HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 09/13/2004AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
September 13, 2004
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
a. 2004 Farmers Market Wrap -Up
b. King County Records & Elections - Primary Election Ballot Changes
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. 2004 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
b. General Fund allocations for 2005 and 2006; and Community Development Block Grant funds
allocations for 2005
c. Proposed amendments to City Code to permit monopole wireless communication facilities within
rights -of -way in residential neighborhoods
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 August 23, 2004. Council concur.
b. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat
(PP-04-002); appeal filed by SR 900, LLC, 9125 loth Ave. S., Seattle, 98108, on 8/17/2004,
accompanied by required fee. The appeal packet includes an additional letter from Herons
Forever as allowed by City Code. Refer to Planning and Development Committee.
Consideration of the appeal by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the
Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties
(RMC 4-8-110F.6.).
c. City Clerk reports bid opening on 9/3/2004 for CAG-04-113, 200 Mill Building Chiller
Replacement; three bids; engineer's estimate $180,000; and submits staff recommendation to
award the contract to the low bidder, MacDonald -Miller Facility Solutions, Inc., in the amount of
$121,594.88. Council concur.
d. Court Case filed by Diane L. Vanderbeek, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Kelly A. Wright,
alleging assault and battery, violation of civil rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
and negligence while in the custody of the Renton Police Department on 8/27/2002. Refer to
City Attorney and Insurance Services.
e. Development Services Division recommends approval, with conditions, of Parkview Homes
Final Plat; ten single-family lots on 1.77 acres located at Camas Ave. NE and NE 24th St. (FP-
04-071). Council concur. (See 10. for resolution.)
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
f. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends a
public hearing be set on 9/27/2004 to consider the proposed R-8 zoning for the Johnson
Annexation; 18.24 acres located east of 142nd Ave. SE and south of SE 118th. Council concur.
g. Hearing Examiner recommends approval, with conditions, of the Jericho Preliminary Plat; 35
single-family lots on 5.31 acres located at 335 Jericho Ave. NE (PP-04-031). Council concur.
h. Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends approval to declare surplus City -
owned property located at 901 Harrington Ave. NE (old Fire Station #12), and to set
compensation for the property at $475,000. Refer to Community Services Committee.
i. Police Department recommends approval of an interlocal agreement for jail administration with
various cities to establish the purpose, membership, and governance of oversight groups to
administer the jail contracts with Yakima and King County. Expenditure in 2004 is $4,393.
Refer to Public Safety Committee.
j. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Addendum #2 to LAG-99-003,
Airport lease with Lane Hangar Condominium Owners Association, for a rent increase from
$12,682.82 to $13,597 annually. Council concur.
k. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an operating permit and agreement
with Ace Aviation, Inc. for an aircraft maintenance facility at the Airport. Additionally, approval
is sought for the Airport sublease agreement between Bosair, LLC and Ace Aviation, Inc. Refer
to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
1. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a memorandum of understanding
establishing a cooperative relationship with Washington State Department of Transportation for
the I-405 congestion relief and transit projects. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
in. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Addendum #2 to CAG-03-034, contract with
R.W. Beck, Inc., to complete the update of the Water System Plan in the amount of $65,448; and
approval to transfer $46,000 from the Reservoir Re -Coat project budget to the Water System
Plan Update project budget. Refer to Utilities Committee.
n. Utility Systems Division submits CAG-03-115, East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill and Water
Main Replacement Phase II; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay
estimate in the amount of $7,881.46, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of
retainage bond in the amount of $65,528.19 to Robison Construction, Inc., contractor, if all
required releases are obtained. Council concur.
8. CORRESPONDENCE
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics
marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by
the Chair if further review is necessary.
a. Finance Committee: Vouchers; 2004 Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds Issuance*
b. Planning & Development Committee: Street Vacation Process
10. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Resolution: Parkview Homes Final Plat (see 7.e.)
Ordinance for first reading: 2004 Water & Sewer Revenue Bond Issuance (see 9.a.)
Ordinances for second and final reading:
a. Approving the Tydico Annexation (1st reading 8/23/2004)
b. Establishing R-8 zoning for the Tydico Annexation (1st reading 8/23/2004)
c. Establishing R-10 zoning for the Tydico Annexation (1st reading 8/23/2004)
d. Owner -Occupied Housing Incentives extension and modification (1st reading 8/23/2004)
11. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded
information.)
12. AUDIENCE COMMENT
13. ADJOURNMENT
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
Council Conference Room
5:15 p.m.
Emerging Issues (including Cedar River Park Clean -Up and Potential Pavilion Building Uses)
Council Chambers
Approximately 6:00 p.m.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update
• Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk •
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE 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
September 13, 2004
Council Chambers
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES Renton City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council
to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL OF
DON PERSSON, Council President; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON;
COUNCILMEMBERS
DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW; TERRI BRIERE; MARCIE PALMER.
CITY STAFF IN
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief
ATTENDANCE
Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE
WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator; JENNIFER HENNING, Principal Planner; ALEX
PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; DENNIS CULP,
Community Services Administrator; KAREN BERGSVIK, Human Services
Manager; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; TINA HARRIS, Domestic
Violence Court Advocate; COMMANDER KATHLEEN MCCLINCY and
SERGEANT MARK DAY, Police Department.
SPECIAL
Jim Medzegian, President of the Piazza Renton volunteer organization and
PRESENTATIONS
Farmers Market Committee member, introduced Gene Sens, 2004 Farmers
Community Event: Farmers
Market Manager, who gave a briefing on the Farmers Market held on Tuesdays,
Market Wrap -Up
from June 15th to September 14th, at the Piazza (233 Burnett Ave. S.).
Mr. Sens expressed his appreciation to the many people and groups that
provided assistance and support for the Farmers Market, including local
businesses and the market vendors. He stated that the market averaged 50
vendor booths every Tuesday that sold items such as produce, baked goods,
flowers, and shellfish. Additionally, activities such as chef demonstrations, live
music, and a children's booth were offered.
Continuing, Mr. Sens reported that 2,000 to 3,600 patrons visited each Tuesday,
vendors sold $9,000 to $13,000 worth of items each market day, and volunteers
contributed over 3,000 hours this season. Pointing out that one of the Farmers
Market's goals is to bring more people to the downtown area, he stated that the
market has had a positive impact on downtown businesses. In conclusion, Mr.
Sens presented certificates of appreciation to the boy scout volunteers who
assisted with the Farmers Market.
Councilwoman Nelson detailed the history of the Renton Farmers Market, and
emphasized that the success of the market is due to the dedication of many
organizations and volunteers.
King County: Primary Election Bill Huennekens, King County Superintendent of Elections, gave a briefing on
Ballot Change the change to the primary election ballot. He explained that the State of
Washington no longer has a blanket primary, and a party preference selection is
now required when voting for candidates running for partisan offices. He
displayed an example of the primary election ballot, and explained that voters
must choose a party, vote for candidates within that party, and complete the
ballot by voting in the nonpartisan contests and ballot measures.
Responding to Mayor and Councilmember questions, Mr. Huennekens stated
that only the votes cast for the party selected by the voter will be counted if the
voter mistakenly selects candidates outside the party preference. He assured
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 298
that the voter's party preference choice is completely private. In regards to the
reason for the change to the primary election ballot, Mr. Huennekens explained
that it was the result of lawsuits filed by the various political parties that argued
that the blanket primary violated their right of affiliation. Federal courts found
Washington's blanket primary to be unconstitutional; thus, a new primary law
was enacted that requires voters to indicate their party preference on the
election ballot.
PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Police: 2004 Local Law accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
Enforcement Block Grant public hearing to consider the 2004 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG).
Police Sergeant Mark Day reported that Renton has been pre -approved for a
grant in the amount of $18,478, and Renton is required to match approximately
10%, or $2,053. He stated that LLEBG funds have been used to fund the City's
Domestic Violence Victim Advocacy program since 1996, and the Renton
Domestic Violence Task Force again recommends using the funds for this
purpose.
Sergeant Day introduced Tina Harris, Domestic Violence Court Advocate, who
stated that the program has served approximately 560 victims. She explained
that the victims need food, shelter, transportation, interpreter services, safety
planning, assistance in court, and assistance and referrals to community -based
programs. Ms. Harris stressed the importance of the Domestic Violence Victim
Advocacy program, and urged its continued support.
In response to Councilman Law's inquiry, Sergeant Day stated that the LLEBG
funds have decreased over the years, while the calls for assistance have
increased. He pointed out that domestic -related calls for service represent
approximately one-third of the actual number of calls that require further
investigation.
Council President Persson noted that the General Fund picks up the rest of the
program cost, and he asked what the percentage increase of domestic -related
calls were from 2003 to 2004. Sergeant Day reported that there was a seven
percent increase in the reporting of domestic -related cases.
Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY NELSON,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE
USE OF LLEBG FUNDS FOR THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM
ADVOCACY PROGRAM. CARRIED.
Human Services: 2005 CDBG This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
& 2005/2006 General Fund accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
Allocations public hearing to consider the 2005 funding recommendations for the allocation
of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and the General
Fund allocations for 2005 and 2006.
Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator, reported that while the
CDBG funding allocations require a public hearing and the General Fund
allocations do not, the human services funding sources were combined for
public comment purposes. He said this matter and the related public comments
will be reviewed by the Community Services Committee.
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 299
Karen Bergsvik, Human Services Manager, described the overall application
and funding recommendation process, with the first step being preparing for the
funding cycle. This included writing "The Changing Face of Renton" reports
for the Human Services Advisory Committee and applicants use, and hiring a
consultant to assist the advisory committee in improving the process. She
added that the funding priorities remained the same as past years, and for the
first time, the advisory committee agreed to look at other factors in the
application. Additionally, Ms. Bergsvik noted that the South King County
cities developed a common application, which could be used by agencies
applying to any of the participating cities.
Continuing with the overall process, Ms. Bergsvik stated that an application
workshop was held in March; and City staff then processed the submitted
applications, using a checklist and rating review form, before their submittal to
the advisory committee. Ms. Bergsvik explained that there was no assumption
that if an agency was funded in the past, it would be funded in the future. For
2005/2006, the advisory committee felt that the only way they could fund
emerging needs in the community was by shifting funds from currently funded
agencies. She emphasized that did not mean an agency was not performing.
Ms. Bergsvik stated that an evaluation of the process will be conducted, and
agencies will also be given the opportunity to provide feedback. She indicated
that the funding process is a work in progress, which will continue to change
and improve. She concluded by saying that there is a lack of common
understanding of some of the assumptions, and clarification of those
assumptions will help agencies better plan for the future, and provide
parameters for the advisory committee.
Carol Chappelle, Human Services Advisory Committee Chair, stated that the
advisory committee is a diverse and committed group of volunteer citizens who
are committed to workings towards the betterment of Renton citizens. She
reported that 51 General Fund applications were received totaling $1,323,910,
versus the $259,000 available for distribution. Available capital funds totaled
$391,910, versus $652,013 in funding requests. Ms. Chappelle stated that the
advisory committee optimized the funding process by using the following
criteria: 1) Engaging all members of the advisory committee; 2) Being fair and
objective; and 3) Being accountable to the citizens of Renton.
Continuing, Ms. Chappelle described how the advisory committee reviewed the
applications and how the funding recommendations were determined. She
pointed out the many factors considered when evaluating the applications, such
as demographic trends, the number of Renton residents served by the agencies,
and duplication of services. The advisory committee recommended funding the
top 26 General Fund agencies versus 27 funded last year. She suggested that
agencies feeling shortchanged examine how they communicate their
commitment and energy in providing the best value to the citizens of Renton,
and evaluate their charters to make sure they conform to the needs of the
community.
Responding to Councilwoman Nelson's question regarding whether the new
application form generated even more requests for funding, Ms. Bergsvik
indicated that the increase in requests were due more to the cuts in funding for
non-profit organizations. She said agencies are looking for every possible
source of funding.
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 300
In response to Councilman Clawson's inquiry regarding the source of the
CDBG funds, Ms. Bergsvik stated they are federal funds distributed by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to King County.
Public comment was invited.
Richard Brooks, 1025 S. 3rd St., Renton, 98055, stated that he was the
Executive Director of Renton Area Youth Services (RAYS), which has served
the Renton community for over 35 years. He thanked the City for its past
support, and expressed his disappointment that many long-term human services
providers received funding cuts this time, including RAYS' seventeen percent
cut. Mr. Brooks expressed concerns regarding: the differing assumptions, the
existence of City policies regarding funding core human services agencies, the
need to fund emerging needs, the need to fund more and more organizations at
a time when funding is becoming more restrictive, and the lack of clarity of
how the funds will be distributed.
Continuing, Mr. Brooks encouraged the involvement of the human services
providers in the development of policies for the next funding cycle. He also
cautioned against using a zero -based budgeting approach, noting that the
grounds rules were not clearly laid out.
Councilman Corman commented that if the emphasis of the funding process is
going to change, it should be done gradually. He stressed that close attention is
being paid to all comments.
Maggie Moran, 403 E. Meeker St., Kent, 98030, spoke on behalf of Community
Health Centers of King County, and echoed the previous speaker's concerns
about the funding process. She urged support for her organization's funding
request for medical and dental care for Renton residents. Detailing the amount
of funds needed to provide medical and dental services, Ms. Moran expressed
concern regarding the steady decline in the General Fund allocation to her
organization, as well as the irregular pattern of CDBG funding. Stating that a
new Renton Community Health Center is slated to open in January, 2005, she
emphasized the need for a stable and significant financial commitment from the
City.
Daemond Arrindell, 1515 Dexter Ave. N., Suite 300, Seattle, 98109,
representing the Crisis Clinic's Teen Link program, expressed disappointment
that funding for his program will be completely cut. Mr. Arrindell detailed the
history of the program and the services it provides, which include the teen help
line and the youth suicide prevention presentations at King County schools. He
asked that Teen Link's funding request be reconsidered.
Tanesha Van Leuven, 5117 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, 98118, representing
HomeSight, expressed her gratitude for the $30,000 funding recommendation.
She explained that HomeSight helps low and moderate income families buy
their first homes, and the funding will be used for the first time home buyer
revolving loan fund. Ms. Van Leuven requested that Council maintain the
funding recommendation.
Patricia Hart, 200 Mill Ave. S., Renton, 98055, spoke on behalf of the King
County Sexual Assault Resource Center, and stated that the resource center has
been located in Renton for a long time. She emphasized that the resource
center always takes into consideration emerging needs in the community, and
works closely with other organizations so there is no duplication of services.
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 301
Ms. Hart expressed her disappointment with the recommended twenty percent
funding cut, and noted the effect the cut will have on the resource center.
Pointing out that the resource center is on the cutting edge of prevention and
information for sexual assault services, she detailed the services and programs
the agency provides. Ms. Hart concluded by expressing her appreciation for the
community's support of the agency.
Larry Johnson, 14308 165th Pl. SE, Renton, 98059, representing Lutheran
Community Services Northwest, expressed his appreciation for the funding
recommendation. Mr. Johnson said the capital funding will go towards the
development of a South King County community service facility, which will
provide senior housing, childcare, immigrant and refugee services, elderly and
disabled services, counseling, and family support. He emphasized that this new
facility is possible because of the partnership of the cities, businesses, and
individuals in South King County.
Celia Forrest, 1010 S. 2nd St., Renton, 98055, spoke on behalf of the YWCA,
and noted how difficult it is becoming for private non-profit organizations, as
expenses continue to increase and the income decreases. Stating that the
YWCA serves people whose lives are in danger, Ms. Forrest stressed that the
organization responds to the community's emerging needs, such as for the
victims of domestic violence. She indicated that as the economy gets worse, all
human services are being affected. Ms. Forrest stated that the YWCA serves a
wide variety of people with a diverse staff, and needs help to figure out how to
continue this necessary work.
Correspondence was read from Susan Richards, Executive Director for
Community in Schools of Renton, 300 SW 7th St., Renton, 98055, expressing
disappointment in the decreased funding recommendation, saying that the
percentage of the decrease was very high for Communities in Schools when
compared to the other agency funding cuts. She asked that the funding be more
equitably allocated to all eligible agencies. Ms. Richards also requested that
the Contingency Plan prioritize allocating additional funds to restore funding to
agencies that have received decreases, rather than being applied proportionately
to all.
Correspondence was read from Del Mead, Renton Clothes Bank Board
President, 1025 S. 3rd St., Renton, 98055, expressing gratitude for Renton's
continued funding support of the clothes bank. She stated that the
recommended $8,000 in funding covers most of the operating costs and
additional funding is received from service clubs, businesses, and citizens.
Detailing the needs that are served by the clothes bank, Ms. Mead noted that in
August, 457 families were served - seventy-five percent of who were children.
MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER
THESE LETTERS TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE.
CARRIED.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY LAW,
SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
Development Services: This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Wireless Communication accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
Facilities in Residential Zones public hearing to consider the proposed City Code amendments to permit
wireless communication facilities in residential neighborhoods.
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 302
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, explained that City Code does not allow
monopoles or extensions of existing utility poles for wireless antennas in
residentially zoned neighborhoods, and wireless providers find it difficult to
provide good coverage. The problems are the lack of in -home coverage,
dropped calls, and overall capacity issues, such as the wireless network
becoming overloaded during peak usage times.
Ms. Henning stated that staff recommends changes to the City's existing
wireless regulations to allow for new monopoles in residential neighborhoods
on a very limited basis, as follows:
• Allow wireless communication antennas on existing power poles and/or
existing street lights;
• Allow replacement of existing power poles and/or replacement of existing
city street lights with taller support structures;
• Allow antennas greater than ten feet only if applicant demonstrates that no
practical alternative is available to provide the same level of service; and
• Allow the installation of equipment cabinets within public street rights -of -
way or on abutting residentially zoned properties. These structures must -be
located underground, or in a suitable location with appropriate screening.
Council President Persson stated his concerns regarding being able to contact
the wireless providers in the event of any problems, the possibility that the
towers will interfere with public safety radio communications, the need to
remove graffiti from the equipment cabinets in a timely manner, and the long-
term maintenance of landscaping.
Councilman Corman expressed his concern about view obstruction, and
recommended that the poles be sited so that no one bears a disproportionate
impact.
Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY BRIERE,
SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO OCTOBER 18, 2004. CARRIED.
RECESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL RECESS FOR
FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:08 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:17 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers
present.
Development Services: Ken Lyons, Cingular Wireless, 14042 NE 8th St., Suite 210, Bellevue, 98007,
Wireless Communication was invited to comment on the topic of wireless communication facilities in
Facilities in Residential Zones residential zones. He explained that Puget Sound Energy requires a safety
clearance between their power lines and the antennas on their poles, and the
Federal Communications Commission does not allow any antennas to be placed
lower than ten meters (approximately 33 feet). Therefore, most utility poles in
residential areas are not available for antenna placement.
In regards to the issue of interference with emergency radio communications
that use the 800 megahertz bandwidth, Mr. Lyons pointed out that with the
exception of Nextel, most wireless providers use the 1900 megahertz
frequency. He indicated that this issue is being addressed at the national level.
In conclusion, he noted the difficulty of addressing view obstruction issues, and
suggested that the intent be clearly stated in the City Code.
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 303
Councilman Corman suggested that staff consider limits by distance when
evaluating the view obstruction issues.
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 2004 and beyond. Items noted
included:
• The King Conservation District Board of Supervisors recently awarded the
Renton Parks Division the 2004 Local Government Conservation Award
for the division's initiative and support on habitat enhancement work at the
Black River Riparian Forest.
• A new ordinance related to motorized foot scooters is now in effect in
Renton. The ordinance requires scooter users to be age 13 years or older;
obey all rules of the road; wear helmets; and affix a muffler.or modified
muffling device to the scooter. They are not allowed in any park, trail, or
sidewalk, or on streets with a speed limit above 25 miles per hour.
Additionally, scooters may not be operated from one-half hour after sunset
to one-half hour before sunrise.
• Renton residents will see a change in the day their garbage, recycling, and
yard waste are collected beginning October 4th. Customers will soon
receive printed information about the change in their collection day.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
Council Meeting Minutes of
Approval of Council meeting minutes of August 23, 2004. Council concur.
August 23, 2004
Appeal: Sunset Bluff
City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Sunset Bluff
Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC,
Preliminary Plat (PP-04-002); appeal filed by SR 900, LLC, 9125 loth Ave. S.,
PP-04-002
Seattle, 98108, on 8/17/2004, accompanied by required fee. The appeal packet
includes an additional letter from Herons Forever as allowed by City Code.
Refer to Planning & Development Committee.
CAG: 04-113, 200 Mill
City Clerk reported bid opening on 9/3/2004 for CAG-04-113, 200 Mill
Building Chiller Replacement,
Building Chiller Replacement; three bids; engineer's estimate $180,000; and
MacDonald -Miller Facility
submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder,
Solutions
MacDonald -Miller Facility Solutions, Inc., in the amount of $121,594.88.
Council concur.
Court Case: Kelly A Wright,
Court Case filed by Diane L. Vanderbeek, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Kelly
CRT-04-006
A. Wright, alleging assault and battery, violation of civil rights, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and negligence while in the custody of the
Renton Police Department on 8/27/2002. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance
Services.
Plat: Parkview Homes, NE
Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of
24th St, FP-04-071
Parkview Homes Final Plat; ten single-family lots on 1.77 acres located at
Camas Ave. NE and NE 24th St. (FP-04-071). Council concur. (See page 305
for resolution.)
Annexation: Johnson, 142nd
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
Ave SE
recommended a public hearing be set on 10/18/2004 to consider the proposed
R-8 zoning for the Johnson Annexation; 18.24 acres located east of 142nd Ave.
SE and south of SE 118th St. Council concur.
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 304
Plat: Jericho, Jericho Ave NE, Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Jericho
PP-04-031 Preliminary Plat; 35 single-family lots on 5.31 acres located at 335 Jericho Ave.
NE (PP-04-031). Council concur.
Public Works: Surplus of City- Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommended approval to declare
Owned Property, 901 surplus City -owned property located at 901 Harrington Ave. NE (old Fire
Harrington Ave NE Station #12), and to set compensation for the property at $475,000. Refer to
Community Services Committee.
Police: Jail Administration Police Department recommended approval of an interlocal agreement for jail
Interlocal Agreement, Various administration with various cities to establish the purpose, membership, and
Cities governance of oversight groups to administer the jail contracts with Yakima
and King County. Renton's expenditure in 2004 is $4,393. Refer to Public
Safety Committee.
Lease: Lane Hangar Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Addendum #2 to
Condominium Owners LAG-99-003, Airport lease with Lane Hangar Condominium Owners
Association Addendum #2, Association, for a rent increase from $12,682.82 to $13,597 annually. Council
Airport, LAG-99-003 concur.
Airport: Ace Aviation Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an operating permit
Operating Permit & and agreement with Ace Aviation, Inc. for an aircraft maintenance facility at
Agreement the Airport. Additionally, approval was sought for the Airport sublease
agreement between Bosair, LLC and Ace Aviation, Inc. Refer to
Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
Transportation: I-405 Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a memorandum of
Congestion Relief & Transit understanding establishing a cooperative relationship with Washington State
Projects Memo of Department of Transportation for the I-405 congestion relief and transit
Understanding, WSDOT projects. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
CAG: 03-034, Water System Utility Systems Division recommended approval of Addendum #2 to CAG-03-
Plan Update, RW Beck 034, contract with R.W. Beck, Inc. to complete the update of the Water System
Plan in the amount of $65,448; and approval to transfer $46,000 from the
Reservoir Re -Coat project budget to the Water System Plan Update project
budget. Refer to Utilities Committee.
CAG: 03-115, East Kennydale
Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-03-115, East Kennydale Sanitary
Sanitary Sewer Infill & Water
Sewer Infill and Water Main Replacement Phase II; and requested approval of
Main Replacement Phase II,
the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $7,881.46,
Robison Construction commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retainage bond in the
amount of $65,528.19 to Robison Construction, Inc., contractor, if all required
releases are obtained. Council concur.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Added At the request of Councilman Corman, correspondence was read from Douglas
CORRESPONDENCE R. Head, Edward Jones, 4250 NE 4th St., Suite B, Renton, 98059, in which he
Citizen Comment: Head - One- references an article in the Renton Reporter regarding Renton's street system.
Way Streets He indicated that the outdated and confusing street system needs updating.
MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE
TOPIC OF ONE-WAY STREETS TO THE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 305
UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending approval
Finance Committee of Claim Vouchers 229833 - 230367 and four wire transfers totaling
Finance: Vouchers $5,106,714.35; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 53094 - 53435, one wire
transfer, and 612 direct deposits totaling $2,032,816.49. MOVED BY
CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report regarding the
Committee Civil Air Patrol's (Renton Composite Squadron) request for meeting and office
Community Services: Renton space. The Committee met to discuss this issue on 7/16/2003. While there is
Composite Squadron, Meeting nothing available at City Hall or the Renton Municipal Airport, there has been
Space an effort made to try to find alternate office space for the Civil Air Patrol. As a
result of this, the Civil Air Patrol has been given a contact at the Salvation
Army offices. At this time, the Committee recommended that no further action
be taken and this matter be closed. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY
PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report
Committee
regarding the City process for street vacations. The Committee met with staff
Vacation: Process
to discuss the process for how the staff processes street vacations. As a result
of these discussions, the Committee recommended that staff add an additional
step to the vacation process. For each street vacation, it was determined that a
briefing should be provided to the Committee prior to the public hearing.
MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE. REPORT. CARRIED.
RESOLUTIONS AND
The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
ORDINANCES
Resolution #3714
A resolution was read approving the Parkview Homes Final Plat; approximately
Plat: Parkview Homes, NE
1.77 acres located in the vicinity of Camas Ave. NE and NE 24th St. (FP-04-
24th St, FP-04-071
071). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and
adoption:
Ordinance #5092
An ordinance was read annexing 9.61 acres of contiguous unincorporated
Annexation: Tydico, 136th
territory known as the Tydico Annexation, by the election method, setting the
Ave SE
taxation rate, and fixing the effective date of 9/22/2004 for the annexation. The
site is generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd Pl., if extended, on the
north; the centerline of SE 132nd St., if extended on the south; 134th Ave., if
extended on the west; and Bremerton Ave. NE (136th Ave. SE) on the east.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance #5093 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of R-8
Annexation: Tydico, R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per acre) for the Tydico Annexation; 9.61
Zoning acres generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd Pl., if extended, on the
north; the centerline of SE 132nd St., if extended on the south; 134th Ave., if
extended on the west; and Bremerton Ave. NE (136th Ave. SE) on the east.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
September 13, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 306
Ordinance #5094 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of R-10
Annexation: Tydico, R-10 (Residential - ten dwelling units per acre) for the Tydico Annexation; 9.61
Zoning acres generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd Pl., if extended, on the
north; the centerline of SE 132nd St., if extended on the south; 134th Ave., if
extended on the west; and Bremerton Ave. NE (136th Ave. SE) on the east.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance #5095
An ordinance was read amending Section 4-1-210, Waived Fees, of Chapter 1,
Planning: Owner -Occupied
Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of
Housing Incentive Extension
City Code by extending and modifying the waiver of certain development and
and Modification
mitigation fees. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,
COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL
AYES. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS
Councilwoman Nelson reviewed Renton School District announcements and
School District: Activities
activities. Items noted included: the summer school program's success, and the
Link programs that are instrumental in helping new freshman adopt to life at
high school.
ADJOURNMENT
MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADJOURN.
CARRIED. Time: 9:45 p.m.
Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk
Recorder: Michele Neumann
September 13, 2004
RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 13, 2004
COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
(Persson)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
(Nelson)
FINANCE
(Corman)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
(Briere)
PUBLIC SAFETY
(Law)
MON., 9/20
Emerging Issues
5:30 p.m.
*Council Conference Room*
6:30 p.m.
Aquatic Center 2004 Performance
*Council Chambers*
7:00 p.m.
Informal Reception for Suburban Cities
Association's New Executive Director,
Karen Goroski
*Conferencing Center*
MON., 9/20 Surplus of Fire Station #12;
4:00 p.m. General Fund and CDBG Funding
Recommendations
THURS., 9/16 Renton School District Alley Vacation
2:30 p.m. (briefing only);
Comprehensive Plan Update
MON., 9/20
5:00 p.m.
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 9/16
(Palmer) 4:30 p.m.
UTILITIES
(Clawson)
THURS., 9/16
4:15 p.m.
Jail Administration Interlocal Agreement
NE 3rd/4th St. Corridor (briefing only);
I-405 Congestion Relief and Transit
Projects Memo of Understanding with
WSDOT;
Ace Aviation Operating Permit and
Agreement
Water System Plan Update Contract
Addendum with R.W. Beck
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.
UP t-
a fk7
a.
A,
J,
�J
P a IF V
tx�
F
P
1g,
IF
A-
Y
d
V
A
'P .......... .
IF
o
JV,
41 _3
pndi, -96Z-90ZJlB3J,0,
f Zee 310A OJ IOU IF
gv
'310JIGW'AW k,
#
SuolpeIG/A013
V 7
JPJ
4 6 I�
P
t A
aI
" 4
a" 11siA'uo.r4eWjo1ui ejow �ioj,,
8) OA'jn
N
4 18A9MOH,, "k
Ilk
1 7,
k,
J,-j9qLU"PN ul U011391 1"G14 'JOJ- YA, 3 2JPUG!D,
0. J
_A
IOU SIL
15UIJOA Ul GM00 Sl,0JGqJ M I M u iql,,,,Aq Paloage 01 O-A
P""N
3 Aq
,
uesi:pedu6b,iols"gl?R!Pueo,joj,alon of liunli oddo anon ,,ppqLu pq a n _Ile ,9JeMe -)jUCJJe
--k
��d leoililod k4o!�Joppi ou 11!�Aabuaialaid"A -ino
�r 41, Iv
M
ur
u. `keabbd Jeollqo 'quo JOtSqJeP!PU83 aql'JOJ
f A08AiJd anon I pe `d' 6 A d'
-01
:OJOA-01, be
3� ip N�
a w nok'awil',lSil ()ql JOJ 001:40 UeS1IJ
J%is,91PPM �t,
'T 1� _. - I - - k 1- 1 1, 1,4'. 7�, 4,-
�UO,Ae ed
666AMAo' 9J9pDq-.Z IP s
g: ��I
P
PE) 10�1 01'� n ok §qJ i h b�j alos n 'I
)91:810A ofluemno�p 1911eq Al ed�
F� 4 'o J"
P q,
'nA9U,GqJ;SJeE)A OZIS'OWle U1,901 ISJq,' alp �1�kb
rt
OP OJ,JfJWJ9 I oil, e z
%
A n 44� "I : - 5 o ,-%
41,
4F 41"
M
Mau �'�e qle F, &
PNeqotll' lbql W Jewlid, IS Uolbuiq�em� S� �040LXMOU)f A
IF
4, w
se
1Z 6� 4�
4,
41
- uaa�s/Cs /Cac��,ulada
#
&
IN
0
s�aaqu�a daS uI884:3
N
li
91 0
-
�. King County Elections asked
thousands of people to help review
and suggest improvements to
the new ballot. Here's what two of the
respondents had to say:
Th
vivo a
change i n
our primary
not the General Election, just the primary."
ACV
71'.'Aftr looking at all -the ballot designs,, -1 1
the single ball6t'f6rmat was obvi6 usly
F
the most cost-effective and siffio)e to
A,
IF I
understand.','al n
Sharon1 Hopper '
5
Ft A.
0 -
'P
#4
4 1
2
41-
��"No Matter how you -feel -about-'
IF# 6
0,
""the f) en rim n`K1 CcfinrriF, 1,4nu,
-,vote is too import6nt,not to take.,
part in the election.7,_'_
10
obert Mairiurn'II 71
q,
J
'N
J
w, tF
F26
'Ballots- --,I e,
-6 re t6re-6pproachabl 'than expected:
Se ti We Times Editorial - July 23, 2004
IF 4i P
o
SUN
MON
7
T s
tp,
%
sJ
F-J
Af 15
20 21 22
27 28 29
46-&
10 1
7 18
24
25
30
O
.... ............
.-For,more information call '2'0'6-29J67V'OT't o'r'1: i
go www.metrokc.gov/electipps�
K^
-or
'ng County
Election,
-Ifyou havequestions,' o the 6rimai� information brochureb- an language-
@ A 7
II ICti
ng,C
format,- Okas�`�onta& i - ounty,Ele on 6-296-8683, TTY 206-296-0109`
S at 20
-
V 4 e�
4A It 2W-29&8ffi3 A1tf�4k_*20&296-61W*
A.
p 6�6 i4p
FA�
"0 4�
"-• "t,1[UNS,SEPT
Use a dark INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: EMBER 14, 2004 r. w a- If you Vote in
in the oval neM fo
in error Your Choice, at the VOTE LIKE T Ii
polls, return the ballot to HIS: JUSTICE PO 08
a poll worker antl III in the oval completely. + Vote For One _
r IMPORTANT PRIMARY set another one.
K I I• Select one AND NEW THIS YEAR * ` r a
HIS
ELECTIONS V re Harry Potter
m, r politic
I _ unt do not se%ct a panyPPfe ern preference below. OTING INSTRUCTIONS
2, Vote for ca You select more th nre-In g NO f
I a bis ballot has be �a oQor from the y You so, an one party. your votes for sari c so �— w JUSvo a For One
other part Partisan andidates wi!/n 5R PadY's or candidates 'dart to assist ected.
3. You in se%ctin
~ These Totes wnbeaounfeo; Offices and ballot rtledSUretests which correspond to your party selection. Votes f ! George Jetson`
J
you do not mark a S' or ! Fred Flintstone
SECRETARYOF Po/tical pa fy Quest v
Vote For OnSTATE Johnny
e • L
INSURANCE ~ i Of new f wrne-In OIV. NO.1, NONE,
«
Wfrtme 0. Pooh . COMMISSIONER PEALS
Pal rtisan Vote For one ' COURT OF AP I40. 1;
I oft;• Dr. M. Zeus �+, t
Before -_, Ella Fitzgerald $ N0.04 Nip,
"
Im indicate the proceeding, please %Scarier O'Hara �� JUDGE PO
with which Part Y DS Vote For one
t Pollticat • ) John WayneJUN a
Y Donna Parker Sta2 OF PUBLIC LAN
P affiliate. You choose to -
am `-) Mickey Mantle rt
. wnre-m For One �t r
-� If you do LEG. DIST, ( , Chandler Bing
not select a party .) wnre " UNITED STATES N0.34 r s,irT
i preference or if you select
more th SEN -% NO 07 t
fe-In
awRIO
k�.
"Ay F ION N0:1
� EDICAL CENTER
Lill AND SAFETY
MENTS
� GATIONS BONGS
a' ,130,000 Council has
this
-County
o. f389. , meconcerning on
Harborvle hi rroaeon '
i an one STATESENATOR ATOR wn JUDGEPOS. y tbonds. T P s
votes for party, Your TR Vote For One Vote For One am County to make seismic,
R Vote For One _
partisan confests V°te For One _ �,' ix' afety improvements at
r wihcount, NC rrm. including
r Wanda W i 1 Hank Aaron Hawke 'erce
Women Vo « (Center,
averne De � Rachel Green construction
PARTY Molly Bloom BarneyY Rubble �- and buildings, upgrading
_ s rid renovation and uP9 no
wrne-," 193,130,000 of
we ue Richards write-in SUPERIOR Coll t a i & Sbond maturing w thin v
PREFERENCE wnte_,n Choose Grey REPRESENT NO r411 , , a for $uch
REPRESENTATIVE P
�'. DEMO STAT JUDGEPOS.x,yearstoP Y taxesno
{ DEMOCRATIC NO,Ot i Vote For Ong,, r ndlevyPr°Fame tax _
Vote For One it atq - "` '° ' ' of regular prop rtY
REPUBLICAN a party " C) Shirley Feeney " � a M,
Thunder such bonds, all as Pf 0vl ton
1 i , , CAarlie Brow ESSIONAL DISTRICT N0. uote f o�" Johnny 6 1389e. Should )tits P P
I LIBERTARIAN REPRESENTgTIyE
f Vote For One 01
wn`e"" -, Fryer Tuck w "
wrlre_rn BONDS,No
Amelia Earhardt REPRESENTATIVE POS.� es
I a Note: This selection is ATTORNEY GENERAL candidates a OpO�,10N N0.2 FOR
andro private 'vote For One Vote « `,Yr ", Fr_ ) vrrrte-," JUDGE T-yTpytLEVY r
record is maintained ' ; Richie Cunningham or One
of your choice. Alex P. Keaton �) W �t h n t h ate Vote v v
y Please PaPPe r int Patty carte -In y. tP
continue voting. STATE OF
j Remember to vote onl `-' WASHINGTO ny Cinderella Cba min9
candidates that corresy for wnre-," ECINCT COM �+
COMMISSIONER GOVE M11
i with your part on OF PUBLIC OFFICER i Susan Snow White
Y preference. LANDS r One J
r * -
Vote For One 02 ware -In
I • - ; Don Qulzae For One `-7 Tiny Tim ? TATIVE POS. NO• JUDGE POS.
Roger Rabbit Ronald McDonald a- EPRESEN Vote For
Vote For One
an
UNITED • Jackie Brown
STATES w"te1n w"1ej" ller
Jane Eyre LT. GOVERNOR _ pebbles Flintst0ne y Ross Ge K
PepPem^intPatly.
SENATOR - Vote For One FFICER < =' Pooh
Vote For One I') Madame B. Bovary _ g • -J' ITTEE O wlnnie D.
�_� write -In T COMM
Pollyanna Smith J.P. PatchesRac_ sa PRECtT1C $
_) Nancy Drew Vote For One _ Robin Masters
r PiPPie Longstockings
t r ��) Harry Potter wnta_rn _ + Sally Srown ate.,n 15
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER write-,n +�'� JUDGE POS• N0.
r _ j George Jerson • r e. Vote For one
Vote For One SECRETARY OF STATE No `. ) write'"
;Fred Flintstone Vote For One ~ ,-D B UNITED STATES .r • Drew
fi ; _� ally Summers Nancy
I�
9 REPRESENTATIVE
t Vote For One
r Peter Parker
umC-)
wn,e_m
STATE OF WASHINGTI
so GOVERNOR
am Vote For One
rr CD Bruce Wayne
r `_) James Bond
WAfa-In
LT. GOVERNOR
Vote For One
Sherlock Holmes
(:__% George Smiley
Peter Pan
>RR
RR
Vote For One
Marge Simpson
Vote For One
Clark Kent
REPRESENTATIVE POS. NO.Oy
Vote For One
Lois Lane
OFFICER
_) Penny Lane
Doogie Houser
Marcus Welby
Tommy Twotone
Vote For One
Thomas Edison
Vote For One
George W. Carver
Vote For One
Betsy Ross
Vote For One
C JohnnyAppleseed
-} Wnte_In
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRI(
9REPRESENTAT
ryE
Vote For One
Oliver Twist
-� Write ---
STATE OF WASHINGTI
GOVERNOR
Vote For One
Curious George
wrlte_In
LT.GOVERNOR
Vote For One
John Hancock
•.,e ror one - "" wr PUBLIC Vote For One -
LANDS
`_ ; Susan Snow White Vote For One r- Pe
Clara Barton mY Mason
wnre_In -^ no
1`) Benjamin Franklin wrire•In _
races and Ballot Measures on reverse side.
`-'' wnre-rn
COntinUed On
FRONT G,rd I Rptict 242,22 opposite -r
ar1FfNG-22^ r Side.
ROOF ONLY n7i211
- «. �. ... 0403:Id:4h r
0
wally Cleaver
Theodore Cleaver
Vote For One
Ozzie Smith
Joe Hardy
Jeff Sullivan
Ned Flanders
P, Skinner
Thomas Magnum
-. AI Hrbrosky
av Vote For One
- , Christopher Robin
- Cody Banks
wandaVdomen
PROPER
§ AUTOMATED ON SYSTEM _
INT IDENTIFICATI
SERVICES Will
Metropolitan King County Council has
No.13894 conceming this NO
ad Ordinance
roposilion loran automated fingerprintTis -
denlill al. o system ki Fl- Ieue eration
proposition would fund continue o
Which •
agencies In identifying a
and enhancement of the AFIS Program' an
assists law enfocrr a nais,Ment aand replace County t
and . levy ltwouldauthorizeKf
expiring levy ter BA 55 RO N regular
to exceed Chap an additional
Propedy tax limitations and levy 05784
regular property tax valuation
of not more than
prop30.
(5.784 cents) per $1' ear, with collection
for five consecutive Y rovided in Ordinance
beginning In 2001, all as P
No.13894. Should this Proposition be:
- No
(as --
Y
Ram
Complete the ballot
by noting in tthe
nonpartisan contests
andon'ballot measures,,
-a e� ifd ou�choose
5
Y,
:not to selectaaarty
Clark Kent
Lois Lane
■/:._: Write-n � PRUOF ONLY Qi12U040S;t0:44
,e,0000000
� 00 1 RFcP
on
242-22 ' 8OC-
r on, aim °,
-
r
Mo
Mo
Ono
on
Seefront of ballot -
King County For assistance, please call...
Elections 206-296-VOTE or go to www.metrokc.gov/elections
City of Renton
PUBLIC INFORMATION HANDOUT
September 13, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM ADVOCACY
In 2004, 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 $18,478 and required a City match of approximately
10 percent, or $2,053.
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have funded the City of Renton's Domestic
Violence Victim Advocacy program since 1996. The Program has enjoyed tremendous
success and has provided much needed services to victims of domestic abuse.
The Renton Domestic Violence Task Force has endorsed the continuation of the program
and joins in requesting that it receive support of the City Council and the community.
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 131h day of
September, 2004 at 7:30pm as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the
seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA
98055 to consider the following General fund allocations for 2005 and 2006, and
Community Development Block Grant funds for 2005:
The City of Renton is proposing to allocate 2005/2006 general funds in the amount of
$259,000 to the following projects:
Agency/Program
Recommended
:.Funding Aniqunt, .
Catholic Community Services/Chore
$5,000
Catholic Community Services/Counseling
$8,000
Catholic Community Services/Emergency Assistance
$10,000
Catholic Community Services/Katherine's House
$4,000
Catholic Community Services/Legal Action Center
$3,000
Child Care Resources
$5,000
Children's Therapy Center
$4,000
Community Health Centers of King County/Medical
$23,000
Communities in Schools of Renton/Mentor
$13,000
Consejo
$5,000
Crisis Clinic/Phone Services
$3,200
Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center
$8,000
Institute for Family Development
$4,600
King County Sexual Assault Resource Center
$28,000
Lutheran Community Services/Mental Health
$4,000
Multi -Service Center/Emergency and Transitional Housing
$2,100
Renton Area Youth and Family Services
$55,000
Refugee Women's Alliance
$5,000
Renton Clothes Bank
$8,000
Renton Technical College/Even Start
$9,000
Senior Services/Meals on Wheels
$8,000
Senior Services/Volunteer Transportation
$4,100
Ukrainian Community Center of Washington
$5,000
Way Back Inn
$10,000
YWCA of King County —Domestic Violence
$20,000
YWCA of King County—Emergency/Transitional Housing
$5,000
Totalgeneral fund allocation
$259,000
CADocuments and Settings\mneumannTocal Settings\Temp\publichearing05ver2.doc
The 2006 allocations are contingent upon funding availability and agency performance
The City of Renton is proposing to allocate 2005 Community Development Block Grai
Public Service Funds in the amount of $68,000 to the following projects:
Agency(Program
Rec6mmerided
°Furidn Amount
Community Health Centers of King County/Dental
$14,000
403 E Meeker Street, Kent WA. Funds will be used to provide
approximately 108 dental visits to 55 low and moderate -income
Renton residents.
Communities In Schools of Renton/Family Liaison Program will
$10,000
provide family liaison services to approximately 300 low and
moderate income students in the Renton School District.
Domestic Abuse Women's Network/Confidential shelter. Funds
$11,000
will be used to provide confidential shelter and services to women
or children victims of domestic violence, including bednights or
referrals to approximately 13 Renton residents.
E1derHealth/Day Health Program, 3921 Talbot Road S, Renton,
$10,000
WA. Funds will be used to provide adult day health care to
approximately 39 elderly persons or severely disabled adults
residing in Renton.
Emergency Feeding Program/Food Program. Funds will be used
$13,000
to provide meals to approximately 1650 low and moderate
income Renton residents at several Renton distribution sites.
Visiting Nurse Services of NW/Senior Health promotion 211
$10,000
Burnett Avenue North, Renton. Funds will be used to provide
health assessments to approximately 110 senior citizens.
Total CDBG fund allocation
$68,000
2®o a
The City of Renton is proposing to allocate 2W4 Community Development Block Grant
Capital Funds in the amount of $391,910 to the following projects:
L7�Vl�V,!:/ 1 1 V'b1G1111
_
Fundin Amount
King County Housing Repair Program/Deferred loans, grants
$50,000
Funds will be used to repair or rehabilitate homes of low and
moderate income Renton residents.
Downtown Action to Save Housing/Low moderate housing 435
$50,000
Williams Avenue So. For property acquisition/construction to
build 92 units of affordable rental housing for those with incomes
at 50-60% of AMI.
HomeSight/First time home buyer program. Funds will be used
$30,000
for first-time buyer purchase assistance loans for low or moderate
income households purchasing within Renton city limits.
City of Renton Housing Repair Program will use funds to provide 1
$200,910
CADocuments and Settings\mneumann\Local Settings\Temp\publichearing05ver2.doc 2
repairs to approximately 160 housing units for low and moderate
income homeowners throughout the city.
Lutheran Community Services Northwest, 4040 S. 188` St, Sea-
$6,000
Tac, for fees associated with the development of a Community
Services Building providing services to low and moderate income
clients.
Multi Service Center will provide employment and related
$30,000
services to approximately 20 low and moderate income Renton
residents.
Pediatric Interim Care Center/construction of new facility, 425 W.
$25,000
Saar St, Kent, WA to be used to construct a care facility for drug
exposed/chemically fragile newborns. Approximately 11 Renton
clients will be served yearly.
Total CDBG Capital fund allocation
$391,910
The City of Renton is proposing to allocate the 2005 Community Development Block
Grant Program Administration allocation of $45,127 to the staff costs in administering
the Community Development Block Grant program at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton.
The City is proposing that should there be a change in the amount of Community
Development Block grant funds available in 2005, the amount of funds allocated by
modified to the proposed contingency plan.
For further information about the City of Renton's allocations, contact Dianne Utecht at
425-530-6655. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written
or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the
American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be
provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510.
CADocuments and Settings\mneumann\Local Settings\Temp\publichearing05ver2.doc
City of Renton
200512006 Funding Recommendations for the
General Fund and 2005 CDBG Funding Recommendations
2004
2005
2005
2005
General Fund
Program Description
funded
amount
requested
amount
recom.
Gen Fund
recom.
CDBG
Rationale
Community Services
Chore Services
$5,000
$7,000
$5,000
Catholic
Catholic Community Services
Counseling Services
$0
$15,000
$8,000
Catholic Community Services
Emergency Assistance
$10,000
$12,000
$10,000
Services
Katherine's House
$4,000
$6,000
$4,000
Catholic Community
Catholic Community Services
Legal Action Center
$10,000
$3,000
Child Care Resources
Children's Therapy Center
Information and Referral
Early Intervention for
Developmentally Disabled.
$7,500
$2,500
$7,725
$9,435
$5,000
$4,000
Comm Health Centers of King County
Primary Medical
Mentor Program
Domestic Violence Community
$24,000
$14,200
$40,000
$14,200
23,000
$13,000
Communities in Schools of Renton
Consejo
Advocacy
$10,000
$5,000
Phone Services/Crisis &
Crisis Clinic
Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center
Institute for Family Development
King County Sexual Assault Resource Center
Community Services
y services
ounseling
!,,tyommunInformation
ssault Services
ealth Services
$3,300
$35,000
$9,054
$15,000
$6,900
$35,006
$10,000
$3,200
$8,000
$4,600
$28,000
$4,000
Lutheran
Multi -Service Center
Refugee Women's Alliance
Emergency & Transitional Housing
Family Support Program
$2,000
$0
$5,000
$15,000
$2,100
$5,000
Renton Area Youth and Family Services
Clothes Bank
Child, Youth & Family Services
Clothes Bank
$66,000
$8,000
$70,656
$10,000
$55,000
$8,000
Renton
Technical College
Even Start
$10,000
$15,000
$9,000
Renton
Senior Services
Senior Services
Meals on Wheels
Volunteer Transportation
$6,000
$6,000
$9,000
$7,250
$8,000
$4,100
Indicates cuts in funding from 2004
Indicates increases in funding from
2004
Indicates funding for the first time
H:\Huma n_se\2005\2005fu nd ing&rationale_2.xls
Page 1 9/13/2004
City of Renton
2005/2006 Funding Recommendations for the
General Fund and 2005 CDBG Funding Recommendations
2004
2005
2005
2005
General Fund
Program Description
funded
amount
requested
amount
recom:
Gen Fund
recom.
CDBG
Rationale
Ukrainian Community Center of Washington
immigrant/Refugee Services
$5,000
$10,500
$5,000
Way Back Inn
Transitional Housing
$10,000
$15,000
$10,000
YWCA of King County
Domestic Violence
$23,0001
$25,0001
$20,000
YWCA of King County
Emergency/Transitional Housing
$5,000
$5,0001
$5,000
..,<,,, ;.9' ,._ ,:� r' r,,. �.,:i ::_ _�.
.:ax•-. 3uxa• s �
��
1 4� .3'
_
KS259,0001,
Fell under priority of domestic violence#
(DV)/family violence. Evaluated all the DV
ACAP Child and Family Services
Asian-Amerian Chemical Dependency
APPLE Parenting (A Positive
Parent Learning Experience)
Substance use Treatment
$10,000
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
requests together and compared to the limited
resources.
Limited resources; unprecedented demand.
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of King and Pierce
County
Center for Career Alternatives
Mentoring
Low Tech, High Wage Initiative
SE Asian Domestic Violence
$10,000
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Fund CISR - same type of program
Limited resources; unprecedented demand.
Evaluated all the DV requests together and
CHAYA
Children's Home Society
Community Health Centers of King County
Community Health Centers of King Co.
Crisis Clinic
Services
Strengthening Families
Healthcare for the Homeless
Natural Medicine
TEEN Link
$1,000
$15,000
$15,000
$2,000
$6,250
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
compared to the limited resources.
Limited resources; unprecedented demand.
Limited resources; unprecedented demand.
Limited resources; unprecedented demand.
Evaluated all the domestic violence requests
Domestic Abuse Women's Network
DV Support Groups
$3,660
$0
$0
together and compared to limited resources.
Domestic Abuse Women's Network
Highline Community Hospital
DV Crisis Line
Midwifery services
$4,375
$7,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
Didn't specify how Renton would benefit
$ for both Burien and Renton. Application did not
Highline Community Hospital
Hospitality House
Youth Health Center
Shelter/Single Women
$10,000
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
include Renton Clinic.
Limited resources; unprecedented demand.
IndicaA�cutsunding from 2004
Indicates increase in funding from
2004
Indicates funding for the first time.
2005\2005fundingUationale_2.xls
Page 2
9/13/2004
City of Renton
2005/2006 Funding Recommendations for the
General Fund and 2005 CDBG Funding Recommendations
General Fund
Program Description
2004
funded
amount
2005
requested
amount
200S
recom.
Gen Fund
2005
recom.
CDBG
Rationale
Pregnancy Aid of Kent
Salvation Army Food Bank & Service Center
Senior Services
Valley Cities Counseling
WA Women Employment & Education
Transitional Housing
Food Bank
Congregate Meals
Homeless Family Services
Job readiness/computer training
$1,000
$1,500
$15,000
$6,000
$10,000
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Program not viable without City of Kent funding. it
is not recommended to be funded by Kent in 05.
1 st to fund in contingency plan. Limited
resources; unprecedented demand.
City gives in -kind donation of space to the
program at the Senior Center.
2005 CDBG Public Services
Community Health Centers of King County
Communities in Schools of Renton
Dental 1
Family Liaison Program
$14,400
$14,400
$20,0001
$15,0001
$0
$14,000
$10,000
Domestic Abuse Women's Network
ElderHealth
Emergency Feeding Program
Visiting Nurse Services of Washington
Note: $10,000 required minimum funding for
CDBG Public Service Programs.
Confidential Shelter
Day Health Program
Food Program
Senior Health Promotion
$9,600
$9,335
$13,440
$7,200
$11,0001
$12,000
$14,400
$10,520
$0
$11,000
$10,000
$13,000
$10,000
$68,000
Indicates cuts in funding from 2004
Indicates increase in funding from
2004
Indicates funding for the first time.
H:\Human se\2005\2005funding&rationale_2.xis Page 3 9/13/2004
City of Renton
2005/2006 Funding Recommendations for the
General Fund and 2005 CDBG Funding Recommendations
General Fund
Program Description
2004
funded
amount
2005
requested
amount
2005
recom.
Gen Fund
2005
recom.
CDBG
Rationale
King County Housing Repair Program
Deferred loans/grants
$50,000
$75,000
$50,000
Wants King County to complete an applic. In
future
Downtown Action to Save Housing
Low Moderate Housing Downtown
$160,000
$50,000
Likes idea of more affordable housing. Wants
residents of Renton on RHA waiting list to have
1 st priority for housing
HomeSight
First Time Home Buyer Program
$70,000
30,000
Likes idea of revolving fund & helping families
connect to community
City of Renton Housing Repair Program
Housing Repair
$205,250
$205,250
$200,910
Felt that prgm could be cut w/o affecting quality
Lutheran Community Services Northwest
Permitting for Community Services
Building
$6,100
$6,000
Wanted to help fund Renton's share of a regional
facility
Multi Service Center
CBDO Employee Development
$60,000
$60,000
$30,000
This will fund last 1/2 of 2005. 2004 funding is for
6/04 - 6/05.
Pediatric Interim Care Center
Construction of new facility
$75,000
$25,000
Wanted to help fund Renton's share of a regional
facility
Indicates cuts in funding from 2004
Indicates increases in funding
from 2004
Indicates funding for the first time
H:\Human_se\2005\rev20o5funding&rationale_2.xls Page 1 9/13/2004
Daemond Arrindell -ba-evno-nd Aril n htl
From: Leber Delores LHS Staff [LeberD@issaquah.wednet.eduj
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:49 PM
To: Daemond Arrindell
Cc: Davis, Kevin LHS-STAFF; Corr, Linda AD Staff; Butler, Rich AD -Staff
Subject: Funding for Teen Linnk
To the Renton City Council,
Please accept my deep appreciation for funding Teen Link through the Crisis
Clinic. I've been teaching Health at Liberty High School for the past 4
years. Every semester a group of Teen Link counselors has visited each of
Liberty High School's Health classes (11 classes per year) to teach about
one of the fastest growing diseases and its consequences: DEPRESSION and
SUICIDE PREVENTION. Students learn how to identify the signs of depression,
what their options are if they are depressed, and most importantly, what to
do if they think someone else is considering suicide. You may be surprised
at the numbers of students who are depressed, have considered and/or tried
to commit suicide, or who have had a close family member or friend whom they
have lost due to suicide. Feel free to join my classroom for the next Teen
Link presentation to see for yourself. Many of our students are "on the
brink." Just look at the growing number of students dressing in black (the
color of grief), those who are involved in self harm or the harm of others
(including animals), the drugs and alcohol used by depressed individuals,
and the crimes and domestic violence committed by those individuals. Can
you imagine the cost of all that to the Renton community if not checked?
With the many stresses and the breakdown of family support systems,
depression and suicide are a growing societal problem. This one-on-one
intervention by students trained by Teen Link saves more lives than we will
ever know. It's the best program I've seen in my 30 year teaching career.
Teen Link experts are highly trained, paid minimal wage, and provide the
most wonderful information for our adolescents about a topic that involves
all of our community. As you know, many of our Renton area students live in
depressing conditions, suffer from depression themselves, or have a friend
or family member who does. Teen Link offers our students the opportunity to
bring this dark subject out of the closet and it arms them with the tools
necessary to deal with depression and help to prevent suicide in their
friends and relatives. Therefore, the services provided by Teen Link
actually helps reduce the cost for further services related to mental
health, police protection, safety, and the continued results of increased
grieving on the Renton community. As you know, grieving individuals cost
the community a lot. I don't know what price you put on a life, but the
Teen Link program DEFINITELY WORKS!!!
Here are some facts:
* NONE of our Liberty students has committed suicide in this period.
Compare that to . . .
* One student from Issaquah High committed suicide.
* Two students from Skyline High committed suicide.
* Teen Link presents to Liberty students and not Issaquah or Skyline
students.
* My average class size is 30, and EVERY SINGLE LHS student receives
this education in this required class. That means more than 1300 students
have benefitted thus far in 4 years, many whom have graduated and are now
living and raising their own families in the Renton area. Now multiply this
by the many high schools serviced by Teen Link.
* Within 10 years, depression is slated to be the #1 disease affecting
our society.
Now imagine the future:
* Continued depression and suicide prevention education = a healthier
community costing less, or
* No education = increased problems for the community of Renton.
The Teen Link program is ESSENTIAL to give our students, who are the future
of the Renton community, the tools necessary for basic survival. Can the
City of Renton really afford NOT to fund Teen Link?! Are you willing to
live with the very real potential consequences of untreated depression and
increased suicide in the Renton community? I URGE you to consider the many
negative implications of eliminating funding to such an essential program,
and to fully fund Teen Link through the Crisis Clinic.
Delores Leber
Family & Consumer Science Department Chair
Health Educator
Liberty High School
16655 SE 136th Street
Renton, WA 98059
425-837-4823
M
0
3-of7 �eQ
9-/rirl�g
Communities InSchools of Renton"' /.b'
HELPING KIDS PREPARE FOR LIFE
CITY OF RENTON
September 13, 2004 SEP 1 3 2004
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler and City Council Members
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Mayor Keolker-Wheeler and City Council Members:
CorresPo�ir�.
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Communities In Schools of Renton is very appreciative of the City's support for our work with
children at risk of school failure through our Family Liaison and Mentor Programs. We also
appreciate the complexity of allocating limited funds in a changing community. The Human
Services Advisory Committee is to be commended for their time and effort in working through
the many agency applications and making tough decisions.
Based upon the 2005 agency allocations for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG),
our agency has two requests that we would like you to consider for future allocations.
Unless there is specific rationale such as contract compliance issues, when cuts in funding are
required, we ask that they be more equitably allocated to all eligible agencies. Six agencies
were funded through CDBG in 2005. All six had been previously funded. Of the six, three were
increased from the previous year; two to meet a new minimum funding base of $10,000 and the
third was increased to $11,000. To offset these increases, three agencies will receive
decreases. Two received cuts of 2.78% and 3.28%. Communities in Schools of Renton, the
third agency, received a cut of 30.56%. We realize that funding decisions are difficult, but feel
that our decrease was very high when compared to the others.
Our agency also requests that the Contingency Plan be developed to prioritize allocating
additional funds to restore funding to agencies which had received decreases, rather than being
applied proportionately to all. We would also appreciate this same consideration if decreases
are necessary, to help avoid further cuts for agencies.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support.
Sind rely,
Susan Richards
Executive Director
C: City of Renton -Human Services Advisory Committee
Dr. Keith Renfrew/Communities In Schools of Renton Chairperson
300 SW 71h Street, Renton, Washington 98055 - 425.430.6656 - Fax 425.430.6603 - e-mail srichards@ci.renton.wa.us
"
Renton Clothes 15ank 000a
1025 South 3rd Street • Renton, WA 98055
September 13, 2004
Hon. Mayor Koelker-Wheeler and Council
Renton City Hall C17 Y OF RENTCN
1055 South Grady Way SEP 13 2004
Renton, WA 98055 REr'IFIVFr)
Dear Mayor and Council Members: 0131+ CL rw�K'y OFFICE
The Renton Clothes Bank Board, its employees and those served are so very grateful for
your continued funding support without which the Clothes Bank could not exist. Your
Grant of $8,000.00 covers most of the operating costs and additional funding is received
from various service clubs, businesses and citizens. The Renton Housing Authority
provides us with a storage facility in the Renton Highlands for sorting donations. A
school district program provides for mentally handicapped students from 16 to 21 years of
age to sort clothes as though going to work. This has been a great help to us.
Our latest endeavor has been our "Children's Needs" program, .(shoes, socks and
underwear and whatever else may not be available at the Clothes Bank.) We work with
the stores and receive special discounts and the school liaisons and nurses accompany the
children to select needed items. Last year 90 pairs of shoes were purchased. Last month
we purchased shoes for three children in a homeless family so they could start school.
In August the clothes bank served 457 family members, 75% of which are children, so the
shelves of children's clothes are nearly bare. We will soon be holding our fall clothes
drives at the schools to alleviate this problem. but we are seeing lots of new young men
and families in the cothes bank who are laid off and with exhausted benefits, as well as
more and more homeless. .
We are a small but mighty operation! We dispense the clothes from a 700 sq. ft. area
with 2 employees and are open Monday. through Thursday from 2:00 to 9.00 p.m. Like
the food bank we provide. a vital community service and we thank you for being an
"enabler" making life a bit easier for those less fortunate children and their families who
reside in the Renton School District and are referred to the Renton Clothes Bank.
Sincerely,
RENTON CLOTHES BANK
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
City of Renton
PUBLIC INFORMATION HANDOUT
September 13, 2004
Wireless Communication Facilities
Code Revisions
For additional information, .p.lease contact: Jennifer :Henning; Project Manager; City of
Renton Development Services Division; (425) 430-7286
ISSUE:
Current City Code does not permit monopoles or extension of existing utility poles for
cellular/wireless antennas in residentially zoned neighborhoods. Wireless/cellular
companies are having difficulty providing good phone coverage in certain Renton
neighborhoods as a result of this restriction.
Staff have developed draft amendments to Chapter 4 of Title 4 during review of the
existing Wireless Regulations. These recommended amendments respond to the
expressed needs of the wireless purveyors, allowing the replacement of existing power
poles or light standards with taller poles on a limited basis in order to accommodate
wireless antennas. These limited pole replacements would only be allowed if the need is
clearly demonstrated by the service provider, and phone coverage cannot be provided
using other permitted antenna locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Services Division recommends amending the Wireless Regulations.
The amendments would:
1. Allow wireless communication antennas (of up to 16 feet) to be placed on existing
power poles (subject to approval of Puget Sound Energy) and/or existing City street
light standards.
2. Allow replacement of existing power poles (subject to the approval of Puget Sound
Energy) and/or replacement of existing City street lights with taller support structures
in order to allow the installation of antennas up to 16 feet in height.
3. Permit new antenna greater than 10 feet in height, or pole replacement for use as a
monopole, only when it is demonstrated by the service provider that no practical
alternative is available to provide the same level of phone service.
4. Allow the installation of associated equipment cabinets within public street right-of-
way or on abutting residentially zoned properties. These structures would be
required to be located underground, or in suitable locations with appropriate
screening.
Wireless Communi*cati*on
Facilities in Resi*dentl*al
Proposed Code Amendments
• Renton Municipal Code does not permit
monopoles or extensions of existing utility
poles for wireless antennas in residentially
zoned neighborhoods
— Wireless providers find it difficult to provide
good coverage
But
the Coverage
• Inadequate coverage in residential neighborhoods:
— Some residents don't have "in home coverage", or if
there is coverage residents experience frequent dropped
calls
• Overall capacity issues:
During peak times of use, the wireless network may
become overloaded causing many users to experience
"dropped calls" or "system busy" error messages
-% f I
staff recommends approval of changes to
the City's existing wireless regulations to
allow for new monopoles in residential
neighborhoods on a very limited basis
uopullvisul posodoij
SUOiTipu0D ouilSixg
i�
i t
� k
t
• Change the code to allow wireless
communication antennas on existing power
poles and/or existing street lights
• Allow replacement of existing power poles
and/or replacement of existing city street lights
with taller support structures
7
1
• Antennas greater than 10 feet, or any pole
replacement, would only be allowed if
demonstrated that no practical alternative is
available to provide the same level of service
What about Equipment
• Allow the installation of equipment cabinets
within public street right-of-way or on abutting
residentially zoned properties. These structures
would be required to be located underground, or
to be in a suitable location with appropriate
screening
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 13, 2004
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
FROM: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, 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:
ADMINISTRATIVE/JUDICIAL/LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• Remember to vote. The State Primary is tomorrow, Tuesday, September 14"'. To learn about the new primary
process, polling locations, or the election process, visit the city's website at www.ci.renton.wa.us or call the
City Clerk's Office at 425-430-6510.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• The groundbreaking for the new Renton Salvation Army Food Bank and Social Service Center, located at 206
South Tobin, will be this Thursday, September 16'h, at 11:00 a.m. The public is welcome to attend. This
project was funded in part by Renton Community Development Block Grant funds and King County, with
Rotary of Renton making a very generous donation.
• The King Conservation District Board of Supervisors recently awarded the Renton Parks Division the 2004
Local Government Conservation Award for the Division's initiative and support on habitat enhancement work
at the Black River Riparian Forest. The King Conservation District has partnered with the Parks Division and
the Friends of Black River on several conservation projects to preserve and protect the Great Blue Heron
rookery located at Black River.
• The swimming season at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center ended on Monday, September 6". As anticipated,
user fees covered all operating expenses. Revenue was generated from paid admissions, swim lessons, classes,
rentals, and concessions. Staff has already started to evaluate the overall season. To help with that effort, a
Henry Moses Aquatic Center Evaluation survey has been posted to the City's website, www.ci.renton.wa.us, to
allow facility users to evaluate the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Surveys are also available at the Renton
Community Center, located at 1715 Maple Valley Highway, and will be mailed to individuals who purchased a
season pass.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT
• The City has launched its second round of Neighborhood Matching Grants for 2004, with $40,000 available
for projects. Grants are available to residents who have organized to plan and implement projects for the
purpose of improving the viability and livability of their neighborhoods. Grant applications are due by 5:00
p.m. on Friday, September 24"'.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
• As a reminder, a new ordinance related to motorized foot scooters is now in effect in Renton. The ordinance
requires scooter users to be age 13 years or older; obey all the rules of the road; wear helmets; and affix a
muffler or modified muffling device to the scooter. Motorized foot scooters are not allowed in any park, trail,
or sidewalk, or on streets with a speed limit above 25 miles per hour. Additionally, scooters may not be
operated from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise.
Administrative Report
September 13, 2004
Page 2
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
• Renton residents will see a change in the day their garbage, recycling, and yard waste are collected beginning
October &h. In an effort to increase efficiency of residential curbside solid waste collection in Renton, all
residential curbside pick-ups will occur on Monday and Tuesday. Customers will soon receive printed
information about the change in their collection day.
• The 2004 Fall Recycling Day will be held on Saturday, September 181', from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at Renton
Technical College's north parking lot. This one -day event gives residents an opportunity to recycle large items
and hard -to -recycle materials at one convenient place. For more information, call the Information Line at 425-
430-7398.
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board..
Staff Contact......
AJLS/City Clerk
Bonnie I. Walton
Subject:
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 8/3/2004
regarding the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat. (File No.
LUA-04-002, PP, ECF)
Exhibits:
A. Appeal Response - Herons Forever (9/1/04)
B. City Clerk's letter (8/23/2004)
C. Appeal - SR90OLLC (8/17/04)
D. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (8/3/2004
For Agenda of: 9/13/2004
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence -
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Expenditure Required... Transfer%Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
X
Appeal filed by David Halinen, Attorney, representing SR 900 LLC, accompanied by required
$75 fee on 8/17/2004.
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh
Michael W. Gendler*
David S. Mann
*Also admitted in Oregon
City Council
City -of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015
SEATTLE WA 98101
September 1, 2004
T
(206)621-8868
Fax (206) 621-0512
mannAgendlermann.com
Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's August 3, 2004, Appeal Decision regarding a
SEPA determination for SR 900 LLC's application for approval of the Sunset Bluff
Preliminary Plat (File No LUA-04-002, PP, ECF)
Honorable City Council:
Pursuant to RMC 4.8.110(3), the following letter is submitted on behalf of Herons Forever in
opposition to the appeal filed by SR 900 LLC challenging the Renton Hearing Examiner's August 3,
2004 decision reversing the ERC's issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated for
the proposed Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat. Herons Forever was the appellant before the Hearing
Examiner and is a proper party of record.
Herons Forever brought this appeal on behalf of its more than 400 members that have been involved
with the protection of the Black River Riparian Forest since 1989. These members live and work
throughout the Puget Sound region, including the City of Renton. Contrary to the Applicant's
repeated assertion before the Hearing Examiner that Herons Forever seeks to block all development
of the Applicant's property, Herons Forever recognizes and values individual property rights. It
recognizes that the Applicant has a legal right to make reasonable use of its property. However, a
subdivision of this property into 2, 5, 10, or even 65 lots is not a "right." A subdivision is
appropriate only where the City finds that the subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the
public health, safety and general welfare, and that the public use and interest will be served. In this
case, the landowner's right to make reasonable use of its property, must be balanced against the
importance to the public interest and the community in protecting the $8 million dollar public
investment in the Black River Riparian Forest and both the tangible and intangible public benefits of
this valuable and rare natural resource.
The proposal before the City does not meet this critical balance and is not in the public interest.
Indeed, Herons Forever agrees with the assertions by the Applicant that it is strongly opposed to the
development currently proposed. Rather than balance or even consider the public interest and
welfare, the proposal before you takes a steep and difficult site and maximizes its use by extensive
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 2 of 11
clearing and grading.
The Black River great blue heron colony is a rare gem and the City has a trust responsibility to
protect it. Recent experiments in development around the heronry have met with mixed success.
We know now that nearby logging operations for only a few days in 1987 resulted in a significant
disturbance to the herons. Fortunately, because logging was almost immediately halted, the herons
did not abandon the site and indeed continued to expand their population. Unfortunately, it appears
also that the 1999 experiment allowing development of the nearby Black River corporate park met
with mixed success. While a prohibition on construction during the nesting season likely prevented
significant disturbance, it appears that the year round occupation of the corporate park has resulted in
the herons leaving the "Main Colony" and moving west into the "Protected Forest." The Main
Colony had been occupied since inception of the colony. It is now abandoned. Fortunately, this
negative impact may have coincided with cessation of blasting at the Black River quarry — thereby
allowing the colony to migrate westward - closer to the old quarry.
The question before Renton is how much further experimentation will the herons tolerate before they
abandon the Black River Riparian Forest? . Herons Forever urges a cautious approach to this
development. The significant environmental impacts must be truly known and identified before not
after the development occurs. This cautious approach is more than justified in this situation.
Unfortunately, the ERC's decision to issue an DNS-M for the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat allows a
continuation of the experimental approach. The DNS-M was clearly erroneous.
The following discusses briefly this Council's standard of review and each of the Hearing
Examiner's Findings of Fact and Conclusions challenged by SR 900 LLC. Because the Hearing
Examiner's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the legal conclusions are not
clearly erroneous, this Council should deny SR 900 LLC's appeal and uphold the Renton Hearing
Examiner's decision.
A. Standard of Review
As a threshold matter, it is important to keep in mind the role of this Council as it sits in its quasi-
judicial appellate capacity. The City of Renton has vested its Hearing Examiner with authority to
act on appeals of SEPA threshold determinations. The Hearing Examiner, therefore, is charged with
holding open record hearings, listening to testimony of expert and fact witnesses, judging the
credibility of the witnesses and then making a decision based on that evidence. The City Council has
maintained appellate capacity over the Hearing Examiner's decision. In its appellate role, the
Council does not take new evidence, but is limited to reviewing the record that was developed before
the Hearing Examiner. As a general rule, the Council must sustain the Hearing Examiner's factual
findings if they are based on "substantial evidence." Maranatha Mining, Inc., v. Pierce County, 59
Wn. App. 795, 801 (1990); East Fork Hills Rural Assn v. Clark County 92 Wn. App. 838, 843
(1998). Evidence is "substantial" when it is of a sufficient quality to persuade a fair-minded person
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 3 of 11
of the truth or correctness of the order. City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Board, 136 Wn.2d 38, 46 (1998). As a general rule, credibility
determinations are reserved to the fact finder — in this case the Hearing Examiner — and are not
properly reviewed on appeal. Isla Verde Int'1 Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 99 Wn. App. 127,
133-34 (1999).
B. Responses to Challenged Findings of Fact
Finding of Fact 12
While SR 900 LLC is correct that Finding of Fact 12 should have stated that the "southwestern
corner of the site (1.08 acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation)" the remainder of its objection is
without basis. The Hearing Examiner's factual determination that the "majority" of the site is zoned
R-10 is supported by substantial evidence. 25.18 acres is clearly a "majority" of the entire 26.68
acre site.
Finding of Fact 17
SR 900 LLC quibbles over the Hearing Examiner's use of the phrase "almost all of the vegetation
would be removed from the site." Apparently SR 900 LLC prefers that the Examiner use the Staff s
exact terminology that "the applicant has proposed to remove the majority of the on -site vegetation."
The Hearing Examiner's factual determination that "almost all" of the vegetation will be removed is
supported by substantial evidence. There is no dispute that all of the vegetation will be removed
from 21.56 out of 26.26 acres. Only the 4.7 acre Native Growth Protection Easement will be left in
its current vegetated state.
Finding of Fact 19
SR 900 LLC quibbles next with the Hearing Examiner's determination that "immense grading
activity will reshape the entire parcel and remove all vegetation on approximately 20 acres" is
somehow erroneous. Again, the Hearing Examiner's determination is supported by substantial
evidence. As noted by City Staff," the applicant has proposed to remove the majority of the on -site
vegetation and perform approximately 160,000 cubic yards of earthwork activities." See Cross
Sections A -A' B-B' and C-C' from the January 9, 2004 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study
(included in the January 12, 2004 Environmental Checklist (Exhibit 1).
Finding of Fact 24
SR 900 LLC challenges the Hearing Examiner's Finding of Fact 24 because it apparently believes
that the Hearing Examiner should have stated more about the development agreement. This is not a
valid basis for appeal. The Hearing Examiner's factual finding in Finding of Fact 24 is undisputed.
The additional facts asserted by SR 900 LLC are largely irrelevant to the Examiner's decision and
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 4 of 11
have no bearing on the Examiner's decision that the DNS was erroneous. The Examiner is not
required to list every irrelevant fact in his decision.
SR 900 LLC makes repeated arguments, however, that Herons Forever's decision to not challenge
the City's SEPA determination during the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone
process somehow affects Herons Forever's right to bring the present appeal. This argument is
without merit.
Herons Forever obviously did not challenge and had no reason to challenge the City's 2003 SEPA
determination that down -zoning this property from multi -family to single-family was proper under a
SEPA DNS. As the Council is well aware, a rezone itself is simply a planning change or "paper
change" to the designation of the property. The City did not have details available on the proposed
actual development of the property. It was Herons Forever's hope that the 2003 downzone would
actually result in additional protection to the adjacent Riparian Forest and heronry. It was not until
after the applicant filed its actual plat application, however, that the City and Herons Forever was
made aware of the extent of clearing, grading and construction activity proposed for the property.
Herons Forever's appeal is timely and appropriate now. More importantly, Herons Forever's appeal
is expressly allowed by City Code. See RMC 4-8-110.E.'
Finding of Fact 27
The Hearing Examiner's Finding of Fact 27 is supported by substantial evidence and should be left
unchanged. There is no dispute that the Black River Quarry is no longer conducting quarrying
operations. The Hearing Examiner was correct to determine that the quarry was closed.
Finding of Fact 28
SR 900 LLC takes issue with the Hearing Examiner's statement in Finding of Fact 28 that the expert
testimony of Dyanne Sheldon, a wetland biologist, was not available for review by the ERC.
Finding of Fact 28 confirms that Ms. Sheldon testified that the volume of water that will reach the
site will remain constant but it will be stored and released differently. SR 900 LLC asserts that Ms.
Sheldon's points were considered by the ERC before making its decision. There is no evidence to
support SR 900 LLC's assertion.
While Exhibits 79 and 80 do include general observations on Water Quality and Water Quantity, the
subject of Ms. Sheldon's testimony is not included within either Exhibit 79 or 80. More importantly,
there is absolutely no discussion of the points raised by Ms. Sheldon in the February 24, 2004 Staff
Report to the ERC nor in the ERC's February 24, 2004 SEPA DNS-M. The Hearing Examiner's
finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence.
' For further legal discussion on this issue, please see Herons Forever's Post -Hearing Brief at
pages 5-7. A copy of Herons Forever's Post -Hearing Brief is enclosed.
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 5 of 11
Finding of Fact 31 (First Two Sentences)
SR 900 LLC next takes issue with the Hearing Examiner's statement that the "only experts that have
actually worked with or monitored heron recently or that were subj ect to cross-examination indicated
that the birds have reacted hostilely to intrusive activities in both this heronry and in others in the
Puget Sound Region."
SR 900 LLC asserts first that this statement is "a not too transparent attempt" to discredit its wildlife
biologist Kenneth Raedeke. There is nothing erroneous about the Examiner's finding. Dr. Raedeke,
while certainly an accomplished author and researcher on ungulates (including deer and elk), is not
an expert in Herons and has not authored research or publications on Herons. Nor has Dr. Raedeke
recently worked with or monitored herons. See Ex. 71 (Raedeke resume). The two experts referred
to by the Hearing Examiner are Dr. Kate Stenberg and Patricia Thompson. Dr. Stenberg is an expert
in herons and has been involved in monitoring herons in King County and the Puget Sound Region,
including the Black River Heronry for over a decade. See Stenberg testimony, Ex. 11 (Stenberg
resume); Ex. 12 (Stenberg report). Patricia Thompson is a wildlife biologist with the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife whose job description and work history involve surveys at
heron colonies throughout King County, including the Black River Heronry. See Thompson
testimony. Patricia Thompson is also an expert in local herons.
SR 900 LLC's second complaint with Finding of Fact 31 is that the Hearing Examiner states that the
two experts indicated that the herons react hostilely to intrusive activities inside the heronry. This
indeed was the testimony of Ms. Thompson and Dr. Stenberg (as well as many fact witnesses).
Indeed, SR 900 LLC concedes in its argument that the herons react to intrusive activities within the
heronry. See Applicant SR 900 LLC's Appeal, p. 7. There is substantial evidence to support the
Hearing Examiner's finding.
Finding of Fact 31 (Third Sentence)
SR 900 LLC next takes issue with the Hearing Examiner's finding that logging operations during
February 1987 severely disturbed the herons. The Examiner's finding is fully supported by
substantial evidence. In particular, the Examiner relied on the written eye -witness statement by Ms.
Shelly Anderson, an employee of the Soil Conservation Service involved in creation of the P-1 pond.
Ms Anderson's statement, the only witness providing evidence to the examiner of the 1987 events,
supports the Examiner's finding. See Ex. 82. Ms. Anderson confirmed that the birds were severely
disturbed immediately and that there was no subsequent nesting or breeding at the site that year.
While some herons did return the next year, it was later than normal. Id. The Examiner's Finding
in the third sentence of Finding of Fact 31 is supported also by the City of Renton's action issuing an
immediate stop work order. Ex. 100.
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 6 of 11
Finding of Fact 31 (Balance)
SR 900 LLC's final challenge to Finding of Fact 31 is an attempt simply to substitute its preferred
testimony for the testimony offered and (obviously) accepted by the Hearing Examiner. As discussed
above, it is the Hearing Examiner's role to listen to potentially conflicting testimony, judge the
credibility of the offering witnesses and reach findings of fact. Isla Verde Int 7 Holdings, Inc. v.
City of Camas, 99 Wn. App. 127, 133-34 (1999). The Examiner's Finding is fully supported by the
testimony of Suzanne Krom, Patricia Thompson, and Dr. Kate Stenberg and should be left
undisturbed.2
Finding of Fact 32
Finding of Fact 32 confirms simply that the ERC's SEPA DNS-M did not address potential changes
to seasonal wetlands within the riparian forest caused by clearing and grading in the proposed plat.
The Examiner's finding that this was not evaluated by the ERC is supported by reference to the
SEPA Checklist, the Staff report to the ERC and the ERC's decision. While the Examiner did hear
conflicting expert and fact testimony at the hearing, the substance of Finding of Fact 32 is fully
supported by Substantial evidence. See SEPA Checklist, Staff Report to ERC; ERC DNS-M,
testimony of Bill Rozeboom, Testimony of Dyanne Sheldon, Testimony of Dr. Stenberg, Exhibits 2,
3, 8, 9, 11, 12. SR 900 LLC's attempt to substitute its version of the evidence for that accepted by
the Examiner should be rejected. Again, it is the Hearing Examiner's job to listen to and weigh
conflicting evidence.
2 SR 900 LLC recognizes that the Examiner's Finding of Fact 31 is supported by substantial
evidence but seeks to refute this testimony by personal attacks. SR 900 LLC's characterization
of testimony from Suzanne Krom and Herons Forever's other witnesses as "lame and specious"
is simply outrageous and has no place in any civilized legal proceeding. While SR 900 LLC
may disagree with Ms. Krom's testimony, its resort to personal attacks only amplifies the fact
that its arguments are simply without merit. SR 900 LLC simply cannot refute Ms. Krom's
devotion to and work on this site. As she testified during the hearing, she has devoted 15 years
of her life to protecting the Black River Riparian Forest and its Heronry. Ms. Krom was
instrumental in ensuring that $8 million in public funds was obtained and dedicated for us as
acquisition funds to purchase the riparian forest. Without question, Ms. Krom has spent more
time on the site and observing this heron population, including impacts to the heron population
from surrounding development, than any other person that testified before the Examiner. The
Examiner's decision to base Finding of Fact 31 on observations by Ms. Krom, Ms. Thompson,
Dr. Stenberg and other witnesses is sound and fully supports the Finding.
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 7 of 11
Finding of Fact 35
The Hearing Examiner's statement in Finding of Fact 35 that "in urban King County studies have
found colonies shrink where there is development within 1,000 feet" is supported by substantial
evidence, specifically the testimony of Dr. Kate Stenberg and Patricia Thompson. The "Stabin's
study" relied on by SR 900 LC is an unpublished masters thesis with questionable conclusions.
Finding of Fact 37
In Finding of Fact 37, the Hearing Examiner notes that Dr. Stenberg testified that the Fish and
Wildlife recommendations were based on best available science. The Examiner notes also that Dr.
Stenberg also testified.that the because the Black River colony arrives at its nests earlier and stayed a
bit later, that in her opinion mid -January to end of July was an appropriate window for no
construction. Because this was precisely Dr. Stenberg's testimony, there is obviously substantial
evidence supporting the finding.
SR 900 LLC apparently believes that because its witness Kenneth Raedeke may have testified
against the Fish and Wildlife recommendations that somehow the Hearing Examiner's finding
should be stricken. To the contrary, the Examiner's finding must be upheld if it is based on
substantial evidence. Even if Raedeke disagrees with the Fish and Wildlife recommendations it
would not change the outcome. Because Finding of Fact 37 is nothing more than a recitation of
testimony actually received by the Hearing Examiner, it is, on its face, supported by substantial
evidence.
Finding of Fact 38
In Finding of Fact 38, the Hearing Examiner notes that Dr. Stenberg testified that the Black River
colony "appears to react more to disturbances from the north where there is currently more forest
cover and generally less anticipated intrusions and seems less disturbed by southerly -based
disturbances. Again, this Finding of Fact is a direct recitation of Dr. Stenberg's testimony which
was based on her years of actual observance of the Black River heronry. Finding of Fact 38 is
supported by the substantial evidence from the testimony of Dr. Stenberg.
SR 900 LLC does not disagree that Dr. Stenberg testified to the observations adopted by the
Examiner. On this basis alone the Examiner's finding must be upheld. SR 900 LLC argues that
Finding of Fact 38 should be stricken because it believes that its witness, Kenneth Raedeke, refuted
Dr. Stenberg. Even if Raedeke did testify to personal observations to the contrary (this is disputed),
it is the job of the Hearing Examiner to listen to the witnesses, judge their credibility and make
factual determinations. The Examiner's factual finding should be upheld since it is based on the
substantial evidence of Dr. Stenberg's observations and testimony.
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 8 of 11
Finding of Fact 39
Finding of Fact 39 is a recitation of Ms. Krom's testimony of her personal observations. SR 900
LLC does not disagree that Ms. Krom testified consistent with the Examiner's finding. Ms. Krom's
testimony and observation are undisputed and are certainly relevant to the Examiner's ultimate
conclusions. Finding of Fact 39 is supported by substantial evidence.
Finding of Fact 40
Finding of Fact 40 is a recitation of Ms. Krom's testimony of her personal observations that after the
development of the property at SW 7ch and Naches, the herons in the "Main Colony" abandoned that
location and moved to an area identified as the "Protected Forest." There is absolutely no credible
evidence to the contrary. While the heron population in the "Protected Forest" has expanded, the
"Main Colony" — the area closest to the development at SW 7`h and Natches — has remained
abandoned. Finding of Fact 40 is supported by substantial evidence —the uncontested testimony of
direct observations.
Finding of Fact 41
Finding of Fact 41 recites Ms. Krom's testimony that she has not observed any change in the trees in
the "Main Colony" that would have caused the colony to move from the Main Colony to the
"Protected Forest." While SR 900 LLC does not disagree with Ms. Krom's observation or
testimony, it seeks to have this finding stricken because it has an alternate explanation. SR 900
LLC's alternate explanation does not diminish that Finding of Fact 41 is supported by substantial
evidence and should therefore be upheld.3
Finding of Fact 49
Finding of Fact 49 is a summary of the testimony of SR 900 LLC's witness Dr. McCarthy. The
finding of fact, including the conclusion that the evidence offered by Dr. McCarthy was not made
available to the ERC during its review, is supported by substantial evidence — Dr. McCarthy's
testimony, the Staff report to the ERC and the ERC's decision. There is no basis to re -write the
Examiner's finding and substitute the language preferred by SR 900 LLC.
3 SR 900 LLC's theory of "eagle predation" is also disputed. First, there was no evidence of
direct observations or eagle predation during this time period. Moreover, there was testimony
from Ms. Krom stating that `Black River is the only colony where great blue herons have been
observed effectively and repeatedly defending their nests from eagles and hawks. The herons at
other local colonies typically flee instead of taking the strong defensive response we have seen at
this colony."
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 9 of 11
Findin! of Fact 54
Finding of Fact 54 is an accurate recitation of the testimony offered by Dr. Raedeke and Dr. Stenberg
is supported by substantial evidence. There is no basis for striking the Examiner's finding.
Finding of Facts 55-59
SR 900 LLC argues that the testimony of Patricia Thompson should be stricken because it did not
have. an opportunity to provide sur-rebuttal testimony to Ms. Thompson's testimony. SR 900 LLC
ignore, however, that Herons Forever was the appealing party before the examiner and thus had the
burden of proof. Under traditional rules of due process, the party with the burden of proof presents
evidence first. The City and SR 900 LLC then had an opportunity to present response testimony.
Finally, because of the burden of proof, Herons Forever has a final opportunity to present rebuttal
testimony responding to the evidence offered by the City and Applicant. This is precisely what
happened here. After Herons Forever presented their opening witnesses, including wildlife expert
Kate Stenberg, SR 900 LLC presented the testimony of Kenneth Raedeke. Dr. Raedeke had not
previously submitted any information to the City, its Staff or its ERC. Dr. Raedeke's information
was simply new information. Because Dr. Raedeke appeared to challenge numerous direct
observations from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Herons Forever provided his testimony to
the Patricia Thompson, the Department's King County heron expert. Ms. Thompson then
volunteered to provide rebuttal testimony limited exclusively to commenting on the testimony of
Kenneth Raedeke. Patricia Thompson's testimony was absolutely appropriate and was subject to
cross examination by attorneys for both the City and SR 900 LLC. There is no basis to strike
Findings 55-59.
Finding of Fact 60
Finding of Fact 60 summarizes the Hearing Examiner's overall opinion of Dr. Raedeke's credibility.
While SR 900 LLC does not dispute the summary of Dr. Raedeke's testimony, it obviously disagrees
with the Hearing Examiner's overall characterization and dismissal. Once again, however,
credibility determinations are reserved to the fact finder — in this case the Hearing Examiner — and
are not properly reviewed on appeal. Isla Verde Intl Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 99 Wn. App.
127, 133-34 (1999).
Finding of Fact 61
Finding of Fact 60 is supported fully by substantial evidence in the record. The information
reviewed by the ERC is contained in the Environmental Checklist, the Staff report to the ERC and
the ERC's decision.
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 10 of 11
Findings of Fact 62 and 63
Findings of Fact 62 and 63 are citations of other recent decisions by the Examiner. It is of course
appropriate that the City's Hearing Examiner to take judicial notice of previous decisions of both the
ERC and the City's Hearing Examiner's office.
Finding of Fact 64
SR 900 LLC uses Finding of Fact 64 as a springboard for its legal argument that the City's Hearing
Examiner does not have the authority to reverse the ERC and substitute his own judgment. This
argument is based on a narrow reading of RMC 4-8-110.E.7.b that allows reversal only where the
substantial rights of the "applicant" have been prejudiced. Unfortunately, the City's SEPA appeal
code does not define the "applicant" as the term is used in this context. But considering rules of due
process, it must be assumed that the "applicant" refers simply to the party applying for the appeal and
not only to the applicant for the underlying project. Otherwise, the City's code is unfairly biased
toward project proponents. Further, it is apparent from previous City Hearing Examiner decisions
that the City policy does allow the Examiner to reverse an ERC decision and impose additional
conditions.' See Black River Corporate Park, Appeal and Site Plan Hearings, Conclusion 3,
(Ocotober 19, 1998).
C. Responses to Challenged Conclusions of Law
SR 900 LLC's challenge to the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions of Law are essentially a repeat of its
legal argument before the Examiner. Herons Forever's Post -Hearing Brief addresses each of SR
900 LLC's legal arguments and demonstrates that the Examiner's legal conclusions are not clearly
erroneous. Herons Forever incorporates by reference, and requests the City Council review, it Post -
Hearing Brief (a copy is attached).
For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons stated in Herons Forever's Post -Hearing Brief, the City
Council should deny SR 900 LLC's appeal and uphold the City Hearing Examiner's decision.
' It is also logical as a matter of judicial efficiency that the Examiner has the authority
to reverse but add additional conditions based on information that was not presented to
the ERC. Otherwise, the Examiner would be limited in this case to remanding this matter
to the ERC so it can consider the new information provided to the Examiner and then
have the matter once again subject to appeal — creating a potentially endless and time
consuming loop.
Renton City Council
September 1, 2004
Page 11 of 11
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
GE MANN, LLP
David S. Mann
WSBA No. 21068
Attorneys for Herons Forever
cc: Herons Forever
David Halinen
Zanetta Fontes
r-�
CITY 0 r= r ENIT 0,s 1
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
W1
`.E
CITY C,"D �S OF FICE
BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
Regarding Heron Forever's Appeal to the ) FILE NO. LUA04-002, EC,PP
Hearing Examiner of the SERA Threshold )
Determination for the Proposed "Sunset Bluff' HERON FOREVER'S POST -HEARING
Preliminary Plat. ) BRIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Herons Forever respectfully submits the following Post Hearing Brief in
support of its appeal of the City of Renton's SEPA threshold determination for the proposed
Sunset Bluff preliminary plat. This brief both highlights some of the information presented at
the hearing, and responds to several arguments made by the Applicant, SR 900 LLC, in the June
11, 2004, Closing Brief of Applicant SR 900 LLC ("Applicant's Brief).
Herons Forever brought this appeal on behalf of its more than 400 members who have
been involved with the protection of the Black River Riparian Forest since 1989. These
members live and work throughout the Puget Sound region, including the City of Renton.
Contrary to the Applicant's repeated assertion that Herons Forever seeks to block all
development of the Applicant's property, Herons Forever recognizes and values individual
property rights. It recognizes that the Applicant has a legal right to make reasonable use of its
property. However, a subdivision of this property into 65, 10, 5 or even 2 lots is not a "right."
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 1
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Wl
0*1
24
25
26
27
Pit
A subdivision is appropriate only where the City finds that the subdivision makes appropriate
provisions for the public health, safety and general welfare, and that the public use and interest
will be served. In this case, the landowner's right to make reasonable use of its property must
be balanced against the importance to the public interest and the community in protecting the U
million public investment in the Black River Riparian Forest, and the tangible and intangible
public benefits of this valuable and rare natural resource.
The proposal before the Examiner does not meet this critical balance and is not in the
public interest. Indeed, Herons Forever agrees with the assertions by the Applicant that it is
strongly opposed to the development currently proposed. Rather than balance or even consider
the public interest and welfare, the proposal before the Hearing Examiner takes a steep and
difficult site and maximizes its use by extensive clearing and grading.
The Black River great blue heron colony is a rare treasure and the City has both and
obligation and a trust responsibility to protect it. Recent experiments in development around
the heronry have met with mixed success. . We know now that nearby logging operations for
only a few days in 1987 resulted in a significant disturbance to the herons. Fortunately, because
logging was almost immediately halted, the herons did not abandon the site and indeed continued
to expand their population. Unfortunately, it appears also that the 1999 experiment allowing
development of the nearby office park on the corner of SW 7`h and Oakesdale SW met with
mixed success. While a prohibition on construction during the nesting season likely prevented
immediate significant disturbance, it appears that the year round occupation of this corporate
park has resulted in the herons leaving the "Main Colony" and moving west into the "Protected
Forest."
The Main Colony had been occupied steadily since the heronry was first established in
1 1986. This year (2004) marks the first time since its inception that the herons never even
attempted to nest in their traditional, original location. The Main Colony is now vacant.
Fortunately, this negative impact may have coincided with cessation of blasting at the Black
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 2
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
71
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
River quarry, thereby allowing the colony to migrate westward - closer to the old quarry and into
the Protected Forest..
The question before Renton now is how much further experimentation will the herons
tolerate before they abandon the Black River Riparian Forest? Herons Forever urges a cautious
approach to this development. The significant environmental impacts must be truly known and
identified before -- not after -- the development occurs. This cautious approach is more than
justified in this situation. Unfortunately, the ERC's decision to issue an NIDNS for the Sunset
Bluff preliminary plat allows a continuation of the experimental approach. The NMNS is
clearly erroneous and must be reversed.
II. RESPONSE TO APPLICANT SR 900 LLC's PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS
Prior to getting into the merits of Herons Forever's appeal, the following discussion first
responds briefly to several, essentially procedural, arguments made by the Applicant. See
Applicant's Brief at pp. 5-20.
A. RCW 43.21C.240 Does Not Preclude SEPA Review of the Proposed Plat and
Does Not Preclude SEPA-Based Mitigation
After a lengthy recitation of law and legislative intent, the Applicant argues first that
because of the City's comprehensive planning process approval of a rezone and development
agreement and, adoption of a critical areas ordinance, the City, and thus the Hearing Examiner,
have no authority to require further SEPA analysis or SEPA-based mitigation in the City's review
of the preliminary plat. Applicant's Brief at pp 9-13. This argument is based on a -profound
misunderstanding of RCW 43.21 C.240.
Significantly, in its haste to highlight every word in RCW 43.21C.240 that it believes
supports it case, the Applicant ignores perhaps the key underlying building block of this statute
— that in order for RCW 43.21C.240(1) and(4) to apply, the City must first review the probable
significant adverse impacts of a project application and then determine if those impacts are
addressed by existing regulation. This is spelled out in RCW 43.21C.240(2):
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 3
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
h
H.,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2) A county, city or town shall make the determination
provided for in subsection 1 of this section if:
(a) In the course of project review, including any
required environmental analysis, the local
government considers the specific probable adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed action and
determines that these specific impacts are
adequately addressed by the development
regulations or other applicable requirements of the
comprehensive plan, subarea plan element of the
comprehensive plan, or other local, state or federal
rules or laws; and
(b) The local government bases or conditions its
approval on compliance with these requirements or
mitigation measures.
