HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 09/13/2010AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
September 13, 2010
Monday, 7 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2.ROLL CALL
3.PROCLAMATION
a. Tobacco‐Free Teens Back to School Week ‐ September 12 to 18, 2010
4.SPECIAL PRESENTATION
a. Return to Renton Car Show Report
5.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6.AUDIENCE COMMENT
(Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The
comment period will be limited to one‐half hour. The second audience comment period later on in
the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please
walk to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST
NAME.
7.CONSENT AGENDA
The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the
recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further
discussion if requested by a Councilmember.
a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 8/16/2010. Council concur.
b. City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board filed by Brad
Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
LUA‐10‐041. Refer to City Attorney Department.
c. Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, represented by Claudia M.
Newman, Bricklin & Newman, Attorneys, requesting an order reversing the Wal‐Mart
Expansion Site Plan approval; LUA‐10‐009. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services.
d. Court Case filed in King County District Court ‐ East Division Issaquah (Small Claims) by Puget
Sound Energy, seeking compensation in the amount of $6,100, alleging the City damaged a gas
main in the vicinity of SE 17th Ct. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services.
e. Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill Building HVAC Upgrades, and
requests approval of the project, commencement of a 60‐day lien period, and release of
retained amount of $33,101.65 to Performance Mechanical Group, contractor, if all required
releases are obtained. Council concur.
Page 1 of 212
f. Community Services Department recommends approval of a replacement contract in the
amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete the six‐year update to the Parks, Recreation, Open
Space, and Natural Resources Plan; and requests authorization to expend $8,000 for City
related expenses as part of the public meeting process. Council concur.
g. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐156, with
the Washington State Department of Transportation, in the amount of $19,430 to extend the
Benson Rd. sewer line to provide future service to area properties. Council concur.
h. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with
the Washington State Department of Transportation, revising the scope of work related to fiber
optic conduit and reducing the amount of the contract by $171,914.16. Council concur.
i. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept $150,000 in grant funds from
the Federal Aviation Administration to develop an Airport Sustainability Plan. City Share:
$7,500. Council concur. (See 9.a. for resolution.)
j. Utility Systems Division submits CAG‐08‐115, Dayton Ave. NE/NE 22nd St. Drainage
Improvement, and requests approval of the project, commencement of a 60‐day lien period,
and release of retained amount of $8,432.89 to Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc., contractor,
if all required releases are obtained. Council concur.
k. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal agreement with King County for
the transfer of stormwater drainage facilities and property interests within City limits. Council
concur. (See 9.b. for resolution.)
8.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics
marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held
by the Chair if further review is necessary.
a. Finance Committee: Vouchers; Utility Billing Leak Adjustments
b. Planning & Development Committee: Shoreline Master Program*
9.RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Resolutions:
a. Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration to accept grant funds for the Airport
Sustainability Plan (See 7.i.)
b. Interlocal agreement with King County regarding transfer of drainage facilities (See 7.k.)
c. Approve the amended Shoreline Master Program and direct forwarding to the Washington
State Department of Ecology (See 8.b.)
Ordinance for second reading:
a. Amending noise level regulations (1st reading 8/16/2010)
10.NEW BUSINESS
(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425‐430‐6512 for recorded information.)
11.AUDIENCE COMMENT
12.ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 212
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
September 13, 2010
Monday, 6:00 p.m.
Budget Update
• Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk •
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RECABLECAST:
Tues. & Thurs. at 11 AM & 9 PM, Wed. & Fri at 9 AM & 7 PM and Sat. & Sun. at 1 PM & 9 PM
Page 3 of 212
3a. ‐ Tobacco‐Free Teens Back to School Week ‐ September 12 to 18,
2010 Page 4 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of
Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit: LUA-10-041, ECM, SM, Brad Nicholson v.
City of Renton
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Petition for Review, Declaration of Brad
Nicholson, and Exhibits
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Executive
Staff Contact:
Bonnie Walton
Recommended Action:
Refer to City Attorney Department
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Petition for Review, Declaration of Brad Nicholson, and Exhibits filed as an appeal to the Shorelines
Hearings Board requesting a review of the decision to approve Renton's Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, LUA-10-041, ECM, SM, by Brad Nicholson, 2302 NE 28th St., Renton, 98056.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 5 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
CITY OF RENTON |
SEP 0 2 2010 I
CI FY CLERK'S OFFICE
T"
In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM:
Brad Nicholson,
Petitioner,
v.
City of Renton
Respondents.
Case No.
Petition for Revi AUG 2 6 2010
Name and address of Petitioner:
Brad Nicholson
2302 N.E. 28th Street
Renton, WA 98056
425 445 0658
brad827@hotmail.com
Name and address of Respondents:
Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee
City of Renton Storm Water Utility
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA. 98057
Parties necessary for just adjudication:
Property Owner:
Port Quendall Company 111437
Attn. Steve Van Til
505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900
Seattle, WA 98104
Petition for Review
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEARINGS OFFICE
•welters <.-.
M
Page 1 of20
Brad Nicholson
lafry UJarre-n 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 6 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial )
Development Permit LUA10-041,
Brad Nicholson,
Petitioner,
v.
City of Renton
Respondents.
Name and address of Petitioner:
Brad Nicholson
2302 N.E. 28th Street
ECM, SM: )
BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Case No.
Petition for Review
Renton, WA 98056
425 445 0658
brad8 27@hotmail. com
Name and address of Respondents:
Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee
City of Renton Storm Water Utility
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA. 98057
Parties necessary for just adjudication:
Property Owner:
Port Quendall Company 111437
Attn. Steve Van Til
505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900
Seattle, WA 98104
Petition for Review
Page 1 of20
Brad Nicholson
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 7 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proponent:
Spencer Alpert
Alpert International, LLP
10218 Richwood Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98177
Represented by:
Jack McCullough
701 5t Avenue, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
Parties Served:
Washington State Department of Ecology
3190 160th Avenue Southeast
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Washington office of the Attorney General
Rob McKenna
800 5th Avenue Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
This is a request for Shorelines Board review of the decision to approve a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit designated LUA10-041, ECR, SM, issued on August 9, 2010, signed and
approved by Renton's planning director "Chip" Vincent. A copy of the decision is attached herewith.
I. INTRODUCTORY FACT
Evidently, Renton's planning priorities are severely misplaced. The decision has the effect of approving
of a Shoreline variance even though no evidence of the necessary criteria is present1 The attached
decision contains a bulleted list that claims to describe "each part" of the proposed project while
incognizant of the need for a decision balancing the needs of the public.
i The burden of proof for a variance RCW 90.58.140(7) is on the applicant. Among other requirements, the circumstances must be
"extraordinary" to be consistent tie with requirements RCW 90.58.100(5)
Petition for Review BradNicholson
Page 2 of20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 8 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The decision claim that "each part" is included on the bulleted list is very far from being the truth. The
words "each part" are misleading, hiding many facts of the true nature and contents of the permit.
The following provides a description of some of the absent parts with a bulleted list that is reasonable,
truthful, and appropriate:
• On the north of the site, a functionally interrelated, interdependent, connected, non-priority, non-
water related, non-public, 100% impervious, 5 story tall pre-approved 173 room Hotel with a spa,
fitness center, restaurant, and parking lot named "Hawk's Landing depends on the project. Even
though required by the SMA to do so, the true proponents of the permit never sought the
necessary Shoreline permits, and never sought the necessary storm water or infrastructure
facilities on another segment of the same project under a different designation - LUA-09-060,
ECF, SA-M, SA-H. The project will have around 350,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface. The Hotel
does nothing to further public access or water related or aesthetics interest but instead interferes
with those interests. The defective permit is the latest of a series of surprises with regard to how
the project's water runoff will be handled. At the Hotel's SEPA hearing, they were able to sneak
approval of the bogus "Rain Garden" that violates code and isn't a "Rain Garden at all until after
SEPA was performed. They said the "Rain Garden" was going to discharge to the "Ditch" Even
though it has been improperly decided to designate the only portion of the "Urban" shoreline that
is still undeveloped, the decision is still incorrect and the permit should still be reversed because
it does nothing to allow the public to have access to the Shoreline. Some people believe them that
there is a "5 0 foot setback" applicable to the proj ect.
• On the west, there is a 500 foot long orange scum containing drainage "Ditch" that is obviously
contaminated with metals with a very high elevation conveyance output pipe that ponds the site's
extremely large quantity of water runoff and infiltrates a significant portion of that water runoff to
Quendall Terminals and Lake Washington. Now they are going to fill the "Ditch", which is the
opposite of what the project described in the SEPA application for the Hotel project. This would
be in lieu of the developer's responsibility, evidently because he refuses to mitigate the impacts of
the hotel; a "bait and switch" tactic inconsistent with the previous pleas and decisions. Now, they
contend the "Ditch" should be filled with imported material, under the guise that such action is an
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 3 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 9 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
acceptable continuation of a "direct discharge" to May Creek. It is simply not the case and not
true. It is not a direct discharge to May Creek—it presently significantly infiltrates to Lake
Washington. What the natural hydrologic regime would be in a natural environment in the area
has been totally disregarded. One thing is clear and that is that they dont know if infiltration water
will impact Lake Washington and Quendall Terminals or not, but it is easy to see (consistent with
the other actions pleas) that the decision was made in support of the contention that the area is
already degraded, and that since they are doing nothing to exacerbate the issues, the proposal has
no impact. It is evidently hoped that chances of reversal in appeals that may cite impact to the
superfund site directly downstream containing extremely hazardous chemicals would be reduced
with the tactic, i.e. they will contend that it has already been decided. The "wet biofiltration
swale" is being separately permitted on this project for another project it is intended to service,
while both have separate numbers which is the first indication that there is a problem. Without
utilizing precedent for decisions in the KCSWDM, they want to conceal facts so as to affirm the
developer's position regarding refusal to dedicate any Land with the hope that the inconsistencies
with the City's Shoreline Management Program will go unnoticed.
On the southern 200 feet of the site, there is untouched State Shoreline meeting the criteria for
designation as a "Conservation Environment" under Renton's Shoreline Management Plan2. Two
regulated wetlands, and a Class one Salmon Stream that should be protected by the Shoreline
Management Act and numerous valuable species of wildlife including species listed as
'Threatened" and "Endangered" by the ESA that are directly downstream from the Hotel. At
least 10,000 square feet of the site area of the shoreline have been permitted to be bulldozed, and
a pit would be excavated and fenced for storm water facilities that are not approved by the Storm
water manual3 and would violate important regulatory requirements of the SMA, Renton's SMP
and Renton's code. It is represented as an "improvement" over existing conditions even though
such representation is unsupported by substantial evidence, and while there is no authority in the
3 The King county Surface water Design Manual (KCSWDM) 2005 or 2009 edition requires the enhanced basic water quality menu to
be used for this project. A "wet biofiltration swale" is a feature listed on the "Basic" menu and therefore is not allowed.
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 4 of20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 10 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SMA indicating "improvement" is all that is required. More than an "improvement" is required
by the SMA and Renton's Shoreline Management Plan. No restoration has been proposed.
• With an ill considered location the experimental non-infiltration drainage facility inconsistent
with the impositions imposed by the City in previous environmental review will be directed to
May Creek should the permit stand. It thereby increases its flow, inconsistent with Renton's SMP
with regard to stream alteration causing unknown downstream damage. Increasing the flow of the
Creek might be a way to permit the project without drain to Quendall Terminals, but no facts are
available indicating that such a decision is consistent with SMA are available. Few if no dissolved
pollutants will be removed by the "Swale" even though there is a problem with metal according
to the 303(d) Map, the KCSWDM, hydrologic survey of the Creek, (see exhibits) transportation
estimates in excess of those permitted, and huge galvanized buildings that are dissolving into the
Creek that the developer insisted would remain. It was discovered by the applicant during the
SEPA hearing that one of the buildings would not be removed. The galvanized building is about
20,000 sq ft. and "straddling" the Shoreline jurisdictional line.
• The decision inappropriately and unreasonably permits a very large "Mystery Area" of available
land straddling the shoreline regulatory limits delineation and that is right down the middle of the
project. It has never been articulated what development or use will take place on the "Mystery
Area" and thus its reasonableness cannot be determined, but it is suitable and possible and natural
in size and characteristics to support the facilities that are listed on the "enhanced basic" water
quality menu or public use elements. If they don't consider that the metals from the building in
the "mystery area" dissolve and drain into May Creek, the permitted project violates the City's
own code. Considering the public interest nature of the regulations that are intended to protect
those interests with specific design criteria suggest only that the permit is saving the "mystery
area" with this stab at approval in hope that more tax generating development can be added later.
Depending on whether the dissolving zinc warehouse and other pollution generated by the project
would be permitted to remain with absolutely no disclosure as to what use the area of land will be
put —only that it is proposed to be continually dissolving heavy metals into the environment and
discharging to May Creek—untreated is an important issue that has never been addressed. The
permit should also be reversed because of the high traffic and high pollution generating nature of
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 5 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 11 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the project. Perhaps the Seahawk's or Spencer Alpert may propose that the use on the 1-2 acre
"Mystery area" in the center of the project within Shoreline jurisdiction be described later, on
another unlawfully segmented part of the project like was done with the transportation and storm
water facilities and previous plans.
Originally, Spencer Alpert International applied for this project with the "Rain Garden"4 Whether the
current project is the best or correct course of action is a very important question. It was insisted at SEPA
that the project would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, but this project does not comply with it nor is it
consistent with the SMP or SMA. This segment of the project is alleged to be only for the transportation
and infrastructure segment of the project including storm water. From the outset there have been so many
surprises with regard to the project like the "Rain Garden" and the "filling of the "Ditch" The City issued
the permit to itself. It would certainly be more compliant with full disclosure if environmental review
would be conducted on actual projects, or if subsequent segments would be consistent with the previous,
or if the entire true project could be reviewed all at once. The environmental review concluded that the
water would be appropriately handled with respect before being discharged to the "Ditch" but now the
ditch is proposed to be filled. Surprises like these that include features that have never been fully
reviewed will probably continue if this type of procedure is used. The City has segmented the review to
include only what is being proposed on each step of what is needed to avoid imposing the Shorelines
regulations or impositions on the developer, evidently being driven the idea of securing more economic
development. Perhaps that is why it is so frustrating to try to convince the applicant there are appropriate
and reasonable solutions to the projects shortcomings.
Closing their eyes to the obvious need for a variance or exception to the SMA, SMP, or complying with
the storm water manual, evidently relying upon misinformation and misplaced priorities instead, the
shoddily and poorly planned piecemeal City "revitalization" permit will needlessly tear up the shoreline
4 Ever since the surprise discovery that the Hawk's Landing "Rain Garden" was really an impervious perforated pipe conveyance
system, petitioner and others have put it in quotation marks and it is continued here.
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 6 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 12 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
esthetics and disturb habitat, permanently block the area from public access and enjoyment, and discharge
its polluted water into May Creek, a "Shoreline of the State", and a "Class 1 Salmon stream"
This appeal seeks to prevent the inherent harm caused by the uncoordinated and piecemeal development
of Washington's Shorelines and disregard of numerous provisions of RCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline
Management Plan.
II. BACKGROUND FACTS
On or around September 10, 2009 Spencer Alpert International applied for and obtained approval for a
Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a
fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. Proposing to
cut 32 trees and proposing to hydro-seed the Shoreline, the Seahawk's considered the project essential for
their football operations-although essentially submitted without lawfully articulated street and storm
water improvements or a clear picture of the layout of the entire site plan. Another project that is across
the street and downstream ofthis project is a 20 some acre parcel commonly called Quendall Terminals,
that is presently being scoped for an EIS for 800 residential units and a subdivision for "mixed use" retail
development and is the subject of an EPA superfund investigation. No coordinated storm water plan is yet
in place for the area. In yet another project, the Seahawk's practice facility next door was able to totally
exclude the public from enjoying the shoreline.
A Substantial Shoreline development permit was needed for the Seahawk's Hotel project to proceed to
perform deconstruction and storm water work and/or stream alteration work within 200 feet of the high
water mark on the State's Shoreline, but during it's SEPA hearing surprise Counsel insisted that the area
would not be "touched" or deconstructed and thus a shoreline permit would not be required. Placing
flower pots on the existing impervious asphalt was mentioned as a possible way to mitigate the
distraction. It looks like the way that the proponent will keep his word now is that Planning director Chip
Vincent already approved a Shoreline Permit to the City for the project's construction. Spencer Alpert and
his Counsel argued that storm water improvements should be identified at the permit stage of the project
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 7 of20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 13 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and appropriate facilities would be determined at that time. Counsel for Spencer Alpert also argued that if
the City does not take action within 45 days, then the project should be approved automatically. 1400 new
trips per day were purported to be generated, parking was to be provided both below the hotel, and on 124
new surface parking spaces, including a number of spaces for "Tesla" electric vehicles. In addition to
proposing to construct a "Koi Pond", his bogus "Rain Garden", and installing capillary break building
drains to release groundwater just below the sites surface affecting the Hotel, the applicant planned to
move 4, 450 yards of cut soil, and place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil over the top of the existing asphalt
Even though the groundwater is nearly at the surface, it was contended that "best management practices"
could be used to protect the environment during construction but none were specifically identified.
Perhaps the construction water is proposed be directed to the "wet biofiltration swale" but it doesn't say.
From a perspective of groundwater flow inferred from test pits and scientific measurements, the "Ditch"
water is infiltrating directly upstream into the Port Quendall Superfund site and thence flows to Lake
Washington. Port Quendall is severely polluted from past manufacturers of wood preservative products
that dumped large amounts of chemicals in numerous areas of the site over decades. In summation, the
"ditch" along Lake Washington Blvd is very deep and around 500 feet long, infiltrating a significant
portion of its storm water directly to Quendall Terminals. See Massman declaration.
In addition to not knowing exactly how much water infiltrates and how much runs off, it is not known
how much of the superfund chemicals are being forced or "fluxed" into Lake Washington, this recent
discovery was after the Hotel's SEPA hearing. See EPA attachment. There are large patches of
percolating chemicals at Quendall 4-6 feet thick at significant depth significantly impacting the water
quality of Lake Washington. In order to clean up Quendall Terminals, there will probably need to be
hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soil removed and replaced on that site. Relevant
here, were facts discovered that indicate a significant amount of water from the hotel project and "Ditch"
could enter the superfund site through groundwater flow. Massman exhibits. The remediation plan is
presently in progress, being conducted by the EPA to guide clean up of Quendall Terminals. EPA
Exhibits. The Dept. of Ecology evidently has given up on it. No facts regarding how the remediation facts
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 8 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 14 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
might affect the project are available. Obviously, the results are not included in any review of the project
because they are not available. The questions raised by the results were the essence of a previous SEPA
appeal.
SEGB and Brad Nicholson's SEPA appeal to Renton's Hearing Examiner cited the lack of the Hotel
projects' compliance with SEPA and the SMA, and lack of a coordinated and compliant Storm water
Plan. The entire record of the information contained in the appeal is hereby incorporated into this appeal.
The conclusion and decision for the Hotel project indicated that it was normal for the storm water system
to remain un-designed and unarticulated until issuance of permits at which time the code would be
applied. That is one of the problems. See Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Counsel for Spencer Alpert
insisted on splitting the Hotel's hearings into two separate hearings one for SEPA issues and one for
substantive site plan code issues. SEGB and Brad Nicholson obtained the testimony of Hydrogeologist
Dr. Joel Massman to opine on the issues.
On reconsideration to the City's Hearing Examiner, Dr. Massman found that a significant amount of the
storm water from the ditch supplies groundwater flow into Quendall Terminals and that the groundwater
flows to Lake Washington. The downstream area contains cancer causing chemicals impacting
groundwater to depths up to 50 feet, such as (PAH) Poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Pentaclorophenol,
and (BTEX) Benzine, Tolulene, Ethyl Benzine, and Xylene.. The PAH chemical family and the site
contains chemicals such as P-Dibenzodioxin and P-Dibenzofuran. They are considered to be extremely
dangerous. The groundwater in that zone flows to Lake Washington. It does not flow to May Creek.
The area was and still is of particular concern because, like May Creek the area is considered prime
habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal Cutthroat and Steelhead Trout. EPA exhibits. There are
also recreational swimming areas nearby that pose a threat to humans. May Creek basin and Lake
Washington are supporting habitats for the American Bald Eagle and numerous other valuable species.
May Creek's Steelhead trout and Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon are ESA listed species.
Recently Dr. Massman's conclusion that there is significant groundwater flow into Lake Washington has
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 9 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 15 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
been verified by the EPA; through the underwater data that has been collected around Lake Washington's
shoreline as part of the superfund investigations.
