HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 11/02/2009AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
November 2, 2009
Monday, 7 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Return to Renton Car Show Report
5. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is
allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience
comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the
Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the
record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME.
NOTICE to all participants: pursuant to state law, RCW 42.17.130, campaigning for any ballot
measure or candidate from the lectern during any portion of the council meeting, and particularly,
during the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED.
6. CONSENTAGENDA
The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the
1 recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further
discussion if requested by a Councilmember.
a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/26/2009. Council concur.
b. City Attorney Department recommends approval of an interlocal agreement with Cedar River
Water and Sewer District regarding the terms under which the district provides water and
sewer service to the City. Council concur. (See 8. for resolution.)
c. Court Case filed by Linda Fiorello (Farrell) represented by Eric M. Fong, Attorney, relating to
alleged negligent street design, maintenance, construction, and/or control. Refer to Cit
Attorney and Insurance Services.
d. Community Services Department recommends approval of an addendum to LAG-08-012, with
King County, in the amount of $1,200 per month for a period of five years, to relocate Medic
One services from Fire Station 12 to Fire Station 11. Refer to Finance Committee.
e. Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment to LAG-03-003, with
Barajas Arias, Inc. dba RiverRock Grill and Alehouse, to extend their lease and concession
agreement for a six -year term expiring 12/6/2015. Refer to Finance Committee.
f. Hearing Examiner recommends approval, with conditions, of the Chelan Creek Planned Unit
Development and Preliminary Plat, 16 single-family lots on 4.21 acres located at 922 Chelan Ave
NE. Council concur.
g. Transportation Systems Division requests authorization for an interfund loan to Fund 422 in the
amount of $475,000 ($240,000 from Fund 405 and $235,000 from Fund 407) for a term of five
years for utility improvements to the Airport 750 building site to fulfill a commitment of the
Renton Gateway Center lease agreement (LAG-09-006). Refer to Finance Committee.
h. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of the 2010 utility rates, including increases to
solid waste residential service (four percent), water (four percent), wastewater (four percent),
and surface water (zero percent with associated reduced Capital Improvement Program). Refer
to Utilities Committee.
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
CITY OF RENTON and CEDAR RIVER WATER AND SEWER DIS7
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF OCT 2M,
WATER AND SEWER SERVICE BY DISTRICT WITHIN CI
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
2009, by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "the City", and CEDAR RIVER WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, a
Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter, referred to as "the District", both being duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington,
WTTNES SETH:
WHEREAS, the District is a public agency authorized by law to engage in
furnishing water service and sanitary sewer service, and this Agreement will not limit that
statutory authorization; and
WHEREAS, the City may, through the City Council, enter into interlocal
agreements with respect to the rights, powers, duties, and obligations of municipal parties
regarding the use of public rights of -way and other public property, the provision of services, the
maintenance and operation of facilities, the performance of contractual obligations and any other
matters arising out of the provision of District service to areas within the City, all pursuant to and
in accordance with RCW Sections 39.34.080, 35.92.010, 35A.47.040, and Ch. 57.08; and
WHEREAS, the District has the ability and authority to provide water service
and sanitary sewer service to the areas described in Exhibit A;
NOW, THEREFORE:
IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:
SECTION L District Facilities Within City. The City and the District hereby
agree that the District, its successors and assigns, for a .period of fifteen (I5) years, commencing
on the effective date of this Agreement shall exercise its right and privilege to lay down,
construct, relay, connect, replace and/or maintain such and so many pipes, conduits and mains,
and all other appurtenances, appendages, and facilities thereto, in, along, through, and under the
avenues, streets, highways, and road rights -of way controlled by the City now, and as hereafter
amended through annexations, as specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, as may be necessary, convenient and/or proper in order to
provide water service and sanitary sewer service to the public, and for that purpose to make any
and all connections which may be necessary, convenient and/or proper, in accordance with the
terms and conditions set forth herein. Exhibit B; attached hereto for administrative convenience,
is the current City of Renton Annexation Map showing the current City limits. The City will
provide the District an updated Exhibit B annually.
SECTION 2. Authority To Manage, Regulate, and Control Water and Sanitary
Sewer System_ After the construction of the sanitary sewer facilities as contemplated under this
Agreement, the District shall have the sole responsibility to maintain, manage, conduct and
operate its water system and sanitary sewer system as installed within the area described in
Exhibit A, together with any additions, extensions and betterments thereto.
SECTION 3. Authority to Fix Service Rates. The rates charged to the area
described in Exhibit A, shall be fixed, altered, regulated, and controlled solely by the District,
pursuant to the limitations on such authority as set forth in Ch. 57.08 RCW, or any applicable
regulations promulgated thereafter by the state on the subject of rates and charges for sanitary
sewer service.
SECTION 4. Non Exclusive. The rights described in this Agreement shall not be
deemed or held to be exclusive. Except for provision of water and sanitary sewer service to the
public within the areas described in Exhibit A, it shall in no manner prohibit the City from
entering into other agreements or franchises of a like nature or franchises for other public or
private utilities, in, over, along, across, under, and upon any of the streets, avenues, highways,
alleys, or public places, or ways as herein described, and shall in no way prevent or prohibit the
City from using any of said streets, avenues, etc., or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part
of them with full power to make all necessary changes, relocations, repairs, or maintenance of
same as it deems fit.
SECTION S Approval of Plans. Prior to construction, repair, or replacement of
any of the pipes, conduits, mains, facilities, and appurtenances in the area described in Section 1
herein that are located within the property or rights of way of City, the District shall submit to
the Director of Public Works or his designee ("Director") for review and approval, the requested
number of plan sets. drawn to an accurate scale, showing the exact location, character, position,
dimension, depth, and height of the work to be done. The plans shall accurately depict the
relative position and location of all pipes, conduits, mains, manholes, facilities, and
appurtenances to be constructed, laid, re-laid, installed, replaced, repaired, connected or
disconnected, and the existing street, avenue, alley, highway, right-of-way or property lines. All
streets, avenues, highways, alleys, lanes, or ways denoted thereon shall be designated by their
names and number and the local improvements therein such as roadway pavement, shoulders,
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, ditches, driveways, parking strips, telephone or electric distribution
poles, conduits, storm, gas, or water pipe lines as may exist on the ground or area sought to be
occupied shall be outlined.
In the construction proposed by the District, all materials and equipment shall be
as specified in the District's general conditions and standards and as approved by the City. The
exact class and type to be used shall be shown on the plans, as will the equipment to be used and
the mode of safeguarding and facilitating the public traffic during construction, The manner of
excavation, construction installation, backfill, and temporary traffic control measures (such as
traffic turnouts, road barricades, etc.) shall meet with the approval of, pass all requirements of,
and be constructed in conformance with approved plans, permit conditions, and specifications
under the inspection supervision of the Director. Prior to approval of any work under this
Agreement, the Director may require such modifications or changes, as he deems necessary to
properly protect the public in the use of the public places, and may fix the time or times within
and during which such work shall be done.
2
The District shall pay to the City such amounts as called for in any applicable
City permitting fees and, in the judgment of the Director, are reasonably necessary to investigate
and process any plans for construction work, to inspect such work, to secure proper field notes
for location, to plot such locations on the permanent records of the City's public works
department, to supervise such work, or to inspect or re -inspect as to maintenance, during the
progress of or after the repair of, any of the initial construction authorized by this Agreement.
The City shall make its best efforts to complete all inspections in a timely manner.
SECTION 6. Protection Of Public. Whenever an accident, faulty operation, or
excavation or fill associated with the construction, installation, maintenance or repair of the
facilities authorized under this Agreement has caused or contributed to a condition that appears
to substantially impair the structural integrity of the adjoining street or public place, or endangers
the public, and adjoining public place, street utilities or City property as determined solely by the
Director, the Director may direct the District, at its own expense, to take actions to protect the
public, adjacent public places, City property and street utilities, and may require compliance
within a prescribed time.
In the event that the District fails or refuses to take the actions directed promptly,
or fails to fully comply with such directions given by the Director, or if emergency conditions
exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions
as are necessary to protect the public, the adjacent streets, or street utilities, or to maintain the
structural integrity thereof, including placing of temporary shoring, backfilling, alterations of
drainage patterns and any other actions reasonably necessary to decrease the possibility of earth
movement, or actions regarded as necessary safety precautions; and the District shall be liable to
the City for the costs thereof.
SECTION 7. Repair of Streets, Sidewalks, Public Places and/or Facilities. After
construction, maintenance, or repair of the facilities authorized by this Agreement, the District
shall repair and restore any damaged or injured streets, avenues, highways, public places, City
facilities, or affected portions of same, to their approximate condition that existed prior to the
work or better. The Director shall have final approval of the condition of such streets and public
places after completion of construction. The District shall comply with the City's trench
restoration standards and traffic control standards.
SECTION 8. Indemnification. The District hereby releases, covenants not to
bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials,
employees, agents, and representatives, from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards, or
liability to any person, including claims by the District's own employees to which the District
might otherwise be on,
under Title 51 RCW, arising from injury or death of any person or
damage to property of which the negligent acts or omissions of the District, its agents, servants,
officers, or employees in performing this agreement are the proximate cause.
This covenant of indemnification shall include, but not be limited by this
reference to, claims against the City arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of the
District, its agents, servants, officers, or employees in barricading or providing other warnings of
any excavation, construction, or work in any public right-of-way or other public place in
performance of work or services permitted under this agreement. Inspection or acceptance by the
City of any work performed by the District at the time of completion shall not be grounds for
avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification, Said indemnification obligations shall
extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised
prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation, provided that the
District shall not be liable .to indemnify the City for any settlement of any action or claim
effective without the consent of the District, but if settled with the consent of the District, the
District shall indemnify'and hold harmless the City from and against loss or liability by reason of
such settlement. The District shall be obligated to indemnify the City regardless of whether the
settlement of the action on the claim is made with the consent of the District if the District has
refused to defend the City.
In the event that the District refuses the tender of defense in any suit or claim,
said tender having been made pursuant to the indemnification clauses contained herein, and said
refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the
parties shall agree to decide the matter) to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of the
District, then the District shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all
reasonable expert witness fees and reasonable attomey's fees and the reasonable costs of the
City, including reasonable attorney's fees for recovery under this indemnification clause.
In the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to personsor
damage to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the District and the
City, its officers, officials, employees or agents, the District's liability hereunder shall be only to
the extent of the District's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the
indemnification provided herein constitutes the District's waiver of immunity under Title 51
RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated
by the parties.
SECTION 9. Insurance. The District shall procure and maintain for the duration
of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which
may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted
hereunder to the District, its officers, officials, agents, or employees. The District shall provide a
copy of such insurance policy to the City for its inspection prior to the adoption of this
agreement.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. District 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 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage
4
and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors,
products -completed operations, stop gap liability, and personal injury and advertising
injury and liability assumed under an insured contract, The Commercial General
Liability insurance shall be endorsed to provide the Aggregate Per Project Endorsement
ISO form CG 25 03 11 85. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the
Commercial General Liability insurance for liability arising from explosion, collapse, or
underground property damage. The City shall be named as an additional insured under
the District's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to work
performed for the City using ISO Additional Insured Endorsement CG 20 10 10 01 and
Additional Insured -Completed Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute
endorsements providing equivalent coverage.
(3) Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance
laws of the State of Washington.
b. Minimum Amounts of Insurance. The District shall maintain the following
insurance limits:
(1) Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit or
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, and a
$2,000,000 products -completed operations aggregate limit.
(3) Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits of no less than
$1,000,000 per claim.
c. Municipal Risk Management Pool Participation. Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections a. and b. of this Section 9, District may satisfy all of its insurance obligations under.
this agreement by participating in a risk management pool available to Washington municipal
corporations providing reasonably equivalent or better insurance coverage than required in such
subsections a. and b. The District's obligation to cause the City to be named as an additional
insured shall be subject to the terms, conditions and policies of the District's risk management
pool as they may be adjusted from time to time.
SECTION 10. Relocation of Lines and Facilities. The District agrees and
covenants at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or
remove from any street or public place within the Agreement area, any of its installations when
so required by the City by reason of traffic conditions or public safety, dedications, or new
rights -of -way and the establishment and improvement thereof, freeway construction, change or
establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any
governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity, provided that the District shall in all
such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street
upon approval by the City, any water or sanitary sewer line or portion thereof required to be
temporarily disconnected or removed; and provided further, that this provision will not apply to
District installations located within easements owned by the District.
The City shall consult all as -built maps and plans filed by the District pursuant to
this Agreement or any permits authorized under this agreement, in order to determine whether
the District has placed pipe or facilities in any area affected by a proposed City project. The City
will make its best effort and attempt to design or redesign streets, avenues, alleys or public places
or ways, and other City utilities to minimize the impact thereof on the District's existing sanitary
sewer systems, including the need to require the District's facilities to be relocated and shall
coordinate with the District in accordance with RCW 35.21.905. PROVIDED HOWEVER, that
the City shall make the final determination on the need for relocation of the District's facilities.
Whenever the City determines that any of the above circumstances necessitate
the relocation of the District's then existing facilities, the City shall notify -the District in writing,
And provide the District with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such
project so that the District is able to relocate its facilities to accommodate. the City's project.
The City shall provide notice to the District and require relocation of the facilities in a period of
time that is reasonable given the circumstances surrounding the project. The City understands
that pursuant to RCW 57.08.050, the District is required to comply with certain notice and bid
procedures prior to commencement of any construction project. Whenever practical, given the
circumstances surrounding the City's project, the City shall provide the District with sufficient
notice to enable the District to comply fully with RCW 57.08.050 without resorting to
emergency powers granted therein. Upon the District's failure to complete relocation of its
installations and facilities as directed by the City, the City may remove same at the District's.
expense. The District shall complete the relocation work at least ten (10). days prior to the
project's commencement unless the parties agree on a different schedule. i
If, after reviewing the as -built maps and plans submitted by the District, the City
determines that the District's pipe or facilities will not be affected by a proposed City project, no
notice shall be given to the District. The City may then commence construction and if the City
finds that the District's as -built maps and plans are inaccurate through the actual discovery of
pipe and facilities in the construction area, the City shall notify the District and allow the District
twenty-four (24) hours, when reasonable, to remove and/or relocate its pipe and facilities.
However, should the District be unable to remove and/or relocate its pipe and facilities within
this twenty-four (24) hour period after notification, the City may remove and dispose of same at
the District's cost.
SECTION 11. Abandonment of Pipe and System Facilities. No pipe, conduit,
main, appurtenances, appendages or water or sanitary sewer system facilities located within the
City's rights of way or property may be abandoned by the District without the express written
consent of the City. Abandonment procedures may be initiated by application of the District to
the City, which application shall detail, to the City's satisfaction, the location of all pipe or
facilities to be abandoned by providing to the City with the abandonment application current as -
built drawings showing the exact location of all pipes or facilities to be abandoned, and the
procedures the District plans to implement in order to comply with all local, state, and federal
regulations pertaining to abandonment of water and sanitary sewer pipe and facilities constructed
0
of asbestos cement or other materials containing asbestos. The District shall, at its sole cost and
expense, and pursuant to all local, state, and federal regulations, remove and properly dispose of
all abandoned pipes and facilities, when so directed by the City for any reason, with cause.
PROVIDED, that in no event shall the City direct or require the District to remove abandoned
pipes or facilities on the basis of standards not equally applied by the City to require the removal
of pipes or facilities abandoned by the City in similar circumstances. The District will commence
the removal and disposal of the abandoned facilities within thirty (30) calendar days, and will
fully complete the removal within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date the City
directs the removal, unless the City agrees, in writing, to extend the time for removal. In addition
to and in clarification of the indemnity provisions in Section 8, the District specifically shall
defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and
attorney fees arising out of or in connection with the abandonment and/or removal of pipe and
facilities constructed of asbestos cement or other material containing asbestos. In the case of
street vacations, the City shall, to the extent possible, retain and grant an easement to the District
for any pipe and facilities then in use by the District. The City shall give notice to the District of
any proposed project or street vacation requiring removal of abandoned pipe and facilities as set
forth in Section 10. If the District does not comply within the time period set by the City, the
City may arrange for the removal and proper disposal of all such pipes and facilities at the
District's cost.
SECTION 1Z Excavation. During any period of installation, relocation,
maintenance, or repair of the District's facilities and installations located within the City's rights
of way and property, all surface structures, if any, shall be erected and used in such places and
positions within said public rights -of -way and other public properties so as to interfere as little as
possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of adjoining property, and the District
shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades during such period of construction as
required by state law or city ordinance.
Whenever the District shall excavate in any public right-of-way or other public property for the
purpose of installation, repair, maintenance, or relocation of its facilities, it shall apply to the
City for a permit to do so and except in the case of an emergency, shall give the City at least
three (3) working days notice thereof. In the event that emergency work is required, the District
may, without prior written notice to the City, request permits by telephone. The Director shall
grant or deny such permits by telephone, but the District shall follow-up all phone emergency
permit requests with a written application within three (3) working days of the telephone
notification to the Director In all other cases, the City shall approve the District's applications for
permits as soon as reasonably possible. During the progress of the work, the District shall not
unnecessarily obstruct the passage or proper use of the right -or -way, and shall file maps or plans
with the City (as described in Section S herein) showing the proposed and final location of the
sanitary sewer facilities.
If either the City or the District shall at any time plan to make excavations in any
area covered by this Agreement and as described in this section, the party planning such
excavation shall afford the other, upon receipt of a written request to do so, an opportunity to
share such excavation, PROVIDED THAT: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the
VA
work of the parry causing the excavation to be made; (2) such joint use shall be arranged and
accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to both parties; and (3) either party may deny
such request for safety reasons.
Prior to commencement of any construction authorized by this agreement, the
District shall reference all monuments and markers of every nature relating to subdivision plats,
highways and all other surveys for review and inspection by the City. The reference points shall
be so located that they will not be disturbed during the District's operations under this
Agreement. The method of referencing these monuments or other points to be referenced shall be
approved by the Director before placement. The replacement of all such monuments or markers
disturbed during construction shall he made as expeditiously as conditions permit and as directed
by the Director. The costs of monuments or other markers lost, destroyed, or disturbed and the
expense of replacement by approved monuments shall be borne by the District.
SECTION 13. Permits Required. This Agreement does not release the District
from any of its obligations to obtain applicable -local, state, and federal permits necessary to
install, construct, operate, maintain, remove, repair, reconstruct, replace, use and inspect its water
and sanitary sewer system.
SECTION 14. Compliance With Laws, The District shall indemnify the City, its
officers, officials, agents, employees or representatives against any claim or liability arising from
or based upon the violation by the District of any laws, ordinances or regulations.
SECTION 15. City Construction Adjacent to District Installation. The laying,
construction, maintenance, and operation of the said District's system of water and sanitary
sewer lines, pipes, conduits, mains, etc., authorized under this Agreement shall not preclude the
City or its accredited agents and contractors from excavating, grading or doing other necessary
road work contiguous to the said District's pipe lines, provided that the District shall have forty-
eight (48) hours notice of said excavation, grading or road work in order that the District may
protect its line of pipe and property.
SECTION 16. Modification. The City and District hereby reserve the right' to
alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement upon written agreement of
both parties to such alteration, amendment, or modification.
SECTION 17. Bond. The City and the District acknowledge RCW 35A.21.250.
The District shall not be required to furnish any bond before undertaking any of the work,
improvements, repair, relocation, or maintenance authorized by this Agreement.
SECTION 18. Enforcement. If the District or the City willfully violates or fails
to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, then the non -breaching party may elect,
without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the
superior court having jurisdiction compelling compliance with the provisions of this Agreement
and to recover damages and costs incurred by reason of the failure to comply.
9
SECTION 19. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be
deemed to direct the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances
regulating the performance of the conditions of this Agreement, including any reasonable
ordinance made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of the public safety and for the
welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by reasonable and
appropriate regulations the location, elevation and manner of construction and maintenance of
any sanitary sewer facilities by the District, and the District shall promptly conform with all such
regulations, unless compliance would cause the District to violate other requirements of law. The
District further agrees to adhere to City Ordinance(s) prohibiting excavations in City street
within 5 years of paving.
SECTION 20. Cost of Publication. The cost of publication any ordinance
adopting this Agreement shall be borne by the District.
SECTION 21. Assignment. The District may not assign the rights, duties, and
obligations under this Agreement without the prior, written consent of the City, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld. If such consent is given: for assignment, acceptance of the
assignment shall be filed by the District's successor with the City.
SECTION 22. Successors And Assigns. All the provisions, conditions,
regulations, and requirements contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the successors
and assigns of the District, and all privileges of the District shall inure to its successors and
assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein.
SECTION 23. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be
given to the parties under this Agreement may be sent to the following addresses unless
otherwise specified:
CITY OF RENTON
ATTN: Utility Systems Director
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
(425) 430-7239
(FAX) (425) 430-7241
CEDAR RIVER WATER & SEWER
DISTRICT
ATTN: General Manager
P.O. Box 1040
Maple Valley, Washington 98038
(425) 255-6370
(FAX) (425) 228-4880
SECTION 24. Dispute Resolution_ In the event any dispute arises between the
Parties, either Party may request in writing that the issue in dispute be resolved by mediation. If
the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within ninety (90) days, then either party may
commence a legal proceeding in King County Superior Court for the State of Washington.
SECTION 25. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions, and requirements of
Sections 6, Protection of Public; 8, Indemnification; 10, Relocation of Lines and Facilities, and
11, Abandonment of Lines and Facilities, of this Agreement shall be in addition to any and all
other obligations and liabilities the District may have to the City at common law, by statute, or
by contract, and shall survive this Agreement's expiration for the use of the areas mentioned in
Section 1 herein including any renewals or extensions thereof for ten (10) years. All of the
g
provisions, conditions, regulations, and requirements contained in this Agreement shall further
be binding upon the successors and assigns of the District, and all privileges, as well as all
obligations and liabilities of the District shall inure to its successors and assigns equally as if they
were specifically mentioned wherever the District is named herein.
SECTION 26. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Agreement should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement. In the event that any of the provisions of
this Agreement are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City and the
District reserve the right to reconsider this Agreement and by mutual agreement may amend,
repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision, or either may rescind its execution of this
Agreement.
SECTION 27. Utility Planning. This Agreement shall not affect the terms and
conditions of existing water and sewer system comprehensive plans, the East King County
Coordinated Water System Plan nor.that certain agreement between the parties entitled "City of
Renton & Cedar River Water and Sewer District For The Establishment of Service Area
Boundaries" dated February 8, 1999.
SECTION 28. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective in thirty (30)
days after execution,
SECTION 29.__Exchange of Information. The District and the City agree to
routinely communicate and exchange information concerning their utility plans, including capital
improvement plans, within the area of this franchise. The District will also provide the City with
any current or future database or mapping showing the location of existing and new facilities
constructed within the City; provided, that City will utilize exemptions provided by law to
protect the dissemination of such documents for security purposes.
Approved by Ordinance No. of the City Council of the CITY OF
RENTON, Washington, at its regular meeting held on the day of 200.9.
ATTEST:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
CITY OF RENTON
Denis Law, Mayor
10
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lawrence J. Warren
City Attorney
Approved by Resolution No. of the Board of Commissioners of CEDAR
RIVER WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT of King County, Washington, adopted at its regular
meeting held on the _ day of , 2009.
ATTEST:
General Manager
CEDAR RIVER WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
By:
President of Board
Secretary of Board
11
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
CEDAR RIVER WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT FOR PROVISION OF WATER AND
SEWER SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the Cedar River Water and Sewer District ("the District") is a public agency
authorized by law to engage in furnishing water and sewer service; and
WHEREAS, the City and the District agree that the District shall provide water and sewer
service to specific areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to memorialize the terms and conditions under which the
District provides water and sewer service to areas of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an
interlocal agreement with Cedar River Water and Sewer District entitled City of Renton and
Cedar River Water and Sewer District Interlocal Agreement for Provision of Water and Sewer '
Service by District Within City.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 12009.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
1
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 12009.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1426:10/13/09:scr
Denis Law, Mayor
2
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board..
Staff Contact......
Subject:
Executive/City Clerk
Bonnie Walton
CRT-09-0065; Court Case
Linda Fiorello (Farrell) vs. City of Renton, et al
Exhibits:
Summons on Complaint, Complaint for Negligence, and
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule
Al #:
For Agenda of:
November
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information.........
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Finance Dept......
Other ...............
