtoguaranteethat5thefailingconditionoftheintersectionisrectifiedpriortotheimpactofnew6development,thereisnowaytoaffirmativelyfindthattheprojectmeetsthe7standardsestablishedbyourstatelegislatureinRCW58.17.110,northeCityof8RentonMunicipalCode.9InadoptingafindingintheirOctober27thdecision,theCityCouncilconcludes10thatthepreliminaryplatisconsistentwiththeComprehensivePlanasit:11“...insuresacceptablelevelsofaccess,publicservice,andpromotes12thepublicinterest/nsatisfactionofRMC4-1-060.A.5.bandc.”13Thisfindingfailstofindaffirmativelythatthepreliminaryplatsatisfiesthe14requirementsofRCW58.17.110,northatitisconsistentwithRMC4-1-15060.A.5.hwhichpurports:16“ToguidefuturedevelopmentandgrowthintheCitythatis17consistentwiththegoalsandobjectivesoftheGrowth18ManagementActasdefinedinRCW36.70A.020,Planning19Goals”20RCW36.70A.020speakstothegoalsoftheGrowthManagement21ActbywhichtheCityisrequiredtoplan:22“(12)Publicfacilitiesandservices.Ensurethatthosepublic23facilitiesandservicesnecessaiytosupportdevelopmentshallLANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE87c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 25 of 145
1beadequatetoservethedevelopmentatthetimethe2developmentisavailableforoccupancyandusewithout3decreasingcurrentservicelevelsbelowlocallyestablished4minimumstandards.”5TherecordandfactsaboveclearlyshowthattheCityhasfailedtomakeand6supporttheaffirmativefindingsrequiredbyRCW58.17.110,andhasfailedto7properlyinterpretthelawasitrelatestoensuringappropriateprovisionof8servicesandensuringthepublicinterestasrequiredbytheGrowthManagement9ActandtheCity’sMunicipalCode.1011B.TheCityerredinbasingitsapprovaluponaninterpretationthatcompliancewith12ROW58.17.110(2)isnotrequiredaspartofplatapproval.Specifically,theCity’s13DecisionasprovidedintheHearingExaminer’sFinalDecisionon14Reconsiderationstatesasfollows:is“TheRMConlyrequiresconsistencywithapplicableRMCstandardsfor16approvalofpreliminaryplat,notRCW58.17.110(2)”(Page3,Line4of17August13,2014FinalDecisiononReconsideration)18TheCity’sinterpretationofROW58.17isclearlyanerroneousinterpretationof19thelawbecauseROW58.17.110(2)clearlystatesthat:20“Aproposedsubdivisionanddedicationshallnotbeapprovedunless21thecity,town,orcountylegislativebodymakeswrittenfindingsthat:(a)22Appropriateprovisionsaremadeforthepublichealth,safety,and23generalwelfareandforsuchopenspaces,drainageways,streetsorLANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE97c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 26 of 145
1roads,alleys,otherpublicways,transitstops,potablewatersupplies,2sanitarywastes,parksandrecreation,playgrounds,schoolsand3schoolgroundsandallotherrelevantfacts,includingsidewalksand4otherplanningfeaturesthatassuresafewalkingconditionsforstudents5whoonlywalktoandfromschool;and(b)thepublicuseandinterest6willbeservedbytheplattingofsuchsubdivisionanddedication.Ifit7findsthattheproposedsubdivisionanddedicationmakesuch$appropriateprovisionsandthatthepublicuseandinterestwillbe9served,thenthelegislativebodyshallapprovetheproposed10subdivisionanddedication.”11RCW58.17.110isclearinwhatitrequires,andtheCity’sfindingthat12theirapprovalonlyneedbeconsistentwiththecitedCityMunicipal13Codesectionsforpreliminaryplatwhichdonotincludethefindings14requiredbyRCW58.17.110isclearlyanerroneousinterpretationofthe15law.16C.Thecityerredinbasingitsdecisiontoapprovethepreliminaryplatuponan17erroneousinterpretationthatitwouldlikelyfacelitigationbytheapplicant18claimingFifthAmendmentviolationscitingandrelyinguponTahoe-Sierra19Pres.Councilv.TahoeReg’lPlanningAgency,535US302(2002)forthis20conclusion.Thecaseciteddoesnotsupportthiserroneousinterpretation,21andinfact,clearlyprovidesfortheCitytoexerciseitsauthorityinmaking22projectspecificlandusedecisions.Specifically,theCourtfoundinTahoe-23SierraPres.Councilv.TahoeReg’lPlanningAgency,535US302(2002)24that:LANDUSEPETITIONIURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RC\V.PAGE107c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 27 of 145
I“Forthesamereasonthatwedonotaskwhetheraphysical2appropriationadvancesasubstantialgovernmentinterestor3whetheritdeprivestheownerofalleconomicallyvaluableuse,4wedonotapplyourprecedentfromthephysicaltakings5contexttoregulatorytakingsclaims.Land-useregulationsare6ubiquitousandmostofthemimpactpropertyvaluesinsome7tangentialway--oftenincompletelyunanticipatedways.8Treatingthemallaspersetakingswouldtransform9governmentregulationintoaluxuryfewgovernmentscould10afford.”11D.Thecityerredinbasingitsdecisiontoapprovethepreliminaryplatuponan12erroneousinterpretationthatdenialofthepreliminaryplatapplicationwasnotan13optionfortheCitybecause,asstatedbytheHearingExaminer:14“Asshallbeexplained,thisputstheCityinthepositionofeither15havingtoimprovetheintersectionitselfusingcityfundsitprobably16doesn’thaveordenyingthesubdivisionrequestandcompensating17thelandownerfortakingitspropertywithoutjustcompensationin18violationoftheFifthAmendment.Itisunlikelythestatelegislature19intendedcitiesandcountiestobeinthispositionwhenitadopted20RCW58.17.11O.”(Page3,Lines15-18ofAugust13,2014Final21DecisiononReconsideration)22RCW58.17.110isclearinwhatitintends.Takentoitslogicalextreme,the23City’srelianceuponthisinterpretationtosupportapprovalofthepreliminaryplatLANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RC\V.PAGE117c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 28 of 145
wouldsuggestthatthereisneveracaseinthestateofWashingtonwherea2subdivisionshouldbedenied.33.ThecityerredinissuingtheOctober28,2014affirmationofthePlanningand4DevelopmentCommittee’srecommendationoftheHearingExaminer’sFinal5Decisionwithconditionsbecausethelandusedecisionisnotsupportedby6evidencethatissubstantialwhenviewedinlightofthewholerecordbeforethe7court.8Specifically,theCityhasfailedtomakeandsupportaffirmativefindingsthatthe9EnclaveatBridleRidgepreliminaryplatsatisfiestherequirementsofRCW1058.17.110withrespecttoappropriateprovisionfortransportationfacilities,andwith11respecttofindingwhetherthepublicinterestwillbeservedbythesubdivisionand12dedication.13Inattemptingtocreateanappearanceofaddressingormitigatingacknowledged14deficienciesintheCity’stransportationsystematthe156thSE!l42intersection,as15identifiedintherecord,andinordertosatisfytheappropriateprovisionstandardof16RCW58.17.110,theCityhasimposedtwoconditionsofapprovalrelatedto17transportation.Oneisacontributionoffundsfromtheapplicant.Thesecondisa18directivetoCityStafftore-prioritizesomeundefinedmannerofimprovementatthe19intersection.Neitheroftheseconditionsofapprovalactuallyguaranteeanytangible20improvementatthefailing156th,142intersectionpriortothecontributionofnew21trafficfromthepreliminaryplattothefailingintersection.22Additionally,oneoftheconditionsofapprovaladdedbytheCityCouncilintheir23October27,2014decisionissopoorlydraftedthatitsintentisindeterminableandLANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RC\V.PAGE127c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 29 of 145
1cannotberelieduponassupportforafindingofappropriateprovisionasrequiredby2ROW58.17.110.Theconditionreads:3“ThattheCityCouncilrequirecitystafftoreprioritizethe1564AvenueSE!SE142intersectionforinstallationassoonas5possible,andnolessthan3yearsafterthecompletionofthe6project.”(Page1,October27,2014PlanningandDevelopment7CommitteeRecommendation)8ThisconditionissilentwithrespecttowhatitistheCityCouncilisdirectingstaffto9reprioritize;itimposesanapparentrequirementthatsomethingbeinstallednoss10than(meaningnosoonerthan)threeyearsaftercompletionoftheproject;andit11thenfailstodefinewhatstatusoftheprojectrepresents“completionoftheproject”.12Additionally,theactofdirectingstafftochangetherankofaprojectona13prioritizationlistthatapparentlycanbechangedatthewhimoftheCityCouncil14providesnocertaintywithrespecttotheinstallationofanyphysicalimprovementat15the156thAvenueSE!SE142ndintersectioninthefuture.ThecurrentCityCouncil16cannotbindfutureCityCouncil’swithrespecttosuchlegislativedecisions,andeven17iftheycould,theeffectofelevatingthepriorityofanimprovementatthisintersection18iswithoutanyrealeffect.Theconditionis“hollow”inthatitprovidesnotietothe19impactofnewtrafficcontributedbythepreliminaryplat.20Thiscondition,anditsapparentintenttochangeCityfiscalpolicyonawhim,is21contradictoryof,anddirectlyunsupportedbytheCity’sdecisionwhereintheHearing22Examinerconcludesonthisveryissuethat:LANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE137c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 30 of 145
I“Astothefirstoption,theCitycouldconceivablydropallofitslongterm2transportationplanningandsimplyexpenditslimitedfundson3transportationimprovementswhenitbecomesnecessarytoavoid4denyingapreliminaryplatapplication.Ofcourse,suchhaphazardand5randomfiscalplanningwouldlikelynotresultinaveryefficient6expenditureofpublicfunds.”(Page4,Line10,FinalDecisionon7Reconsideration,August13,2014)8H.Requestforrelief.91.Petitioner(s)prayforthefollowingrelief.10a.ThattheCourtordertheCityofRentontoreturntothisCourtcertifiedcopiesofiitherecordsupportingthelandusedecision.12b.Thatuponreturnoftherecordssetforthabove,thisCourtreviewthefullrecord13decisionoftheCity;14c.ThatthisCourtenterajudgmentdeclaringtheCity’slandusedecisionasone15whichfailedtosatisfytheproceduralrequirementsofRentonMunicipalCode16Section4-8-110Appeals;17d.ThatthisCourtenterajudgmentdeclaringtheCity’slandusedecisionasone18whichfailedtosatisfytherequirementsofRCW58.17;19e.ThatthisCourtreversethedecisionandordertheCitytodenythepreliminary20platorimposesuchmeasuresasarenecessarytoensurethatthepreliminary21platisnotapprovedbytheCityuntiladequateinfrastructureandcapacityexists22atthe156thAvenueSE!SEl42intersectiontoaccommodatetrafficfromthe23preliminaryplat;24f.ThatthisCourtgrantsuchotherreliefastheCourtmaydeemappropriate.LANDUSEPETITIONPURSUANTTOLANDUSEPETITIONACT36.70C.RCW.PAGE147c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 31 of 145
IDatedthis/7CLdayofNovember,2014//4RogerA.Paulsen,PetitionerJasonM.Paulsen,POAforJudithM5Paulsen,Petitioner6ProSeProSe76617SE5thR31MazamaPinesLane8Renton,WA98059Mazama,WA988339(425)228-1589(509)996-816010RogerAPaulsencs.comJasonMPauIsen(gmaiI.comLANDUSEIJL11T1ONPURSUANTTOLi\NDUSEPETI1IONACT36.70C.RC\V.It\CI:157c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 32 of 145
-,,—.4DenisLawMayor6c/1diT4.LiiCityClerk-BonnieI.WaltonOctober28,2014RogerPaulsen6617SE5thPlaceRenton,WA98059Re:EnclaveatBridleRidgePreliminaryPlatLUA-14-000241,PP,ECFDearMr.Paulsen:AttheregularCouncilmeetingofOctober27,2014,theRentonCityCounciladoptedtherecommendationofthePlanningandDevelopmentCommitteetoaffirmtheHearingExaminer’sFinalDecisionwithconditions.AcopyoftheapprovedCommitteereportisenclosed.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactmeat425-430-6504.Enc:P&DCommitteeReportcc:MayorDenisLawCouncilPresidentDonPerssonJuliaMedzegian,CiWCouncilLiaisonHearingExaminerJillDing,SeniorPlannerJenniferHenning,PlanningDirectorVanessaDolbee,CurrentPlanningManagerSteveLee,DevelopmentEngineeringManagerCraigBurnell,BuildingOfficialSabrinaMirante,DevelopmentServicesGarrnonNewson,SeniorAssistantCityAttorneyLarryWarren,CityAttorneyJustinLagers,PNWHoldings,ApplicantPartiesofRecord(16)1055SouthGradyWay.Renton,Washington98057.(425)430-6510IFax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.govSincerely,ActingCityClerk7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 33 of 145
•4;iPLANNINGANDDEVELOPMENTCOMMITrEERECOMMENDATIONOctober27,2014ppRO\JED‘fCflTh’COUNCIL0ateJI4/LZ/_Y•EnclaveatBridalRidgeAppealLUA-14-000241(October23,2014)ThePlanningandDevelopmentCommitteerecommendsthattheCityCouncilAFFIRMtheHearingExaminer’sFinalDecisiononReconsideration(FinalDecision)onAugust13,2014,subjecttothesuggestedmodificationsmadebelow.•Facts:OnOctober23,2014,thePlanningandDevelopmentCommittee(PDC),withaquorum,heardtheclosedhearingargumentsoftheAppellants,ROgerandJasonPaulsen,andtheapplicant’s/developer’srepresentative;attorneyBrentCarson.Staff,representedbyJillDing,providedabasicoverviewoftheprojectwithaPowerPointpresentationwhichwasfollowedbyApellaht’5argument.FindingsofFactandConclusionsofLaw:ThePDCreviewedthematerialsbeforetheclosedhearing,andthePartiesstayedwithintherecord.Aftercarefulconsiderationofthearguments,thehundredsofpagesofdocumentsincludingtheFinalDecision,thePDCdoesnotfindanysubstantialerrorthatwarrantsreversaloftheHearingExaminer’sFinalDecisionAsaresult,thePDCadoptstheHearingExaminer’sFinalDecision,initsentiretysubjecttothemodificationsnotedbelow.-Concerningthepositionsoftheparties,thePDCunderstandsthatoheofAppellants’concernsrelatestothevolumeoftrafficthatutilizes156thAienueSE.Itappearsthatthisvolumemaybetheresultofpeopleseekingtoavoidorbypass1-405andotherpassagewaysinthevicinity.Appellants’concernisreal,anditisaconcernthattheCityCouncilsharesinsomeformoranother.TrafficoperatingatLOSF(theworstpossiblelevel),isnotdesirableandneedstobecorrected.Furthermore,thePDCunderstandsthattrafficalong156thAvenueSEisaproblemnow,willcontinuetobeaprobleminthefuture,evenwithoutthisdevelopment,andthattheadditionofupto9moretripsduringrushhourwillnotmakeitbetter.Notwithstandingthisfactandtheanticipatedcontinuedpooraccess,thePDCdoesnotbelievethatthesolutiontotheexistingproblemandtheanticipatedproblemistopreventthedevelopmentofEnclaveatBridleRidge.Aneffectivesolutionmustaddresstheflowand/oramountoftrafficalonglS6thAvenueSE.Asaresult,thePDCrecommendsthefollowing:ThattheCityCouncilrequirecitystafftoreprioritizethe156thAvenueSE/SEl42Placeintersectionforinstallationassoonaspossibleandnolessthan3yearsafterthecompletionoftheproject.-TheHearingExaminernotedthattheconcurrencydeterminationthattheproposalwillnotviolateRenton’stransportationLOSisundisputedandthereforemustbeacceptedasaverityFinalDecision,page18,lines4-9ThismeansthatanyadditionalcongestioncausedbytheEnclaveproposal“wouldnotbeconsideredasignificantadverseenvironmentalimpact‘FinalDecisionpage18,lines89InsumthePDCfindsthattheHearingExaminerdidnoterrinapprovingtheproposeddevelopmentwiththestatedmitigationmeasuresasitrelatestotraffic.:•••:•ContrarytotheAppellant’sclaim,thePDCãlsofindsthattheHearingExaminermadesufficientwritten-findingsandfoundthatthisprojectwasirthepublicinterestbyreferencétofrontageimprovementsand7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 34 of 145
aright-of-waydedication.However,toaddressthisallegeddeficiency,theHearingExaminer’sFinalDecisionshallbemodifiedtoincludethefollowinglanguageforclarity:Renton’sComprehensivePlan’sprimarypurpose“istodefineandestablishthepolicyrelatingtothedevelopmentofthecomrriunityasawhole.”RMC4-1-060.A.1.OneaspectofthatpolicyisthatRenton’strafficrequirementsalsoconsidertheimpacttotheentirecity’.stranpórtationsystemandnotmerelyaspecificintersection.AnotheraspectofthatpolicyisthattheEnclaveatBridleRidgesubdivisionwillservethepublicuseandinterestbyprovidinghousingthatisconsistentwiththesite’sdesignationofResidentialLowDensityontheRentonComprehensivePlanLandUseMapandtheproperty’sR-4zoningdesignationTheEnclaveatBridleRidgesubdivisionprojectisconsistentwithRenton’sComprehensivePlanasitinsuresacceptablelevelsofaccess,publicservicesanditpromotesthepublicinterestinsatisfactionofRMC4-1-060A5bandcAdditionallythereappearedtobeacoupleofScrivener’serrorsintheHearingExaminer’sdecisionthatneedtobecorrected.Theseerrorsareamendedasfollows:V•Page21,line21shouldbeamendedtochangetheword“County”to“Renton”Thesentencewillthenreadas“TheprimaryrelevantinquiryforpurposesofassessingwhetherRentonstaffcorrectlyissuedanMDNSiswhethertheprojectasproposedhasaprobablesignificantenvironmentalimpactPage24,line3theword‘not”shallberemovedThesentencewillthenreadasfollowsInthiscasetheCityclearlymadeaprimafacieshowingthatitdidanadequatereviewoftrafficimpactspriortoissuanceoftheMDNVS.”VInsum,theAppellantshavefailedtoestablishpursuanttoRMC4-8-11O.F.7thatany“substantialerrorinfactorlawexistsintherecord’justifyingareversaloftheHearingExaminer’sFinalDecisionTheerrorsorareasthatrequireclarificationorcorrectionhavebeenmodifiedfortheconsiderationoftheCityCouncilThePDCrecommendsthattheCityCouncilaffirmtheHearingExaminer’sdecisionsubjecttotheVmodificationsoutllnedabove.VVVVVVVV•V••VV•V-V.---EdPrince,ChairVVVVV-•V-VVV-jVVVNotinAendanceVVVVVV•VV•-.VVVVV•VV•VVVTernBriere,ViceChairVV:VVVVVVVVVV/I/(?/f’7&PMarciePalmer,Membercc:LarryWarren-GarmonNewsomiiVC.E.ChipVincentJillDingVEnciaieatBridieRidgeDecision—AFFiRM27c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 35 of 145
S.7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 36 of 145
.42345678BEFORETIlEREARINGEXAMINERFORTHECITYOFRENTON9)RE:TheEnclaveatBridleRidae)10Prelimina‘Plat)FINALDECISIONON)RECONSIIJERATION11.)PreliminaryPlatandSEPAAppeal12LUA14-00024113___________________________________________14SUMMARY1516Theapplicantrequestspreliminaryplatapprovalforthesubdivisionof8.8acresinto31single-familyresidentiallotsontheeastsideof156thAvenueSEbetweenSE139thPlaceandSE143rd17Street.AnappealofaMitigatedDeterminationofNonsignificance(“MDNS”)issuedundertheWashingtonStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct(“SEPA”)wasconsolidatedwiththereviewofthe18preliminaryplat.ThepreliminaryplatisapprovedsubjecttoconditionsandtheSEPAappealisdenied.ThisdecisionincludesaresponsetoaRequestforReconsiderationfiledbyRogerandJudy19PaulsenonJuly30,2014.Otherthancorrectingsomeminorgrammaticalandtypographicalerrorsandaddingsomeclarifications,theoriginalJuly18,2014remainsthesameexceptfortheadded—sectionentitled“ReconsiderationResponse”,whichfollowsthis“Summary”section.21TheSEPAappellantshaveraisedvalidandunderstandableconcernsabouttrafficcongestion,butthe22contributiontothatcongestionfallswithinthelevelofservice(“LOS”)standardsadoptedbytheCityCouncil.LOSsetswhattheCityhaslegislativelydeterminedtobeanacceptableleveloftrafficcongestion.TheSEPAappellantshavenotdemonstratedthattheproposalviolatesCityadopted24LOS.25TheCity’suniqueLOSisnotverywellsuitedforprojectlevelreviewbecauseitallowsforseverecongestioninsomeareassolongastrafficrunsmoresmoothlyatamoregloballevelwithinthe26City’stransportationnetwork.NonethelessfromalegalstandpointtheCity’sLOSislargelythePRELIMINARYPLAT-7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 37 of 145
1onlystandardthatcanbeappliedinthiscase.TheLOSstandardrepresentsabalancingof(1)thestate’sGrowthManagementActmandatefortheCitytoaccommodateanallocatedamountof2populationgrowth;(2)limitationsontheavailabilityofpublicfundstopayfortransportation3infrastructure;(3)adherencetothestateandfederalconstitutionalmandatethatdeveloperscanonjybeheldfinanciallyresponsibleforthetrafficimpactstheycreate(e.g.ifaprojectcontributesto20%4ofthetrafficforaneededtrafficimprovement,thedevelopercanonlybemadetopayfor20%oftheimprovement);and(4)avoidingthecreationofanunconstitutionaldefactomoratoriumbyimposing5anLOSthatindefinitelyprohibitsdevelopment.ApplyingadifferentstandardthantheCity’sadoptedLOSstandardwilllikelyresultinasituationthatviolatestheconstitutionalrightsofthe6applicantorthatisinconsistentwiththetransportationfundingprioritiessetbytheCityCouncil,unlesssomeproportionateshareimprovementscanberequiredoftheapplicant.8Inthiscasesomeproportionateshareimprovementsarebeingrequiredoftheapplicantforanintersectionthatisnotperformingwell.However,aspointedoutbyoneoftheprojectopponents,9thismoneyhastobeexpendedinfiveyearsorreturnedtotheapplicant.Itisentirelypossiblethatthosemonieswillnotbeexpendedinfiveyears,butgiventhefactorsthatlimitthesettingofanLOS10standard,thatisthemostthatcanbelegallyrequired.Projectopponentsandtherecorddonotreveal11anyotherproportionatesharemitigationthatcouldfurtherreducecongestions.Intheabsenceofanysuchmitigation,theCity’sadoptedLOSstandardisdeterminativeontheissueofassessing12congestionissues.ThecongestionissueisaddressedinmoredetailinFindingofFactNo.4(E)ofthisdecision.1314RECONSIDERATIONREQUEST15Aspreviouslynoted,RogerandJudyPaulsenfiledaRequestforReconsiderationonJuly30,2014.Therequestisdeniedandthisdecisionremainslargelythesameexceptfortheadditionofthis16“ReconsiderationRequest”section.17Mi.Paulsenraisesgoodquestionsinhisrequestforreconsideration.Hisconcernshavealreadybeen18addressedintheoriginaldecisiononthismatter,butthatwouldonlybeevidenttoanexperiencedplannerorlanduseattorney.Thegeneralpublichaseveryrighttobefullyapprisedinasclearterms19aspossiblewhycitiesandcountiesareoftenstuckwithapprovingnewdevelopmentinareasthatsufferfromtrafficcongestion.Mr.Paulsen’sreconsiderationrequestprovidesanopportunityto20providefurtherclarityontheissue.21IvIr.Paulsen’sfirstpointinhisreconsiderationrequestisthatRCW58.17.110(2)prohibitstheapproval27ofasubdivisionunlessacityorcountymakesafindingthat“appropriate”provisionismadefor“...streets,roads,alleys,otherpublicways...“ThisfmdingwasmadeinthreeplacesintheEnclave23decision.FindingofFactNo.4generallydeterminesthattheproposalisservedby“adequate”infrastructure.ThesubsectionsofFindingofFactNo.4elaboratehowthisdeterminationwasmade24forspecifictypesofinfrastructure.FindingofFactNo.4(E)elaborateshowthisfmdingwasmadeforroads.ConclusionofLawNo.7concludesthattheproposalprovidesforadequatepublicfacilitiesin25responsetoRMC4-7-080B)(4),whichrequiresthatsubdivisions“[m]akeadequateprovisionfor26streets,alleys,otherpublicways...”PRELIMINARYPLAT-27c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 38 of 145
1Itcouldbearguedthatafindingof“adequate”publicfacilitiesisnotthesameasafindingof“appropriate”publicfacilitiesasrequiredbyRCW58.17.110(2).Acourtisunlikelytotoleratesuchparsimoniouswordplay.“Adequate”withintheCity’sregulatorystandardsforsubdivisionreviewclearlyencompassesthe“appropriate”criterionofRCW58.17.110(2).TheintentoftheCityCouncilisparamountininterpretingtheregulationsadoptedbyit.ItcanbepresumedthattheCityCouncil4intendstohaveitsregulationsinterpretedinamannerthatisconsistentwithstatelaw.TheRMConlyrequiresconsistencywithapplicableRMCstandardsforapprovalofapreliminaryplat,notRCW58.17.110(2).SeeRMC4-7-080(1)(l).Consequently,totheextentpossible,thesubdivisioncriteriaoftheRMCshouldbeinterpretedasencompassingRCW58.17.110requirementsinordertoensurethata6subdivisionthatisrequiredtobeapprovedundertheRMCisalsovalidunderstatelaw.ItisfairlyeasytoapplythisinterpretationtoRMC4-7-080(B)(4),sincethelanguagepertainingtoroadsinthatprovisionisalmostadirectquotefromRCW58.17.110(2).TheCityCouncilclearlyintendedRMC4-87-OSO(B)(4)toencompasstheroadfmdingsrequiredbyRCW58.17.110(2).ConclusionofLawNo.7oftheEnclavedecisionfindsthattheRMC4-7-080(B)(4)standardismet,sotherequiredfindingof9RCW58.17.110(2)hasalsobeenmade1.10TheremainingpartofMr.Paulsen’sreconsiderationrequestdetailsthepoorperfbrmanceofthe156AveSE/SE142ndP1intersectionandthelimitationsofthemitigationrecommendedbyCitystaff.TheoriginalEnclavedecisionexpresslyacknowledgedtheseproblemsandexplainedthatthepreliminary12platapplicationstillhadtobeapprovedbecausetheproposalmetadoptedCitylevelofservicestandards.ThedecisionnotedthatfiscalandlegalconstraintspreventtheCityfromimposingany13additionalmitigationordenytheprojectonthebasisoftrafficcongestion.Additionalexplanationwill14beprovidedinthissectioninresponsetoMr.Paulsen’sreconsiderationrequest.15Inshort,Ivfr.Paulsenwantsafindingthattheproposalwillnotbeservedby“appropriate”streetsbecausethe156AveSE/SE142ndP1intersectionoperatesatLOSF.Asshallbeexplained,thisputs16theCityinthepositionofeitherhavingtoimprovetheintersectionitselfusingcityfundsitprobablydoesn’thaveordenyingthesubdivisionrequestandcompensatingtheapplicantfortakingitsproperty17withoutjustcompensationinviolationoftheFifthAmendment.Itisunlikelythatthestatelegislature18intendedcitiesandcountiestobeputinthispositionwhenitadoptedRCW58.17.110.Afarmorereasonableapproachandtheapproachthatwouldlikelybeadoptedbythecourtsistoconstruearoad19as“appropriate”forpurposesofRCW58.17.100(2)ifthatroadmeetstheCity’sadoptedLOSstandard.Aspartiallydiscussedintheoriginalfinaldecisionofthiscase,anadoptedCityLOS20standardrepresentstheroadsystemthattheCitycanaffordtorequire.RequiringmorethantheadoptedLOSlikelyexceedsthefinancialcapabilitiesoftheCity,whichcannotbeignoredbecausethe21Cityisrequiredtofillinthefundinggapsthatitcannotrequiretobefilledbydevelopers.Inthiscase,22theroadsystemmeetstheCity’sLOS,whichiswhyroadsweredeterminedtobeadequate.23ThereasonwhytheconsequencesoftheinterpretationadvocatedbyMr.PaulsenaresodireisbecauseofthestrictrulingsofstateandfederalcourtsintheapplicationofthetakingsclauseoftheFifthAmendment,i.e.governmentcannottakepropertywithoutjustcompensation.Therearetwo25Thereferencesto“adequate”inthisdecisionwillalsobemodifiedtoinclude“appropriate”toremoveanydoubt26ontheissue.PRELll4INARYPLAT-37c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 39 of 145
1significantlimitationsimposedbythetakingsclauseupontheabilityofcitiesandcountiestomake“growthpayforgrowth”.Thefirstlimitationisproportionality.Thecourtsconsiderittobean2unconstitutionaltakingsifapropertyownerisrequiredtoprovidetransportationmitigationthatexceedsitsproportionateimpacts.See,e.g.,Burtonv.ClarkCounty,91Wn.App.505,516-17(1998).Forexample,ifaprojectwillonlycreatetenpercentofthetrafficforanewintersection,theapplicant4canonlybemadetopayfor10%ofthosecosts.ThatiswhyinthisapplicationtheCitycouldonlymakethedeveloperpayforaportionofthecostsofimprovingthe156AveSE/SE142ndP1intersection.6Sowithonlyaproportionatesharecontributionfromtheapplicanttopayfortheintersection,theCityonlyhastwooptionsonhowtoproceedwiththeEnclaveapplicationifitcannotfindtheintersection“appropriate”atitscurrentLOS,asadvocatedbyMr.Paulsen:(1)theCitycanpayfortheremaining8costsoftheintersectionimprovementsitself;or(2)itcandenythepreliminaryplatapplication.9Astothefirstoption,theCitycouldconceivablydropallofitslongtermtransportationplanningandsimplyexpenditslimitedfundsontransportationimprovementswhenitbecomesnecessarytoavoid10denyingapreliminaryplatapplication.Ofcourse,suchhaphazardandrandomfiscalplanningwould11likelynotresultinaveryefficientexpenditureofpublicfunds.TheLOSstandardsrequiredtobeadoptedbytheGrowthManagementAct(“GMA”)weredesignedtoavoidthisrandomizedformof12fiscalplanning.TheGMArequirescitiestoadoptanLOSandthenputtogethera6yearspecificandI20yeargeneralbudgetthatidentifieswheretheCitywillgetthefundstofinancetheLOSithas13Iadopted.ByrequiringcitiesandcountiestopenciloutthenumbersforfinancinganLOSstandard,theGMAessentiallyplacescitiesandcountiesinthepositionofonlyadoptingLOSstandardstheycan14afford.ThatiswhyanLOSstandardservesasarealisticandeffectivestandardformeasuringwhether15aroadis“appropriate”toserveaproposedsubdivision.16Thesecondcourseofaction,denial,implicatesthesecondobstacleplaceduponcitiesandcountiesbythetakingsclause.TheUSSupremeCourtconsidersittobeanunconstitutionaltakingstoimpose17developmentmoratoriaofunreasonablelength.SeeTahoe-SierraPres.Councilv.TahoeReg’l18PlanningAgency,535US302(2002).TheTahoecasesuggeststhatamoratoriumexceedingayearortwowillbedifficulttojustify.AsnotedinMr.Paulsen’sreconsiderationrequest,theCity’sfunding19prioritiesforthe156AveSE/SE142ndP1intersectionsuggestthatneededimprovementswon’tbeconstructedfor18years.Consequently,iftheEnclaveapplicationisdeniedbecauseofthe156Ave20SE/SE142ndP1intersection,theCityisessentiallyplacingan18yearmoratoriumonanydevelopmentthatwouldcontributeanysignificanttraffictothatintersection.Theapplicantwouldbeinaverygood21positiontodemandtakingscompensationfromtheCityforthat18yearmoratorium.22InunderstandingtheuseofLOStogagetheadequacyofroadsforsubdivisionreview,thereison23additionalpointthathelpsputtheRentonLOSintothepropercontext.AlthoughtheRentonLOSstandardissomewhatuniqueinthatitdoesn’tadoptthemoretraditional“ABCDEF”systemofreview,24theRentonsystemisn’tatalluniqueinhavinganLOSsystemthatdesignatessomecongestedareasasadequateorappropriate.CitiessuchasSeattlethathavethelettersystemadoptanLOSofFfor25portionsoftheirtransportationsystem.SinceGMArequirementsessentiallyrequiremunicipalitiesto26onlyadoptLOSstandardstheycanaffordtopay,thereareinstanceswhereacityorcountyhastoacceptthefactthattheresimplyaren’tenoughfundsavailabletoimproveanintersectionorstreetPRELIMINARYPLAT-47c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 40 of 145
1segmentaboveafailinglevelofservice.SoevenifRentonhadadoptedalettersystemforitsLOS,RentoncouldstillassignanLOSofFtotheintersectionsintheEnclaveareaifitdeterminedthatitslimitedtransportationfundsweremoreeffectivelyspentelsewhereinthecity.HopefullytheexplanationaboveprovidessomeadditionalclarityastowhyanadoptedLOSstandard4isthebesttoolforassessingwhetheraroadis“appropriate”toserveadevelopmentforpurposesofsubdivisionreview.EnforcingthetypeofstandardcontemplatedbyMr.PaulsenwouldplacetheCityintheimpossiblepositionofhavingtocommitfundsitdoesn’thavetoupgradingallfailingintersectionsfornewdevelopmentbeyondtheapplicants’proportionateshare,orpayingtheapplicants6millionsofdollarsintakingclaims.TheLOSstandardistheculminationofsomeverydifficultanddetailedpolicychoicesmadebytheCityCouncilonwheretospendlimitedpublicfundstoimproveitstransportationsystem.Itistheonly2practicalandreasonablewaytoaddresscongestioninamanner8thatrecognizesthatthereisalimittohowmuchmoneyisavailabletoaddresstheproblem.TESTIMONY1011SEPAAppellantTestimony12Mr.RogerPaulsenstatedheisneighboroftheproposeddevelopment.Hisonlyaccesstothe13citystreetsystemisbywayofanintersectionofSE5thPlaceand156thAvenueSEwhichmakesthetrafficconditionson156thaprimaryconcerntohimandhisneighbors.Hebelievesthecityhas14continuallyfailedtoinformtherecordoftheadverseimpactsassociatedwiththisproject.Additionally,hefeelsthecity’spubliccommentprocessfortheplatandSEPAdeterminationwas15misleadingandunclear.Hisneighborsdidnotunderstandthelimitedopportunitytheyhadto16providecommentsregardingtheprojectbecauseofthecity’sfailuresatprovidinginformation.1’lApplicantTestimony18Mr.Carsonstatedtheappealraisestwoissueswithonebeingproceduralandonebeingtraffic.Thecityusedawell-establishedDNSprocessandfolloweditcorrectly.Withregardtothe19traffic,thetrafficengineerfortheprojectisabletoprovideinformationonhowtheproposaland20howitwillnotnegativelyimpacttraffic.71VincentGegliatestifiedthatheisaprincipalengineerwithTraffEx.Hisfirmpreparedthetrafficanalysisfortheproject.ThefirsttrafficanalysiswasdatedDecember27,2013(Exhibit2,2Oneotherpotentialoptionthathasn’tbeenaddressedduetospacelimitationsistoreducethedensityofthe23proposedsubdivision.TheR4designationdoesnothaveaminimumdensityrequirement.However,theG?Lrequirescitiestoaccommodateassiened20yearpopulationprojectionsandacity’szoningdesignationsare24designedtoaccommodatethesenumbers.Further,theGVL&requiresresidentialdevelopmentwithincitiestooccurat“urban”densitieswhichataminimumisusuallyfourdwellingunitsperacre.Routinelyrequiringreduced25densitiestoreducetrafficimpactswouldarguablyviolatetheseGMAprincipals.Further,inthiscasetheintersectionatissueisalreadyoperatingatLOSFsothatfromthestandpointof“appropriate”roadsitmakesno26substantialdifferenceifthesubdivisionhasadensityofoneunitperacreasopposedtofourunitsperacre.PRELIMINARYPLAT-57c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 41 of 145