Thus, under this provision, the first step in determining whether the City's existing plans and laws
provide the necessary mitigation, is the understanding of the project and its probable significant
adverse impacts. This first step is accomplished through the City's review ,of the proposed
"project" through "any required environmental analysis." RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a). Once the City
has completed its project review and identified probable adverse environmental impacts, the
City's second step is to determine whether the identified impacts are mitigated by existing plans
or laws.
We are currently still in the first step of the process. While the City may have previously
approved residential development for this project under its comprehensive plan, and may have
downzoned the property from multi -family to single family households, the City is just now
reviewing an actual project -level application and associated. environmental checklist. - The City
is now conducting its "project review" based on the "required environmental analysis." Based
on that review, the City's ERC issued an MDNS. Herons Forever here challenges the ERC's
determination that it has identified the "specific probable adverse impacts of the proposed action."
It is Herons Forever's position that the ERC's MONS was clearly erroneous and that the City has
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 4
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
11
2'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not yet completed the first step of the analysis required. This is an appeal expressly allowed by
the City's SEPA rules. RCC 4-8-110.E.1
The Applicant's argument that Herons Forever's appeal must be denied based on RCW
43.21 C.240 is without merit.
B. The Hearing Examiner Has Jurisdiction Over This Appeal
The Applicant next argues that the Hearing Examiner does not have jurisdiction to hear
Herons Forever's SEPA appeal. Applicant's Brief at 14-19. The basis for this argument is a line
of several land use cases collectively holding that challenges to underlying comprehensive plan
designations or zoning designations must be brought at the time of the planning or zoning
decision. Herons Forever is not challenging the comprehensive plan designation for the
Applicant's property. Nor is Herons Forever challenging the City's decision to downzone the
property from multi -family to single family. Herons Forever is, however, challenging the City
of Renton's issuance of an MDNS for the proposed preliminary plat. The City has expressly
granted jurisdiction to the Examiner to hear this appeal at this time. RMC 4-8-110.E. As
discussed above, it is certainly true that Herons Forever opposes the preliminary plat currently
before the City of Renton. That opposition, however, is based on the Applicant's insistence on
1 Once the City has accurately identified the significant adverse environmental impacts,
the second step will be to review those impacts against existing plans, laws and regulations
to determine if they adequately mitigate the impacts or whether additional mitigation is
necessary. This takes place during the City's preliminary plat approval. The Hearing
Examiner reviews the proposal and the environmental review and then recommends conditions
to the City Council. For example, it is ' Herons Forever's position that the SEPA
determination should have identified the probable significant impacts from construction noise
during the heron breeding and nesting period. Because there is no City code or plan that
addresses this type of impact, the Hearing Examiner can review the recommendations from
the Washington Department of Fish .and Wildlife and recommend a prohibition on
construction between January 15 and July 31.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 5
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
clearing and significantly grading all but a minor portion of the property and refusal to recognize
the importance of a construction window sufficient to protect the heronry.2
The cases cited by the Applicant are not applicable. For example, in Snohomish County
v. Somers, 105 Wn.App 937 (2001), the opponent brought an action under the Land Use Petition
Act challenging a development on the sole basis that it constituted urban growth outside of the
County's interim urban growth boundary - even though the development was apparently
consistent with the underlying zoning. The Court concluded that Somers should instead have
challenged zoning before the GMHB at the time the County adopted its interim urban growth
boundary. The Court specifically noted that Somers was not challenging development under
SEPA or other governing requirements such as the State subdivision law. Id. at l l67. Herons
Forever is challenging the City's SEPA determination for the proposed preliminary plat. Herons
Forever is not challenging the comprehensive plan or zoning.
Similarly, in Wenatchee Sportsmen Assn v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169 (2000), the
Sportsmen challenged a proposed subdivision based on an argument that the proposed density of
the subdivision itself was "urban in nature" and thus improperly located outside of the County's
interim urban growth area. The Supreme Court held that because the densitywas consistent with
the underlying zoning, the Sportsmen should have challenged the zoning at the time the County
adopted its interim urban growth area. The Supreme Court recognized, and remanded back to
the trial court, the Sportsmen's challenge to the County's SEPA MDNS decision. Thus, even if
the Sportsmen's challenge to the density was brought too late and in the wrong forum, the Court
recognized that their challenge to the SEPA determination was proper. Id. at 129. Again, in
this case Herons Forever is, not challenging the underlying zoning or comprehensive plan
2 The Applicant places great significance on Herons Forever's decision to not appeal the
City of Renton's downzone of the property from multi -family to single family housing.
Indeed, it was Herons Forever's hope that the City's downzone would actually provide
additional protection to the property. It was not until the Applicant filed its actual application,
however, was the extent of the clearing, grading and construction activity known.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 6
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101:
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
N:1
designation. Herons Forever is instead challenging the City's SEPA threshold determination.
A decision that is properly before the Hearing Examiner.'
Herons Forever has brought a timely appeal of the City's SEPA threshold determination
for the proposed project -the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat. The appeal is expressly allowed by
City code and is identified in the City's MDNS decision. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction
over this appeal.
C. RCW 43.21C.240(3) Does Not Prohibit Additional SEPA-Based Mitigation
The Applicant argues next that RCW 43.21C.240(3) prohibits the City from imposing
additional SEPA-based mitigation during project review. Applicant's Brief at 19-20. While it
maybe true that in some circumstances RCW 43.21C.240(3) might eventually limit a City's
authority to impose SEPA-based mitigation, this provision is not yet applicable in this case.
RCW 43.21 C.240(3), on its face, is not applicable until after the City has conducted the analysis
required by RCW 43.21C.240(2), by: first reviewing the proposed project using the required
environmental analysis; second, identifying and "consider[ing] the specific probable adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed project," and third, "determin[ing] that the specific
impacts are adequately addressed by" applicable development regulations, plans, rules or laws.
RCW 43.21 C.240(2). In this case we are still at the first two steps in this process. The City has
not yet fully considered the probable adverse environmental impacts of this proposed plat. Until
the City has an accurate understanding of the probable significant adverse impacts and can
compare those impacts to relevant plans, regulations, laws and rules, RCW 43.31 C.240(3) in not
applicable.
3 Caswell v. Pierce County 99 Wn. App. 194 (2000) is yet another decision holding that
a challenge to whether a development is properly allowed outside of an interim urban growth
area needed to be brought before the Growth Management Hearings Board. Moore v.
Whitman County, 143 Wn.2d 169 (2001) stands only for the proposition that the Eastern
Washington GMHB has no jurisdiction over Counties that are not required to plan under the
GMA. It has no relevance to this case whatsoever.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 7
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. THE SEPA MDNS IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS
A. SEPA Required Full Disclosure
If a development proposal, such as the proposed' Sunset Bluff preliminary plat, is "likely
to have probable significant adverse environmental impacts," SEPA mandates that the responsible
official "shall issue a determination of significance requiring that an EIS be prepared." RCW
43.2 1 C.030(2)(c)(emphasis added); RCW 43.21C.031; WAC 197-11-360. Where there is doubt
whether a probable significant adverse effect exists, the SEPA threshold determination must be
in favor of preparing an environmental impact statement:
The policy of the Act, which is simply to assure via "a detailed
statement" a full disclosure of environmental information, so that
environmental matters can be given proper consideration during
decision making, is thwarted whenever an incorrect "threshold
determination" is made.
Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267,
1273, 552 P.2d 674 (1976).
A "probable significant adverse effect" exists whenever more than "a moderate effect on
the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability." Id. at 278. According to the SEPA
irules:
"Significance" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of
more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.
Significance involves context and intensity.... The context may
vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude
and duration of the impact. The severity of an impact should be
weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact
may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the
resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred.
WAC 197-11-794(1) and (2).
The SEPA rules also define "probable:"
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 8
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur,... Probable
is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have
a possibility of occurring but are remote or speculative.
WAC 197-11-782.
B. Standard of Review
While it is true that the Examiner must give the ERC's threshold determination
"substantial weight," RCW 43.21 C.075(3)(d), the Examiner is not required to turn a blind eye to
the decision or simply act as a rubber stamp. The Examiner instead reviews the decision under
the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. Wenatchee Sportsmen Association v. Chelan County,
et al., 141 Wn.2d 169, 176 (2000). A decision is "`clearly erroneous' when, even where there
is evidence to support the decision, the reviewing body is `left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed."' Id.; Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870,
880 (1980); Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, I I I Wn.2d 742, 747, 755 P.2d 264
1(1988)
As this Examiner has previously described:
(t]he clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an
action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the
appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough
examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The
courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS.
Black River Corporate Park, Appeal and Site Plan Hearings, Conclusion 3, (October 19, 1998).
In reviewing a decision under the clearly erroneous standard, the Examiner is required to
"examine the entire record and all the evidence in light of the public policy contained in the
legislation authorizing the decision." Cougar Mountain, I I I Wn.2d at 747 (emphasis added).
The "public policy" behind SEPA has been recently reaffirmed by the Washington Supreme
Court:
SEPA recognizes the broad policy "that each person has a
fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment ..."
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 9
GENDLER & riANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
U3
RCW 43.21C.020(3). State agencies are required to use "all
practicable means" to achieve the following goals:
(a) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as a trustee of
the environment for succeeding generations;
(b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other
undesirable and unintended consequences.
RCW 43.2 1 C.020(2)(a)-(c); Kucera v. Department of Transportation, 140 Wn.2d 200, 213-14
(2000).
Keeping this broad and important public policy in mind, in order for the ERC's DNS to
survive this Examiner's scrutiny, the record and evidence must:
Demonstrate that "environmental factors were considered in a
manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the
procedural requirements of SEPA," and that the decision to issue
an MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the
proposal's environmental impact. Moreover, the mitigation
measures imposed must be reasonable and capable of being
accomplished.
nderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 302, 936 P.2d 432 (1997).
Again, while SEPA requires that the Hearing Examiner give substantial weight to the
Idecision of the responsible official, in this case the ERC, as the proceeding quotation confirms,
Ithis deference is due only where the record before the ERC demonstrates that the MDNS was
based on sufficient information. Where, as here, the examiner receives significant quantities of
new information that was not before the ERC, deference to the ERC's decision must either be
limited, or the matter must be remanded to the ERC.
SR 900 LLC argues that the Examiner does not have the authority to reverse the ERC and
substitute his own judgment. Applicant's brief at 21. This argument is based on a narrow
(reading of RMC 4-8-110.E.7.b that allows reversal only where the substantial rights of the
I"applicant" have been prejudiced. Unfortunately, the City's SEPA appeal code does not define
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 10
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101:
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
I the "applicant" as the term is used in this context. But considering rules of due process, it must
2 be assumed that the "applicant" refers simply to the party bringing the appeal and not only to the
3 applicant for the underlying project. Otherwise, the City's code is unfairly biased toward project
4 proponents. Further, it is apparent from previous City Hearing Examiner decisions that the City
5 policy does allow the Examiner to reverse an ERC decision and impose additional conditions.4
6 See Black River Corporate Park, Appeal and Site Plan Hearings, Conclusion 3, (October 19,
7 1998).
8 C. Herons Forever Met Its Burden Of Demonstrating that the ERC's MDNS
9 was Clearly Erroneous
10 1. The ERC's MDNS was clearly erroneous in not considering the
significant impact of construction activities on the heron colony
11
Despite the Applicant's assertion (based on the unsupported testimony ofMr. Jordon) that
12
the ERC fully considered the impacts of clearing, grading and construction activities on the
13
Heronry, Applicant's Brief at p. 29, the ERC's decision demonstrates otherwise. There is
14
absolutely no discussion by the ERC in its decision, nor any other documentation by the ERC that
15
16 it considered construction impacts. Indeed, the sum total of the ERC's consideration of impacts
17 to the great blue heron colony is contained on page 7 of its decision. After generally describing
18 the priority species status, of the great blue heron, the ERC concludes (based on the Applicant's
19 `Barghausen report" that the number of nesting sites on the applicant's property is limited and
20 that no great blue heron nests were found on the Applicant's property during the survey. The
21 ERC's report then notes that the closest nesting great blue herons are in the "Renton great blue
22 heron rookery, located approximately 1,100 feet south of the subject site." That's it. The ERC
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 It is also logical as a matter of judicial efficiency that the Examiner has the authority
to reverse but add additional conditions based on information that was not presented to the
ERC. Otherwise, the Examiner would be limited in this case to remanding this matter to the
ERC so it can consider the new information provided to the Examiner and then have the matter
once again subject to appeal — creating a potentially endless and time consuming loop.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 11
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
report does not even mention, much less consider, the adequacy of the buffer or whether seasonal
construction limits are appropriate.
Indeed, it appears that the ERC's conclusion that "no further mitigation is necessary" is
based solely on the opinion of the Applicant's biologist, Theresa Dusek, as documented in the
Applicant's environmental checklist. Curiously, while Ms. Dusek's January 9, 2004
Habitat/Wildlife Assessment does recognize that construction activities at the nearby Black River
Corporate Park were prohibited within 1000 feet of the colony between January 15 and June 15,
her report then jumps to the unsupported conclusion that "with the great distance between the site
and the heron rookery, the Sunset Bluff project is likewise to have no impact upon the Renton
heron rookery." Id. at p. 24. Ms. Dusek provided the ERC with absolutely no science or
discussion to support this conclusion. The ERC, however, adopted Ms. Dusek's conclusion
without question.
The lack of basis for Ms. Dusek's conclusion became obvious at the hearing. On April
29, 2004, after providing lengthy testimony theorizing that logging in 1997 had no impact on the
herons, the Examiner asked Ms. Dusek to explain one of her conclusion. Ms. Dusek's response:
"I can't answer that, I'm not a wildlife biologist for herons." Herons Forever agrees. In short,
there is simply no credible argument that the ERC had sufficient information on heron biology
to reach a conclusion that the extensive clearing, grading and construction activities proposed for
this plat will not have a profound and significant impact on the heron population — particularly
if conducted between the January 1 and July 31 nesting and breeding season.
Unlike Ms. Dusek, Dr. Kate Stenberg is a wildlife biologist with over 20 years of
experience in urban wildlife, wetlands and natural resource management. More importantly, Dr.
Stenberg has been involved in monitoring herons in King County, including the Black River
heron colony and its surrounding habitats for over a decade. See Exs. 11 and 12: Based on her
extensive experience with herons and specifically the herons at issue in this case, Dr. Stenberg
reached significantly different conclusions than either Ms. Dusek or the ERC. Dr. Stenberg's
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 12
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NI
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
FM
testimony is summarize in her letter report and for the sake of brevity, will not be repeated here.
Ex. 12. With respect to construction noise, buffers and timing, Dr. Stenberg agreed with the
WDFW recommendations that construction not occur within 1000 meters of a colony during the
nesting season of January 15-July 31. Again, Dr. Stenberg's testimony and conclusions were
based on her own significant knowledge of herons and her review of extensive literature and
discussions with notable heron experts such as Dr. Robert Butler.
Perhaps recognizing Ms. Dusek's lack of qualification, the Applicant attempted to refute
Dr. Stenberg's testimony by commissioning a new heron "assessment" by Raedeke and
Associates. While Herons Forever agrees that Dr. Raedeke has an extensive resume in wildlife
biology, the Examiner should note that ofthe five pages ofpublication identified in Dr. Raedeke's
resume (Ex. 71), only one of his publications addresses herons — a 1992 publication. The vast
majority of Dr. Raedeke's experience and expertise is clearly in the study of elk, deer, goats and
other ungulates. Indeed, the majority of Dr. Raedeke's conclusions in this case are based on
research done by one of his master's thesis students, Amy Stabins. As Dr. Stenberg and
WDFW's Patricia Thompson testified in rebuttal, however, Ms. Stabin's research appears
questionable. Further, Ms. Stabins did not testify and was not subject to cross examination.
Of particular concern is Dr. Raedeke's conclusion that mechanized disturbances, as
opposed to human foot traffic, were not found to be a disturbance on nesting patterns. Exhibit
39 at pp. 5-6. Dr. Raedeke's conclusion is based on a paper by Carlson and McLean. Exhibit
75. The Carlson and McLean paper, however, analyzed mechanized noises that they
"subjectively" determined were quieter than foot traffic. Ex. 75, p. 124. In other words, the
Carlson and McLean conclusion that foot traffic caused a higher impact on nesting populations
than mechanized noise, was based on a study of mechanized noises that the authors knew were
less intrusive. This includes, in particular, routine and consistent noises such as farm equipment
or vehicle traffic. Carlson and McLean did not study or even apparently consider the impacts of
large land clearing and grading operations. Nor does the Carlson and McLean paper indicate that
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 13
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
they studies more episodic noise activities (as opposed to routine events) such as those that will
occur during construction at Sunset Bluffs.
In short, the Examiner should reject Dr. Raedeke's conclusion that construction buffers
are not necessary and that there will be no impacts from this development as simply not credible.
The Applicant and City further attempted to support their argument that construction will
not impact the heron colony by suggesting that logging in 1987 had no impact on the colony.
Applicant's Brief at p. 32. The 1987 logging, however, can best be described as a narrowly
missed disaster. As described by Ms. Shelly Anderson (Ex. 83), immediately after logging
operations started the herons took flight and were obviously distressed.
Ex. 83.
I was not able to go to the site until after work at 4:30 pm. The
herons were in flight around the main tree on the island. They were
not flying as you see herons fly. It was as if they almost stood in
one spot, in flight. They stumbled as they slowly circled the main
nests. It looked like they were going to fall because they were not
using their wings enough. The worst part was the sound they
emitted. It was an unusual scream -cry distress call. It was most
eerie and unusual. I had never heard anything like that before
from the herons and I'll never forget the flight and distress -crying
scream. It was similar to the yowling of wild cats, only much
worse.
Fortunately, logging operations were almost immediately stopped by the City of Renton.
Ex. 100. The City thereafter withdrew its previously issued SEPA DNS and determined that
there were probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Ex.101. Thereafter, the already
felled trees between 200 feet and 700 feet from the nest were allowed to be removed only during
a four -day interval from March 2 to 6, 1987. Further logging was prohibited within 700 feet of
colony until after August 1. Ex. 102.5 Thus, while logging did occur, and the herons
fortunately did recover their numbers, it could easily have been different. As both Dr. Stenberg
5 Ex. 102 is a Forest Practices Permit dated March 2, 1987.
HERON FOREVER' S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 14
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and Patricia Thompson confirmed, herons often will not return to their colonies after they are
flushed. Far from proving that logging had no impact on the heron colony, the 1987 event
underscores the tenuous existence of this colony and the significant risk posed by the startup of
underscores
noises.
The City and Applicant also suggest that development of the adjacent office park had no
impact on the Black River heron population. While Herons Forever agrees that there is no
definitive proof of the relationship, it simply cannot be disputed that shortly after the construction
of the office park the Herons abandoned their long used Main Colony and relocated en masse to
the west into the Protected Forest area. While the Applicant and City suggest that the herons
relocated in order to hide from eagle predation, photographs do not show a significant difference
in protective cover between the new nest trees and the trees in the old Main Colony. Exs. 92-97.'
The Applicant also takes issue with Dr. Stenberg's opinion that the after periodic blasting
Iat the nearby quarry ceased in 2000 the number of nests in the Protected Forest (which is closer
Ito the quarry) have more than doubled.$ Applicant's Brief at 34.9 Other than speculating that
6 The City and Applicant apparently take issue with Patricia Thompson testimony
submitted on behalf of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The City and
Applicant choose to ignore, however, that Ms. Thompson was called as a rebuttal witness in
direct response to testimony offered for the first time at the hearing by Dr. Raedeke. Ms.
Thompson's testimony took issue with Dr. Raedeke's characterization of the Department's
recommended construction buffers and with Dr. Raedeke's assertion that the heron population
in the Pacific Northwest was thriving - a conclusion that is not supported by the Department's
observations. Rebuttal testimony offered by the party with the burden of proof, including
testimony of new witnesses, is clearly appropriate to respond to evidence offered for the first
time at the hearing.
' The Applicant also takes issue with Dr. Stenberg's opinion that the after periodic
blasting ceased in 2000 at the nearby quarry the number of nests in the Protected Forest (which
is closer to the quarry) nearly doubled. Applicant's Brief at 34. Other than speculating that
this increase may have been caused by other factors, the Applicant cannot explain the rapid
expansion.
The testimony and observations of Suzanne Krom indicated the following nest counts
in the Protected Forest:
HERON FOREVER' S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 15
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this increase may have been caused by other factors, the Applicant cannot explain the rapid
westward expansion. Again, while it maybe difficult to actually prove the cause and effect, the
City (and Applicant) can not ignore, the basic facts: (1) The corporate park was developed in 1999
and 2000; (2) the Black River Quarry ceased blasting in 2000; and (3) since 2000 the herons have
gradually vacated their old Main Colony and moved westward away from the corporate park and
closer to the old quarry operation.
In short, Herons Forever, through the factual testimony of Suzanne Krom, expert
testimony of Dr. Kate Stenberg, and rebuttal testimony of Dr. Stenberg and Patricia Thompson,
more than met its burden of proof. The ERC committed a mistake in determining (if they even
did so) that construction activities during the January to July heron nesting season would not have
a probable significant impact on the Black River heron colony.
2. The ERC's MDNS was clearly erroneous in not Considering the
significant adverse impacts caused by removing virtually all of the
forest cover from the project site
As a consequence of its decision to massively regrade the vast portion of the development
site, the Applicant proposes also to remove virtually all forest. cover from the property. As Dr.
Stenberg testified, the trees on the subject property are used extensively by the Black River heron
colony for foraging and a source of nest building twigs and branches. Aside from brief
,conclusions that "the number of cavity nesting species therein is likely relatively small" and "no
nests of priority birds were found on the site during the field survey," the ERC's MDNS provides
1998: 6 nests;
1999 (construction of office park): 0 nests;
2000 (blasting at quarry ends): — 30 nests;
2001: 42-44 nests
2002: 93-95 nests
2003: 103-106 nests.
9 The Applicant indicates that it could not find reference in its materials to a statement
that the herons were not impacted by blasting at the quarry. That reference is within the
environmental checklist at page 24 of Ms. Dusek's report.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 16
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
no discussion of the importance of the existing forest canopy nor the impacts of its removal. See
ERC Report, p. 27. The ERC did not have sufficient material to make its environmental
determination.
The Applicant responds first by taking issue with the City Staff s description of relatively
large -sized trees on the property. Applicant's Brief at pp. 39-40. Notably, however, the Applicant
did not question Mr. Jordon (or anyone else from the City) about this conclusion. Aside from
this minor bickering, the Applicant's primary response appears to be a steadfast belief that "the
Applicant is under no legal duty to preserve forest vegetation on the hillside or to establish screens
of coniferous vegetation for the benefit of a City park." Applicant's Brief at 44. This argument
ignores completely the purpose of SEPA10. Whether or not the Applicant has a "duty" to
preserve vegetation, does not address the question required by SEPA analysis — assuming the
applicant does remove the canopy proposed, will there be probable significant environmental
impacts? The evidence offered by Herons Forever demonstrates that the answer is yes.
3. The ERC's MDNS was clearly erroneous in not considering the
significant adverse impacts caused by increased human and pet
interactions
A significant portion of the hearing focused on the debate of whether the addition of 65
new families and pets will have a significant impact on the Black River heron colony. As Dr.
Stenberg testified, because the applicant has decided not to include any recreation space within
the subdivision (and had previously convinced the City to adjust lot lines in order to avoid the
(requirement for any sort of sidewalk along Sunset/Martin Luther King Jr. Way), new residents
10 This argument ignores also that the City is likewise under no "duty" or "obligation"
to allow for a subdivision ofproperty. A subdivision can be approved only when the applicant
demonstrates and the City finds that adequate provisions have been made to protect health,
safety and welfare and that the subdivision is in the public interest. RCW 58.17.110.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 17
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
2
4
6'
71I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
will undoubtedlybe attracted to and enter the adjacent Black River forest directly from the north."
As the Examiner is aware, a single wood fence is not a significant deterrent to even a slightly
motivated individual.12 Despite the ease of entry, the ERC was satisfied that no additional entry
would occur simply because of the fence. The ERC failed to address what the impacts would be
with additional entry from the north.
The Applicant and City reject Dr. Stenberg's concerns bypointing to the number ofpeople
who currently use the public trail along the P-1 pond for observing the herons. Their argument
ignores, however, that the herons appear to accept people approaching from the south and are
well protected by the impassible P-1 pond. The testimony of Dr. Stenberg confirms, however,
that herons appear to not accept so easily changes in behavior around them. Thus, an increase
in visitations from the north, where there is no protective water body buffering the colony, will
likely result in an increased number of disturbances leading to potential abandonment.
By relying solely on a condition requiring a single fence, the ERC committed an obvious
error in determining that a significant increase in full time residents and their pets would have no
probable significant impact on the heron colony.
4. The ERC's MDNS was clearly erroneous in not considering the
significant adverse impacts associated with drainage from the subject
property to the Black River Riparian Forest
Through the testimony of William Rozeboom, P.E., Herons Forever demonstrated that the
ERC's MDNS failed to fully consider the drainage impacts associated with the forest removal,
ing and rerouting of surface and groundwater from the development site into the Black
22
23 " Children will not be able to walk safely along Sunset and will not likely have the
24
ability to simply hop in a car and drive around to, the park.
25 12 Nor is the "threat" imposed by a couple of trains per day along the railroad tracks.
Further, contrary to testimony from Ms. Dusek that it was impossible to walk through the deep
26 water and vegetation, at least one witness testified at the hearing that they were able to easily
cross through the north side of the Black River forest during a lunch break immediately after
27 Ms. Dusek's statement.
28 GENDLER & MAINN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
HERON FOREVER'S Seattle, WA 98101
Phone:
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 18 Fax: (206) 621-0518 2
7',
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
River riparian forest. Mr. Rozeboom reached two major conclusions. First, that the removal of
canopy and conversion of a large portion of the propertyto impervious surfaces (including lawns),
would result in a significantly "flashier" system of runoff with a significant increase in surface
flows during wet months followed by a significant decline in flows during summer months.13
Because this flow ends up in a large closed basin wetland within the riparian forest, the change
in hydrology will significantly impact the wetland and wetland dependent plants. Second, Mr.
Rozeboom concluded that the proposal to tite-line all of the stormwater from SR 900 directly to
the Black River Riparian Forest would result in the delivery of a significant quantity of pollutants
to the offsite wetlands. 14 See Ex. 3. Mr. Rozeboom's testimony that the change in hydrology
would significantly impact downstream wetlands and wetland vegetation was confirmed by Ms.
Dyanne Sheldon. Ex. 9.
The ERC's MDNS and Applicant's checklist failed even to mention the existence of the
large depressional wetland on the Black River Riparian Forest property. Nor did they evaluate
the impacts that changing the surface and groundwater hydrology will have on the downstream
depressional wetland. Finally, the ERC's MDNS and Applicant's checklist fail completely to
discuss the impacts of diverting polluted stormwater from SR 900 directly to the riparian forest
wetland system.
13 During closing argument, the City's attorney attempted to argue that Mr. Rozeboom's
testimony about the change in surface water runoff was in conflict with Ms. Sheldon's
conclusion that the same amount of water would leave the site. There is not conflict. Ms.
Sheldon is correct that the same amount of rain will fall and essentially the same amount of
water will runoff (with the exception of water currently lost through evapotranspiration). Mr.
Rozeboom does not disagree, but simply points out that the timing for runoff will change
dramatically. Instead of water being stored in the existing soils and slowly migrating through
shallow groundwater flow, the water will more immediately run off as surface water over the
new impervious surfaces.
14 As Mr. Rozeboom described, the stormwater from SR 900 currently enters the subject
property and is largely absorbed as groundwater flow which provides for significant filtering
of the road related pollutants.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 19
CENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Recognizing these obvious deficiencies, the Applicant produced at the hearing several new
witnesses and reports addressing offsite drainage impacts. The last minute analysis, however,
Iis far from sufficient to document the environmental impacts. For example, the Applicant's
witness Dr. McCarthy testified that he ran the King County KCRTS model to evaluate the impacts
downstream. Ex. 33, p. 1. Dr. McCarthy agreed, however, that the KCRTS model is a regional
model that needs real data calibration in order to be effective. Dr. McCarthy confirmed that he
did not have streamflow or runoff data for calibration. Dr. McCarthy also testified that he
presumed a "till" for the surface lay and that "till" soils produce high runoff rates. Dr.
McCarthy's "till" assumption, however, does not correspond to the test pits and cores collected
for the Applicant's geotechnical analysis. The samples reported in Ex. 20 generally show well
saturated soils. Dr. McCarthy agreed that he did not take evapotranspiration into account in his
model. In other words, he assumed the same level of evapotranspiration for the cleared site as for
the currently forested site. Finally, Dr. McCarthy confirmed that no one had sampled or done
testing to analyze the impact of directly routing runoff from SR-900 to the Riparian Forest
wetlands directly below.
In summary, while Dr. McCarthy's analysis is heading in the right direction, it proved too
little too late. An accurate, well calibrated model, taking advantage of true site conditions is
necessary in order to accurately model the predicted drainage. " Without this analysis, it should
be clear that a mistake was committed by the ERC in determining that there would be no
significant impacts due to surface water runoff from the proposed development.
15 The Applicant argues also that any change to drainage will be insignificant downstream
because the vegetation within the Black River riparian forest and associated wetlands is used
to large changed is water level. This argument is based on one site visit by Mr. Pritchard
where he documented evidence of recent flooding. Mr. Pritchard confirmed, however, that
the evidence he saw could have been from a single event and was most likely less than a year
old. Mr. Pritchard did not disagree that this region received a record rainfall of over 5 inches
in October, 2003. Ex. 70.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 20
GENDLER & IMANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
a
101
III
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons presented at the hearing, the Examiner should
conclude that the ERC's NIDNS was clearly erroneous. The Examiner should reverse the ERC's
decision and require, at a minimum, _the following additional conditions: (1) Construction,
including clearing and grading, should be limited to the period outside the heron nesting season
of January 15 to July 31; (2) the grading and clearing plan should be re -designed to leave a
significant number of trees along the south side of the property; (3) the applicant should install
a system of stream gauges at each of the culverts leading into the Riparian Forest and monitor
existing runoff conditions for at least one year and then, based on an accurate model, prepare a
stormwater plan that recreates pre -development runoff into the Riparian Forest; (4) runoff from
SR-900 should b directed to the proposed stormwater detention facility for treatment prior to
discharge to the Riparian Forest; (5) the Applicant should be prohibited from importing fill
material; (6) a minimum of two fences, one wood and one cyclone, should be required to enclose
the western, southern and eastern sides of the development; and (7) all exterior lights should be
designed to shield light trespass into the Black River Riparian Forest.
Dated this j udy of June, 2004.
HERON FOREVER'S
POST -HEARING BRIEF - 21
Respectfully submitted,,
GENDLER VaANK
Attorneys for Herons Forever
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
R
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Bonnie I. Walton.
August 23, 2004
APPEAL FILED BY: David Halinen,, Attorney, Representative for SR 900 LLC
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 8/3/2004 regarding the SR 900 LLC's
application for construction of a 65-lot detached single-family home subdivision in the
1100 Block of SW Sunset Boulevard on a.26.26=acre site: (File No. LUA-04-002, PP,
ECFj
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter:$., Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal. of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Sunset Bluff project. 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 of record may submit letters limited to ,support of or opposition to the appealJwithin
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 5:00 p.m., Thursday, September 2, 2004, at the City
Clerk's -office:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that.the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the. Council's Planning and Development .Committee :at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday,
October 21, 2004; iwthe Council Chambers, 7`}.1 floor, of Renton City Hall,' 1055 South Grady
Way; Renton, WA 98.055. 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 new evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the
City Council:
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I: Walton
City Clerk
Attachment
cc: Council Liaison
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516
(. This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer
r
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 — Appeals
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of
the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures
1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the
Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party
aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the
City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the Examiner's written report.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of
their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the
City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or
recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of
appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982)
5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by
the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time
of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,
the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional
evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the
absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional
evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or
testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by
the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993)
6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may
remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the
application.
9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of
the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982)
10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
CITY OPRENT04,
APPEAL - HEARING EXAMINER
AUG
RECENEOFD
CITY CLEWS FICE
,
WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY 7 e �) 4 p m
COUNCIL. MA
FILE NO. LUA 04-002, ECF, PP
APPLICATION NAME: Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or
recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated August 3, 2004
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY)
Name: SR 900 L.L.C. Name: David L. Halinen
Address: 9125-I& Avenue South Address: 10500 NE 8`s Street, Suite 1900
Seattle, Washington 98108 Bellevue, Washington 98004
- Telephone No. (206) 762-9125 Telephone No. 425) 454-8272454-8272
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary-- see Attachment 1)
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 desire)
_X_ Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: see Attachment 1
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other
C �
v 4—
Appellant/Repres ntative Sign4ue Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11OF, for specific appeal procedures.
heappeal.doe/forms
0-pq/a v
cm? OF REINTOto
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ATTACHMENT 1
a< 7 ._.,IJ
RECEIVEAD
C:i'" a.,--:RK:'S'',C'; F i C
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regarding Herons Forever's Appeal to the )
Hearing Examiner of the February 24, 2004 ) APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
SEPA Threshold Determination Decision ) APPEAL OF THE HEARING
Issued by the Renton Environmental Review ) EXAMINER'S AUGUST 3, 2004
Committee for the Proposed "Sunset Bluff' ) DECISION
Residential Subdivision )
City of Renton File No. LUA 04-002, EC, PP )
SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS
FINDING OF FACT 12
Error: This finding of fact fails to properly describe the site's zoning. The second and
third sentences thereof state:
The majority of the site (25.18 acres), predominantly the northern and western portions
of the site, is zoned R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units per acre). The southeastern
corner of the site (1.08 acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation).
(Emphasis added.)
Correction: Based upon the zoning map .and zoning description in the record, the
second and third sentences of Finding of Fact 1 should state:
About 96% of the site (25.18 acres) is zoned R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units per
acre). The remainder (1.08 acres), a strip at the site's southwestern corner, is zoned RC
(Resource Conservation).
(Emphasis added.)
FINDING OF FACT 17
Error: In this finding of fact, the Examiner mischaracterized a portion of the following
statement made on page 3 of the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner:
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page I
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"As a result of the preliminary plat, the applicant has proposed to remove the
ingiority of the on -site vegetation and perform approximately 160,000 cubic
yards of earthwork activity."
(Emphasis added.) Specifically, the Examiner said in regard thereto that "Staff noted that almost
all the vegetation would be removed from the subject site". (Emphasis added.) However, the
word "majority" obviously does not mean "almost all". The Examiner's characterization
exaggerates the Staff Report's statement.
Correction: This finding should simply reflect what Section B.4.b of the SEPA
checklist (on page 8 thereof) states in regard to the site of vegetation removal —namely, that:
As depicted on the Preliminary Clearing Limits Plan (project plan Sheet 11 of 11),
the portion of the site lying outside of the proposed 4.7-acre Native Growth
Protection Easement (about 21.56 acres) will be cleared and graded for
development of the proposed project.
FINDING OF FACT 19
Error: In this finding of fact's second sentence, the Examiner again resorts to
exaggeration. The sentence reads:
"Immense grading activity will reshape the entire parcel and remove all
vegetation on approximately 20 acres."
(Emphasis added.) In the context of the site being 200 feet high and sloping consistently
downward (from Sunset Boulevard to the BNSF railroad right-of-way) from top to bottom, the
Examiner's description of the grading as "immense" is an unwarranted emotional charging of the
planned cuts (that range from 0 to about 35 vertical feet) and planned fills (that range from 0 to
about 35 vertical feet), cuts and fills that are proposed in order to allow a single street through
the site with just one row of houses on each side and a stormwater pond near the bottom of the
site). Further, because no grading (or clearing) is proposed within the 4.7-acre portion of the site
proposed as a native growth protection easement, the proposed grading activity will obviously
not reshape the entire parcel.
Correction: The subject finding should more accurately (and dispassionately) state:
"About 21.56 acres (82 percent of the 26.26-acre site) is proposed to be cleared
and graded for development of the proposed project." The remaining 4.7 acres
(18 percent of the site) is proposed to be left undisturbed in a native growth
protection easement."
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 2
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FINDING OF FACT 24
Error: While this finding of fact correctly notes (a) the existence of a development
agreement and (b) that the agreement (i) "requires the construction of a 6-foot fence along the
south side of the development for the length of the development" and (ii) provides that "the
development contain not more than 69 detached single-family housing units", it downplays the
agreement's importance and says nothing about the context of the agreement. Specifically, this
finding of fact fails to note that:
(1) The development agreement was authorized by the Renton City Council in
conjunction with a comprehensive plan land use map amendment (from
Residential Multi -Family Infill, RM-I, to Residential Options, RO) and a
rezone of the portion of the site previously zoned Residential Multi -
Family Infill (RM-I) (subject to a prior development agreement that had
allowed up to 260 residential units) to R-10 following a public hearing;
(2) No appeal(s) were made of any of the Council's actions in regard to the
comprehensive plan land use map amendment, rezone or development
agreement authorization;
(3) The City's Environmental Review Committee issued a declaration of
nonsignificance concerning the comprehensive plan amendment and
rezone in view of the proposed development agreement's special
development restrictions and no appeal(s) thereof were timely filed;
(4) The comprehensive plan land use map amendment, the downzone and the
development agreement's special development restrictions were all
intended to mitigate the potential for development impacts to the Black
River heron colony that the appellant had expressed concerns to the City
about;
(5) The agreement has been duly executed (by former Mayor Jesse Tanner on
behalf of the City and by the applicant -property owner);
(6) The agreement prohibits construction of residential or recreation buildings
on the site within 100 feet of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railroad right-of-way that abuts the site's south boundary;
(7) The agreement states that stormwater facilities are anticipated to be
constructed along the southerly portion of the site in conjunction with
residential development of the site; and
(8) But for the development agreement's 69-unit restriction on the number of
single-family detached homes allowed on the site, under the site's R-10
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 3
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, PS.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
zoning 13 single-family detached units per net acre would have been
allowed.
These omissions are especially glaring ones in as much as the appellant could have (and should
have) appealed the City Council's approval of the development agreement and the Council's
companion approvals of the comprehensive plan land use map amendment and rezone (and/or
the ERC's declaration of nonsignificance relating thereto) if the appellant believed that the use of
the property contemplated thereby was inappropriate or would create probable significant
adverse impacts (assertions that the appellant now has made in regard to its subsequent appeal of
the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat SEPA threshold determination) but no such appeal(s) were
taken.
Correction: The eight -item list set forth above should be added to Finding of Fact 24.
FINDING OF FACT 27
Error: The third sentence of Finding of Fact 27 states:
"West is another RM-I district with multiple family units and industrially zoned
property in King County that is developed and undeveloped including a closed
quarry site."
That sentence is inaccurate. First, the property referred to is in the City of Renton rather than
King County. Second, the industrial property referred -to is the site of a facility that has a
contractor's office, outdoor equipment and material storage, construction materials recycling
activities and concrete batching. Third, while quarrying has ceased on that industrial property, it
is misleading to refer to it as a "closed quarry site" because of the active, above -noted industrial
uses on that site.
Correction: Consistent with the accurate, detailed description of abutting uses set forth
in section B.8.a of the SEPA Checklist (on page 12 thereof), the third sentence of Finding of Fact
27 should be replaced with the following sentence:
Sunset View Apartment Homes (240 units) lies to the west of the northern portion
of the site (on land within the City of Renton zoned Residential Multi -Family
Infill (RM-I)); and a contractor's office, outdoor equipment and material storage,
construction materials recycling activities and concrete batching lies to the west
of the southern portion of the site (on land within the City of Renton zoned Heavy
Industrial (I-H) that was previously the site of the Black River Quarry).
FINDING OF FACT 28
Error: Finding of Fact 28 summarizes statements made by one of the appellant's
witnesses, wetland biologist Dianne Sheldon, concerning changes in drainage releases that she
asserted will result from the proposal. In the fifth sentence of this finding of fact, the Examiner
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 4
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, PS.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stated that "[t]his had not been assessed by the documentation available to the ERC and public".
This finding of fact is misleading in that it fails to indicate that:
(1) The main points made by Ms. Sheldon had been included in:
(a) A February 7, 2004 letter from another one of the appellant's
expert witnesses, Kate Stenberg of Quailcroft Environmental
Services, to planner Jason Jordan of the City of Renton
Development Services Division;l and
(b) A February 9, 2004 letter from Becky Stanley of the Sierra Club's
Cascade Chapter to Mr. Jordan;2 and
(2) The ERC had considered the points made in those letters before issuing its
MDNS concerning the Sunset Bluff application;3 and
' See the section of that letter under the subheading "Water Quality and Quantity" on pages 1 and 2 thereof. (Ms.
Stenberg's letter is contained in the City's official "yellow file", Exhibit 1, and a copy of it is also separately marked
as Exhibit 80.)
2 See the second and third paragraphs on page 2 of that letter. (Ms. Stanley's letter is also contained in the City's
official "yellow file", Exhibit 1.)
3 Note the following examination of Jason Jordan by Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes on May 20, 2004, the
last day of the hearing below:
ZANETTA FONTES: Did you receive, did you receive comment letters from members of the public?
JASON JORDAN: Yes, I did.
ZANETTA FONTES: And do you, I know that there are any number already in the Exhibit 1, the official file,
but did you pull out a couple of letters for us to consider?
JASON JORDAN: Yes, I did. I pulled out two letters specifically. One from Suzanne Krom, the president of
Herons Forever, dated February 8`', 2004, and one from Quailcroft Environmental Services dated February 71h,
2004 and that is signed by Dr. Kate Stenberg. -
ZANETTA FONTES: I'm going to ask that these two be marked. I think we're at 79 and 80?
JASON JORDAN: Yes, for Suzanne Krom, and then February 7"', 2004 for the Quailcroft, which will be
number 80.
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 5
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(3) Mr. Jordan, the Development Services Division's representative at the
appeal hearing, testified at the end of the hearing that nothing that he had
heard during the hearing would have caused him to make a different
recommendation to the ERC.4
Correction: The three -item list set forth above should be added to Finding of Fact 28.
FINDING OF FACT 30
Error: Finding of Fact 30 twice asserts that grading to a depth of 70 feet was proposed.
None of the project drawings show grading to a depth of 70 feet. Rather, the project drawings
show grading to a maximum depth of about 35 feet.
Correction: The conclusion should be corrected to reflect the actual maximum depth
noted above.
FINDING OF FACT 31 (First Two Sentences)
Error: The first two sentences of Finding of Fact 31 assert that:
"The only experts that have actually worked with or monitored heron
recently or that were subject to cross-examination indicated that the birds have
reacted hostilely to intrusive activities in both this heronry and in others in the
ZANETTA FONTES: And were those letters available to the ERC for their consideration?
JASON JORDAN: Yes, ma'am, they were.
ZANETTA FONTES: And was, was that information also taken into consideration by Staff when it wrote its
Staff Report to the ERC?
JASON JORDAN: Yes, they were.
(Emphasis added.)
4 Note the following additional examination of Jason Jordan by Assistant City Attorney Fontes on May 20, 2004:
ZANETTA FONTES: Now, Mr. Jordan, you've been sitting through this hearing and you've heard a lot of new
information, information that was not available to the ERC. Based on what you've heard here, whether it's from
people who had an opportunity to comment and chose not to, or from others, have you heard anything that would
have caused you to make a different recommendation to the ERC?
JASON JORDAN: No, I have not.
(Emphasis added.)
5 The Examiner uses the plural "experts" here without stating who the appellants' heron experts are.
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 6
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Puget Sound region." Based on their extensive knowledge of these birds, they
suspect that the proposed grading on the property adjacent to the colony will
definite have an impact.
(Emphasis added.) This sentence starts out as a not too transparent attempt to discredit the
applicant's heron expert, Kenneth Raedeke, PhD (Wildlife Ecology), a Research Associate
Professor at the College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington, Seattle and a
principal in the natural resources consulting firm of Raedeke Associates, Inc. in Seattle.
Contrary to that attempt, the record demonstrates Dr. Raedeke's overwhelming expertise --note
Dr. Raedeke's April 29, 2004 hearing testimony, his April 19, 2004 Great Blue Heron
Assessment report for the Sunset Bluff project (Exhibit 39) and his extensive professional
resum6 (Exhibit 71). The record demonstrates that Dr. Raedeke not only has had long personal
familiarity with the Black River heron colony, he personally oversaw and helped fund the
master's work of an extensive King County -wide research study of the Great Blue Heron (the
Stabins study, Exhibit 40), the only study of the Great Blue Heron conducted to date in King
County that quantitatively assesses the effects of land development upon heron colonies.
The first sentence of Finding of Fact 31 is especially strange in the context of the Sunset
Bluff proposal in that it concludes with a focus upon "intrusive activities in both this heronry
and in others in the Puget Sound region." (Emphasis added.) The Sunset Bluff proposal
involves absolutely no activity of any kind (let alone "intrusive activity") in the Black River
heronry. -Dr. Raedeke's testimony certainly supports the idea that the great blue heron react to
intrusive activities in heronries —he pointed out that eagle predation of the Black River heron
colony has twice nearly gutted their ranks. However, in contrast to the rank speculation by the
appellants' experts (opinions made without any statistical basis in the record) that the Sunset
Bluff proposal might in some way impact the herons, Dr. Raedeke's assessment of actual
statistical data concerning cause and effect relationships concerning activities as distant to a
heronry as are those proposed at the Sunset. Bluff site lead him to firmly conclude that the Sunset
Bluff proposal would not have a probable adverse impact upon the Black River heron colony.
Correction: In the interest of fairness and accuracy, the first two sentences of Finding of
Fact 31 should be replaced with the following sentences:
Both the appellant's heron experts and the applicant's heron expert indicated that
the birds react to directly intrusive activities (such as eagle predation) in both this
heronry and in others in the Puget Sound region. However, there was
disagreement between the appellant's heron experts and the applicant's heron
expert as to whether the Sunset Bluff proposal was likely to cause any adverse
impacts to the Black River heron colony. The appellant's experts suspect that the
proposed grading on the property adjacent to the colony may have an impact upon
the heron colony. However, based upon an assessment of actual statistical data
concerning cause and effect relationships concerning activities as distant to a
heronry as are those proposed at the Sunset Bluff site, the applicant's expert, Dr.
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 7
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Raedeke, firmly concluded that the Sunset Bluff proposal would not have a
probable adverse impact upon the heron colony.
FINDING OF FACT 31 (Third Sentence)
Error: The third sentence of Finding of Fact 31 asserts that:
"Reports appear to indicate that the birds were flushed and severely disturbed by logging
lust south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest area."
(Emphasis added.) In the context of the Sunset Bluff proposal, that sentence is misleading in
what it fails to state. The logging referred to occurred within the property that is now the City
park during mid -February of 19876 (the early part of the heron nesting season) up to a point that
was only about 320 feet away from the heron nesting trees (April 29, 2004 testimony of Theresa
Dusek) and yet the number of active nests in the colony actually increased consistently each year
from 1986 through 1990 (April 29, 2004 testimony of Dr. Raedeke). No drop in active nests
occurred as a result of that logging. Because (a) the closest edge of the Sunset Bluff site is three
times as far away from the colony as was the closest edge of the logging and grading that
occurred on the north side of the colony during the start of the 1987 nesting season and (b) even
the relatively close 1987 logging and grading did not reduce the number of active nests in the
colony, one can only reasonably conclude that the proposed logging and grading of the Sunset
Bluff site will not impact the heron colony either.
Correction: The third sentence of Finding of Fact 31 should be replaced with the
following sentences:
Reports appear to indicate that the birds were flushed and disturbed by logging
and grading that occurred during mid -February of 1987 (the early part of the
heron nesting season) south of the railroad tracks (within the property that is
now the City park) and that extended to within about 320 feet away of the heron
nesting trees. However, despite that logging and grading, the number of active
nests in the colony actually increased consistently each year from 1986 through
1990. No drop in active nests occurred as a result of that logging. Because (a)
the closest edge of the Sunset Bluff site is three times as far away from the colony
as was the closest edge of the logging and grading that occurred on the north side
of the colony during the start of the 1987 nesting season and (b) even the
relatively close 1987 logging and grading did not reduce the number of active
nests in the colony, the proposed logging and grading of the Sunset Bluff site
would not appear likely to impact the heron colony either.
FINDING OF FACT 31 (Balance of the Finding)
6 See Exhibit 100.
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 8
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Error: The balance of Finding of Fact 31 states:
"The anecdotal evidence appears to show that the development of the office park
complex at the north end of Naches also caused a reaction in the heron and may
be responsible for the colony's move north and west and to their abandoning what
has been termed the main nesting tree or colony. While no one can be sure what
the impacts will be of the overall development and eventual population change it
seems clear that the immensity of the proposed clearing and grading, if not the
homes and people will spur some reaction on the part of the heron. The site, at
least some of which appears to be their habitat, will be disturbed. Areas where
they gather twigs and possibly forage for food will be clear-cut and almost all
vegetation will be gone. Forest vegetation will be replaced by open space,
detention pond, lawn and maybe smaller shrubs. The work will occur at or above
the nesting level and while the maps appear to indicate that this would be out of
sight of the nests, the birds will be flying above the nests and the shelter and
visual screen and buffer that the upslope forest provided will be gone or will be
removed possibly during nesting season."
In these sentences, the Examiner succumbed to the speculative assertions made by Suzanne
Krom and other appellant witnesses, assertions so lame and specious that they certainly cannot
be the basis of a conclusion that the ERC's decision was "clearly erroneous". In doing so, the
Examiner ignored the well -reasoned analysis set forth in Dr. Raedeke's report (Exhibit 39)' and
Note, for instance, the following excerpt concerning Black River heron colony buffers from Dr. Raedeke's report
(Exhibit 39) (an excerpt that wraps to the bottom of the next page):
3.2 Black River Heron Colony Buffers
The Buffer That is to Lie Between the Proposal and the Heron Colony
The part of the proposed Sunset Bluff site development that will be the closest to the nearest nests (nests located in
trees lying approximately 100 feet north of the south edge of the P-1 Detention Basin) will be an area to be graded in
conjunction with the development's stormwater detention pond. That area will lie approximately 1,000 feet from
those nests. The closest Sunset Bluff residential lot (proposed Lot 39) will be approximately 1,120 feet from those
nests.
The closest existing disturbance to the nests is the highly visible and non -regulated public pedestrian trail that lies
within 200 feet of several of the nests in the riparian forest.
Other existing developments and active roads are already within this zone:.
• Naches Avenue S.W. to the east of the site is located within 700 feet of the nests on the island and within
450 feet of the closest nest tree in the riparian forest
• the three-story office building at the east side of the north end of Naches Ave. S.W. (south of the Sunset
Bluff site) is within 900 feet of the closest nest, and the associated parking lot is between the building and
the nest trees
• Oakesdale Avenue S.W. is located about 800 feet south of the heron nests
• Black River Corporate Park includes a building lying within 550 feet of the nearest nest
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 9
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
71
811
9i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dr. Raedeke's hearing testimony as well as the report (Exhibit 42) and testimony of biologist
Theresa Dusek. The Examiner's statements virtually ignore the existence of the 100-acre park
(most of which is forested) as being a suitably -sized reserve for the heron colony, one that the
Renton City Council through its previous acquisition actions and its subsequent comprehensive
Adequacy of the Buffer Between the Proposal and the Heron Colony
Our assessment of the adequacy of the distances between the proposed Sunset Bluff development and the Black
River heron colony is based on regional observations of heron nesting colonies response to habitat conditions, and
existing site conditions. Local observations provide the best indicator of the range of environmental conditions that
are conducive to maintaining viable great blue heron colonies in this area. The most recent large-scale compilation
of local observations of the great blue heron are found in Stabins (2001, see Table 10 and see pages 2 through 4
above).
The proposed 1,120-foot distance between the closest proposed Sunset Bluff residential lot and the nearest great
blue heron nests as well as the proposed 1,000-foot distance between the closest planned construction (detention
pond -related grading) on the Sunset Bluff site and those nests should be more than adequate for the following
reasons:
• the proposed distances are greater than the buffers on other developments around the colony
• the proposed distances are greater than the distances between existing and historic disturbance factors
around the colony, including the active BNSF railroad line lying between the Sunset Bluff site and the
colony (on which two freight trains pass six days a week)
• despite those other, closer developments and those closer disturbance factors, the colony continues to grow
• two freight trains pass between the proposed development and the colony six days a week
• the latest, large-scale study of heron colonies in King County (Stabins, 2001--see Table 10) showed (a) no
correlation between buffer width and colony viability and size and (b) that colony success or failure was
positively related to amount of human disturbance around the nests and colony size
• the entire Sunset Bluff residential development will lie (a) well beyond the "600 feet or larger" "optimal
buffer width for protection of the [Black River] heron rookery" that Stenberg (June 12, 1998 letter to Jana
Huerter) recommended and (b) so far from the nearest nests that no construction season limitations would
be needed in order to comply with the recommendation made by Stenberg to the City of Renton (July 1,
1998 letter to Jana Huerter) that "there should be no construction between January 15`s and June 30'h within
800 to 1000 feet of the [Black River heron] rookery"
• the proposed distances are greater than the width of actual buffers around any of the existing heron colonies
in King County
• the railroad, fences, and dense forest communities between the proposed development and the colony will
prevent casual human incursion into the buffer area as well as incursion by pet dogs and most pet cats'
• the Black River colony is very habituated to human disturbance including the blasting in the adjacent
quarry that ceased only two years ago and including the ongoing construction materials recycling
operations on the quarry site and the existing habitat elements surrounding the Black River heron colony
(see Section 4.0, below, for details)
Under these circumstances, construction season limitations are not warranted for the proposed Sunset Bluff
development.
(Italics added for emphasis.)
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 10
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
plan land use mapping and zoning actions has determined as such through the City's official
policy choices for this area following repeated environmental review of those actions. Also
ignored by the Examiner was the fact that the City's acquisition of the park property for heron
protection was pursuant to a "Memorandum of Agreement" among the City, interested
environmental groups and property owners (see the summary thereof in Section 4.0 of Dr.
Raedeke's report), a document that set forth an agreed approach to protection of the subject
heron colony, an approach that the Sunset Bluff proposal in no way conflicts with.8
Correction: The balance of Finding of Fact 31 should be replaced with the following
paragraphs:
8 Section 4.0 of Dr. Raedeke's report (Exhibit 39) (which wraps to the bottom of the next page) states:
4.0. HABITAT APPROACH TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION
The 1991 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the City of Renton, private property owners to the south, and
interested environmental groups concerning the Black River heron colony was based on a habitat approach that
provided for consideration of the overall needs of the herons and other wildlife rather than the application of rigid
rules applied to a single group of heron nest trees. Habitat approaches have been adopted by the WDFW and federal
agencies as the best way to protect wildlife of special public interest (e.g., bald eagle nest sites and spotted owls).
The habitat approach previously adopted for Black River heronry protection in the 1991 MCA included the
following design elements:
• a 500-foot buffer from the most northerly of the then -proposed office buildings to the nearest of the nest
trees on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin
• retained vegetation within that buffer for screening of the office development to the south
• a riparian forest separated from development by the P-1 Detention Basin
• elimination of development proposals for 62 acres of land around the riparian forest sold by the property
owner to the City of Renton as permanent open space and wildlife habitat
• an expanded riparian forest providing alternative nest sites and an area of younger trees for new nests that
will continue to be available over time as the trees on the island die or blow down
These elements of the MOA augmented the habitat by the City of Renton and the other property owner surrounding
the heron colony, including:
• dedication of 17.5 acres of land to the City of Renton for construction of the P-1 Detention Basin
• planting of vegetative screening along the margins of the P-I Channel and Detention Basin
• dedication of 20.0 acres of land to the City of Renton for riparian forest wildlife habitat
• sale of 62.2 acres of land to the City of Renton for permanent open space and wildlife habitat
The habitat conditions within the entire City of Renton Black River open space complex already greatly exceed the
minimum habitat recommendations for heron nest colonies by WDFW (1991). In WDFW's 1991 habitat
management guidelines, a minimum 10-acre stand of large trees bufered from disturbance is recommended. The
combined 100 acres of riparian forest and retained forest stands, detention basin, open space, and existing buffers
greatly exceeds this habitat recommendation.
(Emphasis added.)
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 11
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
M
The part of the proposed Sunset Bluff site development that will be the closest to
the nearest heron nests (nests located in trees lying approximately 100 feet north
of the south edge of the P-1 Detention Basin) will be an area to be graded in
conjunction with the development's stormwater detention pond. That area will lie
approximately 1,000 feet from those nests. The closest Sunset Bluff residential
lot (proposed Lot 39) will be approximately 1,120 feet from those nests.
The closest existing disturbance to the nests is the highly visible and non -
regulated public pedestrian trail that lies within 200 feet of several of the nests in
the riparian forest.
The following other existing developments and active roads are already within
this zone:
(a) Naches Avenue S.W. to the east of the site, which is located within 700 feet of
the nests on the island and within 450 feet of the closest nest tree in the
riparian forest;
(b) The three-story office building at the east side of the north end of Naches Ave.
S.W. (south of the Sunset Bluff site) is within 900 feet of the closest nest, and
the associated parking lot is between the building and the nest trees;
(c) Oakesdale Avenue S.W. is located about 800 feet south of the heron nests;
and
(d) Black River Corporate Park includes a building lying within 550 feet of the
nearest nest.
The proposed 1,120-foot distance between the closest proposed Sunset Bluff
residential lot and the nearest great blue heron nests as well as the proposed
1,000-foot distance between the closest planned construction (detention pond -
related grading) on the Sunset Bluff site and those nests should be more than
adequate for the following reasons:
(a) The proposed distances are greater than the buffers on other developments
around the colony;
(b) The proposed distances are greater than the distances between existing and
historic disturbance factors around the colony, including the active BNSF
railroad line lying between the Sunset Bluff site and the colony;
(c) Despite those other, closer developments and those closer disturbance factors,
the colony continues to grow;
(d) Two freight trains pass between the proposed development and the colony six
days a week;
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 12
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(e) The latest, large-scale study of heron colonies in King County (Stabins, 2001)
showed no correlation between buffer width and colony viability and size;
(f) The entire Sunset Bluff residential development will lie (a) well beyond the
"600 feet or larger" "optimal buffer width for protection of the [Black River]
heron rookery" that Dr. Stenberg (in her June 12, 1998 letter to Jennifer Toth
Henning —Exhibit 15) recommended and (b) so far from the nearest nests that
no construction season limitations would be needed in order to comply with
the recommendation made by Stenberg to the City of Renton (July 1, 1998
letter to Jana Huerter—Exhibit 16� that "there should be no construction
between January 15th and June 30 within 800 to 1000 feet of the [Black
River heron] rookery";
(g) The proposed distances are greater than the width of actual buffers around any
of the existing heron colonies in King County;
(h) The railroad, fences, and dense forest communities between the proposed
development and the colony will prevent casual human incursion into the
buffer area as well as incursion by pet dogs and most pet cats;
(i) The Black River colony is very habituated to human disturbance including the
blasting in the adjacent quarry that ceased a few years ago and including the
ongoing construction materials recycling operations on the quarry site and the
existing habitat elements surrounding the Black River heron colony; and
(j) The prior logging and grading that occurred within what is now the park
property (much closer proximity to the heron colony than is the Sunset Bluff
site to the colony) did not reduce the number of active nests in the colony.
Under these circumstances, construction season limitations are not warranted for
the proposed Sunset Bluff development.
FINDING OF FACT 32
Error: Finding of Fact 31 asserts:
The changes to the seasonal wetland were again raised as an issue since the results
of grading and drainage changes could affect food sources for the heron. These
impacts were not analyzed leaving a gap in knowledge. Changes in water level
would affect amphibians which heron, particularly newly fledged young heron,
depend on as food sources. Similarly, changing water levels would affect
invertebrate and insect populations affecting animals further up the food chain.
None of the results ofpossibly changing the water flows were studied.
(Emphasis added.) For several reasons, this finding of fact is not well-founded. First, the extent
of water level changes to the referenced wetland was carefully analyzed through computer
modeling by civil engineer Ed McCarthy, P.E., PhD and found to be minimal. Dr. McCarthy's
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 13
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 19, 2004 report (Exhibit 33) (supported by his hearing testimony) indicates that he
"developed hydrologic models of the system under existing and proposed developed conditions",
"delineated boundaries of subbasins contributing to the wetland based on aerial topography ("City
of Renton, 1996 photography), available as -built drawings of upstream developments, and field
verification of cross culverts and other drainage features", divided the drainage area contributing
to the wetland into subbasins, and used a hydrologic computer model that "allowed a detailed
assessment of the [downstream] wetland's hydrology and potential impacts to the wetland caused
by changes in the watershed resulting from the Sunset Bluff development."
Contrary to the unstudied assertions made by appellant's hydrology expert Mr.
Rozeboom, Dr. McCarthy found that "[t]he 21.4-acre portion of the Sunset Bluff site that
contributes to the depressional wetland represents only about 20 percent of the depression's
watershed" (contrary to Mr. Rozeboom's 50 percent unstudied assertion) and that the
fluctuations in the depression (with or without the Sunset Bluff) could not exceed approximately
3.2 feet due to the depression's wide overflow to the Black River pump station forebay. (Exhibit
33 at p. 4.) Based on his computer simulations and field observations, Dr. McCarthy found that
"the depressional wetland has relatively large fluctuations in stage on both a monthly and annual
basis under existing conditions". (Exhibit 33, page 12; emphasis added.) Page 12 of his report
explains that "onsite stormwater controls would attenuate developed peak flow rates and match
forested flow rates from the site for up to the 10-year storm", that "the increased runoff volumes
from the site will likely increase average monthly stage in the wetland by [only] about 1 to 2
inches in the winter months and by less than 1 inch in the summer months", that "[w]etland
stages at existing flow duration levels will likely be increased by [only] 1 to 2 inches as will be
the peak stages for return periods between the annual and 5-year return periods" and that
"[r]elative to existing average monthly fluctuations in the wetland, which are on the order of 24
inches, these predicted increases in stage resulting from the proposed development are small."
His report concludes that "[p]redicted changes in fluctuations, average stage, and stage duration
curves caused by the proposed development would have only a negligible impact" on [the
downstream wetland] system." (Emphasis added.)
The appellant provided no studies of its own to rebut Dr. McCarthy's findings and
conclusion. Mr. Rozeboom provided no rebuttal letter or oral hearing testimony in response to
Dr. McCarthy's report or hearing testimony.
In addition to Dr. McCarthy's study of downstream wetland hydrologic impacts, to
further respond to the statements in the letter from appellant's attorney (David Mann) concerning
downstream wetland hydrology concerns, the Applicant had natural resource ecologist Theresa
Dusek (the author of the Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report for the Sunset
Bluff proposal, part of Exhibit 1) visit the downstream wetland with Dr. McCarthy and prepare a
letter report to summarize her findings concerning the existing hydrological, soils and vegetation
conditions in that wetland. That letter was submitted into the record as Exhibit 42. Based upon
Dr. McCarthy's study of existing and post -Sunset Bluff development hydrological conditions in
the wetland depression, Mrs. Dusek concluded in her letter (at page 3) that "[v]egetation in the
wetland depression ... will not be significantly effected by the addition of water from the project
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 14
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
site" and that "[b]ecause the hydroperiod of the wetland depression will not significantly alter
the vegetation structure and plant species richness in the depression and surrounding wetland
system, the wildlife that uses the wetland depression and surrounding areas will not be
significantly impacted either."
The applicant went an even further step in responding to Mr. Mann's letter's statements
concerning downstream wetland hydrology concerns. The applicant hired wetland ecologist
Raedeke Associates' Emmett Pritchard, who has a background in wetland forests, to specifically
evaluate the Sunset Bluff project's potential for impacting the existing trees in the downstream
wetland. His April 26, 2004 letter report (Exhibit 69) explained that he "observed three distinct
forested vegetation communities within the off -site wetland area" (Exhibit 69, page 2), his
"observations of site hydrology appears (sic) to support [Dr. McCarthy's] predicted
fluctuations in depth of [existing] inundation" (Exhibit 69, page 2). With respect to the trees in
what he called Forest Communities 1 and 2, Mr. Pritchard concluded:
Black cottonwood, Pacific willow, Oregon ash, and to a lesser extent red alder
are well adapted to riparian areas with fluctuating winter -time water levels
similar to those observed within the off -site wetland (Burns et al. 1990). Field
evidence indicates that trees that are currently growing within Forest
Community 1 and Forest Community 2 are adapted to periodic inundation
ranging from 12 to 36 inches in depth. Therefore, due to the apparent ability of
the trees growing in these areas to tolerate periods winter flooding, it is not
likely that Dr. McCarthy's predicted small increases in winter water levels
or alterations to the hydroperiod would affect trees within these two
vegetation communities.
(Exhibit 69 at p. 4; emphasis added.) Similarly, with respect to the trees in what he called
Forest Community 3, he concluded:
Trees growing within Forest Community 3 do not appear to experience periods
of inundation under current conditions. Water marks observed on the slopes of
the hummocks indicate that inundation levels are more than two to three feet
below the majority of the hummocks. Topographic maps used for the
hydrologic analysis (McCarthy 2004) indicate that this is likely due to the
greater elevation of the hummocks than the elevation of the outlet of the wetland
basin to the P-1 Detention Basin. Therefore, predicted changes in the wetland
hydroperiod are not likely to have an impact on existing trees currently
growing on the hummocks.
(Exhibit 69 at p. 4; emphasis added.)
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 15
f SAL NJEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Herons Forever submitted no studies of its own to controvert the findings and
conclusions of Dr. McCarthy, Mrs. Dusek or Mr. Pritchard concerning the alleged impacts to the
downstream wetland. Accordingly, those findings and conclusions ought to be considered
verities for purposes of this appeal.
Every remote and speculative impact need not be the subject of an EIS. The Examiner's
Finding of Fact 31 deals only with remote and speculative impact and is improper.
Correction: In view of the above, Finding of Fact 32 should be replaced with the
following paragraphs:
Based upon studies of hydrologic, soils and vegetation conditions in the
downstream depressional wetland (Exhibits 33, 42 and 69), it appears that the
Sunset Bluff proposal would not have a probable adverse impact upon the
downstream depressional wetland.
FINDING OF FACT 35
Error: Finding of Fact 35's last sentence asserts "in urban King County studies have
found colonies shrink where there is development within 1,000 feet". This assertion was made
despite the fact that no such studies were produced or directly referenced in the record and
ignores the Stabins study, a complete copy of which is in the record as Exhibit 40.
Correction: In view of the above, the last sentence of Finding of Fact 35 should be
stricken in its entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 37
Error: This finding of fact should be stricken in its entirety because (a) the Hearing
Examiner refused to allow surrebuttal testimony by Dr. Raedeke that would have demonstrated
that the Department of Fish and Wildlife's recommendations were not scientifically based and
(b) in view of the fact that the Black River Heron colony expanded even immediately following
the logging and grading that occurred during February 1987.
Correction: Finding of Fact 37 should be stricken in its entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 38
Error: This finding of fact recites rank speculation by Dr. Stenberg, speculation that was
fully refuted as baseless by Dr. Raedeke.
Correction: Finding of Fact 38 should be stricken in its entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 39
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 16
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Error: In view of the distances involved between the site and the heron colony, the
screening forest in the park property and the existing and proposed fencing, the summary of Ms.
Krom's testimony in this finding of fact is irrelevant and should be stricken in its entirety.
Correction: Finding of Fact 39 should be stricken in its entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 40
Error: In view of the demonstrated growth of the Black River heron colony and Dr.
Raedeke's testimony as to natural fluctuations in wildlife populations over time, the references
made in this Finding of Fact to Ms. Krom's assertions relating to events that are quite distant
from the heron colony lack a causal connection. Accordingly, this finding of fact is irrelevant
and should be stricken in its entirety.
Correction: Finding of Fact 40 should be stricken in its entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 41
Error: While this Finding of Fact may literally be true (i.e., Ms. Krom may have said
that), it (and Finding of Fact 40) ignore the most likely cause of the move: the documented eagle
predation that occurred just prior to the construction of the Black River Corporate Park building
to the south of the "main colony tree", an event that Dr. Raedeke and Ms. Dusek indicated would
cause the heron to seek the current nesting area, where there is more shelter against eagle
predation. Finding of Fact 41 is irrelevant as stated and should be stricken in its entirety.
Correction: Finding of Fact 41 should be stricken in its entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 42
Error: The last sentence in this Finding of Fact is gratuitous and, in view of the lack of
demonstration of impacts by the appellant, should be stricken in its entirety.
Correction: Finding of Fact 42 should be stricken in its entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 43
Error: The seventh sentence of this Finding of Fact states:
"This means that there should probably be no earthwork during the normal rainy
season."
In referring to "no earthwork" and the "normal rainy season", this is an overstatement by the
Examiner. Once major site grading has been accomplished, minor earthwork (such as finish
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 17
HAUNEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
grading of the rough -graded lots in conjunction with home construction) would likely be
appropriate even during the rainy season because it would not involve the drying process that the
major earthwork would involve. Also, some years are drier during the northwest than others
making the reference in the sentence to "normal" uncalled-for.
Correction: In view of the above, the seventh sentence of Finding of Fact 43 should be
replaced by the following:
This means that there should probably be no major earthwork of the site during
the rainy season. (Minor earthwork, such as finish grading of the rough -graded
lots in conjunction with home construction, would be appropriate year-round.)
FINDING OF FACT 49
Error: In view of the explanation of the error concerning Finding of Fact 32, above, the
last sentence in this Finding of Fact 49 should be restated to read as follows under the
"Correction".
Correction: Finding of Fact 49 should be revised to read as follows:
Dr. McCarthy was the applicant's hydrologist. He discussed the riparian forest
and its prominent feature just south of the subject site and railroad tracks, the
depressional wetland. It is about 10.5 acres. It is about 3.2 feet deep at its
deepest and has about a million cubic feet of storage. Based on his computer
simulations and field observations, Dr. McCarthy found that "the depressional
wetland has relatively large fluctuations in stage on both a monthly and annual
basis under existing conditions". (Exhibit 33, page 12; emphasis added.) Page 12
of his report explains that "onsite stormwater controls would attenuate developed
peak flow rates and match forested flow rates from the site for up to the 10-year
storm", that "the increased runoff volumes from the site will likely increase
average monthly stage in the wetland by [only] about 1 to 2 inches in the winter
months and by less than 1 inch in the summer months", that "[w]etland stages at
existing flow duration levels will likely be increased by [only] 1 to 2 inches as
will be the peak stages for return periods between the annual and 5-year return
periods" and that "[r]elative to existing average monthly fluctuations in the
wetland, which are on the order of 24 inches, these predicted increases in stage
resulting from the proposed development are small." His report concludes that
"[p]redicted changes in fluctuations, average stage, and stage duration curves
caused by the proposed development would have only a negligible impact" on
[the downstream wetland] system." The appellant provided no studies of its own
to rebut Dr. McCarthy's findings and conclusion. Mr. Rozeboom provided no
rebuttal letter or oral hearing testimony in response to Dr. McCarthy's report or
hearing testimony.
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 18
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FINDING OF FACT 50
Error: The Examiner should have indicated in this Finding of Fact that Rebecca Lind is
the Planning Manager for the City of Renton Department of Economic Development,
Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning.
Correction: The first sentence of Finding of Fact 50 should be revised to read as
follows:
The Planning Manager for the City of Renton Department of Economic
Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning, Rebecca Lind, testified for
the applicant.
FINDING OF FACT 54
Error: In view of both (a) the explanation of the error concerning Finding of Fact 31,
above, and (b) the proposed substitute Finding of Fact 31, above, Finding of Fact 54 should be
stricken in its entirety.
Correction: Finding of Fact 54 should be stricken in its entirety.
FINDINGS OF FACT 55 THROUGH 59
Error: The Examiner violated the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in refusing to allow
the Applicant to present rebuttal evidence to appellant's witness Patricia Thompson of the State
of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (See pages 59 through 61 of Applicant's
Closing Brief, copy attached.) Accordingly, Ms. Thompson's testimony should be stricken from
the record and Findings of Fact 55 through 59, which are based upon Ms. Stabins' testimony,
should be stricken in its entirety.
Correction: Findings of Fact 55 through 59 should be stricken in their entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 60
Error: This Finding of Fact flatly contradicts the record. Dr. Raedeke's testimony
concerning the heron the testimony based on science and statistical analysis while the testimony
of appellant's experts was speculative and anecdotally -based. The record shows that Dr.
Raedeke relied on a host of studies as well as his personal experience with the Black River heron
colony. Finding of Fact 60 should be stricken in its entirety.
Correction: Finding of Fact 60 should be stricken in its entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 61
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 19
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Error: In view of the explanation of the error concerning Finding of Fact 28, above, a
sentence should be added to Finding of Fact 61 to make clear that the ERC had considered the
points made in the public comment letters concerning the Sunset Bluff application before issuing
its MDNS. Also, the phrase "because Staff did not think that one was warranted" should be
added to the end of the last existing sentence in Finding of Fact 61 to conform to the testimony
of Jason Jordan.
Correction: The phrase "because Staff did not think that one was warranted" should be
added to the end of the last existing sentence in Finding of Fact 61. Also, the following sentence
should be added to the end of Finding of Fact 61.
The ERC had considered the points made in the public comment letters
concerning the Sunset Bluff application before issuing its MDNS concerning the.
application.
FINDINGS OF FACT 62 AND 63
Error: Both of these findings of fact are based upon materials that are not in the record
and, accordingly, must be stricken.
Correction: Strike Findings of Fact 62 and 63 in their entirety.
FINDING OF FACT 64
Error: While making a statement concerning Hearing Examiner jurisdiction in general,
the portion of the Renton Municipal Code cited in this Finding of Fact omits the portion of the
code that specifically addresses the Hearing Examiner's options and decision criteria, RMC 4-8-
110E7.b. That code section states in its entirety:
b. Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Examiner may
affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse
the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced
because the decision is:
i. In violation of constitutional provisions; or
ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or
iv. Affected by other error of law; or
v. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 20
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
vi. Arbitrary or capricious.
(Emphasis added.) Because, as a matter of statutory construction, specific provisions control
over general ones, RMC 4-8-110E7.b controls over RMC 4-8-110.E and, by its terms, limits the
authority of the Examiner in regard to his decisionmaking options and precludes the decision he
made.
Correction: Strike Findings of Fact 64 and replace it with the text of RMC 4-8-110E7.b.
CONCLUSION 2:
Error: As a threshold matter, Conclusion 2 should have commenced with the detailed
statement of the law concerning SEPA project review limitations as a result of Washington's
regulatory reform legislation that was set forth on pages 5 through 8 of the Applicant's Closing
Brief. (See copy attached.) That statement of the law was not even mentioned in the Examiner's
decision and report. Its omission was legal error.
In immediate follow-up to such a Conclusion 2, one or more conclusions should have
summarized and accepted the legal analysis set forth in detail in Section III.A on pages 8 through
13 of Applicant's Closing Brief. That analysis was, in sum, that because (1) the Renton City
Council has designated as acceptable for the Sunset Bluff Site (a) the site's current
Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning, (b) corresponding site -specific restrictions for
heron protection in a the development agreement and (c) the City's Habitat Conservation
Regulations and (2) the City, through the planning and environmental review process under
Chapter 36.70A RCW and Chapter 43.21C RCW, has identified the specific adverse
environmental impacts relating to development of the Sunset Bluff site, under RCW
43.21 C.240(4)(b) the impacts must be considered to have been adequately addressed. (This
analysis was not addressed by the Examiner.)
In further immediate follow-up to such a Conclusion 2, one or more conclusions should
have summarized and accepted the legal analysis set forth in detail in Section III.B on pages 14
through 19 of Applicant's Closing Brief. That analysis, based upon recent Washington appellate
court case decisions, was, in sum, that, in view of the underlying nature of the appellant's
allegations, (1) appellant has failed to bring its appeal to the proper forum at the proper time, (2)
the Hearing Examiner did not have jurisdiction over the appeal and, accordingly, (3) the appeal
must be dismissed. (While, in Conclusion 8, the Examiner addressed this legal contention in
passing —he said there that "[t]he appellant may not have objected to single-family uses on this
site" and "[t]he appellant might have relied on the very SEPA review process now occurring to
help mitigate impacts of single-family development on this site" —the appellant made it
abundantly clear that it didn't believe that "any development can be built on this hillside without
causing profound and irreparable harm to the [heron] colony" and that the appellant wants the
Sunset Bluff site available for expansion of the colony. (See especially pages 3 and 4 of
Applicant's Closing Brief, attached, for a summary of appellant's statements in this regard.))
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 21
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In yet further immediate follow-up to such a Conclusion 2, one or more conclusions
should have summarized and accepted the legal analysis set forth in detail in Section III.0 on
pages 19 through 20 of Applicant's Closing Brief. That analysis was, in sum, that because (1)
the ERC considered the Sunset Bluff proposal's specific probable adverse environmental impacts
and determined that those specific impacts are adequately addressed by the City's development
regulations with the addition of the 26 SEPA mitigation measures set forth in the MDNS and (2)
the project approval will be based upon compliance with those regulations and mitigation
measures, the ERC complied with RCW 43.21C.240(1)'s mandate that the City "determine that
the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the City's
development regulations and comprehensive plans adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, and in
other applicable local, state, or federal laws and rules provide adequate analysis of and mitigation
for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action to which the requirements
apply".
Going beyond such analyses and the conclusions that should be stated in summary of
them, the Hearing Examiner certainly failed to give substantial weight to the Decision of the
ERC's decision and actually substituted his own judgment for that of the ERC in this case,
violating RCW 43.21 C.090. Had the Examiner actually afforded the ERC's decision substantial
weight (as he was obligated to do), in view of the entire record it would have been impossible for
the Examiner to have determined that the ERC decision was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, on
that ground alone, the Examiner was obligated to deny the appeal. (See Section 3.E on pages 22
through 56 of the Applicant's Closing Brief for an extensive supporting analysis and see pages 1
through 4 of that brief for a summary of factual context.)9
Correction: Conclusion 2 should be replaced with the entirety of the statement of the
law concerning SEPA project review limitations as a result of Washington's regulatory reform
legislation that was set forth on pages 5 through 8 of the Applicant's Closing Brief followed by
conclusions consistent with and contemplated by the discussion above.
CONCLUSIONS 3 THROUGH 28.
Error: For the reasons set forth in the analysis of Error concerning Conclusion 2,
Conclusions 3 through 28 must be deleted in their entirety.
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 22
REQUEST
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
.(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For all of the above reasons, Applicant hereby requests that the City Council reverse the -' -
Hearing Examiner's decision, and approve the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat as presented, subject
to the mitigation measures set forth in the ERC's SEPA threshold determination and subject to
the Staff -recommended conditions of preliminary plat approval set forth in the Staff Report to
the Hearing Examiner.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2004.
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
By:
David L. Hai en
WSBA #15923
Attorney for Applicant SR 900 L.L.C.
9 Note that, in view of RMC 4-8-110E7.b, even if the ERC's decision had been "clearly erroneous", under RMC 4-
8-110E7.b the Hearing Examiner only choice would have been to "remand the case for further proceedings".
Nothing in RMC 4-8-110E7.b authorized issuance of a declaration of significance.
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
APPEAL --Page 23
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5'
6''
7'
81
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
o U�� ,
JUN 1 1 2004 ,v-o
n.'
WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S.
BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
Regarding Herons Forever's Appeal to the )
Hearing Examiner of the February 24, 2004. )
SEPA Threshold Determination Decision )
Issued by the Renton Environmental Review )
-Committee for the Proposed "Sunset Bluff' )
Residential Subdivision )
City of Renton File No. LUA04-002, EC, PP )
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S
CLOSING BRIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
CITY OF R
A f rl 7 a r 2 f; b) 4
RECEIVED
I.1TY CL 'RK'S -,)I
I S 9- piA
E0:.+ I '`LED
' A�UIIN 1 3 2004
G
_!7NDLER & MP,NN, j L
Following two recent comprehensive plan land use map amendments, two corresponding
downzones and two corresponding development agreements with the City of Renton that have
reduced the subject 26.26-acre site's development potential from (a) 842 multi -family units plus
1.5 million square feet of office development to (b) 69 detached single-family residences
(downzones and development agreements done in part for protection of the great blue heron
colony to the south) (April 29, 2004 testimony of Rebecca Lind), Sunset Bluff subdivision
applicant SR 900 L.L.C. now seeks preliminary plat approval for a mere 65 single-family
residential lots on the subject site in accordance with the site -specific restrictions of the latest,
City Council -approved development agreement. Nearly 5 acres of the site are proposed to be left
in a native growth protection easement.
The site's vicinity is far from being located in a wilderness. The roughly crescent -shaped
site is sandwiched between a state highway to the north (SR 900 aka "SW Sunset Boulevard")
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 1
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and a freight rail line to the south. The Black River Quarry abuts the southerly portion of the
site's west boundary and a 240-unit apartment development abuts the northerly portion of the
site's west boundary. An existing townhouse development lies to the east-southeast. Primarily
single-family developments lie north of SW Sunset Boulevard. South of the freight rail line lies
a 100-acre City park that is surrounded by development —the quarry to the northwest, the rail
line to the northwest, north and northeast, the townhouses to the northeast, the Metro sewage
treatment plant to the southwest, other industrial uses to the south and an extensive complex of
offices to the southeast. (See the Exhibit 37 and Exhibit 77 color aerial photos.)
During the mid- 1980s, a small number of great blue herons —birds that are not threatened
or endangered species --took up residence in roughly the center of what is now the City park, a
park that is open to the general public. In that park, people can walk their dogs, ride their bikes,
play their boom boxes, bring in their screaming kids or crying babies —basically anything that
they may want to do. (See footnote 5.) During the early 1990s, the City acquired the park
property pursuant to a settlement agreement with several environmental groups who wished to
protect the heron colony ---and have a convenient place for observing it up close and giving
educational tours. Despite (1) all of the surrounding, intensive land uses (including the year
2000 construction of the Oakesdale Center Black River Corporate Park with its parking lot
within 500 feet of the colony and its closest building within 550 feet) and (2) at least two periods
of extensive predation by eagles, according to Herons Forever's president Suzanne Krom the
colony has expanded to approximately 135 nests. (April 27, 2004 hearing testimony of Suzanne
Krom.)
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 2
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Even though nearly 900 feet of buffering forest in the park lie between the heron colony
and the Sunset Bluff site (Exhibits 60 and 77), SEPA threshold determination appellant Herons
Forever does not want to see the Sunset Bluff site developed.' Instead, Herons Forever wishes to
see the Sunset Bluff site remain as it is (except, presumably, for the homeless camps that were
discovered on the site during last fall's wildlife study of the site and except, supposedly, for
development of about 3 acres near the site's northwest corner —an area that, however, cannot
achieve access to SW Sunset Boulevard as Herons Forever suggests and would be undevelopable
because (1) a native growth protection easement encumbers the existing tract of land that lies
between that portion of the site and SW Sunset Boulevard and (2) the right-of-way margin in that
vicinity is so steep that access to the 3 acres would be impossible).
Why do the opponents desire and demand that the Applicant's property remain
undeveloped? So that the site can provide space for potential future expansion of the heron
1 During the April 27, 2004 segment of the Sunset Bluff hearings, Herons Forever president Suzanne
Krom testified that:
The 65-house development proposed for this hillside is too large because of the steep,
unstable slopes and its close proximity to the heron colony. We question whether an
development can be built on this hillside without causing profound and irreparable
harm to the colony. The hillside is critically important to the environmental health of
Black River. Any development that occurs here is likely to have significant negative
impacts on this heron colony.
(Emphasis added.) (Note that at the beginning of Ms. Krom's hearing testimony, explained that she
would refer to "the resident coastal great blue heron colony in the Black River riparian forest" simply as
`Black River".)
2 See bottom of page 9 and top of page 10 of the Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report
for "Sunset Bluff' Residential Subdivision (part of the Exhibit 1 file).
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 3
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building .
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
H,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
colony (April 18, 2004 letter from Dr. Kate Stenberg3 and April 29, 2004 hearing testimony of
Patricia Thompson 4), so that the heron colony does not have to rely upon the nearly all -wooded
100-acre park as a source of "twigs" and "sticks" for construction of future heron nests (April 27,
2004 hearing testimony of Suzanne Krom and April 18, 2004 04 letter from Dr. Kate Stenberg at
p. 6, Exhibit 12) and, apparently, so that Suzanne Krom can be proclaimed the victor in her 15-
year personal crusade to promote and expand the Black River heron colony.5
3 The bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 of the letter from Quailcroft Environmental Services' Dr.
Kate Stenberg (Heron's Forever's wildlife biologist) to attorney David Mann (part of Exhibit 12) states:
The mature trees on the hillside within the proposed development may function as
alternate future nest sites for the heron colony. The Black River heron colony has
grown in recent years, but many other colonies in the general region have abandoned
and disappeared. Much of the observed growth at Black River may be due to birds
moving in from other disturbed colonies. If the colony growth is due to an influx of
individuals from disturbed colonies then that may be an indication that there are no
other suitable locations available to establish new colonies. In the urban area, suitable
nesting locations for heron colonies are likely a limiting factor in the viability of the
population. Protection of potential alternate nest sites will be critical to the long-term
viability of the Black River heron colony and to efforts to prevent a listing of the
species under the Endangered Species Act.
(Emphasis added.) Apparently, Herons Forever expects private landowners to keep their lands in reserve
because of the potential that that herons may want to nest on those lands someday.
4 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist Patricia Thompson (testifying for Herons
Forever) stated on April 29, 2004 that "since [the Black River heron. colony] is an expanding colony, we
need additional nest trees into which the colony can a and." (Emphasis added.)
5 Apparently so blinded by self-interest, Ms. Krom seems incapable of understanding the absurdity of her
objecting, on the one hand, to a mere 65 future homes more than 1,000 feet away from the heron colony
while, on the other hand, simultaneously lauding crowds of visitors at the City park coming into the City
park for a close-up view of the heron colony. Note that during her testimony at the April 27, 2004
segment of the Sunset Bluff hearing, she beamed:
As of this year, it's clear that Black River has reached it's tip-, it's tipping point. It has
been discovered. The parking lot is now frequently full. Often cars are double-
parked and overflow cars are parked along the shoulder because the lot is too small
to accommodate the sanctuary's growing popularity. It's a place where everyone,
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 4
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington98004
(206) W-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II. SEPA PROJECT REVIEW LIMITATIONS AS A RESULT
OF REGULATORY REFORM LEGISLATION
The 1995 Washington legislature enacted the Integration of Growth Management and
Environmental Review Act. That Act "seeks to avoid duplicative environmental analysis and
substantive mitigation of development projects by assigning SEPA a secondary role to (1) more
comprehensive environmental analysis in plans and their programmatic environmental impact
-statements and (2) systematic mitigation of adverse environmental impacts through local
development regulations and other local, state, and federal environmental laws." Moss v. City of
Belllingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 at 15; 31 P. 3d 703 at _, quoting Richard L. Settle, The
Washington State Environmental Policy Act: A Legal and Policy Analysis, Appendix E, p. 505
(1995).
The Integration Act bears directly on the subject appeal. One of the Act's provisions, an
amendment to the State Environmental Policy Act, has been codified in RCW 43.21 C.240
(which was thereafter amended in 2003). It reads:
§ 43.21 C.240. Project review under the growth management act
(1) If the requirements of subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, a county,
city, or town reviewing a project action shall determine that the requirements
for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the
including young children, the frail elderly and people in wheelchairs can experience a
slice of nature fa-, far more powerfully than most places they will visit in their lifetimes.
No National Geographic Special comes close to the wonder of this site. In addition, these
nests are easily seen. It's close to the urban center, and the viewing area is the equivalent
of only a couple of city blocks from parking and easily traversed by wheelchair. I know
of no other place where this is true. This hearing represents the culmination of my 15
years of work. My life's work with this site.
(Emphasis added.)
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 5
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91
10
11'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
county, city, or town's development regulations and comprehensive plans
adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or
federal laws and rules provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the
specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action to which the
requirements apply. Rules adopted by the department according to RCW
43.21C.I10 regarding project specific impacts that may not have been adequately
addressed apply to any determination made under this section. In these
situations, in which all adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated
below the level of significance as a result of mitigation measures included by
changing, clarifying, or conditioning of the proposed action and/or
regulatory requirements of development regulations adopted under chapter
36.70A RCW or other local, state, or federal laws, a determination of
nonsignificance or a mitigated determination of nonsignificance is the proper
threshold determination.
(2) A county, city, or town shall make the determination provided for in
subsection (1) of this section if:
(a) In the course of project review, including any required
environmental analysis, the local government considers the specific probable
adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determines that these
specific impacts are adequately addressed by the development regulations or
other applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan
element of the comprehensive plan, or other local, state, or federal rules or
laws; and
(b) The local government bases or conditions its approval on
compliance with these requirements or mitigation measures.
(3) If a county, city, or town's comprehensive plans, subarea plans, and
development regulations adequately address a project's probable specific
adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2) of
this section, the county, c_yt , or town shall not impose additional mitigation
under this chapter during project review. Project review shall be integrated with
environmental analysis under this chapter.
(4) A comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulation shall
be considered to adequately address an impact if the county, city, or town,
through the planning and environmental review process under chapter
36.70A RCW and this chapter, has identified the specific adverse
environmental impacts and:
(a) The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
(b) The legislative body of the county, city, or town has designated as
acceptable certain levels of service, land use designations, development
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 6
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standards, or other land use planning required or allowed by chapter 36.70A
RCW.
(5) In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been
addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction with
environmental expertise with regard to a specific environmental impact, the
county, city, or town shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may
expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the county, city, or town
shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with these other
existing rules or laws.
(6) Nothing in this section limits the authority of an agency in its review or
mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and
requirements under other laws, as provided by this chapter.
(7) This section shall apply only to a county, city, or town planning under
RCW 36.70A.040.
(Emphasis added.) In adopting that provision, the Legislature made the following extensive
findings and statement of intent in the law:
FINDINGS -- INTENT -- 1995 C 347 § 202: "(1) The legislature finds in
adopting RCW 43.21C.240 that:
(a) Comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted by counties,
cities, and towns under chapter 36.70A RCW and environmental laws and rules
adopted by the state and federal government have addressed a wide range of
environmental subjects and impacts. These plans, regulations, rules, and laws
often provide environmental analysis and mitigation measures for project
actions without the need for an environmental impact statement or further
project mitigation.
(b) Existing plans, regulations, rules, or laws provide environmental analysis
and measures that avoid or otherwise mitigate the probable specific adverse
environmental impacts of proposed projects should be integrated with, and
should not be duplicated by, environmental review under chapter 43.21CRCW.
(c) Proposed projects should continue to receive environmental review,
which should be conducted in a manner that is intejerated with and does not
duplicate other requirements. Project -level environmental review should be
used to:
(i) Review and document consistency with comprehensive plans and
development regulations; (ii) provide prompt and coordinated review by
government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental
laws and plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 7
HALMN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
1
2
3
4
5i
61
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level; and
(iii) ensure accountability by local government to applicants and the public for
requiring and implementing mitigation measures.
(d) When a project permit application is filed, an agency should analyze the
proposal's environmental impacts, as required by applicable regulations and
the environmental review process required by this chapter, in one project
review process. The project review process should include land use,
environmental, public, and governmental review, as provided by the applicable
regulations and the rules adopted under this chapter, so that documents prepared
under different requirements can be reviewed together by the public and other
agencies. This project review will provide an agency with the information
necessary to make a decision on the proposed project.
(E) THROUGH THIS PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS:
(i) If the applicable regulations require studies that adequately analyze all
of the project's specific probable adverse environmental impacts, additional
studies under this chapter will not be necessary on those impacts; (ii) i the
applicable regulations require measures that adequately address such
environmental impacts, additional measures would likewise not be required
under this chapter; and (iii) if the applicable regulations do not adequately
analyze or address a proposal's specific probable adverse environmental
impacts, this chapter provides the authority and procedures for additional
review.
(2) The legislature .intends that a primary role of environmental review under
chapter 43.21 C RCW is to focus on the gaps and overlaps that may exist in
applicable laws and requirements related to a proposed action. The review of
project actions conducted by counties, cities, and towns planning under RCW
36.70A.040 should integrate environmental review with project review. Chapter
43.21C RCW should not be used as a substitute for other land use planning and
environmental requirements." [1995 c 347 § 201.]
(Emphasis added.) Herons Forever's appeal must be considered in view of these above -quoted
provisions.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Because (1) the Renton Citv Council Has Designated as Acceptable for the Sunset
Bluff Site (a) the Site's Current Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning, (b)
Corresponding Site -Specific Restrictions for Heron Protection in a Development
Agreement and (c) the City's Habitat Conservation Regulations and (2) the CitY,
Through the Planning and Environmental Review Process under Chapter 36.70A
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 8
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RCW and Chapter 43.21C RCW, Has Identified the Specific Adverse
Environmental Impacts Relating to Development of the Site, under RCW
43.21C.240(4)(b) the Impacts Must Be Considered to Have Been Adequately
Addressed.
Just last fall, the Renton City Council approved the subject site's Residential Options
(RO) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and R-10 zoning and the form of
corresponding Development Agreement that the Applicant and the City of Renton subsequently
executed. Potential impacts to the great blue heron colony in the City park to the south were
identified through the planning and environmental review process for that Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezone. Not only was the Comprehensive Plan amendment and downzone a
means of mitigating impacts to the heron colony, three site -specific restrictions were set forth in
the Development Agreement to mitigate heron colony impacts.6 No appeals were filed in regard
to either (a) the SEPA threshold determination for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
6 The executed Development Agreement is contained in the "yellow file", Exhibit 1. The three "Site -
Specific Restrictions set forth on page 3 thereof are as follows:
(1) The maximum number of residential units that may be permitted on the Property
shall be 69 units and all of such units shall only be single-family detached units
on individual residential lots;
(2) In conjunction with residential development of the Property a minimum 6-foot
high fence shall be constructed along the south side of the development for the
entire length of the development (i.e., from the west edge of the southerly
projection of the westerly -most residential lot to the east edge of the southerly
projection of the easterly -most residential lot), which fence may lie either north
of or south of stormwater facilities anticipated to he constructed along the
southerly portion of the site and along the RC -zoned strip of land owned by
Owner that is legally -described in the second "EXCEPT that portion ..."
paragraph of the Property's legal description set forth on pages 1 and 2,
above; and
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 9
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
AProfessional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rezone or (b) the City Council's substantive decisions approving the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezone. (April 29, 2004 hearing testimony of Rebecca Lind.)
The Renton City Council has also established performance standards for Habitat
Conservation throughout the City as part of the City's GMA critical areas regulations codified in
RMC 4-3-050. (It did so during August 2000, long after the Council had been made aware of the
heron colony and had purchased the 100-acres for the park to protect it and during the year
(2000) that processing of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone of the Sunset Bluff
site took place, a time period when protection of the heron colony in relation to the Sunset Bluff
site was an issue especially before the City.) Those standards are set forth in RMC 4-3-050K,
which states:
K. HABITAT CONSERVATION:
1. Applicability: In addition to the general standards of subsection E
of this Section, the following performance standards, subsections K2 to
(3) No residential or recreation buildings may be constructed on the Property within
100 feet of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way that lies
to the south of the Property.
(Emphasis added.)
