HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 03/24/2003AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
March 24, 2003
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
a. Community Services Department Employee Recognition Awards
b. Comcast (AT&T Broadband) Update from Corporate Representatives
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Street vacation petition for alley running north to south between Whitworth and Morris Avenues
S. and between S. 3rd and S. 4th Streets; Petitioner: St. Anthony's Parish, VAC-03-001
b. 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is
allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience
comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.)
When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name
and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the
recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further
discussion if requested by a Councilmember.
a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of March 17, 2003. Council concur.
b. City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/12/2003 for CAG-03-005, Pavilion Building Renovation; ten
bids; engineer's estimate $1,800,000; and submits staff recommendation to award the contract to
low bidder, Edifice Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $2,184,890.47. Refer to
Finance Committee for discussion of funding and bid protests.
c. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal of the Administrative and
Environmental Determination for the Nicholson Short Plat, 2300 NE 28th St. (SHP-02-111);
appeal filed on 3/6/2003 by Brad Nicholson, accompanied by required fee. The appeal packet
includes one additional letter as allowed by City Code. Refer to Planning & Development
Committee. Consideration of the appeal by Council shall be based solely on the record, the
Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional written submissions by
parties allowed by Code (RMC 4-8-110F.6).
d. Community Services Department recommends approval to replace 40 golf carts through a 3-year
lease -purchase agreement with CitiCapital Commercial Corporation and retain 10 carts from the
existing fleet of 50. Annual expenditure is $26,064. Refer to Community Services Committee.
e. Development Services Division recommends approval of the amended agreement with
Parametrix to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Barbee Mill Preliminary
Plat proposal (LUA-02-040). Barbee Mill Company will pay for the EIS preparation. Council
concur. (Agreement revision was made as directed by Council on 3/17/2003.)
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE).
f. Human Services Division recommends approval to continue participating in the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium Housing Stability Program in 2003, which
assists low -to -moderate income families with rent or mortgage payments due to a temporary
crisis in their lives. Refer to Community Services Committee.
g. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Addendum #20 to LAG-65-877,
Municipal Airport lease with Boeing, and requests authorization to transfer $80,000 from the
Airport Reserve Fund to the Airport CIP account for the purchase of the Boeing restroom
facilities. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
h. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of a contract with R.W. Beck, Inc. in the amount
of $218,051 to update the City's 1998 Water System Plan Analysis, and to pre -design the water
distribution improvements for the 565 pressure zone in the Highlands area. Council concur.
8. CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Robert F. Carter, 4515 NE 26th Ct., Renton, 98059, requesting connection to the sanitary
sewer on NE 23rd St. in the Summerwind development for his property located outside of the City
limits, north of Summerwind in Newcastle Terrace, Lot #5. Refer to Utilities Committee.
9. OLD 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 chairman if further review is necessary.
a. Finance Committee: Vouchers
b. Public Safety Committee: Criminal Nuisance Abatement; Renton Transit Center Safety; Alarm
Registration
c. Transportation (Aviation) Committee: 2003 King County Signal Synchronization Grant*;
WSDOT Agreement for NE Sunset Blvd. & Duvall Ave. NE Intersection Improvements*;
Sidewalk Utility Markings; Perteet Engineering Agreement for Strander Blvd. Extension Design
d. Utilities Committee: Digital Orthophotography Update Agreement; Seattle Cedar River Sockeye
Hatchery Project
10. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions:
a. King County grant for Signal Synchronization Project (see 9.c.)
b. WSDOT grant for NE Sunset Blvd. & Duvall Ave. NE traffic signal improvement (see 9.c.)
Ordinances for second and final reading:
a. 2002 amendments to the zoning classifications of properties (first reading 3/17/03)
b. Fry property rezone from Heavy Industrial to Center Office Residential 3 (first reading 3/17/03)
11. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425430-6512 for recorded
information.)
12. AUDIENCE COMMENT
13. ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
CANCELLED
• 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 11:00 AM & 9:00 PM, WED. & FRi. AT 9:00 AM & 7:00 PM AND SAT. & SUN. AT 1:00 PM & 9:00 PM
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
March 24, 2003
Council Chambers
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES Renton City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the
meeting of the Renton City Council to order.
ROLL CALL OF
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Council President; TERRI BRIERE; KING
COUNCILMEMBERS
PARKER; DON PERSSON; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON. MOVED
BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL EXCUSE
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED.
CITY STAFF IN
JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer;
ATTENDANCE
ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City
Clerk; GREGG ZEVIMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator; DAVID CHRISTENSEN, Utility Engineering Supervisor;
KAREN MCFARLAND, Engineering Specialist; JIM SHEPHERD,
Community Services Administrator; KAREN BERGSVIK, Human Services
Manager; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; CHIEF GARRY
ANDERSON, COMMANDER ROBERT SEELYE, and SERGEANT MARK
DAY, Police Department.
SPECIAL
Community Services Administrator Jim Shepherd announced the Community
PRESENTATIONS
Services Department 2002 employee recognition awards as follows:
Community Services:
Employee Recognition Awards
Employee of the First Quarter: Mary Fullerton, Library Supervisor
Employee of the Second Quarter: Diane Wagner, Facilities Secretary
Employee of the Third Quarter: David Perkins, Recreation Specialist
Employee of the Fourth Quarter: Aaron Oesting, Systems Librarian
'Mr. Shepherd announced that Aaron Oesting was also chosen as the
Community Services Department employee of the year for 2002. Mr. Oesting
thanked the entire library team for their assistance and support.
Added
Councilwoman Nelson introduced Janet Bertagni, the newest member of the
Human Services: Human
Human Services Advisory Committee.
Services Advisory Member
Introduction, Janet Bertagni
City Clerk: Comcast
City Clerk/Cable Manager Bonnie Walton explained that Renton's current 15-
Corporation (Cable Provider)
year cable franchise was adopted in 1993 with TCI, Inc., which in 1999
Update
transferred to AT&T Broadband, and then AT&T merged with Comcast
Corporation in 2002. She invited Comcast Government Affairs Manager
(Northwest Division) Hans Hechtman to give a briefing on Comcast, and cable
consultant Lon Hurd with 3-H Cable Communications Consultants to give a
briefing on the services he provides for the City.
Stating that Comcast Corporation is the largest cable company in the United
States with 21.4 million cable subscribers, Mr. Hechtman detailed the history of
the company and its organizational structure, which in Washington State, is
divided into three service areas. Mr. Hechtman stated that the transitioning
process is still in progress, and upcoming changes include the conversion of
high-speed Internet from AT&T to Comcast, changing how franchise fees are
collected, and improving customer service. Recent improvements include bill
consolidation, the introduction of Dolby Digital 5.1, and the offering of high-
March 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 110
definition television (HDTV) on two channels. He concluded by saying that
Comcast has a solid track record and its future is bright.
Responding to Councilwoman Nelson's inquiry regarding rates, Mr. Hechtman
stated that the standard rate increases occur twice a year. In January, the
standard tier service rate was increased from $13.75 to $36.99 while the basic
tier service rate was reduced from $13.50 to $13.25. He explained that basic is
the tier of service that is regulated at the local level, and every year, Comcast
issues a rate filing stating what the maximum permitted rate is and what
Comcast intends to charge for it. Mr. Hechtman stressed that programming is
expensive and is one of the largest factors driving the company's cost of
business. He indicated that it is unclear at this time whether Comcast will raise
its basic service rate.
In response to Councilman Parker's inquiry, Mr. Hechtman confirmed that a 5%
franchise fee is the maximum allowed under Federal law.
3-H Cable Communications consultant Lon Hurd stated that the Federal
government has given City's the authority to oversee cable franchises, and the
City contracts with his firm for assistance with the administration of the cable
franchise. Additionally, Mr. Hurd stated that 3-H Cable Communications
handles customer complaints, monitors and audits the collection of the
franchise fee payments, and prepares quarterly and annual reports on customer
services standards and the technical aspects of the system.
In response to Council President Keolker-Wheeler's inquiry regarding his
experience in working with Comcast so far, Mr. Hurd stated that Comcast
seems to place more emphasis on government relations and customer service;
however, time will tell.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Vacation: Alley between
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing
Whitworth & Morris Aves S,
to consider the street vacation petition submitted by St. Anthony's Parish for a
and S 3rd & S 4th Sts, St.
portion of an existing paved alley running north and south between Whitworth
Anthony's Parish, VAC-03-001
and Morris Avenues S. and between S. 3rd and S. 4th Streets (VAC-03-001).
Karen McFarland, Engineering Specialist, explained that a related St.
Anthony's Parish street vacation (VAC-00-003), approved by Council in July,
2002, will vacate a 160-foot portion of the subject alley, and this current
proposal is for an additional 120 feet. She indicated that the following public
benefits will be achieved by the proposed vacation: consolidation of parking,
maintenance of internal security within the campus, reduced confusion
regarding the location of the parish property, and the absence of liability and
maintenance costs for the City, as the property is virtually surrounded by a
single property owner.
Ms. McFarland stated that facilities in the alley include an eight -inch sewer
main (Renton), aerial and buried utilities (QWEST), and electric utilities (Puget
Sound Energy). Upon circulation of the vacation request to various City
departments and outside agencies for review, she reported that the petition
received no objections. She noted that the City's Utilities Division has
requested that the City retain an easement for utilities over the entire alleyway
if the vacation is approved. In conclusion, Ms. McFarland stated that staff
recommends that Council approve the vacation, subject to the requested utilities
easement, and subject to the terms and conditions as set forth in the St.
Anthony's Parish development agreement.
March 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 111
Responding to Council President Keolker-Wheeler's inquiry, Ms. McFarland
confirmed that St. Anthony's Parish owns all abutting properties with the
exception of one property.
Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY PARKER,
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
Police: 2002 Local Law This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Enforcement Block Grant accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing
to consider the 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG).
Police Sergeant Mark Day stated that the City has been pre -approved for a grant
of $50,191 and the City is required to match approximately 10%, or $5,577. He
explained that LLEBG funds have been used to fund the Domestic Violence
Victim Advocacy program since 1996. During the 2003 budget deliberations,
Council agreed to continue providing this program with grant funding, and
transferred the management of the program from the Human Services Division
to the Police Department.
Reporting that the Police Department responded to 1,909 domestic violence
calls in 2002, Sergeant Day emphasized that the need for domestic victim
advocacy is significant, and it is a means towards ending abuse by lending
support and providing guidance for the victims of domestic violence. He
concluded by saying that City staff and the Renton Domestic Violence Task
Force Advisory Committee recommended that the LLEBG funds continue to be
used for this purpose.
Council President Keolker-Wheeler noted that a domestic violence plan was
created a couple of years ago for service providers in South King County, and
she inquired as to whether Sergeant Day has noticed any improvement in
service. Sergeant Day stated that he has noticed a positive change, and pointed
out that there are more resources now available for victims.
Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY PARKER,
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work
programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2003 and beyond. Items noted
included:
• The new downtown parking garage is anticipated to open to the public in
May. The primary structure is now complete, and the contractor will
continue to install metal panels and glass windows to the building's
exterior, as well as installing the elevators, security system, and parking pay
stations inside the building.
• The Recreation Division's Renton Teen Council sponsored a middle school
dance on March 17th, which was a great success with 171 young people in
attendance. This is the first of four dances to be offered this year.
March 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 112
AUDIENCE COMMENT Sandel DeMastus, 1137 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, introduced herself
Citizen Comment: DeMastus — as the president of the Highlands Community Association (HCA). She
Highlands Community announced that Police Officer John Schuldt with the K9 Unit, Animal Control
Association Officer Mary Ann Pratt, and Elynn Clayton (South Sound off -leash dog park)
will speak at the HCA meeting on March 27th.
CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing. At the request of Councilmembers Persson and Keolker-Wheeler, items
Ta. and 7.b. were removed for separate consideration.
Appeal: Nicholson Short Plat, City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal of the
Brad Nicholson, SBP-02-111 Administrative and Environmental Determination for the Nicholson Short Plat,
2300 NE 28th St. (SHP-02-111); appeal filed on 3/6/2003 by Brad Nicholson,
accompanied by required fee. The appeal packet included one additional letter
from David Parisi as allowed by City Code. Refer to Planning & Development
Committee.
Community Services: Golf Community Services Department recommended approval to replace 40 golf
Cart Lease -Purchase
carts through a three-year lease -purchase agreement with CitiCapital
Agreement, CitiCapital
Commercial Corporation and to retain 10 golf carts from the existing fleet of
Commercial Corporation
50. Annual expenditure is $26,064. Refer to Community Services Committee.
Development Services: Barbee
Development Services Division recommended approval of the amended
Mill Preliminary Plat EIS
agreement with Parametrix to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement
Preparation, Pararnetrix
(EIS) for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal (LUA-02-040). Barbee
Mill Company will pay for the EIS preparation. (The agreement was amended
to expand the scope of the EIS report to include adequate review of historical
and cultural resources as directed by Council on 3/17/2003.) Council concur.
Human Services: 2003 CDBG Human Services Division recommended approval to continue participating in
Housing Stability Program the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium Housing
Participation Stability Program in 2003, which assists low -to -moderate income families with
rent or mortgage payments due to a temporary crisis in their lives. Refer to
Community Services Committee.
Airport: Boeing Lease Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Addendum #20 to
Addendum #20, Fund Transfer LAG-65-877, Municipal Airport lease with The Boeing Company, and
to Purchase Boeing Restrooms requested authorization to transfer $80,000 from the Airport Reserve Fund to
the Airport Capital Improvement Program (CIP) account for the purchase of the
Boeing restroom facilities. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
Utility: Water System Plan Utility Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with R.W. Beck,
Update & Highlands Water Inc. in the amount of $218,051 to update the City's 1998 Water System Plan
Distribution Improvements Analysis, and to pre -design the water distribution improvements for the 565
Pre -design, RW Beck pressure zone in the Highlands area. Council concur.
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO
REMOVE ITEMS 8.a. AND 8.b. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION.
CARRIED.
Separate Consideration Approval of Council meeting minutes of March 17, 2003.
Item 7.a. Councilman Persson questioned the way Executive Session was notated in the
Council Meeting Minutes of Council meeting minutes. Mayor Tanner asked Assistant City Attorney Zanetta
March 17, 2003 Fontes to research options for the documentation of Executive Session in the
minutes.
March 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 113
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL
APPROVE ITEM 7.a. AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Separate Consideration
City Clerk reported bid opening on 3/12/2003 for CAG-03-005, Pavilion
Item 7.b.
Building Renovation; ten bids; engineer's estimate $1,800,000; and submitted
CAG: 03-005, Pavilion
staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder, Edifice Construction
Building Renovation, Edifice
Company, Inc., in the amount of $2,184,890.47. Refer to
Const Co
Committee of the Whole for discussion of funding and bid protests.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL
REFER ITEM 7.b. TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE
A letter was read from Robert F. Carter, 4515 NE 26th Ct., Renton, 98059,
Citizen Comment: Carter —
requesting connection to the sanitary sewer on NE 23rd St. in the Summerwind
Sewer Service Connection
development for his property located outside the City limits, north of
Request for Property Outside
Summerwind in Newcastle Terrace, Lot #5. MOVED BY BRIERE,
City Limits
SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS
CORRESPONDENCE TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
Added
Council President Keolker-Wheeler reported receipt of a letter from Vision
Citizen Comment: Camerer —
House Executive Director Susan M. Camerer, PO Box 2951, Renton, 98056,
Building Permit Fee Waiver
requesting the waiver of building permit and development fees for the Vision
for Vision House Children's
House Children's Village, and in exchange, Vision House will offer „
Village
scholarships to low income Renton families in need of childcare assistance.
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL
REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED.
OLD BUSINESS Utilities Committee Vice Chair Briere presented a report regarding the
Utilities Committee agreement to update the City's digital orthophotography. The Committee
Technical Services: Digital recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation that Council authorize
Orthophotography Update, the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a sole source consulting agreement with
Walker & Associates Walker & Associates, Inc. for aerial photogrammetric services in the amount of
$49,858.75. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending approval of
Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 213231 - 213713 and two wire transfers totaling
$2,985,625.36; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 43257 - 43497, one wire
transfer and 565 direct deposits totaling $1,740,520.66. MOVED BY
PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Persson presented a report
Committee
regarding the design contract for the Strander Blvd. extension. The Strander
Transportation: Strander Blvd
Blvd. extension project, from West Valley Hwy (SR-181) to East Valley Rd., is
Extension Design, Perteet
an important east -west trans -south valley connection project targeted at
Engineering
improving access and mobility for the traveling public, freight, and businesses.
When constructed, it will provide access to the development at the Boeing
Longacres site, Tukwila Transit Center, and provide a grade separated crossing
at the Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks.
The contract is for 30% design, covering the Corridor Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), base -mapping, road section, and project phasing.
Supplements to this original agreement will be added to cover the final design
of each project phase, of which there are expected to be at least three. The
March 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 114
contract is in the amount of $2,213,349, to be completed over 26 months from
the time of contract execution. The Transportation Systems Division has
budgeted $600,000 in 2003; and will request budget approval for $1,400,000 in
2004, and $500,000 in 2005, totaling $2,500,000 for design (including contract
and City staff time) of this project in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005.
The Committee recommended that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute the consultant agreement with Perteet Engineering, Inc. in the
amount of $2,213,349 for the Strander Blvd. Extension — West Valley Hwy.
(SR-181) to East Valley Rd. Project.*
Councilman Persson reported that the Committee was concerned whether they
were committing future City Councils to this project with a chance that there
would not be traffic mitigation funds available to finance it. He stated that
there is every indication that the funding will be available, and the Committee
was assured that the agreement contains an escape clause in case it is not.
*MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Transportation: NE 3rd/4th St
Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Persson presented a report
Corridor Signal
regarding the 2003 signal synchronization grant. The City of Renton applied
Synchronization, King County
for and was awarded $80,000 for signal synchronization on the NE 3rd and NE
Grant
4th St. corridor. The City will be reimbursed $10,400 for work by City forces
to implement changes on 13 City of Renton traffic signals. The City will
remand $69,600 of the grant to King County for work performed by King
County's contractor and/or King County's work force. The grant also includes
three traffic signals in King County to be managed by King County. The
improvements are expected to reduce congestion along this corridor.
The Committee recommended that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to enter into the agreement with King County to accept grant funding for and to
collaborate on the 2003 Signal Synchronization Project on the NE 3rd and 4th
St. corridor. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding
this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY PERSSON,
SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED. (Seepage 115 for resolution.)
Transportation: NE Sunset Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Persson presented a report
Blvd & Duvall Ave NE regarding the NE Sunset Blvd. and Duvall Ave. NE intersection improvements.
Intersection Improvements, The City of Renton applied for and was awarded a Hazard Elimination Safety
WSDOT Grant (HES) Program grant in the amount of $396,000 for intersection improvements
at NE Sunset Blvd. and Duvall Ave. NE. This project includes a new
eastbound left -turn lane, a drop lane extension, and a signal modification.
These improvements are expected to reduce congestion and the number of
accidents by providing additional left -turn capacity and extending the drop
lane.
The Committee recommended that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to enter into the agreement with the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) to accept the HES Program grant funding for the
design of NE Sunset Blvd. and Duvall Ave. NE intersection improvements, and
that Council approve the resolution and all consecutive phases and subsequent
elements up to and including construction of the roadway. MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 115 for resolution.)
March 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 115
Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding Renton
Police: Renton Transit Center Transit Center safety. The Committee was briefed by the Police Department
Safety regarding safety at the Renton Transit Center, and concurred in the
recommendation of staff that additional staffing in coordination with King
County Metro Transit be assigned to this area. The Committee further
recommended that it be updated on this issue in two months.*
Councilman Clawson reported that two full-time police officers will be
assigned to patrol the Renton Transit Center between 2:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
for the next three weeks, and the Police Department will coordinate with King
County for future monitoring.
*MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Police: Criminal Nuisance Public Safety Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding criminal
Abatement nuisance abatement. The Committee was briefed by the Police Department
regarding criminal nuisance abatement at the West Wind Motel. The
Committee concurred with the recommendation of staff that no additional
action be taken at this time. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY
NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Public Works: Cedar River Councilman Clawson reported that the City is continuing its discussions with
Sockeye Hatchery Project, the City of Seattle regarding the placement of the broodstock facility for its
City of Seattle
Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery project. He stated that Renton has relayed its
concerns regarding the proposed locations within the Renton City limits, and
Seattle is reviewing the matter.
ORDINANCES AND
The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption:
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution #3625
A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
Transportation: NE 3rd/4th St
agreement with King County for the City of Renton to receive $80,000 for the
Corridor Signal
signal synchronization project along the NE 3rd and NE 4th St. corridor.
Synchronization, King County
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT
Grant
THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
Resolution #3626
A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
Transportation: NE Sunset
interlocal cooperative agreement with the Washington State Department of
Blvd & Duvall Ave NE
Transportation (WSDOT) for grant funding for the traffic signal at NE Sunset
Intersection Improvements,
Blvd. and Duvall Ave. NE. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY
WSDOT Grant
BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and
adoption:
Ordinance #5004
An ordinance was read adopting the 2002 amendments to the zoning
Planning: Annual Update of
classifications of properties located within the City of Renton. MOVED BY
the Zoning Book and Wall
BRIERE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
Map
ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
March 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 116
Ordinance #5005 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately
Rezone: Fry Property, Garden 21.3 acres located at 800 Garden Ave. N. on the east side of the street, between
Ave N, IH to COR 3 (R-02- N. 8th St. on the south and N. Park Dr. on the north, from Heavy Industrial (IH)
149) to Center Office Residential 3 (COR 3) zone. (Fry's Rezone; R-02-149)
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES.
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL
ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:45 p.m.
BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clak
Recorder: Michele Neumann
March 24, 2003
y CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 24, 2003
COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA
AD HOC COUNCIL
COMMUNICATIONS
(Briere)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
(Keolker-Wheeler)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
(Nelson)
FINANCE
(Parker)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
(Briere)
PUBLIC SAFETY
(Clawson)
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION)
(Persson)
UTILITIES
(Corman)
WED., 4/02 Electronic Mail & Correspondence
3:30 p.m. Policies
MON., 3/31 No Meeting (5th Monday)
MON., 4/07
Emerging Issues Briefing;
6:00 p.m.
Boeing Environmental Impact Statement
*Council
Update;
Conference
Pavilion Building Renovation Project Bid
Room*
Award
MON., 4/07
Lease -Purchase Agreement for 40 Golf
5:00 p.m.
Carts;
Update on Regional Policy Committee
Work on Human Services;
2003 Housing Stability Program
MON., 4/07 Vouchers
4:30 p.m.
THURS., 4/03 Fence Height Regulations;
2:00 p.m. Airport Zoning
NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room
unless otherwise noted.
4:�, --n t
AT&T Broadband
Washington Market E E WE D e SE
21-4444
8 2003
February 13, 2003 CITY OF RENT(
RENI _()f`yo ff
FEB 18 200
Bonnie Walton RECEIVE
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way M, YORSU CE-
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Franchise Fee Report for 4th Quarter 2002
CITY C ERKIVED S OFF
Dear Ms. Walton:
In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton, please find enclosed
the franchise fee report for fourth quarter 2002. The figures reported herein should be
consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office in Denver,
Colorado. If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the attached
report, please feel free to contact me at (425) 398-6051.
Cordially,
Ann Svensson
AT&T Broadband
Encls.
CC: Janet L. Turpen, AT&T Broadband
Anne McMullen, AT&T Broadband
Lon Hurd, 3H Cable Communications Consultants
Hans Hechtman, AT&T Broadband
Recycled Paper
OPERATOR:
City of Renton
AT&T Broadband
Period From
1011/02-12/31/02
22025 30th Drive SE
Bothell, WA 98021
FRANCHISE
FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
MONTHS IN
GROSS
FEE %
FRANCHISE
YFD
REVENUE SOURCE
(AVE OF PER)
(EACH MO)
PERIOD
REVENUE
FEE
Installation -(Including Digital
861
s:. ..,
3
41,491.15
5
2,074.56
5,343.53
Nip Card Vries
ns.10
Bask Cable Service
14,65S
$11.03
3
484,727.35
5
24,236.37
98,098.95
06.65
Expanded Cable Service*
13,397
$20.13
3
808,851.80
5
40,442.59
165,001.75
n2,50
Special Interest (DigitaD
928
$47.S8
3
132,425.69
5
6,621.28
23,478.55
s0.o0•$4.99
Additional Outlet (Digital)**
2,760
$0.00
3
O.DO
5
0.00
0.00
n*ss
HBO Customers
3,513
$14J"
Showtime Customers
2,657
n3_2s
Cinemax Customers
1,867
nus
TMC Customers
1,782
$11.10
Starz! Customers
2,883
st"
Encore Customers
5,149
Total Premium
17,850
$3.37
3
180,604.63
5
9,030.23
35,412.84
asssu.ss
Pay -Per -View
8,809
$3.04
3
80,278.76
5
4,013.94
15,113.82
nso m $,.w
Standard Converters
77
$1.90 M 34M
Addressable Converters
722
s*.so
Digital Converters
6,587
$0.00
Remote Units
338
Total Equipment
7,724
$4.30
3
99,S26.27
5
4,976.31
19,642.47
P.M
AT&TBI
0
$0.00
3
0.00
5
0.00
16,323.40
TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME
1,827,905.6E
S
91,395.28
378,415.32
Advertising Revenue
161,175.91
5
8,058.80
28,588.15
Shopping Services
31,924.28
S
1,596.21
5,091.10
nx
Guides
891
$4.68
3
12,508.69
5
625.43
1,890.48
Late Fees
9,3S1.00
467.55
1,708.05
Miscellaneous
12,229,54
5
611.48
2,253.04
TOTAL NON -SUBSCRIBER INCOME
227,189.42
5
11,359.47
39,530.82
Less Refunds/Bad Debts
(64,340.30)
5
(3,217.02)
(11,789.61)
Plus Bad Debt Recovery
0.00
5
0.00
0.00
NET BAD DEBTS (-)
(64,340.30)
5
(3,217.02)
(11,789.61)
TOTAL REVENUES
1,990,754.77
5
99,537.74
406,156.53
Franchise Fee Revenue
202,867.22
5
10,143.36
39,767.41
Adjustments*
0.00
TOTAL DUE CITY
2,193,621.99
5
109,681.10
445,923.94
EXPLANATORY NOTES:
Send to: Prepared by: Ann Svensson
3-H Cable Communications Consultants Authorized by.
502 East Main Street
Auburn, WA 98002 Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator
_ Date: / I�3I 62
r
Comcast
February 14, 2003
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
E 03 E_IE
.:;iris( 0� 3 r.0 a
IIAX-fflRSOFFIGE
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.
22025 30th Drive SE
Bothell, WA 98021-4444
Tel: 425.398.6000
CITY OF RENTON
F E B 18 2003
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RE: Transition of AT&'I' Broadband Internet Customers to Comcast High -Speed
Internet Service
Dear Ms. Walton:
As you know, AT&T Broadband, formerly a division of AT&T Corp., was combined
with Comcast in November 2002. As a result, AT&T Broadband Internet customers
must be moved to the Comcast High -Speed Internet Service. While on its face this
transition appears.to resemble the transition some AT&T Broadband Internet customers
experienced last year with the move from Excite@Home, it's really quite different. The
Excite@Home transition was forcedby the bank>;uptcy of Excite@Home, and required a
rapid move, during one week, of all AT&T@Home customers to a new network so they
could continue to receive high-speed Internet service. The transition from AT&T
Broadband Internet to Comcast High -Speed Internet, on the other hand, will be
accomplished on a market -by -market rolling schedule throughout several weeks.
As part of the transition, AT&T Broadband Internet e-mail will change. The domain of
all AT&T Broadband e-mail addresses will change from [usemame]@attbi.com to
[username] @comcast.net. Few customers between AT&T Broadband Internet and
Comcast Nigh -Speed Internet have the same usernames because many of these
customers, prior to the migration of customers from the Excite@Home network, shared
the same @home domain name. Therefore, few 'AT&T Broadband Internet customers
will have to change their usernames during this transition.
I'm pleased to report that AT&T Broadband customers will continue to receive their
attbi.com email through 2004, and customers'. attbi.com email and comcast.net email
will be delivered to one email box.
About 1.9 million former AT&T Broadband Internet customers are affected nationwide;
Comcast does not make public market specific customer numbers for its high=speed
Internet service for competitive reasons.
Page 2 of 3
Communication Timeline. The following timeline for customer communication is a
guideline only, and is subject to change.
• Early February — Customers with Comcast.net user name conflicts identified.
• Early February — Change of service notice sent to AT&T Broadband Internet
customers via email with a reminder to watch email for more information.
• Mid -February — 2°d email includes a service description and service benefits.
• Early March — Email sent to previously identified customers with username
conflict that includes information and specific transition instructions.
• Mid -March — 3rd email includes a description of change, an overview of new
service and benefits, notice and instructions to change email, browser and
newsgroups.
• Mid -March — Direct mail piece to customer homes includes a description of
change, an overview of new service and benefits, notice and instructions to
change email, browser and newsgroups.
• Mid -March — Washington Market AT&T Broadband Internet customers may
transition from AT&T Broadband Internet to Comcast High -Speed Internet.
Customers will maintain access to personal web pages and newsgroups and
customers will receive attbi.com through 2004.
• Late March — 4`h email to customers containing further information and reminder
to change email service.
• Late April — 5`b email reminder to change service.
• Mid -May = Follow-up.postcard reminder to change service.
• Late May — Final email. AT&T Worldnet portal replaced with Comcast portal.
Customers will no longer send email from AT&T Broadband Internet, as they will
have received their new comcast.net email addresses. However, customers will
continue to receive email sent to their attbi.com addresses through 2004. Comcast
High -Speed Internet customers will receive their attbi.com and comcast.net email
delivered to one email box making it very simple to transition to a new address.
What will AT&T Broadband Internet Service customers need to do? Watch for email
and letter notifications from Comcast. Customers will be directed to a web page to sign
up for the new Comcast High -Speed Internet service. They will be asked what usernames
and passwords from their former AT&T Broadband Internet accounts they would like
transferred to their new Comcast service. If a customer fails to fill out the information
Page 3 of 3
properly or the Comcast.net page fails to appear, the customer will still have connectivity
to the Internet as well as use of his or her AT&T Broadband Internet accounts for at least
60 days from the beginning of the transition.
Finally, we feel confident that AT&T Broadband Internet customers will be pleased with
the features of our Comcast High -Speed Internet service. Comcast High -Speed Internet
is faster than dial up and DSL (speed comparisons are for downloads only and is
compared to 640Kbps DSL). The service is always on — it's cable -powered so there is no
dialing up or waiting for a connection. Customers receive seven e-mail accounts (one
more than AT&T Broadband Internet offers) and can customize their home pages to suit
their interests. Finally, customers can free up their computer's hard drive space or create
their own Web page with My Web Page.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (253) 503-8016 with further questions.
Cordially,
�� kAivy�Q„�
Hans Hechtman
Area Manager, Comcast
cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast
Anne McMullen, Comcast
Lon Hurd, 3H Cable Communications Consultants
YEAR = .U.
FRANCHISE NAME:
ADDRESS:
SYSTEM NAME:
GL NUMBER:
BILLING AREA:
TERM:
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE ¢QTRTOTi1TsYn.
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBERL(iRTOTAr'( s
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER�aQT1tk�OT�
�
VIDEO REVENUE
Basic Cable Service
165,726.20
162,432.40
161,379.49
489,538.09
162,798.79
162,258.41
166,063.87
491,121-07
165,319.90
165,506.03
165,766.56
496,592.49
162,679.32
160,655.68
161,392.35
484,727.35
1,961,979.00
Expanded Basic Cable Service
271,858.30
279,713.10
279,208.20
830,779.60
279,077.90
278,250.50
276,943.40
834,271.80
276,985.60
275,239.10
273,907.10
826,131.80
269,293.80
269,743.20
269,814.80
808,851.80
3,300,035.00
Digital Service
34,830.22
35,024.71
36,028.14
105,883.07
36,796.82
37,136.57
37,127.84
111,061.23
37,535.81
40,515.68
42,149.56
120,201.05
43,372.03
44,500.10
44,553.56
132,425.69
469,571.04
Premium Services
59,062.58
57,033.00
56,899.86
172,995.44
57,071.55
58,298.92
58,863.15
174,233.62
59,209.29
61,597.46
59,616.38
180,423.13
60,283.53
60,609.83
59,711-27
180,604.63
708,256.82
Pay -Per -View
23,927.85
17,856.89
21,927.60
63,712.34
21,053.91
13,869.91
48,665.34
83,589.16
23,535.75
22,084.26
29,076.15
74,696.16
26,300.55
29,878.74
24,099.47
80,278.76
302,276.42
Guide Revenue
2,012.41
2,011.68
2,096.87
6,120.96
2,204.90
2,713.54
3,139-67
8,058.11
3,402.04
3,732.56
3,987.26
11,121.86
4,087.68
4,149.92
4,271-09
12,508.69
37,809-62
Bad Debt
(7,020.46)
(36,741.87)
(12,333.07)
(56,095.40)
(14,249.23)
(18,717.43)
(19,943.98)
(52,910.64)
(18,456.73)
(19,459.12)
(24,530.10)
(62,445.95)
(25,228.45)
(16,121.43)
(22,990.42)
(64,340,30)
(235,792,29)
Installation
4,267.61
6,39634
5,930.38
16,594.33
7,998.80
7,534.32
7,597.83
23,130.95
8,077.01
6,525.19
11,052.01
25,654.21
15,236.62
15,955.74
10,298.79
41,491.15
106,870.64
Equipment Rental
31,698.26
31,975.42
32,501.14
96,174.82
33,068.28
33,092.76
32,746.08
98,907.12
32,777.09
32,910.37
32,553.80
98,241.26
32,789.54
33,216.81
33,519.92
99,526.27
392,849.47
Other Revenue
3,540.28
1,924.01
3,400.83
8,865.12
5,045.48
3,561.98
2,279-81
10,887.27
2,365.01
2,600.02
3,224.09
8,189.12
2,881.35
5,052.54
2,645.04
10,578.93
38,520.44
Franchise Fees/Utility Tax
59,117.36
66,502.97
65,772.04
191,392.37
66,567.57
66,532.58
66,893-27
199,993.42
67,019.26
66,892.12
67,183.83
201,095.21
67,226.46
67,850.93
67,789.83
202,86722
795,348.22
Peg Fees
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FCC Fees
539.99
540.54
540.85
1,621.38
546.44
542.42
541.84
1,630.70
545.08
545.44
547.13
1,637-65
548.50
547.61
554.50
1,650.61
6,54034
Late Fees
1,944.00
1,536.00
2,256.00
5,736.00
3,495-00
2,922.00
3,120.00
9,537.00
2,943.00
3,348.00
3,246,00
9,537.00
2,799.00
3,024.00
3,528.00
9,351.00
34,161.00
Shopping Commissions
12,251.21
6,768.11
12,175.35
31,194.67
10,522.37
13,764-62
9,246.49
33,533.48
4,471.35
(6,342.46)
7,040.77
5,169.66
12,958.34
8,716.20
10,249.74
31,924.28
101,822.09
Advertising
27,606.30
40,641,98
53,551.71
121,799.99
41,973.84
46,041.83
58,649-64
146,665.31
42,569.22
38,300.02
61,252.49
142,121.73
53,843.90
54,240.21
53,091.80
161,175.91
571,762.94
691,362.11
673,615.28
721,33539
2,086,312.78
713,972.42
707,802.93
751,934.25
2,173,709.60
708,298.68
693,994.67
736,073.03
2,138,366-38
729,072.17
742,020.08
722,529.74
2,193,621.99
8,592,010.75
DATA REVENUE
Bad Debt
(990.89)
(1,783.89)
(2,118-63)
(4,893.41)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(4,893.41)
Service Revenue
82,457.63
91,013.23
47,870.96
221,341.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
221,341.82
Installation
4,201.81
6,229.63
5,470.58
15,902.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15,902.02
Equipment Rental
22,955.68
22,801.40
11,851.57
57,608.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
57,608.65
Other Revenue
75.28
(147.02)
108.30
36.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.56
Franchise Fees
15,215.89
13,819.59
7,436.85
36,472.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36,472.33
123,915.40
131,932.94
70,619.63
326,467.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
326,467.97
i
TOTAL REVENUE 815,277.51 805,548.22 791,955.02 2,412,780.75 713,972.42 707,802.93 751,934.25 2,173,709.60 708,298.68 693,994.67 736,073.03 2,138,36638 729,072-17 742,020.08 722,529.74 2,193,621.99 8,918,478.72
Franchise Fee Percentage '"` P7 5 00°1 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
,, r,. y.. ,,
FRAM ISE FEE DUE E 411763.88, - 27,. .� . �39 597:75 r . 17A 639:1►d ., : �S 698.6Z : � . . 90. 5 _ ... �. ; 3� -c' 08 4 - . 35 4 4.9- � .. ,. q 6. 3n� -���6 3 65 � � 9f :3 CH 2r .. _ . _ . _. �:�..`�� �,�.. 4.L-��._� ..>.... , .: . � . _... ... � �... .�-, ..35,•`i ,, =4 _�;� �G 7F,� , i 5: _.. � _ r 3 . 99 _',,, � �. 8
e
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will hear a proposal requesting the vacation of a portion of an
existing paved alley running north and south between Whitworth and Morris Avenues
South and South 3rd and 4th Streets. The requested vacation area is shown on the
accompanying map exhibit.