1attachment12).Thefirstanalysisdeterminedthenumberoftripsgeneratedbytheplatandperformedlevelofservicecalculationsfortheintersectionswhichisatypicalanalysis.Thecityhas2defmedthescopeoftrafficanalysisbylimitingthenumberofintersectionstobeanalyzedtothosethatwillbesubjectedtoanincreaseoffivepercenttrafficvolumeduetotheproject.NoneoftheintersectionsinRentonmeetthiscriteria;however,asamatterofpreference,thecityaskedTraffEx4tolookatthetwositeaccessstreetsto156thAvenueandtheintersectionof142ndand156thSE.Thislatterintersectionisastop-controlledsignintersectiontothesouthoftheproject.Theoriginal5studylookedatthepmpeak-hourandconcludedthatthetwositeaccessstreetsofferedacceptablelevelofservicebutthe142ndintersectiondidnotmeetlevelofservicewithorwithoutthenew6project.TraffExpreparedanaddendumtotheoriginaltrafficreportwhichincludedamandpmpeakhourpointsatthepreviouslystudiedareasandaddedanewarea,theSE5thPlaceand156thAvenueintersection.Onceagain,thelevelsofservicewerethesamewithorwithoutthenewplattraffic.8Thisinformationisintables1and2oftheaddendumdatedApril29,2014(Exhibit1,attachmentd).Generally,thepmpeakhourisworsethantheampeakhour.Afterprojectcompletion,theSE5th9PlaceintersectionwillcontinuetooperateatlevelofserviceC,thenorth-sideaccessstreetwilloperateatlevelC,thesouthsideaccessstreetwilloperateatlevelB,andthe142ndintersectionwill10operateatlevelF.Thecityisintheprocessofapprovingaplantoinstallatrafficlightat142ndand156th.Theappealstatedthattheconditionswiththetrafficlighthavenotbeenanalyzed,thusTraffExpreparedasecondaddendumdatedJune20,2014inordertoanalyzethepossiblenew12conditions(Exhibit4).\Viththetrafficsignal,the142ndintersectionwouldimprovetolevelofserviceBinthea.m.andp.m.peakhours.Thesouthboundqueueon156thwouldbesignificantlyreducedaswell,thusitwouldnotblockSE5thPlace.Themaximumqueuewascalculatedat77peakintheam,and61inthepmpeakhour.Thesecalculationsareallsubjecttohowthesignalis14timed.Thesouthsideaccessroadtotheenclaveroadisapproximately175ft.whichisnorthofthe15stopbarforthesignal.Withthemaximumqueuecalculated,thisaccessareashouldnotbeaffected.Inregardtothetripsfortheprojectrelativetothetripsthroughtheaffectedintersections,theproject16willadd7tripstotheampeakhourand9tripstothepmpeakhour.17Undercross-examinationbyMr.Paulsen,Mr.Gegliastatedthatthecityrequestedanam18peakanalysisafterreceivingaletterfromMr.Paulsen.Inregardtotheampeakanalysisaddendumbeingaddedaftercityapproval,Mr.Geglianotedthattypicallythepmpeakhouristheworst19operatingconditions.Theobservedstop-linequeueislongestatthepmpeakhour.20Mi.Paulsenstatedthatcitypolicyrequiresbothamandpmpeakhouranalysis.Henotedthatthecodecitationforthisrequirementwasinhisoriginalrequestforreconsideration.Thean21peakanalysiswasnotincludedintheproposaluntilafterapproval.22UndercrossexaminationbyMr.Paulsen,Mr.Gegliatestifiedthattrafficanalysisconsiders23bothqueuetimeandopposingtraffic.24UnderredirectbyMr.Carson,Mr.GegliasaidthatRentontrafficguidelinesapplyto5-percentincreaseintrafficduetoaproject,andthisincreasedoesnotoccurforthisproject.Itisvery2Drarethatamtrafficisgreaterthanpmtraffic.26CityTestimonyPRELIMINARYPLAT-67c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 42 of 145
Inregardtotheproceduralissuesraised,Ivir.GarmonNewsom,AssistantRentonCity2Attorney,statedthatthereisnoevidencethatanyotherpersonattemptedtobecomeapartyofrecordandweredeniedtheopportunityforsubmittingsomethinglate.HenotedthatMr.Paulsenclaimsotherneighborsmisunderstoodthecommentprocess,butMr.Paulsenwasabletounderstandthe4processsoitseemslikelyotherswouldhaveaswell.Additionally,Mr.Paulsendoesnothavestandingtoraisethisissuebecauseheunderstoodtheprocess.Thecitycompliedwithalternative5DNSprocess.ThisprocessallowsacitysuchasRentonwithanintegratedreviewprocesstoutilizeanintegratedcommentperiodtoobtaincommentsonthenoticeofapplicationandlikelythreshold.6Thenoticepointsoutthatthecitywasrelyingontheoptionalcode,andtheestablishedcommentperiodwastheonlyopportunityforcomment.Adequatenoticewasprovidedoftheprocess.8JillDing,RentonSeniorPlanner,testifiedthatMr.PaulsensubmittedacommentletterduringtheSEPAcommentperiod(Exhibit2,attachment21).9RohiniNair,RentonCivilEnineer,stated,inregardtoRenton’strafficstudyguidelines,thepolicymentionsthatitshouldincludeamandpmanalysis.TheCodeusestheword“should.”However,whenstaffreviewedtheproject,itfoundtherewasnota5percentincreaseinthetrafficwhichisthethresholdfortheguidelines.Additionally,whenreviewingthesite,itwasclearthepm12peakhourwasthemorecriticalsituation.Eveninthepmtherewasnotafivepercentincrease.SheisalevelIIICivilEngineerforthecity.Shereviewstheengineeringaspectsofprojects.For13projectswithmorethan20trips,sheconductsatrafficstudy.ShehasaBachelor’sinCivil14EngineeringandaMaster’sinCivilEngineeringInvestigationfromUniversityofTexas.Inregardtotrafficimpactsfortheproposal,thereare31expectednewtripsfortheprojectinthepmpeakhour.ShehasworkedatseveralcitiesinWashington,includingDesMoinesandBellevue,beforebeginningworkinRenton.The20thresholdforimpactsisnothighbasedonherexperience.In16someplacesshehasworked,thethresholdis30.Thethresholdreallydependsonthejurisdictionwithrelevantfactorsincludingsizeandnatureofthearea.Inregardtothe156thand142nd17intersection,thecityhasstudiedthetrafficinthisarea.Thecityconductedastudytodetermineif18trafficsignalswerewarrantedatthisintersectionsinFebruary,2014.Thecitytooktrafficcountsattheintersectionandfoundasignalwas,warranted.Thereareninepossiblecriteriathatwarrantasignal,andtwoweremet.Thetwosatisfiedweretheincomingvolumesandpeakhourcounts.Theintersectionwasputatnumbernineoftheprioritylistfortrafficimprovements.Theneedforthe20signalisnotrelatedtotheproposedprojectbecausetheexistingtrafficwasusedinconductingtheFebruary,2014analysis.Iftheprojectdidnotmoveforward,thecitywouldstillplacethesignal21installationatnineonthelist.ThecityconductedanadditionalstudyoftrafficcountsinJune,201472(Exhibit5)for156thand142nd.Inthisnewanalysis,thecityanalyzedwhatlevelofservicewouldbewithasignal.Thecityfoundthatthelevelofservicewouldbegood,andthequeueswouldnot23backuptoaccesspoints.Currently,thelevelofserviceforamisE.Forpm,itisF.LevelofserviceFmeansthereislotsofdelay.\Vithatrafficsignal,theamlevelofservicewouldbeCand24thepmlevelofservicewouldalsobeC.Theseareoutrightimprovementsandwillmoveforwardeveniftheprojectdoesnot.Thetrafficsignalisnottiedtotheproposedproject.Shedoesnotknow25thelikelihoodofwhetherthesignalwillbeinstalledinthenext6years.Thestudywasbasedon26existingtraffic,anddidnotincludeprojectionsforincreaseddevelopment.Rentonbasesitsstudiesona2percentgrowthrate.With1rgersubdivisions,Rentonrequiresmorelong-termstudies,PRELJMThTARYPLAT-77c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 43 of 145
Ispecificallystudiesover2years.The2percentgrowthrateisusedunlessthereishugedevelopment2suchasamallbeingbuiltclose-by.3Undercross-examinationbyIvir.Paulsen,Ms.Nairtestifiedthat,inregardtothelanguageof“should,”ifasitewillnothaveasignificantimpact,thenneitheranamorpmstudywouldbe4required.5Undercross-examinationbyMr.Paulsen,Ms.Dingnotedthatonepubliccommentwasreceivedafterthecloseofthecommentperiod.Thecityrespondedtothiscommentanddidnot6denyitsentryintotherecord.ThecommentletterdidnotincludeanySEPArelatedquestions.TheSEPAmitigationincludedaconditionthatrequirestheapplicanttopayitsfairshareofthetrafficsignal.However,themitigationclarifiedthatthesignalwasnotlinkedtotheprojectnorrequiredto8beinstalledaspartoftheproject.9Undercross-examinationbyMr.Paulsen,Ms.NairsaidshedidnotfeelcomfortableaddressingtheCityofRenton2014-20196-yearTransportationImprovementPlandocument10becauseitwasoutsideofherDepartment.Undercross-examinationbyMr.Carson,Ms.Nairtestifiedthatwhenshereferencesthe12city’sguidelinessheistalkingaboutthedocument“PolicyGuidelinesforTrafficImpactforNewDevelopment.”ThisdocumentisExhibit2,attachment29,ex.C.Thecityusesthisdocumentwhen13reviewingprojects.Thefirstguidelineisthatgenerally,areviewisnecessaryifthereare20ormore14tripsgenerated.Thenextguidelineisthatthescopeofthatanalysisisthoseintersectionswhichtheprojectwillcauseafivepercentincreaseatpeakhourtrips.Thepolicyusesfivepercentasa15guidelineandallowsPublicWorksandCommunityDevelopmentdecideifthedepartmentsbelievefurtherreviewisnecessaryifthefivepercentthresholdisnotmet.Thesubjectprojectdidnotmeet16thefivepercentthreshold.Iffivepercentwastheonlyfactor,therewouldhavenotbeenanyanalysis.Theapplicantusedathreepercentgrowthfactorinitsanalysis.17UnderredirectbyMr.Newsorn,Ms.Dingreadintotherecordthecommentletterreceivedafterthecommentperiodended.Theletteraddressedconcernovertheareabecomingaghettoand19notedconcernaboutturningoutofthe5thPlaceintersection.Theletterdidnotmentionconcernsaboutthecommentprocess.Next,Ms.Dingreadthecity’sresponseletterintotherecord.The20responsenotedthatthecommentletterhadbecomepartoftherecordandprovidedthetime,date,andlocationofthereviewhearing.2192ApplicantResponse23Mr.CarsontestifiedthatthecityfollowedthecorrectprocessforoptionalDNSproceedings.Inregardtothetrafficissue,therearenowtwoindependentstudiesintherecordwhichfmdthat24trafficwillbeimprovedoncethetrafficsignalisbuilt.Theprojectcontributesveryfewtripstothe-problemareas.226AppellantResponsePRELIMINARYPLAT-87c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 44 of 145
IMr.PaulsenstatedthatExhibitI,attachmenth,thecity’sNoticeofApplication,hasnoreferencetopubliccommentonthefirstpage.Onthesecondpage,thereisnochangeintitlesothe2assumptionisthatthedocumentisstillreferringtotheDNS.Thesecondpagesaysthat“Ifcommentscannotbesubmittedinwritingbythedateindicatedabove,youmaystillappearattheHearingandpresentyourcomments.”Nothinginthedocumentsuggeststhatapersonwaivestheir4righttocommentontheSEPAdeterminationbychoosingtomaketheircommentsatthehearing.Inregardtothetrafficissue,Mr.Paulsen’sargumentisthattherewasnotrafficanalysisdonewiththeinclusionofthetrafficsignalbyMay19whenthecityissuedtheDNS.BeforeMay19th,therewas6nothingontherecordtoensurethetrafficsignalwouldimproveconditions.Mr.NewsomaddedthatthefirstpageoftheapplicationnotesthatRentonwouldbeusinganoptionalSEPAreviewprocesswhichallowsfortheintegrationofthecommentperiodintoone8period.ThenoticestatesthattherewillbenocommentperiodaftertheDNSissuance.9LUA14-000241PreliminaryPlatApplicationStaffTestimony11JillDing,RentonSeniorPlanner,testifiedthattheEnclaveatBridleRidgeislocatedonthe12westsideof156thAvenueSE.Thesiteis8.8acresandcurrentlyzonedresidentiallow-densityintheComprehensivePlanandR-4intheZoningMap.Theproposalisforthecreationof3llotsand13twotracts(AandB).Thenetdensitywouldbe4.45unitsperacre.Thelotswouldrangeinsize14from8,O5osqftto12,566sqft.TractAisforstormwater,andtractBisa49Osqflopenspacearea.Therewasalotlineadjustmentprocessedconcurrentlywhichremoved30,l75sqftfromthe15subdivision.Theremovedareaincludedasingle-familyresidence.Thisadjustmenthasbeenrecorded.Accesstothenewsubdivisionwillbeprovidedviaanewloopedpublicstreetoffof156th16AveSE.Thereisanadditionalextensiontothesoutheastthatterminatesinacul-de-sacturnaround.Thisroadwillextendwhendevelopmentbeginstothesouth.Thesiteiscurrentlydevelopedwitha17single-familyresidenceandadetachedgarage.Thesestructureswillbedestroyed.Thereareno18criticalareasonthesite.Thereare303significanttrees.35ofthesetreesareproposedtoremainalongtheeastpropertyline.The14-daynoticeandcommentperiodcommencedonMarch10th,19andthecityreceivedtwocommentlettersduringtheperiod.Thecityreceivedoneadditionalletteraftertheconclusionofthecommentperiod.ADNSwhichincludedonemitigationmeasurewas20issuedonMarch31st.ArequestforreconsiderationwasfiledonApril17thcitingconcernoverpublicnoticeandtrafficonSE5thPlace.Inresponsetotherequest,thecityandapplicant21conductedadditionaltrafficstudies.Theapplicant’sreviewfoundthattheprojectwouldnothavesignificantadverseimpactsontheintersectionof156thandSE5thPlace.Thecityconcludedthatasignalwaswarrantedat156thand142nd.ThecityissuedarevisedDNSMonMay19threquesting23thattheapplicantpayitsfairshareofthenewtrafficsignal.AnewappealperiodcommencedandendedonJune6th.TheproposalisconsistentwiththeComprehensivePlanandthezoning24regulationsassumingtheapplicantcomplieswithallconditions,Thecityallowedthenewroadtobecurvedinordertoprotectsomeexistingtreesonsite.200treeson-sitehavebeenidentifiedas2)protected,thus30percentretentionorreplacementisrequired.35treeswillberetainedandtherest96willbereplaced.Policeandfirehavesignificantresourcestoservetheproject.Theschooldistrict—isabletoaccommodatetheadditionalstudentsaswell.Allstudentswillbebussed.TheapplicantPRELfM1NARYPLAT-97c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 45 of 145
-..-1submittedapreliminarydrainagereportwhichshowsastormwaterwetpondintractA.Additionally,theapplicantsubmittedalandscapeplan.50fllandscapingstripsarerequiredaround2stormwaterponds;however,inthiscase,thestripsareonlylOftandincreasingthesizewouldresultinthelossofalot.Staffrecommendsthe1Oftstripsbeapprovedandbeinstalledasalandscapevisualbarrier.Inconclusion,staffrecommendsapprovalsubjectto11conditionsofapproval.4Inregardtothecurvedroad,Ms.Nairtestifiedthatshebelievesstraightroadalignmentsare5policy,notcode.6ApplicantTestimonyMaherJoudistatedthat,inregardtothecurvatureoftheroadway,theRentonMunicipal8Coderequirescertaintangentlengths,butdoesnotrequirestraightalignments.TheapplicantcanachievethenecessarytangentlengthforthereversecurvetomeetRMCstandards.Inregardto9traffic,theprojectdoesnotcreatetheneedforthetrafficsignal.Theindependentstudiesfoundthatcurrentconditionswarrantasinnal.1011PublicTestimony12TomCarpentertestifiedthatheresideswithinhalfamileoftheproject.Heoftenutilizesthetransportationsysteminthearea.HewasontheKingCountyTrafficReviewPanelwhenit13implementeditscurrenttransportationconcurrencyapproach.Heisconcernedwiththeroadsthatwillintersectwith156th.IfRenton’sconcurrencyweretouseadelayanintersection,thisarea14wouldfailconcurrency.Renton’sconcurrencyapproachwillfundamentallyneverdeny15developmentasisbecauseitdoesnotutilizeadelayofintersectioneventhoughmanyotherjurisdictionsdo.Rentonalsodoesnotusetravel-shed12whichwouldresultinthisareafailing16concurrency.InaletterwhenKingCountywasevaluatinganewtransportationplan,RentontoldKingCountytoestablishaconcurrencyirrespectiveofpoliticalboundariestoevaluatethetrue17impactofvehiclesoninfrastructure.Rentonhasdemonstratedanintenttodointer-jurisdictional18transportationplanning.Renton’scurrentthresholdsforwhendevelopmentsmustmeetgreaterreviewstandardsistoohighbecauseitisgearedtowardslargerdevelopments.Thetrendistowards19smallerdevelopmentsuchastheEnclave,thusRenton’sstandardsarenotadequate.Theseintersectionsarepartofabypassroutefor1-405intheWashingtonStateCorridorSystem.Thecity20shouldnotallowmoreencumbranceonthisroute;instead,itneedsabalancebetweenmovingtrafficthroughthecorridorandprovidingsafeingressandegressforlocalresidents.Hehasnoobjectionto21thedevelopmentofthearea,butbelievesthesetransportationissuesmustbeaddressed.He22submittedhiswrittencommentsasExhibit6.23RogerPaulsentestifiedthathisaccesstothecityisbywayoftheSE5thPlace.HesubmittedacommentletterfromhimandhiswifeasExhibit8.Hesubmittedapetitionsignedby2462ofhisneighborsandfrequenttravelersoftheareanotingtheirbeliefthattheEnclavedevelopmentdoesnotmeetstatetransportationrequirements(Exhibit9).Heenteredthecity’s6-25yearTransportationPlanintotherecord(Exhibit10).TheTrafficImprovementPlansaysthecity26buildsonenewtrafficsignaleverytwoyears,andthetrafficsignalplannedfortheareaisnotthetoppriority.TheMDNSfromMay19thcreatedanexusbetweenthedevelopmentandthetrafficsignal.PRELTMINARYPLAT-107c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 46 of 145
1TheMay19thdecisionfailedtoincludeatrafficanalysisoftheimpactofthesignal.AdetailedtrafficanalysisstudyneedstobeconductedandmadeavaHabletothepublic.HesubmittedarequestforreconsiderationaftertheMay19thdecision,buthisrequestwasdenied(Exhibit11).HeenteredtheletterdenyinghissecondrequestasExhibit12.4KathyForsellstatedthatshelivesat13710156thAveSEandalsoownsahomeat142ndPlace.Thedevelopersneedtobeconsiderateofthepeoplelivinginthecommunity.Theareaneeds5morestabilitybeforeitcanhandlethistypeofgrowth.Thetrafficon142ndPlacebacksupatdifferenttimesthanthosetestedinthetrafficanalyses.Thereismoretrafficat6amthanlaterinthe6morning.Shedidnothearaboutthenewdevelopmentuntillateintheprocess.Atrafficlightwillnotsolvetheproblem,andthecityneedstoconsiderotherroadimprovements.8GwendolynHightestifiedthatsheisthepresidentoftheCommunityAlliancetoReachOutandEngagewhichrepresentshouseholdsoverincorporatedandunincorporatedboundariesin9regardstoplanningandlanduse.ShenotedthatthetransportationimpactanalysisfromDecember,2013statesthat156thAvenueisstraightthroughtheaccesspointswhichistrue;however,theintersectionwith142ndisnotstraight.Thesightlinesareterrible.Ifyouareturninglefton156th,youcannotseetheaccessstreet.TheDecember,2013analysisdoesnotprovideacitationforthe3percentannualrate.Thereisnoreferencetootherprojectsorotherbasisforthispercentage12providedinthestudy.Theanalysisalsoclaimsthereisadequatedistancebetweentheintersections;however,anI-Mapillustrationinherpresentationpacketshowsthattheintersectionof142ndhasa13stopsign7ftnorthofthesouthernboundaryoftheEnclavesite.Usingthefiguresfromthetraffic14analysis,thedistancefromthecrosswalkandproposedaccesssiteisapproximately1l9ftwhichislessthanthestandardof125ft.Theentirecorridorisinthe1-405planandhasbeenidentifiedas15needingarterialimprovements.156thislistedasaminorarterial.Thestandardforminorarterialright-of-waysis4-lanesat91ft.Thereisnoprovisionthatadequateright-of-waysbemadeinorder16toprovideforfutureimprovementstothiscorridor.Theproposalthatstudentscross156thtobeonthesouthboundsidetoreachabusstopwillcreateadangeroussituationbecauseofpoorlighting,a17busyroad,andbadsightlines.Ifthecitydoesnotusethemoneyprovidedbythedeveloperfor18improvementin6years,themoneyisreturnedtothedeveloper.Theinfrastructurechangesareslowandnevermeetthethresholdforactuallymakingimprovements.TheComprehensivePlanfailsto19dealwiththeimpactsofnewdevelopment.20Inregardtostormwater,Ms.HighnotedthatRentonhasanunderdevelopedstormwaterconveyancesystem.Previouslyapproveddevelopmentshavercsultedinfloodeddrainfieldsandstructural21damageofotherhomes.Theprojectneedsalevel3stormwatersystem.Itisunclearwhowillhaveresponsibilityoverthedrainagefacilities.Thereneedstobecertaintythatnewproblemswillnotbecreatedbytheproject.Inregardtolandscaping,thetreeretentionstandardisnotdefinedsoitis23unclearwhatwillhappenwiththeproject.Thecityarboristissupposedtodoareportontheproject.TreesarepartofthecharacterofRentonanditsdevelopment.Tolose300significanttreesisan24enormouschange,andthecityneedstoknowhowtheywillbereplaced.Thetreesneedtobeprotectedfromaccidentalremovalbyhomeowners.Thiscanbedoneviaadequatesiguageinthe2)area.Inregardtothelandscapingaroundthedetentionpond,thedesignstandardsaysetbacksshouldnotbereducedfornewlyplanneddevelopmentstofacilitateincreaseddensity.Thesestandardscannotbeignoredbycityplanningstaff.Thecityhasfailedtoprovidethearboristreport,PRELIMII’JARYPLAT-117c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 47 of 145
1thetreeretentionplan,thelandscapingplan,thedrainageagreementwiththeHOA,orthetreeprotectionagreementforreview.Thesearerequired,butthecityhasnotrequiredthemormade2themavailabletothepublic.Alightingplanalsoshouldbeprovided.Inregardtotransportation,route11isslatedtobecutandthiswillhaveanimpactontheneighborhood,onwherepeoplepark,etc.Shestatedthattheywouldliketohavethesethingsmitigated.Shesubmittedhercommentsas4Exhibit13.5RondaBryanttestifiedthatshehaslivedintheareafor25years.Inthenextcoupleofyears,therewillbe204housesimpactingthe156thand142ndmainintersection.Sheisconcernedthatno6impactanalysishasbeendoneonthenextintersectiondownandshebelievesitisimportantinthisparticularinstance.If156thisconsideredasecondarybypassfor1-405thenthisnextintersectionisalsoabypassroute.Atrafficlightwillbegoinginandbecausepeoplewillnotwanttositforthis8lightinthemorning,thustheywillmakealeftontothatstreettobypassthislight.Sheestimatedthatover2000tripsadayonthesestreetswiththeseprojectsthatwillappearinthenexttwoyears.She9alsonotedthatnotonlytheRentonbuttheIssaquahschoolbusesgothroughthatintersection.There0willbeissueswithbusstopsandcrosswalks.TheroutewillchangeinSeptemberandmayadda1numberofbusstops.Peoplethatcometocatchthebustherearegoingtotrytoparksomewhere.TheseareproblemsthatshebelieveshaveexistedforyearsandadditionalhouseswillcauseproblemsforEnclave.Withregardtothelandscapeplan,sheisconcernedwiththeproposeduseof12HeavenlyBamboo.Ingooglinginformationonbamboo,shefoundthatbambooisnotonlyinvasivebuttoxictobirds.Bambooshouldbetakenfromtheplan.1314StaffRebuttal15Ms.DingnotedthatthecityarboristhasdoneaninspectionwhichislocatedinExhibit33ofthestaffreport.Thisreportconcurredwiththeapplicant’sarboristreport.Withregardtothe16landscapingaroundthestormwaterpond,the15ftrequirementisnotactuallyincode;itwasadministrativeinterpretation.ThisallowsthecitytoreducethatrequirementtolOft.Inregardto17thenumberofreportsnotyetcompleted,staffnotedthattherearealistofreportslocatedinthestaff18report.Somereportsarerequiredandothersarenottypicallyreceiveduntillaterintheprocess.Therequiredreportsareavailable.HeavenlyBambooisnotfoundontheinvasiveplantslist.Thecity19wouldnotobjecttoremovingitfromthelistprovidedtherewassimilarshrubavailable.Withregardtoquestionsaboutlevel3downstreamstormwater,itisnotrecommendedasaconditionbut20isinthestandardforcode.Toclarifyquestionsregardingtrafficimpact,thecitiesconcurrencypolicyisacity-wideanalysis.Exhibit2,attachment26fromthestaffreportisaconcurrency21analysis.Whenacitywidepolicyismet,theprojectisseenasconcurrent.Staffstatedthattheywilltalktothepublicworksdepartmentanddeterminewherethetrafficthresholdsandstandardscome-from.23ApplicantRebuttal24MaherJouditestifiedthat,withregardtoMs.Forsell’scommentaboutherpropertyon25142nd,theapplicantisprovidinganewsewermainacross142nddownto140th.Theapplicant26believesthattheprojectshouldprovideforexistingpublicneeds.PRELIMINARYPLAT-127c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 48 of 145
1Regardingthecumulativedevelopmentquestions,Mr.CarsonnotedthattheGrowthManagementActrequiresthattheyadopttransportationstandards.Rentonhasadopted2transportationconcurrencyrequirements.Thecityhaschosentolookatthemonacitywidebasisandcollecttrafficimpactfeesonacitywidebasis.Thismeansthataprojectinoneareaofthecitycontributestothecityasawholeandthisiswhyitiscitywide.Theprojectpassedthetransportation4analysisnotjustthroughlegislativeanalysisbutthroughtheirconcurrencecurrencyanalysis.WithregardtoSEPA,itevaluatesknownreasonabledevelopmentunderstatuteandregulations.The2percentgrowthhascompliedwithSEPAregulations.Itshowedthatitwouldnotcreatesignificanttrafficimpactsonacumulativebasis.ThisSEPAdecisionwasappealedbyMr.Paulsen.Mr.Carson6believesthattheyhaveansweredthisduringtheSEPAappealprocessbecausethissignalwillactuallyimproveinsteadofcreateadverseimpacts.Withregardtoplotconditions,Mr.Carsonstatedthattheprojectcontributestoimprovementsinroadconditions.Theyhavesatisfiedthecode.He8notedthatthecitywentbeyonditspolicyeventhoughtheywerenotrequiredtoanalyzeanythingbeyond5percent.9StaffResponseInresponsetotheHearingExaminer’squestionsregardingthebasisforstandardsandpolicies,Ms.Nairnotedthatforpeakhourtimes,thecityrefertothenationalstandardsdeveloped12bytheinstituteoftransportationengineers,andthatthisisastandardreferencedocumentforthisdetermination.Withregardtothegrowthrate,traditionallythisinformationisprovidedbythe13transportationplanningsection.RegardingthesitedistanceconcernnotedinMs.High’s14documentation,shenotedthatthestaffwalkedthestreetandusedthissitevisitalongwithanalysistomaketheirconclusions.1516EXHIBITS17Exhibit1NoticeofAppealW/attachmentsa-h18Exhibit2StaffReportw/attachments1-33Exhibit3CVofVincentGeglia19Exhibit4TraffExTrafficStudyAddendumdatedJune20,2014Exhibit5RentonTrafficCountsfromJune,201420Exhibit6CityofRenton2014-20196-yearTransportationImprovementPlan,ProjectNumber25Exhibit7TomCarpentercomments21Exhibit8PaulsenCommentLetterExhibit9PetitionsubmittedbyMr.PaulsenExhibit10CityofRentonSixYearTransportationImprovementPlanExhibit11Paulsensecondrequestforreconsideration23Exhibit12City’sdenialofPaulsen’ssecondrequestforreconsiderationExhibit13GwendolynHighCommentPacket24Exhibit14MapprovidedbyRondaBryant25Exhibit15UtilityMap—Exhibit166/26/14emailfromRogerPaulsentoJillDingExhibit176/27/14emailfromBrentCarsonwithattachmentsrespondingtopubliccomment—Exhibit186/27/14emailtoExaminerrespondingtoPaulsencommentsPRELTMThTARYPLAT-137c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 49 of 145
1Exhibit194:13pm6/27/14emailtoExaminerfromJillDingExhibit207/1/14emailtoJillDingfromRogerPaulsen73FTNDINGSOFFACTProcedural:1.Applicant.PNWHoldings,LLC.62.Hearing.AconsolidatedhearingonthepreliminaryplatapplicationandSEPAappealwas7heldonJune24,2014intheCityofRentonCouncilCityChambers.TheSEPAappellant,Mr.8Paulsen,wasgivenuntilJune27,2014toprovidewrittencommenttotrafficreportssubmittedbytheapplicantduringthehearing.TheapplicantwasgivenuntilJuly1,2014torespondandthe9appellantJuly2,104toreply.TherecordwasalsoleftopenthroughJune27,2014fortheapplicant10toprovidecommentonExhibits8,13and14.ii3.ProjectDescription.Theapplicantrequestspreliminaryplatapprovalforthesubdivisionof8.8acresinto31single-familyresidentiallotsontheeastsideof156thAvenueSEbetweenSE139th12PlaceandSEl43Street.Anappealofamitigateddeterminationofnonsignificance(“MDNS”)13issuedundertheWashingtonStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct(“SEPA”)wasconsolidatedwiththereviewofthepreliminaryplat.Theproposedlotswouldrangeinsizefrom8,050squarefeetto12,566squarefeet.Accesstoall15lotswouldbeprovidedalonganewloopedpublicroad(RoadAandRoadB)offof156thAvenue16SE.Adeadendaccessisalsoprovided,terminatinginatemporarycul-de-sacatthesouthpropertyline.Itisanticipatedthedeadendaccesswouldextendontotheadjacentpropertytothesouthata17laterdate,underafutureapplicationfordevelopment.Thepreliminaryplatalsoincludesastormwatertractandanopenspacetract.Theproposalwouldresultinadensityof4.45dwelling18unitsperacre.19Thesitegenerallyslopestothesouthwestwithanelevationchangeof20feet.Ageotechnicalreport20forthesitewassubmittedcontaininginformationonthesurfaceconditions,subsurfaceconditionsandgroundwater.Thesiteiscurrentlyoccupiedbyasinglefamilyresidence,adetachedgarage,21andassociatedgraveldriveways.Theexistingresidenceandthedetachedgarageareproposedtobedemolishedasapartoftheproposedsubdivision.2223AdequacyofInfrastructure/PublicServices.Theprojectwillbeservedbyadequate/appropriateinfrastructureandpublicservices,specificallyincludingalltheinfrastructure24andservicesidentifiedbelow.Preliminaryadequacyofallinfrastructurehasbeenreviewedbythe25City’sPublicWorksDepartmentandfoundtobesufficient.Specificinfrastructure/servicesareaddressedasfollows:26PRELIMINARYPLAT-147c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 50 of 145
1A.WaterandSewerService.WaterservicewillbeprovidedbyWaterDistrict#90.A7wateravailabilitycertificatewassubmittedtotheCity.Sewerservicewillbeprovided—bytheCityofRenton.Thereisan8-inchsewermainin156thAvenueSE.B.PoliceandFireProtection.PoliceandFirePreventionstaffindicatesthatsufficientresourcesexisttofurnishservicestotheproposeddevelopment;subjecttothecondition5thattheapplicantprovidesCoderequiredimprovementsandfees.Fireimpactfeesare6applicableattherateofS479.28persinglefamilyunit.Thisfeeispaidattimeofbuildingpermit7issuance.8C.Drainane.Theproposalprovidesforadequatestormwaterdrainagefacilities.Adrainage9plan(Exhibit5)anddrainagereport(Exhibit13)hasbeensubmittedwiththeapplication.10Thereportaddressescompliancewith2009KingCountySurfaceWaterManualandCityofRentonAmendmentstotheKCSWM,Chapters1and2.TheEngineerproposesto11developanon-sitestormdetentioniwaterqualitypondlocatedinproposedTractA.City12publicworkstaffhavefoundthedrainageplantocomplywithCitystandardsandfinalengineeringplatswillbesubmittedforCityreviewandapprovalaspartoffinalplat13review.14ThesiteislocatedwithintheLowerCedarRiverBasinandhasadischargetoareas15maintainedbyKingCounty.KingCountyhasbeenprovidedacopyoftheseplansandreportsthattheprojectcouldimpactKingCounty’sOrtingHillsCreekandservicearea.16BasedontheCity’sflowcontrolmap,thissitefallswithintheFlowContTolDuration17Standard,ForestedCondition.TheprojectissubjecttobasicwaterqualitytreatmentandLevel2flowcontrol,whichcouldbeelevatedtoLevel3dependingondownstream18conditions.Alevel2flowcontrolfacilityistypicallysizedtomatchthepre-developed19ratesfortheforestedconditionextendingfrom50%ofthe2yearuptothe50yearflow.Theengineerhasdesignedacombineddetentionandwetpondtobelocatedatthe20southwestcornerofthesite.Accessandmaintenancetotheproposedcombinedwater21qualityandretentionfacilitywillberequiredperthe2009KingCountySWDMandtheCityofRentonAmendmentstotheKCSWDM.Alevel3downstreamanalysiswillbe22requiredfortheproject.AppropriateindividuallotflowcontrolBWswillberequiredto23helpmitigatethenewrunoffcreatedbythisdevelopment.Thefinaldrainageplananddrainagereportmustbesubmittedwiththeutilityconstructionpermitapplication.24Secondaryreviewmayberequiredforthepondwithbothstructuralengineerandgeotech25engineer,andliningmayalsoberequired.26PRELIMINARYPLAT-157c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 51 of 145