7 The Council's actions followed shortly after the 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone of
the site, when the Council designated the site Residential Multi -Family Infill (RM-1) and downzoned it to
Residential Multi -Family Infill (RM-I) in conjunction with a Development Agreement (Exhibit 59).
Potential heron impacts were also identified during that process. Not only was that Comprehensive Plan
amendment and downzone a means that the City Council used to mitigate impacts to the heron colony,
three site -specific restrictions (a limitation on the number of multi -family residential units to 260, a
fencing requirement, and a prohibition on buildings within the site's south 100 feet) were set forth in the
Development Agreement to mitigate heron colony impacts. No appeals were filed as to either (a) the
SEPA threshold determination for that Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone or (b) for the City
Council's substantive decisions in approving that Comprehensive Plan amendment and downzone.
(Testimony of Rebecca Lind.)
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 10
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
K5, apply to all non-exempt activities on sites containing critical habitat
areas per subsection B5.8
2. Habitat Assessment Required: Based upon subsection B5 of this
Section, Habitat Conservation, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife
assessment to determine the extent, function and value of the critical
habitat when regulated activities are proposed which have the potential to
cause significant impacts. In cases where a proposal is not likely to
significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information
to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this
report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with
subsection D4b of this Section. The City may require independent review
of an applicant's report by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the
applicant's expense.
s RMC 4-3-050B.5 defines critical habitat in subsection b thereof, which states:
b. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the
following criteria:
The documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal
government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive,
monitor, or priority; and/or
ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; and/or
iii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection B7b(i) of this Section for classification
criteria); and/or
iv. Portions of streams and their shorelines designated in the Renton Shoreline
Master Program, RMC 4-3-090, as Conservancy or Natural (refer to the Renton
Shoreline Master Program).
(Emphasis added.)
As part of the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat application materials, the applicant submitted to the
City a January 9, 2004 Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Report prepared by the natural
resources department of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (A copy of that report is
included as part of the Exhibit 1 yellow file.) That report makes clear that (a) the only critical
habitat area contained within the site as those areas are defined in RMC 4-3-050B.5 is the
Category 1 wetland that straddles a part of the eastern portion of the site's south boundary and (b)
that wetland, its 100-foot buffer and an additional, extensive portion of the site to the north and
east of the wetland within proposed Tract C are proposed to be set aside in a Native Growth
Protection Easement and will not be altered by the Sunset Bluff project.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - I 1
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3. Native Growth Protection Areas: Based on the required habitat
assessment, the Reviewing Official may require critical habitat areas and
their associated buffers be placed in a native growth protection. area
subject to the requirements of subsection G of this Section, or dedicated to
a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a
permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City.
4. Alterations Require Mitigation: L( alterations to critical
habitat/wildlife habitat or buffers are proposed, mitigation shall be
required by the City. The applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of
developing the property using the following criteria in this order:
a. Avoid any disturbances to the habitat.
b. Minimize any impacts to the habitat.
c. Compensate for any habitat impacts.
5. Mitigation Options: In addition to any performance standards or
mitigation required by wetland regulations, additional mitigation may be
determined by the Reviewing Official based upon the consultant report
submitted by the applicant, and/or peer review of the applicant's consultant
report by a qualified professional selected by the City at the applicant's
expense, and/or by information from State or Federal agencies.
a. On -Site Mitigation: Mitigation shall be provided on -site,
unless on -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to
physical features of the property. The burden of proof shall be on
the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on -
site.
b. Off -Site Mitigation: When mitigation cannot be provided
on -site, mitigation shall be provided in the immediate vicinity of
the permitted activity on property owned or controlled by the
applicant, and identified as such through a recorded document such
as an easement or covenant, provided such mitigation is beneficial
to the habitat area and associated resources.
C. In -Kind Mitigation: In -kind mitigation shall be provided
except when the applicant demonstrates and the City concurs that
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 12
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18'i
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
greater functional and habitat value can be achieved through out -
of -kind mitigation.
(Emphasis added.) Thus, in view of RMC 4-3-050K.1 (above) and RMC 4-3-050B.5.ii (see
footnote 4, above), when the City Council adopted its Critical Areas Regulations in 2000, it
made a policy choice of having the habitat conservation performance standards apply to heron
rookeries with respect to proposed projects (including the Sunset Bluff project) only when the
rookeries are contained within the project site in question. (It is undisputed that no heron
rookeries are contained within the Sunset Bluff site.) Because the City Council established
habitat conservation performance standards relating to all heron rookeries throughout the City
(including the heron rookery within the City park), under RCW 43.21 C.240(4) those standards
are, as a matter of law, to be considered adequate to address Sunset Bluff impacts to the heron
rookery within the City park.
In sum, in view of (a) the City Council's recent Comprehensive Plan amendment and
downzone of the site as a partial means of mitigating impacts to the heron colony, (b) the City
Council's approval of a companion Development Agreement with site -specific restrictions to
further mitigate heron colony impacts from single-family residential development on the Sunset
Bluff site, and (c) the City Council's recent adoption of habitat conservation performance
standards relating to heron rookeries —all of which actions relate to the identified potential for
specific impacts to the heron rookery (colony) within the City park —under RCW 43.21C.240(4)
those actions are, as a matter of law, adequate to address Sunset Bluff impacts to the heron
rookery within the City park. Further SEPA-based mitigation or analysis cannot therefore be
required and the subject appeal must be denied.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 13
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1 B.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In View of the Underlying Nature of the Appellant's Allegations, (1) Appellant Has
Failed to Bring Its Appeal to the Proper Forum at the Proper Time, (2) the Hearing
Examiner Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over the Appeal and, Accordingly, (3) the
Appeal Must Be Dismissed.
A number of recent Washington appellate court decisions make clear that land use
challenges must be brought at the right time and the right place. Snohomish County v. Somers,
105 Wn. App. 937,21 P.3d 1145 (2001); Moore v. Whitman County, 143 Wn.2d 96,18 P.3d 566
(2001); Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 4 P.3d 123 (2000);
Caswell v. Pierce County, 99 Wn. App. 194, 992 P.2d 534 (2000), review denied, 142 Wn:2d
1010, 16 P.3d 1265 (2000). As demonstrated below, Herons Forever failed to bring an appeal of
the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment and corresponding Zoning amendment and
Development Agreement that were expressly determined to adequately protect the heron
rookery; and, as a result, Herons Forever may not now, in effect, challenge those previous City
actions in the current appeal..
Somers, supra, is especially instructive. In Somers, Snohomish County had adopted in
1993 an interim urban growth area ("IUGA") ordinance. When the IUGA was adopted, the
existing zoning applicable to certain land outside of the IUGA provided for a minimum lot size
of 20,000 square feet. Several years later, the owner of that land applied for a subdivision
approval. The proposed lots were in compliance with the requirements of the site's zoning
regulations, which remained in effect. The Somers and other neighbors of the site in question
brought a Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA") action challenging the County's approval of the
proposed plat on the ground that it allowed urban density outside of the IUGA in violation of the
Growth Management Act ("GMA"). The County argued that (a) the Somers, in reality, were not
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 14
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
challenging the plat approval but the underlying zoning with which the plat complied and (b)
legal challenges that the zoning violates the GMA may only be brought to the Growth
Management Hearings Board ("GMHB"). The Washington Court of Appeals agreed with the
County, holding that the Somers should have petitioned the GMHB rather than bringing their
claim to Superior Court. Because a petition to the GMHB was by then untimely, the County's
approval of the plat (which the trial court had overturned) was reinstated. Note the following
analysis of the Court of Appeals in Somers, 105 Wn. App. at 944-45:
This Court's decision in Caswell v. Pierce County, 99 Wn. App. 194, 992 P.2d
534 (2000), review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1010, 16 P.3d 1265 (2000), provides a
useful analytical framework to address the issue now before us. A petitioner
cannot use the LUPA process to raise issues that should have been brought
before the GMHB. In evaluating the scope of review permitted under LUPA,
Casivell recognized the need to examine the underlying nature of the
plaintiffs' allegations to determine "the extent to which [the] County's
actions could have been reviewed by the ...Growth Management Hearings
Board." In Caswell, a developer applied for a conditional use permit to expand
its existing mobile home park. A county ordinance designating an IUGA was in
effect at the time of the application, as was a local zoning ordinance that allowed
the type of development proposed. The IUGA ordinance specifically
incorporated and further implemented the local zoning ordinance. The hearing
examiner approved the permit on the grounds that the county's local zoning
ordinance authorized the development and took precedence over the County's
"Interim Growth Management Policies and Comprehensive Plan." Adjacent
property owners appealed under LUPA, and the trial court reversed. It
determined that the hearing examiner erred by failing to consider the fact that the
proposed development was contrary to the County's IUGA ordinance and the
GMA. This Court held that the plaintiffs should have brought the issue of
whether the County's IUGA ordinance complied with the GMA before the
GMHB, and concluded that they could not challenge the IUGA by way of a
LUPA petition.
Here, as in Caswell, the Somers raise an issue that is beyond the proper scope
of a LUPA appeal. Although the Somers do not challenge the Monroe IUGA,
they do in fact challenge the underlying R-20,000 zoning ordinance on the ground
that its application to the proposed plat allegedly violates the GMA. That zoning
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 15
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ordinance allowed Aronson's development to proceed at a density that the Somers
argue constitutes impermissible "urban growth" outside of the IUGA. Although
the Somers' LUPA petition does not expressly challenge the underlying
zoning as contrary to the GMA, it does so implicitly.
During questioning at oral argument, counsel for the Somers had to concede
that the substance of their position is that, to the extent the County's R-20,000
zoning permits urban growth outside the IUGA, Cromwell Plateau (or any other
development) is not permitted under the GMA. No matter how they attempt to
otherwise characterize their challenge, the Somers' real argument is that the
County failed to comply with the GMA when it applied a pre-existing
ordinance that permitted urban densities outside of the IUGA. The question
of whether a county is in compliance with the GMA is an issue over which
the GMHB has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction.
(Citations omitted; emphasis added.)
The Caswell framework used by the Somers court is applicable here. Appellant Herons
Forever's real "beef' is not with the Sunset Bluff project proposal but with the City Council's
2003 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment of the site, 2003 rezone of the site, 2003
approval of the companion development agreement and 2000 adoption of the City's Habitat
Conservation regulations. Collectively, those Council decisions authorize the land use that the
Applicant now seeks to make of the Sunset Bluff site9, a land use that Herons Forever stridently
opposes. Those four City Council decisions —all of which were done following public
hearings —paved the way for the proposed Sunset Bluff development and Herons Forever failed
to appeal any of them. Only the Growth Management Hearings Board or the courts had
jurisdiction to hear timely appeals of those City Council decisions.
9 Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and development
regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. RCW 36.70B.030 (emphasis added).
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 16
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Like the implicit attacks against the underlying zoning in the context of opposition to plat
applications that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals rejected in Wenatchee Sportsmen and
Somers, Herons Forever's SEPA threshold determination appeal does not expressly challenge the
underlying Council decisions but it does so by absolutely clear implication. By (1) questioning
"whether gny development can be built on [the Sunset Bluff] hillside without causing profound
and irreparable harm to the colony" (see the transcript of Suzanne Krom's statement in footnote
1 on pages 2 and 3, above; emphasis added), (2) arguing that the site should be left undeveloped
for expansion of the heron colony, (3) suggesting an alternative, impossible to build "clustered"
development encompassing only about 3 acres of the 26-acre Sunset Bluff site10, and (4)
recommending draconian "mitigation measuresi11 (measures that, on their face, are obviously
designed to make development of the Sunset Bluff site economically unviable), Herons Forever
has made abundantly clear that the "underlying nature of its appeal" is stopping the type of
development that the four above -noted Council decisions collectively authorize with respect to
the Sunset Bluff site. Clearly, those Council decisions are in reality what Herons Forever is
10 Suzanne Krom testified during the April 27, 2004 segment of the Sunset Bluff hearing as to where she
thinks the project should go, submitting Exhibit 46, which depicts an approximately 3-acre area in the
northwestern portion of the Sunset Bluff site:
Ideally, the development is clustered up in the northwestern quarter of the site and so I, I
put a line around that.
(Emphasis added.) In addition to being impossible for the reasons explained on page 3, above, Herons
Forever's "clustered" development concept is inconsistent with the site's zoning and the 2003
Development Agreement that the City Council authorized following a November 17, 2003 public hearing
on the agreement.
t t They are contained in the April 27, 2004 letter to the Hearing Examiner from Herons Forever (part of
Exhibit 47), a letter that Suzanne Krom read into the hearing record on April 27th.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 17
HALMN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Semite Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
challenging. It could have challenged those Council decisions on GMA, SEPA, or other grounds
in timely appeals to the GMHB or court, depending on the appropriate forum for the respective
Council actions. See, e.g., Wenatcheeortsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d at 178-80.
Regardless of what the appropriate forum would have been, challenges of the Council's
decisions regarding appropriate residential use and density and adequate protections for the
heron rookery could only be made in timely appeals of those decisions.Somers, Moore,
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n and Caswell, supra, prohibit Herons Forever from acquiescing in
those previous Council decisions by failing to file timely GMHB and/or judicial appeals and later
challenging a plat that is consistent with those Council decisions. Under these very recent cases,
all elements of Herons Forever's appeal that collaterally attack and, in effect, ask the Examiner
to revisit the Council's unchallenged policy decisions, expressly allowing the proposed
development and determining that it would adequately protect the Heron Rookery, must be
disregarded and dismissed.
In Wenatchee Sportsmen, the Supreme Court stressed that an appeal of a plat could not
resurrect issues regarding the wisdom or validity of previous zoning decisions that were not
directly challenged in timely fashion. Relying on the principle it had established in Wenatchee
Sportsmen, the Court similarly has barred challengers from resurrecting claims that could have
been asserted in earlier appeals in Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 52 P.3d 1 (2002)
and Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002).
In rejecting such collateral attacks on previously unchallenged decisions, the Court stressed "a
strong public policy supporting administrative finality in land use decisions." Id.; see also,
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 18
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge Commission, 144 Wn.2d 30, 49, 26 P.3d 241 (2001).
Under the Supreme Court's "strong public policy supporting administrative finality in land use
decisions," Herons Forever must not be allowed to use this appeal to collaterally attack the
Council's several decisions explicitly allowing such residential development on the property and
determining that such use and development of the site would be compatible with the heron
colony in the adjacent park.
C. Because (1) the ERC Considered the Sunset Bluff Proposal's Specific Probable
Adverse Environmental Impacts and Determined That Those Specific Impacts Are
Adequately Addressed By the City's Development Regulations With the Addition of
the 26 SEPA Mitigation Measures Set Forth in the MDNS and (2) the Project
Approval Will Be Based Upon Compliance With Those Regulations and Mitigation
Measures, the ERC Complied With RCW 43.21C.240(1)'s Mandate That the City
"Determine That the Requirements for Environmental Analysis, Protection, and
Mitigation Measures in the City's Development Regulations and Comprehensive
Plans Adopted Under Chapter 36.70A RCW, and In Other Applicable Local, State,
or Federal Laws and Rules Provide Adequate Analysis of and Mitilzation for the
Specific Adverse Environmental Impacts of the Project Action to Which the
Requirements Apply".
The May 10, 2004 hearing testimony of Renton Senior Planner Jason Jordan makes clear
that Renton's ERC considered not only the extensive Sunset Bluff application materials
(including the roughly two-inch thick expanded SEPA Checklist, which included copies of a
Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report, a Preliminary Drainage Study report, a
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study report, and a Traffic Impact Analysis report) but
also the public comment letters and government agency comment letters 12 that were submitted
during an extended 21-day comment period. Among the numerous public comment letters was
12 No government agency comment letters were submitted commenting on any of the issues that Herons
Forever has raised in its appeal.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 19
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the February 8, 2004 letter from Herons Forever setting forth the "official comments for Herons
Forever" (Exhibit 79) and the February 7, 2004 letter from Quailcroft Environmental Services
"in support of Herons Forever's comments ... and to provide the City of Renton with further
technical information with which to make informed decisions". (Exhibit 80.) In doing so, the
ERC considered the Sunset Bluff proposal's specific probable adverse environmental impacts (as
well as all of the remote and speculative impacts alleged in Exhibits 79 and 80).
Having considered the Sunset Bluff Proposal's specific probable adverse environmental
impacts in view of the City's Development Regulations (including, among others, the City's
Habitat Conservation regulations, which were set forth and discussed in the Habitat/Wildlife
Assessment and Stream Study Report), the ERC's issuance of the MDNS with its 26 mitigation
measures constitutes compliance with RCW 43.21C.240(1)'s mandate that the City "determine
that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the
City's development regulations and comprehensive plans adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW,
and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws and rules provide adequate analysis of and
mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action to which the
requirements apply." That being the case, RCW 43.21 C.240(3) prohibits the City from imposing
additional SEPA-based mitigation during project review.
D. Contrary to the Hearing Examiner's Statement During the May 10, 2004 Session of
the Subiect Hearing to the Effect That the Examiner Is Entitled to Substitute His
Judgment for That of the ERC, the Renton Municipal Code Specifically Limits the
Examiner's Decision Options and Mandates That the Examiner Give the ERC's
SEPA Threshold Determination Substantial Weight.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 20
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
61
71
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On the final day of the hearing (May 101h) (near the end of the testimony of Jason Jordan)
the Hearing Examiner stated that "I have to either substitute my judgment which I'm entitled to
do, or send it back to [the ERC]": That was a misstatement of the law. First, the Examiner's
decision options are spelled out in RMC 4-8-110E7.b13 and "substitution of judgment" is not one
of them. That section allows the Examiner to only (a) affirm the decision, (b) remand the case
for further proceedings, or (c) reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant have
been prejudiced in at least one of the six ways listed therein.
Second, pursuant to the mandate of RCW 4321C.075(3)(d) and WAC 197-11-
680(3)(a)(7), RMC 4-8-110E7.a states that "[t]he procedural determination by the Environmental
Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding."
13 RMC 4-8-110E7.b states in its entirety:
b. Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Examiner may affirm the
decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision:: ifthe9
,7�;
substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is:
i. In violation of constitutional provisions; or
ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or
iv. Affected by other error of law; or
v. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or
vi. Arbitrary or capricious.
(Emphasis added.)
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 21
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1.
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In view of (a) RMC 4-8-110E7.b's limitation on the Examiner's decision -making choices
and (b) RMC 4-8-110E7.a's mandate that the ERC's MDNS be given substantial weight, in
responding to Herons Forever's appeal the Examiner obviously cannot substitute his judgment
for that of the ERC. Because, as explained on pages 8 through 13, above, the City Council's
recent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and downzone of the site, approval of a
companion Development Agreement with site -specific restrictions to further mitigate heron
colony impacts and recent adoption of habitat conservation performance standards relating to
heron rookeries are, as a matter of law under RCW 43.21 C.240(4), adequate to address Sunset
Bluff impacts to the heron rookery within the City park. Further, as explained on pages 14
through 19, above, because the nature of Herons Forever's appeal is actually a collateral attack
of those four Council decisions —decisions that may be challenged only by timely appeals to the
Growth Management Hearings Board or court14—the Hearing Examiner has no jurisdiction over
such collateral attacks, and they must be disregarded or dismissed. Thus, in sum, RCW
43.21 C.240(4) and the Snohomish County v. Somers line of cases cited above dictate, as a matter
of law, that the ERC's MDNS be affirmed and that Herons Forever's appeal be dismissed.
E. Assuming, Areuendo, That RCW 43.21C.240(4) and the Snohomish County v.
Somers Line of Cases Did Not Dictate Affirmation of the ERC's MDNS and
Dismissal of Herons Forever's Appeal, Herons Forever Fell Short of
Demonstrating in View of the Entire Record and in Giving Substantial Weight to
the ERC's MDNS, as Required by RCW 43.21C.075 and .090—That the ERC's
Decision Was Clearly Erroneous.
" Wenatchee Sportsmen Assn v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d at 178.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 22
fiALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4'
51'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Even if Herons Forever's SEPA threshold determination appeal here was not barred by
RCW 43.21 C.240(4) and the Snohomish County v. Somers line of cases, Herons Forever
nevertheless failed to meet its burden of proving that, in view of the whole record during the
subject open record appeal hearing and according the ERC's decision substantial weight, ERC's
MDNS for the Sunset Bluff proposal was clearly erroneous. 15
In the April 8, 2004 letter to the Examiner from Appellant's attorney David Mann, the
Appellant set forth its description of six issues on pages 4 through 6. All six of these issues are
addressed below.
1. Downstream Drainage Issue
Appellant's letter asserted:
Herons Forever will present testimony and evidence that the Drainage Study
prepared by the applicant, and approved by the ERC, failed to perform an
adequate downstream analysis and the project is likely to cause significant
downstream impacts which have not been disclosed and will not be mitigated by
15 As stated by the Washington Court of Appeals in Moss v. City ofBelllingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 at
13-14; 31 P.3d 703 at _:
A governmental agency's SEPA threshold determination is reviewed under the
"clearly erroneous" standard. n3 "A decision is clearly erroneous when the court is 'left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."' n4 We do not
substitute our judgment for that of the decision -making body, but we examine the record
in light of public policy contained in the legislation authorizing the decision. n5 An
agency's decision to issue a mitigated DNS and not to require an EIS is accorded
substantial weight. n6
n3 RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d); Assoc. of Rural Residents v. Kitsap Co., 141 Wn.2d 185,
195-96, 4 P.3d 115 (2000).
n4 Rural Residents, 141 Wn.2d at 196.
n5 Rural Residents, 141 Wn.2d at 196.
n6 RCW 43.21C090; Indian Trail Property Owner's Assn. v. City of Spokane, 76
Wn. App. 430, 442, 886 P.2d 209 (1994).
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 23
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the measures proposed. The primary issue of concern — the development's
impacts to discharges to a large closed depression wetland in the Black River
Riparian Forest — was not addressed in the development application materials or
the City of Renton's ERC report. The impacts to the hydrology of the Black River
Riparian Forest will be significant for a combination of reasons including: (1) the
depressional nature of the wetland; (2) sensitivity of the hydroperiod of
depressional wetlands to increased flow volumes; (3) the substantial increase in
flow volumes which will result from the development proposal to convert 9 acres
of existing forest (on highly pervious soils) to impervious surfaces; (4) the
interception of runoff from SR 900 and (5) that the development makes up a very
large portion of the wetland's total tributary basin.
(Emphasis added.)
On the first day of the hearing (April 20, 2004), Appellant's drainage engineer, W.A.
Rozeboom, submitted a letter (Exhibit 9) asserting, among other things, a failure "to perform an
adequate downstream analysis", "maximum depth of [downstream] ponding ... likely in the
range of 5 to 10 feet", "[t]he Sunset Bluff site occupies one ha l of the upland basin area
which is tributary to the depressional wetland in the Black River Riparian Forest", "[b]ecause
the development are comprises a very significant portion of the wetland's tributary area, any
development -caused changes to site runoff will potentially have a significant impact on the
wetland hydrology." Mr. Rozeboom made these general assertions although he did not do a
drainage analysis of the basin area himself.
In response to Mr. Mann's letter's statements concerning downstream wetland hydrology
concerns, the Applicant hired hydrologist and civil engineer Ed McCarthy, P.E., PhD (to perform
a hydrologic characterization and assessment of the downstream depressional wetland. Dr.
McCarthy's April 19, 2004 report (Exhibit 33) (supported by his hearing testimony) indicate that
he "developed hydrologic models of the system under existing and proposed developed
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 24
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conditions", "delineated boundaries of subbasins contributing to the wetland based on aerial
topography (City of Renton, 1996 photography), available as -built drawings of upstream
developments, and field verification of cross culverts and other drainage features", divided the
drainage area contributing to the wetland into subbasins, and used a hydrologic computer model
that "allowed a detailed assessment of the [downstream] wetland's hydrology and potential
impacts to the wetland caused by changes in the watershed resulting from the Sunset Bluff
development."
Contrary to Mr. Rozeboom's assertions, Dr. McCarthy found that "[t]he 21.4-acre portion
of the Sunset Bluff site that contributes to the depressional wetland represents about 20 percent
of the depression's watershed" and that the fluctuations in the depression (with or without the
Sunset Bluff) could not exceed approximately 3.2 feet due to the depression's wide overflow to
the Black River pump station forebay. (Exhibit 33 at p. 4; emphasis added.) Based on his
computer simulations and field observations, he found that "the depressional wetland has
relatively large fluctuations in stage on both a monthly and annual basis under existing
conditions". (Exhibit 33, page 12; emphasis added.) Page 12 of his report explains that "onsite
stormwater controls would attenuate developed peak flow rates and match forested flow rates
from the site for up to the 10-year storm", that "the increased runoff volumes from the site will
likely increase average monthly stage in the wetland by [only] about 1 to 2 inches in the winter
months and by less than 1 inch in the summer months", that "[w]etland stages at existing flow
duration levels will likely be increased by [only] 1 to 2 inches as will be the peak stages for
return periods between the annual and 5-year return periods" and that "[r]elative to existing
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 25
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
average monthly fluctuations in the wetland, which are on the order of 24 inches, these predicted
increases in stage resulting from the proposed development are small." His report concludes that
"[p]redicted changes in fluctuations, average stage, and stage duration curves caused by the
proposed development would have only a negligible impact" on [the downstream wetland]
system." (Emphasis added.)
Herons Forever provided no studies of its own to rebut Dr. McCarthy's findings and
conclusion. Mr. Rozeboom provided no rebuttal letter or oral hearing testimony in response to
Dr. McCarthy's report or hearing testimony.
In addition to Dr. McCarthy's study of downstream wetland hydrologic impacts, to
further respond to Mr. Mann's letter's statements concerning downstream wetland hydrology
concerns, the Applicant had natural resource ecologist Theresa Dusek (the author of the
Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report for the Sunset Bluff proposal) visit the
downstream wetland with Dr. McCarthy and prepare a letter report to summarize her findings
concerning the existing hydrological, soils and vegetation conditions in that wetland. That letter
was submitted into the record as Exhibit 42. Based upon Dr. McCarthy's study of existing and
post -Sunset Bluff development hydrological conditions in the wetland depression, Mrs. Dusek
concludes in her letter (at page 3) that "[v]egetation in the wetland depression ... will not be
significantly effected by the addition of water from the project site" and that "[b]ecause the
hydroperiod of the wetland depression will not significantly alter the vegetation structure and
plant species richness in the depression and surrounding wetland system, the wildlife that uses
the wetland depression and surrounding areas will not be significantly impacted either."
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 26
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The applicant went an even further step in responding to Mr. Mann's letter's statements
concerning downstream wetland hydrology concerns. The applicant hired wetland ecologist
Raedeke Associates' Emmett Pritchard, who has a background in wetland forests, to specifically
evaluate the Sunset Bluff project's potential for impacting the existing trees in the downstream
wetland. His April 26, 2004 letter report (Exhibit 69) explains that he "observed three distinct
forested vegetation communities within the off -site wetland area" (Exhibit 69, page 2), his
"observations of site hydrology appears (sic) to support [Dr. McCarthy's] predicted
fluctuations in depth of [existing] inundation" (Exhibit 69, page 2). With respect to the trees in
what he called Forest Communities 1 and 2, Mr. Pritchard concluded:
Black cottonwood, Pacific willow, Oregon ash, and to a lesser extent red alder
are well adapted to riparian areas with fluctuating winter -time water levels
similar to those observed within the off -site wetland (Burns et al. 1990). Field
evidence indicates that trees that are currently growing within Forest
Community 1 and Forest Community 2 are adapted to periodic inundation
ranging from 12 to 36 inches in depth. Therefore, due to the apparent ability of
the trees growing in these, areas to tolerate periods winter flooding, it is not
likely that Dr. McCarthy's predicted small increases in winter water levels
or alterations to the hydroperiod would affect trees within these two
vegetation communities.
(Exhibit 69 at p. 4; emphasis added.) Similarly, with respect to the trees in what he called
Forest Community 3, he concluded:
Trees growing within Forest Community 3 do not appear to experience periods
of inundation under current conditions. Water marks observed on the slopes of
the hummocks indicate that inundation levels are more than two to three feet
below the majority of the hummocks. Topographic maps used for the
hydrologic analysis (McCarthy 2004) indicate that this is likely due to the
greater elevation of the hummocks than the elevation of the outlet of the wetland
basin to the P-1 Detention Basin. Therefore, predicted changes in the wetland
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 27
I j UMN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7''
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hydroperiod are not likely to have an impact on existing trees currently
growing on the hummocks.
(Exhibit 69 at p. 4; emphasis added.)
Herons Forever submitted no studies of its own to controvert the findings and
conclusions of Dr. McCarthy, Mrs. Dusek or Mr. Pritchard concerning the alleged impacts to the
downstream wetland. Accordingly, those findings and conclusions ought to be considered
verities for purposes of this appeal.
2. Site Clearing and Grading Impacts Issue
Appellant's letter asserted:
Herons Forever will present testimony and evidence demonstrating that the
expected construction activities necessary to clear and substantially regrade the
proposed preliminary plat will cause significant adverse environmental impacts to
the existing heronry. The wildlife report submitted by the applicant and approved
by the ERC provides only a cursory statement of these impacts and fails to
provide any supporting documentation to support its blanket conclusion that no
impacts will occur. The documentation does not provide any analysis of noise,
nor timing of construction relating to nesting or breeding times. The DNS also
fails to condition development so that it does not interfere with nesting and
breeding.
Herons Forever set forth a purported "demonstration" concerning this issue in Dr. Kate
Stenberg's April 18, 2004 letter to attorney David Mann (part of Exhibit 12). In the letter's
subsection entitled "Construction Activity Impacts" (which begins on page 4 of the letter), Dr.
Stenberg starts out with the following statement:
The City apparently did not consider impacts to the Great blue herons from
construction noise and activity. The potential for such impacts was dismissed
based solely on a distance to the colony. However, the information relied upon by
the City in reaching this conclusion was erroneous. The distance of the proposed
development to the colony is listed as 1100 feet throughout the application
materials. However, this distance is measured from a point at the center of the
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 28
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10i
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Main Colony and is overlain on an aerial photograph which does not appear to
maintain an accurate scale across all portions of the photograph. Heron colonies
are best described as polygons, rather than as points. The distance from a
proposed activity to a heron colony is properly measured to the nearest nest of
that colony. The majority of the nests of the Black River Colony are now found to
the west of the "Main Colony" in an area called the "Protected Forest." The
distance from the development to the nearest nest in the Protected Forest is about
950 feet (see Figure 1 and Figure 2.)
(Emphasis added.) In response, first note that, contrary to Dr. Stenberg's assertion that "[t]he
City apparently did not consider impacts to the Great blue herons from construction noise and
activity", the testimony of Jason Jordan (summarized on pages 19 through 20, above) makes
clear that the ERC did consider those issues. Those alleged impacts were addressed in the
Herons Forever project comments letter (Exhibit 79) and the February 7, 2004 letter from Dr.
Stenberg. Mr. Jordan's unrebutted testimony was that the ERC considered not only the
extensive Sunset Bluff application materials but also the public comment letters, including the
letters that became Exhibits 79 and 80. Further, there is no showing in the record that the
potential for such impacts was dismissed "based solely on a distance to the colony". While
distance was obviously a factor (as well as it should be), proximity to the adjacent Black River
Quarry and its historic extensive site mining activities likely provided a basis for comparison
(with the Sunset Bluff project site construction to last a far shorter time (and thus have less
potential for impacts than does the Quarry) than did the quarrying operations and the current,
intensive construction materials recycling business that continues to operate on that site.
As to Dr. Stenberg's comments concerning the location between the heron colony and
the site, during the applicant's hearing presentation the applicant submitted revised aerial photo
exhibits (Exhibits 60 and 77) which make clear that the distance between the nearest portion of
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 29
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the more properly drawn edge of the heron colony and the site was about 980 feet (300
meters). The roughly ten percent difference between that figure and the 1,100 foot figure
mentioned in the application materials appears to be relatively inconsequential.
Page 4 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues with the following assertions:
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) conducted an
extensive literature review in developing their management recommendations for
Great blue herons (Quinn and Milner 1999.) WDFW notes that disturbances of
heron colonies have been reported at distances of over 2600 feet. Even in more
urban areas such as King County, studies have shown that colony size
decreases when construction activities take place within 1000 feet of heron
colonies. WDFW recommends that activities such as logging or construction
should not occur within 3281 feet of a colony. Clearly the Black River colony is
well within these parameters for a probable adverse impact from the clearing and
construction activities proposed on the hillside. The proposed development would
also involve substantial re -grading of the hillside, a much more significant change
than simple logging.
(Emphasis added.) The extensive April 19, 2004 Great Blue Heron Assessment report for the
Sunset Bluff project prepared by Dr. Ken Raedeke (Exhibit 39) and the 2001 masters thesis
entitled "Great Blue Herons in King County, Washington" prepared by University of
Washington student Amy Stabins (under the supervision of Dr. Raedeke, who was the
Chairperson of the University of Washington Supervisory Committee involved with Ms. Stabins
master's thesis) (Exhibit 40) along with Dr. Raedeke's testimony totally refuted Dr. Stenberg's
claim that large buffers are even a factor in heron colony success. The research data -based
approach that Dr. Raedeke used (focusing to a significant extent upon Ms. Stabins' recent King
County data collection and analysis) was in stark contrast to the anecdotal comments approach
that Dr. Stenberg relied upon in her assertions at the hearings and in her letters relating to alleged
Sunset Bluff project impacts.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 30
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dr. Raedeke's written report (Exhibit 39 at page 5) addressed the fact that one of the
studies that is cited as a purported basis for large buffers from logging (a study short on data that
dealt with timber harvesting in a remote portion of Oregon) is so statistically deficient as to be
without any statistical merit.
However, the most telling thing concerning logging with respect to the Black River
Heron Colony, however, is that extensive logging occurred within the property that is now the
City park during mid -February of 1987 (the early part of the heron nesting season) up to a point
that was only about 320 feet away from the nesting trees and yet the number of active nests in
the colony actually increased consistently each year from 1986 through 1990. No drop in active
nests occurred as a result of that logging. 16 Because the Sunset Bluff site is three times as far
16 Note applicant's attorney's examination of Dr. Raedeke concerning the logging:
DAVID HALINEN: You were here, were you not, today during the testimony of Mrs. Dusek
when she was discussing the area that'd been logged within the wetland depression that
lies to the south of the site?
KEN RAEDEKE: Was I here? Yes, I was.
DAVID HALINEN: And, did you, did you hear her testimony concerning that logging
that had occurred down there?
KEN RAEDEKE: Yes, I did.
DAVID HALINEN: And, I take it, then, you heard her testimony regarding the fact that
the number of, of, that there's an increase in heron activity the following, the year
following that logging? Could you comment on that as it relates to the idea that we
should have to have some type of monitoring?
KEN RAEDEKE: The only data we have is, that would answers, that would be this one here.
We had '86, '87,'88 . You see that heron numbers increased, and it's almost a linear
increase from here to there. There is no, there is no big drop in '87, '88, so my conclusion
would be that that logging....
HEARING EXAMINER: We don't know when that logging occurred.
KEN RAEDEKE: Well....
HEARING EXAMINER: It's clear from the testimony, it's sort of a vague period from
maybe March through the summer. It could have been at the end of the summer, could have
been at the beginning of the nesting season. So we really don't know when the disturbance
CLOSING BRIEF OF HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 31 AProfessional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
away from the colony as was the logging and grading that occurred on the north side of the
colony during the start of the 1987 nesting season, one can only reasonably conclude that logging
and grading of the Sunset Bluff site will not impact the heron colony either. No rational basis
exists here for the imposition of construction season limits.
As to Dr. Stenberg's assertion that "WDFW recommends that activities such as logging
or construction should not occur within 3281 feet of a colony", that assertion is false. WDFW
wildlife biologist Patricia Thompson, who testified during the hearing on April 29, 2004, made
that clear in the following examination by:
HEARING EXAMINER: Ok, but by testimony we've heard and I, you know,
that's testimony we've heard, your agency has come up with protection strategies
and this development is outside the radii of those buffers.
PATRICIA THOMPSON: Yeah, that's, that's confusing. And even, you know,
everybody gets confused with this. We have what's called a permanent
protection buffer, into which, basically, no intrusion should occur. However,
people do walk in there, you know, there are trails in there. And then we have
a construction buffer. The protection buffer, where, where no activity is
supposed to take place is the 300 meters, the 928 feet. The construction
buffer, where timinz restrictions are imposed on logaina and construction is
activity besides that fact that the property was cleared and remained cleared until it started re-
growing, right?
KEN RAEDEKE: That's true. I don't, I don't know when it is either.
HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
KEN RAEDEKE: If, the only information we have that that logging, regardless of when
it occurred, did not affect population growth in that colony.
(Emphasis added.) While, at the time of this April 29, 2004 examination of Dr. Raedeke, he did
not know when during 1987 the logging had taken place, that question was definitively answered
during the May 10, 2004 when Herons Forever submitted into the record Exhibit 100, which is a
copy of a February 19, 1987 letter to the then owner of the property that was being logged (First
City Development) advising that the City's Building and Zoning Department had posted a Stop
Work Order on the property because "[i]nformation has been obtained that the Blue Heron
population on this site is being jeopardized by the work being performed: tree cutting, grading,
etc." (Emphasis added.)
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 32
HA.LINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1,000 meters, which is three thousand, two hundred odd some feet. So
people, a lot of times, forget and confuse, a lot of times forget the construction
buffer is different from the permanent buffer and, and, you know, it does get
confusing. I mean, even I look at it and get confused. So there are actually two
different things.
DAVID MANN: May I interject. Are those minimum numbers?
PATRICIA THOMPSON: Those are — yes -- those are minimum buffers.
HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, but, again, these are recommendations?
PATRICIA THOMPSON: Yes, absolutely. We do not regulate heron habitat.
These are recommendations.
(Emphasis added.)
Page 5 of Dr. Stenberg's letter asserts:
The topographical considerations are also important in evaluating the impact of
construction noises. Noises that are generated on the hillside above the colony are
likely to attenuate less rapidly than noises that are generated from a level ground.
Noise generated at ground level, rather than from a hillside face, may be absorbed
by intervening vegetation and ground level changes, barriers which the air does
not present. However, the City did not consider the impacts of noise
construction on the herons in its evaluation of the impacts.
(Emphasis added.) While topographical considerations do have a bearing on noise attenuation,
that bearing is not nearly as significant as the attenuation played by distance, which is something
that Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. (the engineer who is the Administrator of the Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works Department and who is the chairman of the Renton
Environmental Review Committee) undoubtedly knows. Jason Jordan's testimony to the effect
that the ERC reviewed Dr. Stenberg's and Ms. Krom's February 7, 2004 and February 8, 2004
letters make clear that Mr. Zimmerman and the ERC considered the construction noise impact
issue.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 33
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5 of Dr. Stenberg's letter asserts:
The materials submitted by the applicant also claim that the heron colony
did not experience a_Y impacts from the periodic blasting that used to occur
at the quarry to the west. This claim is unsubstantiated and not supported by the
heron monitoring results. The quarry is even further away from the heron colony
than the proposed development. Yet despite the increased distance, it was not
until after the blasting virtually stopped, that the number of nests in the Protected
Forest part of the colony more than doubled. The number of nests in the Protected
Forest increased from about 43 nests in 2001 to more than 95 in 2002 (see
Attachment 1).
(Emphasis added.) The Applicant has reviewed the SEPA checklist, the project narrative and the
Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Report that were submitted to the City as part of the
Sunset Bluff preliminary plat application and finds nothing that would support Dr. Stenberg's
assertion that "[t]he materials submitted by the applicant also claim that the heron colony did not
experience any impacts from the periodic blasting that used to occur at the quarry to the west."
(The Applicant is willing to stand corrected if the Appellant can find such a statement in any of
the application materials.) Regardless, Dr. Ken Raedeke's hearing testimony indicates that the
data is inadequate to substantiate a causal connection between the cessation of blasting at the
Black River Quarry and the growth in the number of active heron nests. Too many factors play
into the ups and downs of the number of active nests for Dr. Stenberg to be so dogmatic as to her
assertion of such a causal connection.
Page 5 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues with the following assertions:
The WDFW also recommends seasonal construction limits of February 15 to
July 31 and that site -specific management plans be developed for each great
blue heron colony. In the case of the Black River heron colony, monitoring data
document that the herons at Black River arrive earlier than most other
colonies in the Puget Sound region. At Black River, the herons are consistently
observed at the colony starting nesting activities of staging and courtship by mid -
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 34
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January. This early portion of the nesting season, during staging and initial nest
renovation and courtship has also been documented as one of the most sensitive
times of the life cycle. Therefore, construction windows at the Black River
heron colony should be from January 15 to July 31.
(Emphasis added.) The lack of justification for seasonal construction limits for the subject
project is discussed on pages 31 and 32, above. Not only is the need lacking, the burden of the
Appellant's proposed construction window (August I through January 14, 2004) would be so
great as to make project construction virtually impossible. Note the following examination of
Jason Jordan on the amount of time expected to do the site infrastructure work:
DAVID HALINEN: And, on a site like this, where there are steep slopes
involved, clearing and grading work to be done that's of the extent of the
proposal, do you have an opinion as to how much time that would reasonably
take out at the site to accomplish that?
JASON JORDAN: Well, like I said, for less -complicated sites, they could, you
know, do the amount of earthwork, grading, and things like that in two or
three months. With a site like this, I would expect this to take the entire
building season, with the amount of land -clearing that needs to happen and,
then, the amount of grading.
(Emphasis added.)
Note that a "site -specific management plan" for the Black River Heron Colony was
established in what was called the 1991 "Memorandum of Agreement" (or "MOA"). Dr.
Raedeke summarizes it on page 15 of his report (Exhibit 39) as follows:
4.0. HABITAT APPROACH TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION
The 1991 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the City of Renton, private
property owners to the south, and interested environmental groups concerning
the Black River heron colony was based on a habitat approach that provided
for consideration of the overall needs of the herons and other wildlife rather
than the application of rigid rules applied to a single group of heron nest trees.
Habitat approaches have been adopted by the WDFW and federal agencies as the
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 35
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Seruiee Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
BelleN'ue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8I
91
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
best way to protect wildlife of special public interest (e.g., bald eagle nest sites
and spotted owls).
The habitat approach previously adopted for Black River heronry protection
in the 1991 MOA included the following design elements:
• a 500-foot buffer from the most northerly of the -then -proposed office
buildings to the nearest of the nest trees on the island in the P-1 Detention
Basin
• retained vegetation within that buffer for screening of the office
development to the south
• a riparian forest separated from development by the P-1 Detention Basin
• elimination of development proposals for 62 acres of land around the
riparian forest sold by the property owner to the City of Renton as
permanent open space and wildlife habitat
• an expanded riparian forest providing alternative nest sites and an area
of younger trees for new nests that will continue to be available over
time as the trees on the island die or blow down
These elements of the MOA augmented the habitat by the City of Renton and
the other property owner surrounding the heron colony, including:
• dedication of 17.5 acres of land to the City of Renton for construction of
the P-1 Detention Basin
• planting of vegetative screening along the margins of the P-1 Channel and
Detention Basin
• dedication of 20.0 acres of land to the City of Renton for riparian forest
wildlife habitat
• sale of 62.2 acres of land to the City of Renton for permanent open space
and wildlife habitat
The habitat conditions within the entire City of Renton Black River open
space complex already greatly exceed the minimum habitat recommendations
for heron nest colonies by WDFW (1991). In WDFW's 1991 habitat
management guidelines, a minimum 10-acre stand of large trees buffered from
disturbance is recommended. The combined 100 acres of riparian forest and
retained forest stands, detention basin, open space, and existing buffers
greatly exceeds this habitat recommendation.
(Emphasis added.) Development of the Sunset Bluff site was not limited in the MOA.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 36
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
2
3
_.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues with the following assertions:
Any analysis of the potential construction activity impacts to the heron
colony and other wildlife must consider the timing of the impact in relation
-._.to._the__life..._c__y_cle_.of-_the_species._Many_.. wildlife species. such as the -herons -have
periods of the year, often related to breeding activities, during which they are
much more sensitive to disturbances. There are often site -specific differences in
sensitivity that make a simple "bulls -eye" around a colony less useful or
unnecessary. The WDFW recommends developing a site -specific management
plan that addresses these unique characteristics of a particular colony. The
evaluation of impacts conducted by the City did not consider the seasonal or site -
specific nature of sensitivity to disturbances.
(Emphasis added.) In view of the MOA and the subject heron colony's growth in the face of
much nearer logging and grading, no reason exists to consider the timing of development of the
Sunset Bluff site in relation to the heron life cycle.
On page 6 of the letter, Dr. Stenberg concludes this section of her letter with the
following statement:
Impacts to the Black River heron colony from the clearing, substantial re -grading
of the hillside, and construction activities proposed are likely for several reasons:
a) the colony is well within the distances reported in the literature and the WDFW
recommendations for limits on construction activities; b) the hillside
development is above the colony and is not screened from the colony by a_Y
si ni scant topography or vegetation; c) the development is proposed to the
north of the colony in an area that has traditionally been relatively free of
human activity or noise; and d) the herons have been observed to be more
sensitive to disturbances from this direction. The potential adverse impacts to
the herons from construction activities on the hillside have not been evaluated by
the City. At a minimum seasonal construction limits on outdoor construction and
land clearing or grading of January 15 to July 31 should be imposed on any
developments within the Black River heron colony area of sensitivity. Retention
of existing vegetation on the hillside could also help to mitigate this impact on the
heron colony. The proposal to remove all of the vegetation from the top of the
slope to the bottom only increases the impact of construction activity on the heron
colony.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 37
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Emphasis added.) Contrary to Dr. Stenberg's assertion that the proposed development is not
screened from the colony by "any significant vegetation", approximately a 320-foot deep stand
of site -block trees lies between the site and the colony. The trees are so extensive that only one
of the colony's nests can be seen from the site during the year (and vice -versa). (See pages 51
through 54 for an elaboration.)
Contrary to Dr. Stenberg's assertion that the development is proposed to the north of the
colony in an area that has traditionally been "relatively free of human activity or noise", (a) an
active freight rail line lies directly between the site and the colony, (b) the Black River Quarry
operations are conducted to the northwest, (c) the 240-unit Sunset View Apartment Homes
development lies to the north-northwest and (d) homeless persons camps have arisen on the
Sunset Bluff site itself.
As to Dr. Stenberg's assertion that "the herons have been observed to be more sensitive to
disturbances from this [north] direction", such an assertion is beyond proof. It is rank
speculation. Dr. Raedeke's testimony refuted it.
3. Removal of Existing Forest Cover Issue
Appellant's letter asserted:
Herons Forever will present testimony and evidence demonstrating the
importance of the existing forest cover on the subject property to the heron
population within the Black River Riparian Forest and that the planned removal of
the majority of this forest will result in significant environmental impacts. For
example, rather than focus on the amount of canopy removed, the wildlife report
submitted by the applicant and approved by the ERC describes only the relatively
minor portions of the site that will not be cleared.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 38
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
-4 -
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Herons Forever set forth a purported "demonstration" concerning this issue in Dr. Kate
Stenberg's April 18, 2004 letter to attorney David Mann (part of Exhibit 12). In the letter's
subsection entitled "Impacts from Clearing Hillside Vegetation" (which begins on page 6 of the
letter), Dr. Stenberg starts out with the statement that "[t]he City staff reports characterize the
vegetation as heavily wooded with trees ranging from 36 inches to 48 inches in diameter."
While that is in fact what the staff reports says (why it does so the Applicant does not know), as
Dr. Stenberg seemingly must know if she is as familiar with the Sunset Bluff site as she claims to
be, either none or virtually none of the trees on the site are anywhere close to that diameter
because the forest on the Sunset Bluff site is "less than 50 years old with most trees determined
to be 39 to 45 years old." 17 Trees that have diameters of 36 inches to 48 inches simply don't
grow that fast. A number of ground photos of the site taken by wildlife ecologist Theresa Dusek
(Exhibits 49 through 51) illustrate that the site's trees are far smaller than the "36 inches to 48
inches in diameter" statement made in the Staff Reports. Three pages of colored site photos
labeled "Figure 3" and attached to Dr. Sternberg's letter as part of Exhibit 12 show mostly very
17 As Theresa Dusek explains on page 13 of her Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report
(part of Exhibit 1):
During our field survey, we found that the upland deciduous forest located on the site and
the east 300 feet of the western road route is composed of a moderate canopy (with a
cover ranging from 40% to 60%) dominated by big leaf maple and red alder. Minor trees
scattered throughout the forest include Douglas fir and black cottonwood. The
understory is dominated by blackberry and other non-native species in the western
portion of the site and the east 300 feet of the western road route and by more native
sword fern, salal, Oregon grape and snowberry in the eastern portion of the site. Several
trees were cored to determine the age of the forest. The forest is less than 50 years old
with most trees determined to be 39 to 45 years old. Snags on the site were small (less
than 12 inches d.b.h.).
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 39
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
1
2
3
-4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
slender trees. In sum, the reference in Dr. Stenberg's letter to the obviously erroneous statement
in the Staff Reports (a) causes her letter to cast a false impression as to existing site conditions
and makes totally disingenuous her follow-up statements that "[f]or second growth forest patches
in the urban area, those are very significant tree sizes and represent trees with a tremendous
value for wildlife" and "[t]here was no tree survey included in the application materials and the
City did not evaluate the impacts of removing such significant trees". (Emphasis added.)
Page 6 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues with the following assertion:
The herons in the Black River colony also use the hillside area extensively for a
variety of activities that are critical to the sustainability of the colony. Adult and
juvenile herons loaf in the mature trees on the hillside (see Figure 3.) They are
frequently observed foraging in the large category I wetland that is located at
the eastern edge of the proposed development. This wetland area serves the same
critical function for breeding females and juveniles as the P-1 Pond. In addition,
the forest on the hillside provides critical nesting material for the 130 + nests of
the heron colony. Small branches and twigs are a commodity that is becoming
increasingly scarce in the urban environment. A number of years ago, a pair of
Osprey that were attempting to nest in Bellevue were observed stealing twigs
from occupied Great blue heron nests in Mercer Slough due to the lack of
suitable materials in the developed portions of that city.
(Emphasis added.) "Figure 3" to which this statement refers is a three -sheet set of colored
photos with typewritten comments on them. Only one of those three sheets (the first sheet, as to
the two photos on its right-hand side) show what may be herons perched on tree limbs. Neither
of those photos suggest that the trees involved are on the hillside —in fact, the lower right hand
photo makes clear that the trees are on flat ground very close to the railroad tracks and, thus,
(Emphasis added.)
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 40
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
likely to be within the 100-foot wide BNSF railroad right-of-way that lies between the Sunset
Bluff site and the City park.
The Stenberg letter's assertion that the "large category I wetland" "is located at the
eastern edge of the proposed development" is inaccurate and misleading in two ways. First,
nearly the entirety of that wetland is located to the south of the eastern portion of the Sunset
Bluff site's south boundary. (Only about 6,078 square feet (0.14 acres) or 4.66 percent of the
approximately 3-acre wetland lie on the site.) Second, none of that wetland lies along the
proposed development's edge. All points along the wetland's edge are at least 100 feet from any
proposed site disturbance. Except for the wetland's northwesterlymost tip (at which the
proposed buffer's 100-foot width just meets the City code's 100-foot buffer requirement from a
Category 1 wetland), the rest of the wetland lies approximately 200 feet away from the nearest
portion of the site planned to be disturbed (i.e., the proposed entrance road to the north of the
wetland). Further, the nearest proposed lot (Lot 65) is 230 feet from the wetland's northwesterly
tip and even further from the rest of the wetland. Along nearly all of the wetland's edge, the
applicant's proposed placement of the 4.70-acre native growth protection easement to the north
and northeast of the wetland (see page 1 of 11 of the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat drawings, part
of Exhibit 1) will provide significantly more buffering of the wetland than the 100-foot wide
buffer that the code requires (and more than the 150-foot width that Dr. Stenberg's letter
suggests —see page 42, below).
Assuming, arguendo, that the forest on the hillside does currently provide some of the
nesting material for the heron colony", it is impossible to believe that, after the Sunset Bluff site
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 41
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
. 4..
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is completed, the mostly -forested, 100-acre City park in which the heron colony exists together
with the planned 4.70=acre, forested native growth protection easement area will be incapable of
adequately supplying the heron colony with enough small branches and twigs for nest building.
Further, assuming, arguendo, that "a pair of Osprey that were attempting to nest in Bellevue
were observed stealing twigs from occupied Great blue heron nests in Mercer Slough, the
assertion that they were doing so "due to the lack of suitable materials in the developed portions
of that city" is rank speculation and totally irrelevant to the Sunset Bluff proposal. (Did the
Osprey report their reasoning to the purported observer?) These statements in Dr. Stenberg's
letter illustrate the type of nonsense upon which Herons Forever has premised its assertions of
"significant impact".
Page 6 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues:
Critical foraging periods for herons are during nesting, when adults cannot be
away from the nest for very long, or they have chicks that need to be fed
frequently, and in the late summer for juveniles, when they are first learning to
forage on their own. Studies have shown that during these critical periods, herons
will forage up to 150 feet from the edge of a wetland. The buffer around the
category I wetland on the proposed development should be increased to at
least 150 feet to ensure the sustainability of this critical habitat for the heron
colony.
(Emphasis added.) As explained above, except for the very northwesternmost tip of the wetland
(where the nearest proposed disturbance will be 100 feet away), the rest of the wetland's north
edge will be approximately 200 feet from the nearest portion of the site proposed to be disturbed
(i.e., the proposed entrance road).
Page 6 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues:
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 42
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
AProfessional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The mature trees on the hillside within the proposed development may function
as alternate future nest sites for the heron colony. The Black River heron
colony has grown in recent years, but many other colonies in the general region
have abandoned and disappeared. Much of the observed growth at Black River
may be due to birds moving in from other disturbed colonies. If the colony
growth -is -due -to -an -in-- lul-of individttals--from--disturbed- colonies then that
may be an indication that there are no other suitable locations available to
establish new colonies. In the urban area, suitable nesting locations for heron
colonies are likely a limiting factor in the viability of the population..
Protection of potential alternate nest sites will be critical to the long-term
viability of the Black River heron colony and to efforts to prevent a listing of
the species under the Endangered Species Act.
(Emphasis added.) These statements by Dr. Stenberg make clear that impacts to the existing
colony are not really at issue. Instead, what Herons Forever wants is space for expansion of not
only the existing colony but space for relocation of herons that she thinks may be being displaced
throughout the urban area. These statements further confirm that Herons Forever's appeal is in
reality a collateral attack on the four City Council decisions that authorize the type of
development approval that the applicant is seeking. (Also, see pages 56 through 59, below.)
Page 7 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues:
Herons prefer to nest in large stands of trees that are separated from
surrounding activities by a forested buffer. As the trees in the BRRF mature
(assuming that impacts to wetlands and wetland vegetation are controlled), there
may be room for the heron colony to expand or shift its focus slightly to the
north, provided that there is sufficient remaining forest buffer to protect this
use. Development proposals that maintain a greater amount of forest
vegetation on the hillside and/or establish screens of coniferous vegetation are
more likely to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the heron colony. This
proposed development with the proposed clearing and re -grading of the entire
hillside from the top of slope to the railroad tracks at the bottom does not achieve
this goal. The City did not evaluate the potential impacts of removing all of
the vegetation from the hillside.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 43
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NB 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Emphasis added.) Assuming, arguendo, that herons actually do prefer to nest in large stands of
trees that are separated from surrounding activities by a forested buffer, the subject heron colony
is wonderfully situated as it is near the center of the heavily -wooded, 100-acre City park. Nearly
300 meters of forest lie between the existing heron colony and the site. As demonstrated by Dr.
Ed McCarthy and Mr. Emmett Pritchard (see pages 24 through 28, above) the Sunset Bluff
project is not anticipated to impact the trees in the downstream wetland depression. The
Applicant is under no legal duty to preserve forest vegetation on the hillside or to establish
screens of coniferous vegetation for the benefit of the City park. The extensive park lands were
acquired, presumably, to provide a buffer around the heron colony. The Renton City Council
made policy choices that "enough forest buffer is enough" when it (a) declined to also acquire
the Sunset Bluff site to include in the park, (b) annexed the Sunset Bluff site into the City in
2000, (c) amended its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate most of the Residential
Options (R-O), (d) downzoned the corresponding portion of the site to R-10, (e) entered
authorized a development agreement with the site owner containing the three Site -Specific
Restrictions quoted in footnote 6, above) and (f) when it adopted its Habitat Conservation
performance standards as part of its Critical Areas Regulations.
Especially telling is the Development Agreement's Site -Specific Restriction 2 (the fence
condition), which states that the fence "may lie either north of or south of stormwater facilities
anticipated to be constructed along the southerly portion of the site and along the RC -zoned
strip of land owned by Owner. (Emphasis added.) Given that restriction's language, it is clear
that the Council contemplated that the southerly portion of the site would have stormwater
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 44
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
-4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
facilities constructed within it and would not be left treed. That conclusion is reinforced by the
fact that restriction 3 prohibits residential or recreation buildings on the property within 100 feet
of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way that lies to the south of the
property but does not prohibit any other use of that strip. Why not? Because Restriction 2
contemplates stonmwater facilities within that 100-foot wide strip. (Note that following the
Council's authorization of the Development Agreement, the applicant and the City executed it
and it is legally binding on the City.)
As to Dr. Stenberg's assertion that "[t]he City did not evaluate the potential impacts of
removing all of the vegetation from the hillside", the City did not need to do so because the
Sunset Bluff project does not contemplate removing all of the vegetation from the hillside. As
Dr. Stenberg chooses to ignore, 4.70 acres of the Sunset Bluff site are planned to be left
undisturbed in a native growth protection easement. Further, when the City Council authorized
the Development Agreement, the language of Site -Specific Restrictions 2 and 3 made clear that
the southerly portion of the site was going to be cleared for stormwater facilities.
Page 7 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues:
18 The hillside is proposed to be hydroseeded with grasses after re -grading but there
is no other revegetation proposed. This will not result in any mitigation for
19 impacts from removal of the "heavily wooded" habitat composed of trees 36
20 to 48 inches in diameter. The "landscaping" condition imposed in the DNS-M is
not specific enough to provide mitigation for any of the habitat impacts.
21
(Emphasis added.) In this paragraph, Dr. Stenberg once again tries to take advantage of the
22
2311 obvious error in the Staff Reports about the diameters of the trees on the site. (See pages 39
24
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 45
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
through 40, above.) No mitigation for removal of 36-inch to 48-inch diameter trees on the site is
necessary because such trees don't exist on the site.
On page 7 of the letter, Dr. Stenberg concludes this section of her letter with the
following statement:
In addition to impacts to the herons, clearing the hillside of all vegetation would
impact several other listed species including the threatened Bald eagle and the
state candidate Pileated woodpecker. Bald eagles have been observed resting and
foraging on both the hillside and in the BRRF. The presence of the state candidate
Pileated woodpecker are documented in the application materials. These species
would be impacted directly by a permanent loss of habitat (see Figure 3.) The
habitat assessment submitted with the application materials does not evaluate the
impacts of the loss of over 20 acres of mature, heavily forested habitats to these
species as the Renton Municipal Code appears to require.
(Emphasis added.) Whether or not the assertions in this statement are true, the statement goes
beyond the scope of the issues, identified in David Mann's April 8, 2004 letter identifying appeal
issues and is thus irrelevant to the determination of the appeal. As noted above, the proposal
does not involve "clearing the site of all vegetation" since 4.70 acres are proposed to be left
undisturbed in a native growth protection easement. Further, the habitat assessment submitted
with the application materials does evaluate the impacts of the loss of over 20 acres of forest,
although perhaps not in the fashion that Dr. Stenberg would like. Of course, as noted above, the
forest is not nearly as "mature" as Dr. Stenberg's repeated allusions to the misstatement in the
City Staff reports about the site's trees ranging in diameter from 36 inches to 48 inches suggests.
4. "Increased Nighttime Activity from 65 New Residents" Issue
Appellant's letter asserted:
Herons Forever will present evidence and testimony demonstrating that the
increased nighttime activity from the proposed 65 new residents will result in
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 46
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
AProfessional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4-
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
significant impacts to the adjacent heronry. For example, the wildlife report
submitted by the applicant and approved by the ERC concludes that there will be
no impacts because it claims there were no impacts from periodic rock blasting
from a nearby quarry. The report ignores that since blasting ceased several years
ago, the size of the heronry has significantly expanded. The wildlife report
evening hours.
Herons Forever set forth a "demonstration" concerning this issue in Dr. Kate Stenberg's April
18, 2004 letter to attorney David Mann (part of Exhibit 12). In the letter's subsection entitled
"Noise and Light Impacts from an Occupied Development:" (which begins on page 7 of the
letter), Dr. Stenberg starts out with the following statement:
A residential development as proposed would be occupied 24 hours a day. The
heron colony is accustomed to some levels of human activity during daylight
hours. The commercial developments to the south and east are primarily occupied
during working hours. Despite this limited occupancy, the commercial
developments close to the colony have had an impact, as we have shown above,
with the majority of the nests slowly moving away from the occupied office
park. The current recreational activities that occur at the BRRF also occur
during daylight hours. The evaluation of impacts did not consider the impact from
lengthening the period of activity in the vicinity of the heron colony.
(Emphasis added.) While it is true that the proposed Sunset Bluff development will likely to
some extent be occupied "24 hours a day". However, during most of the night, people will be in
bed sleeping. Thus, the 24-hour a day "occupancy" doesn't equate to 24-hour per day site
activity. Further, while it may be true that the commercial developments to the south and east
are primarily occupied during working hours, it is more likely that activity during the wee hours
of the night will occur there than within the Sunset Bluff development. Commercial
developments often have cleaning services do cleaning work during the night, which involves
during on development lighting. Parking lot sweeping services often do there work in
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 47
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
commercial developments during the wee hours of the night, which is when the number of
parked cars in the way is at a minimum. Light and noise impacts from such activities can be
much more extensive than those that would occur in a single-family residential development.
Thus, Dr. Stenberg's assertion that the Sunset Bluff development would result in "lengthening
the period of activity in the vicinity of the heron colony" is nothing more than speculation.
As to Dr. Stenberg's assertion that "the commercial developments close to the colony
have had an impact ... ," the applicant denies that the Sunset Bluff homes will be "close" to the
colony. As Exhibit 38 illustrates, the proposed lot nearest to the colony will be 1,120 feet away.
With a 25-foot wide rear building setback on the lot (from the top edge of slope), the house on
that lot will be around 1,145 feet away. That is over twice the 550-foot distance that exists
between the "main nesting tree" on the island in the Black River Riparian Forest and the Black
River Corporate Park building to the south of the colony. (By scaling Exhibit 38, that Black
River Corporate Park building and the colony's south edge is found to be only 465 feet.) Almost
all of the other homes within Sunset Bluff will be over 1,250 feet away from the colony. Thus,
the conclusion that Dr. Stenberg seeks to draw between the Sunset Bluff project and the
commercial developments to the south is not rational. 18
18 As anyone who took high school physics knows, the intensity of noise and light radiation diminishes in
proportion to the inverse square of the distance from the noise or light source. Thus, for a source that is
twice as far away as a closer source, the same level of noise or light emitted will have only one-fourth the
intensity at the receiving location. That being the case, particular levels of light and noise from the much
closer buildings to the south would tend to have relatively much more light and noise impact upon the
heron colony than would the same levels generated by the Sunset Bluff residences.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 48
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
---
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Further, as to Dr. Stenberg's assertion that "the majority of the nests [have been] slowly
moving away from the occupied office park", the applicant's heron expert, Kenneth Raedeke,
PhD, refuted that assertion during his April 29th hearing testimony. He explained:
I don't see any relationship to the Black River Corporate Park that was built there
because they were in there before that and they've been in there after that.
They've been in the main colony before and main colony after, and I don't, I
don't see that that's one connection you can make. There are a, a number of
changes, a number of other possible, plausible explanations. One is those trees in
the main colony are starting to deteriorate. As we provided testimony and
photographs in the 1999 hearings, those main trees have, already have some
substantial dead branches, etcetera. They're more open so that, between
predation, changes in trees, a number of conditions, you could come up with
plausible explanations for why they might move out of there, if they did.
In addition, unlike the commercial buildings to the south (where parking lots exist on the
building side facing the colony, parking lots which, as noted above, may be used by cleaning
crews during the wee hours of the night and which may themselves be cleaned during the night
from time -to -time by noisy street sweepers), the street that will serve the proposed Sunset Bluff
lots will be entirely on the north side of the south row of the narrow lots. As a result, the homes
themselves on these lots will substantially shield the colony from vehicle noise and headlight
glare. With the backyards of the south row of Sunset Bluff homes facing the City Park, very
little night-time light or noise would be anticipated.
In sum, Dr. Stenberg's statement certainly was not any demonstration of any significant
nighttime activity impacts upon the heron colony.
Page 7 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues:
The materials considered by the City also erroneously conclude that since the
herons did not appear to respond to the blasting at the quarry that there would be
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 49
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9',
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
no impact. As we have shown above, the herons did have a response to the
blasting that has only become apparent as that activity has ceased.
Two problems are apparent with Dr. Stenberg's reasoning here. First, she alludes to having
K:
awli
apparent as that activity has ceased". That allusion is apparently to the fourth full paragraph on
page 5 of her letter, which in turn refers to an Attachment 1 to her letter, an attachment that sets
forth purported active nest counts in the colony from 1986 to 2003. The number of nests have
varied widely from year to year, with the number of active nests plunging to zero during 1999
due to eagle predation. With the data gyrations that have occurred during the period of listed
data, it would seem impossible to draw a causal connection between apparently recent cessation
in blasting and the number of active nests.
The second problem with Dr. Stenberg's reasoning in that statement is that the City was
simply making the perfectly rational point that the heron colony generally grew during the many
years that the quarry conducted blasting, a point she apparently did not like. Contrasting the
Sunset Bluff proposal (with its obviously much quieter land use) to the quarry with its historic
blasting was a fair contrast to make, whether Dr. Stenberg liked it or not. If the heron colony
could make it with the quarry's blasting (and continues to make it with the relatively noisy
ongoing construction materials recycling operations at the quarry site), it is likely to make it with
something as quiet as single-family homes.
Page 8 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues:
Trained observers who monitor the Black River heron colony closely have also
noticed that, despite the tremendous growth in the Protected Forest, the nests do
not extend the full length of the available habitat. The trees that characterize the
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 50
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Protected Forest extend along the edge of the P-1 Pond further west than they are
currently utilized. There is no apparent difference in tree height, maturity, or
species composition. Observers have noticed, however, that the Sunset View
apartments on the hillside above BRRF become visible at about the point where
nesting activity ceases (Figure 4.) Dr. Butler, Canadian Wildlife Service, as well
as-n+Ys; fee-1 that it " p0s&i7le-that-the-astivit "eise aan&4ight g- norate(4-b)-the-
hillside apartments overlooking the colony may act as a deterrent to nesting.
Unfortunately, it may not be possible to conclusively test this hypothesis.
However, the City did not consider this evidence in concluding that a residential
development directly above the heron colony would have no effect.
(Emphasis added.) This statement, which Dr. Raedeke refuted in his testimony, is rank
speculation and appears highly implausible.19 It is certainly no proof that the Sunset Bluff
project would have any probable adverse impact to the heron colony. This speculative nonsense
is not "evidence" of a probable adverse impact that the City needs to consider.
Page 8 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues:
Researchers agree that noise can affect an animal's physiology and behavior, and
if it becomes a chronic stress, noise can be injurious to an animal's energy budget,
reproductive success and long-term survival. k reproductive success and long-
term survival are affected, even if individuals are still present in an area, the
suitability of the habitat to support the species has been reduced. As with the
heron's responses to the adjacent commercial development, it may take several
years for this impact to be fully recognized. However, it is important to remember
that the coastal Great blue heron is only found in the greater Puget Sound region,
is apparently declining throughout the region, and that the Black River colony
represents about six percent of the current population in Washington. To dismiss
an impact because it may be hard to measure and may take several years to
be fully observed is contrary to state SEPA policy and the City of Renton's
comprehensive plan policies.
(Emphasis added.) Dismiss an impact? What impact? This is further speculative nonsense. Dr.
Stenberg's discussion does not demonstrate any noise impact from the proposed development.
19 Maybe there is a hornets nest in the next tree to the west edge of the colony. (Do herons dislike
hornets? Should the City have considered that speculation, too?)
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 51
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE Sth, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Does she think that all of the future homeowners are going to be operating air raid sirens in their
backyards 24 hours a day? Two freight trains pass between the Sunset Bluff site at least twice a
day at least six days per week (Exhibit 67) and a construction materials recycling business
continues to operate in the Black River Quarry (SEPA checklist, part of Exhibit 1). (If the
herons have acclimated to those noises, won't they acclimate to people occasionally snoring at
night in their bedrooms on the hillside nearly a quarter mile away?)
Page 8 of Dr. Stenberg's letter continues:
The proposed development will place homes at about the I I5-foot elevation point.
Lighting on houses and along the public street will be higher than that point. The
ground elevation under the heron nests is approximately 30 feet and the nests are
approximately 50 to 70 feet above the ground. Therefore, the activity in the
residential development and any lighting will be above the heron nests.
Lighting may be shielded to prevent light from impacting adjacent areas, although
the City did not require this measure as mitigation. Given that the lighting will
be above the BRRF, simple commercially available shielding may not prevent
light and glare from impacting the protected area. Additional attention to lighting
would be necessary to mitigate for impacts from light and glare on the colony.
(Emphasis added.) Cross -sectional Exhibits 61A and 61B show a first floor home elevation of
approximately 110 feet on the Sunset Bluff site (at the left portion of the sheet). Assuming a 30-
foot tall home (the maximum permitted in the Renton zoning code for the R-10 zone), the peak
of the roof will be at an elevation of about 140 feet. The second floor elevation will be at about
120 feet and the second floor windows will be at an elevation range around 123 to 127 feet.
Those two exhibits also show a nest at an elevation of 130 feet in one of the heron colony's
nesting trees. Theresa Dusek's April 29, 2004 testimony indicates that at the tree in question the
nest was the highest in the tree. (As depicted on the drawing, that nest is slightly more than 100
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 52
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet from the ground.) By counting off the grids on the cross-section drawing, it is evident that
the trunk of that tree is 1,245 feet from the future house's south edge. Assuming, arguendo, that
Dr. Stenberg's assertion about nests being "approximately 50 to 70 feet above the ground" is true
(she says nothing about how she arrived at that range), the nests would be roughly 30 to 50 feet
lower than the nest depicted on Exhibits 61A and 61B (and thus would be within an elevation
range of 80 to 100 feet). Assuming that future homeowners might have a backyard light on their
home at roughly the 120-foot elevation (which would be roughly the top of their first floor), the
vertical difference between the light elevation and the range in nest elevation would be 20 to 40
feet. At the worst case (i.e., 40 feet), the vertical angle over the 1,245-foot distance between the
tree trunk and the edge of the house would be 40/1,245 or 3.2 percent. At 20 feet of vertical
difference, the percentage would be half of that (1.6 percent). Either of those slopes are so slight
that it is misleading to say that the lighting is "above" the nests.
What is more important than the question of whether the nests are at a slightly lower
elevation than the elevation of future lights at the south side of Sunset Bluff is the fact that only
one of the active nests in the heron colony is visible from the site. Note the following excerpts
from Theresa Dusek's April 29, 2004 testimony:
THERESA DUSEK: There's been an awful lot of discussion regarding the
visibility of the herons to the new neighborhood, the visibility of the herons to the
surrounding neighborhoods, and visibility from the site to the herons .... During
the time that this report was put together in November 2003, it's been well -
documented and well-known through my studies and my research on this
particular site that during the winter months when there are no leaves on the
trees that we have one nest that basically looks like a speck from the site
because of the distance away that is visible to the site. The remainder of what
has been determined or called the protected forest or the rookery, the colony, is
not visible duringa the winter months when there are no leaves on the trees. In
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 53
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
1
2
3
-- 4-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
addition, when leaf -out occurs, that nest is not visible, unless you are standing
up on Sunset Boulevard, and then that nest is visible over the tops of the trees
that are located in the open space to that particular nest. We do not know if that is
an active nest or a past nex, nest. During the fall months, when we are looking at
it, we did not see any activity, and have not seen any activity in that nest to this
1 .
THERESA DUSEK: And, as already noted by my testimony prior, we have one
nest tree that is able to be seen through the trees when they are not leafed -
out. When they are leafed-out-
DAVID HALINEN: And, from which location?
THERESA DUSEK: From the Sunset Bluff site, from the center area where
the proposal of the residence is/are, or from the railroad grade. That one single
nest is visible when it is not leafed -out with the trees in the winter months,
January, February. Leaf -out this year occurred about mid -March to the end
of March.
HEARING EXAMINER: From this cross-section location or just from
somewhere ... ?
THERESA DUSEK: From anywhere on the site, and that information was
looked at and evaluated, that we had no visible sight distance for the habitat
study, therefore, there's no, no perceived or presumed impact, significant
impact to the herons.
(Emphasis added.) With all but one of the nests not being visible from the site, the site is not
visible from all but one of the nests. Therefore, light impacts from the site will be nil and,
accordingly, there is no basis for special light fixture restrictions at the Sunset Bluff
development.
On page 8 of her letter, Dr. Stenberg concludes this section of the letter with the
following statement:
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 54
HALMN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
__
5
6
7
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Renton Environmental Review Committee did not consider the site -specific
characteristics of the topography, existing vegetation, impacts of surrounding
developments, or the nature of the activities associated with a residential
subdivision in reaching its conclusions on impacts of noise, light and glare on
the herons. Retention of existing natural vegetation on the hillside could also
proposed development. The proposal to remove all of the vegetation from the
top of the slope to the bottom only exacerbates this impact.
(Emphasis added.) First, contrary to Dr. Stenberg's assertion, the ERC did consider the listed
issues. All of those issues were addressed in her February 7, 2004 letter to Jason Jordan (Exhibit
80) and Herons Forever's February 8, 2004 letter to Jason Jordan and, as Mr. Jordan testified
during the May 10, 2004 segment of the hearing, City Staff and the ERC considered those letters
(and the other project comment letters) that were timely submitted to the City.
Second, Dr. Stenberg's assertion that "[r]etention of existing natural vegetation on the
hillside could also help mitigate impacts to the heron colony from noise and light from the
proposed development assumes that there will be noise and light impacts that need mitigation. In
view of the fact that (a) the proposed development is merely a residential subdivision (generating
relatively little noise or light) and (b) the site is not visible from the nests (except for one nest
during the winter), no mitigation for noise and light impacts is needed or appropriate.
5. "Additional Human and Pets Interactions From
the 65 New Residences" Issue
Appellant's letter asserted:
Herons Forever will present evidence and testimony demonstrating that additional
human and pets [sic] interactions from the 65 new residences will result in
significant impacts to the adjacent heronry. The wildlife report submitted by the
applicant and approved by the City ignores that there is little or no open recreation
space on the subject property for residents' use and that the proximity of the
Black River Riparian Forest will act as a magnet for recreational use. While the
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 55
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206),143-4684
1
2
3
4-
51,
6
7.
8'
9
10'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
report downplays the impact of dogs by relying on the Renton Leash law, the
report ignores routine violations and lack of enforcement of the leash law and
ignores completely the impact of domestic cats.
Pages 8 through 10 of Dr. Stenberg's letter sets forth ad nausem arguments about
purported impacts to the heron colony from "increased human and pet interactions". Those
arguments do not merit a detailed response. They are fully refuted by the project's fencing
requirements (both the Site -Specific Restriction for fencing set forth in the Development
Agreement and the Staff -recommended preliminary plat condition of approval to which the
applicant does not object).
6. Slope Stability and Source of Fill Issues
Appellant's letter asserted:
Herons Forever will present evidence and testimony demonstrating that after
grading and clearing the slopes within the subject property will remain unstable
with potential significant impacts to the new roadway, proposed retention pond
and lots themselves. Evidence will demonstrate also that a significant amount of
fill material will likely be necessary because the on -site materials will not
sufficiently compact. The source of these fill materials and impacts of bringing
these fill materials to the site are not analyzed.
Soil stability is a non -issue. As City of Renton Development Engineering Supervisor
Kayren Kittrick made clear during her April 29, 2004, the applicant will have to prove project
stability to the City before any building permits are issued.
As applicant's geotechnical expert Scott Dinkelman testified during the hearing, he
believes that the site's soils will adequately compact and that, accordingly, large quantities of fill
dirt will not need to be imported to the site.
F. Even if the Imposition of the Additional Draconian Conditions Demanded bV
Herons Forever Were Not Barred by RCW 43.21C.240 and the Wenatchee
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 56
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sportsmen/Somers Principle, Such Regulatory Burdens Would Be Unlawful or
Unconstitutional.
The imposition of the Draconian conditions demanded by Herons Forever would violate
of -being accomplisheds as-rezltrired--by- _ -.I
WAC 197-11-660(1)(c) and would violate WAC 197-11-660(1)(d)'s limitation that
"responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to
the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal." The imposition of such
conditions would force applicant to bear the burden of providing and replacing heron habitat lost
through innumerable actions of society at large. Such a disproportionate burden is unfair and it
would be incapable of being accomplished because such conditions would render the residential
development financially infeasible.
In addition to violating the SEPA Rules, the imposition of such conditions would violate
RCW 82.02.020, as recently interpreted by the Washington Supreme Court in Isla Verde Intl
Holdings, Inc. v. Ciog of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740; 49 P.3d 867. In Isla Verde, the Court held that
an open space set aside condition is an in kind indirect "tax, fee, or charge" on new land
development and, thus, was subject to the limitation that they it be reasonably necessary as a
direct result of the development. At 146 Wn.2d 753-755, the Isla Verde Court explains:
RCW 82.02.020 generally provides, with some exceptions, that the state
preempts the field of imposing certain taxes. The statute then states, in relevant
part: "Except as provided in RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090, no county, city,
town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee, or charge, either
direct or indirect, on . . . the development, subdivision, classification, or
reclassification of land." RCW 82.02.020. There are, besides the involuntary
impact fees permitted under RCW 82.02.050 through RCW 82.02.090, n9 three
exceptions to the prohibition against direct or indirect taxes, fees or charges on the
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 57
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17 I'I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development or subdivision of land (or classification or reclassification). RCW
82.02.020 "does not preclude dedications of land or easements within the
proposed development or plat which the county, citv, town, or other
municipal corporation can demonstrate are reasonably necessary as a direct
result of the proposed development or plat to which the dedication of land or
RCW 82.02.020 requires strict compliance with its terms. Trimen Dev. Co. v.
King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 270, 877 P.2d 187 (1994); RIL Assocs., Inc. v. City of
Seattle, 113 Wn.2d 40Z 409, 780 P.2d 838 (1989). A tax, fee, or charge, either direct
or indirect, imposed on development is invalid unless it falls within one of the
exceptions specified in the statute. Henderson Homes, 'Inc. v. City of Bothell, 124
Wn.2d 240, 247, 877 P.2d 176 (1994) (citing RIL Assocs., 113 Wn.2d at 409).
(Footnotes omitted; emphasis added.)
758:
As to the "in kind" fee or tax concept, the Isla Verde court elaborates at 146 Wn.2d 757-
For a number of reasons we disagree with the City's assertion that the set aside
condition is not a tax, fee, or charge within the meaning of RCW 82.02.020. The
exclusionary language of the statute demonstrates that the prohibited charges
are not limited to monetary charges. Specifically, the statute provides that a
dedication of land or easement is excluded from the statute's prohibitions if
reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development. The
statute thus contemplates that a required dedication of land or easement is a tax,
fee or charge. Further, this court has recognized that for purposes of RCW
82.02.020 a tax, fee, or charge can be in kind as well as in dollars. San Telmo
Assocs. v. City of Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 20, 24, 735 P.2d 673 (1987) (requirements
that owners of low income rental units provide relocation notice and assistance,
and replacement of a specified percentage of the low income housing with other
suitable housing or contributing to the low income housing replacement fund in
lieu thereof, when residential units are demolished or redeveloped to other use
violated RCW 82.02.020 as indirect charge on development).
The Isla Verde Court's holding, that the statutory language of RCW 82.02.020 imposes
the burden on the City to prove that regulatory conditions are reasonably necessary as a direct
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 58
HAUNEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
result of the development, has so far been ignored by Herons Forever. Herons Forever has not
even attempted to prove such a connection between the conditions it demands and the proposed
Sunset Bluff development. Herons Forever is demanding that the applicant shoulder an immense
regulatory burden because of the alleged consequences on heron habitat of historic land
development practices throughout the urban area. The imposition of such burdensome
conditions would violate RCW 82.02.020 and, as unlawful conditions on the development of
land, would make the City liable for damages and attorney fees under RCW Ch. 64.04.
The imposition of such burdensome conditions also would be unconstitutional, in
violation of the substantive due process limitation. Such regulatory burdens would not be
reasonably necessary to serve the public interest and would be unduly oppressive because there
are less burdensome means of serving the public interest, such as governmental purchase of
Applicant's property to expand the park. See Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586; 854 P.2d 1;
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle 131 Wn.2d 640; 935 P.2d 555. Such regulatory conditions also
would violate the taking clause because they specifically are designed to enhance the value of
public land (i.e., the adjacent park). Orion Corp. v. State of Washington, 109 Wn.2d 621, 747
P.2d 1062 (1987).
G. Applicant Was Denied the Opportunitv To Be Fully Heard Durine the Mav 10, 2004
Hearing in Response To The New Evidence Presented In Herons Forever's Rebuttal
Case Through the Testimony of Patricia Thompson and Kate Stenberg, Contrary
To the Requirements Due Process, as Expressed in Washington's Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine.
Applicant's Motion to Reopen the Hearing to Allow Surrebuttal Testimony was based on
the fundamental unfairness of allowing one party to introduce new evidence in the rebuttal phase
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 59
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seal irst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of a quasi-judicial proceeding without allowing the other party the opportunity to challenge such
evidence in surrebuttal. Such elemental unfairness was explained in the commentaries of
Professor Wigmore and Washington case law cited and explained in Applicant's Motion and
Reply. Regardless of whether the quasi-judicial hearings conducted by the Examiner are subject
to formal rules of evidence, they are, under well -established Washington law, subject to the due
process requirement of apparent, as well as actual fairness, as expressed by Washington's
appearance of fairness doctrine.
The due process principle of fairness and impartiality in adjudication was a common law
doctrine that predated our state and federal constitutions. See Vache, Appearance of Fairness:
Doctrine or Delusion?, 13 Willlamette L.J. 479 (1977). As adjudicatooy functions were assigned
to administrative agencies and officers, the traditional judicial fairness requirements were applied
to quasi-judicial proceedings. State ex rel. Barnard v. Board of Education, 19 Wash. 8, 17-18,
52 Pac.317 (1898); Emerson v. Hughes, 117 Vt. 270, 90 A.2d 910, 34 A.L.R. 2d 539 (1952). See
generally, K. Davis, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE sections 1.06-1.09 (Suppl. 1976).
Washington courts began applying common law due process requirements to quasi-
judicial land use regulatory hearings in Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn. 2d 715, 453 P.2d 832
(1969). In Smith v. Skagit County and numerous subsequent cases quasi-judicial land use
regulatory actions have been invalidated for violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine.
See, e.g., Fleming v. Tacoma, 81 Wn.2d 292, 502 P.2d 327 (1972); Chrobuck v. Snohomish
Coun , 78 Wn. 2d 858, 480 P.2d 489 (1971). In Smith v. Skagit County, the court announced
the fairness standard for quasi-judicial hearings:
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 60
HALMN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The test of fairness, we think, in public hearings conducted by law on matters of
public interest, vague though it may be, is whether a fair-minded person in
attendance at all of the meetings on a given issue, could, at the conclusion
thereof, in good conscience say that everyone had been heard who, in all
fairness, should have been heard and that the legislative body required by law to
according to the weight and force they were in reason entitled to receive.
In Smith v. Skagit County, the court held that the hearing appeared to be unfair, in
violation of the doctrine, because of the refusal by the Board of County Commissioners to hear
additional testimony of some opponents who were given the impression that they would be
allowed to present additional evidence but were denied the opportunity to be fully heard.
Similarly, in the instant case, the Applicant was given impression that it would be allowed to
rebut new evidence and then was not allowed to do so.
Under Washington law governing the fairness of quasi-judicial hearings, the Applicant is
entitled to be given a full and fair opportunity for surrebuttal.
REQUEST
For all of the above reasons, Applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner deny and
dismiss Herons Forever's appeal and affirm the ERC's MDNS.
DATED this 1 lth day of June, 2004.
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 61
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206)443-4684
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CLOSING BRIEF OF
APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C. - 62
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
By:
David L. Halinen
Attorneys for Applicant SR 900 L.L.C.
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building
10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 443-4684
August 3,2004
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANTS:
SR 900 LLC
Quarry Industrial Park LLC
9125 10" Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98108
Herons Fot'ever
Suzanne Krom
4715-1/2 36" Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126
CONTACTS:
David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices
10500 NE 8'h Street, Suite 1900
Bellevue, WA 98004
David Mann
Attorney at Law
1424 fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
File No.: LUA 04-002, PP, ECF
LOCATION:
1100 Block of S W Sunset Boulevard
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Approval for a 65-lot subdivision of a 26.26-acre site intended
for detached single-family homes.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions
SUMMARY OF APPEAL:
Appeal of SEPA determination
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the Appellants' written requests for a hearing
and examining available information on file, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
Thejollowing minutes are a summary ojtheApril20, 2004 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 8:35 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Parties present: Zanetta Fortes, Assistant City Attorney
David Halinen, representing SR 900 LLC, the Applicant
Halinen Law Offices
10500 NE 8" Street, Suite 1900
Bellevue, WA 98004
David Mann, representing Herons Forever
Attorney at Law
1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Bill Rozeboom Resume
application, various reports, correspondence file,
SEPA documents, and Staff analysis for the ERC, and
the Staff report on the Plat.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 2
Exhibit No. 3: Letter dated March 24, 2004 with
review of environmental checklist and accompanying
reports by Mr. Rozeboom.
Exhibit No. 4: Copy of the City of Renton, Rivers
and Wetlands map
Exhibit No. 5: Storm Water PBPW Technical
Services, topographic map
Exhibit No. 6: Enlarged version of Exhibit 5,
showing railroad, Ri avian Forest and pond
Exhibit No. 7: Letter dated March 15, 2004 with
geoteclinical findings of Mr. Anil Butail
Exhibit No. 8: Dyanne Sheldon Resume
Exhibit No. 9: Letter dated April 10, 2004 with
findings and conclusions of Ms. D anne Sheldon
Exhibit No. 10: Color version of Plat Map
Exhibit No. 11: Kate Stenberg, Ph.D. Resume
Exhibit No. 12: A letter dated April 18, 2004 covering
Dr. Stenber 's review and findings and conclusions.
Exhibit No. 13: Aerial photograph foldout from the
Environmental Checklist with the bulls eye around the
main nest on the island in the P-I channel
Exhibit No. 14: Newspaper article from the King
County Journal dated February 28, 2004
Exhibit No. 15: Letter dated June 12, 1998 born Dr.
Stenberg, addressed to Jennifer Toth Henning, Sr.
Planner, City of Renton Development Services,
referring to Black River Tract B development
proposal.
Exhibit No. 16: Letter dated July 1, 1998 fiom Dr.
Stenberg, addressed to Jana Huerter, the then Land
Use Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services
Division, in reference to Black River Corporate Park
Tract B.
Exhibit No. 17: April 20, 2004 letter from Suzanne
Krom.
Exhibit No. 18: Additional aerial view of subject site
Exhibit No. 19: Scott Dinkelman Resume
Exhibit No. 20: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Addendum dated A ril 19, 2004.
Exhibit No. 21: Hal Grubb Resume
Exhibit No. 22: Copy of Plat map used by Mr. Grubb
during his testimony
Exhibit No. 23: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat Offsite
Basins
Exhibit No. 24: Existing Basin Areas and Storm
Water Flow
Exhibit No. 52: Resume of Dr. Ed McCarthyExhibit
No. 53: Figure 1 from Dr. McCarth 's report
Exhibit No. 54: Evapotranspiration Modeling by Dr.
McCarthyPlanning
Exhibit No. 55: 1994 King County Comprehensive
Ma
Exhibit No. 56: 2000 City of Renton map, created at
time of annexation showing King County zoning.
Exhibit No. 57: 1996 Study Area Martin Luther King
Exhibit No. 58: Heron Rookery Radius
Exhibit No. 59, August 2000 Development Aemt.
Exhibit No. 60: Marked aerial photo showing the
polygon of the herons showing a cross section of
Exhibit 61.
Exhibit No. 61a: Existing proposed cross section for
Sunset Bluff (small size)
Exhibit No. 61 b: Full size photo of Exhibit 61a
Exhibit No. 62: Aerial topography map showing
some of the basins in the cross section
Exhibit No. 63: King County GIS system map
showing the Black River open space and park areas.
WRIA 99 Habitat Projects
Exhibit No. 64a: Photograph showing view south
from railroad tracks towards the heronry and open
space.
Exhibit No.64b: Photograph showing view 6om the
south trail south of the P-1 forebay.
Exhibit No. 64c: Photograph showing the herons and
their locations in the trees in the colony.
Exhibit No. 65: Letter dated June 21, 1991 from
Jones and Stokes, Status of the Black River Great Blue
Heron Colony as of June 18, 1991.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 3
Exhibit No. 66: The Sunset Bluff Plat Hearing by
reference.
Exhibit No. 67: Burlington Northern Railroad e-mail
to Mr. Halinen re: trips per day
Exhibit No. 68: Resume ofEmmett Pritchard
Exhibit No. 69: Report dated April 26,2004 by
Emmett Pritchard
Exhibit No. 70: Rainfall report from the Seattle
Times printed from a web page
Exhibit No. 71: Resume of Dr. Ken Raedeke
Exhibit No. 72: Graph showing Great Blue Heron
numbers fiom the Christmas Bird Counts conducted
by the Audubon Society
Exhibit No. 73: Graph showing US - Washington
Great Blue Heron count conducted by the Audubon
Society.
Exhibit No. 74: Correction to page 29, figure 3 for
the yeai2003
Exhibit No. 75: Carlson and McLean Article dated
1996
Exhibit No. 76: Memo by Dr. Raedeke from Dr.
Butler's book.
Exhibit No. 77a: May 7, 2004 aerial photo
Exhibit No. 77b: Large size aerial photo of Exhibit
77a, dated May 7, 2004
Exhibit No. 78: Environmental Hearing Examiner
and Council Review Process
Exhibit No. 79: Letter from Suzanne Krom dated
February 8, 2004
Exhibit No. 80: Letter from Quailcroft signed by Dr.
Kate Stenberg dated February 7 2004
Exhibit No. 81: City Parks Map dated 2002
Exhibit No. 82: Kinko fax from Shelly Anderson
Exhibit No. 83: Faxed letter fiom Shelly Anderson
Exhibit No. 84: Koontz/Rickoski Report
Exhibit No. 85: Bowman/Siderius Report
Exhibit No.86: Memo to the Hearing Examiner from
Emmett Pritchard dated May 10 2004
Exhibit No. 87: Heron Survey Report for the
Redmond Towne Center dated 10/1/98
Exhibit No. 88: Packet of information re: seasonal
timing of activities for herons and 3 Publications
Exhibit No. 89: Washington Department of Game
publication, the Great Blue Heron of King County,
Washington dated July 1981
Exhibit No. 90: Washington Department Fish and
Wildlife PHS Management Recommendations, the
Great Blue Heron dated 1999
Exhibit No. 91: Review of Geotech addendum by Mr.
Anil Butail
Exhibit No. 92: Photo 1 shows the look of a new
fresh heron nest; Photo 2 heron incubating eggs on
nest
Exhibit No. 93: Photo of nests from the main colony,
older, gray nests
Exhibit No. 94: Photo of main colony nests with no
herons 3-31-04
Exhibit No. 95: Photo of main colony nests taken 2-
28-03 showing lots ofactivity
Exhibit No. 96: Photo of the main colony 3.31.04
Exhibit No. 97; Photo taken of the protected forest 3-
17-04, the nests are occupied
Exhibit No. 98: Photo of protected forest showing
chick and adult in nest 5-05-04
Exhibit No. 99: photo showing south path to pond
with vegetation
Exhibit No. 100: February 19, 1987 a letter by
Ronald G. Nelson of the City of Renton, Building and
Zoning Director to First City Development, Ms.
Barbara Moss
Exhibit No. 101: Letter from Ronald G. Nelson to
Bogle & Gates
Exhibit No. 102: DNR good for 1 year dated March
2, 1987- March 2, 1988
The Examiner inquired if the appeal by Mr. Halinen was still pending. Mr. Halinen
stated that from his discussions with Mr. Jordan that the City staff has agreed to the
revisions/corrections that were proffered in the appeal statement. Mr. Jordan confirmed
that that ...qs correct. It still requires an appeal, but staff has no objections to the stated
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 4
revisions. The conditions need to be reworded, part of the appeal and decision would
have to be reworded per the suggestions. That process is pending. Mr. Halinen stated
that these are minor corrections. there was some vagueness as to Mitigation Measure
#24 which dealt with the original statement in reference to a pedestrian pass -through
refuge area in Sunset Boulevard NE. There was some concern that a crosswalk might
be implied or inferred by that statement. After consultation with Mr. Zimmerman, it
was confirmed that that was not the intention, lie did. however want a raised median
area; and so a modified condition was developed which is set forth in the corrected
portion. There is nothing to add, given the stipulation that Mr. Jordan has indicated. It
is asked that the Examiner approve the correction as set forth. As to Mitigation
Measure 425, there was simply an oversight referring to "prior to the recording of the
preliminary plat" versus what was intended, "prior to the recording of the final plat". It
is urged that you approve both of these corrections as stipulated by Mr. Jordan on behalf
of the City. The Examiner agreed, and noted that this would simplify this morning's
process somewhat.
The Examiner asked if there were any other preliminary matters, there being none, it
was confirmed that there was only one appellant and they would have the burden and go
first.
Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, Development Services Division stated that before the
Examiner today was the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat SEPA application. The project is
generally located in the northwest corner of the City of Renton directly south of SW
Sunset Boulevard also known as Martin Luther King, SR 900 and immediately north of
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and then north of the Black River Riparian
Forest. The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner, Preliminary Plat Approval and
SEPA Review of a 26.26-acre site and developing that into 65 single-family lots. 'Tile
proposed lots range in size from approximately 4,000 square feet up to 5,000 square
feet. Access to the site is proposed off of SW Sunset Blvd, one entryhvay located in the
southeastern corner of the site. The applicant is proposing three tracts; Tract A located
north of the lots, between the lots and SW Sunset Blvd.. Tract B located south of the
lots between that and the southern boundary that will contain the drainage facility, and
finally Tract C a combination of some steep slopes and wetland area.
David Mann stated that he was not going to give an extensive opening argument, a letter
was submitted to the Examiner on April 19, 2004. It is their belief that at the end of the
day, there will be a definite and confirmed conviction that a mistake was made by the
City of Renton in approving the Detennination of Non -Significance for this proposal.
Evidence will be presented on all six of the issues identified in the letter. The one
change today is that Robert Butler; Ph.D, is not able to be here and so will not be
testifying, instead, Dr. Butler has submitted a letter to Kate Stenberg that she will
present.
