The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil 07/20/2009AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 20, 2009 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: "Footloose" Teen Musical Preview 4. ADMINISTRATIVE 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. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 7/13/2009. Council concur. b. Community and Economic Development Department submits 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation and recommends waiving the $2,500 filing fee and setting a public meeting on 8/3/2009 to consider the petition; 15.4 acres located in the vicinity of Union Ave. NE -and NE 25th Pl. Council concur. c. Community and Economic Development Department submits 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation and recommends waiving the $2,500 filing fee and setting a public meeting on 8/3/2009 to consider the petition; 8.67 acres located in the vicinity of Jericho Ave. NE and SE 2nd PI. Council concur. d. Community Services Department recommends adoption of an ordinance stating the City's intent to join the King County Library System (KCLS); approval to transmit the ordinance to KCLS Board of Trustees for their concurrence and recommendation; and calling for the annexation to KCLS by election in February 2010. Council concur. e. Police Department recommends approval of a Proceeds Distribution and Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Bellevue regarding the sale of property related to the South Correctional Entity (SCORE) facility. Council concur. f. Utility Systems Division recommends adoption of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual with City Amendments. Refer to Utilities Committee. g. Utilities Systems Division recommends amending RIVIC 4-6-030 to expressly prohibit illicit discharges and illicit connections to the City's storm systems as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Phase II Permit. Refer to Utilities Committee. h. Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of the 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan and submittal to King County for review and approval. Refer to Utilities Committee. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) Utility Systems Division submits CAG-08-090, White Fence Ranch Sanitary Sewer Extension; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $74,182.83, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $71,454.29 to Shoreline Construction, Co., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topic may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Committee of the Whole: Urban Forestry Plan b. Finance Committee: Vouchers c. Public Safety Committee: Adult Entertainment Standards Update* 8. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Ordinances for first reading: a. Stating intent to join King County Library System (See 6.d.) b. Updating Adult Entertainment Standards (See 7.c.) Ordinances for second and final reading: a. Designate off -leash pet area (1st reading 7/13/2009) b. Reorganize City departments (1st reading 7/13/2009) 9. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 10. AUDIENCE COMMENT 11. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) COUNCIL CHAMBERS July 20, 2009 Monday, 5:30 p.m. Urban Forestry Plan; Future of Renton Libraries • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES. & THURS. AT 11 AM & 9 PM, WED. & FRI. AT 9 AM & 7 PM AND SAT. & SUN. AT 1 PM & 9 PM e CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Ai #: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Department of Community and July, 20, 2009 Economic Development Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Angie Mathias, x-6576 Consent .............. X Public Hearing... Subject: PROPOSED ANNEXATION Correspondence... Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation —10% Ordinance ............. Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Resolution............ Proceedings Petition Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Annexation Petition Certification Information......... Copy of 10% Petition Recommended Action: Council concur Approvals: Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project... SUMMARY OF ACTION: The petitioners submitted this petition to the City Clerk on June 12, 2009, and the signatures were certified by the King County Department of Assessments on June 24, 2009. The proposed 15.4-acre annexation site is located in Renton's Potential Annexation Area, at the northern portion of the current City limits. The school is in the Renton School District. State law requires a public meeting with the proponents within 60 days of their submittal to consider their request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set August 3, 2009 for a public meeting to consider the 10% Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition for the proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation. c CITY OF RENTON '_ ♦ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 13, 2009 TO: Randy Corman, Council President City Councilmembers VIA:-�,Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias x 6576 SUBJECT: Proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation -10% Notice of Intent Petition ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to annex 15.4-acres of Renton School District property by the direct petition method. The petitioner is simultaneously requesting waiver of the required $2,500 filing fee. State law requires that the Council hold a public meeting with the annexation proponents within 60 days of receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to decide whether to accept or reject the proposal, whether to require the assumption of bonded indebtedness, and whether to require the simultaneous adoption of City zoning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if the proposed annexation is successful. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition. If Council concurs, the Administration recommends that it take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): • Accept the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition; and • Authorize the circulation of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the 15.4-acre area; and • Require that property owners within the proposed annexation area accept City of Renton zoning that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Page 2 of 5 July 13, 2009 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The rectangular shaped Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation site is generally located west of Union Avenue Northeast, with parcel lines to the north, west, and south. The existing City limits abut the area at the north, east, and southern boundary. There are no covenants to annex in this area. 1. Location: The proposed 15.4-acre Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation is bordered by the existing City boundary at west. 2. Assessed value: The 2009 assessed valuation of the subject annexation site is $6,625,500. 3. Natural features: The area is generally topographically level. There are no streams or identified wetlands within or in close proximity to this annexation area. 4. Existing land uses: The existing land use is an elementary school. The population is 0 people. 5. Existing zoning: Existing King County zoning is R-6. This area has not been prezoned by the City of Renton; zoning will occur concurrently with the annexations so that zoning will become effective upon annexation. 6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject annexation site as Residential Low Density (RLD). 7. School District: The Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation Area is a part of the Renton School District. 8. Public services: All responding City of Renton departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Specific comments follow: Water Utility. The subject site is located within the City of Renton's water service area. Staff noted that the existing water mains can provide sufficient capacity for fire protection to the school. However, water main improvement may be needed for redevelopment or additions to the school. Staff did not indicate any concerns regarding this proposed annexation and stated that the annexation does not present any increased need for additional staff. Wastewater Utility. The City already serves the area with sanitary sewer service. The annexation does not present any increased need for additional City staff. Page 2 of 5 Proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Page 3 of 5 July 13, 2009 Parks. The Community Services department indicated that the annexation area does not present any problems for their division and that it represents a logical extension of the services provided by their department. Police. The Police Department did not indicate any concerns regarding this proposed annexation. Staff noted that the area is currently served by King County, but no new staff would be required to serve the area. The annexation does not present any problems for the department and it represents a logical extension of their services. Fire. Fire District #25 currently serves the area. Under contract, Renton Fire and Emergency Services provides fire and emergency services to District #25. Staff did not indicate any concerns regarding this proposed annexation. Surface Water. The two parcel area is served by a private drainage system with no stormwater flow control/water facility. Staff recommends that future development be conditioned to use the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Standard (level 2) and water quality treatment standards; or the City adopted equivalent standards at the time of development. King County drainage complaint records show no drainage complaints for this property. The proposed annexation would represent a logical extension of the services of Renton's Surface Water Utility. The private facility will not require any City staff or the maintenance of facilities, however will be inspected periodically. This Renton School District property will be charged a monthly storm water fee at the City's commercial properties rate as described in RMC 8-2-3. Transportation Systems. The Transportation Systems staff has no concerns regarding the proposed annexation. The annexation will not require any additional Transportation Systems staff. No new agreements or franchises are anticipated as a result of the proposed annexation. The annexation does not present any problems for the department and it represents a logical extension of their services. Public Works Maintenance. Staff indicated no concerns regarding the proposed annexation and stated that the annexation represents a logical extension of their services. The annexation does not present any increased need for City staff. Building. The Building section did not indicate any concerns regarding the proposed annexation and stated that the annexation represents a logical extension of their services. The proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation Area is located in a portion of the City where it is required that physical addresses are changed to the City of Renton addressing system upon annexation. The annexation does not present any increased need for City staff. Page 3 of 5 Proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Page 4 of 5 July 13, 2009 Planning. The Planning section did not indicate any concerns regarding the proposed annexation and stated that the annexation represents a logical extension of their services. The annexation does not present any increased need for City staff. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan annexation policies generally support this proposed annexation. The subject site is within the City's Potential Annexation Area and has been subject to development pressure under the King County Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and subdivision regulations (Policies LU-36 and LU-37). The area would also be available for urbanization under Renton's Residential Low Density land use designation. Renton is the logical provider of most urban infrastructure and services to the area (Policy LU-38). 2. Consistency with the Boundary Review Board Obiectives: (from RCW 36.93.180) a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; The proposed annexation would cause no disruption to the larger community. b. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; The subject site is bounded by existing City limits and parcel lines. c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas, Water and sewer service boundaries will not change as a result of this annexation. The Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation Area is in the Renton School District. The school district boundaries will not change, the area will remain in the Renton School District. Renton will take over police service for the 15.4-acres upon annexation; the King County Sheriff's Department currently provides police protection to the area. Renton Fire and Emergency Services currently provides service under contract to Fire District #25 which serves the area. Pursuant to state law, there will be no change in the garbage service provider for at least seven years. d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; This annexation does not have irregular boundaries. e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; Not applicable. No incorporations are proposed in this area. f. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; Not applicable. There are no inactive special purpose districts here. Page 4 of 5 Proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Page 5 of 5 July 13, 2009 g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; Not applicable. h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; King County has designated this area for urban development because of its location within the Urban Growth Boundary. The County has also indicated that it wants to divest itself from providing urban services to these unincorporated urban areas by turning them over to cities as quickly as possible. Because the subject annexation site is within Renton's PAA and not in an area under consideration for incorporation, annexation is appropriate at this time. i. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed annexation area are rural or designated for long term productive agricultural use in the King County or Renton Comprehensive Plans. 3. A fiscal analysis for the proposed annexation is attached. The fiscal impact analysis that is used for annexations considers costs on a per capita basis; therefore the attached analysis estimates $0 costs. While there may be calls for service from Police and/or Fire and Emergency Services, it is anticipated that on an annual basis the frequency and therefore costs would be minimal. School property is exempt from property taxes; therefore the revenue is estimated to be $0. CONCLUSION: The proposed Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation is consistent with relevant County and City annexation policies, as well as most Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. The staff that reviewed the proposed annexation for each department did not identify any major impediments to the provision of City services to the area or indicate that they feel the annexation is untimely. Page 5 of 5 SIERRA HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Cas Units Population* AV Existing dev. 0 0 $6,625,500 Full dev.** 0 0 $6,625,500 * Assumes 2.3 persons per household ** Assumes $500,000 average assessed value over 10 years $288,413 Current average assessed value per household Rate Existing Full Regular levy 2.57052 $0 $0 Excess levy 0.0533 $0 $0 State Shared Revenues Rate Existing Full Liquor Tax & Liquor Board profits $15.02 $0.00 $0.00 Gas tax - unrestricted $24.20 $0.00 $0.00 MVET $0.84 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal justice - Former CTED Programs $0.78 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal justice - Population Based $0.23 $0.00 $0.00 Fire Insurance Premium Tax $0.95 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 Miscellaneous Revenues Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $58.20 $0.00 $0.00 Utility tax* $179.57 $0.00 $0.00 Fines & forfeits* $20.12 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 * Per capita Rate Existing Full Court/legal/admin. $54.26 $0.00 $0.00 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $0.00 $0.00 Police $299.27 $0.00 $0.00 Road maintenance** N/A $0.00 $0.00 Fire* $223.99 $0.00 $0.00 Contracted Costs Public Defender $5.02 $0.00 $0.00 Jail $7.89 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 * Per capita ** See Sheet Roads FIA Total revenues Existing Full Total ongoing costs Existing$0 00. Full Net fiscal impact Existing RAW4111, �Q Full Pali= «; a Updated FIA Form - December 2008 PARKS ACQUISTION AND MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATION SHEET SIERRA HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION Needs: Assumptions: Acquisition of land for new neighborhood & community park Development of new neighborhood & community parks Maintenance of neighborhood & community parks $60,000 per acre for land acquistion $125,000 per acre for development (both neighborhood & community parks) $6,000 per acre to maintain neighborhood parks $7,000 per acre to maintain community parks 1.2 acres/1,000 for neighborhood park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan) 2.5 acres/1,000 for community park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan) 0 population after 10 years (projected growth) 0 housing units after 10 years (projected growth) $530.76 per single family unit mitigation fees 0 New single family units Per capita annual and one-time costs: One-time Costs: Acquisition: Neighborhood: 1 * 1.2/1000 * $60,000 = Community: 1 * 2.5/1000 * $60,000 = Development: Neighborhood: 1 * 1.2/1,000 * $125,000= Community: 1 * 2.5/1,000 * $125,000= Total one-time costs: $72.00 $66.00 $150.00 $137.50 $425 per capita $0.00 Mitigation fees: New units * $530.76 = Acquisition & development costs minus mitigation fees: Ongoing costs : (1 * 1.2/1,000 * $6,000) + (1 * 1.1/1,000 * $7,000) _ (park maintenance) Ongoing costs Maintenance Cost: $0.00 $0.00 $14.90 $0.00 New Roadway: ROADS MAINTENANCE CALCULATION SHEET SIERRA HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION Zone Acres Linear Feet R-4 0 0 (assumes 155 linear ft/ac) R-8 0 0 (assumes 145 linear ft/ac) R-10 0 0 (assumes 140 linear ft/ac) 0 Estimated total linear feet of new xisting Roadway: Zone Acres Linear Feet n/a 0 Linear feet of existing roadway 0.00 Linear miles of existing roadway Total Roadway: Zone Acres Linear Feet 0 Estimated linear feet of roadway at full development 0.00 Estimated linear miles of roadway at full development stimated Costs: $0.00 Annual cost for existing roadways $0.00 Annual roadway maintenance cost at full develop. Revised September 2008 LIM King County Department of Assessments Accounting Division 500 Fourth Avenue, ADM-AS-0725 Seattle, WA 98104-2384 (206) 296-5145 FAX (206) 296-0106 Email: assessor.info@kingcounty.gov http://www.kinecounty.eov/sssessor/ Rich Medved Acting Assessor ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted June 11, 2009 to the King County Department of Assessments by Angie Mathias, Associate Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation, have been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the Revised Code of Washington, Section 35A.01.040. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 24th day of June, 2009 Rich Medved, Acting King County Assessor rde..4-09-oo5 CRYOF RENTON JUN Y 12 2009 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE RECEIVED ~ ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS �m'CLERK'SOFRc� UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) (I0% PETITION— SIERRA HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON City Hall, c/o City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SUBMITTED BY: Rick stracke Executive Directo ADDRESS: 200 SW 7tr ,st.reat Renton, WA 98057 PHONE: 425-204-4403 The undersigned are property owners in the proposed annexation area who represent not less than ten percent (10%) of the area's estimated assessed value who desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, of all or any part of the area described below. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. 1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoiung regulation; and 3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of a proportional share of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation Petition Page 1 of 2 Sierra Heights Elementary School Annexation WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking to annex when he or she is not the owner of record of property within the annexation area, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the real estate.) - ---- --=-------------- 1.- 2. v " ---------- -------- 3. 4. - -�--� J------------ 5.6. - --------------------------------------- 7. --------------------------------------- 8. --------------------------------------- 9. --------------------------------------- 1107 --------------------------------------- Page2of2 SIERRA HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of unincorporated Government Lot 1 of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King County, Washington, bounded by the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance Nos. 5261, 4195, 5138, listed in clockwise order beginning on the north side of the hereby described. 1 of 1 09/02/2008 4:51 PM n, m cL O z n 16 m mmm n a fl o O n m D Qp 0 N o of a m (D ov New o � D O O 3 c0 m 3 (D n, N N > �. h o p w 3 fl TS O n 3 CD R, onn �w (D O a o o an d O E3 v o � m n - _ O V I CD I n O 2 O \V x d I' 1 7k��. 1� L • / T J N m " �i .vw , d .. I_ 6 n m, mo O� r p m 3 �a D �� :3v 2 (D (� m O, n ZI �--+- ml c o � v N Q x� I� m n m QO X 5 d O 41 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Department of Community and Economic Development Staff Contact...... Angie Mathias, x-6576 For Agenda of: July 20, 2009 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Subject: PROPOSED ANNEXATION Correspondence.. Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation — Ordinance ............. 10% Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Resolution............. Proceedings Petition Old Business........ Exhibits: New Business....... Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Annexation Petition Certification Information......... Copy of 10% Petition Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project... SUMMARY OF ACTION: The petitioners submitted this petition to the City Clerk on June 12, 2009, and the signatures were certified by the King County Department of Assessments on June 24, 2009. The proposed 8.67-acre annexation site is located in Renton's Potential Annexation Area, toward the eastern portion of the current City limits. The school is in the Renton School District. State law requires a public meeting with the proponents within 60 days of their submittal to consider their request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set August 3, 2009 for a public meeting to consider the 10% Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition for the proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation. Y CITY OF RENTON ♦ '♦ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT \�''NT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 13, 2009 TO: Randy Corman, Council President City Councilmembers VIA: .lL Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator ka Department of Community & Economic Development STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias x 6576 SUBJECT: Proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation - 10% Notice of Intent Petition ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to annex 8.7-acres of Renton School District property by the direct petition method. The petitioner is simultaneously requesting waiver of the required $2,500 filing fee. State law requires that the Council hold a public meeting with the annexation proponents within 60 days of receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to decide whether to accept or reject the proposal, whether to require the assumption of bonded indebtedness, and whether to require the simultaneous adoption of City zoning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if the proposed annexation is successful. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition. If Council concurs, the Administration recommends that it take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): • Accept the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition; and • Authorize the circulation of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the 8.7-acre area; and • Require that property owners within the proposed annexation area accept City of Renton zoning that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Page 2 of 5 July 13, 2009 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The square shaped Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation site is generally located east of Jericho Avenue Northeast, north of Southeast 2"d Place, west of Lyons Avenue Northeast, with parcel lines and a portion of Northeast 1st Street as the northern boundary. There are no covenants to annex in this area. 1. Location: The proposed 8.7-acre Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation is bordered by the existing City boundary at the east, north, and west. 2. Assessed value: The 2009 assessed valuation of the subject annexation site is $7,163,900. 3. Natural features: The area is generally topographically level. There is a Class IV stream running just outside the northwestern corner of the area. This stream does not run through any portion of the annexation area and there are no identified wetlands. 4. Existing land uses: The existing land use is an elementary school. The population is 0 people. 5. Existing zoning: Existing King County zoning is R-4. This area was prezoned by the City of Renton as part of the East Renton Plateau prezoning. City of Renton Ordinance #5254 prezoned the area with R-4 zoning; this zoning will become effective upon annexation. 6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject annexation site as Residential Low Density (RLD). 7. School District: The Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation Area is a part of the Renton School District. 8. Public services: All responding City of Renton departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Specific comments follow: Water Utility. The subject site is located within Water District 90's water service area, by agreement under the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan. A certificate of water availability from District 90 will be required prior to the issuance of development permits within the subject area, following annexation to the City. It is expected that developer extensions of District 90's water mains will be required to provide water for fire protection and domestic use within the annexation area. This proposed annexation will not generate need for additional City employees because it is in Water District #90. Wastewater Utility. The City already serves the area with sanitary sewer service. The annexation does not present any increased need for City staff. Proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Page 3 of 5 July 13, 2009 Parks, The Community Services department indicated that the annexation area does not present any problems for their division and that it represents a logical extension of the services provided by their department. Police. The Police Department did not indicate any concerns regarding this proposed annexation. Staff noted that the area is currently served by King County, but no new staff would be required to serve the area. The annexation does not present any problems for the department and it represents a logical extension of their services. Fire. Fire District #25 currently serves the area. Under contract, Renton Fire and Emergency Services provides fire and emergency services to District #25. Staff did not indicate any concerns regarding this proposed annexation. Surface Water. The single parcel area is served by a private drainage system with no stormwater flow control/water facility. Staff recommends that future development be conditioned to use the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Standard (level 2) and water quality treatment standards; or the City adopted equivalent standards at the time of development. King County drainage complaint records show no drainage complaints for this property. The proposed annexation would represent a logical extension of the services of Renton's Surface Water Utility. The private facility will not require any City staff or the maintenance of facilities. City staff would be required to maintain any surface water infrastructure located on Southeast 136th Street in the annexation area. This Renton School District property will be charged a monthly storm water fee at the City's commercial properties rate as described in RMC 8-2-3. Transportation Systems. The Transportation Systems staff has no concerns regarding the proposed annexation. However, staff notes that Southeast 136th Steet has a 30-foot right of way with 20 foot paved roadway with curb, gutter, and sidewalk on one side. Dedication of right-of-way may be needed in order to construct a street section that meets current City of Renton development standards. King County has not indicated any plans to make improvements to Southeast 136th Street. Staff notes that it is expected that street upgrades that meet City of Renton standards will occur at the expense of new development. The annexation will not require any additional Transportation Systems staff. Staff notes that energy costs associated with existing and future street lighting will be incurred by the City, but do not represent a financial burden. The City will assume ownership and responsibility for all existing and new streets in the area. No new agreements or franchises are anticipated as a result of the proposed annexation. The annexation does not present any problems for the department and it represents a logical extension of their services. Proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Page 4 of 5 July 13, 2009 Public Works Maintenance. Staff indicated no concerns regarding the proposed annexation and stated that the annexation represents a logical extension of their services. The annexation does not present any increased need for City staff. Building. The Building section did not indicate any concerns regarding the proposed annexation and stated that the annexation represents a logical extension of their services. The proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation Area is located in a portion of the City where it is required that physical addresses are changed to the City of Renton addressing system upon annexation. The annexation does not present any increased need for City staff. Planning. The Planning section did not indicate any concerns regarding the proposed annexation and stated that the annexation represents a logical extension of their services. The annexation does not present any increased need for City staff. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan annexation policies generally support this proposed annexation. The subject site is within the City's Potential Annexation Area and has been subject to development pressure under the King County Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and subdivision regulations (Policies LU-36 and LU-37). The area would also be available for urbanization under Renton's Residential Low Density land use designation. Renton is the logical provider of most urban infrastructure and services to the area (Policy LU-38). 2. Consistency with the Boundary Review Board Objectives: (from RCW 36.93.180) a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; The proposed annexation would cause no disruption to the larger community. b. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; The subject site is bounded on three sides by existing City limits. c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; Water and sewer service boundaries will not change as a result of this annexation. The Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation Area is in the Renton School District. The school district boundaries will not change, the area will remain in the Renton School District. Renton will take over police service for the 8.7-acres upon annexation; the King County Sheriff's Department currently provides police protection to the area. Renton Fire and Emergency Services currently provides service under contract to Fire District #25 which serves the area. Pursuant to state law, there will be no change in the garbage service provider for at least seven years. Proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Page 5 of 5 July 13, 2009 d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; This annexation does not have irregular boundaries. e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; Not applicable. No incorporations are proposed in this area. f. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; Not applicable. There are no inactive special purpose districts here. g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; Not applicable. h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; King County has designated this area for urban development because of its location within the Urban Growth Boundary. The County has also indicated that it wants to divest itself from providing urban services to these unincorporated urban areas by turning them over to cities as quickly as possible. Because the subject annexation site is within Renton's FAA and not in an area under consideration for incorporation, annexation is appropriate at this time. i. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed annexation area are rural or designated for long term productive agricultural use in the King County or Renton Comprehensive Plans. 3. A fiscal analysis for the proposed annexation is attached. The fiscal impact analysis that is used for annexations considers costs on a per capita basis; therefore the attached analysis estimates $0 costs. While there may be calls for service from Police and/or Fire and Emergency Services, it is anticipated that on an annual basis the frequency and therefore costs would be minimal. School property is exempt from property taxes; therefore the revenue is estimated to be $0. The fiscal analysis indicates that the proposed annexation would have a negative net fiscal impact of $1,338 per year for roadway maintenance. CONCLUSION: The proposed Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation is consistent with relevant County and City annexation policies, as well as most Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. The staff that reviewed the proposed annexation for each department did not identify any major impediments to the provision of City services to the area or indicate that they feel the annexation is untimely. MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Units Population* AV Existing dev. 0 0 $7,163,900 Full dev.** 0 0 $7,163,900 �2eue�n�es''. Cf�s * Assumes 2.3 persons per household ** Assumes $500,000 average assessed value over 10 years $288,413 Current average assessed value per household Rate Existing Full Regular levy 2.57052 $0 $0 Excesslevy 0.0533 $0 $0 State Shared Revenues Rate Existing Full Liquor Tax & Liquor Board profits $15.02 $0.00 $0.00 Gas tax - unrestricted $24.20 $0.00 $0.00 MVET $0.84 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal justice - Former CTED Programs $0.78 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal justice - Population Based $0.23 $0.00 $0.00 Fire Insurance Premium Tax $0.95 $0.00 $0.00 Total 4-$0.00 $0.00 Miscellaneous Revenues Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $58.20 $0.00 $0.00 Utility tax* $179.57 $0.00 $0.00 Fines & forfeits* $20.12 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 * Per capita Rate Existing Full Court/legal/admin. $54.26 $0.00 $0.00 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $0.00 $0.00 Police $299.27 $0.00 $0.00 Road maintenance** N/A $1,338.00 $1,338.00 Fire* $223.99 $0.00 $0.00 Contracted Costs Public Defender $5.02 $0.00 $0.00 Jail $7.89 $0.00 $0.00 Total 1 1 $1,338.00 $1,338.00 * Per capita ** See Sheet Roads FIA Total revenues Existing Full Total ongoing costs Existing i �$`1;33$ 00 Full;1�3$l)r1 Net fiscal impact Existing 38 qit= FullIy33 Updated FIA Form - December 2008 PARKS ACQUISTION AND MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATION SHEET MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION Needs: Assumptions: Acquisition of land for new neighborhood & community park Development of new neighborhood & community parks Maintenance of neighborhood & community parks $60,000 per acre for land acquistion $125,000 per acre for development (both neighborhood & community parks) $6,000 per acre to maintain neighborhood parks $7,000 per acre to maintain community parks 1.2 acres/1,000 for neighborhood park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan) 2.5 acres/1,000 for community park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan) 0 population after 10 years (projected growth) 0 housing units after 10 years (projected growth) $530.76 per single family unit mitigation fees 0 New single family units Per capita annual and one-time costs: One-time Costs: Acquisition: Neighborhood: 1 * 1.2/1000 * $60,000 = Community: 1 * 2.5/1000 * $60,000 = Development: Neighborhood: 1 * 1.2/1,000 * $125,000= Community: 1 * 2.5/1,000 * $125,000= Total one-time costs: $72.00 $66.00 $150.00 $137.50 $425 per capita $0.00 Mitigation fees: New units * $530.76 = Acquisition & development costs minus mitigation fees: Ongoing costs: (1 * 1.2/1,000 * $6,000) + (1 * 1.1/1,000 * $7,000) _ (park maintenance) Ongoing costs Maintenance Cost: $0.00 $0.00 $14.90 $0.00 e New Roadway: ROADS MAINTENANCE CALCULATION SHEET MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION Zone Acres Linear Feet R-4 0 0 (assumes 155 linear ft/ac) R-8 0 0 (assumes 145 linear ft/ac) R-10 0 0 (assumes 140 linear ft/ac) 0 Estimated total linear feet of new :xisting Roadway: Zone Acres Linear Feet n/a 600 Linear feet of existing roadway 0.11 Linear miles of existing roadway 'otal Roadway: Zone Acres Linear Feet 600 Estimated linear feet of roadway at full development 0.11 Estimated linear miles of roadway at full development :stimated Costs: $1,338.00 Annual cost for existing roadways $1,338.00 Annual roadway maintenance cost at full develop. Revised September 2008 LIM King County Department of Assessments Accounting Division 500 Fourth Avenue, ADM-AS-0725 Seattle, WA 98104-2384 (206) 296-5145 FAX (206) 296-0106 Email: assessor.info@kingcounty.gov http://www.kinecounty.gov/assessor/ Rich Medved Acting Assessor ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted June 11, 2009 to the King County Department of Assessments by Angie Mathias, Associate Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation, have been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the Revised Code of Washington, Section 35A.01.040. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 24th day of June, 2009 Rich Medved, Acting King County Assessor File: 4-09-(90V CITY OF REW011 .; NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE JUN 1.2 200�� ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS CITY CLERK oFROe UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) (10% PETITION — MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON City Hall, c/o City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SUBMITTED BY: Rick Stracke ADDRESS: Executive Direct PHONE: 300 SW 7th Street Renton, The undersigned are property owners in the proposed annexation area who represent not less than ten percent (10%) of the area's estimated assessed value who desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, of all or any part of the area described below. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. 1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation; and 3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of a proportional share of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation Petition Page 1 of 2 Maplewood Heights Elementary School Annexation WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking to annex when he or she is not the owner of record of property within the annexation area, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the real estate.) 1. Cvw, - ----------------------------------- -- - ----`--``6. 1�------,-- 5. --------------------------------------- 7. --------------------------------------- 8. --------------------------------------- 9. --------------------------------------- 10. --------------------------------------- Page 2 of 2 MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tracts 14 & 15 of Black Loam Five Acre Tracts as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 101, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH the south 30 feet of the Northeast quarter of Section 15 Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M. adjacent thereto. I of 1 09/24/2008 8:58 AM Department of Community . & Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Adriana Johnson, Planning Technician May 19, 2009 N 150 300 O Feet 1:3, 200 Maplewood Heights Elementary Annexation Vicinity Map School Annexation Boundary City Limits Produced by City of Renton (c) 2009. the City of Renton all rights reseR,ed. No warranlies of any sort, including but not limited to accuracy. fitness or mei chantability. accompany this product. File Name i.CED1Planningk.GIS,GIS_project slannexaticnsl school s_annex',n-faplewood_heights\rnxdstmaplevood_heights_annex_vicinitv6&W mxd CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Community Services Dept/Div/Board.. Library Staff Contact...... Bette Anderson, x6820 Subject: An ordinance stating that it is in the best interest of Renton to join the King County Library System, and placing the question of annexing Renton to the King County Library System before Renton voters. Exhibits: Ordinance Statement from Renton Library Board Recommended Action: Council Concur For Agenda of. July 20, 2009 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Proiect.. X X X 1a SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton has a goal to maintain- quality, financially sustainable library services to city residents. The Renton Library Master Plan, released in late 2008, found that Renton libraries are at a major crossroads and upgrades to the system are needed. The recommendation was to maintain an independent municipal library, maintaining the reciprocal borrowing agreement with KCLS, which allows residents to use both library systems. If that recommendation was not possible, the Master Plan found that annexing to KCLS would be another viable alternative. Given current economic changes and the ever-increasing cost of the KCLS reciprocal agreement, the City Administration has recommended asking Renton voters to consider whether to annex to King County Library System. RCW 27.12 states that if it is the intention of the City to join the King County Library System that an ordinance be approved stating so; transmitting its intent to the Renton Library Board for its review and recommendation (Library Board meeting occurred on July 15); and to the King County Library System for their concurrence in the recommendation; and requesting the placement of the question before Renton voters. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the ordinance which states that it is in the best interest of Renton to join the King County Library System; transmit the ordinance to the King County Library System for their concurrence in the recommendation; and place the question of annexing Renton to the King County Library System before Renton voters in February 2010. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh v COMMUNITY SERVICES city of DEPARTMENT D � Sy M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 15, 2009 TO: City Council President Randy Corman Members of the City Council CC: Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Renton Library Board of Trustees STAFF CONTACT: Bette Anderson, x6820 SUBJECT: Ordinance of the City of Renton stating its intent to join the King County Library System The Renton Library Board met on Wednesday, July 15, 2009, to review the proposed ordinance stating that it is in the best interest of Renton to join the King County Library System, and placing the question of annexing Renton to the King County Library System before Renton voters at an election to be held in February 2010. The Library Board recommends that this ordinance be passed by the City Council, and that it be transmitted to the King County Library System Board of Trustees for their consideration. Peter Hartley President Pro-Tem 0 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, STATING ITS INTENT TO JOIN THE KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Renton has a population of less than 100,000; and WHEREAS, the King County Library System lies contiguous to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the citizens of the City of Renton to become part of the King County Library System; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance, previous to its adoption, has been submitted to the Library Board of the City of Renton for its review and recommendations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. It is the intention of the City of Renton to join the King County Library System. SECTION II. The public interest will be served by such joinder. SECTION III. Notification of this declaration of intent to join the King County Library System shall be transmitted to the King County Library System Board of Trustees to request their concurrence in this recommendation to annex. SECTION IV. Pursuant to RCW 27.12.360 and 370, if the Board of Trustees of the King County Library System concurs in the annexation, the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify, and to send a certified copy of this Ordinance and a copy of the concurrence of the Board of 1 n ORDINANCE NO. Trustees of the King County Library System, to the King County Council. The King County Council is hereby requested to call a special election in February 2010 according to RCW 29A.04.321 and cause notice of such election to be given as provided in RCW 29A.52.351. The purpose of the election shall be to submit to the qualified voters within the City of Renton a ballot proposition in substantially the following form: PROPOSITION 1 Should the City of Renton be annexed to and be a part of the King County Library District? ❑ Yes ❑ No SECTION V. Annexation: If a majority of persons voting on the annexation proposal shall vote in favor of annexation, the City of Renton shall be annexed to and constitute a part of the King County Library System. SECTION VI. Severability: If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall 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 Ordinance. SECTION VII. This Ordinance shall be effective upon passage, approval and thirty (30) days after publication PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2009. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 2 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 12009. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD:1537:1/29/09:scr Denis Law, Mayor 3 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Police/SCORE Staff Contact...... Penny Bartley - Extension 7565 Subject: Proceeds Distribution and Hold Harmless Agreement Exhibits: Issue Paper Proceeds Distribution and Hold Harmless Agreement Recommended Action: Council Concur Al #: e For Agenda of: 07/20/2009 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... $1,003,904 Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. 0 X SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Bellevue has held property known as the "Bellevue Jail Site" on behalf of all the JAG cities. The property has been sold and the proceeds are ready to be distributed to the cities for the purposes of additional jail capacity. Renton's portion of the proceeds will be deposited in the SCORE Development Fund, as will all the other SCORE cities, as prescribed in the SCORE Interlocal Agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Proceeds Distribution and Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Bellevue. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh 1 POLICE DEPARTMENT ®City of ��j M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 7, 2009 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the City Council VIA: } Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Kevin Milosevich, Police Chief STAFF CONTACT: Penny Bartley, SCORE Interim Director SUBJECT: Proceeds Distribution and Hold Harmless Agreement ISSUE: Should Renton enter into an Interlocal Agreement authorizing the execution of a Proceeds Distribution and Hold Harmless Agreement (Proceeds Agreement) to receive an apportionment of the jail property proceeds from the City of Bellevue. Background: The Jail Administrative Group (JAG) designated the City of Bellevue lead agency for maintaining and disposing of three parcels of land abutting 116th Avenue N.E. just north of NE 12th St (tax parcels # 2825059291, 2825059292, and 2825059015). These parcels were provided to cities through negotiation of the Jail Services Agreement (JSA) with King County in 2002. As lead agency, Bellevue is holding the proceeds from the sale of the property on behalf of all King County cities. The total amount of proceeds (net sale proceeds plus investment interest revenue) is approximately $13.1 million. Based on the anticipated sale of the jail property, on March 26, 2008, the cities, through the Jail Oversight Assembly, have directed distribution of the proceeds to each city signing the Proceeds Agreement based on a methodology that utilizes an average of each city's assessed valuation and jail population (see Attachment 1). The JAG was formed after renegotiation of the JSA which calls for a phased reduction in cities' misdemeanant prisoners. The current agreement ends on December 31, 2012, which is the date that all city misdemeanants must be housed in alternate facilities unless other arrangements are made with King County. The JAG provides an organizational structure for Randy Corman, Council President Page 2 of 3 July 7, 2009 coordinating the contract for jail beds with Yakima and King counties and to plan for new local jail beds that would be needed when the King County contract expires. The full JAG represents thirty-seven King County cities and includes an oversight committee composed of elected officials from each city (the Jail Oversight Assembly). A jail needs study was completed in 2006 which identified a total projected average daily bed need of 1,450 beds for all JAG cities in 2026. In 2007, the cities formed two groups for regional jail planning purposes, SCORE (South County Correctional Entity) and the North East Cities (NEC). Both groups are currently engaged in feasibility or construction planning for new jail facilities. At the time cities entered into the current JSA with King County, the County transferred ownership of property within the Bellevue city limits to Bellevue to hold on behalf of King County cities. The property, or proceeds from sale of the property, was to be used to help provide funding to cities for new misdemeanant jail capacity. As the caretaker of the property, Bellevue is allowed to recover costs incurred to manage and sell the properties, which totaled approximately $100,000. This amount will be deducted from the total proceeds prior to distribution to all of the cities in order to reimburse Bellevue for incurred expenses. Based upon the Oversight Assembly's approved methodology, the City of Renton's estimated share of the remaining proceeds is approximately $1,003,904. Based upon the 2002 Jail Services Agreement (JSA) with King County, the proceeds must be used for the purpose of providing or contracting for secure jail beds. The City of Renton, however, maintains discretion over the specific use of its share of the proceeds, provided the funds are used in a manner consistent with the JSA. In March, 2009, the City of Bellevue completed the sale of the jail property to Children's Hospital. Bellevue is holding the proceeds in a designated account pending the completion of the Agreement with each city to receive their share of the proceeds. Use of the property or proceeds from the property is spelled out in the JSA. The JSA indicates JAG cities will: 1) use the funds to contribute to the cost to construct or contract for secure facilities, and also may use the funds to construct or contract for alternative correction facilities at the discretion of the cities; and 2) the cities will reach the zero targets at King County . facilities by December 31, 2012. The property transfer agreement and JSA provide that in its lead role, Bellevue is responsible for returning to King County proceeds distributed to Bellevue and other cities should King County prove these provisions have not been met. These documents are ambiguous as to the scope of proceeds that must be returned in this circumstance or in the event of failing to meet the zero targets. It is Bellevue's and other King County cities position (we believe) that each city is only individually liable for return of its proceeds should its actions violate the agreements. It is not clear at this point whether King County would assert another reading of the agreements. One purpose of this Proceeds Agreement is to protect Bellevue so that it does not have any greater liability or costs than any other city solely because if its lead role functions in returning proceeds. The proceeds distribution agreement has been drafted to ensure that all cities must accept an appropriate Randy Corman, Council President Page 3 of 3 July 7, 2009 share of potential liability/costs under various possible scenarios involving King County making a claim against Bellevue for return of other cities' proceeds. Each member city will need to enter into an agreement with the City of Bellevue to receive the designated amount of funds. This action is the final step Renton must take in the transfer of the proceeds from the sale of the Bellevue property to the SCORE fund. This acceptance and transfer of the funds associated with the Bellevue property was previously authorized by the Renton City Council under three separate Interlocal Agreements. The property transfer from King County to Bellevue was authorized under resolution 3594, adopted by the City of Renton on October 28, 2002. 1) The future property sale from Bellevue to a third party was authorized under resolution 3716, adopted by the City of Renton on September 27, 2004. 2) The transfer of Renton's proceeds to SCORE was authorized under ordinance 5443, adopted by the City of Renton on February 25, 2009. RECOMMENDATION The City Council concur with the recommendation of City Administration to approve the Proceeds Distribution with the City of Bellevue for the distribution of the JAG property proceeds. PROCEEDS DISTRIBUTION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT This Proceeds Distribution and Hold Harmless Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between Renton (JAG City) and the City of Bellevue and is effective upon the date of the last signature below. RECITALS A. Whereas, King County entered into a Jail Services Agreement (JSA) with many of the cities located in King County (Contract Cities) to house and provide jail services for Contract Cities' misdemeanants; B. Whereas, the JSA provides for the transfer of real property located in Bellevue with tax parcel numbers 2825059291, 2825059292, and 2825059015 (Jail Property) to the City of Bellevue on behalf of the JAG Cities to facilitate the Contract Cities reducing their jail population housed by King County as provided in Section 11 of said JSA; C. Whereas, Section 12 of the JSA provides that the Jail Property (or the proceeds from its sale [Proceeds]) will be used to contribute to the cost of building secure capacity, or contracting for secure capacity, and at the sole discretion of the Contract Cities, building or contracting for alternative corrections facilities, sufficient to enable the Contract Cities to meet the final step of the population reduction schedule in the JSA; D. Whereas, Section 12 of the JSA further provides that in the event the Contract Cities do not meet the objectives set forth in said section, King County would be entitled to return of Proceeds; E. Whereas, on October 31, 2002, the City of Bellevue and King County entered into a Land Transfer Agreement [City of Bellevue Clerk's Receiving # 33014] conveying the Jail Property to the City of Bellevue on behalf of all cities in King County (JAG Cities) for the purposes described in Section 12 of the JSA; F. Whereas, JAG Cities, except Kent and Enumclaw, entered into an Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration (Interlocal Agreement) in part to create rules for administering the obligations related to Sections 11 and 12 of the JSA; G. Whereas, the obligations of Section 12 of the JSA are incorporated into Section 7.1 of the Interlocal Agreement including its application to all King County Cities; H. Whereas, on March 16, 2009, the City of Bellevue (Bellevue) sold the Jail Property to Seattle Children's Hospital for $13 million; I. Whereas, on March 26, 2008, the Assembly created by the Interlocal Agreement approved the distribution of Jail Proceeds; - 1 - July 7, 2009 J. Whereas, some Cities have acted to designate their portion of the Proceeds towards fulfilling their obligations under the JSA through undertakings such as the SCORE facility; K. Whereas, it is the intent of this Agreement that Bellevue stand in no worse (or better) position than any other JAG City with respect to liability or costs associated with the distribution of and/or possible return of Proceeds to King County because of its unique obligations to King County in Section 12 of the JSA as incorporated into the Interlocal Agreement (unique Section 12 obligations); L. Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, and as a precondition for receipt of said Proceeds, the JAG City and Bellevue agree: AGREEMENT Per the Jail Oversight Assembly approved formula noted in the city -by -city proceeds distribution (Attachment A), Bellevue shall pay JAG City, $ 1,003,904.60 (representing $ 1,011,597.00 - its proportionate share of the Proceeds/Interest minus $ 7,692.40 its proportionate share of the expenses Bellevue may recoup as provided in Section 7.2 of the Interlocal Agreement) within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement. 2. Upon receipt of said Proceeds, JAG City acknowledges and agrees that Bellevue has lawfully discharged all obligations and duties of Bellevue to that JAG City under the first paragraph of Section 7.2 of the Interlocal Agreement, and that Bellevue is discharged from all of its obligations and duties to that JAG City under the second paragraph of Section 7.2 of the Interlocal Agreement. 3. JAG City will abide by all requirements regarding the use of and goals related to the proceeds as provided in Section 7.1 of the Interlocal Agreement (whether a party to a JSA or not). JAG City will only leave or place a City Inmate in King County Jail after December 31, 2012 (post 2012 inmate housing) if King County confirms in writing that this post 2012 inmate housing does not violate the population reduction schedule referenced in Section 12 of the JSA and incorporated into Section 7.1 of the Interlocal Agreement. 4. Should there be a determination that a JAG City failed to abide by the requirements of Section 7.1 (at -fault JAG City) triggering an obligation for Bellevue to return all or part of the at -fault JAG City's Proceeds and any required interest to King County, said Proceeds shall be paid to Bellevue within 10 working days of written notice unless the at -fault JAG City makes other acceptable arrangements with Bellevue and/or King County or the at -fault JAG City obtains injunctive or other legal relief - 2 - July 7, 2009 against King County that absolves Bellevue of any legal obligation to return said Proceeds and interest prior to the expiration of the 10 working day period. Bellevue and JAG Cities maintain that King County may only require return of Proceeds from an at -fault JAG City. However, if there is a determination that there is an obligation to return to King County Proceeds in an amount in excess of the amount distributed to an at -fault JAG City(s) then each non at -fault JAG City shall pay up to the full amount of its Proceeds and any required interest to Bellevue within 10 working days of written notice unless the non at -fault JAG City makes other acceptable arrangements with Bellevue and/or King County or the non at -fault JAG City obtains injunctive or other legal relief against King County that confirms Bellevue has no legal obligation to return said Proceeds and interest prior to the expiration of the 10 working day period. If the obligation to return Proceeds is in excess of the at -fault JAG City's distribution, but less than each JAG City's full Proceeds, the amount due King County from the non at -fault JAG Cities shall be a prorated amount based on the percent of Proceeds received to the total Proceeds minus the amount representing the at -fault JAG City's share. The same prorated formula shall apply to required interest due from non at -fault JAG Cities. 6. Should Bellevue be sued for return of proceeds solely because of its unique Section 12 obligations, the alleged at -fault JAG City(s) shall immediately undertake the defense of Bellevue and pay all expenses and costs (including attorney's fees) associated with said defense whether or not said JAG City maintains it is or is ultimately determined to be not at -fault. Should King County be entitled to its attorney's fees in the suit, the at -fault JAG City shall hold Bellevue harmless and indemnify Bellevue from any liability or costs associated with the obligation to pay King County's attorney's fees. 7. Should Bellevue be the only party sued based on the alleged fault of other JAG Cities, those alleged at -fault JAG Cities agree to stipulate to being named as defendants with the concurrence of Plaintiff and/or not oppose Bellevue's motion to be included in the suit as an indispensible party. The obligations of Paragraph 6 shall apply whether or not the alleged at -fault JAG City is named in the litigation. 8. If King County sues Bellevue for return of proceeds because of Bellevue's alleged violation of Section 12 of the JSA regarding use of proceeds or the reduction in jail population along with other JAG Cities for their violations, each party will undertake its own defense at its own cost. 9. At -fault JAG Cities shall be responsible for costs of whatever form or nature associated with Bellevue's unique Section 12 obligations, including but not limited to staff costs in coordinating and collecting proceeds or attorneys fees, and including administrative costs Bellevue incurs even where timely payment of Proceeds is made. Said costs shall be prorated among at -fault JAG Cities as appropriate. - 3 - July 7, 2009 10. In the event Bellevue incurs liability or costs associated with its unique Section 12 obligations and said liability or costs are not addressed in any other provision of this Agreement, each JAG City shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Bellevue and its elected officials, employees agents and representatives from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, judgments, settlements, damages or costs, including reasonable attorney's fees of whatever form related to Bellevue's unique Section 12 obligations in proportion to its share of the proceeds. 11. Each JAG City shall keep its Proceeds in a segregated fund and keep records sufficient to demonstrate that all expenditures of the Proceeds comply with Section 7.1 of the Interlocal Agreement. Said records shall be kept for at least 6 years from the date of the expenditure of the last Proceeds of the JAG City. 12. The JAG City representative who will be responsible for management and expenditure of the fund and for receiving notices related to the obligations under 7.1 of the Interlocal Agreement is (include name, title, address & phone ft a. JAG City shall notify Bellevue of any change in this designated representative or contact information. 