Dr. Massman calculated the Storm water infiltration/runoff from the Seahawks Hotel that should be
supported by what was then an unarticulated water quality facility that would comply with the 2005
KCSWDM, to be 20-25 acre feet per year, which amounts to an annual average 18,000 to 22,500 gallons
per day. He noted that 75,214 square feet of Buildings would be removed, but his calculation probably did
not take into account the lack of footing drains on the one building that counsel and Spencer Alpert
pledged would "not be touched". At least initially, it is also true that his calculations did not take into
account other impervious calculations such as transportation mitigation measures or what a "Rain
Garden" consisted of according to Spencer Alpert. With the fractionated review, it is next to impossible
for anyone to check the calculations with regard to current project's storm water facility size (even though
it is on the wrong menu) effectively excluding the public from participating in that aspect of the project.
When asked to reconsider based upon the fact that the very high outlet pipe to May Creek causes the ditch
to pond and infiltrate significantly to Quendall Terminals, Renton's Hearing Examiner refused, citing
"that there is no need" because he had decided the use of the "Best Available Science" was a mandatory
requirement and requiring that May Creek was "not to be put into jeopardy" would suffice, and then at
Spencer Alpert's insistence Renton's City Council overturned his decision by changing the terminology
to the use of "Best Management practices" and that "whatever "Rain Garden" feature" could be used as
long as it would satisfy the 2005 design manual and be discharged to the "Ditch" They never decided or
addressed whether more storm water flow would be added to May Creek or not or whether or where a
different compliant feature might be located or what type or size it might be because at the time, no
complete plan was in existence. Neither was a Shoreline permit sought at that time. They reiterated that
"best management practices" would be used during the dewater operation needed for construction but did
not identify any of them. Sometime after the appeal requesting more consideration of the impacts of the
project, the City identified State money citing community revitalization interests to provide mitigation
measures for the Enterprise. This appeal follows:
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 10 of20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 16 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. TIMING
A. This petition is timely filed according to WAC 461-08-340 because it is filed within 21 days of
the date the decision was made. WAC 461-08 states that, "A petition for review by any person aggrieved
by the granting, denying or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state shall be filed with the board
within twenty-one days of the "date of filing" as defined in WAC 461-08-305.
IV. JURISDICTION
A. The permit appeal issues are regulated by RCW 90.58.140(1) stating a development shall not be
undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of the chapter and, after
adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, or master program, and RCW
90.58.140(2) stating, "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state
without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this
chapter";
B. State Law RCW 90.58.180(1) provides that "Anyperson aggrieved by the granting, denying, or
rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may, except as otherwise
provided in chapter 43.21L RCW, seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for
review within twenty-one days of the date of filing as defined inRCW 90.58.140(6).
V. STANDING
Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB who lives a very short
distance from the site, and uses the May Creek Shoreline and Lake Washington waters bodies adjoining
the site. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Brad Nicholson has an active interest in the integrity of City of
Renton's land use and environmental review processes, has actively participated in past land use
processes including appeals relating to the site and its shoreline, and seeks to ensure that the City abides
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 11 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 17 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
its prior decisions and local and state SMA policies, procedures, and mandates and conducts all project
reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and is negatively impacted by the improper processing and
lack of appropriate designs in connection with this project.
As a result of the impacts caused by the permit approval, Nicholson will suffer harm from increased
damage to the shoreline quality envisioned by RCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline plan, including lower
water quality in May Creek and Lake Washington than envisioned by local and State Shoreline policies,
loss of visual and recreational amenities, and harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids and numerous
other wildlife that use these Shorelines that he enjoys. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Nicholson also has
a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of Renton and has made and participated in
appeals concerning water quality and environmental protection offish and wildlife in the past. As a result
of the City's improper segmentation and fractionated review and decision making with regard to the
shoreline permit, Nicholson is already suffering from an inability to comment on a full and completed
review of a single true proj ect application and the proj ects lack of attention to design criteria and
shoreline management purposes. He enjoys the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas,
frequently walks, boat, fish, bicycle, or swim with his family or desires to do so and observe the areas of
May Creek surrounding the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and
wildlife, recreation, and esthetic enjoyment associated with this project. See declaration of Brad
Nicholson. The improper review of the permit fails to improve the situation that will impact him, using
inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact him, and he will be
impacted by the degradation to amenities protected by the SMA, loss of access required by code, and
water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either Lake
Washington or May Creek.
He wants to have his community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton
Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and Renton's Shoreline Master Program and State Law, and
will be injured by the City's denial of the right to such a community without reversal of the Shoreline
Permit and consideration of all the facts that are relevant to this appeal. Declaration of Brad Nicholson.
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 12 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 18 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VI. JOINDER
WAC 461-08-445 applies in this case. The presiding officer is requested to join parties including
permittee, permitting agency and any other interested person or entity in accordance with civil rule 19.
VII. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
A. Without a variance or exception. Director Chip Vincent erroneously or arbitrarily and
capriciously approved the Shoreline Substantial Development permit even though the following
required design criteria of Renton's Shoreline Master Program and 90.58.020 RCW have not been
incorporated into the project's design:
1. Renton Shoreline Master Program Urban Designation regulations § 5.03.01(D) reading as follows, "To
enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be
redesigned to permit pedestrian waterfront activities" and, 'Where practicable, various access points
ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths" note: A hotel
and parking structure is not a water-dependent use given priority for shoreline development under RCW
90.58.020 see Gislason v. Town of Friday Harbor, SHBNo. 81-22 (1981); Clifford, et at, v. City of
Renton and Boeing, SHB No. 92-52 (1993). Development consisting of a unified structure, such as a
connection pipe to a storm water facility servicing the project, which is part in and part out of the
shoreline with a potential for an adverse shoreline effect, is "within" the shoreline for the purposes of the
SMA. see Weyerhaeuser v. Kins County, 91 Wn.2d 721, 592 P. 2d 1108 (1979). Since the pipe is
connected and the storm water facilty is intended for the Hotel, it is also "on" the shoreline under RCW
90.58.140(2), and requires a shoreline permit for the entire project. Public access and habitat protection
will be needed, as reflected by the master provision, an important value under the SMA. RCW 90.58.020
see Silver Lake Community Council v. City of Everett, SHB No. 80-04 (1980).
Petition for Review BradNicholson
Page 13 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 19 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Public access and habitat preservation are both part of the public trust values, which inhere in the SMA.
see Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wn.2d 262 (1987). Because the Decision Maker failed to inhere those
values, the permit as approved fails to meet the requirements of both SEPA and the SMA
2. Renton Shoreline Master Program Utilities Landscape Native Vegetation regulations § 7.19.01 (A) (1)
reading as follows, "The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible" note: Public access is
not the only shoreline value protected under public trust through the SMA. The policies of the SMA
specifically contemplate "protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its
vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life... RCW 90.58.020.
3. Renton Shoreline Master Program Local Service Utility specifications § 7.19.04 (D) (1) covering
discharges of pollutants reading as follows, " Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground
water shall be subj ect to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental
Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge" note: It is necessary for Renton to comply with
the terms of the NPDES permit issued to it as an MS4 jurisdiction. See Puget Soundkeeper - Stormwater
is recognized as the leading contributor to water quality pollution in urban waterways in the United
States. Ex. MUNI-0127, Fact Sheet, p. 8. In December 1999, the federal Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued new rules regarding the regulation of municipal stormwater. Ex. COA-0028, Moore
Testimony. EPA finalized the Phase II rules in 2000 (EPA Phase II Rules), which applied the NPDES
permit program to certain small municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (called MS4s). Ex. MUNI-
0127, Fact Sheet, p. 3. Emmett Testimony. The EPA Phase II Rules provide that the permits must require
regulated MS4s to "develop, implement, and enforce a stormwater management program (SWMP)
designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants ... to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect
water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act." 40
C.F.R. §122.34(a). cite, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance; People for Puget Sound; Coalition of
Governmental Entities v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation
PCHBNOS. 07-022, 07-023
4. Renton Shoreline Master Program Stream Alteration regulations § 7.17.02 (A) (B) reading as follows,
"Stream Alteration in unique and fragile areas is prohibited" and "Stream alteration solely for the purpose
of enlarging the developable area of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 14 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 20 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
land is prohibited" note: RCW 90.58.020 "The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among
the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state
relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation" and "In addition it finds that ever
increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased
coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state" and, "To this end uses
shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline"
5. Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (A)(l)(2)(3), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (C), Renton Municipal
Code 4-6-030 (D)(2), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (E)(3)(h)(ii) note: Maple Valley Citizens for
Responsible Growth v. City of Maple Valley and Richard and Jill Brown SHB NO. 03-014 is
distinguished in that the proposal discharging to Pipe Lake was not on the shoreline, not a salmon bearing
water, it did comply with the KCSWDM, and they provided money and resources to insure by covenant
that it would not pollute the Lake. None of those facts exist here.
6. KCSWDM 2009 edition § 1.2.8 Core Requirement #8 Water Quality, KCSWDM 2009 edition §
1.2.8.1 Area Specific Water Quality Facility Requirement, KCSWDM 2009 edition Definitions section
page 13, KCSWDM 2009 edition §6.1.2 Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. Note: a "wet biofiltration
swale" is not an infiltration feature and not a stand alone enhanced basic feature.
7. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020, "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines
of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences
and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks,
marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and
commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines
of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people
to enjoy the shorelines of the state" The hotel is not on the list.
8. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 design criteria, "Permitted uses inthe shorelines of the
state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage
to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the
water"
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 15 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 21 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "The legislature further finds that much of the
shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted
construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public
interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated
with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights
consistent with the public interest"
10. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "There is, therefore, a clear and urgent
demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local
governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the
state's shorelines"
B. Renton's Planning Director Chip Vincent, by approving the Substantial Development Permit
approved a fractionated and piecemeal project in violation of core requirements of the SMA 90.58
RCW.
1. A proposed development that includes both shorelines and uplands is properly reviewed in its entirety
for consistency with the SMA. see Merkelv. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844 (1973). The SMA
review is applicable to those portions of a proposed development that lie within the shoreline as defined
under RCW 90.58.030 and those portions of a project than may have adverse impacts on the shoreline.
See also Weyerhaeuser v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721 (1979); Allegra Development Company. Inc. v.
Wright Hotels v. City of Seattle, SHB No. 99-08 (1999). The reference to "adjacent lands" inthe
shoreline management act (RCW 90.58.100(2) (e)), is a reflection of the legislative scheme that lands
adjacent to shorelines must be considered together with the area extending 200 feet inland from high
water in order to achieve the consistency necessary for a systematic and intelligent management of the
shorelines.
"A single improvement or project of a governmental agency including and having an interrelated effect
on both uplands and shorelines cannot be divided into segments for purposes of complying with the
provisions of the environmental policy act and the shoreline management act" cite: Appletree Cove
Protection Fund v. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 16 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 22 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The issue applicable here, the piecemeal consideration of environmental impacts from broader
development plans,
"is one which strikes at the very core of both the State Environmental Policy Act and the Shorelines
Management Act". Appletree Cove Protection Fund v. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 (emphasis supplied)
The question, therefore, is whether the City may take a single project and divide it into segments for
purposes of SEPA and SMA approval.
The frustrating effect of such piecemeal administrative approvals upon the vitality of these acts compel an
answer in the negative. The factual situation in Merkel and Appletree cove is remarkably similar to the
present case. In Merkel and Appletree Cove, an overall scheme of development existed, but only one
piece was submitted for environmental review. In the instant case, an overall Project Master Plan exists
and has been reviewed, but at that time only part of the project was submitted for environmental review
Now they are doing the storm water and transportation measures inconsistent with that review. The
fractionated review is why significant questions about shoreline impacts have never been addressed. A
conclusion that the City has an obligation to conduct a review of its entire Master Plan under the SMA,
and lay out the overall Master Plan of development including a storm water plan, public access water
related use plan, and location of and priorities of the facilities in the context of the Shorelines permit
application, prior to proceeding with a permit for one portion of the Plan is in order. At the same time,
failing to use that master plan (which is what has occurred) to assess the overall environmental impacts of
future development under this permit only leads to preventable damage to the natural environment which
is the right of all citizens of the state.
The test that is employed is that, the connection or link must be "dependant" on the other piece
Piecemeal review is impermissible where a "series of interrelated steps [constitutes] an integrated plan'
and the current project is dependent upon subsequent phases, see Cheney v. Mountlake Terrace, 87
Wn.2d 338, 345, 552 P.2d 184 (1976) also, Murden Cove Preservation and Protection Association v.
Kitsap county 41 Wn. App. 515 stating,
WAC 197-10-060 (1) and (2) provide in part: (2) The total proposal is the proposed action, together with
all proposed activity functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the present
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 17 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 23 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proposal if: "(a) The future activity is an expansion of the present proposal, facilitates or is necessary to
operation of the present proposal; or "(b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary prerequisite to
future activities. The latest codification is as follows:
WAC 197-11-060
(b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single
course of action shall be evaluated inthe same environmental document. Proposals or parts of proposals
are closely related, and they shall be discussed in the same environmental document, if they:
(i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of proposals) are implemented
simultaneously with them; or
(ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as their
justification or for their implementation.
VIII. GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL
A. The project is reversible as piecemeal because it is related to Hawk's Landing closely enough to
be a single project and because it can not or will not proceed unless the other proposal is
implemented simultaneously and because it is an interdependent part of the larger proposal and
depends on the larger proposal as justification for its implementation"
Note: The overarching purpose of the SMA is to protect the state shorelines as fully as possible. Buechel
v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d at 203, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). Consistent with this objective and
the broad regulatory reach of the statute, the shoreline permit application should describe the full, unified,
and integrated physical project, both within and without the shorelines of the state. The facilities or future
activity and functionally related work necessary that the project depends on to proceed consistent with the
SMA that been ignored by the Decision Maker in this case are as follows:
1. A redesign of the project to permit public access to waterfront activities is needed.
2. The project depends on dedication of Land for location of Storm water Facilities in areas where it is
possible to locate outside of the native vegetation. A Redesign of the Shoreline with "preference" to
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 18 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 24 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
facilities that would be more representative of that of the natural environment is needed and depends on
the entire site plan for its location.
3. The project depends on obtaining additional shorehne permit to remove the zinc galvanized metal
warehouse distracting to the shoreline experience and adding pollution. It needs to identify requirements
for the Hotel project's necessary work to be performed on the shoreline to remove the building.
4. It is necessary to re-do the original application for the Hotel, to disclose and review that the applicant
proposes to alter the flow of the Creek by filling the "Ditch" and requiring the description of the work to
be performed on the Development site. They need to include identification of piping and outfall work to
be performed on the Shoreline. It depends on whether it is appropriate to issue a permit that has a priority
to restore and enhance the natural environment with respect to May Creek water flow.
5. The project depends on additional planning work and additional land dedication necessary to comply
with the KCSWDM 2009 edition and Renton's code requirements for the "enhanced basic water quality
menu" The land dedication will need to come from the site. The redesign will need to include a design for
the project that this permit is intended to serve, such as Treatment Train, Stormwater Wetland, and
Stormfilter CF like is outlined on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu
B. The Errors enumerated above are grounds for reversal.
X. RELIEF REQUESTED
A. A declaratory order addressing whether the above Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issued by
the City of Renton is consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, the Renton Shorehne Management
Program and their implementing regulations, ordinances, and statutes inthe following respects:
Issue no. 1:
Whether adequate provisions for public use consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, Renton's
Shoreline Master program, regulations, ordinances, and statutes have been provided.
Issue no. 2
Whether the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" as permitted is adequate to minimize, "insofar as practical"
pollution to meet the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, Renton's Shoreline Master
program, and other code regulations, design manuals, ordinances, and statutes.
Petition for Review Brad Nicholson
Page 19 of 20 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 25 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Issue no. 3:
Whether it is possible and appropriate for the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" or for that matter any other storm
water facility to be located on a location different than where it is.
Issue no. 4:
Whether a variance should have been sought for any of the issues, and whether a variance should be
granted for the proj ect.
Issue no.5:
Whether the project is a prohibited uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the State's Shorelines.
B. For any and all other relief that the Board deems to be appropriate and just.
I have personal knowledge of the facts in this appeal and believe the facts herein to be true and correct
Dated this 21st day of August, 2010
Brad Nicholson
Petition for Review
Page 20 of 20
Brad Nicholson
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 26 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM:
Brad Nicholson,
Petitioner,
v.
City of Renton
Respondents.
Case No:
Declaration of Brad Nicholson
I, Brad Nicholson, do hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a life resident of Renton, and I have lived about 12 blocks from the above Seahawks
Landing Proposal for approximately 30 years.
2. I have a much greater interest in the integrity of the City's processing for this project and the
outcome of the City's approvals than the general public or an average citizen of Renton. I created a
Washington non-profit corporation specifically for the purpose protecting amenities that this appeal seeks
to protect. I have invested a great deal of time and energy participating in land use proceedings and
monitoring land use decisions regarding the above and other development proposals. I am the dynamic
that inspired ideas that could solve the present design issues for the project.
3. I am aggrieved by the approval of the Shoreline substantial development permit for numerous
reasons. I want to review information on the whole project at one time not just a number of pieces of the
project, like regarding the storm water facilities such as facility size, placement, capacity, and
effectiveness, and public access areas. I want to have my ideas considered and I want to comment on the
entire proposal because I would like to have my community planned and developed consistent with the
provisions of the Renton's Shorehne Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58, and a
compliant design plan to protect my interests. I find it impossible to consider the reasonableness of the
project when some of the most important areas of the project are always being left out. No one can even
figure out what they are doing or which improvements they would be willing to do. I am aggrieved by the
Declaration Brad Nicholson
Page 1 of 4 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 27 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City's denial of my rights to such a community and aggrieved by the fact that development planning does
not appear to be properly prioritized. By ignoring State policy and the procedural and substantial
protections contained inthe Renton Municipal Code, its Shoreline Plan and State Laws, the City's'
decisions deprived me of a Shoreline environment that is so described and that is contrary to the letter and
the spirit of those laws. I am aggrieved that practical and reasonable means and methods of protecting
water quality and my rights to a shoreline developed consistent with the Laws are not being used or
proposed when I know that there has been so much effort by the Department of Ecology to assist the City
to develop practical measures to protect our interests according to Federal Laws. I have a wife and son
and we enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park just a short distance upstream from the proposal and seeing
Salmon and Trout. A few years ago, I personally saw an adult steelhead in May Creek. I have seen
sockeye in the Creek just a few feet away from where the project is permitted to take place. We often
enjoy seeing Bald Eagles that cruise the area where we live above the May Creek Basin and know that
they also depend on water quality and the area habitat. I have seen Hawk's landing above the project site
while bicycling. I enjoy boating and fishing in lake Washington. We have a nice canoe that we want to
use but we are frightened by the threats the water quality in the area poses, but we enjoy the pleasant
break that the May Creek Shoreline provides and wish to improve it. On a few occasions I have enjoyed
seeing Deer slipping into the cover of the May Creek Shoreline on the very area that the permit will
bulldoze and fence.
4. I am injured by the permit decision in a number of ways. Procedurally, I am harmed by the City's
improper processing of the application, including failure to study and properly describe all of the project's
required physical characteristics and size and feature calculations required by the code. I am harmed by
the failure to properly categorize or identify those features, and failure to submit a complete unified
design so that I can develop input and be able to review and comment on an honest proposal. The project
is riddled with proposals that have not notified me as to what they are really proposing. I am harmed by
the City's failure to conduct a proper consistency review of the storm water design with the SMA and
Renton's program for Shorelines. I will be harmed by the damage done to the State's Shoreline amenities
by changes in flow and quality of May Creek.
5. Substantively, I will be injured if the project is constructed in noncompliance with the City's code.
For example, Renton's past decision and code requires that the storm water features comply with the 2009
Declaration Brad Nicholson
Page 2 of 4 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 28 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
King County storm water manual and certain Shorehne regulations, conform to the Shoreline Master
Plan, and Comprehensive Plan's elements, goals, objectives and policies, and must mitigate impacts (such
as impacts to threatened or endangered species and opportunity for access to the Shoreline's amenities
and protection of native vegetation) as well as clear prohibition on alterations and illicit discharges into
salmon bearing streams. The City should bear the burden of proof to show the method that will be used to
avoid or abate pollution and comply with the above requirements but on this project they have
consistently avoided review by submitting segmented and bogus facilities that do not truly explain the full
extent of what they are doing. I will be injured if the plan is not designed by taking into account what the
natural environment should be. The City's Shoreline plan requires the City to explain the methods that
will be used to mitigate pollution impacts to May Creek and demonstrate the necessity of developing the
State's Shoreline but they have not done so. The proposal submitted fails to meet any of these criteria. I
am injured by the City's failure to follow its own laws and that of the State.