1D.Parks/OpenSpace.Cityordinancesrequirethepaymentofparkimpactfeespriorto2buildingpermitissuance.RMC4-2-115,whichgovernsopenspacerequirementsforresidentialdevelopment,doesnothaveanyspecificrequirementsforopenspacefor3residentialdevelopmentintheR-4district.Theimpactfeesprovideforadequateparks4andopenspace.5E.Streets.Theproposalprovidesforadequate/appropriatestreets,roads,alleysandpublic6ways.Congestionwasasourceofmajorconcernofpersonswhoattendedthehearing.Itisveryclearthatmanypeoplewholiveintheareafindthestreetstoocongested.‘7However,whatconstitutesanacceptablelevelofcongestionisgovernedCityCouncil8adoptedLOSstandards.Forpurposesofcongestionanalysis,thethresholdforwhatservesas“adequate”or“appropriate”trafficinfrastructureforpreliminaryplatreview9andasanadverseimpactforenvironmental(SEPA)reviewistheLOSstandard.Without10anLOSstandard,attemptingtodeterminetolerablecongestionwouldbeahighlyarbitraryandsubjectiveanalysisthatwouldnotbelegallydefensible.Inaddition,useoftheLOStoregulatecongestionrepresentsafinelytunedbalancingoftheCity’sstatemandateresponsibilitytoaccommodategrowth;availablepublicmoniesfor12infrastructureimprovements;andduedeferencetoconstitutionalmandatesthat13developersonlypaytheirfairshareofinfrastructureimprovements.ImposingahigherstandardthanthatsetbyLOSwouldlikelyrunafoulofoneifnotallofthesefactors.For14thesereasons,usingLOStoserveasthemeasuringrodforacceptablecongestionlevels15makessensefrombothCitytransportationfundingbasisaswellasaspecificprojectreviewbasis.1617Unfortunately,astestifiedbyTomCarpenter,RentonusesaveryuniqueLOSmeasuringsystemthatmakesitverydifficulttoassesslocalizedcongestionimpacts.Inorderto18appreciatethechallengesofRenton’ssystem,somebackgroundonstateLOS19requirementsandhowitmoret)picallyworksisnecessary.20LOSstandardsfortransportationfacilitiesarerequiredbytheGrowthManagementAct,21Chapter36.70A(“GlvL”).TheGMArequirescitiesandcountiestoadoptLOSstandardsfortransportationfacilitiesalongwithordinancesthat“...prohibitdevelopment22approvalfthedevelopmentcausesthelevelofserviceonalocallyownedtransportation23facilitytodeclinebelowthestandardsadoptedinthetransportationelementofthetransportationplan,...“SeeRCW36.70A.070(6)(b)(therequiredordinancesare24referredtoas“concurrencyordinances”).Infurtheranceofthisrequirement,mostcities25andcountiesadoptLOSforspecificarterialintersectionsand/orroadsegmentswithratingsbaseduponanAECDEFscale,similartoschoolgrades,whereAisawell26functioningintersectionorroadsegmentandFisafailingintersectionorroadsegment.PRELIMINARYPLAT-167c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 52 of 145
AnLOSofCorDisoftenadoptedasminimumLOSforcityorcountyintersections.IfaproposeddevelopmentisprojectedtodecreasetheLOSofanintersectionbelowthe—adoptedCorD,thedeveloperbasicallyhasthreechoices:(1)maketrafficimprovementsthatpreventviolationoftheLos;(2)redesigntheprojecttoreducetrafficgenerationso4LOSisnotviolated;or(3)facedenialofthepermitapplication.5Thetypeofsitespecificconcurrencyanalysisoutlinedintheprecedingparagraphallows6foraverylocalizedassessmentofcongestionimpacts.Forexample,inacitythatadoptsanLOSofCforitsintersections,nodevelopmentcanbeapprovedanywhereinthatcity7thatwouldlowertheLOSofanarterialintersectionfromanLOSofA,BorCtoanLOS8ofD,EorF.TheCityCouncil,baseduponavailablefmancialresourcesandlocallandusepatterns,adoptsanacceptablelevelofcongestion(theLOSstandard),andthis9standardisthenimposedviaasitespecificanalysisoneverynonexemptprojectthrough10theconcurrencyordinanceidentifiedintheprecedingparagraph.Renton’sLOSstandardsdon’tallowforthislocalizedassessmentofcongestion.Thereis12noA,BorCgradeassignedtointersectionsorroadsegments.Instead,Rentonhasdevelopedacity-wideLOS“index”value,baseduponthetotalnumberofmilesone13single-occupantvehicle,onehighoccupantvehicleandonetransitvehiclecantravelin30minutes.SeeRentonComprehensivePlan,TransportationElement,p.X1-26.The14RentonLOSindexstandardis42,i.e.thecombinedmileageofasingle-occupant,high15occupantandtransitvehiclemustbe42milesforahalfhouroftraveltime.It’sunclearhowthemileagefortheLOSindexisdeterminedfromthecomprehensiveplan,butit16appearsthatthisstandardimposesvirtuallynolimitonhowbadcongestioncouldgetin17onepartoftheCity,solongastraveltimesintheCity’stransportationsystemoverallmeetthe42indexvalue.1819TheCity-widefocusoftheLOS“index”systemmakesitamorequestionablemeasuringtoolforcongestionlevelsthanthemoretypical“A,B,C”systemusedinmostother20jurisdictions.However,intheabsenceofanyothercomparableobjectivemeasuring21deviceitisstillthemostcompellingstandardtouse.Giventhewidespreadusageofthe“A,B,C”LOSsystem,it’sfairlyclearthattheCityCouncilmadeaveryconsciousand22deliberatechoicetofocusonoveralltransportationsystemperformanceeventhoughthis23maymeanthatspecificportionsoftheCitycouldsufferexceedinglyseverecongestion.AlthoughtheCityCouncilfocusintheadoptionofitsLOSsystemmayhavebeenonits24transportationfundingandplanningpriorities,thosesameissuesdirectlyaffectproject25levelreview.IntheabsenceofCityplanningorfundingdirectivestolowerseverecongestioninaparticulararea,inmanyifnotmostcasesitwillnotbepossibletoimpose26astrictercongestionstandardforindividualdevelopmentbecauseeither(A)noPRELIMINARYPLAT-177c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 53 of 145
1developmentwillbeallowedtooccur,creatingadefactounconstitutionaldevelopmentmoratorium,or(B)thedeveloperwouldberequiredtopayformorethanitsfairshareoftrafficmitigation,whichisalsounconstitutional.34ThelongdiscussionaboveleadstotheconclusionthatcompliancewiththeCity’sconcurrencysystem,evenifitisacity-widesystem,establishesanacceptablelevelof5congestion.Citystaffhaveconductedaconcurrencyanalysisandhaveconcludedthat6theproposalwillnotviolatetheCity’stransportationLOS.SeeEx.26.Noonehasdisputedthisconcurrencydeterminationandthereisnoevidenceiiitherecordto7contradictit.Consequently,thefindingsofCitystaffmustbetakenasaverity.The8proposalmeetsCityconcurrency,thereforetheCity’sroadsystemisadequatetohandlethetrafficgeneratedbytheproposalandanyadditionalcongestioncausedbythe9proposalwouldnotbeconsideredasignificantadverseenvironmentalimpact.10ItshouldbenotedthatevenifRentonhadadoptedthemoretraditional“A,B,C”11concurrencysystem,concurrencywouldstillnotbeviolatedbytheproposalinsomejurisdictions.Asquotedpreviously,theGMAonlyrequiresdenialofaproposalifit12causes“...thelelofse,’iceonalocallyownedtransportationfacilitodeclinebelow13thestandardsadoptedinthetransportationelement..“Thislanguageistakenveryliterallybymostjurisdictions—ifanintersectionisalreadyoperatingbelowadopted14standards,theprovisiondoesn’tapply.Itonlyappliesifaproposeddevelopmentwill15causeanintersectionorroadsectionthatcurrentlymeetsLOSstandardstofailthem.IftheadoptedLOSstandardisDandanintersectioncurrentlyoperatesattheLOSE,there16canbenoviolationofconcurrencybecausetheintersectionalreadyfailstomeet17minimumLOS.Theapplicant’strafficreportappliesan“A,B,C”LOSsystemusingprofessionallyrecognizedstandards3toaffectedintersectionsandfindsthattheproposal18doesn’tlowerLOStoanyoftheintersections.SeeEx.12ofstaffreport,Ex.2.MI19LOSlevelsstaythesame.20AlthoughtheCity’sLOSservesastheprimarymeasureforassessingcongestionimpacts21atprojectlevelreview,thereisstillsomeroomlefttorequireproportionatesharemitigationofdevelopers.Asdemonstratedintheapplicant’strafficstudy,LOS“A,B,22C”standardscanbebaseduponprofessionallyrecognizedlevelsofcongestionthatcan23beappliedinanobjectiveanduniformmanner.It’sforthisreasonthatstaffwasabletorequiretheapplicanttopayforproportionatesharemitigationofthe156thAve.SE/SE24142Streetintersection.However,itneedstoberecognizedthattheabilitytorelyupon25theseproportionatesharecontributionsisverylimitedbecausestatelawrequiresthat26Theapplicant’sengineersusedtheTransportationResearchBoardHirhwavCapacityManualtocalculateLOS.PRELIMINARYPLAT-187c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 54 of 145
1mitigationfundsbeexpendedwithinfiveyearsofreceipt.SeeRCW82.02.020.Thismeansthatiftheremainingbalancingofimprovementcostscannotberecoveredfromotherdevelopersorcitycofferswithinfiveyearsthemitigationmoneymustbereturned3tothedeveloper.Incalculatingprojectedimpactstoaffectedintersections,theapplicantsuseda3%yearly5rateintrafficgrowth.Thiswasdisputedbysomeprojectopponents,whopresentedalist6ofnumerousprojectsinEx.13and14thatwouldaddtraffictotheroadsofthevicinity.Theapplicant’strafficengineerpreparedareportestablishingthatthe3%growthfactor7wasmorethantwicetheamountnecessarytoaccommodatetrafficfromtheprojects8identifiedinEx.13and14.SeeEx.17.Further,Citypoliciesdictatetheuseofa2%growthfactor,whichisbaseduponhistoricalincreaseswithintheCity.SeeEx.19.9Issueswerealsoraisedaboutsitedistanceandintersectionspacing,whichwere10adequatelyaddressedbytheapplicant’strafficengineerinEx.17andthefactthatsitedistancewasalsoreviewedandapprovedbytheCityengineeringdepartment.Project11opponentspresentednoexperttestimonyonanyoftheissuesidentifiedinthisparagraph,1sotheexperttestimonyprovidedbytheapplicant’sexpertandverifiedbyCityexpertsisfoundmorecompelling.13OneoftheSEPAissuesraisedbyI’vfr.Paulsenwasthatanintersectionimprovement14........thndrequiredasrmtigatlonfortheprojectarea,thesignahzationofthe156Ave.SE/SE14215Streetintersection,wouldcausequeuingconflictswiththeaccesspointsofthesubdivision.Mr.Paulsenprovidednoengineeringanalysisoranyotherevidenceto16supportthisposition.Theapplicantpreparedatrafficreportaddendum,Ex.4,17establishingbyengineeringcalculationsthatqueuescreatedbytheintersectionwouldnotbackuptothepointoftheproposedplataccesspoints.Theapplicant’strafficstudy18addendumwassubjecttoreviewbytheCity’sengineeringdepartmentandtheyvoiced19110objectionstoitsmethodologyorconclusion.Giventheabsenceofanyexpertopiniontothecontrary,theaddendum’sconclusionsaretakenasveritiesanditisdeterminedthat20theintersectionwillnotcreateanyqueuingconflictswiththeaccesspointstothe21intersection.22F.Parking.Sufficientareaexists,oneachlot,toaccommodaterequiredoffstreetparking23foraminimumoftwovehiclesperdwellingunitasrequiredbyCitycode.24G.Schools.ItisanticipatedthattheRentonSchoolDistrictcanaccommodateanyadditional25studentsgeneratedbythisproposalatthefollowingschools:MaplewoodElementary,McKnightMiddleSchoolandHazenHighSchool.Anynewstudentsfromtheproposed26developmentwouldbebussedtotheirschools.Thestopislocatedapproximately.06PRELIMINARYFLAT-197c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 55 of 145
p1milefromtheprojectsiteat156thAvenueSE&SE5thPlace.Theproposedproject2includestheinstallationoffrontageimprovementsalongthe156thAvenueSEfrontage,includingsidewallcs.Studentswouldwalkashortdistancealong156thAvenueSEnorth3oftheprojectsitealongtheroadshouldertothebusstop.However,thereappearstobe4adequateareaalongtheroadshouldertoprovideforsafewalkingconditions(Exhibit25).Inaddition,theCityisrequiringright-of-waydedicatedalongthefrontageofparcel51423059057(whichisbeingremovedfromtheprojectsitevialotlineadjustment)to6allowforthefutureinstallationoffrontageimprovementswhichwouldberequireduponthereceiptofafuturesubdivisionapplication.Thebusistravelingsouthstudentswould7berequiredtocross156thAvenueSEatSE5thPlaceviatheexistingcrosswalk.The8driverstopstraffictoallowthestudentstocross156thAvenueSEandboardthebus.Thereweresomepublicconcernsraisedaboutthesafetyofthisroadcrossing,sothe9conditionsofapprovalrequirefartherstaffinvestigationandmitigationasnecessary.10ASchoolImpactFee,basedonnewsingle-familylot,willberequiredinorderto11mitigatetheproposal’spotentialimpactstotheRentonSchoolDistrict.ThefeeispayabletotheCityasspecifiedbytheRentonMunicipalCode.Currentlythefeeisassessedati256,392.00persinglefamilyresidence.135.AdverseInioacts.Therearenoadverseimpactsassociatedwiththeproposal.Adequate14publicfacilitiesanddrainagecontrolareprovidedasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.4.Thereare15nocriticalareasonsite.Theproposalissurroundedbysinglefamilydevelopmentsocompatibilityofuseisnotanissue.16Therewereconcernsraisedbyabouttreepreservation.RMC4-4-13OHrequiresthirtypercentofthe17treesshallberetainedinaresidentialdevelopment.Whentherequirednumberofprotectedtreescannotberetained,newtrees,withatwo-inch(2”)caliperorgreater,mustbeplanted.The18replacementrateistwelve(12)caliperinchesofnewtreestoreplaceeachprotectedtreeremoved.19Thesiteiscurrentlyvegetatedwithatotalof303significanttrees,lawn,andlandscapingassociatedwiththeexistingsinglefamilyresidence.Oftheexisting303significanttrees57havebeen20determinedtobedead,diseasedand/ordangerouspertheapplicant’sArboristReport(StaffReportExhibit15),and46wouldbelocatedintheproposedroadwayresultinginatotalof200treesthat21havebeenidentifiedasprotectedtrees.Ofthe200protectedtrees30percentor60treesarerequiredtoberetainedandlorreplacedontheprojectsite.Theapplicantproposestoretain35treesandinstall221502-inchcaliperreplacementtrees,whichcomplieswiththeCityofRenton’sTreeRetention23requirements.24Noothersignificantimpactsarereasonablyanticipatedfromtheevidencecontainedwithintheadministrativerecord.256.SEPAAppeal.Amitigateddeterminationofnonsignificance(“MDNS”)wasissuedforthe_6proposalonMarch31,2014.RogerPaulsenfiledarequestforreconsiderationwiththeCityonPRELIMINARYPLAT-207c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 56 of 145
1April16,2014.Ex.29.ThisrequestwasdeniedbytheCityonMay19,2014.Ex.30.However,asaresultoftherequestforreconsideration,theCityrequiredtheapplicanttopayitsproportionate2shareofasignalforthel56”Ave.SE/SE142ndStreetintersection.Mr.PaulsenthenfiledthesubjectSEPAappealonMay19,2014.Ex.1.Theappealraisedtwoissues:(1)thenoticeforthecommentperiodontheSEPAMDNSwasconfusing,sinceitcouldbereadasauthorizingcomment4ontheMDNSatthepermithearing;and(2)theSEPAreviewwasinadequatebecauseitdidn’tincludetheimpactsofthel56thAve.SE/SE142ndStreetintersectionimprovements.Ivir.Paulsen5arguedthatback-upscausedbytheintersectioncouldcausequeuingconflictswiththeaccesspointstothepreliminaryplat.Inresponsetheapplicantpreparedanaddendumtoitstrafficanalysisthat6demonstratedthatback-upscausedbytheintersectionwouldnotextendtothepreliminaryplataccesspoints.8ConclusionsofLaw9101.Authority.RMC4-7-020(C)and4-7-050(D)(5)providethattheHearingExaminershallholdahearingandissueafinaldecisiononpreliminaryplatapplications.RMC4-9-070grantsthe11ExaminerauthoritytoreviewandmakefinaldecisionsonSEPAappeals.12.....2.Zonmc!ComprehensivePlanDesianations.ThesubjectpropertyiszonedResidential413dwellingunitspernetacre(R-4).ThecompreheusiveplanmaplandusedesignationisResidentialLowDensity(RLD).15SEPAAPPEAL16SEPAReviewCriteriaThereareonlytworeasonstooverturnanIvIDNS:(1)thereareunmitigatedprobablesignificantadverseenvironmentalimpacts;or(2)theSEPAresponsibleofficial17hasnotundertakenanadequatereviewofenvironmentalfactorsasrequiredbySEPAregulations.18Eachgroundsforreversalwillbeseparatelyaddressedbelow.19A.ProbableSienificantAdverseEnvironmentalImpacts.20TheprimaryrelevantinquiryforpurposesofassessingwhetherCountystaffcorrectlyissuedan2MDNSiswhethertheprojectasproposedhasaprobablesignificantenvironmentalimpact.SeeWAC197-11-330(l)(b).Ifsuchimpactsarecreated,conditionswillhavetobeaddedtotheMDNS22toreduceimpactssotherearenoprobablesignificantadverseenvironmentalimpacts.Inthealternative,anEISwouldberequiredfortheproject.Inassessingthevalidityofathreshold2determination,thedeterminationmadebytheCity’sSEPAresponsibleofficialshallbeentitledto24substantialweight.WAC197-11-6(3)(a)(viii).25B.AdequateEnvironmentalReview26PRELIMTNARYPLAT-217c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 57 of 145
1ThesecondreasonanMDNScanbeoverturnedisiftheSEPAresponsibleofficialdidnotadequately2reviewenvironmentalimpactsinreachinghisthresholddetermination.TheSEPAresponsibleofficialmustmakeaprimafacieshowingthathehasbasedhisdeterminationuponinformation3reasonablysufficienttoevaluatetheimpactsofaproposal.4Anagency’sthresholddeterminationisentitledtojudicialdeference,buttheagencymustmakeashowingthat“environmentalfactorswereconsideredinamannersufficienttomakeaprimafacieshowingwiththeproceduralrequirementsofSEFA.”ChuckanutC’onservaneyv.WashingtonState6Dept.ofNaturalResources,156Wn.App.274,286-287,quotingJuanitaBayValleyCommunityAss’nv.CityofKirkland,9Wn.App.59,73(1973).Inapplyingthisadequacystandard,onseveraloccasionsthecourtshaveexaminedhowthoroughlytheresponsibleofficialreviewedenvironmental8impactsinadditiontoassessingwhetheraproposalhasprobablesignificantadverseenvironmentalimpacts.See,e.g.,Boehmv.CityofVancouver,111Wn.App.711(2002),Mossv.CityofBellingham,109Wn.App.6(2001).TnA1oss,forexample,thecourtrecitedtheprimafacieruleand10thenapplieditasfollows:11Therecordindicatesthattheprojectreceivedagreatdealofreview.The12environmentalchecklistwasapparentlydeemedinsufficient,andthereforetheSEPAofficialaskedforadditionalinformationintheformofanEA.TheCitygathered13extensivecommentsfromagenciesandthepublic,heldnumerouspublicmeetings,and14imposedadditionalmitigationmeasuresontheprojectbeforefinallyapprovingit.Notab/althoughappellantscomplaingenerallythattheimpactswerenotadequately15analyzed,theyhavefailedtociteanyfactsorevidenceintherecorddenzqnstrating16thattheprojectasmitigatedwillcausesignifcantenvironmentalimpactsi’arrantinganEIS.17109Wn.App.at23-24.18\VAC197-11-335providesthatathresholddeterminationshallbe“bebaseduponinformation19reasonablysifiicienttoevaluatetheenvironmentalimpactofaproposaP’.See,also,Spokane20Countyi’.EasternJVashingtonGrowthManagementHearingsBoard,176Wn.App.555(2013).Thestandardofreviewonadequacy,therefore,isthattheSEPAresponsibleofficialmustmakea21primafacieshowingthatthedeterminationisbaseduponinformationreasonablysufficientto22evaluatetheimpactsofaproposal.234.MDNSNotice.AsoutlinedinFindingofFactNo.6,oneofthetwoSEPAappealissuesisthatthenoticeforthecommentperiodontheMDNSisconfusing.Thenoticeisarguablyconfusing,butMr.Paulsendoesnothavestandingtoraisetheissuebecausehewasnotaggrievedbythenotice.25Mr.PaulseninfactsubmittedcommentsontheMDNSpriortothecommentexpirationperiodand96makesnoassertionthatthenoticelanguagepreventedhimfrommakinganyadditionalcomments.PRELIMINARYPLAT-227c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 58 of 145
IThenoticeatissueisintegratedintotheNoticeofApplicationandProposedDeterminationofNonSignificance-Mitigated,att.HtoEx.1.ThefirstpageoftheNoticeprovidesthat‘[c]ommentperiodsfortheprojectandproposedDNS-Mareintegratedintoasinglecommentperiod.”The3secondpageoftheNoticeprovidesthat“commentsontheaboveapplicationmustbesubmittedinwritingby5:00pmonMarch24,2014....Ifcommentscannotbesubmittedinwritingbythedateindicatedabove,youmaystillappearatthehearingandpresentyourcomments...”)Mr.PaulsenassertsthatsincethecommentperiodontheMDNSwasintegratedwiththecomment6periodontheapplication,apersonwouldreasonablyconcludethattheycouldcommentatthehearingontheapplicationgiventhequotedlanguageabove.TheNoticeisarguablyconfusinginthisregard.However,thesentenceallowingforcommentatthehearingrefersto“commentsonthe8aboveapplication”,nottheMDNS.Further,thefirstpageoftheNoticealsonotesthat“[tJherewillbenocommentperiodfollowingtheissuanceoftheThresholdDeterminationofNon-SignficanceMitigated(DNS-M).”Attheveryleast,thislattersentenceshouldpromptacitizenintenton10commentingontheMDNStoseekclarificationonwhentheMDNScommentperiodexpires.11ThelanguageontheMDNScommentperiodcouldusesomeclarification,butwhetheritmeritsa12newthresholddeterminationcannotbeaddressedinthisdecision.Mr.Paulsendoesnothavestandingtopursuehisnoticeissue.AsrequiredinRMC4-8-110(E)(3),oneoftherequirementsfor13standingonanappealissueisthattheappellantmusthavesufferedsomeinjuryinfactdueto14issuanceofthedecisionunderappeal.Mr.PaulsendoesnotallegethathewasdeniedanopportunitytocommentontheMDNSbecausehewasleadtobelievehecouldmakehiscommentsatthepublic15hearingonthepreliminaryplat.InpointoffactMr.Paulsensubmittednumerouscommentsonthe16MDNSonMarch22,2014,priortotheissuanceoftheMDNSonMarch31,2014.SeeEx.AtoEx.175.IntersectionMitigation.AsprovidedinmoredetailinFindingofFactNo.6,Mr.Paulsen18assertsthattheimpactsofintersectionimprovementsrequiredofthedeveloperwerenotadequately19assessedintheSEPAreviewandalsothatthequeuescausedbytheseimprovementswouldinterferewiththeaccesspointstotheproposedpreliminaryplat.ItisconcludedthattheSEPAreviewwas20adequateandthattheintersectionimprovementswillnotcreateanyprobablesignificantadverse21environmentalimpacts.Ontheadequacyissue,asconcludedinConclusionofLawNo.3(B),thestandardisthattheSEPAresponsibleofficialonlyhastomakeaprimafacieshowingthathehasbasedhisdeterminationupon23informationreasonablysufficienttoevaluatetheimpactsofaproposal.Thestandardhasbeen24appliedinnumerousSEPAappealcourtopinions,anduntiltherecentlyissuedSpokaneCountycase,-supra,nocourthaseverfoundthelevelofreviewtobelacking.TheSpokaneCountycasedealtwith2sitespecificcomprehensiveplanlanduseamendmentalongwithanassociatedrezone.The26environmentalchecklistcontainednoinformationonanyenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedPRELIMiNARYPLAT237c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 59 of 145
1legislativeamendments,eventhoughtherecordwasclearastofuturedevelopmentplansforthesite2andthesitewaslocatedinacriticalaquiferareawithhighsusceptibilitytocontamination.InthiscasetheCityclearlymadeaprimafacieshowingthatitdidnotadequatereviewoftrafficimpactspriortoissuanceoftheMDNS.Atrafficreport,StaffReportEx.12,waspreparedanalyzing4impactstoseveralintersections.ThetrafficreportassessedLOSimpactstoseveralintersections,eventhoughthenumberoftripsgeneratedforthoseintersectionswasnotsufficienttotriggeranLOSanalysisunderCitypolicies.ThereportandstreetcirculationissueswerereviewedbytheCity’s6engineeringdepartment.TheadvisorynotestotheMDNS,Ex.18,identifysixtransportationissuesthatwereassessedbyCityengineeringstaff.8AllofthistrafficreviewconductedbytheCityeasilyestablishesthattheCitymadea“primafacie”showingthatithadsufficientinformationtoreasonablyevaluatethetrafficimpactsoftheproposal.9Itshouldbeunderstoodthattheadequacyofreviewistobedistinguishedfromwhetheraproposal10willcreateprobablesignificantadverseimpacts.Theadequacyofreviewjustaddressestheoverallduediligenceinhowreviewwasconducted(hencetherequirementthattheCityonlymakea“prima11facie”showingofcompliance).Whendealingwithadequacyofreview,theCitydoesnothaveto12establishthatitreviewedeveryissuethatcouldconceivablyleadtosignificantadverseimpacts,onlythatinformationconsideredwas“reasonablysufficient”toevaluateenvironmentalimpacts.Of13course,ifasingleissueissignificantandwillclearlycauseadverseimpacts,thefailuretoconsiderit14couldundermineashowingofprimafaciecompliance.Theintersectionimprovementsdonotrisetothatlevel.Asborneoutbythesubsequentlytrafficaddendum,Ex.4,preparedafterissuanceofthe15MDNS,theintersectionimprovementsinfactdidnotcreateanyadverseimpactsandMr.Paulsen16presentednoevidencetothecontrary.DuringpreparationoftheMDNSitwasreasonablefortheSEPAresponsibleofficialtoconcludethattheimpactsoftheintersectionimprovementsdidnotmerit17furtherenvironmentalreview.Onthesecondissueofwhethertheintersectionwillcreateprobablesignificantadverse19environmentalimpacts,therecordisclearthattheintersectionwillnotcreateanysignificantadverseimpacts.Thisfmdingcanbemadeevenwithoutthesubstantialweightrequiredduetothe20determinationsoftheSEPAresponsibleofficial.Thetrafficreportaddendum,Ex.4,providesan21engineeringanalysispreparedbyaqualifiedtrafficexpertestablishingthatqueuescausedbysignalizationofthe156thAve.SE/SE142ndStreetintersectionwillnotinterferewiththeaccess22pointstotheproposedsubdivision.Mr.Paulsenprovidednoevidencetothecontrary.23PRELIMINARYPLAT246.ReviewCriteria.Chapter4-7RMCgovemsthecriteriaforpreliminaryreview.Applicable25standardsarequotedbelowinitalicsandappliedthroughcorrespondingconclusionsoflaw.26RMC4-7-080(B):Asubdivisionshallbeconsistentwiththefollowingprinciplesofacceptability:PRELE\IThARYPLAT-247c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 60 of 145
11.LegalLQtS.CreatelegalbuildingsiteswhichcomplywithallprovisionsoftheCityZoningCode.22.Access:Establishaccesstoapztblicroadforeachsegregatedparcel.3.PhysicalCharacteristics:Havesititablephysicalcharacteristics.Aproposedplatmaybedeniedbecauseoffloodinundation,orwetlandconditions.Constructionofprotectiveimprovementsmayberequiredasaconditionofapproval,andsuchimprovementsshallbenotedonthefinalplat.)4.Drainage:Makeadequateprovisionfordrainageways,streets,alleys,otherpublicways,water6suppliesandsanitaiywastes.7.AstocompliancewiththeZoningCode,Finding1(2)ofthestaffreportisadoptedby8referenceasifsetforthinfull,withallrecommendedconditionsofapprovaladoptedbythisdecisionaswell.Asdepictedintheplatmap,StaffReportEx.3,eachproposedlotwilldirectlyaccessapublicRoad,RoadA.AsdetenninedinFindingofFactNo.4and5,theprojectis10adequatelydesignedtopreventanyimpactstocriticalareasandwillnotcausefloodingproblems.AsdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.4,theproposalprovidesforadequate/appropriatepublicfacilitiesasrequiredbyRMC4-8-080(B).12RMC4-7-080(T)(1):...TheHearingExaminershallassureconformancewiththegeneralpiuposes13oftheComprehensivePlanandadoptedstandards...148.TheproposedpreliminaryplayisconsistentwiththeRentonComprehensivePlanasoutlined15inFinding1(1)ofthestaffreport,whichisincorporatedbythisreferenceasifsetforthinfull.16RMC4-7-120(A):Noplanforthereplatting,subdivision,ordedicationofanyareasshallbeapprovedbytheHearingExaminerunlessthestreetsshownthereinareconnectedbysuifacedroad17orstreet(accordingtoCityspecfIcationstoanexistingstreetorhighway.18AsshowninStaffReportEx.3,theinternalroadsystemconnectsto156AveSE,apublic19road.20RMC4-7-120(B):Thelocationofallstreetsshallconformtoanyadoptedplansforstreetsinthe21Cii10.TheCity’sadoptedstreetplansarenotaddressedinthestaffreportoranywhereelseintheadministrativerecord.However,theonlyotherstreetconnectionpossiblefortheproposalwould23betoanextensionofSE8thStreet,whichisaccommodatedbyastubroad.Consequently,the24criterionaboveisconstruedassatisfiedbytheproposal.25RIVIC4-7-120(C):IfasubdivisionislocatedintheareaofanofficiallydesignedLsicJtrail,provisionss/ia/1bemarieforreservationoftheright-of-wayorforeasementstotheCityfortrail26pulposes.PRELIMINARYPLAT-257c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 61 of 145
111.Thereisnothingintherecordtoreasonablysuggesttheproximityofanyofficialdesignated2trail.RMC4-7430(C):Apla4shortplat,subdivisionordedicationshallbepreparedinconformancewiththefollowingp-ovisions:41.LandUnsuitableforSubdivision:Landwhichisfoundtobeunsuitableforsubdivisionincludes5landwithfeatureslikelytobeharmfultothesafetyandgeneralhealthofthefi’tttreresidents(such6aslandsadverselyaffectedbyflooding,steepslopes,orrockformations,).LandwhichtheDepartmentortheHearingExaminerconsidersinappropriateforsubdivisionshallnotbe7subdividedunlessadequatesafeguardsareprovidedagainsttheseadverseconditions.8a.Flooding/Inundation:Ifanyportionofthelandwithintheboundaiyofapreliminaryplatis9subjecttofloodingorinundation,thatportionofthesubdivisionmusthavetheapprovaloftheStateaccordingtochapter86.16RCWbeforetheDepartmentandtheHearingExaminershallconsidersuchsubdivisionb.SteepSlopes:Aplashortplat,subdivisionordedicationwhichwouldresultinthecreationofa12lotorlotsthatprimarilyhaveslopesfortypercent(40%,orgreaterasmeasuredperRj’vfC4-3-O5OJla,i•i’ithoutadequateareaatlesserslopesuponwhichdevelopmentmayoccur,shallnotbe13approved.14153.LandClearingandTreeRetention:ShallcomplywithRMC4-4-130,TreeRetentionandLand16ClearingRegulations.174.Streams:a.Preservation:Everyreasonableeffortshallbemadetopreserveexistingstreams,bodiesofwater,19andwetlandareas.20b.Method:Ifastreampassesthroughanyofthesubjectproperty,aplanshallbepresentedwhich71indicateshowthestreamwillbepreserved.Themethodologiesusedshouldincludeanoveiflow—area,andanattempttominimizethedisturbanceofthenaturalchannelandstreambed.22c.Culverting:Thepipingortunnelingofwatershallbediscouragedandallowedonlywhengoing23understreets.24d.CleanWater:Everyeffortshallbemadetokeepallstreamsandbodiesofwaterclearofdebris25andpollutants.26PRELIMINARYPLAT-267c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 62 of 145
112.Thelandissuitableforasubdivisionasthestormwaterdesignassuresthatitwillnot2contributetofloodingandtherearenocriticalareasattheprojectsite.Nopipingortunnelingofstreamsisproposed.TreeswillberetainedasrequiredbyRMC4-4-130asdeterminedinFindingof3FactNo.5.RMC4-7-140:Approvalofallsubdivisionslocatedineithersinglefamilyresidentialormulti-familyresidentialzonesasdefinedintheZoningCodeshallbecontingentnponthesubdivider‘sdedicationoflandorprovidingfeesinlieuofdedicationtotheCity,allasnecessarytomitigatethe6adverseeffectsofdevelopmentupontheexistingparkandrecreationservicelevels.TherequirementsandproceduresforthismitigationshallbepertheCityofReutonParksMitigationResolution.813.Cityordinancesrequirethepaymentofparkimpactfeespriortobuildingpermitissuance.9RMC4-7-150(A):Theproposedstreetsystemshallextendandcreateconnectionsbetweenexisting10streetsunlessotherwiseapprovedbythePublicWorksDepartment.Priortoapprovingastreet11systemthatdoesnotextendorconnect,theReviewingOfficialshallfindthatsuchexceptionshallmeettherequirementsofsubsection£3ofthisSection.Theroadwayclassificationsshallbeas12definedanddesignatedbytheDepartment.1314.AsshowninStaffReportEx.3,theinternalroadconnectionto156Ave.S.iscurrentlythe14onlyroadconnectionpossiblefortheproject.15RMC4-7-150(B):AllproposedstreetnamesshallbeapprovedbytheCity.1615.Asconditioned.17RMC4-7-150(C):Streetsintersectingwithexistingorproposedpublichighways,majororissecondaryarterialsshallbeheldtoaminimum.1916.Theproposedconnectionto156Ave.S.istheonlyconnectionpossiblefortheproject.20Ri\IC4-7-150(D):ThealignmentofallstreetsshallbereviewedandapprovedbythePublicJVorksDepartment.ThestreetstandardssetbyRMC4-6-060shallapplyunlessotherwiseapproved.Street—alignmentoffsetsoflessthanonehundredtwentyfivefeet(1259arenotdesirable,butmaybe22approvedbytheDepartmentuponashowingofneedbutonlyafterprovisionofallnecessarysafetymeasures.232417.AsdeterminedinFindingofFact4,thePublicWorksDepartmenthasreviewedandapprovedtheadequacyofstreets,whichincludescompliancewithapplicablestreetstandards.25RIN’IC4-7-150(E):26PRELIMiNARYPLAT-277c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 63 of 145