SUMMARY:
A vacation petition was received January 17, 2003, from St. Anthony's Parish. City
Code requires that more than two-thirds (2/3) of the owners whose property abuts
the alley to be vacated must sign the petition. One -hundred percent (100%) of the
abutting property owners have signed this petition.
The portion of right-of-way included in this petition was dedicated in the plat of
Smithers 4th Addition to the Town of Renton on October 24, 1903.
A related vacation, VAC-00-003, has already been approved by the City Council on
July 15, 2002. As shown on the attached map, VAC-00-003 will vacate a portion of
Whitworth Ave South and a 160' portion of the alley between Whitworth and Morris
Avenues South and South 3rd and 4th Streets.
The current petition, VAC-03-001, proposes to vacate an additional 120' of the 16
foot alley between Whitworth and Morris Avenues South and South 3rd and 4th
Streets.
According to the Transportation Department, the requested vacation will have no
effect on traffic patterns or pedestrian facilities.
Public facilities within this alleyway include an 8-inch sewer main.
Through the requested vacation, St. Anthony's plans to "create a unified
campus ... with sufficient parking to serve parish functions and [to] diminish the
parish's impact on the surrounding neighborhood."
As established by RCW 35.79.030, the street vacation petition, if granted, must be
approved by the City Council through ordinance after a public hearing is held. The
City shall receive compensation in accordance with RCW 35.79.030 for the vacated
street. The ordinance must be recorded with King County once it is in effect.
Y'cckzt." 3_aY-4!93
CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM MAR 2 1 2003
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: March 20, 2003
TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner
�y
FROM: Gregg Zimmerm* tAdministrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
STAFF CONTACT: Karen McFarland x7209
SUBJECT: STREET VACATION PETITION, VAC 03-001; PORTION
OF THE NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY BETWEEN
WHITWORTH AND MORRIS AVENUES SOUTH AND
SOUTH 3rd and r STREETS
ISSUE:
A petition has been submitted by Gregg McNabb on behalf of St. Anthony's Parish
requesting the vacation of a portion of alley running north and south between Whitworth and
Morris Avenues South and South 3' and 4th Streets. The requested vacation area is shown
on the accompanying map exhibit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that Council approve the
request to vacate the alleyway portion subject to the following conditions:
• The petitioner shall provide satisfactory proof that outside utilities have received and
are satisfied with any easements, which are necessary to protect their facilities in the
requested vacation area.
• A utility easement for the City shall be retained over the entire alley being vacated.
• This vacation shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the St. Anthony's
Parish Development Agreement. (Resolution #3623)
H:\File Sys\PRM - Property Services Administration\PRM-25 - Street Vacations From 1990 and
Forward\003 8\StAnthony2003\ip_03001.DOC\KLM\tb
March 20, 2003
Page 3
Internal Review
The following City departments had no objection to the proposed alley vacation:
• PBPW Department/Transportation Division
• PBPW Department/ Surface Water Utility
• PBPW Department/ Water Utility
• PBPW Department/ Wastewater Utility
• PBPW Department/ Maintenance Division
• EDNSP Department
• PBPW Department/ Development Services
• Community Services Department
• Fire Department/ Fire Prevention
• Police Department
From the internal review the following comments were received:
• The Wastewater Utility requested that the City retain an easement for utilities over the
entire alleyway if the vacation is approved.
• The Surface Water Utility states that the requested vacation "does not pose a drainage
problem as long as the sheet flow path is not obstructed. "
• The Development Services Division states that the requested vacation is consistent with
the approved conditional use permit (LUA02-054) and the development agreement
(LUA03-005).
Outside Agency Review
The following outside agencies were contacted about the proposed vacation:
• Puget Sound Energy
• QWEST
• A T & T Cable/ Comcast
• Electric Lightwave
The status of the outside agency reviews are as follows:
• Electric Lightwave does not need an easement.
• QWEST confirms the existence of facilities in the right-of-way and requests that the
City take no action until easements are obtained to continue to service these facilities.
• Puget Sound Energy is still in the process of determining whether an easement is
required.
• To date, A T & T Cable/Comcast has shown no interest in the proposed vacation.
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
STREET VACATION VAC-03-001
A portion of the alley located in Block 1 of Smithers Fourth Addition to the Town of Renton,
according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 19, records of King County,
Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 11 of said plat;
Thence northerly along the westerly right-of-way margin of said alley, a distance of 120 feet,
to the northeast corner of Lot 9 of said plat;
Thence easterly along the easterly projection of the northerly boundary line of said Lot 9, a
distance of 16 feet, to the northwest corner of Lot 22 of said plat;
Thence southerly along the easterly right-of-way margin of said alley, a distance of 120 feet, to
the southwest corner of Lot 20 of said plat;
Thence westerly along the westerly projection of the southerly boundary line of said Lot 20, a
distance of 16 feet, to the Point of Beginning.
Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the
City of Renton, King County, Washington.
Public Heari
STREET VAC
VA
March
LOCATION
S 3rd St
w
Q FT-1
.77
c
-cn
cn
V
Q
-
cn
O
Cc
S 4th St
-00-003
VAC-03-001
PUBLIC BENEFIT
St. Anthony's plans to "create a unified
campus ... with sufficient parking to serve
parish functions and [to] diminish the parish's
impact on the surrounding neighborhood."
BACKGROUND
• Petition received January 200 3
• Pursuant to State and City Code, more than
2/3 of the abutting owners must sign the
petition
• 100% of abutting owners have signed
RESEARCH/SURVEY
• Vacation request was circulated to
various City departments and outside
agencies for review
• No objections have been raised
RESEARCH/SURVEY
Outside Agency Review Comments
• QWEST confirms the existence of facilities in
the right-of-way and requests that the City
take no action until easements are obtained
to continue to service These facilities.
• Puget Sound Energy is still in the process of
determining whether an easement is
required.
To date, A T & T Cable/Comcast has shown
no interest in the proposed vacation.
PUBLIC HEARING
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM ADVOCACY
In 20029 The City of Renton applied for, and received, a Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant for Domestic Violence Victim Advocacy. The
amount of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant was for $50,191 and
required a city -match of approximately 10 percent, or $5,577.
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have funded the City of Renton's
Domestic Violence Victim Advocacy program since 1996. Prior to 2003,
the program was administered through the Human Services Division of
Community Services. During 2003 budget deliberations, Mayor Tanner and
the Council chose to continue providing the program with grant funding and
transferred responsibility for managing this grant and the program to the
Police Department.
During 2002, the police department responded to 1,909 domestic violence
calls. The need for domestic violence victim advocacy is significant. An
advisory committee of the Renton Domestic Violence Task Force has also
unanimously recommended the continuation of this victim advocacy
program with the funding received from the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant.
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 24, 2003
TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
FROM: Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Administrative Report
In addition to our day to -day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week:
GENERAL INFORMATION
• As part of -the City wide Year Round. Giving Campaign, a book sale was held last Thursday,m-the pity Hall
lobby.`"The carr pargrifcor mitiee anriounced=thafi this one -day effort raised $�60; all ofwfireh will be daunted
to :the.Salvation Aimy s Renton Emergency:Assistance-Prograiri. Thanks-, to r thesr,do
purchases. The Renton Salvation Army will pick up the remaining books and sell them in their store.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• The primary structure of the new downtown parking garage is complete, and the large tower crane has been
removed-fro�ri=the site. Over the -next month, the contractor.will continue to install metal. -panels -and. glass..:-,,;
- ----windows to complete. the exterior walls of the building. Equipment is being installed inside the building,
including the two elevators, the security system, and the parking pay stations. Once the building is finished
and the equipment is installed, all the systems will be tested, the building will be thoroughly cleaned, paint will
be touched up, and City staff will become familiar with the equipment. We anticipate opening to the public
during the middle of May. Garage progress and updates can be found on the City's website at
www.ci.renton.wa.us.
• On March 170, the Recreation Division's Renton Teen Council sponsored a middle school dance, which was a
great success with 171 young people in attendance. This was the first of four dances to be offered this year
through the teen program, under the direction of Tom Puthoff, Recreation Teen Program Specialist.
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
• Valley Medical Center and Puget Sound Energy will begin a joint vegetation management project the week of
March 31S`. PSE is coordinating the development of an arboretum along the east side of Valley Medical
Center's campus along Talbot Road South. This section of Talbot is actually located in unincorporated King
County. The arboretum will include a winding path with small trees, shrubs, and other Northwest -compatible
plants, and will replace sycamore trees currently in front of VMC's campus along Talbot. These sycamore
trees pose a threat by continuously growing into the high -voltage power lines above and must be removed for
safety reasons. However, the trees will be recycled and used in the new garden.
• Safe sidewalks and pedestrian facilities are an important part of Renton's overall transportation system. The
2003 Walkway Plan Update takes a comprehensive, city-wide look at the existing walkway network, missing
links to that network, and pedestrian attractions. A Walkway Plan Update Open House will be held on
Tuesday, March 25`h, from 4:00-8:00 p.m. in the 7th floor Council Chambers. City staff will be in attendance
to discuss the information and answer any questions. For additional information, please contact Dan Hasty at
425-430-7246.
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al #: r
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of: 3/24/2003
Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Bonnie I. Walton
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated
Correspondence..
2/20/2003, regarding appeal of Administrative and
Ordinance .............
Environmental Determination for the Nicholson Short
Resolution............
Plat, 2300 NE 28th Street; File No. LUA-02-111,
Old Business........
SHPL-A, ECF, AAD
New Business.......
Exhibits:
A. City Clerk's letter (3/11/03)
Study Sessions......
B. Appeal to Council (3/6/03)
Information.........
C. Letter from Party of Record (Parisi — 3/18/03)
D. Request for Reconsideration & Response (2/27/03 &
3/6/03)
E. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (2/20/03)
F. Appeal to Hearing Examiner (12/9/02)
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact: None
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal filed by Brad Nicholson, accompanied by required $75.00 fee, received 3/6/2003
CITZ OF RENTON
..� City Clerk
J e Tanner, Mayor Bonnie I. Walton
March 11, 2003
APPEAL FILED BY: Brad Nicholson
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 2/20/2003 regarding appeal of an
Administrative and Environmental Determination for the Nicholson Short Plat,
2300 NE 28th Street, File No. LUA-02-111, SHPL-A, ECF, AAD
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the
hearing examiner's decision on the Nicholson Short Plat, as above -referenced, has been
filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8-110F; within five days of receipt
.of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall,notify all parties of record of the receipt of the
appeal. `Other -parties may subrYut,letters m'support of their'positions within ten (10) days.
of the date of mailing of ::the notification of the 'filing of the appeal. ` The deadline for
submission of additional letters is'Nlarch 21, 2003.
NOTICE IS HEREBY `GIVEN that the ' written ' appeals and other pertinent documents
will be reviewed by the .Council's :Plane �f g and. Development: Committee. The Council
secretary will notify all parties of `record of :the date and. time of the Planning and
Development Committee meeting: 4 you .are not listed -in the local telephone directories
and wish to attend the -meeting,. please -`call the ::Council 2 secretary at 425-430-6501 for
information.. The recommendation, of the Committee.,will,be'presented. for: consideration
.by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting
Attached is.a copy: of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of .hearing examiner
decisions or, recommendations. Please note "that the City Council will be considering the
merits of the appeal based upon the written- record previously established.. Unless a
showing. can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably. have been available.
at the prior. hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on
this matter will be accepted by the City Council:
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at (425) 430-6502.
Sincerely,
Bonnie 1. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
cc: Council Secretary
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-65 10/ FAX (425) 430-6516
® This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30% post consumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
CITY OF RIENTON
Office of the City Attorney
J e Tanner, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 19, 2003
TO: Renton City Councilmembers
FROM: Russell Wilson, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Nicholson Submissions in appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision
I have completed my review of the Hearing Examiner's official record and compared it to
the submissions offered by Mr. Nicholson in his appeal to the City Council. All of the
documents submitted constitute new evidence and as such are not permissible at the
appeal hearing.
I believe it would be the prudent course of action if you, the members of the City
Council, abstained from review of the appeal documents submitted by Mr. Nicholson. I
have asked the City Clerk to pass the appeal letter on to you but withhold the
inappropriate submissions. Since these were documents filed with the City, the Clerk
will maintain them in the Clerks office.
The next problem that arises from Mr. Nicholson's appeal letter is the inappropriate
references Mr. Nicholson makes to these inadmissible documents. If these references
were redacted in some form the appeal letter would become very difficult to comprehend.
It would seem this leaves the Council two options. It could attempt to filter out what is
an appropriate reference in Mr. Nicholson's appeal letter. A task that is frankly very
difficult given the volume of this particular record. The other option is to reject Mr.
Nicholson's appeal letter in its entirety, until he has properly submitted it with references
only to the Hearing Examiner's record. It is this second option that will best protect the
procedures that govern Mr. Nicholson's appeal�v
Russell Wilson
RW:ma
cc: Mayor Tanner
Jay Covington
Neil Watts
Brad Nicholson
Post Office Box 626 - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (425) 255-5474
® This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30 % post consumer
SENT®10T
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
APPEAL - HEARING EXAMINER
WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY
)UNCIL.
ILE NO.
APPLICATION N
CITY OF RENTON
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision c MAR 0 6 2003
recommendation of p � the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated � �Gs� z^/ 20V 3 RECEIVED
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY --CITY CLERK S OFFICE
APPELLANT:
Name:
_Wu A
Address: 7-3 O Ory4--
e,o 4,
Telephone No.Z,S-18- —oCLs
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) �' !J7 "
Name:
Address:
Telephone No.
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) - 5.eg a_y"
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report)
No. Error:
Correction:
CONCLUSIONS:
No. Error:
Correction:
OTHER
No. Error:
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following
relief. (Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other
t/Representative Signature
3-0 -03
Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal
procedures.
heappeal.doc/forms
BRAD ATCHOLS'ON
March 6, 2003
Ms. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
Mr. Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Planning and Development Committee
Ms. Terri Briere, Chair Planning and Development Committee
Ms. Toni Nelson, Council President Pro-Tem
Mr. Randy Corman, Council Memeber
Mr. King Parker, Member Planning and Development Committee
Mr. Don Persson, Council Member
2003 Renton City Council Members
Renton City Hall — 7th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98056
RE: Short Subdivision (B. Nicholson Short Plat)
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision
RE: Environmental Determination and conditions
RE: LUA — 02 —Ill and subsequent Hearing Examiner decision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Renton City Council,
2300 N.E. 28fl' Street
Renton, Washington 98056
Brad827a,hotmail.com
(425)445-0658
CITY OF REIVTOM
MAR 0 6 2003
CITY CLERK'S CEIVEOFFICE S�
Appeal
The Public use and interest, is the objective of this design. The pavement is heavy duty interlocking concrete, designed in a
manner adding to the safety and character of the neighborhood. It is specially designed to address environmental concerns
utilizing the best available science. My proposal will help avoid urban sprawl. It will provide additional housing choices close
to available transportation in Renton. It would result in the lowest Renton impact to waters of any plat of its kind.
My proposal is unlike the design proposed by Staff, but my proposal is more desirable, for one because of the environmental
benefits, and because of the esthetics and color of this environmentally preferred design.
My proposal will increase economic values, and thereby increase and add to the tax base of the City of Renton.
My proposal will add not one, but two City of Renton turn-arounds on our street. My street has been created, without the
benefit of the ability to turn around emergency vehicles, by governmental ineptitude in the first instance. My proposal will
benefit the other properties in this area, and in Renton, by helping to alleviate this problem.
With the recent application by the City for MS4 status under the NPDES phase two implementation, (which is referenced in
the official record of this appeal) one thing is certain, things will change and especially the way we currently manage our storm
water. I had brought to the attention of the Hearing Examiner, that the United States Environmental Protection Agency
has outlined the requirement in the final stormwater rule of December 8,1999 ref. (33 U.S.C. chapter 26) and where the U.S.
EPA made the determination that the 'Best Management Practices" that the State has adopted were "appropriate", and would
result in "reasonable" further progress aimed at achieving the objectives of Congress.
To the extent that the Hearing Examiner's suggestion would solve the appeal issues that are the subject of this letter, I shall heed
his advice and respectfully request your careful consideration of these issues, and request that you consider revising the code
to clarify its language so as to allow my proposed plat to proceed as submitted and without further difficulty. Although I do not
believe it is neccessary to make such a request, I do so because it appears that it could also resolve the issues to the benefit of
all concerned, and avoid finther proceedings. The alternate is an appeal which I must admit is very disconcerting, and the
reasons for it are set forth following my most respectful request. My request and proposal serves the public use and interest.
brad nicholson Page 1 of 18 31612003
H. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following is a partial summary of the official record;
The Hearing Examiner opened the hearing by giving notice that I, the appellant would be charged with the burden of proof. Mr.
Wilson then gave notice that the City would be waiving the park fee, and would permit the shared driveway that I proposed.
Mr. Jordan gave notice that the shared driveway that I proposed would be allowed, subject to the condition that it would be
paved to a width 20 feet up to the south boundary of lot 3 of my proposal. He deferred to proffer a substantive reason as to why
the condition would be appropriate. No reason for it was given.
The Hearing Examiner indicated that he would likely remand the matter to staff. After some evidence was placed into the
record, Mr. Parisi, and Mr. Hall, (pavement and geosciences experts) testified affinnitively as to the feasibility of the pavement
system that I proposed and the drainage. proposal that I proposed.
Facts were presented proving that the pavement could be designed according to universally accepted engineering design
standards.
Mr. Miller, an experienced land use planner, testified affirmatively as to the issues relating to my appeal, along with facts as to
how much a dump truck weighs, a semi truck weighs, a fire truck weighs, etc. He pointed out that the City had created the
public street in the first instance and without the impositions that were being required of me. Mr. Miller pointed out that the
north has a railroad grade incised into the slope, that is 10 feet high, long ago abandoned and acts as a barrier between the slope
and the creek below.
Mr. Wilson, attempted to show that Mr. Miller had knowledge that I had entered into an agreement with regard to the adjacent
development, even though he knew that it was definitely not the case.
I then proceeded to to produce evidence of the reasonableness of my proposal. I presented a copy of the Federal Register of
December 8, 1999-which was the final rule for stormwater regulations from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
and delevered to Congress. I presented evidence that the EPA had made the determination in response to 33 U.S.C. chapter 26
§ 1342 (p) (3) (b) that the Best Management practices that have been adopted by our State were determined to be appropriate
and reasonable.
I contended that without inclusion of the Best Management practices into the City imposition, the nexus rule could not be
observed. I presented the Examiner with a copy of RCW 36.70A.172. A copy is attached herewith.
Over my objections, the Hearing Examiner refused to admit numerous pieces of evidence while stating that they were
irrelevant. Such evidence included copies of the Best Management practices promulgated by the State Department of Ecology.
That was very arbitrary and capricious.
These BMP's grant permission to use the pavement for Private Roads, Fire lanes, easement service roads, driveways, and
emergency access. They describe the function of the BNWs that I propose as an infiltration and retention area and having a
combination of environmental benefits including filtration through the base material for an improvement in water quality,
reduction of water temperature, increased recharge of ground water and natural hydrologic conditions, elimination of cracking
normal to conventional pavements, accomodation of year round construction, and the environmental benefit of the pavement
being recyclable. I contended that recycling is a requirement of SEPA.
Over my objections, the Examiner refused to admit evidence that the pavement I propose has been determined by King County
to be suitable for residential and commercial vehicle load applications. A King County Ordinance has directed all offices,
agencies, and departments in its jurisdiction to utilize the material to the maximum extent practicable.
I then presented copies of pages from the King County Surface Water Design Manual 1998 edition. The manual pages described
modular grid pavement as consisting of a lattice of concrete load bearing material over a permeable base that would be designed
by an engineer. The pages presented give permission to use the pavement off right-of-way and specifically states,
"Modular Grid pavement may be used off right-of-way in low traffic areas"
brad nicholson Page 3 of 18 31612003
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The following errors are assigned to the enumerated findings of the Hearing Examiner:
finding 2: May Creek is not located along the northern boundary' of the subject site. An abandoned Pacific Coast Coal Company
railroad right-of-way that was incised into the hillside is located along the northern boundary of the site. A 10 foot tall berm at
the north part of the 100 foot wide railroad easement separates it from the Creek 250 feet below and 500 feet to the north.
finding 3: The Staff stated that reason for environmental review was that the site contains slopes in excess of 40%.
finding 4: A dead end street is permitted by the City when a determination has been made that a through street would be
infeasible and such a determination has been made. I demurred, and argued to these facts that such facts have already been
decided;
I offered evidence that proves it.
File No. LUA-058, ECF, PP, AAD, and LUA-01-058, ECF, PP, dated August 20, 2001 reference page 16 finding 15 ., Hearing
Examiners Report and Decision: read as follows; findings: quote:
"15. The new road is subject to two modification requests that were administratively approved. The road would be 42 feet wide
rather than 50 feet wide, and it would exceed the 700-foot limitation without a secondary point of access. The 42-foot width has
become a standard modification. The exception from the secondary access point was approved due to the topographic
constraints. The Fire Department had approved the modification since there was no practical way of creating a second means
of access to this area and parcel.
According to City documents the exception was granted due to topography. Staff determined that subdivision of my property
would be allowed. All other findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, untrue, or out of context.
finding 5: The driveway easement would be the code required 20 feet wide width, with the pavement width of 12 feet meeting
the minimum requirement of the code. The fees were evidently imposed automatically, to generate revenue for the City.
finding 6: a. The issues are stated in the appeal and in the official record.
b.The issues are stated in the appeal and in the official record. The fire department could not identify specifically
what the fees would be used for.
c. The issues are stated in the appeal and in the official record. The The City could not identify specifically what the
fees would be used for.
finding 7: My requests are stated in the appeal and official record.
finding 12: Ms. Kittrick testified that the soils were "perfect for infiltration". Staff stated in the the staff report that the mitigation
measure was imposed to insure stormwater runoff and silt would not impact May Creek directly down slope of the site. All
other facts are out of context, untrue, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
finding 13: Fire Prevention Staff states that sufficient resources exist to famish services to the proposed development,
subject to the condition that the project provide the required improvements and fees. They stated that the project could
potentially impact the City's Fire Emergency services.
finding 14: I noted that uncodified improvements would benefit the public at large, and that there is no special benefit that
would be conferred upon me, that is not required of the public at large. I noted that there is currently no turn around on N.E. 28th
Street and now there would be one near the end of the Street.
finding 16:1 argued that the City was required to adopt the fee under the Growth Management Act. I also argued that the City
had not performed those actions it had been directed to perform under their ordinance. I submitted evidence supporting and
proving my contention. The City did not identify specifically how their alleged impact would be mitigated.
brad nicholson Page 5 of 18 31612003
The essential nexus test is, in short, a "means -ends" equation, intended to limit the government's bargaining mobility in
imposing permit conditions on individual property owners -whether they consist of possessory dedications or the exaction of
cash payments -that, because they appear to lack any evident connection to the public impact of the proposed land use, may
conceal an illegitimate demand -may, in other words, amount to "'out-and-out ... extortion."'
see, Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 834,107 Supreme Court 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1987)
[483 U.S. at 8371). see also, Ehrlich a City of Culver CitX, 512 U.S. 1231,114 S. Ct. 2731, 129 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1994).
Conclusion 2:
"It is found that a local government's decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is based on a factor that a local ordinance
specifically excludes from consideration." see, Gale Cox et al. Respondents, v The Ci& ofLvnnwood. Appellant.
72 Wn. App. 1, 863 P.2d 578
'The imposition of conditions on the approval of a plat application is arbitrary and capricious if the conditions are not necessary
to alleviate an existing adverse impact associated with the plat" Herschel Sparks, x Douglas County, 72 Wn. App. 55,
863 P. 2d 142.
"The fact that the disjunctive "or" is used in the first part of the statute shows that acting either arbitrarily or capriciously will
create a cause of action" Lutheran day care v Snohomish County, 119 Wn. 2d. 91.
41 Wn. App. 402, 704 P.2d 663 Carlson v Beaux Arts VdIape An administrative decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is willful,
unreasoning, and made without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances.
Conclusion 3:
The citation may be correct.
Conclusion 4:
A native growth protection easement is not required.
Conclusion 5:
"Courts grant deference to a statute's interpretation by the agency charged with its administration in the absence of a compelling
indication that such interpretation conflicts with the legislative intent." Marquis v City ofSaokane,130 Wn.2d 97,111, 922 P.
2d 43 (19961.
Conclusion 6:
City of Renton Code requires private streets to be an approved pavement thickness. Such pavement provisions should be
construed to effectuate their purposes in light of the intent of the code provisions to apply to reasonable and safe access. The
conclusion is unreasonable.
Conclusion 7:
The conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence and erroneous.
"It is unreasonable to expect architects and other professionals to comply with unarticulated standards."
Cite.• Anderson v. City oflssaguah, 70 Wn. App. 64, 77, 851 P.2d 744 (1993)
It is not conservative; it is violative of public policy. The only impervious surface on the proposal is the City of Renton Public
Street The City of Renton has never attempted an appropriate drainage system for this street May Creek is located 1000 feet
from this City of Renton problem. There has never been an attempt to seriously consider the issues that I have presented here.
With the type of soils in this area, there is no chance of a significant impact upon the environment by requiring compliance with
the King County Surface Water Design Manual.
brad nicholson Page 7 of 18 31612003
reviewing, 97 Wn.2d 804,.Jldlis Homes, Inc-, Responden4 v Snohomish County, et at, Appellants Jack W. Cory, et al, Re
spondems, a San Juan County, et al, Appellants 97 Wn.2d 804, 650 P.2d 193
Under Washington Constitution article 7, § 5, a city's taxing power depends upon an express delegation of authority by the
constitution or a statute; it cannot be implied from general grants of police power. and,
"Local "development fees" are properly characterized as taxes if their primary purpose is not regulation but the raising of revenue to
accomplish public benefits".
The conclusion of the Hearing Examiner is out of context, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and unsupported by substantial
evidence.
Conclusion 12:
The City has now decided to allow the shared driveway. Otherwise, I may have submitted additional evidence or an additional
rebuttal to the city imposition. That is unfair. The City had previously approved my design for construction with their red stamp of
approval. Is it not an abuse to approve and then deny and then approve and then deny when I had relied upon their official stamp of
approval?
There is nothing consistent about such a practice. If it is consistent and reasonable then why did the Fire Department and
planning approve of my proposal at its preliminary stage? There has been no substantive evidence as to why the private
street would need to be extended for access to two lots. It may be possible to extend a fire lane paved 20 feet in width to the end
of lot two but it is very unreasonable considering that this only appears to be the opposite of the evidence, and what had
previously been approved by the fire department. The fire department presented no evidence to justify this condition. Such an
access would be contrary to what has already been approved and would only add to the difficulty of providing drainage
improvements especially if the pavement is unjustifiably required to be asphalt. More asphalt, more drainage vaults would only
result in a greater adverse impact on the environment. Conditions still are being imposed without regard to the BMP's that I
have identified as being a requirement of the Clean Water Act.
It would be very unfair for the Hearing Examiner to impose a condition in excess as has been required by staff at the hearing?
What evidence supports such a conclusion?
-This is the actual question as I had understood at the hearing. It seems clear that I would not be able to provide a private street.
Wording this conclusion in this way would be very inconsistent, because it is not what staff recommended. It may be possible if
it could be recognized that the pavement that I propose is a Best Management Practice and a code requirement. It would appear
that turf grid pavement is somewhat less desirable for a fire road than the superior and more expensive interlocking concrete
pervious paver blocks.
I have a right to be upset about the inconsistent and unsubstantiated changes costing me money for redesign.
Conclusion 13:
I have good intentions in all of the requests that I have made, and it is not possible for the City to argue against a reasonable
proposal including Best Management Practices, that are requirements of the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.
My proposal also is in accordance with code . ............and it serves the public use and interest and will be an aesthetic design
improving our neighborhood with turn arounds. My contention is based upon Laws and legislation.
My proposal would result in increased value and add to the tax base of the City.
Conclusion 14:
The conditions that have been imposed by staff are inappropriate and clearly in excess of lawful authority granted to them under
Constitutional article 11 § 11. And again, my proposal is the Best Management Practice. The design that staff intends to impose
upon me is not a best management practice according to any codified standard.
brad nicholson Page 9 of 18 31612003
We should take note of the fact that reasonable private streets are required to be an "approved pavement thickness" according to
this section, and while bearing in mind that the United States Environmental Protection Agency has determined that the provisions
that the the State has adopted are approporiate and reasonable inclusive of the Clean Water Act.
The threshold question posed by these sections and this appeal is whether the concrete interlocking pervious pavement that I
propose is a reasonable and approved pavement thickness.
"When placing a judicial construction upon a legislative enactment, the entire sequence of all statutes relating to the same subject
matter should be considered.... Brewster Public Schools v. PUD No.1.82 Wn.2d 839, 843, 514 P.2d 913 (1973) citing,
Amburn a Daly, 81 Wn.2d 241, 245-46, 501 P.2d 178 (1972).
At the hearing, the evidence I presented for consideration as follows:
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule addressing storm water discharges, published December 8,1999
referencing and citing the Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. chapter 26 section 402 (p) (3) (a) and (b). which requires that the City of
Renton must,
"Require controls to reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable including Best Management Practices that the
State has determined to be appropriate for the control of such pollutants"
The final rule that was presented to Congress states:
"At this time, EPA determines that water quality based controls, implemented through the iterative processes described here today are
appropriate for the control of such pollutants and will result in reasonable further progress toward attainment of water quality
standards"
2. Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
BMP T5.41, BMP T5.42, and BMP T5.21 describe fundamental hydrological and stormwater concepts and direction to
apply these concepts at the design phase of the project.
The manual states that the pavement can be used for Private Roads, Service Roads, Fire Lanes, emergency access, and further,
driveways for residential and commercial use.
"This BMP functions as a retention and infiltration area that offers the following benefits":
■ Filtration through the base of the soils for improvement of water quality.
■ Reduction of runoff temperature.
■ increased recharge of groundwater.
■ reduction of overall project costs due to reduction of drainage appurtenances.
■ Elimination of cracking normal to conventional pavements.
■ Accomodation of year round construction.
■ The Pavement is recyclable.
3. King County Surface Water Design Manual 1998 edition. (which has been adopted by the City for this project)
pp. 5-17, it states precisely,
"The flow control BMP's presented in this section may be used to reduce the size of required flow control facilities if implemented as
described below".
Modular Grid Pavement may be used for access roads, low traffic driveways, etc.,
"Modular Grid Pavement may be used off right-of-way in low traffic areas"
"Modular Grid Pavement consists of a lattice of concrete, plastic, or other load bearing material over a permeable base course such as
gravel or sand"
brad nicholson Page 11 of 18 31612003
Can the City staff ignore the Best Management Practices from the manual that it has adopted for use on this project and for use
in the City?
Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances.
Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966).
It is for these reasons that City code provisions requiring an approved pavement thickness to be construed in the light of a
reasonable proposal to effectuate their purposes under the intent and purpose of the code provisions requiring reasonable and safe
access and because of the fact the adopted manual requires the reasonable design to be modeled as grass turf on an area of land
that is "perfectly suited to infiltration according to the facts" and because of the fact that the pavement design submitted is a
government mandated Best Management Practice
to reiterate,
"It is found that a local government's decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is based on a factor that a local ordinance
specifically excludes from consideration." see, Gale Cam et a4 Respondents, v The City ot'Lvnmvood Appellant.
72 Wn. App. 1, 863 P.2d 578
Without inclusion of the Best Management Practice into the decision, the nexus rule could not be observed.
If downspout runoff is infiltrated according to the requirements of Section 5.1.1 pp. 5-5 (and they are) the area may be
discounted from the net impervious area used for sizing the facility. source: King County Surface Water Design Manual 1998
edition adopted by the City of Renton. The roof drains I have proposed have also been officially designated to be Best
Management Practices according the State and County manuals. They officially result in no net impervious surface.
B. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION FEE
With regard to the transportation fee, the logic and reason are equivalent according to the purpose of the adminstrative code.
In this case, the City attempts to charge, by just automatically calculating the number of trips that might be generated,
and then imposing the fee. It only serves the purpose of the raising Revenue for City services.
CITY OF RENTON
RESOLUTION NO.3100
SECTION VI. The administrative staff is also authorized and directed to apply the trip mitigation fee in an equitable manner,
How can a traffic fee be imposed when the City has failed to impose the fee upon the neighboring properties?
Can the City impose a fee under SEPA and when their ordinance requires readoption of the fee under the Growth
Management act?
Can the City impose the fee without articulating the identity of the specific improvement that must be made?
The equitable, the required, and avowed institution of public policy, have a great deal more to do than syllogism in
determining the whether a quasi-judicial land use decision results in iniquity. It cannot be dealt with as though is contained
only the axioms and corollaries of a mathematical equation.
And paramount, it is an iniquity because the requisite maxim of particularity, and avoidance of duplicity has not been
articulated.
How can the City avoid the appearance ofunfaimess?
brad nicholson Page 13 of 18 31612003
FIRE MITIGATION FEE (F.M.F.) POLICY
Introduction: This Fire Department mitigation fee policy as prepared shall constitute a S. E. P. A. policy as adopted by
the City of Renton, City Council.
2. Universal contributions. Those parties developing close to existing fire stations should contribute to a fire mitigation fund
because they are using capacity that would otherwise serve more distant development. As close in properties develop, they
restrict the capacity of the fire department to answer calls in a timely manner to those properties located farther out, and
there by necessitate the development of additional fire stations. Those parties developing in more outlying areas shall
contribute a fire mitigation fee because the capacity of the system must be increased to serve the property as infill occurs, and
construction of additional fire facilities in close proximity will improve response times closer to existing fire stations. Any
substantial remodel of a residential or commercial structure or any conversion in use such that the gross square footage of the
building will be increased will trigger an additional fire mitigation fee based upon the differential increase in the square
footage or number of dwelling units.
Our courts have spoken, quote: "Neither RCW 58.17, SEPA nor any other statute authorizes the City to impose a tax on new
residential developments to raise revenue to offset the costs of providing services required by the increased population." Cite:
Hillis Homes, Ina, Respondent; v Snohomish County, et a4 Appellants Jack W. Cory, et al, Respondents, v San Juan
County, et al, Appellants, 97 Wn.2d 804, 650 P.2d 193
It was then that the appellate courts of this State cited with approval the Oregon case of Haugen a Gleason, 226 Or. 99, 104,
359 P.2d 108 (1961) which characterized a tax as an imposition imposed 'to accomplish desired public benefits which cost
money',
Our courts have stated: quote: "Quite simply, the municipal body cannot shift the social costs of development onto a developer
under the guise of a regulation. Such cost shifting is a tax, and absent specific legislative pronouncement, the tax is impermissible
and invalid." Cite: Mareola Associates, et al. Appellants, v. The City ofSeattle. Respondent.121 Wn.2d 625, P.2d 23
There are no provisions for credit where credit is due and therefore no indication that the imposed fees are reasonable imposed as a
universal contribution
Again, the requisite maxim of particularity is absent, and the identity of the specific improvement that must be made has
not been articulated.
D. BETTER SITE DESIGN
Reasonable evaluation of the site plan should include fundamental modem design concepts that have been clarified by the
State Department of Ecology and incorporated into the design.
1. Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
a. BMP T5.21
The Logic associated with this analysis follows the same reasoning:
The BMP states,
"Fundamental hydrological concepts and stormwater management concepts can be applied at the site design phase"
it also states,
(1)"Maximize Permeability" - Within the development envelope, many opportunities are available to maximize the
permeability of new construction. These include minimizing impervious areas, and paving with permeable materials
(2)"Build Narrower Streets" - "More than any other single element, street design has a powerful impact on stormwater
quantity and quality". "The combination of large directly connected impervious areas, together with the pollutants
generated by automobiles is a principal contributor to stormwater pollution in residential areas"
(3)"Use Drainage as a design element" "Unlike conveyance stone drain systems that hide water beneath the suface
topograpy, a drainage system for stormwater infiltration or dispersion can work with natural land forms and land
uses to become a major design element of the site plan".
brad nicholson Page 15 of 18 31612003
3. Substantive Due process must be observed
My contention rests upon the conclusion that justification for conditioning plat approval upon such regulatory fees and
conditions is not supported by substantial evidence, a ground recognized for reversal under RCW 36.70C.130 (1) (c)
and the Land Use Petition Act, and lack of material evidence being a fact, legal ground now exists for such a reversal.