6. If the project is built on May Creek according to inferior standards for Shoreline protection and
means of achieving water quality standards in May Creek while being incompatible with the neighboring
superfund site, I will suffer harm from the inappropriate risks and direct impacts caused by the project.
The urban designations intended to protect my interests should be used and storm water measures to
protect my interestsshould be used to protect my interests but as approved in the city's decision they do
not provide the degree of protection to my interests as the code or Shoreline plan does and I would want
the City to use those measures to protect my interests and the interests of my family.
I want to review and comment on a compliant plan or honest effort to formulate such a plan but I have
been deprived of that right because of the applications without them. My opinion is that the developer
Spencer Alpert is just plain refusing to perform many of the requirements. I would have to do the design,
do all of the design work for them, while speculating as to the type of facilities or strategies they might
contest. In the past, they have allowed applications to be submitted and reviewed even though they are not
the real project. They fooled us and Dr. Massman by saying that they were using a "Rain Garden" in the
last application, and this time by saying that the flow of May Creek will not be altered. We actually
thought it was a "Rain Garden" and that wasted a lot of our time and resources. I would like to see some
effort made to restore natural conditions to the area, which there has not been.
Declaration Brad Nicholson
Page 3 of 4 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 29 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. I do not have anything against the Seahawk's in general nor do I contend it is likely to be impossible to
build a Hotel on the site. But the developer with a great deal more resources than ordinary citizens that
come to Renton to have taxpayers like me pay with not only money, but with our Shoreline amenities for
the needs of a private enterprise while causing the impacts I complain of does not impress me inthe least.
Most disturbing of all to me, is the fact that it appears it is nothing more than a strategy to disregard the
City's Shoreline and to save money by using Lawyers to argue the project permits. In Renton they charge
$250.00 for each appeal and it is necessary to take the issues to the Council in most instances. That is
$500.00 for each LUA, and double or triple that when it is done in pieces. It looks like they just want to
wear people down very few people can afford to participate. I am offended that variances are not being
sought with regard to non-discretionary design requirements. If they are able to just approve the project
without variances, it is just the same as changing the code in response to the particular application. No
other people around the area get to do that either. I think it is impacting the vitality of our Shorelines and
Health, our Codes, our Laws, and the SMA and in turn the vitality of our community and economy. What
it looks like to frustrated citizens like me that take the time to consider the permits is that the developer is
just submitting a "low quality and low budget" proposal to save money and then using the Lawyers to
cause so much litigation that anyone would want to just forget about it. I consider that to be very foolish
and that it will be tragic to the City's long term future. My neighborhood and community is what is
suffering now and what will suffer when the project is built. I will suffer and so will my family.
In my opinion, compelling the City and the developer to adjust their priorities and plans with Shorelines
Board power is the only thing that will improve the situation and protect my interests, that is why I made
the appeal.
I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration.
DATED this 21th day of August, 2010.
Respectfully,
' Nicholson
Declaration Brad Nicholson
Page 4 of4 7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 30 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM:
Brad Nicholson,
Petitioner,
v.
City of Renton
Respondents.
Case No.: No.
Exhibits
The following exhibits are submitted to support the Petition for Review
1. Copy of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
2. Project Description
2.1 City Council decision on Hawk's Landing
2.2 Hearing Examiner decision on Hawk's Landing
3. 4 Photos of site
4. 303(d) map
5. Shoreline Master Program and receipt
6. 1st and 2nd Declaration of Joel Massman
7. KCSWDM excerpts
8. EPA area description and investigation results
9. Hydrologic Stream data (KC)
10. Water Quality data (KC)
11. Photo of "swale" area
12. Photo of "ditch" area
13. Photo of May Creek
14. ERC report Hawk's Landing
Exhibit List
Page 1 of 2
Brad Nicholson
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 31 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15. Graham and bunting study
16. Hearing Examiner Decision - Reconsideration
17. Hawk's Landing TIR
18. Appeals to Council
19. Various pleadings, Original Hawk's Landing appeal and its exhibits
DATED this 11th day of July, 2009.
Respectfully,
rad Nicholson
Exhibit List
Page 2 of 2
Brad Nicholson
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 32 of 212
Exhibits are on file with the City Clerk's office.
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings
Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Page 33 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
CRT-10-003; Court Case
Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth vs.
PACLAND; Jeff Chambers, PE; Bonnell Family, LLC;
Peter Bonnell; and City of Renton
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Summons and Land Use Petition
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Executive
Staff Contact:
Bonnie Walton
Recommended Action:
Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Summons and Land Use Petition filed by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP, 1001 Fourth
Ave., Suite 3303, Seattle, 98154, on behalf of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, c/o Cindy Wheeler,
425 SW 5th Pl, Renton, 98057, requesting an order reversing the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval;
LUA-10-009, ECF, SA-H.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 34 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
CITY OF RENTON
SEP 0 7 201
RECEIVED
G1TY CLERK'S OFFICE
/; OS p.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR
HEALTHY GROWTH,
Petitioner,
v.
PACLAND; JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.;
BONNELL FAMILY, LLC; PETER
BONNELL; CITY OF RENTON, '
Respondents.
NO. lo-Z-SV^S'^**^
SUMMONS
TO THE RESPONDENTS:
A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled Court by Renton Neighbors
for Healthy Growth, petitioner. Petitioner's claim is stated in the written Land Use Petition, a
copy of which is served upon you with this Summons.
In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the Land Use Petition by
stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorney for the petitioner
within 20 days if service of this Summons is made upon you within the State of Washington, or
within 60 days if service is made upon you outside of the State of Washington, excluding the day
of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. _ A default judgment
is one where the petitioner is entitled to what it asks for because you have not responded. If you
serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a
default judgment may be entered, \
You may demand that the petitioner file this lawsuit with the Court. If you do so, the
demand must be in writing and must be served upon the petitioner. Within 14 days after you
SUMMONS -1
CC: Ihayor Lato
lajty Darren, liiy ™*y
/Ilex A'cteck, CED Mmin.
fsJmcy Carlson, HRflm f\dmm
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206)264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 35 of 212
1 serve the demand, the petitioner must file this lawsuit with the Court, or the service on you ofthis
Summons will be void.
2
n If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so
that your written response, if any, may be served on time.
4
This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State
5 of Washington.
Dated this _/_-^aray of September, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
KNHG \Superior\Summons
6
7
8
9
10
ii *r-
Claudia M. Newman, WSBA No. 24928
12 Attorneys for Petitioner Renton Neighbors
for Healthy Growth
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BricMin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
CT TTVvTK/irYKTQ 0 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
£>U1VLMU1\J> - Z. Seattle \X'A 98154
Tel. (206)264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 36 of 212
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
NO.
RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR
HEALTHY GROWTH,
Petitioner,
V.
PACLAND; JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.;
BONNELL FAMILY, LLC; PETER
BONNELL; CITY OF RENTON,
Respondents.
LAND USE PETITION
Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth hereby files this Land Use Petition pursuant to the
Washington State Land Use Petition Act, ch. 36.70C RCW.
A. Name and Mailing Address of the Petitioner
1. Petitioner is Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, c/o Cindy Wheeler, 425 SW
5th Place, Renton, WA 98057.
B. Name and Mailing Address of Petitioner's Attorney
2. Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP, 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303,
Seattle, WA 98154.
LAND USE PETITION - 1
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206) 264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 37 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C. Name and Mailing Address of the Local Jurisdiction Whose Land Use Decision is at Issue
3. The local jurisdiction who land use decision is at issue is the City of Renton, 1055
S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
D. Identification of the Decisionmaking Body or Officer Along With A Duplicate Copy of
the Decision
4. The decisionmaking bodies in this matter were the City of Renton Hearing
Examiner, who had original jurisdiction, and the Renton City Council, who had appellate
jurisdiction. A copy of the decision in this matter that was issued by the Hearing Examiner on
May 31, 2010 is attached hereto as Attachment A. A copy of the City Council approved
Committee Report that was issued on August 16, 2010 is attached hereto as Attachment B.
E. Identification of Each Person to be Made a Party Under RCW 36.70C.040f2)fbWd)
5. Respondent PacLand, with contact Jeff Chambers, is identified as the applicant for
the permit or approval at issue in the Hearing Examiner's written decision, which was adopted by
the City Council. PacLand's address is identified in that decision as 1505 Westlake Avenue N.,
Suite 305, Seattle, WA 98109.
6. The owner of the property is identified in the Hearing Examiner's written decision
as Peter Bonnell, Bonnell Family, LLC, 10047 Main Street, No. 509, Bellevue, WA 98004.
F. Facts Demonstrating That the Petitioner Has Standing to Seek Judicial Review Under
RCW 36.70C.060
7. Petitioner has standing pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060 because Renton Neighbors
for Healthy Growth (RNHG) is an interested party that is aggrieved by the impacts of the Wal-
Mart expansion site plan. At least one member of RNHG lives near the proposal site and will be
aggrieved by the land use change and the increased traffic and land use changes.
LAND USE PETITION - 2
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206)264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 38 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8. At least one member of RNHG utilizes the road and will otherwise suffer direct
adverse impacts from the land use changes and increased traffic caused by the Wal-Mart
development proposal.
9. Petitioner's interests are among those that the City was required to consider when
it made the land use decision, and a judgment in favor of petitioner would redress the prejudice to
petitioner caused by the land use decision.
10. Petitioner has exhausted its administrative remedies to the extent required by law.
RNHG presented the issues that are now being raised on appeal to the City of Renton Hearing
Examiner, who had original jurisdiction on the matter. Following denial of its claims by the
Hearing Examiner, RNHG filed an appeal as required by the City of Renton Code with the
Renton City Council. The Renton City Council issued a final decision that is appealable to
Superior Court.
G. A Separate and Concise Statement of Each Error Alleged to Have Been Committed
11. The Wal-Mart expansion site plan approval issued by the City of Renton was
based upon an erroneous interpretation of law, a clearly erroneous application of the law to the
facts, and was not supported by substantial evidence in the record for the following reasons.
12. The City of Renton's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion was in error
because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal expansion of a non-conforming structure.
13. The City of Renton's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion was in error
because the proposal does not comply with the maximum frontage setback requirement in the
Renton City Code.
14. The City of Renton's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion proposal was in
error because it violates the City's design regulations applicable to District D in RMC 4-3-100.
LAND USE PETITION - 3
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206) 264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 39 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
15. The City of Renton's decision to approve the Wal-Mart expansion proposal was in
error because it was based upon incorrect trip generation estimates that had been calculated from
faulty analysis. The trip generation estimate was incorrect because it failed to consider the
known trip generation characteristics of the site.
H. A Concise Statement of Facts Upon Which the Petitioner Relies to Sustain the Statement
of Error
16. Jeff Chambers of PacLand filed an application on February 8, 2010 for Site Plan
review of a proposal to expand and convert the existing Wal-Mart Discount Store located at 743
Rainier Avenue South in Renton into a Superstore.
17. The existing Wal-Mart contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an
additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The proposal for the new Superstore
proposed to add 16,000 square feet to the retail space and reduce the Garden Center by 4,000
square feet. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 745
surface parking stalls, and a 4,701 square foot Garden Center.
18. The project site is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial
Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations within Urban Design District "D"
in the City of Renton.
19. A public hearing was held before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
Tuesday, April 27, 2010. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the Examiner issued a
decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan on May 13, 2010.
20. Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth became aware of the project on or about
May 17, 2010. The group filed a timely request for reconsideration on May 27, 2010 with the
Hearing Examiner asking that the Examiner reconsider his decision on the grounds that are raised
LAND USE PETITION - 4
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206) 264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 40 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
in this appeal. The Examiner responded to that request on June 10, 2010 indicating that he would
not alter the original decision and that he was denying RNHG's request for reconsideration.
2.1. The Renton Code forbids enlarging a non-conforming structure unless the
enlargement is conforming or unless it is consistent with the conditions of a rebuild approved
permit.
22. The Code does not allow Wal-Mart to expand its facility as proposed. The
existing Wal-Mart is a non-conforming structure and Wal-Mart is not seeking, nor has it received,
a rebuild approved permit. The enlargement is non-conforming because it violates the City's
maximum frontage setback requirement of 15 feet and because it violates several design
requirements required in District D.
23. The front streets for the Wal-Mart proposal are Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier
Avenue S/SR 167. The proposed structure would be set back from the front property line
approximately 555 feet at the closest point, from the Garden Center to Hardie Avenue SW.
Therefore, the proposed structure does not comply with the maximum front yard setback of 15
feet in the Renton Code.
24. The Wal-Mart expansion is subject to compliance with design regulations
applicable to District "D" and RMC 4-3-100. In those regulations, the City of Renton has set
forth a regulatory vision for what development should look like. It is clear when reviewing the
requirements that the City has adopted them with an eye towards replacing the current look of
commercial areas in District D with more vibrant, walkable, pedestrian-friendly retail areas.
25. The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet the City's vision in the design regulations,
nor does it meet the specific regulatory requirements for District D. The proposal is for a typical
Wal-Mart big box to expand into a typical Wal-Mart Superstore, with franchise retail architecture
LAND USE PETITION-5
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206) 264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 41 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and a sea of asphalt located between the building and the front property line. The proposal is not
a pedestrian-oriented design by any measure. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the
City requires in its regulations. Approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to
change the area.
26. The estimate in the City of Renton's decision for future trip generation of the Wal-
Mart expansion was incorrect because it failed to take existing trip characteristics of the site into
consideration.
27. In the Examiner's decision, he found that the development would increase traffic
approximately 600 trips per day. The City imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of
those additional trips.
28. The Examiner did not utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation
for expansion of that store. As a result, the trip generation conclusions were too low for this
higher than average traffic producing site.
I. Request for Relief
WHEREFORE, Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth request the following relief:
1. An order reversing the Wal-Mart expansion site plan approval on the grounds that
Wal-Mart's proposal is an illegal expansion of a non-conforming structure; it does not comply
with the maximum frontage setback requirement in the Renton City Code; and because it violates
the City's design regulations.
2. An order reversing the City of Renton's decision to approve the Wal-Mart
expansion proposal on the grounds that it was based upon incorrect trip generation estimates that
had been calculated from faulty analysis;
LAND USE PETITION - 6
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1-001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206) 264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 42 of 212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. For an award of plaintiffs' lawful costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee and
costs pursuant to Washington law and applicable statutes;
4. For such other and further relief as is just and equitable.
7 -rH ^-"-aay of September, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
By:
Claudia M. Newman, WSBA No. 24928
Attorneys for Petitioners
RNHG\Superior\Land Use Petition
LAND USE PETITION - 7
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303
Seattle WA 98154
Tel. (206) 264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 43 of 212
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
May 13,2010
Minutes
OWNER: Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, #509
Bellevue, WA 98004
CONTACT/APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA-H
743 Rainier Ave S
Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the
existing Walmart retail facility, which would include 16,000
square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of
4,000 square feet in the Garden Ceater and an approximate
16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales.
Development Services Recommendation: Approve
The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on April 20, 2010.
After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with tlxe application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the April 2 7, 2010 hezaring.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original
application, reports, staff comments and other
documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map
ATTACHMENT A 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 44 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 2
Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan
Exhibit No, 5: Tree Inventory Plan
Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations
Exhibit No. 4: Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 6: East, and West Elevations
Exhibit No. 8: Laree Page Short Plat Plan (9 pases)
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is
located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7th Street and S Grady Way. The
site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation.
The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16.000 square
feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to
approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail
sales.
The Examiner questioned conforming or non-conforming, parking is an example of non-conforming as well as
other aspects of the project. Can a legal non-conforming use be expended under the Code?
Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there
are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls.
The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site.
Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance
measures. No appeals were filed.
Mitigated with 6
The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation.
The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within
this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint
on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10-foot minimum front yard setback
with a maximum 15-foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback
would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the
maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in thai it moves
closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance.
A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building
pad. The short, plat has not been recorded and this must be done.
Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The
applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern facade to break up the massing of the
structure.
There are 99 existing trees on site: the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should
be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of
the landscape islands could nor be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10-foot landscape strip along all street
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 45 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 3
frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter
of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of
landscaping along SW 7th Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is
being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745 ,.
parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed
30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements.
Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC.
The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to
30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is
engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show
compliance with refuse and recycle standards.
Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion.
Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project.
Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the
retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to
Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it
with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion
of the structure to SW 7th Street.
The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40-feet that will match the
existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing
and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code.
A drainage report has been-submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic
feet per second; therefore, the project is-exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment
has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area.
The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and
if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban
Design District D.
The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of
refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum
standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation
is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of
landscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most
of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an
irrigation plan must be provided.
There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent
for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale
element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done.
Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the facade. A building materials and colors
board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality-' materials have been provided.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 46 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 4
Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 701 5th Avenue, Ste, 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant
looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal
presented today seems appropriate for the site.
There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than
building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project
must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of
view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to
support this facility.
Jeff Chambers. PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss
some of the items previously brought forward.
In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many
of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway
would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from
approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site,
which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By
doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed
new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7th, which was part of the
request from staff.
The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in
those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage.
The existing 40-foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages
parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10-foot candles. The current parking lot
meets that uniformity. When 25-foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50-feet apart, the uniformity of
the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a
bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would
increase, there would be. more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this
site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located.
Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202'stated that
they would be able to make the suggested changes to the facade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant
look.
The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The
design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation. The will continue to work
with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize
a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy with this expansion.
Jack McCullough stated thai they were going to take an existing facility that is non-conforming in some respects
and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. They are consistently working with staff to make
the project better.
Kavren Kittrick. Community and Economic Deveiopmenl stated thai most utilities were covered under the Shon
Plat. All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction, ll is still subject
to final review and permitting. 7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 47 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-09-112;SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 5
Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they
were subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly
was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is
not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the
west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am.
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed Hie record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal.
6. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart
store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does
not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank
and Jimmy Mac's.
7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
8. The subject site'is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Medium Industrial). The vast
majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site
limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines.
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959.
10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas
from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded.
11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 acres.
12. The subject site is essentially level.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 48 of 212
f
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 6
13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant
proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would
be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is
proposed (see below).
14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged.
15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing
complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its
garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden
space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas
along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast comer of the front
facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two
smaller additions near the northwest comer of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127
additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls.
16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facadeto provide more visual interest. The
applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There
will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the
general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet
rooflines that curve in wing-like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving
central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas
would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches.
17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center
will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet
4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme.
18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and
recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have
been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. Tne unit will be located in an
area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect
of the proposal.
19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along
eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest
around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the
appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the
applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior
treatments.
20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the
street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not
comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie-Rainier. Staff
found thai since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex il does nol
trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, wesl and south are
respectively 1,50 feet. 65 feel and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the
proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32
feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 49 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13, 2010
Page 7
21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northem portion of
the site in the area where Billy McHale's was located. Code permits a range of parking and the
proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the
top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger
complement of parking.
22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 74.5 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes
65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The
new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The
older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions
to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the
existing configuration would ehminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas.
Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These
landscape.areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of
the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans.
.Jfey 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation
fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips.
24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership.
Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue.to be compatible with these various uses.
25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff.
The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that
lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales.
26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the
v/ vast majority- of "the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies.
"^ Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial
Corridor, should be applied.
27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall.
Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has
proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better
overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing
critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all
development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the
expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles
should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights
throughout the complex.
28. The following Table contains staffs analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D
Guidelines:
a) Review of Compliance to District V Design Guidelines;
The site is located within Design'District 'D'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 50 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-09-M2, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 8
meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval
are met.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the
City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts
that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and
intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses.
N/A Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
public arterials.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on-street
parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local roads (public or private).
2. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways;
organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures
so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual
character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings,
parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the
street.
S Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
/ Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian-only courtyard.
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries
further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
/
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing
a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human-scale elements.
N/A
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network
of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view
to building entries.
N/A Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open
space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
/ Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection
at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
• Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property eao?
adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 51 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13, 2010
Page 9
intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing
neighborhoods are preserved. ;
V
Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of
building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses;
a, Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in
order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent
yards;
b. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels;
' c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
5. Service Element Location and Design:
intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by
locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in
high visibility areas.
/
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts
on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated
and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see
illustration, RMC4-3-100E7e).
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utili-ty areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards^ and RMC 4-4-095, Screening
and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site
plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit
elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requ irements, garbage, recycling
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened
around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors.