Bill Rozeboom, Sr. Engineer, NW Hydraulic Consultants, 16300 Christianson Road,
Ste. 350, Tukwila, WA 98188 stated his qualifications. Mr. Rozeboom's resume was
entered at Exhibit 2. Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Mr. Rozeboom stated that he was
asked by Herons Forever to review the environmental checklist and tine accompanying
reports and did prepare a letter dated March 24, 2004 addressed to Mr. Mann with his
comments. There are concerns over the projects effects on the closed depression
wetland located in the Black River Riparian Forest, and the receiving water for the
proposed development. The downstream analysis prepared for the development says
that the water will go through two culverts, underneath the railway grade and then find
Sunset b-.,EPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 5
it's way into the P-1 Pond, which is a pump station pond from the Black River
Springbrook Creek system into the Green/Duwamish system. The missing link is how
the water physically gets from the railway tracks to the P-1 Pond, that is where potential
concerns arise, and those are the issues raised here. From the best available
information, that area is a closed depression wetland with a very limited drainage basin
area under existing conditions. The first point to be made about the area of the Black
River Riparian Forest is that it is a wetland. The City of Renton's wetland mapping
identifies almost the entire forest area as a wetland. The Environmental Checklist talks
about the culverts tinder the railway track and discusses that the culvert discharges to
wetlands or wetland areas. The second point of interest is what the nature of that
wetland is and what supports its hydrology and how does it drain. A Topographic
Mapping from the City's stone drain book and an AutoCAD drawing that enlarges the
area of the development site including the Riparian Forest were presented. The purpose
of the second map is to provide the topographic information at a more legible scale.
What is seen on these maps is a very closed depression. It is not clear from the drawing
how big the closed depression is or how deep it would get, there has been no outlet
identified to that closed depression. What that means is that the water inflow to the area
would tend to pond and seep out very slowly, at some point it would overflow and
overtop. The hydrology of that system is not well understood and that is one of the
concerns, it is not possible to say how well it functions. The water supply into the
wetland under present conditions is a very limited tributary basin area, the development
site probably counts for one-half of the total tributary basin area to the Riparian Forest
depression wetland. The development site also produces very little run off, the soils
report of the area shows that it is a sandy soil, highly pervious, even the runoff that is
coming from Sunset Boulevard is almost always infiltrating into the ground. The issue
is that when the site is developed and you add nine acres of pervious surface, it is going
to produce a lot of water and when all that additional water goes into the closed
depression, it's going to have a bathtub effect and pond tip. The closed depression
nature of the wetland makes it very vulnerable to increased volume changes and the
point raised is that the downstream analysis has not been sufficient because it has not
characterized the hydrology of this receiving wetland and the wetland is very vulnerable
because of the closed depression nature of the system. The project will increase the
volumes into the wetland for two reasons. The first being converting these nine acres of
forested sandy soil to impervious surface and piping that down to the bottom. The
second reason that the project is going to increase the hydrology or the water supply into
this closed depression is the treatment of the Sunset Blvd. Presently there is a number
of culverts which come under the roadway and the analysis of the property says that the
water from that culvert almost always infiltrates into the soil, what the development
proposes is to build parallel interceptor trenches, a number of catch basin inlets to
capture all the water so the development site stays dry and to tightline all that runoff
from Sunset Blvd. down to the bottom of the site through the railway culverts and then
into the closed depression wetland. The input of these findings suggests that the
combination of circumstances here says that the closed depression that is vublerable to
increased volume changes and the development proposal is certain to increase the
volumes into that system and the impacts are simply not known.
The Examiner stated that he thought they were proposing a fairly large detention pond
system on the north side of the railroad tracks on the subject site.
Mr. Rozeboom stated that that was correct. The detention pond will be effective in
controlling peak flows of the erosive flows, but the detention pond will have no impact
at all on the volumes.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 6
Ms. Fontes asked if the impacts, at this time, were known? Mr. Rozeboom stated that it
is known that there are impacts; but they cannot quantify hydraulically how deep the
water will get. The nature of the development will absolutely increase the runoff
volumes very significantly. It will raise the level of water in the wetland of the Riparian
Forest. From a hydrology perspective, the impact is that they are changing the depth of
water, and the duration of flooding.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen. Mr. Rozeboom stated that the estimate was that the
sensitive site occupies one-half of the upland basin area tributary to the wetland. No
quantitative calculations with respect to the levels of water in the downstream wetland
were done. There is a risk of significant adverse impacts that warrant further
investigation.
Upon further questioning by Mr. Mann; Mr. Rozeboom stated that he would not want to
characterize it as a mistake on the part of the City of Renton to not have investigated
further the quantity of water running off and the size of the hydrology impact; but rather
as an oversight.
Anil Butail, Geotechnical Engineer, 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, WA
98034 stated his qualifications and work experience. He further stated that he was
asked by Herons Forever to review the Environmental Checklist and accompanying
reports. He focused primarily on the geotechnical aspects of this project. A March 15,
2004 letter of Mr. Butail's findings was entered as Exhibit 7.
The proposed development calls for removal of all of the vegetation from the western
two-thirds of the project prior to any work being done. Once that is done there's going
to be a large amount of earthwork which will entail excavations on the uphill side of the
project placing large amounts of fill on the downhill side of the project, excavation of
large amounts of material for construction of the pond and placing large amounts of fill
for the access road into the project. Based on the drawings that have been prepared, the
exposed excavation immediately on the downihill side of Sunset could be as high as 70-
feet. The fills on the domihill side of the access road, which will be used to support
these lots. could be as much as 40-feet high and cuts for the pond are also going to be as
much as 40-feet high. This is a very large amount of earthwork for a steeply sloping
site and a site that has considerable sensitive areas.
The cuts and fills that are proposed on the site will probably be part of a balanced
earthwork operations, the material that is cut from the uphill side of the road will be
used as fill on the downhill side of the road. Looking at the information that is
presented in the Earth Consultant's Report, the materials that are encountered in the test
pits are extremely wet. Most of the soils shown in the test pits have moisture contents
in excess of 20% and the workable moisture range for these materials is on the order of
between 12% and 15%. With this kind of moisture variation these soils will be
extremely difficult to compact. Without extensive drying and considering work will
probably be done during the summer season and considering that the amount of
earthwork is going to be extensive, it seems that these materials cannot be reused as fill
unless there are significant chemical additives such as cement or lime kiln dust added to
snake the soil workable. There are cuts of as much as 70-feet proposed below Sunset,
the test excavations that have been done by Earth Consultants the maximum depth of
exploration is seventeen and one-half feet which tells that it is unknown what will be
excavated when the actual earthwork is done on the site. The ground water conditions
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 7
on the site have not been characterized, it is not known where the groundwater will be
encountered; if it is encountered, what provisions can be made to handle the
groundwater and also what impact the groundwater conditions will have on the stability.
There is discussion in the Earth Consultants report of slope stability, this is a very
serious issue. There is discussion in the report that the minimum safety facto' that has
been calculated is 1.9. there is some soil parameters that are discussed in the report that
are probably reasonable, but with regard to the safety factor of 1.9. that does not seem
correct. the actual safety factors will be much lower than that and with the proper
ground water characterization he believes that there is a serious instability issue below
both Sunset Boulevard and adjacent to the proposed pond locations.
The plan also shows several series of rockeries stacked on top of each other, the
schematics shown are most certainly not suitable for the conditions existing at the site
and are in a configuration that is just asking for instability to occur.
The Examiner asked what level of analysis would generally be recommended for a site
such as this, it has been pointed out that some of the test pits go down to about
seventeen and one-half feet, there is going to be excavations of up to 70 feet, does an
applicant on a hillside like this generally bore the full depth, or do they discover some of
these things while they would be developing the site?
Mr. Butail answered that on a site like this it would be disastrous to wait until
construction to discover all of the soil conditions. All explorations have to go down to
at least 15 to 20 feet below the maximum anticipated depth of excavation. The standard
of care in the industry is to go down at least to the depth of the proposed excavation and
when there are uncertainties in projects like this, it is necessary to go even further than
that.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fortes, Mr. Butail stated that the negative impact was one of
serious instability on the property. He also was aware that there was a second opinion
sought by the City of Renton regarding the geotechnical aspects of this project and that
he has read that second report.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Butail stated that he sometimes phases his
investigations concerning geotechnical site investigations and that sometimes he starts
with test pits and then moves onto project borings. He further stated that he had no
knowledge that any geotechnical borings have subsequently been done at the site.
The Examiner asked if the ERC would also be surprised to learn that borings have been
done?
Ms. Fontes stated that the new boring information was not available to the ERC.
Upon further questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Butail stated that he had been out to the
site but that he had not done any explorations on the site or any lab testing relating to
this project.
Dyanne Sheldon, 5031 University Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105 stated her qualifications
and work experience. Her resume was entered as Exhibit 8. She further stated that she
was asked by Herons Forever to review the Environmental Checklist and associated
reports submitted to the City of Renton for this proposal. A letter dated April 10, 2004
covering- tier review and findings and conclusions was marked Exhibit 9.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 8
The materials reviewed were supplied to her by Herons Forever and included the SEPA
checklist with the associated technical reports, a wetland repot conducted in the year
2000 and a wildlife report also done in the year 2000. She also reviewed Mr.
Rozeboom's report that was prepared for this hearing and various plan sheets that were
made available to her. She was not provided with a complete plan set.
She has visited the area surrounding thesite, walked the railroad grade. looked at the
wetland within the Riparian Forest and what can be determined by looking at the
technical documents that were submitted and being out on site are a series of items.
First it seems that additional fieldwork should be done on the site to detennine if there is
additional wetlands on the site. Based on the geotechnical report that was submitted by
Earth Consultants in January of this year, that report shows that in the area of proposed
Lot 60 in the southeast comer of project area, test pit ##9 identifies that there was
saturation within one foot of the surface at the time of their work and there was
additional saturation slightly deeper in the hole. From a wetlands perspective.
saturation within a foot of the surface may be reason to go back out and do a secondary
look. The work that was done on this site makes passing reference that the soils on the
hillside are so pervious that there would not likely be wetlands on the hill slope and
from looking at the soils reports on a peripheral level that may be true, however, there is
an on -site report in January that shows the saturated soils conditions within a foot. The
other soil test pits that were in that report do not show that same level of soil saturation
which is why this information Novas pulled out for that particular pit.
The Examiner asked about the Category 3 wetland that was not protected by the City.
Ms. Sheldon stated that that was in the southwest corner of the proposed project.
The implications of the project itself on the off -site wetlands, the project has attempted
to set aside the significant wetland on the site, which is in the southeast corner. It has to
most extent avoided direct impact to the small unregulated wetland in the southwest
comer, but the area of greatest concern is the off -site wetland itself. When looking at
this site, and understand, based on Mr. Butail's and Mr. Rozeboom's testimony that not
only will this site be cleared; but it will be massively regraded and that the soils by and
large on the surface layers are in existing conditions quite pervious. By regarding this
site and placing infiltration trenches at the top of the grade and at various locations
down the site, those infiltration trenches and galleries are designed to catch sub -surface
flows and bring them don to the detention pond. What happens in this detention pond
is that the volume of water that falls out of the sky doesn't change because of this
project but what happens to that volume of water that hits this site in the future changes
it dramatically because of what is proposed. The volume of water remains constant. it is
rapidly transmitted through the pipe system down to the pond and from that pond that
same volume of water is transmitted at an increased rate into the down stream receiving
wetlands. it isn't the volume of water that changes, it is the rate of the water getting
into that wetland that changes. There is abundant scientific literature about the
consequences of that change in the hydroperiod on wetlands. One of tine most
significant effects is the change in the contributing area, the change by grading, logging
and clearing, on the subsequent hydroperiod of the receiving wetlands. This effect has
not been assessed for this project. It simply has been dismissed that by discharging the
water to these existing culverts under the railroad grade that there will be no adverse
effect downstream, that has not been adequately addressed.
Sunset Bm,. oEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 9
The 1998 King County Manual is designed to look at water as an inert substance and as
a scientist she is testifying that that is fallacy, that looking at water as an inert substance
that it does not have a causative effect on biological and ecological function is a failure
to be assessed through the SEPA process.
The detention pond oontrols the rate of the flow it doesn't control the duration of the
now. There is a large bowl of water represented by the precipitation and that volume of
water is either poured out all at once. which the project does not do because the manual
precludes that from happening, or that same volume of water flows out of a small orifice
for a longer duration. The soils that are present on the site now slow the movement of
the water. If one could follow a water drop, it could take days or perhaps longer for it to
move through this site, under the railroad grade and into the wetland below. By putting
the whole system in the pipe, once the areas are converted to lawn grass they will
function in essence like impervious surface. They will no longer function like forested
upland soils that allow infiltration at a moderate rate. The research shows that the
results of appropriately applied storm water management provisions result in an increase
in water level fluctuations in the receiving wetlands. It isn't that the engineering is
poorly done; it is that what the science tells us is that because of those engineering
requirements there's a biological consequence and it is documented in the literature.
There is literature that has been collected both here in the Pacific Northwest and she is
the primary author of a recent document just published by the Department of Ecology
that represents a ten year synthesis of the implications of the science and management
of wetlands in Washington State. That document is precedent setting, it is the best
available science that's being created by ecology for local jurisdictions to update their
critical area ordinances and that finding about the consequences of the storm water on
natural systems is consistent throughout the area.
These detention ponds are designed from an engineering standpoint to what's called
"cut off the peak" which means they are simply designed to take the top of the big surge
of the flows and hold that volume back, but some of these systems are designed to
literally empty out at the bottom so that at the next storm event they can fill back up
again.
One of the primary concerns of the DNS on this project is that there was no evaluation
of that downstream system and of the wetland below. There is a location where water
appears to be flowing from the north side of the railroad grade and when going to an
appropriate location on the south side of the railroad grade there didn't appear to be any
flows that came through that particular culvert. There was no analysis from the
ecologists about the consequences of taking the flows from this site and directing thern.
through two 12-inch culverts into the receiving wetland on the other side. The research
shows that when we change the hydroperiod in wetlands there are only certain plant
communities that are adaptable to those kind of fluctuating water levels, basically a
wetland fills up after a storm event and then it drains back out. There's no evaluation
on this site whether or not a potential change in hydroperiod would affect the forested
condition on this site, it may very well might. In addition, there is the entire insect or
invertebrate community and amphibian community that would be present in that down
stream wetland that research shows have changes in the hydroperiod with measurable
significant adverse effect on those gilled animals, on the insects and amphibians. The
research is very clear, changes in hydroperiod cause adverse effect in these down stream
systems, those changes from this project have not been evaluated and were not asked to
be evaluated.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 10
In referring to the change in hydroperiod or storm driven events, when it rains the
wetland down below may be changed in future conditions from existing conditions. We
may have larger volumes of water getting to the wetland more quickly. On an annual
cycle, because we have removed the sponge of the soils from this proposed site. we will
have less water coming into the wetland earlier in the spring, so when our natural
drought cycle begins here in the Northwest. and we start to get fewer storm events,
those soils are no longer functioning as a sponge. There is no reserve present on the site
and so we have less water coming into the wetland down stream on an annual cycle and
in the fall the water will get to the wetland much more quickly.
The only thing anyone has to go by are the soil test pits, the top layers are quite
pervious, except for test pit #9, we are seeing moisture, but not a great deal of
saturation. However, if you look at the analysis in the geotech report, the lower reaches
of those test pits are saturated, so the soils are not sand all the way down, they are not
pervious all the way down.
Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Ms. Sheldon stated that the proposed lawn grass would
in essence function as if it is an impervious area. When you grade soils and move them
around, you absolutely destroy that interior structure of the soil and in fact; often times
in construction practices there is a call for a 95% compaction in replaced soils.
Ms. Sheldon stated that the applicant themselves have not proposed infiltration. Again
looking at the illustration. all the light green areas as Mr. Butail has testified are
massively regraded and it isn't appropriate to re -infiltrate into regraded soils especially
on the downside, you Would logically infiltrate at the top of the slope, you would not
infiltrate at the top of the building lots, but rather at the back of the building lots. Mr.
Butail has testified that that is 40 feet of fill and you would not want to re -infiltrate
water into fill soils. If they are going to re -infiltrate anyplace logically, they would
bring the infiltration trenches to the toe of the proposed fill or beyond the toe of the
proposed fill so that they don't end up saturating the toe of their structural fill.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fortes, Ms. Sheldon cited the source of information as the
applicant's own habitat wildlife assessment and stream study report fi-om this .January.
The 80 feet of stream that will be lost is .where the access road crosses the stream. it is
immediately to the west of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the east of the first lots of the
plat. According to information received this morning, this stream is not regulated by the
City. If it is not regulated by the City of Renton, it does not have to be compensated for
per the City of Renton's regulations. it may have to be assessed and permitted by other
state agencies and perhaps even federal agencies.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Ms. Sheldon replied that they were required to look
for saturated soil conditions all year round, but what was done when looking at these log
pits was compare the data in the logs and found that test pit 49 was the only one that the
geotech report talks about saturation within a foot of the surface.
Kate Stenberg. Ph.D.. 23022 SE 48'" Street, Sammamish, WA 98075 stated her
qualifications and experience. Her resume was entered as Exhibit 11. She has been
involved in monitoring Herons in King County and Puget Sound including the Black
River Heron colony and its surrounding habitats for over a decade. She was asked by
Herons Forever to review the environmental checklist and other information provided
by the City of Renton. A letter dated April 18, 2004 covering her review and findings
and conclusions was marked Exhibit 12.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 11
There are very likely to be significant environmental impacts that have not been
evaluated. These include impacts to the wetland and wetland species down stream of
the site, construction activity impacts, impacts from clearing the entire hillside of
vegetation, noise and light impacts from the development once it is occupied and
impacts from human and pet activity that is generated froth the hillside.
The Black River Great Blue Heron Colony is the largest in King, Pierce and Snohomish
Counties, it is among the top ten in Puget Sound, it currently supports about 130 nests.
It is a little difficult to get an exact number this time of year because the birds are
building new nests and this time of year when the leaves are out, it is difficult to spot
them. Nest counts are typically done at the end of the season with the leaves fall. The
Black River Heron Colony has grown in recent years even though other colonies in
King County have disappeared. It's important to note that the Great Blue Heron in this
region is a unique sub -specie. What we have in this area is the Coastal Great Blue
Heron, it is only found in Western Washington, Western British Columbia, and a little
bit of Southern Alaska. Overall, the population of the Coastal Great Blue Heron is
declining. The current numbers that were reported at the last International Heron
Working Group were about a 6% decline per year. According to Dr. Robert Butler,
whose letter is attached to her report, the population in Western Washington is about
4.000 individuals at this time. That makes the Black River Heron Colony about 6% of
the population in Washington. The Canadians have been very alarmed by the decline in
the populations that they are seeing and they have taken steps to list the Coastal Great
Blue Heron as a "species of concern" which is similar to a "sensitive" classification
under our endangered species act. They are also working towards putting together the
information necessary to upgrade that listing to one of "threatened".
What we have seen so far today is a very simple story, it's one that we see all around time
region, water that used to infiltrate into a forested hillside will now be piped and
tightlined directly to the bottom of that hillside. The vegetation is removed from the
hillside, the impervious surfaces are increased and all of this results in more water
leaving the site and in this case going directly into the Black River Riparian Forest.
Some common situations that we see may be beavers moving into an area, they dam
something up then start getting more water held in a wetland area for a longer period of
time, the vegetation changes, it changes not only from this change in duration and
volume but it changes from the water level fluctuations as well. The water goes up
higher, drops down lower at different times of the year than it does currently. That also
changes the vegetation. It's possible that what that would mean in the Riparian Forest is
that some of that forested vegetation would start to die. There will be a change ill the
vegetation that is buffering the heron colony from surrounding developments and
activities. There has not been a wetland delineation on the City's properties, so it is not
clear whether or not the nest trees themselves would be effected by these changes, but
that is another risk that needs to be looked at carefully.
The Examiner asked if all the studies help if the site is still developed? In other words,
it was just indicated the vegetation could die, even if we studied it to the nth degree and
decided the project should go ahead, but we still don't know what the outcome is, we
still don't know if the vegetation would die. Additional study won't really answer that
question,
Dr. Stenberg stated that some additional study would definitely give some indicators to
that question, because if you knew more about the depressional wetland, what sort of
outlet it had, what kind of water level elevations might be expected to be retained there,
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF. PP
.August 3, 2004
Page 12
those would start to answer some of those questions. There may be different design
changes that could be made on the hillside that would address some of those impacts.
Changes in hydrology aid vegetation also impact other wildlife in the area. The studies
that have been done in this region show that amphibians are very vulnerable to changes
in water level fluctuations. The simple example is that amphibians lay their egg masses
in seasonal wetlands at a particular place in the water column, then when you have up
stream development that changes the hydroperiod and the water lever fluctuations.
Perhaps there is more water in the wetland that comes in in a spring storm, the eggs
don't move because they are attached to vegetation, but if the water level rises then
suddenly they are deeper in the water colunm than mama frog wanted them to be, or if
the water level drops, then suddenly maybe they are exposed. Either case they don't
survive and reproduce nearly as well. Herons depend on amphibians quite a bit for a
food source doling some fairly critical times in their life cycle. When the adults are
brooding on the nests they rely on food sources that are close at hand for a quick snack.
They don't have the opportunity to leave the nest for very long. The other critical
period of time when amphibians seems to be a very important food source is when the
juveniles are first learning to forage for themselves. This is after they leave the nest in
the late summer, early fall, fish are kind of tricky to catch, and it takes them a while to
figure it out, so in the meantime, they do seem to eat a lot of frogs and small mammals.
The other group of animals that we see quite a bit of change to when the water level
fluctuations change, when the hydroperiod changes in wetlands is the invertebrate
community. The invertebrates are the ones that the amphibians are relying on, and so
on up the chain.
We also do see around this region when we get development on hillsides above
wetlands that the water isn't held in those forest soils on the hillside, it is not held in
slope wetlands, it is released very quickly, when it rains the water goes to the bottom of
the hill very quickly; it goes to the wetland very quickly after the storm events. It is not
in the hillside to be released during the summer. Then what we see is more water in the
wet periods, less water in the dry periods. A concern may be that if that change occurs,
and we see less water in the wetland surrounding the heron colony and in the P-1 pond,
that could effect the food resources again for those late summer, critical feeding periods.
There are several water quality concerns; the runoff from the urban neighborhoods to
the north and from SR 900 that is described in the application as coming onto the site at
the top of the hill duough a set of eight culverts, currently runs down across the hillside.
through these forested soils, through the forest, for the entire length of the hillside. That
provides quite a bit of water quality improvement to that urban runoff that is coming off
SR 900. There were some indications that in the past there have been concerns about
failing septic systems in the neighborhoods tothe north as well. The quality of the water
that is coming onto the site at the top of the hill is maybe not the best and under this
proposal the way she reads the drainage diagrams, that water would be captured at the
top of the hill, to address concerns about slope stability, and piped to the bottom of the
hill and then discharged directly into the Black River Riparian Forest. So all of that
filtering will no longer occur.
The extensive regrading is likely to require some fill material to be brought in or some
sort of soil amendments. There is a concern that additives, even something like concrete
on a steep hillside, can impact the water quality at the bottom of the hillside. Single
family homes, people are fairly notorious for their poor lawn management practices,
there is often an increase in pesticides and fertilizers and again all.of the runoff from
Sunset Blu... OA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 13
these lots because of the site conditions, there is no where for it to infiltrate and get that
kind of water quality treatment, so it again is just going to the bottom of the hill and
then out into the Black River Riparian Forest. Both the water quality and quantity
concerns would effect all of the wildlife in Black River, including the threatened
Chinook. Cola the Bald Eagles and all of the other non -listed species such as the water
fowl, the diversity of birds; amphibians and mammals that occur down there.
It is the design of the site that creates more impacts than it needs to for that level of
development.
The distance to the colony is more like 950 feet rather than the 1100 feet that was listed
in the environmental checklist and reviewed by the City. The number that was in the
application seems to have been measured from the main colony, which is a portion of
the Great Blue Heron Colony and is not where the bulk of the nests are now. It also was
measured from the center of that area and when dealing with a Great Blue Heron
colony; which is really a polygon, you need to measure from the edge of the nearest nest
to whatever the activity is you are measuring to, not the center of the colony. The
Department of Fish and Wildlife has prepared management recommendations for Great
Blue Herons and they did an extensive literature review in putting those management
recommendations together. In studies they found that construction within 2600 feet was
a problem for herons and they recommend that no construction or logging occur within
3200 feet. Obviously in an urban situation maybe that's not the most reasonable
recommendation. but that is what is coming out of the State. In urban King County
studies, the researchers have found that the colony size decreases when there is
development within a thousand feet. Now this proposal is well within all of those
parameters so an impact to the heron colony needs to be thought about. In 1998 the
City of Renton approved an office park to the south and east of the heron colony. At that
time; the closest part of the office park was less than 500 feet to the main colony. The
main colony was the center of concentration of the heron nests of the colony. What we
have seen in the following years is that the herons have been moving away from that
office park, they have been more preferentially nesting in what is now called the
protected forest, the polygon labeled "PF", and in fact this year, that main colony is
unoccupied. The reproductive success in the main colony in the years following the
office park construction and occupation was lower than the success of nests in the
protected forest. It's taken some time, but we are seeing an impact of development 500
feet to this colony. The proposal, of course, is further away, but it is also above the
colony. Nesting herons are more sensitive to disturbances above their nests as they are
also very sensitive to disturbances directly beneath the nests, but activities that are on
the same elevation but off to the side at some distance, those they seem to adapt to
maybe a little better. It also seems that the construction noises from the hillside will
carry further because of the elevation, because of the removal of all of the vegetation,
noise carries further when it is going through open air and isn't bouncing off the ground
or running into intervening vegetation. None of this was considered in the City's
analysis.
There also was discussion in the application that the herons tolerated the blasting from
the rock quarry some distance away for years. So clearly, they are not concerned about
noises. A number of things to consider on that point, again the blasting noise was
further away from the colony than either this development or other developments that
we've discussed and that blasting stopped a few years ago, we haven't been able to
pinpoint the date exactly, but it seems that it may have been early 2002 and there has
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 14
been a tremendous growth in that protected forest area since that has happened. The
size of the protected forest doubled in 2002.
The colony is broken into two pieces, the main colony which is located on the island in
the P-I pond. and then there is.the larger polygon area that just by common usage is
being called the protected forest.. It isjust a portion of the heron colony itself.
The Examiner inquired if these changes could be due to the change in water lever and
weather of the last couple years that might have lead to the expansion, there may be
more food sources; the wetland is not drying out or is wetter or dryer: again, we don't
necessarily know because no one has been studying the direct implications of any of the
natural systems on this heron colony either? In 2002 there may have been some other
shift that also encouraged their growth and expansion.
Dr. Stenbere stated that there are a number of things to keep in mind; the trees in the
portion of the colony that we call the protected forest did not change over this time
period. Prior to the commercial development being approved to the south and east of
the main colony; the area that is called the main colony was the preferred nesting
location. That is the area that when the birds arrived back in the early spring and
January that they would go to first to select nests. The dominant birds in the colony
would get there first and they would go to the main colony. It wasn't until the main
colony was full, that birds would be forced to move over and try to nest in the area
called the protected forest. What we see after the commercial development is approved
and then even more dramatically after the blasting stopped, is that the protected forest
area becomes the preferred nesting location. So now when the dominant birds arrive in
the spring. the first place they go to is the protected forest. The best nests are there. the
best birds are there. The number of nests in the main colony declined slowly over the
years, it was 40 nests a couple of years ago, it was 22 nests last year, this year there is
nobody there at all. In terns of larger global changes, I don't think that is what we are
seeing here, we are seeing a response to what's been going on just around this colony.
For construction activities. seasonal construction limits are a pretty simple way to
mitigate for impacts. They need to be site specific, however, the Black River Herons
arrive at this site in mid -January, which is very early compared to other colonies in the
region. They occupy those nests until late August and that's because they don't all start
nesting on the I" of February. The Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends a
seasonal construction limit of between mid -February to the end of July within a
thousand feet of heron colonies. Because this particular colony starts so early, we
recommend mid -January until the end of July. Those late August nesters, if they are
still nesting into late August, they tend to be a little less sensitive to disturbances. They
also tend to be a little less successful.
It is important to know in ternis of the site conditions of this particular colony that the
north side of the colony has effectively a much larger buffer than there is on the south
side. The distance from the colony to existing activity, such as SR 900, the Sunset View
Apartments, the neighborhoods further up the hill, that distance is much further on the
north side than on the south side. We have observed that this colony is much more
sensitive to activity on the north side. On the north side they react much more like a
colony you would expect to find in a rural area than they do fi-om activities coming at
them from the other side. Larger buffers that would be imposed on a more sensitive
colony makes sense for the north side of this colony. The Department of Wildlife
recommends 1,000-foot buffers.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 15
With regard to impacts from clearing vegetation off the hillside, clearing the forested
cover which is described in the City's staff report as heavily wooded with trees ranging
from 36 inches in diameter to 48 inches in diameter, which are very large trees.
Removing that kind of forest will impact the water quality and quantity downstream and
that has been discussed already. The loss of the vegetation on the hillside is a big loss
of habitat and it is also a loss of key habitat features for the herons. The herons use that
hillside for resting, they forage in the large Category 1 wetland and they use that forest
as a source of twigs for their nesting material. In the urban area we are finding that
twigs are becoming an increasingly scarce resource. The Category I wetland on the
hillside is critical foraging area for the juveniles, it is close to the colony so it is an
important place for them to go to when they are first leaming to fly, it's an important
place for them to find those easy food sources. Studies in King County have shown that
herons will forage up to 150 feet from the edge of wetlands when they are looking for
those easy food sources, the small mammals, the amphibians, things like that. We
would recommend that that Category 1 wetland retain a 150-foot buffer to protect that
wildlife value. The hillside forest may also at some point serve as an alternate nest sites
in the future, as urbanization occurs, suitable nesting locations become more and more
limiting. We are seeing that with the loss of colonies throughout urbanized Puget
Sound, like the Black River Riparian Forest where we have a fairly large protected area,
whether it is attracting the birds from different colonies that have disappeared or if this
is all internal growth is tough to tell, but this colony is doing well because it does have a
good forest around it. The hillside vegetation is part of that success.
It is important to assess the potential impacts and we don't believe that that has been
done. These are some of the things that are potential impacts.
Hydro -seeding with grasses is not really mitigation for the removal of that heavily
wooded hillside. With the staff report describing the trees on that hillside as being 36-
48 inches in diameter, replanting some trees at a minimum would seem more
reasonable. The landscaping condition found in the staff report and recommendations
also seems rather vague and does not appear to directly address mitigation of the loss of
vegetation.
The noise and light impacts once the development is occupied were not addressed in
any of the materials reviewed. Current activities that occur around the heron colony are
primarily during the daylight hours. Commercial parks, the office parks are occupied
during general working hours. The recreational activities that occur in the Black River
Riparian Forest again are primarily daylight hours, because there are no lighted paths in
that region.
Another observation that is very relevant to this situation, observers have noted that
there is a tremendous amount of new nests being built in the protected forest in recent
years, the nests are not built any further west than a point where you start to see the
Sunset View Apartments. In Figure 4 from her report, on the right side of time line you
can see the nests that have been built in the protected forest, and there is a light spot
showing up in the hillside on the left side of the line, that is where the Sunset View
Apartments become visible. It is possible that the activity and light from those
apartment, which is above the heron nests, that that activity from that existing
development is acting as a deterrent for further expansion of the heron colony in a
westerly direction. It is also important to keep in mind that even if noise and light and
activity doesn't cause the herons to leave directly, it may stress them which can
ultimatt-l- effect reproductive success and that may take a while to detect. The proposed
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 16
development is going to be at an elevation of about 115 feet. that would be the level of
the lots. The lighting on homes and street poles would be somewhat higher than that.
The heron nests are in trees at a ground elevation of about 30 feet, the nests are about
50-75 feet above that, that puts them at an elevation of about 80-100 feet. There is
lighting on the hillside at something greater than 115 feet. with the nests at about 85-90
feet, the light will be above the nests. it will be shining dowt into the Black River
Riparian Forest and a simple requirement for commercially available shielded lighting
may not be enough to prevent the glare from getting into the Black River Riparian
Forest. The ERC did not appear to consider the site -specific characteristics of
topography. the existing vegetation, the impacts of the past surrounding developments
or the nature of the activity that's proposed in developing its conclusions and its
mitigation measures.
Some fencing has been required, it's a little unclear as to where that fence is supposed to
be and there seems to be some contradictory conditions.
On the north side there is not the same kind of natural bander, there is a small amount of
activity, people come off of Naches Avenue, there is a dry roadway. There is a
vegetation restoration site on the north side by the railroad tracks and a person who
monitors that site reports that there very rarely are other people in that area. Whereas,
on the south side there could be more people visiting the site. The other difference on
the north side is that the wetland areas are there, there are a lot of dry spaces, a lot of
hummocks, it is not a water pond like the south side. There is opportunity for access
very close to the nests. It is fairly likely that there will be human activity and pets
coming down off the hillside into the north part of the Black River Riparian Forest.
There's no open space provided for within the development, the green areas that are
shown on the various plat maps are 50% slopes with some grass on them. There also is
no provision for any sort of a sidewalk connection along SR 900 to off -site facilities that
may be present. The obvious place to go is down the hill.
There are some fence conditions mentioned, a fence material should be durable, wood
fences may not last as long as the development lasts. There are conflicting conditions
for a split rail fence in one portion of the reports and a solid wood fence in other
portions of the report. It is not clear what design the City had in mind. The emergency
access road that is proposed to extend off the site to the west should also be gated with a
solid gate that is difficult to climb over and that would provide a safety measure to
prevent children from getting into the rock quarry or down onto the railroad tracks, as
well as help mitigate these impacts to the heron colony.
In conclusion, it seems that the City's review was based on some erroneous information
and definitely incomplete information and it is recommended that their evaluation of
impacts be revised. There are a number of probable adverse impacts to water quality,
water quantity, to the sensitive fish and wildlife including the significant heron colony
and the threatened Chinook, that those impacts are likely to occur from construction
noise and activity, the loss of the hillside vegetation, changes in noise, light and glare
and human and pet activity that occurs after occupancy. Her report also includes a
number of suggested conditions that might help to mitigate for some of the impacts after
there's been a more thorough analysis of those impacts.
Upon further questioning by Ms. Fontes, Dr. StenberQ responded that the 950 feet
designated on Exhibit 12 is an approximate number. That distance is from the protected
Sunset Blu, oEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 17
forest to the property line of the proposed development. The P-1 channel extends to the
south and turns into Springbrook Creek and also goes westerly to the pump station
Dr. Stenberg stated that the Sunset View Apartments are located northwest of the
subject property. The arrow in Fig 4 is pointed at the Apartments, but it is almost
impossible to tell which particular building in that complex is showing. Any point to
the west of this line, the herons might not build because of the human structure of
Sunset View.
Upon further questioning by Ms. Fontes. Dr. Stenberg stated that there were nests. just
no active nests in the old main colony. The heron came in and tried to nest, they laid
eggs, the eagles came in repeatedly and predated on those eggs and eventually
somewhere around mid -April the heron gave up. The bald eagle predation has more to
do with the nesting success at the end of the season rather than the formation of the
nests. The monitoring of Great Blue Heron colonies in Puget Sound has become a lot
more systematic in recent years. The number of nests is a result in the increase of the
number of birds using that particular location. It does not mean that there has been an
increase in the population generally because we have seen a corresponding decline in
the number of colonies in other locations. As far as in increase in the number of Great
Blue Herons in the Northwest, the indications are that the number of herons in Western
Washington is declining. The International Heron Working Group is a coordinated
effort between Canada and Washington scientists to track the Great Blue Herons to try
and get some better systematic numbers on exactly what is happening with the
population and the indications are, the best available data at this point in time is that the
population is declining. The population of Bald Eagles seems to be increasing. We
don't know if there is a correlation between these facts, there are a lot of other factors
impacting the Great Blue Herons including increased levels of development close to
nests, we see a lot more human activity, a lot more development, both impact food
sources, one of the big concerns in this area is the loss of the wetland habitat as you go
down the Green River valley. Lack of suitable nesting sites is another big factor, there
is a lot of things that seem to be impacting the herons. We are finding that the bald
eagles, because they are more of a scavenger species, they are a little more opportunistic
in searching for food resources and when there is suitable habitat, meaning a suitable
nest structure, they are nesting more and more frequently in the urban areas.
The herons have not acclimated to the Corporate Park, what we have seen is that they
are moving away from it and giving themselves that distance back again. They have
moved to the west away from that office park.
The blasting in the quarry area went on for quite a number of years, but it did stop a few
years ago. It is unclear exactly how long or how much blasting went on, but since it has
ceased, the herons have moved closer and built more nests in that direction. This
particular colony does show a greater sensitivity from some directions. Each colony is
different and we certainly can find examples, as stated earlier some colonies have
chosen to live closer to urban development. We also see our biggest colotues in more
rural areas where they are not subject to disturbances.
Mr. Halinen presented Dr. Stenberg with a Newspaper article from the King County
Journal dated February 28, 2004 and stated that in trying to reconcile her testimony with
the article regarding a rookery being established in Medina Park directly over a walking
trail and the herons seem to be doing well even though they are close to people versus
the colony in Renton that wants to stay far away from people. Is there anything that
explains this difference?
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 18
Dr. StenberH stated that this is a very small group of herons. 4 nests, and that they
moved into the park in its existing condition. There are very large trees that overhang a
pond and the herons were successful last year, and have come back this year. It is
unclear if all four nests are occupied this year, but this is the sort of thing that is seen
quite often in an urban area. What we see from the Dept of Fish and Wildlife and the
studies that have been done in this region is that the larger colonies, the ones that are
more significant to the population as a whole. do tend to be more sensitive; want a little
more room around them. When you have this kind of situation with a very urban park,
it's landscaped, the people are moving, people are walking on the paths constantly; there
is a very small stand of trees available to them, you get very small groups and they don't
persist.
The Examiner stated that there was a further paragraph talking about the herons landing
on residential docks, but taking off when humans get within 100 feet. however, they will
stay with boats and jet skis going by. So obviously the people seem to be more of a
threat than these other things, they flush at different signals.
Mr. Halinen handed Dr. Stenberg a letter dated .tune 12, 1998 that she signed, addressed
to Jennifer Toth Henning, Sr. Planner, City of Renton Development Services that refers
to Black River Tract B development proposal. Would you focus on the top of page two,
dealing with your recommendation for an optimal buffer width of 600 feet or larger? is
this the same basic heron rookery we are dealing with today?
Dr. Stenbere stated that this .was in reference to the commercial development that was
proposed at that time on the south and east side of the main colony area. It also was in
response to the official stance of King County in terms of buffer widths. If you look a
littler further down on the same page, under seasonal construction restrictions, we do
say that there should be no construction during the nesting season within a buffer zone
of 1000 feet. There's a difference between allowing development to occur and
allowing that construction activity to occur. Those are two different impacts, we were
trying to address different things there. Also; for the development on the south and east.
it's in an area where it's closer, it's on that side of the colony where you've got higher
levels of activity. We were not looking at issues to the north of the colony at that time.
Mr. Halinen stated that in communication from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad,
they said two freight trains per day, Monday through Saturday use that section of tracks.
Dr. Stenbere stated that there is a road that somebody graded and never really built that
goes off the end of Naches towards the railroad tracks. Occasionally you see someone
back in there, but that's really not an area that gets any use currently.
Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Dr. Stenberg stated that if she were writing those same
letters today (Exhibits 15 and 16) her recommendations, given the increase in
knowledge of herons and of this coastal sub -species, in particular.the Black River Heron
Colony, would follow the letter she recently wrote. In 1999 all up and down the Puget
Sound region we saw a lot of bald eagle predation and we saw a lot of colonies abandon
mid -season. at that time there were a few colonies that were being monitored carefully,
Black River being one of those. All of a sudden the reports started to trickle in that this
colony abandoned and that colony abandoned, etc., the heron wildlife community in
general sat up and took notice and since that time we have been much more systematic
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 19
about monitoring. The International Heron Working Group formed to do more
systematic studies and look at different issues of the heron's biology and what might be
going on out there for them. So yes, we do have an increase in knowledge.
The decline of the population in Washington does raise the level of concern and that
decline has been well documented by folks that are studying the herons specifically.
Because they are a large visible bird there is a general perception in the general
population that the herons are doing just fine, but as the wildlife community and
specifically the heron community has really sat down and started to look at this issue.
there is still quite a bit of concern about the population. We're not finding that things
arejust fine.
Mr.Halinen inquired further stating, my question was; isn't it true that in your statement
a moment ago, if you were rewriting these letters today there would be different
recommendations and that is based, at least in part, upon your premise that these birds
are in a population decline, is that correct?
Dr. Stenberg replied that it is a part of the consideration but it's not a direct factor in the
specific recommendations.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fortes, Dr. Stenberg stated that with respect to seasonal
limitations on construction we are talking about outdoor construction, clearing and
grading. The maintenance of the homes are conditions that would apply to the
development of the plat, the City has no authority to extend seasonal limitations to
individual lots or homes. Everybody that moves into that development will be educated
on the herons and they will all be active heron monitors and they will all understand that
they cannot be out banging around and adding new things on their houses in the early
part of the nesting season. We would support a seasonal construction limitation for the
initial home construction as well as the site clearing and grading, usually there are
provisions for exceptions.
Mr. Halinen inquired if that's true regardless of distance away, is that what you are
saying? Do you know how far the farthest homes are?
The Examiner stated that it is approximately 950 feet to the south edge of the site and
the width of the site looks about 950 to 1000 feet.
Dr. Stenberg stated that it is not that far, with the aerial photos and the topography
rising, she was not sure that the scale was going to stay the same across the photo. The
site appears to be only about 600 feet deep. She would like to see an analysis of noise
impacts and how the noise would attenuate as it goes off the hillside with no intervening
vegetation to the heron nests. That would be a factor to consider.
Ms.Fontes: Specifically with respect to Exhibit 12, City is going to object to Fig 4, tine
one with the line in it. The witness testified she was not with the person who took it and
can only guess where it was taken from. There is an arrow directed at what could be a
structure, she could not testify what that structure was or where it was. In her
testimony, she implied that there was some correlation between being able to maybe see
what could be a building and the fact that the nests don't come any further west, the
person who took this picture is not here to testify and there are a host of questions on
this photograph and there is no one to cross examine.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 20
Mr. Mann: The person who took the photo is here in the room today and Suzanne
Krom, who was there standing next to him, can verify everything in the photo.
The Examiner: Perhaps it could be admitted separately. Normally everything is
admitted. Depending on the direction of angle: what's west and what's north.
depending on the focal point of that photograph it could be anywhere. It will be
admitted with the report.
Suzanne Krom. President. Heron's Forever. 4715-1/2 36" Avenue SW. Seattle, WA
98126 stated that Heron's Forever was formed in 1989. She has headed up tine
organization the entire time. The organization consists of more than 400 members from
the Puget Sound area. The group was formed to protect the Black River Riparian Forest
and their sole focus has been to monitor the heron colony and to protect them.
In 1989 the only section of the Black River Riparian Forest that was protected was
actually the protected forest which was a City designation. that's where the name came
from. it is the forested area, on the south edge of the P- I Pond. The main colony
located on the small island is where the herons began nesting in 1986. During the past
15 years they have worked with the City to acquire public funds to purchase a good part
of this land. Tract A was acquired, the tract closest to the pump plant and then the
section they were not able to purchase was the section right on the corner of SW 7°i and
Oakesdale.
The Seattle Audubon Society. Sierra Club. and Heron Habitat Helpers participate in all
activities supporting Heron's Forever. Recently, the Heron Coalition was formed in
response to increased interest on the part of the public. Eight million dollars in public
fiords was dedicated for use as acquisition funds to purchase the Black River Riparian
Forest, millions of people in King County, the State and Renton are stake holders in this
site. It was deemed worthy of acquisition and protection by elected officials.
From the monitoring, the long -tens trends prior to 2002 were of relatively slow growth
in the colony. Once the development .went in, the numbers stopped increasing and
slowly started to decrease. The current conditions within the heron colony are that the
walking trail along the south edge of the P-1 Pond is well used. All human activity
takes place along this trail, virtually no activity takes place in the north section of tine
Black River Riparian Forest between the hillside and the heron colony. In addition all
human activity takes place during the daylight hours, little to no activity takes place at
night, there are no lighted pathways and there are no residential areas in the
neighborhood.
Ms. Krom was present when the photo, known as Figure 4 in Exhibit 12, was taken.
They were standing in the upper meadow which provided a little more visibility to see
where the heron nests stopped. They were trying to see why the nests were stopping at
this point. While evaluating that, they were standing directly in line with the eastern
most structure for the Sunset View Apartments.
Before that development went in on the comer of SW 71h and Oakesdale, the
productivity of the main colony was very high, on the scale of 2.4 to 2.6 chicks per nest.
it is usually somewhere between 1.9 and 2.1. Once those buildings went in, the
productivity started going down. Right now we have zero productivity.
Sunset Btu-_ ..nPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 21
The Examiner: Is it true that the herons manage to kill the trees that they nest in, which
makes them less desirable as nesting sites also.
Ms. Krom stated that that is something they are aware of. there is acid in the droppings
and it causes cottonwoods, that are not a long lasting tree, to die sooner. In the
protected forest, the colony is very productive this year.
Ms. Fontes referring to Exhibit 18 asked, if Ms. Krom could indicate where it was that
she were standing with the gentleman who took this picture; when this picture was
taken?
Ms. Krom had some trouble identifying the location from the map and asked if Mr.
Hamilton could come forward to show the specific location. Mike Hamilton was the
person actually taking the photograph in question.
Mike Hamilton. 20418 NE 41" Street, Sammamish, WA 98074 placed an "X" on the
map to show the approximate location from which the photo was taken. It is to the east
of the path, approximately 25' to 50'.
The Examiner stated that on Exhibit 18 Mr. Hamilton indicated approximately where he
was standing when he took the photograph, the question is, did you shoot straight up
toward the demarcation that was shown in Fig 4, sort of the break where there are
herons to the east and no herons to the west?
Mr. Hamilton stated that the way the photo was planned was to produce a photo that
included what was perceived to be the eastern most building of the apartment complex
which also included the western most portions of the protected forest nests. He did not
have a compass at the time so it is a guess that the camera axis was pointed north,
northwest which makes it about 22 degrees off of due north. That is a guess, the error
bars would be perhaps +/- 10 degrees. He put no text or markings of any kind on the
photo. The arrow is pointing to part of the apartment complex, it is the eastern most
structure. It was our intent to produce a photo that would show the eastern most part of
the Sunset View Apartments and the western most part of the protected forest.
The Examiner stated the issues of the SEPA Appeal are narrow and focused. We are
looking to determine whether the City made an appropriate decision in issuing a
mitigated DNS that is, they decided that the project did not have significant adverse
conditions that couldn't be mitigated with a list of about 26 conditions, and if you can
add to that, otherwise, again if people want to testify against the project and for the
herons, there will be an opportunity for that, if people have questions about the proposal
itself, other than the SEPA, there will be an opportunity for that type of question. there
will be opportunities at the plat hearing to also suggest modifications to the project and,
of course, suggest that it be denied. It is up to the Hearing Examiner to make a
recommendation to the Council, the Council would take final action on the plat. Is there
any public testimony at this point?
Discussion ensued as to whether public testimony was appropriate during the SEPA
appeal hearing. The following testimony was heard.
Sunset BlulTSEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 22
Mr. Marsh 3434 141h Avenue W, Seattle, WA 98119 stated that he was not called as an
expert witness, but does hold a Ph.D. in zoology with studies in population ecology and
would like to comment on the broad issue of whether we should be taking more habitat
from the Great Blue Herons.
Ms. Fontes stated that is sounds like a SEPA issue to her.
Mr. Marsh stated that because humans in western civilization have taken what is now
knoNvn as private oxvitership of specific areas of land and assigned a monetary value to
them we engage in this legal gymnastics that xve have seen today. Herons care little for
these concerns, but they are affected throughout their range in Puget Sound and the
Georgia Straits by increasing conversion of native vegetation and increasing human
intrusion and disturbance. The success and persistence of a population of animals
depends on its members being able to secure enough energy to replace what they lose in
growth and activity. Any disturbance resulting in increased activity causing them to fly
may mean that the balance is tipped adversely so that energy for egg production. or
growth of young is lost. If this City has any responsibility for the Great Blue Heron
Colony in the Black River Riparian Forest it should consider that the proposed
development of the hillside forest north of the heron colony represents the elimination
of a portion of the available habitat for the herons and the introduction of a very
disturbing period of construction activity. Including the felling of the forest in their
plain view and hearing. Subsequent to this disturbance there would be a long-term
source of disturbance visible to or at a greater elevation of the heron nests which Dr.
Stenberg has mentioned as a serious consideration. If the loss of the hillside habitat and
the introduction of disturbing elements to their environment here may convert one of the
few growing heron colonies to another declining one.
Barak Gale. Social Action Chair and Member of the Board of the congregation Eitz Or
in Seattle. 6522 42"d Ave NE, Seattle. WA 981 15 stated that last Saturday, after services
he and few congregants made a visit to the Black River Riparian Forest and watched the
herons fly to and from the trees while repairing their nests. He shared a very short tale
about blessings. He tutors several 12-year olds in preparation for bar and bat -mitzvahs.
one boy, in his portion, has the most ancient blessing in the entire bible. In his speech he
comments on that blessing where God shines his light upon you saying that when he's
out walking in nature that's when lie feels God's light shining and I want all children to
be able to feel God's light in nature. now and in the future. He further shared an
interpretive rendition of the priestly blessing.
If it is found that such trail is. in fact, damaging to the heron population. he would be
very supportive of not having the privilege of visiting the area and letting the creature be
in peace.
After the break. scheduling for the Plat hearing and the continuation of the SEPA appeal
were discussed:
The SEPA Appeal hearing will continue on the Thursday, April 29d', at 9:00 a.m.
Testimony will be heard from people who cannot come to a Plat hearing, the Plat
hearing will be next Tuesday, April 27 at 9:00 am.
Angela Romig, 305 Kensington Avenue S., Kent, WA 98030 stated that she is a 6d'
grade teacher, and when she told her class that she would not be at school today, that
she would be at a hearing to save the herons, they cheered. They were proud that she
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 23
would be standing up for the herons. Many urban/suburban children have grown up
surrounded by development, the heron nesting site is a real gem in the overabundance of
development in our area. We have the opportunity to save this last vestige of wilderness
in our midst, not only for ourselves but for our children. May they marvel and cherish
the beauty of these birds in a setting untouched by bulldozers and construction for years
to come.
Sally Neary, 1 190 Union Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that she came today as
a cheerleader for the herons. She opposes this development because it affects her
quality of life as a Renton citizen. She moved here from New York State seven years
ago to work for Boeing and she has been impressed and pleased since then with the
efforts to beautify the downtowln area and bring people back to it. Her favorite discovery
was the heron colony right on the fringe of downtown. She has enjoyed relaxing and
connecting with nature without having to leave the city. This unique pocket of wildlife
helps make Renton a livable city for her and her neighbors. She is not opposed to
development per se, in fact I applaud Mr. Merlino's efforts to build in town rather than
contribute to sprawl. Urban development such as the homes in the Transit Center area,
and the new Sam's Club provide more opportunities for Renton residents. She opposes
this development not only because she believes that it is fiscally irresponsible. King
County invested almost $8 million to acquire the Black River site for the citizens of
Renton, and as taxpayers they have the right and the obligation to see that the
investment is protected. One private developer's needs should not be allowed to
jeopardize what belongs to all of us. It is hoped that those in power will value this
resource and do their best to protect it for us and for future generations.
Jerry Holmes, 408 Index Place NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he is affiliated with
an organization called Friends of the Black River. A request was made that there be a
moratorium on heavy outdoor construction of the project during the heron's nesting
season. Friends of the Black River do think this is a prudent mitigation in regards to
this project.
Returned to the SEPA hearing
Scott Dinkelman, Geotechnical Consultant, Earth Consultants, 1805 136" Place NE,
Suite 201, Bellevue, WA 98005.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen. Mr. Dinkelman explained his background and
connection with this project. Earth Consultants were brought on last fall to prepare a
geotechnical engineering study. In November 2003 they dug 15 test pits, using that
information a preliminary slope stability analysis was done as well as a preliminary
geotechnical engineering study dated January 9, 2004,
As part of the January 9 study, it was recommended that additional exploration be
performed due to the depth of the cuts that were planned, the test pits that were dug
couldn't get down to the bottom of the excavations as well as there were some fills
being placed at the tops of some of the site slopes. In March 2004 that work was
started, five additional borings were done, one to a depth of 73 feet, one to a depth of 50
feet and three other borings to a depth of about 30 feet. The samples collected from the
borings and the rock core were sent to the lab and tests were performed.
The soils on site consist primarily of silty sands. The site soils are fairly fine-grained
and moisture sensitive. Summer construction would allow the soils to be aerated and
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 24
dried back to optimum moisture at which point they could be compacted, a 95%
compaction criteria was specified. The intention has always been to use the site
materials as structural fill.
The slope stability test done for the original report was fairly preliminary; there was not
a lot of soils data and certainly nothing much deeper than 15-17 feet. With the borings
that were done more recently, more samples were obtained from a deeper depth as well
as samples that could be tested for their strength properties. The slope stability analyses
was rerun. some adjustments were made to the grading plan from the time the
preliminary study was put together, using the values that .were obtained from the
additional testing and the borings, the factors against sliding actually went up slightly.
The factor of safety is the ratio of the driving forces such as gravity, slope inclination
and water pressures. A factor safety of I means you are at a point of immanent failure.
Based on the additional analysis, things are stable, it is slightly better than what we had
expected based on the preliminary analysis.
Upon questioning by the Examiner. Mr. Dinkelman stated that the emergency road was
a large rock fill that had been built at the quarry.
Mr. Dinkelman further stated that he didn't believe there were any 70-foot fills, he
would rather defer that to dle civil engineer since it is something that he does not really
get involved with.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen. Mr. Dinkelman stated that Dyanne Sheldon was
making an inference off of the soils that were encountered in the original report, there
was some seepage at that location, the test pits were dug in November, a fairly wet time
of the year, seepage was encountered at one foot which could havejust been some
surface water that was coming into the test pit. The person doing the logging of the test
pits was an engineering geologist and not a wetlands biologists, the information that is
on the logs cannot be inferred as reflective as what a wetlands biologist would ascertain
the moisture content to be.
Upon questioning. by Mr. Mann. Mr. Dinkelman stated that the test sheets, part of
Exhibit I, the test pit logs and the soil are showing. for example test pit 5, is moist to
wet in the first 10-30 feet. The soils will hold some moisture but they are certainly not
permeable soils. Slopes are often engineered at 50% and typically we'll put together a
preliminary report fully anticipating that eventually we would be able to go out there
and drill some borings. We recommended prior to the final construction drawings that
the borings be done.
If we had found something unusual in our test pits we would have recommended that we
go out and do the borings before we issued our preliminary report. We actually found
fairly favorable soil conditions in our test pits. We were also surprised to find the
bedrock in our test pits, we were expecting different soil types based on the client's
experience with the site. The slope stability analysis was performed before the January
9 report was issued. Advance site borings were done at the site, samples collected and
taken to a soils testing lab and tested for moisture, density and direct sheer, which gave
us the friction and cohesion values of the soils. That information was put into a
computer model that calculated the factors of safety.
It was recommended that more drilling work would be. needed. The soils should be
aerated. It was the contemplation that the heat of the surmner months would I-- 'hough
Sunset Bluu zEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 25
to dry out the soils, it certainly is a large enough site that you could spread the soils out
and aerate them. We were talking about 160,000 or 180,000 cubic yards of soil that
would be moved around on this site.
Ms. Fontes asked if the site would be large enough to accommodate all of that soil to
dry it out?
Mr. Dinkelman responded that it isjust something that goes on during the earthwork
construction process; as you spread the soils out in a lift, you may work them during the
course of a hot summer day and try to get the moisture down.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes. Mr. Dinkelman stated that perched seepage develops
when you have a soil with a flow profile that varies in density or soil type as water
migrates vertically through the soil profile it encounters these different layers and when
it encounters a layer that has a different permeability characteristic either due to density
or different soil type, the water will become perched and it will sit on top of that layer
and then usually that layer will have some kind of a dip to it and then the water will start
traveling laterally along that profile. At a certain elevation it will fluctuate, but it is
there year round and it is uniform.
The addendum was put together in order to respond to issues and provide some
additional information with respect to the borings. Based on his experience with similar
projects, he believes the project is feasible the way it is shown.
The Examiner asked if this site could be developed without a lot of manipulations?
Without grading it down 70 feet or up 40 feet, there's going to be a lot of fill and
balancing of fill. 160,000 cubic yards, that's a very large change in the site.
Mr. Dinkelman stated that he was not sure that he could answer that question, it depends
on what you consider development. They could build one house with a very large yard,
it's hard to say.
The Examiner stated that Newport Hills was on fairly steep slopes, they've managed to
develop it without flattening in out, bringing the top of the hill down to the bottom and
the bottom up towards the top and coming up with some median. This site could be
developed in some fashion like that. You're the geotech, you've done borings on the
site, you've been on the site, do we need to manipulate this site that much?
Mr. Halinen stated that there had a better expert for this question, who has studied this
very issue and intends to address that question.
Mr. Mann stated that he would like to know if the geotech on the site has an answer for
that from the geological viewpoint. The question is valid and the geologists should be
able to testify whether or not these soils are stable enough.
Mr. Dinkelman stated the only way he could respond to it is that they have developed
similar sites in the past, so it certainly is a feasible project, they would not have issued a
report if it weren't. If you are building on level building lots, then the earthwork needs
to be done. The soils will be difficult to work if wet. If the soils become wet and
cannot be compacted they will need to use a drier material or dry them out. It also says
that the soils need to be protected so that if we see a rainstorm coming we need to get
the site sealed so the rain doesn't soak in and saturate the soils.
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 26
Hal Grubb, Civil Engineer, Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue
South, Kent, WA 98032 gave a description of his professional background and work
history at Barghausen. His involvement in this project was to help evaluate the site and
determine how to develop this for single-family development and to determine the basic
design consideration for elevations and storm drainage control as well as the utilities
consisting of water and sewer systems.
Mr. Halinen stated that he was prepared to discuss the storm drainage design. but
because of the questions that %vere posed by the Examiner to Mr. Dinkelman. could he
provide an overview of the site grading constraints and how they have played into the
design proposal. In particular, perhaps you could explain why the roadway was
designed the way it was.
Mr. Grubb responded that because of the existing slope of the grounds you have to take
those existing slopes into consideration laying out roadways, lots, utilities. et cetera.
After several reiterations they worked out a profile of the road to match pretty close to
the existing elevation to come up with lots on the uphill side that were in a cut section,
the lots on the downhill side in a fill section. The road itself fairly close to the existing
ground as measured along the centerline. First we worked out a location of where the
road can connect to SR 900. We come into the site at a fairly steep curve horizontally to
limit the impact on this undisturbed area. The actual lot sizes are fairly small to limit
how much area needs to be graded to accommodate the type of housing proposed. In
the back you have a 2:1 slope going down and you have a flat pad, then you have the
road which is pretty much at the existing ground elevation, and then you have a fairly
flat pad which is in a fill situation, then a slope going down to the rockery/retaining wall
set up that is on one side of the storm drainage pond facility. Either way it has been
done on a number of single family development projects like this with the help of
geotechnical.
Upon questioning by The Examiner, Mr. Grubb stated that when they do plats with
small lots like these, these are meant to have flat pad type typically two-story houses,
very common that we see on developments like this. To limit the disturbance in there is
something that creates the need to typically have a bigger lot, it's difficult to put in a
house product on small lots effectively when you have a great deal in elevation such as
daylight basements, which we sometimes do; but will sometimes do on larger lots on
dovutihill side of roadways, because daylight basements are typically older style and
builders usually want them on bigger lots if they are going to do that.
Doing the type of things you are talking about might cut down a little bit on where your
catch point is on the slope, you might be able to bring the slope down a little bit if you
did some tuck under houses. You are not going to get rid of the slope, you might cut it
back a little bit, but you won't get rid of it. We have a very elongated narrow pond,
which is good for water quality. Narrowing up this pond starts to become ineffective to
provide the storage requirements that our calculations showed that we needed to have.
There are some sensitive areas in Tract C. It would seem that open pond facilities are
more advantageous than enclosed vaults, you get a little better .water quality, you get a
little better function, you can plant the side slopes, the tops, it provides a little buffer and
having that pond as opposed to a vault underground would probably enhance the
protection measures for the herons.
There are walls retaining some of that fill if you eliminate the pond, obviously the fill is
going to come down someplace. He did not know where the bottom would be, but it
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 27
would be further down than where the current bottom is located. The wall could be
built abutting the rear property lines of the south tier of lots, but that does not limit your
disturbance area. These walls are predominately a fill material and they are eight to ten
foot maybe.
The Examiner inquired if they could not build multi -family housing rather than single-
family homes.
Ms. Fortes stated that the development agreement was signed December 10, 2003, the
maximum number of residential units that may be pennitted on the property are 69 units
and all such units shall only be single-family detached units on individual residential
lots.
Mr. Grubb continued stating that he has identified predominately three areas that
streams come into the site.
These three basins have been evaluated using the King County's KCRTS model, which
is a requirement out of the 1998 King County Storm Drainage manual; and detennine
the flow rates coming from each one of these culverts going througli the site. At the low
end of the site are the two culverts that cross under the railroad tracks, both 12" culverts
that drain into this wetland area.
The Examiner asked that the State built some culverts that drain just the roadway; and
Of course, just the roadway is probably where we get a number of contaminants from
cars that use the roadway and those drain directly on the site like some of these other
culverts, but then they flow across the site in some fashion and if you start tight lining or
catching this at the top of the site close to the road then you will be delivering that pretty
much directly down without the benefit of slow migration across the 750 feet of slope
and width that the site provides now, including going down to the bedrock at 17 feet or
wherever.
Mr. Grubb stated that they will be tightlining them through the site. It will carry the
water down faster than it gets there now. He does not know how much treatment the
water will get on the site. The eastem portion of the site through the stream course.
enters the stream and then ends up in the wetland area that is standing water, there is no
outlet from this system, at least via pipe. That is part of the native growth protection;
most of the wetland is offsite, but part of it is onsite. There is a 100 foot buffer required
onsite. The stream is not regulated by the City, the only part they intend to alter is what
it takes to get underneath the road. The Department of Fisheries would rather us not do
any more work in that stream than we have to, which is pretty standard anyway.
On Exhibit 22 which shows a reduction of the development site; the piping of the
upstream basin was going to go around and through the site. The blue line designates
the route of where that water will travel through the site. The culvert on the western
side will be intercepted at the top of the slope of the proposed cut and piped around and
bypass undemeath the road and bypass the pond and discharge to the natural discharge
point which is that western existing culvert that is under the railroad tracks. The center
existing culvert draining onto the site, as well as the one that's towards the west will be
connected at some point and it will be piped around the pond facility as well and will
combine with the outlet of the pond and discharge to that natural location which is the
other existing culvert that goes under the railroad tracks. The top of the proposed cuts
as well as the toe of the proposed cuts behind the lots will have interceptor drain
systems to capture surface water that will be coming off the slope during rainfall events,
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 28
those pipes will be connected into the pond system. That is just more of a safety feature
to keep the stability of the side slopes from being a problem. The detention of water
quality pond facility is like the rest of the drainage control system on here; is designed
in accordance with the 1998 King County Storm Drainage Manual which incorporates a
level and flow requirement; the runoff from the development portion of the area which
is predominant lots and the roads and side slopes will discharge into the pond on the
western end in this area and eventually leave the pond at the opposite ends. The pond is
a combined detention and water quality pond which means that in non -rainfall events
there will be between three to four feet of standing water at all times. During the
rainfall events the detention requirement will come into play, that three to four foot
depth of water will fluctuate and get deeper and have a controlled release device at a
control structure at the east end of the pond that will meter water out. The outlet of the
pond facility which incorporates those upstream pipes will be an energy dissipater
which will be what a manhole with a large beehive grate to keep erosion from being a
concern at that particular location. The water from this point goes directly into the
existing pipe that is under the railroad.
The hearing re -opened on Thursday April 29, 2004, at 9.04 a. in in the Council
Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. This is a continuation of the
hearing which began on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, The applicant was calling witnesses.
Parties wishing to testes were affirmed by the Examiner.
Dr. Ed McCarthy, 9957 171"Avenue SE; Renton, WA 98059 gave a description of his
professional background and work history. His objective was to look at the hydrology
of this depressional wetland that's been referred to in earlier testimony and he
performed a quantitative assessment of the impacts of the proposed project on the
hydrology of this depressional wetland.
The Examiner inquired if the ERC had this information at the time of making their
decision. It was detennined that they did not.
Dr. McCarthy continued, the first step in this assessment was identifying what this
depressional wetland is. The crosshatched area is the area that would constitute the
depressional part of the wetland. This area has no outlet except when it overflows.
Some of the characteristics of this wetland depression are that it is about 10.5 acres in
size, the deepest part is about 3.5 feet deep and it contains over a million cubic feet of
storage. The underlying soils are silty that all pass a #200 sieve. The permeability of
that soil is in the range of 10 to the minus ) cm per second and 10 to the minus 4"' cm
per second. The 10 to the minus 4°i is the slower rate and that is the one used in the
model. Having a higher infiltration rate, the potential impacts from the project would be
less. The next step in the process is to discover what in the area drains to the wetland
now, this is largely driven by the topography. The boundaries were field verified; used
aerial photos to determine what the cover types are for the land areas contributing to
there, Table 1 in his report summarizes that for each of the sub -basins that were
delineated. The site was also broken out as a sub -basin so that a comparative study
could be done. It looks at the hydrology ofthe wetland under existing forested
conditions on the site and then the only thing changed for the proposed development
conditions was what would occur on the site with the proposed development. There
would be clearing; grading of the site, construction of the homes and the addition of
impervious area. There would also be associated changes in the way that upstream off -
site water flows across the project site. There has been testimony that some of the
runoff from SR 900 and some of the off -site residential areas drain across the and
Sunset b.___ EPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 29
have the attenuation from this current drainage course. The changes would mean that
water that now flows across the top would be collected and discharged at the bottom.
The model looks at the changes in stage of the wetland. The current hydroperiod of the
wetland was studied, that is the changes in stage through time. In the model KCRTS
(King County's Model) was used which is based on the HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation
Program Fortran) model which is commonly used in the Puget Sound area for basin
studies. The model is calibrated to regional soils. The model is used extensively to
model storm water facilities and have used it in the past in similar types of wetlands.
One of the key impacts from any development is that when you remove the forest and
replace it with impervious surfaces and lawns, the surface generated runoff will
increase. That is what the model predicted here, under existing conditions; the model
predicted about 115 acre feet of runoff per year that would increase to 145 acre feet with
the proposed development. This is an average annual per year.
If this is going to have an impact on the wetland, you first have to look at the size of the
wetland and the storage provided in that wetland. If the wetland is relatively big with a
lot of storage then a relatively small amount of change in volume will not impact it.
The other thing you need to look at is what else is contributing to the wetland, is this
increase in volume small or large relative to the other contributing basins and then you
have to look at the outflow characteristics of the wetland, in this case it is mostly
infiltration and occasionally the wetland has predicted over top. There is a 25%
increase, but that is typical, soil that doesn't have much opportunity for infiltration.
About two weeks ago he did go to the site and observe and measure high water marks
on the tree about 42". That is consistent with what had been suggested was the
maximum depth of3.5 feet based on my delineation with the photography map. After
running the model for 50 years of rainfall data, the model predicted the stages in the
wetland through time. In Figure 3 from the report are the model results. The line
represented with the diamond shape pattern, the lower line of the two are the average
monthly stages in the wetland for the 50-year period. The model takes all the hourly
values in all the Octobers for the 50-year period and came up with a single average.
The average stage in October was predicted to be .5 feet under existing conditions. It
reaches an average high in January and reaches zero in July. When you compare what
the changes due to the development on the site; you see a slight increase on the order of
about an inch.
For existing conditions, the model predicts the runoff from all the contributing basins,
that runoff is then routed through the wetland and the wetland is modeled as a reservoir.
it has a depth and storage for every depth, so that as water comes in that wetland fills up
and the model keeps a tally on that and the only way the water leaves the wetland is
through infiltration which as the wetland fills up there is more surface area, the wetland
in inundated and so the infiltration goes up, the model keep tract of that and with large
events or extremely wet months the wetland might fill up and overtop, in which case
that was modeled as a large broad crested weir and so it is just like a bathtub
overflowing. The other way the water leaves the system is evaporation. That is one
part that the model neglects and that would be more significant in the summer months.
One inch is nothing to worry about, it is not a significant impact. This wetland does
have wide range fluctuations in the water stages currently, those are depicted in Figure 4
of Dr. McCarthy's report. In comparing the volume that goes to the wetland now and
after the development there will be on average 25% more. The detention pond is
intended to regulate the speed with which, and the time in which the runoff makes it to
the wetland. It will provide attenuation of the flow up to the 10-year event, up to the
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 30
10-year event it will match the existing conditions in terns of flow rate from the site,
above the 10-year there will be some attenuation. but nothing substantial. The wetlands
are a relatively large system and that is what is in favor of the wetland mostly.
Between himself and Barghausen, they located all the important culverts. There were
two culverts that were identified crossing the railroad grade going into the wetland.
There are culverts that were identified crossing SR 900 onto the site, those were not
modeled per se. The west culvert was relatively dry when he was out there, so he did
not observe flow toward the west either. The model predicts two components of flow,
one is surface runoff and the other is interflow which is shallow ground water. It
represents both components.
The King County Model, for till predict a high runoff rate for lawn and pasture cover
types: for forest that would not be true. Forest will hold more water. The layer of the
till 2-3 feet down where it's more dense. the King County Model assumes that that is
going to be impermeable.
Two to four feet is the average for more permeable soil. the models are not exact. The
till soil is representative of what is on the site in the sense that there is a restrictive layer
at some depth down. The way the KCRTS (King County Runoff Time Series) has been
calibrated is on a regional scale, it has been calibrated for a watershed, so you can't
really look at one test pit on something that is highly variable over the watershed or
even over a 10-acre site, so the way the model is calibrated is that there might be a
gauge station at the bottom of that basin and the response to the storm is measured and
that's related back to the characteristics to the soil and the cover type and a whole host
of different variables. There was no gauge station to relate back to the model for this
site.
The evapotranspiration rate for the tree cover that is currently on the site changes on a
monthly level. So you can see in the winter months it's a very small component. Inches
of water, a rainfall equivalent, instead of falling down, it is going up. PET is the
Potential Evapotranspiration. By potential that is what would evaporate and be used by
the trees. if the water were in fact available in the root zone. Many times in the dry part
of the year that water might not be available and so the trees sort of go into a deficit.
Assuming the water is available, it gets up to about three and a half inches for the
months of June and July, you will see people who will irrigate, put on half an inch of
water twice a week to keep up with this rate. The trees would be a little higher.
Rebecca Lind. City of Renton. Planning Manager, Econonuc Development
Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning; responsible for the group that does
Comprehensive Planning Rezones, stated that she was familiar with the rezone history
of the subject site.
The 26-acres in question was originally split in two parcels, one in King County and the
other in the City of Renton. The portion in King County was designated as Commercial
Outside Centers. In 1994 the other parcel was annexed into the City of Renton and was
zoned as Office. In 2000 the zoning designation of Office remained in place in King
County until the property was annexed into the City of Renton. In the year 2000 the
City received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment application for this property. 15.74
acres in King County designated Commercial Office and 8.47 acres in Renton
designated Commercial Arterial. In 2000 an application was received to change zoning
to Residential Multi -Family Infill. In 2001 the entire 26acres was changed to
Residential Multi -Family Infill.
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 31
Later discussions occurred regarding the heron rookery and how future development
with multi -family on this site might impact that rookery. Under the Office zoning there
could have been 48 dwelling units per acre and 842 multi -family units, on the county
portion it could have only been office, there could have been a total of 1.5 million
square feet of office development as a mixed use combined with the residential. In
August 2000 a development agreement was reached limiting the multi -family
designation to 260 units. Part of this was to create a buffering from the rookery, a 100
foot setback was imposed for residential and recreation buildings from the railroad
right-of-way and there was a requirement for construction of a six foot high fence along
the south side of the development, along its entire length that was intended to protect the
heron rookery.
In February 2001 the City annexed the site along with some other acreage. The City
received another Comprehensive Plan Amendment application for a further down zone
of the property to Residential Options. The development agreement was also amended
that limited the development to 69 single-family homes, the other conditions remained
in tact.
Theresa Dusek, Barghausen Engineers, 18215 72"d Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
introduced several exhibits for discussion.
She stated that she has worked on several projects in the Black River area and has been
visiting this specific site since the spring of 2000. In 2003 the wetland conditions on the
site were verified to have not changed and that regulations would still apply as current.
It has been determined that there are no fish in the pond, the pond does not have a
surface water connection to downstream fish bearing waters and that the stream itself
does not contain fish.
She is the author of the Habitat Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report, dated
January 9, 2004 from the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision. This report described the
forested condition of the site, it describes the general wildlife that was seen during the
brief visits, it includes a record review of the Washington State Fish and Wildlife
database for threatened, endangered and sensitive and priority species and the National
Heritage database review for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species and
review for special and/or protected habitats. The site is designated as an urban open
space. The heron has been designated by Fish and Wildlife as a priority species because
of their breeding tendencies. The trees and the nesting areas are protected, the birds are
protected as a non -game species and they are not allowed to be hunted or harassed.
Exhibit 60 discusses the visibility of the herons to the new neighborhood and the
surrounding neighborhoods During the winter when there are no leaves on the trees,
there is one nest that is visible from the site, the remainder of the protected forest is not
visible. When leaf out occurs that nest is not visible unless you are standing on Sunset
Boulevard; then the nest is visible over the top of the trees.
Exhibit 61 starts at the east end of the site, showing the right-of-way for SR 900, and an
area that is not part of the site. The trees in this location have been surveyed to be 295
feet in elevation. The cuts in this area are proposed to be 34 feet. The fill on the site is
proposed at 18 feet maximum depth. On the exhibit four ranges of trees were identified.
Tree 92 has an elevation of 98 feet, tree 93 has an elevation of 175 feet, as you continue
on the ` - are in the protected forest heron colony, those trees vary in elevation from
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 32
150 feet to 170 feet. The highest nest was 130 feet in elevation. From the site to the
tree areas, tree #3 is located approximately 600 feet from the southern boundary of the
site and the heron colony is located approximately 980 feet from the southern boundary.
A site line was established from the residences proposed for the site, the second floor
was used as the site line going to the protected forest area. Photo Exhibit 64a is a viewv
from the railroad tracks towards the heron colony in the Black River open space taken in
April 2004. The two taller trees are the ones previously marked as Tree 92. The
background area grouping of trees is the Tree 93 area. When the surveying and photos
were taken they did not see any birds flushing. There were birds overhead,. flying;
going about their nornial daily business.
In a letter from Jones and Stokes; a Wildlife and Natural Resource consulting firm, they
were asked to look at the eagles preying on the herons and where the herons were
moving into the forest in 1991. The herons abandoned their nests on the island and tried
to form nest areas in the trees to give them more protection from the bald eagles, those
nests were not successful and the colony was abandoned, the herons were not successftil
in breeding that year.
Photo Exhibit 64c shows the nesting that is going on in the trees, these trees are in the
Tree 44 area and most of the nests are near the P-1 forebay. Exhibit 62 is the metric
topographic map from the City of Renton's GIS system, the site is overlaid on it with
the tract locations, the road, the lots and some of the basins that were discussed earlier.
Ground elevations have been provided of the Sunset View Apartments, SR 900
elevation begins at 223 feet, going to the east it drops to 190 feet, then 163 feet and at
the entrance to the Sunset Bluff project the elevation is 155 feet.
Exhibit 63 shows the water resource inventory.
After discussion regarding figure 4 in Exhibit 12, the Examiner ruled that the photo will
be admitted.
A comment was made earlier regarding sensitive areas and mitigation that would be
required for them, when she was talking about sensitive areas she was meaning critical
habitat as described in her report that would be in reference to the City's codes and
references. The only critical habitat located on the Sunset Bluff site is the Category I
wetland.
Mr. Halinen inquired if testimony that was given during the Plat hearing would be
included in the Examiner's consideration when making his decision. The Examiner
agreed that all testimony would be considered. Exhibit 66 will be the Plat hearing by
reference.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes. Ms. Dusek responded that the area of logging was
between tree #2 and tree 93 on Exhibit 61 a. No logging has been done in the area
between tree #3 and tree 94 on Exhibit 61 a.
Upon questioning by Mr. Mann. Ms. Dusek responded that regarding Exhibit 65 mid the
aerial photo the logging started in 1987 sometime in March through mid -summer. She
learned this information from Jones and Stokes and from past testimony at past
hearings. She did not review any stop work orders or correspondence which referenced
herons taking flight when the logging first started. She was not aware if the City did
issue a stop work order. The only information as to the impact on the herons ig the
Sunset Btu_ —cPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 33
logging in 1987 is the nest information that was provided in the Department of Fish and
Wildlife's documents.
Emmett Pritchard, Raedeke Associates, 5711 NE 63`d Street, Seattle, WA 98115 gave a
description of his professional background as a wetland ecologist and work history.
In regard to the Sunset Bluff proposal, he was asked to visit the site to examine the
vegetation communities that are growing there, look at the existing conditions and see
what he could find in terms of the current hydrologic regime, positioning of various
trees and make an assessment of whether or not based on the hydrologic analysis
whether there would be any damage to the trees as a result of the development of the
Sunset Bluff site.
On the site lie found three distinct forested vegetation communities in the wetland basin
that would be receiving discharge from the Sunset Bluff site. The first community was
located in the northern portion of the basin that was logged in 1987. There were
primarily Cottonwood trees 8"-14" in diameter and 50 feet tall, it was receiving storm
water or flood water at times during the past season. There were watermarks at the base
of some of the trees indicating that there had been standing water as deep as 12"-14"
daring the past year. There did not appear to be any snags or dead trees, it appeared to
be in relatively good health. The second community was toward the center of the
wetland basin dominated by Pacific Willow with indication that there may have been
more inundation of water. There were watermarks on the trees 36"-40" above the
ground. The trees seem to be adapting to existing conditions. The third community was
on the upland hummocks, there were several hummocks fringing this southern portion
of the wetland basin, they were 4-6 feet higher than the bottom of the basin. These are
drier areas, the trees were more mature, a number of large Cottonwood trees, one was in
excess of 50" in diameter, there was also a large Oregon Ash that was about 40" in
diameter. The larger trees would not be affected by a 1"-2" difference in flood stage
during any time of the year.
What was observed indicated that there was a widely fluctuating regime of inundation
during the year. In the bottom of the basin there was no water at the surface, there was
water at the discharge point at the easterly culvert, however that flowed down the slope
into the basin about 75 feet before infiltrating into the soil and from there on did not
encounter any water at the surface.
Upon questioning by Mr. Mann. Mr. Pritchard stated that the watermarks were an
assumption that they were from this year and not previous years. No weather records
were reviewed for this report. Mr. Mann referred to a Seattle Times article dated
October 22 regarding a rainfall that set the all time record for the Seattle area. Mr.
Pritchard did not recall reading this article, but he did remember the rainfall that day. It
is possible that the watermarks observed on the trees were from this one day record
rainfall from last October. The probability is low since this rainfall happened so early in
the season. The past year's rainfall through January was normal to low.
Dr. Ken Raedeke, 5711 NE 63'd Street, Seattle; WA 98115 stated his credentials and
past studies. There have been some issues about the status of the Great Blue Herons, all
published data that we have shows that the herons are increasing in numbers across .
North America with the possible exception of British Columbia. Starting in 1950 up
until the current time largely of an increasing population. The Audubon Society's
Christmas Bird Count for the US/Washington shows the numbers going up and down,
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 34
but basically it is a horizontal trend. The numbers are relatively stable, the big dips
most likely represent years in which there is substantial nest failure and there were
fewer young the following year to nest. From 1984 when the herons were first counted
there has been a 3.5% increase in their numbers. In King County there has also been an
increase in active heron colonies in the last two decades.
If this colony were to be abandoned; most of the herons would go to satellite colonies.
That has happened several times, there are other colonies, onejust east of the runway of
the Renton airport. They would likely go to other areas where there is nesting habitats
and form new colonies. The Peasley Canyon colony is inactive.
The Great Blue Heron is listed as a priority species in Washington State due to its
aggregated breeding behavior. The Black River Colony is thriving, in 2003 there were
135 birds, this data is from the Stabins thesis. Productivity in the colony was very high
in 2002 after much of the clearing and grading was done on the Black River Corporate
Park.
When the City of Renton staff did their SEPA review they had extensive database
available on the Black River heron that had been developed over time with various
projects, there is a substantial body of published literature, there was substantial public
expert testimony in the previous projects and a substantial amount of factual
information provided to them. In discussions with the SEPA committee, they were well
aware of all those bodies of inforniation. The proposed site plan provides distance
buffers that meet or exceed those proposed for the Black River Corporate Park. This
project meets or exceeds the guidelines proposed by the Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
Carlson and McLean Article dated 1996 looked at 19 different colonies in Canada and
they characterized the condition outside these colonies and compared habitat conditions
surrounding the colonies with regards to disturbance and other activities against
activities in the colonies such as productivity. The buffers don't provide much
protection for heron colonies; there was no correlation between the size of the buffer
around the colony and productivity and long-term survival of the colony. The barriers
to getting into the colony would be the most effective. In 1991 Dr. Butler recommended
300 meters, however in 1997 in Dr. Butler's book he has stepped back from that
recommendation. Barriers that reduced human foot traffic under colonies had stronger
effect on the number of herons than buffer zones around the colony. Barriers included
fences. water and land that made access difficult for human beings.
The Examiner inquired if it would be possible to monitor the impacts of lumbering,
logging, chain -sawing, and clearing the site, and then to see how much the herons would
flush, if they did not come back that day or the next, and then be able to put a hall to the
work?
Dr. Raedeke stated that the problem is having a causal relationship, we have to look at
what is really causing the problems. There would be some value in looking at that. It
would be worthwhile to set up a monitoring system to see if there is an impact, but there
would have to be some clear criteria of what that would be and some sort of arbitration
panel to make decisions.
There does not seem to be any relationship to the Black' River Business Park; the herons
were in the trees nesting before that and they are still there nesting after the construction
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 35
and day to day business in that area. One other reason that the herons may be shifting
further over is the fact that the trees in the main colony area are starting to deteriorate.
In Ms. Stabins thesis, there was inventory done on all the colonies in King County and
found out what their current status was, then went through the records to determine what
had happened over time. Her next step was to find out what habitat factors are
influential on heron colonies success, productivity; duration and size. Using relative
sophisticated geographic information, using 660 foot buffers around each colony, did a
habitat inventory and then characterized how much of the area .within those buffers were
high disturbance areas, human disturbance, roads and other factors. The distance to
human activity, distance to salt water, distance to active bald eagle nests as well as
number of years active was calculated and then a regression analysis was done to
compare colony productivity versus those colony characteristics listed above and the
long term success or failure of those colonies was calculated. This calculation used
variables that were in the model, human activity never entered the model. The result of
the regression analysis shows that none of those independent variables made any
difference on productivity. The success or failure of a colony was related to the number
of nests in the colony, the larger the colony the more likely it will persist over time. The
amount of high human activity within the buffer appeared to not impact the success of
the colony.
The Black River colony is doing well today. A condition for construction moratorium is
not necessary as there are people in the area, trains, construction going on all the time in
the area of the Black River colony and it does not seem to have had any effect on the
herons. The herons do not seem to flush from the north side, but walking on thesouth
side of the heronry, they do seem to flush very easily.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen. Dr. Raedeke stated given all that is known about the
situation and these herons and the Sunset Bluff project, and without any additional
mitigating conditions being imposed he does not believe that the project will have an
impact on the herons. In 1986, 1987, and 1988 the heron numbers increased while
logging could have been going on, it is not clear when the disturbance actually took
place, if it was during the early spring and summer or later into the fall, but it did not
affect the population growth in that colony.
To the best of his knowledge, lie does not know of any construction season limitations
being imposed on any other projects outside of a 1,000-foot radius of a heronry in King
County. The Black River Business Park had a January through June limitation of 550
feet, there could have been others under 1,000 feet. In trying to protect the herons and
the nesting sites, leaving some of the trees and not clear cutting the entire property could
have some effect on the herons, but not significantly add to their preservation.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes. Dr. Raedeke stated that keeping trees on the
development site and according to the Stabins thesis, keeping trees would not make a
measurable difference. People living at a location close to the heron does not seem to
have made any impact according to the Stabins thesis. Just having people nearby does
not necessarily make it good or bad for the heron colony. Aggression against the heron
does cause a problern. Partying late at night, people throwing sticks and other things at
the heron, these are the things that have been found to influence the birds. At the south
end of the heron colony, across the water there is a trail that people walk, and there are
actually tours taking place there, which has a negative impact on this colony. Anytime
you ca• e birds to flush from their nests, there will be an impact on the birds. This
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 36
could be a significant impact in the lean years. There should be a no -entry zone around
the pond to protect the herons. The use of that trail in an impact, it upsets the balance,
nesting and foraging habits of the herons.
Uponquestionine by Mr. Mann. Dr. Raedeke stated regarding the Carlson/McLean
Study that the 1,000-meter recommendation was not necessary if there is no correlation
between the size of buffers and the productivity in those colonies. The areas were
already logged and cleared and graded. there was ongoing activity, farm equipment,
vehicle traffic; train; low -Flying aircraft. The mechanical disturbances were less
intrusive than foot traffic. He did not know of any areas where the herons have been
flushed and never come back. He could not answer how many flushes it would take
before you pushed the birds too much and they would not come back.
Patricia Thompson. Wildlife Biologist, Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek. WA 98012 stated herjob description and
work history involving surveys at heron colonies. occupancy surveys on a yearly basis
in mostly King County, but some in Snohomish County as well. She relies heavily on
volunteer monitors of the heron colonies, and for the Black River colony she has relied
heavily on Suzanne Krom who has monitored the colony for close to 12 years. Much of
the data in the Raedeke report is quite old and is not reflective of the conditions today in
the Puget Sound area. Some of the colonies that are recorded really are only 2-4 nest
colonies which don't really qualify as a colony. Some of the colonies listed in the table
do not exist any more. h12003 and2004 we cannot include all the colonies that are
presented in the report, they are no longer there. The 1985 study referred to is basically
20 year old, some of these colonies have been abandoned, it was suggested that if and
when a colony abandons they might re-establish a colony nearby, the problem with that
is there have been no colonies found that have relocated, that is known for sure, that it is
those same birds that came from the abandoned colony. in the Puget Sound area colony
fragmentation and abandonment in slightly greater numbers than before, they do not
seem to be replacing the large colonies, but rather two or three nest groupings. Many of
the land use conditions have changed in that 20-year period that could have effected
some of the wildlife population due to the destruction of the wildlife habitat. Don
Norman's data in the reports are 10 years old and don't reflect the current conditions
with the more fragmentation of the colonies and the increase in the bald eagle
populations and the eagle predation on the heron colonies. Dr. Raedeke also used and
compared studies that are not in Puget Sound, there have not been the increase in
colonies and nests that this data reports. In fact, there is enough alarm to initiate a very
large study on nesting and productivity of herons. It would be appropriate to compare
the biology of species across North America, for example, herons lay 3 eggs per nest
that is reasonably consistent, it is more difficult to extrapolate the health of a regional
population, particularly a sub population. The Faninni sub -population exists here in the
Puget Sound area. The McLean study was from Ohio, and some of the data in Dr.
Raedeke's report was from the Mid -West, Alberta, Canada and New York and
Louisiana. Those ecosystems are so entirely different from the Puget Sound area.
comparing the health of our colonies with those so far away and in such different
conditions.
When collecting data regarding heron colonies, one needs to look very closely at the
way and frequency the data was collected. Bar graphs can be misleading, the early
years can be very sketchy about the heron data that were collected, the later years could
be more intensive. The data taken Nvas not under strict protocol in the 1980's and early
1990's. The Heron Working Group is attempting to set strict protocol for da'
Sunset! ?A Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 37
collection among the heron groups so that some degree of reliability and accuracy can
help determine the health of the Puget Sound populations.
There are no longer 13 colonies in King County, there are only 9 colonies because of the
colonies that have abandoned since Ms. Stabins study. The WDFW Heron Occupancy
report shows 100 fewer nests in 2003 than in 2000 in King County. Ms. Stabins data
numbers vary widely from others at the same colony. At the Redmond Towne Center in
1997 there were three nests, 1998 the numberjumped to 15 and then in 2000 it jumped
to 22. The following year in 2001 a different observer reported 6 nests; anything could
have happened in that time, but the high numbers were very surprising. In 2003 Don
Nonnan reported 8 nests. This year the colony was occupied with about 8 nests but tine
colony has failed this year, the area appears to be deserted.
A new Great Blue Heron nest could be surprisingly small and you wonder how three
chicks can fit into that nest. As the nests get older, they add sticks to the nest and the
nests become bigger and bigger. Those tend to stick to the trees, a new nest can blow
out more quickly.
We are not getting our re-establishment of the abandoned nests as the Raedeke report
mentioned. It could be that the Spencer property herons are the Towne Center herons,
but there is no way that we can know that. The birds are not marked nor were they
followed.
The relocation of the Peasley Canyon colony or the Dumas Bay colony have not been
found. Those were two rather large colonies that contributed to the population numbers.
She raised the question as to why it is so incontrovertible when a heron flushes off the
pond as observers walk on the trail but it is not incontrovertible and it could be
something else when a whole colony flushes due to sudden noise or construction. The
same rigorous study should be applied to the visitors on the trail that flush the herons as
Dr. Raedeke would like on the development disturbance.
The Black River colony is a healthy colony, she agreed with Dr. Raedeke that it has
been growing, it is an exceptional colony for the King County area. We are not gaining
more colonies on the level of the Black River colony. In Dr. Raedeke's report there was
no distinction between the large and small colony counts. The smaller satellite colonies
cannot be compared to the Black River colony. In the report, Dr. Raedeke states that
abandonment is always made due to some development or new disturbance, implying
that it was incorrect to consider development as a factor of disturbance. It would help if
the report suggested how to prove cause and effect after a development and the colony
abandons. It is correct that there are several factors of which development and a
disturbance from development are one and it would be good to know how to determine
that. In the Spencer project a 250-foot buffer was allowed for townhomes under the
heron colony. That colony did abandon, we don't know for what reason, there was bald
eagle predation on those nests but it is not know if that was due to the increased pressure
by the townhomes and the human activity so close to it. The actual cause of some
abandonment is from the activities in the development. The conservative stance must
be taken for this colony in order to preserve its viability. We must be very careful with
what we do around this colony. The possibility of abandonment or decreased
productivity should be taken very seriously in this colony. It contributes 6% of King
County population.
Sunset Bluff SEP.A Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 38
There are several phases of development, the first is where the development is put in,
the land clearing, the grading, the outside construction and the inside construction;
second is the people moving in and their activities, and phase three is the direct effect of
developments that go in and not a coincidental event.
Raedeke states so much noise and disturbance around the Black River colony, the
question then becomes when will it be too much for these herons? What is the
development that is going to break the back of that heron colony and how much can
they take. Some of the bullets presented in the history and status section are lacking the
dates as to when those development activities occurred. The ones without dates might
have been conditioned to occur outside the nesting season. those activities would have
been fixed not to have an effect on the colony as much as possible. The main colony,
we cannot say it has been abandoned because it has not been five years, but the birds
have pretty much moved out of the main colony which is the closest proximity to the
development 500 feet away. One cannot assume that those birds are going to go back
into that colony, it might not be suitable for them anymore, it would be better to
preserve enough habitat on the hillside for replacement nesting habitat. If you preserve
habitat on the hillside, get creative with the layout of the site plan, when you preserve
habitat for those umbrella species, you are preserving habitat for other species and in
this area there is a good number of new migrant species. Because of the extensive
development and human activity around the colony already it's very important to save
as much of the habitat around the colony for expansion. Because the colony is growing,
this colony should not be limited by the lack of nest trees or closeness to the foraging
area. To sustain the growth of this colony, large enough buffers and barriers should be
left and barriers such as fences should be constructed to prevent those secondary effects
of vandalism, climbing the trees, rock parties, beer parties under the colony. Effort
needs to be made to prevent people from entering the colony from the north side.
Because this colony is so important it's a growing healthy colony, she suggests
invoking a site specific management plan as provided for in the Department of Fish and
Wildlife management recommendations. These recommendations provide that should
priorities need be set, larger colonies should receive more protection than smaller
colonies. By definition the Black River Heron Colony is a larger colony so therefore
should be afforded as much protection as it can get. A larger colony is one that is
greater than 50 nests.
There is a Permanent Protection Buffer into which basically no intrusion should occur.
People do walk in those areas, there are some trails, then there is a construction buffer.
The Protection Buffer where no activity is to take place is the 300 meters (928 feet), the
Construction Buffer is a timing restriction buffer that is imposed on logging aid
construction to 1000 meters (3, 200 feet). The window for the Construction Buffer is
February 15 to.IUly 31 in the management recommendations. but the management
recommendations allow for site specific management plans. The Construction Buffer
has nothing to do with homeowner activities. People often forget and confuse the
Construction Buffer with the Protection Buffer. These are strictly recommendations, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife does not regulate heron habitat.
The Examiner stated that unless the Department of Fish and Wildlife comes up with the
money to purchase this property, it is private property and as such, they are entitled to
develop it, not necessarily to the detriment to the surrounding environment.
Ms. Thompson continued that there has not been a lot of experience in creating buffers
for colonies that aren't on the level with it. It has been demonstrated that some the nests
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 39
might be line of site to the homes. That might be one of the things that might be taken
into consideration when creating buffers and barriers for this site. This would be the
first colony where a management plan could be put into practice. Dumas Bay colony
has several homes that have been constructed at line of site and above, there were not
management plans and the colony abandoned.
Mr. Mann stated that Ms. Thompson was provided a copy of Dr. Raedeke's report and
was asked to come here and provide comments on that report. Ms. Thompson stated
that was correct.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fortes. Ms. Thompson stated that she first heard about the
Sunset Bluff project several months ago, not exactly sure of the date. Could have heard
about it in a number of ways, she does not receive official notices from the City unless
she has been a party of record and it could have been in that capacity that I heard about
this project, she had given comments to the City previously regarding the Black River
Colony. She has not seen the Environmental Check List for the Sunset Bluff project.
She cannot speak for the habitat biologist, it is the role of the habitat biologist to review
the Environmental Check List, that is not one of her specific roles. Fish and Wildlife
was notified informally of this project. She continued to state that the Fish and Wildlife
Department was given the opportunity to comment in an informal manner and that
notification of this project was informally given to them.
Jason Jordan stated that a notice of application was sent out, that application has a
project description and the comprehensive plan regulations, the proposal, the permits
that are being requested; in addition to that the proposed mitigation measures are listed
and lastly a neighborhood exhibit is included showing where the project is located.
Upon further questioning by Ms. Fontes. Ms. Thompson stated that Ms. Krom has been
a volunteer helping to monitor the herons in the Black River colony. There is no
contrary study here today to the 20 year old study done in Indiana.
In order to track the number of herons in the Puget Sound area, there has been no set
protocol because data has been collected in different ways over the years. So what the
Heron Working Group is trying to do is come up with a protocol that we can say we are
able to count reasonably accurately or at least get a sample of the population size in the
Puget Sound area and hopefully it will be a good method. Counting colonies, counting
nests is a good start if it's done consistently, the same way year after year.
Im the Jensen and Bowers study they state that for every study that would say that
development was a good thing there probably is corresponding study that says it's not a
good thing. We don't know how development effects a lot of the species around here,
that is why we should take the conservative approach since there is so much
development around the Black River colony already that we don't know at what point it
is going to be too much, this being a reasonably large development, clearing the hillside
and terracing the hillside it is pretty severe.