And also, even though the constitutional deficiencies and the City's various and relevant code enactment adminstrative
determinations, and imposed conditions are also unlawful. They are abitrary or capricious, clearly erroneous in view of the
entire record, in excess of the authority of the jurisdiction, made upon erroneous procedure, and affected by other errors of law
and fact.
My subtantive rights have been violated according to the provisions of RMC 4-8-110F 7.(a) (b) (c) and that would be arbitrary
or capricious.
As noted hereinabove, mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been applied to this short plat that are not justified
by demonstration that the project would have significant adverse impacts upon the environment without the mitigation
measure and conditions of approval. Further, the mitigation measures have not been applied equitably and consistently by the
staff to this project, as demonstrated by the lack of those measures and conditions of approval being applied to the same
circumstances on the adjacent subdivision. It is unreasonable to approve of a project design only then to add conditions. And
finally, these mitigation measures and conditions of approval, as imposed do not comply with adopted City policy and
regulations. The staff has exceeded and miss -exercised its authority in the impositions on this preliminary short plat
application.
These deficiencies need to be corrected.
And foremost, I find that it is necessary for me to state that the evidentiary deficiency is the failure of the City of Renton
municipality to proffer substantial evidence of an "essential nexus" between a legitimate governmental objective and the
conditions imposed upon my project, and most certainly, the failure to demonstrate the substantive relationship between the
impacts, and the impositions which legally must be demonstrated in order for them to be reasonably imposed.
Constitutional article 11 § 11 does not comprehend the power of the City of Renton municipality impositions under these
circumstances.
City of Renton "development fees"are properly characterized as taxes if their primary purpose is not regulation but the raising
of revenue to accomplish public benefits. Neither RCW 58.17, SEPA nor any other statute authorizes a city to impose a tax
on new residential developments to raise revenue to offset the costs of providing services required by the increased
population.
With these principles in mind GMA and RCW 82.02 are exemptive. Its otherwise broad prohibition acts against any
condition, tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, .... on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification
of land, and limits required improvements and payments to those which are "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the
proposed development or plat." and therefore exempts these fees and conditions from being imposed upon my plat.
The nexus rule undoubtably encompasses these public policies and is a statutory requirement to establish a nexus between the
development and the problem as well as a limitation that the developer's required contribution to the solution of the problems
be reasonably imposed and related to his contribution and to the extent and nature of the problem itself.
Of course this deficiency cannot be cured by a local ordinance or administrative action which imposes a condition, tax, fee,
or charge without statutory authorization or if it otherwise conflicts with the general laws of the state, or of its own code.
The burden of demonstrating that the proposed conditions upon my proposal are reasonably imposed to mitigate a direct
impact clearly rests with the City. It can not meet such a burden.
brad nicholson Page 17 of 18 31612003
ffi ►l9t� �-
March 17, 2003
City of Renton, City Council
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98056
RE: File #LUA-02-111, Nicholson Permit
Dear City of Renton Council Members,
MASONRY PRODUCTS SINCE 1900
CITY OF RENT'(3N
MAR 19 2003
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
(A"d )
The intent of this letter is to establish that the Eco-Stone permeable paving system
provides solid solutions for many storm water management challenges and low impact
development needs. Furthermore, these solutions can be accomplished without
compromising the strength or integrity of the site's paving performance requirements.
We feel strongly that the Eco-Stone paving system adheres to the overall philosophies of
SEPA, the State of Washington's most fundamental expression of environmental policy.
PICP (permeable interlocking concrete pavements), of which Eco-Stone is considered,
falls within the EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency) guidelines for low impact
development, as a best management practice. Additionally, PICP systems are specifically
listed in Western Washington's Storm Water Management Manual as a BMP (best
management practice). You will find that PICP systems are also listed in King County's
Surface Water Design Manual as accepted systems for managing storm water runoff.
It is our sincere hope that you will agree, along with the above -mentioned entities, that
the Eco-Stone permeable paving system is a viable and environmentally friendly paving
solution. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, or for additional information.
Sincerely,
David Parisi
Paving Systems Specialist
Rob Rosson
Hardscape Segment Manager
Post Office Box 2009, Bellevue, Washington USA 98009-2009
Main Office: 605 - 1 19th NE, Bellevue, Washington USA 98005
Phone 425.452.2300 ■ FAX 425.454.7732
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 27, 2003
TO: Fred Kaufman, LHJearing Examiner
FROM: Jason Jordan t
SUBJECT: Nicholson Short Plat Appeal, LUA-02-111, SHPL-A, ECF, AAD
Request for Reconsideration
In response to your February 20, 2003 Report and Decision regarding the Nicholson Short Plat
appeal, staff is requesting reconsideration of the remanded portion of the decision. Specifically,
section 4-3-050J5e (Native Growth Protection Areas — Protected Slopes) states, "Unless
development is allowed pursuant to subsection J5a(i), (ii) or (iii), Protected Slopes, those
protected slopes shall be placed in a native growth protection area pursuant to RMC 4-3-060G,
or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a
permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City. " With that in mind, staff conditioned
the project to place the "protected" slopes along with the 25-foot building setback within a native
growth protection easement (NGPE).
While it is clear that the 25-foot building setback is not addressed by code, it is equally clear that
the "protected" slope portion of the project is required to be protected from any type of
development. Therefore, staff respectfully requests that you eliminate condition #5 of the
Administrative Staff Report and Decision. Upon elimination, the portion of condition #5
pertaining to the "protected slopes" would then become an advisory note (code requirement) to
the applicant. Once this condition is eliminated as described above, staff requests that up uphold
the remaining portions of the Administrative Staff Report and Decision. This would remove any
confusion generated by the remand portion of your original decision and provide the applicant
with a clear process and decision, should they choose to appeal.
I can be reached at x7219 should you have any comments or questions regarding this Request for
Reconsideration.
c.c. Jennifer Henning
Neil Watts
\\\DAEDALUS\SXS2\SHARED\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\02-1I I jason\reconsideradon memo.doc
February 20, 2003
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER i .f e. x
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: Brad Nicholson
2300 NE 28`h Street
Renton, WA 98056
Appeal of Administrative and Environmental Determination re
Nicholson Short Plat
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
LOCATION: 2300 NE 28`h Street
SUNIlVIARY OF REQUEST:
SUNIMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of Administrative and Environmental Determination
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants written request for a hearing
and examining the available information on file, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the January 28, 2003 appeal hearing.
The official record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, the
Exhibit No. 2: DeBar Plat Plan
Examiner's letter setting the hearing date, a map,
photographs, and other documentation pertinent to the
appeal.
Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary Project Review Drawing
Exhibit No. 4: Sketch of Hammerhead Turnaround
Exhibit No. 5: Letter from City of Renton's Board of
Exhibit No. 6: Letter from Elizabeth Higgins dated
Public Works dated 8/24/01
9/17/01
Exhibit No. 7: Letter from Elizabeth Higgins dated
Exhibit No. 8a: Development Services Division
11/16/01
Waiver List for Land Use Applications
Exhibit No. 8b: Development Services Division
Exhibit No. 9: Hand out on Street Standards
Waiver List for Land Use Applications
Exhibit No. 10: Site Plan: Smith Short Plat
Exhibit No. 11: Letter from Fred Kaufman dated
10/08/02
Exhibit No.12: Letter from Specialized Homes re:
Exhibit No. 13: Planning and Development
Sale of Lot and Lot Line Adjustment, dated 10/8/01
Committee Report dated 2/11/02
Exhibit No. 14: Photo of Nicholson Home
Exhibit No.15: Photo of North End of Nicholson
Property
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 3
developed he put in a preliminary project review. The City actually recommended the private street and shared
driveway concept in that preliminary project review. He then displayed a drawing that he submitted to the City.
The drawing along with a letter stated that his plan was approved. The drawing shows a shared driveway with a
20-foot easement and 12 feet of pavement width. He pointed out the City of Renton Fire Department approved
red stamp on the corner of the drawing. The private street is a 26-foot wide private street with a hammerhead
turnaround on it. After the hammerhead turnaround there is a shared driveway accessing two lots.
The Examiner asked to clarify that the only issue regarding the driveway is the type of pavement suggested by
Mr. Nicholson versus the type of pavement required by City Code.
Mr. Jordan added that over proposed lots 1 and 2 it is a 26-foot wide easement up to the hammerhead
turnaround, which is on proposed lot 2. In that 26 foot wide easement there needs to be 20 feet of pavement.
Beyond the 26-foot wide easement up to the northern proposed property boundary of proposed lot 2 it can go to
a 20-foot easement with 12 foot of pavement. The actual pavement would taper down.
A shared driveway cannot be more then two lots; therefore, at the point it serves two lots the pavement can go
down to 12 feet.
Mr. Nicholson stated that according to what they approved after 150 feet of the private street, the shared
driveway of 12 feet would begin. He does not really see any tapering down, he sees a 26 foot easement, 20 feet
of pavement and then a 20 foot easement with a 12 foot shared driveway.
The Examiner pointed out to Mr. Nicholson that there are code requirements that must be met or the applicant
may seek a variance. There has been no variance request for this application.
Mr. Nicholson stated that he contends that his proposal complies with code. He added that Mr. Jordan has
indicated that the 20 feet of pavement would go up to proposed lot 3. What was previously approved was the 12
foot shared driveway starting after 150 feet.
He introduced a letter from the City and stated that the important part is where it says "in that drainage issues
would not cause a problem for adjoining properties." In an additional letter he stated that the important part
states, "Mr. Thomas and Mr. Rude, both of the Fire Prevention Bureau, commented that the preferable location
of the hammerhead turnaround would be north of the existing house, but they agree that the layout as proposed
with the turnaround between proposed lots 1 and 2 is acceptable due to the fact that the existing house is to
remain on the site."
He asked to contend the Traffic Mitigation Fee. He stated that there had been an agreement between Planning
and Development and the developer abutting his property to resolve the issue with the lot line adjustment. He
was in favor of having that resolved. After they verbally told him what they were going to do he asked to have
it written and a letter sent to him as to what happened and what was going to happen. He then introduced the
letter he received in response to that request.
He introduced the waiver checklist he received for his property. He asked that it be noticed that the geotechnical
report had been waived as well as a traffic study and numerous other items.
He introduced a handout given to him by the City that stated that joint use driveways are to be encouraged.
When he was in the process of developing a design for the site he asked a member of city staff to allow him to
look at a development similar to his (Smith Short Plat).
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 5
completely familiar with this particular project but it can be designed to carry heavier types of vehicles and there
are standard procedures for doing this.
In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hall replied that he has not reviewed this particular project and
has not given staff any information on load bearing capabilities.
Mr. Miller stated that he would like to touch on each point of Mr. Nicholson's appeal. The first issued raised
was in regard to the drainage mitigation measure. The applicant is requesting that the requirement of the Level
2 Storm Drainage System be modified to only meet the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design
Manual, which is basically what City of Renton Policy and Code require. They are not contesting what year
manual is required just the Level 2. Basically the issue is that the Level 2 approach requires that a facility such
as a pond or vault system be provided. The information that is in the file already demonstrates through the City
using a geotechnical report for the adjoining property, that the site will handle infiltration very easily. The
applicant has shown that he will be reducing the total impervious surface area by removing the driveway that is
part of the service to the existing house and using the interlocking system discussed. He would be increasing the
impervious surface by using a traditional type paving for the entire shared access way. The intention of the
appellant is that it is unnecessary, it causes some additional environmental impacts and the code actually allows
the infiltration system being proposed. He understands that they must demonstrate that it meets load bearing
capacity. In regard to the item put into the record regarding the port he asked the Examiner to take official notice
of the fact that there are semi -trucks parked on the pavement area. He would suggest that those vehicles are as
heavy if not heavier then a fire truck. In terms of using the infiltration he would refer to page three of the
geotechnical report used by staff, which indicates that boring on the adjacent property encountered permeable
soils to a depth of 34 feet. The report further concludes that the site soils are clean, granular and well suited to
infiltration.
The Examiner made a note that the geotech reporters have objected to the use of their report for this site
because the studies were conducted for the adjacent property not for this site.
Mr. Miller agrees but also stated that it is a reasonable conclusion that soils on the adjacent site are similar to
soils on this site. It is a prudent approach to have individual investigation for individual sites. He does not
contest staff s assumption. He has worked with geotechnical engineering principles for over 35 years and he has
had a great deal of course work in soil mechanics and that type of engineering consideration. The conclusion is
that the geotechnical data relied upon by staff indicates that a vault is not necessary where infiltration occurs as
far back from the slope as proposed by the applicant. Therefore, the Level 2 approach with a vault is unjustified
by the record. If they simply rely on the drainage manuals and allow the design to be demonstrated to staff as
part of the normal engineering review process they would be comfortable.
In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson, Mr. Miller stated that the geotechnical engineers did anticipate the
need for an infiltration vault because on the adjacent property they wanted to put that facility much closer to the
top of the slope so they needed some physical containment to insure that it did not come out over the slope. The
geotechnical report suggests that a vault is unnecessary with the soils. The adjacent property was using a very
small area for infiltration whereas this particular project would be spreading it out. He contends that the
geotechnical report does not require a vault; it approves of the proposal made by the adjacent developer to use a
vault.
In response to Mr. Wilson's question regarding the weight of a dump truck versus a fire truck, Mr. Miller at first
did not have an answer, but then came up with weights for a fire truck and a fully loaded semi -truck.
The second issue is the Fire Impact Mitigation Measure. The request of the appellant is to eliminate payment of
the Fire Impact Mitigation Fee. As with the issue raised with the drainage issue, the responsible official has not
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 7
benefit that is being created by this short plat that is probably not being provided by any other short plat in the
City. He also noted that there is already a residence on the site that creates traffic.
Mr. Jordan added that credit is given for the existing residence.
Mr. Miller stated that the appellant is requesting that condition two be modified to allow the proposed lots 3 and
4 to take access from the 12 foot shared driveway. The only function that the driveway serves beyond 150 feet
is access to the rear two lots. In no way can that be considered access to the existing home, nor could it be
considered access to the lot that fronts NE 28`h Street. Anything that is beyond the required hammerhead that is
wider then a shared driveway does not meet the standards of the code.
Mr. Jordan stated that the 26-foot easement ends at the end of the turnaround; the Fire Department requires the
turnaround to be the 26-foot width and that is at 150 feet. At the end of the hammerhead turnaround they could
go to 20 feet all the way up to proposed lot 4. The paving at proposed lot 2 would have to be 20 feet and could
narrow to 12 feet of paving at proposed lot 3.
Mr. Miller stated that he believes that the code is clear that the shared driveway is where you are taking access
to two lots and are allowed to have the 12 feet of pavement.
Mr. Miller is asking to have all reference to Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) easement eliminated. First,
part of the area indicated for NGPA is mowed lawn. Secondly, no NGPA easement was required within the
same setback areas in the adjacent plat nor did the geotech report recommend any NGPA. From a slope stability
standpoint there is no reason for it.
The mound of dirt depicted in one of the photos submitted by the appellant provides evidence of a roadbed
grade that would help May Creek below. The NGPA is inappropriate in this case, it serves no function, it is not
being equitably applied between two adjoining plats and there is no native growth.
In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson, Mr. Miller replied that he has indicated that the NGPA is not
required in the geotechnical report. When speaking to the geotechnical reporters they informed Mr. Miller that
they did not require or suggest an NGPA for the adjoining site.
Mr. Nicholson stated that he has a copy of the Critical Areas Ordinance and in the ordinance it states that
existing activities are allowed. He realizes that the slope must be protected but is willing to work with the City.
Mr. Wilson clarified that what staff intends is for him to keep the area the way it is. They are not asking that he
let it grow into vines or anything like that.
Mr. Miller added that to resolve this, if the applicant could do what the Critical Areas Regulations allow him to
do on the level portion of the area and impose an NGPA on the slope he would be satisfied.
Mr. Jordan stated that the Zoning Code requires a 20-foot setback in the rear yard setback in the R-8 zone. That
setback would be measured from the property boundary. The geotechnical report through SEPA can go above
and beyond code and that is what was done.
Staff s attempt was to not allow any additional construction in that area and to insure that whomever the future
property owner is aware that the area is a no build, no disturb area and that it shows up on the title report.
Mr. Nicholson stated that in the Street Standards the code says that the private street shall provide a turnaround
according to the minimum requirements of the chapter. It then goes on to say that for private streets up to 150
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 9
King County Surface Water Design Manual, the Design Manual allows the turf grid for driveways. It does not
say anything about the Eco Stone which would be a true interlocking concrete pavement and that would be the
private street. When you considered the low traffic driveway, that area could be modeled as a grass surface so
basically as a driveway he has a grass model surface. The other Best Management Practice he has selected is
roof downspout infiltration dispersion and what that does is allows those particular roof areas can be subtracted
from the impervious surfaces. The way he has the site designed he has not added any impervious surface other
then the very front of the street.
Mr. Nicholson stated that he is contesting staffls statement that the Eco System design in unacceptable. He
would like to hear the reasons for the Eco System being deemed unacceptable. Under the drainage mitigation
measure they say it does not comply with code and they say it should be imposed but they do not really explain
the reason.
All the measures are a form of a fee, charge or tax. His contention is that the burden of proof would be on the
City to show that there would be a direct impact as a result of his proposal.
In regard to the Fire Mitigation Measure, his installation of the hammerhead turnaround is beneficial and it was
his feeling that a credit should be given for improvements that he has made in furtherance of the capital facilities
element and response time.
In regard to the questioned posed by Mr. Wilson regarding response time, Mr. Nicholson stated that it is his
contention is that a hammerhead turnaround located in the plat along with the fire hydrant benefits response time
which is the item that has been identified in the capital facilities element. He feels that he should be given credit
for these improvements. There is also his dedication across the frontage of the property. What he has proposed
is at the entrance of the plat he would like to cut down the tree located in the right-of-way and install the same
radii in the pavement that would be required for the hammerhead turnaround. So there would be an area on NE
28`h Street that would have a hammerhead specification to it, a hammerhead turnaround within the inside of the
plat so there would be two turnarounds.
Mr. Nicholson stated that he does not believe the Traffic Mitigation Fee was equitably imposed. He believes
that staff has been directed to impose that fee in an equitable manner and he believes that staff has failed to do
this. There was some negotiation between the City and the adjacent developer. It was not his agreement; he
was not a party to it.
Mr. Nicholson stated that he made his decisions on the plat and proceeded in reliance of the city's approval and
determination. That particular drawing had already been improved and for the City to alter it especially by
trying to say it should be paved all the way back is just arbitrary and capricious all the way.
In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson, Mr. Nicholson replied that it is wrong to say that his plat would
normally require secondary emergency access.
Mr. Wilson showed Mr. Nicholson the code section regarding secondary access and asked Mr. Nicholson why
this does not apply to his short plat.
Mr. Nicholson stated the reason it does not apply to his short plat is very simple. The government created the
street in front of his plat with no turnaround or secondary access.in the first place and it exceeds the 150-foot
length. The plat adjacent to his as well as several others, exceeds the 150-foot length and do not have secondary
access.
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 11
of Best Management Practices and its own codes. A City may when adopting any type of regulation may adopt
what they consider a stricter regulation.
Ms. Kittrick reiterated that the City allows a wide variety of Best Management Practices but what Mr. Nicholson
has offered is not approved by the City of Renton as a viable alternative.
In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson, Ms. Kittrick stated that May Creek is a protected creek. It is
mapped out by King County in the 1998 Manual as a protected creek.
Mr. Jordan, in response to questioning from Mr. Wilson, replied that when determining the street length for Mr.
Nicholson's property they measured from the intersection of Aberdeen Avenue and it is in excess of 700 feet.
Based on this measurement there would be a requirement for secondary access and this plat has no secondary
access. Without the hammerhead turnaround it would be difficult for the Fire Department to respond to
emergencies in this plat. The reason a modification was not approved is that it was for a private street. The
Private Street Standards do not have the modification process. On a public street, an applicant can request the
Administrator modify the process.
In response to questioning from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Jordan stated that the adjacent DeBar Plat requested a
modification and it was granted. In lieu of secondary access they had to dedicate additional right-of-way and
complete roadway improvements. Without the modification staff would not have been allowed to recommend
approval of the plat, it would have been a violation of the. code. Mr. Nicholson was granted a modification by
allowing the hammerhead turnaround instead of a second access.
Mr. Wilson clarified that Mr. Nicholson is asking to have the Fire Mitigation Fees waived because he is putting
a hammerhead turnaround in and did not get credit for it when in fact he is not being required to have a
secondary access and is being given a modification.
In closing, Mr. Nicholson stated that it is clear that the pavement he has proposed is a Best Management
Practice; it is a federal requirement, a state requirement, a requirement of the Clean Water Act, it is a
requirement of the Endangered Species Act, it is a requirement of state regulations, county regulations and it has
been incorporated into the policy as being an environmentally friendly preferable designated product. To ignore
that status would be arbitrary and capricious. The City should have its Code to where it would recognize state
laws and rules with regard to how to protect waters. His proposal fits the bill. The City presumed that his
proposal was a different proposal. The City assumed that his proposal was asphalt and then imposed drainage
vaults for the asphalt. This was not his proposal and it is not really the Best Management Practice.
He argued that the issue of the driveway was a case of estoppel. He designed his plans based on what he was
told he could do.
In regard to the Fire Mitigation Fee his previous contention stands.
The Transportation Mitigation Fee is the most upsetting. It is not that the fees were waived for the adjacent plat,
it is the manner in which they were waived and the reason they were waived that make it so inequitable. The
code requires and has directed staff to apply the fee in an equitable manner and they have not done this in this
case.
Mr. Wilson, in closing, stated that the fact is the code does not give an option in regard to paving and drainage
for the interlocking system. The King County Storm Water Design Manual requires the vault system being
imposing and it is a Best Management Practice even if it is not the number one Best Management Practice. City
staff believes that this type of system would best protect May Creek.
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-11 I,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 13
easement at the north end of the property to protect the slopes above May Creek. The City also required
that the appellant pay three mitigation fees - Fire, Traffic and Parks fees to offset the development's
impacts on those services.
The appellant's appeal contains the following issues relating to the ERC's review and conditions:
a. There is no need for a Level II storm drainage system and disallowing the pavement, an interlocking
block surface, suggested by the appellant ignores environmental standards and adds to the storm
drainage runoff.
b. The Fire Mitigation Fee is inappropriate in that the appellant will be providing a new fire hydrant and
hammerhead turnaround that will benefit both the appellant and other adjacent properties; the City has
failed to demonstrate a significant impact if the fee were not paid. Further, the City regulations
provide the fee be paid when the building permit is issued as opposed to when the plat is approved.
(The City agreed at the hearing about the timing of payment)
The Traffic Mitigation Fee should be deleted since it was not readopted and reanalyzed periodically
and that the adjacent development (the property to the west that widening the road and upgraded the
water line) was not assessed the Traffic Mitigation Fee.
d. The Park and Recreation Mitigation fee should be deleted since the regulations exclude the
construction of four (4) or less residential structures. The City agreed that this fee was inapplicable
under the current situation.
7. In addition, the appellant requests that conditions imposed on the plat by staff in addition, to the ERC
conditions be modified or deleted as follows:
a. Condition Number 2 be modified to allow Proposed Lots 3 and 4 to take access from a 12 foot wide
shared driveway. The City required a 26-foot wide private easement to serve the interior lots.
b. Condition Number 5 be modified to delete reference to a native growth protection easement at the rear
of the property adjacent to the steep slope.
8. The appellant argues that the interlocking roadway surface he wants to install would lead to less storm
water runoff and be a suitable surface for the private road and/or the private driveway. He argued that the
King County Storm Water manual allows such surfaces and that it is more environmentally appropriate.
He also referenced the soils or geotechnical report and noted that it appeared to show the soils drained to
the west, possibly northwest and that the Level II storm drainage requirements were excessive.
9. Kayren Kittrick, from City staff, testified that the Fire Department had done a study on some form of
interlocking road surface but was not sure of the type. She reported that the surface did not react in a
manner the Fire Department found acceptable in that study. The City also reports that the street length for
determining dead-end length is measured back to Aberdeen and NE 27`h Street in this case.
10. The City also cited the following code sections relating to pavement standards for both public and private
roads:
RMC 4-6-060(F)(6)(a)
6. Pavement Thickness: New pavement shall be a minimum of four inches (4") of asphalt over
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 15
4-6-060((G)(2):
5. Secondary Access: Secondary access for emergency equipment is required when a
development of three (3) or more buildings is located more than two hundred feet (200')
from a public street.
DEAD-END STREETS:
When Permitted: Dead-end streets are permitted where through streets are determined by
the Department not to be feasible. For other circumstances, dead-end streets may be
approved by the Department or Hearing Examiner as part of the plat approval of site plan
approval for a proposed development.
2. Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds — Minimum Requirements: Minimum standards for dead-
end streets, when approved by the Department, are as follows:
LENGTH OF STREET
For up to 150' in length
From 150' to 300' in length
From 300' to 500' in length
From 500' to 700' in length
Longer than 700' in length
TYPE OF TURNAROUND
No turnaround required.
Dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac
required.
Cul-de-sac required.
Cul-de-sac required. Fire sprinkler system required for
houses.
Two means of access and fire sprinklers required for
all houses beyond 500'.
3. Turnaround Design: The hammerhead turnaround shall have a design approved by the
Administrator and the Bureau of Fire Prevention.
16. The appellant argues in regard to the Traffic Mitigation fee that Ordinance 3100 requires the fee to be
revisited periodically after it is readopted as part of Growth Management. There has been no periodic
review up till now. He also stated that the neighboring property was not assessed the Traffic Mitigation fee
and that it was inequitable to require him to pay the fee while his neighbors were exempt.
17. The City responded that there is no time limit for such periodic review. The neighboring property was
required by the ERC to pay the Traffic Mitigation Fee. Apparently, that applicant received offsets against
that fee for some of the road widening they were required to do. Three new homes will add approximately
30 additional trips along this dead-end street and the remaining street infracture leading to the subject site.
18. The appellant argued that the length or distance that the private street had to extend into the plat was
excessive and that it could stop short of the property line separating proposed lots 2 and 3. The City
required that the private street at its normally required width extend to the common property line at which
point a narrower driveway width would be permitted where the hammerhead turnaround was located.
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 17
arbitrary and capricious in requiring a Level I1 storm drainage system. The City is attempting to protect the
unique resource of May Creek that sits just below the north end of the subject site. Its methods might be
conservative but not clearly wrong. There remains a potential for erosion and if the soils are too
permeable, for contaminates to reach May Creek without benefit of biological treatment or adequate
filtering.
8. The turnaround and fire hydrant are required by Code. While these improvements may serve other
properties, that is not determinative of anything for this appeal. The appellant's property will be the
beneficiary of both fire and medical emergency facilities provided by both his contribution to the Fire
Mitigation program as well as those contributed by others before and after him. The appellant, if he
remains a resident of the redeveloped property as well as the new residents that take up residence on the
new lots in the proposed short plat will be making use of emergency services or at least have the comfort of
knowing those services are at their ready. Whether fire fighting or emergency aid response, the Fire
Mitigation fee imposed by the ERC is reasonable. In addition, the turnaround is required for any division
of the property by code and would not have been approved without it. The Debar developer next door to
the appellant's property widened the street and upgraded the water line. Whether or not these and other
neighbors did these things as ERC mitigation or plat conditions or generously does not matter. The
appellant can only develop his property because infrastructure developed by others and now maintained by
the City approaches very close to his property.
9. The additional 30 trips generated by the three new homes will be using streets that have or will be widened
by the City or protected by new traffic signals installed with mitigation fees. The appellant cannot be heard
to object to paying a reasonable fee to upgrade and maintain those streets. He and the new residents will be
using streets that have been widening by use of the Traffic Mitigation fee and by the development of
infrastructure placed by earlier developments in his neighborhood.
10. Nothing in City code or regulations requires any particular periodic or scheduled .review of the traffic fees.
While it might be nice to revisit the various fees more regularly, a specific schedule is not called for by
Code. In addition, such review might possibly find the fees need to be adjusted upward for inflation just as
much as they might be adjusted downward because infrastructure is in superb shape.
11. While three new homes might not seem to have any untoward impact on Fire Service or the street system,
each three new homes keeps making additional demands on those fire and transportation services.
Ultimately, the City has to respond or gridlock or unacceptable response time for fire and medical services
will result. There is nothing speculative about such impacts on the overall system. Similarly, while the
City exempted four lot plats from the Parks Mitigation fee, each home has an impact on parks but such
impacts are not addressable under SEPA. The ERC does not have the power to impose those fees. The
appellant has not demonstrated that the Traffic Fee, and again, the Fire Fee are unreasonably applied to his
development.
12. It appears that the City has consistently required private streets to be of a certain width and that such width
extends through to the rear of the lot it enters, in this case, that would be Lot 2. It does not appear to be an
unreasonable condition. It provides a consistent width and a predictable length for each plat designed with
interior lots. Such consistency eliminates just the situation that this appeal raises: "How far should such a
road extend into the plat?" The appellant has not demonstrated that this approach is erroneous.
13. The appellant has good intensions in a number of his requests and it would be hard to argue with those
ambitions but those good intentions do not match the City Code. They are mandated requirements of the
City of Renton. This office has no power to alter the existing code provisions. While the appellant is free
to seek changes to the code, until those provisions are changed, if they are, the existing provisions are the
Nicholson Short Plat Appeal
File No.: LUA-02-111,SHPL-A,ECF,AAD
February 20, 2003
Page 19
Econ. Dev. Administrator
South County Journal
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Director
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Pursuant.to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 6, 2003. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides. that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
,BRAD NICHOLSON
December 9, 2002
Mr. Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner — City of Renton
Renton City Hall — 7' Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98056
p Ud
JEC, 2002
F,;
RE: Appeal of Short Subdivision decision
RE: Appeal of Environmental Determination and conditions
RE: LUA — 02 —111, SHPL-A, ECF
Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner,
LiC�
2300 N.E. 28`� Street
Renton, Washington 98056
Brad827 ,hotmail.com
(425)445-0658
CITY OF RENTON
DEC 0 9 2002
LT6, I RECEIVED
J 0, TY CLERK'S OFFICE
Appeal
With this letter I hereby and respectfully appeal the above -mentioned short plat and environmental decision. I
have requested reconsideration of the decision as well. I have deposited the required $75.00 fee with the City
Clerk. I would request that opportunity for the reconsideration request to be considered by Mr. Zimmerman be
extended, with the alternate being a subsequent appeal to your office. I am appealing this decision in a timely
manner.
It would be most appropriate to allow the issues to be reconsidered first, but the alternate is that I would appeal.
To this end I would request the opportunity to have the issues reconsidered and then an appeal hearing on the
issues presented. At which time, I would request the opportunity to give additional evidence in support of my
contention and the logic associated with it, but at the present time the most appropriate and respectful approach is
to allow Mr. Zimmerman the time to reconsider the issues that I have presented to him. It may well be, that the
issues could be resolved. I have included a copy of the letter I had written to him, and outlining the essence of the
appeal issues herewith.
Respectfully,
Brad Nicholson
does not consider it to be an alternative to asphalt. The fire department indicates it is concerned
about load bearing capacity.
Disallowing the proposed pavement material ignores numerous environmental standards and
factors that should be considered. How about chemicals? It is inappropriate for the fire
department to control the type of drainage plan without substantiating the load bearing capacity
and other advantages of the proposed paving, which allows infiltration. Asphalt is a major cause
of environmental and aquatic degradation. This mitigation measure is imposed under the State
Environmental Quality Act, which requires the Responsible Official to demonstrate that the
project would result in a significant impact on the environment without the Level H vault
approach. The Responsible Official has failed to demonstrate any significant adverse impact to
justify this mitigation measure, and in fact, has imposed a measure that would create an adverse
impact. In fact the geotechnical data relied upon by staff indicates that a vault is not necessary
where infiltration occurs as far back from the slope, as proposed by the applicant. Therefore, the
Level II approach with a vault is unjustified by the record. A copy of the referenced
geotechnical report is attached.
Fire Protection Mitigation Measure
The applicant requests that the mitigation measure requiring payment of the Fire Impact
Mitigation Fee be eliminated. The staff has not demonstrated that the project would result in a
significant adverse impact on the provision of fire service without payment of the impact
mitigation fee. This measure is also imposed by staff under SEPA, requiring the demonstration
that a significant adverse impact would result without the mitigation measure. No such
demonstration has been made. First, the City has imposed a requirement that the applicant make
water system improvement to provide the required fire flow to this property, which also
enhances fire protection to surrounding properties by installing a fire hydrant. Credit for this
improvement that benefits response time is required by the ordinance establishing the fire impact
mitigation fee. Second, the City has imposed a requirement for the applicant to construct a
hammerhead turn around and provide automatic fire suppression systems for the three new
buildings, providing a level of fire suppression not required by code and providing greater fire
protection that required of other single family residential development projects. The code
requires that private streets shall be required to provide a turn around according to the minimum
requirements of its standards. This requirement was not placed on the adjacent subdivisions
recently approved by the City. Credit for this exceptional level of fire protection also need to be
recognized in determining the impact the proposed development has on the provision of fire
protection services. Third, fire protection is improved by a dedication of land, clearing a tree
that is in the right of way, and formation of another area that could be used as a turn around
along NE 28th Street. Currently there is no turn around on NE 28th Street east of the instant short
plat. Fourth, the City has imposed the requirement that the Fire Impact Mitigation Fee payment
be required prior to recording of the final short plat. Item 7 of the City of Renton Fire Impact
Mitigation Policy specifically states: "Payment of the fire mitigation fee will be made at the time
the building permit is issued, as one of the demands for structural fire fighting and aid unit
support begins at the construction phase." Staff has not only failed to demonstrate a significant
adverse impact without payment of the fee, and ignored the extra mitigation measure imposed on
the development in the way of capital improvements that enhance fire protection and
Issues Not Addressed
This would fail to take into account a host of environmental considerations and factors that
should be contemplated. Oil and petroleum may also need to be considered. And the natural
hydrologic regime. The applicant's proposal is an environmentally beneficial proposal.
Recycling should also be addressed, but it has not been. In addition, there may be more incorrect
advisories.
Condition of Approval No. 2
The applicant specifically requests that this condition be modified to allow proposed lots 3 and 4
to take access from a 12 foot wide shared driveway. A 12-foot wide driveway within a 20-foot
wide private access easement is specifically permitted by section K. SHARED DRIVEWAYS
of the City of Renton Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards at page 6-19. This section of code
reads: "SHARED DRIVEWAYS. 1. When permitted: A shared private driveway may be
permitted for access to two (2) lots. The private access easement shall be a minimum of twenty -
feet (20') in width in which a minimum of a twelve -foot (12') paved driveway." The staff has
failed to allow the applicant to utilize the appropriate City adopted design standards for this short
plat. A copy of Chapter 6, page 6-19 is attached. There is not justification for requiring this
short plat to have all lots take access from a 26-foot wide private street for vehicular access. The
staff has misapplied the code in the instant short plat condition of approval No. 2.
Condition of Approval No. 5
The applicant specifically request that this condition of approval be modified to delete all
reference to a native growth protection easement. First, topography within the required building
setback areas is currently a mowed lawn, not exhibiting "native growth". Second, no native
growth protection easement was required within the same building setback areas on the adjacent
plat. Nor did the geotechnical report referenced previously and attached recommend any native
growth protection easement. Nor -did the mitigation measure described on pages 3 or 5 of the
staff report make any mention of a native growth protection easement. This is an unnecessary
imposition of an encumbrance to the subject property. This applicant is not being treated the
same as the adjacent subdivider who did not have to provide a native growth protection
easement. The staff has provided no technical justification for such an easement and has
arbitrarily and capriciously applied it to this short plat.
Summary
As noted hereinabove, mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been applied to this
short plat that are not justified by demonstration that the project would have significant adverse
impacts without the mitigation measure and conditions of approval. Further, the mitigation
measures have not been applied equitably by the staff to this project, as demonstrated by the lack
of those measures and conditions of approval being applied to the same circumstances on the
adjacent subdivision. And finally, these mitigation measures and conditions of approval, as
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Debar Site
Renton, Washington ,
For
Specialized Homes.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 2
A critical aspect of site development is infiltration of the "on -site storm water runoff. The
proposed infiltration facility is a vault with a bottom elevation approximately 14 feet below
current grade. Storm water runoff from roadways and driveways is planned to be routed to the
vault.
SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to explore and. characterize the subsurface conditions_ and present
recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services consisted of Phases I,
II, and III as outlined in our Proposal for Services, dated. -February 14, 2001, and .our
Memorandum, dated March 2,, 2001, which included slope mapping, subsurface explorations,
field infiltration testing, and the following:
1. Recommend structure setbacks from the top of slope.
2. Provide foundation design recommendations.
3. Provide recommendations for site preparation and grading.
4. Provide recommendations for slab -on -grade.
5.. Provide temporary and permanent cut slope recommendations.
6. Recommend infiltration rates for use in design, based on field -measured
infiltration tests.
7. Provide lateral pressures for the design of the infiltration pond walls.
8. Provide roadway pavement design recommendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The project. site consists of four rectangular -shaped lots located on the north side of NE 28`h
Street. The ground surface is generally flat lying with a gentle downward gradient to the /
northwest, toward the top of slope. The north margin of the site slopes steeply. Part way down.
the slope, an abandoned railroad grade has been cut into the slope. The railroad cut has been
incised into the hillside, which has created a 10-foot tall ridge on the north side of the railroad
grade below the western lot and the two eastern lots. This area is working as a catchment area for
the trash debris that has been thrown down the hillside. The ground surface. further north and
below the railroad grade slopes down steeply to the May Creek Valley floor. May Creek is
currently located away from the toe of the site slope, and flows on the north side of the valley..
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
_ Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 4
Our explorations at the site (from youngest to oldest) encountered recessional outwash, glacial
till; and advance outwash. The glacial till consists of a very dense, nonstratified mixture of silt,
sand, and gravel deposited directly by melting ice beneath the glacier. The advance outwash
consists of sand and gravel deposited in front of .glacial meltwater streams from the advancing
glaciers. Both the till and advance outwash were overridden by the glacier and are, therefore,
very dense.
Explorations
Subsurface conditions. were explored at the site on February 27, 2001, by excavating four test pits
with an extendahoe backhoe. The test pits were excavated to depths of 14 to.16 feet below the
ground surface. The explorations were located in the field by a geologist from this firm who also
examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the test pits. The
approximate locations of the test pits are shown on.the Site Plan in Figure 2. The soils were
visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of
Which is presented as Figure 5. The logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 6 and 7. In the
following paragraphs, we present a brief description of the subsurface conditions encountered in
our explorations. A more detailed description of the subsurface conditions can be found in the
test pit logs.
The explorations were extended to the maximum depth attainable with the extendahoe, but deeper
explorations were needed to identify the bottom of the recessional outwash sand. Therefore,
deeper subsurface conditions were explored at the site on March 13, 2001, by drilling Borings 1
through 4 with a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger, Mobile B-61 drill rig. The borings were
advanced to depths ranging from 24 to 59 feet below the ground surface. The logs of the borings
are shown on Figures 8 through 13.
The boring samples were obtained at 5-foot intervals beginning 2.5 feet below the ground surface, .
except Boring 4, which was drilled to a depth of 17.5 feet before beginning sampling because of
the close proximity to Test Pit 1. The samples were obtained using the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) method in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch-
outside-diameter sampler using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The standard method is
to drive the sampler 18 inches and record the blows for each 6 inches of penetration. The total
number of blows for the last 12 inches of penetration (unless otherwise noted) is termed the .
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 6
Boring 3 encountered recessional outwash sand to a depth of 34 feet. The deposit graded into a
very fine sand and then into a silty fine sand with gravel, interpreted to be glacial till. The sample
obtained below the till, at a depth of 42.5 to 44.0 feet consisted of a very dense, fine sand and is.
interpreted to be advance outwash. Boring 4 encountered recessional outwash deposits to a depth
of about 39 feet. The outwash generally consisted of fine to medium sand, except, for 2- to 3-
inch, silty, very fine sand seams that were encountered in the 27.5 and 37.5 feet samples. Dense
sand and gravels were encountered from 39 to 47 feet and are interpreted to be advance outwash
deposits. Below 47 feet, very dense, fine, to medium sand with silty fine sand seams was
encountered. These soils are also interpreted to be advance outwash deposits.
Site Slopes
General: Cross-Sections.A-A' and B-B' were surveyed by Triad Associates. We also extended
the cross sections down the slope using a hand-held clinometer and 100-foot measuring tape. The
results of these measurements are included as Figures 3 and 4. .
Cross -Section A -A' (West end of site): Cross -Section A -A' was measured at the west end of
the site through a swale-like feature, interpreted to have resulted from shallow slope failures. The
railroad has been constructed across this feature, indicating that the feature is older than the.
railroad grade. The upper portion of the slope is inclined at 42 to 46 degrees down to the railroad
grade. The contact of the recessional outwash sand with the underlying glacial till is interpreted
to be about halfway down the upper portion of the slope. The railroad grade is about 10 feet in
width. The portion of the slope immediately below the railroad grade is inclined at about 35
degrees and the lowest portion of the slope adjacent to the valley floor has an inclination of about
24 degrees. Indications of seepage were not observed along the upper portion of the slope. Wet
and saturated surface soils were observed along the lowest portion of the slope. The vegetation
also indicated wet soils. We suspect pre-Vashon deposits with a low permeability are located on
the lower portion of this slope, although these soils were not observed during our reconnaissance.
Cross -Section B-B' (East end of Site): Cross-Secton B-B' was measured at the east end of the
site. Generally, the upper 20 feet of the upper slope is inclined at about 34 degrees, and the
ground surface from there to the railroad grade slopes more steeply at 34 to 48 degrees. The
break in slope is interpreted to be a contact where the recessional outwash. sand overlies the
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
_ Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 8
was shortly after a rainfall event. We observed no indications of ground water seepage along the
upper portions of the steep slope, even though the till is exposed there. Therefore, we believe that
the perched ground water on the till flows away from the slope. Based on the subsurface
explorations we believe that ground water recharge within the site moves downward and
westward, along the upper contact of the glacial till.
Slope Stability
The May Creek valley wall originated as a result of downcutting by the creek during deglacial
and post -glacial time. However, the upper portion of the slope is interpreted to be, at least in part,
a cut slope created during construction of the railroad grade. Some of the lower portion of the
slope adjacent to the railroad grade is interpreted to be a fill slope. Debris consisting of yard
waste, garbage, etc. has been dumped over the top of slope, and some of this debris has slid and
rolled down the slope over the years.. These failures are interpreted to be shallow surface failures.
The slope inclinations are steep and the slope has been performing. very well at these steep.
inclinations. This good performance is at least partly due to the lack of ground water seepage on
the.upper slope. The direction of ground water -perched on the glacial till beneath the site appears
to be largely westward, or southwestward, rather than northward toward the steep slope.
There is no indication that the site has experienced, or might experience, deep-seated failures.
However, due to the steep slope angles and the existing loose debris along the slope, we consider
the slope to be at risk for shallow failures.. We observed some indications of shallow failures
along the slope. The biggest such feature is the one at the west end of the site, along the
alignment of Cross -Section A -A'. This feature is interpreted to be old, as it predates the railroad
grade. Recommendations to mitigate against these types of failures are provided in this report.
Seismic Hazard
Seismic considerations include. liquefaction potential, amplification of ground motions by soft
soil deposits, and a reduction of slope stability. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose
sand or silty sands with a high ground water table. The site is not considered to have a high
potential for liquefaction, due to the lack of a high ground water table. The granular, loose to
very dense site soils are not considered to be at risk for a significant amplification of ground
motion during a seismic event. However, due to the steep site slope angles, and the loose surface
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
_ - Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the site is well -suited with the planned development. The underlying
medium dense to very dense native granular soils will provide good support for the planned
structures and pavements. The soils expected to be encountered during construction consist of
clean, granular, recessional outwash sands. Due to the clean, granular soils at the site, project
planning can include wintertime construction.
The slopes along the northeastern site margin are very steep and have been performing well at the
steep slope inclinations for many years. However, the steep slopes are considered at risk to
shallow failures. Protection to the structures from these shallow failures can be provided by
adequate setback and embedment of the foundations. This can be achieved with an effective
setback from the slope face. We recommend an effective setback of 35 feet from the face of the
native soils on the slope face. This is discussed further in the Structure Setback and
Embedment subsection of this report.
The site soils are clean, granular, and well -suited for infiltration. Our investigation indicates that
the ground water perched on the till slopes away from the top of slope. A critical aspect of the
site development is to not concentrate water and direct it towards the slope. Therefore,. we
recommend that Lots 5 through 12 be connected with the storm drain system. The storm drain
system could include a perforated tightline connection similar to Kings County Surface Water
Manual, Appendix C, Figure C.2.1. The remaining lots could utilize splash blocks. We also
recommend that runoff from the roadway and driveway be directed tothe infiltration vault.
Erosion Control Measures
The erosion hazard for the soils in the upland, flat -lying areas is considered slight when stripped
of vegetation. The steep portions of the site are extremely sensitive and the native soils and
vegetation should not be disturbed. Best management practices (BMPs) may be used to reduce.
the erosion potential during construction. This includes routing surface water away from the top
of slopes, using straw bales and silt fences to reduce water velocity and covering disturbed areas
d
or cut slopes with straw or plastic sheeting. Silt fences should be erected on the downslope side
of construction areas to reduce the potential for fines to leave the site. All sloping areas where
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
_ Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 12
prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional
or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a
representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree .
of relative compaction. _
Structural fill should not be added in the setback area of the site without specific review by the
geotechnical engineer.. It is best to leave the setback area in its natural state:
Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, free -draining granular soil,
free of organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about 3
inches. Imported, all-weather structural fill should contain .no more than 5 percent fines (soil
finer than a Standard U.S. No. 200 sieve), based on that fraction passing the U.S.-3/4-inch sieve.
The recessional outwash sands expected to be encountered during construction are predominately
a medium -grained, uniform sand. Compaction of uniform sands can be difficult, particularly if
the soils are dry. Therefore we expect that moisture will likely need to be added to the soils to
achieve compaction depending upon the moisture conditions at the time of earthwork. We expect
that if the soils become saturated during a heavy rainfall event that they will drain to a
compactable state following a period of dry weather.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed.
Fill should be placed in 8- to 10-inch-thick uniform lifts, and each lift should be spread evenly
and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying
building areas, and the upper 2 feet of fill below pavement and sidewalk subgrade, should be'
compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this
report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure. Fill
more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 90
percent of the maximum dry density. The moisture content of the soil to be compacted should be
within about 2 percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. All
compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the
desired degree of compaction
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
_ Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 14
during a reasonable life span of the structure (usually taken to be 100 years). In a general sense,
the greater the setback, the lower the risk. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is
- based on the slope's physical characteristics, such as slope height, surface angle, material
composition and hydrology. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and
the type and desired life span of the structures are important considerations as well.
Based on our observations of the slope activity, we expect that shallow failures will continue to
occur on the slope. Therefore, we recommend the footings have adequate setback and
embedment. This can be achieved by establishing an "effective setback" of at least 35 feet from
the face of slope. The "effective setback" is the horizontal distance measured from the nearest
edge of the footing to the slope face. This measurement should be taken to the face of the native
soils, and not to the face of the debris resting on the slope. This setback detail is shown on Figure
17. The deeper the bottom of footing extends, the closer to the top of slope the structure can be
built. However, the structure should be no closer than 25 feet from the top of slope. It is our
opinion that the recommended effective setback and embedment criteria will provide adequate
setback from the slope for the design life of the structure and if proper care of the slope is
maintained. We recommend that no excavation or stockpiling of soils occur within 15 feet of the
top of slope during construction, unless reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer.
The closer to the top of slope, the deeper the footings will need to extend to achieve the effective
setback and embedment criteria. This can be achieved by supporting the structures on deep
foundations, such as piles, or casting the footings on Controlled Density Fill (CDF) trenches. The
base of the CDF trenches should be excavated to the depth to achieve the effective setback, and
then the excavation can be filled with CDF to typical footing subgrade elevations. Significant
caving of the soils was encountered during our test pit explorations. Therefore, it is likely that
significant caving of the CDF trench sidewalls will be encountered, making excavation very,
challenging. We also expect that open -hole drilled piers will likely not work due to expected
caving sand conditions.
The loose, outer surface soils, trash, and debris located along the slope are considered at risk of
b failure. If it is feasible to remove the loose trash and debris with minimal disturbance to the
underlying native soils, it is a good idea. This should be done with small equipment, or by hand
i
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inca
Geotechnical Engineering Report
_ Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 16 .
adjacent to the footing. An allowable coefficient of friction between footings and soil of 0.45
may be used, and should be applied to the vertical dead load only.
Seismic Design: The site is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-
2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of
0.30. This, in turn, corresponds to an effective peak horizontal acceleration of 0.3 g. Site
conditions best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type SD ("Stiff Soil Profile").
Slabs -on -Grade
Slab -on -grade areas should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading .
subsection. Slabs should be supported on the compacted, firm, native . soils, or on structural fill
extending to these. soils. Where moisture control is a concern, we recommend that slabs be
underlain by 6 inches of free -draining sand or gravel for use as a capillary break. A suitable
vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the capillary break. If
desired, a sand blanket could be placed over the vapor barrier to aid in curing of the concrete and
to protect the vapor barrier.
Pavement Areas
Pavement subgrade should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation and Grading
subsection. It will be important to proof roll the roadway areas prior to paving. The proof roll
should be completed with a heavy, rubber -tired piece of equipment, such as a loaded 10-yard
dump truck. Areas that yield under proof rolling equipment should be repaired. We should be
retained to observe the proof roll prior to placement of the asphalt or hard surfaces.
Over the prepared subgrade, we recommend that a pavement section consisting of 4 inches of.
crushed rock be overlain by 2 inches of Class B Asphalt can be placed. An alternative pavement
section would be 3 .inches of Asphalt -Treated -Base (ATB) overlain by 2 inches of Class B
Asphalt.
Drainage
We recommend that runoff from roadways and driveways be routed to the infiltration system.
s
We also recommend that the roof downspouts on Lots 5 through 12, which are located. along the
top of slope, be routed to the infiltration system. The tightline pipe for Lots 5 through 12 could
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
_ Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 18
Vault Footings: Medium dense bearing soils are expected to be encountered at the planned
footing subgrade elevation. Footings should be placed on the medium dense or better native
soils, or structural fill extending to these soils. We recommend thatan allowable design bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for footings at least 16 inches wide.
Higher bearing pressures may be appropriate based on review of a specific design. We are
available to review specific design and loading conditions at your request.
Vault Lateral Pressures: Walls that are free to yield at least one -thousandth of the height of the
wall are in an "active" condition. Walls restrained from movement by stiffness or bracing are in
an "at -rest" condition. Earth pressure can be calculated based on equivalent fluid density.
Equivalent fluid densities for active and at -rest earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)
and 55 pcf, respectively, may be used for design for a level backslope. These values assume. that
the on -site soils or granular import soils are used for backfill-are compacted to at least 90 percent
of maximum dry density from ASTM D 1557. If the walls are not drained, the equivalent fluid
densities should be increased to 80 pcf and 90 pcf for active and at -rest earth pressure conditions,
respectively. If the on -site clean sands are used as wall backfill, we do not expect wall drains will
be needed. The preceding values do not include the effects of surcharges, such as foundation
loads, traffic or other surface loads. Surcharge effects should be considered where appropriate.
The above lateral pressures may be resisted by friction at the base of the structure and passive
resistance against subsurface walls and the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.45 may be
used to determine the base friction in the recessional outwash. An equivalent fluid density of 250
pcf should be used for passive resistance design. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the
foundations should be poured "neat' against the native dense soils, or compacted fill should be
used as backfill against the front of the footing, and the soil in front of the wall should extend a
horizontal distance at least equal to three times the foundation depth. We recommend that the
upper 1 foot of soil be neglected when determining the passive resistance.
Vault Wall Backfill: All wall backfill should be well compacted. Care should be taken to
prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures due to overcompaction of the wall backfill.
This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in 8-inch loose lifts and compacting with
small, hand -operated compactors.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Debar Site
April 5, 2001
CG File No. 1085
Page 20
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this
report or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Andrea Ernst
Project Geologist
Principal Geologist
Donald W. Tubbs
�1Slol
�ss1pNAL ECG`
EXPIRES 08 / 16 /V�7-
Rick B. Powell, PE
Senior. Engineer
ALE:RBP:nt
Three Copies Submitted.
Seventeen Figures
cc: Mick Matheson, PE — Triad Associates (Three Copies)
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Reference: Site Plan created from a drawing titled "Specialized Homes Kennydale Site"
prepared by Triad Associates and dated March 26, 2001.
Site Plan
Legend
TP-1
Number andApproximate
Location of Test Pit
B-1
Number and Approximate
Location of Soil Boring
Number and Approximate
KH
Lin
Location of Infiltration Test
A
Name and Location
q
of cross section
0 60 120
Scale 1" = 60'
Cornerstone Phone:425-844-1977 Kennydale Site
sgft Geotechnical, Inc. Fax:425-844-1987 File Number Figure
P.O. Box 1750" Woodinville, WA " 98072 1085 2
-.340
-300
.260
- 220
- 180
-140
-100
Scale: 1 inch = 40 feet
(Horizontal 8 Vertical)
Cross -Section B-B'
260
1
140
Cornerstone Phone:425-844-1977 Kennydale Site
Note: Cross sections measured in the filed using a hand-held clinometer and a 100-foot measuring tape.ax:425-844-1987
Elevations referenced to a field surveyed stakes provided by Triad Associates. GeoRO. Box 1750- Inc.I pie Number Fgure
_ P.O. Box 1750• Woodinville, WA • 98072 1085 4
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH
TEST PIT ONE
0.0 — 0.3
0.3 -1.0
1.0 —14.0
TEST PIT TWO
0.0 — 1.0
1.0 — 2.5
J
2.5 —14.0
j
TEST PIT THREE
0.0 - 1.3
1.3 - 2.0
2.0 — 6.5
6.5 — 15.0
USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM. SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST)
(TOPSOIL)
SP-SM RUST BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED
RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SP TAN -GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
SEVERE TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0 TO 14 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 14.0 FEET ON 2127/01
SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE,
MOIST) (TOPSOIL)
SP-SM RUST -TAN GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED
RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SP TAN -GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
- SOIL GRADIATION FIGURE 14
51% MEDIUM SAND
38% FINE SAND
9% GRAVEL
2% SILT/CLAY
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
SEVERE TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0 TO 14 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 14.0 FEET ON 2/27/01
SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST)
(TOPSOIL)
SP-SM RUST BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED
RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SP TAN -GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SP TAN -GRAY FINE SAND WITH TRACE SILTY FINE SAND LENSES (LOOSE TO MEDIUM
DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0, 6.5, AND 14.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
MINOR TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0 TO 6 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 15.0 FEET ON 2/27/01
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
File No. 1085
Figure 6
SOIL DESCRIPTION w o �
Of
Q_ Z) W 2
g-1 C 0a
� c¢n C� o
ace Elevation:
Rust -brown medium sand with trace silt and SP I gravel (loose, moist)
(Weathered Recessional Outwash)
Tan -gray fine sand (medium dense, moist)
(Recessional Outwash) I
Tan -gray fine to medium sand (medium dense, T
moist) (Recessional Outwash) . 1
3 T.
Gray fine to medium sand (medium dense, I
moist to wet) (Recessional Outwash)
- - - - - - - - - - - �-----
Rust-mottled and gray silty fine sand with SM
gravel (dense, moist) (Till)
Standard Penetration Resistance
(140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
• Blows per foot
10 20 30 40 50
5--- I-..... 1:...... ....... :................ ;......
10 .............................. ....... :.......
1 5 ......... ....................:....:..:.......
.................... .....
25
N=50(5")
30 :...... ..
Rust -mottled and gray silty fine to medium ,
sand with trace gravel ;
(very dense, moist to wet) (Till)
= N=20-35-50
Boring completed at 34.0 feet on 3/13/01 35--- =
..............
Ground water encountered at 22.0 feet
LEGEND * Liquid limit Native backfill P Sample pushed
I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading,
driven. tons/fV
+
Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer
a 3" O.D. thin -wall sample reading, tons/f?
TE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual.
Cornerstone Phone:425-844-1977 Kennydale Site
Geotechnical, Inca Fax:425-844-1987 File Number 1085 Figure $
P.O. Box 1750• Woodinville, WA - 98072
6UIL U1=6UKlr I IVIV
- g_3
rface Elevation:
Rust -brown fine to medium sand with .silt
z
w
�
U
o
z
0<
oQ
C�
SP-
(loose, moist)
SM
(Weathered Recessional Outwash)
I
Tan -gray fine to medium sand (loose, moist)
SP
(Recessional Outwash)
Tan -gray fine to medium sand
(medium dense, moist)
I
(Recessional Outwash)
.
I
I
r
-
I
T
Standard Penetration Resistance
(140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
W • Blows per foot
10 20 30 40 50
5 ..............:....... ......
10 ; .
1 5 :.. ........................:...,.
20......:....... ....
25 .....:...........
- 30 ......:......:......: .....
.
Tangray fine sand grades to very fine sand ;
medium dense moist :
(Recessional Outwash)
,__ _?__ ____?_______
I
LEGEND
I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Native backfill P Sample pushed
driven. ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading,
3" O.D. thin -wall sample. tons/fe
+ Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer
i reading, tonsKe
NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual.
:j
Cornerstone Phone:425-844-1977 Kennydale Site
I Geotechnical, Inc. Fax:425-844-1987 File Number Figure
3 D(l Dn 97C.n. IA/nnrlin%Allo IAIA . QQA77 1085 10
SOIL DESCRIPTION w o Standard Penetration Resistance
-•, - V a W 1 (1z40 lb. weight, 30" drop)
B cn Q W • Blows per foot
rface Elevation: 10 20 30 =40 50
Rust -brown medium sand with trace silt and
SP/
:
gravel (loose, moist)
SM
(Weathered Recessional Outwash
Tan -gray fine sand (medium dense, moist)
SP
:
(Recessional Outwash)
_
5
........... :....... :...... :..............
1 0
............... :................... ..:..:......
15
.... .... . .....:..... .............
Tan -gray fine to medium sand (medium dense,
I
moist to wet) (Recessional Outwash)
.L
20
..•:•....................................
J
I
25
..... .... ................... ...............
Tan -gray fine sand with 3-inch wet silty very
fine sand seam (medium dense, moist)
I
:
(Recessional Outwash)
30
:....:. .......................
Tan -gray fine sand grades to silty fine. sand
Spy
T
(medium dense, moist)
SM
1
:
(Recessional Outwash)
:
35
................. ........................
I
LEGEND * Liquid limit Native backfill P Sample pushed
I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading,
driven.
tons/R'
+ Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer
3" O.D. thin -wall sample
reading, tons/ft=
TE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual.
Cornerstone Phone:425-844-1977 Kennydale Site
ia Geotechnical, Inc. Fax:425-844-1987 File Number 1085 Figure 12
P.O. Box 1750• Woodinville, WA • 98072
}
E
E
0
U)
(D
cu
CF
z
FJ
<
Qi
V-)
C'5
--- --------
C> 0 C> 0 C> C) 0 C) C) 0
C)
0) 00 fl- ILO Cf) C14
1H019M AG U9N1=1 INAOUDd
Cornerstone Phone:425-844-1977 Kennydale Site
Fax:425-844-1987
Geotechnical, Inc.. I FIGURE
FILE NO.
P.O. Box 1750- Woodinville, WA - 98072 1085
14
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2913
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING
A FIRE MITIGATION FEE AND DECLARING IT A SEPA POLICY.
WHEREAS, the City of Renton has a Fire Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the city presently has sufficient personnel and
equipment to serve the City of Renton's basic fire needs,.with the
exception of certain discrete areas of the city; and
WHEREAS, new development is quickly eliminating the capacity.
of.the city to meet the response times of the Fire Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has. been presented with a Fire
Mitigation Fee Policy which seeks. to impose:on new development that.
portion of the cost to continue to meet the. Fire Master Plan
response times., but only that portion.._ attributable to . new growth;
and:
WHEREAS, the fire training site at North Bend has been closed
and there is no assurance of adequate training facilities
elsewhere.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and
correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The City Council of the City of Renton .hereby _
adopts the Fire Mitigation Fee.Policy which is.attached hereto as a
policy of the City of Renton
SECTION III. The City Council of the. City of Renton adopts
the Fire Mitigation Fee Policy as -.,,a SEPA policy.
1
FIRE MITIGATION FEE (F..M.F.) POLICY
Introduction: This Fire Department mitigation fee policy as
prepared shall constitute a S. E. P. A. policy as adopted by the
City of Renton, City Council.
1. Basic premise. . Except for those discreet areas of the city,
there is presently sufficient personnel and equipment to serve the
City of Renton's basic fire needs. Response times of fire
apparatus to areas located nearby existing fire stations continue
to be adequate, while. the more outlying areas suffer from slower
response times. One basic measure of the adequacy of fire service
is fire response system (equipment and personnel) and the proximity
of the call to a station. As the city continues to develop,
capacity is consumed requiring additional capacity to be provided..
A property near an existing fire station already has the benefit of
the. proximity to the station, but. would benefit from increased
capacity. A property more remote from an existing fire station
would benefit both from expanded capacity and from construction of
a closer fire facility.
2. . Universal contributions. Those parties developing close to
existing. fire stations should contribute to a fire mitigation fund
because they are using capacity that would otherwise serve more
distant development. As close in properties develop, they restrict
the capacity of the fire department to answer calls in a timely
manner tothose properties located farther out, and thereby
necessitate the development of additional fire stations. Those
parties developing in more outlying areas shall contribute a fire
mitigation fee because the capacity of the system must be increased
to serve the property as infill occurs, and construction of
additional fire facilities in close proximity will improve response
times closer to existing fire stations. Any substantial remodel of.
a residential or commercial structure or any conversion in use such.
that the gross square footage. of the building will be increased
will trigger - and additional fire mitigation fee based upon the
differential increase in the.square footage or number of dwelling
units.
Exception: Single Family re-sidenti:al property will be exempted
from any added mitigation in the case of remodel.
3. Assumptions, Components and Categories.
A. Current City Boundaries: . As a point of reference, the
city boundaries at the time of adoption of this policy
shall be used as a determinant or benchmark as to the
extent capacity of service according to the Fire Master
Plan.
B. Property Categories: For the purpose of simplicity
developed and developable properties are categorized into
3 basic property _groups, Commercial, Multi -family
residential and Single Family residential. Commercial
F.M.F. _ (Proposed Number of Dwelling Unitsl X (35% C.E.S)
(Total Number of Existing Single Family Dwelling
Units)
Examples of how these formulas are to be applied can be found
in appendix D.
7. Fee Payment Policy. Payment of the fire mitigation fee will
be made at the time the building permit is issued, as one of the
demand for structural fire fighting and aid unit support begins at
the construction phase. Fees will be calculated by the Fire
Prevention Division and collected by the Building Division. All
funds will be held by. the Finance Department and accounted for
separately according to the Fire Department capital. improvement and
expenditure needs.
8. City Participation. There is currently an unmet need in
Renton for fire service. The City of Renton plans to contribute to
capital improvements and staffing to meet that current unmet need.
While the exact amount of that contribution. is difficult to
calculate, the city plans to meet. those needs by taking the
following actions:
A. Expending funds to" supplement for loss of collections
under this policy. Estimates are never fully realized
from development.
B. Paying for those instances in which. actual _costs exceed
estimates.
C. Paying for unanticipated costs.
D. Advancing money, when necessary, to. build improvements
when sufficient funds have not been accumulated.
E. Making outright city contributions.
F. Managing the system and contributing staff time, design
time, engineering time and other city services..
G. Providing ongoing management of the fire mitigation
system.
H. Funding staffing after the three year time period
addressed in this policy. -
Paying funds due to underestimation of fees required from
new construction as fee calculations are based on
existing development rather than just new development.
CITY9:29:as..
3
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
APPENDIX C
DATE: September 17-, 1991
TO: Jim Matthew, Deputy Fire Chief
THROUGH: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner
FROM: Mike Kattermanrr�,enior Planner, ext. 6190
SUBJECT: Land Use and Housing Data
y
Asper your request,.following is the best available.data we have on housing units and
commercial..and industrial land use in We city.
The 1990 Census counted a total of 1.9,243 housing units in Renton as of April 1, 1990. A
breakdown of the housing types is not yet available from the Census. The city's estimate as of
April 1, 1991, based on building permits issued (though not all have necessarily been built)
since the census indicates a potential total of 20,125 dwelling units. Using the relative
percentages of housing types established from earlier data, the housing stock is 49% single
family; 48% multi -family, and 3% mobile homes.
Housing Tvoe % of Total of Units
Single Family 49.0% 9,861
Multi -family (includes duplex) 48.0% 9,660
Mobile Home 3.0% 604
100.0% 20,125
Another request was for the total acreage irithe city developed as commercial or industrial.
Based on data in the Community Profile (Oct. 1989), the city had a. total of 10,304 acres, of
which 2,200. acres (about 210/6) was developed as commercial or industrial.
Finally, you also asked how many acres are available for development as commercial or
industrial.. Again, based on the 1989 Community Profile, the city had 2,294 acres of vacant
land. Of that, 26.1%, or 599* acres, was*available-for commercial or industrial development. It
is important to note that this figure does not include lands which would have to. be taken out
for protection of critical areas.
I hope this information meets your needs. Additional 1990 Census data should be available in
the next couple of months and we are currently working on updating our vacant lands
information. Please check back with me in about a month and I should have more up-to-date
information.
cc: Lynn Guttmann
Kay Shoudy --�-
CITY OF RENTON
MEI11 0 R A N'DUM
DATE: October 7, 1991
TO: Jim Matthew, Deputy Fire Chief
THROUGH: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner/ \
FROM: Mike Kattermannnior Planner, ext. 6190
SUBJECT: Land Use Data
As you requested, I have prepared the following information on
the amount of developed commercial/industrial square footage in
the city.
The data used are from the 1988 King County Assessor files and
the 1989 Business License files. These data were compiled and
analyzed for use in the 1990 transportation study conducted by
Barton-Aschman Associates. We are -in the process of evaluating
more recent data from these two sources and putting it into a
usable.form, but that will probably not be ready before the end
of this year. In addition, we will make acreage/square footage
comparisons at that time': Any comparison made prior to that
evaluation being complete would not.necessarily be accurate.
Please contact me if you need to make any comparisons between
these figures and any other data. I will send you the updated
information as soon as it is ready.
.The total building area in commercial and industrial use in the
city for 1'988 was 9,476,763 square feet. That figure excludes
public schools, churches, and government uses. These uses
constitute another. 472,475 square feet.
'As I mentioned on the telephone, the figures. are dated but they
aY"e the best we have available at this time. I hope this
information will be helpful in your project.. Please let me know
if you have any questions about these figures or.if,you need
additional information. -
cc: Lynn Guttmann
Kay Shoudy
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING
THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.AND
ADOPTING A TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE.
WHEREAS, the City of Renton has the authority to require that
transportation impacts be mitigated under SEPA; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires that the City of
Renton adopt. a Comprehensive Plan, -including a Transportation
Element, by December 31, 1994;
WHEREAS, -this Transportation. Element must include certain
sub -elements including Arterial, .Transit, Non -Motorized, HOV,
Freight, a LOS policy, a .Mitigation policy, and a Concurrency
policy; .and
:WHEREAS,,.t.he City of.Renton adopted an Interim Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan on December 201 1993, as a
working document; 'and
WHEREAS, the working.. document has been updated to provide
additional details for the mitigation sub-element;.and
WHEREAS, this mitigation sub -element is consistent with the.
City's SEPA policy, the .Growth Management Act, county -wide
policies, Renton Draft Comprehensive Plan, the regional 2020
Vision, the City's Commute Trip Reduction. program, and ISTEA
programs; and
WHEREAS,.the.mitigation fees of the mitigation sub -element of
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan are based on
the completion of certain facilities under previous mitigation
programs;
�J
RESOLUTION NO. 3100
Policy, then the City staff and administration shall independently
analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed development on
the traffic facilities of the City. The City staff may require
the applicant to prepare studies for the City to assist it in such
independent analysis. Mitigation would then be imposed on the
basis of the independent .analysis. Likewise, should the staff
reviewing a project determine that there are specific attributes
of the project that make this traffic mitigation policy inadequate
or unworkable, then the -staff is authorized to require additional
studies and/or environmental review and to impose traffic
mitigation outside the scope of this policy.
SECTION VI. The administrative staff is also authorized'
and directed to apply the trip mitigation. fee in an equitable
manner, to negotiate fees under this policy in a manner that
utilizes.sound engineering and legal principles, and to coordinate
and cooperate with developers and property owners to utilize sound
planning and engineering practices which reduce daily trips and
thereby reduce the need for transportation mitigation._
SECTION VII. The City rescinds the previous Transportation
Benefit Zone (TBZ) mitigation ordinances, but no refunds. of those
fees are proposed as those fees are or soon will be fully
committed or expended.
SECTION VIII. For those developments that produce a much
higher than average sales tax revenue to the City, or will provide
a high number of well paying jobs, the staff will request
authorization from the City Council .to negotiate an equitable
adjustment in the transportation mitigation fee, which equitable
3
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. - 3082
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING
A PARR AND RECREATION FACILITIES MITIGATION POLICY AND
FEE AND DECLARING IT A SEPA POLICY.
WHEREAS, the.Ci.ty of Renton has a Parks Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined.that.there are presently park
and recreation needs being unmet in the.City; and
WHEREAS, new development is quickly creating a demand for
additional park and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with a Park and
Recreation Mitigation Fee Policy which seeks to impose on new
development a portion of the cost to meet the needs created by new
3evelopment under the Parks Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 1994 the* City adopted a prior
.resolution adopting a Park and Recreation Facilities mitigation
policy and fee and declaring it a SEPA policy; and
WHEREAS, that policy and fee underwent subsequent SEPA review
which arguably requires.the City to readopt the resolution;
NOW,: THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.. The. above recitals are found to be true and
correct in all.respects.
SECTION II. The City,Council of the City of .Renton. hereby
adopts the. Park and Recreation Facilities Mitigation Fee Policy
which is attached hereto as a policy of the City of Renton.
RESOLUTION NO. 3082
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Wa n, City Attorney
RES.399:7/20/94
3
M
cpected number of users within a proposed project. Section V and VI of the Comprehensive Park
and Recreation Master Plan provides participation rates and demand for recreation areas and
facilities based on a per capita basis. Standards developed in Section VIII convert this demand into
quantifiable amounts of park areas and facilities based on a desired level of service by the City. Fees
are to be collected at time building permit is issued.
LOCATION OF IWROVEMENTS
For planning purposes the City has been divided into six areas. However, the park system provides
not only neighborhood parks and community parks, but also regional or community -wide facilities
and area -wide facilities such as portions of trails that connect up with county -wide and multi -county
trails. Planning for the various park facilities generally involves expenditure ' of funds for park eland
acquisition well in advance of construction of improvements. Funds for both acquisition and
development of park facilities must be accumulated over -a period of time. If parks fees generated
under this policy can be accumulated and spent on the most desirable project, then there is a
substantial likelihood that the mitigation policy will result in actual mitigation by providing existing
developed and usable facilities.
It will remain a goal of the park planning process to provide neighborhood parks in each planning
area as well as providing community, regional and area -wide parks.
mince the planning will be done on a City-wide basis, all. new development covered by this policy. will
contribute to the fund. Certain development will have existing park facilities near the development
which have -been paid for, in whole or in part, by mitigation fees paid by others more geographically
distant. The fee of the development near the existing park will then go topayfor a park facility
elsewhere in the municipality.- In this manner, the park system will be treated as an integrated whole
to provide the maximum benefit to the entire populace of the City.
MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES.
Park and facility impact mitigation can be achieved by one or a combination of the following methods
described below.
1. The City can agree to land dedication by the developer. Dedication of wetlands, shorelines
areas or sensitive areas may be permitted, but only to the degree that such dedication shall.
satisfy a recreational need of the City. Accumulation of undevelopable or sensitive areas
without significant recreational values shall be discouraged as a parks mitigation policy, but
may be encouraged to satisfy other City policies.
2. The developer can pay a fee based on the formula described herein.
3. The developer can provide certain on -site facilities or areas that will help satisfy a portion of
the neighborhood and community park needs.
4. The developer can agree to construct needed facilities in a nearby park.
�w w
• Based on 2.62 persons per single family dwelling unit and 1.7 persons per multi-
family unit. Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 1989.
(R)IF = C x S x D where
-12000
(R)IF = Residential Impact Fee
C = Average cost per acre for acquisition and development (1)
* To be updated annually by the Parks Department.