1I.Grid:Agridstreetpatternshallbeusedtoconnectexistingandnewdevelopmentandshallbethe2predominantstreetpatterninanysubdivisionpermittedbythisSection.2.Linkages:Linkages,includingstreets,sidewalks,pedestrianorbikepaths,shallbeprovidedwithinandbetweenneighborhoodswhentheycancreateacontinuousandinterconnectednetwork4ofroadsandpathways.ImplementationofthisrequirementshallcomplywithcomprehensivePlanTransportationElementObjectiveT-AandPoliciesT-9throughT-16andCommunityDesign5Element,ObjectivecD-MandPoliciesC’D-50andcD-60.63.Exceptions:a.Thegnidpatternmaybeadjustedtoa‘flexiblegnid”byreducingthenumberoflingesorthe8alignmentbetweenroads,wherethefollowingfactorsarepresentonsite:9i.Infeasibleduetotopographical/environmentalconstraints;and/or10ii.Substantialimprovementsareexisting.4.connections:Priortoadoptionofacompletegridsbeetplan,reasonableconnectionsthatlink12existingportionsofthegridsystemshallbemade.Ataminimum,stubstreetsshallberequired13withinsubdivisionstoallowfutureconnectivity.145.AlleyAccess:AlleyaccessisthepreferredstreetpatternexceptforpropertiesintheResidentialLowDensitylandusedesignation.TheResidentialLowDensitylandusedesignationincludestheRC,R-],andR-4zones.Priortoapprovalofaplatwithoutalleyaccess,theReviewingOfficialshallevaluateanalleylayoutanddeterminethattheuseofalley(s)isnotfeasible...166.AlternativeConfigurations:Offsetorlooproadsarethepreferredalternativeconfigurations.1718cul-de-SacStreets:Cul-de-sacstreetsmayonlybepermittedbytheReviewingOfficialwhereduetodemonstrablephysicalconstraintsnofittureconnectiontoalargerstreetpatternisphysically19possible.2018.AsshowninStaffReportEx.3,nogridpatternispossiblefortheproposal.AlleyaccessisnotrequiredsincetheproposalisinaResidentialLowDensitylandusedesignation.Theinternal—roadsareloopedasencouragedbythecriterionabove.Noculdesacsareproposedandastubroad22isproposedasencouragedbythecriterionabove.Thecriterionismet.23R1\IC4-7-150(F):Alladjacentrights-of-wayandnewrights-of-waydedicatedaspartofflueplat,94includingstreets,roads,andalleys,shallbegradedtotheirfillwidthandthepavementandsidewalksshallbeconstructedasspecfiedinthestreetstandardsordeferredbythe25Planning/Building/PublicWorksAdministratororhis/herdesignee.2619.Asproposed.PRELIMINARYPLAT-287c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 64 of 145
IRMC4-7-150(G):Streetsthatmaybeextendedintheeventoffutureadjacentplattingshallbe2requiredtobededicatedtotheplatboundaiyline.Extensionsofgreaterdepththananaveragelotshallbeimprovedwithtemporat3turnarounds.Dedicationofafull-widthboundamystreetshallbe3requiredincertaininstancestofacilitatefuturedevelopment.420.Asconditioned.AsshowninEx.3totheStaffReport,thestubroadextensionextendsforadepthgreaterthananaveragelotsoatemporaryturnaroundisrequired.6RiIC4-7-170(A):Insofaraspractical,sidelotlinesshallbeatrightanglestostreetlinesorradialtocurvedstreetlines.721.AsdepictedinStaffReportEx.3,thesidelinesareinconformancewiththerequirement8quotedabove.R’1C4-7-170(B):Eachlotmusthaveaccesstoapublicstreetorroad.Accessmaybebyprivate10accesseasementstreetpertherequirementsofthestreetstandards.1122.Aspreviouslydetermined,eachlothasaccesstoapublicstreet.12RMC4-7-170(C):Thesize,shape,andorientationoflotsshallmeettheminimumareaandwidth13requirementsoftheapplicablezoningclassfIcationandshallbeappropriateforthetypeofdevelopmentandusecontemplated.Furthersubdivisionoflotswithinaplatapprovedthroughthe14provisionsofthisChaptermustbeconsistentwiththethen-currentapplicablemaximumdensity15requirementasmeasuredwithintheplatasawhole.1623.Aspreviouslydetennined,theproposedlotscomplywiththezoningstandardsoftheR-4zone,whichincludesarea,widthanddensity.178RMC4-7-170(D):Widthbetweensidelotlinesattheirforemostpoints(re.,thepointswherethesidelotlinesintersectwiththestreetright-of-wayline,)shallnotbelessthaneightypercent(80%)of19therequiredlotwidthexceptinthecasesof(1,)pipestemlots,whichshallhaveaminimumwidthoftwentyfeet(209and(2)lotsonastreetcurveortheturningcircleofcul-de-sac(radiallots),which20shallbeaminimumofthirtyfivefeet(359.21.24.AsshowninStaffReportEx.3,therequirementissatisfied.77RMC4-7-170(E):Alllotcornersatintersectionsofdedicatedpublicrights-of-way,exceptalleys,23shallhavemmniunradiusoffifteenfeet(152.2425.Asconditioned.2526PRELFMINARYPLAT-297c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 65 of 145
IRMC4-7-190(A):Dueregardshallbeshowntoallnaturalfeaturessuchaslargetrees,2watercourses,andsimilarcommunityassets.Suchnaturalfeaturesshouldbepreserved,therebyaddingattractivenessandvaluetotheproperty.325.TreeswillberetainedasrequiredbyCitycodeasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5.4Therearenoothernaturalfeaturesthatneedpreservationascontemplatedinthecriterionquotedabove.6RMC4-7-200(A):UnlessseptictanksarespecificallyapprovedbythePublicWorksDepartmentandtheKingCountyHealthDepartment,sanitalysewersshallbeprovidedbythedeveloperatno7costtotheCityanddesignedinaccordancewithCitystandards.Sidesewerlinesshallbeinstalled8eightfeet(82intoeachlotfsanitaiysewermainsareavailable,orprovidedwiththesubdivisiondevelopment.926.Asconditioned.10RMC4-7-200(B):AnadequatedrainagesystemshallbeprovidedfortheproperdrainageofallsuifacewateiCrossdrainsshallbeprovidedtoaccommodateallnaturalwaterflowandshallbeof12siyfIcientlengthtopermitfull-widthroadwayandrequiredslopes.Thedrainagesystemshallbe1designedpertherequirementsofRMC4-6-030,Drainage(‘SuifaceWater,)Standards.Thedrainagesystemshallincludedetentioncapacityfortheneivstreetareas.Residentialplatsshallalsoinclude14detentioncapacityforfuturedevelopmentofthelots.Waterqualityfeaturesshallalsobedesignedto15providecapacityforthenewstreetpavingfortheplat.1627.TheproposalprovidesforadequatedrainagethatisinconformancewithapplicableCitydrainagestandardsasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.4.TheCity’sstormwaterstandards,which17areincorporatedintothetechnicalinformationreportandwillbefurtherimplementedduringcivil18planreview,ensurecompliancewithallofthestandardsinthecriterionquotedabove.19RMC4-7-200(C):ThewaterdistributionsystemincludingthelocationsoffirehydrantsshallbedesignedandinstalledinaccordancewithCitystandardsasdefinedbytheDepartmentandFire20Departmentrequirements.2128.CompliancewithCitywatersystemdesistandardsisassuredduringfinalplatreview.22RMC4-7-200(D):Allutilitiesdesignedtoservethesubdivisionshallbeplacedunderground.Any23utilitiesinstalledintheparkingstripshallbeplacedinsuchamanneranddepthtopermittheplantingoftrees.Thoseutilitiestobelocatedbeneathpavedsuifacesshallbeinstalled,includingall24serviceconnections,asapprovedbytheDepartment.Suchinstallationshallbecompletedand25approvedpriortotheapplicationofanysumfacematerial.EasementsmayberequiredforthemaintenanceandoperationofutilitiesasspecfledbytheDepartment.26PRELIIvIINARYPLAT-307c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 66 of 145
129.Asconditioned.2RI1C4-7-200(E):AnycableTVconduitsshallbeundergroundedatthesametimeasotherbasicutilitiesareinstalledtoserveeachlot.Conduitforserviceconnectionsshallbelaidtoeachlotlinebysubdividerastoobviatethenecessitrfordisturbingthestreetarea,includingsidewalks,oralley4improvementswhensuchserviceconnectionsareextendedtoservean))building.Thecostoftrenching,conduit,pedestalsand/orvaultsandlateralsaswellaseasementsthereforerequiredtobringservicetothedevelopmentshallbebornebythedeveloperand/orlandowner.Thesubdivider6shallberesponsibleonlyforconduittoservehisdevelopment.Conduitendsshallbeelbowedtofinalgroundelevationandcapped.ThecableTVcompanyshallprovidemapsandspecUlcationstothesubdividerandshallinspecttheconduitandcertf’totheCitythatitisproperlyinstalled.S30.Asconditioned.9RlvIC4-7-210:10A.MONUMENTS:1112Concretepermanentcontrolmonumentsshallbeestablishedateachandeverycontrollingcornerofthesubdivjsion.InteriormonumentsshallbelocatedasdeterminedbytheDepartment.Allsurveys13shallbepertheCityofRentonsurveyingstandards.14B.SURVEY:V15AllotherlotcornersshallbemarkedpertheCitysurveyingstandards.16C.STREETSIGNS:17V18Thesubdividershallinstallallstreetnamesignsnecessaryinthesubdivision.31.Asconditioned.20DECISION21TheproposedpreliminaryplatasdepictedinStaffReportEx.3anddescribedinthisdecisionisconsistentwithallapplicablereviewcriteriaasoutlinedabove,subjecttothefollowingconditions:1.TheapplicantshallcomplywithmitigationmeasuresissuedaspartoftheMitigated—DetenninationofNon-Significancefortheproposal.242.AllproposedstreetnamesshallbeapprovedbytheCity.253.Alllotcornersatintersectionsofdedicatedpublicrights-of-way,exceptalleys,shallhave26minimumradiusoffifteenfeet(15’).PRELIIvIThARYPLAT-317c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 67 of 145
14.Sidesewerlinesshallbeinstalledeightfeet(8)intoeachlotifsanitarysewermainsare7available,orprovidedwiththesubdivisiondevelopment.5.Allutilitiesdesignedtoservethesubdivisionshallbeplacedunderground.Anyutilitiesinstalledintheparkingstripshallbeplacedinsuchamanneranddepthtopermitthe4plantingoftrees.Thoseutilitiestobelocatedbeneathpavedsurfacesshallbeinstalled,5includingallserviceconnections,asapprovedbytheDepartmentofPublicWorks.Suchinstallationshallbecompletedandapprovedpriortotheapplicationofanysurfacematerial.6Easementsmayberequiredforthemaintenanceandoperationofutilitiesasspecifiedbythe7DepartmentofPublicWorks.86.AnycableTVconduitsshallbeundergroundedatthesametimeasotherbasicutilitiesareinstalledtoserveeachlot.ConduitforserviceconnectionsshallbelaidtoeachlotlinebyApplicantastoobviatethenecessityfordisturbingthestreetarea,includingsidewalks,or10alleyimprovementswhensuchserviceconnectionsareextendedtoserveanybuilding.Thecostoftrenching,conduit,pedestalsandlorvaultsandlateralsaswellaseasementstherefore11requiredtobringservicetothedevelopmentshallbebornebythedeveloperandlorland12owner.Theapplicantshallberesponsibleonlyforconduittoservehisdevelopment.Conduitendsshallbeelbowedtofmalgroundelevationandcapped.ThecableTVcompanyshall13providemapsandspecificationstotheapplicantandshallinspecttheconduitandcertifyto14theCitythatitisproperlyinstalled.157.Theapplicantshallinstallallstreetnamesignsnecessaryinthesubdivisionpriortofinalplatapproval.16178.Citystaffshallinvestigatewhethertheproposed156thAvecrossingforschoolchildrenissafeintermsoflightingandstoppingdistance.Staffshallrequirefurthermitigationas18necessarytoensuresafewalkingconditionsforchildrenwalkingtotheschoolbus.199.TheproposedstubroadshallincludeatemporarytarnaroundasrequiredbyRMC4-7-150(G)ifthisisnotalreadyproposed.2110.TheapplicantshallcomplywiththemitigationmeasuresissuedaspartoftherevisedDeterminationofNon-SignificanceMitigated,datedMay19,2014.2211.Theapplicantshallobtainademolitionpermitandallrequiredinspectionsfortheremovalof23theexistingsinglefamilyresidenceanddetachedgaragepriortoFinalPlatrecording.24.12.AfinaldetailedlandscapeplanshallbesubmittedtoandapprovedbytheCurrentPlanning25ProjectManagerpriortoconstructionpermitissuance,includinga10-footlandscapedvisual26barrieraroundtheperimeterofthestormdrainagetract(TractA).PRELIMINARYPLAT-327c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 68 of 145
13.ThelandscapedvisualbarrieraroundtheperimeterofTractAshallbeinstalledpriorto7recordingofthefinalplat.StreetfrontagelandscapingshallbeinstalledpriortoCertificateof—Occupancyforthenewsinglefamilyresidences.314.Aneasementfortreeprotectionshallberecordedalongtheeastpropertylinetoprotectthe4treesavailableforretention(asdeterminedbytheCityofRentonArborist).Theeasement5shouldbeofsufficientwidthtoadequatelyprotectthetreesidentifiedforprotection,howeverstaffrecommendsthattheeasementwidthbepermittedtovarybasedonthewidthofthe6standoftreesproposedtoberetained.SucheasementshallbeidentifiedonthefaceoftheFinalPlat.815.Afinaltreeretentionplanshallbesubmittedwiththeconstructionpermitapplicationidentifyingallthetreestoberetained,asdeterminedbytheCityArborist.916.Astreetlightingplanshallbesubmittedatthetimeofconstructionpermitreviewforreview10andapprovalbytheCity’sPlanReviewer.17.TheplatmapshallberevisedtoshowTractBasdedicatedright-of-way.Therevisedplat12mapshallbesubmittedtotheCurrentPlanningProjectManagerpriortorecordingofthe13finalplat.1418.Secondaryreviewmayberequiredforthepondwithbothstructuralengineerandgeotechengineer,andliningmayalsoberequired.1519.Sitegradingshallbelimitedtothesummermonths.Ifthegradingistotakeplaceduringthe16wetterwinterorspringmonth,acontingencyshallbeprovidedintheprojectbudgettoallow17forexportofnativesoilandimportofstructuralfill.1820.Theapplicantshallberequiredtocreateahomeowner’sassociationofmaintenanceagreementforthesharedutilities,stormwaterfacilities,andmaintenanceandresponsibilities19forallsharedimprovementsofthisdevelopment.Adraftofthedocument(s)shallbe20submittedtoCurrentPlanningProjectManagerforthereviewandapprovalbytheCityAttorneyandPropertyServicessectionpriortotherecordingofthefinalplat.217723242526PRELIMINARYPLAT-337c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 69 of 145
21.Bamboomaynotbeusedforanylandscapingrequiredoftheproposal.73DATEDthis13thdayofAugust,2014.____IhitA,OlhrcchLs6CityofRentonHearingExaminerAppealRightandValuationNotices8RMC4-8-080providesthatthefinaldecisionofthehearingexaminerissubjecttoappealtotheRentonCityCouncil.RMC4-8-110(E)(14)requiresappealsofthehearingexaminer’s10decisiontobefiledwithinfourteen(14)calendardaysfromthedateofthehearingexaminer’sdecision.Arequestforreconsiderationtothehearingexaminermayalsobefiledwithinthis14dayappealperiodasidentifiedinRMC4-8-1l0(E)(13)andRMC4-8-100(G)(9).Anew17fourteen(14)dayappealperiodshallcommenceupontheissuanceofthe—reconsideration.Additionalinformationregardingtheappealprocessmaybeobtainedfrom13theCityClerk’sOffice,RentonCityHall—7thfloor,(425)430-6510.14Affectedpropertyownersmayrequestachangeinvaluationforpropertytaxpurposesnotwithstandinganyprogramofrevaluation.1517181920217723242526PRELIMINARYPLAT-347c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 70 of 145
345678BEFORETHEHEARINGEXAiIINERFORTHECITYOFRENTON9)RE:TheEnclaveatBridleRidge)10PreliminaryPlat)FINALDECISIONIiPreliminaryFlatandSEPAAppeal12LUA14-000241))13_____________________________________________14sui’mRy15Theapplicantrequestspreliminaryplatapprovalforthesubdivisionof8.8acresinto31single-family16residentiallotsontheeastsideof156thAvenueSEbetweenSE139thPlaceandSE143rdStreet.An17appealofaMitigatedDeterminationofNonsignificance(“MDNS”)issuedundertheWashingtonStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct(“SEPA”)wasconsolidatedwiththereviewofthepreliminaryplat.The18preliminaryplatisapprovedsubjecttoconditionsandtheSEPAappealisdenied.19TheSEPAappellantshaveraisedvalidandunderstandableconcernsabouttrafficcongestion,butthecontributiontothatcongestionfallswithinthelevelofservice(“LOS”)standardsadoptedbytheCity-20Council.LOSsetswhattheCityhaslegislativelydetenninedtobeanacceptableleveloftraffic21congestion.TheSEPAappellantshavenotdemonstratedthattheproposalviolatesCityadoptedLOS.22TheCity’suniqueLOSisnotverywellsuitedforprojectlevelreviewbecauseitallowsforseverecongestioninsomeareassolongastrafficrunsmoresmoothlyatamoregloballevelwithintheCity’s23transportationnetwork.NonethelessfromalegalstandpointtheCity’sLOSislargelytheonlystandardthatcanbeappliedinthiscase.TheLOSstandardrepresentsabalancingof(1)thestate’sGrowth24ManagementActmandatefortheCitytoaccommodateanallocatedamountofpopulationgrowth;(2)-limitationsontheavailabilityofpublicfindstopayfortransportationinfrastructure;(3)adherencetothestateandfederalconstitutionalmandatethatdeveloperscanonlybeheldfmanciallyresponsiblefor26thetrafficimpactstheycreate(e.g.ifaprojectcontributeto20%ofthetrafficforaneededtrafficPRELIMiNARYPLAT-7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 71 of 145
Iimprovement,thedevelopercanonlybemadetopayfor20%oftheimprovement);and(4)avoidingthecreationofanunconstitutionaldefactomoratoriumbyimposinganLOSthatindefinitelyprohibits2development.ApplyingadifferentstandardthantheCity’sadoptedLOSstandardwilllikelyresultinasituationthatviolatestheconstitutionalrightsoftheapplicantorthatisinconsistentwiththetransportationfundingprioritiessetbytheCityCouncil,unlesssomeproportionateshareimprovementscanberequiredoftheapplicant.5Inthiscasesomeproportionateshareimprovementsarebeingrequiredoftheapplicantforanintersectionthatisnotperformingwell,butaspointedoutbyoneoftheprojectopponents,thismoney6hastobeexpendedinsixyearsorreturnedtotheapplicant.Itisentirelypossiblethatthosemonieswillnotbeexpendedinsixyears,butgiventhefactorsthatlimitthesettingofanLOSstandard,thatisthemostthatcanbelegallyrequired.Projectopponentsandtherecorddoesnotrevealanyothersproportionatesharemitigationthatcouldfurtherreducecongestions.Intheabsenceofanysuchmitigation,theCity’sadoptedLOSstandardislargelydeterminativeontheissueofassessingcongestion9issues.ThecongestionissueisaddressedinmoredetailinFindingofFactNo.4(E)atpage12ofthisdecision.1011TESTIMONY1213SEPAAppellantTestimony14Mi-.RogerPaulsonstatedheisneighboroftheproposeddevelopment.HisonlyaccesstothecitystreetsystemisbywayofanintersectionofSE5thPlaceand156thAvenueSEwhichmakesthe15trafficconditionson156thaprimaryconcerntohimandhisneighbors.HebelievesthecityhascontinuallyfailedtoinfOrmtherecordoftheadverseimpactsassociatedwiththisproject.Additionally,16hefeelsthecity’spubliccommentprocessfortheplatandSEPAdeterminationwasmisleadingandunclear.Hisneighborsdidnotunderstandthelimitedopportunitytheyhadtoprovidecomments17regardingtheprojectbecauseofthecity’sfailuresatprovidinginformation.iSApplicantTestimony19Mr.Carsonstatedtheappealraisestwoissueswithonebeingproceduralandonebeingtraffic.20Thecityusedawell-establishedDNSprocessandfolloweditcorrectly.Withregardtothetraffic,thetrafficengineerfortheprojectisabletoprovideinformationonhowtheproposalandhowitwillnot21negativelyimpacttraffic.22VincentGegliatestifiedthatheisaprincipalengineerwithTraflEx.Hisfirmpreparedthe23trafficanalysisfortheproject.ThefirsttrafficanalysiswasdatedDecember27,2013(Exhibit2,attachment12).Thefirstanalysisdeterminedthenumberoftripsgeneratedbytheplatandperformed24levelofservicecalculationsfortheintersectionswhichisatypicalanalysis.Thecityhasdefinedthescopeoftrafficanalysisbylimitingthenumberofintersectionstobeanalyzedtothosethatwillbe25subjectedtoanincreaseoffivepercenttrafficvolumeduetotheproject.NoneoftheintersectionsinRentonmeetthiscriteria;however,asamatterofpreference,thecityaskedTraxtolookatthetwo26siteaccessstreetsto156thAvenueandtheintersectionof142ndand156thSE.ThislatterintersectionPRELIMINARYPLAT-27c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 72 of 145
1isastop-controlledsignintersectiontothesouthoftheproject.Theoriginalstudylookedatthepmpeak-hourandconcludedthatthetwositeaccessstreetsofferedacceptablelevelofservicebutthe142ndintersectiondidnotmeetlevelofservicewithorwithoutthenewproject.Traxpreparedanaddendumtotheoriginaltrafficreportwhichincludedamandpmpeakhourpointsatthepreviouslystudiedareasandaddedanewarea,theSE5thPlaceand156thAvenueintersection.Onceagain,thelevelsofservicewerethesamewithorwithoutthenewplattraffic.Thisinformationisintables1and2oftheaddendumdatedApril29,2014(Exhibit1,attachmentd).Generally,thepmpeakhourisworsethantheampeakhour.Afterprojectcompletion,theSE5thPlaceintersectionwillcontinuetooperateatlevelofserviceC,thenorth-sideaccessstreetwilloperateatlevelC,thesouthsideaccessstreetwill6operateatlevelB,andthe142ndintersectionwilloperateatlevelF.Thecityisintheprocessofapprovingaplantoinstallatrafficlightat142ndand156th.Theappealstatedthattheconditionswiththetrafficlighthavenotbeenanalyzed,thusTraffExpreparedasecondaddendumdatedJune20,2014sinordertoanalyzethepossiblenewconditions(Exhibit4).Withthetrafficsignal,the142ndintersectionwouldimprovetolevelofserviceBinthea.m.andp.m.peakhours.Thesouthbound9queueon156thwouldbesignificantlyreducedaswell,thusitwouldnotblockSE5thPlace.Themaximumqueuewascalculatedat77peakintheam,and61inthepmpeakhour.Thesecalculations10areallsubjecttohowthesignalistimed.Thesouthsideaccessroadtotheenclaveroadis11approximately175ftwhichisnorthofthestopbarforthesignal.Withthemaximumqueuecalculated,thisaccessareashouldnotbeaffected.Inregardtothetripsfortheprojectrelativetothetripsthrough12theaffectedintersections,theprojectwilladd7tripstotheampeakhourand9tripstothepmpeakhour.1-,L)Undercross-examinationbyMr.Paulson,Mr.Gegliastatedthatthecityrequestedanampeak14analysisafterreceivingaletterfromMr.Paulson.Inregardtotheampeakanalysisaddendumbeingaddedaftercityapproval,Mr.Geglianotedthattypicallythepmpeakhouristheworstoperating15conditions.Theobservedstop-linequeueislongestatthepmpeakhour.16Mr.Paulsonstatedthatcitypolicyrequiresbothamandpmpeakhouranalysis.Henotedthat17the.codecitationforthisrequirementwasinhisoriginalrequestforreconsideration.Theampeakanalysiswasnotincludedintheproposaluntilafterapproval.18UndercrossexaminationbyMr.Paulson,Mr.Gegliatestifiedthattrafficanalysisconsidersboth19queuetimeandopposingtraffic.20..UnderredirectbyMr.Carson,Mr.GegliasaidthatRentontrafficguidelmesapplyto5percent21increaseintrafficduetoaproject,andthisincreasedoesnotoccurforthisproject.Itisveryrarethatamtrafficisgreaterthanpmtraffic.2223CitrTestimonyInregardtotheproceduralissuesraised,Mr.GarmonNewsom,AssistantRentonCityAttorney,—statedthatthereisnoevidencethatanyotherpersonattemptedtobecomeapartyofrecordandwere25deniedtheopportunityforsubmittingsomethinglate.HenotedthatMr.Paulsonclaimsotherneighborsmisunderstoodthecommentprocess,butMr.Paulsonwasabletounderstandtheprocesssoitseems26likelyotherswouldhaveaswell.Additionally,Mr.PaulsondoesnothavestandingtoraisethisissuePRELIMINARYPLAT—37c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 73 of 145
Ibecauseheunderstoodtheprocess.ThecitycompliedwithalternativeDNSprocess.ThisprocessallowsacitysuchasRentoriwithanintegratedreviewprocesstoutilizeanintegratedcommentperiodtoobtaincommentsonthenoticeofapplicationandlikelythreshold,Thenoticepointsoutthatthecitywasrelyingontheoptionalcode,andtheestablishedcommentperiodwastheonlyopportunityforcomment.Adequatenoticewasprovidedoftheprocess.4JillDing,RentonSeniorPlanner,testifiedthatMr.Paulsonsubmittedacommentletterduring5theSEPAcommentperiod(Exhibit2,attachment21).6RohiniNair,ReritonCivilEngineer,stated,inregardtoRenton’strafficstudyguidelines,thepolicymentionsthatitshouldincludeamandpmanalysis.TheCodeusestheword“should.”However,whenstaffreviewedtheproject,itfoundtherewasnota5percentincreaseinthetrafficwhich8isthethresholdfortheguidelines.Additionally,whenreviewingthesite,itwasclearthepmpeakhourwasthemorecriticalsituation.Eveninthepmtherewasnotafivepercentincrease.Sheisalevelifi9CivilEngineerforthecity.Shereviewstheengineeringaspectsofprojects.Forprojectswithmorethan20trips,sheconductsatrafficstudy.ShehasaBachelor’sinCivilEngineeringandaMaster’sinCivil10EngineeringInvestigationfromUniversityofTexas.Inregardtotrafficimpactsfortheproposal,thereare31expectednewtripsfortheprojectinthepmpeakhour.ShehasworkedatseveralcitiesinWashington,includingDesMoinesandBellevue,beforebeginningworkinRenton.The20thresholdforimpactsisnothighbasedonherexperience.Insomeplacesshehasworked,thethresholdis30.—Thethresholdreallydependsonthejurisdictionwithrelevantfactorsincludingsizeandnatureofthe13area.Inregardtothe156thand142ndintersection,thecityhasstudiedthetrafficinthisarea.ThecityconductedastudytodetermineiftrafficsignalswerewarrantedatthisintersectionsinFebruary,2014.14Thecitytooktrafficcountsattheintersectionandfoundasignalwaswarranted.Therearenine-possiblecriteriathatwarrantasignal,andtwoweremet.Thetwosatisfiedweretheincomingvolumes1andpeakhourcounts.Theintersectionwasputatnumbernineoftheprioritylistfortraffic16improvements.TheneedforthesignalisnotrelatedtotheproposedprojectbecausetheexistingtrafficwasusedinconductingtheFebruary,2014analysis.Iftheprojectdidnotmoveforward,thecitywould17stillplacethesignalinstallationatnineonthelist.ThecityconductedanadditionalstudyoftrafficcountsinJune,2014(Exhibit5)for156thand142nd.Inthisnewanalysis,thecityanalyzedwhatlevel18ofservicewouldbewithasignal.Thecityfoundthatthelevelofservicewouldbegood,andthequeueswouldnotbackuptoaccesspoints.Currently,thelevelofserviceforamisE.Forpm,itisF.19LevelofserviceFmeansthereislotsofdelay.Withatrafficsignal,theamlevelofservicewouldbeCandthepmlevelofservicewouldalsobeC.Theseareoutrightimprovementsandwillmovefonvard—eveniftheprojectdoesnot.Thetrafficsignalisnottiedtotheproposedproject.Shedoesnotknowthe21likelihoodofwhetherthesignalwillbeinstalledinthenext6years.Thestudywasbasedonexistingtraffic,anddidnotincludeprojectionsforincreaseddevelopment.Rentonbasesitsstudiesona2percentgrowthrate.Withlargersubdivisions,Rentonrequiresmorelong-termstudies,specificallystudiesover2years.The2percentgrowthrateisusedunlessthereishugedevelopmentsuchas.amall23beingbuiltclose-by.24Undercross-examinationbyMr.Paulson,Ms.Nairtestifiedthat,inregardtothelanguageof25“should,”ifasitewillnothaveasignificantimpact,thenneitheranamorpmstudywouldberequired.26Undercross-examinationbyMr.Paulson,Ms.DingnotedthatonepubliccommentwasreceivedPRELIMINARYPLAT-47c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 74 of 145
Iafterthecloseofthecommentperiod.Thecityrespondedtothiscommentanddidnotdenyitsentryintotherecord.ThecommentLetterdidnotincludeanySEPArelatedquestions.TheSEPAmitigationincludedaconditionthatrequirestheapplicanttopayitsfairshareofthetrafficsignal.However,themitigationclarifiedthatthesignalwasnotlinkedtotheprojectnorrequiredtobeinstalledaspartoftheproject.4Undercross-examinationbyI’vlr.Paulson,Ms.NairsaidshedidnotfeelcomfortableaddressingtheCityofRenton2014-20196-yearTransportationImprovementPlandocumentbecauseitwas6outsideofherDepartment.7Undercross-examinationbyMr.Carson,Ms.Nairtestifiedthatwhenshereferencesthecity’sguidelinessheistalkingaboutthedocument“PolicyGuidelinesforTrafficImpactforNew8Development.”ThisdocumentisExhibit2,attachment29,ex.C.Thecityusesthisdocumentwhenreviewingprojects.Thefirstguidelineisthatgenerally,areviewisnecessaryifthereare20ormore9tripsgenerated.Thenextguidelineisthatthescopeofthatanalysisisthoseintersectionswhichtheprojectwillcauseafivepercentincreaseatpeakhourtrips.Thepolicyuesfivepercentasaguideline10andallowsPublicWorksandCommunityDevelopmentdecideifthedepartmentsbelievefurtherreview11isnecessaryifthefivepercentthresholdisnotmet.Thesubjectprojectdidnotmeetthefivepercentthreshold.Iffivepercentwastheonlyfactor,therewouldhavenotbeenanyanalysis.Theapplicant12usedathreepercentgrowthfactorinitsanalysis.13UnderredirectbyMr.Newsom,Ms.Dingreadintotherecordthecommentletterreceivedafterthecommentperiodended.Theletteraddressedconcernovertheareabecomingaghettoandnoted14concernaboutturningoutofthe5thPlaceintersection.Theletterdidnotmentionconcernsaboutthecommentprocess.Next,Ms.Dingreadthecity’sresponseletterintotherecord.Theresponsenoted15thatthecommentletterhadbecomepartoftherecordandprovidedthetime,date,andlocationofthe16reviewhearing.17ApplicantResponse18Mr.CarsontestifiedthatthecityfollowedthecorrectprocessforoptionalDNSproceedings.Inregardtothetrafficissue,therearenowtwoindependentstudiesintherecordwhichfmdthattrafficwill19beimprovedoncethetrafficsignalisbuilt.Theprojectcontributesveryfewtripstotheproblemareas.20AppellantResponse21Mr.PaulsonstatedthatExhibit1,attachmenth,thecity’sNoticeofApplication,hasno22referencetopubliccommentonthefirstpage.Onthesecondpage,thereisnochangeintitlesotheassumptionisthatthedocumentisstillreferringtotheDNS.Thesecondpagesaysthat“Ifcommentscannotbesubmittedinwritingbythedateindicatedabove,youmaystillappearattheHearingandpresentyourcomments.”Nothinginthedocumentsuggeststhatapersonwaivestheirrighttocomment-ontheSEPAdeterminationbychoosingtomaketheircommentsatthehearing,Inregardtothetraffic25issue,Mr.Paulson’sargumentisthattherewasnotrafficanalysisdonewiththeinclusionofthetrafficsignalbyMay19whenthecityissuedtheDNS.BeforeMay19th,therewasnothingontherecordto26ensurethetrafficsignalwouldimproveconditions.PRELIMINARYPLAT-57c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 75 of 145
Mr.NewsomaddedthatthefirstpageoftheapplicationnotesthatRentonwouldbeusingan2optionalSEPAreviewprocesswhichallowsfortheintegrationofthecommentperiodintooneperiod.ThenoticestatesthattherewillbenocommentperiodaftertheDNSissuance.LUAI4-000241PreliminaryPlatApplicationStaffTestimony6JillDing,RentonSeniorPlanner,testifiedthattheEnclaveatBridleRidgeislocatedonthewestsideof156thAvenueSE.Thesiteis8.8acresandcurrentlyzonedresidentiallow-densityintheComprehensivePlanandR-4intheZoningMap.Theproposalisforthecreationof31lotsandtwo8tracts(AandB).Thenetdensitywouldbe4.45unitsperacre.Thelotswouldrangeinsizefrom8,OSOsqftto12,566sqft.TractAisforstormwater,andtractBisa49Osqftopenspacearea.Therewas9alotlineadjustmentprocessedconcurrentlywhichremoved30,l75sqfifromthesubdivision.Theremovedareaincludedasingle-familyresidence.Thisadjustmenthasbeenrecorded.Accesstothenew10subdivisionwillbeprovidedviaanewloopedpublicstreetoffof156thAveSE.Thereisanadditionalextensiontothesoutheastthatterminatesinacul-de-sacturnaround.Thisroadwillextendwhendevelopmentbeginstothesouth.Thesiteiscurrentlydevelopedwithasingle-familyresidenceandardetachedgarage.Thesestructureswillbedestroyed.Therearenocriticalareasonthesite.Thereare—303significanttrees.35ofthesetreesareproposedtoremainalongtheeastpropertyline.The14-day13noticeandcommentperiodcommencedonMarch10th,andthecityreceivedtwocommentlettersduringtheperiod.Thecityreceivedoneadditionalletteraftertheconclusionofthecommentperiod.A14DNSwhichincludedonemitigationmeasurewasissuedonMarch31st.Arequestforreconsideration-wasfiledonApril17thcitingconcernoverpublicnoticeandtrafficonSE5thPlace.Inresponsetothe1request,thecityandapplicantconductedadditionaltrafficstudies.Theapplicant’sreviewfoundthat16theprojectwouldnothavesignificantadverseimpactsontheintersectionof156thandSE5thPlace.Thecityconcludedthatasignalwaswarrantedat156thand142nd.ThecityissuedarevisedDNSM17onMay19threquestingthattheapplicantpayitsfairshareofthenewtrafficsignal.AnewappealperiodcommencedandendedonJune6th.TheproposalisconsistentwiththeComprehensivePlanand18thezoningregulationsassumingtheapplicantcomplieswithallconditions.Thecityallowedthenewroadtobecurvedinordertoprotectsomeexistingtreesonsite.200treeson-sitehavebeenidentifiedas19protected,thus30percentretentionorreplacementisrequired.35freeswillberetainedandtherestwill20bereplaced.Policeandfirehavesignificantresourcestoservetheproject.Theschooldistrictisabletoaccommodatetheadditionalstudentsaswell.Allstudentswillbebussed.Theapplicantsubmitteda21preliminarydrainagereportwhichshowsastormwaterwetpondintractA.Additionally,theapplicantsubmittedalandscapeplan.SOftlandscapingstripsarerequiredaroundstormwaterponds;however,inthiscase,thestripsareonlylOftandincreasingthesizewouldresultinthelossofalot.StaffrecommendsthelOftstripsbeapprovedandbeinstalledasalandscapevisualbarrier:Inconclusion,23staffrecommendsapprovalsubjectto11conditionsofapproval.24Inregardtothecurvedroad,Ms.Nairtestifiedthatshebelievesstraightroadalignmentsare25policy,notcode.26ApplicantTestimonycPRELIMII’.TARYPLAT-67c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 76 of 145
