Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/18/2001 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda � KENT , W A S H I N G T O N Mayor Jim White Councilmembers Leona Orr, President Tom Brotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Gregory Worthing Connie Epperly RicoYingling September 18, 2001 Office of the City Clerk SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING KEN T September 18, 2001 WASHINGTON Council Chambers • 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCIIIMEMBERS: Leona Orr, President Tom Brotherton Tim Clark Connie Epperly Judy Woods Gregory Worthing Rico Yingling 1 . ✓ CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 . ✓ ROLL CALL 3 . v/ CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Re,oq /_A. Introduction of Norwegian Sister City Delegation B. Proclamation - Day of Concern for the Hungry C. Proclamation - Constitution Week D. Introduction of Appointees 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2002 Budget - First Hearing B. 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Plan - Second Hearing 6. CONSENT CALENDAR • A. Minutes - Approval B. Bills - Approval C. DeMarco Annexation Zoning - Ordinance - �'2' D. Washington Avenue HOV Lanes, WSDOT Grant - Authorize E. Lease Agreement, Parking and Storage Inventory-A-c�(%bv F. Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) No. 9 Amendment - Authorize G. Strget acation, 206th at East Valley Highway - olution Settin2 Hearin a e /4co�4 ut H. Sale of Surplus Vehicles - A orize I . Strawberry Place Phase I and II Final Plat - Approve J. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Int rim Response to Endangered Species Act (ESA) - Resolutio and /boo 5. Fri 3 5 7 S K. ode endment, Proposed Revisions to Permit Process - Ordinance . 157f L. Morford Glen ina Plat - Approve M. Symtron System Lease Agreement - Authorize N. Protective Clothing Replacement - Authorize 0. King County Basic Life Support Services Contract Amendment - Authorize P. Donations to Naden Park and Skate Board Park - Accept and Amend Budget Q. Fee in Lieu Funds for Clark Lake Park Acquisition - • Accept and Amend Budget � Canterbury Neighborhood Park Master Plan - A grove Excused Absence for Councilmember - Approve VV'' T. Kent Diversity Advisory Board Appointment— (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED r 7 . OTHER BUSINESS • A. Zoning Code Amendment, Auto Rjemaur and Manufaring Uses as Home Occupations - Ordinance 3 7 8 . BIDS A. 2001 Traffic Striping 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS .8 ab O '8&t&V%1 12 . EXECUTIVE SESSION None 13 . ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page is on the City of Kent web site at www.ci. kent.wa.us. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk' s Office in advance at (253) 856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388 . Y , "�CHA*ES TO'"VHF,",'AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC ,f rf PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ' A) INTRODUCTION OF NORWEGIAN" SISTER CITY DELEGATION B) PROCLAMATION - DAY OF CONCERN FOR THE HUNGRY C) PROCLAMATION - CONSTITUTION WEEK • 4 1 I 1 Kent-' C ity ;Council Meeting Dat', : �-Sept,embe r 18, 2001 Cate�oprvi 'Public Hearin 1. SUBJECT: 2002 BUDGET- - FIRST .HEARING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is the first 'p4olie hearing on the 2002 budget. The second hearing is scheduled for November 20, 2001 at the regular Council meeting. Publi6 input is desired and welcome as the city begins to prepare for ,the 2002 budget. j&p4q1U- 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, "Otc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmem"r ' � = LtJ� seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda, Item No. 5A _ Kent: .Council Meeting Datito: Roptember 18, 2001 Cate'pr Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: 2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECOND HEARING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Tonight is the secoho and final public hearing to receive input on the 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan includos all capital expenditures for the next six years as desGxibed in the Comprehensive Plan. This plan is updated annually. Public input is encouraged as the city plans for f4ture capital facilities and infrastructure improvements,. 3 . EXHIBITS• None s 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finances Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGMTED FISCAL/PERSO L, IMPACT: NO�� YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember � seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: ' Council Agenda Item No. 5B �ztky,Y �>d' , '$� - i-+ MV, 7 5 I. i. j .v` i, 4 i a }} �t;2411 "5�.� jk�ilF x� Ur "R Coungilmemher, m o zda Cau n fir .. seconds to :;approve C n pAt, Cal�pldar:�,� Discussion ul fir, Aj: ago 4 r l` -;, 6A. Amroyal of, Minutes'. �a� ,. ;r ne..= '`,I� ,,ir p" � , .a I�.IfY "� fYPt T ' i,ta l��''j�,A�iO 't'",F'tiir F� < Apprc ial of the minu ��� 't the- 1;egul4x,- � ` `�� �, ., TM, f „ry, ptex6ber 4, 2001 Appro' a1 of payment of e bi13 a s an Au ust 31 a`f t i rep, 1�,v,. �i �4 ,' uq't �t 31 ,and paid g er'� auditiaq yt-i , '�d k ,y,Cc�mnittece ''off September 4',,, 200� �, � �f ,- ��p;; 4 �y� �,}3, < tks'ri�-F 1�k � w1t�"�",;:_ � wi A royal cif checks X151 j d' orhers $! ,, e ,r."i�kF�il,,`;ty Date ' 8/31/01 Wire Tr ansfe '^� . �.b27-1!0 �' a;w ;_'" d`min, 56.14 8/3 /01 Pr ;pays , 159 4 5 7 '� ,,,�; 686. 