13. The City of Bellevue as a recipient of $ 971,638.82 (representing $ 979,083.98 - its proportionate share of the Proceeds/Interest minus $ 7,445.16 its proportionate share of the expenses) is also a JAG City and in that capacity shall be bound by the same terms under this Agreement as any other JAG City. 14. This Agreement shall be authorized by each JAG City's legislative body or other authorizing authority if not within authority of legislative body. 15. General Provisions: A. Governing Law; Forum. The Agreement will be governed by the laws of Washington and its choice of law rules. The JAG City consents to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located in King County, Washington, with respect to any dispute arising out of or in connection with the Agreement, and agrees not to commence or prosecute any action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with the Agreement other than in the aforementioned courts. B. Severability. If any provision of the Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provision will continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. The parties agree to replace any invalid provision with a valid provision that most closely approximates the intent and economic effect of the invalid provision. - 4 - July 7, 2009 C. Nonwaiver. Any failure by a party to enforce strict performance of any provision of the Agreement will not constitute a waiver of that party's right to subsequently enforce such provision or any other provision of the Agreement. D. No Assignment. Neither the Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the JAG City arising under the Agreement may be assigned without Bellevue's prior written consent. Subject to the foregoing, the Agreement will be binding upon, enforceable by, and inure to the benefit of, the parties and their successors and assigns. E. Notices. All notices and other communications under the Agreement must be in writing, and must be given by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or delivered by hand to the party to whom the communication is to be given, at its address set forth in this agreement. F. Legal Fees. In any lawsuit between the parties with respect to the matters covered by the Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to receive its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit, in addition to any other relief it may be awarded. G Counterparts. The Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, taken together, shall be deemed one and the same document. In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Agreement and it shall be effective as of the last date written below. CITY OF RENTON By:_ Title: ATTEST: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Date: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney -5- July 7, 2009 CITY OF BELLEVUE By: _ Title: Date: m July 7, 2009 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: Submitting Data: Public Works For Agenda of- Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division/Surface July 20, 2009 Water Utility Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Ron Straka (ext. 7248) Allen Quynn (ext. 7247) Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Subject: Adoption of the 2009 King County Surface Water Correspondence.. Design Manual and City Amendments Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Attachment #1- City of Renton Flow Control Standards Information......... Attachment #2- Application of Surface Water Design Standards For Projects Less Than One Acre X Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other. .............. Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: On January 17, 2007, the City was issued the NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). As a requirement of the permit, the City must have an ordinance in effect by February 16, 2010, adopting surface water design standards for new development, redevelopment, and construction activities that are equivalent to Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, or a NPDES Phase I Permit jurisdiction's manual that has been given equivalency by Ecology. To meet this requirement, the City proposes to adopt the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) with City specific manual amendments. These amendments are designed to tailor the KCSWDM to the unique conditions that exist in Renton while retaining the minimum requirements of the permit. Surface Water staff is working on the amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM and anticipate having the ordinance ready for adoption by the end of the year. The 2009 KCSWDM is available online at htti)://www.kinRcountv. 2ov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/documents/surface-water- design-manual.aspx. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve use of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as the basis for developing Renton -specific flow control standards and surface water design standards. CADocuments and Settings\BWalton\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\X7DZYLINA\manual agendaBill.doc\AQaw PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT '00,5101 j M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 9, 2009 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the City Council VIA: i Denis Law, Mayor FROM: ' Gregg Zimmerman A ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor (ext. 7248) Allen Quynn, Surface Water Utility Engineer (ext. 7247) SUBJECT: Adoption of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and City Amendments ISSUE: Should the Council adopt the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) with an addendum tailoring the manual to meet the specific needs of the City? RECOMMENDATION: Approve use of the 2009 KCSWDM and City amendments including tailored flow control standards in the City and the application of equivalent surface water design standards to all projects, regardless of size. Hold in Committee until the adopting ordinance is presented for Council review. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Phase II Permit) is a requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has the regulatory authority from the EPA to implement the NPDES permit program. The Western Washington NPDES Phase II Permit was issued to owners and operators of regulated small municipal separate storm systems (MS4s) located in Western Washington on January 17, 2007. MS4s are those jurisdictions that have a population less than 100,000, such as the City of Renton. The NPDES Phase II Permit requires the City to adopt, by ordinance, the surface water design standards contained in Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, or an equivalent NPDES Phase I Permit jurisdiction's manual that has been approved by Ecology. The effective date of the ordinance shall be no later Council/Adoption of 2009 KCSWDM Page 2 of 2 July 9, 2009 than February 16, 2010. To satisfy this requirement, the City proposes to adopt the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City amendments to the manual. The 2009 KCSWDM has been given equivalency by Ecology. The changes in the manual are designed to reflect the unique requirements in Renton, while still ensuring compliance with the NPDES Phase II Permit. Most of the proposed changes to the 2009 KCSWDM are minor; however, it is proposed that the manual addendum include changes to the permit related to which projects are regulated in the City, the specific flow control standards projects must follow for different areas of the City, and additional amendments. These changes are in areas of the permit where Ecology has provided NPDES Phase II Permit jurisdictions some flexibility in meeting the permit requirements. Jurisdictions must still meet all of the minimum requirements of the permit. The City of Renton Flow Control Standards (Attachment #1) discusses adopting flow control standards that are tailored to different areas in the City. The Application of Surface Water Design Standards for Projects Less than One Acre (Attachment #2) discusses the proposal to apply surface water design standards for development, redevelopment and construction activities that are less than one acre in size. Various City stakeholders including Public Works, Community and Economic Development, and Community Services are working together on a draft manual amendment and an ordinance adopting the amendments and 2009 King County Surface Manual to bring forward to the City Council by the end of the year. The topic is being referred to the Utilities Committee to allow a briefing on the topic, and review of City of Renton Flow Control Standards and Application of Surface Water Design Standards for Projects Less than One Acre. The Surface Water Utility will be preparing additional amendments to be provided for Council review prior to adoption. The topic will remain an active referral item until the manual adoption is completed. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the Council approve use of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and amendments requiring the application of equivalent surface water design standards to all projects regardless of size and adoption of different flow control standards in certain parts of the City, if approved by Ecology. cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director File H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101- Design\Manual Adoption\Adoption Issue Paper_NewFormat.doc Attachment #1 City of Renton Flow Control Standards It is recommended that the City adopt alternative flow control standards tailored to conditions within the City rather than apply the default standards presented in the NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Phase II Permit). The Department of Ecology (Ecology) allows alternative standards provided that water quality standards are not violated and beneficial uses are protected. The following flow control standards are recommended for application within the City. Areas where the various standards apply are shown on the Flow Control Application Map (see attached Exhibit A). 1. Flow Control Duration Standard matching forested (historic) conditions (this is the default standard of the NPDES Permit) for areas draining to streams and subject to flow -related water quality problems such as erosion or sedimentation. 2. Flow Control Duration Standard matching existing site conditions in designated highly urbanized areas draining to streams that are currently stable or showing no impacts caused by high flows. 3. Peak Rate Flow Control Standard matching 2, 10 and 100-year peak -rate runoff for areas draining to constructed (man-made) drainage systems. It is also recommended that the City allow areas to directly discharge (without flow control) to Lake Washington, the lower Cedar River, and lower John's Creek, all recognized by Ecology as flow control exempt water bodies. Direct discharge would only be allowed if the discharge is conveyed through a downstream constructed conveyance system that is demonstrated to have sufficient capacity to convey the future land use condition flow for the total potential tributary area that the storm conveyance system could serve and there are no existing or potential drainage problems (flooding, water quality and habitat) that could result by allowing direct discharge. Direct discharge would still have to meet water quality treatment requirements prior to discharge from the project site to the receiving natural water body. Ecology's approval of the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard and areas that could use existing site conditions will be required prior to their adoption and use by the City. Introduction The NPDES Phase II Permit incorporates the 2005 Ecology Manual requirements for flow control. Flow control facility' release rates are based on a flow duration standard. Flow durations reflect the amount of time various flows are equaled or exceeded over a continuous, long-term period. Duration -based detention standards require runoff from developments to be detained and released at rates matching the flow duration expected for an undeveloped site. 1 Flow control facilities include open ponds, underground vaults and infiltration rates, and include a certain amount of storage volume and an outlet control to release flow at a controlled release rate. Flow Control Standards Page 2 of 5 The undeveloped condition is typically required to be the historic or forested condition regardless of what is on the site immediately before the project is constructed. Runoff from the developed site is detained and released at a rate that matches the flow durations from a forested site for all flows between % of the 2-year flow up to the 50-year flow. The flow duration standard based on the forested, pre -developed condition is the default detention standard required by the NPDES Phase II Permit. It is intended to prevent excessive erosion of streambed channels which impacts water quality and habitat, and causes slope instability and property damage. The default flow control standard that the City currently uses is a peak -rate standard matching pre and post -development peaks. This requirement was based on the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. These standards are considered inadequate for the protection of the beneficial uses of receiving waters and do not satisfy the NPDES Phase II Permit requirements. The 1990 peak -rate standards were also based on the use of single -event hydrologic modeling rather than continuous hydrologic modeling that is required for current standards. Because the 1990 standards are no longer considered adequate, the City is currently only allowing this standard for projects that generate less than 0.5 cfs of runoff after development. For projects that generate 0.5 cfs or more, the City is currently requiring the duration -based standards in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The City made this decision since the 1990 standard did not provide enough protection against flooding and corresponding property damage, safety issues, and impacts to riparian habitat due to erosion and sedimentation. In some situations, the cumulative effect of the lower standard created downstream flooding problems, which require capital improvement program projects to improve the conveyance infrastructure capacity to eliminate flooding problems that had been created. The NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires the City to adopt standards equivalent to the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington. In general, the standards required by the NPDES Phase II Permit will produce ponds that are similar to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, which the City has been requiring for projects that generate more than 0.5 cfs of runoff. The ponds sized using the Ecology manual can be more than double the size of those previously required by the 1990 King County Manual. The large flow control facilities are needed to prevent downstream flooding and excessive erosion of streambed channels, which degrade water quality and riparian habitat, and increase slope instability, which may result in property damage. Higher flow control standards also reduce the need for capital improvement program projects, which reduce costs to ratepayers. Pond sizes are larger for the following reasons: • Duration -based standards require detention volumes that are larger than peak -rate standards because the duration ponds are sized to control the range of flows from % of the 2-year up to the 50-year event, rather than targeting a few specific events. H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SW P-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\Flow Control Memo 073009.doc\AQaw Flow Control Standards Page 3 of 5 • Ponds that are sized using continuous modeling are larger than those sized using single rainfall events because they account for extended periods of rain rather than isolated, limited duration storm events. • Ponds sized to match forested conditions are larger than those sized to meet site conditions that exist prior to development. The default flow control standard in the NPDES Phase II Permit specifies target release rates to match runoff from the historic or forested land cover. The 1990 King County Manual allowed the land cover present in 1979 to define the pre -developed condition. The City is proposing alternative standards that are tailored to specific conditions within the City. Ecology allows alternative standards provided that it can be demonstrated that they are meeting the objectives of the Clean Water Act, which is to protect water quality and stream habitat and minimize streambed erosion, and are not violating water quality standards. The following provides a description of alternative standards that are being proposed. See Exhibit A for areas within the City that are covered by the various standards. Flow Control Duration Standard The Flow Control Duration Standard requires runoff from urban developments to be detained and released at a rate that matches the flow duration of pre -developed rates over the range of flows extending from % of the 2-year up to the 50-year flow. Flow duration specifies the cumulative amount of time various flows are equaled or exceeded during a long-term simulation using historical rainfall. The target flow duration may be the historic or fully forested condition or in specific situations it may be the existing site or pre -project condition as described below. Exhibit A shows the areas where the historic and pre -project conditions are allowed. The flow control duration standard matching the historic condition is the default standard specified by the NPDES Phase II Permit — applicable to all developments unless exceptions have been approved. Forested land cover: Runoff from the developed site will be controlled and released at a rate that matches the flow duration for a forested (historic) land cover. The historic land cover is the default standard required by the technical requirements of the NPDES Phase II Permit. The standard is applicable to those areas draining to streams that have erodible channels where runoff from urban areas has the potential to destabilize the channel. Existing land cover: Runoff from the developed site will be controlled and released at a rate that matches the flow duration for the site conditions existing before the development. These are areas that have been developed for years and drain to stream channels that have become stabilized to a new hydrologic regime. Ecology has proposed that the existing land cover can be used in basins that have had at least 40 percent total impervious surface area for the 20 years preceding Ecology's adoption of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (called the 40/20 H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\Flow Control Memo 071009.doc\AQaw Flow Control Standards Page 4 of 5 rule) and the stream channels receiving the runoff are considered stable from the standpoint of excessive erosion or sedimentation. In developing the 40/20 rule for highly urbanized basins, Ecology conducted a preliminary analysis and produced maps that identified those areas that may meet the criteria. Portions of Renton were included in the initial maps prepared by Ecology. These maps have been adjusted to better represent the drainage basin divides within the City. Flow control facilities designed to the 40/20 rule will only have to mitigate for the added impervious surface. As a result, these ponds will be smaller than those required to be designed to match runoff from a fully forested site.. Peak Rate Flow Control Standard The Peak Rate Flow Control Standard is a peak -rate matching standard intended to prevent increases of flows for specific events rather than match flow durations over a range of flows. The standard is assumed appropriate for use in areas where the concern is flooding rather than streambed erosion. Within the City of Renton, this standard is proposed for those areas draining to pipes or non -fish bearing constructed conveyance systems leading to the lower Cedar River, Lake Washington, or the portion of the Green River Valley floor located in Renton. For the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard, runoff is detained and released at a rate matching the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year peak flow rates based on existing (not historic) conditions, which include only those areas that fall under the 40 percent rule. Detention volumes are determined using continuous modeling that accounts for extended rainfall periods when there are sequential storm events. Note that this standard is similar to the City's current standard and has been used by King County and other jurisdictions. Flow Control Exemption Areas discharging to flow control exempt receiving waters do not have to provide detention provided the requirements specified in the NPDES Phase II Permit and the City's stormwater manual are satisfied. Lake Washington, the Lower Cedar River (below the confluence with Taylor Creek,) and John's Creek (below 1-405) are recognized as flow control exempt water bodies. Direct discharge is allowed via a man-made conveyance element (pipes, ditches, or outfalls) if it does not result in the diversion of drainage from any perennial stream classified as Types 1, 2, 3 or 4 in the State of Washington Interim Water Typing System, or Types S, F or Np in the Permanent Water Typing System provided that the downstream constructed conveyance system is demonstrated to have sufficient capacity to convey the future land use condition flow for the total potential tributary area that the storm conveyance system could serve and there are no existing or potential drainage problems (flooding, water quality and habitat) that could result by allowing the direct discharge. There has been some discussion as to the distance allowed from flow control exempt receiving water. King County has stipulated % mile. Ecology has indicated the interpretation that "limits H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\Flow Control Memo 071009.doc\AQaw Flow Control Standards Page 5 of 5 the exemption to that portion of a project that lies within a % mile distance. If a stormwater discharge from a site includes water from outside the boundary, the discharge would not qualify for the exemption." (Excerpted from a letter from Ecology to WSDOT, dated April 15, 2004, to document Ecology's position on Flow Control Exemption Criteria.) For the proposed standards, we are proposing areas of up to 0.5 miles. Conclusion It is recommended the City adopt alternative flow control standards tailored to different areas of the City rather than apply the NPDES Phase II Permit default standards everywhere. A tailored approach will allow the City to apply the permit standards where necessary while allowing flexibility in areas where the default flow control standards will not provide significant benefit. These proposed alternative flow control standards are higher than the standards in the current 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual and will provide increased protection against flooding and improve water quality. Tailoring the requirements to match conditions within the City will provide a more cost effective approach while still meeting the intent of the permit requirements. The advantages to this approach include: • Reduces flooding and protects properties from flood damages. • Meets NPDES Phase II Permit requirements. • Protects stream habitat and water quality by reducing stream bank erosion and sedimentation. • Reduces long-term capital improvement costs associated with conveyance system improvements, water quality or habitat restoration projects, which in turn reduces costs to Surface Water Utility ratepayers. • Provides a practicable approach tailored to protect the beneficial uses of streams through the application of reasonable and appropriate flow control standards. • The proposed alternative standards would not be as strict as the default NPDES Permit requirements if applied everywhere, which will also be beneficial in attracting economic development to the City while maintaining its livability. Adopting alternative flow control standards as part of the City's Surface Water Design Manual update has been discussed with staff from Community and Economic Development and they concur with the approach of developing flow control standards that are tailored to better meet the needs of the City. Attachment H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\3101-Design\Manual Adoption\Flow Control Memo 071009.doc\AQaw Exhibit A Flow Control Standards Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions) Duration Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions) Duration Flow Control Standard (Forested Conditions) Renton City Limits Potential Annexation Area „ Lake"A � a �,j tt" Wd N r '.33 he✓e . n ...wp' B. B ii 44■• YI ^e �`^, W[tr $ g 7R �a■ r .. p[ Pam/ pQ ~ 1 �.34 l n t ��%Y.ie jci F.�_ \� r _f •RYea �/�.4 � k ��..rra r � V r ' ' `q ,.Q (, .;`i. � � R7y�+.; T� �""1 � 1•I��"111 � �yi Awn cP3 Neek �� ,�:' •:s�'��S � - �, ro 5,r � $ f ti Flow Control Application Map " A 0 1 2 Miles O City of _ Printed 7/2/2009 \�r�-a�'••'TeT� \tea �f':�•c�.. Attachment #2 Application of Surface Water Design Standards for Projects less than One Acre It is recommended that the same standards be applied to all sites, even sites less than one acre. This will ensure consistency of regulations throughout the City, provide more comprehensive management of stormwater, and avoid confusion caused by different methodologies or design standards required according to development size. It will also avoid cumulative and detrimental effects on water quality, fish habitat, other environmental resources, aesthetics, recreational benefits, and future infrastructure improvement needs caused by lesser standards applied to small sites. This will result in less cost to utility ratepayers in the future and help maintain the livability of the community. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates the discharge of stormwater under the authority of the Federal Clean Water Act. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has the designated authority to administer NPDES within the state of Washington. Under this authority, Ecology has issued NPDES Permits regulating the discharge of stormwater. The City of Renton is under the regulation of the NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, (NPDES Phase II Permit) issued on February 16, 2007. The current NPDES Phase II Permit will remain in effect until February 15, 2012, after which a new permit will be issued. The NPDES Phase II Permit applies to new development, redevelopment and construction activities that affect an area of land equal to or greater than one acre. The one -acre threshold is defined as the regulatory threshold. Projects or activities that meet or exceed the regulatory threshold are to comply with the applicable requirements for new developments and redevelopments as specified in Appendix 1 of the NPDES Phase II Permit. The requirements are based on Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 Ecology Manual). Local jurisdictions have some discretion when determining stormwater requirements for areas less than the one -acre regulatory threshold. Specifically, Appendix 1 of the NPDES Phase II Permit states "permittees whose ordinances at the time of permit issuance regulate new development and redevelopment at sites below the regulatory threshold must continue to regulate stormwater from those project sites. For those project sites below the regulatory threshold, the permittee must continue to apply the local stormwater requirements in effect at the time of permit issuance or apply the minimum requirements for new development and redevelopment contained in the Appendix." The current City stormwater requirements regulate sites smaller than one acre in size, in accordance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (1990 King County Manual.) The City therefore must continue to regulate below the one -acre threshold, but has Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 2 of 10 the option of regulating the sites in accordance with the 1990 King County Manual or applying the NPDES minimum requirements based on the 2005 Ecology Manual. Stormwater regulations have evolved over the years and there are significant differences between the 1990 Ecology Manual and the NPDES minimum requirements, which are based on the 2005 Ecology Manual. Table 1 provides a comparison between the City's current standards and the 2005 Ecology Manual, and applies to all projects regardless of size. It should be noted that under certain circumstances, the City requires a project to comply with more recent stormwater standards such as the 2005 Ecology Manual or the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (2005 King County Manual.) These requirements are added as a condition of SEPA. Table 1. Comparison between current City standards and Ecology's 2005 Manual Current requirement NPDES Phase II Permit requirement Threshold for creation Projects adding more than Permit applies to land disturbance or replacement of 5,000 square feet of new equal to or greater than one acre. The impervious surfaces impervious surface triggers core City currently regulates smaller areas triggering stormwater requirements that include flow and can choose to follow the current requirements. control and water quality requirements. treatment. Projects with 2,000 square feet of new and/or replaced impervious surface triggers application of some of the minimum requirements, such as erosion control, source control, and on - site stormwater management. Projects with 5,000/10,000 square feet of new impervious surfaces require a review of all minimum requirements including flow control and water quality treatment. H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\1 Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 3 of 10 Table 1. Comparison between current City standards and Ecology's 2005 Manual Current requirement NPDES Phase II Permit requirement Redevelopment Requirements are not Requirements are differentiated based differentiated on the basis of on whether the project is a new whether the project is a new development or a redevelopment. development or a redevelopment. Various For redevelopment projects that add or requirements are based on the replace 2,000 square feet or more of impacts of the proposed impervious surfaces, minimum project. There are no requirements related to erosion and requirements for retrofitting sediment control must be applied to existing development. the new and replaced impervious surface. For redevelopment projects that add more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, flow control is required to mitigate for the new impervious surfaces and converted impervious surfaces. For redevelopment projects that add 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced impervious surfaces, and the value of the proposed interior and exterior improvements exceeds 50 percent of the assessed value of the existing site improvements, flow control is required to mitigate for the new and replaced impervious surfaces. Any redevelopment project that has a post -developed runoff increase over pre -developed runoff of less than 0.1 cfs is exempt from flow control. Any redevelopment project can apply LID measures to get under the 0.1 cfs threshold and avoid flow control, or at a minimum, receive a flow control reduction credit that would result in a smaller flow control facility. H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SW P-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\3101-Design\Manual Adoption\1 Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 4 of 10 Table 1. Comparison between current City standards and Ecology's 2005 Manual Current requirement NPDES Phase II Permit requirement Default standard Match pre and post -developed Match flow durations between %Z of the peak flows for the 2-year and 2-year and up to the 50-year flows. 