2009
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Summons on Complaint, Complaint for Negligence, and Order Setting Civil Case Schedule filed in
Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King by Linda Fiorello (Farrell) represented
by Eric M. Fong, Attorney for Plaintiff, relating to alleged negligent street design, maintenance,
construction, ownership, and/or control.
KI
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9"'t-a 7-//3
elf r-off-von,
CITY OF RENTON
0 C T 2 12009
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
Do Iclee�'V/ 0
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTO
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
LINDA FIORELLO formerly know as
LINDA FARRELL,
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF RENTON and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
9
O 2 ® 3 75
SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
TO: RENTON CITY HALL, CITY CLERK DIVISION
CITY OF RENTON
Seventh Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
A lawsuit has been started against you in the above -entitled Court by LINDA
FIORELLO formerly known as LINDA FARRELL, Plaintiff. Plaintiffs claim is stated
in the written Complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this Summons.
In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the Complaint by
stating your defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this
Summons, within 20 days after the service of this Summons (or within 60 days if served
out of state), excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered against
you without notice. A default judgment is one where Plaintiff is entitled to what she asks
for because you have not responded. If you serve a Notice .of Appearance on the
undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be
entered.
You may demand that the Plaintiff file this lawsuit with the Court. If you do so,
the demand must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this
ROVANG FONG & Assocvms
� '` —. 569 DmstoN, SurrE A
SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT -1 of 2 ate. �._. f PoRT ORcxAxc, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Summons. Within fourteen (14) days after you serve this demand, the Plaintiff must file
this lawsuit with the Court, or the service on you of this Summons and Complaint will be
void.
If you wish to seek the advise of an attorney in this matter, you should do so
promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served on time.
One method of serving a copy of your response on the Plaintiff is to send it by
certified mail with return receipt requested.
This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of
this State of Washington.
DATED this 13th day of October, 2009.
SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT - 2 of 2
ROVANG FONG & ASSOCIATES
2, i 3�6..
ERIC M. FONG, BA #260
Attorney for Plaintiff
569 Division Street, Suite A
Port Orchard WA 98366
360-876-8205
ROVANG FOND & AssocuTm
569 DmsioN, SurrE A
PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
LINDA FIORELLO, previously known as
LINDA FARRELL, �TO
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF RENTON; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
COMES NOW Plaintiff LINDA FIORELLO, previously known as LINDA
FARRELL, by and through her attorney undersigned, and alleges the following:
' 1 v
1.1 Plaintiff, LINDA FIORELLO, is a resident of King County, Washington.
1.2 Defendant, the City of Renton, is located in King County, Washington.
1.3 Defendants, DOES 1-10, are potentially negligent in designing, maintaining,
construction, ownership and/or control of the City of Renton public streets and the
various features relating thereto whose true identities and specific wrongful acts or
omissions are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff will substitute the true
names and identities of the named DOES 1-10 at such time as they are discovered.
1.4 All acts and omissions alleged herein occurred in King County, Washington.
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE - 1 of 4
ROVANG FONG & AssocIAms
569 DmsioN, SurrE A
PoRT ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. CLAIM
2.1 The injury causing event out of which this litigation arises occurred on Rainier
Avenue South at Hardie Avenue, in the City of Renton, King County, State of
Washington (hereinafter "subject area")
2.2 The subject area is located at a dangerous intersection.
2.3 There is no reasonable alternative to the subject area for crossing this dangerous
intersection.
2.4 The worn path at the subject area is used extensively by pedestrian traffic.
2.5 The path at the subject area is infested with English ivy and other thick, dangerous
vines and adjoins a concrete brick pathway.
2.6 Vines in the subject area create a dangerous, camouflaged trip hazard.
2.7 On or about March 23, 2007, plaintiff was running south on Rainier Avenue South in
the City of Renton.
2.8 As plaintiff Linda Fiorello crossed Rainier Avenue South at the intersection of
Hardie Avenue, her foot got tangled in the vines of the overgrown path at the subject
area.
2.9 As a result of plaintiff's foot becoming entangled in the vines at the subject area, she
fell face first, striking the concrete bricks.
2.10 As a direct result of the impact of Ms. Fiorello's face hitting the concrete bricks, she
has suffered personal injuries, including a broken jaw and other injuries.
2.11 Defendants are negligent in the design, maintenance, construction, ownership and
control of the City of Renton public streets and the various features relating thereto,
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE - 2 of 4
ROVANG FONG & ASSOCIATES
569 DmsioN, SurrE A
PoRT ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
specifically the subject area. Defendants are liable for a hazardous condition on
property within their control and responsibility, specifically the subject area.
2.12 The plaintiff was employing the subject area in an appropriate fashion and for the
use intended, to wit; for pedestrian travel.
2.13 Plaintiff was using the subject area in the usual and customary way in which the
location was utilized by the general public on a regular and ongoing basis.
2.14 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff LINDA
FIORELLO suffered personal injury, pain and suffering, permanent loss of life's
enjoyment, emotional distress, medical expense, both present and future, loss of
earnings, and other damages which will be shown at the time of trial.
2.15 Per RCW 4.84, et seq, Plaintiff's claim as against defendants is in excess of $10,000.
III. LIMITED PHYSICIAN/PATIENT WAIVER
3.1 Plaintiff hereby. waives the Physician/Patient privilege only to the extent required by
RCW 5.60.060 as limited by the Plaintiffs constitutional rights of privacy,
contractual rights of privacy and the ethical obligations of physicians and attorneys
not to engage in ex parte contact between a treating physician and the patient's legal
adversaries.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully set forth her cause of action, Plaintiff LINDA
FIORELLO prays that judgment be entered against the defendants:
a. Medical and related expenses, past, present and future;
b. Loss of miscellaneous expenses associated with the accident;
c. Pain and suffering, past, present and fixture;
ROVANG FONG & ASSOCIATES
569 DmsioN, SUITE A
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE - 3 of 4 PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. Permanent injuries and disabilities sustained;
e. Loss of earnings, past and future;
f. Attorney fees and costs of suit;
g. All other relief , legal and equitable, as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED this `_ day of October, 2009.
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE - 4 of 4
ROVANG FONG & ASSOCIATES
E M. FO WSBA #26030
Attorney for Pl ' tiff, LINDA FIORELLO
(formerly known as Linda Farrell)
ROVANG FONG & AssociATm
569 DmsjoN, Surre A
PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
afar
n
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
LINDA FIORELLO formerly know as
LINDA FARRELL,
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF RENTON and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
TO: RENTON CITY HALL, CITY CLERK DIVISION
CITY OF RENTON
Seventh Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
A lawsuit has been started against you in the above -entitled Court by LINDA
FIORELLO formerly known as LINDA FARRELL, Plaintiff. Plaintiffs claim is stated
in the written Complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this Summons.
In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the Complaint by
stating your defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this
Summons, within 20 days after the service of this Summons (or within 60 days if served
out of state), excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered against
you without notice. A default judgment is one where Plaintiff is entitled to what she asks
for because you have not responded. If you serve a Notice of Appearance on the
undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be
entered.
You may demand that the Plaintiff file this lawsuit with the Court. If you do so,
the demand must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this
RovANG FoNc & AssociATF-s
569 DmsioN, SurrE A
SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT -1 of 2 C 0 l \( PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366 TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Summons. Within fourteen (14) days after you serve this demand, the Plaintiff must file
this lawsuit with the Court, or the service on you of this Summons and Complaint will be
void.
If you wish to seek the advise of an attorney in this matter, you should do so
promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served on time.
One method of serving a copy of your response on the Plaintiff is to send it by
certified mail with return receipt requested.
This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of
this State of Washington.
DATED this 13t' day of October, 2009.
SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT - 2 of 2
ROVANG FONG & ASSOCIATES
ERIC M. FONG, W�BA #26036
Attorney for Plaintiff
569 Division Street, Suite A
Port Orchard WA 98366
360-876-8205
ROVANG FONG & AssociATEs
569 D►visioN, SvrrE A
Pour ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5I
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
261
271
28
OCT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
2 — 3'7 5 JL — -1 e L��-
LINDA FIORELLO, previously known aosl
LINDA FARRELL, NO.
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF RENTON; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
COMES NOW Plaintiff LINDA FIORELLO, previously known as LINDA
FARRELL, by and through her attorney undersigned, and alleges the following:
I. PARTIES
1.1 Plaintiff, LINDA FIORELLO, is a resident of King County, Washington.
1.2 Defendant, the City of Renton, is located in King County, Washington.
1.3 Defendants, DOES 1-10, are potentially negligent in designing, maintaining,
construction, ownership and/or control of the City of Renton public streets and the
various features relating thereto whose true identities and specific wrongful acts or
omissions are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff will substitute the true
names and identities of the named DOES 1-10 at such time as they are discovered.
1.4 All acts and omissions alleged herein occurred in King County, Washington.
ROVANG FONG & Assocmms
�� 569 DmsioN, Surm A
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE - 1 of 4 C.-e
PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. CLAIM
2.1 The injury causing event out of which this litigation arises occurred on Rainier
Avenue South at Hardie Avenue, in the City of Renton, King County, State of
Washington (hereinafter "subject area")
2.2 The subject area is located at a dangerous intersection.
2.3 There is no reasonable alternative to the subject area for crossing this dangerous
intersection.
2.4 The worn path at the subject area is used extensively by pedestrian traffic.
2.5 The path at the subject area is infested with English ivy and other thick, dangerous
vines and adjoins a concrete brick pathway.
2.6 Vines in the subject area create a dangerous, camouflaged trip hazard.
2.7 On or about March 23, 2007, plaintiff was running south on Rainier Avenue South in
the City of Renton.
2.8 As plaintiff Linda Fiorello crossed Rainier Avenue South at the intersection of
Hardie Avenue, her foot got tangled in the vines of the overgrown path at the subject.
area.
2.9 As a result of plaintiff's foot becoming entangled in the vines at the subject area, she
fell face first, striking the concrete bricks.
2.10 As a direct result of the impact of Ms. Fiorello's face hitting the concrete bricks, she
has suffered personal injuries, including a broken jaw and other injuries.
2.11 Defendants are negligent in the design, maintenance, construction, ownership and
control of the City of Renton public streets and the various features relating thereto,
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE - 2 of 4
ROVANG FONG & ASSOCIATES
569 DmsioN, SurrE A
PORT ORcHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
241
25
26
27
28
specifically the subject area. Defendants are liable for a hazardous condition on
property within their control and responsibility, specifically the subject area.
2.12 The plaintiff was employing the subject area in an appropriate fashion and for the
use intended, to wit; for pedestrian travel.
2.13 Plaintiff was using the subject area in the usual and customary way in which the
location was utilized by the general public on a regular and ongoing basis.
2.14 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff LINDA
FIORELLO suffered personal injury, pain and suffering, permanent loss of life's
enjoyment, emotional distress, medical expense, both present and future, loss of
earnings, and other damages which will be shown at the time of trial.
2.15 Per RCW 4.84, et seq, Plaintiff's claim as against defendants is in excess of $10,000.
M. LEMTED PHYSICLAN/PATIENT WAIVER
3.1 Plaintiff hereby waives the Physician/Patient privilege only to the extent required by
RCW 5.60.060 as limited by the Plaintiffs constitutional rights of privacy,
contractual rights of privacy and the ethical obligations of physicians and attorneys
not to engage in ex parte contact between a treating physician and the patient's legal
adversaries.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully set forth her cause of action, Plaintiff LINDA
FIORELLO prays that judgment be entered against the defendants:
a. Medical and related expenses, past, present and future;
b. Loss of miscellaneous expenses associated with the accident;
c. Pain and suffering, past, present and future;
ROVANG Forrc & AssocuTEs
569 Dmsiom SurrE A
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE - 3 of 4 PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10!I
11'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. Permanent injuries and disabilities sustained;
e. Loss of earnings, past and future;
f. Attorney fees and costs of suit;
g. All other relief , legal and equitable, as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED this day of October, 2009.
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE - 4 of 4
ROVANG FONG & ASSOCIATES
E M. FO WSBA 426030
Attorney for Plaintiff, LINDA FIORELLO
(formerly known as Linda Farrell)
ROVANG FONG & AssocIATEs
569 DmsioN, SurrE A
PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
TEL (360) 876-8205
FAX (360) 876-4745
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
Linda Fiorello, fka Linda Farrell
vs
Plaintiff(s)
City of Renton and Does 1-10
Defendant(s
NO. 09-2-37510-1 KNT
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS)
ASSIGNED JUDGE Heller 52
FILE DATE:
TRIAL DATE:
10/15/2009
04/04/2011
A civil case has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule
on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge.
I. NOTICES
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Plaintiff may serve a copy of this Order Setting Case Schedule
(Schedule) on the Defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaint/Petition. Otherwise, the
Plaintiff shall serve the Schedule on the Defendant(s) within 10 days after the later of: (1) the filing of the
Summons and Complaint/Petition or (2) service of the Defendant's first response to the
Complaint/Petition, whether that response is a Notice of Appearance, a response, or a Civil Rule 12
(CR 12) motion. The Schedule may be served by regular mail, with proof of mailing to be filed promptly in
the form required by Civil Rule 5 (CR 5).
"l understand that! am required to give a copy of these documents to all parties in this case."
Print Name Sign Name
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) REV. 12/08 1
I. NOTICES (continued)
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES:
All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the King County Local Rules [KCLR] --
especially those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for
attorneys and parties to pursue their cases vigorously from the day the case is filed. For example,
discovery must be undertaken promptly in order to comply with the deadlines for joining additional parties,
claims, and defenses, for disclosing possible witnesses [See KCLCR 26], and for meeting the discovery
cutoff date [See KCLCR 37(g)].
CROSSCLAIMS, COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINTS:
A filing fee of $200 must be paid when any answer that includes additional claims is filed in an existing
case.
KCLCR 4.2(a)(2)
A Confirmation of Joinder, Claims and Defenses or a Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the
deadline in the schedule. The court will review the confirmation of joinder document to determine if a
hearing is required. If a Show Cause order is issued, all parties cited in the order must appear before
their Chief Civil Judge.
PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE:
When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is filed with the Superior
Court Clerk's Office, and a courtesy copy delivered to the assigned judge, all pending due dates in this
Schedule are automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the
parties to 1) file such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution of the case, and 2) strike any
pending motions by notifying the bailiff to the assigned judge.
Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and. the Trial Date by filing a
Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLCR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a
final decree, judgment or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is not filed by 45 days after a Notice
of Settlement, the case may be dismissed with notice.
If you miss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCLCR 41(b)(2)(A) to
present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date.
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL AND ADDRESS CHANGES:
All parties to this action must keep the court informed of their addresses. When a Notice of
Appearance/Withdrawal or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office,
parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy.
ARBITRATION FILING AND TRIAL DE NOVO POST ARBITRATION FEE:
A Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the deadline on the schedule if the case is subject to
mandatory arbitration and service of the original complaint and all answers to claims, counterclaims and
cross -claims have been filed. If mandatory arbitration is required after the deadline, parties must obtain
an order from the assigned judge transferring the case to arbitration. Any party filing a Statement must
pay a $220 arbitration fee. If a party seeks a trial de novo when an arbitration award is appealed, a fee of
$250 and the request for trial de novo must be filed with the Clerk's Office Cashiers.
NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FEES:
All parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4.71.050 whenever the Superior Court
Clerk must send notice of non-compliance of schedule requirements and/or Local Civil Rule 41.
King County Local Rules are available for viewing at www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk.
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS)
REV.12/08 2
II. CASE SCHEDULE
DEADLINE
or Filing
CASE EVENT EVENT DATE Needed
Case Filed and Schedule Issued. Thu 10/15/2009
Last Day for Filing Statement of Arbitrability without a Showing of Good Thu 03125/2010
Cause for Late Filing [See KCLMAR 2.1(a) and Notices on Page 2].
$220 arbitration fee must be paid
DEADLINE to file Confirmation of Joinder if not subject to Arbitration. Thu 03/25/2010
[See KCLCR 4.2(a) and Notices on Page 21.
DEADLINE for Hearing Motions to Change Case Assignment Area. Thu 04/08/2010
[See KCLCR 82(e)]
DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses Mon 11/01/2010
[See KCLCR 26(b)].
DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Additional Witnesses Mon 12/13/2010
[See KCLCR 26(b)].
DEADLINE for Jury Demand [See KCLCR 38(b)(2)]. Mon 12/27/2010
DEADLINE for Setting Motion for a Change in Trial Date Mon 12/27/2010
[See KCLCR 40(d)(2)].
DEADLINE for Discovery Cutoff [See KCLCR 37(g)]. Mon 02114/2011
DEADLINE for Engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution [See KCLCR Mon 03/07/2011
16(b)].
DEADLINE for Exchange Witness & Exhibit Lists & Documentary Exhibits Mon 03/14/2011
[See KCLCR 46)].
DEADLINE to file Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness Mon 03/14/2011
[See KCLCR 16(a)(2)]
DEADLINE for Hearing Dispositive Pretrial Motions [See KCLCR 56; CR Mon 03/21/2011
56].
Joint Statement of Evidence [See KCLCR (4)(k)]. Mon 03/28/2011
DEADLINE for filing Trial Briefs, Proposed Findings of Fact and Mon 03/28/2011
Conclusions of Law and Jury Instructions (Do not file Proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law with the Clerk)
Trial Date [See KCLCR 40]. Mon 04/04/2011
III. ORDER
Pursuant to King County Local Civil Rule 4 [KCLCR 4], IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with
the schedule listed above. Penalties, including but not limited to sanctions set forth in Local Civil Rule 4(g)
and Rule 37 of the Superior Court Civil Rules, may be imposed for non-compliance. It is FURTHER
ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Civil Case Schedule and
attachment on all other parties.
DATED: 10/15/2009
PRESIDING JUDGE
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) REV. 12/08 3
IV. ORDER ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE
READ THIS ORDER BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ASSIGNED JUDGE
This case is assigned to the Superior Court Judge whose name appears in the caption of this case
schedule. The assigned Superior Court Judge will preside over and manage this case for all pretrial
matters.
COMPLEX LITIGATION: If you anticipate an unusually complex or lengthy trial, please notify the
assigned court as soon as possible.
APPLICABLE RULES: Except as specifically modified below, all the provisions of King County Local
Civil Rules 4 through 26 shall apply to the processing of civil cases before Superior Court Judges. The
local civil rules can be found at hftp://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.
CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUIREMENTS
Deadlines are set by the case schedule, issued pursuant to Local Civil Rule 4.
THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL DEADLINES
IMPOSED BY THE COURT'S LOCAL CIVIL RULES.
A. Joint Confirmation regarding Trial Readiness Report:
No later than twenty one. (21) days before the trial date, parties shall complete and file (with a copy to the
assigned judge) a joint confirmation report setting forth whether a jury demand has been filed, the
expected duration of the trial, whether a settlement conference has been held, and special problems and
needs (e.g. interpreters, equipment, etc.).
The form is available at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx. If parties wish to request
a CR 16 conference, they must contact the assigned court. Plaintiffs/petitioner's counsel is responsible
for contacting the other parties regarding said report.
B. Settlement/Mediation/ADR
a. Forty five (45) days before the trial date, counsel for plaintiff/petitioner shall submit a written settlement
demand. Ten (10) days after receiving plaintiffs/petitioner's written demand, counsel for
defendant/respondent shall respond (with a counter offer, if appropriate).
b. Twenty eight (28) days before the trial date, a Settlement/Mediation/ADR conference shall have been
held. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT MAY
RESULT IN SANCTIONS.
C. Trial: Trial is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on the date on the case schedule or as soon thereafter as
convened by the court. The Friday before trial, the parties should access the King County Superior Court
website http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx to confirm trial judge assignment.
Information can also be obtained by calling (206) 205-5984.
MOTIONS PROCEDURES
A. Noting of Motions
Dispositive Motions: All summary judgment or other dispositive motions will be heard with oral
argument before the assigned judge. The moving party must arrange with the hearing judge a date and
time for the hearing, consistent with the court rules. Local Civil Rule 7 and Local Civil Rule 56 govern
procedures for summary judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole or in part. The
local civil rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.
Nondispositive Motions: These motions, which include discovery motions, will be ruled on by the
assigned judge without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered. All such motions must be noted for a
date by which the ruling is requested; this date must likewise conform to the applicable notice
requirements. Rather than noting a time of day, the Note for Motion should state "Without Oral
Argument." Local Civil Rule 7 governs these motions, which include discovery motions. The local civil
rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.
Motions in Family Law Cases not involving children: Discovery motions to compel, motions in limine,
motions relating to trial dates and motions to vacate judgments/dismissals shall be brought before the
assigned judge. All other motions should be noted and heard on the Family Law Motions calendar.
Local Civil Rule 7 and King County Family Law Local Rules govern these procedures. The local rules
can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.
Emergency Motions: Under the court's local civil rules, emergency motions will be allowed only upon
entry of an Order Shortening Time. However, emergency discovery disputes may be addressed by
telephone call and without written motion, if the judge approves.
B. Original Documents/Working Copies/ Filing of Documents
All original documents must be filed with the Clerk's Office. Please see information on
the Clerk's Office website at www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk regarding the new requirement
outlined in LGR 30 that attorneys must a -file documents in King County Superior Court. The
exceptions to the e-filing requirement are also available on the Clerk's Office website.
The working copies of all documents in support or opposition must be marked on the upper
right corner of the first page with the date of consideration or hearing and the name of the
assigned judge. The assigned judge's working copies must be delivered to his/her courtroom
or the Judges' mailroom. Working copies of motions to be heard on the Family Law Motions
Calendar should be filed with the Family Law Motions Coordinator. On June 1, 2009 you will
be able to submit working copies through the Clerk's office E-Filing application at
www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk.
Service of documents. E-filed documents may be electronically served on parties who opt in
to E-Service within the E-Filing application. The filer must still serve any others who are
entitled to service but who have not opted in. E-Service generates a record of service
document that can be e-filed. Please see information on the Clerk's office website at
www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk regarding E-Service.
Original Proposed Order: Each of the parties must include an original proposed order granting
requested relief with the working copy materials submitted on any motion. Do not file the original of the
proposed order with the Clerk of the Court. Should any party desire a copy of the order as signed and
filed by the judge, a pre -addressed, stamped envelope shall accompany the proposed order.
Presentation of Orders: All orders, agreed or otherwise, must be presented to the assigned judge. If
that judge is absent, contact the assigned court for further instructions. If anotherjudge enters an order
on the case, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy.
Proposed orders finalizing settlement and/or dismissal by agreement of all parties shall be
presented to the assigned judge or in the Ex Parte Department. Formal proof in Family Law cases
must be scheduled before the assigned judge by contacting the bailiff, or formal proof may be entered in
the Ex Parte Department. If final order and/or formal proof are entered in the Ex Parte Department,
counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy.
C. Form
Memoranda/briefs for matters heard by the assigned judge may not exceed twenty four (24) pages for
dispositive motions and twelve (12) pages for nondispositive motions, unless the assigned judge permits
over -length memoranda/briefs in advance of filing. Over -length memoranda/briefs and motions
supported by such memoranda/briefs may be stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY
RESULT IN DISMISSAL OR OTHER SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF/PEITITONER SHALL FORWARD A
COPY OF THIS ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO ANY PARTY WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED
THIS ORDER.
-, ', -- "� J ,ot _`
PRESIDING JUDGE
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board: Community Services/Facilities
Staff Contact: Peter Renner, Facilities Director x6605
Subject:
Lease Addendum with King County (Medic One)
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Lease
Recommended Action:
Refer to Finance Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required...
Amount Budgeted.......
Total Project Bu
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Al #: ,
For Agenda of: November 2, 2009
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing.
Correspondence.
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information.........
Approvals:
Legal Dept ...... x....
Finance Dept..x...
Other ...............
Transfer/Amendment.......
Revenue Generated.........
Share Total Pro
$1,200 per month
over five years.
This lease addendum provides continuation of Medic One services in the City with improved systemic
response times.
The business terms of the proposed lease addendum have been favorably reviewed by our real estate
team and City staff.
Any tenant improvement costs to Fire Station 11 will be reimbursed to the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease.
X
W\Facilities\Facilities Director\Peter Renner\Peter Renner 2009\CricketMIISPI2009\AgBiliMedicone2009 (2) 102609.doc
COMMUNITY SERVICES p ^City of�O� w
DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 26, 2009
TO: Randy Corman, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA: Denis Law, Mayok,ommunity
FROM: Terry Higashiyam Services Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Peter Renner, Facilities Director, Ext. 6605
SUBJECT: Lease Addendum with King County (Medic One)
Issue:
Should the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a Lease Addendum with King County (Medic
One) for space at Fire Station 11?
