Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 03/24/2008 -.r AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL 410 REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: a. Public Works employee recognition b. Sister City visit to Nishiwaki 4. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket items: Commercial Office Residential, Assisted Living, Helipad, and Utilities Height 5. APPEAL: Planning& Development Committee Report re: T-Mobile Monopole Conditional Use Permit INABILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE TESTIMONY ON APPEALS DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING State law requires that the City establish a process to handle appeals from application of environmental and developmental rules and regulations. The Renton City Council, feeling it was best for the elected representatives to handle the appeals rather than require citizens to go to court, has retained appellate • jurisdiction to itself. The courts have held that the City Council,while sitting as an appellate body,is acting as a quasi-judicial body and must obey rules of procedure of a court more than that of a political body. By City Code, and by State law,the City Council may not consider new evidence in this appeal. The parties to the appeal have had an opportunity to address their arguments to the Planning & Development Committee of the City Council at a meeting previously held. Because of the court requirements prohibiting the City Council from considering new evidence,and because all parties have had an opportunity to address their concerns to the Planning& Development Committee,the City Council may not consider oral or written testimony at the City Council meeting. The Council understands that this is frustrating to citizens and is outside the normal process of open discourse provided to citizenry during the audience comment portion of the City Council meeting. However,this burden of not allowing the Council to be addressed concerning pending appeals is outweighed by the quick, easy, inexpensive and local appeal process provided by the Renton City Council. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 7. 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. • 8. 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. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/17/2008. Council concur. b. Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval to expand the Planning Commission from seven to nine members. Council concur. (See 10.a. for ordinance.) • c. Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of Title IV docket item 08-01: text amendment for Monopole I in residential zones and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. d. Human Services Division requests approval of an agreement with King County regarding the use of SHB (Substitute House Bill) 2060 local low income housing funds for the Regional Affordable Housing Program. Refer to Community Services Committee. e. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an agreement in the amount of$35,752 with Kleinfelder for the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension Project geotechnical services. Council concur. 9. 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; Capital Funding Financial Policy; Collection of Penalties and Interest for Non-Payment of Utility Tax*; Salary Grades for New and Existing Positions 10. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Ordinances for first reading: a. Increasing Planning Commission membership from seven to nine (see 8.b.) b. Collection of penalties and interest for non-payment of utility tax (see 9.a.) Ordinances for second and final reading: a. 2008 Budget amendment related to dry dock removal (1st reading 3/17/2008) b. Municipal Arts Commission revisions (1st reading 3/17/2008) •11. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 12. AUDIENCE COMMENT 13. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Conference Room 5:30 p.m. Emerging Issues in Community and Economic Development Council Chambers Approximately 6 p.m. Shoreline Master Program • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES.&THURS.AT 11 AM&9 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9 AM&7 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1 PM&9 PM • RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF MARCIE PALMER, Council President; GREG TAYLOR; RICH ZWICKER; COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERE; KING PARKER; DON PERSSON. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Community and Economic Development Administrator; ERIKA CONKLING, Senior Planner; ANGELA MATHIAS, Assistant Planner; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; SONJA MEJLAENDER, Community Relations and Event Coordinator; MARTY WINE,Assistant CAO; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT VAN HORNE and DEPUTY CHIEF MARK PETERSON, Fire Department; COMMANDER DAVID LEIBMAN, Police Department. SPECIAL Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman recognized the PRESENTATIONS Planning/Building/Public Works employees nominated and chosen by their Public Works: Employee peers to receive 2007 Good Work awards, as follows: Principal Financial and Recognition Administrative Analyst Nenita Ching, Engineering Specialist Jun Aesquivel, and Construction Inspector Pat Miller. Vehicle and Equipment Mechanic Tom Guesman was selected as the 2007 Planning/Building/Public Works Employee of the Year. Mr. Zimmerman then announced that the following employees who contributed to the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank project were awarded the 2007 Good Teamwork Award: Parks Director Leslie Betlach, Senior Planner Jill Ding(former employee);Utility Engineering Supervisor Dave Christensen, Mapping Coordinator Bob Mac Onie, Civil Engineer Allen Quynn, and Utility Engineering Supervisor Ron Straka. Community Services: Sister Community Relations and Event Coordinator Mejlaender introduced Roger City Visit to Nishiwaki, Japan Richert,Renton-Nishiwaki Sister City Committee Chairman,who reviewed the history and evolution of the Renton and Nishiwaki relationship,which began in 1969. Pointing out that the Renton-Nishiwaki Sister City Committee became an official committee of the City in 1994,Mr. Richert detailed the striking similarities between the two cities. Ms. Mejlaender named the 16 delegates who will visit Nishiwaki from April 5 to 12, and she reviewed the itinerary for the trip. In conclusion, Ms. Mejlaender and Assistant CAO Wine displayed the gift that will be presented to the Mayor of Nishiwaki during the trip, a glass blown square shaped platter from Uptown Glassworks to add to the collection of previous art given by the City of Renton. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Development accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to Regulations(Title IV) Docket consider revisions to the following City Code Title IV (Development March 24, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 93 Regulations)docket items: Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)Zone, Assisted Living,Helipads, and Utilities Height. Reporting on the docket item concerning the COR zone,Assistant Planner Mathias explained that each of the current three COR zone designations were generally assigned to single, large properties with unique attributes. The proposed revisions will consolidate the COR zone into one designation,place the COR zone in Urban Design District C, and place the COR zone with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations. Turning to the docket item concerning assisted living, Ms. Mathias stated that Renton currently does not have a definition for assisted living, and the proposal includes implementing a new definition for assisted living and for multi-family assisted living; revising the definition for convalescent centers; striking the retirement residences definition; applying density to assisted living facilities; allowing assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone; limiting assisted living facilities to 18 units in the R-1 and R-10 zones; and establishing parking standards of one space per unit,plus dedicated parking for facility fleet vehicles. Continuing, Ms. Mathias reviewed the proposed revisions to the height requirements for utilities, which include: allowing additional height for aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility facilities,treating public utility facilities exceeding 50 feet in height with public art, and adding language to allow administrative modification of setbacks and lot coverage to trigger site plan review. Senior Planner Conkling reported on the docket item concerning helipads. She indicated that helipads are currently allowed with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit in commercial, industrial, and urban center zones. Ms. Conkling noted that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)regulates helipad construction, siting, and all airspace issues, including the approach for take-offs and landings. Ms. Conkling explained that the proposed revision will allow helipads in the R- 8 zone, if accessory to a residential use,with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. The helipad use is limited to properties fronting Lake Washington, where one seaplane per residence is already allowed. Additionally, compliance with FAA regulations is required, and properties will be limited to one aircraft. In conclusion, Ms. Conkling reported that the Planning and Development Committee will review this group of docket items and then present a report to the full Council. She noted that the Environmental Review Committee's determination regarding the helipads has been appealed to the Hearing Examiner; therefore, the Committee will not review that docket item until the appeal issue has been settled. In response to Council inquiries,Ms. Mathias stated that the funding for graphic treatments on water tanks is usually part of a new construction budget or a maintenance upgrade, and the cost averages out to be approximately one percent of the budget. Ms. Conkling estimated that seven or eight of the lakefront properties may be eligible to have a helipad. She indicated that when approving private helipads, the FAA prohibits the allowance of an approach over a residential area; however,helicopters are not prohibited from flying over Kennydale Hill. Ms. Conkling explained that a helicopter would land on the ground unless it has pontoons. A seaplane lands on the water, is usually placed on a surface, and is pulled onto the lake and taxis off from there. Public comment was invited. .4 March 24, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 94 The following speakers spoke in support of the helipad proposal: Steve Maxwell (Renton); Robert Watson (Seattle); Marlene Winter(Renton); Dr. Paul Joos (Renton); Dorothy Simpson (Mercer Island); Gary Pipkin (Renton); Charlie Conner(Renton),who also submitted 46 support signatures and a support letter from Monica Fix (Renton); Gene Heuschel (Renton); Sharon Smith (Renton); Kim Bowden (Renton); Buzz Dana(Renton); Jerry Brennan (Renton); Brian Fife (Renton); Joe Boehme (Renton); Tom Dahlby (Renton); Don Jacobson(Renton); Marc Pritchard (Renton); Don Savoy (Renton); John Hempelmann (Seattle); Kelly Grace(Renton); Steve Porter(Renton); Mike Holmes (Renton); Steve Miller(Renton); Jim Hess(Renton); Bob Goetz (Renton); Carrie Krape(Renton); Pat Dana(Renton);Kevin Iden (Renton); and Bill Stoneman(Renton). Support comments indicated that the lakefront community will be a more interesting place to live due to all of the activity; the noise is minimal;the neighborhood will be improved;the lake is enjoyed in many ways, which includes the use of aircraft; space requirements to land helicopters are very restrictive; safe environment in which to operate helicopters; zoning revision will result in only a few helipads; Renton is a progressive city; property values will be enhanced; helicopters will add to the character of the City; increased quality of life; reflection of Renton's aviation history; requirement for conditional use permit will shepherd the use of helicopters in this area; the majority of the City of Issaquah's helicopter rules are FAA requirements; and helicopters are under the control of the Renton Airport unlike at other cities. Other comments included: important to maintain affected properties' seaplane sites and that potential use for any future owners; helipads should be considered in the same manner as seaplane sites; helicopter approaches are not allowed over Kennydale Hill; air traffic issues are regulated by the FAA;potential usefulness of helicopters during public disaster situations;property rights maintained; lack of notice for public hearing;preference for City to use the administrative conditional use permit process; and helicopters are not operated when the weather is marginal. The following speakers spoke in opposition of the proposal: Joanie Rosling (Renton), John DuBois (Renton),Pegi Galster(Renton),Victoria Kapetan (Renton), Kim Loulias (Renton),Bill Johnson (Renton), John Middlebrooks (Renton), Brian Shine(Renton),Trudy Neumann(Renton), and Mark Hancock (Seattle). Objections included increased noise; helipads will only benefit a few people to the detriment of the entire Kennydale neighborhood; helicopters require considerable skill and continued practice to fly; the lack of a noise study; decreased property values;public safety concerns; reduced quality of life; large amount of noise already endured in the neighborhood; lack of tangible benefits for the entire City; and the efforts of the Renton Airport Advisory Committee are countered. Other comments indicated that the Renton Airport is nearby, therefore private helipads are not needed; the City of Issaquah has numerous rules regarding the operation of helicopters; the environmental issues have been overlooked; the allowance of helicopters with floats reduces safety hazard; helicopters do not belong in residential neighborhoods or on the water front; large birds may present safety hazard to the helicopter;water-based helipad should be required; legal issue concerns if an accident occurs;helicopters fly over Kennydale Hill and cause disruptions; even distribution of the costs and benefits of the t March 24,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 95 disruptions to people's lives is needed; helicopters are dangerous and noisy; the conditional use permit process creates and continues confusion;preference for a third party to test the helicopter noise; and a better ordinance is needed. Correspondence in support of the helipad proposal was acknowledged from Thomas R. Dahlby and Kathleen I. Dahlby (Renton). Correspondence in opposition to the proposal was acknowledged from the following: Sandy Reisman(city of residence unknown); Thomas and Judith Skillman(Renton); Kim Loulias (Renton); Paul and Tami Skelton (Renton); Jodi Watson (Renton); Linda Fry (city of residence unknown); Robert L. Undsderfer(Renton); Betty Childers and Steve Denison (Renton); John Middlebrooks (Renton); Mary Lowry and Mike Lowry (Renton); and Joanie Rosling (Renton). Correspondence regarding the proposal was also acknowledged from Steve F. (city of residence unknown) and Marleen Mandt (city of residence unknown). There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:12 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:17 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Corman,previously excused. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker announced that the hearing Planning& Development regarding the T-Mobile monopole conditional use permit appeal was continued Committee to April 4 at 1:30 p.m. Appeal: Monopole Conditional Use Permit, T-Mobile, CU-07- 065 AUDIENCE COMMENT Pegi Galster(Renton) requested that before making a decision on the matter of Citizen Comment: Galster- the proposed zoning revision that would allow helipads in certain R-8-zoned Title IV Docket Review, properties, the City hire a consultant to conduct a noise study. She also urged Helipads Council to read the documentation she submitted regarding noise. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/17/2008. Council concur. 3/17/2008 Board/Commission: Planning Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval to Commission Membership expand the Planning Commission from seven to nine members. Council concur. Expansion (See page 97 for ordinance.) Planning: Development Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of Regulations (Title IV) Docket Title IV docket item 08-01: text amendment for Monopole I in residential zones Review and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Human Services: Regional Human Services Division requested approval of an agreement with King Affordable Housing Program County regarding the use of SHB (Substitute House Bill)2060 local low income Fund Usage, King County housing funds for the Regional Affordable Housing Program. Refer to Community Services Committee. Utility: White Fence Ranch Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the amount Sewer Extension Geotechnical of$35,752 with Kleinfelder for the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension Services, Kleinfelder Project geotechnical services. Council concur. March 24,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 96 MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance Committee Claim Vouchers 270147 - 270645 and two wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $4,204,144.65; and approval of 183 Payroll Vouchers, one wire transfer, and 702 direct deposits totaling $2,543,348.68. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Utility Tax Non- Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Payment, Penalty and Interest concurrence with the staff recommendation that the City Code be amended to Collection provide for interest and penalties for late payment of utility taxes due to the City. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 97 for ordinance.) Finance: Capital Funding Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding capital funding Financial Policy Financial Management Policies revisions. As a result of the review of Fund Balance Reserves and the annual Capital Improvement Plan, the Committee recommended that the Financial Management Policies be revised as follows: 1. Add the Farmers Market Fund previously approved by Ordinance 5360. 2. Add a new internal service fund for City facilities enabling the tracking and planning for expenses related to providing facilities for use by City staff. 3. Revise the capital project budget process to provide for project length budgeting of capital projects. This will eliminate the need to break a long- term capital project into annual budget increments and improve reporting. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Human Resources: Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Reclassifications (7 Positions), concurrence in the staff recommendation to reclassify positions and create pay Application Support Manager ranges for City departments effective 1/1/2008. Funds to implement this Hire recommendation are provided in the 2008 Budget. The positions are as follows: Civil Engineer I (vacant),grade a19 to a21, no budget change. Recreation Supervisor to Recreation Manager(vacant), grade m25 to m28, no budget change. Lead Building Inspector(new position), a24, no budget change. Lead Code Compliance Inspector(new position), a22,no budget change. Planning Director(new position), m38, no budget change. Water Utility Instrumentation/SCADA Technician, al 9,no budget change. Risk Manager(new position),m30,no budget change. Additionally,the Committee concurred with the staff recommendation to permit the filling of the Application Support Manager position on 3/17/2008 in anticipation of the retirement of a long-term City employee on 5/1/2008, in order to facilitate a smooth transaction. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Vice Chair Persson presented a report Committee regarding SE Petrovitsky Rd. and SE Carr Rd. street names. The Committee Streets: Renaming, SE met to discuss a request to review the street naming for the SE Petrovitsky Rd., Petrovitsky Rd& SE Carr Rd SE Carr Rd., and S. 176th St. arterial route through the Benson Hill March 24,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 97 Communities Annexation area. The newly annexed area had these three different names for the same arterial route. The street names in the City of Renton are designated by City Code, Chapter 11, Street Grid System. For most of the Benson Hill Communities Annexation area, the street names remained unchanged following annexation. City Code Section 9-11-6.A.3 does require that the segments of SE Can Rd., SE 176th St., and SE Petrovitsky Rd. be renamed SE Carr Rd., west of 108th Ave. SE, and SE Petrovitsky Rd., east of 108th Ave. SE. These changes have been made by City staff, which affects 27 property owners in the annexation area. These street names correspond to the existing street names on the route east and west of the annexation area. • The Committee recommended that no further action be taken at this time on street name changes for this arterial route. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Added MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL BRING Resolution #3937 FORWARD THE ADDED RESOLUTION REGARDING SUPPORT FOR Transportation: I-405 Corridor THE I-405 CORRIDOR PROGRAM. CARRIED. Program Support A resolution was read reaffirming Renton's support of the I-405 Corridor Program record of decision finalized in October 2002, particularly full implementation of the bus rapid transit concept. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Councilmember Persson indicated that this matter has been discussed several times in Committee of the Whole. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/7/2008 for second and final reading: Board/Commission: Planning An ordinance was read amending Chapter 10,Planning Commission, of Title II Commission Membership (Commissions and Boards) of City Code by increasing the membership of the Expansion Planning Commission from seven to nine. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/7/2008. CARRIED. Finance: Utility Tax Non- An ordinance was read amending Section 2,Utility Tax; When Due, of Chapter Payment, Penalty and Interest 11,Utility Tax, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of City Code by Collection adding two new subsections, "A," Penalties For Nonpayment, and "B," Interest. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/7/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5364 An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget, allocating $200,000 from EDNSP: Dry Docks Removal the unallocated reserve fund balance from 2007 for derelict vessel removal Waiver of Permit Fees, Budget projects. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL Amend ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. March 24, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 98 Ordinance#5365 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 8, Municipal Arts Commission,of Board/Commission: Municipal Title II (Commissions and Boards)of City Code by introducing a five-year Arts Commission Revisions Master Plan for Arts and Culture; clarifying how funding is established and adjusted for the 1% for Art Fund; and scheduling the annual review of the two- year plan for projects slated for the 1% for Art Fund, to be completed during the annual City budget preparation process. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT In response to the inquiry of Chuck Gitchel (Renton)regarding the T-Mobile Citizen Comment: Gitchel - monopole conditional use permit appeal, Councilmember Parker stated that the Monopole Conditional Use Planning and Development Committee will present its recommendation Permit Appeal, T-Mobile, CU- regarding the matter to the full Council on April 7. 07-041 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:39 p.m. /(}Lz.t -7L-2 Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann March 24, 2008 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR =. Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 24, 2008 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 3/31 No Meeting (5th Monday) (Palmer) MON., 4/07 Emerging Issues in Transportation; 6 p.m. Regional Committees and Issues Update *Council Conference Room* COMMUNITY SERVICES MON., 4/07 Lee Chicoine Appointment to Airport (Briere) 5 p.m. Advisory Committee; Regional Affordable Housing Program Agreement with King County FINANCE (Persson) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 4/03 City Code Title IV (Development (Parker) 3 p.m. Regulations) Docket; Annexation Fees FRI., 4/04 Appeal of T-Mobile Monopole 1:30 p.m. Conditional Use Permit *Council Chambers* PUBLIC SAFETY MON., 4/07 CANCELLED (Taylor) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 3/27 CANCELLED (Corman) UTILITIES THURS., 4/03 CANCELLED (Zwicker) NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. , _ . . ...,,,- , „, ,•'' -- == rl' Planning i‘,,,,,2,--,-•_•, :.,,.i' d'. Utility Systems 4 Building Ii1 lding , „ , vsq,‘....t.*:: , ' Nenita l Ching Public works Principal Financial &Administrative EloYee A True Team . • . I M 1016 „. . , , r 0 k I 1001 0 Mi Pmlapyer and -;.'-il',,-4;'','',;t';,',,'-,;'•'''•,'•1'2.1'-','',,,i>':,,.,,';,„,,4,,,',,,'--',,:..-.A,-':.4;'-;',=4-..7.1„.'''•2.,'*1-,'1,"-,i,-,-A1,,a7t!-,;,l,''7,ia:',t::''*,1,,:'k-,"':,.-'-'.,:2'',-‘:,:-: ii1I' Transportation n, ...;,..:,, 1' Development Systems Services Junuivel , . Pat Miller Engineering Construction Specialistlit1Inspector Approa:hable,Dependable , Professional and Responsible ir,andDilo:atic „ Provides llent Customer CelebratsCheetahsBirthda Birthday Service • • (Tarn,sFamous Chimpanzee) Really Cares About the City's Image Excellent Sense of Humor .. — • -,:' -'- ,. MaintenanceDivision Tom Guesmipmanent ,.. & Equipment VehicleMechanic •,V;;*'-,- :1.:- r•,,,‘, : 1 2007 Planning , :----:.4.,!,..,k, 4 4•-•' Employe/Bellioldfintgh/peu IfbliecaWro1rks professional •'-'-'" -.S. , -, ,,,„ , , :'': ';,„:4;;,-:!‘:::'"Ili- ' S' provides Excellent and A machanical Expert ••• '''''' . •4' • ''t ,.,',- ..—, „.,- k '4.„*.--i:',!' ,, *:2 • ; ,,./4,1 ' ' ' :"1.10411.Z4,14 - •, - :!**11::: .4,' . ,,,,s,1.-F-P - ' ‘0.- .. , ==, -,, • .....„ . ;N::4.--, .t-4• . 1 .. . - L 7 t' • ' ' .. • . -, -r ---.--77" '`6, ' '2774 "7""---;" :" , ,„:, ,. ,,. ...il„-•,.. , , ..., _ , ,,.•, .:-. • :,, .., ,, ,,, ,. .,,,,.,,, ,,,: 1 - .,,,'', .: '-stiirtribbrookWetlarIcki, ,,;•,::, ., :. , - , , - - -t-i.,, , ,-,',1 .,• „...,. ...T.,,,i.-:, ,,...-,-,m, .-L... i..-:k‘i,t1,; Gotifi'TeatilWOrkMifard , ,, 22:.,,,--i.:;:,:i,.,..,: ,,-,ifi,,;•-,1„J•6•.,-,; ,4,,,.,4,,..:11.t.yot;loi , ti f;,,,.-A .r -,, . r;•;,5-,•,'--e'l",,:. ,,,,...,,',...-,;, 0",'•: „Y,Ar'.'": t'..'*;' ' I ,V .''OVii4",.';;:,-','''.''''A'::;.„:4,,„,„!,:y1• :::,,,,,,,,,„$ , ;1 r;1,1:-I'''?..;:k:,.,. . 1•1:-.V.-f,t,, . i 1,''''''''''";4r."-.1'4.4,-Z'4"'•',•:::"4-:;;W:IX-it,ez.'4;it,,,.,,'",- X P ."V"..,,,, ,...-..,t ,,:-- -,-- ,„, . 0*-. -•.' '• ,,,c3Z,14;r4V2: :t141A-, ,,‘,-; 7.,,,,,_, •.‘,:.: Y--", . i : :. '.=.' i','',, A '',* -..•4',*.iI -'-;:. •5';*,;.' ''.":'''. .tk,:.‘WIN! '•" -SsIrfg' -''''-"J i......1i.&* g_g'L.....;..., .........)...,i., 44'''S;;;;,-X1';', ::,i'',''‘I''e.kk.'../I*4.,70•,,,*kitOpi: , I . LI ,'''''''"..:''".:,;;..'';t1 t' , •:*•••••.- ,,,.' '-'::''' Ar,'*']:. 1 ',:"*•••, :.:.] f;',..;, ,::--41'.1!4:• ' erg,..E*' "'1.4 '' 11 1 ..,...... ......,..,: tink ''''-k;.:'•''''',, 1 1''72..•:.,..7::• .;i:''.'_,1 tt 1110105 Ili l'el,krA '• '''!:":',''/:','.% Leslie Betlach,Community Services Dave Christensen,Utility Systems 'f'.„,-,•*:....2A' ' 1:::q.l.''';',,•-I": i *- . 41 .,,,, .• . i• - OP' '':4-4 4 ' ' ''R'-:: '' ii ,••- ,. '• ' I& .: it ' *Or''''': ,,, 1;:,-.- : ..,:fir ‘41 -''i!:,.::.•,,4;;,i''•‘'.‘ '*.' :•4‘ *': ,' ':::.0'1 '"'"....,'V.A -4,e '.••• . . z I: •,,, t i'k.o :.:.,..,--, , --'.- oo o III ..°A-10t1 Bob Mac Onie Allen Quynn Ron Straka Technical Services Utility Systems Utility Systems 4; Congratulations and Thank You! 2 ,4^ • C.) , • • 14>NT-r0� 2008 DOCKET PUBLIC HEARING March 24, 2008 1. COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL (COR) ZONE CODE AMENDMENT Currently, in the City of Renton there are three different COR zones (COR 1, COR 2, COR 3) with varied development standards. These three different designations have two different maximum densities, two different bonus possibilities, and different criteria to achieve those bonuses. The intent of having three different COR zones was to address the varied conditions of the sites including their environmentally sensitive features, but also to address their potential for large and significant development. Many of the COR parcels are largely built out with projects that are completed or underway making the specialized need for three different sub-zones no longer necessary. Consolidating the COR zone into one designation is appropriate and simplifies existing code. Applying a minimum density of 30 dwelling units/acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre is appropriate in fostering the Comprehensive Plan intension of creating compact urban development. The proposed standards are outline below. Additionally, in order to ensure that the development that occurs fulfills the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the COR zone should be place in Design District C. Proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commision has recommended that the Planning and Development Committtee consider them. . RECOMMENDATION: • Consolidate the three existing COR zones into one zone: o Eliminate the height and density bonus provisions o Set the minimum density at 30 du/acre o Set maximum density at 50 du/acre o Place two associated footnotes regarding upper story setback and facade modulation in the development regulations table o Strike instances of COR 1, COR 2, or COR 3 and replace with COR • Place the COR zone in Urban Design District C • Place the COR zone with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations 2. ASSISTED LIVING CODE AMENDMENT The City of Renton currently does not have a definition for assisted living. However, there are definitions for retirement residence and convalescent centers. Assisted living is a type of housing for older people that has been in place for a number of years, the City needs to respond and include a new definition for this housing type and implement some new standards regarding this type of housing. Assisted living facilities develop with smaller unit sizes and with a different unit mix than the average apartment building. This makes it appropriate to allow assisted living facilities a ratio to apply to the maximum density of the zone they seek to build in. The amount of parking required at assisted living facilities needs to be higher than the requirements for a convalescent center because residents do bring cars. However, not all residents of assisted living facilities have cars. A requirement of one parking space per one residential unit will balance the parking needs for staff and guests with the cars brought with residents. Finally, limitations on the maximum number assisted living residential units allowed in the R- 1 zone are appropriate to ensure the residential character of that zone. Proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commision has recommended that the Planning and Development Committtee consider them. RECOMMENDATION: • • Implement a definition for assisted living that allows kitchens in units and indicates that the staff administers an element of personal care to residents. • Revise the definition for convalescent centers so that the distinction between assisted living and convalescent is clear and identifies that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care. • Implement a new definition for multi-family assisted living. • Apply density to assisted living facilities,but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. o Example: an assisted living facility that wanted to locate in the RMF zone would determine density by multiplying 1.5 x 20 to determine a maximum number of residential units of 30. • Replace retirement residences with assisted living in the zoning use tables. Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. Limit assisted living facilities in the R-1 and R-10 zone to a maximum of 18 total residential units per acre. • Require 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living,plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. 3. HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with an approved conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a note on the zoning use table that limits sites to a single aircraft, restricts the use to properties along Lake Washington, and direct helipads to be in compliance with FAA guidelines. In summer 2007, the City was alerted to the operation of a helipad from a residential property along Lake • Washington. Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are allowed in that area,but helipads are prohibited in the R-8 zone. A line in the zoning use table (RMC 4-2-060) allows helipads as an accessory use in a number of commercial and industrial zones (IL, IM, IH, CA, CO, COR, UC-N1 and UC-N2) with an approved Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Several property owners along Lake Washington have expressed their support for aviation uses in general, and specifically for helicopters, in their neighborhood. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates helipads and has jurisdiction over air traffic. FAA approval of a helipad includes an aeronautical study of the pad's construction and dimensions, the approach to the pad (which must not be over any residential property), and known flight paths. Aeronautical studies are based on the specific aircraft to be used on the site, so the exact dimensions necessary to safely operate a helipad can vary. However, even with a very small helicopter, only about nine properties along Lake Washington would have enough space for a helipad (unless the existing home was significantly reduced in size). Conditional use permits are subject to review criteria in RMC 4-9-030, which includes consideration of: compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need, effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and theproduction of noise andglare. Conditional use permits g can include reasonable conditions, such as limitation on hours of operation, that address community concerns and ensure that the use is safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. Renton has both an Administrative and a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. Both include public notification, but the latter allows for an open public hearing and a better opportunity for public involvement. FAA and City measures should ensure that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit • • Planning Commission recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. 4. MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR UTILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES BACKGROUND: • R-8zones are two stories and 30 feet. Above ground and Height in Renton's R-1, R-4, and o elevated water tanks cannot meet these standard heights due to the operational and functional uses of the facilities. • Public facilities are defined in the Renton Municipal Code as: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water system;storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreation facilities, schools,public buildings • In the past, variances have been granted to height standards for the construction of new public facilities in residential zones. However, the variance is not the correct zoning tool to use in this instance because variances are property specific, and findings are required for hardship based on the physical constraints of the parcel. • The Hearing Examiner requested this code amendment. RECOMMENDATION: • Allow additional height for aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility facilities. o 175 feet for aboveground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, a water treatment facility to the highest point of the water storage reservoir. o 50 feet maximum height for water facilities, such as water treatment facilities, and pump stations. • Allow additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the administrative site plan review process. • Allow modification to lot coverage through the administrative site plan review process. • Require graphic treatment of water tanks. o Public art to be reviewed by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission • Cost of public art on water tanks o Staff contacted three regional water utility providers with murals on water tanks (City of Tacoma, Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District, and Northshore Utility District) and a Renton-based artist who has painted more than a dozen murals on water tanks in the Puget Sound area. o Usually part of a new construction budget or a maintenance upgrade. o $30,000 for 3-million gallon tank up to 65 feet tall for a two colors tree pattern 360°in circumference. o $18,000 for design and painting and covered 180°of the tank's circumference. o Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District has recently cleaned and painted a 7- million gallon tank with a mural for$25,000. City of Renton City Council Docket Item 06-07 Public Hearing Commercial-Office- Docket Items: Residential COR Zone,Assisted Living,Helipads, Zone and Utilities Height ,,CY 0 March 24,2008 Background Consolidation ■ Three COR zone designations. • Standards will generally remain the same(height, • Stoneway Concrete(1),Port Quendall(2),and the uses,etc.) area of Southport and Fry's(3). • Staff and the Planning Commission recommend • Each different designation was generally the following changes: assigned to single large properties with unique • Establishment of parking standards for the COR zone attributes. that are the same as other multi-family zones. • Most properties have been built out or have projects • Elimination of a height bonus and a density bonus. underway. • Set minimum density 30 du/acre and maximum density be 50 du/acre. • Docket request was to consolidate these 3 •A higher minimum and maximum facilitates the designations and implement Comp Plan policies. comprehensive Plan objective and goals of the COR zone for the creation of development that is compact and urban(Objective LU-WV). Consolidation (cont.) • Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following changes(cont): Docket Item 06-28 • Include the COR in design district C to ensure that Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives for the COR zone are met. Assisted Living •Development should be cohesive,high quality,and landmark developments that create a prominent identity (Objective LU-VW) •Also,helps ensure that the additional density is accommodated in a visually appealing way. 1 Background Recommendation • There is no definition for Assisted living • Staff and the Planning Commission recommend • This land use has generally been accommodated as the following changes: retirement residences. • Implement a new definition for Assisted living and Multi- • However,in practice kitchens are a key component family assisted living. Also,revise definition for and this land use needs to be defined. Convalescent centers and strike Retirement residences. • Proposed changes comply with the • Count Assisted living towards density,but allow a bonus PY P g of 1.5x base density. Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. •Based on smaller unit sizes and different unit mix • Offer a variety of housing types for a population ■ Allow in R-14 zone. diverse in age,income,and lifestyle.(Land Use goal 7d) • Establish parking standards of 1 space per unit,plus dedicated parking for facility fleet vehicles. Recommendation (cont.) • Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following changes(cont.): Docket Item 07-01 • Limit assisted living to 18 units in the R-1 and R-10 zones •This is to balance the intent of the zone with other allowed Height Requirement for uses.(Retirement residences were not limited by density.) g •"prohibit the development of uses that may be detrimental to Utilities the residential or natural environment" •Bed and breakfast houses(maximum 10 guest rooms) •Convalescent centers(No maximum number of residents) • 10 guest room maximum for Bed and Breakfast+2 bedrooms for proprietor x 1.5=18 Background Recommendation • Docket request to evaluate the height requirements for water system facilities. • Planning Commission and Staff recommend the • City's new water tower in the Highlands required a following changes: variance for approval. • Amend height standards: • City Hearing Examiner requested a code amendment •Up to 175 ft.-towers be processed to provide new standard. •Up to 50 ft.