10-year event, include 30 percent volume safety factor. Pre -developed Site conditions prior to 1979. Historic (Forested) condition used to establish the flow Unless the project is in an area control targets designated by Ecology as 40 percent impervious as of 1985, called the 40/20 rule, in which case the project can assume existing site conditions. Methodology Event based runoff modeling Runoff modeling using long-term, predicting flows for selected continuous simulation, for example, rainfall events. 50-year rainfall and evaporation record. Flow control exemption Flow control facilities are not Flow control facilities are not required required if the peak runoff rate if the peak runoff rate for the 100-year for the 100-year storm storm increases less than 0.1 cfs. increases less than 0.5 cfs. Low impact No LID options For projects less than 10,000 square Development (LID) feet of new impervious area added, LID Options options can be used to eliminate the requirement for flow control. For projects greater than 10,000 square feet of new impervious areas added, LID options can be used as a credit to minimize facility size. Water Quality Current Requirement NPDES Phase II Permit requirement Standard Treatment Biofiltration (swales or filter Basic treatment BMPs sized for the strips) designed for the 2-year 6-month storm are required for storm are required for projects projects adding 5,000 square feet of adding 5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious new pollution generating surface. The NPDES Phase II Permit impervious surface. technical requirements allow for more treatment facility types. Additional A wetpond plus a biofiltration Enhanced treatment BMPs such as Requirements Swale, or an oversized wetpond, sand filters or filter media for projects or vault is required if a that trigger the enhanced treatment H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\S Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 5 of 10 Table 1. Comparison between current City standards and Ecology's 2005 Manual Current requirement NPDES Phase II Permit requirement proposed project constructs menu. Projects that require enhanced more than one acre of pollution treatment are industrial, commercial, generating impervious surface multi -family and projects with high and discharges to sensitive annual average daily traffic counts as receiving water bodies. defined in the 2005 Ecology Manual. Oil control and/or phosphorus control may be required for projects meeting certain criteria. Summary of Differences between Standards Threshold for Added Impervious Surface: The technical requirements in Appendix 1 of the NPDES Phase II Permit lower the threshold for applying stormwater requirements. This will result in more site developments requiring review, but will assure that a greater degree of stormwater controls are applied to new construction within the City. Currently, developments that create more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface trigger drainage review, and are required to follow seven core requirements including off -site analyses, erosion control, runoff control, and conveyance system design. If the NPDES technical requirements were applied to sites less than the one -acre regulatory threshold, then sites adding as little as 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface could be required to follow at least some of the minimum requirements, including preparation of stormwater site plans, erosion control, source control of pollution and on -site stormwater management. In addition, there may be situations where runoff from both new pavement and replaced pavement needs to be treated. Flow Control: Applying the NPDES technical requirements to sites below the regulatory threshold may result in flow control facilities, such as detention ponds, being required on smaller sites. Furthermore, if the default flow control standards are applied, the flow control facilities required will be larger and designed by a different methodology than those required under current standards. Collectively, more flow control facilities and facilities designed to more stringent standards will result in a higher level of protection for the City infrastructure and water resources. The standards in the City adopted 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual exempts projects from providing flow control facilities, assuming a negligible peak runoff rate flow increase if the development adds less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface or the existing 100-year peak flow rate is not increased by more than 0.5 cfs. The peak flow rate change considers runoff under existing site conditions or those existing prior to 1979 when King County first adopted requirements for stormwater control. Redevelopment sites less than one H:\File Sys\SW P - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\3 Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 6 of 10 acre in size would probably not have to provide any flow control if the existing flow rates are higher due to the impervious surface on the site existing prior to 1979 (refer to the example below). In an effort to require projects to comply with more stringent stormwater standards that are consistent with the latest versions of the King County Surface Water Design Manual, the City requires as a condition of SEPA, that certain projects comply with the stormwater standards in the 2005 King County Manual if they trigger the 0.5 cfs flow control threshold. If a project does not trigger the 0.5 cfs flow control threshold then it is only required to meet the standards in the 1990 King County Manual. The requirements of the 2005 King County Manual are essentially equivalent to the technical standards of the NPDES Permit. The SEPA condition applied by the City will mitigate impacts from larger projects but many smaller residential projects, such as 3 and 4 lot short plats, would not require flow control because the predicted increase of runoff from the site is typically less than the 0.5 cfs threshold. The NPDES Phase II Permit requires flow control facilities if a project adds 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, or increases the existing 100-year peak runoff rate by more than 0.1 cfs. Generally, conversion of about 10,000 square feet of forest land to impervious surface will produce a 0.1 cfs increase in the 100-year runoff rate. The NPDES Phase II Permit technical requirements also encourage the use of low impact development (LIDS) if site conditions allow. LIDS are simple, stormwater management techniques or best management practices (BMPs) that allow projects to infiltrate or disperse runoff in an effort to mitigate some, if not all, of a project's stormwater impacts depending on the size of the project. Examples of LIDS include infiltration and dispersion trenches, rain gardens and permeable pavement. For smaller projects, such as 5 or 6 lot residential plats that are just over the 0.1 cfs flow control threshold LIDS can be applied to a site that may reduce the post -developed runoff to a level below the 0.1 cfs threshold, which would not require flow control. For projects that add less than 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface, typically a 3 or 4 lot or smaller residential plats, no stormwater analysis would be required and the project would be automatically exempt from the flow control requirement. For larger projects, such as 7 lot plats and greater, that do not meet the 0.1 cfs flow control exemption, LIDS can still be used as a credit to help offset the size of an engineered flow control facility such as a pond or vault. Flow control facilities required by the NPDES Phase II Permit are larger than those required under current City standards due to the following reasons: • The default NPDES standard assumes the historic or forested condition as defining the pre -developed flow targets, whereas the current City standards allow existing site conditions as defined by the extent of development existing on the site as of 1979. Under the NPDES standard, redevelopment projects will be required to H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\1 Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 7 of 10 mitigate to forested conditions regardless of what the site conditions were in 1979. The one exception to this standard is areas the Washington State Department of Ecology has identified and mapped as 40 percent impervious as of 1985, also known as the 40/20 rule. The City will use this exception and will allow projects falling within these areas to assume pre -developed conditions as existing site conditions. The NPDES flow control standard is a duration based standard requiring matching flow durations over a range of flows between %2 of the 2-year up to the 50-year. The duration based standard requires the use of continuous hydrologic modeling that can take into consideration extended periods of rain rather than isolated, individual events. Flow control facilities based on the duration based standards can be more than double the size of those ponds based on the 2 and 10- peak rate standards that are in the 1990 King County Manual currently required by the City. Water Quality: Applying the NPDES technical requirements to sites below the regulatory threshold will likely increase the total amount of area treated by water quality treatment BMPs within the City. Under the current regulations, treatment BMPs are only required if the project adds more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious area subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. If the NPDES requirements are applied to projects less than the one -acre threshold, treatment would be required for the new impervious surfaces provided 5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS) is added. For new projects, treatment BMPs can be required for projects adding less than 5,000 square feet of PGIS if they are also converting at least % of an acre from forest to landscaped areas. For redevelopment projects, treatment can be required for both new and replaced impervious surfaces if the total of new plus replaced surfaces is 5,000 square feet or more and the value of the proposed improvements exceeds 50 percent of the assessed value of the existing site. Application of the NPDES requirements to sites less than the regulatory threshold will also expand the treatment alternatives that are available. Under the current requirements, biofiltration is required if a project adds more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface. Special water quality controls involving wetponds, wetvaults, or water quality swales are required for certain projects adding more than one acre of new impervious surface. The NPDES technical requirements, based on the 2005 Ecology Manual, broaden the definition of water quality treatment to include basic and enhanced treatment BMPs. Basic treatment specifies a certain level of suspended solids removal while enhanced treatment targets increased metals removal. Enhanced treatment is required for certain activities or developments with significant pollution generating surfaces such as industrial and commercial sites and projects with high vehicular traffic counts. The 2005 Ecology Manual includes additional treatment BMPs approved for use. H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1301-Design\Manual Adoption\1 Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 8 of 10 Example A recent development was used to compare the potential differences in standards that can be applied to those developments below the regulatory threshold of one acre. Information used for the comparison was obtained from the Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Baima and Holmberg, Inc. for the Aberdeen Place Short Plat (August 2005). It involved the development of a 0.85 acre single-family residential site into five single-family lots within the City of Renton. Prior to the development, the site consisted of 0.13 acres of impervious surface and 0.76 acres of lawn. Information provided in the TIR demonstrated that detention was not required for the site since the predicted change in the 100-year flow was only 0.33 cfs (below the 0.50 cfs threshold). The analyses were based on a single event, 24-hour storm as required for the threshold determination. If the minimum technical requirements of the NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit were applied, the project would require flow control since more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface was added and the predicted 100-year flow rate increased 0.12 cfs from 0.12 cfs to 0.24 cfs, which is more than the 0.10 cfs flow control exemption threshold. This analysis was based upon the use of a continuous simulation hydraulic model as required by the NPDES Permit which accounts for the difference between the City's current standard and the NPDES Permit requirements when calculating the pre and post -developed 100-year runoff. The amount of detention depends on the standard applied as well as the pre -project condition required. Table 2 compares detention volumes and an estimated area of the flow control facility for different flow control requirements. The 1990 standards represent those currently in effect. The "Basic Flow Control" represents the conveyance based standard being proposed for certain areas within the City of Renton (refer to the City of Renton Flow Control Standards, Attachment #1). The "Flow Duration" standard with the forested pre -developed condition represents the default standard of the NPDES Permit. The "Flow Duration" standard assuming the existing site condition for setting the flow control targets is based on the standard in the 2005 Ecology Manual for highly urbanized drainage basins that have been developed for more than 20 years. The new standards, if applied to this project, would result in flow control facilities that could require more than 10,000 cubic feet of storage. The largest pond shown in Table 2 would take up approximately 4,700 square feet, or over 12 percent, of the site based on the assumptions noted in the table. H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Man ual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\1 Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 9 of 10 Table 2. Comparison of different flow control requirements for example project. Standard Pre -developed Volume (cubic feet) Area (square feet) 1990 Standards 1979 Exempt Exempt Project using LIDS Existing Exempt Exempt Basic Flow Control 2-year, 10-year, 100-year Existing 2,831 1,557 Flow Duration Existing 6,816 1,656 Flow Duration Forested 10,656 4,704 o Results are for a site on soils with low permeability (till soils.) o Ponds are based on a typical configuration of 3 feet deep with 3:1 side slopes. o Area does not include additional space for access roads and berms. o Flow control is assumed required for all new plus replaced impervious surfaces. o All ponds were designed using KCRTS. This example project demonstrates that application of NPDES requirements to below the regulatory threshold will increase the stormwater mitigation requirements for sites that would otherwise be exempt. However, if this project were to incorporate LIDS, it would actually be exempt from the required construction of a flow control facility. For example, using downspout infiltration BMPs on each of the 5 lots would result in a decrease in the post -developed runoff from 0.12 cfs to 0.08 cfs, which is below the 0.1 cfs threshold requiring flow control. As stated, the City often requires more stringent stormwater standards through the SEPA review process. Currently, many of the City's own transportation improvement projects are following more stringent detention standards, such as the 2005 Ecology Manual, in order to be compliant with federal standards, as these projects are typically partially funded with federal funds. CONCLUSION The technical standards required by the NPDES Phase II Permit are more stringent than those currently required by the City. The new standards will result in larger flow control ponds and there will be more water quality requirements for developments; however, projects that are able to incorporate LIDS can, in some cases, either eliminate the requirement for flow control or, at a minimum, reduce the size of their flow control facility. The technical standards of the permit are a requirement the City will have to follow for those developments meeting the permit thresholds. The NPDES requirements will protect the City and reduce long-term capital improvement costs to manage stormwater. Collectively, the requirements will provide a higher level of protection H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Man ual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\1 Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw Surface Water Standards - Less than One Acre Page 10 of 10 against flooding and erosion, and will improve water quality treatment. In the long run, these requirements will protect the beneficial uses of streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands that are protected under the Clean Water Act. However, the new standards may result in slightly higher stormwater infrastructure costs to developers. For projects or land disturbing activities of less than one acre in size, the City has the option to apply the requirements of the NPDES Phase II Permit or to continue following its current standards, which are based upon the 1990 King County Manual. Applying the NPDES requirements to sites below the one -acre regulatory threshold will extend the higher level of protection to more areas of the City and will avoid cumulative impacts that can be associated with smaller projects that are allowed to be developed with less restrictive standards. It will also prevent the need for the City to maintain and apply two different sets of standards and, by doing so, eliminate the use of outdated standards that are no longer used or supported by current stormwater manuals. This paper was discussed with staff members from the Community Services Department, the Community and Economic Development Department, and the Transportation Systems Division, all of whom concur with the recommendation to apply the same stormwater standards to all projects regardless of size. H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3129 Renton Stormwater Manual\1101-Design\Manual Adoption\3 Acre Threshold Memo 071009.doc/AQaw CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: lvcj Submitting Data: Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems/Surface Water July 20, 2009 Staff Contact...... Ron Straka (ext. 7248) Agenda Status Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Ordinance Amending RMC 4-6-030 Regarding Illicit Correspondence.. Discharges to the City's Municipal Separate Storm Ordinance ............. X Systems as Required by the National Pollutant Resolution............ Discharge Elimination Systems Phase II Municipal Old Business........ Stormwater Permit New Business....... Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Ordinance Draft & Mark—up Information......... Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... Other.... ........... Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: In order to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, the City must implement a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges and/or connections into the City's separate storm system (MS4). One component of this program is the adoption of an ordinance to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the City's MS4 to the maximum extent allowable under state and federal law. The ordinance amending RMC 4-6-030 regulates the discharge of materials other than stormwater into the City's storm systems, surface and/or groundwater and provides examples of illicit discharges, allowable discharges and conditional discharges. The ordinance adopts the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual with amendments that provide detailed information for businesses, residents, managers, and property owners about best management practices that are to be used to prevent illicit discharges when performing certain activities. The ordinance provides for the authority needed to effectively address any violations as required by the NPDES Permit. The purpose of the ordinance is to control non-stormwater discharges into the City's storm systems to protect water quality in the natural water resources (streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands) that provide recreational benefits (swimming, boating, fishing, aesthetic) that are enjoyed by the public and to protect habitat for wildlife and aquatic resources. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the ordinance to amend RMC 4-6-030 to expressly prohibit illicit discharges and illicit connections into the City's MS4, surface and groundwater in order to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Phase II Permit, and present the ordinance for first and second reading. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3058 2003 NPDES Phase 11 Permit\1001 Corresp\Agenda Bill - IDDE\AgendaBill-IDDELdoc\RStp PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D City of i M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 9, 2009 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: �i� Denis Law, Mayor j FROM: �r� Gregg" ' Zimmerman,dministrator STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Engineering Supervisor (ext. 7248) SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending RMC 4-6-030 Regarding Illicit Discharges to the City's Municipal Separate Storm Systems as Required by the NPDES Phase II Permit ISSUE: Should the City amend RMC 4-6-030 to effectively regulate discharges other than stormwater into the City's separate storm system (MS4), surface and groundwater as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the ordinance to amend RMC 4-6-030 to expressly prohibit illicit discharges and illicit connections into the City's MS4, surface and groundwater in order to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Phase II Permit, and present the ordinance for first and second reading. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Under the NPDES Phase II Permit, the City of Renton is mandated to protect water resources through the implementation of five minimum control measures. One of the control measures includes having an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program. One of the elements of the IDDE program, required by the NPDES Phase II Permit, includes the adoption of an ordinance to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges (such as sewage, petroleum products, wash water, vehicle fluids and food wastes) into the Municipal storm systems, surface water and groundwater resources. While City staff has already developed and started implementing methods to locate and eliminate possible illicit discharges and/or connections, the City is specifically required to take measures and expressly prohibit these discharges by adopting an ordinance by August 16, 2009. The NPDES Phase 11 Permit states that: Council/Ordinance Illicit Discharge Page 2 of 2 July 9, 2009 "Each Permittee shall develop and implement an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to effectively prohibit non-stormwater, illicit discharges into the Permittee's municipal separate storm sewer system to the maximum extent allowable under State and Federal law." The attached Code Revisions Document contains all recommended changes to City Code. The major features for the ordinance amending RMC 4-6-030 are: • Prohibition of illicit non-stormwater discharges to the MS4, surface and ground water. • Exemption of certain activities and discharges serving identified public purposes and other common activities determined to be insignificant contributors of pollutants. • Exemption of certain activities that may result in an illicit discharge unless the application of best management practice (BMPs) as specified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. • Prohibition of illicit connections into the City's MS4. • The adoption of the King County 2009 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual as now and here after amended. • Remedial actions. • Authorization of Administrator or designee to inspect, eliminate, monitor, and enforce penalties for violations. • Responsibility to discover, contain, clean-up and report. Reasons why the adoption of this ordinance amending RMC 4-6-030 is a good approach for Renton: • Meets the requirements of the NPDES Phase II Permit. • Protects public health or safety. • Protects the recreational benefits (swimming, boating, fishing and aesthetics) of the City's the natural water resources (streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands). • Protects water quality, fish and wildlife habitat. • Provides detailed information for businesses, residents, managers, and property owners describing the actions we are required to take in order to reduce the contamination of stormwater, surface water and groundwater. • Provides City staff the authority needed to effectively bring to an end any identified prohibited illicit discharges and/or illicit connections. CONCLUSION: Approve the proposed ordinance amending RMC 4-6-030 to regulate illicit discharges and connections to the City's municipal separate storm system, surface water and groundwater resources and submit the ordinance for first and second reading. Attachment cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director File H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3058 2003 NPDES Phase 11 Permit\1001 Corresp\Agenda Bill - IDDE\2009-06-26 IDDE Issue Paper.doc\RStp DRAFT CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 3, REMEDIES AND PENALTIES, OF TITLE I (ADMINISTRATIVE); CHAPTER 6, STREET AND UTILITY STANDARDS; AND CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON", TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND REGULATION OF ILLICIT STORMWATER DISCHARGE, ITS DETECTION AND ELIMINATION, ADOPTION OF THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL, ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR "BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)", `BMPs", "ILLICIT CONNECTION", "ILLICIT DISCHARGE", "MS4", "MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM", "NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT", "NPDES", "POTW" AND "PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS", AMENDING THE STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, PROVIDING THAT VIOLATIONS THEREOF SHALL BE AN INFRACTION AND REPEAT VIOLATIONS A MISDEMEANOR, DECLARING ILLICIT CONNECTIONS AND ILLICIT DISCHARGES A NUISANCE, AMENDING THE NUISANCES CODE TO PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR ILLICIT DISCHARGE OF STORMWATER AND FOR ABATEMENT THEREOF, AND PROVIDING A RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 1-3-4, Definitions, of Chapter 3, Remedies and Penalties, of Title I (Administrative) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add a new subsection 1-3-4A.11.c(23), to read as follows: (23) Violations of surface and storm water drainage standards and regulations, Chapter 4-6, RMC. 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION 11. Section 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows: A. PURPOSE: 1. The purpose of this Section shall be to promote and develop policies with respect to the City's watercourses and to preserve them by minimizing water quality degradation by previous siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water, and to protect property owners tributary to developed and undeveloped land from increased runoff rates and to insure the safety of roads and rights -of -way. 2. It shall also be a purpose of this Section to regulate the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) regarding the contribution of pollutants, consisting of any material other than stormwater, including but not limited to, illicit discharges, illicit connections and/or dumping into any storm drain system, including surface and/or ground water throughout the City that would adversely impact surface and ground water quality of the City and the State of Washington, in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. B. ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING AUTHORITY: The Administrator of the Public Works Department is responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section. All provisions of this 2 ORDINANCE NO. Section shall be enforced by the Administrator and/or his or her designated representatives. C. SUBMISSION OF DRAINAGE PLANS: 1. When Required: All persons applying for any of the following permits and/or approvals shall submit for approval, unless expressly exempted under subsection C2 of this Section, a drainage plan with their application and/or request: a. Mining, excavation and grading permit; b. Shoreline management substantial development permit; c. Flood control zone permit; d. Major plat; e. Short plat approval, except where each lot contains thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet or more; f. Special permits; g. Temporary permits; h. Building permits. Where the permit relates to a single family residential structure of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the Administrator may waive the plan requirement except where the subject property is in a critical area, as determined under subsection D of this Section; i. Planned urban development; j. Site plan approvals; 3 ORDINANCE NO. k. Any other development or permit application which will affect the drainage in anyway. The plan submitted during one permit approval process may be subsequently submitted with further required applications. The plan shall be supplemented with additional information at the request of the Public Works Department. 2. When Plans Not Required: The plan requirement established in subsection C1 of this Section shall not apply when the Public Works Department determines that the proposed permit and/or activity: a. Will not seriously and adversely impact the water quality conditions of any affected receiving bodies of water; and/or b. Will not substantially alter the drainage pattern, increase the peak discharge and cause any other adverse effects in the drainage area. c. Additionally, the plan requirement established in subsection C1 of this Section shall not apply to single family residences when such structures are less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, unless the subject property is in a critical area as determined under subsection D of this Section. D. DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS IN CRITICAL FLOOD, DRAINAGE AND/OR EROSION AREAS: Development which would increase the peak flow and/or the volume of discharge from the existing flooding, drainage and/or erosion conditions presents an imminent likelihood of harm to the welfare and safety of the surrounding community until such a time as the community hazard is alleviated. 4 ORDINANCE NO. Where applications of the provisions of this Section will deny all reasonable uses of the property, the restriction on development contained in this Section may be waived by the Administrator for the subject property; provided, that the resulting development shall be subject to all of the remaining terms and conditions of this Section. E. DRAINAGE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS: 1. Content: All persons applying for any of the permits and/or approvals contained in subsection C1 of this Section shall provide a drainage plan for surface water flows entering, flowing within and leaving the subject property. The drainage plan and supportive calculation report(s) shall be stamped by a professional civil engineer registered and licensed in the State of Washington. The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Core and Special Requirements contained in sections 1.2 and 1.3 of chapter 1, the hydrologic analysis methods contained in chapter 3, the hydraulic analysis and design criteria in chapter 4, and the erosion/sedimentation control plan and practices contained in chapter 5 of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual, except where amended or appended by the Department. 2. Special Requirement #13; for Aquifer Recharge and Protection Areas: If a proposed project lies within an Aquifer Recharge and/or Protection Area as defined and designated by City ordinance and as indicated on the Aquifer Recharge and Protection Map at the City Permit Counter, then the proposed project drainage review and engineering plans shall be prepared in accordance 5 ORDINANCE NO. with the special requirements, methods of analysis and design standards that have been adopted for aquifer recharge and protection areas by City ordinance. 