Recommendation:
Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease Addendum.
"ackeround•
King County has provided Medic One services in the City of Renton for many years.
• Since 2006, the Medic One unit has been housed at Fire Station 12 (FS 12). Their lease is scheduled to
expire 12/31/09.
• Medic One's analysis of their systemic response times indicated that improved service could be provided
by relocation to Fire Station 11 (FS 11). City Administration concurred.
• There is sufficient space at FS 11 for Medic One requirements.
• Because a rehabilitation of FS 11 is in progress, there are construction costs and time savings for the Medic
One work.
• Medic One will be able to relocate before the end of their FS 12 lease.
• The business points of the proposed Lease Addendum are as follows:
• Rent is identical to FS 11, $1,200 per month with annual CPI adjustments.
• The Lease term will be five years.
• KC Medic One will be responsible for Tenant Improvement costs.
Conclusion:
Restructuring the King County Lease provides the City with improved systemic response times.
cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Wen Wang, Finance & IS Administrator
Larry Warren, City Attorney
h:\facilitiestacilities director\peter renner\peter renner 2009\cricketmiispi2009\issuepaperkcmediconeleaseadd2010.doc
ADDENDUM TO INTER -AGENCY LEASE AGREEMENT
This ADDENDUM TO EXISTING INTER -AGENCY LEASE AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF
RENTON as LESSOR, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and KING COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Washington, as LESSEE, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" dated 1/1/07, is
now being entered into by the above -referenced same parties.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the CITY and COUNTY both desire to enter into a certain additional terms to the
existing Inter -Agency Lease Agreement (aka County Project Reference "FACALC") for the use of
certain square footage of space at the fire station located at 211 Mill Avenue South, Renton,
WA, hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITY," for the stationing of a paramedic unit operated
by the King County Emergency Medical Services Division.
WHEREAS, the King County Emergency Medical Services Master Plan and its associated location
analysis have demonstrated that the fire station at the above address provides quality
paramedic response into the greater Renton and Maple Valley area.
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to utilize King County's Emergency Medical Services Programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows and further mutually agree that the
following terms will constitute an Addendum to the existing Inter -Agency Lease:
1. DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES:
I. Leased Space — 211 Mill Avenue S, Renton, WA 98057
a. 1780 total square feet —See "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part
hereof. Comprises:
i. Garage space inside the apparatus bay for one (1) primary
paramedic vehicle and one (1) spare medic vehicle.
Sleeping quarters consisting of two (2) sleeping rooms with two
(2) beds. The sleeping quarters include eight (8) built-in lockers
with twenty-four (24) drawers available for use by the COUNTY.
Each bed includes mattress, mattress pad, bedspread and two (2)
blankets.
iii. One Toilet Room with shower.
iv. One Office
V. One secure EMS Storage Room and one Open Storage Area
vi. One fenced Area on the outside of the Station for placement of
oxygen tanks and biomedical waste bins.
II. Space Shared by the CITY and the COUNTY
a. Additional Bathroom/shower facilities for both sexes shared with Renton
Fire Department personnel;
b. Kitchen facilities, dining and day rooms shared with Renton Fire
Department personnel;
C. Exercise room and equipment shared with Renton Fire Department
personnel.
d. Outdoor deck and gas barbeque.
2. GENERAL SERVICES OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY THE CITY
I. Basic Services
a. Heating and Lighting — Heating, lighting and cooling will be provided by
the CITY for the FACILITY and those services will be available on a 24-hour
basis.
b. Standby Power — The FACILITY will have an emergency generator
available to provide backup power to the building.
C. Waste —The CITY will provide a waste receptacle and collection service
for all waste; EXCEPT that the COUNTY shall be responsible for disposal of
all contaminated medical waste.
d. Storage Space — The CITY will provide storage space for limited storage of
"non -controlled" operational supplies. The COUNTY shall provide
shelving for storage of "non -controlled" operational supplies.
3. GENERAL SERVICES OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY KING COUNTY
I. General Services
a. Paramedic Unit —The COUNTY will station a paramedic unit staffed with
two (2) paramedics in the FACILITY.
b. Security —The COUNTY agrees to maintain all pharmaceutical supplies,
including controlled substances, under mutually agreed upon methods of
security and accessible only by COUNTY personnel.
C. Maintenance —The COUNTY agrees to require all COUNTY personnel
assigned to the FACILITY to participate in the daily, weekly housekeeping
2
duties and other periodic cleaning of the FACILITY (building and grounds)
in cooperation with Renton Fire Department personnel.
d. Special Conditions —The COUNTY further agrees that any problems or
issues that arise involving personnel or operations of the respective
agencies will be handled as set forth in "Exhibit B" of this agreement,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
4. RENT
The COUNTY agrees to pay the CITY One Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($1,200.00) per
month, effective January 1, 2010, for space and other systems and services described in
Item 1 above. The monthly rate will be adjusted annually based upon the increase in
the Consumer Price Index for Seattle and shall become effective the first day of January
for each subsequent year of this lease.
S. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
I. The COUNTY agrees to pay all costs incurred in modifying the FACILITY to meet
the COUNTY'S needs, including but not limited to: development of sleeping
rooms, toilet room, office and storage rooms and areas; alarm notification
lighting equipment; telephone and computer systems; and security (locks)
systems. The proposed summary of costs for these Tenant Improvements are
set forth in Exhibit "C" of this agreement, attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
a. All such modifications shall be made by the CITY with the prior written
approval of the King County Emergency Medical Services Division
Manager and shall be consistent with the FACILITY'S standards as
determined by the CITY. Signatures of both parties are required upon
completion of the improvements to show that all improvements have
been completed to the satisfaction of both parties.
b. Payment for the identified modifications shall be in addition to monthly
payments provided for herein. Any additional costs for changes to the
original plan will require prior approval by the COUNTY. The COUNTY
shall make all payments within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice.
C. Any tenant improvements made subsequent to this agreement shall be
made by or with the approval of the CITY with the prior written approval
of the King County Emergency Medical Services Division Manager and
shall be entered as an Exhibit to this agreement.
d. The COUNTY agrees to reimburse the CITY for all direct and indirect costs
incurred by the CITY for repair and replacement of CITY property which is
lost, destroyed or damaged (normal wear and tear excepted) to the
extent such loss, destruction, or damage is caused by equipment or
employees of the COUNTY.
e. The COUNTY agrees, at the termination of this agreement, to restore the
FACILITY to the high quality condition it was in originally. This may or
may not, at the direction of the City, include any or all of the following:
removing tenant improvements, refinishing walls, ceilings, replacing
carpet, restoring the alarm system, etc.
6. TERM
1. This Lease Agreement is for five (5) years beginning January 1, 2010 and expires
December 31, 2014. This agreement may be terminated annually for lack of
funding. The CITY and the COUNTY may extend the Agreement by mutual written
assent, for an additional year, until December 31, 2015.
H. Termination for other causes:
a. This Agreement is subject to termination upon ninety (90) days written
notice by the COUNTY should:
i. The CITY fail to comply with the terms and conditions expressed
herein.
ii. The CITY fail to provide work or services expressed herein.
b. This Agreement is subject to termination upon ninety (90) days written
notice by the CITY should:
The COUNTY fail to comply with the terms and conditions
expressed herein.
ii. The COUNTY fail to provide work or services expressed herein.
iii. If, in the judgment of the Administrator of the CITY OF RENTON
FIRE DEPARTMENT, or his/her designee, the relationship is no
longer compatible with the organizational philosophy or values of
the City of Renton or its Fire Department.
III. Changes:
Either party may request changes in the services to be performed or
provided hereunder. Proposed changes, which are mutually agreed upon,
shall be incorporated by written amendment to this agreement signed by
both authorized representatives of both parties.
7. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION:
11
I. The COUNTY agrees to assume responsibility for all liabilities that occur or arise
in any way out of occupancy of the rented space at the FACILITY, and to save and
hold harmless the CITY, its agents, employees and officials, from all claims,
causes of action, costs, expenses, losses and damages, including the cost of
defense, incurred as a result of any negligent acts or omissions of the COUNTY,
its agents, officers, or employees only arising out of or relating to the
performance of this agreement.
II. The CITY agrees to assume responsibility for all liabilities that occur or arise in
any way out of the performance of this agreement by its agents, officers, or
employees, and to save and hold harmless the COUNTY, its employees and
officials, from all claims, causes of actions, costs, expenses, losses and damages,
including the cost of defense, incurred as a result of any negligent acts or
omissions of the CITY, its agents, officers, or employees only arising out of or
relating to the performance of this agreement.
8. INSURANCE
The CITY understands that the COUNTY is self -insured and is willing to provide the CITY
with proof of said insurance upon request. The terms of this Addendum are subject to
the receipt and verification of this insurance.
9. NOTICES:
Official notice under this lease shall be given as follows:
To City:
City of Renton Fire Department
Renton City Hall — 6th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
To County:
King County Real Property Division
500A Administration Building
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and
year first above written.
LESSOR: CITY OF RENTON LESSEE: PUBLIC HEALTH,
SEATTLE-KING COUNTY
5
BY:
TITLE: Mayor TITLE:
DATE: DATE:
BY:
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY:
DATE:
Attest:
City of Renton Attorney
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DATE:
7
IXIF
I YIF
Manager Real Property Services Section
DATE:
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
Special Conditions
Interagency Cooperation
a. The COUNTY agrees to designate one (1) paramedic on each duty shift who will
coordinate the station activities and issues with the Station Officer, including but
not limited to regular maintenance of the FACILITY by on -duty personnel.
b. The COUNTY agrees that when issues, conflicts or problems arise, the Station
Officer and the designated COUNTY employee shall attempt to resolve the
matter at their level. If the matter is unable to be resolved at that level it shall
be taken to the next level of the respective chains of command, up to and
including the Fire Chief, or his/her designee, for the CITY and the Manager of the
King County Emergency Medical Services Division for the COUNTY.
C. The COUNTY recognizes the importance of the organizational philosophy and
value of the CITY and agrees to cooperate with the CITY to support those values.
The COUNTY further agrees to abide by Renton Fire Department Policies and
Procedures as discussed and agreed to by the Fire Chief and Manager of the King
County Emergency Medical Services Division.
Date: Date:
Approved:
Attest:
Denis Law, Mayor
City of Renton
Officer
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
Approved:
David Fleming, MD
Director and Health
Public Health
Seattle & King County
E: )IT C
RENTON FIRE STATION 11
October 22, 2009
MEDIC ONE COST SUMMARY
1
CONSTRUCTION COST_ S
total cost
base cost
sales tax
A
Change Order 14
Added Medic One to Landon Scope
$ 121,760.99
$ 111,197.25
$ 10,563.74
B
Change Order 16
Changes to Lighting Alerter Controls
$ 27,612.48
$ 25,216.88
$ 2,395.60
C
lChange Order 27
Floor Prep at New Toilet
$ 1,987.53
$ 1,815.10
$ 172.43
b
Change Order 28
Trenching to SS at New Toilet
$ 3,405.12
$ 3,109.70
$ 295.42
$164,766.12
$141,338.92
$13,427.20
2
DESIGN
AND ADMINISTRATION
A
Electrical Englneerin
Atkinson
$ 4,177.50
B
Mechnalcal Engineering
CeGG
$ 1,576.00
-------
-----
C
Architectural Work
Wagner
$ 21,236.88
$ 26,989.38
3
TOTAL MEDIC ONE COSTS
181 755.50 11
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board-
Staff Contact......
Subject:
Community Services
Parks/ Golf Course
Kelly Beymer — ext. 6803
Extension of Lease and Concession Agreement
Barajas Arias, Inc. — dba RiverRock Grill and Alehouse
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Letter of request for extension
Lease Amendment
For Agenda of:
November
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information.........
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept ..... X.
Finance Dept....
Other ...............
2009
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... $ Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... $ Revenue Generated......... $175,000
Total Project Budget $ City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Extend the terms of the Lease and Concession Agreement between the City of Renton and
Barajas Arias, Inc. for a six (6) year term. Lease content has been reviewed by staff and will
remain unchanged. Upon Council approval the City Attorney's office will draft the addendum to
extend the Lease and Concession agreement for the Mayor's signature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of staff recommendation to extend the lease and concession agreement in current
form for a six (6) year term to Barajas Arias, Inc. — dba RiverRock Grill and Alehouse.
X
H/golf/manager/agenda-issue-comm/agendabill concessionaire lease extension09
COMMUNITY SERVICES City of
DEPARTMENT D56�'`
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 15, 2009
TO: Randy Corman, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA:�Denis Law, Mayor
�Gr
FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Beymer, Parks and Golf Course Director (425-430-6803)
SUBJECT: Barajas-Arias, Inc. — dba RiverRock Grill and Alehouse — Lease
Extension
ISSUE
Should the City of Renton exercise their option to extend the current concessionaire
lease agreement with Barajas-Arias, Inc., for a period of six (6) years?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City of Renton exercise its option to extend the concessionaire
lease agreement with Barajas Arias, Inc. for a term of six (6) years, commencing
December 1, 2009.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
Barajas Arias, Inc. was assigned the remaining three (3) year term of the lease and
concession agreement at Maplewood Golf Course, December 6, 2006.
Barajas Arias, Inc.- dba RiverRock Grill and Alehouse has performed their obligation in a
satisfactory manner as well as remaining current with all lease payments and financial
responsibilities over the three (3) year term.
h:\golf\manager\agenda-committee-issue-parkboard\issue paper to council committee via mayor -lease extension
09.doc
Randy Corman, Council President
Page 2 of 2
October 15, 2009
The current concessionaire has agreed to operate within the existing lease requirements
with no changes.
• Lease percentages based on gross revenue will remain unchanged.
Banquets Flat 9
Restaurant, Lounge & Tent 7% up to $775,000
6% above $775,000
Annual revenue from Concessionaire to City of Renton - $175,000
Barajas Arias, Inc. has established a good management base and have hired, trained,
and evaluated all customer service staff to ensure revenue and customer service
standards are met. The concessionaire remains very enthusiastic and committed to the
ongoing partnership and strong relationship with the City of Renton as well as
continuing the high customer service standards.
Should the lease extension be approved, the City Attorney's office will draft the lease
and concession agreement addendum for the Mayor's signature.
CONCLUSION
Exercising the option to extend the current lease agreement to Barajas Arias, Inc. for a
term of six (6) years will allow a solvent and profitable business to continue to provide
excellent service to the City of Renton and patrons of Maplewood Golf Course.
C: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
[wen Wang, Finance/IS Administrator
H:\golf\manager\agenda-committee\issue paper to council committee via Mayor lease ext. 09
To: Kelly Beymer, Golf Course Manager.
From: Salvador Barajas, President of Barajas-Arias Inc, d.b..a. RiverRock Grill & Ale House.
Refi New Lease.
Date: 06/08/2009
Dear. Kelly, first of all I would. like to thank you and the RentonCityCouhc.ii for giving us the
opportunity to lease the concessions. at the Maplewood golf course. As you know our (3)-.three
yearlease-is due to expire in September, and we would like tosigp a. new (6), six year lease. In
tht, tirbe, we :have been at Maplewood :we have put inplace a- management team that takes
pride in: providing our guest withtheh.igbes.t quality of fbod''beve'rage and service. We would
like to;:c'.onfihue our business with.yoU and the city of Renton.
Sin,cerely,.
41�
AMENDMENT TO MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE
LEASE AND CONCESSION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Renton ("City") as Lessor, and All My Restaurants, Inc.
("Concessionaire"), previously entered into a certain "Lease and Concession Agreement"
("Agreement") dated October 1, 2003, for terms and conditions described in that Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the City and Concessionaire entered into a subsequent "Addendum to
Maplewood Golf Course Clubhouse Lease and Concession Agreement" ("Addendum") on
December 6, 2006, in which the City approved Concessionaire's request to assign its interest in
the concession agreement to Barajas Arias, Inc. ("Barajas"); and
WHEREAS, Barajas has now requested an extension of the lease and concession
agreement for an additional period as provided for under the terms of the Addendum; and
"WHEREAS, the City does intend to grant the request for extension; and
WHEREAS, in doing so, the parties now wish to amend certain terms in the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Barajas do hereby agree to amend the following
provisions of that Agreement and declare as follows:
1. The assignment of the Agreement from Concessionaire to Barajas as set
forth in the Addendum shall continue to be in effect.
2. Section B —TERM of the Agreement shall be modified such that the term
of the Agreement shall be extended for an additional six (6) year period
to commence on December 6, 2009 and continue to December 6, 2015.
AMENDMENT TO LEASE - 1
3. Except as modified by this Amendment and/or the Addendum, all terms
and conditions of the October 1, 2003 Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.
DATED: November 12009
BARAJAS ARIAS, INC.
Attest:
Salvador Barajas
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
AMENDMENT TO LEASE - 2
THE CITY OF RENTON
0
Mayor Denis Law
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner
Staff Contact...... Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515
Subject:
Chelan Creek PUD
File No. LUA-08-067, PPUD, PP, ECF, CAE, CAE
Exhibits:
Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation and
Zoning Map
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Al #: . -1-
For Agenda of:
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information.........
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept.....
11 /02/2009
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
/:/
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The hearing was held on December 30, 2008. The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on
the Chelan Creek PUD was published on February 5, 2009. The appeal period ended on February 19,
2009. A Request for Reconsideration was filed on February 17, 2009. The Hearing Examiner's
Response to the Request for Reconsideration was entered on March 3, 2009. A request for Corrections to
the Examiner's Response was filed on March 5, 2009 and the Examiner's Response was entered on
March 9, 2009.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Chelan Creek Public Unit Development and Preliminary Plat as outlined in the
Examiner's Report and Recommendation.
Rentonnet/agnbilV bh
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
APPLICANT/OWNER: Linda Pillo
5411 36"' Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126
CONTACT: Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274
LOCATION:
February 5, 2009
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA 08-067, PPUD, PP, ECF, CAE, CAE
Tax ID# 102305-9106 and #102305-9440
922 Chelan Avenue
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Requesting Preliminary Planned Urban Development,
Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of a 4.21-acre site
into 16 lots for the eventual development of single-family
residences, with two access tracts.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner
on December 22, 2008.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field checking
the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a
public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the December 30, 2008 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, December 30, 2008, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this reguest.
Exhibit No. 2: Aerial Photo
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 2
Exhibit No. 3: Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Plan
Exhibit No. 4: Preliminary Plat/PPUD Plan
Exhibit No. 5: Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 6: Chelan Creek Design Guidelines
Exhibit No. 7: Wetland Mitigation Plan showing
Pedestrian Pathway
Exhibit No. 8: Illustration of Normal Plat Plan
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The
proposed project would be located in northeast Renton on the west side of Duvall Ave NE between NE 10a' Street
and NE 8t' Street. A lot adjustment is currently pending to adjust the lot line of a third parcel immediately
abutting proposed Lot 16 to the south with the subject property. Two critical area exemptions have been granted
for the proposal.
The site is zoned R-8 and within the Residential Single -Family Comprehensive Plan Designation (RSF). As part
of the PUD the applicant has requested modifications from the street standards and the R-8 development
standards, including lot size, width and depth and front yard setbacks.
The proposed residential density would be 4.70 du/ac after all deductions. There are two existing homes and
several outbuildings on the existing lots, which would be removed prior to construction.
The site is vegetated with grass lawns, shrubs and trees. A tree inventory indicates a total of 191 trees of which
8 1 % would remain. The overall elevation change within the site is about 15 feet. The site slopes down from the
northeast to the southwest, the slope throughout the site is approximately 4% or less. There is a Class.4 stream
and a Category 2 wetland on the project site. The wetland is located within a broad swale through the central
portion of the site, Category 2 wetlands require a 50-foot buffer and a Class 4 stream requires a minimum 35-foot
buffer. A buffer averaging proposal has been approved by staff, which would allow the applicant to reduce the
buffer on the west side of the wetland to approximately 25 feet.
Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated with six measures.
No appeals were filed.
The proposal does comply with the following code provisions of the PUD process; preservation and enhancement
of natural features, superior landscaping, buffering and screening, superior architectural design, and placement
and orientation of structures. Without the PUD it would have been challenging to meet the density requirements.
The applicant has proposed to comply with all development standards with the exception of the requested
modifications. Applicant would be required to comply with the Chelan Creek Guidelines prepared by staff. In
addition, the applicant would be required to provide fencing, landscaping and sidewalks to mirror existing
frontage improvements just south of the site along Duvall Ave NE. The lighting plan would contain pedestrian
lighting on both sides of the pathway in a staggered configuration. Staff asked to have the pathway extended for
better connectivity to Chelan Place NE and back out to Duvall Avenue NE. A split rail fence would be required
along the buffer area to provide privacy. The residential driveways should be limited to no more than 9 feet for a
single lane and no more than 16 feet for a double lane driveway. That is a deviation from the 20-foot maximum in
the code.
The developer would be required, within 2 years of the effective date of the approval of the preliminary plan, to
submit a final development plan. The applicant has requested a 3-year extension, the same time limits of an
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 3
approved preliminary plat for a total of 5 years. Staff agreed to the extension. The existing homes could be
retained on the property up to the end of the 5-year term.
Staff recommended that the tot lot be removed due to the safety of children playing in that location and the gazebo
should be relocated to the start or end of the pedestrian pathway.
A homeowners' association for the development should be established in order to maintain any common
improvements and/or tracts within the PUD prior to Final Plat or Final PUD approval.
The Examiner stated that the removal of the tot lot may not be a good thing, where lots are smaller and there are
more restrictions, it may be necessary to have a play area inside the development.
Consistency with Preliminary Plat Criteria:
Ms. Timmons continued stating that the proposal is consistent with most of the Comprehensive Plan and
Community Design Element policies with the exception of CD 10, CD82 and T9, which would not be met unless
the conditions of approval including lighting, and street frontage improvements along Duvall Ave NE are
completed as part of the PUD regulations.
Some modifications would be necessary as part of the PUD, Lots 1-3, 5-12 and 14 require a modification from the
lot width standards, Lots 1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 11 require modifications from the lot size requirements and Lot 4
requires a modification from the lot depth requirements. Additional modifications would be needed for the front
yard setbacks due to the proposed widths of Lots 5, 6 and 14 because they are less than required by code.
An access easement exists on the northwest portion of the site that is used by the existing residence. The Fire
Department has reviewed the application and is allowing the existing easement to remain as long as the proposed
residence for Lot 16 is constructed with a fire sprinkler system. A larger radius would be required on the
northeast corner of Lot 12 for emergency vehicle access.
The applicant is not proposing to plant two street trees and a 5-foot landscape strip within the front yards of Lots
1-4. A 10-foot landscape strip had also been omitted on Lot 13.
Traffic, Fire and Parks mitigations fees would apply to this project. The Renton School District has stated that
they can accommodate the additional students generated by this proposal.
The project site would be served by the City of Renton water and sewer departments. It was recommended that
the existing 8-inch water main be extended for the full frontage of Lot 16. A water main would, also need to be
constructed within Chelan Place NE and be extended the full frontage of Lot 3.
Linda Pillo, 5411 36h Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126 stated that she is the trustee of her parents and
grandparent's property. She owns the residence that is part of the lot line adjustment, 922 Chelan Avenue NE and
she wants to make sure that this development is of the highest quality. When the property was originally
purchased, there was no wetland. When Duvall Avenue was constructed a culvert was put in which created the
creek that ran through the property.
Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane, Mt. Vernon, WA 98274, stated that he met with the
City approximately one and a half years ago with a regular plat plan. There was no stream or wetland report at
that time. The City suggested that they might want to look at doing a PUD on the property since there is such a
large area running diagonally through the property that most likely was a stream and a wetland.
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 4
The applicant hired a wetland consultant, who identified the stream as a Class 4 Stream and the wetland as a
Category 2 wetland. Later an additional wetland biologist was hired to look at it and verified that it was a Class 4
Stream and a Category 2 wetland. When the application was put together, the City asked for a third review, which
came back with the same determinations. After all that, a final plan was put together and the City's peer review of
that plan was found to be acceptable with a few minor additions, which were made. In the final design the
mitigation was increased in the southern area beyond what any of the consultants had suggested.
The actual stream and buffer cover approximately 45% of the site. The main modification that they are asking for
is lot width and size. The lot depth issue only concerns Lot 4 and it is believed that Lot 4 does meet the definition
of lot depth. The northern boundary is about 54 feet and the southern boundary is considerably larger. The
average would be in excess of the 65-foot minimum depth.