The construction buffer in the management recommendations is stated as being a
thousand meters. The second phase is people actually moving into the development,
there is no restriction on that at all. The third phase is that people are living there, they
walk into the heron colony and those kinds of things, that does not affect the heron
colony, once people move in. In time case of a road needing to be completely resurfaced,
that v ' be a timing restriction. We would have to look at it and determine the status
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 40
of the colony and where the nests are and when it could be done and how much noise it
would cause. It would not be as drastic as building a whole development. Some things
are done site specifically and, action by action. It is usually triggered by somebody
notifying me that that activity is going to take place and then we will get together and
determine the status of the colony, .what time of year can you do it, are the herons closer
to the site or farther away from the site, there are so many questions to ask to get to that.
We learn about actions around a particular heron colony when we are notified by
somebody and then these management recommendations are just given to either time
proponent or the City as recommendations. If they need help interpreting them or help
doing a site -specific management plan, we can step in and help. We do not crack down,
we do not have any regulatory authority over Great Blue Heron colonies or their habitat.
it is the cities and counties that have the ordinances and the comp plans. What we do is
provide the recommendations hopefully for their assistance. to be able to come up with
the management plans. We don't jump in at any time unless we are asked.
Mr. Mann stated that he had provided Dr. Stenberg a copy of Dr. Raedeke's report and
Ms. Stabins paper and various other papers referenced today.
Dr. Stenberg stated that she had reviewed those documents. There were two very broad
areas in Mr. Raedeke's report one dealing with the status of the Great Blue Herons and
the other with their responses to disturbances.
First to deal with the status of Great Blue Herons again as a reminder we are dealing
with a sub -species called the Coastal Great Blue Heron, this is different from the species
that you find throughout North America. Information and conclusions drawn from
studies in other parts of the country may not be as relevant. The Christmas Bird Count
data was presented today there are some problems over time more routes have been
added, there has been more effort, more people participate in that activity and the other
thing that seems to be coming up occasionally, the trend dates on the Christmas Bird
Count don't seem to work as well for the very large, easily observable species that
congregate. If you find a bunch of herons on a winter foraging ground during your
Christmas Bird Count that can be an anomaly because you couldjust as easily miss
them by how you time your route. It's interesting information, but it maybe is not the
best. The researchers in British Columbia have observed an approximate 6% decline.
That number was confirmed by recent research and reported at the last International
Heron Working Group meeting in late 2003. A lot of the infonmation in Mr. Raedeke's
report is based on trend predictions from information gathered 20 years ago which is
probably not relevant to today's population. If we really were seeing this clear increase
in the population of 10% a year as lie reports, it seems very unlikely that the Canadian
Wildlife Service would have listed the Great Blue Heron as a species of concern. nor
would they continue to do this intensive monitoring and research effort to see whether
or not it was needed to list them as threatened.
Looking through Ms. Stabins thesis. she has a table of all the colonies that they had any
repots of in King County, on that table there are 30 colonies listed, of the 30 possible
colonies in King county wfien Ms. Stabins went out to do her field work in the year
2000. she was only able to find 13 active colonies. Of those 13 active colonies, as Ms.
Thompson has testified, we only have 9 here in 2004 and a couple of those are not
active now. We actually are down to about 7 of the 13 we had in 2000. The applicant
also seems to imply that a lot of this decrease in colony numbers has been due to very
small colonies abandoning their locations, however; the information provide' ' *he
Sunset Bluii SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 41
applicant shows that the Vashon/Maury Island colony was over 100 nests, it is no longer
active and has been abandoned, Peasley Canyon reached a recorded peak of 47 nests,
Dumas Bay was at one time maybe as mach as 55 nests, all three of those King County
colonies have been unoccupied for a number of years. In 2000 Ms. Stabins work was
double-checked by a number of independent researchers that same year, it was found
that she consistently miscounted the number of nests in the colonies she was surveying.
That has raised a lot of concerns among the heron community about relying too much
on that particular data. The current population estimate for the coastal Great Blue
Heron in Western Washington is now about 4000 individuals, we did hear quite a bit
about how difficult it is to come up with a number, but that is an estimate that the State
is currently using. That's the number that is cited by Dr. Butler in his letter and it is also
the number that was presented just this last weekend by the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife in a report to the Wildlife Diversity Advisory Council.
This Advisory Council is a group of people appointed by the Department Director to
advise the Department Director on wildlife diversity issues and she has been a member
of that council since it was formed in 1997. It was also reported last weekend that the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is preparing to mount a foraging ground
survey to continue and try improve the accuracy of the data that we have on the status of
the Great Blue Heron in Washington. Ms. Thompson also mentioned that monitoring
effort, again if the existing data really did show a clear increasing trend, in this
atmosphere of budget cuts and tight funding, that the State would be willing to incur
that type of monitoring expense for this species.
In Exhibit 63, Ms. Dusek presented a map of parks in the area surrounding the Black
River Heron colony and what that does, it highlights some of the areas that are very
close to the colony that are used by the herons for foraging. That map can be
misleading and it may imply that there are a lot of areas that they could move to for
nesting, a lot of those parks do not have the large stands of trees necessary, but a lot of
those areas may provide foraging grounds. What that says, is that if we have a chance
of maintaining the colony at Black River that they will continue to have enough
foraging areas in the surrounding vicinity, there is a higher likelihood of being
successful and continuing to persist here.
In terns of the status of the Great Blue Herons, the conclusions of her April 18"' letter
are unchanged by these recent submittals. The Coastal Great Blue Heron sub -species
appears to be declining, there is considerable international concern about the status of
this sub -species, both in Canada and Washington State, and the Black River Heron
Colony itself is especially significant as it represents almost 6% of the Western
Washington population in one location. This is not really the place to start
experimenting with disturbances, if you start work and you see a problem, assuming that
it is reported property, by the time that work is stopped, it may very well be too late.
It's just too significant a colony to be trying to do these kinds of experiments.
Disturbances come in may forms including construction noise, loss of natural
vegetation, loss of habitat, light and glare, and human activity and pet intrusions. The
applicant notes that water features like ponds that act like a moat and fences can be very
effective barriers that may increase the nesting success of herons, we do concur that
those types of barriers are very important protective features, however, those types of
features do not exist on the north side of the Black River Heron Colony. There is a
partial fence with three large gaps in it along the railroad tracks, that does not form a
barrier. There is no water barrier,
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 42
The Black River Heron colony is protected on the south by the P-1 pond, this is a water
feature that acts as a moat; you do see the human activity down there on that southern
edge of the pone. That human activity is constrained by the pond and is thus very
predictable to the herons. The human activity along the southern edge is also screened
increasingly by the growth of shrubs and trees right along the pond's edge that is
starting to act very much as a viewing blind. There are some gaps and there may be
some things that the City may .want to look at in how that site is managed, there are
some real differences between the north and south sides. The Black River Heron colony
is also very sensitive to disturbances from the north side. They react to disturbances and
activities on the north side like a more rural type of colony in an undisturbed location
and not like an urban colony. The observations of several monitors confirm that the
herons are more sensitive to human activity at distances up to a thousand feet on the
north side, currently the level of activity on the north side is very low and so we see a
successful colony. In the Master's Thesis that was submitted by Ms. Stabins. she
selected one buffer width value to represent the buffer width and conditions around an
entire colony, Black River has quite a bit of activity fairly close on one side and a very
large distance on the other side with no activity, that sort of course filter is probably
going to lead to some misleading results. It is going to misrepresent the actual
conditions. It was also reported that there correlation with colony success and human
activity and as Dr. Raedeke pointed out correlation is not causation, we can probably
find a very strong correlation between drinking water and dying. In urban King County
where there were only 13 colonies left in 2000 all of those would be expected to have
some level of human activity around them. Now in 2004 we have fewer colonies, so,
where is the cause and effect, it's not as clear. The data would show over that time
period that it would be very dangerous to try and conclude that human activity was
actually a factor in success. The logging around the colony that happened in 1987 has
been mentioned. That happened when the colony was very small that no further
disturbances or permanent habitat alterations occurred in subsequent years and the trees
were allowed to re -grow there. We also do not know that they flourished in 1987 as
was reported as we have no productivity data, all we have is a nest count. The Carlson
and McLean paper has been presented as another study that purports to show that the
buffer size is not a factor in colony success. When you look at that study, some of the
colonies with the largest buffers also had good barriers and no human activity in those
buffers, there seems to be a confounding issue going on there. They were measuring
buffer width, they were measuring human activity and they maybe didn't get them
separated independently as we might like.
This colony is well within the parameters reported in the literature for the area where the
heron colony is likely to be sensitive to disturbances such as clearing, grading and
construction activities. There has been quite a bit of testimony about the elevation of
the development in relation to the colony placing noise; lights and activity at or about
the level of existing nests and that there will be virtually no screening between the nests
and the development particularly once the hillside is cleared. The potential impacts
from light and the activity during construction and occupancy are therefore likely to
extend further than they would if the development were on the same elevation as the
colony. The Black River Heron colony has responded to past disturbances, we have
done some experiments here already; we have observed that the colony expanded
westward significantly after the quarry blasting stopped and that it moved away from
the commercial office park that was approved fairly close to the main colony to the
extent that the main colony is not occupied this year. In that situation. there is a water
barrier between the commercial park and the main colony, despite the water barrier we
have still seen those birds move away from that location.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 43
They have actually been finding in recent years that herons do quite a bit of foraging at
night. There has also been quite a bit made of the bald eagle predation. Bald eagle
predation is not as permanent a change as a change due to habitat loss or development.
The conclusions of her April 18 letter are unchanged by this new information, fences
and water moats can provide effective barriers to disturbance, there are no natural
barriers to disturbances originating on the north side of the colony currently and the
Black River herons are very sensitive to disturbances at much greater distances on the
north side than they are on the south side. The colony does appear to have reacted to
past disturbances and developments at some distance from the colony.
It is still her opinion that there will be significant adverse environmental impacts from
the development as it is proposed currently. There were a number of recommendations
in her April 18 letter and she has seen nothing that would change the need for those
recommendations. A seasonal construction window restricting all outdoor construction,
land clearing and grading between January 15 and July 31, those are dates that are based
specifically on the nesting chronology of the Black River Heron colony, the average
dates that the state recommends are February 15 to July 31, we have consistently seen
the Black River Herons arrive and begin staging on January 15. The Black River Heron
colony acid many other colonies do fledging much later than July 31, Black River has
been observed not fledging until mid -September in some years, the reality of the
situation is that birds that fledge that late in the season may not make it, they don't have
as much time to learn how to forage and get enough size on them before winter really
sets in, in an effort to be reasonable, we are suggesting the July 31 date. She cannot
recommend experimenting with the nesting season and so the idea of having a monitor
out there and if they seem disturbed then the construction will stop, all of the signs of
disturbance may not be recognized and again there's problems of stopping in time, we
don't know what those parameters would be and given the significance of this colony
we cannot recommend that.
It is still recommended that the pre -development water quantities and quality leaving the
hillside do not change. One of the concerns that is a real problem with developments
where we see downstream impacts, downstream areas get more water for longer periods
of time. We have heard testimony that the downstream wetland seems to have quite a
bit of water level fluctuation, that's only part of the water regime puzzle. There is also
the issue of the length of inundation, a lot of these tree species that occur down in that
area are adapted to having their feet wet, if you will, during the winter months when it is
typically very wet here. October, November even January and February, they are fine
with that. The problem is that if the water then stays longer than the season, if we find
that they are still under a couple of feet of water into April; May and even early June,
during the growing season. that's when we start to see the changes in vegetation, and
changes in habitat.
Retaining as much of the natural existing vegetation on the hillside would be important,
providing some durable fencing around at least three sides of the developed area, gating
the emergency access road to prevent human intrusions down into the quarry and around
that way. It would be important to replant with native evergreen trees and shrubs in
disturbed areas to try and recreate as much screening as possible. It has been mentioned
to establish a buffer of 150 feet around the large Category I wetland on the property, as
that is critical foraging habitat for the herons. Minimizing the outdoor fighting, making
sure that is shielded so that it does not shine down into the Black River Riparian Forest
and into the nests; some things to think about there are street lighting where they may be
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 44
on a pole and higher, there might be some creative ideas to make sure that street lighting
is on shorter poles so that it illuminates just the property and not offsite areas.
Developer installed landscaping should include a very large proportion of native plants
to reduce the need for fertilizers, water and pesticides.
Mr. Halinen inquired if Dr. Stenberg was aware of the June 15 construction limitations
that was set forth in the memorandum agreement that has been referred to previously.
Dr. StenberQ stated she had seen it and that nobody was very happy with that decision.
It was considered at the time to be way too early. It would seem that the developer
would have been happier with it than some other options.
Kayren Kittrick; Development Services Division, Development Engineering Supervisor
stated that primarily there are pits that are bored down to a certain depth; not necessarily
the same depth as what will be graded for the development. At some point there is a
requirement that before the development is allowed to be built. they are going to have to
make borings dov\m to the depth of the grading for the development. If this is not done
before the construction, the developer is not allowed a building permit.
The building code requires that when they start building foundations the
recommendations generally tell them to go down to a sound depth, if they have to take
away more material and over excavate because they found junk, then they will dig
deeper until they come up with something where they can refill and build the
foundations.
As to the stability of slopes, anything over four feet has to have a separate building
permit, it will not be issued until it has been reviewed for that. They will have to prove
stability to a third party before a building pennit will be issued.
Monday, May 10, 2004 hearing reconvened at 9: 02 a. in
Patricia Thompson returned for cross-examination by Mr. Halinen.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen. Ms. Thompson stated that she had found some
problems with Ms. Stabins data and that she had stated that in looking at some of Ms.
Stabins data her numbers vary widely from other observers at the same colony, it
happened in the Redmond Towne Center colony in 1997 there were three recorded
nests. Her testimony was to show that the number that Ms. Stabins came up with were
different than the numbers that other observers had come up with. She didn't want to
sound like it was a heavy criticism on Ms. Stabins. she did not want to call into question
Ms. Stabins integrity, but do want to make the observation that her numbers did differ
from other observers numbers and they always tended to be more that what other people
saw.
Again Mr. Halinen read a quote from Ms. Thompson's previous testimony, "In 1998 in
Ms. Stabins thesis the number of nests jumped to 15. and then in 2000 it jumped to 22
and I have to admit that I was a bit chagrined at that because I thought I had missed a
bunch of nests when I was out there counting nests at the colony". When you said you
thought you had missed a bunch of nests; wasn't what you were saying that you really
had not missed a nest that Ms. Stabins must have been wrong. Isn't that your point?
Ms. Thompson responded that if Ms. Stabins had seen.all those nests, she wondered
why she had not seen them and went out to verify if in fact they were there or
Sunset Blue oEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 45
missed them. She did not see any other nests, she was out there at approximately the
same time, nests don't come and go within a week or two period.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen if these statements were calculated to call into
question the credibility of Ms. Stabins as a researcher, Ms. Thompson stated they were
in her rebuttal to call into question the numbers that she had found not to call into
question her ability as a researcher. but they were different than what other observers
had found and that was the point for that. The observers were she, Don Norman and.
Dr. Stenberg had volunteers from King County supplying data for the Department of
Fish and Wildlife as well, she did not have their names.
Upon further questioning by Mr. Halinen. Ms. Thompson stated that in reference to the
question about closing a park; there is a park across the street and then there is a place
opposite the heron colony where there are trails. Mr. Halinen showed Ms. Thompson an
aerial photo. Ms. Thompson continued stating that on Oakesdale Avenue there is a
small park area, there is a creek running through the area. Mr. Halinen was not referring
to that park, but to the area north of Oakesdale Avenue which is the park that contains
the heron colony. Ms. Thompson stated there were trails there throughout the area. She
does not support the closure of that southern trail:
Jason Jordan explained that the area south of the pond is actually a park and the area
south of Oakesdale is not a park but a part of the Metro Treatment site.
Ms. Thompson stated that she would not encourage closing the trails because that is
used by people that appreciate wildlife and the ponds. She does water fowl surveys in
the winter. She has not experienced the flushing that Dr. Raedeke said he had, so she is
not sure there is all that much to be concerned about with that south trail. The north side
is a lot more sensitive that the south side. The north side is more under the nests and
that tends to disturb the herons more. There is an established trail on the south side that
keeps people in a predictable area. People do walk the trail on the north side
Mr. Halinen stated, during your April 29 testimony you said "what I do want to
emphasize again is, some other people have emphasized that the main colony has been,
we can't quite yet say abandoned because it hasn't been five years, but the birds have
pretty much moved out of the main colony which is in the closest proximity to the
development 500 feet away." Are you referring to the Black River Corporate Park that
lies to the southeast of the colony? Ms. Thompson stated that was correct. We cannot
rule out that the main colony was abandoned due to the construction of the Black River
Corporate Park.
She suggests that maybe that they revisit the design of the site to possibly preserve some
of the trees and the habitat on the hillside. She has not been able to look at the site plan
that carefully, there are many times she has worked with the client during the site
management plan process to look at the site plan and say maybe we can move this here
and see flow we can preserve some of the habitats.
We have only the date that has been collected by the volunteers that shows the actual
movement of the herons away from that Corporate Park site, we do not have a
scientifically designed prograrn that has collected date on that.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 46
Observations have been taken all the way around, basically from north and south and
then when the herons are gone,you actually go under the colony and you can pretty
much tell which nests were active and which were not active.
The Examiner questioned where these heron go after July or August. The species don't
migrate, they stay in the Puget Sound area where other heron species move around
more.
Ms. Thompson stated that was correct, there have been no marking or radioing studies
to find out where other herons move around. There's just been very little data on that.
so they apparently disperse away from the nesting site, there will be herons there, they
have seen herons there in the winter. some that stay the full year.
Mr. Grubb explained that they had reproduced the aerial photo from Exhibit 13 and
added more information. There are now two offset lines from the edge of the polygon. a
300 meter offset line and a 1000 meter offset line to show how that relates to the city
streets. The City of Renton city limits line was added in relation to the site and the
colony and some additional street callouts to give a better idea of where streets are in
relation to the offset lines. A proposed native growth protection easement is defined in
a red crosshatch.
Jason Jordan, Sr. Planner Development Services, City of Renton stated that he is the
project manager for the Sunset Bluff project since the initial submittal application to the
City of Renton. Some information was given to the Hearing Examiner during the
Preliminary Plat Hearing.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fortes, Mr. Jordan stated that there is a set procedure that is
given to folks that are interested in the application process for a preliminary plat with
SEPA review. Jason walked everyone through the details of the process. This process
was followed in the Sunset Bluff project, however there was some additional time taken
in accepting the application because there was a substantial amount of infonmation
submitted. Tile comment period was extended a couple of extra weeks. From the
comment period, two letters were pulled for consideration today, one was from Suzanne
Krom dated February 8, 2004 and one from Quailcroft Environmental Services dated
February 7, 2004 and signed by Dr. Kate Stenberg. These letters were available to the
ERC for their consideration. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was
given a notice of application, a SEPA environmental checklist and its attachments, and
photo reproductions of the site plans and exhibits that were included in the original
application.
Jason further explained how the staff report is put together and what is contained in that
report that goes to the ERC. The earth and slope hazards were reviewed including
geotechnical analysis and hazard review. Drainage was reviewed both surface and
wetland areas. Animals and habitat were studied, as well as fire prevention,
transportation, parks and lastly air and noise. This was a mitigated DNS with specific
mitigation measures. The discussion of a construction season window was heavily
discussed at the environmental review because many of the letters that we received
indicated that a construction season may be appropriate. Ultimately the staff and the
ERC felt that the location and design of the project, the proximity of the project to the
heron colony in itself was a mitigating factor. That is why there is no specific
construction season placed as a mitigation measure for the project.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 47
There was a development agreement with Merlino in which he could develop only 69
single-family lots. There is a 100 foot setback required from the railroad right-of-way
or the southern property boundary, as well there was a third requirement regarding
fencing. The development agreement was presented to the ERC for consideration. If a
1000-foot circle were drawn around the heron colony, no part of the proposed project
would fall within that circle. The distance from the trail on the south side of the heron
colony is 250 to 350 feet. The land on which the heron colony is located is a 120-acre
park owned by the City of Renton.
There are several noise sources that are near the proposed site, they include commercial
warehouses to the south and east, Metro wastewater treatment plant directly south of the
subject site, there are multi -family complexes directly to the northeast and northwest,
and then there is the Stoneway quarry site, and transfer station for disposal. It is a fairly
industrial part of the City.
The City did seek a second opinion regarding the geotechnical information, that is Code
mandated when there are protected slopes and high landslide hazards. All the
information was available to the ERC. Some additional borings have been done since
the ERC issued its recommendations and mitigation measures. This is fairly typical for
the geotechnical analysis.
To make one clarification, the land immediately north of the sewer treatment, just south
of Oakesdale Avenue SW that is not a City park, but it is a King County Park, at least as
of 2002 when the City Parks Map was printed.
Upon questioning by Mr. Mann. Mr. Jordan stated that he began working with the City
of Renton December 20, 1999. The three ERC administrators are Gregg Zimmerman,
the Planning; Building, Public Works Administrator, Dennis Culp the Community
Facilities Administrator, and Lee Wheeler, the Fire Chief.
The drainage basin area was reviewed and both wetlands on -site; the regulated and the
non -regulated wetland in the native growth protection area, consideration was also
given to the depressional wetland feature south of the subject site by the ERC.
Upon questioning by W. Halinen. Mr. Jordan stated that he is aware of tine amount of
time it takes to get through the infrastructure construction. Less complicated sites could
take two to three months to complete the earthwork and grading that is necessary. A
site like this could be expected to take the entire building season of spring to late fall.
The geotechnical experts both said no construction for grading purposes or slope
purposes was proposed.
Upon questioning by The Examiner. Mr. Jordan stated that the ERC does not review the
plat layout, they attempt to stick to the environmental conditions. As it is known, they
do merge into each other. Alternatives in terms of pond location and design were
discussed, internal access and the intersection with SW Sunset was discussed and
different alternatives were evaluated. Lastly, the location of the houses, tine ERC felt
that with the screening along Sunset Boulevard and then the housing and the detention
facility along with the native growth protection area in the southeastern comer of the
site, that that layout was sufficient. Many of the letters that were received discussed
clustering and even some gave some ideas of what should be done and where the lots
should be located, that's why the ERC moved into that realm.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
Pile No.: LUA•04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 48
If the ERC added a mitigation measure that effectively changed the plat, the ERC has
never come back saying that the builder has to redesign the plat, but the ERC has
imposed conditions knowing, in fact. if the developer adheres to this condition they will
lose two or three lots. That option was discussed, but there were no specific
recommendations for change.
Mr. Mann stated that he Nvas going to have Ms. Krom testify about the faxed letter from
Shelly Anderson because of their communications with each other over the years.
However. since Ms. Thompson is still here. there was a question posed to her this
morning about that letter. and she has now had a chance to read it. if The Examiner
would like to ask her about that.
The Examiner stated that Ms. Shelly Anderson sent faxes this morning, she describes
some logging and clear cutting which has been referred to in the past about it having
occurred and has grown back in, you can see it on the drawings that the vegetation looks
slightly different in the aerials. Apparently the heron reacted to the fact that the area
was clear-cut in February of 1987. The heron abandoned the colony and did not do very
well that year, although they did come back eventually.
Dr. Raedeke is a heron expert and Ms. Thompson represents Fish and Wildlife and
while they are still here, is this something unusual, is this the kind of thing the City
needs to be concerned about. He is looking to see if a construction window, not for
erosion control and stormwater but to protect the heronry if necessary might be an
appropriate idea.
Dr. Raedeke stated that he did not know Ms. Anderson, this clear cutting was much
closer than anything proposed for this project. The project site is over 1000 feet away
from the herons and it doesn't seem to have any relevance since there have been other
activities such as that further out. The Washington Department of Wildlife in 1987
reported 9 nests, 1988, tine year after this disturbance, there were 22 nests, 1989 there
were 24 nests, 1990 there were 37 nests. There may have been some disruption during a
period in the colony; but it does not seem to have had a numerical effect.
The relevance to this project is that this site is over 1000 feet away. One of the issues
with the 1000-meter construction moratorium is first, where did it come from and what
is the basis for that. The citations for 1000 meter come from two reports.
The Examiner stated that the birds are wild, they are in a somewhat natural setting, is
there any way logging 20-acres of forest on a slope above their nests is not going to
affect the birds.
Dr. Raedeke stated that he did not think there would be any measurable impact to these
herons. If you look at all the other activities that are going on within that same range of
distances, from sewage treatment plants to highways to railroad tracks to stone quarry
activities, it does not seem to be an impact to the herons. Dr. Butler in his letter. stated
that this is a very habituated colony, they have been growing strongly xvith those
disturbances.
Ms. Thompson stated that what Ms. Anderson saw sounds like a typical reaction of a
heron colony to a major disturbance. If the threat is a one-time event, they can settle
back down on tine nests, if it is a very disruptive event, and they are not convinced that it
is a one-time event, they could abandon. The heron colony's general reaction — the
Sunset Blu« zEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 49
clear cutting of this site, that would also be a disruptive event for this colony. It is a
drastic change in the environment. The conservative approach would be the best way to
go. Something on this magnitude during the nesting season has potential to disturb this
colony. This is nothing that can be predicted, if it takes several years for a colony to
recover, as after the 1987 logging, that can be quite an impact on the population. it could
take six to ten years for the colony to come back.
Anil Butail, after being sworn in stated that he had reviewed Exhibit 20, a geotech
addendum. A memo was prepared by him and sent to the Examiner dated April 26 in
which he summarized his review of the report. One of his earlier questions was that
there had not been sufficient deep sub -surface exploration conducted on the property
and that to a certain extent has been addressed. The explorations that have been done
are primarily in the middle and lower portions of the property, there is no exploration in
the area immediately below Sunset Avenue which is of some concern. The lack of
proper characterization of ground water on the site is of greater concern, during the
previous hearing people stated that they were convinced that there was no deep ground
water on the site, the only way to property characterize what the conditions are on a site
like this is to install observation wells on the site and watch them for a period of time to
see how the levels change.
He took the cross sections and soil properties presented in the addendum and properties
used in their analysis and constructed his own computer models. The computer
program used, Winstabl, was the same as theirs, however the results he received were
different than what Earth Consultants found. There appears to be a sigtficant
difference between the numbers they reported andthe numbers that he calculated.
These numbers are huge, the larger the number the safer the situation should be; but his
numbers were all much lower than the minimum requirements and lower than what
Earth Consultants found and that leads him to be concerned for the safety of the project.
He could not explain the difference, he used their cross sections and their soil properties
that they presented in their report.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Butail stated that the proposed grading would
have a significant impact on the stability of the slopes. The stability will be reduced
considerably as a result of the proposed grading. If the stability can be demonstrated, it
will eliminate concerns.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Butail stated that there are always differences in
safety factors of the different types of circles, different levels of circles, different
locations of circles, that is the way that the program is used, you evaluate all of these
conditions when you make your conclusions. The factors used in his conclusions were
both shallow and deep-seated circles.
When Ms. Krom came to him and talked, he told her very clearly that he would make
the evaluation of the stability, an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed grading on
the project, that was all he could do. If tite proposed grading does have adverse impacts
then it is up to the project engineer to come up with appropriate mitigation measures for
those impacts. There are always solutions.
Upon questioning by The Examiner. Mr. Butail stated that any project can be built as
long as it is properly designed and properly constructed. Unfortunately, over here we
have serious potential impacts to stability which have not been properly considered in
Sunset BluffSEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 50
the design of the project and these impacts have not been addressed as to how they will
be mitigated.
The Examiner stated that the Geotechs would be required to be on site, as something
fails on a cut, presumably they would have to be out there addressing it, or are you
saying that on the first curt the entire hillside may slough down into the railroad grade
and the depression.
Mi. Butail stated that that is essentially correct, however. the conditions that have been
analyzed are supposedly representative of long -tern design configurations and those
conditions have not been properly addressed and have not been properly mitigated.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen. Mr. Butail stated that he was aware that they
currently were in the preliminary plat process and that there is a construction plan
review process that will follow the approval of the preliminary plat and that more
detailed analysis will be performed as needed.
Suzanne Krom in response to testimony by Mr. Jordan and Exhibit 78 stated that she did
receive a copy of Notice of Application. She then requested the Application
(Environmental Checklist) and it took at least 2 weeks to receive it. The Public
Comment period ended February 9"' and she received the Checklist on February 5"',
She asked twice for an extension on the comment period and one week past the
comment period deadline she received notification that the deadline had been extended.
Dr. Raedeke has testified that there are approximately 15 herons in the main colony.
Ms. Krom stated that absolutely the main colony is silent as compared to the protected
forest where there is the sound of constant noisy vocalization from the nestlings. This
past week on two separate visits, on one visit she observed 22 herons entering and
leaving the protected forest, there were no herons going anywhere near the main colony.
Ms. Krom provided eight photographs which allow a comparison between the main
colony and the protected forest.
When she has visited the south side along the trail, the path is heavily vegetated. The
heron colony is not visible from this path. In terms of flushing there may be an
individual heron that will take Flight. The south path has been used since 1980, the
heron colony was established after the pond was dredged which was dredged in 1984 or
1985. The colony was established in spring of 1986 with three nests.
Ms. Anderson was involved with the dredging of the P-I Pond and they first met in
February of 1989. The letter from Shelly Anderson dated May 10, is fully consistent
with the discussions that were held between Ms. Anderson and Ms. Krom. There were
two separate instances of logging, one in early February that took a day or two and then
there was a second incident a week or two later that lasted a day or two. In the City of
Renton files she found a number of documents, the first was dated February 19. 1987 a
letter by Ronald G. Nelson of the City of Renton, Building and Zoning Director to First
City Development, Ms. Barbara Moss, which states that a stop work order was placed
on the subject property located at 500 Naches Avenue SW. Information was obtained
that the Blue Heron population on this site is beingjeopardized by the work being
perforned, tree cutting, grading. The stop work order will remain in effect until all
issues have been reviewed and evaluated.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 51
A second letter dated February 24, 1987 from Ronald G. Nelson to Bogle & Gates, Mr.
Charles R. Blumenfeldt, the subject of the letter is to question the stop work order by
the City, the new information indicates significant adverse environmental impacts and
to proceed would be detrimental to all concerned. The Environmental Review
Committee chose to withdraw their determination of non -significance.
The State DNR form that was filled out March 2, 1987 which does allow logging to
continue. but there are conditions. The form is good for a one-year period, activities
outlined were to be halted in four days and no activities could resume until August I.
1987 or whenever the young herons leave the nests.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes. Ms. Krom stated that she collected the just presented
letters from the City of Renton clerk's office this past Friday. She did know about the
pre -application for the Sunset Bluff project, but she had no details. Once she knew that
the documents were in the hands of the City staff, she did come into City Hall to look at
the documents. At that time she asked for a photocopy of the documents and did not
receive them until May 5. She stated that Michael Hamilton took the photos presented
today and that she was with him when some of them were taken, but not all of them.
When referring to the main colony, she is talking about the four cottonwood trees on the
little island and the nests that are in those trees.
Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Ms. Krom stated the nests in the main colony were
not more subjected to eagle predation than the ones in the protected forest due to the
fact that the conditions in the main colony are very similar to those in the protected
forest. There was eagle predation in 1999, it is impossible to say what causes herons to
abandon their nests. When the development went in in 2000 there has been a constant
decline in the main colony. When you compromise a system like that you open it up to
predators that will be looking for a more vulnerable system and the eagles found that in
the main colony. In Exhibit 102 it says that the logging may continue outside a 700-foot
radius.
Ms. Krom wrote a letter dated February 8, 2004 addressed to Jason Jordan where she
referred to the threshold determination that was presented by the ERC. The actual ERC
determination was signed February 24, 2004 and the publication date is March 1, 2004,
however, Ms. Krom had spoken to Mr. Jordan and he told her that a DNS-M was to be
issued.
Mr. Mann asked if she had discussed this project several times with Mr. Jordan after the
issuance of the Notice of Application Optional DNS and attended the public hearing.
Ms. Krom stated that she had talked with Mr. Jordan and that he did tell her that a DNS
would be issued.
Upon questioning by Ms. Follies. Mr. Hamilton explained the locations he was in when
taking the photos for Exhibit 92 — 99. He also described the type of equipment that he
used in taking those photos.
The Examiner stated that if a closing brief was to be submitted by the applicant that
would be fine, the appellant will be given an opportunity to respond but it will also have
to be timely.
Ms. Fortes gave her closing statement. The sole purpose of the attack on the
application is because there are people who want no development at this location, but
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 52
they are not willing to pay the money to buy the land to keep it from being developed.
The City is in a difficult spot, there is a land owner who by law is entitled to use his
land, certain restrictions may, be imposed but they have to be reasonable and within the
law. The standard that has to be imposed for a SEPA review is found in the WAC.
There has to be a significant likelihood that there's going to be something more than a
moderate adverse impact of environmental quality. How reasonable is it, the severity of
the alleged impact; that should be weighted against and along with the likelihood that is
going to occur. Geotechnical experts have testified. but the fact is that the City will not
give them a building permit if they cannot prove stability of the site. If while they are
building they cannot prove maintained stability of the site, they are stopped.
Fish and Wildlife have testified and that agency chose not to comment at the ERC
hearing. This is not the first time that has happened, in fact it is a pretty normal pattern
with Fish and Wildlife, they don't comment and then they come in to the hearing at the
last minute and talk about all the things that they would like. The bottom line is that this
development is more than a thousand feet away from the heron colony. In any event the
proposal is well outside the 1000-foot marker. The window of time seems ludicrous, we
have heard that there is going to be disruption to the heronry because of this project, if
you impose a seasonal constriction period it is going to mean that the project is going to
go over a period of several years. We will have disruption of tile heronry for several
years. Consider at attachment to Dr. Stenberg's report, between 1988 and the year
2003, the number of nests grew by 600% over a 15-year period. There were all kinds of
production and constriction in that location for a couple of years that there are no
numbers and a couple of years that the numbers were down because of eagle predation.
There is no linkage between the construction and the work done. So when we look at the
standard that you must impose that there be a reasonable likelihood that there is more
than a moderate adverse impact to environmental quality and that it cannot be
speculative. There was no causal connection. there were many theories and requests for
surveys, but there is no clear connection between the things about which they complain
and the adverse impact that they feared would occur. That's the standard that they have
to meet and they have not met it. Their own experts have contradicted themselves about
water in the lower depression area. Ms. Sheldon was asked about the volume of water
and she said there is only going to be so much rain; we can't affect that. Mr. Rozeboom
talked about the fact that there was going to be an increase in water. These two experts
cannot agree.
Ms. Thompson testified that she was not in support of the idea of closing down the
south side trail. She stated that it is used by people that appreciate the wildlife. It
sounds like the Civil War, the North vs. the South. The people from the south
appreciate the wildlife and they should be able to keep that trail open. The people from
the north presumably do not appreciate the wildlife and they should not be allowed to
use their land as they see fit. Mr. Hamilton testified that they were looking for a picture
that could show the nests on one side and a building on the other side of the picture.
The Examiner set the following schedule for briefs:
Mr. Halinen's brief will be due May 17, by 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Mann's brief will be due May 24, by 5:00 p.m.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one
else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 12:55
p.m.
Sunset Bra-. ,6PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 53
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the
following:
FINDINGS:
1. The appellants, Herons Forever (a private organization) and SR900 LLC, the
underlying applicant, filed appeals of a Determination. of Non -Significance -
Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for a proposed preliminary plat that would create 65
single family lots on an approximately 26.26 acre parcel.
2. The two appeals were filed separately by the respective parties. Both appeals were
filed on March 15, 2004 and both were filed in a timely manner.
3. In reviewing the plat application the City subjected the application to its ordinary
SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review,
issued a Detennination of Non -Significance - Mitigated for the project. The
Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (hereinafter DNS-M) contained 26
conditions.
4. The appellant -applicant objected to Mitigation Condition Number 24 and sought a
correction of language in Condition 25. Condition 24 stated:
"The applicant shall be required to install a raised median with pedestrian pass-
through/refuge area in Sunset Boulevard NE, west of the access street. This
condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development
Services Division in conjunction with WASHDOT and shall be completed prior
to final plat approval."
Condition 25 stated:
"The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation fee based on a rate of
$75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the recording of
the preliminary plat."
5. The language that the appellant sought to correct was directed at the fact that a
"preliminary plat" is not recorded. Final plats are recorded and the appellant
applicant wanted the wording to be changed from "preliminary plat" to "final plat."
6. Regarding Condition 24, the appellant -applicant wanted the condition changed to
read:
"West of the project's public access street intersection with SW Sunset Boulevard,
the applicant shall be required to install within SW Sunset Boulevard a raised median
that is at least 8 feet wide for a length that need not exceed 40 feet. (No pedestrian
crosswalk across SW Sunset Boulevard is intended or required.) This condition shall
be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division in
conjunction with WSDOT."
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 54
7. As the hearing opened, the appellant -applicant indicated that staff generally
addressed their concerns and that they only desired that the Hearing Examiner issue a
decision incorporating their agreement and that the appeal was otherwise settled.
8. Herons Forever, the other appellant raised a number of objections to the
determination and raised a number of issues. Six points or grounds for the appeal
were raised as noted:
"I . The DNS fails to adequately describe and analyze the change in surface water and
shallow groundwater hydrology that will be created by the subdivision and the
resulting impacts to the downgradient wetlands, wetland species and herons.
2. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant
impacts to the Black River heronry caused by activities daring construction,
including but not lirtuted to, clearing, grading: roadbuilding, infrastructure and
home building.
3. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant
impacts to the Black River heronry caused by the clearing of virtually all of the
trees from the subject property.
4. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant
impacts to the Black River heronry caused by increased human and pet
interactions from the preliminary plat once built and occupied.
5. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant
impacts to the Black River heronry caused by increased noise, light and glare
from the preliminary plat once built and occupied.
6. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant safety
impacts likely to result (sic) earth movements associated with the proposed
clearing and grading for roadways, houses and the proposed stormwater retention
pond."
9. The subject site is located at SWl 100 Sunset Boulevard. The subject site is located
on the south side of Sunset. The majority of the site is west of Powell Avenue SW if
it were extended south.
10. While it would appear that the subject site has a long frontage along Sunset
Boulevard, the City approved a lot line adjustment that separated the majority of the
subject site from its frontage along Sunset (allowing the applicant to avoid installing
any frontage improvements along the frontage)
1 I The subject site is approximately 26.26 acres in size. Tile subject site is curved or
crescent shaped and is approximately 2,400 feet long (east to west) by approximately
600 feet deep although it tapers to a very narrow point at its eastern end. The lot line
adjustment noted above severed a large portion of the site's frontage along Sunset
Boulevard creating a very long and very narrow separate lot.
12.The subject site is located in two zoning districts. The majority of the site (25.18
acres), predominantly the northern and western portions of the site, is zoned R-10
(Residential; 10 dwelling units per acre). The southeastern corner of the site (1.08
acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation).
13.The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject
site is located as suitable for the development of residential options and rural
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 55
residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of
other policies of the Plan.
14.Access to the site would be via a new street intersecting Sunset Boulevard from the
south. The new street would be located between Powell Avenue SW and Oakesdale
Avenue SW. Both of those streets intersect Sunset Boulevard from the north.
15.The subject site has a heavy tree cover. The staff report stated
"The site is heavily treed and is considered to be a second -generation forest
(approximately 50 years in age). and native vegetation covers most of the site."
(Page 3, Staff Report)
"The site is heavily wooded with Maple, Alder, Cottonwood Fir, and Cedar trees
ranging in size from 36-inches to 48-inches in diameter and is also vegetated with
blackberry vines and other forested vegetation - most of which would be removed
during site preparation activities." (Page 10, Staff Report)
16.The applicant during the course of the appeal disputed the forest makeup or
characterization.
I7.Staff noted that almost all the vegetation would be removed from the subject site:
"As a result of the preliminary plat, the applicant has proposed to remove the
majority of the on -site
vegetation and perform approximately 160,000 cubic yards of earthwork activity."
(Page 3, Staff Report)
18.Also disputed were the staff report comments that retaining walls or cuts of 30 feet
and fills of 20 feet were required.
"The grading activity will modify the site slopes, increasing the existing slope
gradient from 15% - 20% to slopes in the range of 40% - 50% on the south and north
sides of the proposed building lots. As a result of the proposed cuts and fills
associated with the building pads and road development, the geotechnical report
recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback
from the top or toe of any 50% plus proposed slope." (Page 11, Staff Report)
19.The applicant will be creating slopes that actually are defined as protected. Immense
grading activity will reshape the entire parcel and remove all vegetation on
approximately 20 acres.
20.A secondary, independent geotechnical review requested by staff added an additional
condition. That additional condition required "additional embedment or erosion
control." (Page 12, Staff Report)
21.The staff report located the subject site vis a vis the heron colony but it appears that
it used the location of what had been the train nest tree that apparently has been
abandoned.
"Finally, the site is located approximately 1,100 feet form the main heron nesting
tree location within the City of Renton's Black River Riparian Forest." (Page 3,
St-- ort)
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.'. LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 56
22.Staff described the site's slopes as:
"The site is characterized by having sensitive and protected slopes ranging from 10
to 50% plus in degree." (Page 3. Staff Report)
23.Staff noted that open space would be provided on the site:
"The applicant has included three open space and/or utilities tracts throughout the
project site that total over 16 acres." (Page 31 Staff Report)
Most of this open space would be lawn areas above and below the actual homes or
the retention pond surface. It would generally not be forest or larger native
vegetation.
24.The rezone of the site was accompanied by a development agreement. That
agreement requires the construction of a 6-foot fence along the south side of the
development for the length of the development. It also provides that the
development contain not more than 69 detached single-family housing units.
25.Approximately 5.68 acres of the site are deducted for roads, high landslide hazards
area, sensitive slopes. wetlands (page 7, Staff Report) arriving at a net density of 3.2
dwelling units per acre on the resultant 20.58 acres.
26.The site can be described as a 200 foot high. south-southeast facing slope that
descends from Sunset Boulevard to the railroad right-of-way.
27.The property north of the subject site across Sunset is zoned R-8 (Residential; 8
dwelling units per acre) and is. in King County, R-6, and is a mix of developed and
undeveloped property. East of the site is RM-I zoning (Multiple Family) developed
with multiple family uses. West is another RM-I district with multiple family units
and industrially zoned property in King County that is developed and undeveloped
including a closed quarry site. The quarry site would provide a route for an
emergency access road for the proposed development.
28.Ms. Sheldon, a wetlands biologist, discussed the changes that will occur in
hydroperiodicity due to the massive grading and alteration of the soils. The porous
soils will be removed or compacted to allow the grading to achieve stable slopes and
firm foundations. The volume of water (rain) that reaches the site will remain
constant (taking into account normal yearly variations in rainfall) but it will be stored
and released differently. Rather than stored in some manner by the natural soils. it
will be channeled to the detention pond and released to the riparian forest differently
than natural release. This had not been assessed by the documentation available to
the ERC and public. She pointed out that while the project will meet design
standards to retain water that does not address, in this case, the biological or
ecological effects of altering the way this hillside now affects the water. The King
County manual; in this regard. treats water as an inert substance to be handled,
conveyed and detained but does not deal as effectively with its biological
component. Releasing the water in a naturally controlled subsurface manner is
different than channeling it over or around compacted soils.
Sunsetb— .cPAAppeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 57
29.The appellants introduced evidence from Bill Rozeboom that questioned the effect of
clearing the forest from the hillside and channeling water that enters the site from
offsite. The appellants want to know how the clearing and channeling of water
affects the riparian forest and its hydrology. Thereceiving area, the riparian forest
and its wetland, are what is defined as a closed depression that is like a bathtub but
without any outlet. Water flows into it but unless it tops the confines of the closed
basin, it does not directly flow to the P-1 Pond. It either slowly evaporates or
percolates through the walls of the basin. Currently, the undeveloped subject site
releases water from stonn events and nonnal rain slowly to the closed depression.
The appellants argue that the impacts of altering the vegetation, slopes and method
of channeling water is unknown and has not been adequately studied or addressed.
A term of art, "hydroperiod", was used to focus the discussion on the impacts of
changing how and when water reaches the depression after it reaches the subject site
now and then after its terrain and vegetation are dramatically altered. The issue was
defined as not the amount of water that reaches the wetland or closed depression but
the time frame, seasonally of the water flow. It was explained by the witness that the
detention pond will control peak flows but not the volume of water and not the
complete timing of the release.
30.Aliil Butail, a geotechnical engineer, provided testimony questioning the amount of
information gleaned from the test pits that only went to a depth of approximately 17
feet whereas grading to a depth of approximately 70 was shown in the submissions,
how the damp soils would be reworked on the site to make them suitable for
foundation work, whether chemical additives might be necessary that could leach to
the wetland areas. He questioned some of the stability information near Sunset and
above the sensitive eastern slopes where the access road will be carved out as well as
stability near and above the large detention pond. He did not believe that the 1.9 or
2.1 safety factor was appropriately calculated given the ground water
characterizations. He testified that the nonnal standard of care is to test bore to at
least the level of excavation, here approximately 70 feet, and that going 15 to 20 feet
below the proposed excavation depth is reasonable. He suggested that on a site with
steep slopes such as this, waiting for field results during actual excavation and
reacting at that time to discoveries would be improper and could be disastrous.
Using the applicant's data he determined that the safety factor was approximately 1.5
rather than the 2.1 safety factor that the applicant's representatives found. He noted
that the lower safety factor of 1.5 is a borderline value. He also indicated that there
was little indication of the safety factor just below Sunset Boulevard.
31.The only experts that have actually worked with or monitored heron recently or that
were subject to cross-examination indicated that the birds have reacted hostilely to
intrusive activities in both this heronry and in others in the Puget Sound region.
Based on their extensive knowledge of these birds, they suspect that the proposed
grading on the property adjacent to the colony will definitely have an impact.
Reports appear to indicate that the birds were flushed and severely disturbed by
logging just south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest
area. The anecdotal evidence appears to show that the development of the office
park complex at the north end ofNaches also caused a reaction in the heron and may
be responsible for the colony's move north and west and to their abandoning what
has been termed the main nesting tree or colony. While no one can be sure what the
impacts will be of the overall development and eventual population change it seems
clear that the immensity of the proposed clearing and grading, if not the homes and
people will spur some reaction on the part of the heron. The site, at least some of
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF. PP
August 3, 2004
Page 58
which appears to be their habitat, will be disturbed. Areas where they gather twigs
and possibly forage for food will be clear-cut and almost all vegetation will be gone.
Forest vegetation will be replaced by open space, detention pond, lawn and maybe
smaller shrubs. The work will occur at or above the nesting level and while the maps
appear to indicate that this would be out of sight of the nests, the birds will be flying
above the nests and the shelter and visual screen and buffer that the upslope forest
provided will be gone or will be removed possibly during nesting season.
32.The changes to the seasonal wetland were again raised as an issue since the results of
grading and drainage changes could affect food sources for the heron. These impacts
were not analyzed leaving a gap in knowledge. Changes in .water level would affect
amphibians which heron, particularly newly fledged young heron, depend on as food
sources. Similarly, changing water levels would affect invertebrate and insect
populations affecting animals further up the food chain. None of the results of
possibly changing the water flows were studied.
33.Doctor Stenberg questioned what affect to water quality might occur since water
flowing across Sunset now flows across the site, into the soils and exits at the bottom
of the hill receiving a level of treatment in the natural percolation process. After the
site is developed and to maintain slope stability, this offsite water would be piped
faster down the hill and receive substantially less natural treatment. It will also be
routed around the new detention pond acid not receive any treatment in that pond.
She also wondered about the possible addition of soil additives to stabilize the slope
and noted homeowners are not exacting in their use of fertilizers and pesticides for
lawn care once the site is developed.
34.She also pointed out the measurements to the colony reflect a radius from the older
colony and pinpoint the location whereas the colony is more a polygon and she
concluded that the heronry is approximately 950 feet not the 1100 feet noted in the
staff report.
35.She mentioned that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has made
recommendation for working around heron colonies and they found that working
within approximately 2.600 feet creates problems and recommended 3.200 feet as a
distance in which no construction or logging occur. This office does note that such a
setback could eliminate most development of this private property. But she noted
that in an urban setting where the birds were subject to more intrusions that may not
be reasonable. In urban King County studies found colonies shrink when there is
development within 1,000 feet.
36.She referenced the 1998 construction of the office park within 500 feet of the colony
and noted that now the colony has all but, if not totally, abandoned the main colony
and moved to what is called the protected forest further to the west and north.
37.Dr. Stenberg noted that Fish and Wildlife recommendations were based on the best
available science. She noted this colony arrives at its nests earlier and some stay a
bit later and that the window should accommodate this local variation from other
colonies. She recommended mid -January to the end of July. which does not
accommodate fully the late nesters.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 59
38.She noted that this colony appears to react more to disturbances from the north
where there is currently more forest cover and generally less anticipated intrusions
and seem less disturbed by southerly -based disturbances.
39.Ms. Krom testified and noted that most activity occurs along the south trail system
and viewing area and that little activity occurs on the north side of the colony. Also
it was pointed out that most activity occurs during daylight hours since most of the
development east. south and west is commercial development or office or industrial
uses which do not have much in the way of evening activity. The proposed
development would be some of the first development to occur north since the colony
was established and would introduce a more permanent, daily population including
evening hoar activity and more lighting.
40.Ms. Krom testified that the main colony productivity declined substantially after the
development at SW 7th and Naches. Then the main colony appeared to be
abandoned and the heron moved to the area termed the "protected forest" which is
north or northwest. The timing of this move also seemed to have corresponded with
the termination of the blasting at the quarry which was located west of the subject
site.
41.She indicated that there did not appear to be any change to the trees in the main
colony such as dead or dying trees to cause the shift.
42.It was clear the heron colony attracts a lot of attention from the general public. They
visit during the nest season to watch the activity. They walk the trail and use some
viewpoints. Some folks may wander another trail to the north or rear of the colony
but it does not seem to be popular. These visits to the trail may be affecting the
heron in some fashion but that would not necessarily justify intensifying or adding
more impacts such as the applicant's proposal without more study.
43.Scott Dinkelman, the applicant's geotechnical consultant discussed the borings. He
updated information with new borings that were conducted after the initial
environmental review. This new information was not seen by the ERC. It was
revealed at the public hearing on the appeal. These new, deeper borings show that
the site can be worked safely. He testified that it was always expected that it would
be a summer construction type project due to moisture sensitive soils. This means
that there should probably be no earthwork during the nornial rainy season. This
information does not appear in the geotechnical report and a seasonal grading
"window" was not part of the ERC's recommendations. He noted that the original
soils report was fairly preliminary.
44.He disagreed with the Barghausen wetland report prepared for the applicant for this
project that characterized the soils on the site as well drained. He noted that he
would not characterize the soils as well drained.
45.He noted that they would have to dry the soils in the summer as they work the lifts.
But the report did not contain any recommendations to this affect. .
46.Mr. Grubb was the civil engineer for the project. He noted that the road is designed
to basically follow the existing grades. Homes would be built on cuts upslope and
fills down slope from the roadway. The intersection with Sunset, its angle and sight
dis— were important and constrained the design of the roadway thereafter. He
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 60
noted that the extensive grading for lots appears necessary to accommodate the small
lot sizes and home design where daylight basements are not necessarily appropriate.
47.Mr. Grubb explained the drainage basins that drain across the subject site. The
largest basin. approximately 43 acres, feeds a stream that is unregulated due to its
small size and lack of fish. The only impact of this flow is that the access roadway
will cross the stream. Except for the proposed road crossing, the stream flows in an
area that will not be developed and feeds the site's protected wetland at the toe of the
eastern slope. A 14.4 acre basin also feeds through the site as well as two smaller
4.7 acre and 6.6 acre basins north of Sunset that cross the site after exiting culverts
under Sunset. The state has also collected water from Sunset and that flows across
the site.
48.Almost all water that enters the site fiom external properties, that does not enter the
site as precipitation, will be captured and piped around the site and released more or
less at its natural exit. The water will receive no particular treatment nor will it be
slowed by the soils on the site or absorbed by vegetation (evapotranspiration). Water
that falls on the site will be detained in a detention pond at the bottom of the slope
near the railroad tracks. He testified that the long skinny pond alliances water
quality treatment. Storm water will also be directed around retaining walls or
rockeries to protect those features.
49.Dr. McCarthy was the applicant's hydrologist. He discussed the riparian forest and
its prominent featurejust south of the subject site and railroad tracks, the
depressional wetland. It is about 10.5 acres. It is about 3.5 feet deep at its deepest
and has a million cubic feet of storage. He noted that the change would be an
increase from approximately 115 acre-feet of runoff under current conditions to 145
acre-feet after development in an average year. This was not considered a significant
change given the capacity of the wetland. He had not actually observed any flows on
the site or to the wetlands. It was based on modeling the flows and on the soils maps
not on the actual borings or the results revealed by those borings. It was noted that
most of this was new information that was not available to the ERC or public prior to
the hearing.
50.Rebecca Lind testified for the applicant. She stepped through thevarious dowmzones
that occurred, including considerations for buffering the heronry. Each rezone action
or Comprehensive Plan amendment; in general, reduced the overall intensity of
development that could occur on the site. The applicant or predecessor in interest
sought some of these actions-
5 LMs. Dusek prepared the Habitat Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report for
the applicant. No fish were found on the site or its wetlands or the stream on the
site. The heron are designated by Fish and Wildlife as a priority species, trees and
nesting areas are protected and the birds cannot be hunted or harassed. There is a
need to identify potential impacts on them but there is no requirement to replace
habitat.
52.Ms. Dusek using a variety of cross-section exhibits demonstrated that the heron nests
are not visible from the site when the trees leaf out which generally occurs in April.
One nest is visible in winter. Elevation profiles show the nest elevations. the tree
screening at mid -range and the profile of the site and proposed buildings. This
information reportedly shows that the heronry will not be visible from in(,-' -r the
Sunset b,, 6PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 61
site even after developed and that the site would in turn, not be visible by the heron
in their nests. A fence that is required in the Development Agreement should help
limit entry from the north.
53.Mr. Pritchard testified as an expert in wetland ecology. His assessment was not
available to the ERC and was conducted for the public hearing. The forest showed
good, vigorous growth and no snags. There were some very large trees on upland
hummocks. Cottonwood trees of 14" to 18" caliper at chest height and some large
specimens 40" to 50". Water marks on trees varied from 12" to 14" to 36" to 40".
The water marks could have been caused by the large October storm event or could
be seasonal. He had not reviewed weather records. A variation of 1" to 2" should
not affect the larger trees and excess inundation should flow over the south edge of
the depressional wetland into the P-f pond.
54.Doctor Raedeke testified as a wildlife and heron expert for the applicant. He relied
on a number of studies of heron. He indicated that with the possible exception of
British Columbia herons appeared to be increasing in number. He has been
involved in heron projects around Puget Sound. His testimony made this project
seem like a "non-event" in terms of potential impacts to this colony. He noted that if
the birds are displaced, they relocate to other locations. Whereas Dr. Stenberg
testified that due to concerns about numbers, they are trying to refine the counting
methodologies. They also formed an international working group because of those
declining numbers. There are limited locales for heron colonies due to the nature of
the trees; the forest and the wetland environment they prefer. Doctor Raedeke noted
that buffers per se do not necessarily protect the heron but barriers to entry are a
better option. The buffer proposed in this case meets or exceeds past
recommendations. He characterized a construction zone moratorium as illogical and
punitive this far away from the colony. He noted that the birds do habituate to
disturbances but noise and activity does cause them to flush. He did note that it
might be better to leave some habitat and that monitoring to see what happens and
react accordingly probably should be done.
55.Ms. Thompson, Washington Fish and Wildlife Department, represented that
department and testified in her official capacity. She admitted that the state did not
appear to comment earlier in the review process for this application. She noted that
while this colony appears to be thriving, others have been reduced in numbers and
two larger ones; Peasley Canyon and Dumas Bay have been abandoned. Some small
two -nest colonies may be satellite colonies. The 1985 study is 20 years old and out
of date. They see more fragmentation of colonies and more abandonment. Of the 13
colonies mentioned in that report only 9 remain. Some of the studies cited by the
applicant's representative are from a different subspecies of heron and the
information and characteristics do not carry over. She noted that Alberta, NY and
Louisiana have entirely different ecosystems. She noted that the Stabins study
showed perceived increases in nests but that does not seem to be verifiable. Others
including herself found smaller numbers than Stabins. There have been increased
efforts of late to establish a clear methodology and protocol. The number of nests
has decreased by approximately 100 in 2003 versus 2000. She noted that suitable
habitat is limited for nesting and foraging.
56.Stabins data also varied from other data collected and it was noted that the increase
seen in the Redmond Towne Center colony went from 22 nests reported by Stabins
in 2000 to 6 nests in 2001 and the colony has since failed. But Ms. Thompson noted
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 62
that with no formal protocol, the number differences might be explained by different
reporting methods or possibly flawed data.
57.There was speculation that more disturbances actually might increase success. It was
not known why this might be true since the heron do flush and react but possibly,
eagles, which have attacked colonies are even more disturbed by human intrusion,
have moved further away from the intrusions.
58.Ms. Thompson was in favor of site -specific management plans. Incontrovertible is
that walking and sudden noise will flush the birds. The larger colony may need more
protection, more habitat reserve and reasonable buffer in terms of no intrusion.
approximately 300 meters, and a construction window in terms of time (nest related)
and distance. 1.000 meters.
59.She noted that this colony represents approximately six percent (6%) of the heron of
King County and therefore, experimenting on them is not a good idea as it represents
too significant a colony.
60.The applicant's expert would have us believe that birds that have been identified as
very flighty, easily flushed and shy, have been mischaracterized and are helped and
flourish because of human activity. This testimony alone, even a suggestion that is
the case robs most of his testimony of credibility and makes the conclusions suspect.
or fairly lacking in science. It would appear that the testimony relies on
predominately one source, a Masters student and he was her advisor. It also is a
source that was not subject to cross-examination.
61.Mr. Jordan testified that the ERC considered the design of the complex and its
proximity or lack thereof, to the heron colony when issuing its decision and omitting
a construction window. They required a second opinion on the slopes and modified
the decision to accommodate those additional recommendations. They noted the
trail distance and that tours were given showing the heron a bit less sensitive than
expected. They also considered the existing and surrounding uses and noise sources
including the railroad, quarry, industrial uses and the treatment plant. They did
anticipate additional geotechnical information as development and plans were
developed. Staff did not recommend a construction season to work around either the
wet season or for the heron's nesting behavior and timing.
62.This office issued a decision in an appeal supporting the City's detennination that no
site clearing, grading or similar work would occur on the Debar Property (File
Number: LUA-01-58) adjacent to May Creek. The City was concerned with the
stability of that steep slope and the sensitive nature of May Creek. In that matter the
applicant challenged a condition imposed by the ERC that read:
"The applicant shall limit site disturbance including clearing, grading, utility, and
roadwork activities to occur during the relatively dry months of April through
October."
The ERC imposed this condition to limit work to the dry season in spite of the fact
that the then applicant introduced expert testimony that the site could be worked
during the wet season and that the ground stability would not bejeopardized.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 63
63.In Emma's Plat (file Number: LUA-04-025) the ERC imposed a specific condition
on earthwork activity where a wetland was involved but where slopes were less than
5%. The ERC condition was:
1. The applicant shall be required to perform all earthwork activities during the
dry summer months of August through October. This condition shall be subject
to review and approval of the Development Services Division."
64.The jurisdiction for the Hearing Examiner in appeals can be found in Section 4-8-
110.E
APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000)
1. Applicability and Authority:
a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made may be
appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner,
Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995)
b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued
pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any
proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a
nonelected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner
under the provisions of this Section.
c. Authority: To that end, the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office
from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is
concerned.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled
to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless
the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error.
2. The Determination of Non -Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight
and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is
"clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The
court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County
Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stded: "A finding is `clearly erroneous' when
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
Therefore. the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can
meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is
reversed.
The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a
DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA
requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action.
The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test. the
"arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of
significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that
the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the
environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document; an
Er mental Impact Statement.
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3, 2004
Page 64
4. An action is detennined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the
environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a
reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC
197-1 1-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows:
Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of
more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.
(2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude
and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along
with the likelihood of its occurrence. All impact may be significant if its chance of
occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it
occurred.
5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable."
Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probahle is used
to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,
but are renhoat or speculative. (WAC 197-1 1-782).
6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts
including short -tern and long -tern effects. (WAC 197-1 1-060(4)(c)). Impacts
include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the
likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for fixture actions. (WAC
197-11-060(4)(d)). Environmental impact is also related to the location. A
development whether an office building or a single-family development may or may
not create impact depending on the existing surroundings.
7. In this case we have approximately 26 acres of forested property located uphill from
a City park that for the most part is a unique riparian forest and wetland environment
and one that contains one of the larger heron colonies in King County. It appears
very reasonable to explore in more detail the probable impacts of developing the
subject site as proposed as well as possible alternatives. What is clear is that the
conditions imposed by the ERC are more compliance measures that do not
necessarily mitigate the impacts of this development.
8. The applicant suggests that the appellant should have challenged this project earlier
in the process. This argument is not persuasive. The appellant may not have
objected to single-family uses on this site. The appellant might have relied on the
very SEPA review process now occurring to help mitigate impacts of single-family
development on this site. Many have suggested in the past that mere map changes
are insufficient to challenge a land use action when no physical changes are
proposed. Instead it has been suggested that when real development is proposed,
SEPA and the parties could get a better handle on the potential impacts. That is
exactly what has happened in this case. A concrete proposal has allowed the various
parties to analyze what is proposed and what its impacts might be. The appellants
have a right to challenge the proposal at this time even if they did not challenge it
earlier.
9. The applicant's attorney attempted to paint the appellant's representative as a zealot
willing to do anything to protect the heron and prevent development. This is not a
characterization that this office needs to decide. The issues in this case a tiler
Sunset Big__ .,cPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 65
the ERC made the appropriate determination and whether this project will have more
than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The motivation, at least,
at this point does not matter. If the proposal will have more than moderate impact on
the environment then a Determination of Significance should have been issued by
the ERC.
I O.The record shows that the ERC relied on past .experience with development on steep
hillsides, or adjacent to wetlands and near time heron colony. The record reveals that
when development on or near a steep sensitive hillside was proposed near May
Creek, the ERC imposed a condition for special reporting and limited work to the dry
season. (See above) The ERC even defended that decision in the face of an appeal
and expert evidence that the development could proceed during the wet seasons.
Similarly, in Emma's Plat the ERC imposed a condition limiting earthwork to the
dry months. In this case the applicant 's expert indicated that it was presumed that
the development would be seasonally limited. No such condition appears in writing.
I i .Besides not imposing a "wet -season" limitation on working on the steeper hillside.
the ERC imposed no construction window to lessen impacts on nesting heron. It
would appear that they did consider the horizontal distance between the subject site
and the heronry. But there appears to be evidence that the vertical offset could
adversely affect the heron including the loss of dense cover in an area where it has
long existed. While there are other large complexes in the area, the ones north of the
site are both more remoat and were apparently established when the heron began
establishing their colony.
12.The City's obligation to is to fully and fairly determine the potential impacts of
developing this property in the manner proposed by the applicant. That is the City
must analyze the impacts of removing approximately 20 acres of mature forest from
a slope that varies from 20 to 40 percent and that is located upslope from a sensitive
riparian forest that is inhabited by a large colony of heron. The ERC's report does
not contain any particular information on the complex mesh of slope -wetland -heron.
It is as if there were an implicit admission that the City and its planners and probably
the decisionmaker already know about the impacts of development in these kinds of
environments and that documenting them would be unnecessary or redundant. This
ignores the fact that the general public does not have this information and cannot
intelligently comment in the absence of such information. Time failure to further
explore the impacts and consequences of a specific proposal also ignores the fact that
occasionally a full exploration of the probable impacts might lead to better design,
particularly for a non -routine site or one with significant features or attributes. This
does not mean an EIS can be demanded in the absence of a showing that a proposal
will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. In this
case the nature of the proposal, the nature of the subject site and the nature of the
surrounding area requires more disclosure and more analysis.
13.SEPA requires review "at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision -
making process" (WAC 197-11-055(2). This review should be performed prior to
irrevocable commitment of either resources or land. It is apparent that the SEPA
determination required at this, the earliest time when alternatives can be realistically
considered, would be to require an EIS. By attempting to eliminate the full
disclosure mandated by SEPA, the applicant may be foreclosing reasonable and
better alternatives for the site. They may be committing to a course of action that has
not been fully explored. SEPA demands more in this case. The approval of the
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 66
proposed development without a SEPA study would foreclose considering
alternative development scenarios such as clustering the single family homes, using
detention vaults in conjunction with storm water control, utilizing the topography
with less drastic an alteration of the slope as is now proposed. Then again, a full
study might fully support the current proposal as the best development alternative or,
at least, a more than reasonable method of allowing development on the subject site.
14,This decision should not be read to discount or dismiss most of the rebuttal
testimony provided by the applicant. Rather what this decision does is conclude that
the information provided does not mitigate the impacts of the proposal on the quality
of the environment, impacts such as its total forest and vegetation removal from
approximately 20 acres, its grading of slopes varying from 20% to 40% on
approximately 20 acres, its alteration ofhydrology that will affect the hydroperiod of
the riparian forest, or its proximity to the heron colony. Also important is the fact
that none of this supplemental information was available in a timefranme where it
could help the public knowledgeably comment on this project. This supplemental
information was presented in an appeal hearing, not a forum where it could easily be
digested and certainly not in a format where the general public could read it.
comment on it and rebut it. The information is late and does not help weigh tine
impacts and possibly derive alternatives that might lessen the impacts.
15.1 i addition, the applicant's supplemental information. as noted above, in many cases
conflicts with the information submitted by the appellants. This information needs to
be laid out side -by -side and sorted and sifted in a way that only an Environmental
Impact Statement can provide. This information needs to be assembled by an expert
team that is managed by the City, the agency withjurisdiction and which is in charge
of gathering such full disclosure information. Frankly, right now, we have a battle of
experts and it may ultimately come down to that but only after the full disclosure
mandated by SEPA.
16.This does not mean that an exhaustive study of the development of the site is
necessary. it appears that the appellants and others who have written about this
proposal have focused on certain issues. Those are clearly the areas that need to be
studied. The issues that need particular analysis are:
a). The hydrology ofthe site and its affect on the riparian forest including
hydroperiod.
b). Habitat alteration and .water quality
c). Tile slope stability.
d). The affects of the loss of vegetation and regrading of approximately 20 acres
of mature forest, and the impacts of tree removal and grading and construction
noise on the heron colony,
e). The impacts of the potential new residential population including noise and
light and glare on the heron colony
17.Studying minimum and maximum development and inid-range development
alternatives does not mean that the ultimate development cannot be constructed as
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 67
the applicant envisions. The focused EIS only serves as a full disclosure document.
One has to remember that while the document serves the needs of the decisionmaker,
it truly serves the needs of those who need information to formulate appropriate
questions for the decisionmaker - that is neighbors and other interested persons who
may not be as knowledgeable of development results as City staff.
18.It is misguided to believe that because the applicant's proposal will comply with
code that it is a measure of successful mitigation. One has to hope; if not presume,
that all projects will meet their minimum code requirements or they should not be
permitted. If merely complying with code for achieving slope stability, or
stormwater detention ended the environmental analysis, there would be no need for
SEPA review. While this is a tact that some have sought in the legal environmental
arena, SEPA review is still required since projects that meet code may still have a
significant impact on the quality of the environment. This office in its handout on
dealing with environmental appeals notes the development of Gene Coulon Park, a
gem of a park along Lake Washington's shoreline, an almost incontrovertible asset,
was constricted only after arm Environmental Impact Statement vas prepared. While
that was a number of years ago, the principles of environmental review are still
intact.
"A threshold determination shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a
proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a
proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts under the
rules stated in this section. For example, proposals designed to improve the
environment, such as sewage treatment plants or pollution control requirements,
may also have significant adverse environmental impacts." (WAC 197-11-330
(5).
19. If a project will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment
and all of its impacts have not been mitigated, then an EIS, an environmental full -
disclosure document, is required. In this case, once again, we have a proposal that
will result in the clearing of absolutely all vegetation and stripping of topsoils on a
very steep hillside above a City park and above a significant heron colony. We have
a project that will change the rate of flow for storm water. We have a proposal that
will potentially alter the constituents (contaminants from Sunset or herbicides and
pesticides and fertilizers) of that flow. This is because the stormwater that now
percolates into the natural soils will be channeled around the subject site or fall on a
very compacted soil surface. We have a project that will alter an area that the heron
may use for nest -building materials and possible foraging. These are significant
impacts that have not been mitigated. Could there be more suitable development?
Nothing in the development agreement or code forbids this project, developed in a
sensitive location, from having a unit count of less than 69 units if it would be more
suitable for this location.
20. This office has recognized in the past and again recognizes one issue that makes this
decision problematic. This office not only reviews the SEPA appeal but is in the
position of a decisionmaker ("recommendation maker" to time City Council in this
case). As the decisionmaker, more information is always welcome but not just for
time sake of exploring minutia or delaying the ultimate decision. This decisionmaker
would like to have more information on alternatives for developing this site.
21. While development of private property is essential and the development of additional
housing in the City is encouraged not every development plan serves the public use
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 68
and interest, a prime component of the review criteria for a plat. It would appear that
the city and other governmental agencies expended a large sum of money not merely
to protect a riparian forest, but a heron colony - an ecosystem. It would appear
reasonable to take some additional measures to analyze the impacts and possible
alternatives to protect that unique resource.
22.While not in any manner attempting to prejudge the next series of environmental
documents that come out of this process, the appellants need to be mindful that this
is private property and that once reasonable environmental information is compiled.
the challenges will be harder. Disclosing the impacts of the development and even
providing alternative development ideas does not mean that the subject site will not
be developed as proposed by the applicant. SEPA does not necessarily prohibit
development that will have an impact on heron, trees, rivers or [wetlands. It requires
an informed decisionmaker who then decides if there are acceptable impacts and
even losses.
23.The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body
with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the finn conviction that a
mistake has been made. There is no doubt that the reviewing agency erred in its
determination. The plat is a major action that will significantly affect the quality of
the environment. The proposed plat is a major action that will have more than a
moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The mitigation measures
imposed by the ERC do not fully mitigate the impacts of developing this site. Too
many questions on environmental issues are still unanswered. Repeating the
obvious: we have a heron colony and the impacts of this development on that colony
and its environment need more analysis. It is possible that the development of
environmental information will accomplish both the preservation of the heron colony
and permit the development of the private property.
24.The appealing party must prevail on this appeal. A DNS, even a mitigated DNS,
would be inappropriate for this proposal. First, at this point, without more
information, it truly is hard to understand [what mitigation: that is, what conditions,
would be sufficient to offset the potential impacts. In order to mitigate a proposal,
one needs to fully understand the immpacts. The information now in the record does
not provide the necessary information at this time. Full environmental disclosure
should provide the necessary information and that means the preparation of an EIS.
25.Again, the record is replete with a great deal of conflicting and contradictory
information provided by hired or voluntary experts. A concise EIS prepared tinder
the City's auspices should provide a neutral document with more balanced
presentation.
26.Since Section 4-8-1 10-E- I -c grants this office "all of the powers of the office from
whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned"
this office will issue a Determination of Significance.
27.The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is reversed. A
Determination of Significance is substituied in its place.
28.Having reached the conclusion that an EIS is required, no purpose would be served
in reviewing the proposed plat request for the subject site. The evaluation perfornmed
by the EIS may demonstrate that the proposed plat -needs modification.
Sunset b,..__ 6PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 69
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is reversed. A Determination of Significance will replace the
decision of the ERC.
ORDERED THIS 3rd day of August, 2004
FRED J. KAUF N
HEARING EX IINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 3rd day of August, 2004 to the parties of record:
Jason Jordan
David Hallinen
Zanetta Fontes
1055 S Grady Way
10500 NE 8t' Street, Suite 1900
Assistant City Attorney
Renton, WA 98055
Bellevue, WA 98004
Renton, WA 98055
Kayren Kitnick
David Mann
Suzanne Krom
1055 S Grady Way
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
4715-1/2 36" Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055
Seattle, WA 98101
Seattle, WA 98126
Bill Rozeboom
Anil Butail
Dyanne Sheldon
NW Hydraulic Consultants
Geotechnical Engineer
5031 University Way NE
16300 Christianson Rd, Ste. 350
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80
Seattle, WA 98105
Tukwila, WA 98188
Kirkland, WA 98034
Kate Stenberg, MD
Michael Hamilton
Mr. Marsh
23022 SE 48"' Street
20418 NE 41" Street
3434 14" Avenue W
Satmnamish, WA 98075
Sammamish, WA 98074
Seattle, WA 98119
Barak Gale
Angela Romig
Sally Neary
6522 42'" Avenue NE
305 Kensington Avenue S
1190 Union Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Kent, WA 98030
Renton, WA 98059
Jerry Holmes
Scott Dinkelman
Hal Grubb
408 Index Place NE
Earth Consultants
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
Renton, WA 98056
1805 136"' Place NE, Suite 201
18215 72' Avenue South
Bellevue, WA 98005
Kent, WA 98032
Ed McCarthy, Ph.D
Rebecca Lind
Theresa Dusek
9957 171" Avenue SE
1055 S Grady Way
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
Renton, WA 98059
Renton, WA 98055
18215 72'"r Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Emmett Pritchard
Dr. Ken Raedeke
Patricia Thompson
Raedeke Associates
Raedeke Associates
Department of Fish and Wildlife
5711 NE 63rd Street
5711 NE 63'd Street
16018 Mill Creek Blvd
Seattle, WA 98115
Seattle, WA 98115
Mill Creek, WA 98012
Ivana Halvorsen
Kevin L. Jones, P.E.
Patricia Sumption
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
The Transpo Group
10510 11" Avenue NE
18215 72' Avenue South
11730 118" Ave NE, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98125
Kent, WA 98032
Kirkland, WA 98034
Brenda Buchanan
10840 14"i Avenue S.
Seattle, WA 98125
TRANSMITTED THIS 3" day of August, 2004 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Larry Rude, Fire
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer LarryMeckling, Building Official
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Planning Commission
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Transpiration Division
Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP
August 3,2004
Page 70
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Utilities Division
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal
All Parties of Record
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writine on or before 5:00 p.m., August 17, 2004. 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
I equest 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 en'ors 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 S75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, fast floor of City
Hall. An appeal must he filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., August 17 2004
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 nrocessino of the Fite. You
may contact this office for information no formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex pane (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.
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AI #: , C,
SUBMITTING DATA:
Dept/DivBoard... City Clerk
Staff Contact...... Bonnie Walton
SUBJECT:
Bid opening on 9/3/2004 for CAG-04-113,
200 Mill Building Chiller Replacement Project
EXHIBITS:
Staff Recommendation
Bid Tabulation Sheet (three bids)
FOR AGENDA OF:
AGENDA STATUS:
Consent......... X
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance.......
Resolution......
Old Business....
New Business....
Study Session...
Other...........
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS:
Legal Dept......
Council concur Finance Dept....
Other.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required... $121,594.88 Transfer/Amendment..
Amount Budgeted........ Revenue Generated...
Total Project Budget... $290,000.00 City Share Total Projei
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Engineer's Estimate: $180,000
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following three
criteria: There was more than one bid, the low bid was within the project budget, and there were no
irregularities. Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid submitted by MacDonald -Miller.
Facility Solutions, Inc., in the amount of $121,594.88.
MEMORANDUM
: If. �
CITY OF RENTON
COMMUNITY SERVICES
0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0
DATE: September 3, 2004
TO: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
FROM: Peter Renner, Facilities Director X6605 ?C
SUBJECT: 200 Mill Building Chiller Replacement Project
CAG-04-13
200 Mill Building Chiller Replacement Project, the bid opening was held on
September 3r , 2004, at 2:30 PM. Three (3) bids were submitted. The project estimate
was $180,000. The original project budget estimate was $290,000.00. This was based on
an estimate established in 2000. Once the consulting engineer had reviewed the project
and created specifications and plans earlier this year, it was determined that the project
could be completed with reduced complexities, resulting in a lower cost. The bids ranged
from a low of $121,594.88 to a high of $163,061.00.
The low bid for the projects was $121,594.88, including WSST from MacDonald -Miller
Facility Solutions, Inc. Our staff has reviewed the low bid for completeness, inclusion
of all required forms, acknowledgments of addenda and mathematical correctness of the
bid. All of the paperwork is in order.
The low bid of $121,594.88 including WSST is within the amount the Facilities Division
budgeted for the project. Funding for the program will be under account number
306.000003.005.5940.0019.64.000000 Leased City Properties. The appropriated amount
for the project is $180,000.
The Facilities Division therefore recommends that this item be placed on the September
13th, 2004 consent agenda for Council concur. Staff further recommends that Council
award the contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, MacDonald -Miller
Facility Solutions, Inc., for the amount of $121,594.88.
CITY OF RENTON
BID TABULATION SHEET
ZOJECT: 200 Mill Building Chiller Replacement; CAG-04-113
DATE: September 3, 2004
FORMS
BID
BIDDER
Triple
Includes 8.8% Sales Tax
Form
Addenda
J.P. Francis & Assoc., Inc.
X
X
$163,061.00
8223 S. 222nd St.
Kent, WA 98032
Julius P. Francis
MacDonald -Miller Facility Solutions
X
X
$121,594.88
PO Box 47983
Seattle, WA 98146
Dave Herr
W.A. Bolting Company
X
X
$137,034.00
PO Box 1200
Woodinville, WA 98072
Michael Burras
1NGINEER'S ESTIMATE
TOTAL: $180,000.00
LEGEND:
Forms: Triple Form: Non -Collusion Affidavit, Anti -Trust Claims, Minimum Wage
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
SUBMITTING DATA:
Dept/DivBoard.. AJLS/City Clerk
Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton
SUBJECT:
CRT-04-006; Court Case — Kelly A. Wright vs. City of Renton
EXHIBITS:
Summons and Complaint
Al11 #:Y r1
1
FOR AGENDA OF: 9/13/2004
AGENDA STATUS:
Consent ......... XX
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance...
Resolution...
Old Business.......
New Business......
Study Session....
Other....
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS:
Legal Dept......
Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Finance Dept....
Other.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment..
Amount Budgeted ........ Revenue Generated...
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Summons and Complaint for Damages filed in King County Superior Court, by Diane L. Vanderbeek,
Attorney at Law, 110 Pacific First Plaza, 155 - 108th Ave. NE, Bellevue, 98004, on behalf of Kelly A.
Wright, alleging assault and battery, violation of civil rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
and negligence while in the custody of the Renton Police Department on 8/27/2002.
1
2'
3'i
41'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Subs,Joi. w!+rt ("j(Z(V
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
KELLY A. WRIGHT, a single person,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation,
Defendant
NdD4®2®21250®2KNT
SUMMONS
TO: CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant(s)
A lawsuit has been started against you in the above entitled Court by the Plaintiff. Plaintiffs
claim is stated in the written Complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this Summons.
In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the Complaint by stating your
defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorney for the Plaintiff within twenty (20)
days after the service of this Summons, excluding the day of service, and file a copy with the Court
named above. If you do not, a Default Judgment may be entered against you without notice. A Default
Judgment is one where Plaintiff is entitled to what he asks for because you have not responded. If you
serve a Notice of Appearance on the undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a Default
Ma. jn
i onceIn, ie�
SUMMONS-1
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Attorney at Law
110 Pacific First Plaza
155 - 108th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone (425) 451-3991
Facsimile (425) 637-9944
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judgment may be entered.
You may demand that the Plaintiff file this lawsuit with the Court. If you do so, the demand
must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this summons. Within 14 days after
you serve the demand, the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the Court, or the service on you of this
summons and complaint will be void.
If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that
your written response, if any, may be served on time.
This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State of
Washington.
SUMMONS - 2
this d,(dZay o � 2004.
s
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Attorney at Law
110 Pacific First Plaza
155 - 108th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98P "
Telephone (425) 451-3
Facsimile (425) 637-99,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
n
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
KELLY A. WRIGHT, a single person, NO.' W2 - 21 2 5 Q - 2 K?vT
Plaintiff, i .
vs.
CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Defendant
COMES NOW the above -named Plaintiff by and through her attorney, Diane L. VanDerbeek,
and for claim of relief against the above -named Defendants, alleges as follows:
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF. That at all times described herein, Plaintiff,
KELLY A. WRIGHT, was a resident of King County, Washington.
2. IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANTS. That at all times described herein,
Defendant, CITY OF RENTON, was a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Washington.
3.DATE OFOCCURRENCE Plaintiff was injured as hereinafter alleged on or about August
27, 2002, in King County, Washington due to the Defendants' intentional conduct and/or negligence
as hereinafter alleged.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -1-
DiAm L. VANDERBEEK
Attorney at Law
1 to Pacific First Plaza
155 -108th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 451-3991
Facsimile: (425) 637-9944
1
2
3
4i
5
6
7II
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.NATURE OFOCCURRENCE: The Plaintiff was arrested by the Mercer Island Police
Department for the crime of Driving While Intoxicated. She was subsequently placed in the custody
of the Renton Police Department. Officers and/or agents of the Renton Police Department brutally
physically abused and assaulted and battered the Plaintiff resulting in serious and permanent
personal injury.
5. INTENTIONAL ACTS: The acts alleged in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint were done
intentionally by the Defendant City of Renton. The Plaintiff was brutally assaulted and battered while
in the custody of the Renton Police Department. Her civil rights were violated. She was subjected to
intentional infliction of emotional distress. One of her multiple injuries was so severe that she
ultimately required surgery to repair her injured shoulder.
6. NEGLIGENCE: The acts alleged in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Complaint were done
negligently by the Defendant City of Renton. The police officers had a duty to avoid injuring the
Plaintiff while she was in the custody of the Renton Police Department, they violated said duty by
physically and psychologically injuring the Plaintiff. The officers acted in violation of City of Renton
Police Department policies relating to care and treatment of prisoners in some cases and accordingly
their actions are negligent per -se.
7. INJURIES RECEIVED
7.1 That as a further direct and proximate result of the treatment to which she was
subjected while in the custody of Defendant City of Renton, Plaintiff has sustained serious personal
injury, the exact extent of which are presently unknown, but which include injuries to the body and
other injuries which could be permanent and debilitating.
7.2 That as a further direct and proximate result of the incident, Plaintiff has
suffered and will in the future continue to suffer pain, mental anguish and suffering all to damages in
an amount presently unknown but which will be proven at the time of trial.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 2-
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Attorney at Law
1 to Pacific First Plaza
155 - lo8th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98(—'
Telephone: (425) 451-.
Facsimile: (425) 637-9-, _ _
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. EXPENSES INCURRED That as a further direct and proximate result of the incident
of August 27, 2002, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable and necessary expenses, both past and future,
for medical care and treatment, including but not limited to physicians, clinics, and massage therapy.
In addition, as a further direct and proximate result of the incident at hand, Plaintiff has lost wages.
9. RIGHTS RESERVED: Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to add other
parties and/or causes of action, with any amendments relating back to the original date of filing of this
complaint
10 .JURISDICTION AND VENUE: The acts alleged herein are alleged to of occurred within
the jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant in such amounts as will be
proven at the time of trial, together with costs, disbursements and such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
TED this Nday of (h 2004.
No.11884
v for Plaintiff
I am the Plaintiff herein, I have read foregoing complaint for damages and believe the same
to be true and correct.
SIGNED in $e&ice.. Washington this 18 day of
ijcc�k , 2004.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3-
KELLY A. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff
DIANE L. VANDE"EES
Attomey at Law
110 Pacific First Plaza
155 - 108th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 451-3991
Facsimile: (425) 637-9944
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
KELLY A. WRIGHT,
vs
Plaintiff(s)
CITY OF RENTON,
Defendant(s)
NO. 04-2-21250-2 KNT
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS)
ASSIGNED JUDGE Gain
FILE DATE:
TRIAL DATE:
14
08/20/2004
02/06/2006
A civil case has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule
on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge.
I. NOTICES
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Plaintiff may serve a copy of this Order Setting Case Schedule
(Schedule) on the Defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaint/Petition. Otherwise, the
Plaintiff shall serve the Schedule on the Defendant(s) within 10 days after the later of: (1) the filing of the
Summons and Complaint/Petition or (2) service of the Defendant's first response to the
Complaint/Petition, whether that response is a Notice of Appearance, a response, or a Civil Rule 12
(CR 12) motion. The Schedule may be served by regular mail, with proof of mailing to be filed promptly in
the form required by Civil Rule 5 (CR 5).
"I understand that I am required to give a copy of these documents to all parties in this case."
Print Name Sign Name
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) REV. 6/200 1
1. NOTICES (continued)
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES:
All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the King County Local Rules [KCLR] --
especially those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for
attorneys and parties to pursue their cases vigorously from the day the case is filed. For example,
discovery must be undertaken promptly in order to comply with the deadlines for joining additional parties,
claims, and defenses, for disclosing possible witnesses [See KCLR 261, and for meeting the discovery
cutoff date [See KCLR 37(g)].
SHOW CAUSE HEARINGS FOR CIVIL CASES [King County Local Rule 4(g)]
A Confirmation of Joinder, Claims and Defenses or a Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the
deadline in the schedule. A review of the case will be undertaken to confirm service of the original
complaint and to verify that all answers to claims, counterclaims and cross -claims have been filed. If
those mandatory pleadings are not in the file, a Show Cause Hearing will be set before the Chief Civil or
RJC judge. The Order to Show Cause will be mailed to all parties and designated parties or counsel are
required to attend.
PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE:
When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is filed with the Superior
Court Clerk's Office, and a courtesy copy delivered to the assigned judge, all pending due dates in this
Schedule are automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the
parties to 1) file such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution of the case, and 2) strike any
pending motions by notifying the bailiff to the assigned judge.
Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and the Trial Date by filing a
Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a final
decree, judgment or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is not filed by 45 days after a Notice of
Settlement, the case may be dismissed with notice.
If you miss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCLR 41(b)(2)(A) to
present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date.
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL AND ADDRESS CHANGES:
All parties to this action must keep the court informed of their addresses. When a Notice of
Appearance/Withdrawal or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office,
parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy.
ARBITRATION FILING AND TRIAL DE NOVO POST ARBITRATION FEE:
A Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the deadline on the schedule if the case is subject to
mandatory arbitration and service of the original complaint and all answers to claims, counterclaims and
cross -claims have been filed. If mandatory arbitration is required after the deadline, parties must obtain
an order from the assigned judge transferring the case to arbitration. Any party filing a Statement must
pay a $220 arbitration fee. If a party seeks a trial de novo when an arbitration award is appealed, a fee of
$250 and the request for trial de novo must be filed with the Clerk's Office Cashiers.
NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FEES:
All parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4.71.050 whenever the Superior Court
Clerk must send notice of non-compliance of schedule requirements and/or Local Rule 41.
King County Local Rules are available for viewing at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) REV. 6/200 2
II. CASE SCHEDULE
DEADLINE
or
Filing
CASE EVENT
EVENT DATE Needed
Case Filed and Schedule Issued.
Fri 08/20/2004
Confirmation of Service [See KCLR 4.1].
Fri 09/17/2004
Last Day for Filing Statement of Arbitrability without a Showing of Good
Fri 01/28/2005
Cause for Late Filing [See KCLMAR 2.1(a) and Notices on Page 2].
$220 arbitration fee must be paid .
DEADLINE to file Confirmation of Joinder if not subject to Arbitration.
Fri 01/28/2005
[See KCLR 4.2(a) and Notices on Page 2].
Show Cause hearing will be set if Confirmation is not filed.
DEADLINE for Hearing Motions to Change Case Assignment Area.
Fri 02/11/2005
[See KCLR 82(e)]
DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses
Tue 09/06/2005
[See KCLR 26(b)].
DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Additional Witnesses
Mon 10/17/2005
[See KCLR 26(b)].
DEADLINE for Jury Demand [See KCLR 38(b)(2)].
Mon 10/31/2005
DEADLINE for Setting Motion for a Change in Trial Date
Mon 10/31/2005
[See KCLR 40(e)(2)].
DEADLINE for Discovery Cutoff [See KCLR 37(g)].
Mon 12/19/2005
DEADLINE for Engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution [See KCLR
Mon 01/09/2006
16(c)].
DEADLINE for Exchange Witness & Exhibit Lists & Documentary Exhibits
Tue 01/17/2006
[See KCLR 16(a)(4)].
DEADLINE to file Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness
Tue 01/17/2006
[See KCLR 16(a)(2)]
DEADLINE for Hearing Dispositive Pretrial Motions [See KCLR 56; CR 56].
Mon 01/23/2006
Joint Statement of Evidence [See KCLR 16(a)(5)].
Mon 01/30/2006
Trial Date [See KCLR 40].
Mon 02/06/2006
Indicates a document that must be filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office by the date shown.
III. ORDER
Pursuant to King County Local Rule 4 [KCLR 4), IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the
schedule listed above. Penalties, including but not limited to sanctions set forth in Local Rule 4(g) and
Rule 37 of the Superior Court Civil Rules, may be imposed for non-compliance. It is FURTHER
ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Civil Case Schedule and
attachment on all other parties.
DATED: 08/20/2004
PRESIDING JUDGE
Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) REV. 6/200 3
IV. ORDER ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE
READ THIS ORDER PRIOR TO CONTACTING YOUR ASSIGNED JUDGE
This case is assigned to the Superior Court Judge whose name appears in the caption of this
Schedule. The assigned Superior Court Judge will preside over and manage this case for all
pre-trial matters.
COMPLEX LITIGATION: If you anticipate an unusually complex or lengthy trial, please notify the
assigned court as soon as possible.
The following procedures hereafter apply to the processing of this case:
APPLICABLE RULES:
a. Except as specifically modified below, all the provisions of King County Local Rules 4 through-26 shall
apply to the processing of civil cases before Superior Court Judges.
CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUIREMENTS:
A. Show Cause Hearing: A Show Cause Hearing will be held before the Chief Civil/Chief RJC judge if the
case does not have confirmation of service on all parties, answers to all claims, crossclaims, or
counterclaims as well as the confirmation of joinder or statement of arbitrability filed before the deadline
in the attached case schedule. All parties will receive an Order to Show Cause that will set a specific
date and time for the hearing. Parties and/or counsel who are required to attend will be named in the
order.
B. Pretrial Order: An order directing completion of a Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness Report will be
mailed to all parties approximately six (6) weeks before trial. This order will contain deadline dates for
the pretrial events listed in King County Local Rule 16:
1) Settlement/Mediation/ADR Requirement;
2) Exchange of Exhibit Lists;
3) Date for Exhibits to be available for review;
4) Deadline for disclosure of witnesses;
5) Deadline for filing Joint Statement of Evidence;
6) Trial submissions, such as briefs, Joint Statement of Evidence, jury instructions;
7) voir dire questions, etc;
8) Use of depositions at trial;
9) Deadlines for nondispositive motions;
10) Deadline to submit exhibits and procedures to be followed with respect to exhibits;
11) Witnesses -- identity, number, testimony;
C. Joint Confirmation regarding Trial Readiness Report: No later than twenty one (21) days before the
trial date, parties shall complete and file (with a copy to the assigned judge) a joint confirmation report
setting forth whether a jury demand has been filed, the expected duration of the trial, whether a
settlement conference has been held, and special problems and needs (e.g. interpreters, equipment),
etc. If parties wish to request a CR 16 conference, they must contact the assigned court.
Plaintiff/petitioner's counsel is responsible for contacting the other parties regarding said report.
D. Settlement/Mediation/ADR:
1) Forty five (45) days before the Trial Date, counsel for plaintiff shall submit a written settlement
demand. Ten (10) days after receiving plaintiff's written demand, counsel for defendant shall respond
(with a counteroffer, if appropriate).
2) Twenty eight (28) days before the Trial Date, a settlement/mediation/ADR conference shall have
been held. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT MAY
RESULT IN SANCTIONS.
E. Trial: Trial is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on the date on the Schedule or as soon thereafter as convened
by the court. The Friday before trial, the parties should access the King County Superior Court website at
www.metrokc.gov/kcsc to confirm trial judge assignment. Information can also be obtained by calling (206) 205-5984.
A. Noting of Motions
Dispositive Motions: All Summary Judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole
or in part will be heard with oral argument before the assigned judge. The moving party must
arrange with the courts a date and time for the hearing, consistent with the court rules.
King County Local Rule 7 and King County Local Rule 56 govern procedures for all summary
judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole or in part. The local rules can be
found at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc.
Nondispositive Motions: These motions, which include discovery motions, will be ruled on by
the assigned judge without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered. All such motions must be
noted for a date by which the ruling is requested; this date must likewise conform to the
applicable notice requirements. Rather than noting a time of day, the Note for Motion should
state "Without Oral Argument." King County Local Rule 7 governs these motions, which include
discovery motions. The local rules can be found at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc.
Motions in Family Law Cases not involving children: Discovery motions to compel, motions in limine,
motions relating to trial dates and motions to vacate judgments/dismissals shall be brought before the .
assigned judge. All other motions should be noted and heard on the Family Law Motions Calendar. King
County Local Rule 7 and King County Local Rule 94.04 govern these procedures. The local rules can be
found at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc.
Emergency Motions: Emergency motions will be allowed only upon entry of an Order
Shortening Time. However, emergency discovery disputes may be addressed by telephone call, and
without written motion, if the judge approves.
Filing of Documents All original documents must be filed with the Clerk's Office. The working copies of all
documents in support or opposition must be marked on the upper right corner of the first page with the
date of consideration or hearing and the name of the assigned judge. The assigned judge's working copy
must be delivered to his/her courtroom or to the judges' mailroom. Do not file working copies with the
Motions Coordinator, except those motions to be heard on the Family Law Motions Calendar, in which
case the working copies should be filed with the Family Law Motions Coordinator.
Original Proposed Order: Each of the parties must include in the working copy materials submitted on
any motion an original proposed order sustaining his/her side of the argument. Should any party desire a
copy of the order as signed and filed by the judge, a preaddressed, stamped envelope shall accompany
the proposed order.
Presentation of Orders: All orders, agreed or otherwise, must be presented to the assigned judge. If that
judge is absent, contact the assigned court for further instructions. If another judge enters an order on
the case, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy.
Proposed orders finalizing settlement and/or dismissal by agreement of all parties shall be presented to
the assigned judge or in the Ex Parte Department. Formal proof in Family Law cases must be scheduled
before the assigned judge by contacting the bailiff, or formal proof may be entered in the Ex Parte
Department. If final orders and/or formal proof are entered in the Ex Parte Department, counsel is
responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy.
C. Form: Memoranda/briefs for matters heard by the assigned judge may not exceed twenty four (24)
pages for dispositive motions and twelve (12) pages for nondispositive motions, unless the assigned
judge permits over -length memoranda/briefs in advance of filing. Over -length memoranda/briefs and
motions supported by such memoranda/briefs may be stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY
RESULT IN DISMISSAL OR OTHER SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER SHALL FORWARD A
COPY OF THIS ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO ANY PARTY WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED
THIS ORDER.
PRESIDING JUDGE
CITY OF RENTON
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
IJ tt /d C.C1ity
ATrORNEY AT. LAW
RECEIVED
Ci"rY CLERK'S n!=FIGE
Family Law
Criminal Law
General Practice
August 23, 2004
VIA PERSONAL SERVICE
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: Kelly A. Wright v. City of Renton
King County Superior Court Cause Number 04-2-21250-2 KNT
Dear Ms. Walton:
Served upon you herewith find the Summons and Complaint for Damages along with the Order
Setting Civil Case Schedule. Currently, the previously filed Administrative Claim is being
investigated by Lisa Knapton, Claims Adjuster, at the Washington Cities Insurance Authority.