Staff Comment: See comments above,
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
•
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-
oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such facility.
6. Gateways: Not Applicable
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various
modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other, impacts
from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of
parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without
parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use
access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of
buildings.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
Staff Comment: The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 52 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 10
Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls
of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing
parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment
and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing o
substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual
impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site.
Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 157 is proposed at a width of
approximately 55 feet and SW f St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20
feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to
minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street.
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking
lots wherever possible.
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties.
Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials,
therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent
properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site
lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction or building permit approval.
V Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact
(see RMC4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements).
3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating
pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the
pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on
sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots? and promote the use of multi-modal and public
transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots.
S Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
provided throughout parking areas,
S Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart.
2. Pedestnan Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the
pedestrian environment.
V Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system
that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk
system and adjacent properties.
S Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above
the level of vehicular travel.
V Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials.
•/ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
N/A (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more
feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width.
The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 53 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13, 2010
Page 11
•
/
/
s
trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d).
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users.
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries.
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
3. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all
times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
/
•
/
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet
wide along at least 75 percent.of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15
feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces sha II be made of durable, vandal-
and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably
maintained.over an extended period of time.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access
to public spaces or building entrances.
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable
for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient
amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic
relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
•/
•/
N/A
S
•/
V
s
Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC4-4-070, Landscaping).
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge
and building, as determined by the City of Renton.
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, street trees shall be installed
with tree grates, For all other streets, street tree treatment shal 1 be as determined by the City
of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.H3a).
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and
program of the building, the site, and use.
Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping,
through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or
concept of the development.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened bv landscaping in order to
reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements).
Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see
illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.H3b).
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street
frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 54 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 1.2
r Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
S Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
S Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least
90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard; The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation,
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a
landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient
amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
•/ Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows:
(1) Required Amount:
Total Number of Spaces
15 to 50
51 to 99
100 or more
Minimum Required Landscape Area*
15 square feet/parking space
25 square feet/parking space
35 square feet/parking space
^ (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape
areas.
Not Compliant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those thai
reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be
eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball)
respectively.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to
maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the
existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the
landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not
be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not
necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing.
S (4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
• (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of
planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
• (6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
S Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff
recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and D:
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permi:
approval.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and
uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 55 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 13
retail architecture.
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all
sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals
of no more than forty feet (40').
Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the
southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with
the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street-facing
elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with
architectural elements; however these facades would also not comply with the minimum
modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two 80-foot vestibules along the
approximate 500-foot eastern facade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which
exceeds the 40-foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies,
ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to
distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large
fagade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many
architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest
along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7 St
facing fagade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagade includes the use
of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center.
While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest, which break up the wall plane,
there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements
which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade,
that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
2. Ground-Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the
pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual
interest.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is
considered a blank wall if:
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of .a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a
horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building
modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater
and does not include s window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
treated with one or more of the following:
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground
cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing
that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 56 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Pase 14
S Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wal
S Minimum Standard: Provide human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other
landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall have at least 75
percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation
facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or
doors.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the
eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided. extending parapets, clerestories,
canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree
in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements.
Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural
features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved
visual interest along the eastern fagade for the distant public. However, additional elements
could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human-scale character of
the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant
provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval. The
revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are,
beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is
encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale
character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade.
Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following:
•/ (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the buiiding.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
V (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather tf
permanent displays.
an
V (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
V (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited.
3. Building Roof Lines;
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and
contribute to the visual continuity of the district,
V Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and interesting roof profiles:
(a) Extended, parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
S Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
,/ Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the
building, consistent with RMC4-4-095E, Roof-Top Equipment.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed
portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher
elevations.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as o condition of approval, the applicant match the color
of the roof-mounted mechanical equipmentto the color of exposed portions of the roof
4. Building Materials:
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 57 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13, 2010
Page 15
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials
that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the
neighborhood.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment: It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the same color
scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff
recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit appro val.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture,
pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Staff Comment: See Condition above.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, ortextural changes.
Staff Comment: See comments above.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage
signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to
the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest.
N/A Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building.
N/A Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately fortheir location.
N/A Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include:
i. Pole signs;
il. Roof signs;
iii. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet
signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are
signs with only the individual letters back-lit.
N/A Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with
the overall building design.
N/A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to
provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. N/A
G. LIGHTING:
intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas,
pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual
attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in
RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required
to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive
glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting shall be used in all.cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement,
unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is
specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-Q75 Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 58 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-Q9-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Pa«e 16
Not Compliant
Not Compliant
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be
allowed to directly project off-site.
Staff Comment: See comments above
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades,
and at pedestrian-oriented spaces,
Staff Comment: See comments above
4-
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public sendees to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
2. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new
jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract
patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a
more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City.
3. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements .for the
setback along its frontage street, the Hardie-Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or
complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed
approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard
setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion
and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The
building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning
Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the
parking area for whal is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would
remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determineci
when actual permits for construction are submitted.
The two-story facade of the mam complex is not substantially higher than the surroundin" uses and trie
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 59 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13, 2010
Page 17.
large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the
site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non-conforming as to the Zoning Code,
actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The
neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background
Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the
store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the
existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands -will be enlarged and the
newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the
existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the
applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter
landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot.
5. The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in
the northem parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking
is a dominant.feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant
does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape
requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and
to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on
the site and to and from the site.
6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values.
7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the
asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting
down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated,
pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced.
•8. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low-scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be
available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use.
9. The store is served by existing urban irifrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional
stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale.
10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are
applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in
this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in
most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the miaimum standards or has
justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards.
11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and
it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will
have to meet the standards for containment and screening.
12. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the
street to 15 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its
surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should
be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in
the large space between the street and actual store.
13. The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 60 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
FileNo.:LUA-09-112,SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 1 8
that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from die existing
standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely
not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is
an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot
does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then
that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer
standards.
14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate
tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be
supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will
have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping.
15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building.
Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or
other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with
the guidelines.
16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the
proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The
additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as
noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe
the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt.
DECISION:
The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-
Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on
Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the
approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all
development standards of the CA zone can be met.
3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit
approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing
doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestnan
scale and downlightmg shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless
alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt
from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. The applicant shall comply with the
newer standards including 25-foot height limitations.
5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three year:-; in
sufficient amount, as detennined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy
permit.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 61 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13, 2010
Page 19
6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to construction or building permit approval.
7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern facade, which depict alternative methods to
mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval
subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include
additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to
south of the northem entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or
additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be
used to comply with the guidelines.
9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof-mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed
portions of the roof..
1.0. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist.
ORDERED THIS 13th day of May 2010.
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2010 to the parties of record:
Rocale Timmons
Community & Economic Dev
City of Renton
Jack McCullough
McCullough & Hill
701 5th Avenue, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
Peter Bonnell
Bonnell Family LLC
10047 Main Street, Ste. 509
Bellevue, WA 98004
Huy Tran, Asst. Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Kayren Kittrick
Community & Eponomic Dev
City of Renton
Jeff Chambers
PACLAND
1505 Westland AveN, Ste. 305
Seattle, WA 98109
Jeremy Smith, Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA. 98057
Sophorn Chan, Assistant
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton. WA 98057
Usunobun Osagie,
Larry D. Craighead Architects
211 N Record Street, Ste. 222
Dallas, TX 75202
Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 62 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13,2010
Page 20
Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Mark Goodman
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Brandi Hansen, Mgr. Automotive
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Tauasi Paaga, HR
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Nancy Chase, Dept Manager
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld,
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Francis Canapi
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Cheryl Harrelson
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr.
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Levan, Dept. Mgr.
Walmart #2516 "
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Supv. 2nd Shift
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton. WA 98057
Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv.
Walmart #2516
743 Rainier Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2010 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law-
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Sendees
Stacy Tucker, Development Sendees
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section lOOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration roust be filed in
writing on or before. 5:00 p.m.. Mav 27. 2010. An}' aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may. after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 63 of 212
Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA-09-112, SA-H
May 13, 2010
Page 21
An appeal to the City Council is governed'by Title TV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies ofthis ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall, An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.. May 27. 2010.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval bv Citv Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation ofthis doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 64 of 212
Denis Law
Mayor
City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton'
August 17, 2010
Renton Neighbors for Health Growth,
c/o Cindy Wheeler:
425 SW 5th PI.
Renton, WA 98057
RECEIVED
:" AUG -1 $ 2010
BRICKLIN NEWMAN DOLD, LLP
Re: Wal-Mart .Expansion Site Plan; LUA-10-009, SA-H, ECF .
743 Rainier Ave. S.
Dear Ms. Wheeler:
At the regular Council meeting of August 16/ 2010/the Renton City Council adopted the
recommendation of the Planning and.Development Committee affirming the decision of
the Hearing Examiner. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed.
For additionalinformation or assistance, contact City Clerk Bonnie Walton.
Sincerely,
/{lason A.-Seth
Deputy City Clerk
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Denis Law
Council President Don Persson
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Parties of Record (26)
ATTACHMENT B
1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510/ Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 65 of 212
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
August 16, 2010
Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Appeal
LUA-10-009 SA-H, ECF
(Referred July 12, 2010)
APPROVED BV
CITY COUNCIL
The Planning & Development Committee recommends that the full Council find that the
Hearing Examiner committed no errors of fact or law in this matter and that his decision be
affirmed.
King Parker; Vice-Chair
Rich Zwicker, MemheX—
dd\ iA\tt rVkck
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 66 of 212
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth
vs
PacLand, et al.
Petitioner(s)
Respondent(s)
NO. 10-2-31728-7 KNT
Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition
- RCW 36.70C) (*ORSCS)
ASSIGNED JUDGE Gain
FILE DATE:
TRIAL DATE:
14
09/07/2010
02/14/2011
A Petition Seeking Review of a Land Use decision under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70C
has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule on Page 3 as
ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge.
I. NOTICES
THE PERSON (PETITIONER) SEEKING REVIEW OF A LAND USE DECISION MUST:
1 File a Land Use Petition within the time frames as instructed by applicable RCW 36.70C.040.
2. Serve a copy of the Land Use Petition and this Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition)
(including these Notices) on all other parties to this action. You, as the person who started this Petition,
must make sure the other person and/or agency is notified of your action and gets a copy of the Schedule.
See Revised Code of Washington RCW 36.70C.040(5). Your signature must appear on this form showing
that you understand that you must make sure the other person and/or agency gets a copy of this form.
3. Pay the statutory filing fee to the Clerk of the Superior Court in which the Petition is filed.
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES:
All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the rules of the court - especially those
referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for attorneys and
parties to pursue their appeals vigorously from the day they are filed. All events must occur promptly. If
they are late, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by the King County Superior Court Local Rules to
schedule the petition for a dismissal hearing.
"/ understand that I am required to give a copy of tpejsfestyepmipnts to all parties in this case.'
Print Name Sign Name
Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) (*ORSCS) REV. 12/08 1
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 67 of 212
I. NOTICES (continued)
STIPULATION/MOTION TO CHANGE INITIAL HEARING:
Parties may file a stipulation or any party may file a motion to change the initial hearing prior to the
deadline as shown on the Schedule. A copy of the stipulation or motion must be filed with the assigned
Judge. Preliminary hearings must be set on Fridays. Stipulated change of hearing dates must be within +/-
7 days of the original date and must be approved by the assigned judge.
MOTIONS ON JURISDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES:
Motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues shall comply with Civil Rule 7 and King County Local Civil
Rule 7, except that the minimum notice of hearing requirement shall be 8 days.
PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE:
When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all claims is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's
Office, and a courtesy copy delivered to the assigned judge, all pending due dates in this Schedule are
automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the parties to 1) file
such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution of the case, and 2) strike any pending motions
by notifying the bailiff of the assigned judge.
Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and the Trial Date by filing a
Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLCR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a
final decree, judgment or order of dismissal of all claims is not filed by 45 days after a Notice of
Settlement, the case may be dismissed with notice.
If you miss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCLCR 41(b)(2)(A) to
present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date.
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL AND ADDRESS CHANGES:
All parties to this action must keep the court informed of their addresses. When a Notice of
Appearance/Withdrawal or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office,
parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy.
NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FEES:
ALL parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4.71.050 whenever the Superior Cour
Clerk must send notice of non-compliance of schedule requirements as per Local Civil Rule 4 and/or
dismissal of actions as per Local Civil Rule 41.
King County Local Rules are available for viewing at www.kinqcountv.gov/courts/clerk.
Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) (*ORSCS) REV.12/08
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 68 of 212
CASE SCHEDULE
DEADLINE
or Filing
CASE EVENT EVENT DATE Needed
Petition for Review of Land Use Decision Filed and Schedule Issued [See Tue 09/07/2010
RCW 36.70C.040].
DEADLINE to Contact Assigned Judge to Confirm Initial Hearing [See Tue 09/14/2010
RCW 36.70C.080].
DEADLINE to Stipulate or File a Motion for Change of Hearing Date or Tue 10/05/2010
Adjustment of Schedule [See RCW36.70C.080(1); RCW36.70.090)].
initial Hearing on Jurisdictional and Preliminary Matters (FRIDAYS ONLY) Fri 10/29/2010
[See RCW36.70C.080)].
DEADLINE for Filing Certified Copy of the Local Jurisdiction Record [See Fri 12/10/2010
RCW36.70C.110].
DEADLINE for filing Brief of Petitioner [See RCW36.70C.080(4)]. Mon 01/10/2011
DEADLINE for filing Brief of Respondent [See RCW36.70C080(4)]. Mon 01/31/2011
DEADLINE for filing Reply Briefs [See RCW36.700.080(4)]. Mon 02/07/2011
Review Hearing/Trial Date [See RCW36.70C090]. Mon 02/14/2011
*
*
*
*
*
*
III. ORDER
Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C) the King County Superior Court issues an
Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition) when a Land Use Petition is filed with the King County
Superior Court. It is ORDERED that all parties involved in this action shall comply with the schedule listed
above and that failure to meet these event dates will result in the dismissal of the petition. It is FURTHER
ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use
Petition) and attachment on all other parties.
DATED: 09/07/2010
PRESIDING JUDGE
Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) (*ORSCS) REV. 12/08
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 69 of 212
IV. ORDER ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE
READ THIS ORDER BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ASSIGNED JUDGE
This case is assigned to the Superior Court Judge whose name appears in the caption of this case
schedule. The assigned Superior Court Judge will preside over and manage this case for all pretrial
matters.
COMPLEX LITIGATION: If you anticipate an unusually complex or lengthy trial, please notify the
assigned court as soon as possible.
APPLICABLE RULES: Except as specifically modified below, all the provisions of King County Local
Civil Rules 4 through 26 shall apply to the processing of civil cases before Superior Court Judges. The
local civil rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx .
CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUIREMENTS
Deadlines are set by the case schedule, issued pursuant to Local Civil Rule 4.
THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL DEADLINES
IMPOSED BY THE COURT'S LOCAL CIVIL RULES.
A. Joint Confirmation regarding Trial Readiness Report:
No later than twenty one (21) days before the trial date, parties shall complete and file (with a copy to the
assigned judge) a joint confirmation report setting forth whether a jury demand has been filed, the
expected duration of the trial, whether a settlement conference has been held, and special problems and
needs (e.g. interpreters, equipment, etc.).
The form is available at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx. If parties wish to request
a CR 16 conference, they must contact the assigned court. Plaintiffs/petitioner's counsel is responsible
for contacting the other parties regarding said report.
B. Settlement/Mediation/ADR
a. Forty five (45) days before the trial date, counsel for plaintiff/petitioner shall submit a written settlement
demand. Ten (10) days after receiving plaintiff's/petitioner's written demand, counsel for
defendant/respondent shall respond (with a counteroffer, if appropriate).
b. Twenty eight (28) days before the trial date, a Settlement/Mediation/ADR conference shall have been
held. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT MAY
RESULT IN SANCTIONS.
C. Trial: Trial is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on the date on the case schedule or as soon thereafter as
convened by the court. The Friday before trial, the parties should access the King County Superior Cour
website http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx to confirm trial judge assignment.
Information can also be obtained by calling (206) 205-5984.
MOTIONS PROCEDURES
A. Noting of Motions
Dispositive Motions: All summary judgment or other dispositive motions will be heard with oral
argument before the assigned judge. The moving party must arrange with the hearing judge a date and
time for the hearing, consistent with the court rules. Local Civil Rule 7 and Local Civil Rule 56 govern
procedures for summary judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole or in part. The
local civil rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 70 of 212
Nondispositive Motions: These motions, which include discovery motions, will be ruled on by the
assigned judge without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered. Ail such motions must be noted for a
date by which the ruling is requested; this date must likewise conform to the applicable notice
requirements. Rather than noting a time of day, the Note for Motion should state "Without Oral
Argument." Local Civil Rule 7 governs these motions, which include discovery motions. The local civil
rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx.
Motions in Family Law Cases not involving children: Discovery motions to compel, motions in limine,
motions relating to trial dates and motions to vacate judgments/dismissals shall be brought before the
assigned judge. All other motions should be noted and heard on the Family Law Motions calendar.
Local Civil Rule 7 and King County Family Law Local Rules govern these procedures. The local rules
can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civii.aspx.
Emergency Motions: Under the court's local civil rules, emergency motions will be allowed only upon
entry of an Order Shortening Time. However, emergency discovery disputes may be addressed by
telephone call and without written motion, if the judge approves.
B. Original Documents/Working Copies/ Filing of Documents
All original documents must be filed with the Clerk's Office. Please see information on
the Clerk's Office website atwww.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk regarding the new requirement
outlined in LGR 30 that attorneys must e-file documents in King County Superior Court. The
exceptions to the e-filing requirement are also available on the Clerk's Office website.
The working copies of all documents in support or opposition must be marked on the upper
right corner of the first page with the date of consideration or hearing and the name of the
assigned judge. The assigned judge's working copies must be delivered to his/her courtroom
or the Judges' mailroom. Working copies of motions to be heard on the Family Law Motions
Calendar should be filed with the Family Law Motions Coordinator. On June 1, 2009 you will
be able to submit working copies through the Clerk's office E-Filing application at
www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk.
Service of documents. E-filed documents may be electronically served on parties who opt in
to E-Service within the E-Filing application. The filer must still serve any others who are
entitled to service but who have not opted in. E-Service generates a record of service
document that can be e-filed. Please see information on the Clerk's office website at
www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk regarding E-Service.
Original Proposed Order: Each of the parties must include an original proposed order granting
requested relief with the working copy materials submitted on any motion. Do not file the original of the
proposed order with the Clerk of the Court. Should any party desire a copy of the order as signed and
filed by the judge, a pre-addressed, stamped envelope shall accompany the proposed order.
Presentation of Orders: All orders, agreed or otherwise, must be presented to the assigned judge. If
that judge is absent, contact the assigned court for further instructions. If another judge enters an order
on the case, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy.
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 71 of 212
Proposed orders finalizing settlement and/or dismissal by agreement of all parties shall be
presented to the assigned judge or in the Ex Parte Department. Formal proof in Family Law cases
must be scheduled before the assigned judge by contacting the bailiff, or formal proof may be entered in
the Ex Parte Department. If final order and/or formal proof are entered in the Ex Parte Department,
counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy.
C. Form
Memoranda/briefs for matters heard by the assigned judge may not exceed twenty four (24) pages for
dispositive motions and twelve (12) pages for nondispositive motions, unless the assigned judge permits
over-length memoranda/briefs in advance of filing. Over-length memoranda/briefs and motions
supported by such memoranda/briefs may be stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY
RESULT IN DISMISSAL OR OTHER SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF/PEITITONER SHALL FORWARD A
COPY OF THIS ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO ANY PARTY WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED
THIS ORDER.
t%^a-fr~
PRESIDING JUDGE
7c. ‐ Court Case filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy
Growth, represented by Claudia M. Newman, Bricklin & Newman,
Page 72 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
CRT-10-004; Court Case
Puget Sound Energy v. City of Renton
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Notice of Small Claim
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Executive
Staff Contact:
Bonnie Walton
Recommended Action:
Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Notice of Small Claim filed in King County District Court by Puget Sound Energy, 10885 NE 4th St,
Bellevue, 98004, alleging the City damaged a gas main in the vicinity of SE 17th Ct.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
7d. ‐ Court Case filed in King County District Court ‐ East Division
Issaquah (Small Claims) by Puget Sound Energy, seeking compensation Page 73 of 212
CITY OF RENTON
AUG 20 2010
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S QFHCc
•ffwt* ^1-
u,,,/ tJt"*«. c4
/^Jr- S
y^/^1
AUG 18 2010
K1QOC - &st Ofvtofon
King County District Court- East Division
State of Washington- Issaquah Courthouse
5415 220'" Ave. SE
Issaquah, WA 98029 206-205-9200
NOTICE OF SMALL CLAIM
PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.