The PUD was suggested due to the large buffer. A draft of the site without the modifications was prepared, which
used a standard 50-foot wide lot. All lots are 65-feet deep and over 4,500 square feet. In order to achieve the lot
sizes, a number of the lot lines go into the wetland buffer, which is allowed by Renton's code. They felt that by
modifying the lot sizes and keeping all the private lots out of the buffer really helped protect the stream. The PUD
is a much better design than a regular plat.
They do agree with most of the design guidelines, but there are some details that make it very difficult to use and
there are some conflicts in the guidelines. There needs to be the ability for the staff and designer to work together
to achieve the goal of a particular standard.
The Examiner suggested that they go into the objections of the design guidelines. He presumed that the
guidelines had been agreed to prior to the hearing. The guidelines are 13 pages long and quite detailed and
elaborate. The terms of the guidelines need to be settled now, if that is not possible, the hearing can be continued.
Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant had been given a copy of the guidelines.
Mr. Hanson stated that he could go over a few of their objections such as; houses need to be oriented towards the
Native Growth Protection Easement. That is not a problem, but what exactly does that mean, oriented towards, is
that the front door? Chelan Avenue would be like an alley, would the doors and garages have to meet the criteria
as if they were the front? Access would be from the other side.
Ms. Timmons stated that because the plat is a PUD they are trying to get the homes to orient to the natural
features on site, which is one of the PUD criteria. The front yards that would be abutting the natural features on
site would have the front facades, front porch, front door and the rest (Lots 5-12) would have the garage and
access with limited driveways so that there is more open space.
The Examiner stated that he would agree that all the homes on Lots 5-12 should orient the same way. He was not
sure the formal front of a building today, most fronts have garages there and these most likely would not have a
garage on the side of the Native Growth Protection Easement.
Ms. Timmons stated that the garage would have a 20-foot setback as any normal rear yard.
The Examiner was concerned that this could not be settled at the hearing. If there is a problem with the
guidelines, that needs to be ironed out now so there are no vague questions when the development actually takes
place. If it were being developed in the next six months, that would be fine, but in 5 years anything can happen.
If the property were to be sold, the purchaser needs to know exactly what they would be bound to.
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 5
Mr. Hanson continued with his list of objections to the guidelines: some of the details need to be worked out. For
instance, in the guidelines it states that the comer boards need to be painted. Does that mean that we cannot stain
them? Why can't they be stained? There is no flexibility built into the guidelines. There are conflicts with the
fencing, it appears that there cannot be a fence in the interior side yard. There is a hedge issue with the interior
side yards, he did not believe you could put hedges there.
The guidelines propose a wider trail and they were thinking narrower with fences on both sides, their proposal
seems much less sensitive to the land and buffer. If the City wants it to become a public trail, then the City needs
to take responsibility for the care, maintenance and liability of the trail. It now becomes a sidewalk that would
connect to Duvall come through the development and connect to Duvall again at the opposite end. They have
proposed a softer trail through the buffer area.
Driveway widths, one section talks about width and one talks about curb cuts. Sixteen feet does not allow room to
get out of the car, eighteen feet works much better, allowing room to get out of the car and unload packages,
children, etc.
Again the guidelines talk about front doors and front of the building requirements. What are the requirements,
wood doors, they cannot be fiberglass or metal. Doors fronting the street could be metal, doors fronting the
Native Growth Protection Easement would have to be wood if that is the front yard. Double doors are not
allowed, nice French Doors facing the NGPE would not be allowed.
The lot line adjustment should not be a problem, that recording should take place any day.
Tract C would be modified to 26-feet, which is not an issue, the surveyor has it at 25-feet. Tract A is a misprint, it
says 20 feet, but in fact it is 26 feet. There is a requirement for a 25-foot radius on Lot 12. Street standards call
for a 15-foot radius, which does not meet the Fire Department's requirements. He would suggest that that
condition be changed rather than requiring a 25-foot radius on Lot 12, requiring that radius meet the Fire
Department's requirements.
There also is a requirement to put a five-foot landscape strip along Lots 1-4 on the west side, which they had not
proposed. They are proposing a 10-foot landscaping strip along Duvall, leaving the natural vegetation throughout
the buffer and critical area. They were proposing a 10-foot strip along Lot 13. Mr. Hanson did not believe the
strip along Lots 1-4 was a requirement of the code. There is a requirement to put two trees either in the front yard
or in the landscape strip. They provided two trees in the landscape, strip along Duvall.
The City code requires that offsite improvements be put in on property abutting your site, Duvall Avenue is
abutting the site and does not have full street improvements adjacent to the site. The City just did some
improvements in that area, but they did not put in a street that meets the City standards. They did sewer and water
improvements and repaved the street. The applicant is now being required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk,
storm drainage and street lighting the whole length of the property. There is 677 feet along Duvall and 63% of
that frontage is either wetland or buffer. There are only five lots abutting and none of those lots have access to
Duvall. The applicant should not have to put in full street improvements in that area. School children are using
Chelan Ave to cross and do not use Duvall.
KMen Kittrick, Department of Community and Economic Development stated that the Orchards development
directly to the south of this, was required to put in walkway and to improve Duvall Avenue even though they had
no access to Duvall.
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 6
Tract A is 26-feet wide, Mr. Hanson is correct, a design for proper radii for the Fire Department can be
accommodated within that 26 feet as well as the larger interior section around the existing home. Lot 12 may
require a bit of an edge.
Pathways have been done with both soft surfacing and paving, they both seem to work. Lighting is more difficult
because it must be maintained and paid for. Who owns it? It appeared that it would be included in the access
easement, installed by the applicant and maintained by the homeowner's association. It would be an access
easement for the benefit of the public but maintained by the homeowner's association.
Ms. Kittrick stated that there would a safety consideration pro and con for the lighting. It invites the public
through and also invites people through that may not have innocent intentions. The lighting does create a higher
safety factor for both residents and anyone that is walking through there.
Mr. Hanson stated that a public path would cause problems for the residents, it is unreasonable to require a
walkway. The school children could use the sidewalk along Duvall or a pathway along Duvall without a formal
city sidewalk that would meet the City's standards. The pathway as originally designed was not intended to
provide a public walkway, but rather just an internal amenity for interior lots.
Ms. Timmons stated that the pathway was a trade-off for the PUD. Staff is requiring the path to be connected
back to Duvall because Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have to travel completely around the site in order to reach
Duvall.
The Examiner stated that he would hold the hearing open. He wants a settlement on the 13 pages of guidelines
before they are forwarded as something that shall be abided by. The hearing will be held open for one week to
allow Mr. Hanson to spell out in writing his questions and then a return response by staff.
Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no
further comments from staff. The hearing stopped at 10:52 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMA1ENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting, filed a request for a Preliminary Planned Urban
Development and a Preliminary Plat.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. The subject site is located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and runs from approximately a half
block north of NE 8th Street to approximately a half block south of NE 1 Oth Street. NE 9th Street on the
west deadends about halfway along the west property line while SE 118th Street forms a T-intersection
with Duvall in approximately the same location but on the east side of the subject site.
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 7
6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of single-family uses, but does not mandate such development without
consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre).
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinances 3058 and 5161, adopted
respectively in September 1976 and January 2005.
9. The subject site is approximately 4.21 acres (183,489 gross square feet).
10. The subject site slopes downward from the northeast to the southwest portion with an overall grade
difference across the site of approximately 15 feet.
11. The proposal would require approximately 1,000 cubic yards of grading along Duvall.
12. The subject site contains a Class 4 stream and a Category 2 wetland. The wetland is associated with the
creek that runs diagonally across the site from the northeast to the southwest. A Category 2 wetland
requires a 50-foot buffer. A Class 4 stream, non-salmonoid bearing in this case, requires a minimum 35-
foot buffer. This stream drains down toward the Cedar River.
13. The applicant proposes buffer averaging to permit it to carve out 16 lots around the creek and wetland.
Portions of the 50-foot wetland buffer would be reduced to not less than 25 feet through buffer averaging.
The buffer would be reduced by 11,597 square feet to be replaced by 12,426 square feet of enhanced
additional buffer. Enhancement would result in the planting of native plants and the removal of invasive
species. Staff approved the buffer averaging proposal subject to conditions under a separate cover.
14. The site is vegetated primarily with grass lawns, shrubs and trees.1A tree inventory found a total of 191
trees on the site. The applicant would retain 81 percent following development including trees that would
be retained in the wetland and creek areas.
15. Two existing residences and outbuildings are located on the subject site. One home is located along the
north portion of the subject site while the second home is east of where NE 9th Street intersects the
subject site.
16. The area is predominately developed with R-8, single-family uses surrounding the subject site with a
church also located west of the subject site.
17. Chelan Place NE intersects the parcel approximately midway along its south property line. NE 9th Street
intersects the parcel approximately midway along its western property line. A new north -south road,
Proposed Chelan Avenue NE will be extended along the western property line.
18. The applicant proposes dividing the acreage into 16 lots and 2 access tracts. The proposed subdivision
would result in 16 lots ranging in lot size from 3,930 to 7,658 square feet. The centrally located critical
areas and limited public roads along the margins of the site limit the placement of the proposed lots.
Proposed Lots 1 to 4 and 13 will be located along Duvall but take access from interior easements or tracts.
Proposed Lots 14, 15, and 16 are located along the north and northwest margins of the subject site.
Proposed Lots 5 to 12 are located along the western margin of the site.
19. Proposed Lots 1 through 4 would gain access from a dead end Access Tract (Tract Q extended from
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 8
Chelan Place NE. Proposed Lots 5 through 12 would gain access from a proposed dead end public street
extended from NE 9th Street. Proposed Lots 13 through 15 would gain access from a proposed Access
Tract (Tract A); extended from the new Chelan Ave NE. Proposed Lot 16 would gain access from an
existing access easement extended from NE 10" Street. There is no Tract B as it will be part of Proposed
Chelan Avenue NE.
20. Staff has recommended that homes be oriented so that Proposed Lots 1 and 2 face west to Chelan Place
NE, Proposed Lots 3 and 4 similarly face west toward the Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE),
Proposed 5 to 12 face to the east to face the NGPE, Proposed Lot 13 south to the NGPE, Proposed Lots
14 and 15 face their access tract and Lot 16 face its westerly neighbor.
21. Staff noted that the applicant has requested a total lot area reduction of 1,971 square feet and this
reduction must be balanced with a commensurate open space on the site. Staff recommended the
applicant alter the plans by removing the tot lot and moving the gazebo to the pedestrian path's start or
end.
22. The proposed plat will have a density of 4.70 units per acre after the deduction of roads and critical areas
from the gross acreage of the site. There would be 6,458 square feet for right-of-way dedications, 9,902
square feet for private access easements and 18,739 square feet for critical areas. This results in
approximately 148,390 square feet (3.406 net acres)
23. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate
approximately 6 or 7 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be
assigned on a space available basis.
24. The development will generate approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 140 trips for the 14
additional single-family homes, or 160 trips for all 16 homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or
approximately 16 peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening.
25. The subject site is located in the Maplewood Creek sub -basin. This area has known storm water and
erosion issues downstream. Stormwater will be collected in two vaults located in Chelan Place and NE
9th respectively. Water will be released to the creek at controlled rates and flow off the site. The ERC
imposed compliance with the 2005 King County Stormwater Manual.
26. Sewer and water will be provided by the City. Staff has recommended extensions of the water lines to the
south boundary of Lot 16 and along the frontage of Lot 3.
27. A lot line adjustment in the vicinity of Proposed Lot 16 is required for access to the subject site and
provide the appropriate property line demarcation between property included or excluded from the current
proposal.
28. Staff had recommended shared driveways between Proposed Lots 5 and 6 but removed the condition.
Staff has recommended 10 foot and 18 foot driveway widths for single drives and double drives
respectively.
29. Staff recommended a revised landscape plan to include 5 feet of landscaping along Duvall for Proposed
Lots 1 and 2, 10 feet of ornamental landscaping along Duvall for Proposed Lots 1 to 4 and 13 and for
ornamental landscaping to mirror the designs south of the subject site.
30. Staff recommended a 15-foot radius on the northeast corner of Proposed Lot 12.
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 9
31. Staff recommended that a pedestrian pathway be extended from Chelan Place NE to the east along the
Native Growth Protection easement and then around Proposed Lots 3 and 4 and ultimately connect to
Duvall and that it be a public benefit as part of the required public benefit for PUD approval.
32. Staff enunciated the code requirements that the applicant is responsible for improvements along Duvall
Avenue NE adjacent to the subject site.
33. The applicant requested that the normal two (2) year expiration period for a PUD be extended an
additional three (3) years to a total of five (5) years. Normally, as the expiration date approaches a one-
year extension may be requested. The 5 years would match the plat approval period.
34. At the public hearing the applicant raised non-specific objections to portions of the Chelan Creek Design
Guidelines, which were a thirteen (13) page addendum to the staff recommendation. Staff analysis
indicated that certain requirements of a PUD could only be satisfied if the Guidelines were accomplished.
The vague nature of the objections led to keeping the hearing record open so that specific objections could
be raised and reviewed by staff. Staff and the applicant agreed on Revised Guidelines that resulted from
the applicant's submissions and staffs further review.
35. The applicant maintains objections to the requirement for street improvements along Duvall Avenue NE
and extending the path to Duvall in the vicinity of Proposed Lots 3 and 4. The applicant suggests that the
lots along Duvall do not take access to that street and the requirement for improvements is not
proportionate to the plat's impact. The applicant believes that the second access to Duvall supplants the
need for staffs recommended connection.
CONCLUSIONS:
Planned Urban Development (PUD)
The PUD Ordinance contains a long and complex series of criteria that are reviewed. They are included
in Section 4-9-150-D:
D DECISION CRITERIA:
The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met.
1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed
development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed
development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the
development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide
specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed
planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the
proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of
the subject site without the proposed planned urban development:
a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a
planned urban development; or
b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as
significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise
required by other City regulations; or
c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the
subject property without a planned urban development; or
d. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one or more of the
following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned
urban development:
i. Open Space/Recreation:
(a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements
and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082;
and
(b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 10
attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public
walkways; or
ii. Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking
facilities; or
iii. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the
proposed planned urban development; or
iv. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or
orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or
V. Alleys: Provides alleys to at least fifty percent (50%) of any proposed single family detached,
semi -attached, or townhouse units.
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with
all of the following criteria:
a. Building and Site Design:
i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban
development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones.
Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare.
ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be
related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the
use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single family,
detached, attached, townhouses, etc.
b. Circulation:
i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have
sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed
development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic
demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City.
Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas.
ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians,
limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep
gradients.
iii. Provision of a system of walkways that tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public
walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
C. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing
and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development.
d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation
of building groups, and through the use of well -designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of
impervious surfaces not otherwise required.
e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for
adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed -use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy
for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as
appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and
surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction
of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient
light and air are provided to each dwelling unit.
f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking
advantage of topography, building location and style.
g. Parking Area Design:
i. Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long
rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the
group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities
where appropriate.
ii. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on -site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parking
demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Parking
management plans shall ensure sufficient resident, employee, or visitor parking standards, and there shall be
no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared parking arrangement consistent with RMC 4-
4-080 is approved.
h. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space,
recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable
environment, so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone.
4. Compliance with Development Standards: Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance
with the development standards contained in subsection E of this Section. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be
designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed -use, commercial, and
industrial developments are described below.
a. Residential: For residential developments, open space must be equal to or greater in size than the total
square footage of the lot area reductions requested by the planned urban development, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The open space shall not include a critical area and shall be concentrated in large usable areas. Stormwater
C7
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 11
facilities may be incorporated with the open space on a case -by -case basis if the Reviewing Official finds:
i. The stormwater facility utilizes the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The
Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division, or an equivalent manual, or
ii. The surface water feature serves areas outside of the planned urban development and is
appropriate in size and creates a benefit.
Site Area: 1.5 acres
Typical Lot Size: 4,500 sq. ffi
Total Number of Lots: 12 Site Area: 1.5 acres
Typical Lot Size: 3,500 sq. fL
Total Number of Lots: 12
Open Space: 4,500 s.f. minus 3,500 s.f. =1,000 s.f. x 12 lots=12,000 sq. ft.
Standard Subdivision Example Planned Urban Development Approach
Figure 1. Common Open Space Example
b. Mixed Use — Residential Portions: Subsections Elbi to v of this Section specify common open space
standards for the residential portions of mixed -use developments.
i. Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units
shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit.
The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout,
and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Reviewing
Official. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below.
The Reviewing Official may require more than one of the following elements for developments having
more than one hundred (100) units.
(a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces;
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street
level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and provided as an asset to the
development;
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street
system;
(d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts, swimming pools,
exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or
(e) Children's play spaces.
ii. Required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted
toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas.
iii. Required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless
such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas
or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to
all residents of the development.
iv. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the
common space/recreation area requirement.
Figure 2. A visible and accessible residential common area containing landscaping and other amenities.
V. Other required landscaping, and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as
pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement.
C. Mixed Use Nonresidential Portions, or Commercial, or Industrial Uses: The following subsections specify
common open space requirements applicable to nonresidential portions of mixed use developments or to single
use commercial or industrial developments:
i. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential
uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space according to the
following formula:
1 % of the lot area + 1 % of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space
Figure 3. Examples of pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building.
ii. To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included:
(a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from
the public right-of-way or a courtyard not subject to vehicular traffic,
(b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving,
(c) On -site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the
ground, and
(d) At least three (3) feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60)
square feet of plaza area or open space.
iii. The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space and may be required by the
Reviewing Official.
(a) Pedestrian -oriented uses at the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space.
(b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest
and security — such as adjacent to a building entry.
(c) Pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space consistent with Figure
4.
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 12
(d) Public seating that is durable or easily replaceable, maintainable, and accessible.
Figure 4. Pedestrian -oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample seating areas, movable fumiture, special paving,
landscaping components, and adjacent pedestrian -oriented uses.
iv. The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space:
(a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots,
(b) Adjacent chain link fences,
(c) Adjacent blank walls,
(d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas, and
(e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to
the pedestrian environment.
d. Open Space Orientation: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building
orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions.
e. Common Open Space Guidelines: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential
projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to
residents, and visible from surrounding units.
i. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as
building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure.
ii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be
centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters,
drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas.
2. Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable private open
space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit.
Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space, which is contiguous to the unit
and shall be an area of at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross square footage of the dwelling units. The private open
space shall be well demarcated and at least ten feet (10') in every dimension. Decks on upper floors can substitute for
some of the required private open space for upper floor units. For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story
units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5').
3. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan
submitted by the applicant and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural
features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the
developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060.
Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and
maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for
providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable
landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year
period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division.
b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070.
4. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited
to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred
by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to
the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060, except for such common facilities that are intended to serve
only future phases of a planned urban development. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the
present and future phases of a planned urban development shall be installed or secured with a security instrument
as specified above before occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such security and
deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each phase of a
planned urban development.
b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the
planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the
agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the
City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners'
association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. (Ord. 5153, 9-
26-2005)
2. It appears that some background on a PUD (Planned Urban Development) is necessary. The fact is that a
PUD is kind of a compact or contract between the property's owner or developer and the City. The City
modifies or relaxes its normal standards such as lot size or setbacks or street dimensions and the
developer agrees to provide enhanced development and, it must be emphasized "AND" public benefit. To
cut to the chase, in this case the applicant sought relaxed standards permitting more lots on the acreage
than would normally be accommodated given the shape of the parcel, surrounding streets and the large
centrally located wetland and creek. In return, the City sought enhanced design of the homes and a public
pathway adjacent to the natural features and through the development as part of the public's benefit or
return for relaxing the normal development standards. If the developer does not find the pathway
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 13
acceptable, then the balancing that drives this PUD has not been achieved.
3. The City's Critical Areas ordinances and complementary regulations already protect the natural features
on this site. The features themselves, the wetlands and creek are already protected and buffers around
those features are already required and protected. Those regulations protecting the critical areas and
buffers mandate an overall reduction in density and impose significant constraints on the lot sizes and
shapes. Access and street requirements further define how the plat can be developed and how many lots
can be legally served. Both critical areas and roadways together reduce the developable acreage and,
therefore, the overall density that can result. Accommodating more density can be achieved by allowing
smaller lots, yards, driveways and roads or easements. So, from the City's perspective, the PUD needs to
provide additional public benefits that achieve more than preserving the wetlands and creek and their
respective buffers. This could include improving the public roadways around the project including Duvall
and providing the path recommended by staff.
4. The applicant's objections to installing street improvements along Duvall are misguided. Code requires it.
The public benefit in approving this PUD requires it. The residents of this plat require it. The fact that
primary access to Duvall from lots within this plat is limited does not mean that the proposed lots or
rather their commuting, shopping and socially active residents will not be using this major thoroughfare
for access to and egress from the plat. A review of the street system shows a rather limited grid pattern
and one that has limited direct access to major arterials and the shopping and commute routes that
residents find attractive. While some residents will probably prefer winding about smaller roads, many
will find Duvall, the more direct route, more appealing. Duvall to the south provides access to NE 4th
Street and a commercial node at Duvall. NE 4th also provides access to downtown Renton and I-405.
Duvall to the north provides access to the Sunset commercial corridor, again I-405, and access to Bellevue
as Duvall transitions into Coal Creek Parkway and access to I-90. Transit routes along Duvall might also
prove inviting and residents could be expected to make use of sidewalks along Duvall immediately
abutting the plat along the east.
5. Determining whether a traditional plat or a PUD provides a better result clearly is something in the eye of
the beholder and could vary considerably. The PUD clearly allows more lots to be developed on this
highly constrained property and that helps create more housing opportunities for more people. A
traditional plat would have allowed quicker development and more free choice of housing type and
expression of individuality in landscaping and style. This office has to suggest that a number of criteria in
this review might be considered vague and allow the imposition of vague conditions that could later be
misinterpreted. In order for staff to recommend approval of this PUD they required the imposition of 13
pages of guidelines governing everything from housing form, window trim, contrasting color, facade
details and orientation, articulation and banding, corner treatments, stoop arrangements and more. In the
present case, the applicant did have some concerns with some of the conditions imposed in that
approximately 13-page addendum. Satisfying the PUD criteria in most aspects depends on the applicant
abiding by the guidelines. The guidelines govern most aspects of the proposed development. A large
number of the criteria are or will be satisfied as the applicant develops the project in accordance with the
proposed guidelines.
6. The proposal is compatible with the R-8 Zoning and the Single -Family designation found in the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposal results in a density of 4.7 which falls within the range permitted in the
R-8 Zone. The proposal to construct detached single-family homes is appropriate given the
comprehensive plan's single-family designation.
7. The next main criterion and the one providing the biggest stumbling block between the applicant and staff
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 14
is the creation of "specifically identified public benefit." A number of concepts are noted that might
achieve a public benefit: protect critical areas beyond normal, preserve or enhance natural features beyond
normal, provide a public facility or provide a special design. Frankly, the critical areas regulations
probably provided more than adequate protection of the wetlands and creek and their respective buffers.
There will be some critical area enhancement as a result of buffer averaging but this is permitted without a
PUD overlay. And one could argue that buffer averaging lessens protections in one area to enhance other
areas. Reducing a buffer allows more intense uses closer to the actual critical area. So this buffer
reduction/enhancement tradeoff is not necessarily a benefit of PUD development. Providing public
facilities that would not ordinarily result from developing private property was the manner staff found to
satisfy this requirement. Staff requested that a pathway open to the public be created that winds between
Duvall Avenue on the east, around and through the wetland/creek area and the lots and out to the west.
This would open the wetland areas to public viewing and enjoyment while providing residents an outlet to
the Duvall public right-of-way.
8. Staff notes that the landscaping for the proposal when installed according to the guidelines will provide a
superior look and the streetscape is intended to mirror or continue landscaping schemes already found in
adjacent development. The adjacent Orchards development has modulated fencing and a meandering
sidewalk which staff recommends be continued along the applicant's portion of Duvall. Similarly,
housing massing, layout and types will be dictated by the guidelines and provide a townhome-like
coordination of architectural detailing between the separate homes while the homes remain detached
single-family units. The applicant does not propose any special open space requirements but will meet
code requirements for individual units.
Staff noted that the sample drawings of elevation and styles were too conceptual and suggested that the
guidelines would appropriately govern those issues. Conditions requiring compliance with the guidelines
will be imposed as part of the approval process.