3. Additional Requirements in Aquifer Protection Areas - Amendments to King County Surface Water Design Manual, Chapter 1: The following sections of chapter 1 of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (which has been incorporated in the Renton Municipal Code by reference) is hereby amended to read as follows by adding additional requirements following the end of each section: a. Section 1.2.1, CORE REQUIREMENT #1: DISCHARGE AT THE NATURAL LOCATION: i. Requirements that Apply within Zones 1 and 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Surface water and stormwater runoff from a proposed project that proposes to construct new, or modify existing drainage facilities must be discharged at the natural location so as not to be diverted onto, or away from, the adjacent downstream property, except that surface and storm runoff from new or existing impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals should be discharged at the location and in the manner which will provide the most protection to the aquifer, as directed and approved by the Stormwater Utility and the Water Utility. ii. Discharge from the project must produce no significant adverse impact to the downhill property. Where no conveyance system exists at the L ORDINANCE NO. adjacent downstream property line or other acceptable location and the discharge was previously unconcentrated flow, the runoff must: Be conveyed across the downstream properties to an acceptable discharge point (see CORE REQUIREMENT #2; OFF -SITE ANALYSIS in § 1.2.2), with drainage easement secured from the downstream owners and recorded at the King County Office of Records and Elections prior to drainage plan approval, OR Be discharged onto a rock pad shaped in a manner so as to disperse flow (see Figure 4.3.51) if the runoff is less than 0.2 cfs runoff rate for the one hundred (100) year, twenty four (24) hour duration design storm event existing site conditions. b. Section 1.2.3, CORE REQUIREMENT #3; RUNOFF CONTROL, "Biofiltration": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Proposed project runoff resulting from more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of impervious surface, and subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals, shall not be treated prior to discharge from the project site by on -site biofiltration measures but shall instead be treated by a wetvault meeting the design criteria contained in § 1.3.5 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #5; SPECIAL WATER QUALITY CONTROLS. New or existing retrofitted wetvaults and appurtenances shall meet the pipeline requirements specified in RMC 4-3-0501-16a, Pipeline Requirements - Zone 1. rA ORDINANCE NO. ii. Requirements for Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Proposed project runoff resulting from more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of impervious surface, and subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals, shall be treated prior to discharge from the project site by on -site biofiltration measures as described in § 4.6.3 in Chapter 4 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Biofiltration facilities may require a liner per the design criteria described in the section "Liner to Prevent Groundwater Contamination" in the introduction to § 4.6, Water Quality Facility Design. iii. The biofiltration design flow rate shall be based on the peak rate of runoff for the two (2) year, twenty four (24) hour duration design storm event total precipitation. Note, biofiltration facilities installed following peak rate runoff control facilities may be sized to treat the allowable release rate (predeveloped) for the two (2) year, twenty four (24) hour duration design storm event for the peak rate runoff control facility. Biofiltration facilities installed prior to peak rate runoff control facilities shall be sized based on the developed conditions. c. Section 1.2.3, CORE REQUIREMENT #3; RUNOFF CONTROL, "Detention Facilities": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: The City of Renton prohibits the construction of new detention ponds to control the peak rate of runoff from new or existing impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. ORDINANCE NO. d. Section 1.2.3, CORE REQUIREMENT #3; RUNOFF CONTROL, "Retention Facilities": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: The City of Renton prohibits the construction of new retention ponds to control the peak rate of runoff from new or existing impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. e. Section 1.2.3, CORE REQUIREMENT #3; RUNOFF CONTROL, "Infiltration Facilities": i. Requirement for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: The City of Renton prohibits the construction of new infiltration facilities to control the peak rate of runoff from new or existing impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. f. Section 1.2.4, CORE REQUIREMENT #4; CONVEYANCE SYSTEM "(4) For new drainage ditches or channels": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: New drainage ditches or channels shall not be employed to convey the runoff resulting from impervious surface that is subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. ii. Requirements for Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: New drainage ditches or channels may be employed in lieu of a pipe system. A groundwater protection liner may be required for new drainage ditches or channels per the design criteria, and existing drainage ditches or channels 0 ORDINANCE NO. reconstructed, to convey the peak runoff from the twenty five (25) year design storm using the design criteria described in the section "Liner to Prevent Groundwater Contamination" in the introduction to § 4.6, Water Quality Facility Design, and the methods of analysis described in § 4.3.7 in Chapter 4 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual with a freeboard to overflow of 0.5 feet. In addition, new drainage ditches or channels must be demonstrated to convey the peak runoff from the one hundred (100) year design storm without overtopping. g. Section 1.2.4, CORE REQUIREMENT #4; CONVEYANCE SYSTEM, "Composition": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: New conveyance systems shall be constructed in accordance with the pipeline requirements specified in RMC 4-3-050H.6.a, Pipeline Requirements - Zone 1, of the aquifer protection regulations. Proposed projects shall provide an impervious surface for all new or existing areas that will be subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. Said impervious surface shall be provided with the proper catch basins and a pipeline storm drainage system in order to collect surface water runoff and direct it into the downstream drainage conveyance system. ii. Requirements for Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: A groundwater protection liner may be required for new drainage ditches or channels per the design criteria described in the section "Liner to Prevent Groundwater Contamination" in the introduction to § 4.6, Water Quality Facility 10 ORDINANCE NO. Design. Exception: New drainage ditches or channels do not require a groundwater protection liner following the last water quality facility. Proposed projects shall provide an impervious surface for all new or existing areas that will be subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. Said impervious surface shall be provided with the proper catch basins and an approved conveyance system in order to collect surface water runoff and direct it into the downstream drainage conveyance system. h. Section 1.3.5, SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #5; SPECIAL WATER QUALITY CONTROLS: i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Threshold: If a proposed project will discharge runoff from more than one acre of impervious surface that will be subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals, and: (1) Proposes direct discharge of runoff to a regional facility, receiving water, lake, wetland, or closed depression without on -site peak rate runoff control; or (2) The runoff from the project will discharge into a Type 1 or 2 stream, or Type 1 wetland, within one mile from the project site. Requirement: The wetvault size shall be increased by a factor of 1.5 times the size of the wetvault normally required per § 4.6.2 of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual and shall satisfy the wetvault required by § 1.2.3. CORE REQUIREMENT #3: RUNOFF CONTROL in Zone 1 of the aquifer 11 ORDINANCE NO. protection area. New or existing retrofitted wetvaults and appurtenances shall meet the pipeline requirements specified in RMC 4-3-050H6a, Pipeline Requirements - Zone 1. ii. Requirements for Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Threshold: If a proposed project will construct more than one acre of impervious surface that will be subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals, and (1) Proposes direct discharge of runoff to a regional 'facility, receiving water, lake, wetland, or closed depression without on -site peak rate runoff control; or (2) The runoff from the project will discharge into a Type 1 or 2 stream, or Type 1 wetland, within one mile from the project site. Requirement: Then a wetpond meeting the standards described above shall be employed to treat a project's runoff prior to discharge from the site. A wetvault or water quality swale, as described above, may be used when a wetpond is not feasible. A groundwater protection liner may be required for wetponds and water quality swales per the design criteria described in the section "Liner to Prevent Groundwater Contamination" in the introduction to § 4.6, Water Quality Facility Design. F. ADOPTION OF STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL (SPPM) The 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual (SPPM), as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton, and 12 ORDINANCE NO. hereby referred to as the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, is hereby adopted by reference. One copy of the manual shall be filed with the City Clerk including any amendments thereto. G. DISCHARGE PROHIBITION 1. Prohibition of Illicit Discharge: Materials, whether or not solids or liquids, other than surface water and storm water shall not be spilled, leaked, emitted, discharged, disposed or allowed to escape into the storm sewer and/or drain system, surface water, ground water, or watercourses. a. Examples of illicit discharge include, but are not limited to the following: i. Trash, debris or garbage; ii. Construction materials or waste water; iii. Petroleum products, including but not limited to oil, gasoline, greases, fuel oil or heating oil; iv. Antifreeze, brake fluid, windshield cleaner and other automotive products; V. Metals in either particulate or dissolved form; vi. Flammable or explosive materials or substances; vii. Radioactive materials; viii. Acids or batteries of any kind; ix. Alkalis or basis; X. Paints, stains, resins, lacquers, or varnishes; 13 ORDINANCE NO. xi. Degreasers, solvents or chemicals used in laundries or dry cleaners; xii. Drain cleaners; xiii. Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers; xiv. Steam cleaning wastes; xv. Soaps, detergents, ammonias; xvi. Swimming pool and spa cleaning wastewater and filter backwash containing water disinfectants (chlorine, bromine, or other chemicals); xvii. Heated water; xviii. Domestic animal waste; xix. Sewage; xx. Recreational vehicle waste water or sewage; xxi. Animal carcasses; xxii. Food waste; xxiii. Bark and other fibrous material; xxiv. Collected lawn clippings, leaves, branches or other yard waste material; xxv. Silt, sediment or gravel; xxvi. Dyes; xxvii. Chemicals not normally found in uncontaminated water; xxviii. Waste water or process water (including filtered or purified); 14 ORDINANCE NO. xxix. Any pollution or contaminant as referenced in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual; and xxx. Any hazardous material as defined in RMC 4-11-080, or waste not listed above and any other process -associated discharge except as otherwise allowed in this Section. b. The following are examples of allowed discharges by this Section. If the discharges do not contain pollutants and unless the Administrator evaluates and determines that they are causing an adverse impact: i. Diverted stream flows; ii. Spring water; iii. Rising ground water; iv. Uncontaminated ground water infiltration; V. Uncontaminated pumped ground water; vi. Foundation or footing drains; vii. Water from crawl space pumps; viii. Air conditioning condensation; ix. Flows from riparian habitat and wetland; X. Discharges from emergency fire fighting activities; xi. Discharges specified in writing by the authorized enforcement agency as being necessary to protect public health and safety; xii. Irrigation water from an agricultural source that is commingled with stormwater runoff; 15 ORDINANCE NO. xiii. Storm system dye testing is allowable by the City, and any dye testing by others requires verbal notification to the Public Works Department at least one day prior to the date of the test. c. Activities that may result in illicit discharge, unless the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as specified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Manual are utilized, include but are not limited to: i. Discharges from potable water sources, including water line flushing, hyperchlorinated water line flushing, fire hydrant system flushing, and pipeline hydrostatic test water. Planned discharges shall be dechlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH -adjusted, if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent re -suspension of sediments into the M54; ii. Discharges from lawn watering and other irrigation runoff. These shall be minimized through, at a minimum, public education activities and water conservation efforts; iii. Dust control with potable water; iv. Automotive, airplane and boat washing; V. Pavement and building washing; vi. Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges. The discharges shall be dechlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH -adjusted and reoxygenized if necessary, volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent re - suspension of sediments in the MS4; vii. Auto repair and maintenance; 16 ORDINANCE NO. viii. Building repair and maintenance; ix. Landscape maintenance; X. Hazardous waste handling; xi. Solid and food waste handling; xii. Application of pesticides; xiii. Non-stormwater discharge permitted under another NPDES permit, provided that the discharge is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or other applicable requirements and regulations. d. A person does not violate subsection G if: i. That person has properly designed, constructed, implemented and is maintaining BMPs as required by this Chapter and Section, but contaminants continue to enter surface and storm water and underground water; ii. That person can demonstrate that there are no additional contaminants in discharges from the site above the background conditions of water entering the site; iii. The discharge is a result of an emergency response activity or other action that must be undertaken immediately or within a time too short to allow full compliance with this Chapter or Section in order to avoid an imminent threat to public health or safety. The Administrator by public rule may specify actions that qualify for this exemption in City procedures. A person undertaking emergency response activities shall take steps to assure that the discharges 17 ORDINANCE NO. resulting from such activities are minimized. In addition, this person shall evaluate BMPs to restrict recurrence. e. Any person who knowingly allows or permits any prohibited discharges, as set forth in subsection G or the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, through illicit connections, dumping, spills, improper maintenance of BMPs or other discharges, that allow contaminants to enter surface and storm water or ground water, shall be in violation of this Section. 2. Prohibition of Illicit Connections: The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of any connection identified by the Administrator or his or her designees, that may convey any pollution or contaminants or anything not composed entirely of surface water and storm water, directly into the M54, is prohibited, including without limitation, existing illicit connections regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. 3. Remedy: a. The person and/or property owner responsible for an illicit connection and/or illicit discharge shall initiate and complete all actions necessary to remedy the effects of such connection or discharge at no cost to the City. b. If the person responsible for an illicit connection or illicit discharge and/or the owner of the property on which the illicit connection or illicit discharge has occurred fails to address the illicit connection or illicit discharge in ORDINANCE NO. a timely manner, the Administrator or his or her designee shall have the authority to implement removal or remedial actions following lawful entry upon the property. Such actions may include, but not be limited to: installation of monitoring wells; collection and laboratory testing of water, soil, and waste samples; cleanup and disposal of the illicit discharge, and remediation of soil and/or groundwater. The property owner and/or other person responsible for the release of an illicit discharge shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the Public Works Department or its authorized agents in the conduct of such remedial actions and shall be responsible for City expenses incurred due to the illicit connection or illicit discharge, including but not limited to removal and/or remedial actions in accordance with RMC 1-3-3. c. Compliance with subsection G shall be achieved through the implementation and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) described in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Manual. The Administrator or his or her designee shall initially rely on education and informational assistance to gain compliance with subsection G, unless the Administrator or his or her designee determines a violation poses a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare, endangers any property and/or other property owned or maintain by the City, and therefore should be addressed through immediate penalties. The Administrator or his or her designee may demand immediate cessation of illicit discharges and assess penalties for violations that are an imminent or substantial danger to the health or welfare of persons or danger to the environment. 19 ORDINANCE NO. 4. Elimination of Illicit Connection and/or Illicit Discharge: a. Notice of Violation: Whenever the a Administrator or his or her designee finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this s Section, he or she may order compliance by written notice of violation to the property owner and/or responsible person, by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested. Such notice may require without limitation: violator; i. The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting by the ii. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; iii. That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall immediately cease and desist; iv. The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; and v. The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. Any person responsible for a property or premise, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and non-structural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system and/or waters of the State. These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit. M ORDINANCE NO. b. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Connection: The Administrator or his or her designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit connection, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit connection to the MS4 that the connection must be terminated by a specified date. c. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Discharges: The Administrator or his or her designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit discharge, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit discharge to the MS4, whether it be surface water and/or groundwater, that the discharge must be terminated by a specified date. d. Sample and Analysis: When the Administrator or his or her designee has reason to believe that an illicit connection is resulting in an illicit discharge, the Administrator or his or her designee may sample and analyze the discharge and recover the cost of such sampling and analysis from the property owner or person responsible for such illicit connection or discharge pursuant to RMC 1-3- 3, as now or as hereafter may be amended, and require the person permitting or maintaining the illicit connection and/or discharge to conduct ongoing monitoring at that person's expense. 21 ORDINANCE NO. e. Right of Appeal from Administrative Decision: Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision of the Administrator, or his or her designee, may appeal such decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. f. Any illicit connection and/or illicit discharge as set forth in this Section or the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual is hereby declared to be a nuisance pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, and as defined in RMC 1-3-4A.11.c(23). 5. Reporting Requirements: a. In the event of an illicit discharge or spill of hazardous material into the storm water drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the emergency dispatch services (911). b. In the event of an illicit discharge of non -hazardous material into the storm water drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the Public Works Department by phone at 425-430-7400, or in person. 6. Inspections, Investigation and Sampling: The Administrator or his or her designee may lawfully enter property to inspect the facilities of any person to determine compliance with the requirements of these regulations. a. Access: i. The Administrator or his or her designee shall be permitted to lawfully enter and inspect sites subject to regulation under this Chapter and Section as often as may be necessary to determine compliance herewith, at all 22 ORDINANCE NO. reasonable hours for the purpose of inspections, sampling or records examination. ii. The Administrator or his or her designee shall have the right to set up on the property necessary devices to conduct sampling, inspection, compliance monitoring, and/or metering actions. b. Compliance With Inspection Report: Within thirty (30) days of receiving an inspection report from the Public Works Department, the property owner or operator shall file with the Department a plan and time schedule to implement any required modifications to the site or to the monitoring plan needed to achieve compliance with the intent of this Chapter or Section or the NPDES permit conditions. This plan and time schedule shall also implement all of the recommendations of the Department. 7. All persons subject to the provisions of this Section shall retain and preserve for no less than three years any records, books, documents, memoranda, reports, correspondence, and any and all summaries thereof, relating to operation, maintenance, monitoring, sampling, remedial actions and chemical analysis made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any illicit connection or illicit discharge. All records which pertain to matters which are the subject of administrative or any other enforcement or litigation activities brought by the City pursuant to this Code shall be retained and preserved by the 23 ORDINANCE NO. person until all enforcement activities have concluded and all periods of - limitation with respect to any and all appeals have expired. H. DRAINAGE PLAN DESIGN CRITERIA, DRAFTING STANDARDS AND CONTENTS: The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Department's construction plan drafting standards and contents, the City's Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction and Standard Detail documents, and the design criteria, construction materials, practices, and standard details contained in chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual; provided, that the Department's standards and design criteria will take precedence and prevail in any interpretation of conflicting or contradictory standards and design criteria; and provided further, that within designated urban separators regulated in RMC 4-3-110, the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards are required. I. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 1. Timing and Process: All storm drainage plans prepared in connection with any of the permits and/or approvals listed in subsection C1 of this Section shall be submitted for review and approval to the Development Services Division. If no action is taken by the City after submission of final drainage plans within forty five (45) days, then such plan is deemed approved. 2. Fees: Fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-180B. 24 ORDINANCE NO. 3. Additional Information: The permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his or her designee. J. BONDS AND LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED: The Development Services Division shall require all persons constructing retention/detention facilities to post with the Administrator surety and cash bonds or certified check in the amount of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the estimated cost of construction. Where such persons have previously posted, or are required to post, other such bonds with the Administrator, either on the facility itself or on other construction related to the facility, such person may, with the permission of the Director and to the extent allowable by law, combine all such bonds into a single bond; provided, that at no time shall the amount thus bonded be less than the total amount which would have been required in the form of separate bonds; and provided further, that such bond shall on its face clearly delineate those separate bonds which it is intended to replace. 1. Construction Bond: Prior to commencing construction the person constructing the facility shall post a construction bond in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of conforming said construction with the approved drainage plans. In lieu of a bond, the applicant may elect to establish a cash escrow account with his bank in an amount deemed by the Administrator to be sufficient to reimburse the City if it should become necessary for the City to enter the property for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating hazardous 25 ORDINANCE NO. conditions relating to soil stability and/or erosion. The instructions to the escrowee shall specifically provide that after prior written notice unto the owner and his failure to correct and/or eliminate existing or potential hazardous conditions and his failure to timely remedy same, the escrowee shall be authorized without any further notice to the owner or his consent to disburse the necessary funds to the City of Renton for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating such conditions complained of. After determination by the Department that all facilities are constructed in compliance with the approved plans, the construction bond shall be released. 2. Maintenance Bond: After satisfactory completion of the facilities and release of the construction bond by the City, the person constructing the facility shall commence a three (3) year period of satisfactory maintenance of the facility. A cash bond, surety bond or bona fide contract for maintenance with a third party for the duration of this three (3) year period, to be approved by the Administrator and to be used at the discretion of the Administrator to correct deficiencies in said maintenance affecting public health, safety and welfare, must be posted and maintained throughout the three (3) year maintenance period. The amount of the cash bond or surety bond shall be in the amount of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the estimated cost of maintenance for a three (3) year period. 3. Liability Policy: The person constructing the facility shall maintain a liability policy during such private ownership with policy limits of not less than 26 ORDINANCE NO. one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) per individual, three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) per occurrence and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) property damage, which shall name the City of Renton as an additional insured without cost to the City and which shall protect the City of Renton from any liability, cost or expenses for any accident, negligence, failure of the facility, omission or any other liability whatsoever relating to the construction or maintenance of the facility. Said liability policy shall be maintained for the duration of the facility by the owner of the facility, provided that in the case of facilities assumed by the City of Renton for maintenance pursuant to subsection K of this Section, said liability policy shall be terminated when said City maintenance responsibility commences. K. CITY ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE: 1. Maintenance of Facilities by City Authorized: The City of Renton is authorized to assume the maintenance of retention/detention facilities after the expiration of the three (3) year maintenance period in connection with the subdivision of land if: a. All of the requirements of subsection G of this Section have been fully complied with; b. The facilities have been inspected and approved by the Department after their first year of operation; c. The surety bond required in subsection J of this Section has been extended for one year covering the City's first year of maintenance; 27 ORDINANCE NO. d. All necessary easements entitling the City to properly maintain the is facility have been conveyed to the City; and e. It is recommended by the Administrator and concurred in by the City Council that said assumption of maintenance would be in the best interests of the City. 2. Notification of Defect Required: The owner of said property shall throughout the maintenance period notify the City in writing if any defect or improper working of the drainage system has come to his or her notice. Failure to so notify the City shall give the City cause to reject assumption of the maintenance of the facility at the expiration of the three (3) year maintenance period, or within one year of the discovery of the defect or improper working of the drainage system, whichever period is the latest in time. L. RETROACTIVITY RELATING TO CITY MAINTENANCE OF SUBDIVISION FACILITIES: If any person constructing retention/detention facilities and/or receiving approval of drainage plans prior to the effective date of this Section re -assesses the facilities and/or plans so constructed and/or approved and demonstrates, to the Administrator's satisfaction, total compliance with the requirements of this Section, the City may, after inspection, approval and acknowledgment of the proper posting of the required bonds as specified in subsection 1 of this Section, assume maintenance of the facilities. M. DRAINAGE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES: m ORDINANCE NO. The drainage plan and supportive calculations shall be reviewed by the Department using the Department's construction plan review procedures in coordination with all other applicable City permit review procedures. 