However, in light of the approaching two year Statute of Limitations on some of my client's
causes of action, I had no choice but to file this case at this time since no response from Ms.
Knapton has been forthcoming.
I am going to be out of town until September 9, 2004 but hope that upon my return I will have a
settlement offer or other response from Ms. Knapton so that this case will not have to be fully
litigated.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
truly yours,
e L. VanDerbeek
nclosures
cc: Lisa Knapton
Kelly A. Wright
1 10 Pacific First Plaza - 155 - 108th Avenue N.E.- Bellevue, WA 98004 - (425) 451-3991 • Fax (425) 637-9944
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
For Agenda of: September 13,
2004
Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Arneta Henninger X7298
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
PARKVIEW HOMES FINAL PLAT
Correspondence..
File NO.: LUA 04-071FP (Preliminary Plat LUA 02-
Ordinance .............
061)
Resolution ............ X
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
1. Resolution and legal description
Study Sessions......
2. Staff report and Recommendation Aug. 20, 2004
Information.........
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required...
Amount Budgeted.......
Total Proiect Budget
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Approvals:
Legal Dept ......... X
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Transfer/Amendment...... .
Revenue Generated.........
Share Total Project..
The recommendation for approval of the referenced final plat is submitted for Council action.
This final plat subdivides 1.77 acres into 10 single family residential lots with sanitary sewer,
storm drainage, street lighting, curb and gutter, sidewalks and street improvements. Design
and construction of utilities, lighting and pavement will be approved, accepted or deferred (and
a security device posted) as required through the Board of Public Works prior to recording the
plat. All conditions placed on the preliminary plat by the City of Renton will be met prior to
recording the plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Parkview Homes Final Plat, LUA 04-07117P, with the following conditions and
adopt the resolution.
1. All plat fees shall be paid prior to recording the plat.
2. All plat improvements shall be either constructed or deferred to the satisfaction of City staff
prior to recording the plat.
I: \Temp] ate s\AGNBHPII. doc/
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
APPROVING FINAL PLAT (PARKVIEW HOMES; FILE NO. LUA-04-
071 FP).
WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract
of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly
approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works
Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is
proper and advisable and in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for
the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or
roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and
recreation, playgrounds, schools, schoolgrounds, sidewalks and other planning features that
assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be
served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works
Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth
RESOLUTION NO.
(The property, consisting of approximately 1.77 acres, is located in the vicinity of
Camas Avenue and NE 24" St.)
is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and
subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works
Department dated August 20, 2004.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1068:8/24/04:ma
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
2004.
day of , 2004.
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
X
Exhibit A
The East half of Tract 223, C.D Hillman's Lake Washington
Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of
Plats, Page 82, in King County, Washington.
o
STALE ROU7F 405
All JONES. AVE. NE.
An
A6ERDEEN AVE. �NE.
CA AVE. NE
EDA40NOS AVE. NE
8
z
lob
t-i
�•
Camas Avenue Northeast
N00'30'57"W 610.92'
-
.00
.•30385.00
ao
12'
N00 '3057"W 306.
oo.
55.00
I 82. 39' m
to j iO
86.54'
�y
o
.
101.83' 50.00' 50.00
50.00'
----- — ---T
�
o SS�fONd Sl
k �p�a 1r4/FFy
" y
P�EYOR `u00
x ^
N
0`�.y�y
N
r _D w m S
`�CNrI
<
S NV•
UQ
m
u�
MJ I
x o Maw �
, z n p
z
o
� x �
y
O
z
aura/2NMM
xN N j y m RS. ip \ 2.Oi. 69S'4 \i./J N00.30'57"W
°1 z I s Rom: in �n tO �Cg m 80.50'
mm m
ro l6 \ —J ..
59
L4 N—�-------- m m
c
y ui ti
o'�Sn in..-424: 77.', 50.00'
..x m' � o I 9' crc lone tense 1 awatl
I I -
�..�soo
7dN3N7 >:N I C' I C+
aaa ?' I 30' r.)
N00'29'47"W
1063. 8_ N00'29'54"W 332.82' _ �B
9'Edmonds Avenue NE
a=m �7n
C �XN
OXN
m '
�NH n
o�
o
0
11 11 u
w Qq
!c'i"
Y'
2 A� nN
GTI
lC!yD.�
U �
ur NZ_ n
NN
Ut
H
N7 n
m ut
(4m w
�n z
JN
00
50.0050, 00' 54.
t ten e�auaua� N00'30'S4'W281690.42�e/ � 93.59' m auatO9,3. 59
n g
06X
.64
C', C
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
BUILDING/PLANNING/PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF RENTON
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
RECOMMENDATION:
Marc Rousso
J & M Land Development
Parkview Homes Final Plat
(Preliminary Plat LUA 02-061PP)
File: LUA 04-071FP
Camas Ave NE and NE 24th St
Section 5, Twp. 23 N. Rng. 5 E.
Final Plat for 10 single family residential lots
with water, sewer, storm, streets and lighting.
Approve With Conditions
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record documents in this matter, staff now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
The applicant, J & M Land Development, filed a request for approval of a 10 lot Final Plat.
2. The yellow file containing all staff reports, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit No. 1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a
Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated on June 18, 2002, for the subject proposal.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. The subject site is located at Camas Ave NE and NE 24th St. The new plat is located in
Section 5, Twp. 23 N. Rng. 5 E.
6. The subject site is a 1.77 acre parcel.
7. The Preliminary Plat received City of Renton Council approval on September 16, 2002.
8. The property is located within the R-8 zoning designation (single family - 8 dwelling
units/acre).
9. The Final Plat complies with both the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
10. The Preliminary Plat was subject to a number of conditions as a result of both environmental
review and plat review. The applicant has complied with the conditions imposed by the
ERC:
1. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the down slope perimeter of the area that is to
be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated, and
shall be constructed in conformance with the specifications presented in of the King
County Surface Water Design Manual. This will be required during the construction of
both off -site and on -site improvements as well as building construction.
A silt fence was installed prior to any clearing and grading in accordance with the
City of Renton Standards. The silt fence will stay in place during construction of the
building structures.
2. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route
the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation
growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site
grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to protect the ditch from erosion
and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales shall conform
to the specifications presented in KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to
convey storm water across the site. This will be required during the construction of both
off -site and on -site improvements as well as building construction.
All sedimentary control measures have been completed and removed as construction
is complete. Additional control may be necessary at time of the building permit
process.
3. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and
sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off -site and on -
site improvements as well as building construction.
The projects on-site/off-site supervisor performs inspections of all sedimentation and
erosion control structures on a daily basis to confirm compliance with the King
County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM).
4. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any
recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be
submitted by the project Engineer of record to the public works inspector for the
construction of the civil improvements of the plat. Certification of the installation,
maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to
recording of the plat.
All erosion control has been completed and removed. No violations were reported.
Additional erosion control will be in place at the time of the building permit process.
S. The applicant shall be required to design the project according to the 1998 King County
Surface Water Manual Level 2 Flow Control.
The project was built in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water
Manual Level 2 Flow Control.
6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00
per new single family lot with credit given for the existing single family lot prior to the
recording of the final plat.
Fire Mitigation Fees will be paid in the amount of $488.00 per new single family lot
(9) prior to Final Plat Approval.
PARKVIEWFP.DOC/
The applicant shall ensure that the full 50 foot right-of-way as depicted on the preliminary
plat has been dedicated to the City and the street is built prior to recording of the final
plat. The satisfaction of these requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Development Services Division prior to recording of the final plat.
The 50' right of way shown on the Preliminary Plat will be dedicated upon recording
of the final plat. The Plat of Parkview Homes will dedicate the easterly 15 feet of the
50' right-of-way. The westerly 35 feet were dedicated by the adjoining plat. At this
time road improvements have been completed.
8. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00
per each new trip average daily trip with the project with credit given for the existing
single family lot prior to the recording of the final plat.
The applicant will pay the appropriate fee for Traffic Mitigation prior to Final Plat
Recording. Fees will be based on a $75.00 per each new average daily trip.
9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $530.76
per new single family residential lot with credit given for the existing single family lot
prior to the recording of the final plat.
Park Mitigation Fees in the amount of $530.76 per new single family lot (9) will be
paid prior to Final Plat Recording.
11. In addition, the applicant has complied with the conditions imposed as a result of Preliminary
Plat:
1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC).
The conditions imposed by the ERC were complied with as shown above.
2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals
for demolition of all outbuildings located on the property. The satisfaction of this
requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project
Manager prior to recording of the final plat.
A copy of the demolition permit for all demolished structures will be submitted prior
to the recording of the Final Plat.
3. A Homeowners' Association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with
the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all
shared improvements. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the
City of Renton Development Services Divisions for review and approval by the City
Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat.
The maintenance agreement included in this submittal package will be recorded
prior to the recording of the final plat.
The Final Plat generally appears to satisfy the conditions imposed by the preliminary plat process
and therefore should be approved by the City Council.
PARKVIEWFP.DOC/
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should approve the Final Plat with the following conditions:
1) All plat improvements shall be either constructed or deferred to the satisfaction of City staff
prior to the recording of the plat.
2) All fees shall be paid prior to the recording of the plat.
SUBMITTED THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2004
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DI N
PARKVIEWFP.DOC/
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.
Staff Contact.
Subject:
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
0(tblic.14e,�trlrl) DaTe CUaoje)
Economic Development,
Neighborhoods and Strategic
Planning Dept./Strategic Planning
Division
Don Erickson, x6581
ZONING HEARING AND ANNEXATION
EFFECTUATION
Johnson Annexation — Second public hearing on zoning
and effectuation of the annexation by first reading of
annexation ordinance and R-8 zoniniz ordinance.
Exhibits: 11
Issue Paper, Boundary Review Board Closing Letter,
Council Minutes of 4/19/04
Recommended Action:
Council concur
For Agenda of. September 13, 2004
Agenda Status
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing.. X
Correspondence.
Ordinance ............. X
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information.........
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Council accepted the 60% Direct Petition to annex for this 18.24-acre annexation site located east
of 142nd Avenue SE and south of SE I I8th, if extended, on April 19, 2004. It also authorized staff
to forward the Notice of Intention package to the Boundary Review Board. The BRB forwarded
its Closing Letter to the City on August 16, 2004 approving the annexation subject to statutory
requirements and procedures being met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council set October 18, 2004 for a second public hearing on the proposed R-8 zoning for the
Johnson Annexation and direct the Administration to prepare the annexation and zoning
ordinances for first reading.
Johnson 60% Petition Agenda Bill/ bh
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.
Staff Contact..
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
I 1
Al #: I`
Economic Development,
Neighborhoods and Strategic
Planning Dept./Strategic Planning
Division
Don Erickson, x6581
For Agenda of September 13, 2004
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Subject: Public Hearing..
Correspondence.
ZONING HEARING AND ANNEXATION Ordinance............
EFFECTUATION Resolution ............
Johnson Annexation — Second public hearing on zoning Old Business........
and effectuation of the annexation by first reading of
annexation ordinance and R-8 zoning ordinance.
Exhibits: New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Issue Paper, Boundary Review Board Closing Letter, Information.........
Council Minutes of 4/19/04
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project..
X
X
X
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Council accepted the 60% Direct Petition to annex for this 18.24-acre annexation site located east
of 142nd Avenue SE and south of SE 1181h, if extended, on April 19, 2004. It also authorized staff
to forward the Notice of Intention package to the Boundary Review Board. The BRB forwarded
its Closing Letter to the City on August 16, 2004 approving the annexation subject to statutory
requirements and procedures being met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council set �ep`;rz� ,"�z^vr for a second public hearing on the proposed R-8 zoning for the
Johnson Annexation and direct the Administration to prepare the annexation and zoning
ordinances for first reading.
Johnson 60% Petition Agenda Bill/ bh
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
:.ME.MORANDUM
DATE: September 2, 2004
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:�ayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
FROM: Alex Pietsch ,Q
STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, x6581
SUBJECT: Johnson Annexation Effectuation — Annexation and Zoning
Ordinances
ISSUE:
Whether the City Council should adopt an ordinance effecting the annexation of the 18.24-acre
Johnson Annexation site into the City now that the Boundary Review Board has approved it,
and
Whether the City Council should adopt an ordinance zoning the non -street portions of the
subject 18.24-acre site R-8 consistent with Comprehensive Plan land use designation of
Residential Single Family?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt an ordinance effectuating the annexation of the 18.24-acre Johnson Annexation site;
and,
• Adopt an ordinance rezoning the non -street portions of the Johnson Annexation site R-8,
eight units per net acre.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The applicant initially submitted for this annexation on December 19, 2003 with a 10% Notice
of Intention to Commence Annexation petition. Council considered this request on February 9,
2004 and authorized the petitioners to circulate a 60% Direct Petition to annex. On February
18, 2004 the City received the Direct Petition and on March 3, 2004 the King County
Department of Assessments notified the City that they had certified that there were sufficient
signatures on the petition to represent 60% of the area's assessed value.
Johnson Annexation
September 2, 2004
Page 2
On April 19, 2004 Council accepted the 60% Direct Petition to annex for the Johnson
Annexation and authorized the Administration to transmit the Notice of Intent package to the
Boundary Review Board for their required 45-day review and evaluation. The Boundary
Review Board notified the City that they had approved the proposed annexation effective
August 16, 2004.
Staff conducted a fiscal analysis for this site and determined that at full development (assuming
96 new homes) that there would be minor annual net fiscal positive impact to the City. A one-
time future park acquisition and development cost was estimated at $48,289 based upon an
estimated future population of 227 residents.
CONCLUSION:
With the exception of the second required public hearing on the proposed R-8 zoning for the
Johnson Annexation and the effectuation of the annexation through the annexation and zoning
ordinances, all the specified requirements under state law (RCW 35.A.14.120-130, Annexation
— Direct petition method) will have been met.
The 18.24-acre Johnson Annexation appears to be in the City's best interest and general
welfare since it furthers City business goals, has been approved by the Washington State
Boundary Review Board for King County and is generally consistent with City annexation
policies.
Attachments
EDNSP/Strategic Planning/PAA/Johnson/Effectuation Issue Paper.doc
Washington State Boundary Review Board
,v For King County
Yesler Building, Room 2'20, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 296-6800 • Fax: (206) 296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations
August 16, 2004
City of Renton I AUG G 1 2004
Attn: Don Erickson, AICP EcoNordtr E ,
Senior Planner NEIGHBQRE ���ciENT
AND STRATA IC''lN. UING
1055 South Grady Way` "` �A��°� a•,-R�,�,.�
Renton, WA 98055
RE: CLOSING LETTER FOR COMPLETED ACTION - File No. 2175 - City of Renton
- Johnson Annexation
Dear Mr. Erickson:
We are writing to advise you that the Boundary Review Board has now completed the required
Evaluation, as specified in RCW 36.93, for the above -referenced proposed action (filed with the
Board effective June 29, 2004
The Boundary Review Board also provided a 45-day public review period June 29 - August
13, 2004 prescribed by RCW 36.93. The Board received no request for a public hearing of this
proposed action during the public review period.
The Boundary Review Board, therefore, hereby deems this proposed action approved effective
August 16, 2004. Final approval of the proposed action is also subject to the following actions,
where applicable:
1. Sewer and Water District actions and some other actions are also subject to approval by the
Metropolitan King County Council. If the Council makes changes to the proposal, the Board
may then be required to hold a public hearing.
2. Filing with King County of franchise application(s), as required, accompanied by a copy of
this letter.
3. Filing with King County of permit application(s), as required, accompanied by a copy of this
letter.
4. Fulfillment of all other statutory requirements and/or procedures specified in your Notice of
Intention.
Page two continued, August 16, 2004
Form 13
5. Notification in writing of your intended effective date of annexation. This notification should
be provided as early as possible. Please send this information to Michael Thomas, Office of
Management and Budget, 516 Third Avenue, Room 420, Seattle, Washington 98104, and
6. Filing with King County Council of: (1) one certified copy of final resolution or ordinance
accomplishing this proposed action; and (2) a copy of this letter. This document should be
fled with the Clerk of the Council (Attn: Anne Noris), King County Courthouse, Room
1025, Seattle, Washington 98104
If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact our office at 206-296-
6800.
Sincerely,
Lenora Blauman
Executive Secretary
cc: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
Harry Sanders, Records and Elections Division
Diane Murdock, Department of Assessment
Lydia Reynolds -Jones, Manager, Project Support Services
King County "911 " Program
Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development & Environmental Services
Michael Thomas, Office of Management and Budget
April 19, 2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 116
Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, explained that the City Code currently specifies a
list of prohibited signs, or those which are specifically not allowed throughout
the City. Outside the City Center area, the sign code regulations allow
prohibited signs subject to an administrative modification; however, within the
City Center area, the modification criterion prevents the allowance of
prohibited signs.
Mr. Jordan pointed out that the newly remodeled Pavilion Building was
designed with a support structure intended to display hanging banners on its
southern facade. He explained that this type of sign is categorized as a roof
sign, and as a result of the prohibition, the City cannot place any sign text into
the sign support structure. Therefore, staff recommends amending the City
Center sign regulations to allow prohibited signs in the City Center area subject
to the granting of a modification by the Development Services Division
Director. The modification must take into account the City's Comprehensive
Plan, precedence setting, and neighborhood impacts.
Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. CARRIED.
Stating that the matter was reviewed in Planning and Development Committee,
Councilwoman Briere noted that the amendment does not drastically change
anything and there are still limits as to the types of signs allowed. (See page
120 for ordinance.)
Annexation: Johnson, 142nd This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Ave SE accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider the 60% Direct Petition to annex and R-8 prezoning
for the proposed 18.24-acre Johnson Annexation located between 142nd Ave.
SE and 144th Ave. SE, if extended, south of NE 9th St., if extended, to a line
approximately 110 feet south of SE 121st St.
Don Erickson, Senior Planner, reported that the signatures on the petition were
certified by King County on March 3, 2004. He described the location and
existing conditions of the site, noting the existence of eight single-family
dwellings. The site slopes from west to east, a wetland is located near the
southeast corner, and Honey Creek flows north beyond the eastern edge of the
site. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson noted that the site is served
by Fire District #25 and the Renton School District, and is within the Renton
water and sewer utility service area.
Continuing, Mr. Erickson stated that the site's zoning under King County is R-4
(four units per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates this area
Residential Single Family, for which R-8 (eight units per net acre) zoning is
proposed. Regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed annexation, he indicated
that the City will realize a $44 surplus at full development, assuming an
increase to 106 single-family homes and an assessed home value of $300,000.
There is an estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost of
$60,743.
Mr. Erickson concluded that the proposed annexation is within the best
interests and general welfare of the City, and is consistent with City policies.
He noted that the Surface Water Division indicated some potential flooding in
the area, suggesting mitigation with future development.
April 19, 2004
Renton City Council Minutes Page 117
Public comment was invited.
Eleanor Bagley, 11860 142nd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, expressed concern
regarding the increase in traffic caused by development and inquired as to what
provisions have been made to address this problem. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler
explained that this public hearing addresses the proposed annexation and
zoning; however, there will be opportunity to comment on any development
proposals in the future. She asked that Ms. Bagley be made a party of record
on upcoming development proposals.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON,
SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT
THE 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX FOR THE JOHNSON
ANNEXATION AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT
THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PACKAGE TO THE
WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING
COUNTY. 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 2004 and beyond. Items noted
included:
• Flowers, fruits, vegetables, arts, crafts and the dedication of a new 25-foot
tree in honor of National Arbor Day will be the focus of the Spring Festival
at the Piazza on April 24th.
• Over the past two weeks, the Airport office has received several noise
complaints between the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. concerning
helicopter operations around neighborhoods in South Seattle and Mercer
Island. These operations are associated with Boeing Field International.
Local and Federal law enforcement agencies have increased operations in
particular areas around Seattle, utilizing helicopters for survey and
surveillance.
• A Level 3 sex offender community notification meeting will be held at the
Renton Community Center on April 22nd. Minor children should not
attend due to the dissemination of graphic information.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association (HCA) President, 1137
Citizen Comment: DeMastus -
Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, reported that Spencer Orman, City of
Highlands Community
Renton Solid Waste Program Specialist, will speak on the topics of organic
Association
gardening and recycle day at the HCA meeting on April 22nd.
Citizen Comment: O'Halloran -
Mike O'Halloran, Municipal Arts Commission Chair, 4420 SE 4th St., Renton,
City Art Collection
98059, thanked Recreation Director Sylvia Allen and her staff for conducting
the City art collection inventory project. He noted that Municipal Arts
Commission members also contributed time to this project.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
Council Meeting Minutes of
Approval of Council meeting minutes of April 12, 2004. Council concur.
April 12, 2004
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al N:
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of: 9/13/2004
Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner
Staff Contact...... Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515
Agenda Status
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Correspondence..
Jericho Preliminary Plat
Ordinance .............
File No. LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation
Study Sessions......
Legal Description and Vicinity Map
Information.........
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget Citv Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Jericho Preliminary Plat was
published on June 22, 2004. The appeal period ended on July 29, 2004. The Examiner
recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat, subject to the conditions outlined on
page 7 and 8 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. This office notes that the
conditions placed on this project are to be met at later states of the platting process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Jericho Preliminary Plat.
Rentomiet/agnbill/ bb
July 15, 2004
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
APPLICANT:
OWNERS:
CONTACT:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:
Terry DeFoor
GWC, Inc
24633 NE 133`d Street
Duvall, WA 98019
Ribera-Balko Ent. Family Ltd. Partnership
16400 Southcenter Pkwy., Ste. 308
Seattle, WA 98088
Howard & Patricia Banasky
1402 N 26"' Street
Renton, WA 98056
GWC, Inc.
24633 NE 133`d Street
Duvall, WA 98019
James Jaeger
Jaeger Engineering
9419 S 204"' Place
Kent, WA 98031
File No.: LUA 04-031, PP, ECF
355 Jericho Ave NE
Approval for a 35-lot subdivision of five parcels, a 5.31-acre
site intended for detached single-family homes.
Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions
The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on June 15, 2004.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the June 22, 2004 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on VHS.
Jericho Preliminary Plat (cont.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 2
The continued hearing re -opened on Tuesday, June 22, 2004, at approximately 9:20 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. 7: Revised Preliminary Plat Plan
Exhibit No. 8: Revised Preliminary Drainage and
Road Plan
Exhibit No. 9: Revised Staff Report
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development
Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The subject site is located at 355
Jericho Avenue NE. The applicant is requesting approval for a 35-lot subdivision of a five parcel, 5.31-acre site.
The four parcels, 4.22 acres, to be subdivided into 26 lots are within the Residential 8 (R-8) zoning designation.
The 1.09-acre parcel is to be subdivided into 9 lots and is within the Residential 10 (R-10) zone. Access is
proposed via Jericho Avenue NE, a new public road and private streets and easements within the plat.
Tract A would include the storm detention/water quality pond and be located within the R-8 zoned portion of the
plat. Tract B was designated as a private street, however, this is to become an easement.
Looking at the Revised Plat and the new location of NE 3`d Street, located 167 feet from the curb line of NE 4'h
Street, that will provide adequate queuing distance required for these intersections. There is approximately
36,590 square feet of public road to be deducted from the R-8 portion, leaving a net density of 7.69 dwelling
units per acre. There are no changes in the R-10 zoning portion of the tract. All units will remain as detached
single-family residences.
In the revised Plat Plan, in the R-8 zone, Lots 1-26 meet or exceed the requirement for lot dimension. In the R-
10 zone, Lots 27-35 meet or exceed the requirements for lot dimension.
The applicant is proposing a 15-foot setback along NE 4'h Street to provide additional yard and building setback
from the NE 41h Street frontage. The proposed subdivision would create Lots 1, 10, 20, 21, and 26 to be located
at the intersection of public rights -of -way. The proposed radius for these lots would meet code, all would have a
radius of 25 feet.
Tract B is to be converted into a private access easement with the land area divided among the adjoining lots.
The proposed drainage will be collected by catch basins within the new road and routed to a detention/wetpond
within Tract A. Tract A should be fenced, landscaped and irrigated. The north and west property lines of Tract
A fronting NE 3`d will include plant materials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three years
from the time of planting. The east property line is to be fenced with a minimum width of five feet of
landscaping and the south property line is to be fenced. The fence should be of a quality material, not a chain
link.
Staff recommends approval of the Jericho Preliminary Plat subject to conditions.
Jericho Preliminary Plat (coat.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 3
James Jaeger, Jaeger Engineering, 9419 South 204°i Place, Kent, WA 98031 stated that he represents the
applicant and that they have been working with the City to revise the Preliminary Plat Plan. He had some
concerns over some of the conditions, in particular:
#7. The left turn lane is on Hoquiam and turns on to 4`' Avenue.
#10. The detention pond is basically the same as when it was located on 4"i, now it has been moved to 3rd and
he wondered why the additional screening and landscaping requirements. In the construction of the pond, there
will be an eight foot rockery installed as well, the fence is appropriate, a chain link might be a little more
protective and last longer. A solid wood fence would tend to obscure visibility for traffic in the area. It was
questioned why standard requirements for drainage ponds were not being used on this parcel.
The Examiner stated that they would have the same problem along Hoquiam and Jericho with the height limit
issue.
Ms. Fiala stated that on corners the height limit was 42 inches and 20 feet from the property line. The fence
would have to be stepped down in that area to allow for the limits.
Mr. Jaeger stated that a step-down fence or a lower fence would be workable on those particular lots. Staff
indicated that they would be willing to work with the applicant to come to some agreement.
The solid wood, modulated landscaping will eventually be turned over to the City, the City would have to
maintain that.
The Examiner stated that he believed at this point the City was not taking over maintenance and care of drainage
facilities.
Mike Romano, Centurion Development Services, 22617 8"' Drive SE, Bothell, WA stated that he was here on
behalf of the buyer and not the applicant. He has not been involved in the discussions.
In Track A, he felt that "no chain link" fences should be struck from the wording. There are some very high
quality, vinyl coated chain link fences that provide good visibility in the pond which is required for safety
reasons. It should be a six-foot high fence, so people do not climb over it. There is no problem with the
landscaping, but it does not seem feasible to have landscaping inside the pond area. The cut slopes for the pond
will begin about five feet in from the property line. The fence should be about a foot from the line and
landscaping should be between the fence and the sidewalk.
Along the east line of Tract A, that is private property and to have a landscaped section and then a fence does
not make sense. There probably will be a wood fence along that property line, his recommendation would be
fencing along the east property line and then a six foot, high quality fence along the north and west property line
of Track A. He would like to negotiate with staff as to what type of materials could be used for that fencing.
In condition 49, staff has written that the fence on NE 41h must be five feet from the north property line. Lots 21,
22, 23, and 24 have only about four and a half feet from the property line. There is a three-foot jog so he would
like to see the fence placed on the property line.
Lastly the buyer has an issue with the 15-foot setback along NE 4`h. The development standards call for a 10-
foot landscaped setback from the street or a 20-foot landscaped setback from the back of the sidewalk,
whichever is less. If you take a 15-foot side yard setback and then you have a five-foot side yard setback, using
Jericho Preliminary Plat (cont.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 4
Lot 25, what you end up with is a 20-foot deduction from that lot. What they would like to do is stick with the
code and have a 10-foot side yard setback.
Examiner asked what was the correct amount of setback required by code. It was determined that Mr. Romano
was using a Code book from 1999, and the staff was using the newest version dated 2002. The 15-foot setback
is what is required today.
Mr. Jaeger stated that regarding the three-foot jog they have planned for a 15-foot setback along the entire north
property line. The applicant wanted to come to this hearing so that it would be approved_ Perhaps the setback
could be reduced to 12 feet, so that where the property Iine does jog, the fence will be consistent the entire
length.
Mr. Romano agreed to the 12-foot setback to be consistent with the jog.
Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Division stated that King County Surface Water Design Manual requires
a chain link fence, the City of Renton requires a solid fence. It is a private drainage pond and will be maintained
by the homeowner's association. An access easement is required to get into the pond to check in case of
emergency or complaint.
Hoquiam is wide enough for a left turn lane. A three -lane section coming from the south to the north hitting NE
41h. The left turn lane will be on Hoquiam. Hoquiam is on the plans to be opened and go through, there will be
signage to that effect placed on Hoquiam.
The landscaping around 4`' and Track A, legislation is currently being revamped and will become stricter.
Fences will be required as a safety measure rather than landscaping for esthetics. Obviously when you are
talking about 8-foot retaining walls and very steep slopes, this would not be open to recreation.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 10:13 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Terry DeFoor, GWC, Inc., filed a request for approval of a 35 lot Preliminary Plat.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter
5. The subject site is located at 355 Jericho Avenue NE. The subject site is located along the south side of
NE 4th Street and is generally located between Jericho Avenue on the east and Hoquiam Avenue on the
west, although the parcel extends a bit west of Hoquiam.
Jericho Preliminary Plat (coat.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 5
The subject site is located in two zoning districts. The portion of the subject site west of Hoquiam is
zoned R-10 (Residential - Multiple Options; 10 dwelling units per acre) while the portion east of
Hoquiam is zoned R-8 (Single Family; 8 dwelling units per acre).
7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of both single family detached and multiple options or potentially low
density multiple family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other
policies of the Plan.
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4760 enacted in February 1998.
9. The subject site is approximately 5.31 acres. It consists of five underlying parcels. Existing structures
are proposed to be removed if the plat is approved. The property is approximately 800 feet long (east to
west) by approximately 286 feet deep. The north property line contains an approximately 3-foot jog.
10. The subject site has approximately 800 feet of frontage along NE 4th Street, but because of the heavy
arterial flows on that roadway, staff determined that there will be no direct access to NE 4th from
individual lots.
IL The applicant proposes developing all detached single-family homes on the site, including that portion
of the site that would allow multiple family housing. The applicant will create 26 lots on the R-8
portion of the site and 9 lots on the R-10 portion.
12. The original plat was designed with roadways that did not meet code. The matter was sent back to staff
and the applicant to create a design that met, at least, the minimal legal requirements_
13. The 26 lots in the R-8 zone will be arranged north and south of a new east -west road (NE 3rd Street).
There will be one tier of lots south of the road.
14. The second tier of lots will be double -stacked and will lie between the new roadway and NE 4th Street.
The proposed lots located abutting NE 4th Street will be oriented in an east -west fashion but will gain
access via easement driveways to the south as access to NE 4th Street has been foreclosed. These lots
will be sandwiched in between NE 4th and a row of lots south of them. Their sideyards will abut the
rear yards of the lots to the south.
15. Code Section 4-2-110(A) requires a minimum sideyard along a street to be 15 feet and the homes
located along NE 4th will have to observe this setback as a minimum.
16. The nine R-10 lots will be three lots deep west of Hoquiam and they will be in three tiers. Access to the
interior lots will be via private roadways. The applicant had proposed one of those access roads be a
separate legal tract but staff noted that private roads are created by easement with joint ownership.
17. The plat will have its access off of NE 4th via Hoquiam on the west and Jericho on the east. These two
streets will run north -south from NE 4th and provide access to the new east -west street that links them
to each other. Hoquiam will be a 55-foot wide right-of-way while the new east -west street will be 42
feet.
18. A drainage tract, Tract A, will be created at the southwest corner of the R-8 parcels. It will be contained
in a parcel approximately 150 feet long (east to west) by 92 feet wide. The tract will have to be fenced
Jericho Preliminary Plat (coat.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 6
according to standards used by the City. It will contain a deep pond and passersby will have to be
protected. The fence will have to accommodate sight lines accommodating the street intersections.
19. Staff recommended that the frontage along NE 41h be fenced to protect the privacy of the homes along
that street as well as to provide a uniform appearance. Any fence will have to accommodate the jog in
the property line.
20. Staff recommended that Proposed Lots 1, 10 and 20 be oriented so that their respective front yards face
the new interior east -west street (NE 3rd) and that they meet the requirements for corner lots for street
side setbacks.
21. Staff also recommended that Proposed Lots 21 to 26 be oriented so that their respective front yards face
their respective access easements. As noted above, they all have a north side yard along NE 4th Street
and appropriate setbacks are required.
22. Staff recommended a covenant to assure that the R-10 lots remain detached single family as designated
in the proposed plat.
23. In order to protect turning movements at Hoquiam and Jericho where they intersect NE 4th Street, staff
recommended that no lot be permitted direct access to those side streets within 160 feet of NE 4th
Street.
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed plat, subject to the conditions noted below, appears to serve the public use and interest. It
provides additional housing opportunities and additional choices in larger and smaller single family
detached housing.
2. The plat, frankly, is a compromise. The traffic and noise along NE 4th Street will not provide a quiet
single-family experience, particularly to those homes located with sideyards facing that street. The
fence proposed by staff should help ameliorate the situation. The larger sideyard of 15 feet is the
minimum to help create a reasonable buffer between the traffic and the homes.
3. Clearly, the density demands of the R-8 zoning appear to mandate the number of lots and therefore, the
layout of lots lying "sideways" to neighboring lots and abutting NE 4th Street. More flexibility in
density would certainly provide more ability to design plats with more aesthetic characteristics. A
tradeoff that would have permitted larger lots and lower density would have allowed larger lots along
NE 4th and that could have provided greater separation of the homes from the traffic.
4. The plat's road system now meets code requirements for the distance between road intersections and
appears to provide reasonable access given the dimensions of the property. Both public roads and the
private easements will give access to the homes and allow emergency access. Staffs recommendation
to convert a tract that was proposed for access to an easement seems appropriate. The easement is
needed for access to what will be private lots while the tract, at least, normally is owned in common by
the entire plat ownership. Maintenance belongs with the specific homeowners and an easement would
be a better arrangement to reflect that.
The applicant will have to comply with code requirements for the fencing and other design features of
the detention pond. Landscaping and fence setbacks, where possible, should be used to soften the visual
hard edge that fencing might create.
Jericho Preliminary Plat (cont.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 7
6. Staffs recommendations on front yard location or building orientation appears reasonable. Their
proposal will create a more consistent streetscape and uniform building setback line along the new east -
west street. Similarly, the homes along NE 4th that take access from the easements should face each
other for a more neighborly outcome.
In conclusion, the Proposed Plat now appears to satisfy code requirements for its street system and
while its lot arrangement is a compromise, it appears to be the best alternative given the density
requirements of code.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should approve the proposed plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC.
2. The applicant shall place a restrictive covenant on the final plat stating to the effect that "All
detached dwellings are proposed within the R-10 zoning designation of the plat with a permitted
density up to 13.00 du/ac. Any change to the unit mix shall require the density and unit mix
requirements of the R-10 zone to be complied with and reviewed by the City of Renton." The
satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services
Division.
3. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the final plat indicating the following yard
orientations for these lots:
➢ Lot 1: Front -NE 3rd St./North Prop. Line; Rear - South Prop. Line 15 ft.; Side Yard Along
St. - Jericho Ave. NE
➢ Lot 10: Front - NE 3rd St./South Prop. Line; Rear- North Prop. Line; and Side Yard Along
St. - Hoquiam Ave. NE
➢ Lot 20: Front - NE 3rd St./South Prop. Line; Rear- North Prop. Line; and Side Yard Along
St. - Jericho Ave. NE
➢ Lot 21: Front - West Prop. Line facing 20 ft. easement; Rear -East Prop. Line abutting
Jericho Ave. NE; and Side Yard Along St. - NE 4th St.
➢ Lot 22: Front - East Prop. Line facing 20 ft. easement; Rear -West Prop. Line; and Side
Yard Along St. - NE 4th St.
➢ Lot 23: Front - -West Prop. Line facing 20 ft. easement; Rear- East Prop. Line; and Side
Yard Along St. - NE 4th St.
➢ Lot 24: Front - East Prop. Line facing 20 ft. easement; Rear- West Prop. Line; and Side
Yard Along St. - NE 4th St.
➢ Lot 25: Front - West Prop. Line facing 20 ft. easement; Rear- East Prop. Line; and Side
Yard Along St. - NE 4th St.
Jericho Preliminary Plat (cont.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 8
i Lot 26: East Prop. Line facing 20 ft. easement; Rear- West Prop. Line; and Side Yard Along
St. - NE 4th St.
4. No direct access from any lot within the plat shall be allowed onto NE 4th Street. This condition
shall be placed on the face of the final plat prior to recording.
5. No direct access from any lot within the first 160 feet from the south curb line of NE 4th Street lot
shall be allowed onto Hoquiam Ave. NE or Jericho Ave. NE. This condition shall be placed on the
face of the final plat prior to recording.
6. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all
buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this
requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager.
7. The applicant shall convert Tract B into a private access easement with the land divided among the
adjoining lots prior to recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to
the review and approval of the Development Services Division.
8. The applicant shall provide a roadway section on Hoquiam Ave. NE based upon design
requirements for proposed traffic signal. The design shall accommodate one through lane in each
direction and a left turn lane from the new internal street to NE 4th Street. The satisfaction of this
requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division.
9. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the
recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared
improvements. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton
Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services
section prior to recording of the final plat.
10. The applicant shall install a modulated, decorative fence with a minimum of five feet in width of
irrigated landscaping along the entire north property line of the site fronting NE 4th Street. All
fencing shall be located and designed to not interfere with sight distances required at the
intersections of Hoquiam Ave. NE with NE 4'h St. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and
fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to
installation. The fence and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat.
11. The applicant shall install a fence of a quality material (no chain -link, if possible), decorative and
modulated with a landscaped visual barrier that includes plant materials which would provide a
year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting along the north property
line of Tract A fronting NE 3`d St. and Hoquiam Ave. NE. The east property line shall be fenced
with a five-foot width of irrigated landscaping. The south property line shall be fenced. All fencing
shall be located and designed to not interfere with sight distances required at the intersections of
Hoquiam Ave. NE with NE 3`d St. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to
the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. The fence
and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat.
Jericho Preliminary Plat (cont.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 9
ORDERED THIS 15°i day of July, 2004.
ri
FRED J. KA MAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS l 5th day of July, 2004 to the parties of record:
Susan Fiala
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Kayren Kittrick
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Howard & Patricia Banasky
1402 N 26d' Street
Renton, WA 98056
James Jaeger
9419 S 204"' Place
Kent, WA 98031
Mike Romano
Centurion Development Services
22617 8°i Drive SE
Bothell, WA 98011
TRANSMITTED THIS l5th day of July, 2004 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Terry DeFoor
GWC, Inc.
24633 NE 133`d Street
Duvall, WA 98019
Ribera-Balko Ent. Family Ltd. Partn
16400 Southcenter Pkwy, Ste. 308
Seattle, WA 98088
Stan Engler, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
King County Journal
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be riled in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 29, 2004. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 29, 2004.
Jericho Preliminary Plat (cont.)
File No.: LUA-04-031, PP, ECF
July 15, 2004
Page 10
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.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION of the N.E. 1/4, SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 5 E., W.M.
PARCEL u2]os 9o]J
FINE EASE 105 FEET OE NE -OR HALE OF 'HE NORNEASF OU-V-
SITE DATA
N R.,
F. � • _- �
OF THE NORTHWEST OVANE- OF THE -N.. g1Mi[a OF -HER,
toDwvsD .1 WORTH, PR+4E ! EAST. YALIAA- WERos�F, Ix
SITE SERVICES
AREA: 4.27 ACRES - IRS
-1
u w]
K c c ASHlucroN:
AREA'. 1.09 ACRES - RIO
3
EVCEF, THE WI 2D FEET No. -FOR Rob;
SEWER: CITY OF RENTON
AREA IN STREETS: 0.76 AC - RB
ac,PT THE NORFN .2 FEET rxwroF cpNo[ux[D IN KIMD COUNTY
WATER: WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
SCHOOL: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
AC - Rt0
AREA STREETS: ACRES RB
NET AREA: 3.51 ACRES -
/)
'1
SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 632233 FOR SOUTHEAST 12ON STREET.
FIRE: CITY OF RENTON
NET AREA: 0.89 ACRES - RIO
-
..
TELEPHONE: OWEST
PROPOSED N0. LOTS: 28 - R8
FARDEL 1s2J06 9+a6
ELECTRICAL & GAS: PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PROPOSED N0. LOTS: 9 - R10
•I
FHE WEST JD FEET [1 0<[R EAST +3s of rI¢ xoaN HALF of NE
EEC*
CABLE 7v.: COMCAS7 CABLEVIS!ON
ZONING: RB & R10
2 R I
IORNM QUARTOF THE HOF WEST DUARTC1 of THE NORTHEAST
DUARTER OF 5ECTD1 15. i0WN511P 23 HORN, RAMSC 5 CAST.
PROPOSED DENSITY: 7.96 UNITS/ACRE - R8
I�
PI
wALAUFFTE MERI..W, IN Hw0 CDU.TY. WASHwoTDN
PROPOSED DENSITY'. 10.11 UNITS/ACRE - R10
I 'I
III THE NORTH JO - NEWEOF LWND wrNR1 NE RICTIT OF WAY
PROPOSED USE: R-8 ZONE: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESID.
..__I .ALL,
_ "•
ITT
DF OUN1 126TH STREET.
FA5
ALSO EKCERT THE SOUTH 12 « EF OF THE NORTH 42 FEET OF SAD
TRACTS:
PROPOSED USE: R-10 ZONE: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESID.
NDarN
cUBgL65roN CO-D TO KING COUNTY - '0. PURPOSES BY DEW
TRACT A: DRAINAGE - 9180 SF
TRACT 9: PRIVATE ROAD - 2605 SF
fLOROED UNDER RECORDwO NUMBER U73812,
PARCEL 1s2Jo!.11 ASSESSOR'S NOS, 152305-9033 0.58 Al VICINITY MAP
w.Lr OF NE NORTHEAST OUNITER OF THE NORTHWEST DUARTER W 152305-9047 ((1.63 AC \1 's
NORTH
THE xoa-1 -111 Dr s[cTloN 1s. 1OWNSIR 2J NORTH. � 1523 05-9148 (0.18 AC J R-6
RANGE s EAST, "L "-I MERIYAN. IN Kara 1-1, wASHINOTDW 152305-9019 1.88 AC
gOEPr NE WEST 2175 FEET AND THE SST 135 FEET THEREOP I I I 152305-9045 (1.09 AC) R-10 i
0 ExLERT PORTION CONVYED FO - COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED
RECORDED UND" RECORE NO NUMBER 3713166. �'• . ' 1
I 1 SITE ADDRESS: 355 JERICHO AVE. NE
P.RLEL 152Jo5 Do19 I
THE WEST 2]] 5 FEET Or THE NORM HAD: Or THE NORTHEAST OWRTER -� _ _ I I1. . L,� - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �_ _ _! ..'T
Or THE FORTH' I DUARTER Or THE -EAST Ow 1 OF B-ON `W _.
15. ioWNSHIv 2J HORN. aAHOf 5 CAST. WntAVCTTE u(nlpM21 IN wNG .: � ._ •.. .. ... -..... ...... ... ... ....
-.-_�----
[Y T THE NORTH }p FEET THEREOF FOR COUNTY ROAD ---
ALSO [YOM TIE SOUTH 12 FEET OF THE WORN 42 FEET THEREOF __
COWVQTED TO ' ND COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED -_ N6621I W.
UNDER .1-HG WUMBER 563 -; -- .. -_ .._.... - R-- -- .--
.__7JE 4th�treeT I
M.SO EWCEPT THE !WN 3 FEET OF THE WORN aS FEET NEREOF t S --- `-
COH-ITO TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DCE05 RECORDfp -�
UNDER REOCADaW NUMBERS .10126.13 6]09260695. 11092.6.1. a2.NO 1 •!' .-.
T-'sw us.1i 41- _ _
_ --^ - - - -- - r PARCEL 1-1 1011 • J ,]�o so.m m. m moo otl I /
OF�NE°$Npgr1 .1 THE WOR o-1N[�nT1Ri Or NC NORTHWEST .-ER 1 9 _ _ _ _- . LRED 16 3]OS2] Af ! ]OD2BE069B HJ9T1
TOWNSmP 2J OaNR ANCC 5 UST, w1LUMCTTC NERIpux, N KNO �8B I• 'I I DRMNACC ----• C
COUNTY, wASmNGrON I JI $1- ,,}} I $I 8 k $I 5 �I PJ 12 Is sl
1 HODS N R JlIpp ST SS Jp� 1' [ • ) 9T95 Y!� 10 it D :1 a600 Y F150 Y 'f A]50 Y t150 S, FI "SO SF 1 F]50 Y .]SD P !F>A S,
LESS COUNTY RObS Afro B
LESS Vlufaµ RILNTS a600 Y a600 SF i 0' ROAD
I.,...__. EASEMENT
SURVEY DATA
BASIS OF BEARING
BREAKDOWN PER PUT OF MORGAN PLACE, V 205, P9 10
VERTICAL DATUM
CITY OF RENTON CONTROL 02119, ELCV-126.41
REFERENCE SURVEYS
PUT OF MORGAN PLACE, V 205, Po 70
NAPLEKOWD uEADOwS SHORT PLAIT V 156. Po 1264
RECORD OF SMRVEY A. 9511139Da
RECORD OF S12RVIS A. 930916900a
RECORD OF SURvEv INN 671102900a
RECORD OE SURVE Art+ 9a062a9006
PITL ..___Le_- - I I i�oo6+Loa
FR vAF �1ERlie $ A89 "P.1' 9.� I ` _ �- _ _ - 1. °° 1 - - �so �... !ry�1✓. " P
PPo R aOAD X n ro L2C
.6Da
132305 8019 1523
05 8047 I52305 8039111 -- _ - m � I �
$ )2 l5ro SF ^ Ja (p s2oo' Ham m.m 1 1 I
'..Y I ap9y Y I I Jl10 sr
I II j°T I I i�le 2• I' --RI
p .ate; _ _ s.m• I .9a sr el I 1. J8 ie 'I I$ xo I$ ci I R s ss sr AJ I
y`'- $ jJ >" 1 $ _W 19 19 a500 Sr le a500 s, 35 )N I
■ I I .• I � ] _D SF I 21
sr-0--�-, �U93) -� m50Y K>50Y I rl; a500Y Soo SF Y�1 om' 500� I�I I�
]l] JSoss $ Js - 1 I s-i., (�]E7 I 'T' �.em
a W Y' 6I 35f0 Y` I ^ oo' CT. 71;L _ fo-�i�� S'�'I ___� 1°-� �`- _ -l�T� III'.,
- -
3 12 ` - 57, m .m r l I Q . ' m.m'R, ODL.
IY I J aspl Y �' T IN I. ea l J 27 I I' 2e
IE I I I I 'R Is IB I 1 $1 IR ]33 I 5229 sE 1$ IS,
a0' iI}I aaV I i x lSOS S' �F 5065 Y �: (�19E� Ix 'gl (ae]E) IS A>56 9r F
�nV JU-E T�-L S -- - - - - - 1.�,g� Daarc gj[ mid it p j ;I.
se,TiYDT IFSN' 5667}'n [ ]n.St 5F7Z , iU.50yu) - -- R6]2n'I ]F6>n' - 3001 p �2� 1p 30•
I
TOPOGRAPHY AND BOUNDARY SURVEY BY,
DRYCO
DRYDo Surveying, Incorporated
®
° 1
12114 VALLEY AVENUE EAST
WA 98390
SUMNER,
253-826-0300 FAY 253-826-9703
LOT AREAS
eosl sr _ (G+OSs L07 AREA)
I
(-A Y) - (NOT 1S. AREA Or LOT LESS THAN aD-E)
PROPERTY OWNERS:
152305 9033
152305 9019
152305 9148
152305 9015
G.W.C., INC.
HOWARD BAN ASKY
EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN:
TERRY DEFOOR
2A633 HE133 ST.
1402 W 26 ST.
RENTON. WA. 98056
1. UNSPECIFIED SLOPE EASEMENT FOR CUTS AND FILLS
DUVALL, WA. 98019
FOR THE BENEFIT OF KING COUNTY,
PARCEL 152305 90a5: REC.I 5799277
152305 9047
PATRICIA BANASKY GRAPHIC SCALE
463 TER DALE AVE. NE
PARCEL 1525 9019: REC4 58236a3
30
R18ERA-8ALKO ENT. FAMILY LID,
REN TON. WA. 95056
PARCEL [52J05 9047: REC.I 5773188
PARCEL 152305 9148: REC.1 5823642
PARTNERSHIP
OANA RIBERA
16400 SOUTHCENTER PKWY., N308
n IK FaR )
SEATTLE. WA. 98188
C
Order No. 554825
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
Page 2
The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the State of
Washington, and described as follows:
The west 277.5 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter of
the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 15,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington;
EXCEPT the north 30 feet thereof for County Road;
ALSO EXCEPT the south 12 feet of the north 42 feet thereof conveyed
to King County for road purposes by deed recorded under Recording
Number 5823643;
ALSO EXCEPT the south 3 feet of the north 45 feet thereof conveyed
to King County for road purposes by deeds recorded under Recording
Numbers 8709280693, 8709280695, 8709280696 and 8709280697.
END OF SCHEDULE A
- 90 to,
NOTE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY:
The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the
documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. Said abbreviated
legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description
within the body of the document.
NW NE 15-23-05
A PORTION of the
N.E. 1/4,
SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 5 E., W.M.
'v
AM Ac.
047A . ;
_w(5
ui IL
Ld
11)
z
uj
— -----------
A=.
4.14 Ar. I
F w
L2
8
W rn
4v"
<
ly
0)
0 I Z a wtl i
cl: SINGLE F0,WL'Yj
Re-50,
GJ
NE 4 .451%QE, Wei
1p
Q)
4.14
CM Ll
&I A,
1_9
4,14 Ac,
0.
'771 —ri j'i s—MM— UI 0,47
'all 7 lCIT,
v IS) 14)
5
al !ail Il;t 7
ui
1.50 AG. 5.4-10034 vi C)
4.)l A,.
7s
...........
CL
ti
CL
ON —SITE AND
SURROUNDING USES
ARE ALL SINGLE
:s co
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NQZ
. 0 1E 21 - I 1" 2 .. �6a
GRAPHIC SCALE
D( rM
SWEET
1 L..h . e00
140th Ave. , A
142nd Ave, SE
143rd Ave. SE
SE
144th Ave. SE
45th Ave. E
CID
'D Q0
146th Ave qP
IZA - 1 r. T?-AV 'D Cr U7 1/-7
c 1 0
140th Ave. SE
..........
Ave.142 nd Ave, flsE ,
-,,
co
143rd Ave. SE
-,WIWI
............
...........
..............
Id
a
144th Ave. SE
16 h,
Lyons Ave. NE
A PORTION of the N.E. 1/4, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 5 E., W.M.
<!
112 [YR11ND ORWE O
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
.ao Q �
j 1a336a •- z 4S6
PROPOSED GRADE O
OEMERINEPoD cxre I as'
z a37 I__ Z
PROFILE — EAST/WEST STREET J31
a30 SOALE: NORIZ' I•.a0'
I W °
a3e KRT I'.1' a •26 uur \� \ 1l�• c[x/ur coex(r( W c p
J 100 1i00 5i00 6100 616+.53 \ 1 gar Z
126 126 t' .•.. cau . Pr•r. Cl.ta 'e I—,, coxcxlrr J �\� 1 5 „P o
p•ISTiNO OP•DE ® \ �lx rK•t luxe
a3a t ROPOSEO CENIEPLIN[ 9 ♦• vxr. cWor 0(er.. CxvS+Ka SV.r•C1w r0• C°vxt< J \ •( z ,
d a2a vim. <p.x r. Pl— C+v 1 SW(aCW /•a! —111 -� 5 Z 3 �.
O.00 1.90 2.o0 PROPp;CO GRADE O ,a t.>Jx i 4" cx KI • a( rcI•sa '•, x.• e( .(o P xl..Pw soa (wwPws '•. W rn Y
CENIERLINE
70 TYP. INTERIOR PLAT ROAD LJP
0.00 '.00 2..00 3100 3.28.63 MT rp SC•![ w
Q
PROFILE — HOOUTAM AVE. NE
SCKE: NOR'2.: 1••10'
VEPT,; I'.1'
Prn•R tn5,. Ia• I `� a��`
Ill MP[
wxCW I
e' [ Iowa)
IO "s:.... Z.r_
-- - -- --- -- -- -- -- — - — ¢
Cl
7 Zo me° [[,�• -- � T oaaC ��- Evbo r 5' +��x +O �
I I .3°50
I arse s 's X A ea•o sr .e °a r, .
[m,n, seuu r,rn pr�sT, sPNx ,aS.Nev Seoo sr .1 s9I1 s c <
•! 1+P.r5 �[: 1II.5 (II A 11� to l _ ' ' _ _'uv_o"' I ,o •o.° .
R: -as I'•.SN ' tl .. I a i n i per , 'SoR', Sam raw w.00 uu.sNl �
s
Ix
�• _ .•m _ A.aT - - o.w _ i
.5,5
-nib'---- I
Ip
'Il+I 1510 iTI'V I ireuI I�j i�Ma S"»I°
DRAINAGE DETENTION: e12B046, '1'
�1 tP I o
LEVEL 2 OETETION STANDARD v it
FENCED POND WITH 2:1 SIDE SLOPES♦ F.I•. _I_ I J� ��
ELEVATIONS. I .
TOP: 421.0 rt oao I a I` 1 I Z; � $°'R
. m' - - y ""-1 n wm' r..ro we• waa '
50 YEAR WATER LEVEL: 420.0. AREA=10317 -SF �g
BOTTOM: 412.0 AREA- 4691 SF
VOLUME PROVIDED: 60032 CF 5 ( ° ! Is x M, • a 1 "'
VOLUME REOUIED: 47840 CF I
I6 '� 11 Rio
A uR v aeao v oP• •°[ IB I I Ii '8 . '" v P .e'oo s '• Sae• sr it s' °Dr' ?; 2 8
I I ' 9 aW tl .e00 it a° I tl
.Ii
WATER DUALITY: sinr++Visa( ""i�i1•d'TITii unrmt lAf:P` a.oss l �I�rT°nrs 3 Saar _• _ ° l J0
WETPOND BELOW DETENTION STORAGE. '«
2o�R[s'R¢ra rro[ I • +°
TOP WETPOND ELEV: 412.0. AREA- 4691 SF e•Px I /�j 1 . ,;�° I ' ,
BOTTOM WETPOND ELEV: 406.0, AREA-1815 SFeu�s'cA�e
VOLUME PROVIDED: 19518 CF
VOLUME REQUIRED: 17160 CF
' 11. Rn1 5 1
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al #: 1'
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. Planning/Building/Public Works
9/13/04
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Karen McFarland, x7209
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Determination of Surplus Property Status for Old Fire
Correspondence..
Station 12 (901 Harrington Ave NE)
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Study Sessions......
Resolution
Information.........
/A
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Community Services Committee Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ........... Parks/Facilities X
Fire X
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Proiect Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Until recently, the property at 901 Harrington Ave NE was used as Fire Station 12. In January
2001, the property located at 1209 Kirkland Ave NE was purchased for the relocation of Fire
Station 12. The City has completed construction of the new Fire Station 12 on this site. The
property located at 901 Harrington Ave NE is no longer needed by the City of Renton. A public
hearing was held on November 17, 2003, to accept public comment on the disposition of old Fire
Station 12. In order to sell this property, this property needs to be declared surplus.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department requests the City Council to declare surplus old
Fire Station 12 located at 901 Harrington Ave NE and set compensation at $475,000.00.
P:\Current Projects\Surplus\2004FireStationl2\ab_firestl2_0904.doc\KLMtp
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 3, 2004
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:'' Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
STAFF CONTACT: Karen McFarland, x7209
SUBJECT: Determination of Surplus Property Status for Old Fire Station
12 (901 Harrington Ave NE)
ISSUE:
Until recently, the property at 901 Harrington Ave NE was used as Fire Station 12. In
January 2001, the property located at 1209 Kirkland Ave NE was purchased for the
relocation of Fire Station 12. The City has completed construction of the new Fire Station 12
on this site. The property located at 901 Harrington Ave NE is no longer needed by the City
of Renton. A public hearing was held on November 17, 2003, to accept public comment on
the disposition of old Fire Station 12. In order to sell this property, this property needs to be
declared surplus.
RECOMMENDATION:
• The Planning/Building/Public Works Department requests the City Council to declare
surplus old Fire Station 12 located at 901 Harrington Ave NE and set compensation at
$475,000.00.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
On January 23, 2001, the City purchased a property located at 1209 Kirkland Ave NE for a
future fire station.
Fire Station 12 has been relocated from the city -owned property located at 901 Harrington
Ave NE to the property located at 1209 Kirkland Ave NE. Thus, the property located at 901
September 3, 2004
Page 2
Harrington Ave NE is no longer be needed by the City of Renton's Fire Department. In
order to sell this property, this property would need to be declared surplus.
According to City Policy, surplus property is defined as "property acquired by a division
which is no longer needed to fulfill the original or an alternate need within the same
division". The Fire Department has determined that Fire Station 12 located at 901
Harrington Ave NE is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired and is not
needed for any alternate purpose in the Fire Department. Thus, although the Fire
Department has no need for the property located at 901 Harrington Ave NE, it cannot dispose
of this property unless the Council determines this property to be surplus.
City Policy and Procedure sets forth the process for determining whether a City -owned
property should be declared surplus property. Initiation of this process requires City Council
approval. At its September 22, 2003 meeting, Council approved the initiation of the Surplus
Real Property Procedures (City Policy & Procedure #100-12) and authorized that an appraisal
be ordered.
The Lema Consulting Group, Inc. appraised the property on October 17, 2003. The value
determined by the appraisal was $475,000.00. Staff has reviewed the appraisal and notes that
the analysis used in the appraisal meets industry standards and that the determinations were
based upon current market data and are reasonable.
If Council should determine this property to be surplus, City policy requires that the property
be offered to other City departments, other local agencies, the abutting property owners, and
any parties having expressed an interest in the property. Accordingly, City departments and
local agencies were contacted to determine their interest in this property.
A proposal was circulated to all City departments for identification of any need for or interest
in the property located at 901 Harrington Ave NE. No need or interest exists to date.
In addition to City departments, three agencies were contacted. Neither WSDOT or King
County had any interest in this property. The Renton Historical Society was interested in
acquiring the property for meeting space and storage but indicated that it was not able to pay
the $475,000 dollars that the appraisal determined as fair market value.
A public hearing was held on November 17, 2003, to accept public comment on the
disposition of old Fire Station 12. Public comment was taken, at that time, from Doug Kyes,
Municipal Arts Commission member, and Craig Soucy, Vice President of Renton Firefighters
Local 864.
If Council should decide to declare this property surplus, abutting property owners and any
parties having expressed an interest in the property would be contacted at that time to
determine their interest in purchasing the property. The Renton Historical Society, the
Municipal Arts Commission, and the Renton Firefighters Local 864 are all parties of record
and would be notified if Council should decide to declare this property surplus.
HAFile Sys\PRM - Property Services Administration\Current Projects\Surplus\2004FireStationl2\ip_firestl2_0904fnl.doc\KLMtp
September 3, 2004
Page 3
If Council should decide to declare this property to be surplus, a resolution which makes this
declaration and which sets the amount of compensation would need to be adopted.
If the property were declared surplus, proceeds from the sale would be credited to an
appropriate Fire Department account, less any administrative costs.
CONCLUSION:
Fire Station 12 has been relocated from the city -owned property located at 901 Harrington
Ave NE to the property located at 1209 Kirkland Ave NE. The property located at 901
Harrington Ave NE is no longer needed by the City of Renton's Fire Department. This
property was appraised and the value was determined to be $475,000.00. In order to sell this
property, Council needs to declare this property surplus and set compensation.
HAFile Sys\PRM -Property Services Administration\Current Projects\Surplus\2004FireStationl2\ip_firestl2_0904fnl.doc\KLMtp
00
DRAFT
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
DECLARING AS SURPLUS THE OLD FIRE STATION 12, LOCATED AT
901 HARRINGTON AVENUE NE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SUCH DOCUMENTS AS NECESSARY TO
TRANSFER TITLE.
WHEREAS, the City of Renton, after a news release and publication of a notice for a
public hearing, held a public hearing on November 17, 2003, to consider the issue of declaring
certain real property surplus, such property being legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth, and being commonly known as Old Fire
Station 12, located at 901 Harrington Ave NE; and
WHEREAS, those members of the public who wished to testify were duly allowed to
testify, and their testimony was considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the law requires an appraisal; and
WHEREAS, the City Administration has ordered an appraisal of the value of this real
property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the sale of this property is in the
public interest;
NOW, THERFORE, 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 property in question is declared surplus.
RESOLUTION NO.
SECTION III. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the
necessary documents to consummate the conveyance of the real estate that has been surplused,
contingent upon the property being sold for a price that is at least $427,500, but on the most
advantageous terms, including price, that the City can obtain.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1069:9/9/04:ma
day of 12004.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
day of
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
2004.
2
RESOLUTION NO. Q
EXHIBIT "A"
OLD FIRE STATION 12 PROPERTY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots 17, Block 6, Plat of Renton Highlands, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 46 of
Plats, Pages 34 to 41, records of King County, Washington;
All situate in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City
of Renton, King County, Washington.
3
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board..
Staff Contact......
Police
Penny Bartley x7565
Subject:
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Exhibits:
A. Issue Paper
B. Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
C. Resolution
Recommended Action:
Refer to Public Safety Committee
Al N:
For Agenda of: 9/13/04
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
Approvals:
Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept......
Other ............... X
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... 2004:$4,393/2005:$2,922 Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION: In 2002, the City of Renton and many of the other 35 cities utilizing
King and Yakima County Jails entered into a Cities Interlocal for Jail Administration. However, not
all of the parties to the contract ratified the Interlocal and it became null and void without the Interlocal
ever being implemented. The new Interlocal has been under review by the Cities for the past 12
months. The Interlocal provides for the framework for cities within King County to work together to
manage the King County and Yakima County jail contracts, dispose of property held for jail purposes
by Bellevue, and develop a plan to manage the cities' inmate population after the termination of the
King County Jail Contract in 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. The Renton City Council concurs with the recommendation of
City Administration to approve the Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration and adopt a
resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Interlocal Agreement.
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bb
RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 9, 2004
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: athy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
FROM: Garry Anderson, Chief of Police
STAFF CONTACT: Penny Bartley, Police Manager
SUBJECT: Issue Paper — Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
ISSUE: In 2002, 35 of 37 King County cities entered into agreements with King County and/or
Yakima County for the purpose of inmate housing. The jail contract with King County provides
for the creation of a Jail Administrative Group (JAG) to respond to issues regarding the
administration, implementation or interpretation of the King County jail contract. The King
County Jail contract further provides for the transfer of real property to the City of Bellevue on
behalf of the Cities.
The multiple jail contracts have required the cities to address a variety of issues related to the
phase out of King County jails and the maximum use of Yakima County Jail. This new direction
places new burdens on the cities over the next several years.
This Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration provides the framework for cities within King
County to work together to manage the King County and Yakima County jail contracts, dispose
of property held for jail purposes by Bellevue, and develop a plan to manage the cities' inmate
population after the termination of the King County Jail Contract in 2012.
BACKGROUND: In 2002, the City of Renton and many of the other 35 cities entered into a
Cities Interlocal for Jail Administration. However, not all of the parties to the contract ratified
the Interlocal and it became null and void without ever being implemented. The new Interlocal
has been under review by the Cities for the past 12 months.
This Interlocal agreement is specifically created to do the following:
• Clarify the roles of Cities in planning, implementation, operation, and administration of
Interlocal agreements related to the provision of current jail services;
• Plan for the future of facilities and programs for municipal inmates; and,
• Establish a payment method for unused beds if the Cities collectively fail to meet their
estimated Minimum Bed Commitment with Yakima County.
It does this by creating a governance structure which:
• Provides for the administration group (JAG) created by the King County Jail Contract;
• Creates a group in order to facilitate cooperation in the examination of policy issues,
questions and/or disputes involving the administration of the King County Jail Contract
and the Yakima Jail Contract;
• Authorizes the disposition of the Jail Property and associated proceeds; and,
• Provides for the planning for new misdemeanant secure jail facilities, non -secure
alternative facilities, or programs to create additional misdemeanant capacity.
To accomplish these tasks, the Jail Administration Interlocal agreement creates:
• Three different committees with specific responsibilities
1. Oversight Group of Elected Officials - Assembly
Membership: An elected official from each participating city.
Purpose: The Assembly will meet at least once a year to provide guidance to the
JAG and JOG. This will include issues such as annual budget, assessment and
work program, disposition of the jail property, creation of a new misdemeanant
facility, fiscal agent and other policies as necessary.
2. Administrative Entity - JAG- (Jail Administrative Group)
Membership: A group of 6 city representatives with 1 from Seattle, 1 from
Bellevue, and 4 other contract cities, one of which will include an SCA city that is
the largest jail user and is party to both the King County and Yakima County
ILAs.
Purpose: The JAG will administer the Cities Interlocal and other jail related
agreements. This will include making recommendations to the Assembly,
working closely with the JOG, and supervising staff. These 6 members will also
serve as the city representatives to the King County JAG.
3. Operations Entity - JOG — Jail Operations Group
Membership: A representative from each of the cities
Purpose: Advise the Assembly and JOG on operational issues of the jail
contracts.
• An annual budget and assessment method for all cities to pay for staff support
• A fiscal agent (currently Tukwila) to manage fiscal responsibilities
This Interlocal agreement does not decide the outcomes of future planning efforts, nor does it
bind any city to participate in these efforts. It sets up a cooperative process to create the plan for
how these future efforts will be undertaken.
The agreement continues until December 31, 2012, which is the termination date of the King
County Contract. It can be renewed.
Cities can terminate by written notice by the end of any given year, but remain responsible for
any budget expenses incurred for that "year.
The Interlocal provides for a financial assessment to each of the King County Cities to carry out
the above tasks. The City of Renton's assessment is $4,393. The proposed assessment for the
City of Renton for 2005 is $2,922.
RECOMMENDATION: The City of Renton Council concurs with the recommendation of
City Administration that the Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration be signed.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL ADMINISTRATION
ESTABLISHING THE TERM, PURPOSE, MEMBERSHIP, GOVERNANCE,
JAIL OVERSIGHT ASSEMBLY (ASSEMBLY), JAIL ADMINISTRATION
GROUP (JAG), JAIL OPERATION GROUP (JOG), MEETINGS, FISCAL
AGENT, STAFFING, ANNUAL ASSESSMENT, TERMINATION, DISPOSITION
OF REAL PROPERTY, INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") is dated effective November 1, 2003
and is made and entered into between Algona, Auburn, Town of Beaux Arts Village,
Bellevue, Black Diamond, Bothell, Burien, Carnation, Clyde Hill, Covington, Des
Moines, Duvall, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Hunts Point, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kent,
Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Maple Valley, Medina, Mercer Island, Milton, Newcastle,
Normandy Park, North Bend, Pacific, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, SeaTac, Seattle,
Shoreline, Skykomish, Snoqualmie, Tukwila, Woodinville and the Town of Yarrow
Point, Washington, municipal corporations organized under the laws of the State of
Washington (collectively the "Cities").
A. The Cities enter into this Agreement pursuant to and as authorized by the
Interlocal Cooperation Act (Chapter 39.34 RCW).
B. Some of the Cities have entered into a long term Interlocal Agreement with
Yakima County, as amended, for the purpose of housing the Cities' inmates in
Yakima County jail facilities ("Yakima Jail Contract"). The Yakima Jail Contract
commits the Cities to deliver a certain number of inmates to Yakima County to
satisfy a Minimum Bed Commitment. The Yakima Jail Contract and any
addendums to it are incorporated herein by this reference.
C. Previously, the Cities negotiated the terms of an agreement regarding the use by
the Cities of the Minimum Bed Commitment, including the allocation of jail beds
among the Cities and the allocation of charges for jail service under the Yakima
Jail Contract; however, that agreement never took effect.
D. Some of the Cities have entered into a Jail Services Agreement with King County
("King County Jail Contract") providing for the Cities' use of jail beds in King
County jail facilities for a limited time not to exceed ten years. The King County
Jail Contract is incorporated herein by this reference.
E. The King County Jail Contract provides for the creation of a Jail Administration
Group to respond to any issue regarding the administration, implementation or
interpretation of the King County Jail Contract.
F. King County and the City of Bellevue have entered into a Land Transfer
Agreement pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the King County Jail Contract which
provides for the transfer of ownership of the eastside Jail site ("Jail Property") to
Bellevue on behalf of all of the Cities. The Land Transfer Agreement is
incorporated herein by this reference.
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 1 of 23
-1-
G. The Cities desire to enter into this Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration in
order to set forth the purpose, membership, governance, meeting frequency, fiscal
agent, staffing, term, annual assessment, termination, and insurance and
indemnification requirements, and regarding the use by the Cities of the Minimum
Bed Commitment under the Yakima Jail Contract, including the method for
allocating those jail beds as between the Cites, and to establish the formula for
payment for unused beds should the Cities collectively fail to meet their
Minimum Bed Commitment with Yakima County, as more specifically set forth
in this Agreement.
H. The Cities of Kent and Enumclaw are not parties to the Yakima Jail Contract or
the King County Jail Contract. Kent and Enumclaw are included as parties to this
Interlocal Agreement to clarify the City of Bellevue's authority with respect to the
Jail Property, and to provide for Kent's and Enumclaw's participation in the
planning process for disposition of Jail Property proceeds and for future jail
facilities.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. PURPOSE
This Interlocal Agreement is entered into by the Cities to further clarify the role of the
Cities and their representatives in planning, implementation, operation and administration
of interlocal agreements related to the provision of current jail services, and in planning
for future facilities and programs for municipal inmates, and to establish a formula for the
payment of unused beds should the Cities collectively fail to meet their Minimum Bed
Commitment with Yakima County. This Agreement implements the administration
group created by the King County Jail Contract and creates a group in order to facilitate
cooperation in the examination of policy issues, questions and/or disputes involving the
administration of the King County Jail Contract and the Yakima Jail Contract, the
disposition of the Jail Property proceeds, and the planning for new misdemeanant secure
jail facilities, non -secure alternative facilities or programs to create additional
misdemeanant capacity.
2. CREATION OF THE ASSEMBLY, JAG AND JOG
To accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Cities hereby create an oversight
group of elected representatives called the Jail Oversight Assembly ("Assembly"), an
administrative entity called the Jail Administration Group ("JAG"), and an operations
entity called the Jail Operations Group ("JOG"), all as further described in Section 6 of
this Agreement.
3. DEFINITIONS
Assembly means the Jail Oversight Assembly created pursuant to Section 6 of this
Agreement with the duties described herein.
Average Daily Population ("ADP") means that number of City Inmates confined in
Yakima County jail facilities for a year, divided by 365.
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 2 of 23
Cities means Algona, Auburn, Town of Beaux Arts Village, Bellevue, Black Diamond,
Bothell, Burien, Carnation, Clyde Hill, Covington, Des Moines, Duvall, Enumclaw,
Federal Way, Hunts Point, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Maple
Valley, Medina, Mercer Island, Milton, Newcastle, Normandy Park, North Bend, Pacific,
Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, SeaTac, Seattle, Shoreline, Skykomish, Snoqualmie,
Tukwila, Woodinville, and Town of Yarrow Point, Washington.
City means a Washington city or town that is a party to this Agreement.
City Member means any city or town that has signed this Agreement.
Estimated Average Daily Population ("EADP") means that number of City Inmates
that each City estimates it will confine in Yakima County jail facilities in a year, divided
by 365.
Fiscal Agent means the "fiscal agent" selected by the Assembly pursuant to RCW
39.34,030.
JAG means the Jail Administration Group created pursuant to Section 6 of this
Agreement, and the King County Jail Contract.
JOG means the Jail Operation Group created pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement
and with the duties described herein.
Jail Property means that certain real property located in Bellevue, Washington and
commonly known as 1440 116`h Avenue NE and 1412 1161h Avenue NE, Bellevue,
Washington, to be conveyed to the City of Bellevue to hold on behalf of all King County
cities as third party beneficiaries consistent with the King County Jail Contract.
Minimum Bed Commitment means the bed commitment made by the Cities
collectively to maintain an Average Daily Population in Yakima County jail facilities
equal to 440 City Inmates from October 1, 2003 through December 31, 2009, or as
otherwise set in the Yakima Jail Contract.
Overused Bed Commitment means the difference between a City's EADP and the
actual number of City Inmates sent to Yakima County jail facilities by that City, where
the actual number is less than that City's EADP.
4. TERM
This Agreement shall be dated effective November 1, 2003 and shall continue until
December 31, 2012, the date of the expiration of the King County Jail Contract ("Term").
This Agreement may be renewed for any successive periods, by written addendum, under
terms and conditions acceptable to all of the Cities. No City that is a party to this
Agreement at its inception or thereafter will be required to be a party to any renewal of
this Agreement.
5. TERMINATION
5.1 Termination Unrelated to Yakima Jail Contract. Any City may terminate its
participation in this Agreement by delivering written notice to the Assembly, by
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 3 of 23
December 31 in any year, of its intention to terminate effective December 31 of the _
following year. Any City terminating this Agreement shall remain legally and financially
responsible for any obligation incurred by the City pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement, including its obligation to pay its annual assessment for the current budget
year as described in Sections 8 and 9 of this Agreement.
5.2 Termination for Cause — Yakima Jail Contract. In the event any City's
participation in the Yakima Jail Contract is terminated for cause, as defined in the
Yakima Jail Contract, such City shall remain legally and financially responsible to
Yakima County for its EADP until December 31, 2009, or the end of the then existing
term if the Yakima Jail Contract has been extended before the termination for cause;
provided, that the terminated City may be entitled to a credit under Section 10 of this
Agreement.
6. GOVERNANCE
6.1 Jail Oversight Assembly (Assembly).
(a) Membership. Each City Member shall appoint one elected official to be a
member of the Assembly. The initial Assembly member for each City shall be
the elected official designated by the City in the space provided below the City's
signature on this Agreement. In the event that a City's initial Assembly member
becomes unable to serve as an Assembly member, the City shall designate a new
or alternate Assembly member.
(b) Assembly Powers. The Assembly shall make policy determinations
necessary to guide and direct the administration of this Agreement, and to guide
JAG and JOG in the performance of duties under this Agreement, the King
County Jail Contract, the Land Transfer Agreement, and the Yakima Jail
Contract. The Assembly shall have the following duties and powers:
(i) Annual Assessment, Budget and Work Program. The Assembly
shall receive recommendations from JAG regarding the annual budget pursuant to
Section 8 of this Agreement, the amount 'of the annual assessment pursuant to
Section 9 of this Agreement, and an annual work program. On or before July 1st
of each year, the Assembly shall submit to the legislative body of each City a
recommendation for the annual assessments, the annual budget, and the work
program for the next year.
(ii) Disposition of Jail Property. The Assembly shall receive
recommendations from JAG and/or JOG regarding use of any proceeds of the sale
or transfer of the Jail Property, and then either approve, reject or approve with
modification such use of the proceeds.
(iii) New Misdemeanant Facilities. The Assembly shall receive
recommendations from JAG and/or JOG regarding alternatives for assessment
and planning for new misdemeanant secure jail facilities, proposals to site or
create jail facilities, options for non -secure alternative facilities or programs and
issuance of long term debt for construction of such facilities and then either
approve, reject, or modify the recommended alternative.
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 4 of 23
(iv) Amendments. The Assembly shall receive recommendations from
JAG and/or JOG regarding any amendments to this Agreement, including the
amendment of the annual assessment formula set forth in Section 9 of this
Agreement, or the other interlocal agreements referenced by this Agreement and
incorporated herein, and then make a recommendation to approve, reject or
modify such amendment to the legislative bodies of each City or return the
recommendation to the JAG or JOG.
(v) Fiscal Arent. The Assembly shall appoint a Fiscal Agent for the
purposes of carrying out and recording financial transactions pursuant to RCW
39.34.030.
(vi) Policy Determinations. The Assembly may make such policy
determinations as are necessary to guide the administration or implementation of
this Agreement, the King County Jail Contract, the Yakima Jail Contract, and the
Land Transfer Agreement, including but not limited to policy regarding the hiring
of employees or contracting with consultants, purchasing of goods or services,
and adoption of procedures for the administration of this Agreement.
(c) Meetings. The Assembly shall meet at the times convened by its officers,
but at least once each year. For any meeting held in addition to one annual
meeting regarding the annual budget, assessments, and work program, the
Assembly may meet by telephone, electronically, video conferencing, or any
other communications mechanism that allows simultaneous communication
between all persons in attendance; provided, that at least fourteen days notice of
the meeting is provided to all Assembly members. A quorum shall consist of
Assembly members representing sixty percent (60%) of the total residential
population of all City Members. Decisions shall be made or action shall be taken
by the affirmative vote of Assembly members from Cities having sixty percent
(60%) of the total residential population of all City Members. For purposes of
this section, each Cities' residential population shall be deemed to be the most
recent population estimate available from the State of Washington's Office of
Financial Management. If an Assembly member will be absent from a meeting,
the Assembly member may, but is not required to, designate by written proxy
another person to attend the meeting and vote on behalf of the Assembly member.
The Assembly may seek a straw vote for informational purposes only.
(d) Assembly Officers. The Assembly members shall select up to four
officers, including a chairperson and vice -chairperson to serve as the executive
committee; provided, that if representatives are not selected from each of the three
largest jail users among the cities that are parties to both the Yakima and King
County jail interlocal agreements for housing misdemeanant inmates, such
representatives shall be included as additional members of the executive
committee. "Largest jail user" is determined by the sum of the jail inmate
populations in the King County and Yakima jail facilities from the prior calendar
year. The officers serving as the executive committee shall (1) convene meetings
of the Assembly as the officers determine appropriate, but at least once a year, (2)
establish the agenda for each meeting, (3) act as spokespersons for the Assembly,
and (4) convene and make assignments to Assembly subcommittees, as
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 5 of 23
appropriate. The chairperson shall preside over the Assembly's meetings, and the
vice -chairperson shall preside in the chairperson's absence.
6.2 Jail Administration Group (JAG).
(a) Membership. The JAG shall be composed of six (6) members as follows:
City of Seattle Representative (1)
City of Bellevue Representative (1)
Suburban Cities Representatives (4)
The Mayor of Seattle shall appoint the City of Seattle representative, and shall
also appoint an alternative Seattle representative to serve in the event that the
original representative is absent or becomes unable to serve. The Bellevue City
Manager shall appoint the City of Bellevue representative, and shall also appoint
an alternative Bellevue representative to serve in the event that the original
representative is absent or becomes unable to serve. The Suburban Cities
Association ("SCA") shall select three (3) representative cities through a process
defined by the SCA, and a fourth representative among the SCA cities shall be
selected by the Mayor or City Manager of the SCA city that is the largest jail user
and a party to both the King County and Yakima interlocal agreements for
housing misdemeanant inmates. "Largest jail user" is determined by the sum of
the jail inmate populations in the King County and Yakima jail facilities from the
prior calendar year. For each city representative selected by SCA, and the
suburban city selected based upon largest jail population, the Mayor of a
mayor/council city or the City Manager of a manager/council city shall appoint
that City's representative, as well as an alternative representative to serve in the
event that the original representative is absent or becomes unable to serve. The
Seattle, Bellevue, and Suburban Cities members of the JAG created in this
Section shall be the same as the members of the JAG created under the King
County Jail Contract.
(b) JAG Powers. The JAG shall administer this Agreement pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement, the Yakima Jail Contract, the King County Jail Contract,
and the Land Transfer Agreement and pursuant to any procedures adopted by the
Assembly or JAG. The JAG shall have the following duties and powers:
(i) Act as the Cities' representatives to the King County Jail Contract
and perform all duties assigned to JAG under that Contract,
consistent with policy direction provided by the Assembly under
this Agreement;
(ii) Make policy recommendations as defined in Section 6.1 of this
Agreement to the Assembly including, without limitation,
recommendations on the disposition of the Jail Property proceeds
(subject to Section 7 of this Agreement), alternatives for
assessment and planning for new misdemeanant secure jail
facilities, proposals to site or create jail facilities, options for non -
secure alternative facilities or programs and issuance of long term
debt for construction of such facilities, and contract language
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 6 of 23
associated with any re -opener of the provisions described in
Section 7 of the King County Jail Contract;
(iii) Make recommendations to the Assembly on the appointment of a
Fiscal Agent for the purposes of carrying out and recording
financial transactions pursuant to RCW 39.34.030;
(iv) Evaluate JOG recommendations regarding the interpretation of the
King County Jail Contract or Yakima Jail Contract and issues
related to inmate transportation, alternative and community
correction programs, coordination with the courts and law
enforcement, mental health, drug and alcohol treatment, alternative
facilities within or outside of King County or other related issues;
(v) After consultation with JOG, develop and recommend a budget,
including annual assessments, and work program to the Assembly,
and implement the budget and work program, subject to the Cities'
obtaining legislative body approval of each City's individual
annual assessment, the annual budget, and the work program in
accordance with Section 8 of this Agreement;
(vi) Following budget and work program approval by the Assembly
and City Members in accordance with Section 8 of this Agreement,
and subject to the availability of funds, the JAG, acting through its
chairperson, will have the following additional powers:
(1) Hire and supervise any staff, consultants or private
vendors consistent with the annual budget, work
program, and any human resource policies and
procedures of the Fiscal Agent;
(2) Negotiate and enter into any contracts or
agreements with third parties for goods and services
consistent with the annual budget and work
program;
(3) Approve or disapprove expenditures consistent with
the annual budget and work program;
(4) Make purchases or contract for services consistent
with the annual budget and work program; and
(5) If an annual budget becomes effective under
Section 8.1, but insufficient Cities approve and pay
assessments to fund the entire work program for
that budget year, then JAG has the authority to
assign priorities to various items in the work
program and to determine which items or portions
of items will be removed from the work program
for that budget year.
(vii) Adopt procedures for the conduct of JAG's meetings;
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 7 of 23
(viii) Uniformly inform and consult with the Assembly and JOG for
contract disputes, operational policy issues, hiring and supervision
of staff, creation of the work program, creation of the budget,
revisions to the cost allocation formula to establish the annual
assessment set forth in Section 9 of this Agreement, disposition of
the Jail Property proceeds and any decisions regarding assessment
and planning for new misdemeanant secure facilities,
misdemeanant non -secure alternative facilities or programs;
(ix) Mediate disputes or issues presented to JAG by a City or Cities
regarding the interpretation of or otherwise arising out of this
Agreement, the Yakima Jail Contract, or the King County Jail
Contract. In the event that any City or Cities present a dispute to
JAG and JAG is unable to resolve the dispute in a manner
acceptable to the Cities involved, the Cities shall submit the
dispute to mediation prior to initiating any action in a court; and
(x) Conduct any and all other business allowed by applicable law and
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement.
(c) Meetings. The JAG shall meet as often as it deems necessary, but not less
than quarterly. A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the JAG's
members or alternates. Decisions will be made by consensus of all the JAG
members in attendance at a meeting. The JAG may seek a straw vote for
informational purposes only.
(d) Chairperson. The JAG members shall select a chairperson and vice -
chairperson from among the JAG members to preside over JAG's meetings.
6.3 Jail Operation Group (JOG).
(a) Membership. Each City Member shall appoint one representative to be a
member of the JOG. The initial JOG member for each City shall be designated by
the City in the space provided below the City's signature on this Agreement.
(b) JOG Powers. The JOG shall advise the Assembly and JAG on operational
issues regarding the King County Jail Contract or the Yakima Jail Contract,
including without limitation, issues or disputes among the City Members related
to contract interpretation, contract disputes, inmate transportation, alternative and
community correction programs, coordination with the courts and law
enforcement, mental health, drug and alcohol treatment, alternative facilities
within or outside of King County, and any other related issues. The JOG shall
consult with JAG regarding recommendations for the annual budget, assessments,
and work program.
(c) Meetings. The JOG shall meet as often as it deems necessary, but not less
than quarterly. A quorum at any meeting of the JOG shall consist of a simple
majority of the JOG members. Decisions will be made by consensus of all the
JOG members in attendance at a meeting. The JOG may seek a straw vote for
informational purposes only.
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 8 of 23
(d) Chairperson. The JOG members shall select a chairperson and vice -
chairperson from among the JOG members to preside over JOG's meetings.
7. JAIL PROPERTY
7.1 Land Transfer. Pursuant to the terms of the King County Jail Contract and the
Land Transfer Agreement, King County will convey the Jail Property to the City of
Bellevue prior to July 1, 2004. Bellevue will hold the Jail Property on behalf of all cities
in King County as third party beneficiaries. Bellevue shall act as the fiscal agent of the
cities for purposes of taking action with respect to the Jail Property. Any disposition of
the Jail Property shall also be consistent with the terms and provisions of Section 12 of
the King County Jail Contract, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
"The Property will be used to contribute to the cost of building secure
capacity, or contracting for secure capacity, and, at the sole discretion of
the Contract Cities, building or contracting for alternative corrections
facilities, sufficient to enable the Contract Cities to meet the final step
(occurring on December 31, 2012) of the population reduction schedule as
detailed in Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of this Agreement. The parties
understand that the Property may be sold or traded and the proceeds and/or
land acquired from such sale or trade used for the purposes detailed in the
preceding sentence. The parties further agree that in the event the cities do
not build secure capacity, or contract for secure capacity, and, at the sole
discretion of the Contract Cities build or contract for alternative
corrections facilities, sufficient to enable the Contract Cities to meet the
final step (occurring on December 31, 2012) of the population reduction
schedule as detailed in Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of this Agreement the City
of Bellevue shall transfer title to the Property back to the County if such
Property has not been sold; or if such Property has been sold, pay the
County an amount equal to the net sale price of the Property, plus
investment interest earned; or if the Property has been traded, pay the
County the appraised value of the Property at the time of the trade, as
determined by an MIA appraiser selected by mutual agreement of King
County and the City of Bellevue, plus investment interest earned."
7.2 Expenses. The City of Bellevue is authorized to sell the Jail Property for no
less than fair market value. Fair market value shall be determined by an MIA appraisal
commissioned by the City. The City of Bellevue is authorized to deduct from the gross
proceeds customary expenses necessary to dispose of the property and costs incurred to
perform due diligence studies necessary to exercise the option to take possession of the
property from the County including, but not limited to, tests inspections, survey,
appraisal, expenses resulting from any legal challenge, maintenance activities during the
time the City of Bellevue has possession of the property. The total deductions shall not
exceed five percent (5%) unless approved by the Assembly.
If the Jail Property is sold and Cities fail to meet the terms set out in Section 12 of the
King County Jail Contract referenced in Section 7.1 above regarding use of the proceeds,
Cities are responsible for their proportional share of the amount required to reimburse
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 9 of 23
King County as referenced in that section. This responsibility will be met collectively by
requiring the fiscal agent to invest the sale proceeds in investment instruments that will
preserve the full value of the capital assets, assure liquidity for funding future
misdemeanant jail facilities and achieve the best rate of investment return. Until these
conditions can be met, the fiscal agent shall retain the sale proceeds in the State Local
Government Investment Pool.
8. FINANCE AND BUDGET
8.1 Budget. The budget year for jail administration and operations shall be January 1
to December 31 of any year. On or before July 1" of each year, a recommended budget,
assessments, and work program for the next budget year shall be prepared by JAG,
reviewed and recommended by the Assembly, and transmitted to each City's legislative
body for approval or disapproval. Approval of the budget by a City's legislative body
shall obligate that City to pay the assessment budgeted for that City for the next budget
year; if a City's legislative body disapproves the budget that City shall not be obligated to
pay the assessment budgeted for that City for the next budget year. An annual budget,
including assessments, and work program shall not become effective unless the annual
budget is approved by the legislative bodies of Cities representing sixty percent (60%) of
the total residential population of all City Members. If an annual budget becomes
effective under this Section, but insufficient Cities approve and pay assessments to fund
the entire work program for that budget year, then JAG has the authority to assign
priorities to the various items in the work program and to determine which items or
portions of items will be removed from the work program for that budget year.
For budget year 2004, the Cities shall make a good faith effort to accomplish the budget,
assessment, and work program approval process by December 31, 2003. In the event that
the Cities are unable to complete the process by that date, the Cities agree that the
assessments for the year 2004 shall be as stated in Exhibit A to this Agreement, and the
budget and work program approval for the year 2004 shall be completed by March 31,
2004 and shall be consistent with the assessments stated in Exhibit A.
8.2 Authority. The JAG, acting through its chairperson, and consistent with the
budget, assessments, and work program approved by the City Members, is authorized to
(1) apply for loans or grants in order to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement
consistent with Chapter 39.34 RCW, (2) seek and negotiate partnerships with public and
private corporations or entities as allowed by law, and (3) approve expenditures and
direct the Fiscal Agent to make payments. The Fiscal Agent is empowered to receive all
annual assessments received from the Cities and to make disbursements as approved by
the JAG chairperson. If grants or other unbudgeted funds become available, budget
amendments will be referred to the Assembly for its review and recommendations to City
Members.
8.3 Fiscal Agent. The City of Tukwila shall act as the Assembly's initial Fiscal
Agent pursuant to RCW 39.34.030 until the Assembly approves another Fiscal Agent.
8.4 Intergovernmental Cooperation. The Assembly and JAG will cooperate with
state, county, and other local agencies to maximize use of any grant funds or other
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 10 of 23
resources and enhance the effectiveness of the programs and projects created or
implemented pursuant to this Agreement.
9. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT
Funding for the activities under this Agreement shall be provided solely through the
budget process described in Section 8 and collection of the annual assessment described
in this Section 9. No separate dues or assessments shall be imposed or required of the
Cities except upon unanimous vote of all of the Cities. The annual assessment shall be
paid to the Fiscal Agent on a quarterly basis at the beginning of each quarter. Each City
shall be assessed an annual assessment fee equal to Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars and
No/100 ($250.00) or equal to its proportional share of the approved budget based upon
the following cost allocation formula, whichever is greater:
(i) 50% of the annual fee shall be based upon the percentage calculated by
dividing each City's residential population into the total residential
population of all City Members, multiplied by one-half of the total amount
of the annual budget; and
(ii) 50% of the annual fee shall be based upon the percentage calculated by
dividing a City's EADP into the actual total annual jail bed usage by the
Cities in the Yakima jail facilities, multiplied by one-half of the total
amount of the annual budget.
The cost allocation formula is expressed as follows:
(City's res. population)
(Total of all Cities' res. population) multiplied by (% of total annual budget)
plus
(City's EADP)
(Total Annual Jail Bed Usage of all Cities) multiplied by (%2 of total annual budget)
in Yakima County jail facilities)
equals
City's Total Annual Assessment
10. DEFICITS IN USAGE OF YAKIMA JAIL BEDS
Each City has generated an EADP. Attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated by
this reference, is the EADP of each City. In the event the Cities collectively fail to meet
their Minimum Bed Commitment for any year during the term of the Yakima Jail
Contract, the EADPs set forth in Exhibit B shall be used by the Cities to calculate the
proportionate share owed by any individual City to Yakima.
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 11 of 23
Each City will be responsible for its bed commitment to Yakima. Only those Cities that
did not meet their EADPs and have unused bed commitment for the year will be
responsible for paying Yakima for such unused bed commitment.
However, if some cities exceed their EADP, their overage will be distributed as a credit
to the cities whose jail use was less than their EADPs. Each City's credit will be based
upon its percentage share of the total EADP.
A City whose actual jail use equals or exceeds its EADP will pay Yakima an amount
equal to its actual jail use. A City whose actual jail use is less than its EADP will pay
Yakima an amount based on its EADP less the credit as described in this section.
For purposes of this section, "credit" shall mean the product resulting from multiplying
the (Beds in excess of Cities' EADP) by the quotient obtained by dividing the (EADP of
a City with Unused Bed Commitment) by the (Sum of EADPs of all Cities with Unused
Bed Commitment.) The calculation of a City's credit is expressed in the formula below:
City Credit = (Sum of amount over the EADP X (EADP of a City w/Unused Bed Commitment)
of All Cities Which Exceed Their EADPs) (Sum of EADPs of Cities w/Unused Beds)
For a City whose actual jail use was less than its EADP, its "credit" will be subtracted
from the number of unused city beds. The difference is the amount that shall be paid to
Yakima as expressed in the formulas below:
City's unused beds = City's EADP — City's actual bed use
Amount owed to Yakima = City's unused beds — city credit
Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, provides an example of a
hypothetical application of this formula.
11. SURPLUS USAGE OF YAKIMA JAIL BEDS
The Cities acknowledge that the Yakima Jail Contract does not require each City to
maintain a jail usage equal to that City's EADP. Overused Bed Commitment by one City
may inure to the benefit of the other Cities. However, Overused Bed Commitment in
excess of five percent (5%) may create a hardship for the other Cities. Therefore, prior to
usage in excess of five percent (5%) of its EADP, a City must obtain consent from
another City or Cities to use a portion of the other City's or Cities' EADP.
12. NEW MEMBERS
Any city or town may become a member to this Agreement so long as such city or town
has entered into contracts for jail services with King County or Yakima County, executes
an Addendum to this Agreement agreeing to comply with the terms and provisions of this
Agreement, as now existing or hereafter amended, and obtains approval of the current
budget by its legislative body. The Assembly shall determine what, if any, funding
obligations such additional member city shall pay as a condition of becoming a member
city to this Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 12 of 23
13. MAILING ADDRESSES
All notices and correspondence to the respective parties to this Agreement shall be sent to
the City Manager or Mayor for each City. All notices and correspondence to the
Assembly shall be sent to the office of the Fiscal Agent.
14. INSURANCE
14.1 Evidence of Insurance Coverage. Each City agrees to provide the other Cities
with evidence of insurance coverage, in the form of a certificate of insurance from a
solvent insurance provider and/or a letter confirming coverage from a solvent insurance
pool or self-insurance program which is sufficient to address the insurance and
indemnification obligations set forth in this Agreement.
14.2 Minimum Liability Limits. Each City shall obtain and maintain throughout the
term of this Agreement coverage in minimum liability limits of one million dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) in the aggregate for its
liability exposures, including comprehensive general liability, errors and omissions, auto
liability and police professional liability. The insurance policy shall provide coverage on
an occurrence basis; except that insurance on a "claims made" basis may be acceptable
with prior approval from JAG. If coverage is approved and purchased on a "claims
made" basis, the City Member providing such insurance warrants continuation of
coverage through policy renewals or the purchase of a tail, and/or conversion from a
"claims made" form to an "occurrence" coverage form.
15. HOLD HARMLESSANDEMNIFICATION
Each City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless all other Cities, their officers,
agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, including third party claims,
costs, judgments or damages, including attorney's fees, arising out of the negligent acts
or omissions of the City, its officers, agents and employees, in connection with this
Agreement.
The Cities hereby waive, as to each other only, their immunity from suit under industrial
insurance, Title 51 RCW. This waiver of immunity was mutually negotiated by the
Cities.
The provisions of this Section shall survive any termination or expiration of this
Agreement.
16. GENERAL PROVISIONS
16.1 This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the Cities with respect to any
matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement may be
amended or modified except by written agreement authorized by the legislative bodies of
all of the Cities and signed by all of the Cities.
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 13 of 23
16.2 Any provision that is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or
invalidate any other provision.
16.3 In the event any City defaults on the performance of any terms of this Agreement
or any City places the enforcement of this Agreement in the hands of an attorney, or files
a lawsuit, the prevailing City or Cities shall be entitled to an award of all its/their attorney
fees, costs, and expenses.
16.4 Failure of any City to declare any breach or default immediately upon the
occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection therewith, shall not
constitute a waiver of such breach or default.