10. The roadway pattern will rely on a combination of public streets along the perimeter of the site and
private easements and driveways internal to the site. This combination is dictated by the centrally located
stream and wetland areas, which preclude internal grid streets. The applicant will have to provide
adequate room for corner clearances, known as corner radii, where some of the easements form ninety -
degree turns. Staff has recommended that Duvall improvements be installed as required by Code. Those
improvements would have to be guided by the critical areas located along the Duvall frontage. While the
applicant indicated that there was no legal nexus (compelling reasons) for the applicant to be responsible
for improving the frontage since no lots would be accessing Duvall, code requires improvements along
frontage of developing properties. As noted above the residents of this complex as well as their friends
and visitors would be likely to use Duvall both to the north and south for commuting purposes as well as
convenient access to commercial services at nodes north and south of the subject site. Similarly,
sidewalks internal to the project as well as along Duvall will allow residents to stretch their muscles and
mingle with neighboring property owners. The pathway proposed by staff will allow access to and
enjoyment of the natural features by both residents and the public. An exemption will allow
improvements along Duvall within the right-of-way as well as an exemption to allow the pedestrian path.
Both have been administratively granted to allow appropriately conditioned development. Staff has
recommended the use of a meandering sidewalk close to the right-of-way. Lighting will be required.
Staff has recommended that private open space for lots be defined and where near the trail and critical
areas, a split rail fence be used to complement the one protecting the critical areas.
11. The site has access to appropriate utilities and they can be extended to serve the new lots within the plat.
12. Staff has recommended reduced driveway widths to match the smaller lots and reduced pavement and has
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 15
specified the orientation of homes to take advantage of the natural features or orient in a normal fashion
toward their street or neighboring homes.
13. This office sees no reason to eliminate the tot lot proposed by the applicant and it should be maintained as
part of the open space. It and the gazebo may be relocated to areas away from traffic if that is possible.
Staff noted that the lots appear to have adequate space to accommodate the required open space for each
lot but suggested it be clearly depicted on final plans.
14. The proposal is not exceptionally large and while encumbered by a wetland and creek it is not an
exceptionally complex project. The current economic situation might justify granting a longer timeframe
in which to develop the subject site but the five years requested appear to be inordinate. A one-year
extension is almost always available so granting an additional year on the permit actually provides a four-
year (4) timeframe. Conditions and regulations undergo periodic review and the property should not be
vested in years' old regulations if conditions do change. The only reason to grant a five-year permit is to
match the plat period. Maybe the City Council should limit this plat overlaid by a PUD to 4 years total.
Again, the proposal is not all that complex and should be able to be implemented in less than five (5)
years.
Preliminary Plat
15. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. It preserves the critical areas located on
the central portion of the site while providing additional lots for detached single-family uses.
16. While the lots do not necessarily comply with the actual platting regulations, the imposition of the PUD
overlay allows for the proposed division of the property.
17. The Iots and lot lines are about as rectangular as can be, given the need for the lots to be arranged around
the critical areas.
18. Public services can be extended to serve the new lots. Stormwater will be accommodated by the applicant
in two systems and then recharge the wetlands and creek.
19. The payment of mitigation fees will help offset the impacts that the development will have on public
services. The development should increase the tax base of the City helping to offset some of the
additional impacts on new residents on the City.
20. The plat will provide additional housing choices including housing situated around natural areas.
21. In conclusion, the City Council should approve the proposed PUD and Plat.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should approve the proposed PUD and Plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the attached Chelan Creek Design Guidelines for all residences
constructed on the proposed lots. The applicant will be required to, as part of the FPUD application,
provide elevations and floor plans for the proposed structures.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping and street improvement plan depicting the following: a
meandering sidewalk, ornamental landscaping and modulated fencing, for those portions of the frontage
not abutting the proposed NGPE, to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. Modulation
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 16
of the fence shall be used to transition from the proposed fence, not abutting the NGPE, to the split rail
fence abutting the NGPE. In the depression of the fence, where it connects to the split rail fence, an
ornamental tree shall be planted in order to conceal the transition of the fence. The revised plan must be
submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction permit,
Final PUD, or Final Plat approval; whichever comes first.
3. The Pillo LLA (LUA08-066) shall be recorded prior to Final Plat recording or Final PUD approval;
whichever comes first.
4. The applicant shall be required to construct, to the satisfaction of the Development Services and Current
Planning Divisions, street improvements along Duvall Ave NE. Street improvements include, but are not
limited to: paving, sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights, and street signs
5. The applicant shall be required to locate the meandering sidewalk closest to the street where the NGPE
abuts the right-of-way.
6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to utility construction, Final PUD, or Final Plat approval; whichever comes first. The
lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting on both sides of the pathway in a staggered configuration.
7. The applicant shall be required to extend the pedestrian pathway from where it is proposed to begin, near
Chelan Place NE, east along the NGPE bordering the hammerhead turn -around and Lots 3 and 4
eventually connecting to Duvall Ave NE in the southern portion of the site. A pedestrian easement shall
be recorded, for the benefit of the public, for the length of the pathway prior to utility construction, Final
PUD, or Final Plat approval; whichever comes first.
8. The applicant shall be required to enhance the buffer area adjacent to where the pathway is located.
Where enhancement of the buffer, adjacent to the pathway, due to existing high quality vegetation,
additional buffer area or other mitigation may be required. A revised wetland/stream mitigation plan shall
be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction or
Final Plat approval; whichever comes first.
9. The applicant shall provide a split rail fence on the residential side of the pedestrian pathway identical to
the other side of the pathway. The split rail fence will be required to include an entrance gate that opens
out onto the pedestrian pathway for each lot.
10. The applicant shall be required to orient each residence as noted on page 14 of the staff report; under
Preliminary Plat review criteria. Lots 1 and 2 shall be oriented towards Chelan PI NE; Lots 3 and 4
towards the NGPE (west); Lots 5 through 12 towards the NGPE (east); Lot 13 towards the NGPE (south);
Lots 14 and 15 towards Tract A (south); and Lot 16 towards the abutting property to the west.
11. Driveway widths shall be restricted to no more the 10 feet for a single lane and no more than 18 feet for
double lane driveways.
12. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan depicting the relocation of the tot lot and the
relocation of the gazebo to where the proposed pedestrian pathway either starts or terminates. The revised
plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD,
Final Plat, or utility construction approval. In addition the plan shall note adequate square footage to
comply with the open space requirement.
13. The applicant shall be required to depict adequate area on each lot for private open space on the Parking,
Lot Coverage, and Landscaping Analysis to be submitted as part of the Final PUD application.
14. The applicant shall be required to establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would
be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the PUD prior to Final Plat or Final
PUD approval; whichever comes first. In addition, those standards included in the Chelan Creek Design
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 17
Guidelines that are applicable to the maintaining the design of the PUD shall be incorporated into the
homeowners' association bylaws.
15. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all required inspections for all buildings
located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat.
17. The applicant shall submit a revised detailed landscape plan prepared by a certified landscape architect or
other landscape professional to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction permit,
Final Plat, or Final PUD approval; whichever comes first. The revised landscape plan should include: a
5-foot landscape strip along the frontage of Lots 1 and 2; and ornamental 10-foot landscape strip along
Duvall Ave NE street frontage for Lots 1 through 4 and Lot 13; and ornamental landscaping to mirror the
existing frontage improvements along Duvall Ave NE, just south of the site. The revised landscape plan
should also include fence detail for the entire site.
18. The applicant shall record access easements for each tract prior to utility construction, Final Plat, or Final
PUD approval, whichever comes first; the existing access easement shall be revised to restrict access to
Lot 16 only; and the residence located on Lot 16 shall include a fire sprinkler system to the satisfaction of
the City of Renton Fire Department.
19. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan depicting a 15-foot radius on the northeast
corner of Lot 12. The revised plan would be required to be submitted prior to construction permit, Final
Plat, Final PUD approval; whichever comes first.
20. The applicant shall be required to extend the existing 8-inch water main within the access easement
(extended from NE 10`h St) to the south boundary of Lot 16 prior to Final Plat approval. Water main
extensions shall also be installed for the full frontage of Lot 3.
ORDERED THIS 5 h day of February 2009.
FRED J. KAUPVAN
HEARING ENMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 5a' day of February 2009 to the parties of record:
Rocale Timmons
Development Services
Renton, WA 98057
Wes Falkenborg
Windermere Land Group
1215 120' Ave NE, Ste. 110
Bellevue, WA 98005
Amy Dickau & Doug Smith
874 Bremerton Ave NE
Renton, WA 98059
Kayren Kittrick
Development Services
Renton, WA 98057
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274
Jerry Pryor
825 Chelan Place NE
Renton, WA 98059
TRANSMITTED THIS 5 h day of February 2009 to the following:
Linda Pillo
5411 36t' Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126
Shirley Goll
4124 NE 10' Street
Renton, WA 98059
Chelan Creek PUD
File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE
February 5, 2009
Page 18
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 1% 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery
of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a
review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set
forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be
filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies
of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An
appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 19, 2009. —
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence.
Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
I D6 - 03 T23N R5E.W 1/2
u
p
r
ZONING� +
PW TECIITI SERVICES
��'N `r 607/15/08
F6 -15 T23N
0 200 400
Feet
1:4,800 .
IXHIBIT 3 E6
10 T23N R5E W 1/2
5310
S. LIV£ K 210• !:E I/4. CIE. f/4a/¢.
=mmrF a ;e i a�vr rru------•----�--s
C -p: "1.D!'i:i :.•f;fLAVF2: _ ,�25`!`.-40' ._,:•-. •'-� , _ 1. :- rti,w::.:.'r �-i �_..-r,t _� _''-���•T iW 1 'W
r/71zBAR Aw cw mwo
�t i:77�qq' o to BE ear K 9r 0.ry r. or
I.�s. GLaAA70 T'OWW :•: ;^;�..'i Tor RViB. o=
La PAaH m9me D�rtMrs a� rn 1 `,-11v. rmE v , � K = M r�{�� 1/l�= o. �r��/(7 o r
i I.•,-: yk /jcEx:k 'WV DJ[! rSK of 2 E (LT'
P>xrERrr a1 LOT r4 8 g o I
®S fIE K 3w (AV Lk6) : loix LOCATED IN THE S.E. 1/4, OF THE N.W. 1/
LIE AO d16 1
K .Iry OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,
.•=fi i TSI �O4 a szw ems to:ONcREM '------- ' RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.,
meazl! SUM"
I' ;I.a arK IF R Aacg Do LrFEHM sr KING COUNTY, WASHiNGTON
I',::'i; PRLY90r L/r Lr rAl(S 157
E 2S S of
S.•,`.4.`• ^1 & Ff.-(J4d - `` PAD°FR7 LIE -
f y_ r41 8
.i."".:;.� L07 LOT T5 L< p.(S --� B W 1 :.
4
TED .. F7. A SD. . _ }? AI nx
;.'' s Tar rQ 1 w I 6or 3�'-r4o g(y
i I nrF 8 L4955 GRAPHIC SCALE 1' =40'
��•/ _ ':� y:: •._:=,-':.. PUf sr'�� A 75•�g,,p• �4•,� � �" �� � + no I 2 cart.
- - " { I y frot sE u rat 2cDmi T64 a T66 % I _ 40 0 40
1 C FACE IS a, ! 42WW 136 � _,pr WIC
1 eat E Fv BASIS OF BEARINGS: NAD 63 (1991)
?! - PROPm7Y f/E liE A•c�75tu1 I 1E-127. N BEARINGS SNo7VN HBtEON ARE BASED ON CITY OF RENTOI(
78M I LV' dvEs I NIA✓� MaNMENTS ff64a AND f1849 BEING NORTH 88WVCr WEST,
EL-428. :S t a- FF.`•432W �� .ry 1� i72 T75 U AS XFASURED ALONG THE 5'OU7N LINE lTF THE NORTHWEST I/4 .
I 'TRACT A 1� OF SEL7Kw'I r0. IDWHSNIP IJ HORNf, RANGE 3 FAST, W.1L
V v l iG �i 7B71 SO. FT• 1 , I W 1 - .
I i WERAND jT'M �e I TAX PARCEL NUIM,5_"w (S):
�. CIVf A I I$ '/� rDzws-9roa t rauos-944o
,Amway mt.44. A,
fib; °f• 1 ESA3' �yp0'• j �R Tab 796
1 s• vYA: 6 2p77S?Jo•� m- �� TOTAL AREA TO BE PLATTED:
Ii� \ r R rArPEn�' °,,.Q,.ma'q�� .?^V rLTJ.481 sa Fr. ps1 AaL'S)
1 Tom,,_ I I. -r --- IB936Zr7f l7E71� ----- g '' 126 w NOTES:
Im 174 mr 3 C • g 1. MONDMENM LAST VISITED 6-11-07.
In*N LOT IT
m 6 pFl V 2-THE BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY f EPRFSENr
W ' 50 F7. .11 mT76 P � kR ..a, 1 8 i C DEW fMES ONLYAMIAL.OWNERSHIP MAi OTHERWISE
7Ar PAR13. BE DETERMINED'
/14�30i9D76 TE�o
IRlJ7- w 416 )LOT II n6{3��Tag W Y56FMVERTICAL DATUM:
"W ('"'2��D9kr9aANORTH AAIEfBGV! bERRfAL DATUM OF /988
rI WDC RONwAT ®I P' Ff. 19g tlT$�� 777 0l 44mEc
''m r ` .� g1gy iv2 J� " t W BENCHMARK
6;18-&aF 1r2A4 nW Y (%A LL%%,,_ �• p b �}�4'`.y CRY OF RDMN BENaMAHC fla4a Ar THE CRki�CITON
j
iii�} �� fb .r R [� I dd= OF flE. 8M 5T. N!D ANION AYE N.E
LD7 TO a', ,1^ ..22W¢ fL4f12e
r1 Sr LOT B Fl. C 13 = n9 1 1 � ['y S7TIs' BENCBMARKS:
${ x u 15 Tb T SM. W. TOP CENTER BOLT OF FIRE HTDRANT ¢V."34
W I ✓ Y � w V T9.1A 'r: UPPER K.FLANGE BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT ¢9
BAr
l /W DZSv ft6J9' A ' n3s ?� i . 'C: 6O0 HALL SET IN E FACE OF I/RLIn' Pot£ at
IERTXAC ASP/N(i $� LOT 9 �W / �WrrJ: it a0 e CONTOUR INTERVAL*
cove mz __ �i rrol sT.Fr.
NFg91H STf4 I �4 Tro3. n,s 71Da nbr nu TIP S I cU zoo vs FEET
IIeBf�A77 ( ttJ4 y' ij1 I (CONTOLRS BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY.)
SLB
6f I1Cll CURB l i 93F
Flog I Floz LOT a no4 1� PARCEL AREA W
(PER PROPOSED L
LOMIER OF FBlf r 1 'I y 5II. F7. no 8 W.
LAX PARC¢ %IOI]OS-9440 AND
E D.T' k: OF 1
1 TAX - 1133. f 10SO. FT. 106
PRq°B07 (RE , I • � � � K � I„ � � � ils x AREA- 78J.489 SO. FT
TAX PAR$ ,Tit
/95J03Ftii1l6 cn $ n ------ • A IB,7J➢2 50. Fr.
a lee max CRITICAL ARE
' m7 s
b ._ r l7Btt(XL AAA a CRITICAL AREA WITH IN
BUFFER- (TOtAC) 8ze93 SO. Fr.
JL •� a 42' II CRITICAL ARE A BUFFER SAKE 11.620 SO. FT.
Q - (rBN FS.g276 S, TAKE tDtWfER IX q Tfs TO
CRITICAL AREA BUFFER 4TVE I(.6'69 SO. FT.
it ryy�' I
-------- M 1 .Z+ry=. /�(k q( A (a. 427 h 2
. I - m. L��7� T WETLAND REFERENCE SURVEYS:
Sm' 1 R' 'may TOM A
54 FT / 111 A / 790 Bzap I ILd34. (R7) IDNc COIR4tt 8AA j (D3LDD57, REC I200404069W02D
UBH�J1Fy , f'•8,7 , SD. FT. Tr29 RECORDED IN VOL 169: PACE 7.73
T U PAA L 1� ( LOT 6 $. rIJ6F 115 n2a L 1 (R2) KING 'COUtl1Y PIAi OF MOODCRFFJC
:TTAA" RECORDED IN -VOL 19z PAGE 87
( nD p P S5 I (ITS) KING lbUN1Y PLAT OF MATES AT HIDDEN GREEX
nal •b. La' no W RECORDED IN VOL 164 PAGE W
LOTS ./A� 4� �a ; Fb >� WeW2rF BJ' �� �' (R4) KING CDUHIY BAA I LD2L0035. REC. /2DO20912900003
• RECORDm IN VOL 155, PAGE 46
BD ABLE
P FE1 CF
E RR' E a ^ ®e I *� �`/� TTJD < 1 CURVE T
PROPEREr LIE . SD. FT. 9 "If « «LOT 4 . Ct RaO�m- A 73171%r Arc-63J2-
aX PARE. I y� r6 f 'd 711 np2 ny49� - sm W
E1DT4.00SD . R I 1Sip* I w RG/ SIL FT. , t
1r n��y�f/ntt Jnm p�' �a 1
4t8 / FTNN(7ccc'"-Fr`/U/ I
n]e 3. , SIDauF SBs•
16
41e gro om• I 41 VIED y�TAKE/' n45 T 3 Z'
414 Fla' e,, n ,<T .a EXHIBIT 4
Swe r mgn n48
�t 5624 COOCREEK 11
FW
01
�i GLYG / At�� �. LOT 2
op 3MV
L M Pa n5o I 1E-41 .pF. > ' j( >zSL n 2, Q .1
g.1R"
rl �ga\� Rw 5ffia2rF 6B2f. f (y1 oiy INSTRUfAETR USED:GEODIME7Ht BDO AND/OR TREMBLE 5603lM200+
6�M1 JO' I 9�4 M'£TIANDsg3 F 'CamC,p�� o e A aP n pL, INDIXIMEMONC DATVFRSE r/IXCFFEDEfHG RE/O(RRE7NEM5. F WAr-
7.23 NORTH, RS FAST.OW.if.
Lofr P lI E IFRCIERrr a FT. '* \3550
r R g �T wCramer Northwest Inc. a p
!*9z96DT a�. o' IUTRA �CsD. FrSM 1 �y ` Suryoyors Planners k Engineers
gmr EaR , w - Fet'12zrx BYB7 - _j 445 N. CENTRAL, STE too. KEHT,'WA 98037
u ' D $ - FroLEE' '- L+l lgvg "./9 253 2-4880 loco or 1 (800 251-0184 to0 free
i `oC ♦ o
CLL ir.8aTrx E or I II FALt3 {(? 1 F. a A j ^ ) ( •-
I 1 Q.Ad mww - • (Z53)852-4955. (tox), E-MAIL:_. enl®cromemrr.00m ..
RIES
e
M Cr IO.Tr u 7ORT7 m CE a' SCAC-40 t�
JOB N0. 2007-088 �go
s E Br my- I ` 1 ar r. Bc OYCLIIAIED HBrAH 1 p G Q �� I er 6=TlW OF FSAF 6 ar [ DRAWN ITT -RAH. D%,jy j9
r u+E ' ES7AT13ATf�L14TC9t�C rAr PARa -r •. rS�� t�s t' :, t ar i Or PR vmy tDa®i
HZ f44 Fa rz�D-am :` �'c3 s� TAr PA2a r�o-a�0 t � DATE tO/29/T008 SHEET 3 OF 3
PARIEcr NEE• PLED BVJMm r LM ADA-MENr//Q%E4TM Tu, .Aw Iz a99[.-4 9t107//PREY. PIOP. (W Dd �. McAo-J9 2otn //►LOT(EER e'.al OtL Jg. 2DD8. 9%'II C\TWA7DM1P,vi�\•be,lzaOT•-o0fl°j:s
lrlil aUM'L Bw6
r�
v ' ism
�. ac uiv
it ra w�zvu 4Mnrqu,rN
. `u"�W Nryu Yry
fiuil10ro1Trrnn
+M •Y•�a
'� •N M •ern. I•��Ir • n
sua
I ] !
I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I 1
I I
I i
I I
I I
I i
I ,
I I
1
1 � I
V-B 5101 Wi
WU 4dV)5ANV1 31,MV5
IIVDS 01 10N
IN 'JAV 11VAI14
Lo
H "y
m
f�l
w w
---------------------------------- ^ z�• �, "`=�
``1 � � I � I r 1 , � �+I • I
I I I I ..{.,...,ram' = ram-• __ I I
1
L__--I
------------------------- 1
---------------- 7 ------------I
CHELAN CREEK DESIGN STANDARDS
I. Site Design.
Site Design objectives and standards are intended to minimize modifications to topography, preserve existing vegetation
whenever possible, minimize the creation of impervious surfaces, and make appropriate provisions for vehicular and
pedestrian circulation within the Chelan Creek PUD Development.
A. Residential Connections and Circulation.
1. Design Objective. Create a road system that is pedestrian -friendly, contains traffic calming techniques, and
minimizes the presence of the automobile.
a. Standards.
(1) Signage. All public roads shall have postings that clearly identify where on -street parking is prohibited. The
developer shall be responsible to install "no parking" signs and the homeowner's association shall have the
responsibility to maintain and replace the "no parking" signs.
B. Sidewalks, Pathways, and Pedestrian Entry Easements.
1. Design Objective. Create a network of sidewalks and other paths throughout the neighborhood to reduce the
reliance on the automobile and provide opportunities for interaction and activity.
a. Standards.
(1) Pedestrian Connections. A sidewalk or pathway system shall be provided throughput the development. The
sidewalk or pathway system may disconnect from the road, provided the sidewalk/pathway continues in a logical
route throughout the residential development.
(2) Pathway.
(a) A pathway shall be constructed of a porous materials such as porous paving stones, crushed gravel with
soil stabilizers, and paving blocks with planted joints, and shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide.
(b) In areas where pathways cross streets, parking will be eliminated to reduce crossing distance and ensure
safe crossing.
(3) Pedestrian Entry Easement.
(a) A pedestrian entry easement shall be provided to all homes that do not front on the Native Growth
Protection Easement (i.e., Lot 16). See Figure 1.
(b) Pedestrian entry easements shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide with a minimum 5-foot sidewalk.
FIGURE 1— Pedestrian Easement
(4) Transit Standards. Transit and school bus stops shall be identified and coordinated with the local transit
agency and/or school district.
C. Garage.
1. Design Objective. Minimize the visual impacts of the garage through the use of recessed garage doors (front
1
loaded), and the emphasis of the porch and front door.
a. Standards.
(1) On -Site Garage.
(a) On -site garages shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the building facade on which the garage is
located.
(2) Garage Design.
(a) All garages shall follow an architectural style similar to the homes.
(b) If sides are visible from streets, lanes, sidewalks, pathways, trails, or other homes, architectural details
shall be incorporated in the design to minimize the impacts of the facade.
(c) All garages shall be located in an area to minimize the presence of the automobile.
(3) Carports. Carports are prohibited.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Avoid garages doors at the end of view corridors.
(2) All garages should be located in an area to minimize the presence of the automobile.
(3) Lots that take access directly from a neighborhood street shall require a layout that lessens the visual impact of
the garage doors.
(4) Garages shall not be the dominant visual element in any development.
D. Parking Requirements.
1. Design Objective. Provide adequate parking for each unit.
a. Standards.
(1) Driveways.
(a) The width of the driveway curb cut shall not exceed 10 feet for single lane and 18 feet for double lane.
E. Utility Placement.
1. Design Objective. Minimize the impact of utility locations.
a. Standards.
(1) Utility boxes shall be placed away from public gathering spaces and shall be screened with landscaping or
berms.
b. Guidelines.
(1) If possible, group utility boxes together.
(2) Allow space for landscape and utility access.
H. Architectural Features.
The architectural feature standards are intended to allow for a diverse range of architectural styles, massing, detailing and
color while creating a unified development.
A. Elevations and Models Required.
1. Design Objective. To provide a diverse streetscape and a variety of floor plans, home size, and character. See
Figure 2:
a. Standards.
(1)Models are defined as having significant variations in the floor plans, which allows for variety in the massing
of the home.
2
(2) No more than two of the same model and elevation shall be built on the same block frontage.
(3) The same model and elevation shall not be built next to each other.
(4) To differentiate the same models and elevations, different colors shall be used.