Plaintiff (last name, first, middle initial OR company name)
10885 NE 4 ST
Address (no PO Box numbers allowed)
BELLEVUE WA 98004
City Zip
(425) 456-2632
Phone (home) Phone (work)
IMPORTANT: You MUST bring an
original and THREE copies ofthis
form to the court for filing
SMALL CLAIM NO. I&O I So*- L/
CITY OF RENTON
Defendant (last name, first, middle initial OR company name)
1055 S GRADY WAY #728
Address (no PO Box numbers allowed)
RENTON WA 98057
City Zip
(425) 443-7661
Phone (home)
' Trial Date Time '
^•^-fn Courtroom #
Phone (work)
S7-
You, the above named Defendant, are hereby directed to appear personally in the King County District Court, East Division, Issaquah Courthouse
5415 220"' * ' ' SE, Issaquah, WA on the above-noted date at the time and location specified. You must be ready for trial and have with you, then and
there, all books, papers, and witnesses needed by you to establish your defense to the claim.
Y'ou are further notified that, in case you do not appear, judgment will be rendered against you for the amount of the claim as stated
herein below, and in addition, costs of filing and costs of service ofthis notice.
(Accommodations are available to people with disabilities upon request).
Date Issued
-4
Judge/Clerk "CM^CXS" H^J
Stote of Washington, County of King CLAIM * ' uk"f
,/^^ ^ SK^P ENfcRG'fr, ^C. i Plaintiff above named, deposes and says Defendant named above owes to the Plaintiff the sum of
j>5,000.0Q.^iV ^Q0 '^V/Z^^j'^total amount owing, not including filing and service fees - cannot be more than $5,000), which became due or
~ewmg^n09/25/;t008 (dd/mm/yyyy). ^r f(p fOO.OQ
The amount owing is for L_J Auto Damages - Accident Only Date of Accident: (dd/mm/yyyy')
Li] Wages. -. ^__J-—J Rent |__J Damage Deposit j j Loan L~H Goods & Services
QJtBperty Damage^) Other
Describe theNatureof your claim DEFENDANT WAS PROBING THEIR WATER BOX FOR A LEAK & POKED A nui^Ji its mis tjAS ivtAirs, Kret?tm<imiTOiJi,AiK3, AI JIUI si: 1/111 ci IIV JKumuiN, war
I certify underpenalty of perjury under [he Laws of the State of Washington that the statementsrtn) this/! aerpenaltv or perjury under
Dated: (f,/f,^/D
Place Signed: BELLEVUE, WA
City and State
nm arep-ue and com
7d. ‐ Court Case filed in King County District Court ‐ East Division
Issaquah (Small Claims) by Puget Sound Energy, seeking compensation Page 74 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
200 Mill Building HVAC Upgrades Project Approval
and Release of Retention
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract,
DOR
Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract, L
& I
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community Services
Staff Contact:
Peter Renner, Ext. 6605
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $33,101.65 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $726,000.00 Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ $808,053.00 City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Community Services Department submits CAG-10-081, Renton 200 Mill Building HVAC & Energy
Upgrades, for project approval and release of retention. The project started on November 12, 2009 and
was completed on July 23, 2010. The contractor, Performance Mechanical Group fulfilled the terms of
their contract by making HVAC and energy upgrades to the 200 Mill Building Structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the project and commence the 60-day lien period, and release the retained amount of
$33,101.65 to Performance Mechanical Group, contractor, once all required releases are obtained.
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 75 of 212
State of Washington
Department of Revenue
PO Box 47474
Olympia WA 98504-7474
Contractor’s Registration No. (UBI No.)
600 601 386
Date 7/26/10
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
From:
Name & Address of Public Agency Department Use Only
City of Renton
Attn: Natalie Wissbrod
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Assigned To
Date Assigned
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below
Description of Contract Contract Number
HVAC & ENERGY UPGRADES-200 MILL STREET BLDG., RENTON, WA CAG-10-081
Contractor’s Name Telephone Number
PERFORMANCE MECHANICAL GROUP 425-251-0356
Contractor’s Address
25500 74TH AVENUE S., KENT, WA 98032
Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted
11/12/09 7/23/10 7/23/10
Surety or Bonding Company
BERKLEY REGIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY #0128956
Agent’s Address
827 W FIRST AVENUE, SUITE #225, SPOKANE, WA 99201
Contract Amount $ 651,400.00
Additions $+10,633.00
Reductions $–0.00
Sub-Total $662,033.00
Amount of Sales Tax Paid at 9.5 %$62,893.14
(If various rates apply, please send a breakdown.)
TOTAL $724,926.14
Liquidated Damages $0.00
Amount Disbursed $691,824.51
Amount Retained $33,101.65
TOTAL $724,926.16
Disbursing Officer
Comments: DE-SC0001903
Signature
Type or Print Name Natalie Wissbrod
Phone Number 425.430.6919
The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue,
PO Box 47474, Olympia, WA 98504-7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO
PAYMENT 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)
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 76 of 212
F215-038-000 Request for Contract Release 09-2009
Department of Labor and Industries
Contract Release
PO Box 44274
Olympia, WA 98504-4272
Request for Contract Release
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
Do not pay retained funds until you have Department of Labor and Industries approval
Contractor’s Tax Registration No. (UBI No.) 91-1314997/600.601.386
Date: 08/06/10
From:
Name & Address of Public Agency Department Use Only
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Assigned To:
_______________________________________
Date Assigned:
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below
Project Name/Description of Project:
HVAC & Energy Upgrades-200 Mill Street Building, Renton, WA
Contract Number:
CAG-10-081
Contract Amount:
$724,926.16
Retained Amount:
$ 33,101.65
Contractor’s Name:
Performance Mechanical Group
Telephone Number:
425.251.0356
Contractor’s Address:
25500-74th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
Date Contract Awarded:
11/08/09
Date Work Commenced:
11/12/09
Date Work Completed:
07/23/10
Date Work Accepted:
07/23/10
Surety or Bonding Company:
Berkley Regional Insurance Company ~ Policy #0128956
Agent’s Address:
827 W First Avenue, Suite 225, Spokane, WA 99201
Please list Subcontractors below: Continue Subcontractors list on other side.
Subcontractor’s Name UBI Number:
CTR Electric, PO Box 7475, Kent, WA 98042
360.886.1839
601.474.637
Patriot Fire Protection, 2707-70th Avenue E., Tacoma, WA 98424
253.926.2290
601.269.686
Disbursing Officer Comments:
Contact Name:
Natalie Wissbrod
Phone Number:
425.430.6919
Email Address:
nwissbrod@rentonwa.gov
The Disbursing Officer must complete and submit this notice to the Department of Labor and Industries immediately after
acceptance of the work done under this contract. Mail this notice to Department of Labor and Industries, Contract
Release, PO Box 44274, Olympia, WA 98504-4274, or fax to (360) 902-6897 or e-mail to ContractRelease@lni.wa.gov.
NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUNDS until receipt of the Department’s certificate of release,
and then only in accordance with the certificate.
For assistance contact Contract Release at (360) 902-5360.
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 77 of 212
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 78 of 212
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 79 of 212
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 80 of 212
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 81 of 212
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 82 of 212
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 83 of 212
7e. ‐ Community Services Department submits CAG‐10‐081, 200 Mill
Building HVAC Upgrades, and requests approval of the
Page 84 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural
Resources Plan Consultant Agreement
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Memorandum to Council dated September 1,
2010
Consultant Agreement
Scope of Work - Exhibit A, including budget
and timeline
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community Services
Staff Contact:
Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources
Director (x-6619)
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 185,185 Transfer Amendment: $n/a
Amount Budgeted: $ 219,932 Revenue Generated: $n/a
Total Project Budget: $ 185,185 City Share Total Project: $ 185,185
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
On July 19, 2010 Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a consultant contract with SvR
Design Company to update the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan for an
amount not to exceed $211,000. Council also authorized reallocating $50,000 from the I-405/Talbot
Road Streetscape Improvements Capital Improvement Project to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Plan Capital Improvement Project to fund contract shortfalls and increase the total project budget to
$219,932. Council also authorized the City to utilize the remaining $8,932 to fund associated expenses
as part of the community meeting process. The contract with SvR was not executed as the City was
notified on July 20, 2010, that the project team had changed from what was mutually negotiated. The
City contacted the second ranked firm, MIG, out of Portland, Oregon and negotiated a Scope of Work.
The total cost for services to include additional meetings, concept plans, a multi-lingual web-based
questionaire and interpretive services, and meeting documentation is $177,185. An additional $8,000
will be utilized by the City to fund expenses as part of the public meeting process. The total project
cost of $185,185 is a $34,747 savings from the orignal $219,932 budget authorized by Council in July.
As with the previous approved Scope, should Fairwood annex to the City of Renton, the contract would
need to be modified by Addendum in order to include this geographic area in the plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve consultant agreement with MIG for $177,185 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the contract. Authorize $8,000 for City related expenses as part of the public meeting process.
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 85 of 212
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 86 of 212
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 87 of 212
1
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the ______ day of __________, 2010, between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as “CITY”
and MIG, hereinafter referred to as “CONSULTANT”, for their services related to the Long-
Range Plan for Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Natural Resources.
Information shall be made available for use by the City of Renton Staff and City Council.
The CITY and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below:
1. Scope of Services. The Consultant will provide all labor necessary to perform all work,
which is described in the attached Scope of Work - Exhibit A. This Agreement and
Exhibit hereto contain the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior oral
or written representation or understandings. This Agreement may only be amended by
written agreement of the parties. The scope of work may be amended as provided
herein.
2. Changes in Scope of Work. The City, without invalidating the Consultant Agreement,
may order changes in the services consisting of additions, deletions or modifications,
and adjust the fee accordingly. Such changes in the work shall be authorized by written
agreement signed by the City and Consultant. If the project scope requires less time, a
lower fee will be charged. If additional work is required, the consultant will not proceed
without a written change order from the City. If any provision of this Agreement is held
to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to
serve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement.
3. Time of Performance. The Consultant shall complete performance of the Consultant
Agreement for the items under Consultant’s control in accordance with Exhibit A. If
items not under the Consultant’s control impact the time of performance, the Consultant
will notify the City.
4. Term of Consultant Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall end at completion
of the scope of work identified in Exhibit A, but no later than December 31, 2011. This
Agreement may be extended to accomplish change orders, if required, upon mutual
written agreement of the City and the Consultant.
5. Consultant Agreement Sum. The total amount of this Agreement is not to exceed the
sum of $177,185. Washington State Sales Tax is not required. The Cost Estimate
provided by the Consultant to the City specifies total cost.
6. Method of Payment. Payment by the City for services rendered will be made after a
voucher or invoice is submitted in the form specified by the City. Payment will be made
within thirty (30) days after receipt of such voucher or invoice. The City shall have the
right to withhold payment to the Consultant for any work not completed in a satisfactory
manner until such time as the Consultant modifies such work so that the same is
satisfactory.
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 88 of 212
2
7. Record Maintenance and Work Product. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and
records, which properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and services
provided in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide
access to any records required by the City. All originals and copies of work product,
exclusive of Consultant’s proprietary items protected by copyright such as computer
programs, methodology, methods, materials, and forms, shall belong to the City,
including records, files, computer disks, magnetic media or material which may be
produced by Consultant while performing the services. Consultant will grant the City the
right to use and copy Consultant copyright materials as an inseparable part of the work
product provided.
8. Assignment Agreement. The Consultant shall not assign any portion of this consultant
Agreement without express written consent of the City of Renton.
9. Hold Harmless. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents, employees and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, losses
or liability, or any portion thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury
or death to persons, including injuries, sickness, disease or death of Consultant’s own
employees, or damage to property caused by a negligent act or omission of the
Consultant, except for those acts caused by or resulting from a negligent act or
omission by the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. Should a court
of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115,
then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the
contractor and the city, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, the contractor’s
liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the contractor’s negligence. It is further
specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitute
the contractor’s waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW,
solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually
negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this agreement.
10. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain commercial liability insurance in
the amount of $1,000,000 in full force throughout the duration of this Consultant
Agreement. It is agreed that on the CONTRACTOR’s policy, the City of Renton will be
named as Additional Insured(s) on a non-contributory primary basis. A certificate of
insurance and the Primary & Non-Contributory Additional Insurance Endorsement page,
properly endorsed, shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this
agreement. Please note: The cancellation language should read “Should any of the
above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing
company will mail 45 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left.”
11. Independent Contractor. Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in
the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under this
agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City.
The Consultant’s relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor.
Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman’s Compensation Act on
behalf of said employees, while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third
party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant’s
employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 89 of 212
3
herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant.
12. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant and all of the Consultant’s employees shall
perform the services in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city
laws, codes and ordinances. Discrimination Prohibited: Consultant, with regard to work
performed under this agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color,
national origin, religion, creed, age, sex, the presence of any physical or sensory
handicap, or sexual orientation, in the selection and/or retention of employees, or
procurement of materials or supplies.
This agreement is entered into as of the day and year written above.
CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON
____________________________ _________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ ___________________________
City Attorney Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 90 of 212
Page 1
Scope of Work – Exhibit A
City of Renton
Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan
ONGOING TASKS
Task O.1: Townsquare™ Project Website
MIG will develop an interactive website using MIG’s Townsquare™ software. This website will be quickly launched and
customized for the project, and will be targeted at project leadership, City staff, and the general public. The project website
will be an important component for engaging the public, key stakeholders and City staff, serving as a repository for project
documents, the host of questionnaire features, a constant venue for public input, and as a notification tool to ensure efficient
and comprehensive information distribution. Documents and deliverables produced throughout the planning process will be
distributed to the Interdepartmental Team and Steering Committee through this website, and they can also submit their
comments. This task includes a one-year subscription to Townsquare™, ongoing website updates, and an initial public
information plan to publicize the website. The subscription fee for Townsquare™ can be prorated for additional months as
needed.
Task O.2: Sunset Area EIS Coordination
MIG will participate in two in-person meetings associated with the Sunset Area Planned Action EIS. This task also includes
MIG staff time to review materials and integrate recommendations into the PROSNR Plan.
Task O.3: Ongoing Project Management Team Coordination
MIG will schedule bimonthly coordination calls with the City’s Project Management Team to coordinate details of the
project, make decisions, and prepare for meetings. This ongoing coordination will ensure the project remains on track, and will
be supplemented by in-person meetings that occur throughout the project.
Ongoing Tasks Deliverables:
1 year Townsquare™ subscription
Attendance at 2 Sunset Area meetings
Coordination teleconferences, initially scheduled to occur bimonthly, for 16 month project duration
PHASE 1: WHERE ARE WE NOW?
During Phase 1, the MIG Team will initiate the project, conduct background research, and update the existing conditions
inventory. This phase will provide baseline data for the remainder of the planning process, informing the plan development
that will continue throughout the process.
Task 1.1: Project Initiation Meeting
The MIG Team will meet with the City’s Project Manager and key staff at project initiation to refine plans for the project,
including contract administration, roles and responsibilities, schedule details and logistical issues in order to tailor and refine
the planning process. Prior to this meeting, we will provide a Request for Information to the City. We will collect data and
documents at this meeting from the City. After the meeting, MIG will refine and add detail to the timeline/schedule and, if
necessary, to the scope, and provide a PDF file of revisions to the City.
Task 1.2: Park and Facility Tour
MIG will tour Renton’s parks, trails, natural areas, and recreation facilities with planning, recreation, and maintenance staff, as
well as on our own. The tour will provide an opportunity to confirm the City’s park and recreation facility inventory and
discuss issues such as operations, planned development, and maintenance. We will also update the parks and facilities
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 91 of 212
Page 2
inventory and evaluate conditions at each site. This tour will be conducted in conjunction with Task 1.1, and a second field
session will occur in conjunction with Task 1.6.
Task 1.3: Data Collection and Review
MIG will review existing documents and background information pertinent to the planning effort, including prior park system
plans, land use plans, the City’s Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and other pertinent documents that set the context for the
PROSNR Plan.
Task 1.4: Base Map and Existing Resource Maps
Using electronic data provided by the City, MIG will produce a GIS base map showing planning areas, existing parks and
natural areas, major recreation facilities, and trails. The base map will also depict school sites and neighboring city resources, as
data is available. We assume that Renton is a subscriber to King County’s GIS, and can provide this data to MIG. MIG will
produce wall-size and document-size maps for use in the planning process, providing PDF files to the City for review.
Task 1.5: Draft Planning Context Summary Memo
MIG will prepare a Planning Context Summary Memo that documents changes in Renton since the last park system plan,
reviews relevant recent planning efforts and key recommendations, and identifies key issues to address within the planning
effort. The memo will also describe Renton’s 10 defined planning areas. MIG will provide a PDF file to the City for
distribution and review.
Task 1.6: Interdepartmental Team Meeting #1
MIG will meet with the Interdepartmental Team to review the planning context summary memo, further develop the project
contact and stakeholder list, discuss current roles and responsibilities in terms of land stewardship, and discuss key issues and
goals. MIG will provide an agenda, facilitate the meeting, and prepare a summary of key decisions for distribution after the
meeting.
Task 1.7: Steering Committee Meeting #1
The Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan Steering Committee will serve as the citizen
representatives during the planning process. They will review interim documents and provide a key connection to the broader
community. The first meeting will include review of the planning context summary memo; discussion about issues,
opportunities and constraints; and refinement of the project contact and stakeholder list. MIG will provide an agenda,
facilitate the meeting, and prepare a brief meeting summary.
Task 1.8: Final Planning Context Summary Memo
MIG will make one revision to the memo based on City-provided consolidated comments
Task 1.9: Recreation Program Inventory
MIG will inventory Renton’s major program areas, identifying population served in terms of demographics and program
locations. If data is available, MIG will document participation, program performance, and staffing level. In addition, MIG
will include an inventory of program offerings by major non-profits (YMCA, Boys & Girls Club, etc.) in Renton, also by
major program areas and population served. This information will be used as a baseline for the assessment of program needs.
Task 1.10: Natural Areas Inventory
Using aerial photography provided by the City (winter photos preferable), MIG will identify contiguous forested areas in the
City planning area greater than two acres in size. We will incorporate existing land cover data and other existing data
identifying wetlands, creeks, watercourses and waterbodies to create a draft natural areas inventory in .SHP file format. We will
then classify the habitat types (Upland forest: Conifer dominated, Mixed conifer and deciduous, Deciduous dominated;
Wetlands: Emergent, Scrub shrub, Forested, Open water; and Fields/grasslands) based on the aerial photographs and existing
data. We will conduct fieldwork to the level of effort shown in the project budget to groundtruth the classifications, with
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 92 of 212
Page 3
specific attention given to Cedar River Natural Area, May Creek, Honey Creek, Panther Creek and the Black River Riparian
Forest. We will incorporate the extensive documentation on the Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank.
Task 1.11: Draft Existing Conditions Summary Memo
MIG will prepare an Existing Conditions Summary Memo that describes the system of parks and natural areas in Renton,
incorporating the results of tasks 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 and 1.9. This summary memo will also address the current status of the park
system, present a classification of the park and trail system, and summarize the City inventory of park land, trails, and
recreation facilities. This document will also review current roles and responsibilities for land ownership and stewardship in
Renton, across departments, to provide a foundation for Interdepartmental Stewardship recommendations later in the
planning process. MIG will provide a draft document in PDF format.
Task 1.12: Final Existing Conditions Summary Memo
MIG will revise the draft document based on consolidated comments provided by the City.
Phase 1 Deliverables:
Request for Information letter
Refined schedule
MIG attendance, facilitation and summary of Project Initiation, Interdepartmental Team and Steering Committee
meetings
Draft and Revised Base Map
Draft and Final Planning Context Summary Memo
Natural Areas Inventory .SHP file
Draft and Final Existing Conditions Summary Memo
PHASE 2: WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE?
During Phase 2, MIG will test the department vision, identify community priorities, preferences, and needs for park and
recreation services. We will conduct a variety of community engagement activities designed to maximize public input into the
plan, and will incorporate the results of the public outreach into a needs assessment that evaluates and quantifies current and
future park land, recreation facility, programming needs, as well as natural areas/ecosystem services opportunity.