S = Combined standard (in acres/1,000 residents) for neighborhood and
community parks (1.2 acres + 1.1 acres = 2.3 acres)
D - = Average number of occupants per dwelling unit (2)
Sample Exercise:
$105 000 x 2.3 x 2.62 = $632.73 x 50% = 316.36/single family unit
1,000
$110,000 x 2.3 x_1.75 = $442.75 x 50% = 221.37/multi-familyunit
-1,000
C. MITIGATION POLICIES (Residential Development)
1. The City recognizes the high cost of park acquisition and development would impose a
substantial burden_ on the developers of single-family and multi -family units. Therefore the City
chooses to impose only one half of the. impact fee that would be calculated using the formulas
outlined in section B. The other 50% of the fee will be provided through direct contribution by
the City, through governmental grants or otherwise. For example, the City; s recent purchases of
land along May Creek, Honey Creek, the wetlands purchase in the valley from Glacier Park, the
NARCO purchase, the Black River Corporate Park purchases and the Puget Power purchase
along the Cedar River are all examples of the City's contribution.
2. Developers can meet up to 33% of their share of the park impact fee value by providing on -site .
active recreation areas and .facilities as long as they meet the needs and standards established in
the Park and Recreation Plan.' Conformance to the needs will be based on the type amount of
space and facilities proposed. . These. facilities are . listed in the design standards of the
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. —
To calculate the value of on -site improvements, only land and . facilities common to a
neighborhood or community park will be considered and any trail must be an expansion or
extension of, current plan. These values will be established by the :Park and Recreation
Department utilizing cost information determined from similar projects. In .no case will
landscaped areas and narrow greenbelts be counted as part of the on -site improvements.
N
b
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data: Community Services
Dept/Div/Board.. Golf Course
Staff Contact...... Leslie Betlach — ext. 6619
Kelly Beymer - ext. 6803
Subject:
Continuation of existing 3 year Lease Schedule for
replacement of 40 power carts.
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Lease Agreement
Payment Schedule
Al #:
For Agenda of:
March 24th,2003
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information.........
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Community Services Committee Legal Dept ......... X
Finance Dept ...... X
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... $26,064.00 annual Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... $29,200.00 Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget $29,200.00 City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Continuation of lease/purchase program for golf cart acquisition. New lease purchase contract
will be a three year term and include forty (40) new carts and trade in value on 40 carts from
existing fleet. Please note 2003 and 2006 are partial years on pay schedule, accounting for
difference in lease amount.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of staff recommendation to continue replacing forty (40) golf carts through
lease/purchase program and retain ten (10) carts from existing fleet of fifty (50).
XX
RentonneUagnbill/ bh
citicapital'
EQUIPMENT LEASE -PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Lessee: (Name and Address) Lessor: (Name and Address)
City of Renton CitiCapital Commercial Corporation
1055 S Grady Way 8001 Ridgepoint Drive
Renton, WA. 98055 Irving, TX 75063
Lessor agrees to lease to Lessee and Lessee agrees to lease from Lessor the Equipment described in Schedule A, now or hereafter
attached hereto, and all replacements, repairs, restorations, modifications and improvements thereof or hereof ("Equipment") in
accordance with the following terms and conditions of this Equipment Lease -Purchase Agreement ("Lease").
1. TERM. This Lease will become effective upon the execution hereof by Lessor. The term of this Lease will commence on the
Commencement Date set forth in Schedule B attached hereto and, unless earlier terminated as expressly provided for in this Lease,
will terminate on the Termination Date set forth in Schedule B attached hereto (the "Lease Term").
2. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to Lessor or its assignee the Lease Payments, including the interest portion, in lawful money of
the United States of America, equal to the amounts specified in Schedule B. The Lease Payments will be payable without notice or
demand at the office of Lessor (or such other place as Lessor or its assignee may from time to time designate in writing), and will
commence on the first Lease Payment Date as set forth in Schedule B and thereafter on the subsequent dates set forth in Schedule B.
Any payments received later than ten (10) days from the due date will bear interest at the highest lawful rate from the due date. As
set forth on Schedule B, a portion of each Lease Payment is paid as, and represents payment of; interest. Except as specifically
provided in Section 6 hereof, the obligation of Lessee to make the Lease Payments hereunder and perform all of its other obligations
hereunder will be absolute and unconditional in all events and will not be subject to any setoff, defense, counterclaim, abatement,
deduction or recoupment for any reason whatsoever including, without limitation, any failure of the Equipment to be delivered or
installed, any defects, malfunctions, breakdowns or infirmities in the Equipment or any accident, condemnation or unforeseen
circumstances. Lessee reasonably believes that funds can be obtained sufficient to make all Lease Payments during the Lease Term
and hereby covenants that it will do all things lawfully within its powers to obtain, maintain and properly request and pursue funds
from which the Lease Payments may be made, including making provisions for such payments to the extent necessary in each
budget submitted for the purpose of obtaining funding, using its bona fide best efforts to have such portion of the budget approved
and exhausting all available administrative reviews and appeals in the event such portion of the budget is not approved. It is
Lessee's intent to make Lease Payments for the full Lease Term if funds are legally available therefor and in that regard Lessee
represents that the use of the Equipment is essential to its proper, efficient and economic operation. Lessor and Lessee understand
and intend that the obligation of Lessee to pay Lease Payments hereunder shall constitute a current expense of Lessee and shall not
in any way be construed to be a debt of Lessee in contravention of any applicable constitutional or statutory limitation or
requirement concerning the creation of indebtedness of Lessee, nor shall anything contained herein constitute a pledge of the
general tax revenues, funds or monies of Lessee. It is the intention of the parties hereto to comply with any applicable usury laws;
accordingly, it is agreed that, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in this Agreement, in no event shall this Agreement
require the payment or permit the collection of interest or any amount in the nature of interest or fees in excess of the maximum
permitted by applicable law.
3. DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE. Lessee shall order the Equipment, cause the Equipment to be delivered and installed at
the location specified on Schedule A ("Equipment Location") and pay any and all delivery and installation costs in connection
therewith. Lessee will accept the Equipment as soon as it has been delivered and inspected Lessee will evidence its acceptance of
the Equipment by executing and delivering to Lessor a Delivery and Acceptance Certificate (in the form provided by Lessor) upon
delivery of the Equipment.
WAlease
Rev. July 1, 2001
02/28/03 9-02 AM
CITICAPITAL is a service mark of Citicorp.
Page 1 of 7
A member of citigroupi
functions of the Equipment. This section will not be construed so as to permit Lessee to terminate this Lease in order to purchase,
lease, rent or otherwise acquire the use of any other equipment or services performing functions similar to the functions of the
Equipment, and, if this Lease terminates pursuant to this Section, Lessee agrees that during the fiscal period immediately following
the fiscal period in which such termination occurs it will not so purchase, lease, rent or otherwise acquire the use of any such other
equipment or services.
7. REPRESENTATIONS, COVENANTS AND WARRANTIES. Lessee hereby represents, covenants and warrants to
Lessor as of the date hereof and at all times during the Lease Term that (i) Lessee is a state or a fully constituted political
subdivision thereof within the meaning of Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), or its
obligations hereunder constitute obligations issued on behalf of a state or a political subdivision thereof, and Lessee shall do or
cause to be done all things necessary to preserve and keep in full force and effect its existence and this Lease; (ii) Lessee has full
power and authority under the constitution and laws of the state in which it is located to enter into this Lease and the transactions
contemplated hereby, and to perform all of its obligations hereunder, (iii) each officer of Lessee executing this Lease has been duly
authorized to execute and deliver this Lease by proper action and approval of its governing body at a meeting duly called, regularly
convened and attended by a requisite majority of the members thereof, or by other appropriate official approval; (iv) the execution,
delivery and performance of this Lease and all documents executed in connection herewith, including, without limitation, Schedules
A and B hereto and the Delivery and Acceptance Certificate referred to in Section 3 hereof (this Lease together with all such
documents shall be collectively referred to herein as the "Lease Documents") have been duly authorized by all persons,
governmental bodies and agencies necessary to authorize and approve this Lease; (v) the Lease Documents constitute legal, valid
and binding obligations of Lessee, enforceable against Lessee in accordance with their respective terms; (vi) the execution, delivery
and performance of this Lease by Lessee shall not (a) violate any federal, state or local law or ordinance, or any judgment, order,
writ, injunction, decree, rule or regulation of any court or other governmental agency or body applicable to Lessee; or (b) conflict
with or result in the breach or violation of any term or provision of, or constitute a default under, or result in the creation of any
lien, charge, security interest or other encumbrance on any assets of the Lessee or the Equipment pursuant to any note, bond,
mortgage, indenture, agreement, deed of trust, bank loan or credit agreement, lease or other obligation to which Lessee is a party or
by which it or its assets may be bound, except as herein provided; (vii) in authorizing and executing this Lease, Lessee has complied
with all open meeting laws, public bidding requirements and other laws applicable to this Lease and the acquisition by Lessee of the
Equipment; (viii) Lessee has; in accordance with the requirements of law, fully budgeted and appropriated sufficient funds for the
current fiscal year of the Lessee to make the Lease Payments scheduled to come due during such fiscal year, and such funds have
not been expended for other purposes; (ix) the Equipment is essential to the function of the Lessee or to the service Lessee provides
to its citizens and the Lessee has an immediate need for, and expects to make immediate use of, substantially all of the Equipment,
which need is not temporary or expected to diminish in the foreseeable future; (x) no lease, rental agreement or contract for
purchase to which Lessee has been a party at any time during the last five years, has been terminated by Lessee as a result of
insufficient fimds being appropriated in any fiscal year, (xi) the Equipment will be used by Lessee only for the purpose of
performing one or more of Lessee's governmental or proprietary functions consistent with the permissible scope of Lessee's
authority; (xii) there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, public board or
body, pending or threatened against or affecting the Lessee, nor to the best knowledge of the Lessee is there any basis therefor, wherein
an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would materially adversely affect the transactions contemplated by this Lease or any other
document, agreement or certificate which is used or contemplated for use in the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this
Lease; and (xiii) no event or condition that constitutes, or with the giving of notice or the lapse of time or both would constitute, an
Event of Default, exists at the Commencement Date.
Lessee shall deliver to Lessor an opinion of Lessee's counsel in form and substance attached hereto or as otherwise acceptable to
Lessor.
8. TITLE TO EQUIPMENT; SECURITY INTEREST. Upon acceptance of the Equipment by Lessee hereunder, title to the
Equipment will vest in Lessee subject to Lessor's rights under this Lease; provided, however, that (i) in the event of termination of
this Lease pursuant to Section 6 hereof, or (ii) upon the occurrence of an Event of Default hereunder, and as long as such Event of
Default is continuing, title will immediately vest in Lessor or its assignee without any action by Lessee and Lessee shall
immediately surrender possession of the Equipment to Lessor or its assignee in the manner set forth in Section S hereof. Lessee
grants to Lessor a continuing, first priority security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in the Equipment, the proceeds
thereof and all additions, attachments, repairs, replacements, substitutions and modifications thereto and proceeds thereof made
pursuant to Section 9, in order to secure Lessee's payment of all Lease Payments due during the Lease Term and the performance of
all other obligations herein to be performed by Lessee. Lessee will join with Lessor in executing such financing statements or other
WALease
Rev. July 1, 2001
02/28/03 9:02 AM Page 3 of 7
Lessee authorizes Lessor to file a financing statement describing the Equipment
Lessee authorizes Lessor to complete the description of the Equipment on Schedule A when additional
information, such as models and serial numbers, becomes available.
9. USE; REPAIRS. Lessee will use the Equipment in a careful manner for the use contemplated by the manufacturer of the
Equipment. Lessee shall comply with all laws, ordinances, insurance policies and regulations relating to the possession, use,
operation or maintenance of the Equipment. Lessee, at its expense, will keep the Equipment in good working order and repair and
furnish all parts, mechanisms and devices required therefor.
10. ALTERATIONS. Lessee will not make any alterations, additions or improvements to the Equipment without Lessor's prior
written consent unless such alterations, additions or improvements may be readily removed without damage to the Equipment.
11. LOCATION; INSPECTION. The Equipment will not be removed from or, if the Equipment consists of rolling stock, its
permanent base will not be changed from the Equipment Location without Lessots prior written consent, which will not be
unreasonably withheld. Lessor will be entitled to enter upon the Equipment Location or elsewhere during reasonable business
hours to inspect the Equipment or observe its use and operation.
12. LIENS AND TAXES. Lessee shall keep the Equipment free and clear of all levies, liens and encumbrances except those
created under this Lease. Lessee shall pay, when due, all charges and taxes (local, state and federal) which may now or hereafter be
imposed upon the ownership, leasing, rental, sale, purchase, possession or use of the Equipment, excluding however, all taxes on or
measured by Lessor's income. If Lessee fails to pay said charges, or taxes when due, or to provide the insurance required by Section
15 hereof, Lessor may, but need not, pay said charges or taxes or purchase such insurance and, in such event, Lessee shall
reimburse Lessor therefor on demand, with interest at the maximum rate permitted by law from the date of such payment by Lessor
to the date of reimbursement by Lessee.
13. RISK OF LOSS; DAMAGE; DESTRUCTION. Lessee assumes all risk of loss of or damage to the Equipment from any
cause whatsoever, and no such loss of or damage to the Equipment nor defect therein nor unfitness or obsolescence thereof shall
relieve Lessee of the obligation to make Lease Payments or to perform any other obligation under this Lease. In the event of
damage to any item of Equipment, Lessee will immediately place the same in good repair with the proceeds of any insurance
recovery applied to the cost of such repair. If Lessor determines that any item of Equipment is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged
beyond repair, Lessee, at the option of Lessor, will either (a) replace the same with like equipment in good repair, or (b) on the next
Lease Payment Date, pay Lessor. (i) all amounts then owed by Lessee to Lessor under this Lease, including the Lease Payment due
on such date, and (ii) an amount equal to the applicable Concluding Payment set forth in Schedule B opposite such Lease Payment
Date. In the event that Lessee is obligated to make such payment pursuant to subparagraph (b) above with respect to less than all of
the Equipment, Lessor will provide Lessee with the pro rata amount of the Lease Payment and the Concluding Payment to be made
by Lessee with respect to the Equipment which has suffered the event of loss.
14. PERSONAL PROPERTY. The Equipment is and will remain personal property and will not be deemed to be affixed or
attached to real estate or any building thereon. If requested by Lessor, Lessee will, at Lessee's expense, furnish a waiver of any
interest in the Equipment from any party having an interest in any such real estate or building.
15. INSURANCE. At its own expense, Lessee shall maintain (a) casualty insurance insuring the Equipment against loss or
damage by fire and any other risks reasonably required by Lessor in an amount at least equal to the then applicable Concluding Payment
of the Equipment, (b) liability insurance that protects Lessor from liability in all events in form and amount satisfactory to Lessor, and
(c) workers' compensation coverage as required by the laws of the state; provided that, with Lessor's prior written consent, Lessee may
self -insure against the risks described in clauses (a) and (b). All insurance proceeds from casualty losses shall be payable as hereinafter
provided Upon acceptance of the Equipment and upon each insurance renewal date, Lessee will deliver to Lessor a certificate
evidencing such insurance. In the event of any loss, damage, injury or accident involving the Equipment, Lessee will promptly
provide Lessor with written notice thereof and make available to Lessor all information and documentation relating thereto and shall
permit Lessor to participate and cooperate with Lessee in making any claim for insurance in respect thereof.
AR such casualty and liability insurance shall be with insurers that are acceptable to Lessor, shall name Lessee as named insured
and Lessor or its assigns as an additional named insured and shall contain a provision to the effect that such insurance shall not be
cancelled or modified materially without first giving written notice thereof to Lessor at least thirty days in advance of such
WALease
Rev. July 1, 2001
02/28/03 9:02 AM Page 5 of 7
19. REMEDIES. Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, and as long as such Event of Default is continuing, Lessor
may, at its option, exercise any one or more of the following remedies: (i) by written notice to Lessee, declare an amount equal to
all amounts then due under the Lease, and all remaining Lease payments due during the fiscal period of Lessee in which the default
occurs to be immediately due and payable, whereupon the same shall become immediately due and payable; (ii) by written notice to
Lessee, request Lessee to (and Lessee agrees that it will), at Lessee's expense, promptly return the Equipment to Lessor in the
manner set forth in Section S hereof, or Lessor, at its option, may enter upon the premises where the Equipment is located and take
immediate possession of and remove the same, without liability for such entry or for damage to property or otherwise, (iii) sell or
lease the Equipment or sublease it for the account of Lessee, holding Lessee liable for all Lease Payments and other payments due
to the effective date of such selling, leasing or subleasing and for the difference between the purchase price, rental and other
amounts paid by the purchaser, lessee or sublessee pursuant to such sale, lease or sublease and the amounts otherwise payable by
Lessee hereunder, and (iv) exercise any other right, remedy or privilege which may be available to it under applicable laws of the
state where the Equipment is then located or any other applicable law or proceed by appropriate court action to enforce the terms of
this Lease or to recover damages for the breach of this Lease or to rescind this Lease as to any or all of the Equipment. In addition,
Lessee will remain liable for all covenants and indemnities under this Lease and for all legal fees and other costs and expenses,
including court costs, incurred by Lessor with respect to the enforcement of any of the remedies listed above or any other remedy
available to Lessor. Lessor may sell the Equipment without giving any warranties as to the Equipment and may disclaim any
warranties of title, possession, quiet enjoyment, or the like. This procedure will not be considered to adversely affect the
commercial reasonableness of any sale of the Equipment.
20. PREPAYMENT OPTION. Upon thirty (30) days prior written notice from Lessee, and provided that there is no Event of
Default, or an event which with notice or lapse of time, or both, could become an Event of Default, then existing, Lessee will have
the right to purchase the Equipment prior to the Termination Date on any Lease Payment Date set forth in Schedule B by paying to
Lessor, on such date, the Concluding Payment as set forth in Schedule B. Upon satisfaction by Lessee of such purchase conditions,
Lessor will transfer any and all of its right, title and interest in the Equipment to Lessee AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
21. TAX ASSUMPTION; COVENANTS. Lessee hereby covenants with respect to this Lease that (i) neither the payment of
the Lease Payments hereunder nor any portion thereof is secured by any interest in property used or to be used in a trade or business of
a non-exempt person (within the meaning of Section 103 of the Code) or in payments with respect to such property or is derived from
payments with respect to property, or borrowed money, used or to be used in a trade or business of a non-exempt person (within the
meaning of Section 103 of the Code); (ii) no portion of the Equipment will be used directly or indirectly in any trade or business carried
on by any non-exempt person (within the meaning of Section 103 of the Code); (iii) it will not take any action or permit or suffer any
action to be taken or condition to exist if the result of such action or condition would be to cause its obligation to make Lease
Payments to be guaranteed, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the United States or by any agency or instrumentality
thereof, (iv) it will neither take any action (including, without limitation, entering into any lease, sublease, output contract,
management contract, take -or -pay contract or other arrangement) nor omit to take any action if the result of such action or omission
would be to cause the interest portion of each Lease Payment to become includable in the income of Lessor for purposes of federal,
state or local income tax; (v) it will provide (or cause to be provided) to Lessor such other information as Lessor may reasonably
request from Lessee to enable Lessor to fulfill tax filing, audit and litigation obligations, including, but not limited to, federal and
state income tax filing obligations; (vi) it will timely file a statement with respect to this Lease in the form required by Section
149(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code'); and (vii) neither take any action or onut to take any action
if the result of such action or omission would be to cause this Lease to be an "arbitrage bond" within the meaning of Section 148 of
the Code. If this Lease is accompanied by an Escrow Agreement, Lessee will execute and deliver to Lessor an Arbitrage Certificate
(in the form provided by Lessor).
If Lessor receives notice, in any form, from the Internal Revenue Service or it is determined based on an opinion of independent
tax counsel selected by Lessor and approved by Lessee, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, that the interest portion
of any Lease Payment is includable in the income of Lessor for purposes of federal, state or local income tax, Lessee, at its option,
shall either (i) pay the Concluding Payment as provided in Section 20 hereof and terminate the Lease or (ii) within 30 days after
notice from Lessor, pay Lessor an amount which will restore to Lessor its after-tax yield as contemplated by this transaction from
the date that the interest portion became taxable through the date of such additional rental payment and will further pay additional
rent to Lessor on each succeeding Lease Payment Date in such amount as will maintain Lessor's after-tax yield as contemplated by
this transaction.
WALease
Rev. July 1, 2001
02/28/03 9:02 AM Page 7 of 7
Please return all of the documents with original signatures to:
CitiCapital Commercial Corporation
VED-Municipal Finance Dept
8001 Ridgepoint Drive
Irving, TX 75063
Thank you for doing business with CitiCaptial Commercial Corporation.
Sincerely,
CitiCapital Commercial Corporation
Vendor Equipment Division
Enclosures
8001 Ridgepoint Drive, Irving, TX 75063-3117
SCHEDULE A
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
Lessor hereby leases to Lessee under and pursuant to the Lease and Lessee hereby leases from Lessor
under and pursuant to the Lease the following items of Equipment:
DESCRIPTION (MANUFACTURER, MODEL AND SERIAL NO.*)
* Lessor shall have the right to insert Serial Nos. at time of Delivery & Acceptance.
(40) Club Car DS Gasoline Golf Cars
all complete with attachments and accessories
All complete with attachments and accessories
LESSEE: City of Renton, WA
R-34
TITLE:
DATE:
SUPPLIER
Club Car, Inc..
4125 Washington Avenue
Martinez GA 30907
Equipment Location:
ri1
FACT SHEET
Please complete entire form
PLEASE RETURN THIS SHEET WITH THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
LEGAL NAME OF ENTITY:
DEPARTMENT USING EQUIPMENT:
FEDERAL ID NUMBER:
ORGANIZATION NUMBER:
NAME OF COUNTY:
STREET ADDRESS: Please give complete physical street address. Do not give address
with P.O. Box as express delivery will not deliver to it.
BILLING ADDRESS: Please indicate any special billing instructions that are required to
avoid late payments and subsequent late charges.
ACCOUNT PAYABLE:
CONTACT TELEPHONE #:
SIGNATURES: Please print or type names exactly as the person will be signing the
Document. Signatures are not required here.
AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL:
Name:
Title:
ATTORNEY SIGNING OPINION OF COUNSEL:
Name:
MAJOR REVENUE SOURCE:
BANK REFERENCE:
TELEPHONE #:
CONTACT NAME: TELEPHONE #:
VALUE PRICE:
MUNICIPALITY:
CONTACT:
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION:
INSURANCE FACT SHEET
Please complete entire form
PHONE:
Pursuant to Section 13 of the Equipment Lease -Purchase Agreement dated as of
, Lessee is obligated to provide insurance coverage naming CitiCapital Commercial
Corporation as Loss Payee and Additional Insured. Please complete this form and return it with your
documentation package and contact your insurance agent to forward a Certificate of Insurance showing
coverage. If you are self insured, please note as such below.
PARENT INSURANCE COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
CITY:
PHONE:
UNDERWRITER/AGENT COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
STATE: ZIP:
CITY: STATE: ZIP:
CONTACT: PHONE:
POLICY NO: EXPIRATION DATE:
PUBLIC LIABILITY AMOUNT: DEDUCTIBLE:
PHYSICAL DAMAGE
AMOUNTS: COMPREHENSIVE:
PHYSICAL DAMAGE
AMOUNTS: COLLISION:
OTHER COVERAGE: AMOUNTS:
OTHER COVERAGE: AMOUNTS:
INDICATE IF SELF -INSURED. OR IF POLICY IS CONTINUOUS:
SELF -INSURED: YES NO
DEDUCTIBLE:
DEDUCTIBLE:
DEDUCTIBLE:
DEDUCTIBLE:
LIABILITY: PHYSICAL DAMAGE: OTHER:
CONTINUOUS UNTIL END OF LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT: YES:
ALL:
NO:
Purchaser. City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Address: Renton, WA. 98055
State of Sales
Tax Registration:
BLANKET CERTIFICATE OF RESALE
This is to certify that all material, merchandise, or goods purchased by the undersigned from:
Citicapital Commercial Corporation
8001 Ridgepoint Drive
Irving, TX 75063
after is purchased for the following purpose:
(Date)
Resale as tangible personal property
Rental as tangible personal property
To be incorporated as a material part of other tangible personal property to be produced for
sale by manufacturing, assembling, processing or refining.
To be exported for sale, use or consumption outside the continental limits of the United
States.
Exemption under Federal, State, or Local Governmental Laws.
Other.
This certificate shall be considered a part of each order which we shall give unless otherwise stated. This
certificate Is to continue in force until revoked.
CERTIFICATE NUMBER:
BY:
AS ITS:
INSTRUCTIONS: (Please print or Type)
1. PURCHASER - Fill in Companys Legal Name including 'dba'.
2. ADDRESS - Complete mailing address
3. STATE OF REG. - The State with which your certificate number Is filed. Please
complete one form for each state of registration
4. DATE - Fill in approximate date of first purchase with Club Car, Inc.
5. Check the most appropriate intended purpose of the purchase
6. CERTIFICATE NUMBER -Indicate your certificate number issued by the state in which
you are registered.
7. BY - Signature of person authorized by your Company.
8. AS ITS - Title of authorized person signing.
NOTE: PLEASE RETURN THIS CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH YOUR CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO:
CITICAPITAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
Golf & Turf Documentation
8001 Ridgepoint Dr.
Irving, TX 750633117
Form 8038-GC
Information Return for Small Tax -Exempt
Governmental Bond Issues, Leases, and Installment Sales
(Rev. May 1999)
OMB No. 1545-0720
Under Internal Revenue Code section 149(e)
Department of the Treasury
kdernal Revenue service
Caution: Use Form 803" If the issue price of the issue is $100, 000 or more.
Reporting Authority
Check box if Amended Return ► ❑
1 Issuer's name
2 issuers employer identification number
City of Renton
;
3 Number and street (or P.O. box R mad is not deMered to sheet address)
Roomisude
1055 S Grady Way
4 City, town, or post office, state, and ZIP code.
5 Report number
Renton, WA. 98055
GC mw _
6 Name and title of officer or legal representative whom the IRS may call for more Information
7 Telephone number of officer or legal representative
� Description of Obligations (Check if reporting: a single issue ® or on a consolidated basis ❑.)
8 a Issue price of obligation(s) (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 8a 73,780.00
b Issue date (single issue) or calendar year (consolidated) ( see instructions) l'
9 Amount of the reported obligation(s) on line 8a:
a Used to refund prior issue(s) . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9a
b Representing a loan from the proceeds of another tax-exempt obligation (e.g.,bond bank) . 91b
10 If the issuer has designated any Issue under section 265(bx3XBxixlll) (small issuer exception), check this box. ❑
11 If any obligation is in the form of a lease or installment sale, check this box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 If the issuer has elected to pay a penalty In lieu of arbitrage rebate, check this box . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ❑
Please
Sign
Here
examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge
and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.
Issuer's authorized representative Date Type or print name and title
General Instructions
Section references are to the Interval
Revenue Code unless otherwise noted.
Purpose of Form
Form 8038-GC is used by the issuers of
tax-exempt governmental obligations to
provide the IRS with the information required
by section 149(e) and to monitor the
requirements of sections 141 through 150.
Who Must File
Issuers of tax-exempt governmental
obligations with issue prices of less than
$100,000 must file Form 8038-13C.
Issuers of a tax-exempt governmental
obligation with an issue price of $100,000 or
more must file Form 8038-0, Information
Return for Tax -Exempt Governmental
Obligations.
Filing a separate return. Issuers have the
option to file a separate Form 8038-GC for
any tax-exempt governmental obligation with an
issue price of less than $100,000.
An issuer of a tax-exempt bond used to
finance constriction expenditures must file a
separate Forth 8038-GC for each Issue to
give notice to the IRS that an election was
made to pay a penalty in lieu of arbitrage
rebate (see the line 12 instructions).
Filing a consolidated return. For all
tax-exempt governmental obligations with
issue prices of less than $100,000 that are
not reported on a separate Form 8038-GC,
an issuer must file a consolidated information
return including all such issues issued within
the calendar year.
Thus, an issuer may file a separate Form
8038-GC for each of a number of small issues
and report the remainder of small issues
issued during the calendar year on one
consolidated Form 8038-13C. However, a
separate Form 8038-CG must be filed to give
the IRS notice of the election to pay a penalty
in lieu of arbitrage rebate.
When to File
To file a separate return, file Forth 8038-CG
on or before the 15th day of the second
calendar month after the dose of the calendar
quarter in which the issue is issued.
To file a consolidated return, file Form
8038-CG on or before February 15th of the
calendar year following the year in which the
issue is issued.
Late filing. An issuer may be granted an
extension of time to file Form 8038-CG under
Section 3 of Rev. Proc. 88-10,1988-1 C. B.
635, it it is determined that the failure to file
on time is not due to willful neglect. Type or
print at the top of the form, "This Statement
Is Submitted in Accordance with Rev. Proc.
88-10". Attach to the Forth 8038-CG a letter
briefly stating why the form was not
submitted to the IRS on time. Also indicate
whether the obligation in question is under
examination by the IRS. Do not submit copies
of any bond documents, leases, or installment
sale documents.
Where to File
File form 8038-CG with the Internal Revenue
Service Center, Ogden, UT 84201.
Other Forms That May Be Required
For rebating arbitrage (or paying a penalty in
lieu of arbitrage rebate) to the Federal
government, use Form 8038-T, Arbitrage
Rebate and Penalty in Lieu of Arbitrage
Rebate. For private activity bonds, use Form
8038, Information Return for Tax -Exempt
Private Activity Bond Issues.
Rounding to Whole Dollars
You may show the money items on this
return as whole -dollar amounts. To do so,
drop any amount less the 50 cents and
increase any amount from 50 cents through
99 cents to the next higher dollar.
Definitions
Obligations. This refers to a single
tax-exempt governmental obligation if Forth
8038-GC is used for separate reporting or to
multiple tax-exempt governmental obligations
if the form is used for consolidated reporting.
Tax-exempt obligation. This is a bond,
installment purchase agreement, or financial
lease, on which the Interest Is excluded from
income under section 103.
Tax-exempt governmental obligation. A
tax-exempt obligation that is not a private
activity bond (see below) is a tax-exempt
governmental obligation. This includes a bond
Issued by a qualified volunteer fire
department under section 150(e).
Private activity bond. This includes an
obligation issued as part of an issue in which:
More than 10% of the proceeds are to be
used for any private activity business use,
and
LEASE # (LeaseNo) Cat. No. 64108B Form 8038-GC (Rev. 5-99)
03/04/2003 Page 2
Schedule B - City of Renton, WA.
Date
Payment
Interest
Principal
Balance
28
08/61 /2005
2,172.00
61.10
2,110.90
17,132.17
29
09/01 /2005
2,172.00
54.39
2,117.61
15,014.56
30
10/01 /2005
2,172.00
47.67
2,124.33
12,890.23
31
11 /01 /2005
2,172.00
40.93
2,131.07
10, 759.16
32
12/01/2005
2,172.00
34.16
2,137.84
8,621.32
2005
Totals
26,064.00
851.82
25,212.18
33
01101 /2006
2,172.00
27.37
2,144.63
6,476.69
34
02/01 /2006
2,172.00
20.56
2,151.44
4,325.25
35
03101 /2006
2,172.00
13.73
2,158.27
2,166.98
36
04/01 /2006
2,172.00
5.02
2,166.98
0.00
2006
Totals
8,688.00
66.68
8,621.32
Grand Totals
78,192.00
4,412.00
73,780.00
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division
Staff Contact...... Lesley Nishihira (x7270)
Subject:
Amended Consultant Agreement for preparation of
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Barbee
Mill Preliminary Plat proposal (LUA-02-040).
Exhibits:
Amended Consultant Agreement
Recommended Action:
'Council Concur
Al #:
For Agenda of:
March 24, 2003
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
X
Approvals:
Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept......
Other (Human Resources) X
Fiscal Impact: None
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
City staff requests approval of an amended Consultant Agreement authorizing work at the
applicant's expense for the production of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal.
At its March 17" meeting, the City Council directed staff to ensure that the consultant's
scope of work included adequate review of historical and cultural resources. Additional
detail has been added and incorporated into the attached scope of work (please refer to the
attached edited page, as well as page 20, section 4.5 of the amended scope of work).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends the approval and execution of an
amended Consultant Agreement authorizing work associated with the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) required for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal. The applicant will be
responsible for the cost of preparing the EIS and will be billed via a pass -through account
established between the City, the consultant (Parametrix) and the applicant (Barbee Mill
Company).
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bb
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 12, 2003
TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Jesse Tanner, Mayor
`Greggg 9
FROM: Gre Zimmermaia� minlStrator, Planning/Building/Public
/Buildin /Public
Works Department
STAFF CONTACT: Lesley Nishihira, x7270
SUBJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat E.I.S. —
Consultant Agreement
ISSUE:
The Development Services Division requests approval of a consultant agreement
authorizing work associated with the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal. The cost of the
EIS, which was determined to be necessary by the City's Environmental Review
Committee (ERC), will be at the direct expense of the project applicant.
BACKGROUND:
Location — The Barbee Mill consists of a 22.9-acre site and is located on the west
side of Lake Washington Boulevard North between North 40t" Street and North
44t" Street abutting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way along
the eastern boundary. The property has historically been utilized for lumber
operations, which over past years have been decreased to a limited level and are
presently in cessation. Many of the existing structures are in disrepair and all
would be demolished as part of site development.
The property is situated within the Center Office Residential (COR-2) zoning
designation, which is intended to provide for a mix of intensive commercial, office
and residential activity in a high quality, master planned development that is
integrated with the natural environment. Stand-alone residential development is
also permitted in the zone provided the required density of a minimum 5 dwelling
units per net acre (du/ac) is satisfied. The site includes a number of sensitive
features, including Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines, critical wildlife
habitat areas, wetlands, contaminated soils, high seismic hazards, steep slopes
(15% to 25%) and flood hazards, as well as Department of Natural Resources
lease lands along a portion of the site's lake frontage.
Consultant Agreement
Barbee Mill EIS
Page 3 of 4
applicable; Wetland Buffer Averaging and Compensation Approval; Street
Modification Approval; Railroad Crossing Access Approval; Site Preparation,
Demolition, Building and Construction Permits; and Final Plat Approval.
• King County: Shoreline Permit for DNR lease lands.
• Washington Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste — No Further
Action Letter; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination; System (NPDES)
Permit; Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval; Shoreline
Variance Approval, if applicable; and Water Quality Certification.
• Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA).
• Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission: Approval of
Railroad crossing(s).
• US Army Corp of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits, if necessary.
• US Environmental Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance.
Environmental (SEPA) Review — Prior to proceeding with the review and
formulation of staff recommendations for all of the City's necessary land use
permits, the project must undergo review pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). Upon consideration of adverse environmental impacts that
would potentially result from the project, the City's Environmental Review
Committee issued a SEPA Threshold Determination of Significance (DS) on
November 5, 2002. Under SEPA regulations, the DS requires that an EIS be
prepared to thoroughly analyze specific areas of concern surrounding the project.
Specifically, the scope of the EIS for this project will generally focus on the
following areas:
➢ EARTH
■ Soils, geology, earthwork, geologic and seismic hazards, and
erosion/sedimentation impacts.
➢ PLANTS AND ANIMALS
■ Displacement of existing vegetation, wetlands and associated
shoreline and wetland habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species.
■ Examination of the potential for rehabilitation of degraded habitat as
part of the project.
■ Incorporation of shoreline access and regional trails through the site.
➢ WATER RESOURCES
■ Waterways, hydrology, floodplains, groundwater and water quality
impacts (including possible impacts from cessation of May Creek
dredging operations).
■ Potential impacts and mitigation for impacts to May Creek and Lake
Washington.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this , day of , 2003, by and between the CITY
OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HEREINAFTER CALLED THE "CITY," and
the consulting firm Parametrix whose address is 5808 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 200, Kirkland, WA,
98033, at which work will be available for inspection, hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT."
PROJECT NAME: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat EIS
WHEREAS, the City has not sufficient qualified employees to provide the services 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 planning 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, has a current valid corporate certificate from the State of
Washington or has a valid assumed name filing with the Secretary of State and that all personnel to be assigned to
the work required under this Agreement are fully qualified to perform the world to which they will be assigned in a
competent and professional manner, and that sufficient qualified personnel are on staff or readily available 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
OBJECTIVES AND 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
hereby warrants that it has the necessary experience, qualified and trained personnel, equipment and materials to
complete the work detailed in Exhibit A.
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.
II
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 by , notwithstanding delays due to
factors that are beyond the control of the Consultant.
The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the Consultant, but may
be extended by the City in the event of a delay attributable to the City or because of a delay caused by an act of God
or governmental actions or other conditions beyond the control of the Consultant. 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.
Acceptance of such final payment by the Consultant shall constitute a release of all claims of any nature, related to
this Agreement, which the Consultant may have against the City unless such claims are specifically reserved in
writing and transmitted to the City by the Consultant prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not, however,
be a bar to any claims that the City may have against the Consultant or to any remedies the City may pursue with
respect to such claims.