92 8/31/101 R �2' Regular 3', 193 ;-52 '` �"aa' ,r 1 '6x�8 .30 8/31/Ul Void 'I' '521934jAl; y„ 9 961,.24) 722 12 A22roy-Al, of checks is ortthrough August,', 31 -and, paid on' �Pt4mbe 5f 2 0 a 41,r. " ec ki � rDate, ' � � �,�„ pair,'., �• � n.}�� aw•, E �, ,�' 2$4576jr-,� ,. u;`°; s kw 0 $ . $; 9/5/01' AOvLce's ]�163 6 w'F.�; : `l �p r' 1_0 n 8,,;175. 38 ;a nit __ 15 }�} y�`+��� AC 4n: s1P:`<sl: a'°-= Kent, Washington September 4, 2001 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Councilmembers present : Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods, Worthing and Yingling. Others present : Interim Chief Administrative Officer Martin, City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Acting Fire Chief Hamilton, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Manager Satterstrom, Finance Director Miller, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Hodgson, Information Technology Director Mulholland, and Employee Services Director Viseth . Approximately 40 people were at the meeting. The Flag salute was led by Boy Scout Troop 474 . CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda from the Council, administration, staff or the public. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced that Financial Project Analyst Barbara Lopez has been selected as Employee of the Month for September. He explained that Ms . Lopez was responsible for determin- ing requirements for the new financial software, testing software, developing reports, providing requirements to technical staff, setting up menus and account codes, identifying security requirements, and training citywide staff. He added that she accom- plished this goal without complaint and with an unswerving positive attitude . Information Technology Director Mulholland commended Ms . Lopez for the excellent job she has done, and Mayor White presented her with the Employee of the Month plaque . Payroll Week. Mayor White read a proclamation declar- ing September 3-7, 2001, as Payroll Week in the City of Kent. He noted that payroll professionals support the American system by paying wages, reporting worker earnings and withholding federal employment taxes, and play a key role in maintaining Kent ' s economic health. He presented the proclamation to Finance Accounting Manager Bonnie Fell, who thanked her staff and expressed appreciation for the recognition. 1 Kent City Council Minutes September 4, 2001 CONSENT CALENDAR ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through J. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 21, 2001 . BILL OF SALE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Park Place Apartments Bill of Sale. ACCEPT the Bill of Sale for Park Place Apartments submitted by Park Place 1998, LLC for continuous operation and maintenance of 453 feet of watermain, 35 feet of sanitary sewer, 796 feet of storm sewer and 706 feet of street improve- ments, as recommended by the Public Works Director. Bonds are to be released after the one-year expiration period. This project is located at 1406 Maple Lane . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) Wendy' s Texaco Bill of Sale. ACCEPT the Bill of Sale for Wendy' s/Texaco submitted by Wendy' s International, Inc. /Trimark LLC, for continuous operation and maintenance of 235 feet of water-main and 410 feet of sanitary sewer, as recommended by the Public Works Director . Bonds are to be released after the one-year expiration period. This project is located at 6331 South 212th Street . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) Walgreen's Store No. 6304 Bill Of Sale. AUTHORIZATION to accept the Bill of Sale for Walgreens Store #6304 submitted by Walgreens for continuous operation and maintenance of 665 feet of street improvements . Bonds are to be released after the one-year expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. This project is located at S . 272nd Street & 132nd Avenue Southeast. TRANSPORTATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. This date has been set for the public hearing on the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. Public Works Director 2 Kent City Council Minutes September 4 , 2001 TRANSPORTATION Wickstrom noted that the Plan is used for grant pur- poses, and displayed where the projects are located throughout the city. He explained which projects have been removed from the plan and which projects have moved forward. Mayor White opened the public hearing. Mel Roberts and Dave Hoffman, 25334 45th Avenue South, both spoke about bike lane improvements in various locations . Bob O' Brien, 1131 Seattle Street, suggested having a full plan by next year which would go from Point A to Point B in a straight line and on a regular schedule, rather than having many small projects in search of a plan. There were no further comments and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. CLARK MOVED to pass Resolution No. 1601 adopting the 2002-2007 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. Woods seconded. Clark pointed out that bicycle lane improvements are on-going, and explained the status of some of the projects . He emphasized that the Public Works Committee has consistently supported the expansion of bicycle lanes throughout the city, and that the Plan is the Growth Management Act in action. Brotherton expressed hope that in