-water treatment facilities • Proposed changes comply with Comp Plan • Public utility facilities exceeding 50 ft.in height shall be policies and objectives. treated with public art. • Objective LU-R: Locate and plan to benefit potential •Reviewed by the Renton Arts Commission public uses. • Add language allowing administrative modification of • Policy LU-79: Guide and modify development of setbacks and lot coverage to trigger site plan review. essential public facilities to meet Comp Plan policies and mitigate impacts and costs to the City. 2 Recommendation ■ Graphic treatment of towers Docket / • Renton Utilities,Soos Creek,and Water District 90 were contacted. ; Item 0715 •Either no response(90),graphic treatment is acceptable(Renton),or tr` already doing(Soos Creek). • • Estimated costs: Helipads •Tacoma:$18,000 for 180°of the tank. •Mural Design(local company): $30,000 for 360°of the tank. Issue Analysis '--�,- • Should helipads be allowed in the R-8 ■ FM regulates pad construction and siting and all (Residential—eight units per net acre)zone airspace issues,including approach for take-off along Lake Washington? and landing • Helipads are allowed with a Hearing Examiner • One sea plane is allowed per residence along the conditional use permit in commercial,industrial, Lake,so aircraft uses are well established there and urban center zones • Lake front property owners overwhelmingly support the proposed amendment • Aircraft uses are an important aspect of the quality of life of this neighborhood Community Concerns Recommendation • Concern expressed that the proposal does not • Allow helipads in the R-8 zone,if accessory to a have enough regulations,but the City does not residential use,with a Hearing Examiner have jurisdiction over airspace Conditional Use Permit • Conditional Use process is an effective tool • Limit use to properties fronting Lake Washington, • Noise on Kennydale Hill comes from aircraft where aircraft are already a customary use traffic over the lake,regardless of landing area • Require compliance with FM requirements • Limit properties to one aircraft • • Supported by the Planning Commission 3 Next Steps for This Docket Group • Planning and Development Committee Recommendation • City Council Action 1`tY O 117 4 - Docket Item 06-07: Commercial Office Residential (COR) Zone Code Amendments Background: Currently, in the City of Renton there are three different COR zones (COR 1, COR 2, COR 3) with varied development standards. These three different designations have two different maximum densities, two different bonus possibilities, and different criteria to achieve those bonuses. When the three COR designations were established each different designation was generally assigned to single large properties abutting Lake Washington and the Cedar River. The intent was to address the varied conditions of the sites including their environmentally sensitive features, but also to address their potential for large and significant development. Those three areas in general were: Stoneway Concrete, Port Quendall, and the area of Southport and Fry's. Several of those properties have been developed or are currently being developed, making the specialized sub-zones unnecessary. These code revisions eliminate some of the length of Title IV and help to ensure fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan purpose and objectives for the COR zone. Summary of proposed changes: • Consolidate the three existing COR zones into one zone: - Eliminate the height and density bonus provisions - Set the minimum density at 30 du/acre - Set maximum density at 50 du/acre - Place two associated footnotes regarding upper story setback and façade modulation in the development regulations table - Strike instances of COR 1, COR 2, or COR 3 and replace with COR • Place the COR zone in Urban Design District C • Place the COR zone with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations Available Appeals: Appeals regarding these zoning text changes can be made to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. ��y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, �s NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC •a ' ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-07 Commercial-Office-Residential Zone ISSUES: Should COR 1, COR 2, and COR 3 be consolidated into one COR zone? What is the appropriate minimum density for a consolidated Commercial-Office- Residential (COR) zone? What is the appropriate maximum density for a consolidated Commercial-Office-Residential (COR) zone? Should the Urban Center Design gn guidelines be applied to the COR zone? RECOMMENDATION: Consolidate the three COR zones into one zoning designation. • Based on Comprehensive Plan policies establish an appropriate minimum density (30 dwelling units/acre) and apply the maximum density of the COR 3 zone (50 dwelling units/acre) as a standard to all of the COR. Place the consolidated COR zone in the Urban Center Design District C. BACKGROUND: Consolidation of Three COR Designations Currently, in the City of Renton there are three different COR zones (COR 1, COR 2, COR 3) with varied development standards. These three different designations have two different maximum densities, two different bonus possibilities, and different criteria to achieve those bonuses. The exiting three COR zones are outlined below. COR1 COR2 COR3 Location Stoneway Concrete Port Quendall Southport and Fry's Minimum Density Mixed use— 16 du/acre Mixed use— 16 du/acre Mixed use— 16 du/acre Other —5 du/acre Other—5 du/acre Other—5 du/acre Maximum Density 25 du/acre 25 du/acre 50 du/acre Density bonus Up to 5 du/acre Up to 2 du/acre None Criteria Provision of balance of Provision of: None height,bulk,and density •Continuous pedestrian access to shoreline •Additional 25' H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc shoreline setback •Establishment of view corridor •Establishment of water related uses •Daylighting of piped streams Maximum Height 10 stories/125 ft. 10 stories/125 ft. 10 stories/125 ft. (if there is a balance in (75 ft when within 100 height,bulk,and ft of shoreline) density) Height Bonus Amount of additional None None height not specified Criteria Provision of any of the None None following: •Pedestrian access to shoreline •5 affordable units/50 units •Additional 25' shoreline setback •Establishment of view corridor •Establishment of water related uses Table 1: Existing COR Zones and Standards When the three COR designations were established each different designation was generally assigned to single large properties. The intent was to address the varied conditions of the sites including their environmentally sensitive features, but also to address their potential for large and significant development. Those three areas in general were: Stoneway Concrete, Port Quendall, and the area of Southport and Fry's. Several of those properties have been developed or are currently being developed. The parcels that were in the COR 3 zone were rezoned as Urban Center North 1 in 2005. Currently, those parcels are largely built out with projects that are completed or underway. The COR 2 zone has two projects that are underway, leaving only one parcel in the COR 2 designation. This leaves only the COR 1 as a COR designation that bears the same conditions that were in place when the COR zones were assigned. These conditions make the specialized need for three different sub-zones no longer particularly useful or necessary. Additionally, the critical areas and shoreline updates supercede the need to address the environmentally sensitive features of the three different sites also making three different sub-zones unnecessary. It is recommended that the three different sub-zones be consolidated into one COR zone. Minimum Density The purpose statement of the COR designation is: "The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) designation provides opportunities for large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multi family projects developed through a master plan and site plan process incorporation significant site amenities and/or features. COR sites are typically H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc transitions from an industrial use to a more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake Washington and/or the Cedar River". Currently, the minimum density in COR depends on the type of development: 16 dwelling units/acre for mixed-use and 5 dwelling units/acre for any other type of development. Originally, the designation was not intended to develop with single use projects, but the practicality of listing the allowed uses on the zoning table lead to the interpretation that single uses were allowed. However, the minimum density of 5 dwelling units/acre for projects when they are residential does not meet the purpose or intent of the designation. The Comprehensive Plan states the objective for the COR designation is for the development in the zone be "high quality, landmark developments" (Objective LU- VVV). Further, "the intention (of the COR zone) is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity" (Objective LU- VVV). This objective makes it clear that the City intends for development in the COR designation to be urban in its features and densities while helping to promote the image of the City as a whole. Criteria number one for mapping the COR designation is for there to be `potential for redevelopment, or a sufficient amount of vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development" (Policy LU-406). The Comprehensive Plan is silent on specifics for minimum densities in the COR. However, a minimum of 5 dwelling units/acre is not typically development that is compact or of a type that results in significant concentration. Therefore, in order to ensure development in COR is compact, urban, and of significant concentration, it is recommended that the minimum density for the consolidated COR zone be 30 dwelling units/acre. Maximum Density The Comprehensive Plan policies specify that the "maximum residential density at COR designated sites should range between 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre" (Policy LU-417). Currently, the range of maximum densities of the three COR zones is between 25 — 50 dwelling units per acre. This bottom threshold of 25 dwelling units/acre for the existing range does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan stated policies of a range of maximum density that starts at 30. The Comprehensive Plan objective and policy that were relevant for establishing the minimum density are also appropriate to the establishment of the maximum density. Therefore, in order to ensure development in COR is compact, urban, and of significant concentration, it is recommended that the maximum density for the consolidated COR zone be 50 dwelling units/acre. Development Standards The stated objective of the COR zone is "development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations should be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity (Objective LU-VVV). The standards sought in Urban Design District C are intended to encourage development that is urban in character, adds ascetic appeal to the community, and encourages active and lively uses. The elements included in these standards apply to features such as: building entry, gateway features, parking, pedestrian features, landscaping, and building architectural design. These standards are of the nature that the City seeks for the COR H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc zone as outlined in Policy LU-421. "Commercial/Office/Residential developments should have a combination of internal and external site design features, such as:public plazas, prominent architectural features, public access to natural features or views, distinctive focal features, indication of the function as a gateway, if appropriate, structured parking, and other features meeting the spirit and intent of the COR designation. "(Policy LU-421). Therefore, in order to help ensure that the development that occurs in the COR zone meets the stated policies and objective it is recommended that the COR zoning designation be placed in the Urban Center Design District C. The City would like to retain two of the development standards of the COR 3 zone that further help to ensure that development meets the stated policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. First, the COR 3 zone requires setbacks on upper stories that are taller than fifty feet. It requires projects taller than fifty feet setback the fifth story and succeeding stories a minimum of ten feet from the preceding story. Second, the City would like to retain the modulation/articulation requirements of COR 3. Specifically, it requires that buildings that are immediately adjacent to or abutting a public park, open space, or trail provide vertical and horizontal modulation of rooflines and facades. The modulation is required to occur at an interval of every forty feet with a minimum two feet wide modulation on the building face. This modulation and articulation is important to all locations of the COR zone, not simply in the locations that are in proximity to public parks, etc. These development standards should both be retained in the consolidated COR zone. The COR zone is not identified in the number of required parking spaces table in Title IV. This needs to be resolved appropriately. The proposed standards for the COR zone closely match the use for attached dwellings outside the downtown core in the CD, RM- U, RM-T, UC-N1, and UC-N2 zones. The parking requirements for atached dwellings in these zones are: 1.8 parking spaces per 3 bedrooms or larger units, 1.6 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit, and 1.2 parking spaces per 1 bedroom or studio. Staff recommends placin the COR zone in with these zones, so that the aforementioned standards apply to the COR zone in the future. Elimination of the Bonus Criteria The bonus criteria that are currently included in the COR zone are generally associated with shoreline regulations. These bonus criteria were developed in 1993; prior to revisions of the shoreline regulations that make several of the items listed as bonus criteria mandatory. Additionally, the City has begun a new process to rewrite the shoreline regulations. The State has directed municipalities to achieve a balance of the natural, recreational, and economic uses of shorelines in their shoreline regulations. This current initiative is expected to ensure that all of the items that are included as bonus criteria will be encompassed in the regulations. The remaining bonus criterion is targeted towards affordable housing. To achieve a height bonus, one of the options is to provide five units of affordable housing per every fifty units of market rate housing. The City defines affordable housing as: "Housing used as a primary residence for any household whose income is less than eight percent (80%) H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc of the median annual income adjusted for household size, as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area, and who pay no more than thirty percent (30%) of household income for housing expenses. Affordable housing used to satisfy zoning requirements, whether for inclusionary or bonus provisions, must be secured to remain affordable in perpetuity, as determined by the City Attorney." This bonus in the COR zone has never been used. The R-14 zone also has a density bonus. One of the four options is: for the provision of two affordable units per net developable acre, a range of between one to four units of additional housing over the maximum density is allowable. There has been interest in the %100 Median 80% Median 50%Median Unit Size Income Income Income 0 Bedrooms $1,361 $1,090 $680 1 Bedroom $1,459 $1,169 $730 2 Bedrooms $1,752 $1,403 $877 3 Bedrooms $2,025 $1,620 $1,012 utilization of this affordable housing bonus. A few preliminary plans have been brought forward, but have not moved forward as projects. The issue of affordable housing and the development of units that are considered affordable is a large issue that goes beyond just the COR zone. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development establishes the maximum rent that can be charged to affordable housing tenants by county. The 2007 table for King County is below. These figures also are to include utilities paid by the tenant. Many of the market rate apartments available in the City of Renton meet the threshold for the 80% median income category, but not the 50% median income category. The table below includes information about current rents at 95 Burnett which is a brand new apartment building located in downtown Renton, Brighton Court which is an apartment built approximately in the 1980's located on NE 4th, and Springbrook which is a an apartment building that was built in the early 2000's and located on Talbot. 95 Burnett Brighton Ridge Springbrook Unit Size Monthly Rent Monthly Rent Monthly Rent 0 Bedrooms $915- $950 n/a n/a 1 Bedroom $1165 - $1250 $790- $875 $1060 - $1100 2 Bedrooms $1465 - $1580 $975 - $1005 $1175 - $1535 3 Bedrooms n/a n/a $1665 - $1715 H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc The bonus criteria that are included as options for the COR as it exists and the R-14 zone do not specifically target any subcategory within the affordable housing thresholds. Any housing that is targeted toward at least 80% median income residents would qualify for a bonus. The market as it exists in Renton is already meeting much of this need. The subcategory of affordable housing that is not being met is at the lower levels, such as 50%. The bonus criteria and the definition of affordable housing do not mandate for accommodation for any median income level lower than 80%. Thus, it appears that the elimination of the COR height bonus and its option for a provision of affordable housing would not cause harm to the affordable housing that is needed in Renton. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: These changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan objective for COR zone, which call for compact, urban development that is of a high quality and serve as landmark developments (Objective LU-VVV). CONCLUSION: Consolidating the COR zone into one designation is appropriate and simplifies existing code. Applying a minimum density of 30 dwelling units/acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre is appropriate in fostering the Comprehensive Plan intension of creating compact urban development. The proposed standards are outline below. Additionally, in order to ensure that the development that occurs fulfills the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the COR zone should be place in Design District C. COR Location Stoneway Concrete and Port Quendall Minimum Density 30 du/acre Maximum Density 50 Density Bonus None Criteria None Maximum Height 10 stories/125 ft. Height Bonus None Criteria None Table 2: Proposed COR Zone and Standards AVAILABLE APPEALS: Appeals regarding these zoning text changes can be made to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WHEREAS, the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone has three separate designations in City code that reflected the unique characteristics of the parcels; and WHEREAS, many of those parcels have been or are being developed and the need for three separate COR zones is no longer applicable; and WHEREAS, the area that was zoned COR 3 was rezoned to a different designation and the COR 3 zone is a designation that is no longer used in practice; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to eliminate inconsistencies and unnecessary length in Title IV; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to fulfill the vision and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the COR zoning designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 24, 2008 having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-2-0200 the purpose statement for the Commercial Office Residential zone of the Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Page 1 of 9 Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: O. COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL ZONE (COR-1 COR 2, and COR 3): 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential Zone (COR) is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. It is intended to implement the Commercial/Office/Residential Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone. Policies governing these uses are contained in the Land Use Element, Commercial/Office/Residential section of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly. 2. Location: In order to address differing site conditions, and recognizing the gateway and environmentally sensitive features of these sites, this zone is further designated by location: a. COR 1 is applied to the property in the vicinity of the property commonly known as the "Old Stoneway Plant Concrete Site." b. COR 2 is applied to property in the vicinity of the area commonly known as the"Port Quendall Site." Page 2 of 9 ' c. COR 3 is applied to the properties commonly known collectively as "Southport." 3. Scale and Intensity: COR 1 and 2 share the same uses and development standards, but differ in heights allowed. COR 3 shares a majority of uses allowed in COR 1 and COR 2 as well as most development standards,but differs primarily in densities allowed. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statement, objectives, and policy direction established in the Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation, Objective LU-VVV, Policies LU-406 through LU-421, and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Amd. Ord. 5001, 2-10-2003) SECTION II. Section 4-2-080A Subject to the Following Conditions of the Conditions Associated with Zoning Use Tables of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that note number twenty three read as follows: 23. Limited to existing uses. Only those modifications or expansions which do not increase production levels are permitted in the COR zone 1 and COR 2. Major modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use require a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit in the COR zone. 1 or CUR 2. No modifications or expansions are allowed in COR 3. SECTION III. Section 4-2-120B Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Page 3 of 9 Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the column associated with the COR zone reads as shown in Attachment A. SECTION IV. Section 4-2-120C Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that notes numbered 14, 22, 24, and 25 are stricken entirely and the notes are renumbered accordingly. SECTION V. Section 4-2-120F Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that in note 6 reads: 6. CO" z Zone an`lUC-N2 Zone Upper Story Setbacks: Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50') in height which are located within one hundred feet (100') of a shoreline shall include upper story setbacks for the facade facing the shoreline and for facades facing publicly accessible plazas as follows: The minimum setback for a fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet (10') minimum from the preceding story, applicable to each story. Projects not meeting the upper story setbacks defined above may be approved through the modification process when superior design is demonstrated pursuant to RMC 4-9- 250D. For a modification to be granted, the project must also comply with the decision and design criteria stipulated in RMC 4-9-250D2 and D4. Page 4 of 9 Also to amend note 8 to read: 8. In COR 3 and the UC-N2 Zones, where the applicable Shoreline Master Program setback is less than fifty feet (50'), the City may increase the setback up to one hundred percent (100%) if the City determines additional setback area is needed to assure adequate public access, emergency access or other site planning or environmental considerations. And to amend note 9 to read: 9.COR-3-and-UC-N2 Zones Modulation/Articulation Requirements: Buildings that are immediately adjacent to or abutting a public park, open space, or trail shall incorporate at least one of the features in items a. through c. and shall provide item d.: a. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings; or b. Provide at least one architectural projection for each dwelling unit of not less than two feet (2') from the wall plane and not less than four feet (4') wide; or c. Provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet (2') at an interval of a minimum of forty feet (40') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project; and d. Provide building articulation and textural variety. SECTION VI. Section 4-3-100B Applicability of the Urban Design Regulations of Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Page 5 of 9 Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add a new number 7 which reads: 7. This Section shall apply to all development in the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone. For the purposes of the design regulations, the zone shall be in District 'C'. SECTION VII. Section 4-4-080F Parking Lot Design Standards of Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations of Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so number 10 subpart e Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use, the table is amended as shown in Attachment B. SECTION VIII. Section 4-7-230A Purpose and Intent of Binding Site Plans of Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that number 1 reads as follows: 1. Optional Methods of Subdivision: To provide an optional process for the division of land classified for industrial, commercial, or mixed use zones CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, COR4, COR 2, COR 3, UC-N1, UC-N2, IL, IM, and IH through a binding site plan as authorized in chapters 58.17 and 64.34 RCW. This method may be employed as an alternative to the subdivision and short subdivision procedures in this Chapter. SECTION IX. Table 4-8-120C Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications of Chapter 8 Permits General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) Page 6 of 9 Of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the row titled "Report on Design Criteria for Modifications" is deleted entirely. SECTION X. Table 4-8-120D.18 Definitions R of Definitions of Terms Used in Submittal Requirements for Building, Planning and Public Works Permit Applications of Chapter 8 Permits General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so the definition of"Report on Design Criteria for Modifications" is deleted entirely. SECTION XI. 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby so that Section B reads: B. APPLICABILITY: The density bonus review procedure and review criteria are applicable to applicants who request bonuses in the zones which specifically authorize density bonuses in chapter 4-2 RMC. This Section of chapter 4-9 RMC contains density bonus procedures and review criteria for the R-14— and RM-U, C'OR1 and COR 2-Zones. (Amd. Ord. 4985, 10-14-2002; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) Also, to amend Section D Bonus Allowances and Review Criteria to delete the columns associated with COR 1 and COR 2 entirely. SECTION XII. 4-9-200B Applicability of Site Development Plan Review of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 Page 7 of 9 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby so that section b of number 1 Master Plan Review—Applicability reads as follows: b. COR Zones: Master Plan review is required for all development within the COR Zones that is not specifically exempted by subsection C of this Section. SECTION XIII. Section 4-9-250D Modifiacation Procedures of Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby to strike number 3 entirely. SECTION XIV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law,Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Page 8 of 9 Attachment A 4-2-11OB DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS COR LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for lots None created after July 11, 1993 Minimum Lot Width/Depth None for lots created after July 11, 1993 LOT COVERAGE Maximum Lot Coverage for 65%of total lot area or 75%if parking is provided within the building or Buildings within a parking garage.25 DENSITY(Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Where a development involves a mix of uses then minimum residential,the Minimum Net Residential minimum density shall be 16 30 dwelling units per net acre.9'25 Density When proposed development does not involve a mix of uses,then minimum residential density shall be 5 dwelling units per net acre.9'25 The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density.Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density,the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. COR . . , . , . . . . . . ; . . .. . : . . . , . . Maximum Net Residential Site—resp+vet )425 50 dwelling units per net acre. itheut-ben": us Density density may he-achieved-,subject to noted--requirements in RMC4--9-06-5-,. T5; Density—Beaus Review.92 COR 3 (Cenera-lly-the--Soutlip^«FtSite-anry's-Site): 50 dwelling units per-rn-z-aef 9'2-5 The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density,the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard18 Determined through site development plan review.22'24'2' Maximum Front Yard18 Determined through site development plan review.22 2"25 Minimum Side Yard Along Determined through site development plan review.2'-2125 A Street18 Maximum Side Yard Along Determined through site development plan review.22;24.25 A Street18 Minimum Freeway Frontage 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. Setback Minimum Rear Yard18 Determined through site development plan review.22'-21'2' Minimum Side Yard18 Determined through site development plan review.22 21,25 Clear Vision Area In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. ON-SITE LANDSCAPING Minimum On-site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width-Along the Street Frontage Minimum On-site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width Required Along the Street Frontage When a Commercial Lot is Adjacent8 to Property Zoned R-1,R-4,R-8,R-10,R-14,or RM Minimum Landscape Width Determined through site development plan review. Required When a Commercial Lot is Abutting7 Property Zoned Residential Minimum On-site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width Required Along the Street Frontage When a Commercial Zoned Lot is Adjacent8 to Property Zoned Commercial,Office or Public/Quasi,i.e.,CN, CV,CA,CD, CO,or COR HEIGHT Maximum Building Height COR 4--(Generally-the Stoneway Concrete Site): 10 stories and/or 125 ft.4'44 COR 2 and 3(Cencrally-the Port Quendall Site,Fryer S'�and--the Southp^"' l0 stories and/or 125 ft.;provided, the master plan includes a balance of building height,bulk and density;_and provided,that in the COR 3 Zone only,buildings or portions of buildings which are within 100 ft. of the shoreline shall not exceed a maximum height of 75 ft.23- Maximum Building Height Determined through site development plan review.'4- When a Building is Abutting7 a Lot Designated as Residential Maximum Height for See RMC 4-4-140G. Wireless Communication Facilities SCREENING See RMC 4-4-095. Minimum Required for Outdoor Loading,Repair, Maintenance,Storage or Work Areas; Surface- Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof Top Equipment (Except for Telecommunication Equipment) SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Design Regulations See RMC 4-3-040. Upper Story Setbacks Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet(50')in height shall include upper story setbacks as follows: The minimum setback for a fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet(10')minimum from the preceding story,applicable to each story. Roofline and Facade Buildings shall provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and Modulation facades of a minimum of two feet (2')at an interval of a minimum of forty • feet(40')on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project. Refuse or Recycling See RMC 4-4-090. PARKING AND LOADING General See RMC 4-4-080 and RMC 10-10-13.Direct arterial access to individual structures shall occur only when alternative access to local or collector streets or consolidated access with adjacent uses is not feasible. Required Location for NA Parking PEDESTRIAN ACCESS General Determined through site development plan review. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. LOADING DOCKS Location Determined through site development plan review. DUMPSTER/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Size and Location of Refuse See RMC 4-4-090. or Recycling Areas CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Design Guidelines NA Attachment B 4-4-080F PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS 10. Number of Parking Spaces Required: e. Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use: Modification of these minimum or maximum standards requires written approval from the Planning/Building/Public Works Department (see RMC 4-9-250). (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Amd. Ord. 4790, 9-13-1999; Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002; Ord. 5030, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES GENERAL: Mixed The total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the occupancies: requirements for the several uses computed separately, unless the building is (2 or 3 different classified as a "shopping center" as defined in RMC 4-11-190. uses in the same building or sharing a lot. For 4 or more uses, see"shopping center" requirements) Uses not Planning/Building/Public Works Department staff shall determine which of specifically the below uses is most similar based upon staff experience with various uses identified in this and infoiination provided by the applicant. The amount of required parking Section: for uses not listed above shall be the same as for the most similar use listed below. RESIDENTIAL USES OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN CORE: Detached and A minimum of 2 per dwelling unit. Tandem parking is allowed. A maximum semi-attached of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair dwellings: and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Bed and breakfast 1 per guest room. The parking space must not be located in any required houses: setback. Manufactured A minimum of 2 per manufactured home site, plus a screened parking area homes within a shall be provided for boats, campers, travel trailers and related devices at a manufactured ratio of 1 screened space per 10 units. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be home park: parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Congregate 1 per sleeping room and 1 for the proprietor, plus 1 additional space for each residence: 4 persons employed on the premises. Attached 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger dwelling unit; dwellings in CD, 1.6 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; RM-U, RM-T, 1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit. COR, UC-N1 and RM-T Zone Exemption: An exemption to the standard parking ratio UC-N2 Zones formula may be granted by the Development Services Director allowing 1 parking space per dwelling unit for developments of less than 5 dwelling units with 2 bedrooms or less per unit provided adequate on-street parking is available in the vicinity of the development. (Amd. Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004) Attached 2 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or dwellings within 2.5 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the the RM-F Zone: criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Attached 1 per dwelling unit is required. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is dwellings within allowed. the CV Zone: Attached 1.75 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or dwellings within 2.25 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the all other zones: criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwelling 1 for each 4 dwelling units. for low income elderly: RESIDENTIAL USES IN DOWNTOWN CORE: Attached 1 per unit. dwellings: Attached 1 for every 3 dwelling units. dwellings for low income elderly: COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN CORE, EXCEPT SHOPPING CENTERS: Drive-through retail or Stacking spaces: The drive-through facility shall be so located that drive-through service: sufficient on-site vehicle stacking space is provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours. Typically 5 stacking spaces per window are required unless otherwise determined by the Development Services Director. Stacking spaces cannot obstruct required parking spaces or ingress/egress within the site or extend into the public right-of-way. Banks: A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area except when part of a shopping center. Convalescent centers: 1 for every 2 employees plus 1 for every 3 beds. Day care centers, adult 1 for each employee and 2 loading spaces within 100 feet of the main day care (I and II): entrance for every 25 clients of the program. Hotels and motels: 1 per guest room plus 2 for every 3 employees. Mortuaries or funeral 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of assembly rooms. homes: Vehicle sales (large 1 per 5,000 square feet. The sales area is not a parking lot and does not and small vehicles) have to comply with dimensional requirements, landscaping or the bulk with outdoor retail storage section requirements for setbacks and screening. Any sales areas: arrangement of motor vehicles is allowed as long as: A minimum 5 feet perimeter landscaping area is provided; They are not displayed in required landscape areas; and Adequate fire access is provided per Fire Department approval. Vehicle service and 0.25 per 100 square feet of net floor area. repair (large and small vehicles): Offices,medical and 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. dental: Offices, general: A minimum of 3 per 1,000 feet of net floor area and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Eating and drinking 1 per 100 square feet of net floor area. establishments and taverns: Eating and drinking 1 per 75 square feet of net floor area. establishment combination sit- down/drive-through restaurant: Retail sales and big- A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area, except big-box box retail sales: retail sales, which is allowed a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area if shared and/or structured parking is provided. Services, on-site A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area. (except as specified ( eci p p below): Clothing or shoe repair 0.2 per 100 square feet of net floor area. shops, furniture, appliance, hardware stores, household equipment: Uncovered commercial 0.05 per 100 square feet of retail sales area in addition to any parking area, outdoor nurseries: requirements for buildings. Recreational and entertainment uses: Outdoor and indoor 1 for every 4 fixed seats or 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of main sports arenas, auditorium or of principal place of assembly not containing fixed seats, auditoriums, stadiums, whichever is greater. movie theaters, and entertainment clubs: Bowling alleys: 5 per alley. Dance halls, dance 1 per 40 square feet of net floor area. L clubs, and skating rinks: Golf driving ranges: 1 per driving station. Marinas: 2 per 3 slips. For private marina associated with a residential complex, then 1 per 3 slips. Also 1 loading area per 25 slips. Miniature golf courses: 1 per hole. Other recreational: 1 per occupant based upon 50% of the maximum occupant load as established by the adopted Building and Fire Codes of the City of Renton. Travel trailers: 1 per trailer site. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORE, EXCEPT SHOPPING CENTERS: All uses allowed in the 1 space per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. CD Zone except for the following uses: Excepted uses follow the standards applied outside the Downtown Core. Excepted Uses: Convalescent center, drive-through retail, drive-through service, hotels, mortuaries, indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, movie theaters, entertainment clubs, bowling alleys, dance halls, dance clubs, and other recreational uses. SHOPPING CENTERS: Shopping centers A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum (includes any type of of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. In the UC-N1 and UC-N2 business occupying a Zones, a maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area is shopping center): permitted unless structured parking is provided, in which case 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted. Drive-through retail or drive-through service uses must comply with the stacking space provisions listed above. INDUSTRIAL/STORAGE ACTIVITIES: Airplane hangars, tie- Parking is not required. Hangar space or tie-down areas are to be down areas: utilized for necessary parking. Parking for offices associated with hangars is 1 per 200 square feet. Manufacturing and A minimum of 0.1 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum fabrication, of 0.15 spaces per 100 square feet of net floor area (including laboratories, and warehouse space). assembly and/or packaging operations: Self service storage: 1 per 3,500 square feet of net floor area. Maximum of three moving van/truck spaces in addition to required parking for self service storage uses in the RM-F Zone. Outdoor storage area: 0.05 per 100 square feet of area. Warehouses and indoor 1 per 1,500 square feet of net floor area. storage buildings: PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC ACTIVITIES: Religious institutions: 1 for every 5 seats in the main auditorium, however, in no case shall there be less than 10 spaces. For all existing institutions enlarging the seating capacity of their auditoriums, 1 additional parking space shall be provided for every 5 additional seats provided by the new construction. For all institutions making structural alterations or additions that do not increase the seatingcapacity of the auditorium, see"outdoor and indoor p Y sports arenas, auditoriums, stadiums, movie theaters, and entertainment clubs." Medical institutions: 1 for every 3 beds, plus 1 per staff doctor, plus 1 for every 3 employees. Cultural facilities: 4 per 100 square feet. Public post office: 0.3 for every 100 square feet. Secure community 1 per 3 beds, plus 1 per staff member, plus 1 per employee. transition facilities: Schools: Elementary and junior 1 per employee. In addition, if buses for the transportation of students high: are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Senior high schools: 1 per employee plus 1 space for every 10 students enrolled. In addition, public, parochial and if buses for the private transportation of children are kept at the school, private: 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Colleges and 1 per employee plus 1 for every 3 students residing on campus, plus 1 universities, arts and space for every 5 day students not residing on campus. In addition, if crafts schools/studios, buses for transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street and trade or vocational parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park schools: each bus. (Amd. Ord. 5030, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) L Docket Item 06-28: Assisted Living Code Amendments Background: The Cityof Renton currentlydoes not have a definition for assisted living. Assisted �' g living is a type of housing for older people that has been in place as a housing type for a number of years. The City needs to implement a definition for this housing type and some development standards regarding this type of housing. Summary of proposed changes: • Implement a definition for assisted living that allows kitchens in units and indicates that the staff administers an element of personal care to residents. • Revise the definition for convalescent centers so that the distinction between assisted living and convalescent is clear and identifies that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care. • Implement a new definition for multi-family assisted living. • Apply density to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. - Example: an assisted living facility that wanted to locate in the RMF zone would determine density by multiplying 1.5 x 20 to determine a maximum number of residential units of 30. • Replace retirement residences with assisted living in the zoning use tables. Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. Limit assisted living facilities in the R-1 and R-10 zone to a maximum of 18 total residential units per acre. • Require 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. Issue Discussion: An administrative determination was made that assisted living is "most similar to convalescent centers/nursing homes in the care and type of services they provide" and the facilities were considered a commercial use. As a commercial use assisted living has not been subject to the density limits of the zone they located are in. Assisted living being built now typically includes full kitchens and is more similar to apartment buildings than convalescent centers and should be subject to density. However, assisted living units are smaller than apartment units and built with a higher percentage of studios and one-bedrooms thanapartment buildings. Therefore, a density ratio of 1.5 should be allowed for assisted living facilities. The amount of parking required for assisted living needs to be higher than the requirements for a convalescent center because residents do bring cars, but not with as much frequency as typical multi-family. A requirement of one parking space per one residential unit balances the parking needs of staff and guests with the cars brought by residents. Finally, retirement residences are allowed in the R-1 zone with no maximum density. In replacing retirement residences with assisted living in the use table and applying density standards to assisted living, it would leave assisted living in R-1 with a maximum density of 1 residential unit. It is recommended that the maximum allowable number of guest rooms for bed and breakfast houses (10) allowed in the R-1 be used as a base to determine assisted living maximum density, assume 2 bedrooms for the proprietor, multiply by the 1.5 ratio, to determine a maximum 18 units in the R-1 zone for assisted living facilities. This maximum would also be allowed in the R-10 zone. Available Appeals: Appeals regarding these zoning text changes can be made to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. �y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ti 0NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUMsf DATE: February 27, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket 06-28 Assisted Living ISSUES: • Assisted living facilities as a land use needs to be defined. • The definition for convalescent centers needs to be amended. • Assisted living facilities should be counted towards density, but should also be allowed additional density with a ratio. • Assisted living will replace retirement residences in the zoning use table, should they be allowed in the same zoning designations? • The ratio for the number of required parking spaces for assisted living facilities needs to be determined. RECOMMENDATION: • Implement a definition for assisted living that allows kitchens in units and indicates that the staff administers an element of personal care to residents. • Revise the definition for convalescent centers so that the distinction between assisted livingand convalescent is clear and identifies that a skilled nursingstaff administers convalescent care. • Apply density to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. Also, implement a new definition for multi-family assisted living. • Replace retirement residences with assisted living in the zoning use tables. Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. Place a maximum density maximum of 18 total residential units per acre on assisted living facilities in the R-1 zone and R-10 zones. • Require 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. BACKGROUND: The term "assisted living" is a somewhat newer term and concept in housing and care for people as they age. The City of Renton currently does not have a definition for H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 1 of 9 • assisted living. However, there are definitions for retirement residence and convalescent centers, as well as, two interpretation/policy decisions regarding assisted living and retirement residences that frame the policy discussion regarding assisted living. The definitions for retirement residence and convalescent centers read: "RETIREMENT RESIDENCE: A building or group of buildings which provide residential facilities, including a common kitchen and dining room but without full kitchen facilities (sink, oven or range, and refrigerator) in each unit, for residents sixty-two (62) or more years in age, except for spouses for whom there is no minimum age requirement. This definition excludes multi-family (attached) dwelling units, boarding and lodging houses, convalescent facilities, adult family homes, and group homes I and II." "CONVALESCENT CENTERS: Facilities for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or terminal illnesses where care includes ongoing medical treatment and extended care facilities. This definition does not include retirement residences, adult family homes, group homes II, medical institutions, and/or secure community transition facilities." Administrative Interpretations/Policy Decisions Due to the lack of a definition for assisted living, the Development Services Division made an interpretation/policy decision regarding assisted living facilities in June 2000. The policy decision determined, at that time, that assisted living facilities were "most similar to convalescent centers/nursing homes in the care and type of services they provide". With this determination, the facilities were considered a commercial use that required a business license and would be allowed in "Center zones where Convalescent Centers/Nursing Homes are allowed". The rationale for this determination was in part: "As described by an industry source, Assisted Living Facilities are for seniors who are usually in their mid 80's and 90's and are no longer active. Assisted Living Facilities are licensed and monitored by the Washington Department of Health. The care involves assisting the residents with the activities of daily life such as dressing, bathing, and medication reminders. Three meals are provided daily, including special dietary requirements. Due to the age and frailty of the residents, activities are usually on site. Assisted Living residents no longer drive and van services is provided to meet transportation needs. Externally, an Assisted Living Facility may look very similar to retirement or congregate care residences but internally the design and level of care is much more intense due to the age and frailty of the residents. Often these facilities provide specialized medical services such as Alzheimer's Care." In 1997, an interpretation made a clarification of the definition of retirement residences that determined retirement residences could only include an appurtenant kitchen in individual living units. An appurtenant kitchen was considered "a microwave, a '/2 to 3/4 refrigerator, sink, and toaster oven. These appliances are intended to be used for meal preparation of snacks, coffee/tea, etc.". The determination further stated that if units were to have individualized cooking facilities, those cooking facilities would preclude the building from meeting the definition of retirement residence. Additionally, "to qualify as a retirement residence, the facility H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 2 of 9 must include a central, common kitchen and dining area which prepares and serves the primary 3 meals per day. Appurtenant kitchen facilities in the individual units are intended only for personal convenience and do not constitute individualized cooking facilities." In several ways these determinations and the definitions do not accurately represent the current standards for assisted living facilities. For example, assisted living facilities often present themselves as residences for active seniors, not for those who are frail. Additionally, since assisted living was determined to be most similar to convalescent centers and it was determined that retirement residences are not allowed to have full kitchens, it would seem that the determinations would preclude assisted living facilities to not have full kitchens; which most seem to include. ISSUE DISCUSSION: Definitions for Assisted Living and Convalescent Centers A survey of web-based information and other municipalities indicates that assisted living is generally considered to be a "bridge between independent living and a nursing home/convalescent center". Many residents are not able to completely care for themselves, but they also do not require full time care by a skilled medical staff. Many assisted living facilities also include independent living at the same facility, as well as, a dedicated area where residents may be able to receive skilled nursing care on a temporary/recovery basis. Convalescent centers are places where people live as they receive skilled nursing care while they recover or decline from age, illness, or injury. Residents typically do not live single occupant rooms or units that include kitchens. Convalescent centers are often more institutional in nature than an assisted living home. In developing definitions for these two different types of living situations for older people, the table below is helpful to illustrate the similarities and differences. Assisted Convalescent Living Center Self contained living units Yes No Private bath in unit Yes No Kitchen in unit Yes No Housekeeping offered Yes Yes Laundry services offered Yes Yes Centralized kitchen and dining Yes Yes Common areas for social/recreational purposes Yes Yes 24-hour staff Yes Yes In unit"panic button" Yes Yes Skilled nursing staff on-site No Yes Residents own automobiles Maybe No Transportation provided Yes Maybe Scheduled trips provided Yes No Table 1: Comparison of Standards at Assisted Living Facilities and Convalescent Centers H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 3 of 9 To better reflect the current manner in which assisted living facilities are implemented and to further clarify the differences between assisted living and convalescent centers, it is recommended that the definition of retirement residence be stricken and the following definitions are proposed for implementation. ASSISTED LIVING: A facility where residents live in private units and receive assistance with limited aspects of personal care, such as: taking medication, bathing, or dressing. Meals are provided multiple times daily in a common dining area. Staff is on duty 24-hours per day to ensure the welfare and safety of residents. This definition does not include: convalescent centers, congregate residences, boarding and lodging houses, adult family homes, and group homes I and II. CONVALESCENT CENTER: A facility licensed by the State for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or terminal illnesses. Facilities provide 24-hour supervised nursing care and feature extended treatment that is administered by a skilled nursing staff. Typically, residents do not live in individual units and the facilities provide personal care, room, board, laundry service, and organized activites. This definition does not include adult family homes, assisted living, group homes II, medical institutions, and/or secure community transition facilities. Density Standards for Assisted Living Currently, City standards do not apply density standards to retirement residences. With the amendment to assisted living facilities it is recommended that density standards be applied to such facilities. The manner in which the market constructs assisted living facilities, makes it seem that the City needs to modify this standard so that density does apply. The product the market seems to be generating in assisted living complexes where units are most similar to individual apartment units and not shared. Assisted living units typically include kitchenettes, at minimum, and bathrooms in each unit. This unit model does not differ from apartment construction and apartments must adhere to the density standards of the zone they are built in. Therefore, it is appropriate for density standards to be applied to assisted living facilities. In order to facilitate the inclusion of assisted living facilities in uses that adhere to density standards, a definition of the units must be written and implemented. The proposed definition for these units is: Assisted Living: A residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units where residents receive assistance with personal care. Dwelling units include a full kitchen (sink, oven or range, and refrigerator) or a kitchenette, a bathroom, a living area, and may include a call system. On the premises, facilities shall include: a professional kitchen, common dining room, recreation area(s), activity room, and a laundry area. An on-site small-scale facility that offers skilled nursing care on a temporary basis is allowable when the number of beds reserved for the medical care is no greater than five percent (5%) of the total number of living units at the premises. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 4 of 9 In surveying the standards that other municipalities place on assisted living facilities, it became apparent that many cities allow assisted living facilities to be built at a higher density than is allowed outright in the zone. For example, the City of Kirkland allows assisted living facilities to be built at a 2:1 ratio. So, in a zone that allowed a maximum density of 25 dwelling units/acre, an assisted living facility would be allowed a maximum density of 50 dwelling units. Staff investigated the average square footage that apartments and assisted living facilities are built at to determine an appropriate ratio for density calculations. The square footage of units at fifteen local apartment buildings with a total 72 floor plans and fifteen assisted living facilities with a total 57 floor plans were averaged to determine the average square footage at which each are being constructed with (this set of data for assisted living facilities included facilities throughout the United States). Staff also calculated the standards for assisted living facilities in the City of Renton. It is important to note that none of these facilities are entirely assisted living; they all encompass both independent livingand assisted living. As a whole, the reportedorted number of assisted living units accounted for only 43% of the total and independent living represented 57% of the total. In light of this, while the figures for City of Renton are an accurate representation of the existing stock of assisted living in the City they may not accurately reflect the market demand for assisted living in the City. With the administrative interpretations current City code has not allowed assisted living to be built with full kitchens and has required facilities to generally fall under the guidelines for multi-family to meet market demand for such kitchens in the units. Therefore, both the national data and the City of data were considered in the staff recommendation. The table below indicates that assisted living units are notably smaller than apartment units. Also included in the table are percentages that the units represent in the overall development. The information for Assisted Living (National) is from the "2006 Overview of Assisted Living" published by the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, American Seniors Housing Association, Assisted Living Federation of American, National Center for Assisted Living, and the National Investment Center for the Seniors Housing and Care Industry. Assisted Living (Renton) is the data for the existing facilities in the City only. The information for apartments was calculated from the information gathered in the survey of 15 apartment buildings. %of %of %of % of Total 1 Total 2 Total 3 Total Studio Units Bedroom Units Bedroom Units Bedroom Units Assisted Living 40451% 559 39% 835 6% n/a 0% (National) sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Assisted Living 379526 913 28% ° o 56% 16% n/a 0/0 (Renton) sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Apartments 595 13% 772 36% 1,044 0 1,309 0 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. 35/° sq. ft. 17/° Table 2: Average Unit Size at Assisted Living Facilities and Apartments with Unit Mix Percentage of the Total Building H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 5 of 9 Table 2 indicates that the City should consider establishing some ratio that allows assisted living facilities to develop with more units. Table 3 below applies the percentage mix indicated in Table 2 to a 100,000 square foot building in order to approximate the total number of units the different land uses would result in. This calculation considers only the gross building size and does not consider a deduction for hallways, common areas, recreation areas, etc. The ratio of assisted living units to apartment units that this gross calculation produces is 1.76 for the national data and 1.71 for the Renton only data. This ratio also does not reflect a key component of assisted living facilities that apartments do not typically include, a common kitchen, and dining room. To reflect the differences in typical amenities that are offered at an assisted living facility in comparison with the typical apartment building, staff recommends a ratio of 1.5. Studio 1 Bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom #of units #of units #of units #of units Total Units Assisted Living 126 70 7 0 203 (National) Assisted Living 74 106 18 0 198 (Renton) Apartments 10 66 34 6 116 Table 3: Gross Calculation of Number of Units in 100,000 Square Foot Building for Assisted Living and Apartments Zoning for Assisted Living and Convalescent Centers The zones where retirement residences are currently allowed translate well for assisted living facilities. Staff recommends that in the zoning use table, retirement residences be stricken and replaced with assisted living. This will allow assisted living in the same zones that retirement residences are currently allowed in. However, staff would also like to allow assisted living in the R-14 zone as an administrative conditional use. Attached dwellings and convalescent centers are allowed in the R-14. It is appropriate to allow assisted living in the R-14 zone and it is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone, "to encourage development and redevelopment of residential neighborhoods that provide a mix of detached, semi-attached, and attached dwelling structures organized and designed to combine characteristics of both typical detached single family and small-scale multi family developments". City code allows retirement residences in the R-1 zone as a hearing examiner conditional use. There are currently no restrictions on the scale or density at which an assisted living facility could be built. However, if assisted living is going to be considered in density, then this would limit people to building a single unit assisted living facility in the R-1 zone. Staff does not wish to impose this on landowners in the R-1 zone. Yet, staff is concerned about the scale of development that would be allowed to occur in the R-1 zone under the current parameters. The development regulations for R-1 allow 35% of the lot to be built on with a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet. Applying this standard would allow a one-acre parcel to build a two story building on a 15,246 square foot building footprint, for a total 30,492 square foot facility. Below are two images of 30,000 square foot buildings to illustrate the scale of such a building size. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 6 of 9 This scale of building is inconsistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone. The R-1 zone is applied to land that is environmentally constrained and is intended to `prohibit the development of uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment". ���Ct ,� a � ft E +� � : i . ;. � � h�" _ e - � A yvi ,4!:11,14:17 s,' 'I- lk ., , :" 4 1 r I 4.1 i i;.,,,t,.. it ...'"!'.. 1, , ..,ii -,-"k y, However, it is important to consider that assisted living is a residential use and relatively low intensity. As a land use, the traffic generated by an assisted living facility is generally lower than a grouping of single-family homes. Additionally, there are other uses allowed in the R-1 zone that function with a higher intensity land use than a single-family house on one acre of land. Many of them have similar characteristics of use to assisted living facilities such as: visits, employees, and traffic generation. Those land uses include: convalescent centers, group homes II for seven or more, bed and breakfast houses, and family day care. Family day care allows for the care of 12 or fewer children in a 24-hour period. The maximum number of allowed residents •at a convalescent center is not limited. Group homes II are not limited to a specified number of people and includes staff who provide care. Professional bed and breakfast houses allow for overnight accommodations for a range of 4 to 10 guest rooms. All of these uses involve a staff and residents or customers. The City of Kenmore allows apartments style assisted living facilities in the R-1 zone when the density does not exceed 18 units per net acre of developable land. Staff applied the maximum number of guest rooms (10) allowed at a professional bed and breakfast as a base to determine the maximum number of assisted living residential units to allow in the R-1. It is reasonable to assume that a proprietor of a bed and breakfast would have 2 bedrooms for themselves. This base number of 12 multiplied by the density ratio 1.5 results in a maximum number of allowable residential units in an assisted living facility of 18. Therefore, it is recommended that a maximum of 18 assisted living residential units per acre be placed on the R-1 zone. This maximum would be absolute and would not be allowed to have the density ratio applied to it again. In the R-10 zone if the 1.5 ratio for assisted living is applied to the base density of 10, the maximum density allowed would be 15. This maximum is lower than what has been recommended for the allowable density in the R-1 zone for assisted living. Therefore, it is recommended that in the R-10 zone the maximum number of assisted living units allowed be 18. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 7 of 9 Parking Standards for Assisted Living Currently, retirement residences are not included in the parking standards table. This needs to be rectified with this group of amendments. In order to provide some starting points for determining the appropriate parking ratio, staff examined other municipalities parking standards and City code for the standards for similar uses. Below Table 4 shows City of Renton parking standards for land uses similar to assisted living. Table 5 shows other municipal standards for required parking for assisted living facilities. Land Use Required Parking Spaces Convalescent Centers 1 for every 2 employees,plus 1 for every 3 beds Attached dwellings for low income elderly in downtown 1 for every 4 dwelling units core Attached dwellings for low income elderly outside 1 for every 3 dwelling units downtown core Bed and Breakfast houses 1 per guest room Table 4: City of Renton Land Uses and Parking Standards City Required Parking Spaces City of Kirkland 1 per living unit City of Denton 1 space per 2 beds,or 1 space per apt.unit City of Douglas 0.3 parking space per unit,plus 1 for every 3 employees during the largest shift. City of Mesa 1 per dwelling unit Midford Township 1 per 2 beds,plus 1 for each staff and employee on the two major shifts City of Riverside 1 space per 3 beds Table 5: Comparison of Other City Standards for Required Parking for Assisted Living In examining these tables it seems that a one bed per unit standard is the most common. For the standards that are different it may be that when calculated there is little difference in the resulting number of required parking spaces. Although it is often assumed that assisted living residents do not drive, in many facilities they are not required to discontinue driving. Additionally, most assisted living facilities feature services and amenities that are heavily dependent on staff It is reasonable that the parking needs of the staff, residents, and guests would be higher than at a convalescent center but accommodated with a parking requirement of one space per living unit. The parking requirement for the bed and breakfast houses, one space per residential unit is adequate to accommodate customers who park on-site and the parking needs for the proprietors H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 8 of 9 and any staff. This standard of one space of parking per residential unit is suitable for assisted living. The one to one requirement facilitates a reasonable standard for urban areas with higher density allowances that have access to public transit for employees, but also does not result in large parking areas in residentially zoned areas. However, most assisted living facilities offer transportation to medical appointments and/or activities for residents. The vehicles that they use for transportation are typically small shuttle bus type vehicles. These vehicles take more than one ap assenger vehicle parking space. Therefore, it is recommended that the parking standard for assisted living be to require 1 parking space per residential unit, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: These proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element goal to promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: • Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle. • Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. • Are varied or unique in character • Offer connection to the community instead of isolation • Provide a sense of home CONCLUSION: Assisted living is a type of housing for older people that has been in place for a number of years, the City needs to respond and include a new definition for this housing type and implement some new standards regarding this type of housing. It has been shown that assisted living facilities develop with smaller unit sizes and with a different unit mix than the average apartment building. This indicates that it is appropriate to allow assisted living facilities a ratio to apply to the maximum density of the zone they seek to build in. The amount of parking required at assisted living facilities needs to be higher than the requirements for a convalescent center because residents sometimes bring cars. However, not all residents of assisted living facilities have cars. A requirement of one parking space per one residential unit will balance the parking needs for staff and guests with the cars brought with residents. Finally, limitations on the maximum number assisted living residential units allowed in the R-1 zone are appropriate to ensure the residential character of that zone. APPEALS AVAILABLE: Development regulation text amendments referred to the Planning Commission are a Type X land use. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 9 of 9 CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING ASSISTED LIVING. WHEREAS, the City does not have a definition for assisted living; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to define assisted living as a land use and ensure appropriate development regulations regarding assisted living facilities; and WHEREAS, in light of the definition for assisted living, the definition for convalescent centers needs to be amended to provide clarity; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 24, 2008 having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-2-060D the other residential, lodging and home occupations section of the Zoning Use Table of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code Page 1of1111.11 • i of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the words "Retirement residences" are stricken and replaced in alphabetical order with "Assisted living", but all letters and numbers associated with the zones allowed the use is allowed in are retained and applied to "Assisted living". Also, in the same row, now named "Assisted living", place a letter"P" in the column associated with the R-14 zone. SECTION II. Section 4-2-070 Zoning Use Tables of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that in all tables all instances of the phrase "Retirement residences" is stricken and replaced in alphabetical order with "Assisted living"; in all instances the letters and/or numbers in the Type column are to be retained from the "retirement residences" and applied to "assisted living". SECTION III. 4-2-070G Residential — 14 DU/AC (R-14) of the Zoning Use Table of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that "Assisted living" is added alphabetically to the Other Residential, Lodging and Home Occupations category with the letter "P" placed accordingly in the Type column. SECTION IV. 4-2-110A Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code Page 2 (AHEM • of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Housing Density in the R-1 zone reads: 1 dwelling unit per 1 net acre except that in designated Urban Separators, density of up to 1 unit per gross acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC-3-110, Urban Separator Overlay. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. SECTION V. 4-2-110F Development Standards Residential Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Housing Density in the R-10 zone reads: For developments or subdivisions including attached or semi-attached dwellings: 10 dwelling units per net acre.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9- 065. Also, so that the box associated with Maximum Housing Density in the R-14 zone reads: For developments or subdivisions: 14 dwelling units per net acre, except that density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. Page 3 of _ i- Affordable housing bonus: Up to 30 dwelling units per acre may be permitted on parcels a minimum of two acres in size if 50% or more of the proposed dwelling units are affordable to low income households with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income. Up to 45 dwelling units per net acre for assisted living may be permitted on parcels a minimum of two acres in size if 50% or more of the proposed dwelling units are affordable to low income households with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income and subject to the conditions in RMC 4-9- 065. Finally, so that the box associated with Maximum Housing Density in the RM zone reads: For any subdivision and/or development: 4 "U" suffix: 75 units per net acre.10'24 "T" suffix: 35 units per net acre.10 "F" suffix: 20 units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. SECTION VI. 4-2-120A Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the CN zone reads: 4 dwelling units per structure. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. Page 4 of 1 H 11 Also, so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the CV zone reads: 80 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. SECTION VII. 4-2-120B Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the CD zone reads: 100 dwelling units per net acre.9 Density may be increased to 150 dwelling units per net acre subject to Administrative Conditional Use approval. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. Also, so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the COR zone reads: 50 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. Page 5 of 1 11 111 • SECTION VIII. 4-2-120E Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the UC-N1 zone reads: 85 dwelling units per net acre.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. When ground-floor commercial uses are incorporated into the structure: density for flats may be increased up to 150 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. Also, so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the UC-N2 zone reads: • South of North 8th Street: 150 dwelling units per net acre.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. North of North 8th Street: 250 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. SECTION IX. 4-4-080F Parking Lot Design Standards of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that part e Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Page 6of I Hill Use of number 10 Number of Parking Spaces Required so that in the Residential Uses Outside of Downtown Core category a new row is added to be read "Assisted living" in the Use column. Also, so that the same new row associated with"Assisted living", reads: 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. Also, to add a new row titled "Assisted living" in the Residential Uses in Downtown Core category and so that in the column associated with Number of Required Spaces reads: 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. SECTION X. RMC 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that Section B Applicability reads: The density bonus review procedure and review criteria are applicable to applicants who request bonuses in the zones which specifically authorize density bonuses in chapter 4-2 RMC. This Section of chapter 4-9 RMC contains density bonus procedures and review criteria for the R-14, RM-U, and assisted living. Also, so that in section D Bonus Allowances and Review Criteria a new column titled "ASSISTED LIVING" is added. In the new column in the box associated with Density and Unit Size Bonus—Purpose to add new text to read: Page 7of £ -,4411 The bonus provisions are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities, but with a building footprint and scale of building that would be expected for other multi-family structures in the applicable zone. It is expected that the density bonus will be achieved with no variances to the development regulations of the applicable zone. In the new column "ASSISTED LIVING" in the box associated with Maximum Additional Units Per Acre new text to read: The units in a project that are for assisted living are allowed to develop at 1.5 times the maximum density of the zone the project is in. In the R-1 and R-10 zones the maximum density for assisted living shall be 18 units/net acre. In the new column "ASSISTED LIVING" in the box associated with Maximum Allowable Bonus Dwelling Unit Mix/Arrangement new text to read: Projects that include both assisted living and independent living may only apply the density bonus ratio to the units that are built as assisted living units. In the new column "ASSISTED LIVING" in the box associated with Bonus Criteria new text to read: Assisted living units must be designated for people who are at least 55 years of age. The definitions of Assisted Living in RMC 4-11-010 and Dwelling Multi-Family, Assisted Living in RMC 4-11-040 must be met. SECTION XI. 4-11-010 Definitions A of Chapter 11 Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Page 8 of 1 Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add a new definition to read: ASSISTED LIVING: A facility where residents live in private units and receive assistance with limited aspects of personal care, such as: taking medication, bathing, or dressing. Meals are provided multiple times daily in a common dining area. Staff is on duty 24-hours per day to ensure the welfare and safety of residents. This definition does not include: convalescent centers, congregate residences, boarding and lodging houses, adult family homes. and group homes I and II. SECTION XII. 4-11-030 Definitions C of Chapter 11 Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the definition for Convalescent Centers reads: CONVALESCENT CENTER: A Facilities facility licensed by the State for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or terminal illnesses. .. • -- • .. - -b .... -ded care facilities. Facilities provide 24-hour supervised nursing care and feature extended treatment that is administered by a skilled nursing staff. Typically, residents do not live in individual units and the facilities provide personal care, room, board, laundry service, and organized activities. This definition does not include adult family homes, assisted Page 9of I1_111 living, group homes II, medical institutions, and/or secure community transition facilities. SECTION XIII. 4-11-040 Definitions D of Chapter 11 Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add a new definition lettered F in the "Dwelling, Multi-Family definitions, to read: F. Assisted Living: A residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units where residents receive assistance with personal care. Dwelling units include a full kitchen (sink, oven or range, and refrigerator) or a kitchenette, a bathroom, a living area, and may include a call system. On the premises, facilities shall include: a professional kitchen, common dining room, recreation area(s), activity room, and a laundry area. An on- site. small-scale facility that offers skilled nursing care on a temporary basis is allowable when the number of beds reserved for the medical care is no greater than five percent (5%) of the total number of living units at the premises. SECTION XIV. 4-11-180 Definitions R of Chapter 11 Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to strike the definition for Retirement Residence. SECTION XV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. Page 10 of I I4 444 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of ,2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law,Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD. Page 11 of a 2007 DOCKET-HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT In summer 2007, the City was alerted to the operation of a helipad from a residential property along Lake Washington. Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are allowed in that area, but helipads are prohibited in the R-8 zone. A line in the zoning use table(RMC 4-2-060) allows helipads as an accessory use in a number of commercial and industrial zones (IL, IM, IH, CA, CO, COR, UC-N1 and UC-N2)with an approved Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Several property owners along Lake Washington have expressed their support for aviation uses in general, and specifically for helicopters, in their neighborhood. The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with an approved conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a note on the zoning use table that limits sites to a single aircraft,restricts the use to properties along Lake Washington, and direct helipads to be in compliance with FAA guidelines. The Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)regulates helipads and has jurisdiction over air traffic. FAA approval of a helipad includes an aeronautical study of the pad's construction and dimensions, the approach to the pad (which must not be over any residential property), and known flight paths. Aeronautical studies are based on the specific aircraft to be used on the site, so the exact dimensions necessary to safely operate a helipad can vary. However, even with a very small helicopter, only about nine properties along Lake Washington would have enough space for a helipad (unless the existing home was significantly reduced in size). Conditional use permits are subject to review criteria in RMC 4-9-030, which includes consideration of: compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need, effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and the production of noise and glare. Conditional use permits can include reasonable conditions, such as limitation on hours of operation, that address community concerns and ensure that the use is safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. Renton has both an Administrative and a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. Both include public notification, but the latter allows for an open public hearing and a better opportunity for public involvement. FAA and City measures should ensure that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for this proposal. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The Single Family Residential land use designation was created for quality neighborhoods at urban densities. Part of the unique quality and character of the properties on Lake Washington is the ability to operate aircraft for personal, recreational, lifestyle and transportation purposes. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit • Planning Commission recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit 1 �y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, U�;; NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission FROM: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 2007 Docket- Helipads In response to the proposed docket item that would amend the zoning code to allow helipads in the R-8 zone for properties fronting Lake Washington, staff and the Planning Commission received a variety of comments. The overwhelming majority of these comments were positive and in favor of allowing helipads,but a few expressed concerns to be considered. This memo addresses the comments of concern. Some of the concerns are related to the environmental review of the proposal. Environmental review in the City of Renton is conducted by the City Environmental Review Committee (ERC). On February 4, 2008, the ERC met and issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), which means that the ERC did not anticipate any significant or adverse impacts from the proposed code amendment. A copy of the ERC's report is attached to this memo. At its last meeting, the Planning Commission was presented with a copy of Issaquah's regulations for heliports. Issaquah lists 15 criteria for the approval of heliports. The first caution in reviewing these regulations is that they apply to the operation of heliports as commercial uses. In the proposed code amendment, Renton would not allow the operation of a commercial heliport in the R-8 zone; the use would be limited to that which was accessory to the primary, residential use and commercial operations would be prohibited. However, review of Issaquah's code provides a useful structure for responding to a variety of public comments about this proposal. The majority of the criteria in the Issaquah code merely repeat the FAA requirements, including the regulation of flight paths and approaches and construction specifications for the landing site (criteria B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M,N, and 0). Proposed code language confirms that FAA requirements must be met for helipads along Lake Washington. It is completely unnecessary to repeat the requirements from the FAA. Furthermore, the City of Renton only has jurisdiction over land use, so the City cannot control where or how aircraft fly, only where they land. It is not legal for Renton to h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\helipads\memo to pc(feb 7).doc Ray Giometti , Page 2 of 2 February 7,2008 specify flight paths or make them conditions of a permit because it is not within the City's jurisdiction. It is also unnecessary to repeat provisions from the Renton Municipal Code(RMC). Issaquah's criteria to minimize noise and disruption(criteria A, B, and E) are already provided for by Renton's criteria for approval of conditional use permits under RMC 4-9- 030. Decision criteria for conditional uses include a review of the effects on adjacent properties and an evaluation of noise and glare. Additionally, a number of restrictions and conditions can be attached to conditional use permits that provide reasonable operational limits, including hours of operation and participation in a voluntary noise reduction program as called out in Issaquah's regulations. RMC 8-7 regulates and limits noise to state established limits. Anticipated noise above state limits should be addressed and mitigated for during project specific environmental review and conditional use permit approval. Conditional use permits are a flexible and effective regulatory tool. Permits could contain renewal provisions based on any number of circumstances including change in ownership, substitution of aircraft, or discontinuance of the use over a period of time. Leaving these provisions open in the code allows for maximum flexibility for the reviewing official to respond to the specific citizen concerns on each project. Yet, the power to establish reasonable conditions is well established. Conditional uses can also be revoked if conditions are not being met. Renton uses code compliance officers to address non-compliance with conditional use permits. If an operator does not abide by the terms of the permit, the permit can ultimately be revoked. There was question of whether or not an administrative conditional use process was appropriate. Staff would support a Hearing Examiner conditional use process, if the Planning Commission wished to modify the proposal. A Hearing Examiner conditional use process provides a slightly larger opportunity for public involvement. Also, since a Hearing Examiner process is required for helipad uses in commercial and industrial districts, this proposed change would be consistent with the process used elsewhere in the City. More than one citizen asked both of the following questions: Why not use the airport? and Why not allow helipads in any area the FAA would approve a helipad site? Renton could encourage either option, but the proposed amendment makes the most sense. Aircraft uses, in the form of seaplanes, are part of the neighborhood character for properties on Lake Washington. There are few reasons why a helicopter could not substitute for a seaplane, and any concerns can be addressed in project specific review. Seaplanes are allowed without any regulation or conditions at all. It also would not be consistent with Renton policy to allow helipads in neighborhoods where aircraft is not already a customary use. As a result, allowing helipads on residential properties along Lake Washington is an appropriate expansion of a customary use. Attachment: Environmental Review Committee Report,February 4,2008 h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\helipads\memo to pc(feb 7).doc 2007 DOCKET- HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ISSUE: Should helipads be allowed in the R-8 zone (Residential- eight units per net acre) along Lake Washington? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. BACKGROUND: In summer 2007, the City was contacted by a person complaining about a neighbor landing a helicopter in the residential neighborhood. Code compliance officers investigated the claim and began working with the helicopter owner on this issue. The helicopter owner applied for a Temporary Use Permit, to allow him to operate a helipad on his property. In the course of processing this permit, the Development Services division gathered comments from more than 50 interested parties. Although some were opposed to the operation of a helipad in this area, the vast majority were in favor of allowing this use. The City of Renton zoning code regulates helipads used for commercial purposes, as well as helipads which are accessory to a primary use. Accessory uses are activities that are subordinate or incidental to the main use of the property. Usually the uses are related to the main use, for example: outdoor materials storage for a manufacturing plant, a small workshop or extra garage behind someone's home, a home daycare business, or a drive through feature at a fast food restaurant or bank. Renton currently allows helipads as an accessory use with a conditional use permit issued by the Hearing Examiner in the light, medium and heavy industrial zones (IL, IM, IH), the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, the Commercial Office (CO) zone, the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone, and the Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1) zone. Helipads are currently prohibited in all residential zones. There are two types of conditional use permits issued by the City of Renton. Administrative conditional use permits are reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for final decision making. Hearing Examiner conditional use permits are reviewed by staff and presented at a public hearing in which the Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on approval or denial of the permit. Both processes require public notification and comment and both processes are subject to review under the decision criteria in RMC 4-9-030. These criteria instruct the reviewing official to consider the following factors in deciding whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit and include consideration of: compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need, effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and the production of noise and glare. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)regulates the design, siting, and use of helipads. Those who wish to establish a helipad, even for private use, must submit a proposal to the FAA for review and approval. As part of the approval process, the FAA conducts an aeronautical study to review safety issues and to ensure the helipad meets applicable design criteria. FAA rules do not allow aircraft to approach landing spaces over residential neighborhoods. As a result, only lake front properties would be considered for possible helipad use. Furthermore, the FAA regulates the size of helipads based on the size of aircraft that will land there. Even with 1 the smallest size of helicopter, only a few properties are large enough to accommodate an FAA approved facility. Two other communities in the area allow private helipads on residential lands. Hunts Point welcomes private helipads as a lifestyle choice and for the services they may provide in case of emergency. Redmond allows properties with frontage on Lake Sammamish to have a helipad for the use of a single aircraft. Other communities in the area do not allow helipads in residential areas unless they are established and used for emergency purposes only. Under RMC 4-3-090 L(1)b, Specific Use Regulations of Renton's Shoreline Master Program, residences along the lake front are allowed to use seaplanes. Seaplanes are limited to one per residence, and for private use only. Thus, the ability to use aircraft along the waterfront is well established. Additionally, many of the neighbors writing to the City in support of the specific proposal for the establishment of a helipad last summer expressed the importance of maintaining aviation uses for lake front properties. Aviation uses provide a number of potential benefits for lake front property owners including: recreation, increased property values, entertainment, transportation, and lifestyle enhancement. Allowing helipad use on residential properties abutting Lake Washington is a natural extension of the provisions that allow sea plane useage. The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with an administrative conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a note on the zoning use table that read: Limited to one aircraft per site. Helipads allowed only abutting Lake Washington. Helipads must be in conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)guidelines for siting and design. In addition, the permit would be subject to the standard conditional use review criteria in RMC 4-9-030, as described above. Neighbors would be given the opportunity to comment on each specific helipad proposal through this process. The Administrator also has the ability to condition approval of the conditional use permit based upon such comments. Complying with FAA and City of Renton provisions should ensure that helipad uses are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: This proposed zoning code amendment does not conflict with any of the goals, objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Single Family Residential land use designation is to create quality neighborhoods at urban densities. Throughout the City, different neighborhoods may have different factors that contribute to a quality environment. For properties on Lake Washington, the ability to operate aircraft for personal, recreational, and transportation purposes has always been an important factor in the lifestyle choices and quality of the neighborhood. CONCLUSION: Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are already allowed as accessory uses for properties abutting Lake Washington. This code change would allow property owners to operate either a seaplane or a helicopter from their property. Proposed helipads would have to meet all FAA guidelines as well as the criteria for a conditional use permit under RMC 4-9-030 in order to be approved. These measures should ensure that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. 2 Helipads Docket Item • 4-2-060 (L) ZONING USE TABLE— USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Vehicle Related Activities): ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P31 P31 P31 H31 Car washes P P P AD2 P22 Express transportation AD P AD2 services 0 Fuel dealers H59 P Industrial engine or transmission rebuild P31 P31 P31 Parking garage, structured, commercial P P P P P20 P3 P P P P102 or public Parking, surface, P38 P38 P38 P20 P3 AD commercial or public Park and ride, dedicated P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107 Park and ride, shared- P108 P108 P108 P108 P10 P108 P P P P106 P109 P107 P P107 use 8 Railroad yards P Taxi stand P AD AD Tow truck operation/auto H59 P impoundment yard Transit centers H38 H38 H38 P H2O P H38 P P103 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES (Continued) Truck terminals P Vehicle fueling stations P P P P P P38 Vehicle fueling stations, P P P AD11 P P P38 existing legal 0 Vehicle service and repair, large AD P P Page 1 of 2 Helipads Docket Item ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1 Vehicle service and P P P AD2 AD2 P repair, small Wrecking yard, auto H59 H Air Transportation Uses Airplane manufacturing H59 P Airplane manufacturing, AC AC accessory functions Airplane sales and repair P Airport, municipal P Airport-related uses AC Aviation-related uses AC Helipads, accessory to ACS 1 H H38 H38 H2O H H H97 primary use Helipads, commercial H H97 Page 2 of 2 4-2-070D RESIDENTIAL-8 DU/AC (R-8 Uses allowed in the R-8 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES P-4454 \r/mal 31i:x•ieueae*e H _� Beekeeping P#35 43.7. F,*ts.•:;omnco pei6.-veltipg AC RESIDENTIAL Detached dwelling P#19 Flats or townhouses, no greater than 2 units total per building (existing legal) P Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes, designated P#19 OTHER RES|OENT|AL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P Group homes II for 6 or less P Group homes II for 7 or more H Home occupations AC#6 SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution(public or private) H#9 K-12 educational institution(public or private),existing P#9 PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parkn, regional/community, existing P Parko, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H 1 r • • RETAIL Eating and drinking establishments P#1 Horticultural nurseries H ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities H Recreation Golf courses(existing) P Golf courses(new) H SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house,accessory AD Day Care Services Adult day care I AC Adult day care II H Day care centers H#25 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES • Park and ride, shared-use P#108 Hclipads,Accessory;o Primary se AD #111 UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45 Parabolic antennas—Large H#45 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC,where not AC otherwise listed in the Use Table 2 TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development:one model home on an existing lot P#53 Sales/marketing trailers,on-site P#53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P#10 Temporary uses P#53 4-2-080A 111. Limited to one aircraft per site. Helipads allowed only abutting Lake Washington. Helipads must be in conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for siting and design. 3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, . <0(. 0� NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC 4.4 .1/ ® ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 1, 2008 TO: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager FROM: 41.1 ''.rensen, Planner Intern, phone#425-430-6593 SUBJECT: Costs associated with Murals on Water Tanks The Planning Commission requested an investigation of the cost of placing murals on water tanks over fifty feet in height as part of siting such a structure in the future. This memo provides background information, financing sources and other insights that support a quality discussion of the issue. Planning staff collected information from three regional water utility providers with murals on water tanks (City of Tacoma, Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District and Northshore Utility District) as well as a Renton- based artist who has painted more than a dozen murals on water tanks in the Puget Sound area. Financing sources: A mural for Sammamish was part of a new facility construction budget including a tank, booster station and piping ($2.5 million project). Northshore funded a mural through an operations budget and a Tacoma project was funded through a maintenance account. Usually a mural is either included as part of a new construction budget or as part of a maintenance upgrade. Costs for a Mural: Costs for mural painting increase or decrease depending on various factors including how much surface area will be painted, how accessible the area is to artists, time of year and temperature, etc. In addition, costs can be reduced if a mural's background colors are incorporated in the protective coat rather than completely covering a tank in one color and then painting the mural as seen in pictures below. hs. q 1 , < "r+'.r.,""f 4';',...;.4L e' : �� Ate`",,,....,.-, ��.,44 "'�; ` y ' itY 1=.,k.a ( TTnx-- * qt.} h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\07-01 height requirement\mural and water tanks memo_febl_2008.doc 1 Rebecca Lind,Long Range Planning Manager Page 2 of 2 February 1,2008 In talking with the Renton-based mural artist, he roughly estimates that a 3 million gallon tank up to 65 feet tall would cost$30,000 plus or minus $5,000 for a two color tree pattern 360°in circumference. The Tacoma mural example cost$18,000 for design and painting and covered 180°of the tank's circumference. Sammamish has recently cleaned and painted a 7 million gallon tank with a mural for$25,000 as part of maintenance. Long-term maintenance costs: Outside of regular maintenance costs for a tank, murals do not pose additional long-term maintenance costs. High quality graffiti resistant paint used for the main protective coat is the same paint used for a mural. The Renton-based artist has not returned to any of the tanks his company has painted for maintenance painting, including murals that were painted almost 20 years ago. They have returned to add to graphics to a couple murals. Due to the quality of paint used, there is little need for mural maintenance. The Tacoma mural had been "tagged" but removal of the graffiti did not damage the mural. Some murals will have dirt streaks that need to be cleaned. To avoid vertical "streaking" on the side of tanks caused by rain collecting and mixing with dust and particles, a gutter and vertical drains should be part of tank design. Additional information about murals and a Powerpoint can be found on the Renton-based mural company's website: www.muraldesign.com and http://www.muraldesign.com/towers/HennigTankArt Presentation.ppt KS h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\07-01 height requirement\mural and water tanks memo_febl_2008.doc DOCKET ITEM 07-01 Maximum Height Requirement for Utilities in Residential Zones Revised January 29, 2008 ISSUE: • Should zoning rules allow for additional height for essential public utility facilities within residential zones including but not limited to above-ground water reservoir standpipes, elevated water tanks, water treatment facilities, wastewater and storm water treatment facilities? • Is the proposed 175 -foot height maximum for water reservoirs and 50-foot maximum height sufficient for public utility facilities needs while still providing opportunity for buffering of residential properties? • Should additional setback be required for the 50-foot maximum height? RECOMMENDATION: • Approve a code modification to allow additional height for aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility facilities. This amendment is proposed as a note in the development standards table allowing the height of a publicly owned utility facility, such as an above-ground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, a water treatment facility, to be increased up to a maximum height of one hundred and seventy-five feet (175 feet) to the highest point of the water storage reservoir and fifty feet (50 feet)maximum height for water facilities, such as water treatment facility, and pump stations. • Allow staff to require additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the site plan review process. • Approve language requiring graphic treatment of water tanks that exceed the height standard in the zone. BACKGROUND: Current zoning treats public facilities the same as all other structures in a zone with respect to height, setback, and lot coverage. Height in Renton's R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones are two stories and 30 feet. Existing and proposed aboveground and elevated Water reservoirs cannot meet these standard heights due to the operational and functional uses of the facilities. Public facilities are defined in the Renton Municipal Code as: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water system; storm and sanitary sewer systems,park and recreation facilities, schools,public buildings. Most of these public facilities can appropriately meet height requirements because, where structures are required (e.g. parks buildings, schools and public buildings), the function of the building does not necessitate greater height. However, water storage reservoirs and water treatment facilities, which are needed for fire protection and for domestic water uses, are an exception to that rule. The height and storage capacity of the water reservoir are needed to provide required storage capacity and to deliver the required minimum water pressure and volume for fire protection and for domestic uses. The height of water H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\07-01 Height Requirement\Revised Issue Paper 1-29.doc\AG 1 treatment facilities must be sufficient to accommodate the height of various filters and water processing and treatment equipment. In the past, variances have been requested and granted to height standards for the construction of new public facilities in residential zones. However, the variance is not the correct zoning tool to use in this instance because variances are property specific, and findings are required for hardship based on the physical constraints of the parcel. For a typical structure in the zone, these findings would be based on evidence that the size, shape or environmental constraints of a site prevent reasonable use of the parcel. However, aboveground water reservoirs and water treatment facilities, by function, typically require height much greater than 35 feet. The need for additional height is not created by any physical constraint of the site,but by the function of the use. Sites proposed for water reservoirs, water treatment facilities and pump stations, typically are larger than the minimum lot size allowed in the zone and are selected because they do not have physical constraints and also because they meet the operational and functional requirements of the facilities. The facilities typically do not require the entire 35 percent lot coverage allowed for other structures in the zone, and land is available in the larger setback for buffering adjacent uses. The water reservoir,pump station, and water treatment facility uses requires a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit as a large utility and requires a public hearing with an opportunity for public comment on site planning and buffering issues. • The Planning Commission did not support a requirement for graphic design for water treatment facilities as these structures can be designed to resemble domestic architecture. • The Commission expressed concern about potential setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump houses. The Commission felt that the additional height of up to 50 feet, while needed for the functionally of a facility, may not be appropriate within a standard 5 feet of a side setback, or standard 20 foot front setback. o It is recommended that staff be given the authority to require additional setbacks through the site plan review process. In residential zones projects do not normally trigger site plan review. If the water utility is requesting additional height it is recommended that the height modification trigger site plan review. Through the site plan review process city staff could require additional setbacks, landscaping or other improvements to improve the appearance and fit of the facility in a single family neighborhood. o This site plan review trigger is recommended to address the Planning Commission's concern about the potential visual impact of large box-like structures within single-family neighborhoods. The code has existing language for P-1 public facility height bonuses allowing additional height with a requirement for a proportional increase in setbacks. Staff considered enacting this standard for the public utility 50' height bonus. The prior recommendation to enact this language for water facilities is amended to substitute the site plan review requirement. Allowing administrative staff the ability to review setbacks through site plan H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\07-01 Height Requirement\Revised Issue Paper I-29.doc\AG i • ° review is more used to require other site planning' can also be flexible, and does not lock the city into a set stafenadtaurrde.s thatTheisnitteegrp review process plan the facility into the neighborhood. -"oht c, imum ht—,,, 'ern-lifted uP to 4-1P , /.Public facilities, are allowed the following height bonus:xf _, hurdred a. water tanks'reser,yo,itr(s;a7r, ifeet)to li\L, tL, the highest and_se\eT_I'',..':-__ and b. Water treatment facilities dministrative siteincrease setbacks ease setbacks a up to fifty (50 feet) subject to a modify setback standards to incr I.r)tmairtrec)la-lillloewre:dcravehieight bonus pump stations plan review. The reviewitnhgeosffitieciapllamnay part of review approval. . Public Utilitiy facilities greater RMC - 4 9-160 and shall be f art funding. c public art pursuant to than50 feet in heigohtosrhall be treated with , , rbe7ii,ee_d, b_y, the Renton Municipal Arts Commission and be eligiblefor 1 _ --- ). ..,4,, . ..e, • „. ,, .0, -,',..- V • . \,,i 4%,,,„A, 11.'..., , ...%.,,, . '1%41, . -,.,,.. - i,s ,, t,, ,.'• ,‘,,_ ..;,:': ,. -, ,7, , S 1 . ; ,.-*,,,\\*.§T',,, ,i ,---• , S,,,, ' - ' 's A4- ',,,-_,,,,,, - - .06 -- 5 .. --.. -, . "'" •' ''''t'' -*0 , "..' S _ ' ,,.2,7,, SS SI ,, " ,• : ,e - :-• .,;.' 4, .' '' 't,,‘ - ,..•\.% „., -, ,.. , Y4• ---- . - s;...---,- •-i-, . , .,,i ,..„ - , . ,.':. - .' ,......„,, ,._,..,"v '-',•*:, ; „ - 4001,e -;,---,. . ... _ , ',',...'`' SW •2,... l''' ;7'1' ' ,..'- -- -- .'''', - ••.. - ,..r .\ s, ', .,* 1, '''' i — w , - '7#. .,,,-,,.,,,. ..7:-..-, ' *.'1Vz'--':‘,*.-.4L.A.I*1',-;4,'Af:04',AiV'M‘,.---'7,•,,,• -' -..n..:— 14Z.4-eW11,4:-:- .'At'Al.-.7- z•Vit : _ , > =4,,., 1_ ,.'4,-",'-'2' , ..":. • - ‘,'c' it 44-,p-- -',,t 13:'' -` , HAEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\07-0I Height Requirement\Revised Issue Paper I-29.doc\AG t s COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: Implementation of a height exception for essential public facilities in residential zones meets Land Use Element Objective LU-R:Locate and plan for public facilities in ways that benefit abroad range of potential public uses. It also meets Policy LU-79: Guide and modify development of essential public facilities to meet Comprehensive Plan policies and to mitigate impacts and costs to the City. A height exception complies with the Comprehensive Plan because the facility could not be located or planned for in a residential area with a conventional height. CONCLUSION: Allowing additional height of a maximum of 175 feet for water reservoirs and 50 feet maximum height for public utility facilities allows these facilities to be constructed in neighborhoods where they are needed in order to provide required water storage for fire protection of public and private properties and for domestic water uses H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\07-01 Height Requirement\Revised Issue Paper 1-29.doc\AG 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 9. "Pt blit-.Suffix"-{P)-propertiesPublic facilities, are allowed the following height bonus: a.Water towers/reservoirs are permitted up to a maximum height of one hundred and seventy-five feet(175 feet) to the highest point of the reservoir b. Water treatment facilities and pump stations are allowed up to fifty(50 feet) subject to site plan review. . The reviewing official may modify setback standards to increase setbacks as parr of the site plan review approval. c. Public utility facilities exceeding 50 feet in height shall be treated with public art consistent with RMC 4-9-160. Such public art shall be eligible for 1% for art fundine, and shall be reviewed by the Renton Art Commission c. Other Ppublicly owned structures shall be permitted an additional fifteen feet (15') in height above that otherwise permitted in the zone if "pitched roofs," as defined herein, are used for at least sixty percent (60%) or more of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. In addition, the height of a publicly owned structure may be increased as follows; a. When abutting a public street, one additional foot of height for each additional one and one-half feet(1-1/2')of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum street setback required; and/or #:d.When abutting a common property line, one additional foot of height for each additional two feet (2')of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a common property line. Page 1 T-NIV' NJ& '-kern s Agenda Item No.: 9` RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGf . 5 hil-t-±1*-- 6 PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) 23 fl' CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE r� CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE 3,1? �J DATE: 9"00 D /PLEASE PRINT 1 5 Minute Time Limit 1 5 per ' ja- Name: s'7-8 /6 /1/l �( i.,) ,6 &(__ Name: 0'r' ors Address: oZ 7 ./n7-/v• Vo rI G/A/ Address:-4 6 S ' 1 k ,^-s 6v44'1l'a. City r4"17-696\7 Zip Code 9 Cs'D S C- City A c- ''''.6' Zip Code q a 0-Sc Topic: }„/LsL / 2,-. 6.9/2 % S. Topic: (-t- n-t l fr Name: cJ04A4 /eCY,SG-f/V Name: Toy- -1--4. orh Z- x,7/659 t, Address: CD2 _ /V - W -CI- Address: 1/ / /�lj/g- s iV-P.-- M City iC-- lard , Zip Code p City ,/"F6,i A, y Zip Code X45--6' Topic: it Z-f Pge--7:- Topic: X /j6p yt— 3 ,/� 7 Name: t t t'io S v--) Name: jc_N- ( to .7<.),Sacs k Address: ?.f-CA.) ,co I ` cct e ( Address: � ']QC 0, AL.,,,c- Cityc c Zip Code q t 7k City t' , Zip Code �g s- Topic: c .14Q 1 , y Topic: 0=, 4 8 Name: (kJ „_tj' Name: /ç , : ( �7,Le7(--- _ Address: 21 �I I Virlf V. m etni Address: City Zip Code go-c G' City v,7 ; • Zip Code 5 Topic: ( (St FS Topic: /(‘,6_/62/ K->yvc,s_a___,- ____, (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) ll-i-l-6 / V /A4Z,0- ���m 3 (Continued from Reverse Side-Page 2) RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 9 13 r / / ` 0 1 � 7i ,Name: ��i�Y fire-till C Name: '' l Address: 3 7 '.6 Address: 5/ L9� 3 R 2- !c/)1 City k a6y�0 6 Zip Code p25% City • / c Zip Code 5gb5- Topic: He l 1 �o _6e /fie 1 '� Topic: tit- r i ,, :9 10 14 Name:C6 i 1 Gc9P2---M-10P2. Name: eGf,t L ul i a'S Address: 300 I /YloU f th Vl&w 'v N Address: 1(/Z j� , i- S. 57- • City Y` TY1 Zip Code 6I$ b S City &,er6H Zip Code c7,06-6, Topic: 14,e �t pp Topic: (e_trad 11t -?/�'• 15 Name: \,2___ ��� ;._.--_,E.,,,,,62:,.___) Bo w �e V Name: CLLeVV-°"-- Address: Address:"1---121 - i ID-f- "-` - City g/1/74-- Zip Code *-0_c--5 City Z` z"/•./ Zip Code tet.%L --t'- Topic: T l , /f ds„_ f Topic: l-\;� L. `-l� 12 16 Name: ,. tffit Name: R i l l JO k Vl C D IF Address: Address: �� K P WcAtd.. `�-w 131 ..& A City dae yi Zip Code City. Zip Code 616.0 .0 �7 c Topic: 0)4d )(di Topic: 46,(pk) 1 I I-e, *a- ' -agenda Item No.: Li/pd i RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5 kiLa- 2- PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING " SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE DATE: PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 1 5 Name: w2 Z Dri-i4 Name: j D E so EA rr, Address: 52n %?- Zi-( /% Address: C 0 7 m ril b y 4J Wu F N it'c,v N y 064/E City 120---A-- -( /L✓A- Zip Code Circ 7 City IQ ,moi Zip Code ,0 Topic: /-/-e-6Topic: y,4 /, R d 2 6 Name: c`.,/e y✓ <_Or i'1 a k Name 1Y'� - '1 L �. L4c Z/ Address: 6 Address: ��� J 31 Pvt\TrA City p,..,,,,, , Zip Code City Zip Code/ � Topic: 741,e 9,t_r_i____, Topic:/ L,� (ng3 -, 7 n Name: � / Q/ ��� Name: Address: 3 L) 3 L to A' 1 1"d JV Address: City P4\ Zip Code n0--CL City Zip Code Topic: f /) Topic: _ 4 Name: 0-b T' V1� M l 4 ci 1 b r 00ks g Name: O N J 4'o /?S k/ Address: -5)d 5.(2--Yt ecc` kJ' vk..9 Address: 3 7 I, 84 Ar-e- �G 5 City P�'�',�yL Zip Code 9 g ,S p�l City (�'�(tr rr✓ Zip Code �I C Topic: II ._,.., ,,:6:),,,_k_ Topic: 144/ (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: R) Ak,,) v Phone# 42-6 -22-7 -017 6 Address: 2F6 y, P T /V E-mail 61 iq\ P _,21r t s s n City (rv, ) State (AJA Zip Code "�,�O Topic: ` �GU To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: C /`-�- 71-19-41A Phone# 2 d l0 7!, (71 o �/ Address:. ? P7 duT/M VF-1^1 E-mail "RG 44.C4rvl'/11-29 Com 4t-fi. � /VC City RF.-,NrTh (30/00 A/ State �j(/1 Zip Code 1/o Topic: P To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record,to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: S-1/1-1 v - Phone# -tic c9-7/ / 6cV Address:.30/J - ( y E-mail City *),() N State VA— Zip Code ? Topic: Ar To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. • • SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: KO Li 6 Phone # — Address: \ N\ -LiA) E-mail �� 10. �.2lCA Y' Q .Cpi City IRR State J Zip Code tiC)._ 49 • Topic: seA, ea,,d To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. f jg / Name: cS 0 rF . Phone# 2 00 " o/,-3 G i 6. Address: 32°5 M ctil i (1 — ; E-mail ; '4—e' f Q. e Ptith C49?r‘ City 'g e-a t+-ot t State wA- Zip Code ) 33 ii Topic: v 1 'C l Peck To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. roan es Name: 4//-24 .5Phone# Address: /74/"ZZ., --<G✓ E-mail 72' IA196S e4) City State Zip Code -gar/ Topic: We/A/ To address the Renton City Council,please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record,to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Na ' � /� Phone# 20C /7r Address: 1-P{22 l ivc-Ao 44o E-mail . ,r- �� A,l j City A ( - State fthf Zip Code 92Z)17/0 Topic: -{7'23/ PA To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. • SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: 141\1 Co W Phone # Address:TO (, eee I / E-mail r1A6-1KM 2K e-mi L City1..(-3. State LA Zip Code 96 Topic: T9 P To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. NA,-414115641, °1+ Sir -1,1 5Azt.r SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: "'-1©14 V H 134--) t41- V Phone# -7-496 97a- Address: pZ )1 el q tAt) c00 E-mailJk?ewAPp_l wta yth, C° C t rnecos$.co4 S LIQ'. .f� City ' State LAZip Code 9270 Topic: p To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. (,)=JY , SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. ✓1 Name: (� 11# Phone# q°� ►' c '3 Address: 10Q3 E-mail MI<Ctpdan&to 1, can) City TMState V f c Zip Code °��s & Topic: Uva To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. C�t r.M Ino sp./.41-K) • SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: atN r en 01041- Phone # `'t 2-g 1QO Address: 6 (0 3 1 t ora id E-mail City ' `�, l� L State L'OII Zip Code q0-1 Topic: ' l' pet. zauTLodi. a--1/1b2-ttd-rn-f-i-V To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. al- goo e March 24, 2008 Mayor Law and members of the Renton City Council Respected members of the Council: My name is Pegi DuBois Galster I have lived in Renton on the shore of Lake Washington since 1970. I bought my home at a time when the shores of the lake contained, log booms, remnants of mills and creosote plants. A time when most septic systems drained directly into the lake. Crayfish were so plentiful, they were fished daily, (only because the water was so dirty.) We all swam in the lake; however, we certainly took a bath once we got out In the early to mid 1970's the citizens of Renton began a mission of becoming stewards of the water and the shoreline as well as our neighborhoods and our city. As citizens we worked diligently on the Shoreline Master plan. Even voting for rules that as home owners would make it difficult or impossible for us to do many of the things we might want to do with our property. We passed a sewer LID, costing each waterfront home owner many thousands of dollars _ We passed a local bond issue of over 8 million dollars (a lot of money back then) to build Gene Coulon Park. We did these things because we realized it was our responsibility to protect one of our most valued resources. To make certain that ALL the citizens could enjoy the beauty and tranquility of their neighborhoods and the lake safely. I come here tonight, hopefully not as a lone voice in the wilderness, to ask you not to change the ordinance to allow private heliports to be build, not just on the shores of our lake, but in our neighborhood. I realize that The ERC has issued a decision of non significance, however, I feel strongly that much of the information they received is in error. Reading thru the study, I could not find any information as to how it was obtained, or what sources were relied upon. Tonight I will focus on only one of the determinations as an example Noise I have taken the liberty of quoting other agencies countering much of the information provided to the ERC. I • These studies state that helicopter noise is quite different from fixed wing aircraft, that the noise perceived by the human ear increases one and a half times for everfdecibel increase. They state that indeed helicopters are much louder that any other single source of noise usually found in neighborhoods, i.e. leaf blowers, weed whackers. The agency studies state at 100 feet helicopters are 50% louder than a weed whacker, and can easily reach over 150 decibels as perceived by the human ear... Helicopters do not have a slow gain to full throttle, as does a seaplane. They are either on or off...either full decibel noise level or none at alL If you change the ordinance, this noise will not occur hundreds of feet off shore or hundreds of feet in the air as does a seaplane or one of our Boeing Jets. It will occur 50-100 away from someone's bedroom window. Lower Kennydale is an extremely quiet neighborhood; we hear practically no freeway noise, traffic on Lake Washington Blvd. travels at 25 miles per hour. Certainly in the summer months, when the weather is good we have recreational vehicle noise. The news helicopters fly overhead....hundreds of feet away from our homes, and yet people still complain. What will happen when the noise is in our back yards? If you pass this ordinance change, it will set a very serious precedent. At this juncture only Hunts Point with 5 acre parcels allows helicopters on private residences. Several communities forbid them completely on shore and those that would consider them have several pages of restrictions that must be met before doing so. I urgently request that before you consider passing this change you require an in-depth noise study conducted by people trained in the use of such sound meters. Many of the studies say that a simple decibel meter purchased at a place similar to Radio Shack is not able to accurately register the level of noise.Specific meters are require& I realize that change is always going to occur. However, I ask:Is increasing noise, increasing safety concerns and decreasing the quality of life in our neighborhood the kind of change that will make Renton a better place to live? r I have attached copies of the sound studies I have quoted for your consideration. Thank you. Respectfully Pegi Dubois Galster Noise Levels - Stop the SF General Hospital Helipad Page 1 of 2 In1.0 Stop 'The Heli ad p . . ...... .. , WINAM OW** - NOISE LEVELS g INFORMATION SEARCH Donations Give Money Volunteer To Help Sign Up Here Compare Helicopter NOISE to Everyday Sound: [Each 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived as The Petition: Sign the Petition approximately a doubling of loudness.] Keep Informed: Sound Decibel Join Our Mailing List Level • Rustling More Information: Leaves 20 dB Bay Area Hospital Helipads San Francisco Helipads Whispering 25 dB Who will use SFGH helipad? Library 30 dB Environmental Impact 40 dB Property Values Noise Average 50 dB Flight Paths Home Helicopter Flight Costs Normal Fatal Helicopter Crashes 60 dB Normal speech at 3-5 feet. SFGH Neighbors'Comment conversation g Telephone .65 dB ring Idling 70 dB Idling motorcycle sounds twice as loud motorcycle as normal conversation, because 10 Busy Traffic 75 dB dBs louder. Accelerating 80 dB Motorcycle at full throttle sounds twice motorcycle as loud as at idle, because 10 dBs Electric louder. drill, weed 85 dB whacker at This is the predicted noise level that 6 feet nearby residents will hear at night with Screaming 85 dB windows closed. Imagine sleeping Child through the noise of an electric drill at 95 dB the foot of your bed. Jack 100 dB Hammer Helicopter 105 dB Jackhammer another doubling of the noise level. Helicopter at 100 feet is 50% louder than a jackhammer. Helicopter Noise Noise from the large twin-engine medical transport helicopters in a metropolitan area is a serious problem. It will rattle windows and knock pictures off the wall, because there is a strong low and subsonic frequency component to this type of noise. http://stophelipad.org/noise_levels.shtml 3/22/2008 Noise Levels - Stop the SF General Hospital Helipad Page 2 of 2 —ami ke rus aie •,we , / X _ ! / t II 1 /► t No� '` % - \ ----`/ ---1 ;p . R_.--_—__ _.___ • 1 m 1 t... - vt W IS 70 7S n 14 :u ai .. , n> Tam sic. Figure 7- Estimated outdoor and interior noise lem els from helicopter over Structural Vibration is created by helicopter noise. A helicopter produces long-wave infrasound that is NOT blocked by walls and windows, acoustic absorbers or atmosphere to the same degree as audible sound. The vibration and rattle induced in buildings by helicopters caused human test subjects a level of "annoyance"equivalent to control noise that was 20 dB higher. See: FAA Aviation Noise Effects, p. 70. http://www.nonoise.org/library/ane/ane.htm Effect of Aircraft Noise on Property Values Many studies have tried to establish the impact on land values that results from overhead aircraft noise. Learn more about the effects of air traffic noise on property values. Contact Us IPetition I Mailing List I Site Map http://stophelipad.org/noise_levels.shtml 3/22/2008 Costs - Stop the SF General Hospital Helipad Page 1 of 2 • rafilStop TheHeHpad COSTS 8 INFORMATION Property Values will drop significantly SEARCH Donations The mantra of real estate professionals is"location, location, Give Money location" . No one willingly chooses to buy a home under a flight path, unless they are enticed by a low price for the property. Volunteer To Help Sign Up Here Real estate law requires sellers to reveal noise and other nuisance factors prior to sale, using a Real Estate Transfer The Petition: Sign the Petition Disclosure Statement. This allows informed buyers to look elsewhere, or to lower their offer. It follows that home values will Keep Informed: be substantially lower near a hospital helipad with "up to 3 flights Join Our Mailing List a day", as predicted by SF General in the Helipad Initial Study. More Information: STUDIES MEASURE AIRPORT IMPACT Bay Area Hospital Hetipads San Francisco Hetipads Who will use SFGH helipad? In 1994, the consulting firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. was Environmental Impact commissioned by the Federal Aviation Administration to prepare Property Values a study entitled, The Effect of Airport Noise on Housing Values:A Noise Summary pstudy developedmethodology HHReport. The a for ligct Paths elicopter Flight Costs evaluating the impact of noise on housing values by comparing Fatal Helicopter Crashes market prices in similar neighborhoods that differed only in the SFGH Neighbors'Comment level of airport related noise. The study found that the effect of noise on prices was highest in moderately priced and expensive neighborhoods. For two moderately priced "paired" neighborhoods north of LAX, the study found "an average 18.6 percent higher property value in the quiet neighborhood, or 1.33 percent per dB of additional quiet." A 1996 study, funded by a grant from the Legislature of the State of Washington, used somewhat similar methodology and found that the proposed expansion of Seattle-Tacoma Airport would cost five nearby cities $500 million in property values and $22 million in real-estate tax revenue. The study of single family homes in "very good"condition, with "three or more bedrooms and two or more baths" and "excluding the most expensive and inexpensive units to provide more representative comparisons" found that "a housing unit in the immediate vicinity of the airport would sell for 10.1 percent more—if it were located elsewhere." The study also concluded that, "all other things remaining equal, the value of a house and lot increases by about 3.4% for every quarter of a mile the house is farther away from being directly underneath the flight track of departing/approaching jet aircraft". In 1997, Randall Bell, MAI, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker and instructor for the http://stophelipad.org/property_valuesl.shtml 3/22/2008 'Costs - Stop the SF General Hospital Helipad Page 2 of 2 Appraisal Institute, provided the results of his own professional analysis to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. After examining 190 sales comparables over the previous six months, in communities near LAX, John Wayne airport and Ontario Airport, Mr. Bell found a diminution in value due to airports averaging 27.4 percent. The noise and danger of low-flying helicopter landings and departures over San Francisco's Mission District and Protrero Hill, will reverse significant improvements in these neighborhoods that has occurred in the last 10 years. In addition, lower prices for home sales will reduce real-estate tax revenues to the city of San Francisco. This loss will far outweigh the expected increase in revenue to the Hospital generated by the insured patients flown in by helicopter from surrounding counties. Contact Us I Petition I Mailing List I Site Map 1 http://stophelipad.org/property_valuesl.shtml 3/22/2008 1 Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart Page 1 of 3 GEN CAROL c:.:...J,�-s.:Mn)':�":*:3,...s,..s,i.:�??;'.eTi-kkaev...v,.^J,.a..�e4.e�a.=:srt:iu'-i:,±.vn:�S..»",.s,.-.,x3`=':.::✓,,dii��i'^-1^.S?;'.>.e..1.v.,;::��?i!`v:':.k'.;a e:�=ifi Decibel (Loudness)Comparison Chart Page 2 of 3 • .5 II 110dB .25 or less 115dB Perceptions of Increases in Decibel Level Imperceptible Change 1dB Barely Perceptible Change 3dB Clearly Noticeable Change 5dB About Twice as Loud 10dB About Four Times as Loud 20dB Sound Levels of Music Normal piano practice 60-70dB Fortissimo Singer,3' 70dB Chamber music,small auditorium 75-85dB Piano Fortissimo 84-103dB Violin 82-92dB Cello 85-111dB Oboe 95-112dB Flute 92-103dB Piccolo 90-106dB Clarinet 85-114dB French horn 90-106dB Trombone 85-114dB Tympani&bass drum 106dB Walkman on 5/10 94dB Symphonic music peak 120-137dB Amplifier rock,4-6' 120dB Rock music peak 150dB NOTES: • One-third of the total power of a 75-piece orchestra comes from the bass drum. • High frequency sounds of 2-4,000 Hz are the most damaging.The uppermost octave of the piccolo is 2,048-4,096 Hz. • Aging causes gradual hearing loss,mostly in the high frequencies. • Speech reception is not seriously impaired until there is about 30 dB loss;by that time severe damage may have occurred. • Hypertension and various psychological difficulties can be related to noise exposure. • The incidence of hearing loss in classical musicians has been estimated at 4-43%,in rock musicians 13-30%. Statistics for the Decibel(Loudness)Comparison Chart were taken from a study by Marshall Chasin, M.Sc.,Aud(C),FAAA,Centre for Human Performance&Health,Ontario,Canada.There were some conflicting readings and,in many cases,authors did not specify at what distance the readings were taken or what the musician was actually playing.In general,when there were several readings,the higher one was chosen. h :// Gaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html 3/21/2008 � www.g Noise pollution- Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 6 NoiseP ollution From Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia t Pollution Noise pollution (or environmental noise) is displeasing Air pollution human or machine created sound that disrupts the activity or j Acid rain•Air Quality Index• happiness of human or animal life. A common form of noise Atmospheric dispersion modeling• pollution is from transportation,principally motor vehicles.[11 Chlorofluorocarbon•Global dimming• The word "noise" comes from the Latin word nausea meaning I quato al warming g•Hazeetion••IndoPartior air li • "seasickness", or from a derivative (perhaps Latin noxia)of .Smog Latin noceo= "I do harm", referring originally to nuisance �2� Water pollution noise.[2] Eutrophication•Hypoxia•Marine — — j pollution•Ocean acidification•Oil spill• 1 Contents ( Ship pollution• Surface runoff•Thermal • j pollution•Wastewater•Waterbome diseases•Water quality•Water stagnation ■ 1 Sources of noise Soil contamination • 2 Human health 1 Bioremediation•Herbicide•Pesticide• • 2.1 Hearing Soil Guideline Values(SGVs) • 2.2 Cardiovascular health 1 { • 2.3 Annoyance f Radioactive contamination Actinides in the environment• ■ 3 Environment j Environmental radioactivity•Fission • 3.1 Habitat reduction I I product•Nuclear fallout•Plutonium in the ± • 3.2 Lombard vocal response 1 environment•Radiation poisoning• • 3.3 Other habit changes I Radium in the environment•Uranium in • 4 Mitigation and control of noise I the environment • 5 Legal status Other types of pollution • 6 See also j Invasive species•Light pollution•NoiseI • 7 References j pollution •Radio spectrum pollution• • 8 External links Visual pollution • 9 Geographical links � j Inter-government treaties • Montreal Protocol•Nitrogen Oxide Protocol•Kyoto Protocol•CLRTAP Sources of noise { Major organizations DEFRA•EPA•Global Atmosphere The source of most noise worldwide is transportation systems, i Watch•Greenpeace•National Ambient motor vehicle noise,but also including aircraft noise and rail { Air Quality Standards noise.[3][1] Poor urban planning may give rise to noise Related topics pollution, since side-by-side industrial and residential Environmental Science•Natural buildings can result in noise pollution in the residential area. L environment Other sources are office equipment, factory machinery, construction work, appliances, power tools, lighting hum and audio entertainment systems. Noise from recreational vehicles has become a problem. ATVs, also known as quads, have increased in popularity and are joining the two wheeled dirt motorcycles for off-road riding. The noise produced by these vehicles is particularly disturbing due to the wide variations in frequency and volume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution 3/21/2008 Noise pollution -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 6 Haman health Noise health effects are both health and behavioral in nature. The unwanted sound is called noise pollution. This unwanted sound can damage physiological and psychological health. Noise pollution can cause annoyance and aggression, hypertension,high stress levels,tinnitus, hearing loss, and other harmful effects.[4][5] Furthermore, stress and hypertension are the leading causes to health problems, whereas tinnitus can lead to forgetfulness, severe depression and at times panic attacks.[5][6] Hearing The mechanism for chronic exposure to noise leading to hearing loss is well established. The elevated sound levels cause trauma to the cochlear structure in the inner ear, which gives rise to irreversible hearing loss.[4] A very loud sound in a particular frequency range can damage the cochlea's hair cells that respond to that range thereby reducing the ear's ability to hear those frequencies in the future.[7] However, loud noise in any frequency range has deleterious effects across the entire range of human hearing.[8] The outer ear(visible portion of the human ear)combined with the middle ear amplifies sound levels by a factor of 20 when sound reaches the inner ear.