1. Tests: Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of this Section or Code, or evidence that any material or construction does not conform to the requirements of this Section or Code, the Administrator or his or her designee may require tests as proof of compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified by this Section or Code or by other recognized test standards. If there are no recognized and accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, the Administrator or his or her designee shall determine test procedures. Suitable performance of the method or material may be evidence of compliance meeting the testing requirement. N. ALTERNATE PROVISIONS FOR MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN: See RMC 4-9-250E. O. MODIFICATIONS OF CODE REQUIREMENTS: See RMC 4-9-250D. P. SEVERABILITY: If any provision, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Section or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remaining portions of this Section and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. 29 ORDINANCE NO. Q. VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION AND PENALTIES: A violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall be a civil infraction upon the first offense pursuant to RMC 1-3-2. See also, RMC 4-6-110. SECTION III. Section 4-6-100, Definitions of Terms Used in this Chapter, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add definitions for "Best Management Practices (BMPs)", "BMPs", "Illicit Connection" , "Illicit Discharge", "MS4", "Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System", "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit", "NPDES", "POTW" and "Publicly Owned Treatment Works", to read as follows: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): Means the methods of improving stormwater quality by preventing or reducing the discharge of pollutants, directly or indirectly into stormwater, surface water and groundwater. Such practices encompass a variety of managerial, operational, and structural measures that will reduce the amount of contaminants in stormwater and improve the quality of water resources. BMPs are separated into two broad categories: source control and treatment. Source control BMPs prevent contaminants from entering water bodies or stormwater runoff. Treatment BMPs are structures that treat stormwater to remove contaminants. See also, RMC 4-11-020 for BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES —WETLANDS. BMPs: See, Best Management Practices, supra, and RMC 4-11-020. 30 ORDINANCE NO. ILLICIT CONNECTION: An unlawful connection to the municipal stormwater sewer system that conveys pollution or contaminants or anything not entirely composed of surface water and storm water directly into such facilities. ILLICIT DISCHARGE: An unlawful conveyance of pollution or contaminants or anything not entirely composed of surface water and storm water directly or indirectly into the municipal stormwater sewer system, whether it be surface water and/or groundwater. MS4: See, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM: Means a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): a. owned or operated by the City of Renton; b. designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; c. which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); and d. which is not a combined sewer. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT: Means a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (or by the Washington Department of Ecology under authority delegated pursuant to 33 USC Section 1342(b)) that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, whether the permit is applicable on an individual, group, or general area -wide basis. NPDES: See, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit. 31 ORDINANCE NO. POTW: See, Publicly Owned Treatment Works. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS: Means any device or system used in treatment of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature which is publicly owned. SECTION IV. Section 4-11-020, Definitions B, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add a definition for "BMPs", to read as follows: BMPs: Best Management Practices, see supra, and RMC 4-6-100. SECTION V. Section 4-11-090, Definitions I, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add definitions for "Illicit Connection" and "Illicit Discharge", to read as follows: ILLICIT CONNECTION: See, RMC 4-6-100. ILLICIT DISCHARGE: See, RMC 4-6-100. SECTION VI. Section 4-11-130, Definitions M, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add definitions for "MS4" and "Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System", to read as follows: MS4: See, RMC 4-6-100. MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM: See, RMC 4-6-100. 32 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VII. Section 4-11-140, Definitions N, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add definitions for "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit" and "NPDES", to read as follows: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT: See, RMC 4-6-100. NPDES: See, RMC 4-6-100. SECTION VIII. Section 4-11-160, Definitions P, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add definitions for "POTW" and "Publicly Owned Treatment Works", to read as follows: POTW: See, RMC 4-6-100. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS: See, RMC 4-6-100. SECTION IX. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty (30) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2009. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 33 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD:1566:7/8/09:scr Denis Law, Mayor 2009. 34 DRAFT Code Revisions Document RMC 1-3-4A.11.c.(23): (23) Violations of surface and storm water drainage standards and regulations Chapter 4-6 RMC. RMC 4-6-030 entitled "Drainage (Surface Water) Standards" A. PURPOSE: 1. The purpose of this Section shall be to promote and develop policies with respect to the City's watercourses and to preserve them by minimizing water quality degradation by previous siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water, and to protect property owners tributary to developed and undeveloped land from increased runoff rates and to insure the safety of roads and rights -of -way. (Ord. 3174, 11-21- 1977) 2. It shall also be a purpose of this Section to regulate the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) regarding the contribution of pollutants, consisting of any material other than stormwater, including but not limited to, illicit discharges illicit connections and/or dumping into any storm drain system, including surface and/or ground water throughout the City that would adversely impact surface and ground water quality of the City and the State of Washington, in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. B. ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING AUTHORITY: The Administrator of the Public Works Department is designated the AdffiiniStFateF "'a responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section. All provisions of this Section shall be enforced by the Administrator and/or his or her designated representatives. C. SUBMISSION OF DRAINAGE PLANS: 1. When Required: All persons applying for any of the following permits and/or approvals shall submit for approval, unless expressly exempted under subsection C2 of this Section, a drainage plan with their application and/or request: a. Mining, excavation and grading permit; b. Shoreline management substantial development permit; c. Flood control zone permit; d. Major plat; Page 1 e. Short plat approval, except where each lot contains thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet or more; f. Special permits; g. Temporary permits; h. Building permits. Where the permit relates to a single family residential structure of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the Administrator may waive the plan requirement except where the subject property is in a critical area, as determined under subsection D of this Section; i. Planned urban development; j. Site plan approvals; k. Any other development or permit application which will affect the drainage in any way. The plan submitted during one permit approval process may be subsequently submitted with further required applications. The plan shall be supplemented with additional information at the request of the Public Works Department. . (Ord. 5153, 9-26- 2005 ) 2. When Plans Not Required: The plan requirement established in subsection C1 of this Section shall not apply when the Public Works Department determines that the proposed permit and/or activity: a. Will not seriously and adversely impact the water quality conditions of any affected receiving bodies of water; and/or b. Will not substantially alter the drainage pattern, increase the peak discharge and cause any other adverse effects in the drainage area. c. Additionally, the plan requirement established in subsection C1 of this Section shall not apply to single family residences when such structures are less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, unless the subject property is in a critical area as determined under subsection D of this Section. D. DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS IN CRITICAL FLOOD, DRAINAGE AND/OR EROSION AREAS: Development which would increase the peak flow and/or the volume of discharge from the existing flooding, drainage and/or erosion conditions presents an imminent likelihood of harm to the welfare and safety of the surrounding community until such a time as the community hazard is alleviated. Where applications of the provisions of this Section will deny all reasonable uses of the property, the restriction on development contained in this Section may be waived by the Administrator for the subject property; provided, that the resulting development shall be subject to all of the remaining terms and conditions of this Section. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) Page 2 E. DRAINAGE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS: 1. Content: All persons applying for any of the permits and/or approvals contained in subsection C1 of this Section shall provide a drainage plan for surface water flows entering, flowing within and leaving the subject property. The drainage plan and supportive calculation report(s) shall be stamped by a professional civil engineer registered and licensed in the State of Washington. The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Core and Special Requirements contained in sections 1.2 and 1.3 of chapter 1, the hydrologic analysis methods contained in chapter 3, the hydraulic analysis and design criteria in chapter 4, and the erosion/sedimentation control plan and practices contained in chapter 5 of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual, except where amended or appended by the Department. (Ord. 4367, 9-14-1992; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 2. Special Requirement #13; for Aquifer Recharge and Protection Areas: a. ThFesheid ReqUiFem If a proposed project lies within an Aquifer Recharge and/or Protection Area as defined and desigeed--designated by City ordinance and as indicated on the Aquifer Recharge and Protection Map at the City Permit Counter, then the proposed project drainage review and engineering plans shall be prepared in accordance with the special requirements, methods of analysis and design standards that have been adopted for aquifer recharge and protection areas by City ordinance. 3. Additional Requirements in Aquifer Protection Areas - Amendments to King County Surface Water Design Manual, Chapter 1: The following sections of chapter 1 of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (which has been incorporated in the Renton Municipal Code by reference) is hereby amended to read as follows by adding additional requirements following the end of each section: (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) a. Section 1.2.1, CORE REQUIREMENT #1: DISCHARGE AT THE NATURAL LOCATION: i. Requirements that Apply within Zones 1 and 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Surface water and stormwater runoff from a proposed project that proposes to construct new, or modify existing drainage facilities must be discharged at the natural location so as not to be diverted onto, or away from, the adjacent downstream property, except that surface and storm runoff from new or existing impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals should be discharged at the location and in the manner which will provide the most protection to the aquifer, as directed and approved by the Stormwater Utility and the Water Utility. ii. Discharge from the project must produce no significant adverse impact to the downhill property. Where no conveyance system exists at the adjacent downstream property line or other acceptable location and the discharge was previously unconcentrated flow, the runoff must: Be conveyed across the downstream properties to an acceptable discharge point (see CORE REQUIREMENT #2; OFF -SITE ANALYSIS in § 1.2.2), with drainage easement secured from the downstream owners and recorded at the King County Office of Records and Elections prior to drainage plan approval, OR Page 3 Be discharged onto a rock pad shaped in a manner so as to disperse flow (see Figure 4.3.51) if the runoff is less than 0.2 cfs runoff rate for the one hundred (100) year, twenty four (24) hour duration design storm event existing site conditions. b. Section 1.2.3, CORE REQUIREMENT #3; RUNOFF CONTROL, "Biofiltration": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Proposed project runoff resulting from more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of impervious surface, and subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals, shall not be treated prior to discharge from the project site by on -site biofiltration measures but shall instead be treated by a wetvault meeting the design criteria contained in § 1.3.5 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #5; SPECIAL WATER QUALITY CONTROLS. New or existing retrofitted wetvaults and appurtenances shall meet the pipeline requirements specified in RMC 4-3-050H6a, Pipeline Requirements - Zone 1. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) ii. Requirements for Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Proposed project runoff resulting from more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of impervious surface, and subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals, shall be treated prior to discharge from the project site by on -site biofiltration measures as described in § 4.6.3 in Chapter 4 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Biofiltration facilities may require a liner per the design criteria described in the section "Liner to Prevent Groundwater Contamination" in the introduction to § 4.6, Water Quality Facility Design. iii. The biofiltration design flow rate shall be based on the peak rate of runoff for the two (2) year, twenty four (24) hour duration design storm event total precipitation. Note, biofiltration facilities installed following peak rate runoff control facilities may be sized to treat the allowable release rate (predeveloped) for the two (2) year, twenty four (24) hour duration design storm event for the peak rate runoff control facility. Biofiltration facilities installed prior to peak rate runoff control facilities shall be sized based on the developed conditions. (Amd. Ord. 4740, 7-19-1999) c. Section 1.2.3, CORE REQUIREMENT #3; RUNOFF CONTROL, "Detention Facilities": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: The City of Renton prohibits the construction of new detention ponds to control the peak rate of runoff from new or existing impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. d. Section 1.2.3, CORE REQUIREMENT #3; RUNOFF CONTROL, "Retention Facilities": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area:. The City of Renton prohibits the construction of new retention ponds to control the peak rate of runoff from new or existing impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. (Amd. Ord. 4740, 7-19-1999; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) e. Section 1.2.3, CORE REQUIREMENT #3; RUNOFF CONTROL, "Infiltration Facilities": Page 4 i. Requirement for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: The City of Renton prohibits the construction of new infiltration facilities to control the peak rate of runoff from new or existing impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. f. Section 1.2.4, CORE REQUIREMENT #4; CONVEYANCE SYSTEM "(4) For new drainage ditches or channels": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: New drainage ditches or channels shall not be employed to convey the runoff resulting from impervious surface that is subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. ii. Requirements for Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: New drainage ditches or channels may be employed in lieu of a pipe system. A groundwater protection liner may be required for new drainage ditches or channels per the design criteria, and existing drainage ditches or channels reconstructed, to convey the peak runoff from the twenty five (25) year design storm using the design criteria described in the section "Liner to Prevent Groundwater Contamination" in the introduction to § 4.6, Water Quality Facility Design, and the methods of analysis described in § 4.3.7 in Chapter 4 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual with a freeboard to overflow of 0.5 feet. In addition, new drainage ditches or channels must be demonstrated to convey the peak runoff from the one hundred (100) year design storm without overtopping. (Amd. Ord. 4740, 7-19-1999) g. Section 1.2.4, CORE REQUIREMENT #4; CONVEYANCE SYSTEM, "Composition": i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: New conveyance systems shall be constructed in accordance with the pipeline requirements specified in RMC 4- 3-0501-16a, Pipeline Requirements - Zone 1, of the aquifer protection regulations. Proposed projects shall provide an impervious surface for all new or existing areas that will be subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. Said impervious surface shall be provided with the proper catch basins and a pipeline storm drainage system in order to collect surface water runoff and direct it into the downstream drainage conveyance system. ii. Requirements for Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: A groundwater protection liner may be required for new drainage ditches or channels per the design criteria described in the section "Liner to Prevent Groundwater Contamination" in the introduction to § 4.6, Water Quality Facility Design. Exception: New drainage ditches or channels do not require a groundwater protection liner following the last water quality facility. Proposed projects shall provide an impervious surface for all new or existing areas that will be subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. Said impervious surface shall be provided with the proper catch basins and an approved conveyance system in order to collect surface water runoff and direct it into the downstream drainage conveyance system. (Amd. Ord. 4740, 7-19-1999; Ord. 4851, 8-7- 2000) h. Section 1.3.5, SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #5; SPECIAL WATER QUALITY CONTROLS: i. Requirements for Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Page 5 Threshold: If a proposed project will discharge runoff from more than one acre of impervious surface that will be subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals, and: (1) Proposes direct discharge of runoff to a regional facility, receiving water, lake, wetland, or closed depression without on -site peak rate runoff control; or (2) The runoff from the project will discharge into a Type 1 or 2 stream, or Type 1 wetland, within one mile from the project site. Requirement: The wetvault size shall be increased by a factor of 1.5 times the size of the wetvault normally required per § 4.6.2 of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual and shall satisfy the wetvault required by § 1.2.3. CORE REQUIREMENT #3: RUNOFF CONTROL in Zone 1 of the aquifer protection area. New or existing retrofitted wetvaults and appurtenances shall meet the pipeline requirements specified in RMC 4-3- 0501-16a, Pipeline Requirements - Zone 1. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) ii. Requirements for Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area: Threshold: If a proposed project will construct more than one acre of impervious surface that will be subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals, and (1) Proposes direct discharge of runoff to a regional facility, receiving water, lake, wetland, or closed depression without on -site peak rate runoff control; or (2) The runoff from the project will discharge into a Type 1 or 2 stream, or Type 1 wetland, within one mile from the project site. Requirement: Then a wetpond meeting the standards described above shall be employed to treat a project's runoff prior to discharge from the site. A wetvault or water quality swale, as described above, may be used when a wetpond is not feasible. A groundwater protection liner may be required for wetponds and water quality swales per the design criteria described in the section "Liner to Prevent Groundwater Contamination" in the introduction to § 4.6, Water Quality Facility Design. (Ord. 4367, 9-14-1992; amd. Ord. 4740, 7-19-1999) F. ADOPTION OF STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL (SPPM) AND CITY AMENDMENTS THERETO The 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual (SPPM), as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton and hereby referred to as the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual is hereby adopted by reference. One copy of the manual shall be filed with the City Clerk including any amendments thereto. G. DISCHARGE PROHIBITION 1 Prohibition of Illicit Discharge: Materials, whether or not solids or liquids, other than surface water and storm water shall not be spilled, leaked, emitted, discharged, disposed or Page 6 allowed to escape into the storm sewer and/or drain system, surface water, ground water, or watercourses. a. Examples of illicit discharge include, but are not limited to the following: i. Trash, debris or garbage; ii. Construction materials or waste water; iii. Petroleum products including but not limited to oil, gasoline, greases, fuel oil or heating oil; iv. Antifreeze brake fluid windshield cleaner and other automotive products; V. Metals in either particulate or dissolved form; vi. Flammable or explosive materials or substances; vii. Radioactive materials; viii. Acids or batteries of any kind; ix. Alkalis or basis; X. Paints, stains, resins, lacquers, or varnishes; xi. Degreasers solvents or chemicals used in laundries or dry cleaners; xii. Drain cleaners; xiii. Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers; xiv. Steam cleaning wastes; xv. Soaps, detergents, ammonias; xvi. Swimming pool and spa cleaning wastewater and filter backwash containing water disinfectants (chlorine, bromine, or other chemicals); xvii. Heated water; xviii. Domestic animal waste; xix. Sewage; xx. Recreational vehicle waste water or sewage; xxi. Animal carcasses; xxii. Food waste; xxiii. Bark and other fibrous material; xxiv. Collected lawn clippings leaves, branches or other yard waste material; xxv. Silt, sediment or gravel; xxvi. Dyes; xxvii. Chemicals not normally found in uncontaminated water; xxviii. Waste water or process water (including filtered or purified); xxix. Any pollution or contaminant as referenced in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual; and xxx. Any hazardous material as defined in RMC 4-11-080, or waste not listed above and any other process -associated discharge except as otherwise allowed in this Section. b. The following are examples of allowed discharges by this Section. If the discharges do not contain pollutants and unless the Administrator evaluates and determines that they are causing an adverse impact: Page 7 i. Diverted stream flows; ii. Spring water; iii. Rising ground water; iv. Uncontaminated ground water infiltration; V. Uncontaminated pumped ground water; vi. Foundation or footing drains: vii. Water from crawl space pumps; viii. Air conditioning condensation; ix. Flows from riparian habitat and wetland; X. Discharges from emergency fire fighting activities; xi. Discharges specified in writing by the authorized enforcement agency as being necessary to protect public health and safety; xii. Irrigation water from an agricultural source that is commingled with stormwater runoff; xiii. Storm system dye testing is allowable by the City, and any dye testing by others reauires verbal notification to the Public Works Department at least one day prior to the date of the test. c. Activities that may result in illicit discharge, unless the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as specified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Manual are utilized, include but are not limited to: i. Discharges from potable water sources, including water line flushing, hyperchlorinated water line flushing, fire hydrant system flushing, and pipeline hydrostatic test water. Planned discharges shall be dechlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, PH- adiusted if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent re -suspension of sediments into the MS4; ii. Discharges from lawn watering and other irrigation runoff. These shall be minimized through, at a minimum, public education activities and water conservation efforts; iii. Dust control with potable water; iv. Automotive, airplane and boat washing; V. Pavement and building washing; vi. Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges. The discharges shall be dechlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH -adjusted and reoxygenized if necessary, volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent re -suspension of sediments in the MS4; vii. Auto repair and maintenance; viii. Building repair and maintenance; ix. Landscape maintenance; X. Hazardous waste handling; xi. Solid and food waste handling; xii. Application of pesticides; Page 8 xiii. Non-stormwater discharge permitted under another NPDES permit, provided that the discharge is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or other applicable requirements and regulations. A person does not violate subsection G if: That person has properly designed, constructed, implemented and is maintaining BMPs as required by this Chapter and Section, but contaminants continue to enter surface and storm water and underground water; ii. That person can demonstrate that there are no additional contaminants in discharges from the site above the background conditions of water entering the site; iii. The discharge is a result of an emergency response activity or other action that must be undertaken immediately or within a time too short to allow full compliance with this Chapter or Section in order to avoid an imminent threat to public health or safety. The Administrator by public rule may specify actions that qualify for this exemption in City procedures. A person undertaking emergency response activities shall take steps to assure that the discharges resulting from such activities are minimized. In addition, this person shall evaluate BMPs to restrict recurrence. e. Any person who knowingly allows or permits any prohibited discharges, as set forth in subsection G or the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, through illicit connections, dumping, spills, improper maintenance of BMPs or other discharges, that allow contaminants to enter surface and storm water or ground water, shall be in violation of this Section. 2. Prohibition of Illicit Connections: The construction use maintenance or continued existence of any connection identified by the a Administrator or his or her designees, that may convey any pollution or contaminants or anything not composed entirely of surface water and storm water, directly into the MS4, is prohibited, including without limitation, existing illicit connections regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. 3. Remedy: a. The person and/or property owner responsible for an illicit connection and/or illicit discharge shall initiate and complete all actions necessary to remedy the effects of such connection or discharge at no cost to the City. b. If the person responsible for an illicit connection or illicit discharge and/or the owner of the property on which the illicit connection or illicit discharge has occurred fails to address the illicit connection or illicit discharge in a timely manner, the Administrator or his or her designee shall have the authority to implement removal or remedial actions _following lawful entry upon the property. Such actions may include, but not be limited to: installation of monitoring wells; collection and laboratory testing of water, soil, and waste samples; cleanup and disposal of the illicit discharge, and remediation of soil and/or groundwater. The property Page 9 owner and/or other person responsible for the release of an illicit discharge shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the Public Works Department or its authorized agents in the conduct of such remedial actions and shall be responsible for City expenses incurred due to the illicit connection or illicit discharge including but not limited to removal and/or remedial actions in accordance with RMC 1-3-3. C. Compliance with subsection G shall be achieved through the implementation and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) described in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Manual. The Administrator or his or her designee shall initially rely on education and informational assistance to gain compliance with subsection G, unless the Administrator or his or her designee determines a violation poses a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare, endangers any property and/or other property owned or maintain by the City, and therefore should be addressed through immediate penalties. The Administrator or his or her designee may demand immediate cessation of illicit discharges and assess penalties for violations that are an imminent or substantial danger to the health or welfare of persons or danger to the environment. 4. Elimination. of Illicit Connection and/or Illicit Discharge: a. Notice of Violation: Whenever the a Administrator or his or her designee finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this s Section, he or she may order compliance by written notice of violation to the property owner and/or responsible person, by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested. Such notice may require without limitation: i. The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting by the violator; ii. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; iii. That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall immediately cease and desist; iv. The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property: and v. The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. Any person responsible for a property or premise, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and non- structural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system and/or waters of the State. These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution Prevention plan (SWPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit. b. Reauirement to Eliminate Illicit Connection: The Administrator or his or her designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit connection, informing the Dropertv owner or person responsible for an illicit connection to the MS4 that the connection must be terminated by a specified date. Page 10 c. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Discharges: The Administrator or his or her designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit discharge, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit discharge to the MS4, whether it be surface water and/or groundwater, that the discharge must be terminated by a specified date. d. Sample and Analysis: When the Administrator or his or her designee has reason to believe that an illicit connection is resulting in an illicit discharge, the Administrator or his or her designee may sample and analyze the discharge and recover the cost of such sampling and analysis from the property owner or person responsible for such illicit connection or discharge pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, as now or as hereafter may be amended, and require the person permitting or maintaining the illicit connection and/or discharge to conduct ongoing monitoring at that person's expense. e. Right of Appeal from Administrative Decision: Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision of the Administrator, or his or her designee, may appeal such decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. f. Any illicit connection and/or illicit discharge asset forth in this Section or the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual is hereby declared to be a nuisance pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, and as defined in RMC 1-3; 4A.11.c.