the future funding for physical modifications to neighborhoods would be added to the Plan. Clark' s motion then carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) Local Improvement District (LID) 351 Segregation, Assessment No. 162 . PASSAGE of Resolution No. 1603 authorizing the segregation of Assessment #162 in LID 351 (277th Corridor) into five parcels for the purpose of selling said parcels, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . ANNEXATION ZONING (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) DeMarco Annexation Zoning. On August 21, 2001, the City Council held the second of two public hearings on 3 Kent City Council Minutes September 4 , 2001 ANNEXATION ZONING the DeMarco Annexation area initial zoning and compre- hensive plan amendment. The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on the annexation zoning map amendments and the comprehensive plan amendments on May 21, 2001 . The City Council will now consider the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board. Mayor White stated that since there have been three public hearings on this matter, there will not be any additional public input tonight . Charlene Anderson of the Planning Services Office displayed a map showing the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation, outlined the boundaries, and explained the zoning designations . BROTHERTON expressed concern about the traffic situation and MOVED to modify the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation for Alternative One to zone the southwest corner as SR-6 rather than NCC and the property adjacent to the east as SR-6 rather than MRT-16, and to establish a compre- hensive plan designation of single family 6 units per acre for both of those parcels, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance. Orr seconded. Upon Orr' s question, Brotherton noted that it is his inten- tion to accept Alternative One and modify only those two parcels . Yingling voiced opposition, noting that the landowner of the current commercial property went through the process of rezoning and to now make the property non- conforming is not good public policy. Clark agreed. Satterstrom noted for Orr that businesses are now allowed to rebuild their operation in case of a fire . He added that prior to the County changing the zoning to multifamily in 1992 or 1993, it had been single family. Brotherton explained that the neighborhood, roads and school cannot take the increased traffic volume. Clark expressed concern about wiping out a business which has been at that location for twenty years . Orr said zoning that site single family does not harm the existing business in any way, and that she cannot support a commercial center at that corner. Woods reminded Council members that in the past the cutoff for multifamily development on East Hill was 112th Avenue. 4 Kent City Council Minutes September 4, 2001 ANNEXATION ZONING Yingling said there is no chance that commercial buildings will be built and then not have occupants . Clark emphasized that he is not endorsing commercial on the site, but is concerned about consistency. Brotherton' s motion then carried with Clark and Yingling opposed, and Worthing abstaining. AGRICULTURAL LANDS MORATORIUM (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5B) Agricultural Lands Moratorium. On July 17, 2001, the City Council passed Resolution No. 1599 imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for any land use permit or approval for subdivisions, short plats, or any other similar application (including rezones) , that increased the number of lots and/or density on property located within the currently zoned agricultural lands (A-1 or AG designation) . This date has been set for a public hearing on the matter. The City Attorney noted that the hearing is strictly on the moratorium, and explained what the moratorium would cover. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central, said that any restrictions to agricul- tural zones will inhibit agricultural programs, and suggested that the Council and Land Use and Planning Board talk to farmers before making a decision. He added that he would not like to see anything which mirrors King County' s agricultural program, as it is too restrictive . Elaine Spencer, of Graham & Dunn, 1420 5th Avenue, Seattle, attorney for Carpinito Brothers, said that models other than King County are available, and that Carpinito Brothers needs the City' s help to remain a major commercial farmer. She stated that flexibility is required and that King County' s approach, which is apparently to preserve open space, is extraordinarily expensive. She added that they do not object to the continuation of the moratorium and that they look forward to working with the city to develop a system which will allow farming to continue. 5 Kent City Council Minutes September 4 , 2001 AGRICULTURAL LANDS MORATORIUM There were no further comments and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Mayor White said the City would welcome suggestions from Mr. Carpinito and Ms . Spencer on how to communicate with farmers . Orr added that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold public hearings on this issue. Clark noted that there will be a meeting of the Growth Management Policy Committee at 4 : 00 p .m. on September 26th at the Puget Sound Regional Council headquarters at which time the motion before the committee will be to assign agricultural lands as a project for King County. Clark said he is opposed to having King County act as caretaker of agricultural lands . He urged citizens to contact King County and to testify at the meeting. Mayor White expressed concern that King County wants to supercede local zoning authorities and take away City' s abilities to annex agricultural lands . BROTHERTON MOVED to pass Resolution No . 