16.5 Any action, suit, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement
shall be brought and tried in the Superior Court or the State of Washington in King
County. Presenting disputes to the JAG and to a mediator consistent with this Interlocal
Agreement shall be conditions precedent to the commencement of any judicial process to
enforce the terms of this Agreement.
16.6 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts.
16.7 The laws of the State of Washington shall govern this Agreement.
16.8 This Agreement shall be recorded with the King County Department of Records.
THIS AGREEMENT has been executed by the undersigned Cities and shall be dated
effective November 1, 2003.
CITY OF ALGONA, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
George Kelley, Algona City Attorney
Glenn Wilson, Mayor
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF AUBURN, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
Daniel B. Heid, Auburn City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
TOWN OF BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Charles R. Lowry, Mayor
Wayne Stewart, Town Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 14 of 23
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WA
By:
Steve Sarkozy, City Manager
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND, WA
By:
Howard Botts, Mayor
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF BOTHELL, WA
By:
Jim Thompson, City Manager
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF BURIEN, WA
By:
Gary P. Long, City Manager
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF CARNATION, WA
By:
Woody Edvalson, City Manager
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF CLYDE HILL, WA
By:
George S. Martin, Mayor
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
'Page 15 of 23
Approved as to Form:
Richard L. Andrews, Bellevue City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
Loren D. Combs, City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
Michael E. Weight, Bothell City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
Lisa Marshall, Burien City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
Phil A. Olbrechts, Carnation City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
Clyde Hill City Attorney
CITY OF COVINGTON, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Andrew D. Dempsey, City Manager
Duncan C. Wilson, Covington City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF DES MOINES, WA
Approved as to Form:
By
Tony Piasecki, City Manager
Des Moines City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF DUVALL, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Becky Nixon, Mayor
Bruce Disend, Duvall City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF ENUMCLAW, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
John Wise, Mayor
Michael J. Reynolds, Enumclaw City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
By;
David H. Moseley, City Manager
Patricia A. Richardson
Federal Way City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF HUNTS POINT
Approved as to Form:
By:
By;
Fred McConkey, Mayor
Hunts Point City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 16 of 23
CITY OF ISSAQUAH, WA Approved as to Form:
By: By.
Ava Frisinger, Mayor Wayne D. Tanaka
Issaquah City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF KENMORE, WA Approved as to Form:
By:
Stephen L. Anderson, City Manager
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF KENT, WA
By:
Jim White, Mayor
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF KIRKLAND, WA
By:
David H. Ramsay, City Manager
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK, WA
By:
Michael R. Kenyon, Kenmore City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
Tom, Brubaker, Kent City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
Gail Gorud, Kirkland City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
David R. Hutchinson, Mayor Michael P. Ruark, Lake Forest Park
City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY, WA Approved as to Form:
By:
John F. Starbard, City Manager Lisa Marshall, Maple Valley City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 17 of 23
CITY OF MEDINA, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Douglas J. Schulze, City Manager
Kirk R. Wines, Medina City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Londi K. Lindell, Mercer Island City Attorney
Richard M. Conrad, City Manager
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF MILTON
Approved as to Form:
By:
By:
Milton City Attorney
Katrina Asay, Mayor
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF NEWCASTLE, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Andrew J. Takata, City Manager
Dawn Findlay, Newcastle City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF NORMANDY PARK, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Merlin MacReynold, City Manager
Susan Rae Sampson, Normandy Park
City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
.Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF NORTH BEND, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Joan Simpson, Mayor
Michael R. Kenyon, North Bend City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 18 of 23
CITY OF PACIFIC, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Howard Erickson, Mayor
Bruce Disend, Pacific City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF REDMOND, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Rosemarie Ives, Mayor
James E. Haney, Redmond City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF RENTON, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Lawrence J. Warren, Renton City Attorney
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF SAMMAMISH, WA
Approved as to Form:
By
Ben Yazici, City Manager
Bruce Disend, Sammamish City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF SEATAC, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Robert L. McAdams, SeaTac City Attorney
Bruce A. Rayburn, City Manager
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF SEATTLE, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor
Thomas. A. Carr, Seattle City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 19 of 23
CITY OF SHORELINE, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Steven C. Burkett, City Manager
Ian Sievers, Shoreline City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF SKYKOMISH, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Skip Mackner, Mayor
Jeffrey Ganson, Skykomish City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF SNOQUALMIE, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Randy Fuzzy Fletcher, Mayor
Pat Anderson, Snoqualmie City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF TUKWILA, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Robert F. Noe, City Attorney
Steve Mullet, Mayor
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
CITY OF WOODINVILLE, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Pete Rose, City Manager
Jeffrey L. Taraday, Woodinville City Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
TOWN OF YARROW POINT, WA
Approved as to Form:
By:
Jeanne R. Berry, Mayor
Wayne Stewart, Yarrow Point Town Attorney
Initial Assembly Member:
Initial JOG Member:
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 20 of 23
EXHIBIT A
2004 ANNUAL COST PER CITY FOR THE JAIL ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (JAG)
Yakima
Estimated
2002
Average of city pop. & jail
Bed
Population
beds; $250 minimum
Commitment
Total
440.1
1,327,706
$88,000
Auburn
88.5
43,970
11.9% $10,056
Bellevue
27.0
117,000
7.6% $6,462
Bothell
2.0
16,264
0.9% $728
Burien
4.0
31,810
1.7% $1,432
Covington
2.4
14,395
0.8% $705
Des Moines
17.0
29,510
3.1% $2,622
Federal Way
29.0
83,850
6.6% $5,571
Issaquah
2.0
13,790
0.8% $647
Kenmore
3.0
19,180
1.1% $921
Kirkland
12.5
45,790
3.2% $2,717
Lake Forest Park
2.5
12,860
0.8% $665
Maple Valley
15,040
0.6% $493
Mercer Island
4.0
21,955
1.3% $1,109
Newcastle
8,205
0.3% $269
North Bend
2.0
4,735
0.4% $350
Redmond
20.0
46,040
4.1 % $3,456
Renton
27.0
53,840
5.2% $4,393
Sammamish
1.5
34,660
1.5% $1,282
SeaTac
4.1
25,320
1.5% $1,229
Seattle
155.0
570,802
40.0% $33,793
Shoreline
18.0
53,250
4.1 % $3,497
Tukwila
11.0
17,270
1.9% $1,637
Woodinville
1.5
9,830
0.6% $468
Algona
3.0
2,525
0.4% $250
Beaux Arts Village
295
$250
Black Diamond
4,015
$250
Carnation
0.0
1,905
$250
Clyde Hill
0.0
2,895
$250
Duvall
1.0
5,190
$250
Hunt's Point
455
$250
Medina
0.7
3,010
$250
Milton
815
$250
Normandy Park
0.4
6,395
$250
Pacific
5,405
$250
Skykomish
215
$250
Snoqualmie
1.0
4,210
$250
Yarrow Point
1,010
$250
Estimated Annual Cost (salary/benefits) for JAG staff position = $88,000
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 21 of 23
EXHIBIT B
TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITIES CONTRACTING WITH YAKIMA
City or Town 2003 EADP
Algona 3.0
Auburn 88.5
Beaux Arts Village 0.0
Bellevue 27.0
Black Diamond 0.0
Bothell 2.0
Burien
4.0
Carnation
0.0
Clyde Hill
0.0
Covington
2.4
Des Moines
17.0
Duvall
1.0
Federal Way
29.0
Issaquah
2.0
Kenmore
3.0
Kirkland
12.5
Lake Forest Park
2.5
Maple Valley
0.0
Medina
0.7
Mercer Island
4.0
Newcastle
0.0
Normandy Park 0.4
North Bend 2.0
Pacific 0.0
Redmond 20.0
Renton 27.0
Sammamish 1.5
SeaTac 4.1
Seattle 155.0
Shoreline 18.0
Skykomish
0.0
Snoqualmie
1.0
Tukwila
11.0
Woodinville
1.5
Yarrow Point
0.0
TOTAL 440.1
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 22 of 23
EXHIBIT C
TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL ADMINISTRATION
Hypothetical Example - formulas for distributing unused bed capacity at Yakima
Scenario: 3 cities contract with Yakima for a minimum of 130 beds. The cities are under their collective commitment
by 20 beds; 2 cities are under and 1 city is over its bed commitment.
Total Bed Commitment Actual Unused
Contract Cities (EADP) Bed Use Beds
City A 80 70 (10)
City B 40 25 (15)
city C 10 15 5
Total 130 110 (20)
Amount Owed to Yakima Under Formula Stated in Section 10 of
this Agreement
Each city pays for its unused beds but then receives a credit based on its
% share of the total bed commitment. For example, City C exceeded its bed commitment by 5 beds.
City A's share of this 5 bed overage (aka the "credit") is calculated by taking City A's % share of the total bed
commitment (67%) times the overage of 5 beds = a credit of 3.3 beds. City C owes Yakima for 76.7 beds
(EADP of 80 beds less the credit of 3.3 beds).
Cities with Unused Bed
Total Bed Commitment
% Share
Actual
Unused
Amount
Owed to
Commitment
EADP
EADP
Bed Use
Beds
Credit
Yakima
City A
80
67%
70 +
10 -
3.3
= 76.7
City B
40
33%
25 +
15 -
1.7
= 38.3
Subtotal
120
100%
95 +
25 -
5.0
= 115.0
city C
10
15 +
0 -
0
= 15
Total
130
110 +
25 -
5
= 130
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Administration
Page 23 of 23
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND, CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") BETWEEN ALGONA,
AUBURN, TOWN OF BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE, BELLEVUE, BLACK
DIAMOND, BOTHELL, BURIEN, CARNATION, CLYDE HILL,
COVINGTON, DES MOINES, DUVALL, ENUMCLAW, FEDERAL WAY,
HUNTS POINT, ISSAQUAH, KENMORE, KENT, KIRKLAND, LAKE
FOREST PARK, MAPLE VALLEY, MEDINA, MERCER ISLAND,
MILTON, NEWCASTLE, NORMANDY PARK, NORTH BEND, PACIFIC,
REDMOND, RENTON, SAMMAMISH, SEATAC, SEATTLE,
SHORELINE, SKYKOMISH, SNOQUALMIE, TUKWILA,
WOODINVILLE AND THE TOWN OF YARROW POINT,
WASHINGTON, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON (COLLECTIVELY THE
"CITIES"), ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSE, MEMBERSHIP, AND
GOVERNANCE OF OVERSIGHT GROUPS TO ADMINISTER THE JAIL
CONTRACTS WITH YAKIMA AND WITH KING COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the Cities enter into this Agreement pursuant to and as authorized by
the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34); and
WHEREAS, some of the Cities, including Renton, have entered into a long term
Interlocal Agreement with Yakima County, as amended, for the purpose of housing the Cities'
inmates in Yakima. County jail facilities; and
WHEREAS, some of the Cities, including Renton, have entered into a Jail Services
Agreement with King County ("King County Jail Contract") providing for the Cities' use of jail
beds in King County jail facilities for a limited time not to exceed ten years; and
WHEREAS, Bellevue and King County have entered into a Land Transfer Agreement to
transfer ownership of the Eastside jail site to Bellevue on behalf of all of the Cities; and
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the Cities desire to clarify the role of the Cities and their respective
representatives in planning, implementation, operation, and administration of the interlocal
agreements related to the provision of jail services; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions of contracts between
the Cities;
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 H. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into the
Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement') between the above -mentioned Cities, to establish certain
terms relating to the planning, implementation, operation, and administration of the interlocal
agreements relating to the provision of jail services.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1060:7/23/04:ma
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
2004.
day of , 2004.
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
2
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Division
Staff Contact...... Ryan Zulauf, x7471
Subject:
Approval of Addendum to Lane Hangar Condominium
Owners Association Lease for Consumer Price Index
Rate Increase
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Lease Addendum
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Al #:
For Agenda of:
September 13, 2004
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution ............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information.........
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... $13,597
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Lane Hangar Condominium Owner's Association lease, LAG-99-003, provides for a periodic
increase in rent using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Seattle. This rate increase was
effective July 31, 2004, and resulted in an annual increase of $914, for a total annual rent of
$13,597. Approval is requested of a lease addendum documenting this rate increase.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Transportation Division staff recommends approval of a lease addendum to Lane Hangar's
lease, LAG-99-003, and an increase in rent using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Seattle.
X
X
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 2, 2004
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
FROM: Gregg ZimmermarY PBPW Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Zulauf, x7471
SUBJECT: Approval of Addendum to Lane Hangar Condominium Owners
Association Lease for Consumer Price Index Rate Increase
ISSUE:
Lane Hangar Condominium Owner's Association lease, LAG-99-003, provides for a periodic
increase in rent using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Seattle. This rate increase was
effective July 31, 2004, and resulted in an annual increase of $914, for a total annual rent of
$13,597. Approval is requested of a lease addendum documenting this rate increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
• The Transportation Division staff recommends approval of a lease addendum to Lane
Hangar's lease, LAG-99-003, and an increase in rent using the Consumer Price Index for
Urban Seattle.
LAG 99-003
Addendum #02-04
ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT
(City of Renton to Lane Hangar Condominium Owners Association)
THIS ADDENDUM to Lease Agreement LAG 99-003 is effective as of the date
of execution by the City of Renton, as indicated on the last page of this addendum.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, Lane Hangar Condominium Owners Association has a Lease
Agreement with the City of Renton, LAG-99-003; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the starting date of lease LAG-99-003, the land rental rate for
the approximately 41,366 square feet was established at $0.28 per square foot per year
and continued until July 31, 2001; and
WHEREAS, on July 31, 2001, and for the ensuing three (3) year period, the land
rental rate was adjusted, using the Consumer Price Index -Urban, to a rate of $.3066 per
square foot per year for the 41,366 square feet of leased area, resulting in an annual rental
amount of $12,682.82, and continuing until July 31, 2004 and
WHEREAS, the land rental rate has been adjusted by and between both parties,
effective July 31, 2004, and for the ensuing three (3) year period using the Consumer
Price Index -Urban, to a rate of $0.3287 square feet per year.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND COVENANTED BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON AND THE ASSOCIATION AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESSETH:
1. Lessor and Lessee agree that the difference between the CPI-U of August 1, 2001 to
July 31, 2004, is 7.2% (193.4-180.4=13/180.4=.072 or 7.2%). This results in an
annual rate increase from $0.3066 to $0.3287 per square foot
($0.3066x7.2%=$0.3287).
2. The Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree to an annual land rent of $13,597.00 for the
41,366 square feet identified in Lease Agreement LAG 99-003.
3. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that the annual land rent rate in Paragraph 1 shall
remain in effect until August 1, 2007, and, effective that date the rental rate shall
automatically be readjusted by and between the parties as specified in paragraph 3 of
the Lease Agreement, using the increase of the Consumer Price Index, and for each
three (3) year period thereafter. Minimum base rental for any extended period shall
not be less than the current annual rental of $13,597.00.
Lease Agreement 99-003
City of Renton to
Lane Hangar Condominium Owners Association
LAG 99-003
Addendum #02-04
4. 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)
then in effect for all urban consumers, as published by the US Department of Labor
for the Seattle -Tacoma Metropolitan Area.
5. Lessor and Lessee do hereby further agree that at least thirty (30) days prior to the
Rental Adjustment Date either party shall, if they desire to adjust the base land rental
rate for the ensuing three (3) year period by a means other than the Consumer Price
Index -Urban, provide to the other party a written request for readjustment of the rental
rate pursuant to RCW 14.08.120(5).
6. All other terms and conditions of the original Lease Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.
LANE HANGAR CONDOMINIUM
OWNERS ASSOCIATION
a Washington Corporation
Lease Agreement 99-003
City of Renton to
Lane Hangar Condominium Owners Association
CITY OF RENTON
a Municipal Corporation
Mayor, Kathy Koelker-Wheeler
City Clerk, Bonnie Walton
Date
City Attorney
2
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.
Staff Contact......
Subject:
Planning/Building/Public Works
Transportation Systems
Ryan Zulauf, Ext. 7471
Operating Permit and Agreement for Ace Aviation
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Operating Permit and Agreement
Sublease Agreement between Bosair, LLC and Ace
Aviation
AI N:
For Agenda of:
13. 2004
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
X
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Legal Dept......... X
Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Approval is requested for an operating permit and agreement between the City and Ace Aviation. Ace
Aviation has been subleasing from Bosair, LLC, since October 1, 1996, and had an approved operating
permit and agreement that expired on June 30, 2004. Bosair, LLC executed a new sublease agreement
with Ace Aviation to replace the expired sublease. The new operating permit and agreement extends the
term of the sublease to December 31, 2010. Ace Aviation operates an aircraft maintenance facility on the
Airport.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Transportation Division staff recommends approval of the sublease agreement between Bosair, LLC
and Ace Aviation and the Operating Permit and Agreement with Ace Aviation.
H:Trans/admin/agenda bill/2004/Ace Aviation operating permit and agreement
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 2, 2004
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: 10 Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
FROM: Gregg Zimmerma3f, PBPW Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Zulauf, x7471
SUBJECT: Operating Permit and Agreement with Ace Aviation
ISSUE:
Bosair, LLC, is requesting approval of their sublease agreement with Ace Aviation and an
operating permit and agreement between the City and Ace Aviation. Ace Aviation's previous
operating permit and agreement and sublease expired on June 30, 2004. Bosair executed a new
sublease agreement with Ace Aviation on April 1, 2004, for a period of six years, extending the
expiration date to December 31, 2010. Ace Aviation operates an aircraft maintenance facility
on the Airport.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Transportation Division staff recommends approval of the sublease agreement between
Bosair, LLC and Ace Aviation and the Operating Permit and Agreement with Ace Aviation.
DocumenQ/
PAG
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT
between the City of Renton and
Ace Aviation, Inc.
THIS IS A PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AVIATION RELATED ACTIVITY UPON
THE RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AND AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF
RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation ("Permittor"), and Ace Aviation, a Washington
corporation ("Permittee").
IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties
agree as follows:
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUB -LEASE: Pursuant to Lease agreement LAG-003-
86, the City of Renton (Lessor) granted a lease of the subject premises to John, Julie and
Terrance Lien, as Lessee, for the purpose of aircraft rebuilding and maintenance, aircraft
modification, light manufacturing, engineering and sales, storage of aircraft parts, employee and
customer parking and tiedown and storage of aircraft.
Thereafter, John, Julie and Terrance Lien assigned the subject lease to Bosair, LLC.
Lessor consented to this assignment in an agreement between Lessor and Bosair, LLC, entitled
"Landlord's Consent to Assignment and Encumbrances," dated March 26, 2001.
Thereafter, Bosair, LLC (Lessee) sublet the subject premises to Ace Aviation, (Permittee)
by Commercial Lease Agreement, effective April 1, 2004, for the purpose of operating an
aviation maintenance and related aircraft associated business for the benefit of the public.
1.1. Legal Description: The premises leased by Ace Aviation, the Permittee, is
described in the sub -lease as:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference.
SUBJECT TO:
(1) Easements, restrictions and reservations of record and as further set forth
herein;
(2) Such rules and regulations as now exist or may hereafter be promulgated
by the Permittor from time to time, including the Airport's Minimum
Standards which are incorporated herein by this reference, and Permittor's
OPERATING PERMIT. AND AGREEMENT
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
standards concerning operation of public aviation service activities from
the Airport; and
(3) All such non-discriminatory charges and fees for such use as may be
established from time to time by Permittor; and
TOGETHER WITH the privilege of Permittee to use the public portion of the
Airport, including runway and other public facilities provided thereon, on a
non-exclusive basis.
1.2. No Conveyance of Airport: This Operating Permit and Agreement shall in no
way be deemed to be a conveyance of the Airport, and shall not be construed as providing any
special privilege for any public portion of the Airport except as described herein. The Permittor
reserves the right to lease or permit the use of any portion of the Airport for any purpose deemed
suitable for the Airport, except that portion that is permitted hereby.
1.3. Nature of Permittor's Interest: It is expressly understood and agreed that Permittor
holds and operates the Airport, and the Premises under and subject to a grant and conveyance
thereof to Permittor from the United States of America, acting through its Reconstruction
Finance Corporation, and subject to all the reservations, restrictions, rights, conditions, and
exceptions of the United States therein and thereunder, which grant and conveyance has been
filed for record in the office of the Recorder of King County, Washington, and recorded in
Volume 2668 of Deeds, Page 386; and further that Permittor holds and operates said airport and
premises under and subject to the State Aeronautics Acts of the State of Washington (chapter
165, laws of 1947), and any subsequent amendments thereof or subsequent legislation of said
state and all rules and regulations lawfully promulgated under any act or legislation adopted by
the State of Washington or by the United States or the Federal Aviation Administration. It is
expressly agreed that the Permittee also accepts and will hold and use this lease and the. Premises
subject thereto and to all contingencies, risks, and eventualities of or arising out of the foregoing,
and if this lease or the period thereof or any terms or provisions thereof be or become in conflict
with or impaired or defeated by any such legislation, rules, regulations, contingencies or risks,
the latter shall control and, if necessary, modify or supersede any provision of this lease affected
thereby, all without any liability on the part of or recourse against the Permittor in favor of
Pennittee, provided that Permittor does not exceed its authority under the foregoing legislation,
rules and regulations.
1.4. Future Development/Funding: Nothing in this lease contained shall operate or be
construed to prevent or hinder the future development, improvements, or operation of Airport by
Permittor, its agents, successors or assigns, or any department br agency of the State of
Washington or of the United States, or the consummation of any loan or grant of federal or state
funds in aid of the development, improvement, or operation of the Renton Airport.
2. TERM OF LEASE, SUBLEASE AND OPERATING PERMIT:
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
2.1. Initial Term: The term of the Ace Aviation sublease is for a period of six years
and 9 months (6.75 years) commencing on April 1, 2004 and terminating on December 31, 2010.
2.3. Permit Term: The term of this Operating Permit is six years 9 months (6.75
years) commencing on April 1,2004, renewable upon written application at least ninety (90) days
prior to the date of expiration. This renewal is not automatic and the City of Renton is not
obligated to renew this permit.
3. RENTAL:
3.1. Rent on lease: As rental for the premises described in LAG 003-86, Bosair, LLC
(Lessee) has agreed to pay the City of Renton (Permitter) a monthly rental currently in the sum of
$930.52 throughout the five (5) year period commencing on June 1, 2000.
3.2. Rent on sublease: As rental for the premises described in paragraph 1, above, during
the term of this permit, Ace Aviation (Permittee) has agreed to pay Bosair, LLC (Lessee) a
monthly rental in the sum of $3,230 and 31/100 Dollars ($3,230.31) throughout the 81 month
period commencing on April 1, 2004. In the event Lessee fails to pay the rent identified in
paragraph 3.1, then Permittee may, whether Permittee subleases all or part of Lessee's Airport
leasehold interest as described in LAG 003-86, pay said rent, when due. In the event neither the
Lessee nor Permittee pay said rent, then the Permittor may terminate this permit with ten (10)
days notice.
3.3. Other Charges: Permittee further agrees to pay, in addition to the rental specified
.and other charges hereinabove defined, all fees and charges now in effect or hereafter levied or
established by Permittor, or its successors, or by any other governmental agency or authority,
being or becoming levied or charged against the premises, structures, business operations, or
activities conducted by or use made by Permittee of, on, and from the leased premises which
shall include, but not be limited to, all charges for light, heat, gas, power, garbage, water and
other utilities or services rendered to said premises.
3.4. Leasehold Excise Tax: In the event that the State of Washington or any other
governmental authority having jurisdiction thereover shall hereafter levy or impose any similar
tax or charge on the leasehold estate described herein, and Lessee fails to pay said tax or charge,
then Permittee may, whether Permittee subleases all or part of Lessee's Airport leasehold interest
as described in LAG 003-86, pay said tax or charge, when due. Such tax or charge shall be in
addition to the regular monthly rentals. In the event neither the Lessee nor Permittee pay said tax
or charge, then the Permittor may terminate this permit with ten (10) days notice.
4. PAYMENT OF UTILITIES AND RELATED SERVICES.
4.1. Whether Permittee subleases all or part of Lessee's Airport leasehold interest as
described in LAG 003-86, and Lessee fails to pay such utilities and service charges, then
Permittee may pay all light, heat, gas, power, garbage, water, sewer and janitorial service used in
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
or on the Premises when due. In the event neither the Lessee nor the Permittee pay said utility or
service charges, then the Permittor may terminate this Permit with ten (10) days notice.
Permittor shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by or resulting from any variation,
interruption, or failure of said utility services due to any cause whatsoever; and no temporary
interruption or failure of such services incident to the making of repairs, alterations or
improvements, or due to accident, strike, act of God, or conditions or events not under
Permittor's control, shall be deemed a breach of the Permit or as an eviction of Permittee, or
relieve Permittee from any of its obligations hereunder.
5. PERMITTEE'S ACCEPTANCE OF PREMISES.
. 5.1. General Acceptance of Premises: By occupying the Premises, Permittee formally
accepts the same in AS IS condition, and acknowledges that the Permittor has complied with all
the requirements imposed upon it under the terms of this Permit with respect to the condition of
the Premises at the commencement of this term. Permittee hereby accepts the premises subject
to all applicable zoning, municipal, county and state laws, ordinances and regulations governing
and regulating the use of the premises, and accepts this Permit subject thereto and to all matters
disclosed thereby and by any exhibits attached hereto. Permittee acknowledges that neither
Permittor nor Permittor's agent has made any representation or warranty as to the suitability of
the Premises for the conduct of Permittee's business or use. Except as otherwise provided herein,
Permittor warrants Permittee's right to peaceably and quietly enjoy the premises without any
disturbance from Permittor, or others claiming by or through Permittor.
6. PURPOSE AND USE::
6:1. Use of Premises: The Premises are leased to the Permittee for the following
described purpose:
6.1.1. The operation of Aviation Maintenance in accordance with the Minimum
Standards for the operation of this type of commercial aeronautic activity at the Renton
Municipal Airport
6.2. Continuous Use: Permittee covenants that the premises shall be continuously used
for those purposes during the term of the Permit, shall not be allowed to stand vacant or idle, and
shall not be used for any other purpose without Permittor's written consent first having been
obtained. Consent of Permittor to other types of activities will not be unreasonably withheld.
6.3. Non -Aviation Uses Prohibited: Permittee agrees that, except as expressly provided
above, the Premises may. not be used for uses or activities that are not related, directly or
indirectly, to aviation.
6.4. Signs: No advertising matter or signs shall be at any time displayed on the leased
premises or structures without the written approval of Permittor, which will not be unreasonably
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT 4
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
withheld. One sign, of the type and dimensions specified by the Airport Manager, shall be
permitted to be displayed on the Rainier and Airport Way entrance fences through the
termination date of this permit.
6.5. Conformity with Rules: Permittee further covenants to keep and operate the
Premises and all structures, improvements, and activities in conformity with all rules, regulations
and laws now or hereafter adopted by Permittor, including the Airport's Minimum Standards
which are incorporated herein by this reference, the Federal Aviation Administration, the State
Aeronautics Commission, or other duly constituted governmental authority, all at Permittee's cost
and expense.
6.6. Waste, Nuisance, Illegal Activities: Permittee covenants that he will not permit any
waste, damage, or injury to the Premises or improvements thereon, nor allow the maintenance of
any nuisance thereon, nor the use thereof for any illegal purposes or activities.
6.7. Increased Insurance Risk: Permittee will not do or permit to be done in or about the
premises anything which will be dangerous to life or limb, or which will increase any insurance
rates upon the premises or other buildings and improvements.
7. Hazardous Waste:
7.1. Permittee's Representation and. Warranty: In particular, Permittee represents and
warrants to the Permittor that Permittee's use of the Premises will not involve the use of any
hazardous substance (as defined by R.C.W. Chapter 70.105D, as amended), other than fuels,
lubricants and other products which are customary and necessary for use in Permittee's ordinary
course of business.
7.2. Standard of Care: Permittee agrees to use a high degree of care to be certain that no
such hazardous substance is improperly used, released or disposed on the Premises during the
term of this lease by Permittee, its agents or assigns, or is improperly used, released or disposed
on the premises by the act of any third party.
7.3. Indemnity: The parties agree that Permittor shall have no responsibility to the
Permittee, or any other third party, for remedial action under R.C.W. Chapter 70.105D, or other
legislation, in the event of a release of or disposition of any such hazardous substance on, in, or at
the Premises, and not caused by Permittor, during the term of this Permit. Permittee agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless the Permittor from any obligation or expense, including fees
incurred by the Permittor for attorneys, consultants, engineers, damages, including environmental
resource damages, etc., arising by reason of the release or disposition of any such hazardous
substance.upon the Premises not caused by Permittor, including remedial action under R.C.W.
Chapter 70.105D, during the term of this Permit.
7.4. Dispute Resolution: In the event of any dispute between the parties concerning
whether any release of or disposition of any such hazardous substance on, in or at the premises
OPERATING. PERMIT AND AGREEMENT
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
(a) occurred during the term of this lease, or (b) was caused by Permittor, the parties agree to
submit the dispute for resolution by arbitration upon demand by either party. Each party shall
select one (1) arbitrator. The two (2) selected arbitrators, if unable to agree upon an arbitration
award within a period of thirty (30) days after such appointment, shall select a third arbitrator.
The third arbitrator shall be an engineer with experience in the identification and remediation of
hazardous substances. The arbitrators shall make their decision in writing within sixty (60) days
after their appointment, unless the time is extended by the agreement of the parties. The decision
of a majority of the arbitrators shall be final and binding upon the parties. Each party shall bear
the cost of the arbitrator named by it. The expenses of the third arbitrator shall be borne by the
parties equally.
8. MAINTENANCE:
- 8.1. Maintenance of Premises: The Premises and all of the improvements or structures
rn
thereon and authorized by the Permittor for use by the Peuttee, shall be used and maintained by
Permittee in an operable, neat, orderly, and sanitary manner. Permittor shall not be called upon
to make any improvements, alteration, or repair of any kind upon the Premises. Permittee is
responsible for the clean-up and proper disposal at reasonable and regular intervals of rubbish,
trash, waste and leaves around the Premises, including that blown against fences bordering the
Premises, whether as a result of the Permittee's activities or having been deposited upon the
Premises from other areas.
8.2. Removal of Snow/Floodwater/Mud: Permittee shall be responsible for removal of
snow and/or floodwaters or mud deposited therefrom from the Premises and those areas of the
Sublessor utilized by the Permittee, with the disposition thereof to be accomplished in such a
manner so as to not interfere with or increase the maintenance activities of Permittor upon the
public areas of the Airport.
8.4. Permittor May Perform Maintenance: If Permittee fails to perform Permittee's
obligations under this Paragraph, Permittor may at its option (but shall not be required to) enter
the Premises, after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Permittee, and put the same in good
order, condition and repair, and the cost thereof together with interest thereon at the rate of
twelve (12%) percent per annum shall become due and payable as additional rental to Permittor
together with Permittee's next rental installment.
9. ALTERATIONS.
9.1. Protection from Liens: Before commencing any work relating to alterations,
additions and improvements affecting the Premises, Permittee shall notify Permitter in writing'of
the expected date of commencement thereof. Permittor shall then have the right at any time and
from time to time to post and maintain on the Premises such notices as Permitter reasonably
deems necessary to protect the Premises and Permittor from mechanics' liens, materialmen's liens
or any other liens. In any event, Permittee shall pay when due, or bond around, all claims for
labor or materials furnished to or for Permittee at or for use in the Premises. Permittee shall not
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
permit any mechanics' or materialmen's liens to be levied against the Premises for any labor or
material furnished to Permittee or claimed to have been furnished to Permittee or to Permittee's
agents or contractors in connection with work of any character performed or claimed to have
been performed on the Premises by or at the direction of Permittee.
9.2. Bond: At any time Permittee either desires to or is required to make any repairs,
alterations, additions, improvements or utility installation thereon, or otherwise, Permittor may at
its sole option require Permittee, at Permittee's sole cost and expense, to obtain and provide to
Permittor a lien and completion bond in an amount equal to one and one-half (1-1/2) times the
estimated cost of such improvements, to insure Permittor against liability for mechanics and
materialmen's liens and to insure completion of the work.
9.3. Permittor May Make Improvements: Permittee agrees that Permittor, at its option,
may at its own expense make repairs, alterations or improvements which Permittor may deem
necessary or advisable for the preservation, safety or improvement of the Premises or
improvements located thereon, if any.
9.4. Notification of Completion: Upon completion of capital improvements made on the
Premises, it is the Permittee's responsibility to promptly notify Permittor of such completion.
10. ASSIGNMENT:
10.1. Assignment/subletting: The sublease or any part thereof shall not be assigned by
Permittee, by operation of law or otherwise, nor shall the premises or any part thereof be sublet
without the prior written consent of Permittor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
If Permittee is a corporation, the transfer of a majority of Permittee's stock shall constitute an
I ssignment for purposes of this paragraph.
11. RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Permittee will allow Permittor, or Permittoe's agent, free
access to the Premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection, or for making repairs,
additions or alterations to the Premises, or any property owned by or under the control of
Permittor.
12. SURRENDER OF PREMISES: Permittee shall quit and surrender the premises at
the end of the term in as good a condition as the reasonable use thereof would permit, normal
wear and tear excepted. Alterations, additions or improvements which may be made by either of
the parties hereto on the Premises, except movable office furniture or trade fixtures put in at the
expense of Permittee, shall be and remain the property of the Permittor and shall remain on and
be surrendered with the Premises as a part -thereof at the termination of this lease without
hindrance, molestation, or injury. Permittee shall repair at its sole expense any damage to the
Premises occasioned by its use thereof, or by the removal of Permittee's trade fixtures,
13. INSURANCE:.
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT -
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
13.1. Personal Property: It is agreed that Permittor shall not be held liable in any manner
for, or on account of, any loss or damage to personal property of the Permittee, Permittee's
invitees or other persons, which may be sustained by fire or water or other insured peril, or for
the loss of any articles by burglary, theft or any other cause from or upon the Premises. It is
acknowledged that Permittor does not cover any of the personal property of Permittee,
Permittee's invitees or other persons upon the Premises through its insurance. Permittee, its
invitees and other persons upon the Premises are solely responsible to obtain suitable personal
property insurance.
13.2. Liability Insurance. The Permittee agrees to maintain in force during the term of
this Permit a policy of comprehensive public liability and property damage insurance written by a
company authorized to do business in the State of Washington against any liability arising out of
the ownership, use, occupancy or maintenance of the Premises and all areas appurtenant thereto.
The limits of liability shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for injury to or death
of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00
for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence, and of not less
than $1,000,000.00 for property damage. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit
the liability of Penmittee hereunder. The insurance policy shall have a Landlord's Protective
Liability endorsement attached thereto.
13.3. Insurance Policies: Insurance required hereunder shall be written in companies
acceptable to Permittor and rated A-10 or better in "Best's Insurance Guides". Coverage's shall
be submitted on forms prescribed by Permittor. Prior to possession, the Permittee shall deliver to
Permittor copies of policies of such insurance acquired by Permittee, or certificates evidencing
the existence and amounts of such insurance, with loss payable clauses satisfactory to Permittor.
Permittor shall be named as an additional insured. No such policy shall be cancelable or subject
to reduction of coverage or other modification except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to
Permittor. Permittee shall, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of such policies,
furnish Permittor with renewals or "binders" therefor. Permittee shall not do or permit to be done
anything which shall invalidate the insurance policies referred to above. Permittee shall
forthwith, upon Permittor's demand, reimburse Permittor for any additional premiums
attributable to any act or omission or operation of Permittee causing such increase in the cost of
insurance. If the Permittee shall fail to procure and maintain said insurance the Permittor may,
but shall not be required to, procure and maintain the same, but at the expense of Permittee.
14. LIMITATION UPON PERMITTOR'S LIABILITY. Permttor shall not be liable for
any damage to property or persons caused by, or arising out of (a) any defect in or the
maintenance or use of the Premises,or the improvements, fixtures and appurtenances of which
the premises constitute a part; or (b) water coming from the roof, water pipes, flooding of the
Cedar River or other body of water, or from any other source whatsoever, whether within or
without the Premises; or (c) any act or omission of any Permittee or other occupants of the
building, or their agents, servants, employees or invitees thereof.
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT g
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
15. INDEMNITY: Permittee covenants to indemnify and save harmless Permittor
against any and all claims arising from the conduct and management of or from any work or
thing whatsoever done in or about the Premises or the improvements or equipment thereon
during the lease term, or arising from any act or negligence of the Permittee or any of its agents,
contractors, patrons, customers, or employees, or arising from any accident, injury, or damage
whatsoever, however caused, to any person or persons, or to the property of any person, persons,
corporation or other entity occurring during the lease term on, in, or about the Premises, and from
and against all costs, attorney's fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or from any such claims
or any action or proceeding brought against the Permittor by reason of any such claim, except
such claims arising directly or indirectly out of Permittor's sole act or omission. Permittee, on
notice from Permittor, shall resist or defend such action or proceeding forthwith.
16. HOLDING OVER: Permittee understands that upon expiration of the term of this
permit, Permittee must execute a new permit with the Permittor as a condition to remaining on
the premises. Permittee further understands that if, without execution of any extension or
renewal of this permit Permittee should remain in possession of the premises after expiration or
termination of the.term of this permit, notwithstanding any extension of its sublease with Lessee,
then the Lessee shall be in default of its lease, LAG 003-86 and Permittor may evict the Lessee
and the Permittee. All the conditions, terms and provisions of this permit shall be applicable
during such holding over.
17. NO WAIVER: It is further covenanted and agreed between the parties hereto that no
waiver by Permittor of a breach by Permittee of any covenant, agreement, stipulation, or
condition of this lease shall be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same
covenant, agreement, stipulation, or condition, or a breach of any other covenant agreement,
stipulation, or condition.
18. NOTICES:. All notices under this lease shall be in writing and delivered in person,
with receipt therefor, or sent by certified mail, to the following addresses:
a) For the City of Renton: b) For the Permittee:
Airport Manager Ace Aviation
616 West Perimeter Road 289 East Perimeter Road
Renton, Washington 98055 Renton, Washington 98055
19. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED:
19.1. Discrimination Prohibited: Permittee covenants and -agrees not to discriminate
against any person or class of persons by reason of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or any
other class of person protected by the Renton City Code, in the use of any of its facilities
provided for the public in the Airport.. Permittee further agrees *to furnish services on a fair, equal
and not unjustly discriminatory basis to all users thereof, and to charge on a fair, reasonable and
not unjustly discriminatory basis for each unit of service; provided that Permittee may make
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT . 9
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
reasonable and non-discriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to
volume purchasers.
19.2. Minority Business Enterprise Policy: It is the policy of the Department of
Transportation that minority business enterprises as defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 23 shall have the
maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of leases as defined in 49 C.F.R. 23.5.
Consequently, this lease is subject to 49 C.F.R. Part 23, as applicable. No person shall be
excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or otherwise discriminated against in
connection with the award and performance of any contract, including leases covered by 49
C.F.R. Part 23, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex.
19.3. Application to Sub -leases: Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 10 of this
Permit, Permittee agrees that it will include the above clause in all assignments of this lease or
sub -leases, and cause its assignee(s) and sub-lessee(s) to similarly include the above clause in
further assignments or sub -leases.
20. FORCE MAJEURE: In the event that either party hereto shall be delayed or
hindered in or prevented from the performance of any act required hereunder by reason of strikes,
lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials, failure of power, restrictive governmental
laws or regulations, riots, insurrections, war, or other reason of like nature not the fault of the
party delayed in performing work or doing acts required under the terms of this Lease, then
performance of such act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of such delay.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not, however, operate to excuse Permittee from the prompt
payment of rent, or any other payment required by the terms of this Permit, to be made by
Permittee.
21. CAPTIONS: Article and paragraph captions are not a part hereof.
22. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Permit contains all agreements of the parties with
respect to any matter mentioned herein. No prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any
such matter shall be effective. This Permit may be modified in writing only, signed by the parties
in interest at the time of the modification. In the event of conflict between the terms of this
Permit and the sublease agreement between Permittee and Lessee, the terms of this Permit
supersede.
23. CUMULATIVE REMEDIES: No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed
exclusive, but shall, wherever possible be cumulative with all other remedies at law or in equity.
24. CORPORATE AUTHORITY: If Permittee is a corporation, each individual
executing this Lease on behalf of said corporation represents and warrants that he is duly
authorized. to execute and deliver this Permit on behalf of said corporation in accordance with a
duly adopted resolution of the Board of Directors of said corporation and in accordance with the
Bylaws of said corporation, and that this Permit is binding upon said corporation in accordance
with its terms.
OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT 10
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
25. TRANSFER OF PREMISES BY PERMITTOR: In the event of any sale,
conveyance, transfer or assignment by Permittor of its interest in the Premises, Permittor shall be
relieved of all liability arising from this Permit and arising out of any act, occurrence or omission
occurring after the consummation of such sale, conveyance, transfer or assignment.
26. ARBITRATION: In the event of any dispute between the parties concerning whether
or not there has been a breach or default of the Operating Permit and Agreement or dispute as to
the remedy selected by the City, then the parties shall submit the dispute to binding arbitration
upon demand by either party. Each party shall select one (1) arbitrator within thirty (30) days.
The two (2) selected arbitrators, if unable to agree upon an arbitration award within thirty (30)
days shall select a third arbitrator. The arbitrators shall make a decision within sixty (60) days of
their appointment, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. The decision of a
majority of the arbitrators shall be final and binding upon the parties. Each party shall bear the
cost of the arbitrator named by. it. The expenses of the third arbitrator shall be borne equally by
the parties.
PERM=E:
Ace Aviation, Inc.
a Washington corporation
By
its:
Date:
PERMI TOR:
THE CITY OF RENTON
a Washington municipal corporation
BY— - - -
Mayor Kathy Koelker-Wheeler
ATTEST:
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Date:
Approved as to legal form:
City Attorney Y
'OPERATING PERMIT AND AGREEMENT
City of Renton to Ace Aviation, Inc.
11
Commercial Lease Agreement
Bosair LLC. to Ace Aviation, Inc
THIS IS A LEASE AGREEMENT, dated April V, 2004, between Bosair LLC, ("Lessor"), and
Ace Aviation, Inc. a Washington corporation ("Lessee") IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants
and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1. Premises: Lessor hereby leases to Lessee the property located at 289 E Perimeter
RD, Renton, WA. 98055.
2. TERM: The term of this lease shall be for a 10 years and 9 months (10.9) year
period commencing on April 1 " 2004 and terminating on December 31 " 2010.
3. RENTAL:
3a. Initial Rental: As rental for the above -described premises through December 3 V
2010, Lessee shall pay unto Lessor a monthly rental in the sum of $3230 and 31/100 Dollars
($3230.31), plus Leasehold Excise Tax as described in Paragraph 3f. below, payable promptly in
advance on the first day of each and every month. Lessee covenants that
Ace Aviation, Inc. shall make all monthly rental payments to the Lessor on behalf of all
condominium association members All such payments shall be made to Bosair, LLC 289
Perimeter RD E, Renton, Washington 98055.
A Rental Adjustment Date: Effective as of April l' 2004, the starting date of this
lease, and every three (3) years thereafter, said rental rate as herein specified shall be readjusted
by and between the parties to be effective for each ensuing three (3) year period.
3c. Use of Consumer Price Index -Urban: 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) then in effect for all urban consumers, as published by the
US Department of Labor for the Seattle -Tacoma Metropolitan Area.
1
3d. Late Payment Charge: It is hereby further agreed that if such rental is not paid
before the 10th of each month then there will be added a late payment charge of 5% per month
for each month of delinquency until paid. It is agreed that this late payment charge is a reasonable
estimate of the increased costs to the city of the staff effort to monitor and collect late payments,
as well as related city expenses due to such late payment. If any check received by Lessor is
returned unpaid for any reason, Lessor reserves the right to make an additional charge up to the
maximum amount allowed by law.
3e. Attorneys Fees/Collection Charges: Should it be necessary to refer this lease to an
attorney for collection or other court action involving breach of lease, occupancy after
termination, or enforcement or determination of any other right and/or duty under this lease, then
it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of litigation as established by the court. If the matter is not litigated or resolved through a
lawsuit, then any attorneys fees expenses for collection of past -due rent or enforcement of any
right or duty hereunder shall entitle the city to recover, in addition to any late payment charge,
any costs of collection or enforcement, including attorney's fees.
3£ Other Charges: Lessee further agrees to pay, in addition to the rentals hereinabove
specified and other charges hereinabove defined, all fees and charges now in effect or hereafter
levied or established by Lessor, or its successors, or by any other governmental agency or
authority, being or becoming levied or charged against the premises, structures, business
operations, or activities conducted by or use made by Lessee of, on, and from the leased premises
which shall include, but not be limited to, all charges for light, heat, gas, power, garbage, water
and other utilities or services rendered to said premises.
4. LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX: Lessee hereby agrees and covenants to pay unto
Lessor that certain leasehold excise tax as established by RCW Chapter 82.29A, as amended, or
any replacement thereof, which tax shall be in addition to the stipulated monthly rental and shall
be paid separately to the Director of Finance, City of Renton, at the same time the monthly rental
is due. In the event that the State of Washington or any other governmental authority having
jurisdiction thereover shall hereafter levy or impose any similar tax or charge on this lease or the
leasehold estate, then Lessee agrees and covenants to pay said tax or charge, when due. Such tax
or charge shall be in addition to the regular monthly rentals.
5. PAYMENT OF UTILITIES AND RELATED SERVICES. Lessee shall pay for
all light, heat, gas, power, garbage, water, sewer and janitorial service used in the Premises.
Lessor shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by or resulting from any variation,
interruption, or failure of said utility services due to any cause whatsoever; and no temporary
interruption or failure of such services incident to the making of repairs, alterations or
improvements, or due to accident, strike, act of God, or conditions or events not under Lessor's
control, shall be deemed a breach of the Lease or as an eviction of Lessee, or relieve Lessee from
any of its obligations hereunder.
6. LESSEE'S ACCEPTANCE OF PREMISES.
6a. General Acceptance of Premises: By occupying the Premises, Lessee formally
accepts the same in AS IS condition, and acknowledges that the Lessor has complied with all the
requirements imposed upon it under the terms of this Lease with respect to the condition of the
Premises at the commencement of this term Lessee hereby accepts the premises subject to all
applicable zoning, municipal, county and state laws, ordinances and regulations governing and
regulating the use of the premises, and accepts this Lease subject thereto and to all matters
disclosed thereby and by any exhibits attached hereto. Lessee acknowledges that neither Lessor
nor Lessor's agent has made any representation or warranty as to the suitability of the Premises
for the conduct of Lessee's business or use. Except as otherwise provided herein, Lessor warrants
Lessee's right to peaceably and quietly enjoy the premises without any disturbance from Lessor, or
others claiming by or through Lessor.
7. PURPOSE: The premises are to be used for the pupose of aviation maintenance
and related aircraft associated business, and for no other purpose without the written concent of
Lessor. Lessee shall nor permit anything to be done, in or about the premises, which will increase
the existing reste of, or affect, any policy of fire or other insurance upon the building or its
contents, because a cancellation of any insurance policy; or interfere with the rights of other
tentants of the building or injure or annoy them, or use the premises for any unlawful purpose.
Lessee shall not cause or permit any nuisance in, on or about the premises.
7a. Hazardous Waste: Lessee covenants that he will not permit any waste, damage, or
injury to the Premises or improvements thereon, nor allow the maintenance of any nuisance
thereon, nor the use thereof for any illegal purposes or activities.
3
8. MAINTENANCE:
8a. Maintenance of Premises: The Premises and all of the improvements or structures
thereon shall be used and maintained by Lessee in a neat, orderly, and sanitary manner. Lessor
shall not be called upon to make any improvements, alteration, or repair of any kind upon the
Premises. Lessee is responsible for the clean-up and proper disposal at reasonable and regular
intervals of rubbish, trash, waste and leaves upon the Premises, including that blown against
fences bordering the Premises, whether as a result of the operation of Lessee's aircraft tie -down
storage activities or having been deposited upon the Premises from other areas
8b. Removal of Snow/Floodwater/Mud: Lessee shall be responsible for removal of
snow and/or floodwaters or mud deposited therefrom from the Premises, with the disposition
thereof to be accomplished in such a manner so as to not interfere with or increase the
maintenance activities of Lessor upon the public areas of the Airport.
8c. Repair of Personal Property: It is further agreed that all personal property on the
Premises shall be used at the risk of Lessee only, and that Lessor or Lessor's agents shall not be
liable for any damage either to persons or property sustained by Lessee or other persons due to
the Premises or improvements thereon becoming out of repair.
8d. Lessor May Perform Maintenance: If Lessee fails to perform Lessee's obligations
under this Paragraph, Lessor may at its option (brit shall not be required to) enter the Premises,
after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Lessee, and put the same in good order, condition
and repair, and the cost thereof together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve (12%) percent
per annum shall become due and payable as additional rental to Lessor together with Lessee's next
rental installment.
9. ALTERATIONS.
9a. Lessor's Consent Required: Lessee will not make any alterations, additions or
improvements in or to the Premises without the written consent of Lessor first having been
obtained.
9b. Protection from Liens: Before commencing any work relating to alterations,
additions and improvements affecting the Premises, Lessee shall notify Lessor in writing of the
expected date of commencement thereof. Lessor shall then have the right at any time and from
time to time to post and maintain on the Premises such notices as Lessee reasonably deems
necessary to protect the Premises and Lessor from mechanics' liens, materialmen's liens or any
other liens. In any event, Lessee shall pay, when due, all claims for labor or materials furnished to
or for Lessee at or for use in the Premises. Lessee shall not permit any mechanics' or
materialmen's liens to be levied against the Premises for any labor or material fiuvished to Lessee
or claimed to have been furnished to Lessee or to Lessee's agents or contractors in connection
with work of any character performed or claimed to have been performed on the Premises by or
at the direction of Lessee.
9d. Lessor May Make Improvements: Lessee agrees that Lessor, at its option, may at
its own expense make repairs, alterations or improvements which Lessor may deem necessary or
advisable for the preservation, safety or improvement of the Premises or improvements located
thereon, if any.
10. LIMITATION UPON LESSOR'S LIABILITY. Lessor shall not be liable for any
damage to property or persons caused by, or arising out of (a) any defect in or the maintenance or
use of the Premises, or the improvements, fixtures and appurtenances of which the premises
constitute a part; or .(b) water coming from the roof, water pipes, flooding of the Cedar River or
other body of water, or from any other source whatsoever, whether within or without the
Premises; or (c) any act or omission of any Lessee or other occupants of the building, or their
agents, servants, employees or invitees thereof.
11. HOLD HARMLESS: Lessee covenants to indemnify and save harmless Lessor
against any and all claims arising from the conduct and management of or from any work or thing
whatsoever done in or about the Premises or the improvements or equipment thereon during the
lease term, or arising from any act or negligence of the Lessee or any of its agents, contractors,
patrons, customers, or employees, or arising from any accident, injury, or damage whatsoever,
however caused, to any person or persons, or to the property of any person, persons, corporation
or other entity occurring during the lease term on, in, or about the Premises, and from and against
all costs, attorney's fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or from any such claims or any action
or proceeding brought against the Lessor by reason of any such claim, except such claims arising
directly or indirectly out of Lessor's sole act or omission.
12. ASSIGNMENT:
12a. Assignment/Subletting: This lease or any part hereof shall not be assigned by
Lessee, by operation of law or otherwise, nor shall the premises or any part thereof be sublet
without the prior written consent of Lessor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld,
subject to Lessor's receipt of commercially reasonable evidence that the proposed assignee or
subtenant is in a financial condition to undertake the obligations of this lease, and, in the event of
assignment, Lessor's receipt of an affidavit from the proposed assignee stating that it has
examined this lease and agrees to assume and be bound by all of Lessee's obligations under this
lease, to the same extent as if it were the original Lessee. If Lessee is a corporation, the transfer
of a majority of Lessee's stock shall constitute an assignment for purposes of this paragraph.
5
12b. Subletting: Lessee may sublet portions of the Premises for the purpose of aircraft
hangar storage, only, without the prior written approval by the Lessor of this permitted use, on a
month -to -month or longer basis (but not longer than the term of this Lease), provided that Lessor
is informed on at least an annual basis, in writing, of the name of the sublessee(s), the purpose of
the sublease, the amount of the rental charged, and the type of aircraft stored (make, model and
registration number. Such information shall be disclosed upon request by Lessor.
13. RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Lessee will allow Lessor, or Lessor's agent, free
access at all reasonable times to the Premises for the purpose of inspection, or of making repairs,
additions or alterations to the Premises, or any property owned by or under the control of Lessor.
14. CONDEMNATION: If the whole or any substantial part of the Premises shall be
condemned or taken by Lessor or any county, state, or federal authority for any purpose, then the
term of this lease shall cease as to the part so taken from the day the possession of that part shall
be required for any purpose, and the rent shall be paid up to that date. From that day the Lessee
or Lessor shall have the right to either (a) cancel this lease and declare the same null and void, or
(b) to continue in the possession of the remainder of the same under the terms herein provided,
except that the rent shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of the premises taken for such
public purposes. All damages awarded for such taking for any public purpose shall belong to and
be the property of the Lessor, whether such damage shall be awarded as compensation for the
diminution in value to the leasehold, or to the fee of the premises herein leased. Damages
awarded for the taking of Lessee's improvements located on the premises shall belong to and be
awarded to Lessee.
15. SURRENDER OF PREMISES: Lessee shall quit and surrender the premises at
the end of the term in as good a condition as the reasonable use thereof would permit, normal
wear and tear excepted. Alterations, additions or improvements which may be made by either of
the parties hereto on the Premises, except movable office furniture or trade fixtures put in at the
expense of Lessee, shall be and remain the property of the Lessor and shall remain on and be
surrendered with the Premises as a part thereof at the termination of this lease without hindrance,
molestation, or injury. Lessee shall repair at its sole expense any damage to the Premises
occasioned by its use thereof, or by the removal of Lessee's trades fixtures, furnishings and
equipment which repair shall include the patching and filling of holes and repair of structural
damage.
16. INSURANCE:
16a. Personal Property: It is agreed that Lessor shall not be held liable in any manner
for, or on account of, any loss or damage to personal property of the Lessee, Lessee's invitees or
other persons, which may be sustained by fire or water or other insured peril, or for the loss of
any articles by burglary, theft or any other cause from or upon the 'remises. It_is acknowledged
that Lessor does not cover any of the personal property of Lessee, Lessees invitees or other
persons upon the Premises through its insurance. Lessee, its invitees and other persons upon the
Premises are solely responsible to obtain suitable personal property insurance.
6
l 6b. Liability. Insurance. The Lessee agrees to maintain in force during the term of this
Lease a policy of comprehensive public liability and property damage insurance written by a
company authorized to do business in the State of Washington against any liability arising out of
the ownership, use, occupancy orrmaintenance of the Premises and all areas appurtenant thereto.
The limits of liability shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for injury to or death of
one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for
injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence, and of not less than
$1,000,000.00 for property damage. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the..,
liability of Lessee hereunder. The insurance policy shall have a Landlord's Protective Liability
endorsement attached thereto.
17. TAXES: Lessee shall be responsible for the payment of any and all taxes and
as upon any property or use acquired under this agreement.
18. HOLDING OVER: If, without execution of any extension or renewal of this lease
Lessee should remain in possession of the premises after expiration or termination of the term of
this lease, then Lessee shall be deemed to be occupying the Premises as a tenant from
month -to -month. All the conditions, terms, and provisions of this lease, insofar as applicable to a
month -to -month tenancy, shall Miewise be applicable during such period.
19. NOTICES: All notices under this lease shall be in writing and delivered in person,
with receipt therefor, or sent by certified mail, in the case of any notice unto Lessor, at the
following address:
289 Perimeter RD E, Renton WA. 98055
and in case of any notice unto Lessee, to the address of the Premises, or such address as may
hereafter be designated by either party in writing.
20. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED:
20a. Discrimination Prohibited: Lessee covenants and agrees not todiscriminate
against any person or class of persons by reason of race, color, creed, six or national origin in the
use of any of its facilities provided for the public in the Airport. Lessee further agrees to furnish
services on a fair, equal and not unjustly discriminatory basis to all users thereof, and to charge on
a fair, reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory basis for each unit of service; provided that
Lessee may make reasonable and non-discriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of
price reductions to volume purchasers.
2L ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Lease contains all agreements of the parties with
respect to any matter mentioned herein. No prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any
such matter shall be effective. This Lease may be modified in writing only, signed by the parties in
interest at the time of the modification.
22. CORPORATE AUTHORITY: If Lessee is a corporation, each individual
executing this Lease on behalf of said corporation represents and warrants that he is duly
authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on behalf of said corporation in accordance with a
duly adopted resolution of the Board of Directors of said corporation and in accordance with the
Bylaws of said corporation, and that this Lease is binding upon said corporation in accordance
with its terms.
23. TRANSFER OF PREMISES BY LFSSOR: In the event of any sale, conveyance,
transfer or assignment by Lessor of its interest in the Premises, Lessor shall be relieved of all
liability arising from this Lease and arising out of any act, occurrence or omission occurring after
the consummation of such sale, conveyance, transfer or assignment. The Lessor's transferee shall
bedeemed to have assumed and agreed to carry out all of the obligations of the Lessor under this
Lease, including any obligation with respect to the return of any security deposit.
Wherefore, the parties have executed this lease this day of April 1' 2004.
Ace Aviation, Inc.
a WA. Corparation
/;�Kurt Boswell
its: President
Date:
Bosair, LLC
a WA. Limited Liability Company
AY44wll
Member:
Date: M n� 17, 200 `i
9
J4j1 15 04 O9:58a (425) 277-2689 P 2 ,+
07/15/2004 THU 5:14 FAX 425 430 7472 Renton Municipal Airportj003/OG'3' ' .
F
r
� �• — �... •- -� •' irk .. .' � � --� ,,y ��••• ,.
I -
0
7
090AR b Q- �A WVP
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems
Staff Contact...... Nick Afzali, x7245
Subject:
Memorandum of Understanding for the I-405
Congestion Relief and Transit Projects
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Memorandum of Understanding
Resolution _
Al #:
For Agenda of:
September 13. 2004
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution ............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Legal Dept......... X
Refer to the Transportation (Aviation) Committee Finance Dept......
Other.
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Planning, designing, constructing and operating the I-405 Corridor improvements are complex
tasks, requiring maximum cooperation between the City and the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT). The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to
establish working principles that facilitate cooperation by and between the City and WSDOT to
accomplish these tasks on those portions of the Nickel, Implementation and Master Plan that
reside within the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter
into the Memorandum of Understanding with the Washington State Department of
Transportation for the I-405 Congestion Relief and Transit Projects.
HITRANS\ADMINWGENDA 2004\ 1-405 Congestion Relief MOU
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 13, 2004
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: ,,)Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
FROM: Gregg Zimmermaf , rdministrator
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Afzali, x7245
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding for the I-405 Congestion Relief
and Transit Projects
ISSUE:
Council approval is needed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing
a cooperative relationship between the City and the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) for the I-405 Congestion Relief and Transit Projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
• Staff recommends Council approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with the Washington State Department
of Transportation for the I-405 Congestion Relief and Transit Projects.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Planning, designing, constructing and operating the I-405 Corridor improvements are
complex tasks, requiring maximum cooperation between the City and the Washington State
Department of Transportation. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to
establish working principles that facilitate cooperation by and between the City and WSDOT
to accomplish these tasks on those portions of the Nickel, Implementation and Master Plan
that reside within the City.
The 5-cent gas tax enacted by the Legislature in 2003 provides for the "Nickel Projects" in
Renton and 5 % design of the "Master Plan" in Renton. Much of the City/WSDOT
coordination for the Master Plan is needed at this 5 % level. Also, the Master Plan design
must be refined in order to adequately design the Nickel Projects. For example, the Nickel
September 13, 2004
Page 2
Projects will replace the Benson Road overpass and the new overpass must be able to
accommodate the future Master Plan.
The intent is to execute future memorandums of agreement regarding planning, designing,
constructing and operating the I-405 corridor improvements.
cc: Jay Covington
Gregg Zimmerman
Sandra Meyer
Nick Afzali
Keith Woolley
I1:\TRANS\ADMIN\AGENDA 2004\ IA05 Congestion Relief MOU Issue Paper
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ESTABLISHING A COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RENTON
AND
THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
FOR
THE I-405 CONGESTION RELIEF & TRANSIT PROJECTS
July 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................2
MasterPlan............................................................................................................................ 2
ImplementationPlan.............................................................................................................. 2
NickelProject.........................................................................................................................2
DesignRefinement.................................................................................................................2
3. PURPOSE................................................................................................................................ 3
4. GOALS.....................................................................................................................................3
5. PRINCIPLES...........................................................................................................................3
6. STRUCTURE.......................................................................................................................I...4
Renton Advisory Committee (City Design Team).................................................................. 4
TaskForces............................................................................................................................ 5
Administrators Committee.....................................................................................................5
7. SCHEDULE............................................................................................................................. 5
8. FUNDING................................................................................................................................ 7
9. AMENDMENTS......................................................................................................................7
10. INDEMNIFICATION............................................................................................................. 7
11. ENDORSEMENT....................................................................................................................7
APPENDIXA................................................................................................................................ A
EIS Concurrence Point — Purpose and Need
EIS Concurrence Point — Draft EIS Alternatives
EIS Concurrence Point — Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Concept
I-405 North Renton Project Environmental Assessment Scoping Comments
APPENDIXB................................................................................................................................ B
Master Plan Exhibit
Implementation Plan Exhibit
Nickel Projects Exhibit
APPENDIXC................................................................................................................................ C
WSDOT I-405 Project Team / City of Renton Flow Chart
City of Renton I-405 Organization Chart / City Design Team
July 2004
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS Memorandum of Understanding is made this day of 2004, between
the City of Renton (hereinafter referred to as CITY) and the Washington State
Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as WSDOT).
1. BACKGROUND
WSDOT is a department of state government with all powers, duties, and functions to
coordinate transportation modes and to develop and maintain a statewide transportation
system meeting the needs of the State of Washington as provided in RCW chs. 47.01.
WSDOT owns and operates an extensive system of highways, high occupancy vehicle
lanes, park and ride lots and access ramps serving general purpose traffic, transit and
carpools.
The City of Renton is an incorporated municipality, with the following adopted vision,
mission, and business plan goals (2005-2010):
Vision - Renton: A world -class city where people choose to live, work, and play.
Mission - The City of Renton, in partnership with residents, businesses, and schools is
dedicated to:
• Providing a healthy atmosphere to live and raise families
• Encouraging responsible growth and promoting economic vitality
• Creating a positive community work environment
• Meeting service demands through innovation and commitment to excellence
Business Plan Goals -
• Promote citywide economic development
• Promote neighborhood revitalization
• Promote the City's image in the community and region
• Meet the service demands that contribute to the livability of the community
• Influence regional decisions that impact the City
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
The complete vision for the multimodal redevelopment of I-405 was developed during a
three-year EIS process that established consensus on transit, roadway, and environmental
investments to be made over the next 20 years. The Final EIS describes that complete
vision, or Master Plan, and it received federal approval with the Record of Decision
(ROD) in October 2002. The FEIS focused on broad issues. Subsequent environmental
analysis, documentation, and review will be prepared for site -specific, project -level
details.
July 2004 - I -
As part of the FEIS process, participating agencies signed -off on three concurrence
points. The CITY signed off on all three concurrence points with comments for two of
the three concurrence points. Appendix A contains the concurrence points and the
CITY's comments as well as CITY comments regarding scoping for the North Renton
Environmental Assessment.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The I-405 Corridor Program proposes to implement a multimodal system of
transportation improvements to reduce traffic congestion and improve personal and
freight mobility throughout the I-405 corridor over the next 20 to 30 years.
For the I-405 Corridor Projects, WSDOT has separated the I-405 corridor into five
sections. Two of the sections encompass the CITY; the I-5 to SR-169 section (herein
after referred to as South Renton) and the SR-169 to Coal Creek Parkway section (herein
after referred to as North Renton).
Master Plan
The I-405 Master Plan, described in Appendix B, is a 20-year vision of multi -modal
improvements to the freeway, transit system, and arterials along the I-405 corridor,
stretching from Tukwila to Lynnwood. The selected alternative identified in the ROD is
the basis for the I-405 Master Plan.
Implementation Plan
The I-405 Executive Committee endorsed a $4.713 Implementation Plan on October 2,
2003. The Implementation Plan represents projects that could be built over the next 10-
15 years. The new facilities and services included within the Implementation Plan are
included in Appendix B.
Nickel Project
On April 27, 2003 the Washington State Legislature approved a Nickel Funding Package
which includes $485 million to relieve congestion at three critical I-405 traffic hotspots in
Kirkland, Renton and Bellevue. The funding provides for environmental, design and
construction of Nickel Projects as well as "5% Design" of the Master Plan. The new
facilities and services included within the Renton Nickel Project are included in
Appendix B.
Design Refinement
The Implementation Plan and Master Plan phasing descriptions described above reflect
what is known today based on the current conceptual -level of design and RTID funding
discussions. RTID (Regional Transportation Investment District) is a joint effort of King,
Pierce, and Snohomish counties to identify and fund transportation projects of regional
significance. The design will evolve as the level of design becomes more detailed, RTID
funding levels are determined, and design options are evaluated. The developed design is
anticipated to fit within the definition of the "Selected Alternative" as documented in the
October 2002 Environmental Impact Statement Federal Record of Decision.
July 2004 -2-
3. PURPOSE
Based on the background in the previous section, it is mutually agreed as follows.
Planning, designing, constructing and operating the I-405 Corridor improvements are
complex tasks, requiring maximum cooperation between CITY and WSDOT. The
purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to establish working principles which
facilitate cooperation by and between CITY and WSDOT to accomplish these tasks on
those portions of the Nickel, Implementation and Master Plan that reside within the
CITY.
4. GOALS
The goals of this MOU are as follows:
Describe the general relationship between WSDOT and CITY that will facilitate
WSDOT's primary commitment to deliver the Nickel projects within the
schedule, as mandated by the Legislature, and secondly, facilitate formulation of
the Implementation Plan and Master Plan, beginning from the early stages of the
NEPA Environmental Assessment through the final stages of construction. The
organizational structure is contained in Appendix C.
• Commit to expedited processes for planning, designing and constructing projects
and integrating programs within the defined work plan/schedule (see section 7).
• Declare intent to execute future agreements to implement the Nickel Project, the
Implementation Plan, and the I-405 Master Plan within the CITY, as funding
becomes available.
5. PRINCIPLES
A. Nickel, Implementation and Master Plan investments are to provide an efficient,
integrated, multimodal system of phased transportation solutions within the
corridor.
B. The projects and services implemented for I-405 will provide for maintenance or
enhancement of livability for communities within the corridor, including
maintenance or improvement of air quality, protection of the CITY's sole source
aquifer, protection or enhancement of fish -bearing streams and the continued
integrity of the natural environment.
C. The CITY and WSDOT are committed to supporting a vigorous state and regional
economy by responding to existing and future travel needs.
July 2004 - 3 -
D. Nickel, Implementation and Master Plan investments will accommodate planned
regional growth by incorporating regional and local planning documents into the
design analysis.
E. WSDOT and CITY will coordinate respective capital programs to take advantage
of opportunities to reduce cost and increase benefit. Allocation arrangements will
be negotiated within individual agreements between relevant entities to ensure
that the cost of joint projects is assigned on a proportional basis.
F. WSDOT and CITY will work together to pursue additional grants or other funds
where value can be added to specific capital projects or where added projects can
add significant benefits to the I-405 program.
G. Construction schedules will be coordinated and managed such that disruption to
the public and construction contracting community is kept at acceptable levels.
H. Recognizing the above principles and the complexities of the tasks involved in
them, CITY and WSDOT will expedite processes as scheduled, including but not
necessarily limited to:
• Identify qualified representatives to ensure timeliness and effectiveness of
discussions and decisions.
• Organize functions to ensure good communication between team
representatives and between teams and the respective organizations.
• Evaluate processes on an on -going basis to minimize time required to design
and construct projects, and when possible, run processes in parallel instead of
sequentially.
• Issues of conflict will be referred to the appropriate resolution process to reach
agreement expeditiously and at the lowest level of hierarchy in accordance
with Renton Advisory Committee flow chart included in Appendix C. The
spirit of these discussions will ensure rapid resolution, maximum cooperation,
respect for financial responsibilities, and high integrity of individuals and
organizational missions.
I. WSDOT will perform the lead role on I-405 Corridor community involvement.
WSDOT will keep the CITY informed of the community involvement activities it
is undertaking and provide involvement roles for CITY when appropriate.
6. STRUCTURE
Renton Advisory Committee (City Design Team)
The I-405 Renton Advisory Committee will act as a forum by which WSDOT can bring
preliminary design sketches and information to gain CITY feedback. In coordination
with WSDOT, the Renton Advisory Committee will assess project impacts to the City
and provide recommendations/solutions.
July 2004 - 4 -
CITY will, in coordination with WSDOT, provide a recommended list of Renton City
staff to comprise the Renton Advisory Committee. The WSDOT will provide the
WSDOT Project Manager, South Renton and North Renton Contract Managers, and as
appropriate other WSDOT staff or consultants to support the Renton Advisory
Committee.
The WSDOT Project Manager is responsible for all work — from preliminary design
through construction — and is the primary contact for the CITY. The WSDOT Project
Manager will coordinate with the CITY to develop the agenda for the committee
meetings.
The North Renton and South Renton Contract Managers are responsible for overseeing
the Nickel projects and Implementation projects and for ensuring that all fit within the
framework of the long-range Master plan. They also work with local jurisdictions, transit
agencies and private developers to ensure coordination of project elements.
As the project progresses into construction, the Renton Advisory Committee will
continue to be a forum for the discussion of project related issues.
Task Forces
As appropriate, the Renton Advisory Committee will form Task Forces to coordinate on
specific issues. The Task Force will appoint a lead to report back to the Renton Advisory
Committee. The Task Forces will cease when the reason for forming has been resolved.
Administrators Committee
The Renton Administrators Committee will make recommendations and provide policy
direction for the Renton Advisory Committee. This committee will represent the CITY
for final issue resolution and will also provide recommendations to and seek policy
direction from the mayor and city council.
The Renton Administrators Committee will be comprised of CITY Administrators, the
WSDOT Project Director and WSDOT Project Manager.
The WSDOT Project Director is ultimately responsible for the success of the I-405
Project. Reporting to the WSDOT Urban Corridors Administrator, he makes the final
decisions on behalf of the project and is the project's primary representative to local, state
and federal elected and appointed officials.
See Appendix C for the organizational structure of CITY/WSDOT coordination.
7. SCHEDULE
The primary goal of the I-405 project is to deliver the Nickel Projects within the schedule
mandated by the Legislature. To accomplish this goal, the anticipated I-405 Nickel work
plan / schedule for the South and North Renton sections is shown below in Figures 1 and 2:
July 2004 - 5 -
1-405 Congestion Relief and Transit Projects
South Renton Work Plan / Schedule
TASK DESCRIPTION
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
SOUTH RENTON: 1-5 to SR-169
5% FOOTPRINT DESIGN (MASTER PLAN)
1
I
I
I
I
1 I I I
I
DATA COLLECTION / SITE INVESTIGATION
OPTION ANALYSIS - MAINLINE, I-C CONCEPTS, ETC.
(
I
I
I
1
1 I I 1
I
OPTIONS SCREENING PROCESS
INTERCHANGE LAYOUTS
CITY STREET GEOMETRY
GRADING PLAN
1
I
I
I
I
I I I 1
1
PLAN PREPARATION
D/B DOCUMENT PREPARATION (NICKEL)
(
I
I
I
I
I I I I
I
DEVELOP GEOMETRY 5 FOOTPRINT
I
1
I
I
I
I I 1 1
I
DEVELOP RFP DOCUMENTS
'
COMPLETE MOA
1
I
I
I LEGEND
!
(Concurrence Point
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
PUBLIC SCOPING
; I ®_ Decision Points__
DISCIPLINE REPORTS
I
I
I
I
I T
I
FHWA DISCIPLINE REVIEW E APPROVAL
I
I
I
I
1 I I I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
IBM
FONSI PREPARATION
I
I
I
1
I I I I
I
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (NICKEL)
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
I
D/B RFP, SELECTION 3 AWARD (NICKEL)
D/B CONSTRUCTION (NICKEL)
I
I
1
I
I
I 1 I 1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I 1 1 t
1
CITY/I405 DESIGN TEAM COORDINATION
( I
I
Figure 1
1-405 Congestion Relief and Transit Projects
North Renton - Work Plan / Schedule
TASK DESCRIPTION.
2003
2004
2005
NORTH RENTON: SR-169 to Coal Creek Parkway
5% FOOTPRINT DESIGN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
15% DESIGN
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I I
LOCAL STREET DESIGN CRITERIA E STANDARDS
j
j
j
j
I
( Concurrence Point
I I
1-405 MAINLINE DESIGN
j
j
j
j
j
I • Decision Points
I 1
INTERCHANGE DESIGN
CITY STREET DESIGN
j
j
j
1
PLAN PREPARATION
J
(
I
DEVELOP RFP DOCUMENTS
I
COMPLETE MOA
I
I
I
0
1
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
:
Z
I
PUBLIC SCOPING
LL
DISCIPLINE REPORTS
FHWA DISCIPLINE REVIEW
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
FONSI PREPARATION
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
DIB RFP, SELECTION 6 AWARD
D/B CONSTRUCTION
i
�j
iioi
iyi
iikii
ii '
irti
CITY L405 DESIGN TEAM COORDINATION
l-110
���/i//
Figure 2
July 2004 - 6 -
If an RTID public vote is held and approved in the fall of 2004, it is anticipated that the
Nickel funding will roll into funding for developing the Implementation Plan. The work
plans / schedules would be revised at such time.
8. FUNDING
It is mutually agreed that each agency will fund their respective costs associated with
staff time for coordination. WSDOT will provide staffing as needed to assist in the
Renton Advisory Committee's work. WSDOT and the CITY will, on a case -by -case
basis, negotiate costs associated with the staffing needs to assist with CITY coordination,
review, and comments.
9. AMENDMENTS
This Memorandum of Understanding and its exhibits may be amended at any time by
mutual agreement of the parties.
10. INDEMNIFICATION
Appropriate, reasonable, indemnification agreements shall be negotiated in good faith for
each project agreement.
11. ENDORSEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto hereby agree to the terms and conditions of
this Memorandum of Understanding as of the date first written above.
For Washington State Department of For City of Renton
Transportation
Craig Stone
I-405 Project Director
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Mayor
City Clerk Attests
July 2004 - 7 -
APPENDIX A
EIS Concurrence Point — Purpose and Need
City of Renton Concurrence 12/14/99 1 p
EIS Concurrence Point — Draft EIS Alternatives
City of Renton Concurrence with conditions 09/15/00 2 pp
City of Renton Committee of the Whole Committee Report 01/22/01 1 p
City of Renton letter with conditions 02/08/01 2 pp
City Of Renton Letter
"I--405 Corridor, Preliminary Preferred Alternative, Renton's Opposition To Securing
Use Of The BNSF Right -Of -Way For Preservation Of Future Transportation
Opportunities" 05/08/01 2 pp
City of Renton Resolution No. 3504 05/07/01 3 pp
City Of Renton Letter
"1--405 Corridor, Preliminary Preferred Alternative, Renton's Opposition To Securing
Use Of The BNSF Right -Of- Way For Future Transportation Opportunities"
06/04/01 1 p
City of Renton Letter
"1-405 Program Issues:
1) Renton's Recommendation, Preferred Alternative
2) Opposition to Sensible Solutions for I-405 Proposal
3) Concerns About The Lane Balance Option" 11/08/01 3 pp
EIS Concurrence Point — Preferred Alternative and Mitization Concept
City of Renton Concurrence with conditions 04/25/02 4 pp
I-405 North Renton Proiect Environmental Assessment Scoping Comments
I-405 North Renton Project
Environmental Assessment Scoping Comments
10/29/03 1 Opp
July 2004 A
I-405 Corridor Program
EIS Concurrence Form
RFt;r-__!V(E0
DEC 1 F IJ39
Date sent:: September 29, 1999
Concurrence Point: l .Purpose and Need -
The need is to improve personal and freight mobility and reduce foreseeable traffic congestion in
the corridor that encompasses the I-405 study area from Tukwila to Lynnwood in a manner that is
safe, reliable, and cost-effective.
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide an efficient, integrated, and multi -modal
system of transportation solutions within the corridor that meet the project need in a
manner that:
• provides for maintenance or enhancement of livability for communities within the
corridor;
• provides for maintenance or improvement of air quality, protection or enhancement of
fish -bearing streams, and regional environmental values such as continued integrity of
the natural environment;
• supports a vigorous state and regional economy by responding to existing and future
travel needs; and
• accommodates planned regional growth.
Agency: City o enton Attest:
Signature: M tmwn, City Clerk
Title: Mayo
Date: 7
Concur
Non -concur
(Circle one)
If the agency has selected Non -concur, they must include an explanation of what must be
changed so that the agency could Concur: ( describe here or attach)
Return to:
Michael Cummings
WSDOT
Office of Urban Mobility
401 Second Avenue South Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104-2862
cumminm@wsdot.wa.gov
C:%WtNDOWS\TEMP\P_&_NCON.DOC July 23, 1999
September 15, 2000
Michael Cummings, Project Manager
WSDOT
Office of Urban Mobility
410 Second Avenue South, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104-2862
Subject: I405 Corridor Program Draft EIS Alternatives
Dear Mr. Cummings:
CITY OF RENTON
REcFlVl�o
SEP 2 0 2000
Mayor
Jesse Tanner
The City of Renton has reviewed the four alternatives to help ease congestion on the I-405 corridor, and is
pleased to concur with WSDOT's alternatives for analysis purposes with seven (7) conditions as described
below:
1. The City of Renton wants to make sure that accessibility of neighborhoods and communities to I-405 is
emphasized in all options. Although the importance of the interstate highway for moving long distance
through traffic is recognized, the corridor improvements must also recognize the increasing access needs
of the communities through which I-405 passes. The Growth Management Act has brought about
accelerated growth in these communities. Improvements for the long distance traveler must not come at
the expense of local accessibility.
2. Portions of the I-405 corridor pass through Renton's sole source drinking water aquifer. Sensitivity of the
aquifer to possible contamination must be considered in all options.
3. In order to minimize. the impacts on Renton neighborhoods, improvements to I-405 should be within
existing right-of-way.
4. Impacts on neighborhoods should be minimized/mitigated. Avoid anymore "takes" to Renton Hill.
5. Any final option (preferred) needs to adequately address the SR 167/I-405 interchange situation.
6. Any grade separation of Rainier Avenue/Grady Way should not impact adjacent businesses. The City.
relocated automobile dealerships from the downtown to this area.
7. The City may desire to limit arterial improvements along Duvall Avenue/Jones Road and 140th to five
lanes.
We are looking forward to working with WSDOT staff on this regionally important corridor. study. If you have
any questions, please contact Sandra Meyer, Transportation Director, at (425) 430-7242.
S :cerely,
C
Jesse Tanner
Mayor
00-113/GZ.mp
oc: Renton City Council
Jay Covington
Gregg Zinunennan
Sandra Meyer
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6500 / FAX(425)430-6523
MThis oww coawim sox ncvaso rma". lox Dora consww
I-405 Corridor Program
EIS Concurrence Form
Date sent:: July 20, 2000
Concurrence Point: I -Draft EISAlternatives -
• Attached as Exhibit A, dated July 20, 2000 is a general description of the action alternatives that are
proposed to be considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the I-405 Corridor
Program. These four alternatives and a "No -Action" alternative will be the focus of the environmental
investigation and disclosure in this document.
Agency:
Signature:
Title:
Date:
oncur Per Attached Letter)
Non -concur
(Circle one)
If the agency has selected Non -concur, they must include an explanation of what must be changed so that
the agency could Concur: (describe here or attach)
The City of Renton concurs with the four alternatives to help ease congestion on 1-405 corridor
with seven (7) conditions as described in the attached letter of September 15, 2000, to Michael
Cummings, project manager -
Return to:
Michael Cummings
WSDOT
Office of Urban Mobility
401 Second Avenue South, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104-2862
cumminm@wsdot.wa.gov
C11YCr RENTv'1
,:.L .c; IC WORKS ADL!'If4.
CONIlV MEE OF THE WHOLE
COMM TTEE REPORT
January 22, 2001
I405 CORRIDOR PROGRAM
(Referred August 21, 2000)
APPROVED DY
CITY COUNCIL
Date 1- 22 - o i
On January 22, 2001, WSDOT presented the Council with four (4) alteratives to help ease the
congestion on the I-405 corridor. Alternative 17 High Capacity Transit/T DM, alternative 2 — Transit,
alternative 3 — Mixed Mode, and alternative 4 — Roadway Capacity.
The Committee of the Whole recommends that Council endorse WSDOT's Alternative Number 3
with several conditions put forth, including, but not limited to, installation of a lid over the freeway
between Cedar Avenue and. Renton ...Avenue,:Adequate aoiw.walls along the corridor to mitigate
impacts to neighborhoods, -and noise mitigation; measures: for. interchange . ramps. - . The Committee
further recommends that the Mayor be authorized to sand a letter stating the City's endorsement with
the conditions indicated and additional conditions determuie8 by members of the Committee. The
Committee directs staff to organize a public meeting in the coming weeks to provide information and
accept public comment on this important project`
-The Committee also recommends that Council reserve the fight to change its position as more specific
information becomes available on each alternative, -and upon receipt and review of citizen comment
and input.
Dan Clawson, Council P sident
cc: Jercvviry a
Gregg Zimmerman
Sandra Meyer
Nick Afiali
DocumenQ\ rcv 01/01 BH
4 - - E
RECEIVED CITY OF RNTON
"a FEB 13 2001 Mayor
Jesse Tanner
February 8, 2001
Mike Cummings,
Project Manager, I-405 Corridor Program
WSDOT
Office of Urban Mobility
401 Second Avenue South,' Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104-2862
SUBJECT: I405 CORRIDOR PROJECT PRELIlIHNARY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Dear Mr. Cummings:
Thank you for the 1405 Corridor Project Management Team's continued efforts to provide us with
information about this complex and crucially important project.
As you know, on January 22, 2001, the Renton City Council Committee of the Whole met to consider
the I-405 Project Management Team's request that the cities and other jurisdictions of standing along
the corridor endorse a Preliminary Preferred project Alternative. This Preliminary Preferred
Alternative will help establish a favored alternative for the preparation of the project environmental
impact statement. We are also aware of the need to select a preferred alternative to improve
opportunities to obtain funding appropriation from the state. legislature.
These are compelling reasons to select a Pceiiminaiy,Preferred. Alternative for this project. However,
Renton's policy makers have expressed significaiif icservations about endorsing an alternative so early
in the process. Although environmental discipline e'pr orts have been drafted, the environmental
impact statement has not yet been prepared. This document will provide information that we feel is
key in arriving at the optimal I-405 Corridor improvement project. Also, we have not yet had an
opportunity to present information about the_ alternatives to the.members of our community, and to
receive their comments. We have.also.been told that the final project may incorporate elements from
several of the alternatives under study. We are concerned that selecting a Preliminary Preferred
Alternative now may set processes in motion that will make it difficult to change or improve the plan
in the firture as more information becomes avitiable:
Given all of these legitimate concerns, the Renton policy makers chose to endorse Alternative Number
3 as Renton's Preliminary Preferred Alternative, with conditions (the Council Committee Report is
attached). These conditions are as follows:
1) The City of Renton reserves the right to change its position as more specific information becomes
available on each alternative, and upon receipt of citizen comment and input.
2) As mitigation for continued encroachment and impacts on the Renton Hill neighborhood and its
park areas and amenities, a lid should be installed over I-405 between the Renton Ave. S. and
Cedar Ave. S. overpasses.
3) Adequate noise walls must be installed along the I-405 and SR 167 corridors to mitigate noise
impacts on the community. Adequate noise mitigation must also be provided for improvements to
the I405/SR 167 interchange and other interchange ramps.
4) In recognition that the plan is to start the majority of work in the south end, consideration shall be
given to the early start of work associated.with the NE 40 Street interchange, the I-405/SR 167
interchange, and the SR 169 interchange.
1055 South Grady Way - Rentm. Washington 98055 - (425) 43"500 / FAX (425) 430-6523
® n* peW — -•I W% niywa i ** Sox pm oaw.w
V8/01
Page 2
5) The seven (7) conditions described in the City's September 15, 2000, letter (copy attached) are
incorporated into the project to the extent physically possible.
We look forward to continuing to work with you in a cooperative and collaborative fashion on this
important project.
Sincerely,
Q� � -.*- -. C M (�na, U.,J
Jess lei Dan Clawson
Ma r Council President
01-010/GZ:mp
cc: Renton City Council
Jay Covington
Gregg Zinwx=nan
Marilyn Petersen
CITY OF RENTON
Mayor
Jeae Tanner
May 8, 2001
Mike Cummings RECEIVED
Project Manager, I-405 Corridor Program 2001WSDOT MAY 0 9
Office of Urban Mobility
401 Second Avenue South, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104-2862
SUBJECT: I405 CORRIDOR, PRELME NARY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, RENTON'S
OPPOSITION TO SECURING USE OF THE BNSF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR
PRESERVATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES
Dear Mr. Cummings:
It is with significant disappointment that we must forward to you our opposition to the inclusion of the
provision to secure use of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way for "future
transportation opportunities" in the 1-405 Corridor Program preliminary preferred alternative. We are
disappointed because this provision is a late change that was added without the exemplary degree of
collaboration and regional discussion that has otherwise characterized the selection of a preliminary
preferred alternative. It seems tows that this provisioik was more or less slipped into the mix for
alternative #3 prior to the January 25 Executive Committee recommendation for a preliminary preferred
alternative. Renton's Steering Committee members were taken by surprise, as were members of the
Citizens Committee from the Renton area.
Our main problem with the identification of the BNSF corridor for future transportation opportunities, to
include possible fixed rail HCT, is that such a use could place trains operating every eight minutes during
the peak period at a maximum speed of 79 miles per hour right through the middle of Renton residential
neighborhoods (specifically Kennydale and South Renton). This would create safety, livability, and
access problems that would affect not only the neighborhoods, but also businesses in North Renton and
the downtown core, and such regional recreational amenities as Gene Coulon Park and the Lake
Washington trail system. This route would truly bisect our City, and we feel it would create adverse
impacts that would far outweigh the incremental benefits of introducing high capacity transit to this rail
corridor.
One of the most attractive features of preliminary preferred alternative #3 is its identification of Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) along the I-405 Corridor as its north/south high capacity transit element. We believe
that BRT is superior to a fixed rail system along the BNSF corridor in that it provides far more flexibility,
and it directly utilizes added freeway capacity provided by the new general-purpose lanes. The late
addition of a provision to secure the use of the BNSF right-of-way for future transportation uses such as
HCT would directly contradict one of the basic premises and selling points of preliminary preferred
alternative #3.
We concur with the concerns expressed in the March 8, 2001, letter to the Executive Committee by Kim
Browne, President of the Kennydale Neighborhood Association (copy included). We would also like to
remind you that the City of Renton's concurrence with the I-405 Corridor Program Draft EIS Alternatives
is premised upon seven conditions, the third of which states "In order to minimize the impacts on Renton
neighborhoods, improvements to I-405 should be within existing right-of-way" (copy of September 15,
2000, letter included).
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 43"SW / FAX (425) 430-6523
0 This paper aomahu sox Wy ed mat W1, Sox post oOnSUr' r
I-405 Corridor Program
May 8, 2001
Page 2
We request that you direct the efforts of the I-405 Management Team to restoring the integrity of
preliminary preferred alternative #3, and returning this altemative to its previous status of regional
consensus, by removing the provision that would preserve future transportation opportunities by securing
use of the BNSF right-of-way. The 1405 corridor program faces enough challenges already, in our
opinion, without incorporating elements of future programs that may or may not go forward, and thereby
jeopardizing regional consensus.
At. their council meeting on Monday, May 7, 2001, the City Council passed Resolution No. 3504 (copy
included) authorizing this letter that clearly affirms the City's opposition to the securing of use of
Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way for transportation purposes.
Sincerely,
Jes Tanner
Mayor
01-046:GZ:rM
cc: 1405 Corridor Executive Committee Members
1405 Corridor Steering Connnittee Members
1-405 Corridor Citizen Committee Members
Renton City Council
Kim Browne, President KNA Association
Jay Covington
Gregg Zimmerman
Sandra Meyer
Nick Afzali
Dan Clawson
City Council President
CITY OF RENTON, WASMNGTON
RESOLUTI ON NO. 3504
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SEND A
LETTER OPPOSING THE SECURING OF USE OF BURLINGTON
NORTHERN SANTA FE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PRESERVATION OF
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES.
WHEREAS, the I-405 Corridor Program is studying possible future transportation
opportunities to relieve traffic conditions in the I405 corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Renton Steering Committee has been participating in the I405 Corridor
Program; and
WHEREAS, the I-405 Corridor Program is preparing to name a preferred alternative; and
WHEREAS, the concept of securing the use of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-
of-way for preservation of future transportation opportunities was a last-minute addition for
alternative 43; and
WHEREAS, such addition surprised Renton Steering Committee members; and
WHEREAS, it is believed that securing use of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-
way has not been adequately discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe corridor runs through the middle of
downtown Renton, through the Kennydale and south Renton residential neighborhoods, and
would further affect regional recreational amenities such as Gene Coulon Park and the Lake
Washington trail system; and
RESOLUTION NO. -3s o 4
WHEREAS, the bisecting of the City by possible fixed rail would create adverse impacts
which far outweigh the incremental benefit of adding additional high -capacity transit to this rail
corridor; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton's concurrence with the IA05 Corridor Program draft
EIS alteratives is premised upon seven conditions, one of which states, "in order to min� the
impact on Renton neighborhoods, improvements to I-405 should be within existing right-of-way,"
and this project violates that condition;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. 1 The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION 11. The Mayor and Council President are hereby requested to send a
letter to the project manager of the I405 Corridor Program, expressing the City's displeasure,
disappointment and opposition to securing use of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way
for preservation of future transportation opportunities.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 7t-h day of Mau , 2001.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 7th
N
1�� 7"iw al?"tl
Michele Neumann, Deputy City Clerk
day of May , 2001.
J anner, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. 3 5 0 4
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.848:5/2/01:ma
CITY OF RENTON
Mayor
"'M Jesse Tanner
June 4, 2001
RECEIVED
Michael Cummings
I405 Program Manager JUN 0 5 2001
401 Second Avenue S., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104
SUBJECT: I405 CORRIDOR PROGRAM, PRELE IINARY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, RENTON'S
OPPOSITION TO SECURING USE OF THE BNSF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE
TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES
Dear Mr. Cummings:
Thank you for your May 23, 2001, letter addressing this issue. We appreciate your efforts to distribute our May
8 letter, which expresses our opposition to securing the use of the BNSF right-of-way for future transportation
uses, to the I-405 Corridor Program committees and your publication of the letter on the Program's web page.
You mention that the Executive Committee in January 2001 recommended preserving the BNSF right-of-way
without opposition. This would appear to be the case, however, unlike other elements within the Preliminary
Preferred Alternative, this provision appears to have been added to the package rather suddenly without much
discussion or deliberation on a regional level. In fact, the City of Renton's standing Executive, Steering, and
Citizen Committee members were taken by surprise by the appearance of this new element within the
Preliminary Preferred Alternative. I don't wish to further belabor the question of how this element was added to
the package other than to say that I hope and trust that in the future a more inclusive and deliberative process
will be used for altering a proposal under review by the committees.
It is clear in your letter that the I-405 Corridor Program Management Team intends to move forward to include
this element in the Preliminary Preferred Alternative. This is unfortunate. The City of Renton remains strongly
opposed to this open-ended and vague provision in an otherwise clear proposal. What does "future
transportation opportunities" mean? And how can the public support this when they don't know whether they
would be advocating fixed rail high capacity transit or walking trails? If this feature is a page -holder for Sound
Transit, which it now appears to be, it should be considered separately within the Sound Transit Phase II
package. It should be removed from the I-405 Corridor Program plan.
In answer to your question, the City of Renton's opposition to the concept pertains to the segment through
Renton. We are concerned about the negative impacts fixed rail high capacity transit along the BNSF corridor
would have in Renton as identified in our May 8 letter. There may well be segments of this corridor outside of
Renton's city limits along, which fixed rail HCT or other transit systems could provide benefit without the
unacceptable impacts that would occur in Renton. We -*vould expect the other jurisdictions along the corridor to
identify these impacts, and we would certainly give them the attention that they deserve, as we expect our
neighbors to do regarding impacts that have been identified in Renton.
We hope this clarifies our position in regard to the question of securing use of the BNSF right-of-way for future
transportation opportunities.
t cerely,
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Ol-056:GZ:mp
cc: Renton City Council
Jay Covington
Gregg Zimmrnnan
Sandra Meyer
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6500 / FAX (425) 430-6523
0 ,lie pWw oordaim sole recyued meterW. Sox post oonwme.
RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON
V
a.� NOV 12 2001 Mayor
Jesse Tanner
November 8, 2001
Mike Cummings
Project Manager, I-405 Corridor Program
WSDOT
401 Second Ave. South, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104-2887
SUBJECT: I405 PROGRAM ISSUES:
1) RENTON'S RECOMMENDATION, PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2) OPPOSITION TO SENSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR I405 PROPOSAL
3) CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANE BALANCE OPTION
Dear W. Cummings:
We appreciate the continued efforts of the I-405 Corridor Project Management Team to find
an optimal solution to the I405 capacity problems by obtaining regional consensus through
an extensive public process. It has been a pleasure to be a participant in this process.
We are aware that the goal of the Management Team is to obtain a recommendation on a
preferred alternative from the I405 Executive Committee on November 16, 2001.
Recommendation of a preferred alternative will bring us to the third concurrence point
established in the I405 Corridor Program Concurrence process. When the preferred
alternative has been selected, each agency and tribe with jurisdiction (ATJ) will be asked to
approve, deny, or comment on the decision at hand.
The City of Renton has conditionally approved the previous two concurrence points in the
process: (1) purpose and need statement, and (2) selection of alternatives to advance for
detailed study. We have also conditionally supported the Preliminary Preferred Alternative
for this project that was recommended by the Executive Committee on January 25, 2001.
Letters associated with Renton's conditional approvals are attached. We have now had an
opportunity to review the DEIS and other information that has been provided about the
program alternatives, and have heard from many of our citizens. We are, therefore,
submitting to you the City of Renton's position regarding selection of a Preferred Alternative.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The City of Renton supports selection of the Preliminary Preferred Alternative as
recommended by the Executive Committee on January 25, 2001, as the Preferred Alternative.
The conditions that we previously identified (our letter of February 8, 2001, attached) still
apply to our endorsement of this alternative.