(5) Each model shall have at least two architectural styles and a variety of color schemes.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Neighborhoods shall have a variety of home size and character.
FIGURE 2 — Variety of Models and Elevations
B. Massing and Composition.
1. Design Objective. To reflect a clear hierarchy of forms and massing with expression of dominant and secondary
forms.
a. Standards.
(1) Primary building forms shall be the dominating form while secondary formal elements shall include porches,
principal dormers, or other significant features. See Figure 3.
FIGURE 3 — Massing Examples
C. Building Articulation.
1. Design Objective. To avoid monotonous repetition of elevations along public areas and provide pedestrian scale
elements to the streetscape. See Figure 4.
a. Standards.
(1) The primary building elevation oriented toward the street, access easement or NGPE shall have at least one
articulation or change in plane.
(2) Primary articulations shall be a minimum of 24 inches.
(3) A minimum of at least one side articulation shall occur for side or rear elevations facing streets or public
spaces.
(4) Building elevations facing public spaces shall have a minimum articulation of 12 inches.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Articulation may be the connection of an open porch to the building, a dormer facing the street, or a well-
defined entry element.
FIGURE 4 — Building Articulation Examples
D. Building Placement.
1. Design Objective. Orient homes toward the public realm. Buildings shall be designed to integrate with activities
along the street frontage and the NGPE. See Figure 5.
FIGURE 5 — Homes Oriented Toward the Public Realm
fR.in-heP flricni'ed
Toward the Pbtiiic Realm
7�ft�n 3 tom, a
r I f
a. Standards.
(1) Each home shall have a covered porch or main entry oriented toward the public realm in the respective front
yard (i.e., Lots 1 and 2 towards Chelan PI NE; Lots 3 and 4 towards the NGPE (west); Lots 5 through 12 towards
the NGPE (east); Lot 13 towards the NGPE (south); Lots 14 and 15 towards Tract A (south); and Lot 16 towards
the abutting property to the west.)
(2) Windows on a closed side of a unit shall not directly face a neighbor's window.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Architectural Elements. Homes should be sited in a logical way to maximize usable space while providing
natural and architectural elements at key locations.
(2) Open and Closed Building Sides. Side yards are important in the creation of private open space, particularly
in homes on small lots. Care shall be taken to design homes with an open side and a closed side as appropriate.
Window placement is an essential component to achieving this relationship. The open side is the side that is either
facing a public street, access easement, or the NGPE. This elevation should have more windows and detailing.
See Figures 6 and 7.
4
FIGURE 6 — Open and Closed Sides
Mi���mm �wMw..Ks wlmlma ara�n
'al�� N.�AI J, uF ILTNr �y� MINbIfJ.otCIF
cmml Rln�l?I�vnuo� finrn slanEleriinon
FIGURE 7 — Closed and Primary Window Locations
NU lbrtl,.m lXror .,r G.in ARC -
1
'flo<cd Slde Tumnnm, f)nm 91de e1e'vnllnl, .
E. Materials.
1. Design Objective. Require a variety of materials appropriate to the architectural character of the home
a. Standards. Where more than one material is used, the following techniques shall be used:
(1) Vertical Changes. Changes in materials in a vertical wall, such as from brick to wood, shall wrap the comers
no less than 24 inches. The material change shall occur at an internal comer or a logical transition such as aligning
with a window edge or chimney. Material transition shall not occur at an exterior comer. See Figure 8.
(2) Horizontal Changes. Transition in material on a wall surface, such as shingle to lap siding, will be required to
have a material separation, such as a trim band board. See Figure 9.
(3) Acceptable Exterior Wall Material. Wood, cement fiberboard, stucco, standard -sized brick (3-1/2 x 7-1/2
inches or 3-5/8 x 7-5/8 inches), and stone may be used. Simulated stone, wood, stone, or brick may be used to
detail homes.
(4) Trim. Trim may be wood, cement fiberboard, stucco, or stone materials. Trim is required around all doors
and windows. The trim must be 3-1/2 inches minimum and be used on all elevations.
FIGURE 8 / FIGURE 9-- Vertical /Horizontal Material Changes
t �,rr.�er5`i9.. I19I !
B :Pi 1 ". '-� 61711ECi
F. Colors.
1. Design Objective. Reduce the monotony of color and tone to create a more diverse palette.
a. Standards.
(1) Provide multiple colors on buildings to reflect material changes and individuality of the residence.
(a) Muted deeper tones, as opposed to vibrant primary colors, shall be the dominant colors.
(b) Although grey and beige are not excluded, the use of these colors shall not be the dominant color used on
homes or other structures within the development.
(c) Color palettes for all new structures, coded to the home elevations; shall be submitted for approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager along with the Final PUD application.
b. Guidelines.
(1) A diversity of color should be used on homes, as compared with monotonous shades of beige and grey,
throughout the plat.
G. Roofs.
1. Design Objective. Provide a variety of roof forms and profiles that add character and relief to the streetscape
a. Standards.
(1) Primary Roof Pitch. Primary roof pitches shall be a minimum of 6:12.
(2) Gable Forms. See Figure 10.
(a) Roof pitches for gable forms on the public sides of the buildings shall be a minimum of 8:12.
(b) Exit access for a third floor must face a public right-of-way for emergency access.
(3) Roof Overhangs. Roof overhangs shall be a minimum of 12 inches (excluding gutter) and a maximum of 24
inches, including gutter, downspouts, and any other ornamental features. See Figure 11.
(4) Roof Material. Roof material shall be fire retardant, such as asphalt shingle or metal.
(5) Roof Color. A variety of roof colors shall be used within the development.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Avoid bright color, reflective roofing material.
(2) Gravel and red tile roofs are discouraged.
(3) Overhangs and eaves should be detailed and proportioned to complement the architectural style of the home.
FIGURE 10 — Roof Forms / FIGURE 11— Minimum Roof Overhang
' l;nble 8:.l2Miuimum
Vet � �, � I nnraYy'J2Unt
?;� '� �i ° a�r'� Pitch G372 a3iuiinum
pj 1 ,..Y�- : 5
H. Entrances to Homes.
1. Design Objective. Design entrances that become a focal point of the homes and allow space for social interaction.
a. Standards.
(1) Porches or stoops are required on all homes.
(2) Stoops and porches shall be raised above the grade except where accessibility (ADA) is a priority. An
accessible route may also be taken from a front driveway.
(3) All porches and stoops must take access from and face a street, access easement or the NGPE.
-(4) Porch and stoop sizes shall be:
(a) Stoops. See Figure 12.
Minimum Width: 4 feet
Minimum Depth: 4 feet
Minimum Height: 12 inches" above grade
(b) Porches (Minimum 60 square feet)
Minimum Width: 10 feet
Minimum Depth: 6 feet
Minimum Height: 12 inches above grade
b. Guidelines.
(1) Where a home is located on a comer lot, i.e., at the intersection of two roads or the intersection of a road and
common open space, a wrapped porch is preferred to reduce the perceived scale of the house and engage the street
or open space on both sides.
FIGURE 12 — Minimum Stoop Dimensions
h�mae
B Min:Min on 12
�'itimB
Atiar:tiintle
A' Min
Min.
Oilnim"m ffioop Din—lonn Min. ft��ftr�EE -
Auximbi<Paxh
A f
Giinlimmr la°
t r Abn.<on,an
N y
Min. `t
.. — Min. rya{. ii
rb'Min. _
—
MlMmnriYinehDinim.,fmr ".. - ....--••' ... '
I. Doors.
1. Design Objective. Use front doors that are integral to the character of the homes. See Figure 13.
a. Standards.
(1) Front doors shall face the public realm (i.e., Lots I and 2 towards Chelan PI NE; Lots 3 and 4 towards the
NGPE (west); Lots 5 through 12 towards the NGPE (east); Lot 13 towards the NGPE (south); Lots 14 and 15
towards Tract A (south); and Lot 16 towards the abutting property to the west).
(2) Doors shall be made of wood, fiberglass, or metal.
(3) Front doors shall be paneled or have inset windows.
(4) Sliding glass doors are not permitted along frontage elevation or an elevation facing a pedestrian easement.
(5) Four -inch minimum head and jamb trim is required around all doors.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Front doors should be a focal point in small lot pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods and be in scale with the
home.
(2) Oversized doors should be avoided on cottage -style homes.
FIGURE 13 —Doors
J. Primary Windows.
1. Design Objective. Use windows that are integral to the character of the homes. See Figure 14.
a. Standards.
(1) Primary windows shall be proportioned vertically rather than horizontally. See 15.
(2) Windows are required to have a trim on all four sides.
(3) Trim must be appropriate to the architectural character of the home and be a minimum of 3-1/2 inches wide.
(4) Vertical windows may be combined together to create a larger window area.
FIGURE 14— Acceptable Windows
b. Guidelines.
(1) Divided light windows are encouraged. They must either be true divided light or have properly proportioned
mullions applied to the window. Individual panes must be vertically proportioned or square.
FIGURE 15 — Primary Window Example
7 8
K. Chimneys.
1. Design Objective. When used, design chimneys that reflect the architectural style of the homes.
a. Standards.
(1) Chimneys above the roof shall be at least 20 inches x 24 inches as measured in the plan.
(2) Wood -framed chimney enclosures are permitted; however metal termination caps shall not be left exposed.
These tops shall be shroud in a metal chimney surround.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Chimney form and shape should reflect the proportions of masonry tradition. Skinny long chimneys out of
concert with the house proportions or not naturally anchored into the roof forms and walls are unacceptable.
(2) Overly stylistic chimneys are discouraged. Chimney shape and profile should appropriately reflect the stylistic
direction of the rest of the house.
L. Columns, Trim, and Corner Boards.
1. Design Objective. Design columns, trim work, and corner boards to add visual detail to the house.
a. Standards.
(1) Columns. See Figure 16.
(a) Character columns shall be round, fluted, or strongly related to the home's architectural style.
(b) Exposed 4 x 4 and 6 x 6-inch posts are prohibited.
(2) Corners. See Figure 17.
(a) Use metal comer clips or comer boards at comers where siding is used. Corner boards shall be a minimum of
2-1/2 inches in width.
(b) Corner boards shall be painted or color stained to match the main massing colors of the residence.
FIGURE 16 — Corner Board FIGURE 17 — Columns
Cmnar noard
/may
4 TO
�� ..
Carper award A<ccpinblc Cnlmm� itnnr;eptnblaColumm
b. Guidelines.
(1) Columns, trim, and corner boards should reflect the architectural character of the home.
M. Gutters and Downspouts.
1. Design Objective. Integrate the gutters and downspouts into the home's color scheme.
a. Standards.
(1) Gutters shall be painted or of an integral color to closely match the trim color.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Gutters and downspouts should reflect the architectural character of the home.
N. Architecture Detail and Features.
1. Design Objective. Establish a desirable human scale next to pedestrian routes by the use of shutters, knee braces,
flower boxes, and columns. See Figure 18.
a. Standards.
(1) At least one of the following features shall be used:
(a) Shutters
(b) Flower Boxes
(c) Knee Braces
(d) Columns
(2) Shutters, flower boxes, and ornamental knee braces shall follow the home's architectural style.
(3) Shutters shall be proportioned to the window size to simulate the ability to cover them.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Give special care in the character, detail, and finish of human scale architectural details.
(2) Use a detail that is appropriate to the architectural character of the home.
FIGURE 18 — Architectural Details and Features
�20 1:
O. Mail and Newspaper Boxes.
1. Design Objective. Place and design mailboxes to best serve the neighborhood and reflect the character of the
community.
a. Standards.
(1) All mailboxes shall be clustered and lockable consistent with USPS standards. Clustered mailboxes shall be
architecturally enhanced with materials and details typical of the homes architecture and carefully placed to not
adversely affect the privacy of residents and serve the needs of the U.S. Postal Service. See Figure 19.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Mailbox locations should be easily accessible to each resident and architecturally compatible with the home.
FIGURE 19 — Mailbox Design
9 1 10
P. Hot Tubs and Mechanical Equipment.
1. Design Objective. Minimize the impacts of hot tubs and pool equipment on surrounding properties.
a. Standards.
(1) Hot tubs and pools shall be located only in back yards.
(2) Pools and spas shall be designed to minimize sight and sound impacts to adjoining property.
(3) Pool heaters and pumps shall be screened from view and sound insulated.
(4) Pool equipment must comply with codes regarding fencing and screening.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Hot tub and mechanical equipment should be placed as to not negatively impact neighbors.
Q. Accessory Structures.
1. Design Objective. Minimize the impacts of accessory structures.
a. Standards.
(1) No more than one accessory structure shall be permitted per lot and shall be architecturally consistent with the
principal structure.
(2) Greenhouses, sheds, and other accessory structures shall not exceed 12 feet
to top of roof in height or more than 150 square feet in size.
(3) They shall be no closer than 3 feet from the interior side or rear property line.
(4) Overhangs and roof drainage may not encroach over property lines.
(5) Accessory structures are not allowed in front yards.
(6) Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) shall be prohibited.
b. Guidelines.
(1) Avoid locating accessory structures in areas visible from the street.
III. Landscape Elements.
This landscape Section is essential toward enhancing the character of the Chelan Creek PUD development. Landscaping is
an important aspect of the creation of space and scale when using small lots. In conjunction with architecture, landscape
design enables builders to create a transition between homes and the street while mitigating the impact of denser housing.
A. Fences and Hedges.
1. Design Objective. The incorporation offences and hedges around a housing unit to define private spaces. See
Figure 20.
a. Standards. Fences and hedges shall not be placed near neighborhood streets in such a way to create a safety or
entering sight distance concern.
FIGURE 18J.17-39 —Front Yard Decorative Fences and Hedges
Ik
11mtit vqN bnlmno tnl F..= erUh. Ls as pc Froni Yanl Hc�l�.p
(1) Front Yard Decorative Fence. If used fences shall be decorative and help to define semi -private areas in the
front of the home. If a split rail fence is required in the front yard, as a condition of approval, secondary front yard
fences shall be prohibited.
(a) The, maximum height shall be 36 inches.
(b) Front yard decorative fences shall be located a minimum of 1 foot from parcel line to allow for planting
between edge of sidewalk or right-of-way and fence.
(c) Front yard decorative fences shall provide a balance of solid surfaces and voids, such as picket or
Kentucky rail fence styles.
(d) Front yard decorative fences shall be constructed of wood, simulated wood, iron, or masonry. Solid fences
and chain link shall be prohibited.
(2) Hedges. If used, hedges shall be continuous along the front and side property line, and the street frontage. If a
split rail fence is required in the front yard, as a condition of approval, hedges shall be prohibited in the front yard.
(a) The maximum height of a hedge in a front yard shall be 36 inches.
(b) The maximum height of a hedge for the first 15 feet of the front yards or yards abutting Chelan Ave NE
shall be 36 inches. The maximum height for the remaining portions of the yards shall be 6 feet.
(c) Evergreen native plant material is preferred for year-round coverage.
(3) Privacy Fencing. If a split rail fence is required in the front yard, as a condition of approval, privacy fencing
shall be prohibited in the front yard. If used, privacy fencing shall be in charactermith the home's architecture.
See Figure 21.
FIGURE 21—Public Side of Fence
I07
(a) Privacy fencing in a front yard shall not be permitted.
(b) For lots where the privacy fencing would be placed facing the street or access lane (Except for Duvall Ave
NE), the maximum height of the first 15 feet of the fencing as measured from the front fagade, shall be 36
inches. The maximum height of the remainder of the privacy fencing shall be 6 feet.
(c) For lots where the privacy fencing would be placed facing Duvall Ave NE the maximum height of the
fencing shall be 6 feet.
(d) Privacy fencing adjacent to a public space shall be setback a minimum of 1 foot from the property line.
(e) Privacy fencing shall be constructed of wood, simulated wood, iron, or masonry. Chain link fencing shall
not be permitted.
IV. Lighting.
The purpose of this Section is to offer design standards for lighting that will enhance visibility and security while
accenting key architectural elements and landscape features.
A. Exterior Lighting.
1. Design Objective. Design lighting that provides safety and character, and aesthetic benefits for the neighborhood.
a. Standards.
(1) The lighting for neighborhood streets and pedestrian pathway shall be low intensity and shall be from the
same family of fixtures.
(2) All exterior lighting shall be prevented from projecting light upward either by placement beneath building
eaves or by an integral shield of the ftxture's interiors as recommended by the manufacturer.
(3) Street lighting on neighborhood streets and access lanes within the boundary of a small lot neighborhood
development shall be required.
(a) All street lighting fixtures shall be a maximum height of 16 feet.
(4) Sidewalks and pathways not otherwise illuminated by street lighting shall be lit with ornamental lighting
fixtures subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. All pedestrian lighting fixtures shall be a
maximum height of 12 feet.
(5) Lighting shall be limited to illumination of surfaces intended for pedestrians, vehicles, or key architectural
features.
b. Guidelines.
(1) The character of the lighting fixtures shall be appropriate for the architecture and to a human scale.
(2) Spill -over lighting should be avoided. This includes light that is broadcast beyond the intended area; for
example, street lights that illuminate residential windows or residential flood lights that illuminate beyond the lot
boundary.
(3) Apply minimal lighting where possible to accomplish desired purpose. The selection of lights should be of
appropriate height and light direction to minimize conflicts with neighbors.
(4) Avoid lighting large areas with a single source.
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al #: ,
Submitting Data: Public Works Department
For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems Division
November 2, 2009
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager
(extension 7471)
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Correspondence..
Renton Gateway Center Utilities — Funding Source
Ordinance .............
Resolution............ X
Old Business........
New Business....... X
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Study Sessions......
Resolution
Information.........
Loan Amortization Table
Recommended Action:
Approvals:
Refer to the Finance Committee
Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept...... X
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... $475,000 Transfer/Amendment....... $475,000
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget $475,000 City Share Total Project.. $475,000
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Airport needs a loan of $475,000 to the Capital Fund 422 from the city utilities in order to provide
pad -ready improvements for the leased area located at 750 West Perimeter Road (750 site). The 750
site is also the area that was recently leased to the Renton Gateway Center, LLC, for the construction of
a hangar building.
As part of the lease agreement with the Renton Gateway Center, LLC, the city committed to making the
site "pad -ready." Specifically, the city committed to the installation of water, power, gas and
undergrounding the existing phone lines.
The loan from city utilities would be $240,000 from the Water Utility Fund 405 balance and $235,000
from the Surface Water Utility Fund 407 balance. The life of the loan will be five years, and the
estimated interest cost will be $51,000 over the five year period of the loan based on a 3.5 percent
interest rate. The annual loan repayments from the Airport would be $105,204. An amortization table
is provided as an attachment to the agenda bill.
Based on the Airport cash flow model and the projected rent increases that are applicable to eight
airport tenants in 2010, plus the additional revenue earned from the lease of the 750 site to the
Renton Gateway Center, LLC, repayment of the loan within five years is not anticipated to cause a
financial hardship for the Airport budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution for the interfund loan of $240,000 from the Water Utility Fund 405 balance and
$235,000 from the Surface Water Utility Fund 407 balance, for a total loan amount of $475,000 to the
Airport Capital Fund 422 for utility improvements to the 750 building site.
H:\file Sys\AIR - Airport, Transportation Services Division\03 Projects\01 Tasks\Agenda Bills\750 Building Site Utility Improvements\Ag bill utilities loan -RGC
site.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D ^City ofO 'ER
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 2, 2009
TO: Randy Corman, Council President
d Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: l,Aenis Law, Mayor
a
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman;'A ministrator
STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager (extension 7471)
SUBJECT: Renton Gateway Center Utilities — Funding Source
ISSUE:
Should Council approve the resolution for the interfund loan of $240,000 from the Water Utility
Fund 405 balance and $235,000 from the Surface Water Utility Fund 407 balance for a total
loan amount of $475,000 to the Airport Capital Fund 422 for utility improvements to the leased
area located at 750 West Perimeter Road (750 site)?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution for the interfund loan of $240,000 from the Water Utility Fund 405
balance and $235,000 from the Surface Water Utility Fund 407 balance, for a total loan amount
of $475,000 to the Airport Capital Fund 422 for utility improvements to the 750 building site.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The Airport needs a loan of $475,000 to the Capital Fund 422 from the city utilities in order to
provide pad -ready improvements for the leased area located at 750 West Perimeter Road
(750 site). The 750 site is also the area that was recently leased to the Renton Gateway
Center, LLC, for the construction of a hangar building.
As part of the lease agreement with the Renton Gateway Center, LLC, the city committed to
making the site "pad -ready." Specifically, the city committed to the installation of water,
power, gas and undergrounding the existing phone lines.
The loan from the city utilities would be $240,000 from the Water Utility Fund 405 balance and
$235,000 from the Surface Water Utility Fund 407 balance. The life of the loan will be five
years and the estimated interest cost will be $51,000 over the, five year period of the loan
Randy Corman, Council President
Member of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 2
November 2, 2009
based on a 3.5 percent interest rate. The annual loan repayments from the Airport would be
$105,204. An amortization table is provided as an attachment to the agenda bill.
Based on the Airport cash flow model and the projected rent increases that are applicable to .
eight airport tenants in 2010, plus the additional revenue earned from the lease of the 750 site
to the Renton Gateway Center, LLC, repayment of the loan within five years is not anticipated
to cause a financial hardship for the Airport budget.
cc: Peter Hahn, Deputy Public Works Administrator —Transportation
Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager
Men Wang, FIS Administrator
Lys Hornsby, Director, Utility Systems
Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Engineering Supervisor
Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor
JoAnn Wykpisz, Principal Financial and Administrative Analyst
Teresa Phelan, Utilities Administrative Secretary
Connie Brundage, Transportation Administrative Secretary
Susan Campbell-Hehr/Carolyn Currie, Airport Secretary
h:\file sys\air - airport, transportation services division\03 projects\01 tasks\agenda bills\750 building site utility improvements\issue paper
utilities loan for utilities -rgc site.doc
1 475,000
105,204
2 386,421
105,204
3 294,742
105,204
4 199,855
105,204
5 101,646
105,204
105,204
5
51,018
105,204
88,579
16,625
386,421
- 105,204
91,679
13,525
294,742
105,204
94,888
10,316
199,855
105,204
98,209
6,995
101,646
105,204
101,646
3,558
-
C
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON GRANTING AUTHORITY
FOR AN INTERFUND LOAN TO FUND 422, RENTON GATEWAY CENTER UTILITIES,
FOR 7S0 WEST PERIMETER ROAD UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS.
WHEREAS, RCW 43.09.200 provides that the State Auditor shall formulate, prescribe,
and install a system of accounting and reporting for all local governments; and
WHEREAS, such a system has been created and is known as the Budgeting, Accounting
and Reporting System (BARS); and
WHEREAS, the BARS manual at Part 3, Chapter 4, Section A, provides guidelines for
- ----- -loans between City funds; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3811 of the City of Renton Washington granted authority for
temporary loans between City funds; and
WHEREAS, Fund 422, Renton Gateway Center Utilities, is in need of a temporary loan of
four hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($475,000) from City Utilities in order to provide
pad -ready improvements for the leased area located at 750 West Perimeter Road (750 site).
The 750 site is the area that was recently leased to the Renton Gateway Center, LLC for the
construction of a hangar building;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
1
RESOLUTION NO.
SECTION 11. An interfund loan of two hundred forty thousand dollars ($240,000) from
the Water Utility, Fund 405, and an interfund loan of two hundred thirty-five thousand dollars
($235,000) from the Surface Water Utility, Fund 407, for a total loan amount of four hundred
seventy-five thousand dollars ($475,000) are authorized for Fund 422 for utility improvements
to the 750 site. The life of the loan will be five (5) years, and the estimated interest will be fifty-
one. thousand dollars ($51,000) over the five (5) year period of the loan. The annual loan
repayments from the Airport will be one :hundred five thousand two hundred four dollars
($105,204).
SECTION III. This Resolution shall be effective upon its passage and approval.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2009.
Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of .2009.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1427:10/22/09:scr
2
Denis Law, Mayor
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AI #: ,
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of: November 2, 2009
Dept/Div/Board.. Public Works/Utility Systems
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Lys Hornsby (ext. 7239)
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Subject:
2010 Utility Revenue Requirements, Rates and
Correspondence..
Capital Improvement Program
Ordinance ............. X
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Study Sessions......
Solid Waste Rates Ordinance
Information.........