1602 adopting Findings of Fact and continuing the moratorium established pursuant to Resolution No. 1599 on the acceptance of applications for any land use permit or approval for subdivisions, short plats, or any other similar application (including rezones) , that increased the number of lots and/or density on property located within the currently zoned agricultural lands (A-1 and AG designations) in the City of Kent . Woods seconded and the motion carried. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) Law Enforcement Education Partnership Grant. ACCEPT Law Enforcement Education Partnership Grant (LEEP) grant funds and establish budget. The Kent Drinking Driver Task Force will utilize the funds to provide drug education and violence prevention services to youth in the South King County. Junior high and senior youth from eight South King County school districts will attend the annual Youth Conference as a result of this funding. 6 Kent City Council Minutes September 4, 2001 POLICE Funding Authority: State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) . Contract period: 7/l/2001 to 6/30/2002, the second year of a two-year grant application process . LEEP grant funds $ 26, 528 . 00 City' s Matching funds 92, 346 . 00 Total Grant $118, 874 . 00 (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) FY2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEGB) . ACCEPT the FY2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) award, approve the City match amount and establish budget . Plans are to allocate this funding to support the accreditation of the City of Kent Corrections Facility (CKCF) through the American Correctional Association. The Police Department total award amounts to $81, 310 . 00, with a City match of $9, 034 . The City match will be taken from the existing police department budget . FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) 2002 Budget. SET September 18, 2001 as the first public hearing on the 2002 Budget . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Plan. SET September 18, 2001 as the second public hearing date for the 2002 Capital Improvement Plan. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through August 15 and paid on August 15, after auditing by the Operations Committee on August 21, 2001 . • 7 Kent City Council Minutes September 4 , 2001 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 8/15/01 Wire 1017-1026 $1, 091, 347 . 17 Transfers 8/15/01 Prepays 521015-521190 1, 634, 214 . 81 8/15/01 Regular 521191-521593 1, 345, 347 . 43 8/15/01 Void 521028 (7, 206. 36) $4, 063, 703 . 05 Approval of checks issued for payroll for August 1 through August 15 and paid on August 20, 2001 : Date Check Numbers Amount 8/20/01 Checks 254210-254575 $ 336, 457 . 19 8/20/01 Advices 115708-116359 1, 064 , 869 . 85 $1, 401, 327 . 04 REPORTS Council President. Orr welcomed Mr. Worthing to his first official Council meeting. Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the next meeting will be held at 5 : 00 p .m. on September 12 . Parks Committee. Woods noted that the next meeting will be on September 11 at 4 : 00 p.m. Administrative Reports . Martin reminded Councilmembers of an Executive Session of approximately 15 minutes having to do with land acquisition, land sale and potential litigation, with potential action on the first two items . EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 8 : 10 P.M. and reconvened at 8 : 30 p.m. CITY PROPERTY Property Acquisition. CLARK MOVED to concur with the acquisition of the property known as the Bayside Automotive Storage property for the future extension of 72nd Avenue South at a price not to exceed $425, 000 . Epperly seconded. Clark explained that this is part of 8 Kent City Council Minutes September 4 , 2001 CITY PROPERTY carrying out the eventual linkage of 72nd Avenue as an arterial which would go from 180th to Willis . The motion then carried. Property Sale. CLARK MOVED to authorize the Mayor to execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement for Tax Lot No . 192, subject to concurrence with the terms and conditions therein by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. Woods seconded and the motion carried. UTILITIES Electrical Rate Increases . CLARK MOVED to authorize Administration to join other affected cities in the State of Washington to file a petition with WUTC on the City' s behalf in opposition to Puget Sound Energy' s proposed electrical rate increases . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT ORR MOVED to adjourn at 8 : 31 p.m. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Brenda Jaco r, CMC City Clerk 9 Kent ;City 'Council Meeting Date, September 18, 2001 Cate_goxy Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DEMARCO ANNEXATION ZONING - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMKRRY STATEMENT: As directed and approved by Council on- September 4th, adoption of Ordinance No. establishing a comprehensive plan designation of Single Family Residential (SF-6) , and a zoning designation of Single' Family Residential, (SR-6) and Single Family Residential (SR-4) , for the DeMarco Annexation area. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . -RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NOS YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to and implementing comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the DeMarco Annexation. WHEREAS, on June 19, 2001, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3562, effective on July 1, 2001, approving the annexation of the DeMarco Annexation (the "Annexation Area") into the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the Annexation Area is approximately 266 acres of land contiguous with the City's existing boundary, and is generally bound on the west b 116th Avenue SE on the east b 132nd Avenue SE on the north b SE Y � Y � Y 231st, and on the south by SE 240th, and is more particularly described in Exhibit A and B to this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan designation for the Annexation Area is an issue of community-wide significance that promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Kent; and i �I WHEREAS, the City's Planning staff began work on the comprehensive plan and zoning designation for the Annexation Area, as outlined in Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Code; and I 1 DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing on May 21, 2001, to take public testimony on amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map for the Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board considered six comprehensive plan and zoning alternatives and took public testimony during the public hearing before recommending approval of a comprehensive zoning I alternative plan to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings on the comprehensive plan and zoning designation for the Annexation Area, the first public hearing was held on July 17, 2001, and the second public hearing was held on August 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, during the September 4, 2001 meeting, the City ' Council considered the public testimony and the recommendation of the Land Use j and Planning Board and adopted comprehensive plan designation of Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre(SF-6) for the DeMarco Annexation area as illustrated in Exhibit A and attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and I , WHEREAS, the City Council further adopted zoning of Single Family Residential(SR-6) and Single Family Residential (SR.4.5) for the DeMarco j Annexation area as illustrated in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential environmental impact, and that on May 23, 2001, the City of Kent issued an 2 DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and that this Addendum analyzed the comprehensive plan and zoning designations inclusive of those adopted by the City Council on September 4, 2001; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code and RCW 36.70A.130, the comprehensive plan designation of Single Family Residential, 6 units I per acre(SR-6) for the area known as the DeMarco Annexation area shall be established as outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION2. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15.09.055 and the laws I of the State of Washington, the zoning designations of Single Family Residential (SR-6) 'i and Single Family Residential (SR-4.5) for the area known as the DeMarco Annexation area shall be established as outlined in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or , sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall , not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain j in full force and effect. l i 3 DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations SECTION 4. E ective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 1 PASSED: day of , 2001. APPROVED: day of , 2001. i PUBLISHED: day of , 2001. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Crvd\Ordmwwe�DeMarroAnnezauon-ZonmgOrd.doe 4 DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations Lin LII t - � U ®r".."a r r t* ur her � � .! -� ,/�`�• �`i * D•� �iV ��"w ,`:'_���jV/���;�'� �. -=r�_�� �� a V J���1 � r�t��'��„�•.�����o ' ri � rA all'r r • P r • — r ����� a�oa�oo��� � • r � r � ��r• ''trt I,< a .� :►�Q�'(�O' � > 0� J�, PIN t s>� Sri UP .,Mr, � ,�. Uri .. • a Kent 'City Council Meeting Date , September 18, 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: WASHINGTON AVENUE HOV LANES, WSDOT GRANT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Washington Avenue is a state route for which the state is responsible for the pavement structure. In conjunction with our Washington Avenue HOV project, the state has agreed to pay for the asphalt overlay work. The cost is estimated at $528, 000. The Public Works Committee has recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the WSDOT Agreement along with directing staff to accept the funds and adjust the project budget (#R90069. 6-. 110) accordingly and also, authorize that said monies be spent on this project. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and WSDOT agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director �• Kl N T Phone:253-856-5500 NS7Fax: 253-856-6500 W A 3 M I N O T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date : September 10, 2001 To : Publi Works Committee From: Do ' ckstrom, Public Works Director Subject : WSDOT Grant - Wa Avenue HOV Lanes We are in receipt of an agreement from WSDOT. Washington Avenue is a state route (SR181) for which the state is responsible for the pavement structure. As such, in conjunction with our Washington Avenue HOV project, they have agreed to pay for. the asphalt overlay work. The cost of said work is estimated to be $528, 000 . We are recommending that the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement and that the project budget be adjusted accordingly. MOTION: Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement along with directing staff to accept the funds and adjust the project budget (fund #R90069 . 6---- . 110) accordingly including, authorize said monies to be spent on the project . HOVLanes ice► V7m Washington State Department of Transportation Organization and Address Sta City of Kent te Participating 220 Fourth Avenue S. Agreement Kent, WA 98032-5895 Work by Local Agency Section/Location Actual Cost Washington Avenue(SR 181) HOV SR 516 to James Street Agreement Number Description of Work GCA 2983 Preliminary EnOneering Phase & Construction Phase: State Route Number Control Section Number ACP Overlay with minor safety work on existing portion of SR 181 1779 181. The STATE's portion of the C='S project will rehabilitate Region the existing pavement. Northwest Region THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,between the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Department of Transportation,acting by and through the Secretary of Transportation,(hereinafter the'STATE')and the above named organization, (hereinafter the"LOCAL AGENCY"). WHEREAS,the LOCAL AGENCY is planning the construction of a project as shown above,and in connection therewith,the STATE has requested that the LOCAL AGENCY perform certain work as herein described,and WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest for the STATE to include specific items of work in the LOCAL AGENCY's IWstruction contract proposed for the above-noted project,and EREAS,the STATE is obligated for the cost of work described herein. NOW THEREFORE,by virtue of RCW 47.28.140 and in consideration of the terms,conditions,covenants,and performances contained herein,or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I The STATE agrees,upon satisfactory completion of the GENERAL work involved,to deliver a letter of acceptance which shall The LOCAL AGENCY,as agent acting for and on behalf of include a release and waiver of all future claims or demands of the STATE,agrees to perform the above`Description of any nature resulting from the performance of the work under this Work'. AGREEMENT. Plans,specifications and cost estimates shall be prepared by the 11 LOCAL AGENCY in accordance with the current State of PAYMENT Washington Standard Specifications for Road,Bridge, and The STATE,in consideration of the faithful performance of the Municipal Construction,and amendments thereto,and adopted work to be done by the LOCAL AGENCY,agrees to reimburse design standards, unless otherwise noted.The LOCAL AGENCY the LOCAL AGENCY for the actual direct and related indirect will incorporate the plans and specifications into the LOCAL AGENCY's project and thereafter advertise the resulting project cost of the work. for bid and, assuming bids are received and a contract is An itemized estimate of cost for work to be performed by the awarded,administer the contract. LOCAL AGENCY at the STATE's expense is marked Exhibit "A",and is attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. The LOCAL AGENCY agrees to submit plans and specifications Partial payments shall be made by the STATE, upon request of for the described work as shown on Exhibit"B',attached hereto the LOCAL AGENCY,to cover costs incurred.These payments and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT,to the are not to be more frequent than one(1)per month. It is agreed STATE for approval prior to advertising the project. that any such partial payment will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and that,at the time of the final audit,all required adjustments will be made and reflected in a STATE may, if it desires,furnish an inspector on the final payment. Oject.Any costs for such inspection will be bome solely by the STATE.All contact between said inspector and the LOCAL AGENCY's contractor shall be through the LOCAL AGENCY's representative. DOT Form 224007 EF Rev Wed 1N7 The LOCAL AGENCY agrees to submit a final bill to the STATE In the event it is determined that any change from the description within forty-five(45)days after the LOCAL AGENCY has of work contained in this AGREEMENT is required, approval must completed the work. be secured from the STATE prior to the beginning of such work Where the change is substantial,written approval must be III secured. DELETION OF WORK 0 In the event the estimate of cost, Exhibit'A', is in excess of Reimbursement for increased work and/or a substantial change in $10,000 and the total actual bid prices for the work covered by the description of work shall be limited to costs covered by a this AGREEMENT exceeds the estimate of cost by more than 15 written modification,change order or extra work order approved percent,the STATE shall have the option of directing the LOCAL by the STATE. AGENCY to delete all or a portion of the work