MaherJoudistatedthat,inregardtothecurvatureoftheroadway,theRentonMunicipalCoderequirescertaintangentlengths,butdoesnotrequirestraightalignments.TheapplicantcanachievethenecessarytangentlengthforthereversecurvetomeetRIvICstandards.Inregardtotraffic,theprojectdoesnotcreatetheneedforthetrafficsignal.Theindependentstudiesfoundthatcurrentconditionswarrantasignal.5PublicTestimony6TomCarpentertestifiedthatheresideswithinhalfamileoftheproject.Heoftenutilizesthe7transportationsysteminthearea.HewasontheKingCountyTrafficReviewPanelwhenitimplementeditscurrenttransportationconcurrencyapproach.Heisconcernedwiththeroadsthatwill8intersectwith156th.IfRenton’sconcurrencyweretouseadelayanintersection,thisareawouldfailconcurrency.Renton’sconcurrencyapproachwillfundamentallyneverdenydevelopmentasisbecause9itdoesnotutilizeadelayofintersectioneventhoughmanyotherjurisdictionsdo.Rentonalsodoesnotusetravel-shed12whichwouldresultinthisareafailingconcurrency.InaletterwhenKingCounty10wasevaluatinganewtransportationplan,RentontoldKingCountytoestablishaconcurrency1irrespectiveofpoliticalboundariestoevaluatethetrueimpactofvehiclesoninfrastructure.Rentonhasdemonstratedanintenttodointer-jurisdictionaltransportationplanning.Renton’scurrentthresholdsfor12whendevelopmentsmustmeetgreaterreviewstandardsistoohighbecauseitisgearedtowardslargerdevelopments.ThetrendistowardssmallerdevelopmentsuchastheEnclave,thusRenton’sstandards13arenotadequate.Theseintersectionsarepartofabypassroutefor1-405intheWashingtonStateCorridorSystem.Thecityshouldnotallowmoreencumbranceonthisroute;instead,itneedsabalance14betweenmovingtrafficthroughthecorridorandprovidingsafeingressandegressforlocalresidents.Hehasnoobjectiontothedevelopmentofthearea,butbelievesthesetransportationissuesmustbe15addressed.HesubmittedhisTittencommentsasExhibit6.16RogerpaulsontestedthathisaccesstothecityisbywayoftheSE5thPlace.Hesubmitteda17commentletterfromhimandhiswifeasExhibit8.Hesubmittedapetitionsignedby62ofhisneighborsandfrequenttravelersoftheareanotingtheirbeliefthattheEnclavedevelopmentdoesnot18meetstatetransportationrequirements(Exhibit9).Heenteredthecity’s6-yearTransportationPlanintotherecord(Exhibit10).TheTrafficImprovementPlansaysthecitybuildsonenewtrafficsignalevery19twoyears,andthetrafficsignalplannedfortheareaisnotthetoppriority.ThetvIDNSfromMay19th20createdanexusbetweenthedevelopmentandthetrafficsignal.TheMay19thdecisionfailedtoincludeatrafficanalysisoftheimpactofthesignal.Adetailedtrafficanalysisstudyneedstobeconductedand21madeavailabletothepublic,1-IcsubmittedarequestforreconsiderationaftertheMay19thdecision,buthisrequestwasdenied(Exhibit11).HeenteredtheletterdenyinghissecondrequestasExhibit12.KathyForsellstatedthatshelivesat13710156thAveSEandalsoownsahomeat142nd23Place.Thedevelopersneedtobeconsiderateofthepeoplelivinginthecommunity.Theareaneedsmorestabilitybeforeitcanhandlethistypeofgrowth.Thetrafficon142ndPlacebacksupatdifferenttimesthanthosetestedinthetrafficanalyses.Thereismoretrafficat6amthanlaterinthemorning.25Shedidnothearaboutthenewdevelopmentuntillateintheprocess.Atrafficlightwillnotsolvetheproblem,andthecityneedstoconsiderotherroadimprovements.26yPRELIMINARYPLAT-77c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 77 of 145
GwendolynHightestifiedthatsheisthepresidentoftheCommunityAlliancetoReachOutandEngagewhichrepresentshouseholdsoverincorporatedandunincorporatedboundariesinregardsto2planningaridLanduse.ShenotedthatthetransportationimpactanalysisfromDecember,2013statesthat156thAvenueisstraightthroughtheaccesspointswhichistrue;however,theintersectionwith142ndisnotstraight.Thesightlinesareterrible.Ifyouareturninglefton156th,youcannotseetheaccessstreet.TheDecember,2013analysisdoesnotprovideacitationforthe3percentannualrate.Thereisnoreferencetootherprojectsorotherbasisforthispercentageprovidedinthestudy.The5analysisalsoclaimsthereisadequatedistancebetweentheintersections;however,anI-Mapillustrationinherpresentationpacketshowsthattheintersectionof142ndhasastopsign7ftnorthofthesouthern6boundaryoftheEnclavesite.Usingthefiguresfromthetrafficanalysis,thedistancefromthecrosswalkandproposedaccesssiteisapproximately119ffwhichislessthanthestandardof125ff.Theentirecorridorisinthe1-405planandhasbeenidentifiedasneedingarterialimprovements.156thislistedassaminorarterial.Thestandardforminorarterialright-of-waysis4-lanesat91ff.Thereisnoprovisionthatadequateright-of-waysbemadeinordertoprovideforfutureimprovementstothiscorridor.The9proposalthatstudentscross156thtobeonthesouthboundsidetoreachabusstopwillcreateadangeroussituationbecauseofpoorlighting,abusyroad,andbadsightlines.IfthecitydoesnotuseTOthemoneyprovidedbythedeveloperforimprovementin6years,themoneyisreturnedtothedeveloper.Theinfrastructurechangesareslowandnevermeetthethresholdforactuallymaking11improvements.TheComprehensivePlanfailstodealwiththeimpactsofnewdevelopment.12Inregardtostormwater,Ms.HighnotedthatRentonhasanunderdevelopedstorrnwaterconveyance13system.Previouslyapproveddevelopmentshaveresultedinfloodeddrainfieldsandstructuraldamageofotherhomes.Theprojectneedsalevel3stormwatersystem.Itisunclearwhowillhave14responsibilityoverthedrainagefacilities.Thereneedstobecertaintythatnewproblemswillnotbecreatedbytheproject.Inregardtolandscaping,thetreeretentionstandardisnotdefinedsoitisunclear15whatwillhappenwiththeproject,Thecityarboristissupposedtodoareportontheproject.Treesare16partofthecharacterofRentonanditsdevelopment.Tolose300significanttreesisanenormouschange,andthecityneedstoknowhowtheywillbereplaced.Thetreesneedtobeprotectedfrom17accidentalremovalbyhomeowners.Thiscanbedoneviaadequatesignageinthearea.Inregardtothelandscapingaroundthedetentionpond,thedesignstandardsaysetbacksshouldnotbereducedfor18newlyplanneddevelopmentstofacilitateincreaseddensity.Thesestandardscannotbeignoredbycityplanningstaff.Thecityhasfailedtoprovidethearboristreport,thetreeretentionplan,thelandscaping19plan,thedrainageagreementwiththeHOA,orthetreeprotectionagreementforreview.Theseareorequired,butthecityhasnotrequiredthemormadethemavailabletothepublic.Alightingplanalsoshouldbeprovided.Inregardtotransportation,route11isslatedtobecutandthiswillhaveanimpact21ontheneighborhood,onwherepeoplepark,etc.ShestatedthattheywoUldliketohavethesethingsmitigated.ShesubmittedhercommentsasExhibit13.22RondaBryanttestifiedthatshehaslivedintheareafor25years.Inthenextcoupleofyears.23therewillbe204housesimpactingthe156thand142ndmainintersection.Sheisconcernedthatnoimpactanalysishasbeendoneonthenextintersectiondownandshebelievesitisimportantinthisparticularinstance.If156thisconsideredasecondarybypassfor1-405thenthisnextintersectionisalso25abypassroute.Atrafficlightwillbegoinginandbecausepeoplewillnotwanttositforthislightinthemorning,thustheywillmakealeftontothatstreettobypassthislight.Sheestimatedthatover200026tripsadayonthesesneetswiththeseprojectsthatwillappearinthenexttwoyears.ShealsonotedthatPRELIIVIINJLRYPLAT-$7c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 78 of 145
1notonlytheRentonbuttheIssaquahschoolbusesgothroughthatintersection.Therewillbeissueswithbusstopsandcrosswalks.TheroutewillchangeinSeptemberandmayaddanumberofbusstops.2Peoplethatcometocatchthebustherearegoingtotytoparksomewhere.TheseareproblemsthatshebelieveshaveexistedforyearsandadditionalhouseswillcauseproblemsforEnclave.Withregardtothelandscapeplan,sheisconcernedwiththeproposeduseofHeavenlyBamboo.Ingooglinginformationonbamboo,shefoundthatbambooisnotonlyinvasivebuttoxictobirds.Bambooshouldbetakenfromtheplan.5StaffRebuttal6Ms.DingnotedthatthecityarboristhasdoneaninspectionwhichislocatedinExhibit33ofthestaffreport.Thisreportconcurredwiththeapplicant’sarboristreport.Withregardtothelandscaping8aroundthestormwaterpond,the1511requirementisnotactuallyincode;itwasadministrativeinterpretation.ThisallowsthecitytoreducethatrequirementtoIOft.Inregardtothenumberof9reportsnotyetcompleted,staffnotedthattherearealistofreportslocatedinthestaffreport.Somereportsarerequiredandothersarenottypicallyreceiveduntillaterintheprocess.Therequiredreports10areavailable.HeavenlyBambooisnotfoundontheinvasiveplantslist.Thecitywouldnotobjectto1removingitfromthelistprovidedtherewassimilarshrubavailable.Withregardtoquestionsaboutlevel3downstreamstonmvater,itisnotrecommendedasaconditionbutisinthestandardforcode.To12jclarifyquestionsregardingtrafficimpact,thecitiesconcurrencypolicyisacity-wideanalysis.Exhibit2,attachment26fromthestaffreportisaconcurrencyanalysis.Whenacitywidepolicyismet,theproject13isseenasconcurrent.Staffstatedthattheywilltalktothepublicworksdepartmentanddeterminewherethetrafficthresholdsandstandardscomefrom.1415ApplicantRebuttal16MaherJouditestifiedthat,withregardtoMs.Forsell’scommentaboutherpropertyon142nd,theapplicantisprovidinganewsewermainacross142nddownto140th.Theapplicantbelievesthat17theprojectshouldprovideforexistingpublicneeds.18Regardingthecumulativedevelopmentquestions,Mr.CarsonnotedthattheGrowthManagementActrequiresthattheyadopttransportationstandards.Rentonhasadoptedtransportation19concurrencyrequirements.Thecityhaschosentolookatthemonacitywidebasisandcollecttrafficimpactfeesonacitywidebasis.Thismeansthataprojectinoneareaofthecitycontributestothecityas—awholeandthisiswhyitiscitywide.Theprojectpassedthetransportationanalysisnotjustthrough21legislativeanalysisbutthroughtheirconcurrencecurrencyanalysis.WithregardtoSEPA.itevaluatesknownreasonabledevelopmentunderstatuteandregulations.The2percentgrowthhascompliedwithSEPAregulations.Itshowedthatitwouldnotcreatesignificanttrafficimpactsonacumulativebasis.ThisSEPAdecisionwasappealedbyMr.Paulson.Mr.Carsonbelievesthattheyhaveansweredthis23duringtheSEPAappealprocessbecausethissignalwillactuallyimproveinsteadofcreateadverseimpacts.Withregardtoplotconditions,Mr.Carsonstatedthattheprojectcontributestoimprovementsinroadconditions.Theyhavesatisfiedthecode.I-Icnotedthatthecitywentbeyonditspolicyeven25thoughtheywerenotrequiredtoanalyzeanythingbeyond5percent.26StaffResponsePRELIMINARYPLAT-97c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 79 of 145
InresponsetotheHearingExaminer’squestionsregardingthebasisforstandardsandpolicies,2Ms.Nairnotedthatforpeakhourtimes,thecityrefertothenationalstandardsdevelopedbytheinstituteoftransportationengineers,andthatthisisastandardreferencedocumentforthis)determination.Withregardtothegrowthrate,traditionallythisinformationisprovidedbythe4transportationplanningsection.RegardingthesitedistanceconcernnotedinMs.High’sdocumentation,shenotedthatthestaffwalkedthestreetandusedthissitevisitalongwithanalysisto5maketheirconclusions.6EXHIBITS7SExhibit1NoticeofAppealw/attachmentsa-hExhibit2StaffReportWIattachments1-339Exhibit3CVofVincentGegliaExhibit4TrafffixTrafficStudyAddendumdatedJune20,2014Exhibit5RentonTrafficCountsfromJune,2014Exhibit6CityofRenton2014-20196-yearTransportationImprovementPlan,ProjectNumber25Exhibit7TomCarpentercommentsExhibit8PaulsonCommentLetter—Exhibit9PetitionsubmittedbyMr.Paulson13Exhibit10CityofRentonSixYearTransportationImprovementPlanExhibit11Paulsonsecondrequestforreconsideration14Exhibit12City’sdenialofPaulson’ssecondrequestforreconsiderationExhibit13GwendolynHighCommentPacket15Exhibit14MapprovidedbyRondaBryantExhibit15UtilityMap16Exhibit166/26/14emailfromRogerPaulsontoJillDingExhibit176/27/14emailfromBrentCarson\ithattachmentsrespondingtopubliccomment17ExhibitiS6/27/14emailtoExaminerrespondingtoPaulsoncomments18Exhibit194:13pm6/27/14emailtoExaminerfromJillDingExhibit207/1/14emailtoJillDingfromRogerPaulson1920FINDINGSOFFACT21Procedural:221.ADplicant.PN\VHoldings,LLC.232.Hearing.AconsolidatedhearingonthepreliminaryplatapplicationandSEPAappealwasheld24onJune24,2014intheCityofRentonCouncilCityChambers.TheSEPAappellant,Mr.Paulsen,wasgivenuntilJune27,2014toprovidewrittencommenttotrafficreportssubmittedbytheapplicant25duringthehearing.TheapplicantwasgivenuntilJuly1,2014torespondandtheappellantJuly2,10426LJPRELiMINARYPLAT.-107c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 80 of 145
Itoreply.TherecordwasalsoleftopenthroughJune27,2014fortheapplicanttoprovidecommentonExhibits8,13and14.33.ProjectDescription.Theapplicantrequestspreliminaryplatapprovalforthesubdivisionof8.8acresinto31single-familyresidentiallotsontheeastsideof156thAvenueSEbetweenSE139tflPlaceandSE143rdStreet.Anappealofamitigateddeterminationofnonsignificance(vlNS”)issuedundertheWashingtonStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct(SEPA”)wasconsolidatedwiththereviewof6thepreliminarypint.Theproposedlotswouldrangeinsizefrom8,050squarefeetto12,566squarefeet.Accesstoalllotswouldbeprovidedalonganewloopedpublicroad(RoadAandRoadB)offof156thAvenueSE.Asdeadendaccessisalsoprovided,terminatingin.atemporarycul-de-sacatthesouthpropertyline.Itisanticipatedthedeadendaccesswouldextendontotheadjacentpropertytothesouthatalaterdate,underafutureapplicationfordevelopment.Thepreliminaryplatalsoincludesastormwatertractandanopenspacetract.Theproposalwouldresultinadensityof4.45dwellingunitsperacre.10Thesitegenerallyslopestothesouthwestwithanelevationchangeof20feet.Ageotechnicalreportforthesitewassubmittedcontaininginformationonthesurfaceconditions,subsurfaceconditionsandgroundwater.Thesiteiscurrentlyoccupiedbyasinglefamilyresidence,adetachedgarage,and—associatedgraveldriveways.Theexistingresidenceandthedetachedgarageareproposedtobe13demolishedasapartoftheproposedsubdivision.144.AdequacyofInfrastructure/PublicServices.Theprojectwillbeservedbyadequate15infrastructureandpublicservices.PreliminaryadequacyofallinfrastructurehasbeenreviewedbytheCity’sPublicWorksDepartmentandfoundtobesufficient.Specificinfrastructure/servicesareaddressedasfollows:17A.WaterandSewerService.WaterservicewillbeprovidedbyWaterDistrict#90.Awater18availabilitycertificatewassubmittedtotheCity.SewerservicewillbeprovidedbytheCityofRenton.Thereisan8-inchsewermainin156thAvenueSE.1920B.PoliceandFireProtection.PoliceandFirePreventionstaffindicatesthatsufficientresourcesexisttofurnishservicestotheproposeddevelopment;subjecttotheconditionthat21theapplicantprovidesCoderequiredimprovementsandfees.Fireimpactfeesareapplicableattherateof5479.28persinglefamilyunit.Thisfeeispaidattimeofbuildingpet-mitissuance.2324C.Drainaue.Theproposalprovidesforadequatestormwaterdrainagefacilities.Adrainage-plan(Exhibit5)anddrainagereport(Exhibit13)hasbeensubmittedwiththeapplication.2)Thereportaddressescompliancewith2009KingCountySurfaceWaterManualandCityof26RentonAmendmentstotheKCS\VIvI,Chapters1and2.TheEngineerproposestodevelopPRELIMINARYPLAT-117c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 81 of 145
anon-sitestormdetentionlwaterqualitypondlocatedinproposedTractA.Citypublicwork2staffhavefoundthedrainageplantocomplywithCitystandardsandfmalengineeringplatswillbesubmittedforCityreviewandapprovalaspartoffinalplatreview.-D4ThesiteislocatedwithintheLowerCedarRiverBasinandhasadischargetoareasmaintainedbyKingCounty.KingCountyhasbeenprovidedacopyoftheseplansandreportsthattheprojectcouldimpactKingCounty’sOrtingHillsCreekandservicearea.BasedontheCity’sflowcontrolmap,thissitefallswithintheFlowControlDuration6Standard,ForestedCondition.Theprojectissubjecttobasicwaterqualitytreatmentand7Level2flowcontrol,whichcouldbeelevatedtoLevel3dependingondownstreamconditions.Alevel2flowcontrolfacilityistypicallysizedtomatchthepre-developedrates8fortheforestedconditionextendingfrom50%ofthe2yearuptothe50yearflow.The9engineerhasdesignedacombineddetentionandwetpondtobelocatedatthesouthwestcornerofthesite.Accessandmaintenancetotheproposedcombinedwaterqualityand10retentionfacilitywillberequiredperthe2009KingCountySWDMandtheCityofRenton11AmendmentstotheKCSWDM.Alevel3downstreamanalysiswillberequiredfortheproject.AppropriateindividuallotflowcontrolBMPswillberequiredtohelpmitigatethe12newrunoffcreatedbythisdevelopment.Thefmaldrainageplananddrainagereportmustbe13submittedwiththeutilityconstructionpermitapplication.Secondaryreviewmayberequiredforthepondwithbothstructuralengineerandgeotechengineer,andliningmay14alsoberequired.15D.Parks/OpenSpace.Cityordinancesrequirethepaymentofparkimpactfeespriorto16buildingpermitissuance.RIVIC4-2-115,whichgovernsopenspacerequirementsforresidentialdevelopment,doesnothaveanyspecificrequirementsforopenspaceforresidentialdevelopmentintheR-4district.Theimpactfeesprovideforadequateparksand18openspace.19E.Streets.Congestionwasasourceofmajorconcernofpersonswhoattendedthehearing.It20isveryclearthatmanypeoplewholiveintheareafindthestreetstoocongested.However,1whatconstitutesanacceptablelevelofcongestionisgovernedCityCounciladoptedLOS—standards.Forpurposesofcongestionanalysis,thethresholdforwhatservesas“adequate”22trafficinfrastnictureforpreliminaryplatreviewandasanadverseimpactforenvironmental(SEPA)reviewistheLOSstandard.WithoutanLOSstandard,attemptingtodetermine2...tolerablecongestionwouldbeahighlyarbitraiyandsubjectiveanalysisthatwouldnotbe24legallydefensible.Inaddition,useoftheLOStoregulatecongestionrepresentsafinelytunedbalancinnoftheCity’sstatemandateresponsibilitytoaccommodategrowth;availablepublicmoniesforinfrastructureimprovements;andduedeferencetoconstitutional26mandatesthatdevelopersonlypaytheirfairshareofinastructureimprovements.ImposingPP\ELEVIINARYPLAT-127c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 82 of 145
1ahigherstandardthanthatsetbyLOSwouldlikelyrunafoulofoneifnotallofthesefactors.Forthesereasons,usingLOStoserveasthemeasuringrodforacceptable—congestionlevelsmakessensefrombothCitytransportationfundingbasisaswellasaspecificprojectreviewbasis.Uornatety,astestffiedbyTomCarpenter,RentonusesaveryuniqueLOSmeasuringsystemthatmakesitverydifficulttoassesslocalizedcongestionimpacts.Inorderto6appreciatethechallengesofRenton’ssystem,somebackgroundonstateLOSrequirementsandhowitmoretypicallyworksisnecessary.7LOSstandardsfortransportationfacilitiesarerequiredbytheGroThManagementAct,8Chapter36.70A(“GMA”).TheGMArequirescitiesandcountiestoadoptLOSstandards9fortransportationfacilitiesalongwithordinancesthat“...prohibitdevelopmentapprovalif10thedevelopmentcausesthelevelofserviceonalocallyownedtransportationfacilitytodeclinebelowthestandardsadoptedinthetransportationelementofthetransportation11plan,...“SeeRCW36.70A.070(6)(b)(theordinancesarereferredtoas“concurrencyordinances”).Infurtheranceofthisrequirement,mostcitiesandcountiesadoptLOSfor12specificarterialintersectionsand/orroadsegmentswithratingsbaseduponanABCDEFscale,similartoschoolgrades,whereAisawell-fiinconingintersectionorroadsegmentandFisafailingintersectionorroadsegment.AnLOSofCorDisoftenadoptedas14minimumLOSforcityorcountyintersections.Ifaproposeddevelopmentisprojectedto15decreasetheLOSofanintersectionbelowtheadoptedCorD,thedeveloperbasicallyhasthreechoices:(1)maketrafficimprovementsthatpreventviolationoftheLOS;(2)redesign16theprojecttoreducetrafficgenerationsoLOSisnotviolated;or(3)facedenialofthe17permitapplication.18Thetypeofsitespecificconcurrencyanalysisoutlinedintheprecedingparagraphallowsfor19averylocalizedassessmentofcongestionimpacts.Forexample,inacitythatadoptsanLOSofCforitsintersections,nodevelopmentcanbeapprovedanywhereinthatcitythatwould20lowertheLOSofanarterialintersectionfromanLOSofA,BorCtoandLOSofD,Eor21F.TheCityCouncil,baseduponavailablefinancialresourcesandlocallandusepatterns,adoptsanacceptablelevelofcongestion(theLOSstandard),andthisstandardisthen22imposedviaasitespecificanalysisoneverynonexelnptprojectthroughtheconcurrencyordinancequotedintheprecedingparagraph.24Renton’sLOSstandardsdon’tallowforthislocalizedassessmentofcongestion.ThereisnoA,BorCgradeassignedtointersectionsorroadsegments.Instead,Rentonhasdevelopeda—city-wideLOS“index”value,baseduponthetotalnumberofmilesonesingle-occupant26vehicle,onehighoccupantvehicleandonetransitvehiclecantravelin30minutes.SeePRELIMINARYPLAT-137c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 83 of 145
IRentonComprehensivePlan,TransportationElement,p.XI-26.TheRentonLOSindexstandardis42,i.e.thecombinedmileageofasingle-occupant,highoccupantandtransitvehiclemustbe42milesforahalfhouroftraveltime.It’sunclearhowthemileageforthe3LOSindexisdeterminedfromthecomprehensiveplan,butitappearsthatthisstandard4imposesvirtuallynolimitonhowbadcongestioncouldgetinonepartoftheCity,solongastraveltimesintheCity’stransportationsystemoverallmeetthe42indexvalue.56TheCity-widefocusoftheLOS“index”systemmakesitamorequestionablemeasuringtoolforcongestionlevelsthanthemoretypical“A,B,C”systemusedinmostother7jurisdictions.However,intheabsenceofanyothercomparableobjectivemeasuringdeviceitisstillthemostcompellingstandardtouse.Giventhewidespreadusageofthe“A,B,C”8LOSsystem,it’sfairlyclearthattheCityCouncilmadeaverycnnsciousanddeliberate9choicetofocusonoveralltransportationsystemperformanceeventhoughthismaymeanthatspecificportionsoftheCitycouldsufferexceedinglyseverecongestion.Althoughthe10CityCouncilfocusintheadoptionofitsLOSsystemmayhavebeenonitstransportation11findingandplanningpriorities,thosesameissuesdirectlyaffectprojectlevelreview.IntheabsenceofCityplanningorfindingdirectivestolowerseverecongestioninaparticular12area,inmanyifnotmostcasesitwillnotbepossibletoimposeastrictercongestionstandard13forindividualdevelopmentbecauseeither(A)nodevelopmentwillbeallowedtooccur,creatingadefactounconstitutionaldevelopmentmoratorium,or(B)thedeveloperwouldbe14requiredtopayformorethanitsfairshareoftrafficmitigation,whichisalso15unconstitutional.16ThelongdiscussionaboveleadstotheconclusionthatcompliancewiththeCity’s17concurrencysystem,evenifitisacity-widesystem,establishesanacceptablelevelofcongestion.Citystaffhaveconductedaconcurrencyanalysisandhaveconcludedthatthe18proposalwillnotviolatetheCity’sansportationLOS.SeeEx.26.Noonehasdisputedthisconcurrencydeterminationandthereisnoevidenceintherecordtocontradictit.Consequently,thefindingsofCitystaffmustbetakenasaverity.TheproposalmeetsCity20concurrency,thereforetheCity’sroadsystemis.adequatetohandlethetrafficgeneratedby21theproposalandanyadditionalcongestioncausedbytheproposalwouldnotbeconsideredasignificantadverseenvironmentalimpact.2293ItshouldbenotedthatevenifRentonhadadoptedthemoretraditional“A,B,C”—concurrencysystem,concurrencywouldstillnotbeviolatedbytheproposalinmost24jurisdictions.Asquotedpreviously,theGMAonlyrequiresdenialofaproposalifitcauses95“...thelevelofserviceonalocallyownedtransportationfacilitytodeclinebelowthestandardsadoptedinthetransportationelement...“Thislanguageistakenveryliterally26bymostjurisdictions—ifanintersectionisalreadyoperatingbelowadoptedstandards,thePRELIMINARYPLAT-147c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 84 of 145
provisiondoesn’tapply.ItonlyappliesifaproposeddevelopmentwillcauseanintersectionorroadsectionthatcurrentlymeetsLOSstandardstofailthem.IftheadoptedLOS—standardisDandanintersectioncurrentlyoperatesattheLOSE,therecanbenoviolation3ofconcurrencybecausetheintersectionalreadyfailstomeetminimumLOS.The4applicant’strafficreportappliesan“A,B,C”LOSsystemusingprofessionallyrecognizedstandards’toaffectedintersectionsandfindsthattheproposaldoesn’tlowerLOStoanyof5theintersections.SeeEx.12ofstaffreport,Ex.2.MILOSlevelsstaythesame.6AlthoughtheCity’sLOSservesastheprimarymeasureforassessingcongestionimpactsat7projectlevelreview,thereisstillsomeroomlefttorequireproportionatesharemitigationofdevelopers.Asdemonstratedintheapplicant’strafficstudy,LOS“A,B,C”standardscanSbebaseduponprofessionallyrecognizedlevelsofcongestionthatcanbeappliedinan9objectiveanduniformmamier.It’sforthisreasonthatstaffwasabletorequiretheapplicanttopayforproportionatesharemitigationofthe156thAve.SE/SE142ndStreetintersection.10However,itneedstoberecognizedthattheabilitytorelyupontheseproportionateshare11contributionsisverylimitedbecausestatelawrequiresthatmitigationfundsbeexpendedwithinfiveyearsofreceipt.SeeRCW82.02.020.Thismeansthatiftheremaining12balancingofimprovementcostscannotberecoveredfromotherdevelopersorcitycofferswithinsixyearsthemitigationmoneymustberetijmedtothedeveloper.14Incalculatingprojectedimpactstoaffectedintersections,theapplicantsuseda3%yearly15rateintrafficgrowth.Thiswasdisputedbysomeprojectopponents,whopresentedalistofnumerousprojectsinEx.13and14thatwouldaddtraffictotheroadsofthevicinity.The16applicant’strafficengineerpreparedareportestablishingthatthe3%growthfactorwas17morethantwicetheamountnecessarytoaccommodatetrafficfromtheprojectsidentifiedinEx.13and14.SeeEx.17.Further,Citypoliciesdictatetheuseofa2%growthfactor,1$whichisbaseduponhistoricalincreaseswithintheCity.SeeEx.19.Issueswerealsoraised19aboutsitedistanceandintersectionspacing,whichwereadequatelyaddressedbytheapplicant’strafficengineerinEx.17andthefactthatsitedistancewasalsoreviewedand20approvedbytheCityengineeringdepartment.Projectopponentspresentednoexpert21testimonyonanyoftheseissues,sotheexperttestimonyprovidedbytheapplicant’sexpertandverifiedbyCityexpertsisfoundmorecompelling.OneoftheSEPAissuesraisedbyMr.Paulsonwasthatanintersectionimprovementrequiredasmitigationfortheprojectarea,thesignalizationofthel56tAve.SE/SE142’24Streetintersection,wouldcausequeuingconflictswiththeaccesspointsofthesubdivision.Mi-.Paulsonprovidednoengineeringanalysisoranyotherevidencetosupportthisposition.26‘Theapplicant’sengineersusedtheTransportationResearchBoardJ-liohvavCapacityManualtocalculateLOS.PRELIMINARYPLAT-157c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 85 of 145
IITheapplicantpreparedatrafficreportaddendum,Ex.4,establishingbyengineering2calculationsthatqueuescreatedbytheintersectionwouldnotbackuptothepointoftheproposedplataccesspoints.Theapplicant’strafficstudyaddendumwassubjecttoreviewbytheCity’sengineeringdepartmentandtheyvoicednoobjectionstoitsmethodologyor4conclusion.Giventheabsenceofanyexpertopiniontothecontrary,theaddendum’sconclusionsaretakenasveritiesanditisdeterminedthattheintersectionwillnotcreateany5queuingconflictswiththeaccesspointstotheintersection.6F.Parkinu.Sufficientareaexists,oneachlot,toaccommodaterequiredoffstreetparkingfora7minimumofIwovehiclesperdwellingunitasrequiredbyCitycode.G.Schools.ItisanticipatedthattheRentonSchoolDistrictcanaccommodateanyadditional9studentsgeneratedbythisproposalatthefollowingschools:MaplewoodElementary,McKnightMiddleSchoolandHazenHighSchool.Anynewstudentsfromtheproposed10developmentwouldbebussedtotheirschools.Thestopislocatedapproximately.06mile11fromtheprojectsiteat156thAvenueSE&SE5thPlace.Theproposedprojectincludestheinstallationoffrontageimprovementsalongthe156thAvenueSEfrontage,including12sidewalks.Studentswouldwalkashortdistancealongl56’AvenueSEnorthoftheproject13sitealongtheroadshouldertothebusstop.However,thereappearstobeadequateareaalongtheroadshouldertoprovideforsafewalkingconditions(Exhibit25).Inaddition,the14Cityisrequiringright-of-waydedicatedalongthefrontageofparcel1423059057(whichis15beingremovedfromtheprojectsitevialotlineadjustment)toallowfortheflhtureinstallationoffrontageimprovementswhichwouldberequireduponthereceiptofafi.iture16subdivisionapplication.Thebusistravelingsouthstudentswouldberequiredtocrossl5617AvenueSEatSE5thPlaceviatheexistingcrosswalk.Thedriverstopstraffictoallowthestudentstocross156mAvenueSEandboardthebus.ThereweresomepublicconcernsISraisedaboutthesafetyofthisroadcrossing,sotheconditionsofapprovalrequirefarther19staffinvestigationandmitigationasnecessary.20ASchoolImpactFee,basedonnewsingle-familylot,willberequiredinordertomitigate21theproposal’spotentialimpactstotheRentonSchoolDistrict.ThefeeispayabletotheCityasspecifiedbytheRentonMunicipalCode.Currentlythefeeisassessedat$6,392.00per22singlefamilyresidence.235.AdverseImpacts.Therearenoadverseimpactsassociatedwiththeproposal.Adequatepublic24facilitiesanddrainagecontrolareprovidedasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.4.Therearenocriticalareasonsite.Theproposalissurroundedbysinglefamilydevelopmentsocompatibilityofuseisnotan25issue.264.PRELI2VIINARYPLAT-167c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 86 of 145
1Therewereconcernsraisedbyabouttreepreservation.RMC4-4-13OHrequiresthirty’percentofthetreesshallberetainediiiaresidentialdevelopment.Whentherequirednumberofprotectedtreescannotberetained,newtrees,withatwo-inch(2”)caliperorgreater,mustbeplanted.Thereplacementrateistwelve(12)caliperinchesofnewtreestoreplaceeachprotectedtreeremoved.Thesiteiscurrentlyvegetatedwithatotalof303significanttrees,lawn,andlandscapingassociatedwiththeexistingsinglefamilyresidence.Oftheexisting303significanttrees57havebeendeterminedtobedead,diseasedand’ordangerouspertheapplicant’sArboristReport(StaffReportExhibit15),and46wouldbelocatedintheproposedroadwayresultinginatotalof200treesthathavebeenidentifiedasprotectedtrees.Ofthe200protectedtrees30percentor60treesarerequiredtoberetainedand/orreplacedontheproject6site.Theapplicantproposestoretain35treesandinstall1502-inchcaliperreplacementtrees,whichcomplieswiththeCityofRenton’sTreeRetentionrequirements.8Noothersignificantimpactsarereasonablyanticipatedfromtheevidencecontainedwithintheadministrativerecord.96.SEPAAppeal.Amitigateddeterminationofnonsignificance(“MDNS”)wasissuedforthe10proposalonMarch31,2014.RogerPaulsonfiledarequestforreconsiderationwiththeCityonApril16,2014.Ex.29.ThisrequestwasdeniedbytheCityonMay19,2014.Lx.30.However,asaresultoftherequestforreconsideration,theCityrequiredtheapplicanttopayitsproportionateshareofa12signalforthe156thAve.SE/SE142ndStreetintersection.Mr.PaulsonthenfiledthesubjectSEPAappealonIvlay19,2014.Ex.1.Theappealraisedtwoissues:(I)thenoticeforthecommentperiodon13theSEPAMDNSwasconfusing,sinceitcouldbereadasauthorizingcommentontheMDNSatthepermithearing;and(2)theSEPAreviewwasinadequatebecauseitdidn’tincludetheimpactsof14the156thAve.SE/SE142ndStreetintersectionimprovements.Mr.Paulsonarguedthatback-upscaused-bytheintersectioncouldcausequeuingconflictswiththeaccesspointstothepreliminaryplat.In1responsetheapplicantpreparedanaddendumtoitstrafficanalysisthatdemonstratedthatback-ups16causedbytheintersectionwouldnotextendtothepreliminaryplataccesspoints.17ConclusionsofLaw18191.Authority.Ri\’IC4-7-020(C)and4-7-050(D)()providethattheHearingExaminershallholdahearingandissueafinaldecisiononpreliminaryplatapplications.PJvIC4-9-070grantstheExaminer20authoritytoreviewandmakefinaldecisionsonSEPAappeals.21.......2.ZontnComprehenswePlanDestnations.ThesubjectpropertyiszonedResidential4dwellmgunitspernetacre(R-4).ThecomprehensiveplanmaplandusedesignationisResidentialLowDensity(RLD).2324SEPAAPPEAL25SEPAReviewCriteria.Thereareonlytworeasonstooverturnan1v[DNS:(1)thereareunmitigatedprobablesignificantadverseenvironmentalimpacts;or(2)theSEPAresponsibleofficialhas26PRELIMLNARYPLAT-177c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 87 of 145