[9] In Rosen's work on health effects and hearing loss, one of his findings derived from tracking Maaban tribesmen, who were insignificantly exposed to transportation or industrial noise. This population was systematically compared by cohort group to a typical U.S. population. The findings proved that aging is an almost insignificant cause of hearing loss, which instead is associated with chronic exposure to moderately high levels of environmental noise.[4] Cardiovascular health Y sic High noise levels can contribute to cardiovascular effects and exposure 7 to moderately high levels during a single eight hour period causes a 111 ` statistical rise in blood pressure of five to ten points and an increase in �` stress[10] and vasoconstriction leading to the increased blood pressure - `Z .._ noted above as well as to increased incidence of coronary artery • disease. A landing Qantas Boeing 747- 400 passes close to houses on Annoyance the boundary of London Heathrow Airport, England ' Noise pollution is a cause of annoyance: 1. The meaning listeners attribute to the sound influences annoyance, so that, if listeners dislike the noise content,they are annoyed. What is music to one is noise to another. 2. If the sound causes activity interference, noise is more likely to annoy (for example, sleep disturbance) 3. If listeners feel they can control the noise source, the noise is less likely to be annoying. 4. If listeners believe that the noise is subject to third-party control, including police,but control has failed, they are more annoyed. 5. The inherent unpleasantness of the sound causes annoyance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution 3/21/2008 1 Noise pollution- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 3 of 6 6. Contextual sound. If the sound is appropriate for the activity it is in context. If one is at a race track the noise is in context and the psychological effects are absent. If one is at an outdoor picnic the race track noise will produce adverse psychological and physical effects. A 2005 study by Spanish researchers found that in urban areas households are willing to pay approximately four Euros per decibel per year for noise reduction.[11] Environment Noise can have a detrimental effect on animals by causing stress,increasing risk of mortality by changing the delicate balance in predator/prey detection and avoidance, and by interfering with their use of sounds in communication especially in relation to reproduction and in navigation. Acoustic overexposure can lead to temporary or permanent loss of hearing.[12] Habitat reduction An impact of noise on animal life is the reduction of usable habitat that noisy areas may cause, which in the case of endangered species may be part of the path to extinction. One of the best known cases of damage caused by noise pollution is the death of certain species of beached whales,brought on by the loud sound of military sonar.[13] Lombard vocal response Noise also makes species communicate louder, which is called Lombard vocal response.[14] Scientists and researchers have conducted experiments that show whales' song length is longer when submarine- detectors are on.[15] If creatures don't "speak" loud enough, their voice will be masked by anthropogenic sounds. These unheard voices might be warnings, finding of prey, or preparations of net-bubbling. When one species begins speaking louder, it will mask other species' voice, causing the whole ecosystem to eventually speak louder. Other habit changes Zebra finches become less faithful to their partners when exposed to traffic noise. This could alter a population's evolutionary trajectory by selecting "sexy" traits, sapping resources normally devoted to other activities and thus lead to profound genetic and evolutionary consequences.[16] Mitigation and control of noise Technology to mitigate or,remove noise can be applied as follows: • There are a variety of strategies for mitigating roadway noise including: use of noise barriers, limitation of vehicle speeds, , Wµ�rc � �-tom.-Ky alteration of roadway surface texture, limitation of heavy duty ���.� vehicles, use of traffic controls that smooth vehicle flow to reduce braking and acceleration and tire design. An important --"r; l; factor in applying these strategies is a computer model for - roadway noise,that is capable of addressing local topography, The sound tube in Melbourne. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution 3/21/2008 Noise pollution- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 4 of 6 meteorology,traffic operations and hypothetical mitigation. Costs of building-in mitigation can be modest, provided these Australia,designed to reduce hout ; solutions are sought in the planning stage of a roadway project. eoadwngy noise hwetarea detracting from the area's • Aircraft noise can be reduced to some extent by design of quieter aesthetics. jet engines, which was pursued vigorously in the 1970s and 1980s. This strategy has brought limited but noticeable reduction of urban sound levels. Reconsideration of operations, such as altering flight paths and time of day runway use, have demonstrated benefits for residential populations near airports. FAA sponsored residential retrofit(insulation)programs initiated in the 1970s has also enjoyed success in reducing interior residential noise in thousands of residences across the United States. • Exposure of workers to Industrial noise has been addressed since the 1930s. Changes include redesign of industrial equipment, shock mounting assemblies and physical barriers in the workplace. Legal status Governments up until the 1970s viewed noise as a"nuisance" rather than an environmental problem. In the United States there are federal standards for highway and aircraft noise; states and local governments typically have very specific statutes on building codes,urban planning and roadway development. In Canada and the EU there are few national, provincial, or state laws that protect against noise. Noise laws and ordinances vary widely among municipalities and indeed do not even exist in some cities. An ordinance may contain a general prohibition against making noise that is a nuisance, or it may set out specific guidelines for the level of noise allowable at certain times of the day and for certain activities. Most city ordinances prohibit sound above a threshold intensity from trespassing over property line at night, typically between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., and during the day restricts it to a higher sound level; however, enforcement is uneven. Many municipalities do not follow up on complaints. Even where a municipality has an enforcement office, it may only be willing to issue warnings, since taking offenders to court is expensive. Many conflicts over noise pollution are handled by negotiation between the emitter and the receiver. Escalation procedures vary by country, and may include action in conjunction with local authorities, in particular the police. Noise pollution often persists because only five to ten percent of people affected by noise will lodge a formal complaint. Many people are not aware of their legal right to quiet and do not know how to register a complaint. See also • A-weighting . Aircraft noise • Light pollution • List of environmental health hazards • Noise barrier • Noise-induced hearing loss • Noise measurement • Noise regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution 3/21/2008 � ( r Et -icaet Mfr I w ?fd=avi�e; ' 24.� . Cof rll9 a ea Y;-1;u- 6111 a Puss d Aaaee a deme r�,udewee • . 49uenhesuoo .6 peal a xwt s{°gQepfee'e,�e ;o res.(UV of que peuie{um eq,p sgeeswru m een .. tei p40ut` w' '(e?e��-uelal �i (ls4s e�l'Kf eseessf •� x 1t�ogeuuo{un(400$4o e$fl$$of s ms's ."sue ,o t Lt es ooe o,soperudw n.ssgldxe'se40 ane eu sesp . fsto) 8,4N eoaou uiofp M e8uetp r-4 pel ,s4 ptim seoJefos 4a R�ePren a amng 41e,s'�is!w+9$u GafieHd seep dtr+u s uo pepnpy tc6geuup4cu eta Atom*tigril SOW 19) + - • ern: 4JPd qieVimittrairsti itOJftci, at a 09t '-„L',.. seta - S-1-t,r�w 4"4 10 v 1-r czL 1-14,(1 ON 79V Of-7 -5-1-0-1 ar /� aim .; rv-v NQd d o atia55 -L---4a,d05: p MO 0540 itilOt3 0940 WOO-OO '0€to ,i ii590MO:. 41416.z N 0£90 9t90 i' 96Stt° 9faf 3+at �/ 1d4,11iN sZ90, ,«. S6eo woo •0160 9i6-(1'0990 9990` 0,01' a yxn +7' `� ;'tea } f 1i .-s•�-. n. 0s5r►. ossa • ' at 0r Htn.G.t}?lne, . •:-. • .seep �i080 6010 0110 0fla tx 040 9990:\.. --- .- 50afid: $'4 �'S 09tt £ett '.:a - 1' � `:b 06t-t sat '7. s9at tsar arae Seat sea{ :X7 fsfa 994‘'. 3+;vauj awl. ; safe --; ---1s H4cr rr:---- ___ _, , .f£ftfftt elft 0.*t 0tr0. - k"66P0; fzr -r•-.376,711i-try-2.-4-7-14,y : . . • ` 9$£a;' (Tor 506£ gal tat 00£1 vier-wet Ott ofiti. ' 9f£tJ sl£R age,. : or b -LS ' ' • . . VW cost .;:sect orit sena,' oos£ • 9 3 5Vif �t1/�d4'3 5 -?1,2142i-?/H set'rlst 0sst on ars{ atsG lJ O*UBS •+. 4." ." 1 Sled sse£ W - O£-Mt IS Otigt 1$Ut $4 - " - s£�c 0000 l AV - - ss6t 1994, 096e 966ti Sala • seta'• ••t , ...:_ 9.49. . 9Z9t 90SG vitt /C n f ' - alli =Y G S Wtl. 000 I `afcoo9cas9ta70 f . . cia,1 s440--)9191-6./.1• a /- 4i r#4yv, . sR : ,: Utz.. . , 92OZ t10 09OZ afiae st0t'aiee 0100'seo ?fi • -• 71Le Iws - - loa ` #•5 vg 3 ?de'35 �ir�lro.-r�7. 964ld QtitX N Ss00 r 4ffZ ogee 09q-SW: S9AQ' ,- 1L06 sou int t9ZZ IL - - op. ' ,l pili .0t • S19Z" 1S41K N• s£[Z.0S1Z ' {._ - - - aalZ SZ1Z. 4Z0O.,, :`.x SLSZ 09V sfSZ: tEV ; 'me; .� ? '.� 1S H15£N !' .' - ai6Z : -' .- .:. 3r-- t . - .. ss6z Me; n 9t5Z•- CSSZ 116z 1i '-r - - • Me OMR 0612 Ss1Z 6912.:"Gj -. . e90E 1S H19E N .1-010.'_...-At- - .•. ;Pm 040£ --�x» r 996o r9£0 09£0yi ! - 01£0 69 0 - t , ,�' .,.: `7 y a • g .. - IP Hll£N j+!RE • f ._ : ‘'ill.' '.. d•db l f • Q. We, the undersigned, support Charlie Conner and Anne Simpson in their privilege to takeoff and land their Helicopter from their residence at 3001 Mt View Ave N., Renton. Name Address Sip(gnature Date -4- \ 5 r__Th) 1 ( vvv 0 c V.-{G t % v-\�l 2 t,�.) N. 3/4/:7- w,-r- i cpo L,( 3E: ik:21,,__t „Iv,ji,,,,,J-i-ttt 0 .-1,,....,50A-v;_E-ofv- \ / , , , elk/4- S o l t tTni,, •1 V(cw etv-� t\JR Ek-i Licf3 ETN SPo usf GZ2u�Emrt t�v 9 g o 5-1., / / . 4—_______ l/o.F a,,, , i., S-741/4/ --g -,14-6.d iv(Ail- ff?-5-76 60 - W 4 7 301 3 �t M vvev Au,- N. ,, /���7h ,-'7L 1 -7 7L2 j Gals R`ScP--5::‘ / 7 / (-C.G1t 0/7;. • �J 3ni3 H-}-4 ,(ie Ave ►� ,_ it E\ i ,, /il 167 �0 3 t o t M o-wn E five N, , v,_.,'4/n e_, c d K f m,nl ,..E,,_,„ vi`.- q y o s-L, i�m: ' (0./ , r''°w► 41'7 /437 Cil E� A �a`e),/J7,IJ _/Q/ `71„ .�.„-,G�- '7, 5�, / /,,,,, / \ �..„,,,,,c____:...-: /,Ht_ ad r& 004 , 1� �1/,,,;,/,i &9/7/ `-, v-f� et� - I) al �;)�7� P VI)/p 1�i 6N7d� (A g r� / /i •i ' _ ,Lc;k jce (\,Wacie41,,aU, eLk_o_t 3-ler`4,�osG am. - - 'air-. W1/07 fs, 7 ivtT/''. V441 ' //9 IA /Ai- ST.G i/�'/�/ A-lvl Ai..), t L ig ,^OT�.f`/ , Gc1/I - . .e,s ..,,t7--/- L/'Ll -->�f-e27 �� ( � � 2 �� ry 4- 1/tu.� //e, 1V c r f1 Y� V \lJ�l� �(1Y � tJ„y'} `1 8 0 i'VVVt���N��N” ,-e �I�`A(�'7 tZ.U,--TS'cam-oev,_1 Ze-A. c.....ti . g.,,os-c..., `f/�--' /� - - �ttz(07 .tom - . / --- , Lor) 1 o.rs© n► a72-7 M V1 AvLN q 0z., f / 6F - gl j0?- I-r L ev_o MUNI VI!OVATE. P, " / . 12110� A/6,4-7k/`.,k,(,, ti2, /(53 424,(( . /( t /v' dozy (Zulli- a�r /#, •' , ' �f� -P//alb' Vej. s\:1,- ,,,1\1\N0 ll et fi'18f.v i+gti., k-C W M4 C, l►.- , r�• 7'34r-1. c o[.L eo\l L.)KID BERA 3 111 t-tb irAIA vtE� A-V`E. 91i 7 -cam /e Yit/cie.os _5700 4 4kE w/t c l4/UGTOov (3),,PD 4111. - w --GYze-A - '7/()/U7 0^,410 _ 0Lv,s of 3133 Mk- U It.sew NA, N , Lkok, GwJ IAiiqlo v We, the undersigned, support Charlie Conner and Anne Simpson in their privilege to takeoff and land their Helicopter from their residence at 3001 Mt View Ave N., Renton. Name Address Singnature Date e/r 7 Bredi'?g q c 1 if_ lv&.s d .cl 4/ A i a i - 6P-6, . Kai re_n1IcAn z '-kOL L K wasV' fa 1'i rWi' it f , 0'-- 84 1 Ldp Oto 31 o$ v64tut a VI eve Ave. /Iq._aLi,te,yyyti-vi.._.__ $-it_04 -vi ,7 -72),e6rei 3/°3 ft4/1/7- / Az;rec) iti//7 A/ , 7277- .e/ 9— .�/� i 49/ g%�/i//z//7ir/ .3 .,_ - //f Gd,_ry ‘/W? /i j�z 7 ow " Pr) .00-7 111/1, W /i-veA ) // I it i - ?i 6 46,e, , ,,-vi- Af/fra 07 441-- iic<;pi/ f /-moi✓ 1 1 " 07 p'rA c-/0� G d,g6 7 vq—cp, Vor2-/ 4-{1 k -D\is-ro (✓ (Af - tl i 7 J� ' 1 , i-giZeA_ 6:2e: 2----7 / inT l4--e,) 4,0 ee,„ . r &cyg._ 4V/9/v7 / - a73 / /l//7 Vie c/4c,4 (A) A 43--"p- G i_ Di - s'f�n�;j-ui i 3001 iv o (IWTh In V irk/Av _ A ,'i-- r/177134 d °n1 ; 4 i2)3 A-, 141,t) iii/I�0 ' el , aPf' di / 1 0 D 0 7 .. 1)1 1--14, /- -)-e. 6c 47 oiN,J itiye.,) A) If//0) #4/441 4v, I ill/0 r `rr- fr �, Z�/I /1/7 A F4 -)#' 1-/V P e- ' 32 OW Uo`uo 4 ry . Po 87 Ail ' ;//,/,' '` f' (7/e 47 70 AfZ• s I��c�►-�, ps 7�$ N . 301-N ST. (REnrtc�tG g1� 7 V 4441-2_ P/. /j!Cljay-WS 3Go5 G/s<tel�4Vf.I3/vd•N ; h 9 /O7 :0 c� a. wS Zg!S M�•• V vc t d ri *i-rrr.,�. /'°/°7 1 Ti .• c- 0.‘ t::-- ‘S Ps.c-Je- 2.8==.\ INtki,lvr.,,.. t.,<- .\A. riar Ilell--„V 9/PD107 4 .�uiliar �/ yrs in 7 vri'/..6./ale 'ravw� 9;-;7 ill, (9Y 8 4&.6f/ag!,8 !4/i „/ forj1 / 007 • • September 14, 2007 Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner,Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 Dear Ms. Higgins, My comments below are in regards to the following application with the City of Renton: Project Name/Number: Conner Heliport/LUA07-097, TP Project Location: 3001 Mountain View Ave N, Renton,WA 98056 I live on Mountain View and am the adjacent neighbor to the north of the Conner residence. I fully support this application granting Mr. Conner the use of his residence as a private helicopter landing and takeoff area. The frequency of take off and landings are minimal and time of day has always been acceptable. Mr. Conner gives me advanced notice when he plans to use his helicopter and ensures he flies after early morning hours. Noise and wind surprisingly are not as issue. I have been sitting outside under my covered patio during both take off and landings and am fine with this activity. Quite honestly, float plane activity which flies over the top of Coleman Point, far exceeds any noise concerns I may have with this application. In regards to safety, I have complete confidence with Mr. Conner's usage of this location. With 28 years experience at The Boeing Company and 16 years in selling aircraft, I understand the criticality of safety and the elements required to ensure this. I have no hesitation flying with Mr. Conner. I have experienced first hand his disciplined routine which he conducts prior to each departure and landing. It is all by the book; he follows a robust check list, communicates well with the flight tower, and keeps his aircraft well maintained. His flying skills are solid and he conducts himself in a very professional manner. I encourage the City of Renton to approve this application. Feel free to contact me as necessary. / "— Monica Fix 3007 Mountain View Ave N. Renton,WA 98056 Deputy VP, Middle East&Africa Sales Boeing Commercial Aircraft 206-321-6154 Copy: Mr. Charlie Conner 44 Townes smolt aifResddeitr Hunts Point\tz 3000 Hunts Point Road Hunts Point, Washington 98004 425-455-1834 Fax 425-454-4586 www.ci.hunts-point.wa.us September 5, 2007 Mr. Jeff Wright 4056 Hunts Point Road Hunts Point, WA 98004 Re: Helicopters Dear Jeff: This letter is to provide information on how we deal with helicopters on Hunts Point. Over the years, we have always had three or four helicopters on Hunts Point. A couple of them are kept at the homes or on docks, and others stay at Boeing Field, and occasionally fly in and out of Hunts Point, landing on the owner's dock or lawn. Hunts Point has no provision for or against helicopters in our zoning code. The helicopter owner needs to be sensitive to his neighbors with regard to noise, time of day, clearances, etc. Over the years, we have never had a problem that couldn't be resolved by the helicopter owner talking to his neighbors and respecting their concerns. Lately, we feel fortunate to have helicopters on Hunts Point, as they are key to our Town's Emergency Plan. In the event of a major earthquake, the 520 bridge and the 84th Ave. access bridge to Hunts Point would likely go down. Our only means to transport injured residents to a hospital would be by land or sea. We have 3 helicopters and 6 float planes standing by as part of our emergency team. The more senior residents are very happy we have these helicopters to available to transport them to a hospital in the event of an emergency. I hope this information is helpful to others in resolving their helicopter issues. Sincerely, Fred McConkey Mayor fidee,e; Ated4/4/9 ,2 aoo March 24, 2008 To Renton City Council Members As a member of the Renton Airport Advisory Committee representing the community I am opposed to any City ordinance that would allow Helipads on private property in the City. This Committee has been engaged in minimizing the noise impact of aircraft operating within the city for some time. Allowing the operations proposed in this ordinance would spread the noise exposure area and is counter to these efforts. Also as a long time resident of the City I feel that we should utilize the fact that we have a close in airport and limit aircraft operations to that facility. Respectfully Submitted, ;d4/( )///td ;- /4, 'f John Middlebrooks 510 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057 Pa Ak""1 MARK HANCOCK • PO Box 88811 ,_o2V-0W '' Seattle, WA 98138 March 24, 2008 Renton City Council Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Helipad Ordinance Dear Honorable Councilmembers: As an 9-year resident of Lower Kennydale, I wish to express my concern and opposition to the helipad ordinance that you are considering. We love our quiet little neighborhood, and wish to keep it that way. Helicopters belong at the airport,not based in our neighbors' backyards, and the airport is only one mile away. Plenty, if not most, other cities forbid helicopters in their residential areas—why not Renton? This isn't about one helicopter, it's about an ordinance that will literally create a new helicopter district that allows helipads on all of the Renton parcels fronting Lake Washington,mostly below Kennydale(with the balance north of the Seahawks). There are about 7 lots that could accommodate helipads now, and there is no reason why other lots could not be combined to create room for others, and new homes built with a design to make room for more (even on a flat rooftop). Since helicopters are not allowed on most of the properties around Lake Washington, it will draw attention and put pressure on our neighborhood to keep them. It can be expected that the Seahawks will have a heliport on their commercial parcel, so with the current application there will already be two coming to the neighborhood that we don't have now. With the increasing traffic, congestion, and affluence in the region, this is a bad precedent and who knows what will follow once you open Pandora's box. Nobody has addressed the combined impact of them all. Looking at the arguments being made for the helicopter: 1) "Houses have seaplanes, and helicopters are much the same thing." No, they are not. Seaplanes taxi out into the lake to take off, and land on the e lake. When they do fly over our homes they are above the 500 foot altitude minimum. Helicopters generallyfly below the light plane patterns, and can fly nearly everywhere with no real altitude restriction other than avoiding obstructions. They are especially noisy taking off and landing, which should be done at the airport. Helipad hearing, 3/24/07,page 2 2) "Lower Kennydale is already a noisy neighborhood." Actually, it is a very quiet neighborhood. We are protected from the freeway by a sound wall, and we lie below the freeway as well. We rise above the lake, and are buffered by that noise by trees and homes. There are a few sunny weekends in the summer that are busy,but that's about it—the rest of the year and every night it is very peaceful. With the air traffic patterns such as they are, we do get more than our share of the aviation activity,which is another reason not to bring more of it right into the neighborhood. 3) "Helicopters are not so noisy." No,by their nature they are noisy, especially taking off and landing. They also generally fly below the light plane flight patterns, lower over our homes. There are plenty of helicopters at the airport—have in independent third party take a sound meter and test them, so that you can make an informed decision based on facts,not generalities. 4) "Homeowners have a right to keep a helicopter at home." No, not any more than they have a right to conduct other objectionable activities at home. There are plenty of restrictions in Renton's code for activities at homes and in neighborhoods that are much less intrusive than a helicopter. The City's strict and detailed rules on keeping animals at home comes to mind. p g 5) "Hunts Point allows helicopters." Hunts Point has large lots,while our lots are small in a neighborhood densely zoned R-8. 6) "Other parts of the code will protect the neighborhood" If that were the case, why does the City Code have so much extra language about troublesome dogs, or keeping pets, or building construction hours (and plenty of other issues)? This is too serious a matter not to handle at least as well as those. 7) "There won't be very many helicopters" As noted above, there are two on the horizon,plus other lots that are ready, plus smaller lots that could be combined, plus new homes that could be designed with rooftop landing pads. Since this would be one of the few areas that allows them, there will be more over time. 8) "Helicopters will fly over the lake" Since the City cannot regulate helicopters after they leave the ground (only the FAA), there is no way to assure this or enforce it. If you do plan to pass this ordinance, then the ordinance as proposed is weak- lacking almost any restrictions. Only that the helipad design meet FAA standards, and that the home can keep only one helicopter or seaplane. Then everything else is left open-ended,to be sorted out during a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)process. Staff says this is for flexibility,but in reality it creates and continues confusion. The lack of any direction at all forces all of us, on both sides,to fight from extreme positions all the way through the process. Please give us an ordinance which gives upfront guidance where possible, containing some of the most basic restrictions that belong in an ordinance such as this and would show up in any CUP thereafter. A good idea put forth by the current applicant was a limitation on the size of helicopters that would be allowed. Even the cities that do a Helipad hearing, 3/24/07, page 3 allow helicopters have well thought out restrictions and conditions in their ordinances that do not leave so much open-ended-please have your staff report and propose them to you. Here are some that come to mind: - Helipad for occasional private personal use, and only by the homeowner - Only one specific helicopter in the permit (if it is changed, a new permit is required) - Helipad cannot be leased or used by outside pilots or helicopters -Not a shared-owner helicopter,where other pilots would also fly from the home -No commercial activities, including pilot training -Helicopter maximum size and/or weight -Permit expires when the house is sold, or the specific approved helicopter is gone -Restrict hours and days of flying (much like home construction regulations) - Limit on the number of flights per week (no regular daily commuting) -Helicopters to be outfitted with least-noise blade assemblies and engines -What is the recourse for the City and neighbors if there is a problem? -Better and broader pubic notice to the impacted neighborhood of an application. The 300' horizontal notice requirement does not apply to an intrusion that when allowed could disturb an entire neighborhood from 100+feet vertically above their homes. In the recent TUP application there wasn't even a notice on Lake Washington Boulevard, let alone up into the neighborhood. Given the neighborhood-specific nature of this hearing, was public notice adequate for tonight? How did you really expect anybody in Kennydale to know about this ordinance and its impacts? While the initial application doesn't sound too bad (occasional private use,mostly during the business day), what about the next one, or the one after that? They may have larger helicopters, which fly every day, and may not be such good citizens of Renton and thereby more difficult to deal with for the City and neighborhood. The ordinance is our first line of defense, laying out the ground rules. The ordinance and CUP are also our only means to influence the impact, as once a helicopter is in the air it cannot be regulated by the City(only the FAA; and homeowner calls to the City will be fruitless). We all need a better ordinance if you are going to pass one, that will save us all a lot of time and effort. Please do not defer to and rely on the CUP process—the Renton code is very specific on many other issues and should be here too. For example the Use Tables are full of additional criteria, and Conditional Use Permit section 4-9-030 of the Renton Code lists many additional approval criteria for wireless towers and dog kennels—why not for helicopters? Lastly, I wish to support staff's recommendation that a CUP application be heard before the Hearing Examiner. This is consistent with helipads in commercial districts, and many other lesser issues in the City Code, so it certainly should apply to the important residential situation here. A decision such as this should not be made administratively behind closed doors. If you have problems with any of the above, remember that you don't have to allow helicopters at all—the airport would be happy to have them. Thank you very much for your time and considering my thoughts. Sincer 1 , Mark Hancock Mar 24 08 04: 32p None 425 226 6063 p. 1 3 %t/ ,b CITY OF RENTON 0,0N5pAot,(1014e. MAR 2 4 2008 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE frT &AMM% 3213 Mountain View Avenue North Renton, WA 98056-2512 rwet/d e March 24, 2008 e/eri- Renton City Council Attention: Mr. Mayor and City Council Members RE: Proposed Zoning Change to Allow Private Heliports Along Lake Washington Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: We have been residents of Mountain View Avenue North in Renton since 1972 and have always enjoyed the characteristics of the waterfront neighborhood. We are in full support of passing the proposed zoning change to allow priv.te heliports in our area along Lake Washington. Si - �:•1 ours, r 1 4110 r � Il o :� I ahlby Kathleen I. Dahlby lett g . ' From: "'Sandy'<b.reisman@comcast.net>"<b.reisman@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 12:16:30 PM Subject: Councilmembers We cannot attend the meeting on Monday, 3/24/08; however, we're opposed to allowing helicopters in Kennydale because of the noise. Please vote against it. Thank you. This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <b.reisman@comcast.net> 3P-Lij -008 PIAlc Ovum 4 • From: "'Thomas and Judith Skillman'<tom.skillman@comcast.net>" <tom.skillman@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 2:48:22 PM Subject: NO HELIPORTS IN KENNYDALE Dear Council Members, We are unable to attend the public hearing on March 24, where the topic of Heliports in Kennydale will be discussed. As residents, and homeowners, we are concerned that the heliports will add to the noise in the Kennydale community, including the neighborhood beach front park. Specifically, we strongly oppose the heliport/helicopter ordinance. Our quiet community, already impacted by the added traffic and noise from the Barbee Mill homesites, Seahawks facility, and The Landing, does not need the additional noise of the deep penetrating thwump- thwump-thwump that helicopters, necessarily, bring with them. Please take this note, and our past and future voting record, into consideration, and vote- NO HELIPORTS IN KENNYDALE. Thanks, Thomas and Judith Skillman 1017 North 31st Street Kennydale, WA 98056 425-235-0504 This email request originated from the following link: http://www.rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <tom.skillman@comcast.net> J? Joe From: "'Kim Loulias'<knloulias@comcast.net>"<knloulias@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 4:56:19 PM Subject: Re: 2007 DOCKET- HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Comments from Kim Loulias who resides in lower Kennydale at 1112 N 31st Street. I do not support land based helipads being allowed in the R-8 zone(Residential-eight units per net acre) along Lake Washington. My two concerns regarding allowing helicopters to land on shoreline properties in Kennydale are public safety and noise. • Allowing helicopters to land in close proximity to residential properties will increase the risk of injury to people or property. • Additional noise would be perceived locally. There would be additional noise from all phases of a flight. The increased noise does not fit into my definition of being a good neighbor. Adding unwanted noise can cause conflicts between neighbors which lowers the quality of life in the neighborhood along with perceived decreases in property values for non helicopter owners/operators. Basis for my concerns: Public Safety A helicopter approach/takeoff perpendicular to the shore would seem to be optimum for providing the most safety to shoreline property and people. A perpendicular approach would also minimize noise on shore. However, I do not believe that all safe takeoffs and landings would take place perpendicular to the shore. Not all helicopter takeoffs/landings can be executed in a pure vertical direction due to the performance characteristics of the helicopter as well as wind conditions. Thus a virtual ground "runway' is sometimes required for a safe landing/takeoff. Small helicopters, like fixed wing aircraft, should takeoff and land into the wind, but never downwind. The virtual runway should be parallel to the winds and thus on any given day, could be over adjoining Kennydale properties and not perpendicular to the shore. The wind does not always blow perpendicular to shore in Kennydale. Thus an optimum helicopter approach/takeoff cannot always be executed without flying low over adjoining properties. Local shoreline properties would therefore be under increased risk of injury by helicopters vs. no helicopters close to their properties. FAA design rules would have to consider these factors in approval of any land based helipad designs in Kennydale. There are many types of large birds that fly along the shore in Kennydale: bald eagles, herons, seagulls, etc. Impacting a large bird could cause damage to a helicopter in flight and thus could cause a crash above inhabited properties. Community Noise • Adding helipads and associated aircraft will cause additional noise in Kennydale. Additional noise from any type of vehicle is not acceptable in our neighborhood. We already endure the noise of loud "cigarette" boats in the summer, highway 405(including traffic helicopters hovering)and aircraft to and from Renton airport. Adding helipads in Kennydale will lower the neighborhood quality of life for non helicopter owners. Alternatives There is already convenient controlled airspace with helicopter operations at Renton airport which is within a 15 minute car ride from Kennydale.A 15 minute excursion would not seem to be an inconvenience for access to a personal helicopter. Renton airport also has fueling and other services in place for helicopters. Renton airport seems to be the optimum place for safe and convenient helicopter operations. An alternate shoreline option would be a floating or fixed dock or pontoon landing directly on Lake Washington. The takeoff and landing phase for these alternatives would be well offshore away from people and properties much like seaplane operations already taking place on the lake. Thus the noise impact is minimized along with maximizing public safety.There are already water based helipads on docks in operation on Mercer Island (see Paul Allen property on South West corner of Mercer Island). Obviously building a water based helipad would be more costly than land based designs, but public safety would seem to outweigh such costs. Future Legal Issues? Aircraft accidents are highly visible events in the media and can entangle many parties into potential liabilities. Does the City of Renton want to take on that potential risk by allowing a minority of residents to land personal helicopters close to the general public in unmonitored airspace when convenient helicopter operation/access is already available at Renton Airport KRNT? Regards, Kim Loulias-Senior Aerospace Engineer This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <knloulias@comcast.net> 31 d-1-1/2-009 Pw 4 I WM j f , t � / From: "'Tami & Paul Skelton'<tamiskelton@hotmail.com>"<tamiskelton@hotmail.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 6:22:00 PM Subject: No Helicopters in Kennydale Dear Councilmembers, We urge you to stop the proposed ordinance that would allow helicopters in our peaceful neighborhood. Allowing helicopters and helipads would degrade our quality of life, our property values and would detract from our right to enjoy peace in our neighborhood and home. We urge you to vote NO on this ordinance. Yours truly-concerned homeowners, Paul &Tami Skelton This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <tamiskelton@hotmail.com> 31 aria-00 e . ?u9 • From: "'Jodi Watson'<jodikwatson@hotmail.com>"<jodikwatson@hotmail.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 6:24:05 PM Subject: no helicopters in Kennydale As a resident of Kennydale, I urge you to stop the passing of the ordinance that would allow for heliports in my neighborhood. I live here because of the quiet and this ordinance would intrude on our right to peaceful enjoyment of our home. Thank you, JWatson This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <jodikwatson@hotmail.com> 3/9-1-41)-00g. /J j From: "'Linda Fry'<frypenny@hotmail.com>"<frypenny@hotmail.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 1:54:56 PM Subject: Councilmembers-helipad It must be nice to have money enough to pay off the city council members in order to have ordinances changed that will ruin a lovely, quiet neighborhood like Kennydale by allowing the very rich to have helicopters in their yards! Do any of you people even live in Kennydale? This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <frypenny@hotmail.com> 3)gq)-0-0 e pu,1,4,6-c 4evatil ' From: "'Robert L. Undsderfer<bobhome007@msn.com>"<bobhome007@msn.com> To: <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 12:45:44 PM Subject: CouncilMembers Please make this part of Public Record and read, if possible at the Public Hearing the 24th day of March 2008, at 7:00 PM, 7th floor Council Chambers of Renton City. I do not want the value of my property diminished because the want of a few! Helicopters belong at the Airport and not in our neighborhood! We have a quiet neighborhood and would like to keep it that way! Years ago there was a very annoying noise four to eight times a day by a helicopter or two taking off and landing from the shores of Mercer Island(that was across the water from Kennydale)then Mercer Island code enforcment or codes finally eliminated that problem. We have more noise now than when I moved in here in 1975, because we have the Jets flying overhead, but let's not make it worse! If people want to fly to work or anywhere by helicopter they can certainly afford to have a chauffer or limousine take them to the airport,which is only a few minutes away, rather than disturbing the many that doi not want to be disturbed by the noise!! I have lived here since 1975 and would like to keep intrusions to my peace, serinity, privacy,and value to a minimum. Our taxes help support the airport--have them use it like many other cities require. Helicopters are a very noisy intrusion and invasion to life in a neighborhood. You cannot talk on your deck, keep your babies asleep, and many other things when a helicopter is taking off or flying over your house. This side of the lake does not need to open up for this activity. It will not be just the fewyou want to please now by letting this be approved, but the others that can't have it elswhere will be attracted here to where they can have it and we will have many of these around this neighborhood---Please do not devalue my and many other peoples home and property by allowing this. Robert L. Undsderfer This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <bobhome007@msn.com> 3a n• � From: Betty Childers<betc2@yahoo.com> 1 a-""`tel v J To: <dlaw@ci.renton.wa.us> e/MAJA/0.0/6 —e- Date: 3/24/2008 1:14:38 PM Subject: helicopters Dear Mayor and Council People, We quite concerned about the possibility of helipads and helicopters in the Kennydale neighborhood. We have already absorbed a huge amount of traffic and its accompanying noise on Lake Washington Blvd and 1405. This used to be a quiet little neighborhood, but it's not anymore. We think that adding helicopters, which are EXTREMELY NOISY, to the mix would seriously interfere with our quality of life in this lovely area. Please keep the helicopters at the airport! Betty Childers Steve Denison Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping CC: <rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us>, <dpersson@ci.enton.wa.us>, <tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us>, <gtaylor@ci.renton.wa.us>, <rzwicker@ci.renton.wa.us>, <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us> 3/94//90g ,< >„<Jmidbk@aol.com> 1� From: John Middlebrooks Jmidbk@aol.com Pbadl-6 To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 5:34:25 PM Subject: Helicopter Waterfront Pad Ordinance As a member of the Renton Airport Advisory Committee representing the community I am oposed to any City ordinance that would allow Helipads on private property in the City.This Committee has been engaged in minimizing the noise impact of aircraft operating within the city for some time. Allowing the operations proposed in this ordinance would spread the noise exposure area and is counter to these efforts. Also as a long time resident of the City I feel that we should utilize the fact that we have a close in airport and limit aircraft operations to that facility. John Middlebrooks 510 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057 CC: <Jmidbk@aol.com> • 3 /moo March 19, 2008 d ,4 fi n./ r 1 1 / f Renton City Council As residents of Kennydale,we are writing to state our opposition to the ordinance being considered which would allow heliports to be built and maintained by private citizens around Lake Washington. We do not see a need or problem that justifies this change. The impact of the increased noise from the take off and landing of helicopters in our neighborhoods as well as potential safety and environmental risks outweigh any possible benefits the ordinary citizens of Renton might receive from private heliports. The proximity of the Renton Airport which is built and maintained for both security and noise containment would suggest that additional helipads in our neighborhoods are unnecessary. Unless it could be shown that a helipad was needed for emergency or citizen safety this measure would not in our opinion enhance the quality of life for Renton residents. Thank you for your consideration. Mary Lowry dr Mike Lowry 3326 Park Ave N. Renton, WA 98056 marylowry@comcast.net 3 q/ a9 p7,4-(ccAlekw9 ' From: "'Mike Lowry'<marylowry@comcast.net>"<marylowry@comcast.net> 4/74(--e_ To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 5:38:25 PM Subject: Councilmembers March 19, 2008 Renton City Council As residents of Kennydale, we are writing to state our opposition to the ordinance being considered which would allow heliports to be built and maintained by private citizens around Lake Washington. We do not see a need or problem that justifies this change. The impact of the increased noise from the take off and landing of helicopters in our neighborhoods as well as potential safety and environmental risks outweigh any possible benefits the ordinary citizens of Renton might receive from private heliports. The proximity of the Renton Airport which is built and maintained for both security and noise containment would suggest that additional helipads in our neighborhoods are unnecessary. Unless it could be shown that a helipad was needed for emergency or citizen safety this measure would not in our opinion enhance the quality of life for Renton residents. Thank you for your consideration. Mary Lowry Mike Lowry 3326 Park Ave N. Renton, WA 98056 marylowry@comcast.net CC: <marylowry@comcast.net> 31):1-0-00g 8014"-c--A1-8e4"-://fii From: "'joanie rosling'<jfrosling@aol.com>"<jfrosling@aol.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> I Date: 3/23/2008 7:46:26 PM Subject: Councilmembers I look forward to presenting my position regarding the re-zoning of the Kennydale waterfront to accommodate heliports at the meeting tomorrow night!! This email request originated from the following link: http://www.rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <jfrosling@aol.com> 0-14/d00: 0,6C /: From: "'Steve F.'<bigfoofforsale@hotmail.com>"<bigfoofforsale@hotmail.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 4:41:07 PM Subject: Councilmembers- HELIPAD Helipad Amendment- I was wondering if the council has addressed some issues with respect to the helipads: (1) Renton airspace—Is landing orthogonal to the class D airspace for the Renton airport going to increase risks for collision? Will the pilots contact Renton control for clearance? (2)"Go Around"—What is the go around plan for a missed approach? A straight in approach from the water would result in a go around into the hill. Would this not require him to approach down the waterfront potentially upsetting numerous residents? (3) Operating hours—the operating hours seem to be very long. How will the helipad be lit at night? Will the helicopter approach with the 300,000 candlepower landing lights on? Is the pilot IFR approved? (4) Noise—how will the noise pollution be mitigated? How will the wildlife (including eagles and other wild birds) impact be mitigated? (5)Complaints—What will the mechanism be to address noise and compliance issues? Who would be called—the FAA, Flight services, or the tower? How would the issues be addressed? (6) Enforcement—How will violation of the rules be enforced? (7) Emergency Response—Does the Fire Dept have training to necessary to respond to a aircraft fire involving jet fuel? (8) Environmental issues—what special provisions will be required for a fuel leak? Will the EPA be involved in approving the fuel spill retention system? (9) Noise Mitigation for Affected Homes—Will the City provide funds to improve insulation and windows in neighboring homes? This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=1082 CC: <bigfootforsale@hotmail.com> Puh--(.6c- ii-eAA-ofy 31 / 0? From: "'Marleen Mandt'<mkmandt@comcast.net>"<mkmandt@comcast.net> , 4 To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 5:08:04 PM Subject: Amendment to Code- Helipads Since I can not be at tonight City Council meeting I would to submit this for public record. Conditions on Helipads 1. All noise and safety concerns be reported to the Renton city airport manager so that he can track all problems related to helicopter noise complaints. 2. No helicopter leaving or returning to the helipad fly over residential lower kennydale area. Possible to fly over commerical zoned area. If this is not possible that they woul maintain a 1000 ft clearance from the top of houses. 3. All noise and safety compliants be taken care of within 24 hours. 4. Any emergency safety complaints be directed to???? (City of Renton)focal or FAA. CC: <mkmandt@comcast.net> 3 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: g e L ' • Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. CED/Planning Division March 24, 2008 Staff Contact Alex Pietsch x6592 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Expansion of Planning Commission Membership Correspondence.. Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business • Issue Paper Study Sessions • Letter from Planning Commission Information • Letter from Mayor • Ordinance Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X j Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: iiiExpenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: In 2002, the number of Planning Commissioners was reduced from nine to seven members because interest in the Commission was waning in the community and the City was having difficulty maintaining the required quorum for action. Since that time, interest in the Commission's activities has increased. The Planning Commission requests that the Administration consider restoring the Commission to nine members to allow representation of residents in several of the new and anticipated annexation areas of the City including Benson Hill (Benson Hill Communities Annexation), Maple Valley Highway Corridor (New Life-Aqua Barn Annexation), and East Renton Plateau (Liberty Annexation). The Planning Commission appointment is citywide, and as specified in RMC 2-10-5B "the appointees shall constitute a cross section of the community representing different interests, geographical areas, trades, professions and activities". STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Administration recommendation to increase the size of the Planning Commission to nine members. A.'rove an ordinance amendin: RMC 2-10-4, Plannin• Commission A..ointment. • • kfcy O DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • • • Nr-c0� MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator N4 STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind,Long Range Planning Manager (x 6588) SUBJECT: Planning Commission Membership, Number of Commissioners ISSUE: • Should the membership on the City Planning Commission be increased from seven to nine members? • • Should housekeeping amendments be made in Title II Section 10 to reflect changes in names of divisions and staff titles? RECOMMENDATION: • Amend Title II Chapter 10 of the Renton Municipal Code to establish a nine member Planning Commission. • Amend the Planning Commission Bylaws to establish a nine member Planning Commission. • Update Title II Chapter 10 to correct staff titles and division names. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Planning Commission is established in the Renton Municipal Code and Commission Bylaws as a seven-member board. In 2002, the size of the board was reduced from nine to seven because it was difficult to recruit enough community members to fill these positions. Recently the Planning Commission members petitioned the Mayor with a request to restore the nine-member board to allow representation of residents in several of the new annexation areas of the City including potentially Benson Hill (Benson Hill Communities Annexation), Maple Valley Highway Corridor(New Life-Aqua Barn Annexation), and East Renton Plateau (Liberty Annexation). The Planning Commission appointment is citywide, and as specified in RMC 2-10-5B "the appointees shall constitute a cross • section of the community representing different interests, geographical areas, trades, professions and activities". H:\EDNSP\Planning Comm\Appointments\Commission Membership Issue Paperv2.doc E Marcie Palmer,Council President Page2of2 March 7,2008 The Planning Commission currently has seven seated members, and one vacancy will be • announced at the end of March, as a member is moving out of the City limits. RCW 35A.63.020 allows a code city to create a planning agency and provide for its membership, organization and duties by ordinance. There is no stipulated size for this body. The current code Title II Section 10 refers to the "Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator" and the "Strategic Planning Division" for staffing. These references should be changed to reflect the current city organization of the "Department of Community and Economic Development" and "Planning Division". CONCLUSION: Changing the size of the Planning Commission from a seven to a nine-member body will broaden representation for existing city residents and provide an opportunity for residents of newly annexed areas to become involved in City affairs. The proposed housekeeping changes in division names and staff titles can be made easily at the time this section of code is amended. • • h:\ednsp\planning comm\appointments\commission membership issue paperv2.doc . . . i . • - • . • &- ". .. CITY OF RENTON + + CD% . . - : . Planning Commission • • ' A ::"...iiii'. , --..5,-- - ai -,ep , - Denis Law,Mayor . W. 0 : .* • : February13,2008 : • . . Mayor Denis Law ' *.. • Renton City.Hall . . : . . 1055 South Grady Way • • . . - : • Renton, WA. 98057 5 . . . . . . • - . . . . . . Dear Mayor Law: • . , _ . . • . . . . ' • - We,the City of Renton Plarinin- g Commission, feel thatthecity has to reach out to the new citizens . : I • . of the Benson Hill coMmunity. We would like to create this opportunity by adding representation • , -. from recently annexed areas. We feel that with the increased population of the City of Renton,that • .. • it is the perfect time to add two more commissioners to the Renton Planning Commission . . • . . . . ., . Until about 2005,the Planning:Commission consisted of nine citizens, all of whom were appointed - 1 •- by the Mayor. About 2005,the City ekperienCed probleMS attracting new commisSioners, and as:a. ... , result, the Commission was reduced to seven members,:to make it easier to have a quorum, - • ' . . . . . . . . Due in part to the tremendous growth gncl,st!,Ocess,that the City is experiencing,we feel that the Mayor's office will not have trouble attracting additional yoltrtae*::to,serve on the Planning COrnmisSiOn,_Additionally, since most reading:Material is...ii6Weniailed to the commissioners rather ' • Alh - 'than mailed,there is almost no cost to COltiiiolye0*ith the commission going back-to nine W member If If there is a focus on recraitingneWMeMbeta'frOrri the area that recently voted to annex to the City of RentOri,:wefeel.thot,thiS will give those-areas a:voice in city government as well as:-' .1' -• : '''• ':. - : Make th6tn feet welcome.:- ;; , • ., '-;.::',.:'. : '•• : 7..--:... •: ; ;•:' ...." • ' . . . -: ' . We also feel that there are OW advantages inherent to inviting More Renton citizens to voice their opinion On the planning of the'f-tiore-Of thp,qty..,We hope that you will consider taking adVaritage, - . 5....• ..,. of this opportunity as our-City 06*.fhe:eighty,thoil4zicIliopitlatiOti leVeL Thank you in'advance for; • -: : your considerationof this request: . . . : ., . .. • • . - . . . . , ..,..,• : ; Red.OCg4 y, .• , , . ., : :. . :. .. . ,. 2 • , . ‘ . . .. . ,, . . . • . Ai 1 1 I ' : : • ‘. , . . . , Ra f:lora. Ott,Arr: i:•: .' :.'. -• NanCyD ibrii;Vi ,- Chair',:. . '.•: , • ''''' I::: '*---;:: . : . ... . --: '' .7 ' -. •-•"7.--''.7.---- .; '!'' '1.— .. .i.....:':- ' ,1 • ' ..:':, :' .- . . . "- iiiiiiii '4/Ift ,, :: ' : :'..• l:..: . / ..•- .%-.f.-.22151r.i' -, -. - • . .- .. - - ., - : • • RA: Bo - ,-Sjarary :C.treY:).(.i : ' •-• , . . L. f; _:.,___ C...---- Michael Cheri :- - ' -• -• .. ,•,. .: . . : .. . -Yong.'0e , -:-: , • - ... :* . • : : . . --- .... . 5 ,, .r • -, - . " . • :-.. : .. .. • . . - .' . , •: :*1 'T.. :' Brad Miller Miller': " " . • • ' - • ' ' • 2 .: :: - ". • • :Is . ''-'• :: - - — • - ; : : . ' • •:. .,, . ,. . - • • . . . .•• , ., ,. cc:.Alex Pletsch;BDNS1)Adoui4stator '• - " • . ' . . -• : : • . - : •:. ' --:. -..! . -., ,.: : • ;, ....... , _,- ...:, Rebecca Lind,144 14tig1)1,iniiing.M04ak4 . :.• '::-.: . • i:::.:::. ::: i ::;.•;.: •,: ':, ,•: .': <:.,'r.: •• : ' .:.::::::.:.....•:::::•::.: : : : ; ": . . ' - ': " - .' • . . -:- • ;*- : -- : . . - '.: .. .' . . . ' ' R t:N-rr 0-N•':' -...: . ' . . • . . . ••.1055 SouthGrady Way-Rcntoni.Waalniagtnn 98057 .. . , '.:, . - • . • , • AHD OP TFXE çURyE . .. . . , 30Y .: . .- • ' ;,: • '.,.. • , - , ! . ..• CY 0 CITY OF RENTON U< Y'‘ O� Denis Law,Mayor February 25,2008 -Ray Giometti,Planning Commission Chair Members of City of Renton Planning Commission • 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Planning Commission Members: I have received your request that the number of members on the Planning Commission be increased from seven members to nine members. • I agree that the City is experiencing tremendous growth. And as new areas are annexed into the City,there is renewed interest and involvement in city government. Already we have seen an increase in applications for volunteer service. So I approve your request to increase the number of Planning Commission members to • • nine members. With the addition of two members,I'm confident that the Planning Commission will be even more effective. Sincerely, 1/5-41 Denis Law • Mayor cc: Renton City Council • Alex Pietsch,Administrator,Department of Community and Economic Development Rebecca Lind,Long Range Planning Manager • • 08-022/DL:aa 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 RENTON . �� AHEAD OF.THE CURVE :,I This paper contains 50%recycledmaterial,30%postconsumer N WASHINGTON CITY OF RENTON, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10, PLANNING COMMISSION, OF TITLE II (COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL. ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," BY INCREASING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS The City has formed a City Planning Commission pursuant to RCW 35A.63.020; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission membership was established by Ordinance 5155 in September 2005, as seven (7) members; and WHEREAS, the City has recently annexed territory and expanded its population by • 16,200 residents; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide an opportunity to involve more residents in the review of planning matters before the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 2-10-4, Appointment, of Chapter 10, Planning Commission, of Title II (Commissions and Boards) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows: 2-10-4 APPOINTMENT: The Planning Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority of the members of the City Council. • 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. Section 2-10-7, Expenditures; Budget, of Chapter 10, Planning • Commission, of Title II (Commissions and Boards) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows: 2-10-7 EXPENDITURES; BUDGET: The expenditures of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those authorized by the Community and Economic Development Administrator as appropriated in the Planning Division's annual budget. The services and facilities of the City's Planning Division shall be utilized by the Commission in performing its duties. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 111 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1450:3/13/08:scr • • 2 i CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: i/ t . Submitting Data: For Agenda of: • Dept/Div/Board.. CED/Planning Division March 24, 2008 Staff Contact Rebecca Lind(x6588) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Docket 08-01: Text Amendment for Monopole I in Correspondence.. Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Ordinance X Wireless Regulations in All Zones Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business • Issue Paper Study Sessions • Ordinance Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning& Development Committee Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: ii; Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The wireless communications section of Title IV currently requires a one- acre minimum land area to site a Monopole I on private property within residential zones Residential Conservation (RC) through Residential 14 (R-14). The proposal is to amend the code to allow this use on a minimum half-acre site. The code currently requires a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit and a setback of 100 feet from a residentially zoned property for a Monopole I on private property. Current code requires an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and no minimum setback from residential to establish the use in a right-of-way. The proposal is to amend Note 45 to allow the use in both locations with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit when a setback of 100 feet is maintained, but allow the Hearing Examiner to approve a setback less than 100 feet with a Conditional Use Permit. The amendment would also only allow a Monopole I on public right-of-ways that are designated arterials. Several housekeeping amendments are also proposed to resolve existing conflicts between the content of Notes 44 and 46, and the Conditional Use Permit process categories presented on the Zoning Use Tables. The Zoning Use Tables are corrected to match the content of the existing notes. Staff titles are revised to state "Reviewing Official" rather than a specific staff position. This zoning text amendment is proposed for processing outside the annual Title IV amendment cycle under Section 4-9-025C. Exemption. In the annual process, several amendments are bundled together for consideration and are processed over the year. Amendments needed on a shorter timeline may be processed outside of the annual cycle when requested by the Mayor, City Council, or Department Administrators. •STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Docket 08-01: Text Amendment for Monopole I in Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Wireless Regulations. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh • �rcy O DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , • vele MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: mow, Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager(x 6588) SUBJECT: Docket 08-01: Text Amendment for Monopole I in Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Wireless Regulations in All Zones ISSUE: • Should the minimum lot size required for Monopole I facilities on private property in residential zones be reduced from one acre to one half acre? • • Should Monopole I facilities in the public right-of-way be limited to designated arterials in residential zones? • Should the minimum setbacks from a Monopole I in a residentially zoned property be retained at 100 feet with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit process, but be eligible for reduction to less than 100 feet through a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit process? • Should housekeeping amendments be made to reconcile differences between the zoning notes and zoning use tables? • Should the proposed amendments to the Wireless Regulations be processed as an exception to the annual docket process? p RECOMMENDATION: • Process the amendments as proposed through an exception to the annual docket process to provide a timely resolution to the current problem of citing wireless facilities that provide a reasonable network of service in residential areas. • Allow Monopole I structures on residentially zoned sites of one half acre with o Administrative Conditional Use Permit when setbacks are 100 feet or more from adjacent residentially zoned properties. o Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit when setbacks are less than 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned properties. o Restrict locations within the public right-of-way to designated arterial roads. 1111 • Reconcile inconsistencies within the existing code through housekeeping amendments. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2008\08-01 Wireless\Issue Paperv2.doc 1 A Marcie Palmer,Council President Page 2 of 3 March 17,2008 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: • Changes in Standards for Monopole I The existing development standards for Monopole I require a minimum lot size of one acre for this facility in all residential zones, ranging from the Resource Conservation (RC) through the Residential— 14 (R-14). A Monopole I is defined as "A wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure, less than sixty feet (60') in height erected to support wireless communications antennas and connecting appurtenances. " Monopole structures of this type currently are permitted with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (HE-CUP) and they are required to have a minimum setback of 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned property. The proposal is to allow Monopole I structures on a one half acre lot with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit (A-CUP)provided that they meet a 100 feet minimum setback from residential,but create some additional flexibility within the code to allow a lesser setback with an HE-CUP. In the public right-of-way, Monopole I would only be allowed on designated arterial roads. The proposed change would allow the Monopole I structure to be more easily sited within residential zones than is currently the case. At the present time, it is difficult for the wireless providers to find appropriately located parcels of one acre. This situation is a result of the urbanization of infill land in the City. As urban land is increasingly redeveloped for housing, it will be more difficult to find parcels of sufficient size in locations that can provide the kind of network needed to provide wireless service to customers throughout the City. Technology 411 changes in the wireless industry over the last ten years have resulted in more requests from wireless providers for transmitters located on Monopole I facilities rather than the higher and more intrusive Monopole II towers. As a result, there is increased demand for Monopole I locations at a time when there are fewer large parcels of urban land. Both permit processes require notice to contiguous property owners and owners within 300 feet of the proposal. The Hearing Examiner Permit process requires a public hearing. The Administrative Permit process may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, while the HE-CUP is appealed to the City Council. Both processes require the Reviewing Official to approve based on the following criteria: J. SPECIAL DECISION CRITERIA FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN LIEU OF STANDARD CRITERIA: The governing authority shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a conditional use permit, although the governing authority may waive or reduce the burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if the governing authority, concludes that the goals of RMC 4-4-140, Wireless Communication Facilities, are better served thereby. (Ord. 4689, 11-24-1997) 1. Height of the proposed tower. • h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2008\08-01 wireless\issue paperv2.doc L i Marcie Palmer,Council President Page 3 of 3 March 17,2008 • 2. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 3. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. 4. Surrounding topography. 5. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage. 6. Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 7. Proposed ingress and egress. 8. Potential noise, light and glare impacts. 9. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures. 10. Compatibility with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City. (Ord. 4689, 11-24-1997). Housekeeping Amendments • Housekeeping amendments are needed to resolve inconsistencies within the existing code. These changes clarify language, make the processing of applications consistent with the existing requirements in the 4-2-080 Conditions for Zoning Use Tables, and add a cross reference to the code sections where the decision criteria for use permits are published. These amendments also change the names of reviewing staff to the more generalized"Reviewing Official". These proposed changes make no changes in the regulatory content of this section of code, but increase the consistency and accuracy of the code. A draft of the proposed code amendments is shown in Attachment A. Docket Exception The docket process exception is requested because under the annual docket review cycle, this code amendment could not be processed for approximately one year. CONCLUSION: The changes proposed are needed by wireless providers to continue providing service to Renton residents. S h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2008\08-01 wireless\issue paperv2.doc CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING REGULATION OF WIRELESS FACILITIES WHEREAS, the City of Renton has adopted regulations for wireless communication facilities within the City, and WHEREAS, the current standard for wireless regulations requires a lot size standard of over an acre within residential zones, and WHEREAS, density of development required under the Growth Management Act, requires lot areas of less than one acre in residential zones, and WHEREAS, the amount of infill development that has occurred in the City since the adoption of the Growth Management Comprehensive Plan has resulted in the redevelopment of many larger parcels within residential areas, and WHEREAS, industry standards have changed to allow more service to be provided from the shorter Monopole I compared with the taller Monopole II, and there is a greater need to provide more Monopole I facilities within existing urban areas, and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide zoning and development standards that facilitate provision of a wireless communication network that services residential areas, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that revisions are' needed to the minimal lot size standard for wireless facilities in residential zones in order insure that there is sufficient land available to insure that a reasonable network of service can be provided, and • Page 1 of 4 • WHEREAS, the current wireless regulations include inconsistencies between process requirements in current zoning table notes, and process requirements as shown on the zoning use tables, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-2-060 P Wireless Communication Facilities Section of the Zoning Use Table of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION II. Section 4-2-080 Conditions Associated With Zoning Use Tables,Notes 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 are amended to read as follows: • 44. Permitted provided that the facility has a minimum setback of one hundred feet(100feet) from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel, if the setback is less than 100 feet an administrative conditional use permit is required pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria. 45. For Monopoles Proposed on Private Property: May be allowed via an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria; provided, that the site is over one half acre in size and the facility has minimum setbacks of one hundred feet (100') from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; if the setback is less than 100' a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. For Monopoles Proposed on Public Right-of-Way: May be allowed via an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, and right-of-way use permit. provided, the facility is located on a principal, minor, or collector arterial and has minimum setbacks of one hundred feet (100') from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; if the setback is less than 100' a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. • 46. Eligible for an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, provided that the facility has a minimum setback of one Page 2 of 4 hundred feet (100 feet) from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; if the • setback is less than 100 feet a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. 47. May be allowed by an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, if the monopole II facility is to be constructed on property where wireless communication support structures presently operate, and the new monopole II facility will not exceed the height of the existing support structures. Prohibited if located within three hundred feet (300') of an RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, or R-14 Zone unless the Reviewing Official determines that all residentially zoned property within three hundred feet (300feet) of the proposed facility is undevelopable due to critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050); then the administrative conditional use process shall apply. 48. A Hearing Examiner conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, is required. This use is prohibited if located within three hundred feet (300') of an RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, or R-14 Zone, unless the Reviewing Official determines that all residentially zoned property within three hundred feet (300') of the proposed facility is undevelopable due to critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), in which case the new wireless support structure can be reviewed as a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. • 49. Emergency or routine modifications are permitted, when there is minimal or no change in the visual appearance, as determined by the Reviewing Official. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. • Page 3 of 4 y • Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD. 110 1111 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A. 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE—USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS: USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UC- UC- N1 N2 P.WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES • Lattice towers support structures H48 AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 Macro facility antennas AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 +P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 H H Micro facility antennas PP PPP P P P PP PP PP PP P P P Mini facility antennas P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 AD AD Minor modifications to existing wireless P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P P communication facilities P. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (CONTINUED) Monopole I support structures on private AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD46 P44 P44 P44 AD46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 property _ _ Monopole I support structures on public AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 P44 P44 P44 P46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 right-of-way Monopole II support structures H48 AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 Parabolic antennas—Large AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 AD45 H46 P44 P44 P44 AD46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 P=Permitted Use H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Condition(s) Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020,Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District; RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations; RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations 44. Permitted provided that the facility has a minimum setback of one hundred feet (100')from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel,otherwise-if the setback is less than 100 feet an administrative conditional use permit is required pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria. 45. For Monopoles Proposed on Private Property: May be allowed via a Hearing ExaminerAdministrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4- 9-030J Decision Criteria; provided, that the site is over one half acre in size and the facility has minimum setbacks of one hundred feet (100') from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; if the setback is less than 100' a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required.etherwise the use is prohibited. For Monopoles Proposed on Public Right-of-Way: May be allowed via an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, and right-of-way use permit. provided, the facility is located on a principal, minor, or collector arterial and has minimum setbacks of one hundred feet(100')from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; if the setback is less than 100' a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. H:\EDNSP\T V\Docket\2008\08 01 Wireless\Telecommunications docket 08-01 Code Draft. •Page 1 of 2 , • • • e 46. Eligible for an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, provided that the facility has a minimum setback of one hundred feet (100')from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel, otherwise-if the setback is less than 100 feet a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. 47. May be allowed by an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, if the monopole II facility is to be constructed on property where wireless communication support structures presently operate, and the new monopole II facility will not exceed the height of the existing support structures. Prohibited if located within three hundred feet (300') of an RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, or R-14 Zone unless the !- - ::-• -• - II' • Reviewing Official determines that all residentially zoned property within three hundred feet (300') of the proposed facility is undevelopable due to critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050); then the new wireless support structure can administrative conditional use process shall apply. 48. A Hearing Examiner conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, is required. However, this use is typically prohibited if located within three hundred feet (300') of an RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, or R-14 Zone, unless the !- - e•-z -- -=- -Reviewing Official determines that all residentially zoned property within three hundred feet (300') of the proposed facility is undevelopable due to critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), in which case the new wireless support structure can be reviewed as a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. 49.Whether-Eemergency or routine modifications permitted, so long-a-sswhen there is little minimal or no change in the visual appearance, as determined by the e• •e ':•• - - e Reviewing Official. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2008\08-01 Wireless\Telecommunications docket 08-01 Code Draft.doc Page 2 of 2 CITY OF RENTOR COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: g A d 4 •Submitting Data: For Agenda of: March 24, 2008 Dept/Div/BoardCommunity Services Dept. Human Services Division Staff Contact Karen Bergsvik, X6652 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Renewal of Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the Correspondence.. Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP) Ordinance Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business - Issue Paper Study Sessions - Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Information - Resolution Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Community Services Committee Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: 411 Expenditure Required... None Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: A document recording surcharge fee enacted by the legislature in 2002, has been used to support affordable housing projects at the state and local levels. An Interlocal Agreement between King County and certain suburban cities allocates this money to affordable income housing projects. As the Agreement expired in December 2006, the renewed Agreement term will be January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2011. Renton's participation in the planning process for the RAHP funds allows the City to appoint a staff person to participate in the Interjurisdictional Advisory Group (IAG). This person participates in reviewing projects from the South subregion and works with the County Housing and Community Development staff to make funding recommendations to the interjurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee. The current Renton Human Services Division IAG staff representative has helped to develop the proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. Renton's participation in this Agreement will give Renton the opportunity to influence the use of county, state and federal dollars for local affordable housing and community development purposes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for administration of the local portion of Substitute House Bill (SHB) 2060 funds, for the Regional Affordable Housin: Pro tram. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • �N20 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 6, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: S�� Denis Law, Mayor 1,24,; (01.64./ FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services AdministratorSTAFF CONTACT: Karen Bergsvik, Human Services Manager, X6652 �T�s�ti SUBJECT: Renewal of Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP) ISSUE Should the City of Renton continue to participate in an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County regarding the distribution of funds for the Regional Affordable Housing Program? RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for administration of the local portion of Substitute House Bill(SHB)2060 funds. • BACKGROUND On June 13, 2002, the legislature created a surcharge on the document recording fee to support affordable housing projects at the state and local levels. These dollars are allocated to affordable income housing projects pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement between the county and suburban cities. The current Agreement expired in December 2006. The renewed Agreement term will be January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2011. Cities were given over a year to take legislative action to approve the new Agreement. Renton's participation in the planning process for the RAHP funds allows the City to appoint a staff person to participate in the Interjurisdictional Advisory Group (IAG). This person participates in reviewing projects from the South subregion and works with the County Housing and Community Development staff to make funding recommendations to the interjurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee. The current Renton Human Services Division IAG staff representative has helped to develop the proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. FUNDING ALLOCATION I am currently on the Joint Recommendation Committee (JRC)that reviews and adopts RAHP fund allocations. The allocations are targeted by subregional geographic areas. Renton is in the South subregional area, which has a total target of 32.7%. The targets of the North/East and Seattle subregions are 29.4%and 37.9%, respectively. The breakdown of the RAHP funding allocations is as follows: A. 50% of the funds are allocated based on each subregion's relative share of total existing need for affordable housing, as determined by the percentage of low income households paying more than 30%of their income for housing in the subregion. H:1HS 0KLegislative\RAHP\Issue Paper RAHP.doc Memorandum to City Council Page 2 of 2 March 6,2008 • B. 50%of the funds are allocated based on the subregions' growth targets for future need. C. All units funded with RAHP funds must serve households at or below 50% of area median income. D. The funds are further allocated in descending priority order as follows: • Capital funds for the acquisition,rehabilitation and/or new construction of units of eligible housing types • Operations and Maintenance funds for existing homeless housing • Operations and Maintenance funds for existing emergency shelters and licensed overnight youth shelters • Section 8 rental assistance vouchers LOCAL PROJECTS From 2003 through 2007, this Agreement supported the following Renton projects: A. $272,000 to DASH: Located at 5th and Williams, "Liberty Park" is a 92-unit"workforce"housing development for households at or below 60%of area median gross income. It includes ten units for domestic violence victims. B. $80,000 to the Foundation for the Challenged: This foundation supports one single family group home for the developmentally disabled. C. $218,750 to the Compass Center: The Center is developing plans for a new mixed-use rental multi- family affordable housing project that incorporates a regional Veterans' transitional and permanent • housing program. The project will consist of the following components: ■ 50 units of transitional and permanent Veterans' housing serving singles and families with children. Support services will be provided. • 15 units of permanent rental housing • Commercial space to be leased to Renton Technical College for ESL and computer training courses • Multi-purpose café space,to be operated by the Northwest Washington Lutheran Synod to further their ministry activities in the downtown Renton area, with a retail bakery outlet to market products prepared by the Renton Technical College Culinary Arts Program. CONCLUSION Renton's participation in this Agreement will give Renton the opportunity to influence the use of county, state and federal dollars for local affordable housing and community development purposes. TH:ma cc: Jay Covington Enc: 1. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement 2. Administrative Guidelines for 2007-2010 3. Letter from King County Executive Ron Sims 4. Income guideline chart • H:\HS 08\Legislative\RAHP\Issue Paper RAHP.doc • REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM • INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT G EMENT An Agreement for the use of SHB 2060 Local Low Income Housing Funds in King County THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between King County, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred ' g to as the "county", the City of ,hereinafter referred to as the "city", said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government of the State of Washington. RECITALS WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, hereinafter referred to as the "CPPs", developed pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, have established standards for cities to plan for their share of regional growth and affordable housing; and WHEREAS, to implement the CPPs, the King County Growth Management Planning Council appointed a public-private Housing Finance Task Force in 1994, hereinafter referred to as the "HFTF", to recommend potential fund sources for affordable housing for existing low income residents and for meeting the affordable housing targets for future growth; and WHEREAS the HFTF recommended a document recording fee as a source of regional dollars for low-income housing development and support, and recommended that representatives of the county, cities and the housing community work together to make decisions about the use • and administration of such a fund; and RA-JP Interlocal Agreement 1 of 9 2007-2011 WHEREAS in March 2002, Substitute House Bill 2060, hereinafter referred to as SHB 2060, was passed by the Washington State Legislature and was signed into law by the Governor • as Chapter 294,2002 Washington Laws in April 2002, was effective on June 13, 2002, and was amended by Chapter 484, 2005 Washington Laws on August 1, 2005. SHB 2060, as amended, is codified in part as RCW 36.22.178 and provides that: [A] surcharge of ten dollars per instrument shall be charged by the county auditor for each real property document recorded, which will be in addition to any other charge authorized by law. The county may retain up to five percent of these funds collected solely for the collection, administration and local distribution of the funds. Of the remaining funds, forty percent of the revenue generated through this surcharge will be transmitted monthly to the state treasurer .... All of the remaining funds generated by this surcharge • will be retained by the county and deposited into a fund that must be used by the county and its cities and towns for housing projects or units within housing projects that are affordable to very low-income households at or below fifty percent of the area median income. The portion of the surcharge retained by a county shall be allocated pursuant to very low income housing projects or units within such housing projects in the county and cities within the county, according to an interlocal agreement between the county and the cities within the county, consistent with countywide and local housing needs and policies ... [and in accordance with the eligible activities listed in the RCW 36.22.178]. and • RAHP Interlocal Agreement 2 of 9 2007-2011 • WHEREAS, existing Interlocal Cooperation Agreements or Joint Agreements between • King County and cities in the King County Community Development Block Grant Consortium, hereinafter referred to as the "CDBG Consortium Agreements", and/or existing Interlocal Cooperation Agreements between King County and cities in the King County HOME Investment Partnerships Program Consortium, hereinafter referred to as the"HOME Consortium Agreements", are not modified by this Regional Affordable Housing Program Agreement; and WHEREAS, the city and county agree that affordable housing is a regional issue, that cooperation between the cities and the county is beneficial to the region, and that a regional approach to utilizing the RCW 36.22.178 funds will allow those funds to be used in the most productive manner; and WHEREAS, it is mutually beneficial and desirable to enter into a cooperative agreement in order to administer the RCW 36.22.178 revenue as a regional fund, as authorized by the • Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34, and, as required by RCW 36.22.178 NOW, THEREFORE,IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Definitions and Interpretation. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the following meanings unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise. • RAHP Interlocal Agreement 3 of 9 2007-2011 "Joint Recommendations Committee"or"JRC"means the interjurisdictional body developed pursuant to and the CDBG and HOME Consortia Agreements as described in Section III of this • Agreement. "Interjurisdictional Advisory Committee" or"Advisory Committee"means the work group consisting of representatives from cities eligible to participate in the Regional Affordable Housing Program, and from the county. This group is advisory to the JRC. "RAHP/2060 Planning Group"means the planning group consisting of representatives from the cities, from the county, and from housing and human services agencies serving King County, that will convene during the year the Regional Affordable Housing Program Guidelines expire to review the program and the guidelines and to recommend any changes or updates to the • guidelines to the JRC. II. General Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the"Regional Affordable Housing Program" (hereinafter referred to as the"RAHP"), to be administered by King County in cooperation with cities and towns within the county that are eligible to participate in the program. The local portion of RCW 36.22.178 revenue shall be administered as a regional fund by the King County Housing and Community Development Program in a manner that is consistent with countywide 1 and local housing needs and policies. The city and the county agree to cooperate in undertaking RAHP activities as set forth herein. III. Administration, Distribution and Use of the RAHP A. Joint Recommendations Committee • RAHP Interlocal Agreement 4 of 9 2007-2011 An interjurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee(JRC) has been established • through the CDBG and HOME Consortia Interlocal Cooperation Agreements and is hereby adopted as part of this Agreement. Changes to the JRC that occur in the CDBG and HOME Consortia Interlocal Agreements are incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 1. Composition of the JRC. For RAHP purposes, the JRC shall be composed of cities' representatives and county representatives as specified in the CDBG and HOME Consortia Agreements, with the addition of an appointment from the City of Seattle. The Seattle JRC representative will only attend JRC meetings that concern the RAHP funds and will be entitled to vote solely on RAHP issues and not on other King County Consortium matters coming before the JRC. The Seattle representative shall be an elected official, department director or • comparable level staff. 2. Powers and Duties of the JRC. The JRC shall be empowered to: a. Review and adopt annual RAHP fund allocations. b. Review and adopt RAHP allocation policies. c. Review and adopt any subsequent updates to the RAHP Administrative Guidelines, as appropriate, and when they expire in 2010 (the RAHP Admininstrative Guidelines are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 1). A jurisdiction that is party to this Agreement may dispute a JRC decision concerning the RAHP Guidelines by informing the JRC Chair of the dispute, and the JRC Chair will schedule time on the JRC agenda to • discuss and resolve the disputed issue. RAHP Interlocal Agreement 5 of 9 2007-2011 In carrying out its duties, the JRC shall make decisions that are consistent with the RCW 36.22.178, the Consolidated Housing and Community Development • Plan of the King County Consortium and the.City of Seattle, the Ten Year Plan to.End Homelessness in King County and other local housing plans, as applicable. 