(23). 5. Reporting Requirements: a. In the event of an illicit discharge or spill of hazardous material into the storm water drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the emergency dispatch services (911). b. In the event of an illicit discharge of non -hazardous material into the storm water drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the Public Works Department by phone at 425-430- 7400, or in person. 6. Inspections Investigation and Sampling: The Administrator or his or her designee may lawfully enter property to inspect the facilities of any person to determine compliance with the requirements of these regulations. a. Access: i. The Administrator or his or her designee shall be permitted to lawfully enter and inspect sites subiect to regulation under this Chapter and Section as often as may be necessary to determine compliance herewith, at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspections, sampling or records examination. Page 11 ii. The Administrator or his or her designee shall have the right to set up on the property necessary devices to conduct sampling inspection, compliance monitoring, and/or metering actions. b. Compliance With Inspection Report: Within thirty (30) days of receiving an inspection report from the Public Works Department the property owner or operator shall file with the Department a plan and time schedule to implement any required modifications to the site or to the monitoring plan needed to achieve compliance with the intent of this Chapter or Section or the NPDES permit conditions This plan and time schedule shall also implement all of the recommendations of the Department. 7 All persons subiect to the provisions of this Section shall retain and preserve for no less than three years any records books documents memoranda, reports, correspondence, and any and all summaries thereof, relating to operation, maintenance, monitoring, sampling, remedial actions and chemical analysis made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any illicit connection or illicit discharge. All records which pertain to matters which are the subiect of administrative or any other enforcement or litigation activities brought by the City pursuant to this Code shall be retained and preserved by the person until all enforcement activities have concluded and all periods of limitation with respect to any and all appeals have expired. H. DRAINAGE PLAN DESIGN CRITERIA, DRAFTING STANDARDS AND CONTENTS: The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Department's construction plan drafting standards and contents, the City's Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction and Standard Detail documents, and the design criteria, construction materials, practices, and standard details contained in chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual; provided, that the Department's standards and design criteria will take precedence and prevail in any interpretation of conflicting or contradictory standards and design criteria; and provided further, that within designated urban separators regulated in RMC 4-3-110, the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards are required. (Ord. 4269, 5-21-1990; Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005) I. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 1. Timing and Process: All storm drainage plans prepared in connection with any of the permits and/or approvals listed in subsection C1 of this Section shall be submitted for review and approval to the Development Services Division. If no action is taken by the City after submission of final drainage plans within forty five (45) days, then such plan is deemed approved. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) 2. Fees: Fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-180B. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998) 3. Additional Information: The permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his or her designee duly allthOFized Feffesentative. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) Page 12 J. BONDS AND LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED: The Development Services Division shall require all persons constructing retention/detention facilities to post with the Administrator surety and cash bonds or certified check in the amount of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the estimated cost of construction. Where such persons have previously posted, or are required to post, other such bonds with the Administrator, either on the facility itself or on other construction related to the facility, such person may, with the permission of the Director and to the extent allowable by law, combine all such bonds into a single bond; provided, that at no time shall the amount thus bonded be less than the total amount which would have been required in the form of separate bonds; and provided further, that such bond shall on its face clearly delineate those separate bonds which it is intended to replace. 1. Construction Bond: Prior to commencing construction the person constructing the facility shall post a construction bond in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of conforming said construction with the approved drainage plans. In lieu of a bond, the applicant may elect to establish a cash escrow account with his bank in an amount deemed by the Administrator to be sufficient to reimburse the City if it should become necessary for the City to enter the property for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating hazardous conditions relating to soil stability and/or erosion. The instructions to the escrowee shall specifically provide that after prior written notice unto the owner and his failure to correct and/or eliminate existing or potential hazardous conditions and his failure to timely remedy same, the escrowee shall be authorized without any further notice to the owner or his consent to disburse the necessary funds tMto the City of Renton for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating such conditions complained of. After determination by the Department that all facilities are constructed in compliance with the approved plans, the construction bond shall be released. 2. Maintenance Bond: After satisfactory completion of the facilities and release of the construction bond by the City, the person constructing the facility shall commence a three (3) year period of satisfactory maintenance of the facility. A cash bond, surety bond or bona fide contract for maintenance with a third party for the duration of this three (3) year period, to be approved by the Administrator and to be used at the discretion of the Administrator to correct deficiencies in said maintenance affecting public health, safety and welfare, must be posted and maintained throughout the three (3) year maintenance period. The amount of the cash bond or surety bond shall be in the amount of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the estimated cost of maintenance for a three (3) year period. 3. Liability Policy: The person constructing the facility shall maintain a liability policy during such private ownership with policy limits of not less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) per individual, three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) per occurrence and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) property damage, which shall name the City of Renton as an additional insured without cost to the City and which shall protect the City of Renton from any liability, cost or expenses for any accident, negligence, failure of the facility, omission or any other liability whatsoever relating to the construction or maintenance of the facility. Said Page 13 liability policy shall be maintained for the duration of the facility by the owner of the facility, provided that in the case of facilities assumed by the City of Renton for maintenance pursuant to subsection 4 K of this Section, said liability policy shall be terminated when said City maintenance responsibility commences. K. CITY ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE: 1. Maintenance of Facilities by City Authorized: The City of Renton is authorized to assume the maintenance of retention/detention facilities after the expiration of the three (3) year maintenance period in connection with the subdivision of land if: with; a. All of the requirements of subsection-€ G of this Section have been fully complied b. The facilities have been inspected and approved by the Department after their first year of operation; c. The surety bond required in subsection # J of this Section has been extended for one year covering the City's first year of maintenance; d. All necessary easements entitling the City to properly maintain the facility have been conveyed to the City; and e. It is recommended by the Administrator and concurred in by the City Council that said assumption of maintenance would be in the best interests of the City. 2. Notification of Defect Required: The owner of said property shall throughout the maintenance period notify the City in writing if any defect or improper working of the drainage system has come to his or her notice. Failure to so notify the City shall give the City cause to reject assumption of the maintenance of the facility at the expiration of the three (3) year maintenance period, or within one year of the discovery of the defect or improper working of the drainage system, whichever period is the latest in time. L. RETROACTIVITY RELATING TO CITY MAINTENANCE OF SUBDIVISION FACILITIES: If any person constructing retention/detention facilities and/or receiving approval of drainage plans prior to the effective date of this Section re -assesses the facilities and/or plans so constructed and/or approved and demonstrates, to the Administrator's satisfaction, total compliance with the requirements of this Section, the City may, after inspection, approval and acknowledgment of the proper posting of the required bonds as specified in subsection -I- J of this Section, assume maintenance of the facilities. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) M. DRAINAGE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES: The drainage plan and supportive calculations shall be reviewed by the Department using the Department's construction plan review procedures in coordination with all other applicable City permit review procedures. Page 14 1. Tests: Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of this Section or Code, or evidence that any material or construction does not conform to the requirements of this Section or Code, the Administrator or his or her designee may require tests as proof of compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified by this Section or Code or by other recognized test standards. If there are no recognized and accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, the Administrator or his or her designee shall determine test procedures. Suitable performance of the method or material may be evidence of compliance meeting the testing requirement. (Ord. 4269, 5-21-1990) N. ALTERNATE PROVISIONS FOR MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN: See RMC 4-9-250E. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998) 0. MODIFICATIONS OF CODE REQUIREMENTS: See RMC 4-9-250D. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998) P. SEVERABILITY: If any provision, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Section or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remaining portions of this Section and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION AND PENALTIES: A violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall be a civil infraction upon the first offense pursuant to RMC 1-3-2 (Ord. 4856, 8-21-00; Ord. 5196, 2-13-06). See also, RMC 4-6- 110. RMC 4-6-100 is amended to add the following definitions: ILLICIT CONNECTION: An unlawful connection to the municipal stormwater sewer system that conveys pollution or contaminants or anything not entirely composed of surface water and storm water directly into such facilities. ILLICIT DISCHARGE: An unlawful conveyance of pollution or contaminants or anything not entirely composed of surface water and storm water directly or indirectly into the municipal stormwater sewer system, whether it be surface water and/or groundwater. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): Means the methods of improving stormwater quality by preventing or reducing the discharge of pollutants, directly or indirectly into stormwater, surface water and groundwater. Such practices encompass a variety of managerial, operational, and structural measures that will reduce the amount of contaminants in stormwater and improve the quality of water resources. BMPs are separated into two broad categories: source control and treatment. Source control BMPs prevent contaminants from entering water bodies or stormwater runoff. Treatment BMPs are structures that treat stormwater to remove contaminants. See also, RMC 4-11-020 for BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES —WETLANDS. Page 15 BMPs: See, Best Management Practices, supra, and RMC 4-11-020. MS4: See, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM: Means a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): a. owned or operated by the City of Renton; b. designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; c. which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); and d. which is not a combined sewer. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT: Means a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (or by the Washington Department of Ecology under authority delegated pursuant to 33 USC Section 1342(b)) that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, whether the permit is applicable on an individual, group, or general area -wide basis. NPDES: See, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit. POTW: See, Publicly Owned Treatment Works. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS: Means any device or system used in treatment of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature which is publicly owned. Chapter RMC 4-11 "DEFINITIONS" is amended to add the following definitions in each section: RMC 4-11-020: BMPs: Best Management Practices, see supra, and RMC 4-6-100. RMC 4-11-090: ILLICIT CONNECTION: See, RMC 4-6-100. ILLICIT DISCHARGE: See, RMC 4-6-100. RMC 4-11-130: MS4: See, RMC 4-6-100. MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM: See, RMC 4-6-100. RMC 4-11-140: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT: See, RMC 4-6-100. NPDES: See. RMC 4-6-100. RMC 4-11-160: POTW: See, RMC 4-6-100. RMC 4-11-160: PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS: See, RMC 4-6-100. Page 16 oil A All vivo T ENRON 1,k CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE 2009 KING COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL PREFACE - HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT DRAFT GENERAL INTRODUCTION The City of Renton has adopted the 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual (SPPM) and this Amendment to the SPPM (Amendment), effective 2009. The SPPM along with the Amendment provides detailed information for businesses, residents, managers and owners of properties in the City, and describes the actions we are all require to take in order to reduce the contamination of stormwater, surface water and groundwater. The Amendment outlines all changes, additions, and deletions to the SPPM. PURPOSE AND NEED OF THIS DOCUMENT The City's adoption of the SPPM and accompanying Amendment was the method used by the City to comply with new federal stormwater regulations. More specifically, Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) establishes regulations sets forth in the permit application requirements for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity; discharges from a municipal separate storm sewer systems serving a population of 250,000 or more; and discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population between 100,000 to 250,000. The Phase II rule extends coverage of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to certain "small' M54s. The Phase II permit covers certain urbanized areas of Washington State that were previously not covered under Phase I. Phase II communities are identified under the rules as jurisdictions that: 1. Own and operate a storm drain system; 2. Discharge to surface waters; 3. Are located in urbanized areas; and 4. Have a population greater than 1,000. With a 2000 census population of approximately just over 50,052, the City of Renton falls under the jurisdiction of Phase II requirements. Washington State's Department of Ecology (Ecology), who oversees stormwater requirements in the state, has developed the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology Manual). Volume IV of the DOE Manual complies with CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL COR 2009 SPPM.DOC PAGE 1 OF 6 PRINTED: 7/15/2009, 11:58:53AM CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENITION MANUAL the NPDES Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control. In addition, Ecology has approved the 2009 SPPM as equivalent to Volume IV of the Ecology Manual. The SPPM present a series of information sheets listing pollution prevention practices, source control BMPs that are require for residential and commercial activities in order to prevent pollutants from entering or contaminating stormwater and improve the quality and beneficial uses of the City's water resources. HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT This document shall be used in coordination with the 2009 SPPM for the following: ■ To translate specific wording or reference from King County to the City. ■ To cross reference City ordinances in lieu of King County ordinances. ■ To provide a linkage or reference to other City requirements such as more restrictive requirements outlined in the City's Aquifer Protection Ordinances. ■ To provide exceptions and additions to the SPPM. The SPPM will be used in its entirety except as outlined in this document. Exceptions and additions to the SPPM will be organized and referenced by chapter and section in the same manner as the SPPM. Some global changes will also be applied throughout the entire SPPM. The user shall override the references to other documents as indicated within this Amendment. AMENDMENT ORGANIZATION The information presented in this Amendment is organized as follows: ■ Preface - How to use this Document: This preface provides instruction for using the City of Renton's Amendment to the 2009 SPPM. It also defines terms in the SPPM manual that are used differently for the City of Renton; City departments that are equivalent to county departments referred to in the SPPM; City ordinances that take the place of corresponding county ordinances, and designations from the SPPM that do not apply to proposals in the City of Renton as shown below. ■ Chapter I - "Overview": The City of Renton has made several changes to Chapter I of the SPPM. This Amendment to Chapter I provides replacement text for the sections that are changed. Apart from these changes (see chapter I), and changes stated bellow, the King County version of Chapter I apply for proposals in the City of Renton. ■ Chapter II - "Stormwater Problem: Your Role": The City of Renton has made minor changes to Chapter II of the SPPM. This Amendment to Chapter II provides replacement text for the sections that are changed. Apart from these changes (see chapter II), and changes stated bellow, the King County version of Chapter II applies for proposals in the City of Renton. CITY OF RENTON DRAFT STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE COR 2009_SPPM.DOC PAGE 2 OF 6 CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL -DRAFT ■ Chapter III - "Stormwater Best Management Practices for Specific Activities": The City of Renton has made minor changes to Chapter III of the SPPM. This Amendment to Chapter III provides replacement text for the sections that are changed. Apart from these changes (see chapter III), and changes stated bellow, the King County version of Chapter III applies for proposals in the City of Renton. ■ Chapter IV - "Residential Best Management Practice": The City of Renton has made minor changes to Chapter IV of the 2009 SPPM. This Amendment to Chapter IV provides replacement text for the sections that are changed. Apart from these changes (see chapter IV), and changes stated bellow, the King County version of Chapter IV applies for proposals in the City of Renton. ■ Chapter V - "BMP INFO Sheets": The City of Renton has made minor changes to Chapter V of the 2009 SPPM. This Amendment to Chapter V provides replacement text for the sections that are changed. Apart from these changes (see chapter V), and changes stated bellow, the King County version of Chapter V applies for proposals in the City of Renton. ■ Chapter VI - "Technical Assistant": The City of Renton has made minor changes to Chapter VI of the 2009 SPPM. This Amendment to Chapter VI provides replacement text for the sections that are changed. Apart from these changes (see chapter VI), and changes stated bellow, the King County version of Chapter VI applies for proposals in the City of Renton. CITY EQUIVALENTS FOR: ■ COUNTY AGENCIES ■ For proposals located within the City of Renton, all references in the SPPM to the following County departments are to be replaced by reference to the City of Renton Surface Water Utility and/or City of Renton Development Services Division (RDSD). Any references to "local' shall be references to the City of Renton, Washington: o DDES (Department of Development and Environmental Services) o DNR (Department of Natural Resources) o WLR (Water and Land Resources) ■ COUNTY PHONE NUMBERS ■ For proposals located within the City of Renton, all references in the SPPM to the following County phone number are to be replaced by reference to 425- 430-7200 o 206-296-1900 THE CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL COR 2009 SPPM.DOC PAGE 3 OF 6 CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENITION MANUAL ■ COUNTY ORDINANCES AND CODES For proposals in the City of Renton, all references in the SPPM to the following ordinances or County codes shall be replaced by reference as indicated in the following table: King County r Renton Code Description Municipal Code Description KCC 2.98 Critical Drainage Areas Not Applicable This term does not apply KCC 16.82 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION RMC 4-4-060 Development Regulations STANDARDS -Clearing and Grading KCC 17 Fire Code RMC 4-5-070 Building And Fire Prevention Standards KCC 21A.14 Development Standards Design RMC 4-4-030 City -Wide Property Requirements Development Standards: Development Guidelines and Regulations - General KCC 21A.24 Critical Areas RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations KCC 21A.06 Technical Terms and Land Use RMC44-11 Definitions Definitions KCC 21A.06 shall also apply KCC 21A.16 Development Standards - RMC 44-070 Landscaping Landscaping And Water Use KCC 20.14 Basin Plans RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General KCC 25 Shoreline Management RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master program Regulations KCC 9* Surface Water Management RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) 9.02 General Provisions Standards 9.04 Surface Water Runoff Policy 9.08 Surface Water Management Program 9.12 Water Quality RMC 4-6-030 Development Regulations 9.14 Groundwater Protection RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations In general, references to the King County Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 21A) are to be replaced by reference to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title IV, particularly, chapter RMC IV-3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. CITY OF RENTON DRAFT STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE COR 2009 SPPM.00c PAGE 4 OF 6 CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL -DRAFT ■ COUNTY MAPS ■ For proposals in the City of Renton, all references in the SPPM to the following Maps shall be replaced by reference as indicated in the following table: Flow Control Applications Map Contact Renton Development Service Division Coal Mine Hazard Areas Map Replace with: Coal mine hazard areas within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton, as defined in RMC IV-3-050 and the City of Renton Coal Mine Hazards map (Figure 4-3- 050Q3a(i)).City of Renton Landslide Hazard Drainage Area Ma Landslide Hazard Area and Landslide Replace with: Drainage Areas Map Landslide hazard areas within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton, as defined in RMC IV-3-050 and the City of Renton Landslide Hazards map (Figure 4-3- 050Q3c(i)).City of Renton Landslide Hazard Drainage Area Map. Water Quality Applications Map King County Map does not apply. Basic or Enhanced Water quality treatment BMPs required will be based on land use and thresholds specified in this Amendment. Flood hazard area (as defined in KCC Replace with: 21A.06) Frequently flooded areas include all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton, as defined in RMC IV-3-050 and the City of Renton Flood Hazards Ma (Figure 4-3-050Q2 . Erosion hazard area Replace with: Erosion hazard areas include all erosion prone areas within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton, as defined in RMC IV-3-050 and the City of Renton Erosion Hazards Ma (Figure 4-3-050Q3b i . Steep slope hazard area Replace with: (no map referenced in the KCSWDM) Steep slope hazard areas include all steep slopes within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton, as defined in RMC IV-3-050 and the City of Renton Stee Slo es Ma (Figure 4-3-050Q3e i . Critical Aquifer recharge area (as defined in Replace with: KCC21A.06) Aquifer Protection Zones are areas within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton, as defined in RMC IV-3-050 and the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zones Ma (Figure 4-3-050Q2 . THE CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL COR 2009_SPPM.DOC PAGE 5 OF 6 CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENITION MANUAL ■ MISCELLANEOUS TERMS For proposals in the City of Renton, all references in the SPPM to the following miscellaneous terms shall be replaced by reference as indicated in the following table: Replace with: Agricultural Project Resource Conservation (RC) Project Agricultural Zone (A) Resource Conservation Zone (RC) King County Fire Code Fire Code of the City of Renton Unless the context requires otherwise, any reference to "County", "King County" or "Unincorporated King County" shall refer to the City of Renton and any reference to County Staff shall refer to the Public Works Department Administrator or designee, unless specifically referring the Development Services Division and/or Surface Water Utility as indicated above. CONFLICTS IN APPLICATION OF SPPM MODIFICATIONS TO CITY OF RENTON Any conflict that arises between the SPPM and this Amendment to the SPPM shall be interpreted by the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. The Surface Water Utility will have final decision on all interpretations. CITY OF RENTON DRAFT STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE COR 2009 SPPM.DOC PAGE 6 OF 6 CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE 2009 KING COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL CHAPTER I — OVERVIEW DRAFT Incorporate the following changes: EXEMPTIONS • The following exemptions for BMP Implementation do not apply to the City of Renton: o Are implementing and maintaining a farm management plan approved by the King County Conservation District o Are implementing BMPs in compliance with King County Code 21A.30, which addresses animal livestock keeping practices. o Are engaged in forest practices, with the exemption of Class IV general practices STEP BY STEP APPROACH • Rename all references to "our website" to King County website (kingcounty.gov) • Add the following paragraph to the end of Step 9 - Keep Records: o Keep all records, books, documents, memoranda, reports, correspondence, and any and all summaries thereof, relating to operation, maintenance, monitoring, sampling, remedial actions and chemical analysis made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any illicit discharge or illicit connection for no less than three years in accordance with RMC 4-6-030 ON —SITE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM WORKSHEET • Replace the Address (page 1-11) on the Alternative Best Management Practices (BMP) Request as follows: o Surface Water Utility Renton City Hall 51h Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL COR SPPM 2009-1 OVERVIEW (2009-07-14).DOC PAGE 1 OF 2 PRINTED: 7/15/2009, 12:00:02 PM CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE 2009 KING COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL CHAPTER II - STORM WATER PROBLEMS: YOUR ROLE DRAFT Other than the changes discussed in the Preface, the King County version of chapter II apply for proposals in the City of Renton. CITY OF RENTON DRAFT STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE COR SPPM 2009_2 SW PBLEMS YR ROLE (2009-07-14).DOC PAGE 1 OF 1 PRINTED: 7/15/2009, 12:00:21 PM CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE 2009 KING COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL CHAPTER III - STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES Incorporate the following changes: • Rename all references to "appropriate Fire Code" to City of Renton Building And Fire Prevention Standards ACTIVITY SHEET A-1 7: FUELING OPERATIONS • Add the following minimum requirement: o Ensure that all fueling operations are approved by the Fire Department and comply with RMC 4-5-070. ACTIVITY SHEET A-30: BOAT BUILDING, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR • Add the following minimum requirement: o Immediately repair or replace any leaking connections, valves, pipes and equipment that cause the contamination of surface water. ACTIVITY SHEET A-40: STREET DEICING OPERATIONS • Amend activity title to read as follows: . o Street and Airports Deicing Operations • Add the following subsection: o Applicable BMPs for Aircraft: 1. Conduct aircraft deicing applications in impervious containment areas. 2. Collect aircraft deicer spent chemicals, such as glycol, draining from aircraft in deicing application areas and convey to a sanitary sewer, treatment, or other approved disposal or recovery method. 