InotundertakenanadequatereviewofenvironmentalfactorsasrequiredbySEPAregulations.Eachgroundsforreversalwillbeseparatelyaddressedbelow.A.ProbableSinnificantAdverseEnvironmentalImpacts.TheprimaryrelevantinquiryforpurposesofassessingwhetherCountystaffcorrectlyissuedanMDNSiswhethertheprojectasproposedhasaprobablesignificantenvironmentalimpact.SeeWAC197-il-330(1)(b).Ifsuchimpactsarecreated,conditionswillhavetobeaddedtotheMDNStoreduceimpacts6sotherearenoprobablesignificantadverseenvironmentalimpacts.Inthealternative,anEISwouldberequiredfortheproject.Inassessingthevalidityofathresholddetermination,thedeterminationmadeby7theCity’sSEPAresponsibleofficialshallbeentitledtosubstantialweight.WAC197-11-6(3)(a)(viii).SB.AdeciuateEnvironmentalReviewThesecondreasonanMDNScanbeoverturnedisiftheSEPAresponsibleofficialdidnotadequately10reviewenvironmentalimpactsinreachinghisthresholddetermination.TheSEPAresponsibleofficialmustmakeaprimafacieshowingthathehasbasedhisdeterminationuponinformationreasonablysufficienttoevaluatetheimpactsofaproposal.12Anagency’sthresholddeterminationisentitledtojudicialdeference,buttheagencymustmakea13showingthat“environmentalfactorswereconsideredinamannersuffIcienttomakeaprimafade14showingwiththeproceduralrequirementsofSEFA.”ChuckanutConservancv.WashingtonStateDept.ofNaturalResources,156Wn.App.274,286-287,quotingJuanitaBayValleyCoinrnunit-v15Ass‘nv.CityofKirkland,9Wn.App.59,73(1973).Inapplyingthisadequacystandard,onseveral16occasionsthecourtshaveexaminedhowthoroughlytheresponsibleofficialreviewedenvironmentalimpactsinadditiontoassessingwhetheraproposalhasprobablesignificantadverseenvironmental17impacts.See,e.g.,Boehmv.CityofVancouver,111Wn.App.711(2002),Mossv.CityofBelliugham,109Wn.App.6(2001).InMoss,forexample,thecourtrecitedtheprimafacieruleandthenapplieditasfollows:19TherecordindicatesthattheprojectreceivedagreatdealofrevieuThe20environmentalchecklistwasapparentlydeemedinsufficient,andthereforetheS.EPA9officialaskedforadditionalinormationintheformofanEA.TheCitygatheredextensivecommentsfromagenciesandthepublic,heldnumerouspublicmeetings,22andimposedadditionalmitigationmeasuresontheprojectbeforefinallyapprovingit.23Notably,althoughappellantscomplaingenerallythattheimpactswerenotadequatelyanalyzed,theyhavefailedtociteanyfactsorevidenceintherecorddemonstrating24thattheprojectasmitigatedwillcausesignUlcantenvironmentalimpactswarranting25anEIS.26109Wn.App.at23-24.‘CPRELIMiNARYPLAT-187c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 88 of 145
IWAC197-11-335providesthatathresholddeterminationshallbe‘bebaseduponinformationreasonablysuffIcienttoevaluatetheenvironmentalimpactofaproposal”.See,also,SpokaneCountyv.EasternWashingtonGrowthManagementHearingsBoard,176Wn.App.555(2013).The3standardofreviewonadequacy,therefore,isthattheSEPAresponsibleofficialmustmakeaprimafacieshowingthatthedeterminationisbaseduponinfonnationreasonablysufficienttoevaluatetheimpactsofaproposal.54.MDNSNotice.AsoutlinedinFindingofFactNo.6,oneofthetwoSEPAappealissuesisthat6thenoticeforthecommentperiodontheI’1DNSisconfusing.Thenoticeisarguablyconfusing,butMr.Paulsondoesnothavestandingtoraisetheissuebecausehewasnotaggrievedbythenotice.Mr.PaulsoninfactsubmittedcommentsonthevIDNSpriortothecommentexpirationperiodandmakesno8assertionthatthenoticelanguagepreventedhimfrommakinganyadditionalcomments.9ThenoticeatissueisintegratedintotheNoticeofApplicationandProposedDeterminationofNon-10Significance-Mitigated,art.HtoEx.1.ThefirstpageoftheNoticeprovidesthat“fcjommentperiodsfortheprojectandproposedDNS-Mareintegratedintoasinglecommentperiod.”Thesecondpage11oftheNoticeprovidesthat“Commentsontheaboveapplicationmustbesubmittedinwriting...,by125:00pmonMarch24,2014....Ifcommentscannotbesubmittedinwritingbythedateindicatedabove,youmaystillappearatthehearingandpresentyourcomments...”13Mr.PaulsonassertsthatsincethecommentperiodontheMDNSwasintegratedwiththecommentperiod14ontheapplication,apersonwouldreasonablyconcludethattheycouldcommentatthehearingonthe15applicationgiventhequotedlanguageabove.TheNoticeisarguablyconfusinginthisregard.However,thesentenceallowingforcommentatthehearingrefersto“commentsontheaboveapplication”,notthe16MDNS.Further,thefirstpageoftheNoticealsonotesthat“[tJherewillbenocommentperiod7followingtheissuanceoftheThresholdDeterminationofNon-SignjfIcance-MitigatedDNS4.”Attheveryleast,thislattersentenceshouldpromptacitizenintentoncommentingontheMDNStoseek18clarificationonwhentheIv[DNScommentperiodexpires.19ThelanguageontheMDNScommentperiodcouldusesomeclarification,butwhetheritmeritsanew20thresholddeterminationcannotbeaddressedinthisdecision.Mr.Paulsondoesnothavestandingtopursuehisnoticeissue.AsrequiredinRMC4-8-110(E)(3),oneoftherequirementsforstandingonan21appealissueisthattheappellantmusthavesufferedsomeinjuryinfactduetoissuanceofthedecision22underappeal.Mr.PaulsondoesnotallegethathewasdeniedanopportunitytocommentontheMDNSbecausehewasleadtobelievehecouldmakehiscommentsatthepublichearingonthepreliminaryplat.23fripointoffactMr.PaulsonsubmittednumerouscommentsontheMDNSonMarch22,2014,priorto24theissuanceoftheI\DNSonMarch31,2014.SeeEx.AtoEx.1.255.IntersectionMitization.AsprovidedinmoredetailinFindingofFactNo.6,Mi.PaulsonassertsthattheimpactsofintersectionimprovementsrequiredofthedeveloperwerenotadequatelyassessedintheSEPAreviewandalsothatthequeuescausedbytheseimprovementswouldinterferewiththeaccessPRELIMiNARYPLAT-197c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 89 of 145
Ipointstotheproposedpreliminaryplat.ItisconcludedthattheSEPAreviewwasadequateandthattheintersectionimprovementswillnotcreateanyprobablesignificantadverseenvironmentalimpacts.Ontheadequacyissue,asconcludedinConclusionofLawNo.3(B),thestandardisthattheSEPAresponsibleofficialonlyhastomakeaprimafacieshowingthathehasbasedhisdeterminationupon4informationreasonablysufficienttoevaluatetheimpactsofaproposal.ThestandardhasbeenappliedinnumerousSEPAappealcourtopinions,anduntiltherecentlyissuedSpokaneCountycase,supra,nocourthaseverfoundthelevelofreviewtobelacking.TheSpokaneCountycasedealtwithsitespecific6comprehensiveplanlanduseamendmentalongwithanassociatedrezone.Theenvironmentalchecklistcontainednoinformationonanyenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedlegislativeamendments,eventhoughtherecordwasclearastofuturedevelopmentplansforthesiteandthesitewaslocatedina8criticalaquiferareawithhighsusceptibilitytocontamination.9InthiscasetheCityclearlymadeaprimafacieshowingthatitdidnotadequatereviewoftrafficimpacts10priortoissuanceoftheMDNS.Atrafficreport,StaffReportEx.12,waspreparedanalyzingimpactstoseveralintersections.ThetrafficreportassessedLOSimpactstoseveralintersections,eventhoughthe11numberoftripsgeneratedforthoseintersectionswasnotsufficienttotriggeranLOSanalysisunderCity12policies.ThereportandstreetcirculationissueswerereviewedbytheCity’sengineeringdepartment.TheadvisorynotestotheMDNS,Ex.18,identif’sixtransportationissuesthatwereassessedbyCity13engineeringstaff.14AllofthistrafficreviewconductedbytheCityeasilyestablishesthattheCitymadea“primafacie”15showingthatithadsufficientinformationtoreasonablyevaluatethetrafficimpactsoftheproposal.Itshouldbeunderstoodthattheadequacyofreviewistobedistinguishedfromwhetheraproposalwill16createprobablesignificantadverseimpacts.Theadequacyofreviewjustaddressestheoverafldue17diligenceinhowreviewwasconducted(hencetherequirementthattheCityonlymakea“primafacie”showingofcompliance).Whendealingwithadequacyofreview,theCitydoesnothavetoestablishthat18itreviewedeveryissuethatcouldconceivablyleadtosignicantadverseimpacts,onlythatinformation19consideredwas“reasonablysufficient”toevaluateenvironmentalimpacts.Ofcourse,ifasingleissueissignificantandwillclearlycauseadverseimpacts,thefailuretoconsideritcouldundermineashowing20ofprimafaciecompliance.Theintersectionimprovementsdonotrisetothatlevel.Asborneoutbythe1subsequentlytrafficaddendum,Ex.4,preparedafterissuanceoftheMDNS,theintersectionimprovementsinfactdidnotcreateanyadverseimpactsandMr.Paulsonpresentednoevidencetothe22contrary.DuringpreparationoftheMDNSitwasreasonablefortheSEPAresponsibleofficialtoconcludethattheimpactsoftheintersectionimprovementsdidnotmeritfurtherenvironmentalreview.2Onthesecondissueofwhethertheintersectionwillcreateprobablesignificantadverseenvironmental—impacts,therecordisclearthattheintersectionwillnotcreateanysignificantadverseimpacts.This25findingcanbemadeevenwithoutthesubstantialweightrequiredduetothedeterminationsoftheSEPA26responsibleofficial.Thetrafficreportaddendum,Ex.4,providesanengineeringanalysispreparedbyaPRELIMINARYFLAT-207c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 90 of 145
Iqualifiedtraflicexpertestablishingthatqueuescausedbysignalizationofthe156tAve.SE/SE142Streetintersectionwillnotinterferewiththeaccesspointstotheproposedsubdivision.Mr.Paulsonprovidednoevidencetothecontrary.PRELIMINARYPLAT46.ReviewCriteria.Chapter4-7RMCgovernsthecriteriaforprelirninaryreview.Applicablestandardsarequotedbelowinitalicsandappliedthroughcorrespondingconclusionsoflaw.6RMC4-7-080(B):Asubdivisionshallbeconsistentwiththefollowingprinciplesofacceptability:1.LegalLots:CreatelegalbuildingsiteswhichcomplywithallprovisionsoftheCityZoningCode.82.Access:Establishaccesstoapublicroadforeachsegregatedparcel.93.PhysicalCharacteristics:Havesuftablephysicalcharacteristics.Aproposedplarmaybedenied10becauseofflood,inundation,orwetlandconditions.Constructionofprotectiveimprovementsmayberequiredasaconditionofapprovalandsuchimprovementsshallbenotedonthefinalplat.124.Drainage:Makeadequateprovisionfordrainageways,streets,alleys,otherpublicways,watersuppliesandsanitarywastes.Ii147.AstocompliancewiththeZoningCode,Finding1(2)ofthestaffreportisadoptedbyreferenceasifsetforthinfill,withallrecommendedconditionsofapprovaladoptedbythisdecisionaswell.As15depictedintheplatmap,StaffReportEx.3,eachproposedlotwilldirectlyaccessapublicRoad,Road16A.AsdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.4and5,theprojectisadequatelydesignedtopreventanyimpactstocriticalareasandwillnotcausefloodingproblems.AsdetenninedinFindingofFactNo.4,17theproposalprovidesforadequatepublicfacilities.ISRi’i’IC4-7-0801)(1):...TheHearingKtaminershallassureconformancewiththegeneralpurposes19oftheComprehensivePlanandadoptedstandards...208.TheproposedpreliminaryplayisconsistentwiththeRentonComprehensivePlanasoutlinedinFinding1(1)ofthestaffreport,whichisincorporatedbythisreferenceasifsetforthinfill.21Ri’’IC4-7-120(A:Noplanforthereplarting,subdivision,ordedicationofanyareasshallbeapprovedbytheHearingExaminerunlessthestreetsshownthereinareconnectedbysurfacedroad23orstreet(‘accordingtoCityspecjficationstoanexistingstreetorhighwcry.249.AsshowninStaffReportEx.3,theinternalroadsystemconnectsto156AveSE,apublicroad.25R’IC4-7-120(B):Thelocationofallstreetsshallconformtoanyadoptedplansforstreetsinthe26City.PRELIMINARYPLAT-217c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 91 of 145
110.TheCity’sadoptedstreetplansarenotaddressedinthestaffreportoranywhereelseinthe2administrativerecord.However,theonlyotherstreetconnectionpossiblefortheproposalwouldbetoanextensionofSE8thStreet,whichisaccommodatedbyastubroad.Consequently,thecriterionaboveisconstruedassatisfiedbytheproposal.4RMC4-7-120(C):Ifasubdivisionislocatedintheareaofanofficiallydesigned[sic]trailprovisionsshallbemadeforreservationoftheright-of-wayorforeasementstotheCityfortrailpurposes.611.Thereisnothingintherecordtoreasonablysuggesttheproximityofanyofficialdesignatedtrail.SiIC4-7-130(C):Aplashoiiplasubdivisionordedicationshallbepreparedinconformance9withthefollowingprovisions:101.LandUnsuitableforSubdivision.Landwhichisfoundtobeunsuitableforsubdivisionincludeslandwithfeatureslikelvtobeharmfultothesafetyandgeneralhealthofthefutureresidents(suchaslandsadverselyaffectedbyflooding,steepslopes,orrockformations,).Landwhichthe12DepartmentortheHearingExaminerconsidersinappropriateforsubdivisionshallnotbe13subdividedunlessadequatesafeguardsareprovidedagainsttheseadverseconditions.14°Flooding/Inundation:Ifanyportionofthelandwithintheboundaryofapreliminarvplatissubjecttojlooclingorinundation,thatportionofthesubdivisionmusthavetheapprovaloftheState15accordingtochapter86.16RCWbeforetheDepartmentandtheHearingExaminershallconsider16suchsubdivision.17b.SteepSlopes:Aplat,shortplat,subdivisionordedicationwhichwouldresultinthecreationofalotorlotsthatprimarilyhaveslopesfortypercent(40%,)orgreaterasnzeasuredperRMC4-3-18O5OJla,withoutadequateareaatlesserslopesuponwhichdevelopmentmayoccur,shallnotbe19approved.20213.LandClearingandTreeRetention:ShallcomplywithRMC4-4-130,TreeRetentiona,idLandClearingRegulations.234.Streams:24a.Preservation:Everyreasonableeffortshallbemadetopreserveexistingstreams,bodiesofwater,andwetlandareas.2526PRELIMINARYPLAT-227c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 92 of 145
Ib.Method:Ifastreampassesthroughanyofthesubjectproperty,aplanshallbepresentedwhichindicateshowthestreamwillbepreserved.Themethodologiesusedshouldincludeanoverflowarea,andanattempttominimize1/icdisturbanceofthenaturalchannelandstreambed.3c.Culverting:Thepipingortunnelingofwatershallbediscouragedandallowedonlywhengoingunderstreets.d.CleanWater.Everyeffortshallbemadetokeepallstreamsandbodiesofwaterclearofdebris6andpollutants.712.Thelandissuitableforasubdivisionasthestormwaterdesignassuresthatitwillnotconthbutetofloodingandtherearenocriticalareasattheprojectsite.Nopipingortunnelingofstreamsisproposed.TreeswillberetainedasrequiredbyRlv1C4-4-130asdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5.9R?1C4-7-140:Approvalofallsubdivisionslocatedineithersinglefamilyresidentialormulti-10familyresidentialzonesasdefinedintheZoningCodeshallbecontingentuponthesubdivider’sdedicationoflandorprovidingfeesinlieuofdedicationtotheCity,allasnecessarytomitigatetheadverseeffectsofdevelopmentupontheexistingparkandrecreationservicelevels.The12requirementsandproceduresforthismitigationshallbepertheCityofRentonParksiWitigatJonResolution.b1413.Cityordinancesrequirethepaymentofparkimpactfeespriortobuildingpermitissuance.15RTV1C4-7-150(A:Theproposedstreetsystemshallextendandcreateconnectionsbetweenexisting16streetsunlessotherwiseapprovedbythePublicWorksDepartment.Priortoapprovingastreetsystemthatdoesnotextendorconnect,theReviewingOfficialshallfindthatsuchexceptionshall17meettherequirementsofsubsectionE3ofthisSection.TheroadwayclassfIcationsshallbeasdefinedanddesignatedbytheDepartment.1914.AsshowninStaffReportEx.3,theinternalroadconnectionto156Ave.S.iscurrentlytheonlyroadconnectionpossiblefortheproject.20RMC4-7-150(B):AllproposedstreetnamesshallbeapprovedbytheCity.2115.Asconditioned.Rv1C4-7-150(C):Streetsintersectingwithexistingorproposedpublichighways,majoror23secondaryarterialsshallbeheldtoaminimum.24..16.Theproposedconnectionto156Ave.S.istheonlyconnectionpossiblefortheproject.25Ri’vlC4-7-150D):ThealignmentofallstreetsShallbereviewedandapprovedbythePublicWorks26Department.ThestreetstandardssetbyRi’izfC4-6-060shallapplyunlessotherwiseapproved.StreetPRE.LIMII”JARYPLAT-237c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 93 of 145
1alignmentoffsetsoflessthanonehundredtwentyfivefeet(125’)arenotdesirable,butmaybeapprovedbytheDepartmentuponashowingofneedbittonlyafterprovisionofallnecessarysafetymeasures.17.AsdeterminedinFindingofFact4,thePublicWorksDepartmenthasreviewedandapproved4theadequacyofstreets,whichincludescompliancewithapplicablestreetstandards.Ri’vlC4-7-150(E):61.Grid:Agridstreetpatternshallbeusedtoconnectexistingandnei”developmentandshallbethe7predominantstreetpatterninanysubdivisionpermittedbythisSection.S2.Linkages:Linkages,includingstreets,sidewalks,pedestrianorbikepaths,shallbeprovidedwithinandbetweenneighborhoodswhentheycancreateacontinuousandinterconnectednetworkofroadsandpathways.ImplementationofthisrequirementshallcomplywithComprehensivePlan10TransportationElementObjectiveT-AandPoliciesT-9throughT-]6andCommunityDesignElement,ObjectiveCD-MandPoliciesC’D-SOandCD-60.113.Exceptions:1213a.Thegridpatternmaybeadjustedtoa“flexiblegrid”byreducingthenumberoflinkagesorthealignmentbetweenroads,wherethefollowingfactorsarepresentonsite:14i.Infeasibleduetotopographical/environmentalconstraints;andor1516ii.Substantialimprovementsareexisting.174.Connections:Priortoadoptionofacompletegridstreetplan,reasonableconnectionsthatlinkexistingportionsofthegridsystemshallbemade.Ataminimum,stubstreetsshallberequired18withinsubdivisionstoallowfutureconnectivity.195.AlieyAccess:AlleyaccessisthepreferredstreetpatternexceptforpropertiesintheResidentialLowDensitylandusedesignation.TheResidentialLowDensitylandusedesignationincludesthe—RC,R-],antiR-4zones.Priortoapprovalofaplatwithoutalleyaccess,theReviewingOfficialshall21evaluateanalleylayoutanddeterminethattheuseofallevft)isnotfeasible...6.AlternativeConfigurations:Offsetorlooproadsarethepreferredalternativeconfigurations.237.Cul-de-SacStreets:Cul-de-sacstreetsmayoniybepermittedbytheReviewingOfficialwheredue74todemonstrablephysicalconstraintsnofutureconnectiontoalargerslreetpauernisphysicallypossible.2518.AsshowninStaffReportEx.3,nogridpatternispossiblefortheproposal.Alleyaccessisnot26requiredsincetheproposalisinaResidentialLowDensitylandusedesignation.TheinternalroadsarePRELLMINARYPLAT-247c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 94 of 145
Iloopedasencouragedbythecriterionabove.Nociiidesacsareproposedandastubroadisproposedasencouragedbythecriterionabove.Thecriterionismet.Ri1C4-7-150(F):Alladjacentrights-of-wayandnewrights-of-waydedicatedaspartoftheplat,includingstreets,roads,andalleys,shallbegradedtotheirfullwidthandthepavementand4sidewalksshallbeconstructedasspec/iedinthestreetstandardsordeferredbythePlanning/Building/PublicWorksAdministratororhis/herdesignee.619.Asproposed.7RMC4-7-150(G):Streetsthatmaybeextendedintheeventoffutureadjacentplattingshallbe8requiredtobededicatedtotheplatboundaryline.Extensionsofgreaterdepththananaveragelotshallbeimprovedwithtemporaryturnarounds.Dedicationofafiell-widthboundarystreetshallbe9requiredincertaininstancestofacilitateflituredevelopment.1020.Asconditioned.AsshowninEx.3totheStaffReport,thestubroadextensionextendsforadepthgreaterthananaveragelotsoatemporaryturnaroundisrequired.12RMC4-7-170(A:Insofaraspracticalsidelotlinesshallbeatrightanglestostreetlinesorradialtocurvedstreetlines.1321.AsdepictedinStaffReportEx.3,thesidelinesareinconformancewiththerequirementquoted14above.RMC4-7-170(B):Eachlotmusthaveaccesstoapublicstreetorroad.Accessmaybebyprivate16accesseasementstreetpertherequirementsofthestreetstandards.1722.-Aspreviouslydetermined,eachlothasaccesstoapublicsfreet.18RI1C4-7-170(C):Thesize,shape,andorientationoflotsshallmeettheminimumareaandwidth19requirementsoftheapplicablezoningclassificationandshallbeappropriateforthetypeofdevelopmentandusecontemplated.Furthersubdivisionoflotswithinaplatapprovedthroughthe20provisionsofthisChaptermustbeconsistentwiththethen—currentapplicablemaximumdensity21requirementasmeasuredwithintheplotasawhole.23.Aspreviouslydetermined,theproposedlotscomplywiththezoningstandardsoftheR-4zone,whichincludesarea,widthanddensity.23RMC4-7-170(D):Widthbetweensidelotlinesattheirforemostpoints(i.e.,thepointswherethe—sidelotlinesintersectwiththestreetright-of-wayline)shallnotbelessthaneightypercent(80%)of25therequiredlotwidthexceptinthecasesof(7)pipestemlots,whichshallhaveaminimumwidthof26PRELIMINARYPLAT-257c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 95 of 145
•1iItwentyfeet(20’)and(2)lotsonastreetcurieortheturningcircleofcul-de-sac(radiallots),whichshallbeaminimumofthirtyfivefret(359.24.AsshowninStaffReportEx.3,therequirementissatisfied.RMC4-7-170(E):Alllotcornersatintersectionsofdedicatedpublicrights-of-way,exceptalleys,shallhaveminimumradiusoffifleenfeet(159.25.Asconditioned.67RMC4-7-190(A):Dueregardshallbeshowntoallnaturalfeaturessuchaslargetrees,watercourses,andsimilarcommunityassets.Suchnaturalfeaturesshouldbepreserved,thereby8addingattractivenessandvaluetotheproperty.925.TreeswillberetainedasrequiredbyCitycodeasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5.There10arenoothernaturalfeaturesthatneedpreservationascontemplatedinthecriterionquotedabove.RI’IC4-7-200(A):UnlessseptictanksarespecJIcallvapprovedbythePublicWorksDepartmentandtheKingCountyHealthDepartment,sanitatysewersshallbeprovidedbythedeveloperatno12costtotheCityanddesignedinaccordancewithCitystandards.Sidesewerlinesshallbeinstalled13eightfeet(89intoeachlotfsanitarysewermainsarecn’ailable,orprovidedwiththesubdivisiondevelopment.1426.Asconditioned.1516RiviC4-7-200(B):Anadequatedrainagesystemshallbeprovidedfortheproperdrainageofallsuifacewater.Crossdrainsshallbeprovidedtoaccommodateallnaturalwaterflowandshallbeof17sufficientlengthtopermitfull-widthroadwayandrequiredslopes.Thedrainagesystemshallbe18designedpertherequirementsofRMC4-6-030,Drainage(SuifaceWate,)Standards.Thedrainagesystemshallincludedetentioncapacityforthenewstreetareas.Residentialplatsshallalsoinclude19detentioncapacityforfuturedevelopmentofthelots.Waterqualityfeaturesshallalsobedesignedtoprovidecapacityforthenewstreetpavingfortheplat.2127.TheproposalprovidesforadequatedrainagethatisinconformancewithapplicableCitydrainagestandardsasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.4.TheCity’sstonuwaterstandards,whichare22incorporatedintothetechnicalinformationreportandwillbefurtherimplementedduringcivilplan23review,ensurecompliancewithallofthestandardsinthecriterionquotedabove.24RMC4-7-200(C):Thewaterdistributionsystemincludingthelocationsoffirehydrantsshallbe-designedandinstalledinaccordancewithCitystandardsasdefinedbytheDepartmentandFire2Departmentrequirements.26PRELIMINARYPLAT-267c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 96 of 145
128.CompliancewithCitywatersystemdesignstandardsisassuredduringfinalplatreview.2Ri’vlC4-7-200(D):Allutilitiesdesignedtoservethesubdivisionshallbeplacedunderground.Anyutilitiesinstalledintheparkingstripshallbeplacedinsuchamanneranddepthtopermittheplantingoftrees.Thoseutilitiestobelocatedbeneathpavedsurfacesshallbeinstalled,includingall4serviceconnections,asapprovedbytheDepartment.Suchinstallationshallbecompletedandapprovedpriortotheapplicationofanysuifacematerial.EasementsmayberequiredforthemaintenanceandoperationofutilitiesasspecIedhytheDepartment.629.Asconditioned.78RMC4-7-200(E):AnycableTVconduitsshallbeundergroundedatthesamerimeasotherbasicutilitiesareinstalledtoserveeachlot.Conduitforserviceconnectionsshallbelaidtoeachlotline9bysubdividerastoobviatethenecessityfordisturbingthestreetarea,includingsidewalks,oralley10improvementswhensuchserviceconnectionsareextendedtoserveanybuilding.Thecostoftrenching,conduii,pedestalsand/orvaultsandlateralsaswellaseasementsthereforerequiredto11bringservicetothedevelopmentshallbebornebythedeveloperand/orlandowner.Thesubdividershallberesponsibleonlyforconduittoservehisdevelopment.Conduitendsshallbeelbowedto—finalgroundelevationandcapped.ThecableTVcompanyshallprovidemapsandspec,fIcationsto13thesubdividerandshallinspecttheconduitandcertjj5’totheCitythatitisproperlyinstalled.30.Asconditioned.15RMC4-7-210:16A.MONUMENTS:17Concretepermanentcontrolnzonzinzentsshallbeestablishedateachandeveiycontrollingcornerof18thesubdivision.InteriormonumentsshallbelocatedasdeterminedbytheDepartment.Allsurveys19shallbepertheCityofRentonsurveyingstandards.20B.SURVEY21AllotherlotcornersshallbemarkedpertheCitysurveyingstandards.C.STREETSIGNS.23Thesubdtvidershallinstallallstreetnamesignsnecessatyinthesubdivision,2431.Asconditioned.2526PRELIMFNARYPLAT-277c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 97 of 145
2DECISIONTheproposedpreliminaryplatasdepictedinStaffReportEx.3anddescribedinthisdecisionisconsistentwithallapplicablereviewcriteriaasoutlinedabove,subjecttothefollowingconditions:51.TheapplicantshallcomplywithmitigationmeasuresissuedaspartoftheMitigated6DeterminationofNon-Significancefortheproposal.2.AllproposedstreetnamesshallbeapprovedbytheCity.83.Alllotcornersatintersectionsofdedicatedpublicrights-of-way,exceptalleys,shallhaveminimumradiusoffifteenfeet(15).104.Sidesewerlinesshallbeinstalledeightfeet(8’)intoeachlotifsanitarysewermainsareavailable,orprovidedwiththesubdivisiondevelopment.115.Allutilitiesdesignedtoservethesubdivisionshallbeplacedunderground.Anyutilitiesinstalled—intheparkingstripshallbeplacedinsuchamanneranddepthtopermittheplantingoftrees.13Thoseutilitiestobelocatedbeneathpavedsurfacesshallbeinstalled,includingallservice14connections,asapprovedbytheDepartmentofPublicWorks.Suchinstallationshallbecompletedandapprovedpriortotheapplicationofanysurfacematerial.Easementsmaybe15requiredforthemaintenanceandoperationofutilitiesasspecifiedbytheDepartmentofPublicWorks.16176.AnycableTVconduitsshallbeundergroundedatthesametimeasotherbasicutilitiesareinstalledtoserveeachlot.Conduitforserviceconnectionsshallbelaidtoeachlotlineby18Applicantastoobviatethenecessityfordisturbingthestreetarea,includingsidewalks,oralley19improvementswhensuchserviceconnectionsareextendedtoserveanybuilding.Thecostoftrenching,conduit,pedestalsand/orvaultsandlateralsaswellaseasementsthereforerequiredto20bringservicetothedevelopmentshallbebornebythedeveloperand/orlandowner.The21applicantshallberesponsibleonlyforconduittoservehisdevelopment.Conduitendsshallbeelbowedtofinalgroundelevationandcapped.ThecableTVcompanyshallprovidemapsand22specificationstotheapplicantandshallinspecttheconduitandcertifytotheCitythatitis23properlyinstalled.247.Theapplicantshallinstallallstreetnamesignsnecessaryinthesubdivisionpriortofinalplatapproval.2D26PRELIMINARYPLAT-287c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 98 of 145
18.Citystaffshallinvestigatewhethertheproposed156eAvecrossingforschoolchildrenissafeintermsoflightingandstoppingdistance.Staffshallrequirefurthermitigationasnecessarytoensuresafewalkingconditionsforchildrenwalkingtotheschoolbus.39.TheproposedstubroadshallincludeatemporaryturnaroundasrequiredbyRMC4-7-150(G)ifthisisnotalreadyproposed.)1.Theapplicantshallcomplywiththemitigationmeasuresissuedaspartoftherevised6DeterminationofNon-SignificanceMitigated,datedMay19,2014.7......10.Theapplicantshallobtainademolitionpermitandallrequiredinspectionsforthe8removaloftheexistingsinglefamilyresidenceanddetachedgaragepriortoFinalPlatrecording.911.AfinaldetailedlandscapeplanshallbesubmittedtoandapprovedbytheCurrent10PlanningProjectManagerpriortoconstructionpermitissuance,includinga10-footlandscapedvisualbarrieraroundtheperimeterofthestormdrainagetract(TractA).1112.ThelandscapedvisualbarrieraroundtheperimeterofTractAshallbeinstalledpriorto—recordingofthefinalplat.StreetfrontagelandscapingshallbeinstalledpriortoCertificateof13Occupancyforthenewsinglefamilyresidences.1413.Aneasementfortreeprotectionshallberecordedalongtheeastpropertylinetoprotect15thetreesavailableforretention(asdeterminedbytheCityofRentonArborist).Theeasementshouldbeofsufficientwidthtoadequatelyprotectthetreesidentifiedforprotection,however16staffrecommendsthattheeasementwidthbepermittedtovarybasedonthewidthofthestandof17treesproposedtoberetained,SucheasementshallbeidentifiedonthefaceoftheFinalPlat.14.Afinaltreeretentionplanshallbesubmittedwiththeconstructionpermitapplication19identifyingallthetreestoberetained,asdeterminedbytheCityArborist.2015.AstieetlightingplanshallbesubmittedatthetimeofconstructionpermitreviewforreviewandapprovalbytheCity’sPlanReviewer.2115.TheplatmapshallberevisedtoshowTractBasdedicatedright-of-way.TherevisedplatmapshallbesubmittedtotheCurrentPlanningProjectManagerpriortorecordingofthe23finalplat.2416.Secondaryreviewmayberequiredforthepondwithbothstructuralengineerand25geotechengineer,andliningmayalsoberequired.26PRELIVIINARYPLAT-297c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 99 of 145
117.Sitegradingshallbelimitedtothesummermonths.Ifthegradingistotakeplaceduringthewetterwinterorspringmonth,acontingencyshallbeprovidedintheprojectbudgettoallow—forexportofnativesoilandimportofstructuralfill.318.Theapplicantshallberequiredtocreateahomeowner’sassociationofmaintenanceagreementforthesharedutilities.stormwaterfacilities,andmaintenanceandresponsibilitiesforallsharedimprovementsofthisdevelopment.Adrafiofthedocument(s)shallbesubmittedtoCurrentPlanningProjectManagerforthereviewandapprovalbytheCity’Attorneyand6PropertyServicessectionpriortotherecordingofthefinalplat.719.Bamboomaynotbeusedforanylandscapingrequiredoftheproposal.S9DATEDthis18thdayofJuly,2014.10z&f’—i——-.-‘.—---.-[1hirOtbrchs1112CityofRentonHearingExaminer1314AppealRightandValuationNoticcs15RMC4-8-110(E)(9)providesthatthefinaldecisionofthehearingexaminerissubjecttoappealtothe16RentonCityCouncil.RMC4-S-I10E)(9)requiresappealsofthehearingexaminer’sdecisiontobe17filedwithinfourteen(14)calendardaysfromthedateofthehearingexaminer’sdecision.Areqtiestforreconsiderationtothehearingeexaminermayalsobefiledwithinthis14dayappealperiodasisidentifiedinRIvIC4-8-110(E)($)andRMC4-S-100(G)(4).Anewfourteen(14)dayappealperiodshallcommenceupontheissuanceofthereconsideration.Additionalinformationregardingtheappeal19processmaybeobtainedfromtheCityClerk’sOffice,RentonCity’Hall—7thfloor,(425)430-6510.20Affectedpropertyownersmayreque.stachangeinvaluationforpropertytaxpurposesnotwithstanding21anyprogramofrevaluation.2223242526PRELIMINARYPLAT-307c. - Court case filed by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen, POA for Judith Page 100 of 145
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
2014 Street Patch and Overlay with Curb Ramps
Notice of Completion with Lakeside Industries,
Inc. CAG 14-035
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 24 Nov 2014
Exhibits:
Final Pay Estimate
Notice of Completion
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Jayson Grant, ext. 7400
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $24,761.68 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $885,000 Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ $1,354,029.49 City Share Total Project: $ $1,354,029.49
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The project started on June 23, 2014 and was completed on October 16, 2014. The original contract
amount was $1,125,952.30 and the final contract amount is $1,178,530.02. Of the approximate $52,000
in overruns, $42,000 is for substantially higher quantities for asphalt concrete pavement and water
valve adjustments, and another $10,000 in various other bid items. Of the $1,178,530.02 final contract
amount, the following amounts will be expended from: Street Overlay Program - $709,500.54;
Presidents’ Park Water Main Replacement - $109,551.44; Monterey Terrace Water Main Replacement -
$187,393.42; NE 5th Place/Edmonds Avenue NE Storm System Improvement Project - $152,178.54; and
NE 24th Storm Water Pipe Repair - $19,906.09.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept completion of the project, authorize payment of the final pay estimate in the amount of
$24,761.68 and release the retainage of $57,638.38 after 60 days, subject to the required authorization.