Piped Utility Rates Ordinance
Summary of Budget Offer and Rates 2010
Piped Utility CIP Tables (3)
Piped Utility CIP Map
Recommended Action:
Approvals:
Refer to Utilities Committee
Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept...... X
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated..... Water $659,950
Wastewater $209,079
Solid Waste $167,000
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Using the rate model, staff determined the utility revenue requirements for 2010. The primary factors
that are driving the need for a revenue increase include meeting the financial polices — covering debt,
system reinvestment, reserves and rate stabilization, and maintaining sustainable fund balances. The
recommended revenue increases for 2010 are four percent for water, four percent for wastewater, no
increase for surface water with the associated reduced Capital Improvement Program, and four percent
on residential service for solid waste.
Implementing the proposed 2010 rates and reduced Capital Improvement Program will allow the
utilities to provide minimum maintenance, compliance with minimum regulatory requirements and
meet minimum financial policies and fund balances.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the proposed 2010 revenue increases of four (4) percent for water, four (4) percent for
wastewater, no increase for surface water with the associated reduced Capital Improvement Program,
and four (4) percent on residential service for solid waste, and direct staff to prepare ordinances
allowing the City to charge the 2010 utility rates beginning January 1, 2010.
Maintain the current service level (2 carts, weekly pickup) and group billing system for multi -family
carts, provide a proportionate residential subsidy to the rate, and set the 2010 multi -family cart rate at
$27.04 (35 gallon cart).
H:\File Sys\USA - Utility Systems Division Administration\USA-03 - CORRESPONDENCE\USA-03 - 0001 Utility Director's Correspondence\2010
Rates Agenda Bill.doc\LHHtp
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT r * 00 � -
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 15, 2009
TO: Randy Corman, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA: �, Denis Law, Mayor
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman Atnistrator
STAFF CONTACT: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director (ext. 7239)
SUBJECT: 2010 Utility Revenue Requirements, Rates and Capital
Improvement Program
ISSUE:
Should Council approve the proposed 2010 revenue increases for city utilities as follows:
four percent for water, four percent for wastewater, no increase for surface water with
the associated reduced Capital Improvement Program, and four percent on residential
service for solid waste?
RECOMMENDATION:
• Approve the proposed 2010 revenue increases of four percent for water,
four percent for wastewater, no increase for surface water with the associated
reduced Capital Improvement Program, and four percent on residential service
for solid waste.
• Direct staff to prepare ordinances allowing the city to charge the 2010 utility
rates beginning January 1, 2010.
• Maintain the current service level (2 carts, weekly pickup) and group billing
system for multi -family carts, provide a proportionate residential subsidy to the
rate, and set the 2010 multi -family cart rate at $27.04 (35 gallon cart).
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Rates and Revenue Requirements
Using the rate models, staff determined the utility revenue requirements for 2010. The
primary factors driving the need for a revenue increase in water and wastewater include
Mr. Corman, Council President
October 15, 2009
Page 2 of 3
meeting the financial polices — covering debt, system reinvestment, reserves and rate
stabilization, and maintaining a sustainable fund balance. For wastewater, there was
also a significant increase in the indirect charge that is paid to the general fund. For
solid waste, increased revenue is needed to begin to build up the fund balance to meet
the operations reserve target and cover a significant increase in the indirect charge paid
to the general fund. Solid Waste revenue for 2009 is coming in lower than projected
causing a depletion of fund balance. A summary of the proposed 2010 revenue
requirements and the reduced Capital Improvement Program is shown in the table
below:
Utility
2010 $ CIP
$ Cut From CIP
$/Month
Average Single-
Family Increase
% Revenue
Increase
Water
$2.96 million
$2.04 million
$0.89
4%
Wastewater
$2.675 million
$700,000
$0.65
4%
Surface Water
$3.6 million
$250,000
$0
0
Solid Waste
NA
NA
$0.74
4%
The recommended revenue increases for 2010 are four percent for water, four percent
for wastewater, no increase for surface water, and four percent on residential service
for solid waste. The total proposed 2010 increase on the average monthly single-family
bill for all city utilities is $2.28.
Implementing the recommended new rates still allows the utilities to provide very basic
maintenance of infrastructure and basic utility service while meeting minimum
regulatory requirements, financial policies and fund balances.
The city completed the meetings of the Solid Waste Task Force and provided a briefing
on the Task Force recommendations to Utilities Committee on September 24, 2009. The
Task Force asked the city to consider changing the service level for the multi -family cart
customer class to the current single-family service level and providing individual billing
for solid waste. After discussion with staff, the Utilities Committee directed staff to
proceed with rate modeling using a separate customer class for multi -family carts, and
the current multi -family service level (2 carts, weekly pickup) but applying a
proportionate subsidy similar to what the single-family class receives. The Utilities
Committee also directed staff to maintain the same group billing process due to
increased costs associated with individual billing for solid waste. Rate modeling results
indicated that the 2010 multi -family cart service rate for the 35 gallon cart would be
$ 27.04.
H:\File Sys\USA - Utility Systems Division Administration\USA-03 - CORRESPON DEN CE\USA-03 - 0001 Utility Director's
Correspondence\2010 Rates Issue Paper.doc\LHHtp
Mr. Corman, Council President
October 15, 2009
Page 3 of 3
Capital Improvement Program
The three piped utilities have proposed reduced Capital Improvement Programs (CIP)
for 2010 to reduce the revenue requirements. The water utility proposes to cut $2.04
million resulting in a 2010 CIP of $2.96 million. The wastewater utility proposes cutting
$700,000 resulting in a 2010 CIP of $2.675 million and the surface water utility proposes
cutting $250,000 resulting in a 2010 CIP of $3.6 million. CIP cuts for the water utility
include deferral of work on a new 435 zone reservoir, reduction in the automatic
metering project, main replacements and the WashWise Rebate Program. CIP cuts for
wastewater include deferral of two lift stations — Lake Washington Beach and East
Renton. CIP cuts for surface water include reductions in the Hardie Avenue Underpass
Project and the Wetland Bank. The attached map shows the location of the planned
2010 Capital Improvement Program projects.
CONCLUSION:
Implementing the proposed 2010 rates will allow the utilities to provide minimum basic
maintenance of infrastructure, meet minimum financial policies, and meet minimum
compliance with regulatory requirements. For Solid Waste, increased revenue will help
the utility work toward meeting the fund balance and operations reserve target.
Attachment
cc: JoAnn Wykpisz, PW Prin & Fin Admin Analyst
File
H:\File Sys\USA - Utility Systems Division Administration\USA-03 - CORRESPONDENCE\USA-03 - 0001 Utility Director's
Correspondence\2010 Rates Issue Paper.doc\LHHtp
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 5418 11/10/08
'M
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GARBAGE, OF TITLE VIII (HEALTH &
SANITATION) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF
GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON," RELATED TO YEAR 201049 SERVICES AND
UTILITY RATES FOR ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 8-1-10, Rates for Services, of Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title
VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows:
8-1-10: RATES FOR SERVICES:
The following schedule is hereby adopted as the monthly charges to be paid to the
City for services rendered in each category:
A. Residential Customers:
1. For garbage cans, carts, and/or garbage units:
Every Other Week Garbage & Recycling,
Weekly Yard Waste & Food Scraps
Service Level
201049 Renton
SWU Monthly
Rates
Mini Cart (20 Gallon)
$11.6544-120
35 Gallon Contractor Cart
$19.1549-.41-
45 Gallon Contractor Cart
$24.14224-.24
64 Gallon Contractor Cart
$33.61-3?-32
96 Gallon Contractor Cart
$49.614-7.�
Senior Mini Cart Rate (75% subsidy)/Existing
$2.9121,W
Senior Mini Cart Rate (50% subsidy)
$5.8360
Senior 35 Gallon Cart Rate (50% subsidy)
$9.582-1-
Senior 45 Gallon Cart Rate (50% subsidy)
$12.074-.,64-
Senior 64 Gallon Cart Rate (50% subsidy)
$16.81 16
Senior 96 Gallon Cart Rate (50% subsidy)
$24331.81 _
Extra garbage, up to 15 gallons per unit/per pickup
$3.56422
1
ORDINANCE NO.
Extra yard waste cart rental
1 $1.988
Return Trip Charge per pickup
$54.197
2. Residential customers are allowed to change their garbage service level once
per year without incurring an administrative fee. Each garbage service level
change per year above the once per year allowance will result in an administrative
fee of $25.00. The one-year period shall begin January 1 and shall end December
31 each year.
3. Senior and/or disabled customers who qualified under Section 8-4-31C of this
Title for low-income rates for 75% subsidy prior to May 31, 2008, are eligible for
a $2.9180 fee for 20 Gallon Mini Cart service. For services other than Mini Cart
service, the rate schedule as provided in Section 8-1-1 OA.1. will apply. All senior
and/or disabled customers qualifying under Section 8-4-31 C for low income rates
after May 31, 2008, are eligible for a 50% subsidy of the charges for the service
level selected.
4. Premium Weekly Collection: Single-family residential customers may elect to
have their garbage collected weekly for an additional fee of $19.5519.80 per
month. This fee will be added to the monthly garbage billing as an extra Premium
Service Fee.
5. Miscellaneous Services: The City of Renton offers miscellaneous services at
the following rates:
Services Cost per Pick Up
On -Call Bulky Waste Collection
White Goods, except Refrigerators/Freezers/unit
$620.604-9
Refrigerators/Freezers per unit
$664.9840
Sofas/Chairs per unit
197
Mattresses per unit
$56:3.0287
2
ORDINANCE NO.
B. Commercial Customers:
1. Multi -Family Carts: Customers have the following cart -based services available:
Multi -Family Cart Service Level
2010 SWU
Monthly Rates
Weekly
Commercial
One 20 Gallon Mini Cart
$20.80
One 35 Gallon Garbage Cart
$27.04
One 64 Gallon Contractor Cart
$40.04
Can and
Cart
One 96 Gallon Contractor Cart
$53.04
Extra Cans or Units
$5.87
Weekly Yard Waste Collection Cart
$39.1 l
2.1-. Commercial CartsGarbage : Customers have the following Contractor
cart -based services available:
Commercial Cart Service Level
201009 SWU
Monthly Rates
Weekly
Commercial
Can and
Cart
One 20 Gallon Mini Cart
$32.85
One 35 Gallon Garbage Cart
$36.52
One 64 Gallon Contractor Cart
$46.93
One 96 Gallon Contractor Cart
$57.64
Extra Cans or Units
$5.64
Weekly Yard Waste Collection Cart
$37.61
32. Hydraulically Handled Containers 1 — 8 Yards: The rate for the handling of
hydraulically handled containers approved by the City's contractor and the City
for use by commercial, industrial and multiple -family residence establishments
shall be as follows:
a. Monthly Rates:
Commercial Service Level
201009 SWU
Month l Rates
Commercial
1 Cubic Yard, 1pickup/week
$98.57
Detachable
1 Cubic Yard, 2pickups/week
$185.12
3
ORDINANCE NO.
Container
1 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week
$271.68
(loose)
1 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week
$358.23
1 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week
$444.78
1.5 Cubic Yard, 1pickup/week
$135.12
1.5 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week
$258.23
1.5 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week
$381.34
1.5 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week
$504.45
1.5 Cubic Yard, 5pickups/week
$627.55
2 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week
$170.35
2 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week
$328.68
2 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week
$487.01
2 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week
$645.34
2 Cubic Yard, 5pickups/week
$803.67
3 Cubic Yard, 1pickup/week
$242.38
3 Cubic Yard, 2pickups/week
$472.75
3 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week
$703.12
3 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week
$933.49
3 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week
$1,163.86
4 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week
$314.29
4 Cubic Yard, 2pickups/week
$616.57
4 Cubic Yard, 3pickups/week
$918.86
4 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week
$1,221.13
4 Cubic Yard, 5pickups/week
$1,523.41
6 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week
$456.00
6 Cubic Yard, 2 pickups/week
$899.99
6 Cubic Yard, 3 pickups/week
$1,343.98
6 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week
$1,787.97
6 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week
$2,231.96
8 Cubic Yard, 1 pickup/week
$596.8
8 Cubic Yard, 2pickups/week
$1,181.73
8 Cubic Yard, 3pickups/week
$1,766.58
8 Cubic Yard, 4 pickups/week
$2,351.44
8 Cubic Yard, 5 pickups/week
$2,936.30
Extra loose cubic yard, per pickup
$19.97
Commercial Service Level
201049 SWU
Monthly Rates
Commercial
Detachable
Container
(Compacted)
1 Cubic Yard Compactor
$235.09
1.5 Cubic Yard Compactor
$339.73
12 Cubic Yard Compactor
$436.62
3 Cubic Yard Compactor
$643.03
4 Cubic Yard Compactor
$849.71
ORDINANCE NO.
1 16 Cubic Yard Compactor I $1,262.47
b. Rental Rates: Rental rates for 1 — 8 yard containers will be paid in the monthly
rates.
c. Minimum Pickups: Minimum pickups for containers and compactors between
1 — 8 yards will be once per week.
43. Temporary containers are rented and billings are handled directly by Waste
Management, Inc.
54. Extra Charges:
a. The following extra charges will apply for Commercial Services:
Commercial Extra Service Fees
Commercial Cart Carry out charge if > 50 feet (per time)
$6.70
Additional Roll out fees over 25ft.,
from point of safe truck access/ pickup
$3.71
Unlocking & locking Gates and/or container lids, per pickup
$3.84
Return Trip for containers not available for collection at
regularly scheduled pickup time
$29.51
b. Any extra yardage charges determined by the collection contractor due to
overflowing containers will be charged per yard at the one yard rate listed under
Section 8-1-1OB.2.a.
6-5. Special Services: Whenever special services not contained within this
schedule are required, the rate charged for those special services shall be
negotiated by the customer with the City and the collection contractor.
C. Commercial Roll Off Customers: Commercial Roll Off Customers are those
who have a 10 — 40 Yard container or compactor. These large disposal containers
are lifted and weighed at the disposal facility. Commercial container customers
pay a disposal pickup fee based upon the number of pickups, a weight based fee
G
ORDINANCE NO
and a container rental fee. Compactor customers pay a pickup fee based upon the
number of pickups and a weight based disposal fee.
1. Base Pick Up Fees: The base pick up fees are as follows on a per occurrence
basis:
Commercial Roll Off Rates are Per Pickup
10 Yard Container
$182.97
15 Yard Container
$196.39
20 Yard Container
$201.78
30 Yard Container
$218.76•
40 Yard Container
$234.13
10 Yard Compactor
$208.23
20 Yard Compactor
$225.00
30 Yard Compactor
$241.82
40 Yard Compactor
$256.86
The minimum pickups are twice per month.
2. Rental Rates: The following are rental rates for roll off containers:
Monthly Rental Rates
10 Yard Container
$41.75
15 Yard Container
$59.59
20 Yard Container
$77.41
30 Yard Container
$95.26
40 Yard Container
$117.39
3. Disposal Fees: In addition to the Base Charge per pick up and the monthly
rental fee, the customer must pay weight based disposal fees plus applicable tax.
D. (Rep. by Ord. 4898, 3-19-2001)
E. Classification and Appeal: Service category classifications shall be on the
basis of the type and volume of solid waste and the purpose and type of the
dwelling or facility being served as determined by the Public Works
rel
ORDINANCE NO.
Administrator of the City, or the Administrator's duly authorized representative.
Any person who shall deem their classification improper may appeal to the Solid
Waste Coordinator within forty five (45) days following their classification or
change of classification. After the decision of the Solid Waste Coordinator, if the
party appealing is still aggrieved, then the party may appeal to the Public Works
Administrator, whose decision shall be final.
SECTION II. These rates become effective with billings computed on or after
January 1, 201049.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective January 1, 201099.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of
20098.
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 1 ,
20098.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Denis Law, Mayor
7
ORDINANCE NO.
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1 510:10/27/08:scr
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 4, WATER, AND CHAPTER 5, SEWER OF
TITLE VIII (HEALTH AND SANITATION) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON," TO ALLOW FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO
CURRENT UTILITY RATES.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Subsection 8-4-24A.1, Fire Protection Charge, of Chapter 4,
Water, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows:
1. Fire Protection Charges: The private fire protection charges are hereby fixed
in the following schedule:
Meter
Rate
1 inch
$3-783.93
1 '/2 inch
$4-.2) --4.39
2 inch
$45 435.65
3 inch
$44.3-314.90
4 inch
$4-7-.418.3 5
6 inch
$22$-3426.35
8 inch
$34-.P-35.48
10 inch
$44.0345.79
SECTION II. Subsection 8-4-31 B, Metered Rates, of Chapter 4, Water, of Title
VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Metered Rates:
1
ORDINANCE NO. T
1. The minimum rates for metered water supplied within the City in one month or
fractional period thereof are hereby fixed in the following schedule:
Size of
service
Single-family/duplex,
multi -family,
non-residential
Private irrigation, city
irrigation
3/4"
$
1 1.02S 10.60
$
6.64y
1"
$
22.83$ 21.95
$
1 ] .85yi-1-3
1 1/2"
$
42.18S 40.56
$
20.23$--4445
2"
$
66.1OQ 63.`6
$
30.98$ 2° 79
3"
$
135.83$— ;3
$
65.57$�63-05
4"
$
207.28$ 199.1
$
97.51$9:3
6"
$
404.24$ 399.69
$
184.69E--4q
8"
$
791.28$- 60.85
$
404.13
10"
$ 1.179.47$ '� 411
$
519.72S 499.73
12"
$ 1.716.52$4-1654-5-0
$
750.48$—;2 - _
2. Commodity Rates: Three (3) consumption blocks will be established for
single family and duplex customers. The size of the first block will be less than
500 cubic feet of water consumed per month. The second block will be 500 to
1000 cubic feet of water consumed per month. The third block will be over 1000
cubic feet of water consumed per month. The rates for these three (3) blocks are
as follows:
Less than 500 cubic feet
$4-45J1.59
500 - 1000 cubic feet
$-2 9. 2.13
Over 1000 cubic feet
$22432.69
Customers that are multi -family, non-residential, private irrigation and city irrigation will
pay for consumption at the following rates per one hundred (100) cubic feet.
Multi -family
$4-."2.06
Non-residential
$2- 02.18
Private Irrigation
$3-.-_',,-63.50
City Irrigation
1 $� L45
4
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION III. Subsection 8-4-31C.1, Low Income Seniors, of Chapter 4, Water,
of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows:
l . Low -Income Seniors: A "low-income senior citizen" is defined as a person
sixty one (61) years of age or older who resides in a single-family dwelling that is
separately metered with a city water meter for water usage, either as owner,
purchaser, or renter, and whose total income, including that of his or her spouse or
co -tenant, does not exceed the annual income threshold for low-income rate
eligibility. The annual income threshold for eligibility for low-income rate shall
be adjusted each calendar year, using the Income Guidelines for King County as
provided annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and King County's qualifying income criteria for a senior
citizen/disability property tax exemption. Any household with a disposable
income of thirty percent (30%) or less of the median household income for King
County and qualified for a subsidy prior to May 31, 2008 will be eligible for a
seventy-five percent (75%) rate subsidy. All other households with an annual
disposable income less than King County's maximum qualifying income for a
senior citizen/disability property tax exemption are eligible for a fifty percent
(50%) rate subsidy. For the calendar year 201009 those figures for a seventy five
(75%) rate subsidy shall be seventeen thousand seven ene hundred dollars
($17 10017.700) or less per annum for single occupancy and twenty ni-�n
thousand two€tve hundred and fifty ($20.25019,590) or less per annum for double
occupancy, and thirty jj� si* thousand four hu ($35.000-36,400) or less per
3
ORDINANCE NO.
annum for a fifty percent (50%) rate subsidy. For households with more than two
(2) individuals qualifying under subsection C of this Section, an additional five
thousand dollars ($5,000) is added to the income, threshold per qualifying
individual.
SECTION IV. Subsection 8-4-31 C.4.a, of Chapter 4, Water, of Title VIII (Health
and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows:
a. For a seventy-five percent (75%) rate subsidy:
(1) For those senior citizens and disabled persons who qualified as economically
disadvantaged, and were on this low-income rate prior to August 1, 1994, the rate
for water service relating to such single-family dwelling in which such eligible
person or persons permanently reside is one dollar and thirtyt,=;� —_ cents
($1.301-2-5) per month, limited to nine hundred (900) cubic feet of water per
month. Any water consumption over nine hundred (900) cubic feet per month
shall be charged as provided in subsections A and B of this Section.
(2) For those senior citizens and disabled persons who qualify as economically
disadvantaged, and were on this low-income rate after August 1, 1994 and prior to
May 31, 2008, the rate for water service relating to such single-family dwelling in
which such eligible person or persons permanently reside is two dollars and
seventys .three cents ($2.73a2.6-_3,) per month, limited to nine hundred (900)
cubic feet of water per month. Any water consumption over nine hundred (900)
cubic feet per month shall be charged as provided in subsections A and B of this
Section, except for those persons who qualify under home kidney dialysis. These
L,
ORDINANCE NO.
customers are limited to one thousand seven hundred (1,700) cubic feet of water
per month before any excess is charged as provided in subsections A and B of this
Section.
SECTION V. Subsection 8-5-15A, Disposal Rates, of Chapter 5, Sewer, of Title
VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Disposal Rates: The monthly rates and charges for sewage disposal service
shall be as follows:
1. Single -Family: Sixteen dollars and eighty -twos cents ($16.82).
2. All Other Users: A base charge of two dollars and fifty€�y-four cents
($2.5422:44) plus one dollar and iiMetyeight *'�ree*'�r_e cents ($1.9084) per month for
each one hundred (100) cubic feet of water used, but not less than sixteen dollars
and eighty -twos cents ($16.824-7) per month.
3. Charges For Sewer Service Without City Water: In the event that water
obtained from sources other than purchased from the City is either discharged or
drained into the sewer system, users shall be charged by one of the two (2)
following methods:
a. For single-family residences, sixteen dollars and eighty-two cents
($16.824-7) per month.
b. For other than single-family dwellings, the Public Works Administrator shall
install a water meter into such private water system at cost to property owners,
and the method of billing shall be in compliance with subsection A.2 of this
Section.
W1
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION VI. Subsection 8-5-15D, Additional Charges, of Chapter 5, Sewer, of
Title VIII (Health and, Sanitation) of. Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances
of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Additional Charges: In addition to the foregoing charges specified in this Section, the
following rates shall be charged:
1. A charge of thirty-one dollars and ninety cents ($31.90) per month and a rate
adjustment charge of one dollar and sixteen cents ($1.16) per month payable to King
County Wastewater for each single-family dwelling unit.
2. A charge of thirty-one dollars and ninety cents ($31.90) per month and a rate
adjustment charge of one dollar and sixteen cents ($1.16) per month payable to King
County Wastewater for each seven hundred fifty (750) cubic feet, or any fraction thereof,
of water used for all users other than single-family.
3. Any additional charges hereafter imposed by King County Wastewater under
the "Industrial Cost Recovery" or "Industrial Waste Surcharge" programs
required under the FWPCA (PL 92-500), Section 204, or as same may be
amended hereafter, plus fifteen percent (15%) thereof as an additional charge for
the City's cost of implementing such programs.
4. Senior and/or disabled low income rates:
a. For a seventy-five percent (75%) subsidy:
(1) Senior and/or disabled low-income citizens who qualified under RMC 8-4-
31C for low-income rates prior to August 1, 1994, are eligible for a nonsubsidized
rate of thirty-one dollars and ninety cents ($31.90) per month and a rate
adjustment charge of one dollar and sixteen cents ($1.16) per month payable to
n
King County Wastewater, and a subsidized rate of one dollar forty-five*hii4N,-nine
- -
cents ($1.4549) per month for City sewer charges for a total of thirty-four dollars
and fifty-one{ e cents ($34.51451),
(2) Senior and/or disabled citizens who qualify under RMC 8-4-31 C for low-
income rates after August 1, 1994, and prior to May 31, 2008, are eligible for a
nonsubsidized rate of thirty-one dollars and ninety cents ($31.90) per month and a
rate adjustment charge of one dollar and sixteen cents ($1.16) per month payable
to King County Wastewater, and a subsidized rate of four dollars and twenty-
onefi*,e cents ($4.2195) per month for City sewer charges for a total of thirty-
seven dollars and twenty-seveneleven cents ($37.2744).
b. All other Senior and/or disabled citizens qualifying under RMC 8-4-31 C for
, low-income rates after May 31, 2008, are eligible for a fifty percent (50%)
20099.
subsidy equal to a nonsubsidized rate of thirty-one dollars and ninety cents
($31.90) per month and a rate adjustment charge of one dollar and sixteen cents
($1.16) per month payable to King County Wastewater, and a subsidized rate of
eight dollars and forty-oneai*e cents ($8.4109) per month for City sewer charges
for a total of forty-one dollars and forty-seven€if4een cents ($41.474-5).
SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 201009.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of ,
7
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of
20099.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1515:11 /6/08: scr
E:3
Denis Law, Mayor
UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION
Summary of Budget Offers and Rates -2010
OFFERS
# FTEs Cut
$ CIP Cuts'
$ Operations
Cuts
$ Rate Increase
(Avg Single -Family Bill)
/Revenue
Increase
Water
Minimum
2 FTEs - MSW III, CE II
$2.04 Million
$55,006
$0.89
4%
Wastewater
Alternate
1 FTE - MSW 11 (vacant)
$700,000
$10,000
$0.65
4%
Surface Water
Minimum
0.7FTE - ES II (vacant)
$250,000
$40,000
$0
0%
Solid Waste
Minimum
1 FTE - MSW
N/A
$253,315
$0.74
4%
Utility Admin
Minimum
0.5 OA II (vacant)
N/A
$23,256
N/A
N/A
a. Total Base CIP: Water $5 Million, Wastewater $3.375 Million, Surface Water $ 3.85 Million
b. Clean Sweep is cut under this budget scenario
Total Increase: 2010 Average Single FamilyUtility Bill = $2.28
Options for 2010 Water Utility Capital
Improvement Projects & " lams
Option 1
Baseline Budget
Option 2
Alternative
Option 3
Minimum/Mandatory
2009-2014
2010
2010
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Work order #
Pro ect Name
New Reservoirs and Pump Stations
Highlands 435-reservoirs replacement
Mt. Olivet Reservoir & Pump Station Replacement
196-zone reservoir
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
E900 000
$900.000
E2 500 000
$2,500,000
$2 500 000
$2,500,000
E3 200 000
$2,500,000
$200,000
$500,000
$10 700 000
$9,600,000
,600,000
$700,000
Water Supply Development and Water Quality Improvement
Cascade Water Alliance Wholesale Water Purchase
Well 5A Water Quality Improvement Treatment Facility
55565
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$900,000
$100,000
Emergency Water- Interties
55445
Pipe Oversizing Reimbursement Costs
55100
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$800,000
Water Main Replacement
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$15,500,000
Distribution System Annual Pipe Replacement Program
Transmission Main Replacement Program
Rainier AveS.
55170
55580
$1,000,000
$700,000
$300,000
$1.000,000
$700,000
$300,000
$1,000,000
$200,000
$300,000
$1,000,000
$700,000
$300,000
$1,000,000
$1.000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$8.000,000
$6,300,000
$1,200,000
Various Major Maintenance Projects
Reservoirs Repair, Painting, Cathodic Protection
Emergency Response Water Projects
Telemetry Improvements
Emergency Power to Pump Stations
Water System Security
1-405 Utilities Relocation
55260
55265
55120
55582
55584
55590
E190,000
$50,000
$50.000
$40,000
$50,000
E190,000
$50,000
$50,000
$40,000
$50,000
$190,000
$50,000
$50,000
$40,000
$50,000
$160,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,600
$150,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$240,000
$150,000
$50.000
$40,000
$240,000
$150,000
$50,000
$40,000
$2,300,000
$850,000
$450,000
$1
$170,000
$50,000
0,000
$250,000
Automatic Meter Reading Conversion
55591
$2,000,000
E1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,600,000
$500,000
E500,000
$7,500,000
Various Federal and State Regulatory Compliance Programs
Water System Plan.& Water Reuse Plan Update
Water Conservation/Efficiency/Washwise
Maplewood Water Rights Compliance
Update Emergency Response Plan
Update Hydraulic Model and Fireflow, Map
Water Quality Monitoring and Investigation
Cathodic Protection Monitoring
GIS
55140
55200
55005
55160
55210
55310
55320
55380
$210,000
$70,000
$60,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10.000
$30,000
$10,000
$10,000
$210,000
$70,000
$60,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$30,000
$10,000
$10,000
$170,000
$70,000
$20,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$30.000
$10,000
$10,000
$350,000
$200,006
$60,000
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$10,000
$10,000
$250,000
$100,000
$60,000
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$10,000
$10.000
$160,000
$10,000
$60,000
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$10,000
$10,000
$160,000
$10,000
$60,000
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$10,000
$10,000
$1,760,000
$580,000
$460,000
$120.000
$80.000
$120,000
$240,000
$80,000
$80,000
Year Total
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,960,000
$5,000,000
$5,500,000
$6,500,000
$6,700,000
$38,660,000
Notes:
-
$38,660,000
Under Option 2, the 2010 budget for the Automatic Meter Reading project will be reduced by $1 Million, and the project will be phased over a 5-year period instead of over a 3-year
period.
Under Option 3, the 2010 total budget for the water main replacement projects will be decreased by $500,000. The design ($500,000) for the replacement of the Highlands
reservoirs will be delayed and the WashWise rebate program of $40,000 per year will be deleted.
CBudget/2010Budget/draft-2010-CIP-Options 1-to-3.xls
Project Name
Sanitary Sewer Main Extensions
Oversizing
126th Avenue SE Sewer Extension
Sub Total Main Ext.
Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab
Sanitary Sewer Hyd. Model
Renton Hill Sewer Replacement
West Hill Sewer Replacement
Lk Wa Blvd Sewer Repair (2900 Blk)
Renton CBD Phase IV Sewer Repl.
Earlington Sewer Replacement
Maint. and Upgrade of Hyd Model
Thunder Hill Int Repl/Rehab
Renton Center Sewer Ext Ph II
Telemetry Upgrade
WSDOT 1-405 Relocations
Heather Downs Interceptor Cap. Imp.
Central Renton Int Reline/Upsize
Sub Total Main Repl.
Lift Station Repl/Rehab
Baxter/Misty Cove LS Rehab
Stonegate/Summerwind Repl.
Westview LS Rehab
Falcon Ridge LS Rehab
Lind Av LS Rehab
Denny's Lift Station Rehab
Airport LS Rehab
Misty Cove LS Repl.
Lk. Wash. Beach LS Elim/Rehab
East Renton Lift Station Elimination
Sub Total LS Repl.
Miscelaneous Sewer Projects
2008 Long -Range WW Manag. Plan
2010 thru 2015 Wastewater CIP - Option 5
WO # 2010 Pro 2010 Alt 2010 Min 2011 2012 2013 2014
45330
45491
45140
45475
TBD
TBD
45477
45405
45460
TBD
TBD
45476
45450
45455
TBD
45470
45465
45479
45480
45481
45482
45483
TBD
45492
45484
45065
45415
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
750,000 $750,000 $750,000
25,000 $25,000 $25,000
$200, 000
2015
$0 $0 $0
$1,400,000
$500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
$25,000 $25,000 $25,000
$150, 000
$150, 000
$800,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
$200,000
$1,400,000 $600,000
$25,000 $25,000
$300,000
$1,200, 000
$400, 000
$775,000 $775,000 $775,000 $675,000 $2,475,000 $2,425,000 $2,225,000 $3,125,000
1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,000,000 $900,000
300,000
$500,000
400,000
$100,000 $600,000
$2,600,000
$1,900,000 $1,600,000 $1,500,000
100,000
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000
$400, 000
$300,000 $900,000
$400, 000
$400, 000
$800,000 $700,000 $900,000 $0
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Year Total $3,475,000 $2,775,000 $2,475 000
$2,275,000 $3,375,000 $3,225,000 $3,225,000 $3,225,000
2010 Final SurfaceWaf 'IyCIP budget offers.xls
SURFACE WATER UTILITY 2010- 2015 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET
-
2010-2015
2010 Bud
et Offers
PROJECTS
Project
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
TOTAL
Alternate
Minimum
Notes
_
Acct.
Ad'
-
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
#
$1,910
$1,460
$990
$2,210
$1,810
$110
$760
$7,340
Stormy tem Improvement Projects
$960
$1,100
$550
$1,900
$1,000
$0
$650
$5,200
-
1
Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project
U65425
$15
$0
2
N 26th St & Park Place N. Storm Improvements_
U65330
$20
$0
SW 34th St Culvert Replacement Project
U65370
$0
$0
3
Shattuck Ave S. Storm System Improvement IS 7th St. to S
4th PI.)
U65440
$775
$0
Gypsy Basin/ Ripley Ln_Storm System Improvements
565365
$100
$0
6
Dayton Ave NE & NE 22nd St Storm System Improvement
Project
U65450
$50
$0
7
8
9Improvements
Monroe Ave. NE & N. 2nd St. Infiltration System
Improvements
Hardie Ave S. Underpass Storm System Improvements
INE 5th St. & Edmonds Ave NE Storm System
$300
$200
$200
$150
100
$1,000
$800
$1,000
$1,100
$1,500
$950
$200)
($200)
Defer $200K of Project fundin one ear until 2011
10
SW 43rd St Storm Improvements
$250
$250
11
East Valley Road Storm System Improvements
$300
$300
Oakesdale/SW 41st St. Culvert Replacement
Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landing Storm System
Improvement Project
$800
-
_
$100
$100
$800
-
Springbrook Ck. _Wetland &Habitat Mitigation Bank
U65119
$600
$350
$430
$150
$100
$100
$100
$1,230
($50
$50)
Defer $SOK of Pro ect fundin one ear until 2011
Maplewood Creek Basin Storm System Improvements
{
$150
$700
$850
Green River Ecosystem Restoration Projects
Upper S ringbbrook Creek Habitat Enhancement Project
U65295
$350
$350
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$60
$0
-
1
2
Lower S ringbrook Creek Habitat Enhancement Projects
-
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$60
---
TOTAL MAJOR MAINTENANCE
$2,543
$603
$850
$830
$1,130
$2,380
$1,250
$7,043
Lower Cedar River Sediment Management Project
Elliot _Spawning Channel 2006 FEMA Repair
U65185
$250
$250
$400
$500
$700
$2,000
$700
$4,550
U65465
$345
$0
USACE Spawning Channel Replacement Project
U65190
$400
$0
Small Drainage Problems Projects
U65015
$313
$253
$250
$230
$230
$280
$250
$1,493
Madsen Creek Sedimentation Basin Cleaning
Maplewood Creek Sediment Facility Maintenance
U6550
$90
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$300
U65060
$95
$100
$100
$100
$300
Carr Road -Panther Ck Culvert E_meTency Repair
U65460
$300
$0
--
Lake Ave S/Rainier Ave S Storm System Replacement
Project
U65445
$700
$0
Forebay & Springbrook Creek Sediment Removal Project
$100
$100
Miscellaneous & Emergency Storm Projects
U65405
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$300
-
TOTAL PROGRAMS & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
$1,077
$437
$160
$160
$160
$160
$290
$1,367
_1
Renton Storm Water Design Manual -
U65241
$245
$25
$Y5
2
Surface Water Utility Plan _____
U65005
$175
$25
$130
$155
_ 3
_
Surface Water Utility GIS __
U65410
$150
$100
$100
$100
$100
$100
$100
$600
4
5
Mosquito Abatement Program Talbot Hill Area) __
Stream Flow/ Water Quality Monitoring Pro ram
U65020
U65080
$50
$10
$50
$10
$50
$10
$50
$10
$50
$10
$50
$10
$50
$10
$300
$60
6
Storm System Field Mapping - NPDES Permit
U65455
__
$447
$227
$227
TOTAL SURFACE WATER 421 FUND BUDGET
$5,530
$2,500
$2,000
$3,200
$3,100
$2,650
$2,300
$15,750
$250
($250
_Wte,
Dollars are shown in 1000's
p
L—b
Ell
.31
HM
L; "I
1-7. _11-7
:71
CD _j
6A
'6
l � a. it �'}l rl I Ir � � I I
C-T
s
'Alf
Fise
-
cl v I
✓
12'
ey
�l
it v
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AI #: Co ,
Submitting Data: Public Works/Utility Systems Division
For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. Surface Water Utility
November 2, 2009
Staff Contact...... Ron Straka (ext. 7248)
Allen Quynn (ext. 7247)
Agenda Status
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project — King
Correspondence..
Conservation District Grant Amendment Request
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Study Sessions......
Grant Amendment Request Form
Information.........
Grant Program Budget Revision Detail Form
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Council Concur Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept...... X
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Amendment....... $164,500
Amount Budgeted....... $350,000 Revenue Generated......... $164,500
Total Project Budget... $514,500 (with grant) City Share Total Project... $451,500
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a Member Jurisdiction & WRIA Forum Grant Amendment
Request form requesting the King Conservation District (KCD) Board of Directors approve the use of
$100,000 from the WRIA 9 KCD assessment and $64,500 from the city's share of the KCD assessment
for the Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project. The total estimated project cost is also being
increased from $1,100,000 to $1,290,000 as the result of the Army Corps of Engineers revised design
and construction costs estimated for the project. The total project cost which includes design,
permitting and construction will be cost shared between the US Army Corps of Engineers paying 65
percent and the City paying 35 percent ($451,500). The approved 2009 Surface Water Utility Capital
Improvement Program budget for the project is $350,000, which would be increased to $514,500. The
requested grant funds will be used for project management, design, permitting and construction costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a Member Jurisdiction & WRIA Forum Grant Amendment
Request form authorizing the KCD to consider awarding the city an additional $164,500 in WRIA 9 and
city's share of the KCD assessment funds to be used for the design, permitting and construction of the
Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project.
C:\Documents and Settings\aquynn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\FBII9XAF\Grant amendment agenda
bill.doc\AQtp
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT p o Citvof OR
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 16, 2009
TO: Randy Corman, Council President
Members of the City Council
VIA: Denis Law, Mayor /��.,.
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman,tB�'d�trator
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor (ext. 7248)
Allen Quynn, Surface Water Utility Engineer (ext. 7247)
SUBJECT: Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project — King
Conservation District Grant Amendment Request
ISSUE:
Should the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Member Jurisdiction & WRIA
Forum Grant Amendment Request form authorizing the King Conservation District to consider
providing a total of $164,500 in additional grant funds to be used toward the design, permitting
and construction of the Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project and increase the Surface
Water Utility's approved 2009 Capital Improvement Program budget for the project to be
$514,500, as part of the 2009 year-end city budget amendment ordinance?
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Member Jurisdiction & WRIA Forum Grant
Amendment Request form authorizing the King Conservation District to consider providing a
total of $164,500 in additional grant funds for the design, permitting and construction of the
Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration project and increase the Surface Water Utility's approved
2009 Capital Improvement Program budget for the project to $514,500 as part of the 2009
year-end city budget amendment ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the Council approved a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a grant agreement
with the King Conservation District (KCD) to accept a grant of $50,000 from the city's KCD
assessment fund balance for the design and permitting of the Upper Springbrook Creek
Restoration Project. The Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project is one of many projects
within the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program. The program is a partnership
Mr. Corman, Council President
October 16, 2009
Page 2 of 3
between WRIA 9 member jurisdictions and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
implement projects to improve salmon habitat within the Green/Duwamish River Basin. The
city and the Corps signed a design agreement in 2008 to cost share in the project design and
permitting. The agreement requires the city provide a local match of 25 percent for the design
costs. Based on the estimated design costs, the city's local match of $95,650 will be partially
offset by the awarded grant amount of $50,000. The amendment request for an additional
$164,500 is a combination of grant funds from the WRIA 9 KCD assessment ($100,000) and the
City of Renton's share of the projected 2009 KCD assessment balance ($64,500). These
assessment funds will be allocated toward the city's share of the total project cost. Based upon
the Corps estimated total project cost of $1,290,000, which includes design, permitting and
construction, the city's local match (35 percent) of the project cost is estimated to be $451,500.
Of this amount, $214,500 of KCD grant funds will be used to offset the city's local match.
The KCD Board of Supervisors must approve the grant request. However, it is very likely the
Board of Supervisors will approve this request because the WRIA 9 forum recommended the
use of $100,000 of its KCD assessment for the Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration project and
KCD approved the initial grant of $50,000 of City assessment funds for the project.
Upper Springbrook Creek is currently confined to a roadside ditch approximately 900 feet in
length along a portion of South 55th Street, between SR-167 and Talbot Road South. The ditch
is degraded, lacking native riparian vegetation, dominated by invasive reed canary grass and
blackberry shrubs, and has degraded stream habitat. In addition, sediment from upstream
erosion runoff periodically fills in the ditch.
The Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project will replace an existing roadside ditch with a
natural, meandering stream channel with spawning, rearing and storm refuge habitat for
migrating salmon. Proposed project elements include excavating a new re -aligned channel
away from the road, adding spawning gravel, large woody debris and riparian plantings,
evaluating and implementing methods for sediment removal, and replacing an existing culvert
with a new fish -passable culvert under South 55th Street in south Renton.
If this grant amendment request is approved by the KCD, a budget amendment will be included
in the city's year-end 2009 budget ordinance amending the Surface Water Utility Capital
Improvement Program budget for the project. The project revenue account number
(427.000600.000.3370.0007.00.000098) and the expenditure account number
(427.000000.018.5950.0038.63.000000/U65295) will be amended to include the additional
$164,500 in grant funds from the King Conservation District.
H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3023 Ecosystem Restoration Projects\Upper Springbrook
Creek\1006 Grants\Grant Amendment\Grant Amendment Issue Paper.doc \AQtp
Mr. Corman, Council President
October 16, 2009
Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION:
The Council should authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Member Jurisdiction &
WRIA Forum Grant Amendment Request form authorizing the KCD Board of Directors to
consider providing $164,500 in additional grant funds to be used toward the design, permitting
and construction of the Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project. A budget amendment
will be included in the city's year-end 2009 budget ordinance to increase the Surface Water
Utility's 2009 CIP Program budget for the project from $350,000 to $514,500.
cc: Iwen Wang, FIS Administrator
Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
1oAnn Wykpisz, PW Principal Financial and Admin Analyst
File
H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3023 Ecosystem Restoration Projects\Upper Springbrook
Creek\1006 Grants\Grant Amendment\Grant Amendment Issue Paper.doc \AQtp
Member Jurisdiction & WRIA Forum
King Conservation District
Grant Amendment Request
Instructions: To request an amendment to your Grant Award, complete this form and submit it to the King Conservation District
You will receive a written response back from the District either approving or denying the request. Attach any supporting
documents you think will aid the review of your request
WRIA Forum (if applicable): WRIA 9
Grantee: City of Renton
Project Title: Under Springbrook Creek Restoration Project
Agreement Year: 2007
Request to Amend Grant Award in the following manner (check all applicable categories and provide details in space
provided below or attachments where indicated):
Change the Project Completion Date from _ to _
❑ Extend project up to 90 days past original completion date
❑ Extend project in excess of 90 days past original completion date ❑ Extend project due to permit and/or
construction delays
❑ Other (e.g., matching funds delayed)
Change the Project Scope of Work (attach completed Scope of Work Revision Detail forth)
❑ Increase scope of work at same funding level
❑ Increase scope of work and request additional funds
❑ Decrease scope of work at same funding level
❑ Decrease scope of work and request additional funds
❑ Decrease scope of work and return funds
❑ Other (describe and provide explanation below)
Change the Project Budget (attach completed Budget Revision Detail Form)
❑ Reallocate funds among awarded budget item(s) within 10% of total grant award
❑ Reallocate funds to new budget item(s) within 10% of total award
® Revise budget in excess of 10% of total grant award
® Other (e.g., request additional funding)
Other Category of Revision
❑ Cancel project and return funds
❑ Cancel project and fund new grant proposal (attach Grant Application)
❑ Change applicant/principle partners without change in scope of work and funding level
❑ Other (describe and provide explanation below)
Describe the proposed amendment, identify how the new proposal differs from the awarded grant, and provide the
reason/justification for the request (attach additional pages if more space is needed).
The City of Renton was awarded a $50 000 grant by the King Conservation District in 2007 to be used towards the
design and permitting costs of the Upper Sprinabrook Creek Restoration Proiect This grant amendment reauest is to
include $100,000 from the WRIA 9 assessment fund and $64 500 from the City of Renton assessment fund to assist
in completing the oroiect design permitting and construction and to increase the total project budget from $1100 000
to $1,290 000 The Upper Sprinabrook Creek Restoration Project is a collaborative effort between the City and US
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Both parties have signed a cost sharing design agreement to complete the Proiect
design and permitting This amendment will be used as dart of the City's match to the federal funds being allocated to
the project by the Corps The budget developed for the $50 000 grant was an estimate based upon the understanding
of the Proiect design and construction requirements at the time the application was submitted As part of the
development of the design agreement the City and Corps were able to better define theeoroiect requirements which
resulted in an increase in the design cost The City and the Corps will sign a project cooperation agreement in 2010 to
cost share in the Proiect construction The use of a $100 000 from the WRIA 9 assessment was approved by the WRIA
9 Forum at their funding meeting in November, 2008 The $64 500 City assessment represents most of the
assessment's year end proiected fund balance of -$64 596 04 The City and the Corps are scheduled to complete the.
design phase in early 2010. Project construction will occur in the summer of 2010
Authorized Signature, Funded Entity Date
Authorized Signature, Forum (when applicable) Date
❑ Request approved
❑ Request denied (see attached for explanation)
❑ Additional information requested (see attached for requested information)
Authorized Signature, King Conservation District Date
HARle Sys1SWP -Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27-Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3023 Ecosystem Restoration ProjectslUpper Springbrook CreekN006 GrantslGrant
Amcndmnnt\mmnt Amnndment Rnni IA%d dnr.A OM
Member Jurisdiction
& WRIA Forum Grant Program
Budget Revision Detail
Revised Project Budget: Use the tables below to compare the awarded project budget to
the proposed revised project budget. Alternatives for completing the tables include inserting
the budget table from the original grant application to replace the Awarded Project Budget
table; inserting the budget summary table from the most recent copy of the project expense
report to replace the Proposed Revised Budget table; attaching budgets from a matching
fund grant that clearly identifies the revised allocation of KCD Special Assessment funds.
Awarded Project Budget (same as grant application budget)
KCD/Renton
Funds
KCD/WRIA 9
Funds
Other Funds
(Renton/USACE)
Total
(by line item)
Salaries and Benefits
Travel/Meals/Mileage
Office/Field Supplies
Contracted/Professional
Services
$30,000
150,000
$180,000
Land Acquisition
$50,000
$50,000
Permits
$20,000
$20,000
Other (Construction)
$850,000
$850,000
TOTAL (by source)
1 $50,000
$1,050,000
$1,100,000
Proposed Revised Budget (same as information in most recent Expense Report)
KCD/Renton
Funds
KCD/WRIA 9
Funds
Other Funds
(Renton/USACE)
Total
(by line item)
Salaries and Benefits
Travel/Meals/Mileage
Office/Field Supplies
Contracted/Professional
Services
$60,000
$30,000
$280,000
$370,000
Land Acquisition
$50,000
$50,000
Permits
$20,000
$20,000
Other (Construction)
$34,000
$70,000
$746,000
$850,000
TOTAL (by source) 1
$114,000
$100,000
$1,076,000
$1,290,000
Member Jurisdiction & WRIA Forum Grant Program • Agreement Revision Request, Budget Revision Detail • v7-18-08
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
CEDAR RIVER WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT FOR PROVISION OF WATER AND
SEWER SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the Cedar River Water and Sewer District ("the District") is a public agency
authorized by law to engage in furnishing water and sewer service; and
WHEREAS, the City and the District agree that the District shall provide water and sewer
service to specific areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to memorialize the terms and conditions under which the
District provides water and sewer service to areas of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an
interlocal agreement with Cedar River Water and Sewer District entitled City of Renton and
Cedar River Water and Sewer District Interlocal Agreement for Provision of Water and. Sewer
Service by District Within City.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2009.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
1
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2009.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1426:10/13/09:scr
Denis Law, Mayor
F4
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 710,�a
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
CEDAR RIVER WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT FOR PROVISION OF WATER AND
SEWER SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the Cedar River Water and Sewer District ("the District") is a public agency
authorized by law to engage in furnishing water and sewer service; and
WHEREAS, the City and the District agree that the District shall provide water and sewer
service to specific areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to memorialize the terms and conditions under which the
District provides water and sewer service to areas of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an
interlocal agreement with Cedar River Water and Sewer District entitled City of Renton and
Cedar River Water and Sewer District Interlocal Agreement for Provision of Water and Sewer
Service by District Within City.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 12009.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
1
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 12009.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
R ES. 1426:10/13/09: scr
Denis Law, Mayor
2