Task 2.1: Community Questionnaire
Working with City staff, MIG will develop a questionnaire (online with a paper version available) designed to collect
information on current use of parks and facilities; perceived recreation program, park and facility needs; and ideas for
improvements to park, connections and natural areas in Renton. The questionnaire will be administered through the
Townsquare™ website. MIG will provide text for email blasts to publicize the questionnaire to the City’s project manager, as
well as a questionnaire outreach strategy. The City will be responsible for sending out the email blasts and printing and
collecting paper questionnaires. MIG can provide translation services for the questionnaire and recommends focusing the
multi-lingual outreach on the paper format (internet users tend to be proficient in English). This task includes the cost to
translate the final questionnaire into Spanish and Vietnamese, based on the top two non-English languages spoken in Renton
public schools. If alternative translation options are identified using other city resources, this budget can be applied to the cost
of additional language translations.
MIG will input the data from up to 100 paper questionnaires. At the close of the questionnaire, MIG will tabulate the results
and prepare a summary of key findings. Utilizing the MIG database, this questionnaire will compare recreation activities
against recent communities we have worked with and Renton’s past survey results.
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 93 of 212
Page 4
Task 2.2: Stakeholder Interviews (5)
With City input, MIG will interview five stakeholders in a one-on-one meeting format. The purpose of these sessions is to get
input from key decision-makers or community leaders on key issues, priorities and perceived needs in the provision of
community facilities, services and programs. The interviews will focus on how to strengthen partnerships and how to avoid
duplication of services while expanding the quality and quantity of programs and services available to City residents. These
interviews will be scheduled in conjunction with tasks 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6.
Task 2.3: Community Meetings (5)
The MIG Team will conduct five meetings, held over four days within two weeks to accommodate evening meetings.
Preliminarily, MIG recommends the meetings include:
Two geographically focused meetings aimed at the general public (one in the Renton core, and one targeted at the
areas of Renton annexed within the past 6 years);
Two topic area-focused meetings (one targeting natural area advocates and one focused on organized sports/active
recreation); and
One meeting convening key Community Services staff and major Renton area recreation providers.
Task 2.4: Service Gap and Access Analysis
Based on the preliminary analysis of the park, recreation, and natural areas system in Renton, MIG will design a customized
analysis of the service gaps and access to resources. This analysis will be a combination of qualitative inputs from the public
process, quantitative results from a geographic analysis of all opportunities to access parks, trails and recreation facilities, and a
characterization of the natural area inventory based on ecological attributes such as size, maturity, connectivity and ecosystem
services value such as carbon storage, stormwater attenuation, and wildlife habitat.
Task 2.5: Interdepartmental Team Meeting #2
MIG will meet with the Interdepartmental Team to review and discuss the public involvement results, get feedback on the
service gap and access analysis, and discuss desirable roles in land stewardship. MIG will provide an agenda, facilitate the
meeting, and prepare a summary of key decisions for distribution after the meeting.
Task 2.6: Joint Parks Commission/Planning Commission Meeting #1
MIG will meet with the Parks Commission and Planning Commission in a joint meeting to review findings to date, discuss
public involvement results, and get direction on the service gap and access analysis. MIG will provide presentation materials,
facilitate the meeting, and prepare a summary of key decisions for distribution after the meeting.
Task 2.7: Draft Community Needs Assessment
The Community Needs Assessment will address the need for park land, recreation facilities, and trails in Renton, as well as
natural area characterization and assessment for greatest value. MIG will analyze and summarize current and future need for
park land, trails and pathways, and natural area lands based on findings from the public involvement process, the existing level
of service, comparable communities, regional and national trends, and geographical analysis.
Task 2.8: Steering Committee Meeting #2
Steering Committee Meeting #2 will occur after the draft Needs Assessment is prepared, providing an opportunity for
Committee members to weigh in on the gap analysis and needs assessment in light of the results of the public involvement
activities. MIG will provide an agenda, facilitate the meeting, and prepare a brief meeting summary.
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 94 of 212
Page 5
Task 2.9: City Council Update #1
MIG will attend a City Council meeting to provide an update on the PROSNR process to date, review the results of the gap
analysis and needs assessment, and get Council direction on moving forward with plan development. MIG will provide
presentation materials, facilitate the meeting, and prepare a summary of key decisions for distribution after the meeting.
Task 2.10: Final Community Needs Assessment
MIG will provide the Final Community Needs Assessment based on one set of consolidated comments provided by the City.
Phase 2 Deliverables:
Stakeholder Interviews (5) and summary
Draft and Final Community Questionnaire Instrument
Programming of Community Questionnaire, Tabulation of Results and Summary Report
Community Meetings (5), agendas, presentation materials, and summaries
Service Gap and Access Analysis Memo
Draft and Final Community Needs Assessment
MIG attendance, facilitation and summary of Interdepartmental Project Team and Steering Committee meetings
MIG attendance and facilitation of joint Parks Commission/Planning Commission meeting
MIG attendance at City Council meeting
PHASE 3: HOW DO WE GET THERE?
During Phase 3, the MIG Team will develop the plan content, including recommendations, strategy, and capital improvement
planning. This phase will also include additional outreach to ensure public and political support for the resulting plan.
Task 3.1: Interdepartmental Team Meeting #3
Using the Needs Assessment and existing departmental vision as a starting point, MIG will facilitate a work session with the
Interdepartmental Team, and potentially additional City staff, to begin to develop goals, strategies, and policy directions for
the plan.
Task 3.2: Community Visioning Workshop
The MIG Team will design and facilitate an interactive community workshop to get community input on priorities for
meeting the needs identified in Phase 2 and develop a shared community vision for this system. MIG will develop user-
friendly, descriptive materials to engage citizens at the workshop. The outcome of this workshop will include draft vision
statement. Steering Committee members will be encouraged to attend this session.
Task 3.3: Recommendation and Implementation Strategy Development
MIG will prepare a framework of recommendations and strategies addressing the key issues identified in the planning process
and guided by the community vision, incorporating results of the needs assessment and the outcome of Tasks 3.1 and 3.2.
Task 3.4: Community Priority Survey
Drawing from the preliminary recommendation and strategy development, MIG Team member Research Northwest will
execute a scientific telephone survey to validate the direction of the plan, the community vision and key recommendations and
strategies.
For the telephone survey, we propose completion of 500 questionnaires among a random sample of Renton resident
households including cell phone only households, yielding an error margin for the entire sample of less than ± 5.0% at a 95%
confidence level, with a questionnaire length of 10 minutes. Sub-area breakdown of these results will be possible, but the
resulting smaller sample as the city is divided will result in a higher margin of error.
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 95 of 212
Page 6
Task 3.5: Decision-Making Tools
Based on the results of the work completed to date, MIG will create custom decision-making tools including prioritization
criteria; capital and operating cost models and design guidelines (with a special focus on shared green infrastructure including
successfully combining stormwater facilities with parks).
Task 3.6: Interdepartmental Team Meeting #4
At this meeting, MIG will present the results of the community priority survey, discuss potential refinements to the draft
recommendations and strategies, and review the decision-making tools.
Task 3.7: Steering Committee Meeting #3
At this meeting, MIG will present the results of the community priority survey, discuss potential refinements to the draft
recommendations and strategies, and review the decision-making tools to get input from the Steering Committee members.
MIG will provide an agenda, facilitate the meeting, and prepare a brief meeting summary.
Task 3.8: Capital Improvement and Implementation Plan
Based on the input of the Interdepartmental Team, Steering Committee and City Council, MIG will filter the identified
projects and strategies through the decision making tools developed in Task 3.5. The prioritized list will also match existing
and potential funding sources to the highest priority projects, resulting in a clear implementation plan. The outcome of this
task will be reviewed by the Interdepartmental Team and Steering Committee electronically.
Task 3.9: Joint Parks Commission/Planning Commission Meeting #2
MIG will meet with the Parks Commission and Planning Commission in a joint meeting to review the results of the
community priority survey, the draft recommendations and strategies, the decision-making tools, and the capital improvement
and implementation plan. MIG will provide presentation materials, facilitate the meeting, and prepare a summary of key
decisions for distribution after the meeting.
Task 3.10: City Council Update #2
MIG will present the results of the planning process to the City Council for discussion. Suggested direction will be
incorporated into the development of the Draft Plan.
Phase 3 Deliverables:
Recommendation and Strategy Framework Document
Community Priority Survey instrument, sample, completion and report
Community Workshop agenda, materials, and summary
Decision-Making Tools (Prioritization Criteria, Cost Models, Design Guidelines)
Draft Capital Improvement and Implementation Plan
MIG attendance, facilitation and summary of Interdepartmental Project Team and Steering Committee meetings
MIG attendance and facilitation of joint Parks Commission/Planning Commission meeting
MIG attendance at City Council meeting
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 96 of 212
Page 7
PHASE 4: PLAN REFINEMENT AND ADOPTION
During Phase 4, MIG will work with Department staff to take the plan through the adoption process, refining the plan based
on input received.
Task 4.1: Draft Conceptual Site Plans
MIG will develop up to 10 conceptual site plans for Renton park sites, diagrammatic in nature to illustrate plan
recommendations. We anticipate these site plans will include five renovations, three undeveloped sites, and two prototypes,
and that half will be large sites and half small sites.
Task 4.2: Community Meetings
MIG will conduct two community meetings, geographically dispersed in Renton, to present the results of the planning process
and get citizen input prior to development of the Draft Plan.
Task 4.3: Comprehensive Plan Policy Review
MIG will review the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, including the
Goal, Objectives and 116 Policies and identify where policy revisions are warranted, given the planning process results. We
assume that the recommended changes will be incorporated as part of the City’s regular annual Comprehensive Plan updates.
Task 4.4: Administrative Draft Plan
Based on the work of the previous phases and the input received, MIG will prepare an Administrative Draft Plan for internal
review by the Interdepartmental Team and Steering Committee. The Plan will be formatted as a clear, readable and attractive,
user-friendly document that meets RCO requirements.
Task 4.5: Interdepartmental Team Meeting #5
MIG will review the Administrative Draft Plan with the Interdepartmental Team.
Task 4.6: Steering Committee Meeting #4
MIG will review the Administrative Draft Plan with the Steering Committee.
Task 4.7: Revised Draft Plan
Based on comments received from the Interdepartmental Team and Steering Committee, MIG will revise the Administrative
Draft to prepare a Revised Draft Plan for community review. This task includes revisions to the ten conceptual site plans.
Task 4.8: SEPA Checklist, Department of Commerce Notification and RCO Certification
MIG will prepare the Non-Project SEPA checklist and Department of Commerce notification prior to plan approval. MIG
will coordinate with RCO prior to plan approval and completed the RCO self-certification form for signature by the City.
Task 4.9: Joint Parks Commission/Planning Commission Meeting #3
MIG will meet with the Parks Commission and Planning Commission in a joint meeting to review the Draft Plan. MIG will
provide presentation materials, facilitate the meeting, and prepare a memo documenting requested Plan revisions.
Task 4.10: City Council Update #3
MIG will present the draft Plan to the City Council.
Task 4.11: Final Plan
After Council adoption, MIG revise the Draft Plan and deliver a final Plan to the Department. MIG will provide Word and
PDF files of the final Plan to the Department for future use.
Task 4.12: Project Close-Out and Coordination
MIG staff will complete administrative duties related to the project and the final two months of project management. Close
out of the project will include transferring project files and GIS data to the City.
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 97 of 212
Page 8
Phase 4 Deliverables:
MIG attendance, facilitation and summary of 2 community meetings.
Conceptual Site Plans (10)
Policy Review
Administrative Draft PROSNR Plan
Revised Draft PROSNR Plan
MIG attendance, facilitation and summary of Interdepartmental Project Team and Steering Committee meetings
MIG attendance and facilitation of joint Parks Commission/Planning Commission meeting
MIG attendance at City Council meeting
SEPA checklist and Department of Commerce Notification
RCO Self-Certification
Final PROSNR Plan
CD of project materials
OPTIONAL TASKS
Optional Task A: Incorporation of Fairwood Annexation Area
The potential Fairwood Annexation Area is excluded from the PROSNR Plan, including public outreach activities and
technical analysis related to this area. Should the City opt to include the Fairwood area within the plan, MIG will work with
staff to develop a budget and scope to accomplish this in a cost-effective and time efficient manner.
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 98 of 212
Hou
r
s
@
$
1
4
0
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
0
5
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
4
0
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
9
5
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
3
0
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
6
5
0
O
N
G
O
I
N
G
T
A
S
K
S
0.1
T
o
w
n
s
q
u
a
r
e
™
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
e
b
s
i
t
e
1
$
1
4
0
1
2
$
1
,
2
6
0
0
$0
1
6
$1,
5
2
0
0
$0
4
8
$
3
,
1
2
0
77
$
6
,
0
4
0
$5,
0
4
0
$
1
1
,
0
8
0
0.2
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
r
e
a
E
I
S
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
1
$
1
4
0
2
4
$
2
,
5
2
0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$
1
3
0
0
$0
26
$
2
,
7
9
0
$60
0
$3,
3
9
0
0.3
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
T
e
a
m
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
12
$
1
,
6
8
0
4
8
$
5
,
0
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
2
$
7
8
0
72
$
7
,
5
0
0
$12
0
$7,
6
2
0
Ong
o
i
n
g
T
a
s
k
s
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
14
$
1
,
9
6
0
8
4
$
8
,
8
2
0
0
$0
1
6
$
1
,
5
2
0
1
$
1
3
0
6
0
$
3
,
9
0
0
1
7
5
$
1
6
,
3
3
0
$0
$
5
,
7
6
0
$
2
2
,
0
9
0
1
W
H
E
R
E
A
R
E
W
E
N
O
W
?
1.1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
4
$
5
6
0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
11
$
1
,
2
5
5
$15
$1,
2
7
0
1.2
P
a
r
k
a
n
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
T
o
u
r
8
$
1
,
1
2
0
2
4
$
2
,
5
2
0
0
$0
0
$0
1
6
$
2
,
0
8
0
0
$0
48
$
5
,
7
2
0
$60
0
$6,
3
2
0
1.3
D
a
t
a
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
2
$
2
8
0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
8
$
1
,
0
4
0
1
$65
19
$
2
,
2
2
5
$2,
2
2
5
1.4
B
a
s
e
M
a
p
a
n
d
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
M
a
p
s
0
$0
2
$
2
1
0
0
$0
1
6
$1,
5
2
0
2
$
2
6
0
0
$0
20
$
1
,
9
9
0
$10
0
$2,
0
9
0
1.5
D
r
a
f
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
2
$
2
8
0
1
2
$
1
,
2
6
0
0
$0
2
$19
0
4
$
5
2
0
1
$65
21
$
2
,
3
1
5
$2,
3
1
5
1.6
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
1
0
$0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
4
$
5
2
0
1
$65
11
$
1
,
2
1
5
$60
0
$1,
8
1
5
1.7
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
1
0
$0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
4
$
5
2
0
8
$
5
2
0
18
$
1
,
6
7
0
$15
$1,
6
8
5
1.8
F
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
0
$0
4
$
4
2
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
5
$48
5
$15
$50
0
1.9
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
8
$
1
,
1
2
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
2
$
2
6
0
4
$
2
6
0
14
$
1
,
6
4
0
$1,
6
4
0
1.1
0
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
s
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
2
4
$2,
2
8
0
4
0
$
5
,
2
0
0
0
$0
64
$
7
,
4
8
0
$30
0
$7,
7
8
0
1.1
1
D
r
a
f
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
3
$
4
2
0
2
6
$
2
,
7
3
0
0
$0
1
2
$1,
1
4
0
3
$
3
9
0
1
$65
45
$
4
,
7
4
5
$15
$4,
7
6
0
1.1
2
F
i
n
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
1
$
1
4
0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
4
$38
0
1
$
1
3
0
1
$65
13
$
1
,
3
4
5
$15
$
1
,
3
6
0
Pha
s
e
1
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
28
$
3
,
9
2
0
1
0
0
$
1
0
,
5
0
0
0
$0
5
8
$
5
,
5
1
0
8
4
$
1
0
,
9
2
0
1
9
$
1
,
2
3
5
2
8
9
$
3
2
,
0
8
5
$0
$
1
,
6
7
5
$
3
3
,
7
6
0
2
W
H
E
R
E
D
O
W
E
W
A
N
T
T
O
B
E
?
2.1
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
4
$
5
6
0
2
6
$
2
,
7
3
0
0
$0
8
$76
0
0
$0
2
4
$
1
,
5
6
0
62
$
5
,
6
1
0
$2,
0
0
0
$7,
6
1
0
2.2
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
(
5
)
5
$
7
0
0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
12
$
1
,
3
9
5
$15
$1,
4
1
0
2.3
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
(
5
)
1
$
1
4
0
3
6
$
3
,
7
8
0
0
$0
3
6
$3,
4
2
0
0
$0
4
$
2
6
0
77
$
7
,
6
0
0
$1,
5
0
0
$9,
1
0
0
2.4
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
G
a
p
a
n
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
4
$
5
6
0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
2
4
$2,
2
8
0
0
$0
0
$0
36
$
3
,
6
8
0
$15
$3,
6
9
5
2.5
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
2
4
$
5
6
0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
11
$
1
,
2
5
5
$60
0
$1,
8
5
5
2.6
J
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
1
4
$
5
6
0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
11
$
1
,
2
5
5
$1,
2
5
5
2.7
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
6
$
8
4
0
2
8
$
2
,
9
4
0
0
$0
3
2
$3,
0
4
0
1
0
$
1
,
3
0
0
1
$65
77
$
8
,
1
8
5
$15
$8,
2
0
0
2.8
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
2
4
$
5
6
0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
11
$
1
,
2
5
5
$60
0
$1,
8
5
5
2.9
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
#
1
4
$
5
6
0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
11
$
1
,
2
5
5
$15
$1,
2
7
0
2.1
0
F
i
n
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
2
$
2
8
0
4
$
4
2
0
0
$0
8
$76
0
2
$
2
6
0
1
$65
17
$
1
,
7
8
5
$15
$
1
,
8
0
0
Pha
s
e
2
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
38
$
5
,
3
2
0
1
3
2
$
1
3
,
8
6
0
0
$0
1
0
8
$
1
0
,
2
6
0
1
2
$
1
,
5
6
0
3
5
$
2
,
2
7
5
3
2
5
$
3
3
,
2
7
5
$0
$
4
,
7
7
5
$
3
8
,
0
5
0
Pro
j
e
c
t
B
u
d
g
e
t
MIG
,
I
n
c
.
Pro
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
F
e
e
s
Tot
a
l
s
Pro
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Dir
e
c
t
Cos
t
s
MIG
Tot
a
l
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
Nor
t
h
w
e
s
t
,
LLC
Prin
c
i
p
a
l
-
i
n
-
C
h
a
r
g
e
Nat
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pla
n
n
e
r
MIG
Pro
j
e
c
t
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
Dav
e
W
a
l
t
e
r
s
Rya
n
M
o
t
t
a
u
GIS
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
a
n
d
Pla
n
n
e
r
Hea
t
h
e
r
K
a
p
l
i
n
g
e
r
D
e
a
n
A
p
o
s
t
o
l
Sen
i
o
r
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
Arc
h
i
t
e
c
t
Lau
r
e
n
S
c
h
m
i
t
t
City
o
f
R
e
n
t
o
n
—
L
o
n
g
R
a
n
g
e
P
a
r
k
s
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
P
l
a
n
l
Pag
e
1
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 99 of 212
Hou
r
s
@
$
1
4
0
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
0
5
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
4
0
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
9
5
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
3
0
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
6
5
Pro
j
e
c
t
B
u
d
g
e
t
MIG
,
I
n
c
.
Pro
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
F
e
e
s
Tot
a
l
s
Pro
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Dir
e
c
t
Cos
t
s
MIG
Tot
a
l
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
Nor
t
h
w
e
s
t
,
LLC
Prin
c
i
p
a
l
-
i
n
-
C
h
a
r
g
e
Nat
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pla
n
n
e
r
MIG
Pro
j
e
c
t
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
Dav
e
W
a
l
t
e
r
s
Rya
n
M
o
t
t
a
u
GIS
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
a
n
d
Pla
n
n
e
r
Hea
t
h
e
r
K
a
p
l
i
n
g
e
r
D
e
a
n
A
p
o
s
t
o
l
Sen
i
o
r
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
Arc
h
i
t
e
c
t
Lau
r
e
n
S
c
h
m
i
t
t
3
H
O
W
D
O
W
E
G
E
T
T
H
E
R
E
?