7d. - Public Works Department submits
CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Page 101 of 145
TO:FINANCEDIRECTORFROM:TRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMSDIRECTORCONTRACTOR:LakeridgePavingCo.CONTRACTNO.CAG14-035ESTIMATENO.#3FinalPROJECT:2014STREETPATCHANDOVERLAYWITHCURBRAMPS1.CONTRACTOREARNINGSTHISESTIMATE$24,761.682.SALESTAX@9.50%$0.003.TOTALCONTRACTAMOUNTTHISESTIMATES24,76l.684.EARNINGSPREVIOUSLYPAIDCONTRACTOR$1,071,605.715*EARNINGSDUECONTRACTORTHISESTIMATE$23,523.596.SUBTOTAL-CONTRACTORPAYMENTS$1,095,129.307.RETAINAGEONPREVIOUSEARNINGS$56,400.308.**RETAINAGEONEARNINGSTHISESTIMATE$1,238.089.SUBTOTAL-RETAINAGE$57,638.3810.SALESTAXPREVIOUSLYPAID$25,762.3411.SALESTAXDUETHISESTIMATE$0.0012.SUBTOTAL-SALESTAX$25,762.34*(95%xUNEJ)**(RETAJNAGE:5%)GRANDTOTAL:$1,178,530.03FINANCEDEPARTMENTACTION:PAYMENTTOCONTRACTOR(Lines5andII):Transportation-StreetOverlayACCOUNTT12108.f009.0018.0002$4,612.81#3Final317.122108.0l6.542.30.48.011SurfaceWaterUtilityACCOUNT427.475015.018.594.31.63.782$18,910.79#3FinalWaterEneineeringACCOUNT425.455170.018.594.34.63.000$0.00#3FinalRETAINEDAMOUNT(Line8):Transportation-StreetOverlayACCOUNTT12108.f009.0018.0002$242.78#3FinalSurfaceWaterUtilityACCOUNT427.475015.018.594.31.63.782$995.30#3FinalWaterEngineeringACCOUNT425.455l70.018.594.34.63.000$0.00#3Finalj1TOTALTHISESTIMATE:$24,761.68CHARTER116,LAWSOF1965CITYOFRENTONCERTIFICATIONI,THEUNDERSIGNEDDOHEREBYCERTIFYUNDERPENALTYOFPERJURY,THATTHEMATERIALSHAVEBEENFURNISHED,THESERVICESRENDEREDORTHELABORPERFORMEDASDESCRIBEDHEREIN,ANDTHATTHECLAIMISAJUST,DUEANDUNPAIDOBLIGATIONAGAINSTTHECITYOFRENTON,ANDTHATIAMAUTHORIZEDTOAUTHENTICATEANDCERTIFYTOSAIDCLAIMSIGNED:SIGNATURES:Date11’1‘kContractor:_________________ProjectManager:______________Date:______________________________________Date:__________/‘/4od-___ApprovedBy:____________________________________________________________\/cnsportationDesignEngineer)ApprovedBy:______________Date:_____________V(TransportationDesignManager)/77d. - Public Works Department submits CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Page 102 of 145
7d. - Public Works Department submits CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Page 103 of 145
7d. - Public Works Department submits CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Page 104 of 145
7d. - Public Works Department submits CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Page 105 of 145
7d. - Public Works Department submits CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Page 106 of 145
Revised #
Assigned to:
UBI Number:
Yes No
Yes
Contractor's Name
Date:Contractor's UBI Number:
Date Work Accepted
Federally funded transportation project?
Name & Mailing Address of Public Agency
E-mail Address
Contract Number
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below
Description of Work Done/Include Jobsite Address(es)
Affidavit ID*
No (if yes, provide Contract Bond Statement below)
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
Project Name
Date Assigned:
Job Order Contracting
Date Contract Awarded
Telephone #
Bond Number:
Retainage Bond Contract/Payment bond (valid for federally funded transportation projects)
Name:
Department Use Only
Original
If Retainage is not withheld, please select one of the following and List Surety's Name & Bond Number.
Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed
Contractor Address
Were Subcontracters used on this project? If so, please complete Addendum A. Yes No
$
$$
$$
$$
$
$$
Contact Name:Title:
F215-038-000 04-2014
Email Address:Phone Number:
p
Additions ( + )
Amount Retained
REV 31 0020e (4/28/14)
Amount of Sales Tax
Contract Amount
Sub-Total
Reductions ( - ) Amount Disbursed
TOTAL
Note: The Disbursing Officer must submit this completed notice immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract.
NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUNDS until receipt of all release certificates.
Submitting Form: Please submit the completed form by email to all three agencies below.
TOTAL
Liquidated Damages
Comments:
(If various rates apply, please send a breakdown)
NOTE: These two totals must be equal
p
Affidavit ID* - No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed.
Contract Release
(855) 545-8163, option # 4
ContractRelease@LNI.WA.GOV
Employment Security
Department
Registration, Inquiry,
Standards & Coordination
Unit
(360) 902-9450
publicworks@esd.wa.gov
Department of Revenue
Public Works Section
(360) 704-5650
PWC@dor.wa.gov
V e(//)7d. - Public Works Department submits
CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Page 107 of 145
Subcontractor's Name:UBI Number: (Required)Affidavid ID*
Provide known affidavits at this time. No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed.
Addendum A: Please List all Subcontractors and Sub-tiers Below
This addendum can be submitted in other formats.
For tax assistance or to request this document in an alternate format, please call 1-800-647-7706. Teletype (TTY) users may use the
Washington Relay Service by calling 711.
REV 31 0020e Addendum (04/28/14)F215-038-000 04-20147d. - Public Works Department submits
CAG-14-035, 2014 Street Patch and Page 108 of 145
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Lower Cedar River Restoration
Assessment Project Engineering
Consultant Agreement with Herrera
Environmental Consultants
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 24 Nov 2014
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Consultant Agreement
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Manager, x7248, Wayne
Cornwall, Surface Water Engineer, x7205
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $134,976 Transfer Amendment: $NA
Amount Budgeted: $ $150,000 Revenue Generated: $NA
Total Project Budget: $ $150,000 (427.475502)City Share Total Project: $ NA
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Work to be completed under the Engineering Consultant Agreement with Herrera Environmental
Consultants for the Lower Cedar River Assessment Project includes the analysis, documentation and the
public and stakeholder coordination necessary for the project. This work will occur within the categories
of synthesizing existing data, characterization of habitat restoration opportunities and constraints,
detailed analysis of specific restoration project opportunities and conceptual design development.
Herrera Environmental Consultants was selected through an RFP solicitation for the project using the
eCityGov Shared Procurement Portal.
The City of Renton received $150,000 in non-matching grant funding from the Puget Sound Acquisition
and Restoration Project through the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office for the Lower
Cedar River Restoration Assessment Project. The grant was accepted by Council on April 7, 2014
through PSAR Project Agreement CAG-14-049. The budget is included in the approved 2014 Surface
Water Utility’s Capital Improvement Program for the Lower Cedar River Restoration Assessment Project
(427.475502). The project grant agreement requires the project be completed by June 30, 2015.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Engineering Consultant Agreement with Herrera
Environmental Consultants for the engineering design of the Lower Cedar River Restoration Assessment
Project in the amount of $134,976.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 109 of 145
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:November 14, 2014
TO:Don Persson, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Engineering Manager, x7248
Wayne Cornwall, Surface Water Engineer, x7205
SUBJECT:Lower Cedar River Restoration Assessment Project
Engineering Consultant Agreement with Herrera
Environmental Consultants
ISSUE:
Should Council approve the Engineering Consultant Agreement with Herrera
Environmental Consultants for the engineering design of the Lower Cedar River
Restoration Assessment Project in the amount of $134,976?
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Engineering Consultant Agreement
with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the engineering design of the Lower Cedar
River Restoration Assessment Project in the amount of $134,976.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The City adopted the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/
Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (Plan) in July 2005. The Plan
identified the Cedar River as a Tier 1 priority habitat area for recovery of Chinook
salmon under the Endangered Species Act. The Plan also identified various habitat
needs within the reaches of the Cedar River, but no specific projects were defined. The
lower Cedar River is recognized as an important fisheries resource. The restoration of
habitat, especially in the urban reaches of the Cedar River, will help the regional salmon
recovery efforts in WRIA 8 and the Puget Sound, which was initiated in response to the
Endangered Species Act listing of Chinook salmon.
The purpose of the Lower Cedar River Assessment Project is to evaluate the habitat
needs in four reaches of the Cedar River within Renton and to identify feasible habitat
restoration opportunities and concepts. The project will develop defined habitat
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 110 of 145
Mr. Don Persson, Council President
Page 2 of 2
November 14, 2014
H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3750 Lower Cedar River
Restoration Assessment\1100 DESIGN_PLANNING\1103 CONTRACTS\20141113 Issue Paper.docx\WCtp
restoration actions and the associated levels of effort required to move these
restoration concepts to implementation. The restoration concepts will account for
constraints to project implementation such as current recreational uses, land use and
flood hazard protection.
Work to be completed under the Engineering Consultant Agreement with Herrera
Environmental Consultants includes the analysis, documentation and the public and
stakeholder coordination necessary for the project. This work will occur within the
categories of synthesizing existing data, characterization of restoration opportunities
and constraints, detailed analysis of specific restoration project opportunities and
conceptual design development.
Herrera Environmental Consultants was selected through an RFP solicitation for the
project using the eCityGov Shared Procurement Portal.
The project is 100% funded by a Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Project
non-matching grant of $150,000 (CAG-14-049) administered by the Washington State
Recreation and Conservation Office. The budget associated with this grant is included in
the approved 2014 Surface Water Utility’s Capital Improvement Program for the Lower
Cedar River Restoration Assessment Project (427.475502.018.594.31.63.000). The
remaining project budget is for City project management cost. The project grant
agreement requires the project be completed by June 30, 2015.
CONCLUSION:
The Lower Cedar River Restoration Assessment Project will help to identify habitat
restoration concepts that are feasible to implement. By completing this planning
project, the identified restoration concepts would be eligible for future grant funding
from the state Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The future implementation of the
restoration concepts identified by the project will contribute to improving
environmental conditions and salmon habitat along the Cedar River in Renton.
cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
Hai Nguyen, Senior Finance Analyst
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 111 of 145
E1-2012
Page 1 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
ENGINEERING
ANNUAL CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this _______, day of __________, _____, by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HEREINAFTER CALLED THE "CITY," and __Herrera
Environmental Consultants, Inc.__ whose address is _2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Seattle, WA 98121_ at which
work will be available for inspection, hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT."
PROJECT NAME: Lower Cedar River Restoration Assessment
WHEREAS, the City has not sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide the engineering within a
reasonable time and the City deems it advisable and is desirous of engaging the professional services and assistance
of a qualified professional consulting firm to do the necessary engineering work for the project, and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has represented and by entering into this Agreement now represents, that it is in full
compliance with the statutes of the State of Washington for registration of professional engineers, has a current
valid corporate certificate from the State of Washington or has a valid assumed name filing with the Secretary of
State and that all personnel to be assigned to the work required under this Agreement are fully qualified to perform
the work to which they will be assigned in a competent and professional manner, and that sufficient qualified
personnel are on staff or readily available to Consultant to staff this Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Consultant has indicated that it desires to do the work set forth in the Agreement upon the terms
and conditions set forth below.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained herein below,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
I
SCOPE OF WORK
The Consultant shall furnish, and hereby warrants that it has, the necessary equipment, materials, and
professionally trained and experienced personnel to facilitate completion of the work described in Exhibit A, Scope
of Work, which is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
The Consultant shall perform all work described in this Agreement in accordance with the latest edition and
amendments to local and state regulations, guidelines and policies.
The Consultant shall prepare such information and studies as it may deem pertinent and necessary, in order to pass
judgment in a sound engineering manner on the features of the work. The Consultant shall make such minor
changes, amendments or revisions in the detail of the work as may be required by the City. This item does not
constitute an "Extra Work" item as related in Section VIII of the Agreement.
The work shall be verified for accuracy by a complete check by the Consultant. The Consultant will be held
responsible for the accuracy of the work, even though the work has been accepted by the City.
II
DESIGN CRITERIA
The City will designate the basic premises and criteria for the work needed. Reports and plans, to the extent
feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments of local and State regulations,
guidelines, and specifications, including, but not limited to the following:
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 112 of 145
E1-2012
Page 2 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
1. Washington State Department of Transportation/American Public Works Association (WSDOT/APWA),
"Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction," as amended by Renton Standard
Specification.
2. WSDOT/APWA, "Standard Plans for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction."
3. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Highway Design Manual."
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges."
5. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Bridge Design Manual, Volumes 1 and 2."
6. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Manual of Highways Hydraulics," except hydrologic
analysis as described in item 14.
7. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Materials Laboratory Outline."
8. Transportation Research Board, "Highway Capacity Manual."
9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways."
10. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Construction Manual."
11. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Local Agency Guidelines."
12. Standard drawings prepared by the City and furnished to the Consultant shall be used as a guide in all
cases where they fit design conditions. Renton Design Standards, and Renton Specifications shall be
used as they pertain.
13. Metro Transit, design criteria.
14. King County Surface Water Design Manual, Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of Chapter 1, and Chapters 3, 4,
and 5.
15. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets."
III
ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CONSULTANT
BY THE CITY
The City will furnish the Consultant copies of documents which are available to the City that will facilitate the
preparation of the plans, studies, specifications, and estimates within the limits of the assigned work.
All other records needed for the study must be obtained by the Consultant. The Consultant will coordinate with
other available sources to obtain data or records available to those agencies. The Consultant shall be responsible
for this and any other data collection to the extent provided for in the Scope of Work. City will provide to
Consultant all data in City’s possession relating to Consultants services on the project. Consultant will reasonably
rely upon the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of the information provided by the City. Should field studies
be needed, the Consultant will perform such work to the extent provided for in the Scope of Work. The City will not
be obligated to perform any such field studies.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 113 of 145
E1-2012
Page 3 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
IV
OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTS AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT
Documents, exhibits or other presentations for the work covered by this Agreement shall be furnished by the
Consultant to the City upon completion of the various phases of the work. All such material, including working
documents, notes, maps, drawings, photo, photographic negatives, etc. used in the project, shall become and
remain the property of the City and may be used by it without restriction. Any use of such documents by the City
not directly related to the project pursuant to which the documents were prepared by the Consultant shall be
without any liability whatsoever to the Consultant.
All written documents and products shall be printed on recycled paper when practicable. Use of the chasing-arrow
symbol identifying the recycled content of the paper shall be used whenever practicable. All documents will be
printed on both sides of the recycled paper, as feasible.
V
TIME OF BEGINNING AND COMPLETION
The work detailed in the Scope of Work will be performed according to Exhibit B, Time Schedule of Completion,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. It is agreed that all the Consultant's services are
to be completed and all products shall be delivered by the Consultant unless there are delays due to factors that
are beyond the control of the Consultant. The Consultant shall not begin work under the terms of this Agreement
until authorized in writing by the City. If, after receiving Notice to Proceed, the Consultant is delayed in the
performance of its services by factors that are beyond its control, the Consultant shall notify the City of the delay
and shall prepare a revised estimate of the time and cost needed to complete the Project and submit the revision
to the City for its approval. Time schedules are subject to mutual agreement for any revision unless specifically
described as otherwise herein.
Delays attributable to or caused by one of the parties hereto amounting to 30 days or more affecting the
completion of the work may be considered a cause for renegotiation or termination of this Agreement by the other
party.
VI
PAYMENT
The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as
provided hereinafter as specified in Exhibit C, Cost Estimate. Such payment shall be full compensation for work
performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to
complete the work. All billings for compensation for work performed under this Agreement will list actual time
(days and/or hours) and dates during which the work was performed and the compensation shall be figured using
the rates in Exhibit C. Payment for this work shall not exceed $ _134,976_ without a written amendment to this
contract, agreed to and signed by both parties.
Cost Plus Net Fee
Payment for work accomplished shall be on the basis of the Consultant's actual cost plus a net fee. The actual cost
includes direct salary cost, overhead, and direct non-salary cost.
1. The direct salary cost is the salary expense for professional and technical personnel and principals for
the time they are productively engaged in the work necessary to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. The
direct salary costs are set forth in the attached Exhibit C and by this reference made a part of this
Agreement.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 114 of 145
E1-2012
Page 4 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
2. The overhead costs as identified on Exhibit C are determined as _195_ percent of the direct salary cost
and by this reference made a part of this Agreement. The overhead cost rate is an estimate based on
currently available accounting information and shall be used for all progress payments over the period
of the contract.
3. The direct non-salary costs are those costs directly incurred in fulfilling the terms of this Agreement,
including, but not limited to travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and fees of outside consultants.
The direct non-salary costs are specified in Exhibit C, Cost Estimate. Billings for any direct non-salary
costs shall be supported by copies of original bills or invoices. Reimbursement for outside consultants
and services shall be on the basis of times the invoiced amount.
4. The net fee, which represents the Consultants profit shall be _15_ percent of direct salary plus overhead
costs. This fee is based on the Scope of Work and the estimated labor hours therein. In the event a
supplemental agreement is entered into for additional work by the Consultant, the supplemental
agreement will include provision for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The net fee will
be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of the project completed as estimated in
the Consultant's monthly progress reports and approved by the City. Any portion of the net fee not
previously paid in the monthly payments shall be included in the final payment, subject to the provisions
of Section XI entitled TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.
5. Progress payments may be claimed monthly for direct costs actually incurred to date as supported by
detailed statements, for overhead costs and for a proportionate amount of the net fee payable to the
Consultant based on the estimated percentage of the completion of the services to date. Final payment
of any balance due the Consultant of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its
verification by the City after completion and acceptance by the City of the work under this Agreement.
Acceptance, by the Consultant of final payment shall constitute full and final satisfaction of all amounts
due or claimed to be due.
Payment for extra work performed under this Agreement shall be paid as agreed to by the parties hereto in writing
at the time extra work is authorized. (Section VIII "EXTRA WORK").
A short narrative progress report shall accompany each voucher for progress payment. The report shall include
discussion of any problems and potential causes for delay.
To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for consultant employees, the City may conduct employee
interviews.
Acceptance of such final payment by the Consultant shall constitute a release of all claims of any nature, related to
this Agreement, which the Consultant may have against the City unless such claims are specifically reserved in
writing and transmitted to the City by the Consultant prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not, however,
be a bar to any claims that the City may have against the Consultant or to any remedies the City may pursue with
respect to such claims.
The Consultant and its subconsultants shall keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of three years
after final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement and all items related to, or bearing
upon, these records. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year retention
period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been
resolved. The three-year retention period starts when the Consultant receives final payment.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 115 of 145
E1-2012
Page 5 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
VII
CHANGES IN WORK
The Consultant shall make all such revisions and changes in the completed work of this Agreement as are necessary
to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the City, without additional compensation.
Should the City find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts
thereof revised, the Consultant shall make such revisions, if requested and as directed by the City in writing. This
work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as provided in Section VIII.
VIII
EXTRA WORK
The City may desire to have the Consultant perform work or render services in connection with the Project in
addition to or other than work provided for by the expressed intent of the Scope of Work. Such work will be
considered as Extra Work and will be specified in a written supplement which will set forth the nature and scope
thereof. Work under a supplement shall not proceed until authorized in writing by the City. Any dispute as to
whether work is Extra Work or work already covered under this Agreement shall be resolved before the work is
undertaken. Performance of the work by the Consultant prior to resolution of any such dispute shall waive any
claim by the Consultant for compensation as Extra Work.
IX
EMPLOYMENT
The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide
employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to
pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the
award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this
Agreement without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration or otherwise
recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.
Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the
Consultant under this Agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City and any
and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while
so engaged and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the
part of the Consultant's employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered
herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant.
The Consultant shall not engage, on a full or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of the contract, any
professional or technical personnel who are, or have been at any time during the period of this contract, in the
employ of the City except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the City.
If during the time period of this Agreement, the Consultant finds it necessary to increase its professional, technical,
or clerical staff as a result of this work, the Consultant will actively solicit minorities through their advertisement
and interview process.
X
NONDISCRIMINATION
The Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee or applicant for employment or for services
because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, age or handicap except for a
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 116 of 145
E1-2012
Page 6 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
bona fide occupational qualification with regard to, but not limited to the following: employment upgrading;
demotion or transfer; recruitment or any recruitment advertising; layoff or termination’s; rates of pay or other
forms of compensation; selection for training; rendition of services. The Consultant understands and agrees that if
it violates this Non-Discrimination provision, this Agreement may be terminated by the City and further that the
Consultant shall be barred from performing any services for the City now or in the future, unless a showing is made
satisfactory to the City that discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely.
XI
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon not less than ten (10) days
written notice to the Consultant, subject to the City's obligation to pay Consultant in accordance with
subparagraphs C and D below.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its supervisory
personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant hereby agree to complete
the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be
a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if
the City so chooses.
In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the surviving
members of the Consultant, with the City's concurrence, desire to terminate this Agreement, payment
shall be made as set forth in Subsection C of this section.
C. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City other than for fault on the part of the Consultant,
a final payment shall be made to the Consultant for actual cost for the work complete at the time of
termination of the Agreement, plus the following described portion of the net fee. The portion of the
net fee for which the Consultant shall be paid shall be the same ratio to the total net fee as the work
complete is to the total work required by the Agreement. In addition, the Consultant shall be paid on
the same basis as above for any authorized extra work completed. No payment shall be made for any
work completed after ten (10) days following receipt by the Consultant of the Notice to Terminate. If
the accumulated payment made to the Consultant prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total
amount that would be due as set forth herein above, then no final payment shall be due and the
Consultant shall immediately reimburse the City for any excess paid.
D. In the event the services of the Consultant are terminated by the City for fault on the part of the
Consultant, the above stated formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event the amount to be
paid shall be determined by the City with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the
Consultant in performing the work to the date of termination, the amount of work originally required
which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether that work is in a form or of a type
which is usable to the City at the time of termination, the cost to the City of employing another firm to
complete the work required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which
affect the value to the City of the work performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances
shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount which would have been made if the
formula set forth in subsection C above had been applied.
E. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the work, the original copies of all
Engineering plans, reports and documents prepared by the Consultant prior to termination shall become
the property of the City for its use without restriction. Such unrestricted use not occurring as a part of
this project, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 117 of 145
E1-2012
Page 7 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
F. Payment for any part of the work by the City shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any remedies of
any type it may have against the Consultant for any breach of this Agreement by the Consultant, or for
failure of the Consultant to perform work required of it by the City. Forbearance of any rights under the
Agreement will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future
act or omission by the Consultant.
XII
DISPUTES
Any dispute concerning questions of facts in connection with work not disposed of by agreement between the
Consultant and the City shall be referred for determination to the Public Works Administrator or his/her successors
and delegees, whose decision in the matter shall be final and conclusive on the parties to this Agreement.
In the event that either party is required to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any of its rights in this
Agreement, both parties agree that any such action shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, situated in King County at the Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent, Washington.
XIII
LEGAL RELATIONS
The Consultant shall comply with all Federal Government, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the
work to be done under this Agreement. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the
laws of Washington.
The Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from and
shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands or suits at law or equity arising in whole or part
from the Consultant's errors, omissions, or negligent acts under this Agreement provided that nothing herein shall
require the Consultant to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims, demands or suits
based upon the conduct of the City, its officers or employees and provided further that if the claims or suits are
caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the Consultant's agents or employees and (b) the City, its
agents, officers and employees, this provision with respect to claims or suits based upon such concurrent
negligence shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence or the negligence of the
Consultant's agents or employees except as limited below.
Insurance
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries
to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
No Limitation
A. Consultant’s maintenance of insurance as required by the agreement shall not be construed to limit the
liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City’s
recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 118 of 145
E1-2012
Page 8 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
B. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be
written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability
coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover
liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising
injury. The City shall be named as an insured under the Consultant’s Commercial General Liability insurance
policy with respect to the work performed for the City.
3. Workers’ Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington.
4. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession.
C. Minimum Amounts of Insurance
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage
of $1,000,000 per accident.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each
occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate.
3. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and
$1,000,000 policy aggregate limit.
D. Other Insurance Provision
The Consultant’s Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect to the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or
insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not
contribute with it.
E. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
F. Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including
but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the
Consultant before commencement of the work.
G. Notice of Cancellation
The Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two business days of
their receipt of such notice.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 119 of 145
E1-2012
Page 9 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
H. Failure to Maintain Insurance
Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of
contract, upon which the City may, after giving five business days notice to the Consultant to correct the breach,
immediately terminate the contract or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all
premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole
discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Consultant from the City.
The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of Consultant hereunder.
The Consultant shall also submit copies of the declarations pages of relevant insurance policies to the City within 30
days of contract acceptance if requested. The Certification and Declaration page(s) shall be in a form as approved
by the City. If the City's Risk Manager has the Declaration page(s) on file from a previous contract and no changes
in insurance coverage has occurred, only the Certification Form will be required.
The Consultant shall verify, when submitting first payment invoice and annually thereafter, possession of a current
City of Renton business license while conducting work for the City. The Consultant shall require, and provide
verification upon request, that all subconsultants participating in a City project possess a current City of Renton
business license. The Consultant shall provide, and obtain City approval of, a traffic control plan prior to conducting
work in City right-of-way. The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor.
It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitute the
Consultant’s waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this
indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall
survive the expiration or termination of this agreement.
XIV
SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING OF CONTRACTS
The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the work covered by this Agreement without the express consent of
the City.
XV
ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS
The Consultant shall place their certification on all plans, specifications, estimates or any other engineering data
furnished by them in accordance with RCW 18.43.070.
XVI
COMPLETE AGREEMENT
This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the
parties. Any supplements to this Agreement will be in writing and executed and will become part of this
Agreement. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound
by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise, or agreement not set forth herein. No changes,
amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties
as an amendment to this Agreement.
The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision in this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof,
and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 120 of 145
E1-2012
Page 10 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
XVII
EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE
This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original having identical legal effect. The Consultant does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations,
warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the Request for Qualifications, and the supporting materials
submitted by the Consultant, and does hereby accept the Agreement and agrees to all of the terms and conditions
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON
Signature Date Mayor Date
type or print name ATTEST:
Title Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 121 of 145
E1-2012
Page 11 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 122 of 145
E1-2012
Page 12 of 12
Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts
CITY OF RENTON
FAIR PRACTICES POLICY
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE
_____Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.______ hereby confirms and declares that:
(Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant)
I. It is the policy of the above-named contractor/subcontractor/consultant, to offer equal
opportunity to all qualified employees and applicants for employment without regard to their
race; religion/creed; national origin; ancestry; sex; the presence of a physical, sensory, or mental
disability; age over 40; sexual orientation or gender identity; pregnancy; HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C
status; use of a guide dog/service animal; marital status; parental/family status; military status; or
veteran’s status.
II. The above-named contractor/subcontractor/consultant complies with all applicable federal, state
and local laws governing non-discrimination in employment.
III. When applicable, the above-named contractor/subcontractor/consultant will seek out and
negotiate with minority and women contractors for the award of subcontracts.
Print Agent/Representative’s Name
Print Agent/Representative’s Title
Agent/Representative’s Signature
Date Signed
Instructions: This document MUST be completed by each contractor, subcontractor, consultant and/or
supplier. Include or attach this document(s) with the contract.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 123 of 145
EXHIBIT A
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 1 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
SCOPE OF WORK
LOWER CEDAR RIVER RESTORATION ASSESSMENT
The City of Renton is conducting an assessment of Chinook salmon habitat restoration potential
and specific restoration site alternatives in the Cedar River floodplain within its jurisdiction,
using funding from a Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration grant administered by the
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). The Cedar River is divided into
four reaches for this assessment, named Reaches 1 – 4. The collective length of these reaches
extends upstream from the mouth of the river at Lake Washington to the vicinity of the 2001
landslide behind Ron Regis Park. More specifically, Reach 1 includes River Mile 0.0 to 1.0;
Reach 2 is River Mile 1.0 to 1.6; Reach 3 is River Mile 1.6 to 4.2; and Reach 4 is River Mile 4.2
to 4.7. The entire assessment area consists of the main stem river and riparian habitat.
The objectives for this project are as follows:
Evaluate and characterize existing conditions and identify general restoration
opportunities within Reaches 1 – 4 of the Cedar River (River Mile 0.0 to River Mile
4.7).
Conduct a detailed analysis of restoration opportunities within Reaches 2 and 3 of the
Cedar River (River Mile 1.0 to River Mile 4.2) and identify specific, feasible
restoration actions in these reaches that benefit salmon habitat.
This project seeks to address the objectives described above by collecting information on current
habitat conditions and constraints to restoration, analyzing potential restoration actions,
determining feasible restoration projects consistent with the objectives contained in the WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan and producing conceptual designs for specific restoration
actions that can be carried forward to implementation in the future.
Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) will assist the City in the analyses, documentation,
and public and stakeholder coordination to be done for this project, with support from
subconsultant MacLeod Reckord. This scope of work includes a discussion of the activities,
assumptions, and deliverables associated with the following tasks:
Task 1 – Synthesize Existing Data and Characterize Restoration
Opportunities and Constraints
Task 2 - Detailed Analysis of Specific Restoration Project Opportunities
Task 3 – Conceptual Design Development
Task 4 – Project Management
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 124 of 145
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 2 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Task 1 - Synthesize Existing Data and Characterize Restoration Opportunities
and Constraints
Task 1.1 – Synthesize Existing Data
Herrera will collect and synthesize existing documents and studies, previously adopted plans,
aerial photos, LiDAR topographic data, maps, survey data, GIS data, and other relevant
information to provide an overview of historic conditions and characterize existing conditions for
Reaches 1 – 4 of the Cedar River (river mouth to River Mile 4.7). Conditions to be characterized
include geography and land use, hydraulics, sediment transport, wood recruitment potential and
loading, geomorphology, historical contamination (if applicable) of properties in the study area,
and aquatic and riparian habitat (including the habitat that supports Chinook as well as other
salmon species).
To the extent that the City has information on these subjects, it will provide copies of it in
electronic file format to Herrera at the outset of the work on this subtask. Herrera will research
and gather other publicly available sources of information that the City does not have in its
possession. Herrera will conduct a regulatory database review to determine if there is
documented contamination or otherwise concern for potential contamination, and any associated
cleanup activities that have occurred, on properties within the floodplain in Reaches 1-4.
Herrera will overlay the spatial data that are available in electronic format to create maps that
will be used in subsequent subtasks.
Assumptions:
A kick-off meeting will be held prior to beginning project work. Herrera will meet
with City, WRIA8 and King County staff to discuss the scope of work, schedule,
budget and coordination with the Cedar River Corridor Plan project being undertaken
concurrently by King County.
The City will provide GIS data available in the following four primary
thematic categories:
o Geomorphology and Hydrology – Reach break boundaries, LiDAR
topographic data, geology, soils, and sediment data;
o Human Uses – Storm, water and sewer utilities, parks, golf course,
regional trail, natural areas, recreation buildings, SPU water
transmission mains, Olympic Pipeline, King County sewer mains,
roads, parcel boundaries, land ownership, impervious surface areas,
land use and zoning, and building outlines;
o Flood and Erosion Hazards and Protective Facilities – Channel
migration zones, known locations of bank erosion, flood depths and
extents, extents of constructed flood and erosion protection facilities,
steep slopes, and landslide prone areas;
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 125 of 145
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 3 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
o Habitat and Species – Wetlands, fish and wildlife data, tributary
streams, side channels, riparian tree canopy, and large wood in the
channel
Deliverables:
List of available information sources gathered and reviewed, to be included in
the documentation prepared in subtask 2.3.
Kick-off meeting attendance, presentation materials, and meeting notes in
Microsoft Word electronic file format.
Task 1.2 – Characterize Restoration Opportunities and Constraints
Herrera will perform field work to define the locations and character of existing Chinook salmon
habitat, and locations where existing land use, flow conditions, topography, and other factors
could allow for cost-effective habitat restoration. This field work will focus on reaches 2, 3 and
4. Reach 1 largely consists of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) flood protection
facility. The City of Renton is currently working with the USACE to develop a variance from
the USACE’s national levee vegetation standards, and the outcome of this process will guide
future riparian improvements in Reach 1, in coordination with other existing uses.
Consequently, Herrera will not spend any effort identifying restoration opportunities in Reach 1.
However, all the previous and proposed project actions by the City and others within Reach 1
will be considered and described in the report prepared in Task 2.3. Based on initial
identification of candidate sites by Herrera, MacLeod Reckord will perform field reconnaissance
to identify potential impacts to recreational facilities and amenities.
Based upon the findings of the field work and review of available information in subtask 1.1,
Herrera will prepare a technical memorandum with input from MacLeod Reckord summarizing
existing conditions, describing restoration site opportunities and constraints, defining specific
candidate restoration site areas, and outlining next steps in the project to evaluate candidate
restoration sites. A map will be prepared and attached to the memorandum showing the
geographical location of the candidate sites. Herrera will seek to define a total of ten or more
potentially viable restoration site areas, with a minimum of four (4) in each of Reaches 2 and 3.
Within Reach 2, candidate restoration sites should include the area on the right bank (facing
downstream), which would involve relocation of the Cedar River Trail to an alignment within
the existing public land ownership with consideration of a trail alignment that maximizes the
buffer width, and riparian habitat improvements on the left bank.
This memorandum will be submitted to the City for review and comment. The City will also
circulate this draft memorandum to selected stakeholders for review and comment in relation to
stakeholder coordination described under Task 1.3.
Assumptions:
Prior to conducting field work, two Herrera team members will meet with
City staff to discuss target areas of field investigation.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 126 of 145
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 4 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
The City will provide right of entry or other necessary access information for
field work. Most terrestrial field work can be conducted from City owned or
other publicly accessible properties. The City will coordinate permissions and
notifications between departments.
Field work will be conducted over two full days by three Herrera staff
members by a combination of car, foot, and raft. Two MacLeod Reckord staff
members will perform one day of site reconnaissance at up to 10 candidate
sites defined by Herrera.
If flow conditions allow for safe travel on the river at the time field work
needs to be performed in this task, one day of Herrera’s field work will consist
of floating the river through Reaches 3 and 4 using a guided rafting service so
that Herrera technical staff can focus on collecting habitat-related information
in the channel and on the banks. Herrera will arrange for the rafting guide, the
cost of which is included in the budget for this subtask. Herrera will prepare a
safety plan in advance of any field work conducted by raft or boat.
The boundaries of wetlands and the river’s ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) will not be delineated as part of the field work in this subtask.
Approximate wetland boundaries based on visual observations will be noted
on field maps.
The technical memorandum will be subject to one round of review by the City
and stakeholders. The City will provide consolidated comments on the draft to
Herrera.
Deliverables:
Draft technical memorandum describing candidate restoration site areas and
associated opportunities and constraints – electronic file in Adobe Acrobat
.pdf and Microsoft Word file format.
Final technical memorandum describing candidate restoration site areas and
associated opportunities and constraints – electronic file in Adobe Acrobat
.pdf file format.
Task 1.3 – Obtain Stakeholder Input on Candidate Restoration Site Areas
Herrera will assist the City in convening a meeting with representatives identified by the City as
the stakeholder group to obtain input on the candidate restoration site areas identified in the draft
memorandum produced in subtask 1.2, and to discuss site evaluation criteria and metrics to be
applied in detailed analysis of potential restoration sites in Task 2. Likely evaluation criteria will
include maximization of habitat area gain, but may also include maximization of flood reduction
and recreation opportunities and avoidance or minimization of trail and park disturbance. Likely
habitat metrics will include the areas of juvenile salmon rearing habitat, juvenile salmon flood
refugia, adult salmon spawning habitat, adult salmon upstream migration considerations, and
riparian habitat.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 127 of 145
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 5 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Assumptions:
The City will host the meeting.
Herrera, with support from MacLeod Reckord, will prepare meeting agenda
content, meeting discussion/presentation materials, and thorough notes
documenting comments received in the meeting.
Five Herrera team members will attend the meeting to represent ecological,
geomorphic, engineering, park and recreational use, and project management
perspectives.