3. Divert deicing runoff from paved gate areas to appropriate collection areas or conveyances for proper treatment or disposal. CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL COR SPPM 2009 3 SW BMP (2009-07-14).DOC PAGE 1 of 1 PRINTED: 7/15/2009, 12:01:57 PM CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE -DRAFT 4. Do not allow spent deicer chemicals or stormwater contaminated with aircraft deicer chemicals to be discharged from application areas including gate areas, to surface water, or ground water, directly or indirectly. CITY OF RENTON DRAFT STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE COR SPPM 2009_3 SW BMP (2009-07-14).DOC PAGE 2 OF 2 CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE 2009 KING COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL CHAPTER IV — STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES II7;L129 Other than the changes discussed in the Preface, the King County version of chapter IV apply for proposals in the City of Renton. CITY OF RENTON DRAFT STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE COR SPPM 2009_4 SW PBLEMS YR ROLE (2009-07-14).DOC PAGE 1 OF 1 PRINTED: 7115/2009, 12:02:32 PM CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE 2009 KING COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL CHAPTER V — BMP INFO SHEETS Other than the changes discussed in the Preface, the King County version of chapter V apply for proposals in the City of Renton. CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL COR SPPM 2009_5 SW BMP (2009-07-14).DOC PAGE 1 OF 1 PRINTED: 7/15/2009, 12:03:07 PM CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE 2009 KING COUNTY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL CHAPTER VI - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DRAFT Incorporate the following changes: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE • Add the following contact information under General BMP Selection (page VI-2): o Surface Water Utility Renton City Hall 51h Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 • Add the following contact information under Solid Waste Disposal (page VIA0): o Solid Waste Utility Renton City Hall 5th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 Telephone: 425-430-7397 ACTIVITIES THAT MAY RESULT IN PROHIBITED DISCHARGES • Rename all references to "King County Code 9.12.025B" to: o Renton Municipal Code 4-3-060 G • Rename all references to "King County Code Title 9" to: o Renton Municipal Code Title IV • Delete references to King County Website CITY OF RENTON STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL COR SPPM 2009_6 SW BMP (2009-07-14).Doc PAGE 1 OF 1 PRINTED: 7/15/2009, 12:03:39 PM CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Public Works Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems/Wastewater Staff Contact...... Michael Benoit x-7206 Subject: 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan Exhibits: Issue Paper 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan (PDF on CD) Recommended Action: Refer to Utilities Committee Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required. Amount Budgeted....... Total Proiect N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: For Agenda of. July 20, 2009 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Transfer/Amendment ....... Revenue Generated......... City Share Total Project.. The Wastewater Utility has developed an update to its 1998 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan (Sewer Comprehensive Plan). The new plan, called the 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan, is a stand-alone document, not a supplement. We have completed Administrative Review of the document, the SEPA process, and submitted draft copies to adjacent utility service providers for their review and comment. We are preparing to make initial submittal to the King County Utilities Technical Review Committee for its review and approval. We would like Council to approve the plan for submittal to King County. Once approved by King County, the plan will be returned to Council for official adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan for submittal to King County for its review and approval. /0 H:\File Sys\WWP - WasteWater\WWP-09-0007 2006 Long Range Wastewater Plan_comp\City of Renton Council Agenda Bill.doc\MABtp PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ccroe �., swill °e 00 = M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 9, 2009 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: �� Denis Law, Mayor , 4 FROM. '�u Gregg Zimmerma& ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Michael Benoit, Wastewater (ext. 7206) SUBJECT: 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan ISSUE: Should Council approve the 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan for submittal to King County? Once approved by King County, the plan will be returned to Council for official adoption. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan for submittal to King County for its review and approval. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City needs to update its Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan in order to provide constant evaluation of our sewer system and operating policies to meet the needs of the customers and to ensure compatibility with the City and King County's Comprehensive Plans. The Wastewater Utility has performed the update. Since the 1998 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan, the City has completed flow monitoring of our sewer system in conjunction with King County (2001-02). Using that data, we developed a new hydraulic model of the entire system. As part of the model, we converted our data from a simple spreadsheet to a geodatabase. The model was used to identify potential future system deficiencies. This new product has allowed us to update the following as part of this Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan: • Prepare a new 20-year projection of capital improvements including those needed for capacity and those needed for system age. Council/2008 Long Range WW Plan Page 2 of 3 July 9, 2009 • Identify project needs to parts of system dependent upon technology changes such as our telemetry system. Identify those areas that need additional flow monitoring and modeling as development continues and for areas we saw deficiencies in the original effort, such as the Renton industrial valley. Additional changes to the plan include: • We updated our polices to be in conformance with the current overall Renton Comprehensive Plan. • We reviewed and updated as necessary, our design standards to assure we are providing facilities that meet the long-term needs of the system. • We reviewed and updated as necessary, both engineering and operational staffing and practices to assure we keep up with the needs of the Utility. It is important to note that the purpose of the plan is to provide guidance to the City as we develop our annual budget, work plan, and 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). As we develop each of these elements we will need to evaluate for that specific situation and use this document only to assist in the decision making process. OVERVIEW OF PLAN: Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overall summary of the plan. Chapter 2 provides an overview of Renton's existing sewer system. This includes a history of the system and a description of the system and its parts. Chapter 3 lists the Wastewater Utility's operational policies. These policies reflect federal and state regulations, as well as coordination with county and City land use policies. Chapter 4 describes the planning considerations used to develop the plan, including identification of the land use designations that affect the planning. This chapter also defines the design criteria to be used for replacement and expansion of the sewer system. Chapter 5 provides an analysis of Renton's sewer system. The chapter describes the model development and the hydraulic analysis. The chapter illustrates that the City's system, on the whole, is in good condition. This chapter also identifies the sub -basins that are of concern to the Utility and that should be reviewed for rehabilitation or replacement during the life of the plan. Chapter 6 identifies the projects necessary to resolve the system deficiencies described in Chapter 5. These improvements are scheduled based upon projected need and the attempt at a level annual cost. This program is a guide. The system will be under constant review. These reviews will show that some of the system is H:\File Sys\WWP - WasteWater\WWP-09-0007 2006 Long Range Wastewater Plan_comp\Issue Paper_LRWPlan1.DOC\MABtp Council/2008 Long Range WW Plan Page 3 of 3 July 9, 2009 holding up better than anticipated while other parts may need work sooner than planned. This plan and the system reviews will be used as tools to create the recommendations to Administration and Council for the annual CIP and budget. Chapter 7 describes and analyzes our existing operations and maintenance structure and programs and looks to identify the future needs of the system. Chapter 8 identifies a financial plan to meet the needs projected in Chapter 6. This chapter projects the funding responsibility(s) for each of the projects identified in Chapter 6 such as Local Improvement District, developer extension, or City CIP. Also discussed are the potential funding sources for Capital Improvement Projects including revenue bonds, Public Works Trust Fund Loans, grants, and King County participation. CONCLUSION: The Administration is currently asking that Council approve the 2008 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan for submittal to King County. The plan will be submitted to King County's Utilities Technical Review Committee (UTRC) for their review and approval. Once we obtain King County's approval, we will return the plan to Council for formal adoption by resolution. cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director Dave Christensen, Wastewater Engineering Supervisor File C:\Documents and Settings\BWalton\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\X7DZYUNA\Issue Paper_LRWPlan1.DOC\MABtp CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Public Works Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems/Wastewater Utility Staff Contact...... John Hobson, x7279 Subject: Final Pay Estimate - CAG-08-090 White Fence Ranch Sanitary Sewer Extension Contractor: Shoreline Construction Co. Exhibits: Final Pay Estimate Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract Al #: Le. , For Agenda of: July 20, 2009 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance.......... . Resolution.......... Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions..... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... X Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $74,182.83 (final pay estimate) Transfer/Amendment...... Amount Budgeted...... $80,000 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $1,850,000 (2008-2009 City Share Total Project.. Wastewater Budget) SUMMARY OF ACTION: The project was awarded on July 14, 2008. Construction was started on August 4, 2008, and was completed on May 5, 2009. The original contract amount was $1,071,007.84 and the final contract amount is $1,558,042.25. The additional cost ($487,034.41, which equals a 45% increase) was a result of additional work to perform a complete rebuild of the streets throughout the project. This rebuild included removing 18" of the existing poor soils and replacing it with 11,800 square yards of stabilizing fabric, 9500 tons of crushed rock, and 2300 tons of asphalt paving. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the project, approve the final pay estimate in the amount of $74,182.83, and release the retainage in the amount of $71,454.29 after 60 days, subject to the receipt of all required authorizations. H:\File Sys\WWP - WasteWater\WWP-27-3432 White Fence Ranch\PAY ESTIMATES\Agnbil_Final-WFR.doc\JHtp TO FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR 'NTRACTOR: Shoreline Construction JTRACT NO. CAG-08-090 PO # 18/0001597 ESTIMATE NO. 5 (Final) PROJECT: White Fence Ranch Sanitary Sewer Extension 1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $67,746.88 2. SALES TAX @ 9.50% $6,435.95 3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE $74,182.83 4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR $1,293,271.97 5. * EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE $64,359.54 6. SUBTOTAL - CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS $68,066.95 8. ** RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $3,387.34 9. SUBTOTAL - RETAINAGE 10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID $122,520.50 11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE $6,435.95 12. SUBTOTAL - SALES TAX * (95% x LINE 1) ** (RETAINAGE: 591o) GRAND TOTAL: FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION: 'MENT TO CONTRACTOR (Lines 5 and 11): ACCOUNT # 426/000000/018.5950.0035.63/000000/u45490/f010 RETAINED AMOUNT (Line 8): ACCOUNT # 426/000000/018.5950.0035.63/000000/u45490/f010 CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRI D HEREIN, AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST, DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, AND THAT 2IM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID Signed: $1,357,631.51 $71,454.29 $128,956.45 $1,558,042.25 $70,795.49 # 5 (Final) $3,387.34 # 5 (Final) TOTAL THIS ESTIMATE: $70,795.49 $3,387.34 $74,182.83 1"A 11161c��O Printed On: 07/06/2009 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1 Printed On: 07/06/2009 Project: White Fence Ranch Sanitary Sewer Extension Contractor: Shoreline Construction Item Description No. City of Renton Public Works Department Contract Number: CAG-08-090 Pay Estimate 5 (Final) Closing Date: 04/22/2009 Unit Est. Unit Previous Previous This This Total Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quanti V Page 1 Total Amount 001. Mobilization & Demobilization Lump Sum 1 $75,000.00 0.80 $60,000.00 0.20 $15.000.00 1.00 $75,000.00 002. Trench Excavation Safety Systems Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 1.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $10,000.00 003. Construction Surveying, Staking, and As-Builts Lump Sum 1 $15,000.00 0.50 $7,500.00 0.50 $7,500.00 1.00 $15,000.00 004. Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 $45,000.00 1.00 $45,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $45,000.00 005. Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00 006. Landscape Restoration Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 007. DeWatering Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 1.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $1,000.00 008. Televison Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Linear Foot 4798 $4.00 4798.00 $19,192.00 $0.00 4798.00 $19,192.00 009. 8" PVC Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 4798 $73.00 4798.00 $350.254.00 $0.00 4798.00 $350,254.00 010. 6" PVC Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 3470 $50.00 3295.00 $164,750.00 $0.00 3295.00 $164,750.00 011. 48" Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 11 $4,500.00 11.00 $49,500.00 $0.00 11.00 $49.500.00 012. 54" Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $5.0of 013. Connect New Sewer to Existing Sewer Manhole Each 3 $3,000.00 3.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 3.00 $9,000.00 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation 014. Material Ton 500 $1.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 015, Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 13400 $0.10 10588.37 $1,058.84 $0.00 10588.37 $1,058.84 016. Asphalt Patch Including CSTC Sq. Yard 0 $10.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0,00 $0.00 017. 2-Inch Deep Asphalt Overlay Sq. Yard 0 $12.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 018. Asphalt Grinding for Overlay Sq. Yard 0 $10.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 019. Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 1.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $1.000.00 020. Re-estabish Existing Monuments Each 2 $400.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 021. C.O. #1 1-1/4" Road Base and Excavation Ton 8850 $40.46 8983.21 $363,460.68 502.58 $20,334.38 9485.79 $383.795.06 022. C.O. #1 3-Inch Deep Asphalt Pavement Ton 1960 $114.94 2270.23 $260,940.24 $0.00 2270.23 $260,940.24 023. C.O. #1 Paving Stabilization Fabric Sq. Yard 11734 $0.74 11734.00 $8,683.16 $0.00 11734.00 $8,683.16 024. C.O. #2 6" Ductile Iron Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 205 $92.90 $0.00 205.00 $19,044.50 205.00 $19.044.50 025. C.O. #2 Additional Hydroseeding Lump Sum 1 $868.00 $0.00 1.00 $868.00 1.00 $868.00 Subtotal $1,361,338.92 $67.746.88 $1,429,085., 9.0 % Sales Tax (pay est 1-4) $122,520.50 9.5 % Sales Tax (pay est. 5) $6,435.95 Total Sales tax for the project $128,956A5 TT Total $1,483,859.42 $74,182.83 $1,558,042.25 State of Washington Department of Revenue �� PO Box 47474 REVENUE Olympia WA 98504-7474 Contractor's Registration No. (UBI No.) 178 072 242 From Date 7/20/09 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below Description of Contract Contract Number White Fence Ranch Sanitary Sewer Extension CAG-08-090 Contractor's Name Telephone Number Shoreline Construction Co. 425-483-0600 Contractor's Address P.O. Box 358, Woodinville, WA 98072 Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted 8/4/08 5/5/09 7/20/09 Surety or Bonding Company velers Casualty and Surety Company of America Agent's Address Jim Binder c/o Propel Insurance, 925-4th Ave, Ste 3200, Seattle, WA 98104-1159 Contract Amount $ 982,576.00 Additions $ + 673,330.96 Reductions $ — 226,821.16 Sub -Total $ 1,429,085.80 Amount of Sales Tax Paid at 0.0 % $ 128,956.45 (If various rates apply, please send a breakdown.) TOTAL $ 1,558,042.25 Comments: Sales Tax Breakdown 9.0% - $122,520.50 9.5% - $6,435.95 Total = $128,956.45 Liquidated Damages $ 0.00 Amount Disbursed Amount Retained Signature Type or Print Name Natalie Beardsley Phone Number 425.430.6919 TOTAL $ 1,486,587.96 $ 71,454.29 $ 1,558,042.25 The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, '3ox 47474, Olympia, WA 98504-7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO _MENT SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUNDS until receipt of Department's certificate, and then only in accordance with said certificate. To inquire about the availability of this document in an alternate format for the visually impaired, please call (360) 753-3217. Teletype (TTY) users please call (800) 451-7985. You may also access tax information on our Internet home page at http://dor.wa.gov. REV 31 0020e (6-27-01) IF CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, STATING ITS INTENT TO JOIN THE KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Renton has a population of less than 100,000; and WHEREAS, the King County Library System lies contiguous to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the citizens of the City of Renton to become part of the King County Library System; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance, previous to its adoption, has been submitted to the Library Board of the City of Renton for its review and recommendations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. It is the intention of the City of Renton to join the King County Library System. SECTION II. The public interest will be served by such joinder. SECTION Ill. Notification of this declaration of intent to join the King County Library System shall be transmitted to the King County Library System Board of Trustees to request their concurrence in this recommendation to annex. SECTION IV. Pursuant to RCW 27.12.360 and 370, if the Board of Trustees of the King County Library System concurs in the annexation, the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify, and to send a certified copy of this Ordinance and a copy of the concurrence of the Board of 1 ORDINANCE NO. Trustees of the King County Library System, to the King County Council. The King County Council is hereby requested to call a special election in February 2010 according to RCW 29A.04.321 and cause notice of such election to be given as provided in RCW 29A.52.351. The purpose of the election shall be to submit to the qualified voters within the City of Renton a ballot proposition in substantially the following form: PROPOSITION 1 Should the City of Renton be annexed to and be a part of the King County Library District? ❑ Yes ❑ No SECTION V. Annexation: If a majority of persons voting on the annexation proposal shall vote in favor of annexation, the City of Renton shall be annexed to and constitute a part of the King County Library System. SECTION VI. Severability: If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall 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 Ordinance. SECTION VII. This Ordinance shall be effective upon passage, approval and thirty (30) days after publication PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2009. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 6 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2009. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD:1537:1/29/09:scr S r. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 12, ADULT ENTERTAINMENT STANDARDS, OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON", TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES", TO REPEAL THE SECTION ENTITLED "INSPECTIONS", AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING LICENSING APPLICATION AND INVESTIGATION, RECORD KEEPING AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION ENTITLED "NUISANCE". THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 5-12-1, Definitions, of Chapter 12, Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended so the definition of "Criminal Activities" reads as follows: CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES: Any conviction, bail forfeiture or adverse finding under Federal, State or local law for acts including, but not limited to, sexual crimes against children, sexual abuse, rape, distribution of obscenity, distribution of erotic material to minors, prostitution, promoting prostitution, transporting persons for purposes of prostitution or enticing or coercing persons to travel for purposes of prostitution, permitting prostitution, patronizing a prostitute, pandering, racketeering, or violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. SECTION II. Subsection 5-1-4A.1.b.(5) of section 5-12-4, Adult Entertainment Business License Application, of Chapter 12, Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance 1 ORDINANCE NO. and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows: (5) If any of the partners are corporations or limited liability companies, the information required in subsection A.1.c below for each corporation or limited liability company. SECTION Ill. Subsection 5-12-4A.1.c of section 5-12-4, Adult Entertainment Business License Application, of Chapter 12, Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows: c. A corporation or limited liability company, the corporation or limited liability company shall state: (1) Its complete name, (2) The date of its incorporation or formation, (3) Evidence that the corporation or limited liability company is in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, (4) The legal names, dates of birth, optional disclosure of social security numbers, and capacity of all officers, directors, members and significant stockholders, and satisfactory documentation that each is eighteen (18) years of age or older, (5) The name of the registered agent for the corporation or limited liability company, (6) The address of the registered office for service of process, and 2 ORDINANCE NO. (7) In an affidavit from each officer, director, member or significant stockholder the relationship of each to the corporation or limited liability company. SECTION IV. Section 5-12-5, Adult Entertainment Business License Investigation, of Chapter 12, Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows: The Director shall refer an application for an adult entertainment business license to the following: A. The Fire and Emergency Services Department, the Community and Economic Development Department, and the Public Works Department for reports on compliance with all applicable fire, building and zoning codes of the City, B. The Seattle -King County Department of Public Health for a report on all applicable health codes of King County, and C. The Police Department for investigation and recommendation. Each department shall submit a written response as to its recommendation on the issuance of a license along with specific reasons and applicable laws if the recommendation is disapproval of the license. Such reports shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of the application for an adult entertainment business license. The Director shall conduct an on -site inspection of the adult entertainment business prior to issuing a license to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. 3 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION V. Section 5-12-19, Record Keeping Requirements, of Chapter 12, - - Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Within thirty (30) days following each calendar quarter, each adult entertainment business licensee shall file with the Director a report signed under penalty of perjury verifying the licensee's gross receipts and amounts paid to entertainers for the preceding calendar quarter. B. Each adult entertainment business licensee shall maintain and retain for a period of two (2) years from the date of termination of employment, the names, addresses, social security numbers and ages of all persons employed or otherwise retained as entertainers by the licensee. C. Each adult entertainment business licensee shall maintain and retain for a period of two (2) years a record of the name and license of each entertainer by shift and date. D. The information required under this Section shall be provided to the Director or his/her designee within thirty (30) days of a written request made by the Director or his/her designee. SECTION VI. Section 5-12-20, Inspections, of Chapter 12, Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby repealed. 4 I ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VII. Section 5-12-24, Standards of Conduct Applicable to Employees, Entertainers, Patrons and Customers in Adult Entertainment Businesses Providing Adult Live Entertainment, of Chapter 12, Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows: A. The following standards of conduct must be adhered to at all times by employees, entertainers, patrons and customers in adult entertainment businesses providing adult live entertainment. 1. No employee or entertainer may appear nude in any part of the premises open to view of patrons and/or customers, except in an adult live entertainment performance area. No entertainer may perform anywhere on the premises except in an adult live entertainment performance area. 2. No patron or customer shall go into or upon an adult live entertainment performance area. 3. No employee or entertainer mingling with patrons or customers shall be unclothed or in less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing so as to expose to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals; nor shall any male employee or entertainer at any time appear with his genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered, or wear or use any device or covering which simulates the same. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 4. No employee or entertainer mingling with patrons or customers shall conduct any dance, performance or exhibition in or about the nonstage area of the adult entertainment facility unless that dance, performance or exhibition is performed at a torso -to -torso distance of no less than four (4) feet from the patrons or customers for whom the dance, performance or exhibition is being performed. 5. No patron, customer, employee or entertainer shall engage in sexual activity on the premises of an adult entertainment facility. 6. No employee or entertainer shall use artificial devices or inanimate objects to depict sexual activity. 7. No entertainer shall be visible from any public place outside the premises during the entertainer's hours of employment or actual hours of employment. 8. No entertainer shall use any name other than the name(s) stated in the entertainer's application for his/her entertainer license. 9. No patron or customer shall give to any entertainer any gratuity or other payment, except for a gratuity for a performance in an adult live entertainment performance area. Any gratuity for such performance shall be placed in a receptacle located at least six feet (6') away from the adult live entertainment performance area. 10. No entertainer shall solicit, demand, accept, or receive any gratuity or other payment from a patron or customer except for a gratuity for a performance in an adult live entertainment performance area. Any gratuity for such performance 0 ORDINANCE NO. shall be placed in a receptacle located at least six feet (6') away from the adult live entertainment performance area. 11. At least two (2) signs, in English, readable in block print from twenty feet (20') away shall be conspicuously displayed in the public area of the adult cabaret or adult theater stating the following: THIS ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS IS REGULATED BY THE CITY OF RENTON: a. Entertainers and/or patrons are not permitted to engage in any type of sexual activity on the premises; b. Entertainers are not permitted to appear nude except in an adult live entertainment performance area; c. Entertainers are not permitted to perform except in an adult live entertainment performance area; d. Entertainers are prohibited from conducting any dance, performance or exhibition outside of the performance stage area of the adult entertainment establishment unless that dance, performance or exhibition is performed at a distance of no less than four (4) feet from the patrons or customers for whom the dance, performance or exhibition is performed; e. Entertainers are not permitted to solicit, demand, accept, or receive any gratuity or other payment from a patron except a gratuity for a performance in an adult live entertainment performance area. Any gratuity for such performance shall be placed in a receptacle located at least six feet away from the adult live entertainment performance area; 7 ORDINANCE NO. f. Patrons shall not give to any entertainer any gratuity or other payment, except for a gratuity for a performance in an adult live entertainment performance area. Any gratuity for such performance shall be placed in a receptacle located at least six feet away from the adult live entertainment performance area; g. Violations are subject to criminal prosecution. 12. No person may operate or maintain any kind of warning device or system for the purpose of warning or aiding and abetting the warning of any employee, patron, customer or any other person that the police, health, fire or building inspectors or other public officials are approaching or have entered the premises. SECTION VIII. Subsection B of section 5-12-27, Denial, Suspension or Revocation of License —Appeal, of Chapter 12, Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read as follows: B. During the course of the appeal proceeding before the Hearing Examiner, the burden of proof shall be upon the Director or his/her designee. SECTION IX. Chapter 12, Adult Entertainment Standards, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add a new section 5-12-31 Nuisance, to read as specified below, and to renumber the existing sections 5-12-31, 5-12-32, 5-12-33 and 5- 12-34. ORDINANCE NO. 5-12-31 NUISANCE A. Public Nuisance. Any adult entertainment business operated, conducted, or maintained in violation of this chapter or any law of the City or the state of Washington shall be, and the same is, declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance. The City may, in addition to or in lieu of any other remedies set forth in this chapter, commence an action to enjoin, remove or abate such nuisance pursuant to the provisions contained in RMC 1-3-3 NUISANCES, and shall take such other steps and apply to such court or courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate or remove such public nuisance, and restrain and enjoin any person from operating, conducting or maintaining any adult entertainment business contrary to the provisions of this chapter and/or RMC 1- 3-3. B. Moral Nuisance. Any adult entertainment business operated, conducted or maintained contrary to the provisions of RCW 7.48A Moral Nuisance, shall be, and the same is declared to be, unlawful and a public and moral nuisance and the City may, in addition to or in lieu of any other remedies set forth herein, commence an action or actions, to abate, remove and enjoin such public and moral nuisance, or impose a civil penalty, in the manner provided by RCW 7.48A. SECTION X. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty (30) days after publication. 9 ORDINANCE NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2009. — Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2009. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1563:6/17/09:scr Denis Law, Mayor 10