3.1
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
3
0
$0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
9
$90
5
$30
0
$1,
2
0
5
3.2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
1
$
1
4
0
1
2
$
1
,
2
6
0
0
$0
1
2
$1,
1
4
0
0
$0
1
$65
26
$
2
,
6
0
5
$75
0
$3,
3
5
5
3.3
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
8
$
1
,
1
2
0
1
2
$
1
,
2
6
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
4
$
2
6
0
24
$
2
,
6
4
0
$15
$2,
6
5
5
3.4
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
10
$
1
,
4
0
0
1
6
$
1
,
6
8
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
4
$
2
6
0
30
$
3
,
3
4
0
$22
,
5
5
0
$25
,
8
9
0
3.5
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
M
a
k
i
n
g
T
o
o
l
s
4
$
5
6
0
1
2
$
1
,
2
6
0
0
$0
4
$38
0
4
$
5
2
0
0
$0
24
$
2
,
7
2
0
$15
$2,
7
3
5
3.6
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
4
0
$0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
4
$38
0
0
$0
1
$65
11
$
1
,
0
7
5
$30
0
$1,
3
7
5
3.7
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
3
0
$0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
4
$38
0
0
$0
1
$65
11
$
1
,
0
7
5
$15
$1,
0
9
0
3.8
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
1
$
1
4
0
4
$
4
2
0
1
2
$
1
,
6
8
0
0
$0
4
$
5
2
0
1
$65
22
$
2
,
8
2
5
$15
$2,
8
4
0
3.9
J
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
2
0
$0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
9
$90
5
$30
0
$1,
2
0
5
3.1
0
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
#
2
0
$0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
9
$90
5
$30
0
$1,
2
0
5
Pha
s
e
3
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
24
$
3
,
3
6
0
9
2
$
9
,
6
6
0
1
2
$
1
,
6
8
0
2
4
$
2
,
2
8
0
8
$
1
,
0
4
0
1
5
$
9
7
5
1
7
5
$
1
8
,
9
9
5
$
2
2
,
5
5
0
$
2
,
0
1
0
$
4
3
,
5
5
5
4
P
L
A
N
R
E
F
I
N
E
M
E
N
T
A
N
D
A
D
O
P
T
I
O
N
4.1
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
s
2
$
2
8
0
2
$
2
1
0
4
0
$
5
,
6
0
0
8
$76
0
4
$
5
2
0
0
$0
56
$
7
,
3
7
0
$10
0
$7,
4
7
0
4.2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
(
2
)
1
$
1
4
0
2
0
$
2
,
1
0
0
0
$0
2
$19
0
0
$0
2
$
1
3
0
25
$
2
,
5
6
0
$30
0
$2,
8
6
0
4.3
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
P
o
l
i
c
y
R
e
v
i
e
w
8
$
1
,
1
2
0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
4
$
5
2
0
0
$0
20
$
2
,
4
8
0
$15
$2,
4
9
5
4.4
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
D
r
a
f
t
P
l
a
n
8
$
1
,
1
2
0
3
2
$
3
,
3
6
0
0
$0
1
6
$1,
5
2
0
1
6
$
2
,
0
8
0
2
$
1
3
0
74
$
8
,
2
1
0
$15
$8,
2
2
5
4.5
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
5
0
$0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
7
$69
5
$30
0
$99
5
4.6
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
4
0
$0
6
$
6
3
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
7
$69
5
$15
$71
0
4.7
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
D
r
a
f
t
P
l
a
n
4
$
5
6
0
2
4
$
2
,
5
2
0
2
0
$
2
,
8
0
0
8
$76
0
8
$
1
,
0
4
0
2
$
1
3
0
66
$
7
,
8
1
0
$15
$7,
8
2
5
4.8
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
,
D
e
p
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
&
R
C
O
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
$
1
4
0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
9
$98
0
$15
$99
5
4.9
J
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
3
0
$0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
9
$90
5
$30
0
$1,
2
0
5
4.1
0
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
#
3
0
$0
8
$
8
4
0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
1
$65
9
$90
5
$30
0
$1,
2
0
5
4.1
1
F
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
2
$
2
8
0
1
6
$
1
,
6
8
0
1
0
$
1
,
4
0
0
4
$38
0
4
$
5
2
0
4
$
2
6
0
40
$
4
,
5
2
0
$15
0
$4,
6
7
0
4.1
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
l
o
s
e
-
O
u
t
a
n
d
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
0
$0
4
$
4
2
0
0
$0
4
$38
0
0
$0
4
$
2
6
0
12
$
1
,
0
6
0
$15
$1,
0
7
5
Pha
s
e
4
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
26
$
3
,
6
4
0
1
4
2
$
1
4
,
9
1
0
7
0
$
9
,
8
0
0
4
2
$
3
,
9
9
0
3
6
$
4
,
6
8
0
1
8
$
1
,
1
7
0
3
3
4
$
3
8
,
1
9
0
$
0
$
1
,
5
4
0
$
3
9
,
7
3
0
130
$
1
8
,
2
0
0
5
5
0
$
5
7
,
7
5
0
8
2
$
1
1
,
4
8
0
2
4
8
$
2
3
,
5
6
0
1
4
1
$
1
8
,
3
3
0
1
4
7
$
9
,
5
5
5
1
2
9
8
$
1
3
8
,
8
7
5
$
2
2
,
5
5
0
$
1
5
,
7
6
0
$
1
7
7
,
1
8
5
OPT
I
O
N
A
L
T
A
S
K
A
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
a
i
r
w
o
o
d
A
n
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$0 $0
$0
Pro
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
T
i
m
e
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
City
o
f
R
e
n
t
o
n
—
L
o
n
g
R
a
n
g
e
P
a
r
k
s
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
P
l
a
n
l
Pag
e
2
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 100 of 212
Pre
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
0
O
N
G
O
I
N
G
T
A
S
K
S
0.1
T
o
w
n
s
q
u
a
r
e
™
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
e
b
s
i
t
e
0.2
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
r
e
a
E
I
S
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
0.3
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
T
e
a
m
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
1
W
H
E
R
E
A
R
E
W
E
N
O
W
?
1.1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
1.2
P
a
r
k
a
n
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
T
o
u
r
1.3
D
a
t
a
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
1.4
B
a
s
e
M
a
p
a
n
d
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
M
a
p
s
1.5
D
r
a
f
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
1.6
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
1
1.7
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
1
1.8
F
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
1.9
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
1.1
0
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
s
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
1..1
1
D
r
a
f
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
1.1
2
F
i
n
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
2
W
H
E
R
E
D
O
W
E
W
A
N
T
T
O
B
E
?
2.1
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
2.2
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
(
5
)
2.3
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
(
5
)
2.4
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
G
a
p
a
n
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
2.5
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
2
2.6
J
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
1
2.7
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
2.8
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
2
2.9
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
#
1
2.1
0
F
i
n
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
3
H
O
W
D
O
W
E
G
E
T
T
H
E
R
E
?
3.1
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
3
3.2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
3.3
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
3.4
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
3.5
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
M
a
k
i
n
g
T
o
o
l
s
3.6
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
4
3.7
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
3
3.8
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
3.9
J
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
2
3.1
0
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
#
2
4
P
L
A
N
R
E
F
I
N
E
M
E
N
T
A
N
D
A
D
O
P
T
I
O
N
4.1
D
r
a
f
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
s
4.2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
(
2
)
4.3
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
P
o
l
i
c
y
R
e
v
i
e
w
4.4
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
D
r
a
f
t
P
l
a
n
4.5
I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
a
m
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
5
4.6
S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
4
4.7
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
D
r
a
f
t
P
l
a
n
4.8
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
,
D
e
p
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
&
R
C
O
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
4.9
J
o
i
n
t
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
#
3
4.1
0
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
#
3
4.1
1
F
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.1
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
l
o
s
e
-
O
u
t
a
n
d
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
OPT
I
O
N
A
L
T
A
S
K
S
A
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
a
i
r
w
o
o
d
A
n
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
201
0
Sep
t
e
m
b
e
r
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
201
1
Apr
i
l
M
a
y
J
u
n
e
J
u
l
y
A
u
g
u
s
t
Jan
u
a
r
y
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
M
a
r
c
h
City
o
f
R
e
n
t
o
n
—
L
o
n
g
R
a
n
g
e
P
a
r
k
s
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
P
l
a
n
7f. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a
replacement contract in the amount of $177,185 with MIG to complete Page 101 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Amendment #1 to CAG 08-156 Utility
Construction Agrement (UT 01306)
Regarding Sewer Relocation for the I-
405/I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2 Widening
Project - Amendment #1
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Utility Construction Agreement -
Amendment #1
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Rich Perteet, Deputy Public Works Administrator -
Transportation (extension 7242)
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $75,180 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $100,000 (2010 budget)Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
In October 2008, the City entered into Utility Agreement UT 01306 with the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in order to include, within the I-405/I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2
Widening and SR 515 Interchange Project, the relocation of an existing City sewer manhole.
Since the original agreement, final design has been completed and the manhole only required
adjustment. Therefore, the Wastewater Utility also requested the contractor extend the Benson Road
sewer line in order to provide for future extension of service to other properties in the area.
Utility Construction Agreement UT 01306 (CAG 08-156) is being amended in order to reflect the changes
in work scope, such as the sewer line future extension and revised costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment #1 to the Utility Construction Agreement UT
01306 with WSDOT regarding the sewer relocation for the I-405/I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2 Widening Project.
7g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐156, with the Washington State Department Page 102 of 212
UT 01306
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
WORK BY STATE
ACTUAL COST
City of Renton
I-405/I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2 -Widening and SR 515 l/C
Sewer Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road
AMENDMENT #1
This Utility Construction Agreement Amendment No. 1 (herein the "Amendment") is made and entered
into between the Washington State Department of Transportation "STATE", and City of Renton, 1055
South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 "UTILITY", and/or individually referred to as the "Party" and
collectively referred to as the "Parties",
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into Utility Construction Agreement UT 01306 Utility Construction
Agreement Work by State, Actual Cost, City of Renton, I-405/I-5 to SR 1.69 Stage 2 - Widening and SR
515 l/C, Sewer Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road (herein the "Agreement") on October 16,
2008, and
WHEREAS, the STATE issued a request for proposals, received three valid bids and entered into a
design-build construction contract for the improvement of Interstate 405 titled, I-405,1-5 to SR 169, Stage
2 - Widening and SR 515 Interchange (herein the "Project"), and in connection therewith, it is necessary to
design and construct an extension of a manhole associated with the UTILITY'S existing sanitary sewer line
crossing of Benson Road north of I-405, and
WHEREAS, the STATE'S design-build construction contract for the Project also included the STATE'S
construction of a new sanitary sewer line crossing Benson Road south of I-405 in order for the STATE to
mitigate impacts to a property affected by the Project, and
WHEREAS, the UTILITY has requested that the STATE extend the sewer line in order to provide for the
future extension of sanitary sewer service to other properties in the area, and
WHEREAS, the UTILITY is responsible for the costs of the sewer line extension because the extension
constitutes a betterment as defined in Federal-aid Policy Guide - 23 CFR 645A, Subpart A, and
WHEREAS, the STATE and UTILITY have agreed to amend the Agreement to revise the scope of the
sanitary sewer line work and adjust the UTILITY'S funding commitment as provided for in Section III of the
Agreement.
PAGE 1 of 3 AGREEMENT UT 01306, AMENDMENT # 1 06-11 -10 7g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐156, with the Washington State Department Page 103 of 212
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of Title 47 RCW and in consideration of the terms,
conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part
hereof,
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Exhibit A, Specifications and Special Considerations of the Agreement is hereby amended by
replacing the entire section titled "WORK BY THE STATE" by the following:
The STATE through its design-build contractor shall, pursuant to the plans and specifications
reviewed and concurred with by the UTILITY, furnish the labor, materials, equipment, and tools
required to design, permit, and construct 1) the adjustment of the existing 54-inch manhole
located at Benson Road Sta. 126+00 to the finished grade of the realigned roadway and 2)
extension of a new 8-inch diameter sewer line and clean out located on the east side of Benson
Road from a new manhole to be constructed at Benson Road Sta. 109+79 to Benson Road Sta.
111+27 as shown on plan sheets included in UT 01306, Utility Construction Agreement, Sewer
Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road, Amendment #1, I-405, I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2 -
Widening and SR 515 Interchange, Exhibit C-1 Plans. Construction of the sewer line extension
will include placement of two 6-inch side sewers serving properties east of Benson Road that
terminate outside the roadway pavement as shown on the plans.
The UTILITY'S sewer systems described above shall be constructed to comply with specifications
that have been included in the request for proposal that are described and shown in an excerpt
from Section 2.10 Utilities and Relocation Agreements from the STATE'S request for proposal for
the project marked Exhibit "A," Attachment "1", RFP Contract Specifications and the requirements
of the Sanitary Manhole Standard Plans included as page 2 of 3 of Exhibit "C", Plans, both of
which are attached to the Agreement. The STATE'S design-build contractor will prepare the final
plans and specifications as well as construct any modifications necessary to adjust the manhole
and construct the sanitary sewer line.
Any costs incurred by the STATE and the STATE'S design-build contractor for the actual direct
and related indirect cost associated with design, review, approval, construction, and inspection of
the adjustment of the manhole and extension of the sewer line will be borne solely by the
UTILITY.
2. Exhibit A, Specifications and Special Considerations of the Agreement is hereby amended by
replacing the entire section titled "Betterment" by the following.
The construction of the UTILITY'S extension of a new 8-inch diameter sewer line and clean out
located on the east side of Benson Road, as required herein, constitutes a betterment as defined
in the Federal Aid Policy Guide-23 645A, Subpart A.
3. Exhibit B, Funding Commitment of the Agreement is hereby amended and superseded by
Amendment, Exhibit B-1, Funding Commitment, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
into the Agreement. The itemized estimate of cost for work under the Agreement is hereby increased
by Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Dollars ($19,430) for a total amount of Seventy-five
Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars $(75,180).
4. Exhibit C, Plans is hereby amended by adding Amendment, Exhibit C-1, Plans, attached hereto and by
this reference incorporated into the original Agreement.
PAGE 2 of 3 AGREEMENT UT 01306, AMENDMENT #1 06-11-10 7g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐156, with the Washington State Department Page 104 of 212
5. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except as
modified by this Amendment #1.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment #1 as of the
day and year last signed below.
WASHINGTON STATE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By: ; By:.
Assistant Attorney General
Print: Print:
Title: Title:.
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date;
By:
PAGE 3 of 3 AGREEMENT UT 01306, AMENDMENT #1 06-11-10 7g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐156, with the Washington State Department Page 105 of 212
UT 01306
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
WORK BY STATE - ACTUAL COST
City of Renton
I-405/I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2 - Widening and SR 515 l/C
Sewer Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road
AMENDMENT #1
EXHIBIT "B-1 "
FUNDING COMMITMENT
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UI 245 18-inch Ductile Iron Sanitary Sewer
Crosses I-405 and Proposed Retaining Wall
Manhole Adjustment (Bid Amount)
New Sewer Line Construction
Pavement Removal
Excavate, lay pipe and backfill
Pavement Restoration
Flagging
Subtotal New Sewer Line Construction
Design-Builder Design / Construction Engineering, CWQC and Administration
Construction Cost Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.5% of Contract)
WSDOT Design / Construction Management
Total Cost
QUANTITY
750
150
750
2
UNITS
SF
LF
S.F
Days
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
$ 28,500.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 14,800.00
$ 4,500.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 22,800.00
$ 11,080.00
$ 62,380.00
$ 5,900.00
$ 6,900.00
$ 75,180.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY COST @ 100%
TOTAL ESTIMATED STATE COST @ 0%
$ 75,180.00
UT01306-Exhibit B-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 04-02-10
7g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐156, with the Washington State Department Page 106 of 212
UT 01306
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
WORK BY STATE
ACTUAL COST
City of Renton
I-405/I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2 -Widening and SR 515 l/C
Sewer Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road
AMENDMENT #1
PLANS
I-405
I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2 -Widening
And SR 515 Interchange
Sewer Extension Plan and Profile
Plan Sheet UT-0-22
M05
I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2 - Widening
And SR 515 Interchange
Utility Details
Plan Sheet UTD-0-15
UT 01306 - Exhibit C-1 PAGE 1 of 3 06-11 -10
7g. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐156, with the Washington State Department Page 107 of 212
NOTES: FILL AND RECHANNEL THE INVERT OF TOE EXISTING MANHOLE WITH CONCRETE TO PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITION BETWEEN THE NEW SEWER AND THE EXISTING SEWER BEE DETAIL 4 ON UTU4-21. 2. SEE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DETAILS ON UTTM-SI.TTP FOR NEW MANHOLES AND PIPE BEDDINa NOTIFY OLYMPIC PIPELINE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN 100 FEET
OF THEIR PIPELINE
AFTER CONNECTION OF NEW SIDE 8EWER
ABANDON EXISTING SEPTIC TANK BY
LICENSED SEPTIC TANK INSTALLER.
SUBMIT EOUIPMENT WBIOHT, WHEEL LOADS,
AND CROSSING LOCATIONS TO OLYMPIC
BEFORE CROSSING THEIR UNE WITH ANY
CONSTRUCTION OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
SUBMITTAL MUST BE APPROVED BY OLYMPIC
BEFORE CROSSINO THEIR PIPELINE,
TELEPHONE NUMBEn «S33S-77B7.
USE COMMON BORROW COMPACTED TO
85% STANDARD COMPACTION FOR ALL
BACKFILL UNDER EXISTING AND PROPOSED
PAVEMENTS.
7
g
.
‐
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
#
1
t
o
C
A
G
‐
0
8
‐
1
5
6
,
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
8
o
f
2
1
2
LENGTH AS SHOWN ON PLAN SHEET t-PVD SIDE SEWER PIPE
TEE WITH B-SIDE OUTLET
- FUTURE EXTENSION WHERE BIDE SEWER CONNECTS TO EXISTING BUILDING SEWER *T 2"x 4" STUD MARNNO POIT PAWTED WHITE
WITH THE WORD "SEWER" STENCILED IN T HtOH
BUCK LETTERS AND IS WIRE EXTENP.N4I FROM
END Op PIPE TO MARKING POST AND WRAPPED
AROUND THE STUD AND EXTENDED TO THE TOP
OF THE STUD WHERE SIDE SEWER DOES NOT
CONNECT TO EXISTING BUILDINQ SEWER
raiDE SEWER AND BU.LOU.0 SEWER
A.VTTWFKD CLAY HAM -CUT IN A NEW TEE USING FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS
(FERNCO OR APPROVED EQUAL).
B. CONCRETE MAIN - CORE-DRILLED WITH A ROKAC SADDLE
(OR APPROVED EQUAL).
C. PVC MAM - CORE-DRILLED WITH A ROHAC SADDLE [OR APPROVED
EQUAL) OR CUT IN A NEW TEE USINO RKJID COUPUNOS.
D. DUCTILE IRON MAIM - CORE-DRILLED WITH A ROHAC SADDLE
(OR APPROVED EQUAL).
BL MANHOLE CONNECTION -ALL CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES SHALL
BE AT MANUFACTURED KNOWCK-OUT8 OR
THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE CORE-DRSXED.
BO'ALLOWABLE MAX.
FOR CAST RON
PIPE OR DUCTILE
IRON PIPE.
-11 N.C. SOCKET
SCREW 1V,-LOHO
(BRONZE OR %M.)
5i" X T RAISED PADS
FIBER JOINT PACKING
WATER TWHT PLUO
CAST WON RING AND COVgR A.
NQTE9;
PLUG TO BE SEALED IN
SAME MANNER AS MAIN
SEWER JOINTS, BLOCK
FOR LEAKAGE TESTING
1. RINO AND COVER SHALL BE EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS, INC.
No.lsst OR EQUAL CLEAN OUT SHAU BE A WATER TIGHT ASSEMBLY.
CONCRETE BLOCKING ANGLE OF
TEE AT MAH OVER JS ELEVATION TYPICAL SIDE SEWER ELEVATION
1. UNUM OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLAN. SIDE SEWER SHALL HAVE
A MIMMUMI IT COVER AT PROPERTY LINE OR UC LOWER THAN
THE LOWEST HOUSE ELSVATIOH, WHICHEVER Is LOWER.
SIDE SEWER/
CLEANOUT
[MO. | ISSUE DATE| ISSUE RECORD - DESCRIPTION
I rauL DESOH . a.
PEMOHSD BY CHECKED BY
B. THOMPSON
w
Washington State
Department of Transportation
1-405
1-6 TO SR 169
STAGE Z - WIDENING
AND SR 61S INTERCHANGE
UTILITY DETAILS
7
g
.