The Herrera team will bring a proposed list of restoration site evaluation
criteria and metrics to the meeting with stakeholders.
The City and the Herrera team will coordinate confirmation of analysis
criteria and metrics in discussions with stakeholder representatives who
attended the meeting, so that an additional stakeholder group meeting is not
required later in subtask 2.2.
Stakeholder comments on the candidate restoration sites will be reflected in
the final version of the technical memorandum prepared in Task 1.2.
Deliverables:
Draft and final meeting agenda and meeting notes in Microsoft Word
electronic file format. Proposed analysis criteria and metrics will be included
in the meeting agenda. Finalized analysis criteria and metrics will be included
in the meeting notes based on City and stakeholder input.
Task 2 - Detailed Analysis of Specific Restoration Project Opportunities
Task 2.1 – Define Restoration Site Layouts and Impacted Land Uses
A first step in further analysis of candidate restoration site areas is to define approximate project
limits, habitat features that would be created, and existing infrastructure and other land use
features that may have to be removed or relocated. For each candidate restoration site area
defined in Task 1, Herrera and MacLeod Reckord will prepare a layout sketch with a bulleted
listing of unique site issues/features. The site layouts and listing of issues of interest for each will
reflect input obtained from stakeholders in subtask 1.3. These sketches will be submitted to the
City for review and concurrence on the general configuration before detailed analysis is
performed in Task 2.2.
Deliverables:
Draft layout sketches for a minimum of ten candidate restoration sites in a
consistent format – 8.5 x 11 sheet with aerial photo background and listing of
unique issues/features.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 128 of 145
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 6 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Task 2.2 – Analyze Performance and Feasibility of Restoration Sites
Using criteria and metrics defined and discussed with stakeholders in subtask 1.3, Herrera will
lead an analysis of the quantity and quality of Chinook salmon habitat that could be formed. The
analysis will consider issues affecting feasibility of implementation for each restoration site
resulting from the work of subtask 2.1. Additional field reconnaissance will be performed as
needed to support this analysis.
Values for quantitative and qualitative metrics will be derived from the evaluation of field
observations from subtask 1.2 and available GIS datasets of the project area (e.g., hydraulics,
sediment transport, wood loading, and geomorphology), to assess habitat and ecological
(functions) lift potential. The feasibility analysis will require understanding the following:
likely geomorphic response of the river to construction of the restoration site
soil characteristics (which affect cost of excavation and grading work)
potential environmental concerns such as historical contamination that may
have occurred on the property
viable options for relocating or modifying utilities and recreational features
(includes cost factors)
opportunities to utilize trail corridors for access/construction staging
impact of displacing active/passive recreational venues with habitat
restoration features
design requirements to achieve desired habitat objectives (such as retaining
mature trees, and what would be needed to prevent colonization by invasive
vegetation species)
design requirements to maintain/achieve desired recreational objectives
permitting requirements
public and land owner acceptance
construction cost
Assumptions:
Field work performed in this subtask will not require use of a raft.
Some of the site alternatives being evaluated will require outreach to targeted
groups, such as the Renton Parks Commission. Thus, up to two smaller
meetings with such groups will be conducted in this task before engaging the
broader community in a discussion of the draft report prepared in subtask 2.3.
One meeting with City staff will occur during the course of the work in this
subtask to discuss draft site evaluation results, and any adjustments to site
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 129 of 145
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 7 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
comparison criteria that may be warranted to enable decisions on preferred
sites. City comments provided in this meeting will be incorporated in final site
performance and feasibility analyses and in the draft report prepared in Task
2.3.
Deliverables:
Draft comparative matrix listing pros and cons of each site, accompanied by a
draft narrative of the site performance and feasibility evaluation criteria and
metrics.
Meeting agenda(s) and meeting notes for each meeting conducted in this
subtask.
Task 2.3 – Habitat Restoration Site Potential and Feasibility Analysis Report
Herrera will prepare a report documenting the analyses performed in subtask 2.2 with input from
MacLeod Reckord regarding parks and recreational facilities and amenities . The report will
include a description of the information used in performing detailed analysis of each restoration
site, a concept sketch of each site evaluated, a comparative matrix listing pros and cons of each
site, a concept sketch(es) for displaced and/or modified active/passive recreational facilities, and
recommendations for the sites that should be carried forward for conceptual design in Task 3. It
will also include an evaluation of existing restoration projects within and near the City of Renton
on the Cedar River. A first draft of this report will be submitted to the City for review and
comment. City comments on the draft report will be addressed in a second draft of the report that
will be prepared for presentation during the public open house in subtask 2.4, and for
stakeholders and the public to review and comment.
Assumptions:
Herrera will prepare a proposed outline of this report for City review and
confirmation/editing prior to beginning preparation of the first draft report
content.
The City will provide consolidated comments on the first and second drafts of
the report to Herrera.
Deliverables:
Proposed report outline in Microsoft Word electronic file format.
First draft report in Adobe Acrobat .pdf and Microsoft Word electronic file
formats.
Second draft report in Adobe Acrobat .pdf and Microsoft Word electronic file
formats.
Final report in Adobe Acrobat .pdf electronic file format.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 130 of 145
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 8 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Task 2.4 – Public Outreach
Following preparation of the second draft report in subtask 2.3, Herrera and MacLeod Reckord
will assist the City in presenting the contents of the report to the general public in an open house.
Assumptions:
The City will host the public open house.
Herrera will prepare public open house agenda content and presentation
materials, and lead preparation of notes.
Up to four Herrera team members will attend the public open house.
Deliverables:
Public open house planning, attendance, and presentations.
Public open house notes.
Task 3 – Concept Design Development
Herrera and MacLeod Reckord will prepare conceptual designs for up to three restoration sites
within Reach 2 and up to three restoration sites within Reach 3 and associated narrative
information in accordance with RCO Manual 18, Appendix D-1. The information prepared for
each site will include a description of the project site and the salmon recovery problem,
identification of goals and objectives for addressing the problem, description of the design
concept, a plan view drawing, section views to visually depict unique features of the conceptual
design, and a cost estimate for project implementation. Cost estimates shall include design,
permitting, and construction for the habitat site improvements in addition to anticipated costs to
mitigate for competing or adverse impacts. For sites that impact existing park and/or trail uses,
the concept design information will include mitigation of those displaced uses, reflecting input
received from the public and stakeholders in subtask 2.4. The conceptual restoration designs will
reflect actions that offer measurable improvements to salmon habitat yet are feasible and
recognize infrastructure and property constraints to minimize costs.
The presentation materials prepared for the public open house in subtask 2.4 will be updated to
reflect the concept design level of detail, and provided to the City for its use to present the
conceptual designs at additional meetings outside the scope of this project.
Assumptions:
Herrera and MacLeod Reckord will prepare a draft concept design package
for each of up to six restoration sites for City review. The city will provide
consolidated comments on each concept design package.
MacLeod Reckord will prepare park and/or trail mitigation concept design
sketches and narrative information for up to four restorations sites (envisioned
to be for any sites in Reach 2, and for one site in Reach 3).
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 131 of 145
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK
wc 20141113lowercedarrestorationassess_scope_final
November 13, 2014 9 of 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
All of the concept design plan view sketches will be prepared by MacLeod
Reckord in a similar format for the same “look and feel”.
Final results of the project will be shared with the public and stakeholders via
a public meeting setting or other public outreach to be conducted for the King
County Cedar River Corridor Plan Project under separate contract.
Deliverables:
Draft concept design narratives and drawings, following RCO Manual 18
Appendix D-1 requirements, for individual restoration sites for City review –
electronic files in Adobe Acrobat .pdf and Microsoft Word file formats.
Final concept design narratives and drawings - electronic files in Adobe
Acrobat .pdf file format
Task 4 – Project Management
Herrera and MacLeod Reckord will manage and coordinate the team effort required to
accomplish all of the tasks described in this scope of work. This task includes scheduling,
coordination, communications, and quality control services for this work. Herrera will coordinate
consultant team work with project work performed by the City. Herrera will provide the
following management measures, with support from MacLeod Reckord as applicable to their
involvement in the project:
Prepare a detailed project schedule at the outset of the work and update it
as needed through the course of the project, and drive the team to meet
that schedule
Regular communication with the City’s Project Manager regarding task
progress and budget usage.
Monthly progress reports, including a brief description of the work
completed by task, and schedule updates.
Maintenance of project files.
Assumptions
A detailed project schedule will be prepared early in project development
using Microsoft Project software and updated as necessary to reflect
comments from the City’s project manager.
Deliverables
Monthly invoices and progress reports.
Project schedule in Adobe Acrobat .pdf electronic file format.
Communication via telephone and email with the City’s project manager
regarding project progress and issues potentially affecting scope, schedule
and/or budget.
7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 132 of 145
ID Task ModeTask Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors1Contract Notice to Proceed0 daysMon 12/1/14Mon 12/1/142Task 1 ‐ Synthesize Existing Data and Characterize Restoration Opportunities and Constraints29 daysMon 12/1/14Tue 1/13/153Task 1.1 – Synthesize Existing Data15 daysMon 12/1/14Fri 12/19/1414Task 1.2 – Characterize Restoration Opportunities and Constraints (field work, site ID)10 daysMon 12/15/14Tue 12/30/143SS+10 days5Draft technical memorandum ready for City review0 daysTue 12/30/14Tue 12/30/1446Task 1.3 – Obtain Stakeholder Input on Candidate Restoration Site Areas4 daysThu 1/8/15Tue 1/13/155FS+5 days7Task 2 ‐ Detailed Analysis of Specific Restoration Project Opportunities103 daysWed 1/14/15Wed 6/10/158Task 2.1 – Define Restoration Site Layouts and Impacted Land Uses15 daysWed 1/14/15Wed 2/4/1569Task 2.2 – Analyze Performance and Feasibility of Restoration Sites15 daysThu 2/5/15Thu 2/26/15810Task 2.3 – Habitat Restoration Site Potential and Feasibility Analysis Report73 daysFri 2/27/15Wed 6/10/1511Prepare first draft report for City review 10 daysFri 2/27/15Thu 3/12/15912City review first draft report7 daysFri 3/13/15Mon 3/23/151113Prepare second draft for stakeholder and public review6 daysTue 3/24/15Tue 3/31/151214Finalize report15 daysWed 5/20/15Wed 6/10/1513,19FF15Task 2.4 – Public Outreach10 daysWed 4/1/15Tue 4/14/151316Task 3 – Concept Design Development40 daysWed 4/15/15Wed 6/10/151317Prepare draft concept design package for City review15 daysWed 4/15/15Tue 5/5/151518City review of draft concept designs, with stakeholder input as necessary15 daysWed 5/6/15Wed 5/27/151719Finalize concept designs10 daysThu 5/28/15Wed 6/10/151820Task 4 ‐ Project Management135 daysMon 12/1/14Mon 6/15/151,16FF12/112/30SMTWTFSSMTWTFNov 9, '14Dec 28, '14Feb 15, '15Apr 5, '15May 24, '15Jul 12, TaskSplitMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual SummaryStart-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineProgressManual ProgressEXHIBIT BPROJECT SCHEDULEPage 1Project: Lower Cedar River RestDate: Tue 11/11/147e. - Utility Systems Division recommends
approval of a contract in the amount of Page 133 of 145
EXHIBIT C
HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Cost Estimate for Lower Cedar River Restoration Assessment
Herrera Project No. 14-05933-000
Lower Cedar River Restoration Assessment
Number of Tasks :4
COST SUMMARY
Labor $9,487 $25,315 $6,063 $6,226 $17,881 $18,248 $3,478 $12,850 $7,578 $107,125
Travel and per diem $14 $34 $14 $0 $56 $14 $14 $17 $0 $162
Other direct costs (ODCs)$0 $1,020 $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $0 $1,030
Subconsultants $767 $4,368 $1,286 $2,951 $2,252 $5,864 $604 $6,122 $2,447 $26,660
GRAND TOTAL $10,268 $30,736 $7,363 $9,177 $20,189 $24,136 $4,096 $18,988 $10,024 $134,976
COST ITEMIZATION
Labor (2014 rates)
Personnel Rate/Hour Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost
P6 Ewbank, Mark Practice Director $62.15 6 $373 6 $373 8 $497 2 $124 10 $622 10 $622 6 $373 4 $249 32 $1,989 84 $5,221
P6 Carrasquero, Jose Practice Director $62.12 4 $248 8 $497 8 $497 2 $124 6 $373 6 $373 5 $311 3 $186 0 $0 42 $2,609
P6 Jowise, Peter Principal Scientist $56.15 4 $225 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 $225
P5 Mostrenko, Ian Associate Engineer $52.38 0 $0 36 $1,886 8 $419 4 $210 10 $524 4 $210 5 $262 6 $314 0 $0 73 $3,824
P5 Parsons, Jeff Associate Engineer $50.11 4 $200 48 $2,406 6 $301 4 $200 12 $601 6 $301 0 $0 4 $200 0 $0 84 $4,210
P4 Ritchotte, George Senior Scientist $40.87 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 8 $327 72 $2,943 0 $0 8 $327 0 $0 88 $3,597
P4 Carpenter, Bruce Senior Scientist $38.68 20 $774 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 20 $774
P3 Avolio, Christina Project Engineer $39.87 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 $159 28 $1,116 8 $319 2 $80 18 $718 0 $0 60 $2,392
P3 Schwartz, Erik Project Scientist $30.41 8 $243 36 $1,095 0 $0 2 $61 16 $487 6 $182 0 $0 6 $182 0 $0 74 $2,250
P2 Beggs, Mark Staff Engineer $27.91 0 $0 14 $391 0 $0 8 $223 28 $781 0 $0 0 $0 18 $502 0 $0 68 $1,898
P3 Schmidt, Jennifer Project GIS Analyst $36.66 20 $733 20 $733 2 $73 20 $733 12 $440 8 $293 0 $0 6 $220 0 $0 88 $3,226
P3 Prescott, Todd Project CAD Technician $34.74 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24 $834 0 $0 24 $834
F3 Sparano, Regina Accounting Administrator $27.15 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 $163 6 $163
F1 Tonkikh, Natalya Accounting Assistant $20.48 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 $82 4 $82
A4 Jackowich, Pamela Senior Administrative Coordinator $27.40 0 $0 3 $82 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 5 $137 0 $0 2 $55 0 $0 10 $274
Subtotal Direct Labor 66 $2,796 171 $7,462 32 $1,787 46 $1,835 130 $5,271 125 $5,379 18 $1,025 99 $3,788 42 $2,234 729 $31,577
Labor Overhead (OH) @ 195.00%$5,453 $14,551 $3,485 $3,579 $10,278 $10,489 $1,999 $7,386 $4,356 $61,575
Fee on Burdened Labor @ 15%$1,237 $3,302 $791 $812 $2,332 $2,380 $454 $1,676 $988 $13,973
SUBTOTAL LABOR (Direct Labor+OH+Fee)$9,487 $25,315 $6,063 $6,226 $17,881 $18,248 $3,478 $12,850 $7,578 $107,125
TRAVEL AND PER DIEM COSTS Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost
Auto Use Mile $0.56 25 $14.00 60 $33.60 25 $14.00 0 $0.00 100 $56.00 25 $14.00 25 $14.00 30 $16.80 0 $0.00 290 $162
SUBTOTAL TRAVEL AND PER DIEM $14 $34 $14 $0 $56 $14 $14 $17 $0 $162
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCs)Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost
Field Equipment and Supplies
Camera, digital Day $10 0 $0.00 2 $20.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 $10.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 3 $30
Raft guide service $0.00 $1,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $1,000
SUBTOTAL ODCs $0 $1,020 $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $0 $1,030
SUBCONSULTANT COSTS Unit Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost
MacLeod Reckord PLLC $730.00 $4,160.00 $1,225.00 $2,810.00 $2,145.00 $5,585.00 $575.00 $5,830.00 $2,330.00 $25,390
Fee on Subconsultants @ 5%5%$37 $208 $61 $141 $107 $279 $29 $292 $117 $1,270
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT $767 $4,368 $1,286 $2,951 $2,252 $5,864 $604 $6,122 $2,447 $26,660
Task 2.1
Define Restoration Site
Layouts and Impacted
Land Uses
Task 1.1
Synthesize Existing Data
Task 1.2
Characterize Restoration
Opportunities and
Constraints
Task 1.3
Obtain Stakeholder Input
on Candidate
Restoration Site Areas
Analyze Performance and
Feasibility of Restoration
Sites
Task 2.3
Habitat Restoration Site
Potential and Feasibility
Analysis Report
Task 2.4
Public Outreach
Task 2.2 Task 3
Concept Design
Development
TOTALTask 4
Project Management
Lower Cedar River Restoration Assessment budget - final 1 of 1 11/12/2014 3:52 PM7e. - Utility Systems Division recommends approval of a contract in the amount of Page 134 of 145
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK OR DESIGNEE AS THE PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICER
OF THE CITY OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, requires that all state and local
government agencies "appoint and publicly identify a public records officer whose
responsibility is to serve as a point of contact for members ofthe public in requesting disclosure
of public records and to oversee the agency's compliance with the public records disclosure
requirements" under Washington law; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the appropriate party to be the public records
officer for the City of Renton is the Renton City Clerk;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The City Clerk or designee is hereby designated as the public records
officer for the City of Renton. Members of the public may direct requests for disclosure of
public records ofthe City of Renton to:
City Clerk
City Clerk's Office
7th Floor, Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
SECTION III. Notice of the designation of the City of Renton's public records officer
shall be made in a manner reasonably calculated to provide notice to the public of such
1
9a. - Appointing the City Clerk or
designee as Public Records Officer (See
Page 135 of 145
RESOLUTION NO.
designation, said notice to include, but not be limited to, the following: posting at City Hall and
other City of Renton buildings, posting on the City's Internet web site, regular broadcasting on
the City's government cable television channel, and inclusion in appropriate City publications.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2014.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2014.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1653:ll/12/14:scr
2
9a. - Appointing the City Clerk or
designee as Public Records Officer (See
Page 136 of 145
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
4-1-160, OF CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, OF TITLE IV
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE, SETTING
THE IMPACT FEE AT $4,560 PER NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND $1,458 PER
NEW MULTI-FAMILY UNIT IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT; RETAIN THE
IMPACT FEE AT $5,486 PER NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND $3,378 PER NEW
MULTI-FAMILY UNIT IN THE KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; SETTING THE IMPACT FEE
AT $5,541 PER NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND $1,360 PER NEW MULTI-
FAMILY UNIT IN THE RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS OF THE ISSAQUAH, KENT AND RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title
IV (Development Regulations), ofthe Renton Municipal Code, as amended, and the maps and
reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the City of Renton has most recently collected on
behalf of the Issaquah School District an impact fee of $5,730, for each new single-family home
and $1,097 for each new multi-family unit built within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Issaquah School District has requested that the City of Renton adopt its
2014 Capital Facilities Plan, which includes a decrease in the impact fee for new single-family
homes to $4,560 and an increase in the impact fee for new multi-family units to $1,458; and
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title
IV (Development Regulations), ofthe Renton Municipal Code, as amended, and the maps and
reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the City of Renton has most recently collected on
behalf of the Kent School District an impact fee of $5,486 for each new single-family home and
$3,378 for each new multi-family unit built within its boundaries; and
1 9a. - School district impact fees code
amendment and capital facilities plans Page 137 of 145
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, the Kent School District has requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2014/2015 - 2019/2020 Capital Facilities Plan, which recommends the continued
collection of an impact fee of $5,486 for new single-family homes and $3,378 for new multi-
family units; and
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title
IV (Development Regulations), of the Renton Municipal Code, as amended, and the related
adopted maps and reports, the City of Renton has most recently collected on behalf of the
Renton School District an impact fee of $5,455 for each new single-family home and $1,339 for
each new multi-family unit built within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Renton School District has requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2014-2020 Capital Facilities Plan, which includes an increase in the impact fee for new
single-family homes to $5,541 and increase in the impact fee for multi-family units to $1,360;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Subsection 4-1-160.D.5, of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) ofthe Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as
it sees fit to take into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price
differentials throughout each respective school district in the cost of new
housing, school occupancy levels, and the percent of each school district's
Capital Facilities Budget, which will be expended locally. The City Council
establishes the following fees:
2 9a. - School district impact fees code
amendment and capital facilities plans Page 138 of 145
ORDINANCE NO.
Single Family Fee
Amount
Multi-Family and Accessory
Dwelling Unit Fee Amount
Issaquah School District $5,730.00 $4,560.00 $1,097.00 $1,458.00
Kent School District $5,486.00 $3,378.00
Renton School District $5,155.00 $5,541.00 $1,339.00 $1,360.00
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-160.J.1, of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) ofthe Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
1. Renton adopts the following capital facilities plans by reference as part
ofthe Capital Facilities Element of Renton's Comprehensive Plan:
a. The Issaquah School District No. 411 2014 Capital Facilities
Plan;
b. The Kent School District No. 415 2013/2014 - 2018/2019
2014/2015-2019/2020 Capital Facilities Plan; and
c. The Renton School District No. 403 2013 - 2019 2014 - 2020
Capital Facilities Plan.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and thirty (30)
calendar days after publication.
3 9a. - School district impact fees code
amendment and capital facilities plans Page 139 of 145
ORDINANCE NO.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2014.
Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2014.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1848:10/23/14:scr
4 9a. - School district impact fees code
amendment and capital facilities plans Page 140 of 145
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY
OF RENTON FISCAL YEARS 2013/2014 BIENNIAL BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 5682, AND THEREAFTER AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NOS.
5686, 5692, 5699, 5715, AND 5723 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,375,319.
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2012, the Council adopted Ordinance 5682 approving the
City of Renton's 2013/2014 Biennial Budget; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2013, the Council adopted Ordinance 5686 carrying forward
funds appropriated in 2012, but not expended in 2012, due to capital project interruptions and
delays in invoice payments, that needed to be carried forward and appropriated for
expenditure in 2013; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2013, the Council adopted Ordinance 5692 making minor
corrections, recognizing grants, contributions and associated costs, and new cost items not
included in the budget, which required additional adjustments to the 2013/2014 Biennial
Budget; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2013, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5699 pursuant to
Chapter 35A.34 RCW, which requires the Council to provide for a mid-biennial review and any
modification to the biennial budget shall occur no sooner than eight months after the start, but
no later than the conclusion ofthe first year ofthe biennium; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance 5715 carrying forward
funds appropriated in 2013, but not expended in 2013 due to capital project interruptions and
delays in invoice payments, which needed to be carried forward and appropriated for
expenditure in 2014; and
1 9b. - 2014 Year-end budget
amendment (See 8.c.)
Page 141 of 145
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance 5723 making minor
corrections, recognizing grants, contributions and associated costs and new cost items not
included in the budget which required additional adjustments to the 2013/2014 Biennial
Budget; and
WHEREAS, supplementary minor corrections, recognition of grants, contributions and
associated costs and new cost items not included in the budget require additional adjustments
to the 2013/2014 Biennial Budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Ordinance Nos. 5682, 5686, 5692, 5699, 5715 and 5723 establishing the
City of Renton's 2013/2014 Biennial Budget are hereby amended in the total amount of
$6,375,319 for an amended total of $609,250,946 over the biennium.
SECTION II. The 2014 Year-End Budget Adjustment Summary by Fund is hereby
attached as Exhibit A and the 2013 Adjusted Budget Summary by Fund is hereby attached as
Exhibit B. Detailed lists of adjustments are available for public review in the Office of the City
Clerk, Renton City Hall.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5)
days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2014.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
2 9b. - 2014 Year-end budget
amendment (See 8.c.)
Page 142 of 145
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2014.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:1850:ll/7/14:scr
3 9b. - 2014 Year-end budget
amendment (See 8.c.)
Page 143 of 145
ORDINANCE NO.
Exhibit A: 2014 Year-End Budget Adjustment Summary by Fund
1 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUES EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCE
2014 Beg 2014 Adj. Budgeted Adjusted Budgeted Adjusted Ending Fund Reserved/ Fund
Fund Fund Bal Changes Fund Bal Revenue Changes Revenue Expenditure Changes Expenditure Balance Designated Balance
000 GENERAL 12,515,053 12,515,053 78,095,984 2,423,239 80,519,223 82,362,345 1,947,461 84,309,806 8,724,470 8,724,470
001 COMMUNITYSERVICES 2,124,598 2,124,598 11,706,752 -11,706,752 11,693,059 -11,693,059 2,138,291 2,138,291
003 STREETS 1,667,393 1,667,393 9,028,020 -9,028,020 9,134,763 -9,134,763 1,560,650 1,560,650
004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (229,834) (229,834) 577,004 78,717 655,721 336,973 78,717 415,690 10,197 10,197
005 MUSEUM 52,979 52,979 226,683 -226,683 226,683 -226,683 52,979 52,979
009 FARMERS MARKET 98,826 98,826 60,400 -60,400 83,322 -83,322 75,904 (75,904) -
010 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SVC MEMORIAL -----------
011 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SVC HEALTH & WELLNESS 55,094 55,094 25,000 -25,000 25,000 -25,000 55,094 (55,094) -
031 PARK MEMORIAL 478 478 ---478 -478 ---
21X GENERAL GOVERNMENT MISC DEBT SVC 1,169,674 1,169,674 8,340,863 -8,340,863 8,400,863 -8,400,863 1,109,674 -1,109,674
Total General Governmental Funds 17,434,261 17,454,261 108,060,706 2,501,956 110,562,662 112,263,485 2,026,178 114,289,663 13,727,260 (130,998) 13,596,261
102 ARTERIAL STREETS 192,689 192,689 633,000 -633,000 810,000 -810,000 15,689 15,689
108 LEASED CITYPROPERTIES 549,887 549,887 833,071 -833,071 853,626 285,286 1,138,912 244,046 244,046
110 SPECIAL HOTEL-MOTEL TAX 185,606 185,606 265,000 -265,000 315,693 -315,693 134,913 134,913
125 ONEPERCENTFORART 97,771 97,771 15,000 -15,000 50,000 -50,000 62,771 62,771
127 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT 284,632 284,632 85,674 -85,674 85,674 -85,674 284,632 284,632
135 SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS BANK 667,613 667,613 ----338,800 338,800 328,813 328,813
303 COMMUNITYSERVICES IMPACT MITIGATION 934,618 934,618 60,000 -60,000 ---994,618 994,618
304 FIRE IMPACT MITIGATION 646,165 646,165 50,000 -50,000 ---696,165 696,165
305 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION 486,185 486,185 40,000 190,000 230,000 200,000 89,000 289,000 427,185 427,185
316 MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CIP 5,083,524 5,083,524 3,342,827 2,897,000 6,239,827 8,193,703 2,700,000 10,893,703 429,648 429,648
317 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 2,687,303 2,687,303 19,250,204 937,641 20,187,845 21,228,172 217,260 21,445,432 1,429,716 (l,385,000f 44,716
318 SOUTH LAKEWAINFRASTRUCTUREPROJECT 9,012 9,012 ---9,012 -9,012 --
326 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY/ECO DEV REVOLVING 84,599 84,599 1,000,000 -1,000,000 75,000 -75,000 1,009,599 (1,000,000) 9,599
336 NEWLIBRARYDEVELOPMENT 19,571,748 19,571,748 450,000 -450,000 20,021,748 -20,021,748 --
402 AIRPORT OPERATIONS & CIP 1,669,564 1,669,564 17,384,184 353,935 17,738,119 18,828,270 368,795 19,197,065 210,618 (149,662) 60,956
403 SOLID WASTE UTILITY 1,344,883 1,344,883 16,419,820 -16,419,820 16,508,948 -16,508,948 1,255,755 (400,000) 855,755
404 GOLF COURSE SYSTEM & CAPITAL 319,161 319,161 2,537,449 -2,537,449 2,715,919 -2,715,919 140,691 1,131 141,822
405 WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 12,350,952 12,350,952 18,150,149 -18,150,149 19,224,942 -19,224,942 11,276,159 (2,789,951) 8,486,208
406 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 8,131,928 8,131,928 27,366,270 -27,366,270 27,801,365 -27,801,365 7,696,833 (1,613,544) 6,083,290
407 SURFACE WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 7,510,285 7,510,285 17,287,807 200,000 17,487,807 21,470,629 200,000 21,670,629 3,327,464 (1,066,571) 2,260,893
501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 3,935,088 3,935,088 4,380,718 -4,380,718 4,669,709 -4,669,709 3,646,097 3,646,097
502 INSURANCE 7,630,077 7,630,077 7,344,062 -7,344,062 3,188,983 150,000 3,338,983 11,635,156 (11,553,966) 81,190
503 1NFORMATI ON SERVICES 2,216,612 2,216,612 4,010,222 -4,010,222 5,358,145 -5,358,145 868,690 868,690
504 FACILITIES 1,167,714 1,167,714 4,105,749 -4,105,749 4,570,541 -4,570,541 702,922 702,922
505 COMMUNICATIONS 347,771 347,771 896,374 -896,374 917,403 -917,403 326,742 326,742
512 HEALTHCARE INSURANCE 6,934,304 6,934,304 11,622,068 -11,622,068 12,062,456 -12,062,456 6,493,916 (3,618,737) 2,875,179
522 LEOFF1 RETIREES HEALTHCARE 7,207,703 7,207,703 1,735,684 -1,735,684 1,738,162 -1,738,162 7,205,225 (7,205,225) -
611 FIREMENS PENSION 4,790,247 4,790,247 300,000 -300,000 225,475 -225,475 4,864,772 (4,864,772) -
Total Other Funds 97,037,641 97,037,641 159,565,332 4,578,576 164,143,908 191,123,573 4,349,141 195,472,714 65,708,835 (35,646,297) 30,062,538
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 114,491,902 - 114,491,902 267,626,038 7,080,532 274,706,570 303,387,058 6,375,319 309,762,377 79,436,094 (35,777,296) 43,658,799
2 year total 98,282,449 534,929,009 7,080,532 542,009,541 602,875,627 6,375,319 609,250,946 79,436,094 (35,777,296) 43,658,799
4 9b. - 2014 Year-end budget amendment (See 8.c.)Page 144 of 145
ORDINANCE NO.
Exhibit B: 2013 Adjusted Budget Summary by Fund
|| BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUES EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCE
2013 Adj 2013 Actual 2013 Adj 2013 2013 Adj 2013 Act Ending Re s e rve d / Act Available
Fund Fund Bal Fund Bal Budget Actua 1 Budget Actual Fund Balance Designated Fund Balance
000 GENERAL 10,575,369 10,575,369 74,864,505 77,801,319 77,134,850 75,861,635 12,515,053 12,515,053
001 COMMUNITY SERVICES 1,891,966 1,891,966 11,080,510 10,921,025 11,320,489 10,688,393 2,124,598 2,124,598
003 STREETS 1,585,553 1,585,553 8,677,257 8,372,826 8,873,975 8,290,986 1,667,393 1,667,393
004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (13,145) (13,145) 460,832 86,317 374,577 303,005 (229,834) (229,834)
005 MUSEUM 52,369 52,369 209,903 209,997 217,167 209,387 52,979 52,979
009 FARMERS MARKET 90,520 90,520 79,400 65,509 80,414 57,203 98,826 (98,826) -
010 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SVC MEMORIAL ---------
Oil FIRE AND EMERGENCY SVC HEALTH & WELLNESS 55,483 55,483 25,000 29,232 25,000 29,621 55,094 (55,094) -
031 PARK MEMORIAL 178,367 178,367 -478 178,367 178,367 478 (478) -
21X GENERAL GOVERNMENT MISC DEBT SVC 1,159,357 1,159,357 8,040,433 8,058,825 8,073,283 8,048,508 1,169,674 -1,169,674
Total General Governmental Funds 15,575,839 15,575,839 103,437,840 105,545,527 106,278,122 103,667,105 17,454,262 (154,398) 17,299,863
102 ARTERIAL STREETS 168,514 168,514 643,000 624,175 600,000 600,000 192,689 192,689
108 LEASED CITY PROPERTIES 527,677 527,677 1,181,123 1,090,184 1,135,845 1,067,974 549,887 549,887
110 SPECIAL HOTEL-MOTEL TAX 111,256 111,256 245,000 314,657 291,000 240,307 185,606 185,606
125 ONE PERCENT FOR ART 116,142 116,142 16,000 11,429 50,000 29,800 97,771 97,771
127 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT 257,372 257,372 85,674 93,131 85,674 65,870 284,632 284,632
135 SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS BANK 665,828 665,828 -1,785 --667,613 667,613
303 COMMUNITYSERVICES IMPACT MITIGATION 1,540,154 1,540,154 60,000 94,464 700,000 700,000 934,618 934,618
304 FIRE IMPACT MITIGATION 797,417 797,417 25,000 98,748 250,000 250,000 646,165 646,165
305 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION 292,627 292,627 40,000 247,558 54,000 54,000 486,185 486,185
316 MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CIP 3,474,517 3,474,517 4,377,834 3,711,499 7,743,713 2,102,492 5,083,524 5,083,524
317 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT (391,159) (391,159) 33,586,759 23,827,469 33,146,358 20,749,006 2,687,303 2,687,303
318 SOUTH LAKE WA 1NFRASTRUCTURE PROJ ECT 52,073 52,073 44,874 44,913 96,947 87,974 9,012 9,012
326 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY 84,359 84,359 - -240 75,000 -84,599 84,599
336 NEW LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT 19,143,344 19,143,344 1,830,836 1,850,316 20,974,180 1,421,913 19,571,748 19,571,748
402 AIRPORT OPERATIONS/CAPITAL 2,342,924 2,342,924 15,322,540 11,160,693 17,492,945 11,834,053 1,669,564 (150,181) 1,519,382
403 SOLID WASTE UTILITY 1,523,881 1,523,881 15,700,852 15,969,959 16,177,073 16,148,957 1,344,883 (400,000) 944,883
404 GOLF COURSE SYSTEMS CAPITAL 539,814 539,814 2,580,619 2,272,097 2,845,664 2,492,750 319,161 (33,445) 285,716
405 WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 9,846,308 9,846,308 17,145,453 17,119,609 19,041,019 14,614,966 12,350,951 (2,636,260) 9,714,691
406 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 4,942,621 4,942,621 25,185,348 25,396,442 25,402,819 22,207,136 8,131,928 (1,548,763) 6,583,165
407 SURFACE WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 6,014,474 6,014,474 15,037,641 10,066,864 16,047,448 8,571,053 7,510,285 (916,890) 6,593,396
501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 3,722,501 3,722,501 4,261,224 4,641,985 4,295,028 4,429,397 3,935,088 3,935,088
502 INSURANCE 4,986,807 4,986,807 5,713,764 5,846,378 3,060,718 3,203,107 7,630,077 (7,275,000) 355,077
503 INFORMATION SERVICES 1,856,972 1,856,972 4,188,823 4,152,765 5,326,336 3,793,125 2,216,612 2,216,612
504 FACILITIES 849,472 849,472 4,349,946 4,528,196 4,542,713 4,209,954 1,167,714 1,167,714
505 COMMUNICATIONS 303,477 303,477 877,773 911,149 893,249 866,855 347,771 347,771
512 HEALTHCARE INSURANCE 7,899,070 7,899,070 9,329,364 9,611,399 10,904,461 10,576,165 6,934,304 (3,172,849) 3,761,454
522 LEOFF1 RETIREES HEALTHCARE 6,482,165 6,482,165 1,735,684 1,758,263 1,737,782 1,032,725 7,207,703 (206,545) 7,001,158
611 FIREMENS PENSION 4,556,003 4,556,003 300,000 427,661 240,475 193,418 4,790,247 (4,790,247) -
Total Other Funds 82,706,610 82,706,610 163,865,131 145,874,027 193,210,447 131,542,996 97,037,642 (21,130,180) 75,907,462
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 98,282,449 98,282,449 267,302,971 251,419,555 299,488,569 235,210,100 114,491,903 (21,284,578) 93,207,325
5 9b. - 2014 Year-end budget amendment (See 8.c.)Page 145 of 145