The Consultant and its subconsultants shall keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of three years
after final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement and all items related to, or bearing
upon, these records. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year retention
period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been
resolved. The three-year retention period starts when the Consultant receives final payment.
VI
CHANGES IN WORK
The Consultant shall make all such revisions and changes in the completed work (published Draft and/or Final EIS)
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 VII.
VII
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 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.
VIII
EMPLOYMENT
The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide
employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to
pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award
or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this
Agreement without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration or otherwise
recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.
Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the
Consultant under this Agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City and any
and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while so
engaged and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part
of the Consultant's employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall
be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant.
The Consultant shall not engage, on a full or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of the contract, any
professional or technical personnel who are, or have been at any time during the period of this contract, in the
employ of the City except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the City.
3
E. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the work, the original copies of all
Engineering plans, reports and documents prepared by the Consultant prior to termination shall become
the property of the City for its use without restriction. Such unrestricted use not occurring as a part of
this project, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant.
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.
XI
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 Administrator of Planning/ Building/Public Works
or his/her successors and delegees, whose decision in the matter shall be final and conclusive on the parties to this
Agreement.
In the event that either party is required to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any of its rights in this
Agreement, both parties agree that any such action shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, situated in King County.
XII
LEGAL RELATIONS
The Consultant shall comply with all Federal Government, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the
work to be done under this Agreement. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws
of Washington.
The Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from and
shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in 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. It is specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided
herein constitutes the consultant's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, 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.
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 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 shall be named as an "additional
insured" on all contracts/projects. 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 limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of Consultant hereunder.
5
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 and commissions 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:
V(ayor
Attest: t
City Cler
RENTON CITY COUNCIL:
Council President
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK (03-18-03)
RENTON, BARBEE MILL EIS
WORK PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Environmental documentation for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat will include preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) and related supporting documents and materials as described in the
following items. The EIS will be prepared to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and Renton City Code 18-97. Primary guidance for the EIS will be SEPA Guidelines WAC 197-11. It
is assumed that one (1) build alternative and the no -action alternative will be analyzed in the EIS.
1.0 SCOPING AND EARLY COORDINATION
Goal
The City of Renton Development Services Division has met all procedural and substantive requirements for
Scoping pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), WAC 197-11-500, and Renton City Code;
provided for comments from the public, cooperating agencies, and other agencies with expertise regarding
elements of the environment or permit jurisdiction. The January 10, 2003 Scoping Document is the basis of
this scope of work.
Tasks
Parametrix will notify the city if, at any time during preparation of the EIS, new information indicates a need to
change the Scoping Determination to respond to unanticipated issues.
2.0 ,ALTERNATIVES
Goal
The integration of environmental considerations in the public decision -making process is one of the primary
goals of SEPA. The development of alternatives is one of the key steps in both the project development and
environmental process. The city has specified in the January 10, 2003 Scoping Document, the consideration of
a No Action Alternative, consists of continuation of some form of industrial use of the property.
Approach
During the course of analysis of impacts and identification of mitigating measures, a combination of mitigating
measures may be developed which constitutes a reasonable alternative which meets the criteria in WAC 197-11-
440(5)(d) for a private proposal of achieving the proposals objectives on the same site. Parametrix shall advise
the City and applicant of any alternatives it recommends based on environmental issues identified in the
analysis process.
Assumptions
This scope of work is based on analysis of two alternatives:
• The current proposal of the applicant. Future use or alternations for DNR owned uplands, will be based
on consultation with the DNR aquatics leasing department land use policies for shoreline property, and
confirmation of assumptions with the city.
RRNTON BARBEE Mir_i. EIS WORK PROGRAM PAGE 1 of 24 03-18-03
This task will be based on review of existing studies on soils, geology, surface topography, and sensitive areas.
Parametrix will prepare this section based on review of existing data and a peer evaluation of exiting studies
and qualitative evaluation of likely impacts.
Af ved Envirownew
Parametrix will review readily available geotechnical and geological data for the project including, but not
limited to, geologic maps from the U.S. Geologic Survey, National Resource Conservation Service County Soil
Survey, King County Geologic Hazard and Sensitive Areas maps, and site reconnaissance reports, including the
Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment by Golder Associates, and the Independent Remedial Action Plan, by Hart
Crowser.
The affected environment relative to the soil and geology conditions on the site will be evaluated and
described, including controlling factors such as terrain, soil types, character of fill, seismic risk of liquifaction
and slope failure, erosion susceptibility, and other limits on development. Background description of past and
potential seismic events will including magnitude of earthquakes recorded and potential magnitude of pre -
settlement earthquakes, as well as potential magnitude of techtonic plate subduction earthquakes.
In addition to the soils and geology of the project, Parametrix will also characterize the groundwater resources,
including aquifer characteristics related to potential contaminant plumes, utilizing existing data. Results of this
analysis will form one of the inputs to analysis of Toxic and Hazardous Materials.
Irnpact Analysis
Impacts of the project will be evaluated based on review and evaluation of existing soil and
geology /geotechnical information and project plans.
Specific impacts considered will include:
• Cut, fill, and other earthwork parameters.
• Risk of failure of slopes, or retaining structures due to landslides, including seismic induced events.
• Risks to structures, including seismic risks of liquefaction based on soil characteristics and fill character,
appropriate design of foundations and supporting structures.
• Character of groundwater resources, including contamination, and impacts as a result of project
construction, including groundwater infiltration from pervious surfaces and runoff control or treatment
facilities will be assessed.
• Sedimentation within the May Creek basin will be assessed, with results presented in the Plants and
Animals and Water Resources sections.
Temporary construction activity impacts will be evaluated, including:
• Erosion and sedimentation impacts.
• Stability of temporary cut, fill, and utility excavation.
• Stockpile and other temporary soil displacement.
Afitigation Development
Proposed mitigation measures will be reviewed based on potential adverse impacts identified. Mitigation
measures incorporated as commitments in the project design, together with mitigating measures resulting from
analysis of seismic and other risks will be identified. Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated
in clearing and grading permit conditions, will be identified and evaluated. Potential applicable mitigation
measures available but not included in project design or standard BMPs will be identified.
RFNTON BAR13F.F Muj- FAS WORK PROGRAM PAGF_ 3 OF 24 03-1 8-03
• Displacement and augmentation/restoration of vegetation and wetlands.
• Evaluate effects on plant communities related to any changes in groundwater or stormwater volumes or
water quality.
• Interference to critical life functions such as wintering, foraging, migration, breeding and/or rearing.
• Effects related to collisions between vehicles and animals.
• Effects on migration or dispersal of organisms, where the project could create or exacerbate barriers to
movement.
• Impacts of residential docks on lake -fronting lots on lake shore vegetation/habitat.
• Impacts of potential public access along the shoreline.
• Impacts of future use or alterations of DNR owned uplands, based on DNR land use policies for shoreline
property and coordination with DNR shoreline division.
• Fragmentation or consolidation of habitat due to provision of buffer areas and construction of new
roadways or other features of the proposal.
• Indirect impacts, including reasonably expected residential landscaping under current Renton codes,
human presence impacts such as noise and lighting that could reduce habitat suitability for wildlife.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures will identify potential opportunities to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts of the
project, including restoration and enhancement of wetland and buffer areas and other measures. This does not
include providing detailed mitigation design specifications; however, overall mitigation goals and objectives will
be defined in sufficient detail to meet EIS disclosure standards.
Aquatic and Endangered Species
Goal
To assess impacts upon these elements and investigate opportunities to enhance resources.
Approach
Parametrix will prepare this section, in accordance with best available science, as indicated by existing scientific
literature.
Affected Environment
For this task, we will collect existing information that establishes the baseline of existing environmental
conditions for the area potentially affected by the build alternative. Aquatic species potentially affected by the
project will be identified, with a special focus on endangered species, along with any potential suitable habitat,
critical habitat, or essential fish habitat (EFI-h) within or adjacent to the project area. A plan view and side view
map of shoreline fisheries habitat will be prepared. All descriptions will be based on existing information,
including aerial photographs, information provided by the City of Renton, the applicant, Basin Plans for May
Creek, and any relevant studies of aquatic species by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tribal
Fisheries studies and NOAA Fisheries.
The EIS team will conduct a reconnaissance -level survey of habitat conditions.
Impact Analy=sis
The objective of this item will be to identify potential impacts to fish in the project vicinity. The analysis will
include evaluation of potential impacts likely to occur during construction and operation of the project, such as:
• Displacement or enhancement of habitat.
RSN'roN BARBER r41u. FIS WORD PROGR_ NI P 1GL 5 or 24 03-1 8-03
• Assessment of threatened Chinook salmon present in May Creek and Lake Washington will be based on
existing studies applicable to the site.
• Assessment of threatened bull trout will be limited to potential impacts of site actions on habitat within the
site. Upstream sections May Creek will be assessed to the extent such resources have been identified in
existing studies.
• The City of Renton will provide copies of all studies relating to aquatic use of the shoreline.
• Future use or alternations of DNR owned uplands, will be based on consultation with the DNR aquatics
leasing department land use policies for shoreline property.
• A Biological Assessment and coordination with state and federal agencies on permit applications is not
included in this scope.
• One (1) reconnaissance level field visit will be made to the site by one (1) wetland specialist (1) wildlife
specialist and (1) aquatic species specialist.
• The impacts of stormwater management, water quality, and stream buffer areas on aquatic resources will
be based on a comparative analysis of features of the proposal with evaluation standards contained in the
Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition - 2002, Biological Review Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule
Response Proposal, and King County Endangered Species Act Policy Coordination Office - April 19,
2002.
Deliverables
• Draft EIS Wildlife and Fish section.
• Response to comments for FEIS.
3.3 lVaterzvays, Hydrology, Floodplains, Groundwater and Water Quality
Goal
Provide analyses of affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation development for May Creek, Lake
Washington, and other water bodies identified on and near the site. These analyses will provide a basis for
analysis of impacts on fish and wildlife, aquatic resources, and endangered species and provide a qualitative
evaluation of proposed options for enhancing the existing May Creek on and adjacent to the project site. The
build alternative will need to conform to criteria specified in the City of Renton Addendum to the King County
Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDI\4) and meet all requirements of the RMC and other applicable
regulations.
Waterways, Runoff/Drainage, Floodplains
This section of the DEIS will include a discussion of existing drainage patterns and runoff rates for the site and
May Creek hydrology and floodplains. Parametrix will prepare this section based on review of existing data,
field investigation, and review of existing technical studies. Impacts from the project build alternative will focus
on stormwater impacts of development, water quality impacts of runoff and potential sedimentation impacts
on May Creek and Lake Washington. The May Creek floodplain will be mapped using hydraulic and slope
models. The model will be used to evaluate channel and delta stability, sediment transport, and floodplain
limits that may result from changes or cessession of dredging operations.
,4lfected Environment
Parametrix will summarize relevant existing stream locations and physical characteristics, past channel
alterations, existing flood conditions, existing storm drainage facilities, and water quality information based on
RFNTON BARBEF N11rJ, HIS WORK PROGRAM PAGF.7 of 24 03-18-03
Affected Environment
Parametrix will identify existing water quality conditions in lower May Creek, from the Lake Washington Blvd.
crossing, and Lake Washington adjacent to the site, based on existing studies and surveys. Existing surface
water sources of contamination will include existing storm water discharges, as documented in City of Renton
records, existing contribution of contaminants from the site, and adjacent sites as documented in MTCA
related studies for the site and adjacent properties, spill data (historical record of major spills, locations, extent,
etc.), and stream erosion/sedimentation as documented in existing studies.
Analysis will address:
• Surface water quality conditions.
• Water quality classifications.
• Surface water sources of contamination.
• Clean Water Act listing status.
• WRIA plans, and other identified management strategies.
Impacts Analysis
Parametrix will describe potential long-term impacts on surface water resources, including the stormwater
conveyance system, potential impacts on streams, and potential water quality impacts from the one (1) build
alternative, as well as temporary construction -related water quality impacts. The EIS impacts section will
summarize the results to compare the build alternative with No Action. Specific impacts considered will
include:
• Typical runoff pollutants.
• Impacts to water quality.
• Effectiveness of proposed runoff treatment, based on parameters in existing literature, which can be
reasonably applied to the site and the proposal, or standards of the jurisdiction.
• Maintenance activity impacts.
• Water quality components that will be used to evaluate potential impacts on wetlands, terrestrial, and
aquatic species (these will be assessed in the Plants and Animals sections).
Construction impacts will include assessment of
• Erosion and sedimentation potential associated with clearing and grading.
• Potential impacts to surface water associated with project staging areas (non -sediment pollutants,
hazardous materials storage, etc.).
Mitigation for tY,iaerWays, hydrology, Floodplains, Groundwater and lVater Quality
The mitigation section of the DEIS will summarize BMPs incorporated in the build alternative, BMPs required
as part of engineering and other standards of the jurisdictions surface water management standards, and
Construction impact mitigation will include:
• Qualitative summary of construction BMPs for erosion and sediment control based on the Ecology 2001
Manual.
• Evaluation of mitigation and BMPs will be limited to the areas within the project limits.
Operational impact mitigation will include:
RENTON BARHEF MILL EIS WORT: PROGRAM PAGE 9 OP 24 03-18-03
• Water quality impacts will be evaluated based on analysis of potential pollutants in runoff generated within
the project boundaries.
• The impacts of stormwater management, water quality, and stream buffer areas on aquatic resources will
be based on a comparative analysis of features of the proposal with evaluation standards contained in the
Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition - 2002, Biological Review Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule
Response Proposal, and King County Endangered Species Act Policy Coordination Office - April 19,
2002.
• FEMA studies and maps will be utilized for flood hydrology and existing floodplain limits.
• Flooding impacts of May Creek, assuming a "conservative case" discontinuation of dredging and
formation of a natural delta. The assessment of flooding will include FEMA approved HEC-RAS one
dimensional model for peak discharges and flood hydrographs at a single location utilizing FEMA
floodplain volumes in the May Creek floodplain study for 1% frequency event. Assumptions will include a
uniform delta elevation equivalent to the level upstream gradient. Modeling will assume the proposed
bridge spans the floodway and includes no structures or fill within the flood plain, except piers. A
reasonable assumption for the area of piers will be made. Assumptions for modeling will include one
re -hew �vith Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering staff to establish agreement on parameters.
• One (1) reconnaissance -level site visit will be made.
If existing information is not adequate, additional studies outside the present scope may be required which may
include:
• Field analysis of stream carrying capacity, barriers, constriction, bank erosion, and other characteristics.
• Hydraulic analysis of the capacity of existing open and closed stormwater conveyance systems.
• Analysis of the alternatives or modifications for stormwater detention and water quality treatment facilities.
Deliverables
• Draft EIS sections for Water Resources.
• Response to comments for FEIS.
4.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Transportation Analysis
Goal
The transportation analysis will address impacts of the proposal to the local traffic circulation system.
Approach
Parametrix will prepare this analysis in accordance with City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-6-070
and 4-9-070 authorizing the identification of transportation impacts and identification of appropriate mitigating
measures and requirements for disclosure of environmental impacts by the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
Traffic Forecasting tietbodoloyy
Traffic forecasts for this study will be developed using the City of Renton EMME/2-based travel demand
model for the impact year specified by the city (presumed to be 2005-07) with adjustmentsto add specific local
projects as based on existing traffic studies supplied by the city, which may include . the Labrador Subdivision,
The Bluffs, Tamaron Point, and Southport.
Studv Area
RENTON BARBF.1? MILL EIS WORK PROGRAM PAGE. 11 OF 24 03-18-03
Trip generation for the No -Action Alternative consisting of development of the site under existing zoning will
be derived using Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation tables for the appropriate use. The No -Action
Alternative development trip generation shall be compared to the trip generation of the project for informative
purposes, but would not be included in level of service analysis for the No -Action Alternative.
Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) analysis will be performed for intersections and representative road segments using the
Synchro traffic operations analysis software based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000
methodologies. Three LOS cases will be run:
• Current traffic = base year = 2002 volumes (PM peak hour)
• Opening year (2005-07)) No Build forecast (PM peak hour)
• Opening year impacts with the trip generation from the proposal
1-405 Impacts
The impacts on 405 operations at the ramps at 44t' Place/Lake Washington Blvd. and at N 30'' Street will be
analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual analysis of ramp merges and other relevant methodologies specified
by WSDOT. Mitigation will include the extent to which planned I-405 improvements may mitigate impacts in
the future.
Site Access
Site access involves two proposed public street crossings of the BNSF railroad line. Access issues include
appropriate design criteria of the access to meet BNSF and WUTC standards, safety issues related to vehicle
train conflicts, and emergency vehicle access. Emergency vehicle access is especially a concern if a
trails/vehicle accident leads to blockage of both project access points, which is possible, given train stopping
distances and the distance between access points. Evaluation must also consider the potential for higher
future rail use on the line if BNSF fords that market and rail traffic justify us of this route as a second mainline
between Snohomish and Auburn/Tacoma. Hazards associated with at -grade railroad crossings will be
evaluated based on specific site conditions and existing literature including FHWA Report, Highway/Rail
Crossing Technical Working Group Report, November 2002, "Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at
Highway -Rail Grade Crossings", WUTC accident reports compiled under WAC 480-62-080 as well as
coordination with Ahmer Nizam of WUTC and Mike Cowles of BNSF. In addition to the rail crossing, safety
and capacity concerns at the intersections with Lake Washington Blvd. and Hazelwood Lane will be addressed.
Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis
Accident characteristics and patterns will be analyzed for the roadways in the analysis area. Accident rate
comparisons will be made with region -wide and/or statewide accident rates for routes in the same functional
class and for any available "comparable route" case study data. High -Accident Locations (HAL), High -
Accident Corridors (HAC), and Pedestrian Accident Locations (PAL) will be addressed.
Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions
Impacts on the City of Newcastle, to the northeast of the site will be assessed through:
a) An assessment of trip origins and destinations within Newcastle based on an EMME2 select link
distribution query;
RENTOV BARREE A'Ini. E S WORIK PROGRATI PAGE. 13 of 24 03-1 8-03
Comments received on the Draft EIS will require specific responses. Revision to DEIS text is not anticipated,
except for minor revisions for clarification. For budgeting purposes, this is assumed to be 10 percent of the
DEIS budget.
Assumptions
• For baseline 2005-07 traffic growth, the City of Renton EMME/2 model will be used with possible
additions to include specific recently approved projects in the vicinity, such as the Labrador Subdivision,
The Bluffs, Tamaron Point, and Southport. The City will provide traffic reports for projects as well as the
I-405/NE 44" Street Interchange Project Transportation Discipline Report Qune 2001) and other existing
transportation reports in the vicinity.
• Existing 2002 base -year traffic counts on all roadways modeled will be available from the HDR project
traffic impact analysis and local jurisdictions, including intersection turn movements. No traffic counts
will be conducted.
• The 2005-07 baseline future year transportation network will consist of all fully funded transportation
capacity improvements as provided by the City of Renton.
• The No -Action alternative development analysis shall include only trip generation that will be compared to
the trip generation of the project for comparative purposes, but not subject to operational analysis.
• One (1) meeting with Renton transportation staff, and one (1) meeting with WSDOT staff will be
required.
Deliverables
• Transportation section for the DEIS.
• Response to comments for Final EIS.
4.2 Hazardous Mraterials
Goal
The site is known to contain contaminated soils, primarily arsenic and zinc. An Independent Remedial Action
Plan (IRAP) has been prepared for the site pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and approved
by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the City of Renton, involving removal of an
estimated 21,500 cubic yards of soil from the site.
Approach
The analysis will rely on the September 2000 remedial action plan, including the cleanup levels established to
protect human health and the environment.. This plan is designed to bring soil conditions to residential
standards. Potential impacts from contamination on the adjacent Quendall Terminals site will also be
evaluated.
;Affected Enviromnent
The EIS text will summarize the existing standards for remediation to residential standards, based on Ecology's
existing literature, specifically the scientific basis for exposure standards and scientific uncertainty inherent in
the standards and Ecology's method for assessment of long-term risk to residents on sites. Specific reference
will be made to provisions of the Ecology -approved cleanup plan, including the locations and depths of soil
removal, methods for confirmation sampling, and protection of human health and the environment with
respect to the proposed development scenario. Site investigation reports will also be reviewed regarding the
current status of confirmed groundwater contamination and suspected surface water contamination, as
indicated in the current Ecology database for the site.
RENTON BARBEE MILL J-.'.IS WORD PROGRAM PAGr, 15 or 24 03-18-03
design characteristics of existing development. Significant visual features and landmarks within each landscape
unit will be located and the intrinsic qualities that characterize each landscape unit will be described in text
form.
Specific resources to be defined include:
• Character of existing development, including topography, vegetation, land -use patterns, community identity
(aesthetics and image), neighborhood boundaries and edges, building scale and massing, building/open-
space texture.
• Street grid, development texture, and open -space patterns.
• Parks, pedestrian/bicycle routes, and other recreation areas.
Typical viewpoints will be identified and mapped within each landscape unit from existing plans and policies,
site reconnaissance, and through the public scoping process. The selected key viewpoints will become the
views to be used to describe existing conditions in the comparison of impacts between the existing conditions,
the build alternative, and the No -Action Alternative.
Potential resident and transient viewer groups will be identified. Viewer groups could include:
• Residents within the area to the north and east of the site. Where possible, views will be selected from
public rights -of -way or other public sites that approximate the views from residences.
• Residents to the south of the site, along Lake Washington. These views will be selected from near -shore
Lake Washington views that approximate the views from residences.
• More distant views from the east, including I-405, the West Hill in unincorporated King County,.
• Viewers traversing Lake Washington Blvd. adjacent to the site, including views from the curve traveling
west from the I-405 interchange and views northbound from south of the site.
• Views from parks and public open space, including Clarke Beach Park in Mercer Island.
Ini pacts
Evaluation of impacts will include a qualitative description of the appearance of the existing site and proposed
facilities as viewed from representative key viewpoints. Visual simulations will be prepared using photos of the
site. Simulations are proposed for a "conservative case" which would include removal of existing buildings and
depiction of the gross bulk of structures allowed on proposed lots, based on City of Renton zoning standards,
and any specific commitments to height and bulk contained in the preliminary plat application.
The analysis will include an objective descriptors of attributes (such as form, line, color and texture) and
provide a qualitative evaluation in terms of relationships between elements of the visual environment in terms
of dominance, scale, diversity and continuity. Viewer response to the visual environment will be described in
terms of viewing populations and visual quality descriptors such as vividness/interest and
intactness/ coherence/unity.
Evaluation of the change from the existing industrial development of the site to the proposed residential plat
will focus on intensity, scale and building bulk. Evaluation of compatibility with existing development in the
vicinity will be evaluated in terms of bulk, height, scale, design, landscape and vegetation character as it relates
to the character of existing development.
.,Vitigatlon
RENTON I3: RME N-1ju.1 IS Wo]zh PROGRAM PAGr. 17 or 24 03-18-03
This element of the scope will assess noise impacts associated with construction, impacts of noise from the
adjacent railroad on the residential use of the site, noise from use of the site, and noise associated with
increased traffic volumes related to regional growth, and the proposal.
Approacb
Parametrix will prepare an EIS noise section analysis using typical noise levels generated by construction, and
rail use.
Affected Environment
The EIS text will summarize noise level in the project area and identify sensitive receptorswith a particular
focus on the rail line adjacent to the site. Description of existing noise levels will include characterization of
htuman response to noise levels based on context and normal activities.
Construction Impacts
Construction noise impacts shall be described based on:
• Types and locations of equipment likely to be used on the project.
• Typical construction equipment noise levels and duration.
• Typical means of reducing construction noise.
• Local ordinances relating to construction noise.
• Land uses or activities, which may be affected by construction noise.
Construction timing and phasing shall be discussed and the potential need for variances assessed.
Rail Impacts
Potential noise impacts from the rail line will be assessed based on typcical railroad carriage -to -rail noise,
whistle noise, engine noise and other typical rail related noise based on existing studies and accepted industry
standard tables. Carriage noise will be based on operating speeds as determined in coordination with BNSFRR
personnel. The frequency of rail use will be based on current experience, and also the potential for higher use
of the line in the future.
Transportation Impacts
Noise impacts from traffic related to the project will be derived from the magnitude of traffic increases from
the baseline, and the project based on the traffic/volume noise increase relationship of 3dbA noise increase for
a doubling of traffic volumes. The increase attributed to both the background increase and increases in traffic
from the proposal will be assessed. Impacts will be compared with projected noise levels from existing sources
in the area, including noise from 1-405.
Mitigation: Construction and Operation
Mitigating measures for potential construction impacts will include limits on hours of construction, staging,
equipment used, barriers, and other feasible measures.
Traffic noise abatement measures will be evaluated, in accordance with the standards established by FHWA
and WSDOT, as reference points for establishing levels where traffic noise impacts are predicted to "approach
or exceed standards" or be a "substantial increase." The proposal does not include roadway improvements
utilizing federal funding; therefore, these FHWA and WSDOT standards provide a reference rather than
indicating mitigation requirements.
RENTON BARBI-P N'III.I..EIS W01tK PROGRAM PAGE. 19 or 24 03-18-03
• One (1) field visit will be made to the site. Photos of structures will be taken, but a full inventory will not
be performed.
Deliverables
• Cultural and Historic Resource section for the Draft EIS.
• Response to comments for Final EIS.
5.0 DEIS Preparation
Goal
Prepare an adequate and complete Draft Environmental Impacts Statement addressing the effects of the
proposal and No -Action Alternative.
Approach
I'DEIS I1repai-at ion
Parametrix will prepare a Preliminary Draft EIS (PDEIS) following SEPA Guidelines, WAC 197-11, and City
of Renton procedures for review by the City of Renton and respond to comments to prepare a Draft EIS
(DEIS) for publication.
The PDEIS is expected to include the following chapters or sections (subject to revision)
• Cover and Fact Sheets.
• Summary, including tables comparing alternatives.
• Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.
• Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
• Appendices, including list of preparers, distribution list, glossary, index, and other technical backup.
Technical studies will be prepared for
• Plants and Animals: Shoreline and Wetland Habitat for Terrestrial and Aquatic Species
• Waterways, Hydrology, Floodplains, Groundwater and Water Quality
• Transportation
• Hazardous Materials
• Aesthetics, Light and Glare
• Professional editing will be conducted on the PDEIS. Ten (10) copies of the PDEIS will be provided for
review by project lead and cooperating agencies.
Assumptions
• Analysis will be based on one (1) build alternative.
• Analysis of the No -Action Alternative will include order of magnitude comparisons of impact based on
quantifiable differences resulting from one example of other allowed uses, which could be developed on
the site.
• The applicant will provide Parametrix with two paper copies and one electronic copy of all technical
reports and plans prepared for the proposal within one week after the Notice to Proceed. All graphics in
reports shall be provided in electronic format, as specified below. The applicant will arrange the
availability of consultants who provided technical reports to answer questions about the technical
assumptions underlying their reports and shall respond to questions within five (5) working days.
RF.NTON BARI3HE 11111,1., .F:1S WOItX PROGRAM PAGe 21 OF 24 03-18-03
• Distribution and legal notice of the DEIS will be provided by the City of Renton.
• A PDF format version of the DEIS for CD-ROM or web posting will not be prepared.
• Up to two (2) Parametrix staff persons will attend one (1) public hearing on the Draft EIS.
Deliverables
• Preliminary Draft EIS (15 Copies).
• Draft EIS camera ready for printing.
6.0 FEIS Preparation
Goal
Prepare adequate and complete Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Approach
Response to Cornntents
All comments received on the DEIS must have a response in the FEIS. General responses will be developed
to address commonly raised issues. Detailed or unique comments will require individual responses. Comments
will be cataloged according to commentor, element of the environment, and status of response. This item
assumes up to fifty (50) substantive comments will be received and some additional technical analysis may be
required.
PFEIS Preparation
Parametrix will prepare a Preliminary Final EIS (PFEIS). The PFEIS will include response to comments
received on the DEIS. The PFEIS will include the elements specified in WAC 197-11-560 (5) for a case where
changes in response to comments are minor.
Professional editing of the PFEIS will be conducted.
FEIS Production
Based on comments by City of Renton staff and coordinating agencies, a camera-ready Final EIS (FEIS) will be.
prepared.
Assumptions
• All DEIS assumptions also apply to the FEIS.
• Up to 50 substantive comments (not just letters) will be received.
• Limited technical analysis will be required to address comments. For budgeting purposes, approximately
10 percent of the DEIS preparation effort is assumed for response to comments, but does not include
additional substantive analysis. This assumption and the effort required to complete the FEIS will be
reviewed at the close of the comment period and may require amendment to the scope and budget.
• Parametrix will deliver ten (10) review copies to the City for distribution to City staff and cooperating
agencies.
• The City will reconcile and compile all review comments into a single copy.
The FEIS will be revised based on one (1) round of comments received on the PFEIS.
• A camera-ready copy will be prepared for final review and approval signatures.
• Printing will be billed directly as a separate item by the City of Renton to the private applicant.
Distribution and legal notice of the FEIS will be provided by the City of Renton.
Deliverables
RFNTON BARBEE MILL EIS W0XK YROGRtN\l IMAGE 23 of 24 03-18-03
EXHIBIT B
TIME SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION
10
PARAMETRIX L 31T B
City of Renton
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
' EIS Schedule
10
Task Name
Start
Finish
February March Aril Ma June Jul August Se tember
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g
38
SYNCHRO Setup
Tue 4/15ro3
Mon 4/21/03
I
4/1 i
4/i)4/28
/2
/2
/2
5/14
5/26 j i
' I
3/18 MWW241
ins 4/7 j
j 418 418
4/9 4/14
4/15 4/28 i
4/29 5/12
5/13 s/19
srzo sne
i s/27 6/2
613 6/9
! 6110 6/16 I
6117 6/23';
6/24 /27
6/30 6130
7/ 7/31
7/ 7/21
7/22 7/22
j
8/1 an
e/s a/14
8115 8121
8/22 8/26
a/27 /29
9/1 9/1
9/2I 9/2
39
SYNCHRO Baseline
Tue 4115103
Wed 4/23/03
40
Trip Generation and Assignment
Thu 4124/03
Fri 4/25103
41
Analyze intersection LOS
Mon 4/28/03
Fri 5/2/03
42
Analyze accident characteristics and patter
Mon 4/28/03
Fri 512103
43
Analyze pedestrian facilities
Mon 4128103
Fri 5/2/03
as
Mitigation Strategy Coordinate with City
Mon 5/5/03
wed 5n/03
4sMitigation
Analysis
Thu 5/8/03
wed 5/14ro3
46
Prepare Draft Transportation EIS Section
Mon 5/5/03
Mon 5/26/03
47
2.3.2 Other Elements Human Environment
Tue 3/18/03
Mon 5/26103
48
Receive information from applicant and city
Tue 3/18/03
Mon 3/24/03
49
Review existing information
Tue 3/25/03
Mon 4nro3
50
Reconnaissance Level Field Visit
Tue 4/8/03
Tue 4/8103
51
Confirm Assumptions
Wed 4/9/03
Mon 4/14/03
52
Description of affected environment
Tue 4/15/03
Mon 4128/03
53
Assess impacts
Tue 4/29/03
Mon 5112/03
54
Identify mitigation measures
Tue 5/13/03
Mon 5/19/03
55
Prepare draft section for PDEIS
Tue 5/20/03
Mon 5/26/03
56
Task 3 DEIS Preparation and City Review
Tue 5/27/03
Mon 6/30/03
57
Assemble PDEIS
Tue 5/27/03
Mon 6/2/03
58
Renton Stafff First Review
Tue 6/3/03
Mon 6/9/03
59
PMX Response to Renton Review
Tue 6/10/03
Mon 6116/03
60
Final Review Renton Staff
Tue 6/17/03
Mon 6/23ro3
61
DEIS Final Text
Tue 6/24/03
Fri 6/27/03
62
Printing (not included in budget)
Mon 6/30/03
Mon 6/30/03
63
City of Renton Issued DEIS
Tue 7/1103
Thu 7/31/03
64
DEIS Comment Period
Tue 7/1/03
Thu 7/31/03
65
Preparation for Public Meeting
Tue 7/1/03
Mon 7/21/03
66
Conduct Public Meeting (Assume 1 Meeting)
Tue 7/22103
Tue 7/22103
67
Task 4 Final EIS (FEIS)
Fri 8/1/03
Tue 9r2103
sa
Summarize Public Comments &Respond
F 8 1/03
Thu 8n/03
69
Renton Stafff First Review
Fri 8/8103
Thu 8114103
70
PMX revision
Fri 8/15/03
Thu a/21/03
71
Final Review Renton Staff
Fri 8/22/03
Tue 8/26/03
72
FEIS Final Text
wed 8/27/03
Fri 8/29/03
73
Printing (not included in budget)
Mon 911/03
Mon 9/1/03
74
FEIS Issuance by City of Renton
Tue 9/2/03
Tue 9/2103
This schedule assumes authorization to proceed by March 17, 2003. Page 2 Mon 2/24/03
The schedule is subject to roll -back based on later receipt of Notice to Proceed, of materials to
be provided by applicant or city, or later dates of completion of city review
PARAMI EXHIBIT C GET (03-18-03) ity of Renton
54-1779-812
Barbee Mill inary Plat EIS Environne Jct Statement
(Tine and Materials, Not to Exceed Total)
PROJECT: City of Renton, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
CLIENT: City of Renton
PMXA
i�J `:
`p 3,
y{?„•'S„e, cr
STAFF
Oem 6h—m
P Mana 9r
J,-,, Bedey
0
MAe Warfel
Geah—gy
Haz Mater'als
Sartre
Madhews
Geohydd
He2Mel
Tmy
Retlwd
FarAatwrs
Se emit
Tom Atkns
Shcs, Geakgy
Weter
Jema F—I
Weter
Resarms
Ken I —a
Wafer
Res -,
Jen Q.h
Vegetalkn
WetlaMs
Jule Gnku
T¢ne5nal
Hadtet
Bop P160,
Aquallc
Resara
Bill L.
Agvelic
Hesarces
Cane, Denre
Tux.
Rises Reo
T,.I'
Madeprg
Tese Bess
irea cAmtysn
Jahn Pe4ic
Tensponelbn
Nm Vefliwlar
Mdigatbn
Bop
FrenNln
Rat
Grossing
Susan
Wessmen
AexV,,tim
MbIacGAuu1
Ken Frt4erck
Noise
Lecp pile
Graphkx
WoN
Pmeeesitg
TOTAL
TOTAL
Phew
Task
Org
cescriplion
DSC RueA,
$3700
S3013
S49.65
S26.62
SatM
$'SrM
526.W
$3,x
$34.14
E2rI
$39.74
S26.49
S35>J
ESa.W
$28.36
$46.2T
43V
$24M
S26.00
MW
S27.W
$29_e0
HOURS
COST
ProfProfect Mana ernenl
40
4
4
4
4
4
16
4
79.5385
$2,835.64
OAJOC
32
32
$960.00
Alternatives
6
4
4
16
$516.00
soasreology
< 1
8
16
16
1
1
1
1 4
48
$1,769.68
Shorelhre Wetland Habitat
4
16
36
4
1 4
64
$1,945.32
Flshedes
4
32
60
8
4
108
$3,341.08
Waler, Drainage, Flooding
4
20
90
4
4
4
11
4
141
$4,288.56
Groundwater
2
12
36
4
8
24
4
4
94
$3,015.68
Warer Quali
2
8
36
4
50
$1,547.12
Transportaton
8
60
10
140
16
8
8
4
4
258
$7,905.08
Toxic and Hal. Materials 1
4
1
12
40
1
1
1
8
4
4
76
$2,349.48
Aesthetics, Light 8 Glare
4
40
36
4
84
$2,209.20
Not.