‐
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
#
1
t
o
C
A
G
‐
0
8
‐
1
5
6
,
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
9
o
f
2
1
2
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Addendum #1 to CAG 08-157 Utility
Construction Agreement Regarding Fiber
Optic Conduit in the I-405/I-5 to SR 169
Stage 2 Widening Project -- Amendment #1
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Utility Construction Agreement UT 01312 --
Amendment #1
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Rich Perteet, Deputy Public Works Administrator-
Transportation (extension 7242)
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $120,156 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $140,000 Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ $140,000 City Share Total Project: $ $120,156
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
In October 2008, the City entered into Utility Agreement UT 01312 with the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in order to include, within the I-405/I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2
Widening and SR 515 Interchange Project, the extension of the City's fiber optic network conduit under
and over I-405 for an estimated cost of $292,000.
Since the original agreement, final design has been completed and the updated cost estimate has been
reduced to $120,000.
Utility Construction Agreement UT 01312 (CAG 08-157) is being amended in order to reflect the changes
in work scope and the reduction in cost.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment #1 to the Utility Construction Agreement UT
01312 with WSDOT regarding the City's fiber optic conduit installation in the I-405/I-5 to SR 169 Stage 2
Widening Project.
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 110 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 111 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 112 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 113 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 114 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 115 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 116 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 117 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 118 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 119 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 120 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 121 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 122 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 123 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 124 of 212
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of
Amendment #1 to CAG‐08‐157, with the Washington State Department Page 125 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Airport Sustainability Plan
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Grant and
Grant Assurances
Resolution
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manger (x7471)
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $ 7,500 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ 0 Revenue Generated: $$ 150,000
Total Project Budget: $ $ 157,500 City Share Total Project: $ $ 7,500
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Renton Airport was selected by the FAA as part of a pilot project to develop an Airport Sustainability
Plan. The FAA has offered a grant of $150,000 to complete this project. Since this pilot project is
limited to 10 airports across the country, and because sustainability is such an important concept,
Airport staff would like to complete this work.
Per the FAA, Airport staff issued a Request for Qualifications to seek out interested consulting firms.
Eleven companies submitted their information for review and a decision on a consulting firm is
forthcoming. Once the firm is selected, the project will commence to develop a sustainability plan that
focuses on the Airport and its operations.
The schedule is to have the final plan completed by the end of June 2011. The City should accept this
grant money from the FAA in order to begin work on the sustainability plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the FAA grant and federal grant assurances.
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 126 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 127 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 128 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 129 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 130 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 131 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 132 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 133 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 134 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 135 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 136 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 137 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 138 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 139 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 140 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 141 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 142 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 143 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 144 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 145 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 146 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 147 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 148 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 149 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 150 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 151 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 152 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 153 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 154 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 155 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 156 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 157 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 158 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 159 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 160 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 161 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 162 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 163 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 164 of 212
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval to accept
$150,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration to Page 165 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Final Pay Estimate – CAG-08-115
SWP-27-3296, Dayton Avenue NE / NE 22nd Street
Drainage Improvement Project
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Pay Estimate #11 Final
Notice of Completion
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ron Straka (ext. 7248), Daniel Carey (ext. 7293)
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 1,250 Transfer Amendment: $N/A
Amount Budgeted: $ 15,000 Revenue Generated: $N/A
Total Project Budget: $ 300,000 (2008)City Share Total Project: $ N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc. started construction on the Dayton Avenue NE / NE 22nd Street
Drainage Improvement Project on September 23, 2008, and completed the work on January 8, 2009. The
project included relocating a pool pump house so the new storm system could be installed. During 2009,
a problem developed with the pump house piping, and repairs were completed in December 2009. The
contract included a one year maintenance period for restoration and repairs, which was completed in
2010, allowing for approval of the Final Pay Estimate. The original contract amount was $162,990.00
and the final contract amount is $168,657.85. The increase of $5,667.85 was due to differences in bid
item quantities, revising the design to avoid a conflict with existing gas lines, and a change order for a
portion of the repair work.
The project is funded by the Surface Water Utility’s Capital Improvement Program’s (CIP) Small Drainage
Projects (account number 427.475450.018.595.38.63.000). The approved 2008 CIP budget for the project
was $300,000.00 and the majority of the project expenditures were paid for in the 2008 CIP budget. The
approved 2010 CIP budget for the project is $15,000.00. There is sufficient budget remaining in the
approved 2010 CIP budget to fund the final pay estimate and staff costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Dayton Avenue NE / NE 22nd Street Drainage Improvement Project, approve the Final Pay
Estimate, and release the retainage of $8,432.89 after 60 days and after all the required releases from
the state have been obtained.
7j. ‐ Utility Systems Division submits CAG‐08‐115, Dayton Ave. NE/NE
22nd St. Drainage Improvement, and requests approval of the project, Page 166 of 212
7j. ‐ Utility Systems Division submits CAG‐08‐115, Dayton Ave. NE/NE
22nd St. Drainage Improvement, and requests approval of the project, Page 167 of 212
7j. ‐ Utility Systems Division submits CAG‐08‐115, Dayton Ave. NE/NE
22nd St. Drainage Improvement, and requests approval of the project, Page 168 of 212
7j. ‐ Utility Systems Division submits CAG‐08‐115, Dayton Ave. NE/NE
22nd St. Drainage Improvement, and requests approval of the project, Page 169 of 212
State of Washington
Department of Revenue
PO Box 47474
Olympia WA 98504-7474
Contractor’s Registration No. (UBI No.)
600 522 209
Date 8/27/10
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
From:
Name & Address of Public Agency Department Use Only
City of Renton
Attn: Natalie Wissbrod
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Assigned To
Date Assigned
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below
Description of Contract Contract Number
SWP-27-3296 Dayton Ave NE / NE 22nd St Drainage Improv. Proj CAG-08-115
Contractor’s Name Telephone Number
Pivetta Brothers Construcion, Inc.253-862-7890
Contractor’s Address
1812 Pease Ave, Sumner, WA 98390
Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted
9/23/08 12/14/09 9/13/10
Surety or Bonding Company
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.
Agent’s Address
1001 Fourth Ave, Suite 1800, Seattle, WA 98154 Steve Palmer, 800-422-4710
Contract Amount $ 162,990.00
Additions $+5,667.85
Reductions $–0
Sub-Total $168,657.85
Amount of Sales Tax Paid at 0.0 %$0.00
(If various rates apply, please send a breakdown.)
TOTAL $168,657.85
Liquidated Damages $
Amount Disbursed $160,224.96
Amount Retained $8,432.89
TOTAL $168,657.85
Disbursing Officer
Comments: Sales Tax Rule 171 applies to this
project.Signature
Type or Print Name
Phone Number
The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue,
PO Box 47474, Olympia, WA 98504-7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO
PAYMENT 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)
7j. ‐ Utility Systems Division submits CAG‐08‐115, Dayton Ave. NE/NE
22nd St. Drainage Improvement, and requests approval of the project, Page 170 of 212
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Interlocal Agreement Between King County and
the City of Renton for the Transfer of Drainage
Facilities and Property Interests within City Limits
to the City of Renton
Meeting:
Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Interlocal Agreement
Resolution
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ron Straka, x7248 Gary Fink, x7392
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A
Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A
Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City of Renton and King County would like to execute the Interlocal Agreement by which King
County transfers to Renton stormwater drainage facilities and easements located within Renton’s City
limits. The stormwater facilities and properties were previously owned and maintained by King County.
The stormwater facilities, located within areas previously annexed into the City of Renton between
2005 and 2008, now serve neighborhoods within City limits. The Surface Water Utility Maintenance
Section is currently maintaining these stormwater facilities. The Interlocal Agreement is needed to
formally transfer legal ownership and maintenance responsibility of the 20 parcels containing
stormwater facilities to the Surface Water Utility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between
King County and the City of Renton for the transfer of King County drainage facilities and property
interests to the City.
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 171 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 172 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 173 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 174 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 175 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 176 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 177 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 178 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 179 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 180 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 181 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 182 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 183 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 184 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 185 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 186 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 187 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 188 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 189 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 190 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 191 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 192 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 193 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 194 of 212
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an interlocal
agreement with King County for the transfer of stormwater drainage Page 195 of 212
9a. ‐ Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration to accept grant
funds for the Airport Sustainability Plan (See 7.i.)
Page 196 of 212
9a. ‐ Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration to accept grant
funds for the Airport Sustainability Plan (See 7.i.)
Page 197 of 212
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
KING COUNTY REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND
PROPERTY INTERESTS.
WHEREAS, the City has an established program of services to address the management
of storm and surface water runoff; and
WHEREAS, the City has annexed areas containing drainage systems, including facilities
and property interests, previously owned and operated by King County but now serving areas
incorporated into the City; and
WHEREAS, the City and King County believe that it is in the best interest of the public
that King County transfer to the City ownership of and/or responsibility for drainage facilities
and drainage property interests within the municipal boundaries of the City to be managed
under the City's surface water management program; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the City and King
County are each authorized to enter into an agreement for cooperative action;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an
interlocal agreement entitled Interlocal Agreement Between King County and the City of
Renton For the Transfer of Drainage Facilities and Property Interests.
9b. ‐ Interlocal agreement with King County regarding transfer of
drainage facilities (See 7.k.)
Page 198 of 212
RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2010.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2010.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1470:7/9/10:scr
Denis Law, Mayor
9b. ‐ Interlocal agreement with King County regarding transfer of
drainage facilities (See 7.k.)
Page 199 of 212
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE
AMENDED SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO FORWARD THE
DOCUMENTS COMPRISING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM TO THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management
Act (RCW 90.58) by a vote of the people in 1971; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.480) adds the goals and policies
of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 as one of the goals of the
Growth Management Act without creating an order of priority; and
WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) provides a timetable that
requires the City to amend its master program by December 1, 2009, and the City received a
grant from the Department of Ecology to support the update process; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a comprehensive public involvement plan that provided
widespread public notice and held periodic public workshop meetings and public hearings with
the Planning Commission between Spring 2008 and Spring 2010 and City Council meetings in
2010; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document
and distributed it for agency and public review and compiled and responded to comments and
issued a final document in March 2010; and
9c. ‐ Approve the amended Shoreline Master Program and direct
forwarding to the Washington State Department of Ecology (See 8.b.)Page 200 of 212
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the City developed a series of technical memoranda on specific topics
relevant to the Shoreline Master Program and held a series of public workshops on the
documents and compiled and responded to comments; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Shoreline Master Program in July 2009 and considered
and responded to government agency and public comments and prepared a Revised Draft
Shoreline Master Program in October 2009, December 2009, February 2010, March 2010, June
2010 and September 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis in July 2009 and
considered and responded to government agency and public comments and prepared a Revised
Cumulative Impacts Analysis in October 2009 and a Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis in March
2010; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Restoration Plan in October 2009 and considered and
responded to government agency and public comments and issued a Final Restoration Plan in
March 2010 with minor corrections in June 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-
Significance on the proposed Shoreline Master Program on May 10, 2010; and
WHEREAS, such modification and integration of the Shoreline Master Program is
intended to protect and provide for the public interest; and
WHEREAS, once the City approves the Shoreline Master Program, it will be sent to the
Washington State Department of Ecology for review and approval, a process which may entail
further changes and amendments to the documents of the Shoreline Master Program; and
9c. ‐ Approve the amended Shoreline Master Program and direct
forwarding to the Washington State Department of Ecology (See 8.b.)Page 201 of 212
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, upon Department of Ecology approval, the City will adopt the Shoreline
Master Program by ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. This resolution is supported by the following conclusions based on the
adopted findings:
A. The City followed its established public participation program;
B. Revisions are needed to the Shoreline Master Program;
C. All development standards within the attached documents, were reviewed and
found to be in compliance with the Shoreline Management Act; and
D. The amendments to the Shoreline Master Program are intended to provide for
the management of the shorelines of the City by planning for and fostering all reasonable and
appropriate uses. This policy is designed to ensure the development of the City's shorelines in a
manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable
waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting
against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the
waters of the state and their aquatic life, while generally protecting public rights of navigation
and corollary rights incidental thereto.
E. The Cumulative Effects Analysis for the Shoreline Master Program demonstrates
that the program will make a positive contribution to maintaining and enhancing the ecological
functions of the shorelines in Renton, particularly in reference to near-shore habitat that is
9c. ‐ Approve the amended Shoreline Master Program and direct
forwarding to the Washington State Department of Ecology (See 8.b.)Page 202 of 212
RESOLUTION NO.
critical for an early life-cycle stage for Chinook salmon that are currently listed pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act.
F. Projects vested to the regulations and development standards prior to the
adoption of the ordinance are not subject to these standards unless substantial modification of
the project is proposed which result in new application for development of the project.
SECTION III. The City Council approves the Shoreline Master Program, which is
comprised of the documents and proposed amended code provisions attached hereto as
Exhibits A-D, and directs the Department of Community and Economic Development to forward
the following documents to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval:
Exhibit A: Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit B: Shoreline Environment Overlays Map
Exhibit C: Shoreline Restoration Plan
Exhibit D: Amended Code Provisions:
• RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations;
• RMC 4-8-120C, Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications;
• RMC 4-8-120D, Definitions of Terms Use in Submittal Requirements for
Building, Planning, and Public Works Permit Applications;
• RMC 4-9-190, Shoreline Permits;
• RMC 4-10-095, Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses,
Activities, Structures, and Sites; and
• Chapter 4-11 RMC Definitions.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2010.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
9c. ‐ Approve the amended Shoreline Master Program and direct
forwarding to the Washington State Department of Ecology (See 8.b.)Page 203 of 212
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2010.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES:1465:6/30/10:scr
Denis Law, Mayor
9c. ‐ Approve the amended Shoreline Master Program and direct
forwarding to the Washington State Department of Ecology (See 8.b.)Page 204 of 212
Exhibits are on file with the City Clerk's office.
9c. ‐ Approve the amended Shoreline Master Program and direct
forwarding to the Washington State Department of Ecology (See 8.b.)Page 205 of 212
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTIONS 8-7-5, PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION, AND 8-7-8, VARIANCES AND
APPEAL, OF CHAPTER 7, NOISE LEVEL REGULATIONS, OF TITLE VIII (HEALTH
AND SANITATION) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON", TO DECRIMINALIZE
AND MAKE VIOLATIONS OF NOISE LEVEL REGULATIONS CIVIL INFRACTIONS,
AND AMEND THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO VARIANCES AND APPEALS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 8-7-5, Penalties for Violation, of Chapter 7, Noise Level
Regulations, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended as follows:
8-7-5 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION:
Except as otherwise provided, any person violating any portion violation of
this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor civil violation subject to RMC 1-3-2.
and may be punished by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months in jail,
by a fino of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine
and imprisonment. Any person violating RMC 8 7 3H of this Chapter shall be
guilty of a civil violation and may be punished by a fino of not more than seventy
five dollars ($75.00). Each day that a violation continues shall be considered a
separate offense. The penalties set forth herein shall not be deemed exclusive,
the City may obtain an injunction against such violation from the Superior Court
of King County. Any ordinance of the City inconsistent with any portions ofthis
9a. ‐ Amending noise level regulations (1st reading 8/16/2010)
Page 206 of 212
ORDINANCE NO.
Chapter is repealed except that any ordinance defining noise as a nuisance shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION II. Section 8-7-8, Variances and Appeal, of Chapter 7, Noise Level
Regulations, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended as follows:
8-7-8 VARIANCES AND APPEAL:
A. Jurisdiction: The Planning/Building/Public—Works Community and
Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee shall hear and decide
requests for variances from the requirements of this Chapter.
B. Application: Parties seeking a variance from this Chapter, or a duly
authorized representative of the parties seeking the variance, shall file an
application for the variance, which application shall set forth fully the grounds
therefor and the facts the applicant deems material to justify the granting of
such a variance. The applicant for a noise variance must be the owner or
jurisdiction in charge of the project. In no cases shall the applicant for the noise
variance be the contractor for the construction project.
C. Public Notice And Hearing: A public hearing shall be required for all noise
variances which are greater than two (2) days in duration. For those variance
requests of two (2) days or less in duration, the variance decision shall be made
by the Administrator or his/her designee following the public notice process. If
required, T-the hearing for a noise variance shall be a public hearing, the date of
which shall be not more than forty five (45) days from the date of filing and
9a. ‐ Amending noise level regulations (1st reading 8/16/2010)
Page 207 of 212
ORDINANCE NO.
acceptance of the application for the variance. Notice of the time and place of
public hearing shall be given and at least one publication in the City's legal
newspaper, which publication shall be not less than ten (10) days prior to the
date of said public hearing. In addition, three (3) written notices of such public
hearing shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to such hearing within, on or
about the location which will generate such noise. Additionally, written notice of
the hearing shall be given to any resident or property owner that will experience
an increase in noise, or potentially have an increase in noise, such that this
variance will increase the quantity of noise received by that property owner or
resident. The burden of providing this written notice shall be upon the applicant.
The Planning/Building/Public Works Community and Economic Development
Administrator or his/her designee shall not consider any variance for which
written notices have not been given, or grant any variance that would cause an
increase in noise levels beyond that permitted in this Chapter unless the affected
property owner or resident has been notified.
D. Factors For Granting Variance: The Planning/Building/Public Works
Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee, in
passing upon an application for a variance, shall consider all technical
evaluations, all relevant factors and standards specified in other sections ofthis
Chapter, and in addition thereto shall consider the following, none of which is
mandatory for the granting of the variance:
9a. ‐ Amending noise level regulations (1st reading 8/16/2010)
Page 208 of 212
ORDINANCE NO.
1. That the applicant will suffer an undue hardship and the variance is
necessary because of special circumstances applicable to the applicant's
property or project, and that the strict application of this Chapter will deprive
the subject property owner or applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by
others.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public health, welfare or safety, or unduly injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity of the location for which this variance is sought.
3. That the variance sought is the minimum variance which will
accomplish the desired purpose.
4. That the variance contains such conditions deemed to be necessary
to limit the impact of the variance on the residence or property owners impacted
by the variance. The variance approval may be subject to conditions including,
but not limited to the following:
a. Implementation of a noise monitoring program:
b. Maximum noise levels;
c. Limitation on types of equipment and use of particular
equipment;
d. Limitation on back-up beepers for equipment;
e. Required use of noise shields or barriers;
f. Restrictions to specific times and days;
9a. ‐ Amending noise level regulations (1st reading 8/16/2010)
Page 209 of 212
ORDINANCE NO.
g. Specific requirements for documentation of compliance with the
noise variance conditions;
h. Specific requirements for notification to nearby residents;
i. Required cash security to pay for inspection services to verify
compliance;
j. Required access to the project by the City to verify compliance
with the noise variance conditions;
k. Specific program to allow for temporary hotel vouchers to
effected residents;
I. Requirements for written verification that all workers understand
the noise variance conditions for the project; and
m. Provision allowing the City to immediately revoke the variance
approval is the variance conditions are violated.
5. The importance of the services provided by the facility creating the
noise and the other impacts caused to the public safety, health and welfare
balanced against the harm to be suffered by residents or property owners
receiving the increased noise permitted under this variance.
6. The availability of practicable alternative locations or methods for
the proposed use which will generate the noise.
7. The extent by which the prescribed noise limitations will be
exceeded by the variance and the extent and duration of the variance.
9a. ‐ Amending noise level regulations (1st reading 8/16/2010)
Page 210 of 212
ORDINANCE NO.
E. Findings and Conclusions of Planning/Building/Public Works Community
and Economic Development Administrator: The Planning/Building/Public Works
Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee shall
reduce his or her decision to written findings, conclusions and a decision. The
written findings, conclusions and decision shall include a section noting the right
of appeal from the decision to the City Council.
F. Appeals: Any party participating in the public hearing feeling aggrieved by
the decision of the Planning/Building/Public Works Community and Economic
Development Administrator or his/her designee may appeal the decision of the
Administrator to the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the decision.
The appeal document shall note the errors in findings or conclusions which the
appellant believes are material to the appeal. The Hearing Examiner shall
consider the appeal and shall affirm the decision of the Administrator unless the
Hearing Examiner finds that there are material errors in the findings or
conclusions, or that the decision is not supportable by the findings and
conclusions. If the Hearing Examiner finds such errors it shall reduce its decision
to writing specifying the findings and conclusions that are in error or stating that
the decision is not supportable by the findings and conclusions. Any party
remaining aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may further appeal
to the King County Superior Court within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the
date of the City Council's Hearing Examiner's decision.
9a. ‐ Amending noise level regulations (1st reading 8/16/2010)
Page 211 of 212
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty
(30) days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2010.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of _, 2010.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:1655:8/9/10:scr
9a. ‐ Amending noise level regulations (1st reading 8/16/2010)
Page 212 of 212