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6500 / FAX (425) 430-6523
® This papw wnta ns sox recycled materW, 30% pose consu"w
November 8, 2001
Page 2
OPPOSITION TO SENSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR I405 PROPOSAL
We have reviewed, and are opposed to, the Sensible Solutions for I-405 proposal. This
proposal, sometimes referred to as Alternative #5, would among other things reduce the added
lane proposal along I-405 to one lane in each direction, potentially a high occupancy toll
(HOT) lane, and would introduce a diesel modular unit rail transit system on the BNSF rail
line from Woodinville to Tukwila with high frequency service (10-15 minute headway). We
have numerous concerns about this proposal that have led to our opposition. This proposal
has not been subjected to the rigorous technical evaluation that the other alternatives have,
and it has not been demonstrated that it will accommodate the endorsed purpose and need
statement for the program. We believe that it will not. The proposal has not been evaluated
in the DEIS and, therefore, its impacts have not been identified and evaluated. The impacts
will be significant and severe. The introduction of the diesel modular unit rail transit element
along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe corridor would divide residential communities in two
and adversely impact quality of life and public safety, and would also seriously degrade
access and mobility along the many at -grade street crossings in urban areas, including the
downtown Renton Urban Center. Customer need and ridership for this inflexible commuter
rail system proposal have not been established. The Boeing Company has stated in a letter.
dated October 23, 2001, "it is vital that we continue to have rail access to our Renton Plant via
the Burlington Northern rail lines that run along I-405. Currently, all of our 737 and 757
fuselages are shipped by rail from Kansas to Renton. The conversion of those rail lines to
another use would severely and negatively impact the viability of the Renton Plant."
Introduction of this diesel modular rail transit element to the BNSF rail corridor would
interfere with freight mobility, and would appear to be inimical to the interests stated by the
Boeing Company. We feel that the Sensible Solutions to I-405 proposal should be discarded
as an untimely distraction, and eliminated from further regional consideration.
CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANE BALANCING PROPOSAL
The lane balancing concept would add lanes to the portion of I-405 between SR-167 and I-90.
The most aggressive approach would introduce three lanes in both directions along this
portion of the corridor. Such a proposal would impose significantly greater impacts to the
neighborhoods and the environment, particularly if the lanes were to be constructed at grade.
The I-405 right-of-way would have to be expanded into residential and business properties to
accommodate this, and a great deal more impervious surface would be created. On the other
hand, vertical stacking of lanes would add significantly to the project cost. It has not been
demonstrated that the benefits of such an approach would justify the financial, community,
and environmental costs. Renton would oppose a proposal to construct three lanes in each
direction between SR-167 and I-90. We do recognize that the lane balancing concept is still
being developed, and might in fact involve far less intrusive improvements than continuous
three lanes would present. Such approaches could include revisions to collector/distributor
lanes or modest improvements to specific segments of the corridor. While it might be prudent
to explore such options, Renton would not support proposals we would deem to be
excessively detrimental to our communities and environment.
}
November 8, 2001
Page 3
We look forward to the continuing regional collaboration on this important program.
Sincerely,
Jesse Tanner
Mayor
0 1 - I I &IGZ:mp
cc: I-405 Corridor Executive Committee Members
1-405 Corridor Steering Committee Members
1-405 Corridor Citizens Committee Members
Kim Browne, President KNA Association
Jay Covington
Gregg Zimmerman
Sandra Meyer
Nick Afzali
Dan Clawson
City Council President
RECEIVED
APR 3 U 2002
April 25, 2002
Michael Cummings
Corridor Planning Supervisor
Washington State Department of Transportation
402 Second Avenue S #300
Seattle, WA 98104-2887
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk
Bonnie I. Walton
Re: I-405 Corridor Program — Concurrence Point #3
Dear Mr. Cummings:
Enclosed.is the signed Concurrence, Point 3, for the I-405 Corridor Program.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please feel free to contact
Sandra Meyer, Transportation Systems Director at (425) 430-7242.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Suzann D. Lombard
Records Management Coordinator
Enclosure
cc: Sandra Meyer (w/encl.)
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 R E N T O N
® This paw mrftka50% AHEAD OF THE CURVE
regcfsd meteriet, 30%Poet conwmer
1-405 Corridor Program - Concurrence Point #3
. 1
�te sent: March 19, 2002
Concurrence orn : Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Concept (CEP)
In signing this concurrence agreement, the Agencies with Jurisdiction agree to:
1.) Concur" with the Major Elements of the 1-405 Corridor Program Preferred Alternative (Attachment A), and
2.) Mitigation Concept (Corridor Environmental Program — CEP) (Attachment B)
In signing this concurrence agreement, the State and Local Governments and Agencies that provide
transportation services agree to:
3.) Pursue in good faith amendments of transportation plans and programs in order to implement the 1-405
Corridor Program's Preferred Altemative and Corridor Environmental Program.
gency: CZ OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ignatum
Title: Mayor
Date: -111/_ 4Z00A
Cirde one of the below.
1
)ncur Concur with Comments) Non -concur
Weds as qoa di ed
!f the agency has selected IVon-concur, they must in u e an explanation of what should be changed so that the agency
could concur. (Describe here or attach.) Please return to: Michael Cummings, WSDOT, 401 Second Avenue South, Suite
300 Seattle, WA 98104-2862, cumminm@wsdot wa.cgov.
*Concurrence means:
• 'Formal written determination by agencies with jurisdiction that the project information is adequate for the current
phase of the process.' At this phase, project information includes the Preferred Alternative Description, Corridor
Environmental Program, PFEIS and Early Action Environmental Mitigation Decision Making Process.
• "Concurrence means that the project may proceed to the next phase without modification. Agencies agree not to
revisit previous concurrence unless there is substantial new information, or substantial changes have been made
to the project the environment, laws and/or regulations!
"Agencies will have the option to comment on elements of the project at the appropriate points in the process."
(a) Agencies with jurisdiction will participate in additional project level environmental review under NEPA and
SEPA and all applicable laws and regulations at a greater level of detail. (b) WSDOT will continue to coordinate
with agencies with jurisdiction and others implementing 'Early Action' and other project level mitigation measures.
(c) Concurrence on the Major Elements of the 1-405 Corridor Program Preferred Alternative does not indicate
individual project concurrence.
• "it is not intended that concurrence means that a permit will be issued -just that the project information for the
current phase is adequate.' Agencies with jurisdiction will retain full permitting authority and the ability.to condition
or deny future project permits and approve or disapprove associated mitigation measures.
(Language in quotations is direly from Re -Invent NEPA definition of "Concurrence.'
I405 Corridor Project Concurrence Point #3
Conditions of Approval
All previous requirements and comments communicated to WSDOT and the I-405
Corridor Management Team remain in effect. This includes all concurrence point
information, expertise report comments, Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact
Statement comments, and Draft Environmental Impact Statement comments.
Other comments to note at this concurrence point include:
1) All arterial improvements previously identified as part of the Program within the
Renton area including: a) the north/south arterial of Duvall/Coal Creek Parkway
with a connection to Maple Valley Highway, b) the east/west arterial of SW 43rd
Street/Carr/Petrovitsky Road, and c) SW 27th Street/Strander Blvd. from SR-167
to West Valley Highway will be eligible for funding as part of a cooperative
partnership.
2) The planned SW 27th Street interchange at SR-167 is identified as a fully funded
WSDOT project as part of the I-405 Corridor Program. The NE 44th Street
interchange is identified as a partially funded project as part of the I-405 Corridor
program.
3) The Rainier Avenue/Grady Way intersection continues to need further evaluation
and serious consideration in finalizing the SR-167/I-405 interchange improvement.
WSDOT must work with the City to assure that any improvement to the
interchange is compatible with the Rainier Avenue/Grady Way intersection
operations and that operations are improved as a result of the improvement to the
SR-167/I-405 interchange. Economic development considerations must be
considered in any solution and coordinated with and approved, by the City.
4) The Sound Transit capital program and routing needs must be confirmed and found
to be compatible with the I-405 Corridor Program. The City must be involved in
this assessment and agree to all Sound Transit capital investments. Current voter
approved capital investments include two HOV direct access interchanges (or
equivalent). Three express bus routes as defined in the approved plan must be
provided. Potential Sound Transit bus routes could include N.6th Street/Logan
Avenue or Park Avenue/S 2nd and S 3rd Streets, and Rainier Avenue. As
identified, these streets and others identified to the south need to be recognized as
eligible for partnering in the securement of grants.
5) The lane balancing proposal will potentially add hill climbing and/or collector
distributor lanes to portions of the I-405 corridor between SR-169 and I-90.
Additional lanes in this area beyond the two general purpose lanes in each direction
1.405 Corridor Concurrence Point M3
April 9, 2002
Page 2 of 2
within the Preferred Alternative will create larger impacts to residential
communities in Renton, particularly the Kennydale neighborhood. Such proposals,
if seriously pursued must demonstrate transportation benefits to the I-405 corridor
and be designed in a way to avoid, limit, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the
neighborhoods to an acceptable level as determined by the City.
6) Noise impacts are of concern to the City. The preferred alternative must be
demonstrated to not increase noise in the corridor by including sufficient mitigation
to keep noise levels at or below current levels.
7) Although the Watershed Based Mitigation concept may be a reasonable approach to
mitigation for the project impacts, some impacts may have to be mitigated for on -
site and cannot be mitigated for offsite. The floodplain, increased quantity of
runoff, water quality impacts, groundwater, some fish habitat and wetland impacts
may have to be mitigated for on -site, if the impacts to the local jurisdiction are too
great to be allowed for mitigation on a watershed (WRIA) level.
KTnra/A&nidSudr&rM2A-405 Conwmnot 03
CITY OIF RENTON
Zinvarcrui nit Il"S.,Adinfilistratur
Gool.wr 20,20,03
Clirisfinz4 Envir6nm6htal Lead
Washijle,ton Slaw D JoIn':
Urban Corrldor-(A'01'eu
6431 Corsoli Avenue South, N 1182-23 0
-Seattle, AIA 981W-3445
SUBJECT: 1-405-NORTURE NTONVROACT,
E N"VW6S EN .. TALWSASSItiSC70PING..COTIMENTS
Dear'Ms, Martinez.
The City'bf Rent6h,subtnJUIh e.
Ffrvirpntrwril�.d Assam mcn I I Scoping.
*kUR UT, - ILITY:
1111PACI 101ow:611 ofIRWAt�o�s".� tl�fg Afioldifte 1W.111br W6.119,h-nd
� ry
0 -.99
P
fibrrt the;: C 'd Ver 3. pi
a eXIs t11 01 .r upp V. hi�a( ju
_.r ,s be
en
corrosion aqui -b ty
y'dje r—A, Ilie :six za�,fiuotidalirotv acili" an(] �rg ion
conil.-pl .66)ily areal) 1pc*il6d;a.!ortgjA,6 bm. veen,the,,C-ed#AJ;Ver and the intersection 1-405 and. -SR
Afjojjs.of NV;ater' day.
Per
The tonsiruclk" 1* tf 1405 N&ith Rtiftoh
Pfje&tAs shQ'Nvfi 0. n
(sheet .Lof
11 2001 z,.tNircua
kthJ61inipO,e, City' drinking water
supply; livpartkular;Ihe.propnorthbound ftom 1405 to.9KA.09 will cuttIt_t)jj�jjtlj__6 ,I
4yink-4ig water. well 5and Ibis, newmalignment Nvillrequire :the retoqllti(sn:and
al rg�f ffieft let,, T e re
g Wrtr:jls, id I t ,t fits h -16cati-On
sit gliell 0 klks — ifiWudin ;:jj pore iftal ]:..A tronmenjo..-Impaot.
Ift1w M100"ItIon of -the Vvells isconsidered, afcasibiM*.study Rtyd detailed -hydro,geologic investigation
must,:be done to determine not onlyif ffie nev,,-wells tm-V,be cqjistructcdjbuvalsq, if t1i, `cih-prp iod-fl
v
ruliable supply of Mg ' 6Aiid federal , pal#y &. Additionm v�itqr
drinking -vva or-.q ar
III't4, be. requirc-,&to comph With,.,curreiit water'4uafity
Y.
0aAit t: 6rBoalffi, Puroha�seor cond imti s6 dards lid" pled by 111c.. D, A ob em on of properties includin' City
parks Nvill be needed for the: new wells,and Cacilifies. Test wells must. t)v. dug and pump tested to ensure,
adequate yield. The Deparuoont-bf Ecoloo, J11Ay:II6t,Ajovthe
, I , roVed F010 A,ue to -irnp4cls to ibAream, rat
potential W 1.)
TWDt 'ot: T.ecloire, new -,nut ki6ii, Ures. i f f lie lt&si
0�rtmmt oft.16 "Th -Mhm :fii6o—m rn CWI;
rY, cl I, "."'haw,an Pump` e now. lng: 11 -wells andNvatertreatment facilities must
eiirs-:Jto.�tnsure-a- rellablesupply :before: the: existing wells
can be abandoned.
1055 South Grad Way- Renton, Washington 98055
RENTON
�D ,-C*.Dh6'Iir)5 ',YY1(.MCY)C I L*J�j I ate(I a I �Ijq�j pest AIJEDLD or THE'CURVE
DR D
1-40, '� North Renton Projj6cl
October 2, 1 )003
1-
Page 2,
I) - ievel fir. " H YwAter. hrIM" �Ijo i) i . libil -3, ".2)
Oh d ys I %V11:1 lwx� Wak';r RistiurceafCrciuntlwatcir
of the; Prqjcct.,NF*PA/SEPA Preliminary Fiflill EJ'S: find "Final Prclim Mary, ;Sccl ion 4, '1), P.vol ijai ion dH(c(l
Match 2Q112, including the referenced study 1405 Coiridpr Prpgrani DI -aft iroundwater. Resources
El X, pertis,c Report bYCH2M Hill,'200" I b doe not' Provide. sufficient.info
s: rmation.t.0 detemn
'ON11P, 1-405 Nottli kehtonftojecfoh the quantity,'664,4111
ality.obf g"" ' hd et to the.City's wells.
re�u
impact to %V4ter qU Y.and.
The impa vL,,ater qtiantity froill tonstructi0n,Of structures -across the well field must.
be thoroughly studied and .evaluated: � Tije construction ofa fly -over ' ramp within the sanitary control area,
radius,, will pint the City water supply n
at risk for-wntarnitiatio and violates the
PMY,iskms i'm lhWAC,246=NOA ion source, w,at pruttct%iii. the
On
P) Ings:Ipay
AffectjhjD flow. ofwatbr' to"the -kAhs Any deer rose i(I tit c qm1l'i.ity 61*:%votcr by Ibc wcllti or *my.
.degradation ofweliAate.rqualityj-esu6ing, fi
onthcw nsiniction and operation of Ii I 4051m ).rov elmilts
:must,be,!nN,estiglatedan,dr'eme.di:ited,,atNNSL)OT'sexpenst. Reinediation may-ii elude theconstruction of ,
Clie MW-41sused: fo*r'th. 18, 6n' ilbli
0..eonstrwAiqrto . i ,sup CI contaminate flit wa tit 'e �c c ta m-
.Adequate Least 50 feet above t1w�ex*stingym] [build i I iig..roof must bc:providcd for,
access -,by.weh. drMing rigs; so.:..the -,,-wclIs.,tan k redeveloped':in the RAW' , ei Access:.-,qnd :clearance for
(A`Mw>N::1n0.t'.;11 I be grbVidt-A tb ternove the u fib Acic4ss--, for :chemical.p nip
S umns , r��mam chanc.
S-Orthec ` Grtiter, MHn4
and
S4 ndic�,(f � (RU I: i0l'�C _1AM 0_30E�,
s� n on Wif&, WQ c4-
The fo11o8vinlo a re
Z'onlc, I.
of the: -dity.'s Aqvifix—Protccdon Arrea (APA-):
Jon
p0'shAll meet pipe', ino: -J io,tioWif4-3-0,SO S. 'fior.
VtAlcmlAtew storage c emxca 4 frorn,morn than 91
tj rf'A" i(.!::: w a I cr
ph-tises.oeilhe
lid allo-wed toltiniftsito-ini
Ruh6fUMiou:Id:,�b'i_-, eJiqllocttd in- In , itd' de"t Ms,,4re'attd'Am , d6d, to si�rfkc�.
A000aie dictent , ion zvoiM h
e'ontaih ar, o s iizte0a
1,4 onti.l.
Pond-
Bridge over the, Cedar River: N'o brid-cl supports -are to be; insLAted in the riverbed to, prevelit.
compromigo of the silt sr atin. the.'rive
110*tiomActivity 4,.'i -O�O
4 C-7):.'St, dar4s shall 'f.,db 'itij ed J. ring 6o4s , pqtion.:
inore than 20 -gal forisof hazardous materials Nivill be:si6red on S'jtet or victiel es. NA 11 be fuejed, on site,
rill. Source Statement(K C 4;,4-061 OL4)': A.fill sou.Pce :statemeiit i$Tequired if moretlim 50,cublo yards
Offill 'aW. CT'A vvill be imparted
W:W-14 . Tm �smtatian kti:*m E", Ciq,-
1-405 North Renton Project
Octobcr27, 2003
pfige I
PARKS:
Codar Rivcw. PArk
I -WeAol the existing active recreation tiles is I e$ ijjcjudjiig 6n.ol'it.dook aqu Aticftfoilit),;
and soccer field, there.5hall be no -,tilde extending more than 50? -soutfivvest from the existing
northeast park :property line along the Maple Valley Highway (line drawn parallel to the existing, park
lirc)pculylil).e). AnyQ),mic iii tbc'pHrk 3rula, vAl jiOud lo'&;.rnitiipilvd Inaddilion,any ,shade ext'. ding
en
into tile flyintle f7f&lfl aT.6) will tic-liflilgificd by also laking into
accountthe loss -of revenue fi-om a dQuease iii fki I ity ime csiused by. the sli't1dL
'2 title to file joll 11sox. inqhjdI;kg,au utfidourmloatic. fa6l'ity/sunbathing r and
. . 1. . C7, .1 . . 1� I a ea
soccer:field�, p-oise impacts will need.to be mitigated with'A solmd barriell.
A&fiti6ial -itiR 11 ii k, 14 p oCth" I .81'em it, otdo.r to
oin ., 0 c prpPosu( - ramp SY reprall
L7
determine t.)6te.6ttaVaddjtifinal Jmj.j)`6dt.s to, fhtwafclCidc s�Ytieixitics. ILA- lld4,-.: a,v ho :a1 fl31
.same e.kvatjon as'the.ramps,necessitating. an :increase. in noise: and aiit qvality� mjti _gation.
.4. Loss; of usable'.-patkJand and air -spatevi 11 need to be-teplAced- in -k-ind-Witliiii tlic Cedar R I iWir Trail.
Corridor,vstem jOcated e. 'i and kon Regis:
5Rlibb6t pafti66r6"idua.. om1 6t ritoIlieparc,a
feiq4rd espec'ially tl fe, 1)6oI area
TC1OXI io be mitigated_ .- This :residue iui.11 likelv: ca use-01creased. deterj'o 40 fife pool faCilrty::
C. 1-he: parks .,Division -:-will not acoqoj any, loss otpatic maintenance facility yard area or m-aintenance
dfhto i"o i'lig litqxjtsij I'Ie . �WaQel, )V ity". An v - loSSf ill requir'lu rejoraflbn of
`4
t1i 6 11'riIbai itonance tacilit, titcludIng tv f!qmpliii, 4 -t- ity
qu.. O�ii ,d *1�!!*
7. j tOc 41 11 Ji h&JI AiiiWti till, fit]
ladder trucks,hree4iiies,'��ai�,car's maintenance les and. pack. .,users .: (ipeludin,&trestle arca)'�
T. c
Auce.ss rrom the Ntapi 0.'V�ahe�y 11 li- access f , roin, 11611 .set" N.Va ed
gj�wayand,,one.-at.c yneed-to'be-m-aittain
,K Trail access, from C04r'Rivbr fatkovet'tlie. rNorto the Nait~.o propet yjnast be.,.riizdht4ffied. Ahy
I ds ape amenities; to ilie��,ex�ish tla actiN -recteatio'n uses and an c� 9-., Shad 6'.ffects.."66m
fl �pafkama I n6A to.be -�miflgated.. ;�hade encroachment inhibits
the will
roinvellatioti Illerej?y lit "tingthe's6fitiluted
10. 1 d
1p:p
pltlgoln jm alion,v nced to be 1' er tomiffivairi. th6
Big LeaflAiiple (Acer.-niacrophyll LIM) east of 1-405 will need
-to
,bel cvaluatO..pi d, 47! a &aised t)y-a certified Arborist. I r removal i.s reqlijrpd, U44, id 0will: mUlIfirl"
12—Prjor tip , ton'.Wtie600., a ecitit'itcI Jqi.Wrist Al' IfiX.-S With A-Aree- (ginopy
�-extending iiii6aiiy.,propo.sed:.c..onstra.c'tioit...Ii'm.ltq:
tree identif).4ng recommendations for tree protectiort, sP ecial pruning practices., etc, to be utilized
-durih-jhe construction pihas:q(s).
)Pj'i!c swild.. 7r.N.Spotom1,1411rung A ropvv.WSJXYr 1-405'N Ktow!-N h, A Lily G)
1-405 NodfiR(Imion .Project
-Octobej-27. 2003
Page-4
13. t�Jll rccluiry a-,ccrufi.'d' arbo isl perform <IJ] tree TOOt prtaking, limb. removal, limb pruning,
tree, sj,-)rjdL:-m)fk; cte.
14. The City %%-ill require a -I element�Jncluding: Plait
maarM." sIOdIscad,lo S iI 2jW i
S. Ot '1311 1 g. i.vok 11r' Any loss Will need T'
,Ofc A611 buiimoji 16, rk
o -be replaced.: Any
parM. replacement parking will need to
be -tl lroiu9!1 in kind T Tma C i r,
Ptr do sys.tern located
rk,
(>. `I sic 1i,rol:)qscd )
SR9 I')— pArt,,,of t SR 169'project - ill need to be
pivserved rind protected. I
is remo,.%,ecl, and rejilaced;.
-tAvork i 'pr 0-�ess- Ibe
..same arty ncorporate.&into the. oniiiqg. 0
17. N&W., wkd )Vd1h; coij5t &edfis pdd of tbipri)j&t acid -fi6o" 'a k
I.. - -� I I - r PVC,O)
1) Tr(
tS0Dg,:p6fk.-nnd recreational art
,I ..avwrropobrty
and trail 9cc0,s:to-Ab'&,.N�arcp Wofmrtv
atdint j ;v
from-d --'all Tlrnjes� mprovmehWmcju "119A. clear spats
1jr n kx(I "ehiutilar, �P, CTP414
A a 'I, I d;,l') , ic , N
Loss,:of us -Able parthindfind m"If-space .will neca for bc,rc laead:ix) k ii 1 1 7u"
i1
p 11 bin. ihe.zCvdar River Trail
Com(lorste�ni,loc�ii,ed:bet'A }?ark_.
NV
3. Ti4ail from Cedg" RJVzfPk,bVqr tlicii the N'I LY IYftt�l'
b Tjjajj�..Ajn �Any
i6*
jiib�,Pwrk-
gic.yr,],epedestrian,access.,.-trom:the ce4ar kfver Traii W.'CRe&f kivcr I*atk. tied pvef to -Liberty, 'Park
2' Ott e, 'ab,orihst .vill be'
N, a
'Awending"into �any.PrPpplmd �qpjistruc,66 n, )iih its, including : btith6tlimitdd to trcei&.018ion I Wri Way
:
-and Mouser %Yy'- :'A certified nrborist rcpqrj. wilf Am-. required f6r each . iree ideritifyft
reccirtitnendations fits' tree proteeti CTA, "Spoci a j , P1.1111 jag prootj mil ized 'dtiritiv the
qi,�% 10 tit
construction Oha*s)..
r
xj and
hsow*w Y b0-:CvHJp?IIc pprdis6d bv,a cer(ifled arborist if
removal is requjrecl: The) -City will. requite monetary xcimbursement "Cor 1he 'appraised re la(-Cillexil
value.., p
4'. the ita Will fbilbirb. a,qc'rfifi6d.- 666st bdribrill, 011 IN COAIX MIX fujib rerirtyval, limb
im, pruning;
tree '_ spad e")
FITW Sys'.TJO - J-IL'YN'R6ftw,'�N It,,kvi EA Cdy Cvjmn"L.di wur
1-405-NIcWt 1) Renton, Pm.ject
�,_Mober 27, '?003
5: '17he-,City will requlrea licensed landscape contractor to install -'all landscape Cieurnents, - :i . ncludint� plani,
materials; god) 0 seedi, topsoi I and, irrigation:
G. `there .shall IV tic) ftet Any Ibs J&'replAc.'ed, Ai
s gill I ['need � to, I iy 1651 6FpArkIA1n(I frcid
l6ss;-6f us -able Oaiklwtd through-the,cre6tion of Yelildceniehf p''Aing vill need1o'be- ni itigate throu I
1
in kind replacement within theCedar River Trail Corridor system located between Lake Washington
,and Ron kcgis.Park,
7. Tlie .(Josc",Prokimity pf The proposed relocated Houser Way to the: skate pail: creates safety'and access
o0wk,riis'-fliaineed to be addriss?:any Y soldfiQn safe access from Ffouse.r W# to he
skat'e park,'(f6rskatiiig),wjd around.�ihu skate park, (b&twe eji the611 Whouse bti
din a skate
�park)tforIpMest-fian access.-,
Ne.,,w noise' i
ArC ak:1) orty tidod. to. nwOorate
,!�f this_ and &6A p
_P
A Alvvilb :pork tkl0
f Milre"s
4 Will' -:4d to up'CIn nII e C-
4 arRverTrail
Corridor,systepl
May Citek
I LcKs, of* rkland a�nd:i ispace will 66odto,bc, r 11 'irridon
O.Jbd it UTO "NV11ii 11 N ylch-oA Trail Ct
M
2. osso vogetritIO&WI, 'A at ion sol I 11WIVO P. "lat H(t>rtrily
3., instal.41tioin n this Section
o f the .eotridor due to the steepg
,topo`j h 'rap N1. A ',-constf-licted wund.harriOrpik y
lass bf pArklaijd,and -bdkji 066v6 V� veg8ton --all ichill : ',.#00d to lie replaced:
'ells altid 11,01
_8 tlie. cotistt`aitttsIt8 tYP6fkandt'edAr giv�rPakkdt`ito, these parks and the City `,of
R6,nixan` well fi
recedinu, lfiowever,,tosummarize�
:tj1 6 Cit y7s positiow
ITW -C.'itysS WvtlS etc r66t-lip ,xg , �Jocdt RVI I C( I
fi -and"* terchange,configprat i : onsboull1be purS1104:tO
Given the,, IISt.t -.o.positi6ns 'i an, alignment: In
Aeferrn IiWIif Jt7 is posMbI6to for future 1" yover lips,thii Neill -a low directac(tto
North Renton.
StO)EtMV-VATM.
Tlw:proj.ecCshould Provide water quantity control �(&tention)
and water qualityihiprovenients for all
existing,
nd proposed right-of-way fmprovements. The, quanfity�, and -quality conVols:should be designed
1.' act%i"Sa With the j` fqshhi. +r47Y S, Mano 1 a.fir
If- N DOU -si& T1 systems cintr e or are
Buccal.( i ia 0 ,4'�is -4 h q -,'46 Ix I I V 5y p661jes shbuld',be,
propo.qed- to,disciia ge 16 �C;. tys
nnal:'ed itrid
of( -.site improvements made as pail.of the prqjectas needed.
be mitigated suchthatthere is no impaot immediately dowhstreaiji of .'the project, Wmetslied based
Flummig P1vj6AV-WWUT JAONNX.Mi'.NRenuto VA City Cvutmmmdoex
1-405 North -Renton Project
October 27. 21003
P;%,L 6
mitigation veil need to show 'that there :,ire:.no-tempoj-aD? oi- loing4erninlpacis doe ioi I w.row.-,ed: pChk. Tate
and volume of runoff, along with changed water qualityl, downsireani of -the project
cci evul
site Mitigation is proposed ,by the :project. If --W-06, w•alershed tiiitl gc1te the
quantity a'nd qtiality impActs, tp the- dovntsearntr syste`m' (stre
43 am..or con'Str'U.Cted stoml sy.steim-) then
WETLANDS;
area; "V
At a minimum, the :project..: sh6uld be, heldtoi`no. not loss" ofivielldfid. alue.
ftIlictibri. 611dr
Replacemcot rai.iijs.rbr wedand.ji-liti ation, sh6uld"Itt "a'm in "nitin'- Satisfy wetland,repjaceinelli
ii RcIto t Doparlinexa.
, , zo. ,,gy , Co7&,of-E ngibeers' replacement coment
ratios, shouldbe acce)tnble,if"Iiey are�qiinl to.or,-1Orc" S.0�ilpCJ1
I lmj,Reriton` ?s. Wt;( land :mitigation
should be:dotie in-1he same Occur,". 'NIS 0 tilli7u1
establish Wetland rnitigation.bahks inAlj&'bas"ins yv em4v6t M'mill be impact6d" I V t1 :pr ject.and
8 the,wah Mig, rule . This will ens�*
c t, ind bat "as roquired'$ 6, a 6, s` X"Ola'AdIM Otj tan
y , , ...041 1. . -.
0 slime flin6tion and _vabje.:as the..v-tiland. that is to be
impacted. -prior to the wetlandbel6g,61fed by 1110 . W,
RITAT:
The'POj ho. I "illd,pi.6y, jj)�( losses'
italue. In, addition the,:prq kh IIId
R 01 a ath en t ratios I for, �4 , hi acts ,:*to; %,strcani-.buff�i-.s.,�,�ild fis lii tat Miould'! be-,
p,�
in~qtikiA,
.Mi .�z.ifi6ji should: be - incorporated Et -.-.A ie`I-oc.ad'b..,nof ilw- 11m.ptct.to the ..e m.I
a.x.itnum. ,dI ql-
e
pe ssible. taut -Alk addillonal t1111,j 3lTioi orild witbn the 9ffiipbasin,b A
ttiitigattori fiend could b iatme i.
th
prime, fish` .1 ,
e:: en! idia 'to,
Jh y mitiditte for- the action aa� I Or��j('.et i,bw have a ftstorafion. element to offset
T1,10r, i111P1etc and the tact :th'Rf,,r;)iti& ion i ttrnedkitc ly auhieved..espm-Latly when it comes
-exi, ins-tir 'triod' ris
to, mean! bljff�rs. Any _qvrt,*� to
to fish
_P h h 'PMYOII or 10
, �,'s 1 , a quit-.464't t 'ftr t,fi, 1, -,-;s*hac
Trib 028 3 ft d Ah-
lo, 'er hT, eittetion. 41011,; j 'Ay NP�.,
i DIMS A �t 00, 0 near Aile
th ig.small,,Iributz --have ed''and sw -c Hbutarv-04IS-4
::bwi�xeroqt -tedT .,
Slroo t 41th -"edini6pts-M.-
0.01. `PPAP, Temova QJ 'f 9 ter
'ct�asstrigcNIF4
'-d-NE.43rd Weet
6288.1 0 fie�-_Jliethbd;f6i, d6ins�,d ists r6p ficiii
h it aq, Iy
and aq - 6 93. wl �`-ifie
tin&r 1-46:.:-�Wlth b Mrlriejs as,,*' 6led 16,1` :Coal :cc Tribwaq-
(litelle.,`ftjol% Laj,,c whi6h convey vmt& to'May Creek.
FLOODIPLAINSo
The'project 'should be Id....'ComPen I sa . to . ry . so I a gg , r requir . "to prolvl0 t for filling''Of any floodplAim A "7i` 170
rise" to the floodway gizind d. t6: op.011td bO Project is� also required tjo oom ly
ard Aou'l, tote
P
w illi all" 1-8M.A-. an(1 Nation Flood Instirmice Priogranl (NMP). standards zsfnce'Fe'deral fu n4ing`wffl be
used. No encroachnictit into °thc lloodpliiin- oug
id
0&-v it} T1W jiyd!i e _tltrjlysusshould 6based.,upon
bedeniobstfMd'd that th standard
'M" �
Rit6toh
re Infid tisd difion'1.0'0-�iedr flo6d'fi61-Avq., M I " -:cj10sstiigk if:O'd e RVer_0114 Ay Cjt'A-
TI'
Should be the Rill span of tho.J00-year floodplainj i.e., no piers, al),titnicatsi etc. sliould he lt)catcd in the
I1~File Sy,TR?
1A 05 North Rewoni Prqjje'.ct.
mf6buv 27.. 2003
Vage'7
1.004eaf flobdpfain. New bridge .l:ow eh'ciird bridgsituld b,(�svbvc. I w
Fuluto'l rid 65v 61(]J'Goil100,ytar flood A.Taiiiijjiijuj 6F1.hf6&Tc61 or liib46 otiS, I- �.Jirls Or ,
P frvceS, .W,ith'41,10 'Aojlt or ' In I t* ' lark d' b
Per the F1 om)]n,Yuremeer I ii 7g, i 5 iwi),� April 2 , 0 0 1 1.1rMy N ef)O(l bc)riljwcq Hydraulic 0(mstillmors- flit:
P-1 ip l
podlo-mri.an bridge undeix, 1405exbericjjcas partial or completc pressure flow during the 100- year flood
event. It iiiight be poSsibl6, to.;re me& this,S'jtudttoni by taising-pr:ieconstrootin e the Oed stfian bridge
'coincidentally ,wlih the proj5os6d']AOS knp.-�&verii.6.ts jaftihe.';Cedar kiwi' cfolssing.
5h:OItrYIA'A'1*R UTJ'IJTfC,§':
Thej-405 right-oflivpyoreatma major burim-to util it),.sery ices.- Regarding storinwater,ii hydrologic and
hy,,Arhuhc.analvsls. of 411ekisting"'.-and - p'rdTo6,std exilva-ts, and stoma systems that O-Oss 1-405th6ulld be,
poe,fornied to verify iffit the sytt le,
. Clit
Tf the:anaiys s in,dwai6,.&at iheys ten s' t", b` urfici�YYnt.uapa�jt jh Vfl it
asins.
'i zu Thi%:is nce4&I to'cusare: flint •ndoqiirjJe,,. �,Aom)watcr
conv ante can be provi&d1iicr6ss tbi�- l'405 ri �id
ey, cip r cY.r;and-,thht- the.prpjoct will riot --create q. teeam
d
rainagpp*riDblerns. 'Any Cluj a ned'struc ores that ha e'io be,tefoci fed or
P
k(Od byjht. proj - t
, I..
JM j� . C
City �44 r6l, tion — Al,atxi tb the ., t atv.. A review
Orin 0' 1 (xx) Al i a OrAbu��T-wqj �i(Jr S-y"itux-11 e )1.1. D tkin Wilb fin;
City of ,;Ut_ hoe
][45-presentsAo -tile natural
I fffi� " - 'ffoinventorymaps,
-V
D 101 I'dWirik list bf, 1405, 06 s 5 t b ilMrd tis- a
defintt::no o e,6 ed , qp
voOt :(Sge ait, e4 iilvolto� �
At North S`t' Sttee
1vi3tl vay,behmeeii�.4.. ''19, Ph rkbrive'atid.-North,,K Street','
N
At -Al 7*'.C`,!ourt
North 64-'NP,�44. :Stf et
ShOlkti L, *'ES'.1
`The: ,rojeot.should .tohjoly'with the-cui4iAtyadopted I.. I _.- IB Omfine
r Shctrelme
TRAN$PO1kTAT1OjN;
OtY AOix-J418,and Lo61'$tft t&
Impacts. to traffic pamkizsaiid Srof mes�� ftrbets,need to be . i . d ified and.
u .01il t%i ao-6 a,15,, and, kcal-: ent
Mt` atej' tfieselm'pactsTdten I tiaflvzinehide; but -are -not limited to:
■ The,cul_desacp Meadbw:and Fa W A F.,., ory , ve
17ie" hddit" t and th' 16 n -A 6ue
.100a, capacity needs S on Mr. tiO, ron�op iy, �A'O e
bridge.over the. C , edtir River;
Tni Mic pattern revisioxis on Smi-sd Boi.ilcvard at [lie SR 169N Mb I rd Stmi, I iT)tomharigv;
Pinn6w.ft, Pn-,Zmmmi%;�TRPAO•I-OV;W Rmmn-.NRcnm.nPA Ciry Common cb..,-rm
1-403 North Renton Project
October 27, 200.1
Page 8
■ AdditionA traffic"- 8i.gm1ls, or ttaffc signal revisions, such M--On the Maple VAev flighway and
NE 10 S(rcct; and,
■ The,vOlineWic)" Of llouwr Way North. to flic. SR -)ss 6 the 1 I�us r
c to the, li f
Wny Timnel.
Nei bborboods'-.,nil
linpa6tsto.traffic -through neighborhoods nce&tobeideDtii e
d and mitigated. Neigbborboods potentially
Relifon Ce Business: Dj'.Arict (ACBD), the north Renton residttitial
neigh4orhOod, and%the d
I.. 'a 11 - I .Isee3. uiisct Rcir,rlc,
patte
1-01066f5-' skh 'I"; iCQcss and traffic ';Ms, :10 10ccl1mincsscs need to be identified and, miti -t ed
p6icatially impacted bsi t0lSmr)seRotdcvard141cinst)II %,v,Nurth, Maple.
Valley Highway and --Nfa.Jn Avenue South:
.169/Nof(b 3rd�'SIANOI OqdestrMn� rid:
0 OC COO
DU6 to -tile iflfCi�bfi��n - '- "'f'
d D
'
Street
'd
V, ay I
�.rnnf b.,Mode . li:I)g,;and- I SimuNfion
'haffiCMOdcl Ml4 qi�sftould'b,0-t00docted '0S1. -A In degi f. yAqd
h
juh d "Is. - W."
�'.hlo e mg ty a S s V1118.
10404 "di'l�c�'UsSioll�.T,eZ,a,l-�dzlng.� tiaMi" i-d""'I i 'cis-intersec ion, capki -.an -v
codrW in n d WSDOTthr migh,sepilat
It 'is ,anticipated that -in- the. near f6ture the Renton
ChCopncil',-Will be makin91-de.cisibiis-.regarding -,the
:
North -Rcwc
Pow, Ii -I C thc'-jisihe�'fti
atoil an(
--nja'.x"Q'mPj li A-IIn0ndw.tMt§'. A Dr Rn�;Jro,
Wats .,
ocing-Propogal io re one.p-Ortioils 6f-.
Ale- i i '..v fl� 4
0,6Ue is'. aite,�xf ub z`fh6ii ";&i�
in''d change
.anzfjysls;' The
propefty:need lb�'b'e inolWed,. In
not-in.clude the .. 'Boei : llg Land Vse
I
d'IS �"
OdI"cO" S- 'ffi- fh't, lropasei
, f Nkslon$1
erp 1049e 70. QIxerat Od oil Aww"nec tbbe
North. Renton'B'Oeim4;Dh'l§ identifies caj)Atiry neof i. n the Park.
north6pund traffic. The- capacity needs of this i'change.§hold-be:mial For exan1'4' . "t.s iotldlie .
deturmin6d if the castboundibnorthbomdloop , - in ra P shoi,ld lie retained in th.014turO; d6q'l',9n.
it is proposed to eliminate the 1-46, ramps fto nv4un set B.I.v-d Sunset l3inuleviirrf
405'ad: connect into the North Remon..neighborhood local street system,. this the City' q pref6rbtvcb to
go under 1 1.05,zf pos5 t te. TraTICIhOoling ff itini acts
O.n x.g.ura ibiildf
H h v)v4t.V,'SLX7I JAL'51W ReiikuAN Aujit-m FA Cay,CLnIImmIjt.d"dxq
1405 Noritt Rr uti.itl PvoiCia
October '27. 200,3..
P.aze'9
Reiitrrn H,II>.Ai;��rtirc
T7t4'.Cjt iliL (tlht r 17 ?_pa3 IrTGlriPl: 's sltohv veritie South
aild Etentc>n Avonus Sritithj licijs ctfir►lt►ncrl 111to..tsar acccss,. wisp►. I11c +ii crl�r►ys c�rr the; Renton Avonuc
South alignment: Although soutfi of the Cedar l6 er;.,clue to Its clove j:rtoxhttity to dje North Rentcm
proiect limits, we, ofkr the folIowina perspectives regarding access to Renton Hill.
1. A second. access "to Renton Hill nccds16:6e. provided.
2. Any irn— (;ts due talhis second access rived by be 7iiinitiri e8 liid lititi atccl.
3. The second access<should be cost effeCti've: South Kenton funds saN•ed with this scconfla►y access
alternative will then be>available :for,otber seciion5 of -South Benton.
WSDOT pfoposed several options for a second ticeess,tQ kentoii Hiit, 'I ltese ctii#ions tncliidc.`cxtcrjdi►i
ettl er Grains ��vetiue: South or Cc • /lvoniie Sot ih, south tnio the 13eiisdn Hill neighborhood. ccririect
either :Nfi1t Avenu e 'Svuth br South ?Siteet ttrross ll 05, td Sottth :,Grady *ay between Citv,Hali and
Sam° ('.Lull; and extelid Mill down liic hill; in order to utilize the existing NarcU
pmperty access under, the 1-405 CMav Riverbrid"ge.
`1r5t)()..T.'and tits (ity a&ill cent iiuc to dc��i I ip a .prciCr�i:cl'alt.c rrf�t►� t:tiff pray itlE:1}ris st:uund ac:crss.
PAC
Tlere are.severnt potentihFiinpacts;t'►}the.}'At.( Al2 f rnl�ertj ii at jzu ilAozb(. it14•zzt*A(-- i and 171it .gated:
t'ite t�lgrtlith.Street direct:acee5s. r�itnt).intty hzt�te Jt3tl)utS Ti? t7iC I�Af.:( t1i2 J�rc+�ScrC� ort..titc toitti,
side of ilia str�ect -
e re}4?c3tlott o . I XOtiser W_Tiortti:to t> s;ft�rcr:ldatxt%n ace site, c t'Ct property;.
r tfi..e ;potential ertelWi'ott .c i Sea;sat:`t3otile� rd co. <t}ae=west 4cross-P..Nrt:Ak property: to North .5'h
St;rec.l_
'FC03N(.)'gK—D1pVF:t:•0P14fNT \ tGtttlpREtC)�I)�y,,i�t�ST1:te1IMG� .,PLANNING
I. pd(4hw,` Akigf this iiinih&r' oi�t the.9 itfi_£u` Sireet 140V:direct
access;jamp;sh(�uld:allay `raritJ> iaaf ia,to acccss,the 6r,41li 1G; o.t`(34d ra ;Avowi , ticith in yv}tci tbe::
:ranip:l.•inds sand through sigrializ�ztion to;allt�3 +7:safatunliai ;;nirrleitie►its:
Tomaintainthe finite vt161}it; : of Hpuser 1►Vay, potential Clttneetie)tis shoi)lti erl so tlil.
Iiouxer �'a� bet���eeti Parrk r#lrenie and'f3r9l�isot�i ��`ay can fuiicfronas.a #i`ozi�e'roa.
Jo.`Srniilart t, tlia Mirth ltentott 1-405 > itirirontlieiitri As�esIM61 t slirriil�l e izsicict' z�fltio►)s E'or St►iisca:
uou}eVard NE to bave a ti,o#e dircdi Iiiik o T, t} :
4. The Park Avenue interchattge.northbound edit ramp slinuld lac iticateel :ti) rtillc► � citi►ttg}i rouzzt tier All
►eastbound to nort'hbouhd Ii op rartii,p. C,it�e 'Iteniot foYooasts izidt ttto ali t thrs:itx7p riunp would,he
nee.essary even ttrider 6aselitte l.cir d Use(.ontit#y ii ;.
5. Earlier. A 44'h Street interchange desho$igiis showed an .ea.Ahound <to northbound letup. rants). T e
northbound exit ramp uld ire located far. enough east to ailowroom`forthis .po ttitil loop: ramp,
rl ••File Sve.TRP Trur1,191 tJOY.n Pi,Cting R PRaid in,WW.TRP 10 Transtr station Plnnni�r Px jn r.. 9iS3X?T 1 a�4.N r r,pm.� nempnr:.n eit..�nm�r+t,, ,onr
1-405 Norlb R.(-nIon,,,PvujmI
October 27, 200.3
1,40D 10
'ni,v j.Pecting rmords.,rTom these mo. previous meetings accurately reflecicomments by the
City regarding
the Nooh. Rooton
■ Mcclin- R:O-ord:.. Agi-4cy5copi-bg , mting, 2003
Nf I!,
oTRcn!on Meeting, Oc-lobeu.14, 2003.
city` 'Reviewers:
StAffil'V lVed iri tee rep ;in t1 e°sublet4boin t"a
War, .m,nm" --IDO a , Nkh.P", : ,
g r-
ej,
'-or
t U1.1k NV"411. Tfi itpervis, Le lte Roflac* P' t 13irectcir
ave,any c point of colliad.for the
:�51iptild you
p
.1-405 projem af(42-5) 430'-7
SY,
Alex P`kmoh
.Demi , i . stula,
Us I'i a ' 13 6 fl a 0 k:
Abdout"Cafobe"
ILjruW.Ws1xYrj--Ios.-N xiolmi.N RefloA rA 0 m m, r
APPENDIX B
Master Plan Exhibit
Implementation Plan Exhibit
Nickel Projects Exhibit
July 2004 B
Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects
Master Plan
The 1-405 Master
Plan will ultimately:
• Add up to 2 lanes in each direction
in 1-405
• Develop a Bus Rapid Transit line with
stations along 1-405 and expanded
transit centers
• Improve key arterials
• Accommodate an additional 110,000
trips per day in the corridor
• Reduce time stuck in traffic by over
13 million hours per year —an average
of over 40 hours per year per regular
user
• Produce travel time savings valued at
$569 million each year
• Save $42 million each year in
decreased traffic accidents
• Create 1700 new vanpools —a 100%
increase
• Increase local transit service by up to
50% within the study area
• Build 5,000 new park -and -ride spaces
• Create eight new pedestrian/bicycle
crossings over 1-405
• Enhance freight mobility through
better interchanges, travel time
reduction, and updated and
technologies
• Provide much -needed economic
benefits for Washington State —for
each $1 million spent on new
construction, an additional 30 jobs
are created
�
'MILL CREEK
525
99+
I'
52
fZLg;K;j
W BOTHELL
BRIER
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
KING COUNTY
-
E�
NE MORE
'
LAKE-1r!lo�x�
POREST
JUA TA
SEA"LE
KENT
WOODINVILLE
REDMOND
�Y
SAMMAMISH
The 1-405 Master Plan, which was
developed through an extensive
public involvement process with an
encompassing Environmental
Impact Statement, reached a
Federal Record of Decision in
October, 2002. The Master Plan is
a 20-year vision of multi -modal
improvements to the freeway,
transit system and arterials along
the 1-405 corridor, stretching from
Tukwila to Lynnwood.
rLE
®
Added Reeway lanes t Connections
Ava nm lanes added each direction on
.
1-405 and inlerchanges upgraded, ky
chokepoints RAed at SR 167,1-90,
Ahkland and Bothell
---
-
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service
New bus raOAi transit
.system depleyed
-
Transit Service
59% transit service incmase
�$
with HOV lane and dad
access improvements
Arterial Improvements
-•+«-+
e
Local adeLials improved
ONOV
lane Access Point
--
W
BRT Stations
den new BRrstations
Transit Centers
Nine transit centers
Park -and -Ride Lots
n
4000newpan4-and-ride spaces
Alfth.
Washington State
�� Department of Transportation
MEM
Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects
Implementation Plan
The Implementation Plan represents projects
that could be built over the next 10-15 years
if major transportation funding decisions occur
in 2004.
This phase may be partially funded through
the Regional Transportation Investment District
(RTID). In addition to RTID funding, the second
phase may seek funding from state and federal
resources, and a future phase of Sound Transit.
• Provides continuous multi -modal corridor
improvement from 1-5 in Tukwila to SR 522
in Bothell
• Adds one lane each direction from 1-5 to
SR 181 in Tukwila
• Adds two lanes each direction from SR 181
in Tukwila to 1-90
• Adds one lane each direction from 1-90 in
Bellevue to SR 522 in Bothell
• On SR 167, adds one lane each direction
between 1-405 and S. 180th Street
• Constructs Bus Rapid Transit line with
stations, HOV direct access ramps, park -
and -ride lots, and bus service
• Expands the vanpool program
Roadway Improvements:
® Freeway: + 2lanes
Freeway: +1 lanes
N Arterial Connection
Transit-HOV Improvements:
HOV Lane Access Point
OST
Funded HOV
Lane Access Point
Transit
�j
Park & Ride Lots
Freeway to Freeway
HOV Connection
$4.7 Billion
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
f KING COUNTY .
.� NE I60fh SC
W
_NE 132W St
OW NE 128th St
N_E / Qh St.
NE_ 116th SL_�, • �� '
•- - NE 85M St
:S NE 70th St.
ik
Ave. SE
Developed 10103
s /v
WrWashington State
Department of Transportation
Phase 1: Nickel Projects
[-a
Bellevue
1-90 - Downtown Bellevue
SE 8th St 8NSF RR
2 i8,h Ave SE;
(1) Lane
Added
NBound
(1) Lane 1
Added
SSound
Renton
1-4051SR 167 Interchange
Kirkland
527 SR 520 - SR 522
szz
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c.
FJ
(I) LLane
N
Added
---- ---
SBound
N
"'Lane
Added
SBound N. 1.F 124St,
- -
(1) Lane
Added
NBound
'VC 86th 'St,
N -CY) E, st
The nickel gas tax funds the
improvements shown for
Renton, Bellevue and Kirkland.
These three projects are
currently hPinc, rip-qianpri
APPENDIX C
WSDOT I-405 Project Team / City of Renton Flow Chart
City of Renton I-405 Organization Chart / City Design Team
July 2004 C
Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects
I FHWA I
Context Well
Sensitive Stations/
Solutions Parks
(CSS)
Local Agency
Committees
L - Tukwila
Renton (Committee structure varies
Bellevue by jurisdiction)
Kirkland
Economic Environ- Emergenc
Develop- mental Response
ment Mitigation
Public Outreach and
Information
As needed for
specific technical
assignments and
interdisciplinary
coordination
Washington State
ww- Department of Transportation
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING A
COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON
AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE I-405 CONGESTION RELIEF AND
TRANSIT PROJECTS.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is a
department of state government with all powers, duties, and functions to coordinate
transportation modes and to develop and maintain a statewide transportation system meeting the
needs of the State of Washington as provided in chapter 47.01 RCW; and
WHEREAS, the I-405 Corridor Program proposes to implement a multimodal system of
transportation improvements to reduce traffic congestion and improve personal and freight
mobility throughout the I-405 corridor; and
WHEREAS, the I-405 corridor traverses through and affects the City of Renton,
including its residents, businesses, and schools; and
WHEREAS, the 2003 Washington State Legislature approved a Nickel Funding Package
that funds environmental work, design and construction of the I-405 "Nickel Projects" within the
City, as well as "5% Design" of the I-405 Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, planning, designing, constructing and operating the I-405 Corridor
improvements are complex tasks, requiring maximum cooperation between the City and WSDOT;
and
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of
Understanding;
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
Memorandum of Understanding with the Washington State Department of Transportation entitled
"Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Renton and the Washington State
Department of Transportation for the I-405 Congestion Relief & Transit Projects."
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES.1067:8/23/04:ma
day of , 2004.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
day of , 2004.
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
2
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al #:
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division
September 13, 2004
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Abdoul Gafour, x7210
J.D. Wilson, x7295
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Addendum No. 2 to Consultant Contract CAG-03-034
Correspondence..
with R.W. Beck, Inc. for Update of Water System
Ordinance .............
Plan
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Issue paper
Study Sessions......
Addendum No. 2 to CAG-03-034
Information.........
Contract Addendum Exhibit A - Scope of Work
Contract Addendum Exhibit B - Cost Estimate
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept...... X
Other.. ... .
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure
Required
None
Amount Budgeted $20,000.00 (2004)
Total Project Budget $400,000.00
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Transfer/Amendment
Revenue Generated
City Share Total Project
$46,000
from account 421/55260
to account 421 /55140
N/A
$400,000.00 (2003-2005)
• The Water Utility requests Council's approval of Addendum #2 to the Consultant Contract CAG-
03-034 with R.W. Beck, Inc. for additional work to complete the update of the Water System Plan.
• The Water Utility further requests Council's approval to transfer $46,000 from the Reservoir Re -coat
project budget (account # 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055260) to the Water System Plan Update
project budget (account # 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055140). This transfer will not increase the
total appropriation for the Water Utility's 2004 Capital Improvement Project budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that Council authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute Addendum #2 to CAG-03-034, in the amount of $65,448.00 with R.W.
Beck, Inc., to complete the update of the Water System Plan.
• The Department further recommends that Council approve the transfer of $46,000 from the Reservoir
Re -coat project budget (account # 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055260) to the Water System Plan
Update project budget (account # 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055140).
H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-13 - Studies & Project Development\WTR-13-0082 - Water System Plan Update & 565 Pre-Design\RW
Beck Contract\Addendum rY 2\agenda-bill-add-2-to-contract.doc/AGtp
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 30, 2004
TO: Don Persson, President
Renton City Council
VIA: ,,)Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
FROM: Gregg Zimmerma , Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Abdoul Gafour, x7210
J.D. Wilson, x7295
SUBJECT: Water System Analysis Update Addendum No. 2 to
Contract CAG-03-034 with R.W. Beck, Inc.
ISSUE:
The Water Utility requests Council's approval of Addendum #2 to the Consultant
Contract CAG-03-034 with R.W. Beck, Inc. for additional work to complete the update
of the Water System Plan. -
RECOMMENDATION:
• Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Addendum #2 to CAG-03-034, in the
amount of $65,448 with R.W. Beck, Inc., to complete the update of the Water System
Plan.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
On March 26, 2003, the City contracted with R.W. Beck, Inc. to update a portion of the
1998 Water System Plan. The Department of Health (DOH) requires that the City
updates the plan every six years and the next update is due for DOH's approval by April
30, 2005. The City also submits the draft plan to adjacent water purveyors and to the
public for comments through the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process.
Following the Mayor and City Council's approval of the plan, the plan is submitted to the
King County Utilities Technical Review Committee for review and for approval by the
King County Council.
Purpose of Addendum:
The Water Utility would like to amend R.W. Beck's contract for additional work not
included in the original scope of the contract and to complete the final plan on schedule.
The work consists of the update of other portions of the plan, the review and editing of
the entire plan, the preparation of responses to comments from various regulatory
August 30, 2004
Page 2
agencies, the public and private parties of interest, the production of the final document in
paper and electronic formats, and project management.
Funding:
The Water Utility has budgeted $100,000 in the 2004 Capital Improvement Project
budget for the update of the Water System Plan to cover the remaining work on the
current contract with R.W. Beck ($22,000) and also for City staff time ($58,000). The
estimated remaining balance available for this proposed addendum is $20,000, therefore
an additional $45,448 is needed.
The Water Utility requests Council's approval to transfer $46,000 from the Reservoir Re -
coat project budget (account no. 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055260) to the Water
System Plan Update project budget (account no. 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055140).
We do not anticipate recoating another reservoir by the end of 2004 due to weather
conditions. This transfer will not increase the total appropriation for the Water Utility's
2004 Capital Improvement Project budget.
cc: Lys Hornsby
Abdoul Gafour
J.D. Wilson
H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-13 - Studies & Project Development\WTR-13-0082 - Water System Plan Update &
565 Pre-Design\RW Beck Contract\Addendum # 2\Issue Paper - Addendum #2.doc/AGtp
ADDENDUM NO. 2
to
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CAG 03-034
Dated: March 26, 2003
This Addendum is made and entered into this day of , 2004 by and
between the City of Renton, hereinafter called the "City" and R.W. Beck, Inc., hereinafter called the
"Consultant".
WITNESSETH THAT:
Whereas, the City engaged the services of the Consultant under Consultant Agreement CAG 03-034
dated March 26, 2003, for project "Water System Analysis Update and Pre -Design for 565 Pressure
Zone Water Distribution Improvements".
Whereas, the City has not sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide the engineering
within a reasonable time; and
Whereas, the City and the Consultant have determined that additional work is required to meet the
goal of the project. Those additional work items being defined in Exhibit A with costs anticipated as
shown in Exhibit B.
NOW, therefore, in accordance with Section VIII, Extra Work, of Consultant Agreement CAG 03-
034, dated March 26, 2003, the agreement is amended as follows:
1. Revise the maximum amount payable under section VI, Payment, from $254,767.00 to
$320,215.00, an increase of $65,448.00.
EXECUTION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum No. 2 to CAG 03-034 with R.W.
Beck, Inc. as of the date and year first above written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF Renton
Signature
Charles Williams
Director of Operations
Date Signature Date
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Mayor
Signature
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
Date
HAFile Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-13 - Studies & Project Development\WTR-13-0082 - Water System Plan Update & 565
Pre-Design\RW Beck Contract\Addendum # 2\Addendum#2.DOC/AGtp
Exhibit A - Scope of Work
Addendum No. 2 to CAG-03-034
General
The scope of the services consists of additional services associated with Chapter 7, Water
Supply for the City's 2005 Water System Plan Update, the editing and production of the
Water System Plan and additional project management associated with the new and
expanded tasks.
Task 1 - Project Management
The extension of the contract time associated through June 2005, during the review
process for the updated Water System Plan requires additional project management for
the supervision of the task.
Task 11 - Updates to Source of Supply Analysis, Water Rights
Evaluation, Water System Reliability Analysis and Intertie
Analysis -Additional Scope
The assumption used when accepting this task as part of Amendment 1, was that the
revisions required to this Chapter in the previous Water System Plan would be minor and
that most of the existing information could be used without modification. In fact, this
Chapter needed to be substantially updated, rewritten, and expanded to reflect the City's
current water supply situation and to meet current DOH requirements.
Work Product: Updated Chapter 7- Water Supply to the Water System Plan.
Task 13 - Editing and Production of Water System Plan -New
Task
The scope of the consulting contract requires the Consultant to conduct analyses and
prepare specific chapters for the updated Water System Plan. The City was responsible
for preparing other chapters and for assembling and producing the updated Plan.
However, since the Consultant has the staff and resources to prepare the Plan and
experience preparing other similar plans, the City deems it beneficial to have the
Consultant prepare the 2005 Water System Plan Update. This includes preparing the
draft copies required during the review process and the final document in paper and
electronic format.
The City will be responsible for managing the review process, including City reviews and
approvals, sending the document to the required review agencies, receiving, and
screening comments. The Consultant will incorporate the comments into the Water
System Plan and has included an allowance to respond to comments on the sections of
the Plan prepared by the Consultant.
HAFile Sys\WTR -Drinking Water Utility\WTR-13 - Studies & Project Development\WTR-13-0082 -Water System Plan Update &
565 Pre-Design\RW Beck Contract\Addendum # 2\scope-of-work-draft-081904.doc\AGtp
Page 1
The scope of services will include the following phases and activities:
1. Production of Draft Water System Plan
a. Assemble both the City and R.W. Beck prepared sections and appendices of
the Water System Plan.
b. Format and edit all chapters for consistency.
c. Print hard copies of draft report for internal City review (assume 5 copies).
d. Revise Plan based on City review comments.
e. Print draft Water System Plan for SEPA review and review of adjacent
utilities and the Muckleshoot tribe (assume 12 copies).
f. Print copies for SEPA review; review by adjacent utilities, and by the
Muckleshoot tribe.
2. Production of Water Svstem Plan for Kina Countv Approval
a. Incorporate comments from adjacent utility/tribe review.
b. Compile new appendix with responses to comments and certificates of
consistency.
c. Print hard copies of Water System Plan for adoption by the Renton City
Council (assume 7 copies).
d. Print copies of the Water System Plan for King County Staff review (Assumes
7 copies).
e. Prepare and submit revision sheet to address County comments.
3. Produce Final Water System Plan
a. Print copies for DOH submittal, including DOE copy (assume 3 copies).
b. Address any comments received from DOH and incorporate changes.
c. Print copies of final Water System Plan and deliver to the City (assume 20
copies).
d. Convert the Water System Plan to a PDF file (with bookmarks & links for
navigation to prepare a CD -Rom of the Water System Plan).
e. Produce CDs of final Water System Plan (assume 100 CDs).
f. Deliver 1 CD to the City containing all of the original files and documents.
Work Products: Draft and final Water System Plan documents in paper copies, PDF file,
and CD -Rom. Also, R.W. Beck will deliver all of the original files to the City on a disk.
HAFile Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-13 - Studies & Project Development\WTR-13-0082 - Water System Plan Update &
565 Pre-Design\RW Beck Contract\Addendum # 2\scope-of-work-draft-081904.doc\AGtp
Page 2
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
Direct Salary Cost
Overhead Cost @182.43%
Subtotal
Net Fee 15%
Direct Non -Salary Cost
a. Geotechnical subconsultant
b. Surveying subconsultant
c. Expenses
Current
Contract
Amount thru
Amendment
No. 1
$60,300
110,006
$170,306
25,546
$24,370
25,460
9,085
$254,767
Amendment
No. 2
$16,328
29,788
$46,116
6,917
$12,415
$65,448
Total
$76,628
139,794
$216,422
32,463
$24,370
25,460
21,500
$320,215
RAI 1-00880\Contracts and Amendments/RentsonSumaryofEngServices.xls
Water System Plan Update and 565 Pressure Zone Water Distribution System Pre -Design
Labor Hours Details and Cost Summary
Stafl
Title
Bill Rate
LABOR HOURS BUDGETED
Project
Manager
$162
Project
Engineer
$104
Technical
Editor
$88
Project
Assistant
$74
Word
Processing
$74
Total
Hours
Labor
Expenses
Sub-
Consultants
Total
TASK
DESCRIPTION
1
Project Management
40
0
0
40
0
80
$9,"0
$560
$0
$10:000
11
Updates to Supply Analysis
8
40
0
8
4
56
$6,051
$280
$c
$6,331
13
Technical Writing
$11,6676
is._i rroauce uran water system man
Zu
d
tis
78
194 $57,b8Ft
13.2 Produce Water System Plan for KC Approval
24
60
40
124 $10,736
13.3 Produce Final Water System Plan
16
48
45
109 59,218
Total, Task 13
3,240
4,992
17,248
12,062
427 $31,542 $11,575 $49,117
Hour Totals:
68
88
196 48
163
563
AMENDMENTTOTAL
11,016
9,152
17,248 3,552
12,062
TOTAL $65,448
RASeatt1e\11-00880\ScopeandBudget\CostEstimateTaskl ,11,13.xis 17
Water System Plan Update and 565 Pressure Zone Water Distribution System Pre -Design
Expenses
EXPENSES BUDGETED
Travel
Mileage
$0.360
per mile
Fax/
Phone/
Postage
$1.25
per hour
Repro
Color
BW 11x17 CDs
$0.10 $1.00 $5
per copy per copy each
PC Charges
Eng./CAD
$5
per hour
Other
Supplies
Total
TASK
DESCRIPTION
'717,
4 9
Re
MUM -417
1 -173, -MIN,
TAUT
777-77
77777-7
"I . . . . . . . . . . . .
IS
Total Expenses $12,415
*Includes $8,000 for estimated printing costs of $140/copy for 54 copies of Water System Plan (total of $7,560) plus a small allowance for supplies and miscellaneous expenses.
RAS( ScopeandBudget\CostEstimateTaskl,1 1,1 3.x1s
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems/Wastewater Utility
Staff Contact...... John Hobson, x7279
Subject:
Final Pay Estimate - CAG-03-115
East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill & Watermain
Replacement Phase II, Contractor: Robison
Construction Inc. (RCI)
Exhibits:
Final Pay Estimate
Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
AI It: 1 0 r
For Agenda of: September 13, 2004
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
X
X
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required...
$7,881.46 (final pay estimate) Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted.......
$6,000.00 (Wastewater Utility) Revenue Generated.........
Amount Budgeted.......
$3,000 (Water Utility)
Total Project Budget
$450,000 (2004 Wastewater Budget)
Total Project Budget
$432,000 (2004 Water Budget) City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The project was awarded on May 6, 2003. Construction was started on September 24, 2003,
and was completed on April 4, 2004. The original contract amount was $1,310,562.37 and the
final contract amount is $1,316,149.54. The final contract amount is less than 1/2 percent
greater than the original contract amount and well under the amount budgeted by Water and
Wastewater.
The total Wastewater funds budgeted for this project was $800,000 of which $450,000 was from
the 2004 Wastewater Budget. The Wastewater portion of the project cost $777,129.29. The total
Water funds budgeted for this project was $550,000 of which $432,000 was from the 2004 Water
Budget. The Water portion of the project cost $539,020.25.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Utility Systems Division of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that
the project be accepted, the final pay estimate in the amount of $7,881.46 ($4,963.77 Wastewater
& $2,917.69 Water) be approved and the retainage bond in the amount of $65,528.19 be released
after 60 days, subject to the receipt of all required authorizations.
H:\File Sys\WWP - WasteWater\WWP-27-3078 East Kennydale Sewer Infill PH II\Agnbi1_Fina1-EKEN2.docVHtp
I , TO
FINANCE DIRECTOR
FROM
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR
(--"TRACTOR: RCI
TRACT NO. CAG-03-115 ESTIMATE NO. 7 (Final)
PROJECT: East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill & Water Main Rep[ PH II.
1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $7,243.99
2. SALES TAX @ 8.80% $637.47
3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE $7,881.46
4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR $1,202,452.28
5. EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE $7,243.99
6. SUBTOTAL - CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS $1,209,696.27
10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID $105,815.80
11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE $637.47
12. SUBTOTAL - SALES TAX $106,453.27
GRAND TOTAL: $1,316,149.54
FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION:
PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR (Lines 5 and 11):
ACCOUNT # 421.000400.018.5960.0035.65.045000/45390/5354 # 7 (Final) $4,963.77
# 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.055170/55170/5354 # 7 (Final) $2,917.69
TOTAL THIS ESTIMATE: $7,881.46
CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965
CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATIO
I, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY
PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, E
SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORM/ASSCRIB
HEREIN, ANDTHATTHE CLAIM IS AJUST, DUE ANID
OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, ANAM�AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TCLAIM
Signed:
Contractor has a Retainage Bond on File for this Project
` 10,
I�� t I'�i
Printed On: 08/18/2004
City of Renton Public Works Department
Page 1
Printed On: 08/18/2004
City of Renton Public Works Department
Page 1
East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill & Water Main Repl PH
Project: II. Contract Number: CAG-03-115
Contractor: RCI Pay Estimate 7 (Final) Closing Date: 04/15/2004
Item Description Unit Est. Unit Previous Previous This This Total
No. Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
001.
Mobilization & Demobilization
Lump Sum
1
$20,000.00
1.00
$20,000.00
002.
Trench Excavation Safety Systems
Lump Sum
1
$1,000.00
1.00
$1,000.00
003.
Surveying, Staking, and As-Builts
Lump Sum
1
$5,000.00
0.50
$2,500.00
004.
Traffic Control
Lump Sum
1
$5,000.00
1.00
$5,000.00
005.
Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls
Lump Sum
1
$2,000.00
1.00
$2,000.00
006.
Landscape Restoration
Lump Sum
1
$2,000.00
1.00
$2,000.00
007.
Re-establish existing Monuments
Each
6
$300.00
3.00
$900.00
008.
TV Inspection of Sanitary Sewers
Linear Foot
4316
$1.00
4245.00
$4,245.00
009.
8" PVC Sewer Pipe and Cleanout
Linear Foot
4316
$60.00
4245.00
$254,700.00
010,
6" PVC Side Sewer Pipe
Linear Foot
1939
$60.00
1818.00
$109,080.00
011.
48" Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Each
16
$3,500.00
15.00
$52,500.00
012.
Connect New Sewer to Existing Sewer Facility
Each
5
$2,000.00
4.00
$8,000.00
013.
8" ductile iron pipe, Cl 52, Poly Wrapped & Fittings
Linear Foot
4385
$55.00
4313.00
$237,215.00
014.
8" gate valve assembly
Each
19
$500.00
28.00
$14,000.00
015.
6" gate valve assembly
Each
8
$400.00
2.00
$800.00
016.
Fire Hydrant Assembly
Each
14
$3,000.00
14.00
$42,000.00
017.
3/4" Water Service Connection
Each
74
$950.00
74.00
$70,300.00
018.
3/4" Water Service Connection (no meter)
Each
5
$900.00
5.00
$4,500.00
019.
1" Air -Release Valve
Each
1
$1,000.00
1.00
$1,000.00
020.
2" Permanent Blow -off Assembly
Each
1
$1,200.00
1.00
$1,200.00
021.
Connection to Existing Water Main
Each
8
$1,500.00
8.00
$12,000.00
022.
Concrete Thrust Blocks & Dead -man Blocks
Cubic yard
26
$80.00
22.00
$1,760.00
Removal of Existing Fire Hydrants, Valve Boxes and
023.
Appurtenances
Lump Sum
1
$500.00
1.00
$500.00
Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation
024.
Material
Ton
500
$12.65
0.00
$0.00
025.
Select Imported Trench Ball
Ton
2500
$12.65
282.96
$3,579.44
026.
Asphalt Class B (Road Rebuild) Paving Incl. CSTC
Sq, Yard
9400
$14.50
8628.00
$125,106.00
027.
Asphalt Class B Patch Inc. CSTC
Sq. Yard
2820
$52.00
3118.00
$162,136.00
028.
Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons
Lump Sum
1
$1,000.00
1.00
$1,000.00
029.
Remove and Replace Sidewalk & Driveway
Sq. Yard
515
$20.00
55.80
$1,116.00
$0.00 1.00 $20,000.00
$0.00 1.00 $1,000.00
0.50 $2,500.00 1.00 $5,000.00
$0.00 1.00 $5,000.00
$0.00 1.00 $2,000.00
$0.00 1.00 $2,000.00
3.00 $900.00 6.00 $1,800.00
$0.00 4245.00 $4,245.00
$0.00 4245.00 $254,700.00
$0.00 1818.00 $109,080.00
$0.00 15.00 $52,500.00
$0.00 4.00 $8,000.00
$0.00 4313.00 $ 00
$0.00 28.00 $14,000.00
$0.00 2.00 $800.00
$0.00 14.00 $42,000.00
$0.00 74.00 $70,300.00
$0.00 5.00 $4,500.00
$0.00 1.00 $1,000.00
$0.00 1.00 $1,200.00
$0.00 8.00 $12,000.00
5.50 $440.00 27.50 $2,200.00
$0.00 1.00 $500.00
$0.00 0.00 $0.00
$0.00 282.96 $3,579.44
$0.00 8628.00 $125,106.00
$0.00 3118.00 $ 00
$0.00 1.00 $1,000.00
$0.00 55.80 $1,116.00
Printed On: 08/18/2004
City of Renton Public Works Department
East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill & Water Main Repl PH
P -
It.
Contract Number:
C
r: RCI
Pay Estimate
7 (Final)
Closing Date:
Item
Description
Unit
Est.
Unit
Previous Previous
No.
Quantity
Price
Quantity Amount
030.
Remove and Replace Curb & Gutter
Linear Foot
125
$20.00
128.00 $2,560.00
Change Order No. 1: Wastewater items per Contractors
031.
Extra Work Orders
Lump Sum
1
$52,819.89
1.00 $52,819.89
Change Order No. 2: Water items per Contractors Extra
032.
Work Orders
Lump Sum
1
$6,934.95
1.00 $6,934.95
Change Order No. 3: Wastewater items per Contractors
033,
Extra Work Orders
Lump Sum
1
$2,412.29
0.00 $0.00
Change Order No. 4: Water items per Contractors Extra
034.
Work Orders
Lump Sum
1
$991.70
0.00 $0.00
Subtotal Schedule A
8.8 % Sales Tax
TT Total
Page 2
CAG-03-115
04/15/2004
This
This
Total
Total
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
$0.00
128.00
$2,560.00
$0.00
1.00
$52,819.89
$0.00
1.00
$6,934.95
1.00
$2,412.29
1.00
$2,412.29
1.00
$991.70
1.00
$991.70
$1,202,452.28 $7,243.99 $1,209,696.27
$105,815.80 $637.47 $106,453.27
$1,308,268.08 $7,881.46 $1,316,149.54
olto0
�t14t0
n,l
STATg O� State of Washington
o Department of Revenue
9
s r Audit Procedures & Administration
w
PO Box 47474
�� 1889 ac Olympia, Washington 98504-7474
Reg.No.:UBI 600 260 353
Is
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
From: DEPARTMENT USE=ONLY
City of Renton Assigned To
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 Date Assigned
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below.
Description of Contract East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill & Watermain Replacement Phase II
Contractor's Name
Robison Construction, Inc. (RCI)
Telephone No. (253) 863-5200
Contractor's Address
PO Box 1730, Sumner, WA 98390
Date Work Commenced
September 24, 2003
Date Work Completed
April 4, 2004
Date Work Accepted
September 13, 2004
Surety or Bonding Co.
Safeco Insurance Company of America
Agent's Address
Safeco Plaza, Seattle, WA 98185
Contract Amount:
Additions or Reductions:
$1,204,561.00
$5,135.27
Amount Disbursed:
Amount Retained:
Sales Tax: $106,453.27 Total:
Total $1,316,149.54
0
Phone No:
$1,316,149.54
Retainage Bond held
by City of Renton
$1,316,149.54
(Disbursing Officer)
The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia, Washington 98504-
7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUND until
receipt of Department's certificate, and then only in accordance with said certificate.
FORM REV 31 0020 (12-92)
H: Waste. wtr/WWP-27-3078/notcmplt-eken2.doc/JDH
FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
September 13, 2004
A7777—.,---�
Fly
Date
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS
APPR r7l,177) F37
c i T V 0 -ai L
Dat
COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 13, 2004
Civil Air Patrol Request for Meeting/Office Space
(Referred June 2, 2003)
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 13, 2004
City Process for Street Vacations
(June 14, 2004
cc: Lys Hornsby
Dave Christensen
Karen McFarland
APPROVED ENV
C;TV COUNCIL.
Date 9-13-A0o y �
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. -3 %/
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
APPROVING FINAL PLAT (PARKVIEW HOMES; FILE NO. LUA-04-
071FP).
WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract
of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly
approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the PlanningBuilding/Public Works
Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is
proper and advisable and in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for
the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or
roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and
recreation, playgrounds, schools, schoolgrounds, sidewalks and other planning features that
assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be
served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works
Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth
1
RESOLUTION NO.
(The property, consisting of approximately 1.77 acres, is located in the vicinity of
Camas Avenue and NE 24"' St.)
is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and
subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works
Department dated August 20, 2004.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2004.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2004.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES. 1068:8/24/04:ma
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
2
Exhibit A
The East half of Tract 223, C.D Hillman's Lake Washington
Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 4,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of
Plats, Page 82, in King County, Washington.
SITE
27TH ST.
w
NORTH
ME 24TH
ST..
4
4i
4i
Q
Q
ME 20TH ST
W
Q
VICINITY TAP.
N.T.S.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. S 9oZ
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
ANNEXING CONTIGUOUS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY KNOWN
AS THE TYDICO SITE ANNEXATION, BY THE ELECTION METHOD,
SETTING THE TAXATION RATE, AND FIXING THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, after public hearing, the City Council enacted a resolution calling for an
annexation by election under RCW 35A.14.015 for an area commonly referred to as the Tydico
Annexation, which area is the 9.61-acre property generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd
Place, if extended, on the north; the centerline of SE 132nd Street, if extended, on the south; 1341n
Avenue, if extended, on the west; and, Bremerton Avenue NE on the east, legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth; and
WHEREAS, said resolution also called for an election on a proposition that the property
in the Tydico Annexation should be subject to existing bonded indebtedness; and
WHEREAS, said resolution also called for an election on the proposition that all property
located within the territory to be annexed, excluding street right-of-ways, simultaneous with the
annexation, shall have imposed the City of Renton zoning regulations, with a Comprehensive Plan
designation of Residential Single Family (RS) and a zoning designation of R-8; and
WHEREAS, an election was held pursuant to State statute; and
WHEREAS, said proposed annexation had been submitted to and approved by the King
County Boundary Review Board; and
WHEREAS, in the September 16, 2003, election for the Tydico Annexation, the
assumption of indebtedness was approved by the voters; and
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, the election results certifying a sufficient majority to permit annexation of
the area have been received by the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASFUNGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. There has been filed with the City Council of the City of Renton,
Washington, certified election results indicating a sufficient majority was received approving the
Tydico Annexation to the City of Renton and such annexation has been approved by the
Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. The City Council finds it to be in
the best interest of the citizens of the City of Renton to annex and does hereby annex the territory
submitted to the voters as the Tydico Annexation situated in King County, Washington, as
contiguous, proximate and adjacent to the present corporate limits of the City and as more
particularly described by its legal description as set forth in Exhibit A and graphically shown on
Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated in full by this reference.
SECTION II. All property located within the territory to be annexed, excluding
street right-of-way, shall, contemporaneously with the annexation, have imposed, by separate
ordinance, R-8 zoning consistent with the ballot text that was approved by a majority of the
voters within the annexation area.
SECTION III. The territory set forth in this ordinance and for which said election
results were certified for annexation should be and is hereby made a part of the City of Renton.
The area shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate on the same basis as property within the City
of Renton to pay for all or any portion of the outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton,
which indebtedness has been approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to or
existing at, the date of annexation.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION IV. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated
to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five days after its
passage, approval, and publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1126:8/13/04:ma
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
2004.
day of , 2004.
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
Exhibit A
TYDICO SITE ANNEXATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15,
Township 23 north, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington.
./ -- - — — - -- - - - — - --- -- — - - v Jvv vvv
Figure 3: Existing Structure Map bmmmnq M
0 0� Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning r"Z'
. . Sue Carlson, Administrator 1 : 3 600
G. Del Rosario
TOE 15 October 2002
q /3-ADD `i
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. V 93
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION (R-8) FOR THE
TYDICO ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, after public hearing, the City Council enacted a resolution calling for an
annexation by election under RCW 35A.14.015 for an area commonly referred to as the Tydico
Annexation, which area is the property generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd Place, if
extended, on the north; the centerline of SE 132nd Street, if extended, on the south; 134' Avenue,
if extended, on the west; and, Bremerton Avenue NE on the east, legally described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth; and
WHEREAS, said resolution also called for an election on the proposition that all property
located within the territory to be annexed, excluding street right-of-ways, simultaneous with the
annexation, shall have imposed the City of Renton zoning regulations, which at the time of the
election had a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Residential Single Family (RS) and
called for a zoning designation of R-8; and
WHEREAS, an election was held pursuant to State statute; and
WHEREAS, those voting approved R-8 zoning for the annexation, consistent with the
September 2002 Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Single Family (RS); and
WHEREAS, said R-8 zoning is to be established after public hearing, and
contemporaneously with the annexation ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first public hearing on R-8 zoning was held on November 18, 2002, and
the second public hearing was held on August 23, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the territory will also be annexed on this date by separate ordinance;
ORDINANCE NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Zoning for the annexed area known as the Tydico Annexation,
which is more particularly described by its legal description as set forth in Exhibit A and
graphically shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated in full by this reference, is
hereby designated as R-8, pursuant to the provisions of the election ballot approving this
annexation.
SECTION II. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated
to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five days after its
passage, approval, and publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2004.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2004.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1127:8/13/04:ma
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
2
Exhibit A
TYDICO SITE ANNEXATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15,
Township 23 north, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington.
14
',
Q jlglgX2l
!'
l2eudscd� 8-a3•aoa�
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4-e i"/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
TYDICO ANNEXATION.
WASHINGTON,
(R-10) FOR THE
41 ese ;icy l hes'
WHEREAS, after public hearing, the City Council enacted a resolution calling for an
annexation by election under RCW 35A.14.015 for an area commonly referred to as the Tydico
Annexation, which area is the property generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd Place, if
extended, on the north; the centerline of SE 132" d Street, if extended, on the south; 1341h Avenue,
if extended, on the west; and, Bremerton Avenue NE on the east, legally described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth; and
WHEREAS, said resolution also called for an election on the proposition that all
property located within the territory to be annexed, excluding street right-of-ways, simultaneous
with the annexation, shall have imposed the City of Renton zoning regulations, consistent with
--if the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Residential Single Family (RS) and a
zoning designation of R-8; and
WHEREAS, an election was held pursuant to State statute; and
WHEREAS, those voting approved R-8 zoning for the annexation, consistent with the
September 2002 Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Single Family (RS); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map was amended in November 2003,
changing the land use designation for the Tydico Annexation site from Residential Single Family
(RS) to Residential Options (RO). Therefore, the site must be rezoned to R-10 to be consistent
with this latter designation; and
WHEREAS, said R-10 zoning is to be established after public hearing; and
C
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, the first public hearing on zoning was held on November 24, 2003, and the
second public hearing was held on August 23, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the territory will also be annexed on this date by separate ordinance; and
WHEREAS, development has been proposed for the annexed property and a
Development Agreement negotiated for the property; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:,
SECTION I. Zoning for the annexed area known as the Tydico Annexation,
which is more particularly described by its legal description as set forth in Exhibit A and
graphically shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated in full by this reference, is
hereby designated as R-10, consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation of
Residential Options (RO), subject to the terms and conditions of the certain Development
Agreement entered into contemporaneously with this rezone, to be filed of record with the
Auditor's office, a copy of which Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
SECTION II. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated
to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five days after its
passage, approval, and publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2004.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
2
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2004.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1 128:8/23/04:ma
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
3
Exhibit A
TYDICO SITE ANNEXATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15,
Township 23 north, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington.
a - _ _ — _ --- -- — - - V JVV OVV
Figure 3: Existing Structure Map
Gtiz of . _ Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning �O0
Sue Carlson, Administrator �.•
G. Del Rosario
Z 15 October 2002
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
PARTIES
This agreement (this "Development Agreement" or "Agreement") is made and entered
into this 12th day of July, 2004, by and between the CITY OF RENTON ("City"), a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, and LIBERTY RIDGE L.L.C., a Washington limited
liability company, the owner of the parcels of property covered by this Development Agreement
("Owner").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2002, the Renton City Council passed Resolution No.
3596 calling for annexation, by election, of certain territory described therein, and directing that,
in conjunction with said election, a proposition be submitted to the electorate of that territory
that, simultaneously with the annexation, the territory have imposed upon it the City of Renton
zoning regulations, prepared under RCW 35.A.14.340, with a Comprehensive Plan designation
of Residential Single Family (RS) and a zoning classification of R-8; and
WHEREAS, an application was made to the City of Renton on December 16, 2002 for a
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment of the Owner's
property that is legally described as follows (the "Property"):
The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section
15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington.
EXCEPT roads.
WHEREAS, the City has assigned City File Nos. LUA 02-113 A,ECF,R and 2003-M-14
to the Owner's requests; and
WHEREAS, the Property (which is all of the private property lying within the territory
of the annexation contemplated by Resolution No. 3596) is currently located in unincorporated
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT --Page 2
King County within the City's Potential Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, certain nonconforming uses are currently being made of portions of the
Property (the "Nonconforming Uses"); and
WHEREAS, TYDICO, a Washington corporation ("Tydico"), is operating its
construction business on the Property pursuant to a Lease between Owner and Tydico; and
WHEREAS, at Owner's request, the City has commenced proceedings for annexation of
the Property into the City and the election contemplated by Resolution No. 3596 has been held
with all of the propositions set forth therein having been approved by the electorate; and
WHEREAS, the owner sought to have the Property, which is approximately 9.46 acres
in size, given a Residential Options (RO) Land Use Map designation to allow Residential 10
Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-10) zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to have the City impose Residential 10 Dwelling Units
Per Acre (R-10) zoning subject to this Development Agreement that would embody the site -
specific restrictions that are set forth in Section 3, below upon annexation.
WHEREAS, staff members of the City's Department of Economic Development,
Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning and of the City's Department of
Planning/Building/Public Works have reviewed the Site -Specific Restrictions and concur that
they are appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing concerning the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment on October 15, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2003, the City Council adopted a Planning and
Development Committee report concerning the request and amended the City's Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map to designate the Property Residential Options (RO); and
WHEREAS, in view of the already -passed annexation election proposition concerning
the territory initially having an R-8 zoning classification when the annexation occurs, the
Property is to be initially annexed into the City with that zoning classification but, immediately
thereafter, the zoning is to be changed to R-10 in order to be consistent with the Property's
Residential Options (RO) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and the provisions of
this Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2003, this Development Agreement was presented at a
public hearing before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT --Page 3
that public hearing; and
WHEREAS, this Development Agreement is premised on the Property being annexed to
the City of Renton and will be of no force or effect if that annexation is not realized within six
(6) months following the date that this Agreement is executed by both parties; and
WHEREAS, this Development Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City
Council of the City of Renton, Washington; and
WHEREAS, this Development Agreement appears to be in the best interests of the
citizens of the City of Renton, Washington;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do agree as follows:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY
Pursuant to RCW 3 6.7013. 170(l), the City and persons with ownership or control of real
property are authorized to enter into a development agreement setting forth development
standards and any other provisions that shall apply to, govern, and vest the development, use,
and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration of such development
agreement.
SECTION 2. SUBJECT PROPERTIES
A. Illustrative Map: The drawing attached hereto as Exhibit A graphically depicts the
Property.
B. King County Property Identification Numbers: The following list indicates the King
County Property Identification Numbers applicable at the time of this Development
Agreement: 5182100049, 5182100050 and 5182100051.
SECTION 3. ZONING SUBJECT TO SITE -SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
A. Site -Specific Restrictions. The parties hereby agree that the following site -specific
conditions (the "Site -Specific Restrictions") shall apply to the Property in conjunction
with the R-10 Zoning Classification described in subsection B, below:
(1) All residential buildings shall be detached single-family residential
buildings (i.e., contain only one residential unit per building);
(2) All future residential lots within the Property that directly abut the
Property's south boundary shall have a minimum width of 50 feet; and
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT --Page 4
(3) The net residential density of any development of the Property shall not
exceed 10 dwelling units per acre.
B. Zoning Classification: The parties agree that the Property is to be reclassified to the
Residential-10 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-10) zoning classification as soon as possible,
subject to the Site -Specific Restrictions set forth above.
SECTION 4. RELINQUISHMENT OF NONCONFORMING USE RIGHTS;
CESSATION OF TYDICO'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS ON THE PROPERTY
A. Relinquishment of Nonconforming Use Rights: Effective the day before the effective
date of the annexation of the Property into the City, the Owner hereby relinquishes its
right to continue the Nonconforming Uses of the Property.
B. Cessation of Tydico's Construction Operations on the Property: Not later than the
day before the effective date of the annexation of the Property into the City, Owner shall
cause (1) Tydico to cease its construction operations on the site and (2) the removal of
all remaining storage of construction related equipment and stockpiled materials (such as
ecology blocks, traffic cones, barriers and construction related signs) that are now stored
on the northern half of the site.
SECTION 5. EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Unless amended or terminated, this Development Agreement is enforceable during its
term by a party to this Development Agreement; provided, however, only the City may enforce
the Site -Specific Restrictions. Development of the Property shall not be subject to a new zoning
ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or to a development regulation or standard
adopted by the City after the effective date of this Development Agreement unless (a) otherwise
provided in this Development Agreement or (b) agreed to by the owner(s) of any of the
portion(s) of the Property to which such new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning
ordinance or development regulation or standard shall apply or (c) in the case of a new or
amended development regulation the regulation is one that the City was required to adopt or
amend because of requirements of state or federal law. Any development permit or approval
issued by the City for the Property during this Development Agreement's term must be
consistent with this Development Agreement.
SECTION 6. AUTHORITY RESERVED
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves its authority to impose new or
different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT --Page 5
SECTION 7. RECORDING
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190, this Development Agreement shall be recorded with the
real property records of King County. During the term of the Development Agreement, the
agreement shall be binding on the parties and their successors and assigns.
SECTION 8. TERM
This Development Agreement shall run with the Property until amended or rescinded by
the City Council in accordance with Section 8, below. With respect to any portion(s) of the
Property that are not developed, the parties to this Development Agreement agree to evaluate
the Agreement periodically, but not less than every ten (10) years. Where appropriate, periodic
review of the Development Agreement shall generally coincide with the City's evaluation of its
entire Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 9. AMENDMENT
The provisions of this Development Agreement, before the expiration of ten (10) years
from the date of execution of this Agreement by all of the parties, may only be amended with
the mutual written consent of the parties; provided, however, that the owner(s) of portion(s) of
the Property shall be entitled to amend the Development Agreement from time -to -time (with the
consent of the City) as it relates to their particular portion(s) of the Property. After ten (10)
years, the City may change the zoning and development regulations pertinent to the Property as
part of its normal process of alteration to its Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Development
Regulations.
SECTION 10. TERMINATION IF ANNEXATION NOT REALIZED
The Property is currently in the process of being annexed into the City of Renton. This
Development Agreement will terminate and be of no force or effect if that annexation is not
realized within six (6) months following the date that this Agreement is executed by both
parties.
CITY OF RENTON
IN
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
Attest:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT --Page 6
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
LIBERTY RIDGE L.L.C., a Washington limited
liability company
By:
Donald J. Me i , Manager
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that on the day of , 2004 KATHY
KEOLKER-WHEELER appeared before me and acknowledged that she signed the instrument,
on oath stated that she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the
Mayor of the City of Renton, the Washington municipal corporation that executed the within
and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act
and deed of said City for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that the
seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said City.
Dated:
Signature
Print Name
NotM Public
Title
My Appointment Expires
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT --Page 7
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that DONALD J. MERLINO is the person
who appeared before me and acknowledged that he signed the instrument, on oath stated that he
was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as a manager of LIBERTY
RIDGE L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such
company for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
10
CACR2418\02MComprehensive Plan Amendment\Dev-Agmt.F3.doc
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT --Page 8
EXHIBIT A
(2003-M-
Economic Development, NeighWhoods & S,trategic Planning
Alex Pietsoh, Administrator
G. Del Rosario
19 November 2003
1TeVI'Sed 9- 93-a00y
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6-0 _
Set affac% med
showJn9 chati9c-7)
9i3a��
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING SECTION 4-1-210, WAIVED FEES, OF CHAPTER 1,
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, OF TITLE IV
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY EXTENDING AND MODIFYING THE
WAIVER OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATION FEES.
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council approved Ordinance No. 4913 on August 27,
2001, to allow certain development and mitigation fees for "For Sale" housing to be waived to
encourage owner -occupied housing in the CD and RM-U zones; and
WHEREAS, these development and mitigation fees waivers are effective for building
permits issued after August 13, 2001, and will sunset on October 1, 2004, unless extended by
City Council action; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 4-1-210, Waived Fees, were useful in helping to
establish the 37-unit 55 Williams project as the first significant owner -occupied housing
development in downtown Renton in many years; and
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to continue to encourage additional owner -
occupied housing in the CD and RM-U zones and thereby extend the development and
mitigation fee waivers for an additional three years unless further extended by Renton City
Council action; and
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to modify the eligibility for the
development and mitigation fee waivers to clarify that the waivers apply to multi -family housing
projects with a minimum of four dwelling units; and
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to modify the process for approving
development and mitigation fee waivers for eligible projects; and
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to clarify that the waived impact
mitigation fees for eligible projects will be replenished from tax revenues from the projects over
time;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 4-1-210, Waived Fees, of Chapter 1, Administration and
Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
WAIVED FEES:
To encourage owner -occupied housing in the CD and RM-U zones, certain development
and mitigation fees for "For Sale" housing may be waived for eligible projects, subject to City
Council approval. Fees which may be waived include building permit fees, utility system
development charges, Public Works plan review and inspection fees, and impact mitigation fees.
Waived impact mitigation fees will be replenished from tax revenues from the projects over
time. The fee waivers apply to multi -family housing projects with four (4) or more dwelling
units each in the CD or RM-U zones. These fee waivers are effective for building permits issued
after September 30, 2004, and will sunset on October 1, 2007, unless extended by City Council
action.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
five (5) days after its publication.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 52004.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2004.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1129:8/20/04:ma
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
3
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING SECTION 4-1-210, WAIVED FEES, OF CHAPTER 1,
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, OF TITLE IV
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY EXTENDING AND MODIFYING THE
WAIVER OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATION FEES.
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council approved Ordinance No. 4913 on August 27,
2001, to allow certain development and mitigation fees for "For Sale" housing to be waived to
encourage owner -occupied housing in the CD and RM-U zones; and
WHEREAS, these development and mitigation fees waivers are effective for building
permits issued after August 13, 2001, and will sunset on October 1, 2004, unless extended by
City Council action; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 4-1-210, Waived Fees, were useful in helping to
establish the 37-unit 55 Williams project as the first significant owner -occupied housing
development in downtown Renton in many years; and
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to continue to encourage additional owner -
occupied housing in the CD and RM-U zones and thereby extend the development and
mitigation fee waivers for an additional three years unless further extended by Renton City
Council action; and
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to modify the eligibility for the
development and mitigation fee waivers to clarify that the waivers apply to multi -family housing
projects with a minimum of four dwelling unitsi that „ e new eenstruetion only, unless, , a
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to modify the process for approving
development and mitigation fee waivers for eligible projects; and
WHEREAS, the Renton. City Council desires to clarify that the waived impact
mitigation fees for eligible projects will be replenished from tax revenues from the projects over-
time; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 4-1-210, Waived Fees, of Chapter 1, Administration and
Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
WAIVED FEES:
To encourage owner -occupied housing in the CD and RM-U zones, certain development
and mitigation fees for "For Sale" housing may be waived for eligible projects, subject to City
Council approval. Fees which may be waived include building permit fees, utility system
development charges, Public Works plan review and inspection fees, and impact mitigation fees.
Waived impact mitigation fees will be replenished from tax revenues from the projects over
time. The fee waivers apply to multi -family housing projects with four (4) or more dwelling
units each in the CD or RM-U zones that. , unless a reflovation of an
des}giwe. These fee waivers are effective for building permits issued after September 30, 2004,
and will sunset on October 1, 2007, unless extended by City Council action.
2
11
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
five (5) days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1 129:8/13/04:ma
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
day of
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
2004.
N
3
From: Julie Brewer
To: Council News
Date: 9/9/2004 12:34:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: Renton School District Good News Announcements
FYI
>>> "Randy Matheson" <randy.matheson@renton.wednet.edu> 9/9/2004 11:50:18 AM >>>
Below are "Good News" announcements read by Board members at last
night's meeting. Please share this information at a City Council
meeting. Thank you for your continued support of teachers and children
in the Renton School District.
"GOOD NEWS" ANNOUNCEMENTS - September 8, 2004
- Mary Ford, principal at Hazelwood Elementary School, is the recipient of the 1 st annual Diamond Award
for Education, presented by the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce. The award recognizes citizens in
education, business and other categories who demonstrate dedication, integrity and passion in their
community. Mary was recognized as an education leader who provides teachers and staff with the skills,
behaviors and tools to help all students at Hazelwood achieve great success.
- The district's summer school program was a big success. More than 500 students attended programs
designed to improve reading, writing and mathematics skills. Middle and high school students reported a
better than 90 percent passing rate in algebra, Language Arts and World and U.S. History.
- High school students enrolled in LINK programs were instrumental in helping new freshman adapt to life
at high school. LINK students dressed in special clothing on the first day of school to identify themselves
to the new students. They also directed the new students to their home rooms and lockers and even sat in
a special section at the Friday night football game to make certain the freshman didn't have to sit alone in
the sea of experienced high schoolers. The new freshmen were thankful and relieved that the LINK
students were there to help them through the first days of high school.
- Staff at Campbell Hill Elementary School were honored for their participation in the "Kids in Need"
program by World Vision. The Kids in Need program is a free service that allows teachers in schools that
serve low-income families to shop for teaching aids, books and school supplies for children. Teachers
also can select educational toys and games that can be used as student incentives for stellar schoolwork
or good behavior. Campbell Hill staff has used the service more than any other school in the Puget Sound
area. Kids in Need offer these supplies through a partnership with member manufacturers and retailers
who donate their overstock and surplus goods to the center.
Randy Matheson
Executive Director, Community Relations
Renton School District
425.204.2345
rmatheson @ renton.wednet.edu
CC: Michele Neumann