4
16
4
4
28
$78800
Cullurat?IistoriC
4
40
4
4
4
56
51,449.20
DEIS
40
6
16
10
20
6
12
12
32
6
116
6
36
20
50
288
S8,845.40
FEIS
36
4
11
2
5
16
3
3
5
5
10
18
1
16
2
9
2
40
4
24
.2
$6,220.66
DSC Labor Subtotal at Current Salary Rates
168
32
46
119
18
51
174
31
29
1 53
53
106
78
10
172
18
a
95
18
120
103
126
1624
S49,986.10
Salary Escalation
Estimated %o(Droiect completed before next increase
n%
Additional Direct Salary Cost from Salary Escalation
SI,249.65
Estimated% of next Salary increase
5.0%
DSC Labor Subtotal wi h Salary Escalation
$51,235.76
Overhead Rate
185.001/6
Overhad (OH) Cost _ OH Rate x DSC =
$94,786.15
Fixed Fee Rate
35.00%
Fixed Fee (FF) Cost = FF Rate x DSC =
$17,932.51
In -House Expense Item
Number
unn Cast
U14t
Dlreat Cost
Markup%
,a
Mlea
$0.365
mile
536.00
JA` '
>7 : ">>' x 's kr �..''" _ ;y 1 6
d ty `i 1 .","�/"q` d,.t 3,q its
.ir .'`"
`' •' ° .„ - /". xi" -_ k'+'
>PL .°.eve°.,:.r§v'a"2
$365.00
photon s
4000
$0.10
Sheol
$400.00
$400.00
Check Prime
100
$1.00
sheet
$100.00
$100.00
Pouf flub
$20DO
sheet
MMisc..Misc..Postn Sh' eta
250
$1000.00
10%•�+d',k-_K
$1,100.00
Outside Expenses
Description
aTeac
Markupx
15%Wz
.a
N
e
Su6consulfants
f0%
e
$1.965.00
$165,919.42
Prepared By:
(Pruj dManager)
Reviewed By.
(Division Manager)
Approved By:
Prgad oetNery System 03n 6/A03 Renten 8- REVISED Budget ve3. IBA3.xls
i
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services/Human
Services
Staff Contact...... Karen Bergsvik, ext. 6652
Subject:
2003 CDBG Amounts/Participation in Housing
Stability Program
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Al N:
For Agenda of:
March 24, 2003
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Community Services Committee Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept .... X..
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... $21,355 Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... $21,355
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
►91
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Renton needs to decide whether or not we will participate in the CDBG Consortium Housing Stability
Program in 2003. Under the Joint Agreement we have with King County (approved February 5, 2002,
for 2003-2005), the city may opt out. Our prior pass -through agreement did not give us that option.
The $21,355 is part of the funding we receive as a Joint Agreement City. If the City chooses to
participate in the Housing Stability Program, the $21,355 will come from the public services amount
available for distribution. If Renton opts not to participate, that amount will be available for allocation
to public services and passed through the City budget. The net cost to the City will be zero.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Human Services staff recommends that Renton continue to participate in the Housing Stability Program.
HAHUMAN SETOUNCILWgenda Housing Stability Program 2003.doc
Renton residents frequently use the program and Human Services staff makes many
referrals to the YWCA, the South County program administrator. Typically most
families are screened for the program by the Crisis Clinic, and then referred, if
qualified, to the YWCA.
Cities that belong to the Consortium that have pass -through agreements (as we did
in the past) agreed that HSP was such an important program that funding would not
be decided by each member city. The governing body of the Consortium (the JRC)
made this decision. Of the total CDBG public services funds available to King County
(the CDBG funds which are used to fund the operating budgets of nonprofits, as
opposed to CDBG capital funds and CDBG Planning and Administration funds), 25%
of the funds, not to exceed $300,000, is for the HSP program. Qualified applicants
throughout King County are then helped on a first come, first served basis. On
average, 180 applicants are turned away each quarter due to lack of funds. In 2002,
Renton residents received $18,190.74 in HSP funds of the $21,355 pro-rata share.
In 2001, Renton residents accessed $10,314 of approximately $12,000. In 2000, of
the $12,313 pro-rata assessment, $11,951 was utilized by Renton residents.
Renton has received our new 2003 CDBG allocations — numbers which are
substantially higher than we planned, because they are based on the 2000 census
data. In 2003, Renton's pro-rata assessment (25% of the public services funding) is
$21,355. If the City opts not to participate in HSP, the City can allocate the funds to
any eligible public service activity.
Under the Joint Agreement, Renton will receive the higher of the two amounts -the
amount we would have received as a direct entitlement, or as a pass -through city.
As a pass -through city, we were estimated to receive $434,414. This amount was
calculated after the administrative set -aside and HSP funds were deducted from the
Consortium funds available for distribution. Under this scenario, we have $323,930
for Capital projects, $46,235 to cover Planning and Administration Expenses, and
$64,249 to allocate to Public Services.
As a Joint Agreement City, we receive the amount we would have received as a
direct entitlement. The Joint Agreement amount is higher this year, so in 2003 we
will have approximately $423,594 for Capital projects, $74,278 for Planning and
Administration, and either $77,283 for Public Services if we elect to participate in the
Housing Stability Program or $98,638 if we don't participate.
H:\HUMAN_SE\COUNCIL\Issue Paper Housing Stability Program Revised March 2003.doc
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al N:
Submitting Data: Planning /Building/Public Works
For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems Division
March 24, 2003
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Ryan Zulauf, x 7471
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Correspondence..
Boeing Lease Addendum 20
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business....... X
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Study Sessions......
Boeing Lease Addendum 20 to LAG 877-65
Information........
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Legal Dept......... X
Refer to Transportation Committee Finance Dept......
Other... .
Expenditure Required... $80,000
Transfer/Amendment...... .
Amount Budgeted....... -0- Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget $80,000 City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Boeing Company leases 1,032,738 square feet of ground area at the Airport, including
several buildings and a new, unused restroom facility located within the City's tie down area.
Under the provisions of The Boeing Company lease, LAG 877-65, the annual ground lease rate
is to be renegotiated every five years. The last rate adjustment to the lease was in 1995. In
2000, City staff initiated negotiations with The Boeing Company to readjust the annual ground
lease rate. Addendum 20 was written to document the new annual ground lease rate and the use
of the consumer Price Index -Urban. Other issues that Addendum 20 addresses are: a decrease
in the annual lease rate discount allowed for fire and security services, which are provided by
The Boeing Company; the clarification of Aviation Related Rights of The Boeing Company; the
provisions under which a large leased area including several buildings and the restroom facility
are turned -back to the City; and, the provision for temporary utility services to those buildings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Transportation Division Staff recommends Council authorize:
1. The approval of Lease Addendum 20 to the Boeing lease LAG 877-65 and execution by the
Mayor and City Clerk; and,
2. The transfer of $80,000 from the Airport Reserve Fund to the Airport CIP account for the
purchase of The Boeing Company restrooms.
H:Trans/admin/agenda2003/Boeing Lease Addendum 20
In 2000, City staff initiated negotiations with Boeing regarding a number of leasing issues. First,
increase the lease rate from $0.3428 to $0.3526 cents per square foot using the 1995-2000 Consumer
Price Index — Seattle/Tacoma Urban (CPI-U) as a basis for the lease rate increase. In addition, it was
agreed that the CPI-U shall be applied to the next property lease rate increase in 2005.
Second, City staff and Boeing agreed that the annual discount applied to the Boeing leased area would
be decreased from 14.28% to 10%. This decrease in the discount applied to the Boeing leased area
was reduced because Boeing has provided a lower level of service for aircraft rescue and fire fighting,
security and facility maintenance than has historically been the case.
Third, Boeing sought a clarification of their aviation rights in accessing the airfield from the two
bridges crossing the Cedar River. This is typically referred to as a "Through -the -Fence" operation.
Boeing has enjoyed this lease right since the inception of the airport's current configuration in 1943.
Section 10 of Addendum 20 clarifies this right.
Fourth, during the negotiation period of Lease Addendum 20, Boeing turned -back portions of Apron
C, known as "North Apron C Remainder" (aircraft positions C-9 through C-13). Section 11 of Lease
Addendum 20 addresses the terms under which the leased area and assets are returned to City control.
The North Apron C Remainder area contains 248,103 square feet of leased property which includes:
1. One 22,000 square foot hangar;
2. One 26,000 square foot avionics building;
3. 15 light poles for ramp lighting and associated wiring;
4. Private sewer lines and sewer pump station;
5. A private potable water system; and,
6. A portion of a private fire water system.
The two buildings returned to City ownership, including the Airport Maintenance shop, two City
owned electric vehicle gates, and the ramp lighting north of The Boeing Fuel Farm are served by
Boeing utilities. This includes electricity, gas, compressed air, potable water, fire water, and fire
sprinkler monitoring. Lease Addendum 20 stipulates that the City has until the end of 2003 to sever
these utilities. Currently, only the potable water, fire water and electricity system remain to be
severed. These remaining utilities will be addressed in a future agenda bill, requesting an amendment
to the 2003 Capital Improvement Program.
Also, during the lease negotiation period, the Council addressed the issue of the lack of restroom
facilities on the west side of the airfield. In order to address the need for restrooms on the airfield,
Council granted approval to install three temporary port -a -potties and requested that staff work to
secure ownership of a Boeing restroom located north of the Control Tower. The restroom was
constructed by The Boeing Company in 1969 or 1970, but never opened for use, and therefore, is in a
nearly -new condition. Staff negotiated an $80,000 purchase price for the restroom, which includes a
private sewer pump station.
cc: Sandra Meyer
Sam Star
H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\AIRPORT\OIAdministration\l2Real Property Mgmt\Leases\Boeing\Boeing Addendum 20\Issue Paper -
Addendum 20 3-11-03.doc\cor
LAG 877-65
Addendum 20-01
3. Lessor and Lessee do hereby further agree that the Consumer Price Index information to be
used for rental adjustments shall be the Consumer Price Index - Urban (CPI-U) for the
months of February 2000 and February 2005 for all urban consumers, as published by the US
Department of Labor for the SeattleTacoma-Bremerton All Urban Consumers Index.
4. Lessor and Lessee do hereby further agree that if the Lessor desires to adjust the base land
rental rate for the ensuing five (5) year period using the Consumer Price Index - Seattle
Tacoma Bremerton All Urban Consumers Index, method, the Lessor shall provide a courtesy
written notice of such intent to the Lessee. Such notice shall be postmarked at least ninety
(90) days prior to the Rental Readjustment Date, i.e., by not later than the last day of
February 2005.
Lessor and Lessee do hereby further agree that if either party desires to adjust the base land
rental rate for the ensuing five (5) year period by a means other than by using the Consumer
Price Index -method, Seattle Tacoma -Bremerton All Urban Consumers, the party desiring to
use an alternative method shall provide to the other party a courtesy written request for
readjustment of the rental rate pursuant to RCW 14.08.120(5). Such notice shall be
postmarked at least ninety (90) days prior to the Rental Readjustment Date, i.e., by not later
than the last day of February 2005. Both parties must agree before using an alternative
method for adjusting the rental rate. If agreement cannot be reached on or before May 1,
2005, readjustment of the rental rate pursuant to RCW 14.08.120(5) shall be used. The
application of the newly adjusted rental rate will be retroactive to the Rental Readjustment
Date.
6. Lessor and Lessee do hereby further agree that the thirty (30) day notification required by
paragraph 3.2 of the lease shall be fulfilled by either of the two above notices, but that if
courtesy notifications are not received, the provisions of paragraph 3.2 remain in effect,
meaning that, as a minimum, the required written request for readjustment of the cash rental
rate must be given by either party by at least May 1, 2005.
7. Lessor and Lessee do hereby further agree that the method of computation of the CPI-U rate
increase shall be:
a. Divide the index number for April 2005 by the index number for April 2000, then
b. Multiply the current annual rental rate per square foot by the result obtained in step a.
The result is the new annual rental rate per square foot.
c. Multiply the square footage contained in the leased area by the result obtained in step b.
The result is the new total annual rental rate.
8. Lessor and Lessee do hereby further agree that rental for the Administrative Building,
commonly referred to as the Boeing 5-02 Building, is established at a total annual base rate of
$55,198.32, prior to application of the 10% administrative discount, and $49,678.49 after the
application of the 10% administrative discount.
9. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that the annual rental for the Administrative Building
shall remain in effect until June 1, 2005, and effective as of that date the annual rent may be
readjusted by and between the parties as specified in paragraph 3.2. of the lease, entitled
Rental Rate Readjustment, for the five (5) year period June 1, 2005 through May 31, 2010.
Addendum 20-01 to LAG 877-65
City of Renton and The Boeing Company
2
LAG 877-65
Addendum 20-01
Apron C Remainder'. The Lessee shall transfer to the Lessor the 4" potable
water line serving the Lessee's fuel farm and the 5-44 restroom building at the
City water meter vault, located in front of the control tower. On and after the
date of such transfer, the Lessor shall have the complete and sole responsibility
for the maintenance, operation, repair, modification, and replacement of said
water line and said restroom. The Lessor shall, at the Lessor's sole expense,
install a City water meter at the Lessee's fuel farm for the sole purpose of
providing potable water to the lessee's fuel farm. The Lessee shall also transfer
to the Lessor the fire water line north of the fuel farm serving aircraft positions
C-3 through C-132 to the fire water line valve at aircraft position C-13. Lessor, at
Lessor's sole expense will sever the fire water line at aircraft position C-3 and at
aircraft position C-13. On and after the date of such transfer, the Lessor shall
have the complete and sole responsibility for the maintenance, operation, repair,
modification, and replacement of said fire water line. As further consideration
for the water lines identified in this section, the Lessor and Lessee agree to the
provisions outlined in the following sections.
12.2 In the event that Lessor does not demolish or lease the buildings, Lessee has the
right to occupy building numbers 5-60 and 5-14 at no cost (no rent), however
Lessee is responsible for costs associated with tenant improvements installed by
Lessee after May 1, 2002 and operating expenses. Lessee is required to vacate
the buildings within 90 days of receiving Notice to Vacate from Lessor. This
right shall be personal to The Boeing Company and shall be non -transferable,
other than to an affiliate, vendor or entity that is in the aviation or aerospace
business on behalf of The Boeing Company.
12.3 From the date of execution of this Agreement through the year 2010, in the event
that the Lessor's annual revenues from uses on the North Apron C Remainder
(minus annualized cost of capital expenses paid for this property by the Lessor)
exceed the revenue that the Lessee would have paid should the Lessee have
retained leasehold interest in this property, then the Lessee shall receive an
annual airport lease credit in the amount of this revenue differential.
12.4 The Lessee may wish to construct a 25-foot high chain link fence with slats in it
along three sides of the B-ramp leased property on the airport as part of their
Phase II security improvements. The Lessor will contribute funding for the cost
of installation of the lower 7-feet of this chain link fence improvement.
12.5 Lessor acknowledges that Lessee is currently providing fire protection systems
and other utilities to support buildings 5-60 and 5-14. Lessor agrees that Lessee
is not required to provide such services and shall indemnify and hold harmless
Lessee from all claims from visitors, vendors, agents, employees and other
visitors to the buildings (5-60 and 5-14), and, without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, all tenants, licensees, subtenants, and occupants of either said
buildings (including particularly the current occupant who is using the said
building(s) for storage) with respect to any claims related to the delivery of such
' The property on which the lift station is located was not a part of the Boeing lease or any addenda thereto.
However, the lift station was built by Boeing and that portion of Apron C that was surrendered to the City
is connected to the lift station.
2 Lessee does not currently lease aircraft position C-3 through C-13 from the Lessor.
Addendum 20-01 to LAG 877-65
City of Renton and The Boeing Company
4
LESSOR:
LESSEE:
THE CITY OF RENTON THE BOEING
COMPANY
By:
Date:
Attest:
Date:
Approved as to legal form:
City Attorney
Addendum 20-01 to LAG 877-65
City of Renton and The Boeing Company
by: _
Date:
Attest:
Date:
LAG 877-65
Addendum 20-01
C:!
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al k:
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division
March 24, 2003
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... J.D. Wilson, x 7295
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Consultant Contract for Update of Water System Plan
Correspondence..
Analysis and Pre -Design of Highlands 565 Pressure
Ordinance .............
Zone Water Distribution Improvements
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Issue paper
Study Sessions......
Contract Exhibit A - Scope of Work
Information.........
Contract Exhibit B - Schedule
Contract Exhibit C- Cost Estimate
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Council Concur Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept...... X
Other.
Fiscal Impact: None
Expenditure Required... $218,051.00 Transfer/Amendment....... N/A
Amount Budgeted....... $220,000.00 Revenue Generated......... N/A
Total Project Budget $230,000.00 City Share Total Project.. $218,051.00
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City needs to update its 1998 Water System Plan and develop a capital improvement plan to
upgrade the water infrastructure in the Highlands. The improvements, which will include a new
reservoir and distribution system piping, are needed to provide adequate water storage for fire flow
and water pressure to the Highlands Redevelopment area.
The Water Utility received seven proposals for professional services, evaluated the proposals and
selected R.W. Beck, Inc. as the most highly qualified firm to do the work.
There are sufficient funds in the 2003 Water Utility Capital Improvement budget to cover this
contract.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that Council authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute a contract with R.W. Beck, Inc. in the amount of $218,051.00 for update
of the Water System Plan Analysis and Pre -Design of Highlands 565 Pressure Zone Water
Distribution Improvements.
\\DAEDALUS\SYS2\SHARED\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-13 - Studies & Project Development\WTR-13-0082 - Water System Plan
Update & 565 Pre-Design\RW Beck Contract\agenda bill for contract.doc\lf
March 14, 2003
Page 2
problems for customers. The lack of redundancy and additional storage from a second water
tank increases the risk of not having adequate fire flow in the 565 zone. The consultant
contract includes a pre -design report for a new reservoir.
The City is also planning for the redevelopment of the Highlands area and has received
applications and interest from developers for several proposed commercial and mixed -used
developments. Water infrastructure improvements are needed to provide the required fire
flow demand for the proposed development. The consultant contract will also include the
development of a plan for the modifications to the distribution system, cost estimates and
suggested methodologies for sharing costs between the City and owners and developers of
properties that would benefit from the proposed improvements to the water distribution
system.
The Water Utility advertised requesting proposals for this project in accordance with City
Policy 250-02 and received proposals from seven consulting firms. Staff evaluated the seven
written proposals, interviewed the four highest -ranked firms, and selected R.W. Beck Inc. as
the most highly qualified firm to perform this project.
There are sufficient funds in the Water Utility 2003 Capital Improvement Project budget to
cover this consultant contract. Funding will come from the following budget line items:
Account Number
Amount
421.500.18.5960.0034.65.055140
Water System Plan Update
$25,000.00
421.500.18.5960.0034.65.055290
Downtown & Highlands Main Replacements
$93,051.00
421.500.18.5960.0034.65.055290
Highlands 565 Zone Reservoir
$100,000.00
Total cost of contract
$218,051.00
\\DAEDALUS\SYS2\SHARED\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-13 - Studies & Project
Development\WTR-13-0082 - Water System Plan Update & 565 Pre-Design\RW Beck Contract\issue paper for
contract.doc\lf
1. Project Management Plan
2. Meeting Minutes
3. Monthly Progress Meetings
4. Monthly Progress and Billing Reports
Task 2 - Land Use and Demographic Projections
Objective: To update the land use and demographic projections based on the most recent forecasts of the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRG) and the City's buildable land database for use in the water system analysis and for
updating the Water System Plan.
Activities:
2.1 Meet and discuss the City's population, employment and land use projections with the City Planning
Department. Obtain the land use, zoning, population forecasts, and the buildable lands database from the City.
2.2 Review the 2003 PSRG population, household, and employment projections (based on year 2000 census results)
for the transportation analysis zones that include the City of Renton water system service area.
2.3 Using the PSRG and City data, derive population, household, and employment projections according to water
pressure zones. Prepare estimates for current (2005) conditions as well as projections for 2011 (6 year
projection), 2025 (20 year projection), and for full development (i.e. saturation) conditions.
2.4 Perform a sensitivity analysis to indicate the possible range of future growth based on uncertainties in the
projections. We will prepare a high, low, and most likely projection for the City.
2.5 Prepare Chapter 3 of the Water System Plan.
Work Products:
1. Population and land use projections for use in the Water System Plan including MS Excel 2000 workbook
xls file(s) and /or MS Access 2000 mdb file(s)
2. Draft and final Chapter 4 of the 2005 Water Plan (include zoning and land use maps) including MS Excel
2000 xls file (s), MS Word 2000 doc file(s) and AutoCAD 2002 dwg file (s)
Task 3 - Demand Forecasts
Objective: To develop updated water demand forecasts based on the land use and demographic projections prepared
in Task 2 and to organize these for use in the Comprehensive Water Plan.
3.1 Analyze the City's customer records to determine historical water usage by customer class and by pressure zone.
3.2 Identify and locate large water customers within the system and summarize their water use characteristics.
3.3 Prepare water demand forecasts for 2005, 2011, and 2025 considering conservation and possible variations in
future demands to produce high, medium, and low projections.
3.4 Review historical information on average, maximum day, and peak hourly water demands for the system. Using
this information, develop maximum day and peak hour peaking factors for use in the water system analysis.
3.5 Prepare Chapter 4 of the Water Plan.
Work Products:
1. Water use forecasts for 2005 (present), 2011, 2025, and saturation including MS Excel 2000 workbook xls
file(s) and /or MS Access 2000 mdb file(s)
2. Draft and final Chapter 5 of the 2005 Water System Plan including MS Excel 2000 xls file (s), MS Word
2000 doc file(s) and AutoCAD 2002 dwg file (s)
Water System Plan Analysis Update and Pre -Design for 565 Pressure Zone Water Distribution Improvements
-11-
5.5 Considering the new reservoir location, analyze the 565 zone and recommend any changes to the zone boundary
between the 435 and 565 zones, including modifications distribution network to deliver the municipal supply
and fire flow requirements to the customers' water while maintaining adequate pressure. The information will
include a map showing main sizes, routes, zone valve locations, etc.
5.6 Prepare a preliminary cost estimate for the additional storage and for the proposed system changes.
Work Products:
1. Report documenting the analysis and selection of the additional storage and changes proposed to the 565
zone.
2. Input to Chapters 8 and 9 of the City's 2005 Water System Plan.
Task 6 - Capital Improvement Program
Objective: To develop the water system capital improvement program for the 2006-2011 period.
Activities:
Using the water system model, analyze alternative solutions to correct the deficiencies identified in the water system
analysis. Generally, the projected 2025 demands will be used to size the improvements and the 2011 water
requirements to prioritize them.
6.1 Prepare a capital improvement program showing recommended projects for each year of the projected 2006-
2011 period. This will include cost estimates for the recommended improvements.
6.2 Review the cost estimates for proposed water main replacements (to be provided by the City) and include
estimates in the Capital Improvement Program.
6.3 Prepare maps for inclusion in the Water System Plan showing the proposed capital improvements and the
location of the pipelines that will be replaced.
6.4 Prepare Chapter 9 for the Water System Plan.
Work Products:
1 Draft and final Chapter 9 of the City's 2005 Water System Plan incorporating the capital improvement
program and the replacement program for old mains including MS Excel 2000 xls file (s), MS Word 2000
doc file(s) and AutoCAD 2002 dwg file (s)
Task 7 - 565 Zone Storage and Distribution System Predesign
Objective: To prepare a preliminary design for the new reservoir in the 565 pressure zone to allow the City to
budget for the improvement and to proceed with final design when ready.
Activities:
7.1 Meet with City staff to discuss the desirability of phasing the construction of new storage considering present
and saturation development.
7.2 Perform geotechnical investigations for the selected reservoir site. The explorations will include one boring at
approximately the center of the reservoir and three test pits 10 to 12 feet deep located around the perimeter of
the reservoir. The geotechnical engineer will perform laboratory tests to determine the physical and engineering
properties of the soil. The scope includes engineering analysis with recommendations for the reservoir
foundation including allowable soil bearing pressures and expected settlement. The analyses will establish the
site amplification factors and develop site -specific seismic response spectra. The report will include
recommendations for sedimentation and erosion control and will address City of Renton sensitive areas
Water System Plan Analysis Update and Pre -Design for 565 Pressure Zone Water Distribution Improvements
-13-
This is a contingency task and is not to be used without prior authorization from the City. It is intended to be used if
the City requests Additional Services.
Additional Services:
The City may request Beck to perform additional services in conjunction with the preparation of the Comprehensive
Water Plan. The cost for these additional services will be negotiated between Beck and the City. The following
shall be considered additional services but is not an all-inclusive list:
1. The scope and budget for the survey of the selected site is based on the 9.34 acre parcel at 9401 NE Sunset
Boulevard, which is the largest site so the costs would probably be less if another site is chosen.
2. Detailed analysis of redevelopment areas in the City, other than the Boeing site and the 565 zone.
3. Final design of the new Highland reservoir and associated water system improvements.
4. Assistance with the financial plan for the Comprehensive Water Plan.
5. Other services as may be defined by the City.
6. The scope and budget for the geotechnical investigations are based on one of the undeveloped reservoir
sites. They will be reviewed after the reservoir site is selected; if the new reservoir is located at the site of
the existing Highlands tank, the costs would likely be less.
City Furnished Services:
1 The City has the overall responsibility for preparing the 2005 Water System Plan and will prepare all sections
not specifically assigned to Beck as described herein.
2 The City will assign a project manager to work with the consultant to coordinate data requests, meetings, review
of work products, etc. with the appropriate City staff.
3 The City will make all background information and software related to the development of the Water System
Plan available to the Consultant. This includes, but may not be limited to documentation of the current
Comprehensive Water Plan, the updated H2ONet model of the water system, the City's GIS (geographical
information system) based mapping system, etc. Wherever feasible, this information will be made available to
the Consultant for use in electronic format.
4 The following water system information will be furnished by the City; capacity of sources and operating
characteristics, water system production records, customer service records, water quality data, current
information on interties, service agreements with adjacent systems, and fire flow criteria for the system analysis.
5 Upon request, City operating personnel will perform limited field tests of the water system to simulate system
performance under specific demand conditions.
6 Any available reservoir site mapping and drawings.
7 Any permits or approvals required for the geotechnical engineer or surveyor to gain access to the proposed
reservoir sites
Water System Plan Analysis Update and Pre -Design for 565 Pressure Zone Water Distribution Improvements
-15-
hibit C
Water System Plan Update and 565 Prebsure Zone Water Distribution System Pre -Design
Labor Hours Details and Cost Summary
RLdt'�jr-rujectnwroemor vroject iecnmcai vroject wora CaraitleManager Engineer Economist Engineer Editor Assistant CAD/GI Processing
Billate $162 $130 $186 $86 $75 $71 $78 $71
Hours
1.1
Prepare project management plan
8.0
4.0
12.0
1.2
Review data with City PM and Planning Department
4.0
4.0
8.0
1.3
Meet with DOH
4.0
4.0
8.0
1.4
Data inventory
2.0
8.0
10.0
1.5
Meet with King County and/or other local jurisdictions
4.0
4.0
8.0
1.6
Manage work progress
8.0
20.0
28.0
1.7
Monthly progress reports
10.0
20.0
30.0
1.8
Monthly communication/meetings
16.0
16.0
1.9
1 QA/QC
40.0
40.0
2
.
Lan use and Demographic"Projections`:"
0:0
0.0
40 0
96.0
8.0`
4.0
24.0 :--
:16 0
0.0
188:0
$1:9593
2.1
Meet with City's Planning Department
8.0
8.0
16.0
2.2
Review PSRC data
4.0
8.0
12.0
2.3
Prepare demographic projections
16.0
24.0
40.0
2.4
Define range of potential growth
8.0
16.0
24.0
2.5
Prepare Chapter 3 of the Water Plan
4.0
40.0
8.0
4.0
24.0
16.0
96.0
3
Demand Forecasts
:4.0
0.0
24.0
104 0.:
8.0
4.0
0:0
16.0
0.0
160;0
$16087
3.1
Determine historical water use by customer class
8.0
8.0
3.2
Determine historical water use for large users
4.0
4.0
3.3
Prepare water demand forecasts
24.0
44.0
68.0
3.4
Develop peak day and peak hour peaking factors
8.0
8.0
3.5
Prepare Chapter 4 of the Water Plan
4.0
40.0
8.0
4.0
16.0
72.0
4
Water System Analysis. `,
3.4 0
0.0
00
224 0
8.0:::
4 0 -__..._._._
40 0 °;
160
0 0
3260
$29946':
4.1
Update demands in H2ONet model
24.0
24.0
4.2
Meet with Operations personnel to review system
4.0
4.0
8.0
4.3
Verify model is correctly simulating system
4.0
16.0
20.0
4.4
Model calibration
2.0
16.0
18.0
4.5
Existing conditions hydraulic analysis
24.0
24.0
4.6
Fire flow analysis
8.0
8.0
4.7
Future conditions hydraulic analysis
4.0
32.0
36.0
4.7a
Boeing Area - 2 alternatives
4.0
16.0
20.0
4.8
Storage analysis
4.0
16.0
20.0
4.9
Review conservation program, water quality, cross-
connection control program
4.0
16.0
20.0
4.10
Prepare section 8 of Water Plan
8.0
52.0
8.0
4.0
40.0
16.0
128.0
Page 1 of 4
hibit C
Water System Plan Update and 565 Pressure Zone Water Distribution System Pre -Design
Labor Hours Details and Cost Summary
Title) I Consultants
Bill Rate
1.1 1 Prepare project management plan
1.2 Review data with City PM and Planning Department
1.3 Meet with DOH
1.4 Data inventory
1.5 Meet with King County and/or other local jurisdictions
1.6 Manage work progress
1.7 Monthly progress reports
1.8 Monthly communication/meetings
1.9 QA/QC
2.1 Meet with City's Planning Department
2.2 Review PSRC data
2.3 Prepare demographic projections
2.4 Define range of potential growth
2.5 Preoare Chanter 3 of the Water Plan
3 ; -Demand Forecasts V9.0 $Q $16;877
3.1 Determine historical water use by customer class
3.2 Determine historical water use for large users
3.3 Prepare water demand forecasts
3.4 Develop peak day and peak hour peaking factors
3.5 Prepare Chapter 4 of the Water Plan
4 WaterSystorn nalys s $1,783 $0 $31,Z29J
4.1 Update demands in H2ONet model
4.2 Meet with Operations personnel to review system
4.3 Verify model is correctly simulating system
4.4 Model calibration
4.5 Existing conditions hydraulic analysis
4.6 Fire flow analysis
4.7 Future conditions hydraulic analysis
4.7a Boeing Area - 2 alternatives
4.8 Storage analysis
4.9 Review conservation program, water quality, cross -
connection control program
4.10 Prepare section 8 of Water Plan
Page 3 of 4
Exhibit C
Water System Plan Update and 565 Pressure Zone Water Distribution System Pre -Design
Expenses
Total Expenses $8,025
Page 1 of 1
R W BECK
WESTERN REGION
SUMMARY INDIRECT COST RATE COMPUTATION
Source: Books of Account as of Period Ended December 31, 2001
Employee Labor Charged to Direct Work Orders (2)
Direct Labor Base
Fringe Benefits (Refer to Attachment A)
Overhead Expense (Refer to Attachment B)
Subtotal Indirect Cost Rate
Cost of Facilities Capital (1) (Refer to Attachment A)
Total Indirect Cost Rate
$3,434,842
68.69%
$5,661,672
113.22%
181.91%
$25,774
0.52%
182.43%
$5,000,640
$5,000,640
(I) -Cost of Facilities Capital is an element of cost required to be
allowable by all Federal Government Agencies
(2) - Employee Labor Charged to Direct Work Orders
a $5,021,924
Factor to eliminate Employee variance (4)
0.9958
$5,000,640
(4)-Actual Salaries Paid to Employees (Firm Total). (i) $33,677,451
Employee Labor Charged to Expense Accounts (Firm Total) (ii) $33,820,791
Variance Balance (Firm Total) ( ni) ($1)
Computation of Factor: (i) / (ii) 0 9958
RW BECK
WESTERN REGION
ATTACHMENT B
OVERHEAD EXPENSE ANALYSIS
Source: Books of Account as of Period Ended December 31, 2001
Analysis of Overhead Costs
Page 3 of 3
Distribution of Allowable Expenses to Overhead
Cost Pool and Computer Services
Expenses Per Disallowed Allowable Overhead Computer Services
General Ledger Expenses Expenses Cost Pool Cost Pool Transfer
701.01 Owner Labor
333,008.46
(1,411,36)
331,597.10
331,597,10
701.11 Employee Labor
1,459,797.30
(6,186.94)
1.453,610.36
1.375,045.04
78,565.32
70120 Employee Labor- Other
44,609.63
(189.07)
44,420.56
44,420.56
70120 Employee Labor - Signing Bonus/Housing i
O.Do
(35,832.76)
(35,832.76)
(35,832.76)
710.02 Professional Services
35,925.33
35,925.33
35,350.33
575.00
710.03 Technical and Stenographic Services
28,754.91
28.754.91
28,754.91
710.04 Supp. Support Staff
24,029.29
24.029.29
24,029.29
711.01 Meals
45,036.04
(8,002.90)
37,033.14
36,863.17
179.97
711.02 Hotel
41.625.45
(15,443.04)
26,182.41
25,552.35
630.06
711.03 Surface Travel
50,983.32
50,983.32
50,493.75
489.57
711.04 Air Travel
74,122.78
0.00
74,122.78
73,906.28
216.50
711.05 Miscellaneous Travel
0.00
0.00
0.00
712.01 Entertainment
10,721.83
(10,721.83)
0.00
0.00
712.02 Business Gifts
7.860.98
(7,860.98)
0.00
0.00
712.03 Advertising
14.000.06
(5,822.87)
8,177.19
8,177.19
712.04 Donations
1,974.00
(1,974.00)
0.00
0.00
713.01 Communications
47,442.53
47,442.53
46,771.82
670.71
713.02 Postage
2,723.48
2,723.48
2.701.19
22.29
713.03 Delivery and Shipping
25,798.78
25.798.78
25,164.28
634.50
713.04 Supplies
66,257.33
66,257.33
56,097.08
10,160.25
713.05 Printing and Reproduction
102.918.91
102,918.91
102,345.63
573.28
713.06 Maps
446.97
446.97
446.97
713.07 Books and Publications
18.123.18
18,123.18
18,101.68
21.50
713.08 Dues, Licenses and Fees
48,984.96
(4.577.68)
44,407.28
43,756.71
650.57
714.01 Building Rent
870,96722
870,96722
$70,967.22
714.02 Equipment Rent
35,682.63
35,682.63
35,682.63
0.00
714.03 Repair and Maintenance
12,298.30
12,298.30
4,218.96
8,079.34
714.04 Utilities
9,412.39
9,412.39
9,412.39
714,05 Depredation
162,144.61
162.144.61
47,631.68
114.512.93
714.06 Software Amortization
28,176.28
28,176.28
192.76
27,983.50
715.01 Business Taxes
324,133.05
324,133.05
324,133.05
715.03 Personal Property Taxes
8,828.97
8,828.97
4,149.62
4,67935
715.04 Company Insurance
0.00
0.00
0.00
715.05 Bad Debts
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
715.07 ONIC Insurance
0.00
0.00
0.00
719.01 Miscellaneous
0.00
0.00
0.00
720.01 Microcomputer -Type 1
128,090.00
128,090.00
117,558.75
10.531.25
720.02 Microcomputer -Type 2
15,542.50
15,542.50
14,537.50
1,005.00
720.03 Purchased Software
3,253.56
3,253.56
0.00
3,253.56
720.04 Purchased Computer Equipment
(575.90)
-575.90
307.35
(883.25)
720.05 Computer Services - Service Bureau
0.00
0.00
0.00
720.07 Software Rent and Maintenance
14,587.65
14,587.65
0.00
14,587.65
720.08 Program Use Fee
8,750.00
8,750.00
0.00
8,750.00
720.09 Computer Services - Other
1.72820
1,72820
1,51920
209.00
750.01 Expense Offset - Printing
(58,770.41)
-58,770.41
(58.770.41)
750.02 Expense Offset - Equipment
(1,314.D0)
-1.314.00
(3,694.00)
2.380.00
750.04 Expense Offset - Other
132,559.73
132,559.73
(35,175.97)
167,735.70
750.05 Long Distance Telephone Offset
(2,387.62)
-2,387.62
(2,387.62)
750.06 Expense Offset - Complex
256,278.00
256,278.00
256,278.00
751.06 Expense Offset - PC Type 1
(322,996.22)
-322,996.22
0.00
751.07 Expense Offset - PC Type 2
(226,265.41)
-226,265.41
0.00
751.08 Expense Offset - Program Use
0.00
0.00
0.00
751.D9 Expense Offset - Laptop
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sub Total
Plus: Corporate Overhead Allocation
Less: Public Relations Costs
Less: Lender Seminar
Less: Legal Collection Costs
Less: Purchase of California Office
Less: Overhead Pool Portion of Computer Variance
Less: Gain/Loss on Disposition of Fixed Assets
Total Overhead Expense
Imputed Cost of Facilities Capital
(322.996.22)
(226,265.41)
3,885,269.05 (98,023.44) 3,787,245.61
3,880,293.69
456,213.55 (549,261.63)
1,998,291.03
1,781,478.07
384,824.49 (168.011.52)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,169.99
(99.75)
2,269.74
3,885,269.05 (98,023,44) 5,787,706.63
5,661.672.01
843,307.78 (717,273,115L
25,77422 23,488.21
5.687,446 23 866,795.98
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
SUBMITTING DATA:
Dept/Div/Board.. City Clerk
Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton
SUBJECT:
Bid opening on 3/12/2003 for CAG-03-005,
Pavilion Building Renovation Project
EXHIBITS:
Staff Recommendation
(includes Bid Tabulation Sheet — ten bids)
Al11 #:
FOR AGENDA
AGENDA STATUS:
Consent......... X
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance.......