3. Interjurisdictional Advisory Committee to the JRC. In fulfilling its duties under this Agreement, the JRC shall consider the advice of an Advisory Committee, made up of representatives from those jurisdictions eligible to participate in the RAHP that choose to send representation. The Advisory Committee will meet at least once per year with King County staff to recommend projects for RAHP funding to the JRC and may monitor the distribution of RAHP funds to the sub- regions and make recommendations to the JRC concerning actions to achieve • geographic equity. If the Advisory Committee considers issues other than the RAHP, the staff from the City of Seattle shall only participate for the purpose of making RAHP recommendations. B. Administration of RAHP Programs The King County Housing and Community Development Program ("HCD") staff shall distribute RAHP funds pursuant to the allocations adopted annually by the JRC, and shall administer the program pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the RAHP Administrative Guidelines. King County HCD staff shall provide the JRC and the Advisory Committee with an = annual report that provides information about the capital housing projects that were • RAHP Interlocal Agreement 6 of 9 2007-2011 awarded RAHP funds in that year, as well as the status of capital housing projects that • were awarded RAHP funds in a prior year(s). King County HCD staff shall invite the representatives resentatives of cities that are a party to this Agreement to be involved in any work groups convened to update the RAHP Operations and Maintenance("O&M") Fund policies, and to be on the review panel that will recommend O&M funding awards to the JRC. C. Administrative Costs _ The county agrees to pay the costs of administering the Regional Affordable Housing Program out of the five percent (5%) of the funds collected by the county for expenses related to collection, administration and local distribution of the funds, pursuant to RCW 36.22.178. No portion of the sixty percent (60%) of the RCW 36.22.178 • revenue retained by the county in a fund for the RAHP shalle b utilized for RAHP administration. D. Interest on the RAHP Fund Interest accrued on the sixty percent(60%)of the RCW 36.22.178 revenue retained by the county in a fund for the RAHP shall remain with the RAHP fund and will be distributed to projects according to the subregional allocation target formula found in the RAHP Administrative Guidelines. E. Sub-Regional Geographic Equity The parties intend that the RAHP funds shall be awarded to projects throughout King County in a fair and equitable manner over the duration of this Agreement. Equity is • to be achieved through sub-regional allocation targets, as follows: A fixed percentage of RAHP local funds will be allocated to each sub-region of the county identified in RAHP Interlocal Agreement 7 of 9 2007-2011 the RAHP Administrative Guidelines by the expiration of this Agreement. The percentage goals for each sub-region set by the formula in the RAHP Administrative . • Guidelines shall by updated by the JRC when new data is available. F. General Use of Funds The local portion of the RCW 36.22.178 revenue shall be utilized to meet regional housing priorities for households at or below fifty percent (50%) of area median income, as established in the RAHP Administrative Guidelines. G. Compliance with Fair Housing Laws Parties to this Agreement must take actions necessary to ensure compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other applicable state and local fair housing laws. IV. Effective Date • This Agreement shall be effective on January 1, 2007. V. Agreement Duration This Agreement shall remain in effect through December 31,2011. VI. General Matters and Recording A. No separate legal or administrative entity is created by this Agreement. Neither the JRC, the Advisory Committee, nor the RAHP/2060 Planning Group are anticipated to acquire or to hold any real or personal property pursuant to this Agreement. Any personal property utilized in the normal course of the work of such bodies shall remain the property of the person, entity or city initially offering such personal property for the use of any such body. • RAHP Interlocal Agreement 8 of 9 2007-2011 B. The county may terminate this Agreement if at least forty percent(40%)of the • jurisdictions in King County representing seventy-five percent(75%) of the population of King County have not signed this Agreement by February 1, 2008. C. Recording - Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040, this Agreement shall be filed with King County Records. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CITY OF For King County Executive By: Signature Jackie MacLean, Director Printed Name Printed Name Department of Community and Human Services Title Date Date Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY CITY OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY Michael Sinsky, King County Senior Deputy City Attorney Prosecuting Attorney ATTEST: CITY OF City Clerk • RAHP Interlocal Agreement 9 of 9 2007-2011 EXHIBIT 1 • King County Regional Affordable Housing Program Administrative Guidelines for 2007-2010 I. Introduction The provisions of Substitute House Bill (SHB)2060 became effective in Washington State on June 13, 2002. SHB 2060 created a document recording fee on certain documents to be utilized for low income housing. Administration of the fund is shared between local governments and the State. The local portion of SHB 2060 funds is to be administered pursuant to a cooperative agreement between the county and the cities and towns within King County. The work of the Housing Finance Task Force (HFTF), appointed by the King County Growth Management Planning Council in 1994, led to the passage of SHB 2060. In recognition of the recommendations made by the HFTF, a Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP)/2060 Planning Group convenes to plan for the use of King County SHB 2060 funds. The King County RAHP/2060 Planning Groups is made up of city representatives, county representatives, and representatives from a variety of private housing and services organizations in King County. ' City representatives have included staff from the cities of: Burien,Tukwila,Kent,Federal Way,Redmond, Kirkland, Issaquah, Shoreline,Covington, Seatac,Auburn,Seattle,Bellevue and ARCH Housing and services organization representatives included staff from the following: Seattle-King County Housing Development Consortium,Impact Capital, South King County Multi-Service Center,Hopelink,Fremont Public Association, Seattle Habitat for Humanity, South King County Habitat for Humanity,Friends of Youth, the Salvation Army, Community Psychiatric Clinic, Lifelong Aids Alliance,St.Andrews Housing Group,Housing Resource Group, EDVP, YWCA,Mental Health Housing Foundation,Rental Housing Association,Highline-West Mental 1111 Health, Valley Cities Counseling, Seattle Emergency Housing Service, Common Ground,and Vietnam Veterans. Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 1 of 12 2007-2011 The King County RAHP/2060 Planning Group has designed a regional low income • housingfund source, to be administered bythe King County Housing and Community Development Program (HCD) in the Department of Community and Human Services. II. Duration of the Guidelines The RAHP Guidelines shall take effect on January 1, 2007, and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2010. III. Review and Update of the Guidelines Beginning in 2010, the Guidelines will be updated through the interjurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC)pursuant to the RAHP Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, hereinafter"RAHP Agreement." The RAHP/2060 Planning Group will convene in the first half of 2010 to review the program and the RAHP Guidelines and to recommend any proposed • changes to the JRC for adoption prior to the expiration date. IV. Decision-Making Structure and Regional Allocation Method A. Approving Body—Joint Recommendations Committee. The interjurisdictional JRC, as defined in the RAHP Agreement, shall be the body that reviews and updates the RAHP Guidelines beginning in 2010, and reviews and adopts annual RAHP funding allocations and related allocation policies. The JRC will be expanded, pursuant to the RAHP Agreement, to include representation from the City of Seattle on RAHP matters. Allocations and related policies adopted by the JRC must be consistent with these RAHP Guidelines, the Consolidated Plans of the King County Consortium and the City of Seattle, other local housing plans, as applicable, and the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County. • i Leadership Program, Compass Center,Catholic Community Services,the King County Housing Authority,Seattle Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 2 of 12 2007-2011 1. Appeal Process for JRC Decisions • a. Cities—Adoption of Guidelines Pursuant to the RAHP Interlocal Agreement, a participating jurisdiction may appeal a JRC decision concerning the update of RAHP Guidelines. The jurisdiction must inform the Chair of the JRC, and the JRC chair will schedule time on the JRC agenda to discuss the appeal issue. b. Applicants—Annual Fund Allocations Applicants for RAHP funds may appeal a JRC allocation decision if they have grounds based on substantial violation of a fair allocation process, such as bias, discrimination, conflict of interest, or failure to follow the RAHP Guidelines. Appeals by applicants will receive initial review for adequate grounds by the Director of the King County DCHS. If adequate grounds for an appeal are found, • the DCHS director will put the appeal on the JRC agenda for review. B. Annual Fund Allocation Recommendations An interjurisdictional advisory committee to the JRC, made up representatives from participating jurisdictions in the RAHP Consortium, will work with the King County Housing Finance Program (HFP) staff of King County HCD to make RAMP allocation recommendations and related program policy recommendations to the JRC. While the advisory committee may make recommendations concerning several fund sources for affordable housing in the King County Consortium, the City of Seattle staff will participate on the committee solely for the purpose of making RAHP recommendations. 111 Mental Health, and the Committee to End Homelessness Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 3 of 12 2007-2011 • ' The review process for RAHP allocations will proceed as follows: • King County HCD staff will review all RAHP applications and make preliminaryfunding recommendations. • Cities' staff will review applications for projects in their jurisdiction and make preliminary recommendations on those applications. • Cities' staff will receive information on all RAHP applications to review prior to the advisory committee meeting at which final funding recommendations are formulated for transmittal to the JRC. • Advisory committee participants will meet together at least annually to decide upon RAHP funding recommendations to the JRC, and may meet at other times during the year, as necessary, to discuss RAHP issues and make recommendations to the JRC. • C. Subregional Allocation Targets The RAHP Fund will be a flexible fund that can address regional and subregional housing needs. The fund will use subregional allocation targets as a means to achieve geographic equity in the distribution of SHB 2060 funds by December 31, 2010, the date that these guidelines expire. 1. Subregional Areas: a. City of Seattle Subregion b. North/East Subregion—north and east urban and rural areas, including 34 percent of unincorporated King County2 • 2 Percent of unincorporated King County attributed to the North/East and South Subregions is based on the 2000 census data for households in the unincorporated portions of the King County Community Planning Areas,as listed in the 2002 Annual Growth Report. Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 4 of 12 2007-2011 c. South Subregion—south urban and rural areas, including 66 • percent of unincorporated King County 2. Formula for Subregional Allocation Targets Each subregion will have a targeted percentage of the RAHP funds, including the interest on the RAHP funds, allocated to projects within the subregion over the period of time that the RAHP Guidelines are in effect. Each subregion will receive allocations to projects within the subregion that are equal to or greater than 95 percent, of the subregions' allocation target by December 31, 2010. The formula for allocating RAHP funds to the subregions is as follows: • One half of the RAHP funds shall be targeted for allocation among the three subregions based on each subregion's relative share of total existing need for affordable housing. Existing need shall be determined by the percentage of low- • income households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing in the subregion, according to the 2000 U.S. Census data. • One half of the RAHP funds shall be targeted for allocation amongst the three subregions based on the subregions' growth targets for future need, as established through the Growth Management Planning Council. Future need shall be determined by the subregions' relative share of total future need for affordable housing in the County. A subregion's relative share of future need is the percentage of the subregion's affordable housing target for low-income households relative to the cumulative affordable housing target for low-income households of all jurisdictions in • Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 5 of 12 2007-2011 Illthe county, including unincorporated King County3. Based upon the RAHP formula, the sub-regional allocation targets are as follows: City of Seattle: 37.9 percent South: 32.7p ercent North/East: 29.4 percent 3. Interjurisdictional Advisory Committee to Monitor Subregional Allocation Targets The advisory committee will monitor the subregional distribution of RAHP funds every year, determining if any subregion(s) received allocations below 95 percent of the subregion's allocation target. If any subregion received allocations under 95 percent of the target allocation after IIIseveral funding cycles, the HCD staff will work with the advisory committee to adjust the allocation targets of such subregion(s) in the subsequent funding cycles, as needed. In addition, the advisory committee may propose strategies and actions, for review by the JRC, that are designed to increase the percentage of RAHP funds spent in those subregion(s). Staff of the jurisdictions that are parties to the RAHP Agreement will assist in implementing actions that will aid in achieving geographic equity in RAHP allocations by December 31, 2010. 3 The percentage of a subregion's target relative to the cumulative target is derived by averaging the target percentages of the jurisdictions within that subregion. For each jurisdiction,the target percentage is calculated in the following manner: the number of households that a jurisdiction must anticipate,per the 2002-2022 Countywide • Planning Policy(CPP)Growth Target,is multiplied by.24 or.20(depending on the ratio of low wage jobs to low cost housing for the jurisdiction in Appendix 3 of the CPPs);that number is divided by the cummulative affordable housing target for low income households of all King County jurisdictions, including unincorporated King County. Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 6 of 12 2007-2011 V. Use of the RAHP Funds in King County • A. RAHP Priorities 1. Top Priority: • Capital funds for the acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of units of eligible housing types. New construction is not eligible if the low-income housing vacancy rate for all of King County exceeds 10 percent4. 2. Second Priority: • Operations &Maintenance("O&M") fund program for existing homeless housings. This program provides O&M funding for existing6 transitional housing and transition in place'units. The housing units must be eligible for the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, and • must show that they require RAHP O&M funds in order to cover ongoing building operating expenses. 3. Third Priority: • O&M funds for existing emergency shelters and licensed overnight youth shelters. 4. Last priority: • Rental assistance vouchers to be administered by a local housing authority in conformity with the Section 8 program. 4 The low income housing vacancy rate for each county will be established by the state,pursuant to the SHB 2060 legislation. 5 The O&M fund for the 2007-2010 guidelines is set at approximately 22 percent of$3,222,000(the average of the RAHP collections in 2004 and 2005),which is$700,000 per year for the four year period of the guidelines. • 6 Existing housing is defined as housing that exists as of the date of an application for RAHP funds. Transition in place units are permanent rental units where supportive services are provided for a period of time,as needed by a household. Households do not need to move when the supportive services are phased out. Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 7 of 12 2007-2011 III B. RAHP Eligibility 1. Eligible Housing Types a. Capital Funds • Permanent rental housing units • Transition in place and transitional housing units; units that are not time-limited are encouraged. • Emergency shelter and licensed overnight youth shelter8 • Ownership housing b. O&M Funds: • Existing transitional and transition in place housing units • • Existing emergency shelters and licensed overnight youth shelters 2. Eligible Populations Served by Housing Units • All units funded with RAHP funds must serve households at or below 50 percent of area median income. Projects that include units for households at or below 30 percent of area median income are encouraged. • Homeless households9, including youth. • Households at risk of homelessness.i° 8 RAHP funds are limited to 50 percent of the development cost of any project;consequently,if a shelter project cannot secure adequate funding for the entire cost of development,the RAHP cannot prioritize the project. 9 Homeless households include:households that lack a fixed,regular and adequate residence;households that reside in aublicl P Y • or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations;households that reside in time-limited housing;and households that currently reside in an institution and will be exiting the institution without a fixed,regular and adequate residence. Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 8 of 12 2007-2011 • Disabled households or households with a disabled member. • • Families. • Special needs populations, including seniors. 3. Eligible Applicants • Nonprofit organizations • Housing Authorities • Local governments • For-profit entities are only eligible for capital funds in the top priority. This is due to the language of the SHB 2060 legislation, which restricts building operations and maintenance funds to projects "eligible for the Washington State Housing Trust Fund." For-profit entities are not • eligible for the Washington State Housing Trust Fund. 4. Eligible use of RAHP Funds by Priority a. Capital funds: • Acquisition of land for eligible housing • New construction'of eligible housing • Acquisition of building(s) for eligible housing • Rehabilitation of units of eligible housing or to create new units of eligible housing • Capitalization of a replacement reserve in connection with a capital investment for new or existing eligible housing units 10 Households at risk of homelessness include:households paying 50 percent or more of their income for rent,households that • have a history of homelessness and are currently unstable,households living in overcrowded or substandard housing,households Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 9 of 12 2007-2011 . , • • Capitalization of O&M rent buy-down reserves for new eligible housing units to serve households below 50 percent of AMI that are primarily homeless'', or at risk of homelessness'2. Capitalized O&M reserves may only be used to write down rents to very affordable rent levels, below 30 percent of AMI and below 50 percent of AMI(i.e. between 30 percent and 50 percent of AMI,) for units that do not have debt service. Capitalized O&M reserves must be used for expenses directly related to running the building and may not be used for services to the tenants or to cover debt service13. This eligible use may not exceed 20 percent of the RAHP capital funds in any funding cycle. IIIb. O&M Funds: • • Existing transition in place or transitional housing units are eligible for O&M for ongoing building operations and maintenance expenses that cannot be covered by the rental income of the project, and may not include the cost of services to tenants or debt service. that are substantially behind on their monthly housing payment or have a pending eviction,households with a disability whose housing is at risk due to aging relatives or other factors. 1I See Note 6. 12 See Note 7. 13 Other requirements for capitalized O&M reserves include: I)projects will not be eligible for these funds unless they have • either applied first to CTED for O&M and been denied,or have not received Housing Trust Fund capital dollars and are, therefore,not eligible for O&M from CTED;2)funds will be awarded only in appropriate amounts as neede,d pursuant to review by the Housing Finance Program,and will be subject to negotiated modifications;and 3)capitalized reserves will be committed for a maximum of five years'rent buy-down subsidy. Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 10 of 12 2007-2011 • Existing emergency shelters and licensed, overnight youth shelters • are eligible for O&M for general operating expenses, including services. c. Vouchers: • Rental assistance vouchers must be administered by a local housing authority in conformity with the Section 8 program. VI. RAHP Administration The RAHP funds shall be administered as a regional fund by the King County HCD Program. A. RAHP Capital Funds RAHP capital funds, including capitalized O&M reserves for new projects and maintenance reserves, will be administered by HFP in conjunction with other fund sources • administered by HFP. The HFP will staff the interjurisdictional advisory committee and will work with the committee to develop RAHP funding allocation recommendations and related policy recommendations for JRC review and adoption. The HFP will distribute RAHP funds through contracts pursuant to the allocations adopted by the JRC, and will generate an annual RAHP report that provides information about the projects that received funding in the current year, as well as the status of projects awarded RAHP funds in prior year(s). The terms of the King County Housing Opportunity Fund(HOF) will apply to RAHP contracts, with the exception of the following: • Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 11 of 12 2007-2011 • Ii • • To the extent that there are differences between the HOF guidelines and RAHP guidelines, the RAHP guidelines will apply. • A financial match by the local government where a housing project is to be located is not required, but is encouraged. • RAHP funds will have no maximum subsidy per unit, but the development portion of the award (not including O&M rent buy-down reserves) will be limited to 50 percent of the total development cost of a project. B. RAHP Operating and Maintenance Funds The RAHP O&M funds will be administered through the King County HCD Program's Homeless Housing Programs (HHP) Section. The priority for RAHP O&M funds is existing projects that have been unsuccessful in 41) receiving State 2060 O&M funds or ESAP funds. HHP will work with the Committee to End Homelessness to ensure that the uses of RAHP O&M funds are consistent with the priorities of the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. HHP will invite city staff and other stakeholders to participate in updating the RFP parameters for O&M funds, if and when updates are necessary, and will invite the same to participate on the panel to review applications for the RAHP O&M funds. The review panel will recommend O&M fund awards to the JRC for final adoption. 41) Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 12 of 12 2007-2011 .. .;::ems....! .. !Ono County Ron Sims King County Executive • 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3210 Seattle, WA 98104 — './ 206-296-4040 Fax 206-296-0194 , 6' Try Relay: 711 Citi 0-07> www.metrokc.gov I July 11, 2007 71 freiCei V, Dear Mayors, City Managers, Community Development Block Gr: .n.: OME Consortium Coordinators: I am very pleased to present for your city's review and approval, the updated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP), and the RAHP Administrative Guidelines, attached thereto as Exhibit 1. This regional partnership will continue to benefit our communities through the provision of new affordable housing for many years to come. As you may recall, there was an initial planning process in 2002 to establish an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement and Administrative Guidelines for Substitute House Bill 2060 revenues. The Agreement was in place for four years and called for a planning process to begin before its expiration in December 2006. Accordingly, King County staff convened participants from local jurisdictions and from the housing community during 2006 to plan for updates to the Agreement and administrative guidelines. The planning group updated the administrative guidelines to make the program more responsive to the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County, while preserving the flexibility of the program to address a variety of affordable housing needs throughout the region. I encourage all cities in King County to sign on to the RAHP Agreement in order to adhere to the language of the SHB 2060 legislation, which states that the funds are to be administered "...according to an interlocal agreement between the county and the cities within the county..." The Ordinance adopting the new Agreement and Administrative Guidelines was passed by the ; Metropolitan King County Council earlier this year and was enacted March 7, 2007. GitiesItave until. bruarzy 1;2403;.:0,rakeAetion£th;ough a,1 o, divan, or;0049 by each.jP. Acletion's The RAHP guidelines allow a city to participate as much or as little as desired in the program. • Staff level: All cities are invited to appoint a staff person to participate in the Interiurisdittfonal Advisory Group (IAG). On the IAG, staff will review projects from their sub-region and work with the King County Housing and Community Development staff to make funding recommendations to the interjurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee, currently chaired by Mayor Ava Frisinger of Issaquah. If staff members from your city have not participated in the IAG, but would now like to participate, please • King County is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer �j� zozu and complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act Mayors, City Managers, CDBG and HOME Consortium Coordinators July 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 • contact John deChadenedes with the King County Housing and Community Development Program at 206-296-8669. o Elected Official/Department Director level: Your city may also have the opportunity to have a representative on the Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC). If you would like more.information on the JRC and how cities' representatives are appointed, please contact Issaquah Mayor Ava Frisinger at 425-837-3021, or Jackie MacLean, King County Department of Community and Human Services Director, at 206-296-7689. The` 'Administrative Guidelines continue to include allocation targets for projects to be located throughout the region based on three large sub-regional areas: the City of Seattle, East/North King County, and So lieill'g C'd ty. Project location is not necessarily tied to whether a particular jurisdiction has signed the Interlocal Agreement. If you have any questions regarding the RAHP Agreement or the Administrative Guidelines, please feel free to contact a T , Acting Program Manager of King County's Housing and Community Development Program, at 206-205-1417. Please return your signed Agreement to the attention of Cheryl Markham, King County Housing and Community Development Program, 821 2nd Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104. • Thank you for your assistance in making this regional program a success. mcere i lab • . - King County Executive Enclosures cc: Jackie MacLean, Director,Department of Community and Human Services ATTN: Linda Peterson, Division Director, Community Services Division Cheryl Markham, Acting Program Manager, Housing and Community Development Program • • King County, Washington FY 2008 Income Median FY 2008 Income Limit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Limit Area Income Category Person Person Person Person Person Person Person Person Extremely Low (30%) $17,100 $19,500 $21,950 $24,400 $26,350 $28,300 $30,250 $32,200 Income Limits King County $81,400 Very Low (50%) Income $28,500 $32,550 $36,650 $40,700 $43,950 $47,200 $50,450 $53,700 Limits Low (80%) Income Limits $43,050 $49,200 $55,350 $61,500 $66,400 $71,350 $76,250 $81,200 NOTE: King County is part of the Seattle-Bellevue,WA HUD Metro FMR Area. The Seattle-Bellevue,WA HUD Metro FMR Area contains the following areas: King County, WA; and Snohomish County, WA. Income Limit areas are based on FY 2008 Fair Market Rent (FMR) areas. For a detailed account of how this area is derived please see our associated FY 2008 Fair Market Rent documentation system. 0 0 III CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM (RAHP) INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE RENEWED AGREEMENT TERM OF JANUARY 1, 2007, THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2011. WHEREAS, in 2002, Substitute House Bill 2060 established a surcharge on a document recording fee in order to support affordable housing projects at the state and local levels; and WHEREAS, an Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") between King County and certain suburban cities has allocated these funds to affordable income housing projects; and WHEREAS, a Joint Recommendation Committee reviews and adopts the funding allocations, which are targeted,by subregional geographic areas; and • WHEREAS, the funds are further prioritized by economic need, and by project type, with rehabilitation and/or new construction projects receiving top priority; and WHEREAS, since 2003, the Agreement has supported three major affordable housing projects in the Renton area: 1) the DASH workforce housing development currently under construction at 5th and Williams, 2) the Foundation for the Challenged, which supports a group home for developmentally disabled persons, and 3) Compass Center, which is currently developing plans for a single development that would provide housing and services for veterans in downtown Renton; and WHEREAS, the Agreement has expired, and the new Agreement term will be January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions under which this 4I) Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between King County and certain suburban cities will operate; 1 RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, • WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the Regional Affordable Housing Program Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the renewed Agreement term of January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2011. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES. 1329:3/18/08:scr • 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: gpe, , • Submitting Data: For Agenda of: March 24, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. PW/Utility Systems Division Staff Contact John Hobson (ext. 7279) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. White Fence Ranch Geotechnical Engineering Services Correspondence Agreement with Kleinfelder Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Engineering Annual Consultant Agreement Study Sessions Vicinity Map Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: iiExpenditure Required... $35,752 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $50,000 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $1,100,000 City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Wastewater Utility, as part of its amended 2008 Capital Improvement Program (Council approval January 28, 2008), is extending sewer mains into the White Fence Ranch existing single-family development. As part of the design for this project, we need to hire a geotechnical engineering firm to perform soil bores and generate a geotechnical report to aid the City's staff in preparing design and dewatering plans for the project. Kleinfelder was selected from the City's 2008 Annual Consultant Roster—Geotechnical Services. The contract amount of$35,752 is within the anticipated costs associated with such work and well within the total budget of$1,100,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to approve and execute the Engineering Annual Consultant Agreement with Kleinfelder for geotechnical services related to the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension project, in the amount of$35,752. III H:\File Sys\WWP-WasteWater\WWP-27-3432 White Fence Ranch\Agenda Bill KleinfelderWFR.doc ENGINEERING ANNUAL CONSULTANT AGREEMENT III THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into on this , day of , 2008,by and between the CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON,A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HEREINAFTER CALLED THE"CITY,"and Kleinfelder whose address is 2405 140th Avenue NE,Suite A101,Bellevue,WA 98055, at which work will be available for inspection,hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT." PROJECT NAME: White Fench Ranch Geotechnical Engineering Services WHEREAS,the City has not sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide the engineering within a reasonable time and the City deems it advisable and is desirous of engaging the professional services and assistance of a qualified professional consulting firm to do the necessary engineering work for the project,and WHEREAS,the Consultant has represented and by entering into this Agreement now represents,that it is in full compliance with the statutes of the State of Washington for registration of professional engineers,has a current valid corporate certificate from the State of Washington or has a valid assumed name filing with the Secretary of State and that all personnel to be assigned to the work required under this Agreement are fully ualified to perform the work to q which they will be assigned in a competent and professional manner,and that sufficient qualified personnel are on staff or readily available to Consultant to staff this Agreement. WHEREAS,the Consultant has indicated that it desires to do the work set forth in the Agreement upon the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms,conditions, covenants and performances contained herein below, •the parties hereto agree as follows: I SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant shall furnish, and hereby warrants that it has,the necessary equipment,materials,and professionally trained and experienced personnel to facilitate completion of the work described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. The Consultant shall perform all work described in this Agreement in accordance with the latest edition and amendments to local and state regulations,guidelines and policies. The Consultant shall prepare such information and studies as it may deem pertinent and necessary,in order to pass judgment in a sound engineering manner on the features of the work. The Consultant shall make such minor changes,amendments or revisions in the detail of the work as may be required by the City. This item does not constitute an "Extra Work" item as related in Section VIII of the Agreement. The work shall be verified for accuracy by a complete check by the Consultant. The Consultant will be held responsible for the accuracy of the work,even though the work has been accepted by the City. II DESIGN CRITERIA The City will designate the basic premises and criteria for the work needed. Reports and plans,to the extent ogufeasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments of local and State regulations, idelines,and specifications, including,but not limited to the following: C:\DOCUME-1\RHYLLS-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\ pgrpwise\KleinfelderConsultantdoc\pc 1 Piazza/DataCenter/Forms/City/Contracts /2007 Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 1. Washington State Department of Transportation/American Public Works Association(WSDOT/APWA), "Standard Specifications for Road,Bridge,and Municipal Construction,"as amended by Renton • Standard Specification. 2. WSDOT/APWA, "Standard Plans for Road,Bridge and Municipal Construction." 3. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Highway Design Manual." 4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges." 5. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Bridge Design Manual,Volumes 1 and 2." 6. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Manual of Highways Hydraulics,"except hydrologic analysis as described in item 14. 7. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Materials Laboratory Outline." 8. Transportation Research Board, "Highway Capacity Manual." 9. U.S.Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration, "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways." 10. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Construction Manual." 11. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Local Agency Guidelines." • 12. Standard drawings prepared by the City and furnished to the Consultant shall be used as a guide in all cases where they fit design conditions. Renton Design Standards,and Renton Specifications shall be used as they pertain. 13. Metro Transit, design criteria. 14. King County Surface Water Design Manual, Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of Chapter 1,and Chapters 3,4, and 5. 15. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets." HI ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CONSULTANT BY THE;CITY The City will furnish the Consultant copies of documents which are available to the City that will facilitate the preparation of the plans, studies, specifications, and estimates within the limits of the assigned work. All other records needed for the study must be obtained by the Consultant. The Consultant will coordinate with other available sources to obtain data or records available to those agencies. The Consultant shall be responsible for this and any other data collection to the extent provided for in the Scope of Work. City will provide to Consultant all data in City's possession relating to Consultants services on the project. Consultant will reasonably rely upon the • accuracy,timeliness,and completeness of the information provided by the City. Should field studies be needed,the Consultant will perform such work to the extent provided for in the Scope of Work. The City will not be obligated to perform any such field studies. C:\DOCUME---1\RHYLLS-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\KPgrpwise\KleinfelderConsultant.doc\pc 2 Piazza/Data Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 IV OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTS AND IIIDOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT Documents, exhibits or other presentations for the work covered by this Agreement shall be furnished by the Consultant to the City upon completion of the various phases of the work. All such material, including working documents, notes,maps,drawings,photo,photographic negatives,etc.used in the project, shall become and remain the property of the City and may be used by it without restriction. Any use of such documents by the City not directly related to the project pursuant to which the documents were prepared by the Consultant shall be without any liability whatsoever to the Consultant. All written documents and products shall be printed on recycled paper when practicable. Use of the chasing-arrow symbol identifying the recycled content of the paper shall be used whenever practicable. All documents will be printed on both sides of the recycled paper, as feasible. V TIME OF BEGINNING AND COMPLETION The work detailed in the Scope of Work will be performed according to Exhibit B,Time Schedule of Completion, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. It is agreed that all the Consultant's services are to be completed and all products shall be delivered by the Consultant unless there are delays due to factors that are beyond the control of the Consultant. The Consultant shall not begin work under the terms of this Agreement until authorized in writing by the City. If,after receiving Notice to Proceed,the Consultant is delayed in the performance of its services by factors that are beyond its control,the Consultant shall notify the City of the delay and shall prepare a revised estimate of the time and cost needed to complete the Project and submit the revision to the City for its approval. Time schedules are subject to mutual agreement for any revision unless specifically described as otherwise herein. Delays attributable to or caused by one of the parties hereto amounting to 30 days or more affecting the completion of the work may be considered a cause for renegotiation or termination of this Agreement by the other party. III C:\DOCUME-1\RHYLLS-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\3Pgpwise\KleinfelderConsultant.doc\pc 3 Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 VI PAYMENT • The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter as specified in Exhibit C,Cost Estimate. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor,materials, supplies,equipment,and incidentals necessary to complete the work. All billings for compensation for work performed under this Agreement will list actual time(days and/or hours)and dates during which the work was performed and the compensation shall be figured using the rates in Exhibit C. Payment for this work shall not exceed$35,752 without a written amendment to this contract,agreed to and signed by both parties. Cost Plus Net Fee Payment for work accomplished shall be on the basis of the Consultant's actual cost plus a net fee. The actual cost includes direct salary cost,overhead,and direct non-salary cost. 1. The direct salary cost is the salary expense for professional and technical personnel and principals for the time they are productively engaged in the work necessary to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. The direct salary costs are set forth in the attached Exhibit C and by this reference made a part of this Agreement. 2. The overhead costs as identified on Exhibit C are determined as 181.9033 percent of the direct salary cost and by this reference made a part of this Agreement. The overhead cost rate is an estimate based on currently available accounting information and shall be used for all progress payments over the period of the contract. 3. The direct non-salary costs are those costs directly incurred in fulfilling the terms of this Agreement, including,but not limited to travel, reproduction,telephone, supplies,and fees of outside consultants. The direct non-salary costs are specified in Exhibit C,Cost Estimate. Billings for any direct non-salary costs shall be supported by copies of original bills or invoices. Reimbursement for outside consultants and services shall be on the basis of times the invoiced amount. 4. The net fee,which represents the Consultants profit shall be percent of direct salary plus overhead costs. This fee is based on the Scope of Work and the estimated labor hours therein. In the event a supplemental agreement is entered into for additional work by the Consultant,the supplemental agreement will include provision for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The net fee will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of the project completed as estimated in the Consultant's monthly progress reports and approved by the City. Any portion of the net fee not previously paid in the monthly payments shall be included in the final payment, subject to the provisions of Section XI entitled TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. 5. Progress payments may be claimed monthly for direct costs actually incurred to date as supported by detailed statements, for overhead costs and for a proportionate amount of the net fee payable to the Consultant based on the estimated percentage of the completion of the services to date. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the City after completion and acceptance by the City of the work under this Agreement. Acceptance, by the Consultant of final payment shall constitute full and final satisfaction of all amounts due or claimed to be due. Payment for extra work performed under this Agreement shall be paid as agreed to by the parties hereto in writing at the time extra work is authorized. (Section VIII "EX IRA WORK"). • C:\DOCUME-4\RHYLLS-4\LOCALS—I\Temp\XPgrpwise\Kleinfelder_Consultant.doc\pc 4 Piazza/Data Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 A short narrative progress report shall accompany each voucher for progress payment. The report shall include •discussion of any problems and potential causes for delay. To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for consultant employees,the City may conduct employee interviews. Acceptance of such final payment by the Consultant shall constitute a release of all claims of any nature,related to this Agreement,which the Consultant may have against the City unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the City by the Consultant prior to its acceptance. Said fmal payment shall not,however, be a bar to any claims that the City may have against the Consultant or to any remedies the City may pursue with respect to such claims. The Consultant and its subconsultants shall keep available for inspection,by the City,for a period of three years after fmal payment,the cost records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement and all items related to,or bearing upon,these records. If any litigation,claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year retention period,the records shall be retained until all litigation,claims or audit fmdings involving the records have been resolved. The three-year retention period starts when the Consultant receives final payment. VII CHANGES IN WORK The Consultant shall make all such revisions and changes in the completed work of this Agreement as are necessary to correct errors appearing therein,when required to do so by the City,without additional compensation. Should the City find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof revised,the Consultant shall make such revisions, if requested and as directed by the City in writing. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as provided in Section VIII. VIII EXTRA WORK The City may desire to have the Consultant perform work or render services in connection with the Project in addition to or other than work provided for by the expressed intent of the Scope of Work. Such work will be considered as Extra Work and will be specified in a written supplement which will set forth the nature and scope thereof. Work under a supplement shall not proceed until authorized in writing by the City. Any dispute as to whether work is Extra Work or work already covered under this Agreement shall be resolved before the work is undertaken. Performance of the work by the Consultant prior to resolution of any such dispute shall waive any claim by the Consultant for compensation as Extra Work. IX EMPLOYMENT The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person,other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant,to solicit or secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person,other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant,any fee, commission,percentage,brokerage fee,gifts or any other consideration,contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty,the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability,or in its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration or otherwise recover,the full amount of such fee,commission,percentage,brokerage fee,gift or contingent fee. llny and all employees of the Consultant,while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under this Agreement,shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City and any C:\DOCUME-1\RHYLLS-1\LOCALS—t\Temp\JPgpwiseWeinfelder_Consultant.doc\pc 5 Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while so engaged and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant's employees,while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shal be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant. The Consultant shall not engage,on a full or part-time basis,or other basis,during the period of the contract,any professional or technical personnel who are,or have been at any time during the period of this contract, in the employ of the City except regularly retired employees,without written consent of the City. If during the time period of this Agreement,the Consultant fmds it necessary to increase its professional,technical, or clerical staff as a result of this work,the Consultant will actively solicit minorities through their advertisement and interview process. X NONDISCRIMINATION The Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any client,employee or applicant for employment or for services because of race,creed, color,national origin,marital status, sexual orientation,sex,age or handicap except for a bona fide occupational qualification with regard to,but not limited to the following: employment upgrading; demotion or transfer;recruitment or any recruitment advertising; layoff or termination's;rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training;rendition of services. The Consultant understands and agrees that if it violates this Non-Discrimination provision,this Agreement may be terminated by the City and further that the Consultant shall be barred from performing any services for the City now or in the future,unless a showing is made satisfactory to the City that discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely. XI •TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon not less than ten(10)days written notice to the Consultant, subject to the City's obligation to pay Consultant in accordance with subparagraphs C and D below. B. In the event of the death of a member,partner or officer of the Consultant,or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project,the surviving members of the Consultant hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City,if the City so chooses. In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the surviving members of the Consultant,with the City's concurrence,desire to terminate this Agreement,payment shall be made as set forth in Subsection C of this section. • C:\DOCUME--1\RHYLLS-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\KleinfelderConsultant.doc\pc 6 Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 • C. In the evethis Agreement temed bthe y her ffuthpart of the , a III fmal paymentnt shall be eememade to is therConsultant y forCitactual costthan for the workalton complete at the time ofConsultant termination of the Agreement,plus the following described portion of the net fee. The portion of the net fee for which the Consultant shall be paid shall be the same ratio to the total net fee as the work complete is to the total work required by the Agreement. In addition,the Consultant shall be paid on the same basis as above for any authorized extra work completed. No payment shall be made for any work completed after ten(10)days following receipt by the Consultant of the Notice to Terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the Consultant prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due as set forth herein above,then no fmal payment shall be due and the Consultant shall immediately reimburse the City for any excess paid. D. In the event the services of the Consultant are terminated by the City for fault on the part of the Consultant,the above stated formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event the amount to be paid shall be determined by the City with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the Consultant in performing the work to the date of termination,the amount of work originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination,whether that work is in a form or of a type which is usable to the City at the time of termination,the cost to the City of employing another firm to complete the work required and the time which may be required to do so,and other factors which affect the value to the City of the work performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount which would have been made if the formula set forth in subsection C above had been applied. E. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the work,the original copies of all Engineering plans,reports and documents prepared by the Consultant prior to termination shall become the property of the City for its use without restriction. Such unrestricted use not occurring as a part of 111 this project, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. F. Payment for any part of the work by the City shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any remedies of any type it may have against the Consultant for any breach of this Agreement by the Consultant, or for failure of the Consultant to perform work required of it by the City. Forbearance of any rights under the Agreement will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the Consultant. XII DISPUTES Any dispute concerning questions of facts in connection with work not disposed of by agreement between the Consultant and the City shall be referred for determination to the Director of Planning/Building/Public Works or his/her successors and delegees,whose decision in the matter shall be fmal and conclusive on the parties to this Agreement. In the event that either party is required to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any of its rights in this Agreement,both parties agree that any such action shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, situated in King County. XIII LEGAL RELATIONS The Consultant shall comply with all Federal Government, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be done under this Agreement. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of Washington. C:\DOCUME-1\RHYLLS-1\LOCALS_1\Temp\XPgrpwise\KleinfelderConsultantdoc\pc 7 Piazza/Data Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007 Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 The Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims,demands or suits at law or equity arising in whole or part • from the Consultant's errors,omissions, or negligent acts under this Agreement provided that nothing herein shall require the Consultant to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims,demands or suits based upon the conduct of the City, its officers or employees and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of(a)the Consultant's agents or employees and(b)the City, its agents, officers and employees,this provision with respect to claims or suits based upon such concurrent negligence shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence or the negligence of the Consultant's agents or employees except as limited below. The Consultant shall secure general liability,property damage, auto liability,and professional liability coverage in the amount of$1.0 million,with a General Aggregate in the amount of$2.0 million, unless waived or reduced by the City. The Consultant shall submit a completed City of Renton Insurance Information Form,and the Standard Acord Certification Form prior to the execution of the contract. The City of Renton will be named as Additional Insured(s)on(CONTRACTOR'S)policy,with that coverage being primary and non-contributory with any other policy(ies)available to the City. A copy of the endorsement shall be provided to the City. The limits of said insurance shall not,however, limit the liability of Consultant hereunder. All coverages provided by the Consultant shall be in a form,and underwritten by a company acceptable to the City. The City will normally require carriers to have minimum A.M.Best rating of A XII. The Consultant shall keep all required coverages in full force and effect during the life of this project,and a minimum of forty five days'written notice shall be given to the City prior to the cancellation of any policy. The Consultant shall also submit copies of the declarations pages of relevant insurance policies to the City within 30 • days of contract acceptance if requested. The Certification and Declaration page(s)shall be in a form as approved by the City. If the City's Risk Manager has the Declaration page(s)on file from a previous contract and no changes in insurance coverage has occurred, only the Certification Form will be required. The Consultant shall verify,when submitting first payment invoice and annually thereafter,possession of a current City of Renton business license while conducting work for the City. The Consultant shall require,and provide verification upon request,that all subconsultants participating in a City project possess a current City of Renton business license. The Consultant shall provide,and obtain City approval of, a traffic control plan prior to conducting work in City right-of-way. The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitute the Consultant's waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. XIV SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING OF CONTRACTS The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the work covered by this Agreement without the express consent of the City. • C:\DOCUME-1\RHYLLS-1\LOCALS'-1\Temp\7Pgpwise\Kleinfelder_Consultant.doc\pc 8 Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 XV ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS • The Consultant shall place their certification on all plans, specifications,estimates or any other engineering data furnished by them in accordance with RCW 18.43.070. XVI COMPLETE AGREEMENT This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations,and provisions agreed upon by the parties. Any supplements to this Agreement will be in writing and executed and will become part of this Agreement. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make,and the parties shall not be bound by or be liable for,any statement,representation,promise,or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments,or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this Agreement. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision in this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted. XVII EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts,each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The Consultant does hereby ratify and adopt all statements,representations, warranties,covenants,and agreements contained in the Request for Qualifications, and the supporting materials submitted by the Consultant,and does hereby accept the Agreement and agrees to all of the terms and conditions •thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT A,/, CITY OF RENTON t fra Signature Date Denis Law,Mayor Date 2 Y CO 11 (j7p J type or print name ATTEST: 7T1 A /6%/•• Title Bonnie I.Walton, City Clerk C:\DOCUME41\RHYLLS-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\Kleinfelder Consultant.doc\pc 9 Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 HKLEINFELDER • February 28, 2008 Kleinfelder Proposal No. 91641-3 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Attn: Mr. John Hobson Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services White Fench Ranch Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Project Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Hobson: Pursuant to your request, Kleinfelder is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical engineering services in support of the planned White Fench Ranch Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Project in Renton, Washington. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING • Our understanding of the project is based on discussions and an onsite meeting with Mr. John Hobson with the City of Renton. Site access and surface conditions were evaluated during our onsite meeting on February 6, 2008. We understand the project includes construction of a new sanitary sewer line to be located north of SE 128th Street and along both 155th Avenue SE and 156th Avenue SE, with a connection along SE 124th Street. As a secondary option, it is possible that the lateral connector may be completed along a proposed easement approximately 7 building lots north of SE 124th Street. The new sewer line will generally be located 5 to 15 feet below the ground surface and will consist of two parallel sections roughly 2,500 ft each (along 155th and 156th Avenue), for a total of about 5,000 linear feet of sewer line. SITE AND SOIL CONDITIONS Based on general geologic mapping for the area (Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies, 2006, Geologic map of King County, Washington: D.B. Booth and A. P. Wisher, compilers, scale 1:100,000), the project alignment is underlain by glacial till soils. The glacial till would predominantly be composed of a silty sand matrix with some gravel; cobbles and boulders,may be present in the till. Perched ground water may be 91641.3/SEA8P058.doc Page 1 of 5 February 28,2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder present at the weathered till/unweathered till contact and within any relatively clean sand/gravel ave seams within the till. The ground surface along the alignment is relatively flat. The planned alignment runs along residential road right-of-way areas and possibly along an optional easement across private property to connect the two main lines. Kleinfelder intends to complete all proposed exploration work within the road right-of-way areas and will not enter any private property along the alignment. During our site visit, we observed ponded and flowing surface water along the east side of the northern portion of 156th Avenue SE. We will evaluate the groundwater/surface water issues and will provide general construction dewatering recommendations in our report to address these potential issues.. SCOPE OF WORK We propose to conduct a geotechnical engineering and hydrogeologic study that includes the following tasks: Task 1 — Utility Locates and Traffic Control Planning • We will mark the proposed boring locations and notify the One-Call Utility locate service at least 48 hour prior to drilling. We are anticipating that the proposed borings may be performed within the road shoulder areas and traffic control in the form of a shoulder closure and redirection of traffic around our work area will be provided in accordance with the procedures of the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). We will set up proper signage prior to shoulder and/or lane closures. We understand that this project is located within unincorporated King County and not the City of Renton. Furthermore, it is our understanding that The City of Renton will obtain the necessary Right-of-way (ROVV) permits and traffic control plans through King County for this project. At this time, we do not anticipate the need for any right-of-entry to private property. Based on our initial verbal discussions with the King County ROW inspector for this residential area, a flagger will not be required provided that the drilling equipment does • not encroach onto the paved/delineated roadway areas, or that at least a 20-foot wide open roadway be maintained to allow redirection of traffic in both directions with traffic cones. However, if there is not enough roadway width to allow traffic redirection, a flagger will be required. Since this will depend on the actual field condition at each • 91641.3/SEA8P058.doc F'age 2 of 5 February 28,2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder boring location, we have included the cost for providing a flagger, should this become • necessary. We will be able to determine this during our initial site reconnaissance when we will select and mark the final boring locations based on utility markings and measurement of actual roadway area at each location. According to the ROW inspector, a traffic control plan does not need to be submitted if work is done in accordance with the MUTCD guidelines. Task 2— Geotechnical Exploration Soil conditions along the alignment will be explored by means of 13 hollow-stem auger borings evenly spaced along the two 2,500-ft long sewer sections and drilled to depths of approximately 25 feet. Drilling will be performed by a subcontractor utilizing a truck or track-mounted drill rig depending on availability and field space requirements along the existing roadway. Soil samples will be obtained at 2.5 and/or 5-foot intervals, logged and returned to our laboratory in Bellevue, Washington, for further examination and testing. Soil conditions, including general drilling conditions and ground water observations will be logged on a full-time basis by a Kleinfelder geotechnical engineer or geologist. In the event that ground water seepage is observed above the planned pipe depth, the boring will be extended at least 10 feet below the pipe level to provide • valuable information regarding trench dewatering characteristics. We have assumed that 2 inch standpipe piezometer wells will be installed in three of the borings to monitor groundwater conditions and fluctuations over time. We have included in our budget the cost of storing the soil cuttings in drums during drilling and for disposal of the drums by the driller at the end of the job. Some cost savings may be realized if the City of Renton disposes of the soil cuttings, or if we are allowed to dispose of soil cuttings within vegetated areas off the side of the roadway. Task 3 - Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing including moisture content and grain size distribution will be performed on selected representative samples to assess certain index and engineering properties, estimate soil permeability if dewatering is anticipated, and determine whether the on-site soils are suitable for re-use as trench backfill. We estimate that 25 moisture content tests and 8 grain size distribution tests will be performed to support geotechnical engineering evaluations. • 91641.3/SEA8P058.doc Page 3 of 5 February 28,2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder • Task 4— Geotechnical Analyses Based on the findings of our site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, we will perform geotechnical engineering analyses, and develop recommendations for the following: • Trench excavation recommendations including anticipated excavation conditions, and sloping and shoring requirements; • Anticipated groundwater seepage conditions and general recommendations for handling seepage, such as sumps or dewatering wells; • Pipe bedding and backfill recommendations including compaction requirements and recommendations for re-use of the native soils or import requirements; and • Pavement restoration recommendations including a record of the existing pavement section and recommendations for pavement section materials and compaction. Task 5— Reporting We will prepare draft and final reports that include: • • A summary of the geologic setting of the project alignment; • A summary of subsurface soil conditions encountered in our explorations including borings logs, laboratory test results and a site and exploration plan; and • A summary of our analyses and recommendations as described in Task 4. Task 6— Project Management/Meetings We will provide project management including staff coordination and scheduling, invoice preparation and review, and attendance at one 2-3 hour long project meeting. Task 7— Plan Review We have also included 8 hours of engineering review time check project plans for conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. A short summary review letter may be provided, if required. SCHEDULE We are prepared to begin our study after receipt of authorization to proceed. Scheduling of field activities will be dependent upon driller availability and subject to receiving a right-of-way use permit. \Ne anticipate that scheduling the driller will require approximately 4 to 6 weeks lead-time. Fieldwork will require three days to complete. • The draft geotechnical report can be prepared within about 3 to 4 weeks following 91641.3/SEA8P058.doc Page 4 of 5 February 28,2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder completion of the field and laboratory work. We would be happy to provide preliminary • verbal recommendations, as they are developed, if required to expedite the project schedule. We anticipate that the report can be finalized within one week of receiving • draft report review comments. ESTIMATED FEES We propose to perform the Scope of Work on a time and materials basis for the amount of $35,752. A detailed breakdown of the costs and assumed hours is presented on the attached Exhibit C— Cost Estimate. LIMITATIONS This proposal specifically excludes the assessment of environmental characteristics (particularly those involving hazardous substances such as lead, asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, petrochemicals and others substances at the site). Kleinfelder offers a range of geotechnical and environmental engineering services to suit the varying needs of our clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive investigations yield more information, which may help understand and manage the degree of risk. Since such detailed services involve greater expense, our clients participate in determining the level of service that provides • P P P adequate information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. Kleinfelder will perform its services in a manner consistent with the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing under similar conditions in the geographic vicinity and at the time the services will be performed. No warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is part of the services offered by this proposal. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this proposal or require additional information, please call us at (425) 562-4200. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. /7 Chris W. Allen, L.G. Rolf B. Hyllseth, P. E., L.G. Project Geologist Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Exhibit C - Cost Estimate • 91641.3/SEA8P058.doc Page 5 of 5 February 28,2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE,Suite A101, Bellevue,WA 98005 (425)562-4200 (425)562-4201 fax Exhibit B • Schedule Investigate subsurface conditions (exploratory borings and wells) and prepare a Geotechnical Engineering Report for proposed White Fench Sewer line. The following schedule is based on getting a signed contract back from the City of Renton Mayor's office within one week of proposal date (by 3/10/08), and a ROW permit within three weeks (by 3/24/08). 1) Field Explorations: Initial site reconnaissance visit and site explorations are expected to be completed by May 1, 2008. 2) Draft Geotechnical Report: Data review and draft report preparation expected within 6 weeks of completion of field work (by 6/13/08). 3) Final Geotechnical Report: Final report preparation expected within 2 weeks of receiving comments back from City of Renton (by 7/13/08). EXHIBIT C COST ESTIMATE Proposal No.91641-3 • Table 1 Cost Estimate White Fench Ranch Sanitary Sewer Renton,WA Created: 14-Feb-08 Prepared By: C.Allen See proposal dated February 28,2008,for detailed scope of work. Revised: 2007 PERSONNEL AND HOURLY RATES Sr.Hydr. Senior Project WORK TASK Principal Geo. Engr. Engr. Staff Engr. Technician CAD Oper. Administrative TOTAL , TOTAL DESCRIPTION $57.68 $39.14 $45.05 $32.19 $29.37 $23.45 $23.22 $15.75 HOURS AMOUNT Task 1-Utility Locates/Traffic Control 1 8 9 $280 Task 2-Field Exploration 0 $0 Mobilization 4 4 $117 Exploration(Observe Borings/Draft Logs) 4 28 32 $1,003 Task 3-Laboratory Testing Review 1 3 4 $133 Task 4-Engineering Analysis 4 6 12 22 $623 Task 5-Report 0 $0 Draft Report 1 8 16 6 2 33 $1,001 Finalize Report 2 4 1 2 9 $262 In-House QC Review 4 4 $180 Task 6-Project Management/Meeting 8 1 9 $376 Task 7-Plan Review 8 1 9 $376 0 5 42 0 75 0 7 6 135 $4,352 DIRECT EXPENSES • Field Equipment/Sample Jars $212 Mileage(three 30 mile trips @ 0.65 per mile) $59 Permitting $0 Per Diem $0 Laboratory Testing $1,375 Report Copies $0 Total: $1,646: SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS Traffic Control&Signs $1,242 Private Utility Locator $250 Backhoe $0 Drilling Subcontractor $15,364 Markup on Subcontractor Costs(15%) $2,528 Total: $19,384 LABOR COSTS Direct Labor $4,352 Overhead(181.9033%) $7,916 Fixed Fee(20%) $2,454 Total: $14,722 PROJECT TOTALS AND SUMMARY Direct Expenses $1,646 Subcontractor Costs $19,384 Labor Costs $14,722 PROJECT TOTAL $35,752 III Page 1 of 1 March 21,2007 RESOLUTION NO. 3229 • CITY OF RENTON SUMMARY OF FAIR PRACTICES POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 3229 It is the policy of the City of Renton to promote and provide equal treatment and service to all citizens and to ensure equal employment opportunity to all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, ethnic background, gender, marital status, religion, age or disability, when the City of Renton can reasonably accommodate the disability, of employees and applicants for employment and fair, non-discriminatory treatment to all citizens. All departments of the City of Renton shall adhere to the following guidelines: (1) EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES - The City of Renton will ensure all employment related activities included recruitment, selection, promotion, demotion, training, retention and separation are conducted in a manner which is based on job-related criteria which does not discriminate against women, minorities and other protected classes. Human resources decisions will be in accordance with individual performance, staffing requirements,governing civil service rules,and labor contract agreements. (2) COOPERATION WITH HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS - The City of Renton will cooperate fully with all organizations andcommissions organized to promote fair practices and equal opportunity in employment. (3) AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN - The City of Renton Affirmative Action Plan and Equal Employment Program will be maintained and administered to facilitate equitable representation with the City work force and to assure equal employment opportunity to all. It shall be the responsibility of elected officials, the Mayor, the Affirmative Action Officer, department administrators, managers, supervisors, Contract Compliance Officers and all employees to carry out the policies, guidelines and corrective measures set forth in the Affirmative Action Plan and Equal Employment Program. (4) CONTRACTORS' OBLIGATIONS - Contractors, sub-contractors, consultants and suppliers conducting business with the City of Renton shall affirm and subscribe to the Fair Practices and Non-discrimination policies set forth by the law and in the City's Affirmative Action Plan and Equal Employment Program. Copies of this policy shall be distributed to all City employees, shall appear in all operational documentation of the City,including bid calls,and shall be prominently displayed in appropriate city facilities. CONCURRED IN by the City Council of the City of RENTON,Washington,this 7thday of October, 1996. CITY OF RENTON: RENTON CITY COUNCIL: • Nv(ayor Council President Attest: \AI ALA-re, V City Cler' V • C:\DOCUME-1\RHYLLS-1\L OCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\Kleinfelder_Consultant doc\pc 10 Piazza/DataCenter/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultantdoc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 ��Y O III O 0 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE tC LEJN FEZ DER was TTNC , hereby confirms and declares that (Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier) I. It is Kt_Fi"F t_ A IA/FTI 73/11C policy to offer equal (Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier) opportunity to all qualified employees and applicants for employment without regard to the race, creed,color, sex,national origin,age, disability or veteran status. II. K(,E/NFel-D k . 14/ -7-- //V C, complies with all applicable federal, (Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier) state and local laws governing non-discrimination in employment. II. When applicable, kt I Al FEL D En.. 7NC , will seek out and (Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier) negotiate with minority and women contractors for the award of III subcontracts. e ,A'i1 L t Ait . PI AAA Print Agent/Representative's , a and Title / HE Agent/Representative's Signature Instructions: This document MUST be completed by each contractor, subcontractor,consultant and/or supplier. Include or attach this document(s)with the contract. • C:\DOCUME-1\R}WLLS-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\Kleinfelder_Consultant.doc\pc 11 Piazza/Data_Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2007_Consultant.doc Approved 06/07 bh/rev06/07 N. SE ( 120TH ST III NI NM __ _______ __ _____ . _______ ___ _____ • in ___ ____ NE •___ _____ Els __ ______ ______ um-t • = PROPOSED SOIL BORING . LOCATIONS IN SHOULDER OF w -- ROAD. BORES ARE TO BE 25 FEET - DEEP. • • / 4 ________ _____ iui ------ Ui ______________ SE 124TH ST •1 Z W �z asil El - J • poi al _ a W 2 2 Iii "1111 'to__ coin o - Fe 0 O PJ- r . - . _ NE 4TH PL pal ___ I I I - - he NE 4TH ST SE 128TH ST •0 WHITE FENICH RANCH SOIL BORING LOCATIONS SCALE 1"=300' p r ro 9 n- BY -• FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT : C T"V'CCLJNC.1,1L { March 2/3;2008 Date APPROVAL OF.CLAIMS.AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS - - ., " The Finance Committee approves:for payment on.March 25, 2008 claim-vouchers " 270147 270645` _ and 2 wire transfers;totaling$4,204,144.65,and 702 direct deposits, 1.83,payroll-vouchers, and:1: - wire transfer;totaling$2,543,348.68. ; • _ • D n;Persson, Chair _ . - erri,Ta"leve,-.• e=Chair • = ' . • .nPark�• Member- �" � , g - . APP 'OVED BY FINANCE COMMITTEE CETI COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Date 3-0164 aaa8 March.24, 2008 PENALTIES AND INTEREST TO LATE PAYMENT OF UTILITY TAXES (February 25,"2008) The Finance Committee recommends concurrence with staff recommendation that.the Renton Municipal.Code be amended to provide for interest and penalties for late payment of utility taxes due to the City. The Committee further recommends that the Ordinance regarding this matter be presented'for first reading. Don Persson, Chair Tern B i = is r }air — Kin' arker,Member cc: 3cy�l,V iugwn,CAO Ma.ty Willy,Assiata.,t CAO Linda Parks,Fiscal Services Director CITY COUNCIL ' FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE,REPORT Date 3 a 02008 le March 24,2008 • CAPITAL FUNDING • FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICY REVISIONS (Referred 2/11/2008) As a result,of the review of Fund Balance Reserves and.Annual Capital.Improvement Plan, the Finance Committee recommends that the Financial Management Policies be revised as follows: 1. Add the Farmer's Market Fund previously approved by ordinance. 2: Add a new internal service fund for city facilities enabling the tracking ;and _ planning for expenses related to providing facilities for use by city staff 3. Revise the.capital'project budget process to provide for project length budgeting of capital projects: :This will eliminate the need to,break a longterm 'capital project into annual budget increments and improve,reporting: Don Persson, Chair OAP - V e Chair King Parker,_Member ial altn a Linda Parks;Fiscal Services Director Nancy Viotante,Financial Services Manager • APPROVES BY FINANCE COMMITTEE Ci T Y COUNCIL I COMMITTEE REPORT . Date S'49,7 ?�0 March 24, 2008 Reclassification of Positions (Referred 3/17/08) The Finance Committee recommends,concurrence with the staff recommendation to reclassify positions and create ranges for CitYd artments effective January 1'2008. Funds to implement this recommendation are provided in the 2008 budget: Current Title Current New Budget Grade Grade_ Change . - . . 2008 -Civil Engineer I(Vacant) a19• a21- $0. . - . . - = Recreation Supervisor to Recreation , m25 m28 $0' : Manager(Vacant) Lead Building Inspector a24. $0 - Lead Code Compliance,Inspector a22 - .$0 Planning Director • •• . m38 $0 - •_ Water Utility Instrumentation/SCADA a19 $0' : Technician Risk Manager m30 $0 • Additionally,the Committee concurs with the staff recommendation permitting filling the Application Support'Manger position on March 17, 2008,in anticipation of the retirement of a long-term city employee on'May 1, 2008 in order to'facilitate a smooth transition. Don Persson,Chair "ern :rie - ir hair / .� . . • ng •ar ember cC: - Eileen_Flott Gregg Zinunennan Alex Pietsch Terry g Y .Hi ashi. ama Michael E.Baile Y 'Jay Covingttff Marty Wine ASD BY CTY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION/AVIATION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT Data ,s-� aaDB- March 24, 2008 Petrovitsky Road and Carr Road Street Names Referred,11/26/2007 The Committee met to discuss a request to review the street namingfor the Petrovitsky Road, Carr Road, and S 176th Street arterial,route through the Benson Hill annexation area The newly annexed Benson Hill area had these threedifferent names for the•same arterial route:. , The street names in the City of Renton are designated by Renton Municipal Code Street Grid System Ordinance. For most of the Benson Hill annexation area, the street names remained " unchanged following annexation. Renton.Municipal Code Section 9-11-6.A jaoes requiresthat the segments of Southeast Carr Road, Southeast 176th Street and:Southeast Petrovitsky:Road be . renamed Southeast Carr Road west of 108th Avenue Southeast and Southeast.Petrovitsky east of 108th Avenue Southeast. These changes have.been made by City stat which affects 27 proert Y owners in the annexation area. These street names correspond to,the existingstreet names on the route'east and west of the annexation area. The Transportation Committee recommends that'.no further action be taken atthis time on street name changes for this arterial route.' RandyCormaiRthair Don Persson, Vice Chair Rich Zwicker,M • C: Alex Pietscli Neil Watts to. Mode Ke5oAtb ,, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3 937 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REAFFIRMING RENTON'S SUPPORT OF THE I-405 CORRIDOR PROGRAM RECORD OF DECISION FINALIZED IN OCTOBER 2002, PARTICULARLY FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BUS RAPID TRANSIT CONCEPT. WHEREAS, the I-405 final environmental impact statement (FEIS) approved on June 10, 2002, and issued on June 28, 2002, is a comprehensive analysis studying the major transportation corridors east of 1-5 and covering the benefits and costs of a range of mobility alternatives including high-capacity rail; and WHEREAS, the EIS was a major study effort lasting for 44 months and costing $7.5 million dollars, with a study team made up of an executive committee of 21 members, a citizen committee of 38 members, and the support of a technical committee as needed; and WHEREAS,the I-405 Corridor Program obtained early and regular participation from 24 affected regulatory agencies and jurisdictions throughout the corridor; and WHEREAS, all the cities having boundaries on the I-405 corridor plus the cities of Redmond and Mercer Island had a representative on the executive committee co-chaired by Washington Transportation Commissioner George Kargianis and King County Councilmember Rob McKenna, and including Councilmember Randy Corman from the City of Renton as Renton's representative; and WHEREAS, the final adopted solution included the addition of up to two additional general purpose lanes, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operating on High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and 1,700 van pools which was estimated to accommodate 95% of the unmet true demand 1 RESOLUTION NO. with the least cost of $5.53 per added person served, the least environmental impact, and the additional benefits of fixing over 200 stream crossings for fish mitigation; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has supported of the work and recommendations of the I-405 study which achieved a balance between automobiles and transit, and supports Bus Rapid Transit as a compromise among options which serves to increase mobility for those commuting to and through Renton; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton, on April 24, 2002, signed, with caveats, the Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Concept also known as the I-405 Corridor Program Concurrence Point#3; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit in the "Regional Transit Long Range Plan" adopted July 7, 2005, reaffirmed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) for the I-405 corridor as the preferred High Capacity Transit mode; and WHEREAS, regional road plans continue to place high priority on I-405 improvements with an emphasis on a system of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on both I-405 and SR-167, which would support and enhance Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) opportunities; and WHEREAS, major projects are underway including fixing the Kirkland Crawl, the Wilburton Weave and the first phase of the I-405/SR-167 interchange which are part of the previously approved Eastside baseline plan; and WHEREAS, it is important that current legislative funding of the I-405/SR-167 corridor transportation projects be retained and that supplemental funding be secured for additional transportation projects in the Eastside plan, and prior to other planning for light rail across I-90 and through Bellevue, or commuter rail on abandoned heavy rail lines; 2 RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City of Renton reaffirms its support of the I-405 Corridor Program Record of Decision finalized in October 2002, particularly its support of full implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit concept. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES. 1328:3/10/08:scr 3 • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10, PLANNING COMMISSION, OF TITLE II (COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," BY INCREASING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS The City has formed a City Planning Commission pursuant to RCW 35A.63.020; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission membership was established by Ordinance 5155 in September 2005, as seven (7) members; and WHEREAS, the City has recently annexed territory and expanded its population by • 16,200 residents; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide an opportunity to involve more residents in the review of planning matters before the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 2. 10-4, Appointment, of Chapter 10, Planning Commission, of Title II (Commissions and Boards) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows: 2-10-4 APPOINTMENT: The Planning Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority of the members of the City Council. • 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. Section 2-10-7, Expenditures; Budget, of Chapter 10, Planning • Commission, of Title II (Commissions and Boards) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows: 2-10-7 EXPENDITURES; BUDGET: The expenditures of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those authorized by the Community and Economic Development Administrator as appropriated in the Planning Division's annual budget. The services and facilities of the City's Planning Division shall be utilized by the Commission in performing its duties. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk • APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1450:3/13/08:scr • 2 • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 2, UTILITY TAX; WHEN DUE, OF CHAPTER 11, UTILITY TAX, OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY ADDING TWO NEW SUBSECTIONS, "A", PENALTIES FOR NONPAYMENT,AND "B", INTEREST. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 5-11-2, Utility Tax; When Due, of Chapter 11, Utility Tax, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding two new subsections A and B, to read as follows: • A. Penalties for Nonpayment: A business enterprise who fails to remit the amount of utility tax when due shall, in addition to all other penalties provided by law, pay a penalty of five percent (5%) of the amount of tax due for the first month of delinquency and an additional penalty of five percent (5%) for each succeeding month of delinquency, but not exceeding a total penalty of twenty five percent (25%) of the amount of such taxes due in any event. B. Interest: In addition to such penalties, any late payment of utility tax shall bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum until paid. ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and • 30 days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Y Attorne • Date of Publication: ORD:1428:2/1/08:scr • 2