Resolution......
Old Business....
New Business....
Study Session...
Other...........
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS:
Legal Dept...... X
Refer to-EinaaGo-goffw ftifte Finance Dept....
V Other.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required for entire project... $2,532,065.99 Transfer/Amendment..
Amount Budgeted for entire project...... $2,300,000.00 Revenue Generated...
Amount Authorized for entire project.... $2,000,000.00
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Project Estimate for Construction: $1,800,000 (including all deductions and no additions)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following
criterion: there was more than one bid. The bid submitted by Edifice Construction Company, Inc. in the
amount of $2,184,890.47 (including alternatives 2 and 3), however, exceeds the project budget when
added with the design and engineering costs; and there were bidding irregularities. Therefore, staff
recommends referral of the bid to the Finance Committee for discussion of funding and bid protests.
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
STAFF CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE:
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
March 24, 2003
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President
Renton City Councilmembers
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk �
Jim Shepherd, Community Services Administrator.
Dennis Culp, Facilities Director x6606
Pavilion Renovation Project CAG 03-005
Should the City Council award the bid for the Pavilion renovation project to Edifice
Construction company, Inc. for the bid price of $2,184,890.47, which includes
alternatives two (2) and three (3)?
BACKGROUND:
Bids were opened on March 12, 2003, with a total of ten (10) bids received. The bids
have all been reviewed for correctness with the tabulation of bids attached at TAB A.
Bid alternates were evaluated, and the Administration determined that the
recommended project should include the base bid and alternative 2 (substitution of solid
curtain walls on the east and west ends of the building above the store fronts) plus
alternative 3 (air-conditioning).
The project consists of remodeling the exterior of the building, a new metal roof, patio
area on the West end of the building, a raised floor system, and an option to add air-
conditioning if Council approves the Administration's proposal.
The apparent low bidder is Edifice Construction Company with a construction contract
amount of $1,881,153.56 (base bid plus savings of alternate 2). Including
design/engineering costs and a 5% construction contingency the project budget
becomes $2,213,142.24.
With the air-conditioning option accepted, Edifice is still the apparent low bidder and the
construction contract amount is $2,184,890.47. Again, including design/engineering
costs and a 5% construction contingency, the project budget becomes $2,532,065.99.
See TAB B for budget details.
Using the base bid and the recommended alternates, the apparent low bid plus soft
costs (design and engineering) exceed the project budget. To date we have spent
$92,624.43 and the total project appropriation is $2,300,000 of which the Council
authorized the Administration to spend $2,000,000. The fund source is the 316 Fund.
The Administration proposes to pay for the recommended project by asking the Council
to authorize the expenditure of all previously appropriated funds ($2,300,000), and the
Administration would commit to funding the remainder ($232,065) from within the
existing 2003 budget.
There are bidding irregularities. The air-conditioning sub -contractor, used by the low
and second low bidders, withdrew his quote because of a mathematical mistake. When
Edifice Construction (low bidder) was asked if they would still honor their original bid,
they said yes. Copy of Edifice's commitment to honor their bid is attached at TAB C, as
is a copy of the mechanical sub -contractor's withdrawal letter.
There has also been two bid protests. The third low bidder, MJ Shockley Construction, is
claiming that the low and second low bidders used numbers for the air-conditioning sub-
contractor that were wrong. Copies of the Shockley correspondences are attached at
TAB D.
At TAB E is a bid protest from a mechanical contractor who is claiming that one controls
supplier had approval to bid but in fact did not. The specification was clear that the
controls contractor had to be BACnet, level 3 certified. This requirement allowed the
City the greatest flexibility in connecting and controlling different equipment, since this
produces a non-proprietary control system. According to the City attorney a sub-
contractor cannot protest a bid, so this "protest" has no standing.
At TAB F is a copy of a memorandum from the City Attorney, which indicates that both
bid protests have no merit and the City can proceed with a contract award to the
apparent low bidder.
RECOMMENDATION:
Award contract for the Pavilion Renovation Project to Edifice Construction Company,
Inc. for their bid price of $2,184,890.47. This bid price includes their base bid and
alternatives 2 and 3. Council authorize the use of $2,300,000 previously appropriated
for this project. The remaining funds needed ($232,065) will come from savings within
the existing 2003 budget.
Attachments: TAB A Bid Tabulation
TAB B Budget Details
TAB C Letter from Edifice Construction and a letter from the Mechanical
Sub -contractor withdrawing his quote to Edifice
TAB D Protest letters from MJ Shockley Construction
TAB E Protest letter from Ramsett Mechanical
CoTAB F Letter from the City Attorney
CC: Jay Covington
G
CITY OF RENTON
BID TABULATION SHEET
'ROJECT: Pavilion Building Renovation; CAG-03-005
DATE: March 12, 2003
FORMS
Contractor's Sub -
BIDDER Bid Triple Qualification Contractors
Bond Form Statement List
Summit Central Construction., Inc. X X X X
44110 - 196th Ave. SE
Enumclaw, WA 98022
Wayne Gilthverdt
Steele -Corp.
17024 68th Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Shawna Steele
Const. Enterprises & Contractors
',221 Center St.
Tacoma, WA 98409
Greg. D. Warter
Hartford Contracting, Inc.
5525 Lakeview Dr., #200
Kirkland, WA 98033
David Calixto
PCT Construction, Inc.
7400 3rd Ave. S.
Seattle, WA 98108
Teresa Rencourt
I X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
Page 1 of 2
BID
Includes 8.8% Sales Tax
X
Base Bid:
$2,139,737.00
Alt. #1:
($78,009.60)
Alt. #2:
($56,140.80)
Alt. #3:
^tom
$455,872.00
Alt. #5:
($54,182.40)
Alt. #6:
$35,904.00
X
Base Bid:
$2,069,526.00
Alt. #1:
($97,045.00)
Alt. #2:
($49,374.00)
Alt. #3:
^'
$298,138.00
Alt. #5:
($61,193.00)
Alt. #6:
$40,853.00
X
Base Bid:
$2,050,355.00
Alt. #1:
($30,035.00)
Alt. #2:
($40,563.00)
Alt. #3:
^tom
$308,548.00
Alt. #5:
($56,507.00)
Alt. #6:
$61,018.00
X
Base Bid:
$2,119,424.00
Alt. #1:
($119,788.80)
Alt. #2:
($48,416.00)
Alt. #3:
^'
$311,712.00
Alt. #5:
($80,729.60)
Alt. #6:
$43,084.80
X
Base Bid:
$2,076,992.00
Alt. #1:
($129,815.48)
Alt. #2:
($50,121.98)
Alt. #3:
$313,959.35
Alt. #5:
($60,666.88)
Alt. #6:
$42,116.37
LEGEND:
Forms: Triple Form: Non -Collusion Affidavit, Anti -Trust Claims, Miiumum Wage
PROJECT: Pavilion Building Renovation; CAG-03-005
DATE: March 12, 2003 Page 2 of 2
FORMS
BID
Contractor's
Sub-
BIDDER
Bid
Triple
Qualification
Contractors
Addenda
Includes8.8%Sales Tax
Bond
Form
statement
List
(8)
E. Kent Halvorson, Inc.
X
X
X
X
Base Bid: $1,951,442.00
9840 Willows Rd. NE, Ste 200
Alt. #1: ($136,248.00)
Redmond, WA 98052
Alt. #2: ($48,375.00)
William Miller
Alt. #3: $317,894.00
^'
Alt. #5: ($55,374.00)
Alt. #6: $41,465.00
Edifice Const. Co., Inc.
X
X
X
X
Base Bid: $1,938,341.00
1417 31st Ave. S.
Alt. #1: ($114,169.54)
Seattle, WA 98144-3909
Alt. #2: ($57,187.44)
William F. Alexander
Alt. #3: $303,736.91
.
Alt. #T
Alt. #5: ($53,471.22)
Alt. #6: $41,672.33
M.J. Shockley Construction
X
X
X
X
Base Bid: $1,973,903.00
11107 101st Pl. NE
Alt. #1: ($144,405.00)
Kirkland, WA 98033
Alt. #2: ($64,165.00)
Michael J. Shockley
Alt. #3: $335,886.00
^'t. #4:
Alt. #5: ($21,128.00)
Alt. #6: $44,987.00
Schuchart Corporation
X
X
X
X
Base Bid: $2,074,687.00
419 3rd Ave. W.
Alt. #1: ($94,384.00)
Seattle, WA 98119
Alt. #2: ($55,267.00)
George Schuchart
Alt. #3: $301,180.00
Alt. # i
Alt. #5: ($72,162.00)
Alt. #6: $40,838.00
M.J. Takisaki, Inc.
X
X
X
X
Base Bid: $2,012,198.00
1314 S. Weller St.
Alt. #1: ($125,930.00)
Seattle, WA 98144-2051
Alt. #2: ($59,163.00)
Mark J. Takisaki
Alt. #3: $339,561.00
Alt. 44T
Alt. #5: ($71,370.00)
Alt. #6: $34,588.00
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
LEGEND:
orms: Triple Form: Non -Collusion Affidavit, Anti -Trust Claims, Minimum Wage
TOTAL: $1,800,000.00
(including all deductions and
no additions)
Pavilion Bid Evaluation
12-Mar-03
Deduct Access
Deduct Curtain
Add Air
Deduct south sun
Add resilient
All deducts
Company
Base bid
Flooring
wall at ends
Conditioning
screen awning
floor Tile
no adds
Edifice
$1,938,341.00
($114,169.54)
($57,187.44)
$303,736.91
($53,471.22)
$41,672.33
1,808,656
E. Kent Halvorson
$1,951,442.00
($136,248.00)
($48,375.00)
$317,894.00
($55,374.00)
$41,465.00
1,808,284
Schuchart Corp
$2,074,687.00
($94,384.00)
($55,267.00)
$301,180.00
($72,162.00)
$40,838.00
1,965,874
MJ Shockley
$1,973,903.00
($144,405.00)
($64,165.00)
$335,886.00
($21,128.00)
$44,987.00
1,810,320
Summit
$2,139,737.00
($78,009.60)
($56,140.80)
$455,872.00
($54,182.40)
$35,904.00
2,041,491
PCT
$2,076,992.00
($129,815.48)
($50,121.98)
$313,959.35
($60,666.88)
$42,116.37
1,939,171
MJ Takisaki
$2,012,198.00
($125,930.00)
($59,163.00)
$339,561.00
($71,370.00)
$34,588.00
1,861,693
Steele Corp
$2,069,526.00
($97,045.00)
($49,374.00)
$298,138.00
($61,193.00)
$40,853.00
1,963,960
CE&C
$2,050,355.00
($30,035.00)
($40,563.00)
$308,548.00
($56,507.00)
$61,018.00
2,040,775
Hartford Contr.
$2,119,424.00
($119,788.80)
($48,416.00)
$311,712.00
($80,729.60)
$43,084.80
1,994,304
Deduct curtain
Base Bid walls at
building ends
Prof%.... with Airconditioning
Add AC Construction Contingency Soft Costs Project Total Rank
Contract Amount @ 5%
Edifice
$1,938,341.00
($57,187.44)
$303,736.91
$109,244.52
$237,931.00
$2,532,065.99
1
E. Kent Halvorson
$1,951,442.00
($48,375.00)
$317,894.00
$111,048.05
$237,931.00
$2,569,940.05
2
Schuchart Corp
$2,074,687.00
($55,267.00)
$301,180.00
$116,030.00
$237,931.00
$2,674,561.00
5
MJ Shockley
$1,973,903.00
($64,165.00)
$335,886.00
$112,281.20
$237,931.00
$2,595,836.20
3
Summit
$2,139,737.00
($56,140.80)
$455,872.00
$126,973.41
$237,931.00
$2,904,372.61
10
PCT
$2,076,992.00
($50,121.98)
$313,959.35
$117,041.47
$237,931.00
$2,695,801.84
7
MJ Takisaki
$2,012,198.00
($59,163.00)
$339,561.00
$114,629.80
$237,931.00
$2,645,156.80
4
Steele Corp
$2,069,526.00
($49,374.00)
$298,138.00
$115,914.50
$237,931.00
$2,672,135.50
8
CE&C
$2,050,355.00
($40,563.00)
$308,548,00
$115,917.00
$237,931.00
$2,672,188.00
6
Hartford Contr.
$2,119,424.00
($48,416.00)
$311,712.00
$119,136.00
$237,931.00
$2,739,787.00
9
Project without Air Conditioning
Edifice
$1,938,341.00
($57,187.44)
$94,057.68
$237,931.00
$2,213,142.24
1
E. Kent Halvorson
$1,951,442.00
($48,375.00)
$95,153.35
$237,931.00
$2,236,151.35
2
Schuchart Corp
$2,074,687.00
($55,267.00)
$100,971,00
$237,931.00
$2,358,322.00
6
MJ Shockley
$1,973,903.00
($64,165.00)
$95,486.90
$237,931.00
$2,243,155.90
3
Summit
$2,139,737.00
($56,140.80)
$104,179.81
$237,931.00
$2,425,707.01
10
PCT
$2,076,992.00
($50,121.98)
$101,343.50
$237,931.00
$2,366,144.52
8
MJ Takisaki
$2,012,198.00
($59,163.00)
$97,651.75
$237,931.00
$2,288,617.75
4
Steele Corp
$2,069,526.00
($49,374.00)
$101,007.60
$237,931.00
$2,359,090.60
7
CE&C
$2,050,355.00
($40,563.00)
$100,489.60
$237,931.00
$2,348,212.60
5
{!nrffnrri (:nntr
Q7 110 A)A nn
MA AIa nm
Qlnl Gr-n ^n
07)7 noa nn
Q7 Al) ion nn
n
Mar 17 03 02:00p EDIFICE CONSTRUCTION
(206)322-0594
p.2
Monday, March 17, 2003
Mr. Dennis Culp
Facilities Director
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
RE: Renton Pavilion, March 12 Bid
Dear Mr. Culp -
ewe
CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY INC.
Pursuant to your request, please let this letter act as notification that Edifice
Construction will honor its Base Bid and Alternate Bids for the above referenced
project.
Once we have received written notice from you that we have been awarded the
work, we will forward our certificate of insurance and payment and performance
bond.
We look forward to working with you and the City of Renton to make this project
a success.
Regards,
William Alexander
President
Cc: Roger Williams, Mithun
1417-31st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98144-3909 Telephone 206.328.2700 Fax 206.322.8594
ti
;♦ g �U-IF-ICI-1`f1 PA
Sent By: AM,
To: 8HOCKLEY
n
At: 4258286391
March 13, 2003
FAX AND CERTIFIED MAIL
2067840489;
Mar-13-03 14:01;
rage i
LitANDERSON-MAGRUDER COMPANY, INC.
MECHANICAL CONTRACTOM fey k4me
FIRE FROTECTTON i'u+OERWWW"
Edifice Construction
1417 3 1 " Avenue S_
Seattle, WA 98144
RE: Renton Pavilion
Ladies & Gentlemen:
Due to complicated bid package on Renton Pavilion Wednesday, March 12a', we had an
error in our bid and at this time we aTe pulling our bill.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
Sincerely,
ANDERSON-MAGURDER COMPANY, [NC.
av;,d L. aguder
President
DLM:fs
CC: Ronald E. Anderson
(206) 784.4600
P.O. Box 30759
Seattle, Washington 98103-0759 FAX (206) 784-0489
I as
gas
[F��D
M. J. S H O C K L E Y
C O N S T R U C T 1 O N
11107 101'. PI. N. E., Kirkland, Washington 425-828 4359 fax 425-82"391
A JOINT VENTUR E OF LAN IKAI INC. +BURR I DGE INC.
City Of Renton
1055 So. Grady Way
Renton, Washington, 98055
ATT: Dennis Culp
RE: Renton Pavillion
Date: 14 March 2003
Dear Sir,
We have just received notice that Anderson Magruder Inc has claimed an error in their Mechanical Construction
quotation for the above referenced project and is withdrawing their bid.
We did not utilize their quotation when assembling our quotation to you, however we under stand that both E..
Kent Halvorson Inc and Ediface Construction Inc listed Anderson Magruder as the Mechanical subcontractor's
quote they had utilized in assembling their bid. Anderson Magruder's base bid quote was $286,000+/- and the
Alternate 3 quote was $407,000+/-. It is obvious from the face of both Edifiace's and Halvorson's quote that
Anderson Magruders bid amount was not used to price Alt 3 as AM's quote is higher than either Edifiace's or
Halvorsons. As such both realized AM's quote was in error and elected to utilize the more correct amounts as
furnished by other subcontractor's who accurately quoted Alt 3. It can only be assumed that they intended to
negotiate with AM after the fact rather than disqualify AM's bid or resolve the discrepancy via the telephone prior
to the bid.
They are now faced with asking to be relieved of their quotation, negotiating with the 2nd place Mechanical
subcontractor to perform the work for AM's price and asking you to allow them to replace AM as the named
Mechanical subcontractor, or absorbing the error and employing AM to perform the work.
Given that they have not used AM's quote for Alt 3 and not named the Mechanical subcontractor they intended to
use for that portion of the work, both Ediface and Halvorson have not fulfilled the intent of the listing requirement.
While that may not be reason to deem their bid as non responsive, it should be considered when resolving this
issue if a judgment be required.
We are the legitimate 3rd place bidder with no errors. Had we used AM's erroneous error our quotation to you
would have been the lowest submitted. In can only be assumed that had Ediface and Halvorson not used AM's
erroneous bid, their final quotation would have higher than ours. Suffice it to say that our position should be
considered when and if you are asked to render a judgment as to modify either or both Edifiace's of Halvorson's
bid. We are asking that the above be considered.
Incidentally, we had the only non erroneous bid the first time this project was advertised and could have
performed the project for slightly more than the low quotations now under consideration. In both bids, we
disqualified the erroneous Mechanical bidders PRIOR to submitting our bid to you rather than putting the burden
of this decision on you after the fact.
Thank you for your consideration in the issue.
Very Truly Yours,
M.J. Shockley Construction I'V
Michael J. Sh
President
FAX 1 MAIL
MAR .1, 7 Z003
G4' ` P.:�xy:
e;,omraul t t z;ERVICEw
M. J. SHOCKLEY CONSTRUCTION
"107 101'. PI. N. E., Kirkland, Washington 425-828 4359 fax 425-828-6391
A JOINT VENTUR E OF LANIKAI INC.+BURRIDGE INC.
City Of Renton
1055 So. Grady Way
Renton, Washington, 98055
ATT: Dennis Culp
RE: Renton Pavillion
Date: 17 March 2003
Dear Sir,
This notice of our protest the award of the contract for the above referenced project to either E.
Kent Halvorson, Inc. or Ediface Construction, Inc. as they did not comply with the requirements
of the instructions to bidders to list the Mechanical and Electrical subcontractor's included in
their proposal.
Both E.. Kent Halvorson Inc and Ediface Construction Inc. listed Anderson Magruder, Inc. as
the Mechanical subcontractor's quote they had utilized in assembling their bid. Anderson
Magruder's base bid quote was $286,000+/- and the Alternate 3 quote was $407,000+/-. It is
obvious from the face of both Edifiace's and Halvorson's quote that Anderson Magruders bid
amount was not used to price Alt 3 as AM's quote is higher than either Edifiace's or
Halvorsons. As such both elected to utilize the lower amounts as furnished by other
subcontractor's who quoted Alt 3. By not listing the subcontractor who's quote they used to
assemble their bid for Alt #3, they are non -responsive and should be disqualified and the
award be made to M. J. Shockley as the low, responsive and responsible bidder.
Thank you for your consideration in the issue.
Very Truly Yours,
M.J. Shacklev Construction
Michel.
President
FAX / MAIL
7M
as
MAR-1E-2003 17:09 FROM:RAMSETT MECHANICAL 425-251-3595 TO:4254306603 P.001/001
RAMSETT MECHANICAL CO., INC.
18821 E. Valley Hwy.
Kent, VISA 98032-1219
March 18, 2003
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
61h Floor
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Renton Pavilion Office Building (Re -bid)
Dear Sirs:
It has come to our attention that several if not all of the other mechanical
bidders used a proposal from Control Contractors Inc. for the controls
portion of the project. Ramsett Mechanical did not use a proposal from
Control Contractors even though we were verbally assured by a
representative of CCI that they had received approval. In fairness to all
bidders, we believe that the project should be rebid to insure that all bids
represent accepted control contractors.
Sincerely,
6e��_
Mike Goodman, President
RAMSETT MECHANICAL COMPANY, INC.
Cc:Keen Engine®ring 206-770-5941
TES: (425) 251-9404 FAX: (425) 251-3595
4 CITY OF RENTON
..LL , ,� Office of the City Attorney
J e Tanner, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren
MEMORANDUM
To: Dennis Culp, Facilities Director
From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date: March 19, 2003
Subject: Bid Protests of MJ Shockley Construction and Ramsett Mechanical Co.,
Inc. regarding Pavilion Building Bid
We have received two bid protests, both of which I believe should be rejected and the contract
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The first bid by MJ Shockley Construction relates to the
use by the two lowest bidders of bid numbers by a potential subcontractor that subsequently
withdrew its bid. Those two lowest bidders also listed the withdrawing subcontractor as a
subcontractor that they would be using on the job, as required by state law.
We can't know, from the bids, how the bidder derived its numbers. If it sticks with its bid,
according to the only case in point, it can change its subcontractors from those listed in its bid
documents. The third bidder doesn't have a private right of action and would have to come up
with another ground to seek court help in stopping award of the bid. Absent other grounds or
policy decision to reject all bids, I think the City should reject this protest.
The second protest is listed by Ramsett Mechanical Co., Inc. Apparently, the protester is a
mechanical subcontractor on the job and relates to certain assurances given to the protester by a
material supplier. Since the City was not involved in those assurances, I do not see how it can be
at fault. Additionally, I do not know how a subcontractor can protest the prime bid. Since we
don't have a protest filed by one of the two lowest bidders about this supposed problem, I can see
no basis upon which to reject the two low bidders.
It would be my recommendation that the City proceed, in its normal course of business, to award
the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, thereby, reje ting these two protests.
Lawrence J. arren
LJW:tmj
cc: Jay Covington
Jim Shepherd
Post Office Box 626 - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (425) 255-5474
® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30 % post consumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
(�S4 -g ( -)
19-March-2003
ic' EIVED
City of Renton
Attn: Office of the Mayor and City Council
Re: Sewer Hookup
Sir:
The purpose of this letter is to ask permission to connect to the sanitary sewer on NE 23id
St. in the Summerwind development. We purchased a vacant lot north of Summerwind,
in Newcastle Terrace, last fall.
Our intention for the lot is to build a single family home for us to occupy and would like
to connect to the sewer in accordance with City of Renton code 4-6-040C. Our property
is just outside the Renton city limits and is inside the Urban Growth Area.
If you have any questions regarding this project, I would be more than happy to discuss it
with you or other members of the City of Renton staff.
Thank you.
Bob & Sheila Carter
4515 NE 26' CT.
Renton, WA 98059
206-544-0662 (day)
425-255-9705 (eve)
425-736-0842 (Bob cell)
bandscarter(a),attbi. com
Ref: Lot #5, Newcastle Terrace; KC tax ID 6061400050
cc: C�rey9 Zimme�ma�� j�/13�P�✓
t>,tvz 0-Art feA�, u>4 Bey 2),v1Sion
Vision House
a place called home
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Council President
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Kathy:
MAR 19 2003
March 17, 2003
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 2 4 2003
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
As per our conversation a few months ago, Vision House would like to request a building
permit fee waiver in exchange for scholarships for low income Renton families in need of
child care assistance. We plan to break ground on the Vision House Children's Village
May/June 2003 and open the child care center in the following spring. Permits will be
submitted within the next week. The Children's Village complex consists of three
buildings:
Building A is a 5,500 square foot child care center with four two -bedroom housing
units above. Total square footage is 12,521.
Building B consists of 4,500 square feet of counseling offices, resident program
space and administrative space with three three -bedroom housing units above.
Total square footage is 7,120.
Building C consists of four two -bedroom housing units above an eight -stall
parking garage. One lower unit will be designed for wheelchair accessibility. Total
square footage is 4,698.
The child care center will support the mothers and children in our transitional housing complex
located approximately two blocks from the new complex. Having the additional housing units,
on site child care and administrative offices within walking distance of the existing Vision House
transitional shelter is important to the families we serve since they are often dependent upon
public transportation.
We are asking the City of Renton to show their support for this project by waiving the permit
and development fees for the Vision House Children's Village. In exchange, I have carefully
reviewed the pro forma for the center and believe that Vision House could offer scholarships to
Renton low income families at the amount of approximately $10,000 per year for the next three
years.
According to our pre application with the City of Renton, fees are estimated at the following:
Land use fees:
Building permit fees:
Fire mitigation:
Transportation:
Parks and Recreation:
$8,000 to 10,000
$18,000 to 20,000
$4,000
$22,000
$4,000
P.O. Box 2951, RENTON, WA 98056-0951
PHONE (425) 228-6356 FAX (425) 430-9590 info@vision-house.org www.vision-house.org
APPROVED BY
CITV COUNCIL 1
Date
UTILITIES COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
March 24, 2003
DIGITAL ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY UPDATE
(Referred March 10, 2003)
The Utilities Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation that Council
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a sole source Consulting Agreement with
Walker and Associates for aerial photogramm-"'>"' services in the amount of $49;858.75.
k %
yq 14.
s,
Dan. Clawson, Member F� #
%ersson, jSub tute Meg er. u
f
King Parker, Substitute Member .
cc: Lys Hornsby
David Christensen
Bob MacOnie
I:\COr MTTE\Reports\Utilities\DigitalOrthoPhoto.rpt.doc\lf
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL �
FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Date 3- all aoo.3
March 24, 2003
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS
The Finance Committee approves for payment on March 24, 2003; claim vouchers 213231-213713
and 2 wire transfers, totaling $2,98M,625.36, and 565 direct deposits, payroll vouchers 43257-
43497, and 1 wire transfer, totaling $1,740,520.66.
King Parker,
Don Persson, Member��f
Kathy eolker-Wheeler; SubstAhte,Member�
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
March 24, 2003
APPROVED BY �
CITY COUNCIL
Data 3- aS!- aoo3
Perteet Engineering, Inc. 30% Design Contract for Strander Boulevard Extension;
West Valley Highway (SR-181) to East Valley Road
(Referred March 3, 2003)
The Strander Boulevard Extension; West Valley. Highway (SR-181) to East Valley Road
Project is an important east -west trans -south valley connection project targeted at improving
access and mobility for. the traveling public, freight, and businesses. When constructed, it
will provide access to the development at the Boeing Longacres . site, Tukwila Transit
Center, and provide a grade separated crossing at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks.
This contract is for 30% design, covermg °the�Carridor Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), base -mapping, road sectiofi, ,and project phasirig Supplements to this original
agreement will be added to cover the final design of ekliproject phase, of which there are
expected to be at least three The ,contract is for $2,213,.349 ti p be completed -over twenty-
six (26), months from the time of contract execution. The . ansportation Systems Division
has budgeted $600,000 m:`2003 °fend is pla utng; o$request budget, -approval for $1,400,000
in 2004 and. $500,000 ma2005, totalin' k 2 500 -040 `for design ind, uding contract and City
staff time) of this project)4n the years 2}003; 2004,, and 2005t e
The Transportation Committee 'recoinriient(s that Council authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the consultant agreement with Perteet Engineering m the amount of
$2,213,349 for the Strander Blvd `Extension; West galley „highway (SR-181) to East
Valley Road Project.'
=
Y -
Don Persson, Chair
Parker, Substitute Member
c: Leslie Lahndt
Rob Lochmiller
Connie Brundage
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
March 24, 2003
2003 Signal Synchronization Grant
(Referred March 17, 2003)
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
Date
The City of Renton applied for and was awarded $80,000 for signal synchronization on
the NE 3`d/4d' Street Corridor. The City will be reimbursed $10,400 for work by City.
forces to implement changes on 13 City of Renton signals. The City will remand
$69,600 of the grant to King County_ for..,workperformed by the County's contractor .
and/or County work force The gt' falso includes three signals in King County to be
managed by King County.
The improvements are expected to reduce congestionalong�this"corridor.
The Transportation Committee irecommend "that Council authore the Mayor and City
Clerk to enter into the'agreementwithgg sounty'to angrant funding for and to
collaborate on the 2003 `Signal Synch ot'- Project ton the NE 3`d/4' Street
q
Corridor, and that Council approve hie resoluti0il
vqi W
� z
Don Persson, Chair
f
King Parker, Substitute Member
c: James Wilhoit
Sharon Griffin
Connie Brundage
H\: TRANS\DESIGN V ARM\SR 169\COMMIT
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
March 24, 2003
APPROVF--D BY
CiTV C09JNCIL
Date 3-a41- A003
NE Sunset Blvd. / Duvall Ave. NE Intersection Improvements
(Referred March 17, 2003)
The City of Renton applied for and was awarded a Hazard Elimination Safety (HES)
Program grant for $396,000 for intersection improvements at NE Sunset Boulevard and
Duvall Avenue NE. This project includes a new eastbound left -turn lane, extending a
drop lane, and signal modification.
These improvements are
providing additional left -
The Transportation Comrni
City Clerk to enter into' the
funding for design ,of
Improvements, and that Co
number of accidents by
neii auth6'tize the Mayor and the
to 'accept the HES Programgrant
uvall Avenue NE Intersection
m and ail consecutive phases and
subsequent elements upto and includingtionstruction of the i
sx
01,R.
-
Don Person, Chair
King rarxer, bmstltute Member
c: James Wilhoit
Sharon Griffin
Connie Brundage
H\: TRANS\DESIGN V ARM\S R169\COMMIT
PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE REPORT
March24, 2003
MY COUNCIL
®ate 3 --2V ?403
The Public Safety Committee was briefed by the Police Department regarding the safety
at the Renton Transit Center. The Committee concurs in staff's recommendation that
additional staffing in coordination with King County Metro Transit be assigned to this
area. It is further recommended that Committee be updated in two months.
x7.
CC
Dan, Clawson, Chair
N�sx
Don Persson, Vice Chair;:._
Ss.
oni Nelson,
F
% Y
Ong x
f
'f
a°
C: Garry Anderson,. Chief of Police
rw
PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE REPORT
March24, 2003
APPPIOVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
Date 3-a51- a003
The Public Safety Committee was briefed by the Police Department regarding criminal
.nuisance abatement at the West Wind Motel. The Committee concurs in staffs
recommendation that no .additional action be taken at this time.
a
Dan Clawso air � _
Don Persson, Vice Chair
Toni Nelson, MemberAwo- _ 11
C: Garry Anderson, Chief of Police.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 36 Z 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY FOR THE CITY OF RENTON TO
RECEIVE $80,000 FOR THE SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION GRANT.
WHEREAS, the King County Council has established a System -Wide Signal
Improvement Program for King County; and
WHEREAS, a new Signal Synchronization Project has been created that enables King
County to make financial grants to other public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a project for signal synchronization on NE 3`d/4"
Street between Maple Valley/Park Place to NE 4`h St./Nile Avenue, which includes a new signal
at NE 41h St./Hoquiam NE; and
WHEREAS, the County has agreed to contribute $80,000 for the signal synchronization
project; and
WHEREAS, the City will therefore be reimbursed $10,400 for work done by the City on
this project, and the remaining $69,600 in grant funds will be collected by the County for work
performed by the County's contractor and work force; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary by agreement to establish the terms and conditions of the
County grants;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 3& Z
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
GRANT FUNDING FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT NE SUNSET
BOULEVARD AND DUVALL AVENUE NE.
WHEREAS, the City of Renton has determined that it is appropriate to modify a traffic
signal at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Duvall Avenue NE; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Transportation has monies available
for such a modification through its Hazard Elimination Safety grant program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton has been awarded $396,000 through that grant program
for this signal; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions under which the City of
Renton will receive such a grant;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO 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 enter into a
contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation for the award for $396,000
through the Hazard Elimination Safety grant program for the modification, with associated
planning, engineering and other necessary activities, of the signal at NE Sunset Boulevard and
Duvall Avenue NE.
1
154 AZ&-e r-nq 311719003
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6-00
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE 2002 AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY
OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of
the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, property located within the City of Renton has been zoned as various zoning
classifications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held numerous public hearings and made its
recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Hearing Examiner held numerous public hearings and made his
recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Development Committee have held
public meetings to consider the zoning classifications to be assigned to various properties within
the City of Renton; and
WHEREAS, the City Council established an amendment process as part of its greater
Growth Management Act process; and
WHEREAS, numerous individuals availed themselves of the amendment processes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council 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, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION I. The above findings and recitals are hereby found to be true and
correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The zoning map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" on a single sheet,
and Exhibit `B" as a bound Map Book, are hereby adopted as the zoning map for the City of
Renton, and the zoning categories shown on these maps for the various properties located within
the City limits of the City of Renton are hereby designated as the zoning designations for those
properties. Rezone ordinances adopted after this ordinance shall amend the official zoning map.
SECTION III. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic
Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes on the
City's zoning maps, to evidence the adoption of the new zoning map.
SECTION IV. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file this
ordinance as provided by law and to keep a copy on file with the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION V. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
five (5) days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
day of 92003.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
day of , 2003.
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
2
ORDINANCE NO.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1030:3/10/03:ma
3-ay aoo3
f
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. BOOS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
CHANGING ITHE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM THE HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL (III) ZONE TO THE CENTER/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL 3
(COR 3) ZONE. (FRY'S REZONE, FILE NO. LUA-02-149,ECF,R)
WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as IH (Heavy
Industrial); and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification
of said property on or about December 24, 2002. This matter was duly referred to the Hearing
Examiner for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held
thereon on or about February 4, 2003, and said matter having been duly considered by the
Hearing Examiner, and said zoning request having been recommended for approval by the
Hearing Examiner subject to the finalization of Ordinance No. 5001, which became effective on
March 12, 2003, and no requests for reconsideration or appeals having been received during the
appeal period that ended February 27, 2003; and
WHEREAS, said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive
Plan, as amended by Ordinance No. 4855, and the City Council having duly considered all
matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in
opposition thereto;
1
ORDINANCE NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby
rezoned to Center/Office/Residential 3 (COR 3), as hereinbelow specified. The Economic
Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and
directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to
wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
( oapproximately 21.3 aergsw�ffieAK00 located at 800 Garden Avenue N., eo4he t-
-�ic�ahereet�bet�e�r�-Nerth-8�'ron�he�son#�-ax�d�Ndrth-�'�r-k--on-the-nor�I�--The-
subj t-sit dQo(;ate-&on-the"et'Siteof the Boeing-C-rmpkx—)—
SECTION H. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
five days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1031:3/12/03:ma
day of , 2003.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
day of .2003.
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description - Account Number: 082305921700
082305 217
PORTION OF NW 1/4 & NE 1/4
BEGIN INTERSECTION OF S LINE
OF NW 1/4 WITH ELY MARGIN
OF GARDEN STREET
TH S 89-28-08 E 638.89 FT
TO POINT ON WLY MARGIN
OF PACIFIC COAST RR CP R/W,
SAID POINT BEING UPON A CURVE
TO RIGHT RADIUS OF 810.39 FT
FROM WHICH TH CENTER OF CIRCLE
BEARS N 52-20-26 E
TH ALONG SAID MARGIN CURVING
TO RIGHT ARC LENGTH OF 277.71 FT
TO POINT OF TANGENCY
TH N 18-01-31 W 1993.78 FT
TO INTERSECTION WITH SLY MARGIN
OF PSH-1 NORTH RENTON
INTERCHANGE A -LINE R/W
TH S 49-10-34 W 406.07 FT
TH S 31-54-35 W 72.66 FT
TO POINT ON ELY MARGIN
OF GARDEN STREET
TH S 17-59-39 E 1329.46 FT
TO POINT OF CURVE TO RIGHT
RADIUS OF 910 FT
TH ALONG SAID MARGIN CURVING
TO RIGHT ARC LENGTH OF 294.22 FT
TO POINT OF TANGENCY
TH S 00-31-51 W 253.23 FT
TO POINT OF BEGINNING
LESS PORTION OF PRIMARY STATE
HIGHWAY NO 1 (SR 405) NORTH
RENTONINTERCHANGE
w. (PARKING LOT 6)
)AV uc
a
4
•A
N •aAV )Ind
I
i
o
a
N
T ,8
W
\
H
H
pW
uap.z�� T
U
m mm-m
ff3rz Imman HILTNUIRmi
3-E-E-311-IM - , UMI A a
MZME-low imvz��
RBI
wlc��
1
+OZ I
9