covered by this AGREEMENT from the LOCAL AGENCY's contract. Except,that V this provision shall be null and void if the STATE's portion of the RIGHT OF ENTRY work exceeds 20 percent of the actual total contract bid price. The STATE hereby grants and conveys to the LOCAL AGENCY the right of entry upon all land which the STATE has interest, within or adjacent to the right of way of the highway,for the The STATE shall have five(5)working days from the date of purpose of constructing said improvements. written notification to inform the LOCAL AGENCY to delete the Upon completion of the work outlined herein,all future operation STATE agrees, upon billing by the LOCAL AGENCY, ENCY,to work.Should the STATE exercise its option delete work,the and maintenance of the STATE's facilities shall be at the sole cost reimburse the LOCAL AGENCY for preliminary engineering costs of the STATE and without expense to the LOCAL AGENCY. incurred by the LOCAL AGENCY to include the work covered by this AGREEMENT in the LOCAL AGENCY's contract. VI LEGAL RELATIONS IV reason liability shall attach to the LOCAL AGENCY or the STATE by EXTRA WORK reason of entering into this agreement except as expressly provided herein. In the event unforeseen conditions require an increase in the cost of 25 percent or more from that agreed to on Exhibit"A",this AGREEMENT will be modified by supplemental AGREEMENT covering said increase. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written. LOCAL AGENCY STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By By Title Title Date DOT Forth 224-W?EF Neyiswl 1/97 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK & ESTIMATE OF COST Washington Avenue (SR 181) HOV Lanes SR 516 to James Street CITY Project: The City of Kent is proposing to reconstruct and improve this section of Washington Avenue (SR 181) by widening the roadway to accommodate a pair of HOV lanes, construct an exclusive right-tum-only lane from northbound Washington Avenue to eastbound SR 516, and provide new curb & gutter, and sidewalk. Additional improvements include modification and interconnecting of existing traffic signal systems, illumination system, landscape restoration and drainage system improvements. STATE Participation: For preliminary engineering and construction of the ACID overlay and required safety work for the existing pavement of SR 181. The STATE will participate in the CITY's project by providing funds for the rehabilitation of the existing- pavement for this section of SR 181. Project ITEM Total Preliminary Engineering Design & PS&E $63,000 Estimated Construction Costs Construction Subtotal (see Engineer's Est.) $378,703 Sales Tax @ 8.8% N/A Construction Engineering @ 18% 68,164 Contingencies @ 5% 18,933 Indirect Costs @ 10.05% N/A' Subtotal $465,800 Total State Participation $528,800 Notes: 1. Reimbursement for overhead charges is not required with Reciprocating Agreement OH-0041 in effect. 2983.01.ExhbtA.doc 1 GCA 2983 Exhibit A Estimate of Cost to to of U i U i Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS $34,430.00 $34,430 2 Planing Bituminous Pavement 6400 SY $6.00 $38,400 3 Asphalt Conc. for Pavement Repair 555 TONS $50.00 $27,750 4 Asphalt Conc.for Preleveling Cl. B 854 TONS $50.00 $42,700 5 Asphalt Conc. Pavement Cl. B 2220 TONS $50.00 $111,000 6 Temporary Pavement Marking 12900 HUND $0.20 $2,580 7 Paint Line 6441 HUND $0.20 $1,288 8 Raised Pavement Marker Type 1 4.8 HUND $200.00 $960 , 9 Raised Pavement Marker Type 2 1.61 HUND $385.00 $620 10 Plastic Stop Bar 2 EACH $200.00 $400 11 Plastic Traffic Arrow 5 EACH $75.00 $375 12 Permanent Signing 1 LS $7,450.00 $7,450 131Breakaway Luminare 3 EACH $17,000.00 $51.000 14 Traffic Detection Loop Replacement 14 EACH $1,000.00 $14,000 16 Traffic Control 1 LS $45,750.00 $45,750 Construction Subtotal $378,703 2983.01.ExhbtA.As 2 GCA 2983 > r e + r Kent,C it ouncil Meeting Date So'tember 18, 20,01 Categort. , Consent Calendar 1 . SUBS LEASE AGREEMENT, PARKING AND S' QR13GE - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the Lease Agreement between the City and SPP Real Estite for the purpose of SPP leasing a portion of the South 222,nd' Blpck at 66th Avenue So. for parking and storage. ' r 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memoranda and lease agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, 4tc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSOIEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember,, seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda 'Item No. 6E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director NS 7�K N T Phone:253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 W A 3 H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: September 10, 2001 To: Public Vyorks Committee From: Don ickstrom, Public Works Director Subject: Lease Agreement - Parking and Storage Area The attached lease agreement between the City and SPP Real Estate will allow SPP to lease the particular property (S. 222' Block @ 68'Ave So.) The term of this lease is S years commencing October 1, 2001. At this time we are requesting authorization for the Mayor to execute said lease agreement. MOTION: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to execute the Parking and Storage Lease Agreement between the City and SPP Real Estate. leaseagreement LEASE AGREEMENT FOR PARKING AND STORAGE AREA (AT SO. 222" BLOCK AND 68TH AVE. SO.) THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, dated this day of 2001 is between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation ("Lessor") and SPP Real Estate (Kent Valley) Inc.; a Delaware corporation("Lessee"). RECITALS A. Lessor is the owner of certain real property generally located at the South 222nd Block and 68`"Ave. South in the City of Kent, King County, Washington. B. Lessee has agreed to rent a portion of Lessor's property, which is legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by this reference (the "Premises"). C. Lessor is willing to lease the Premises to Lessee on following terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Lease. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby rents from Lessor, the Premises, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Lease Agreement. 2. Term. The term of this Lease shall be for five (5) years, commencing on October 1, 2001, the effective date of this Lease Agreement. Lessee shall have one (1) option to renew this Lease for one (1) additional five- (5) calendar year period from October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2011. The annual rental rate shall be adjusted based upon the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index (U.S. City Average for all Urban Consumers) with a maximum annual increase of five (5%) percent, commencing on October 1, 2006. Lessee may exercise its option by giving Lessor sixty (60) days written notice, prior to the expiration of this Lease, of its intention to renew the Lease. 3. Rent. Lessee shall pay Lessor, at Lessor's offices, rent according to the schedule listed below, at least thirty (30) days prior to each date due, which rental payment includes a 12.84%tax: 10-01-01 —09-01-02 $4,253.00 10-01-02—09-01-03 $4,380.00 10-01-03 —09-01-04 $4,511.00 10-01-04—09-01-05 $4,647.00 10-01-05—09-01-06 $4,786.00 "NOTE" All payments shall be mailed to City of Kent Finance, Customer Services Department @ 220 4`h Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032, ATTN: Customer Services Manager. - 1 - 4. Lessor's Obligation to Maintain Public Trail and Lessee's Obligation to Maintain the Parking Area: Indemnification for Same. Lessor shall maintain the public pedestrian trail, approximately twelve (12) feet in width, adjacent to and north of the Premises, extending from the West Valley Highway on the east, westerly to 64`h Avenue South, on Lessor's property as shown on Exhibit B. Lessee shall maintain, to standards specified by Lessor, a public parking area north and east of the Premises, on Lessor's property adjacent to West Valley highway, for ten (10) automobiles, as shown on Exhibit B. The parking area shall be maintained at Lessee's sole cost and expense. The pedestrian trail and Darkin2 area described in-this paragraph are called, collectively, "the Public Improvements." Lessor further agrees to indemnify and hold Lessee harmless from any and all fees, costs, and expenses arising out of or connected with any injury to persons or damage to property associated or connected with any use of the Public Improvements or any adjacent property owned by Lessor, but only to the extent of Lessee's negligence. The parties understand and agree that the Public Improvements shall be open for the use and enjoyment of the public. 5. Utilities and Fees. Lessee shall pay all charges for electricity and any other utility services accruing at the Premises. Lessee shall directly pay these utility charges and all other license fees or other governmental charges levied on the operation of the Lessee's business on the Premises, or the business of Lessee's subtenant. 6. Taxes. Lessor shall pay all applicable taxes, including real property taxes and assessments, whether general or special, levied against the Premises. Should there presently be in effect or should there be enacted during the term of this Lease Agreement any law, statute or ordinance levying any tax (other than federal or state income taxes) upon rents, Lessee shall pay such tax or shall reimburse Lessor on demand for any such taxes paid by Lessor. 7. Use. Lessee and any subtenant of Lessee shall use the Premises solely for the purposes of a vehicular parking area and a telephone equipment storage yard and other incidental uses, but for no other purposes, without prior written consent of Lessor. In the event Lessee's use of the Premises increases the fire insurance rates on the Premises, Lessee agrees to pay for that increase. 8. Repairs and Maintenance. Lessee has inspected and accepts the Premises in its present condition. At its sole cost, Lessee shall at all times (1) keep the Premises neat, clean and in a good, orderly and sanitary condition, (2) replace as necessary all landscaped areas, and (3) keep and use the Premises in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and requirements of governmental authorities. In addition to, and without limiting, the foregoing, Lessee shall (1) permit no waste, damage or injury to the Premises, (2) keep any and all drain pipes free and open, (3) protect any water, heating, gas and other pipes to prevent freezing or clogging, and, (4)repair all leaks and damage caused by leaks. 9. Improvements to Premises. Lessee and its subtenant(s) shall make no additions, improvements and alterations to the Premises without Lessor's prior written approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Such improvements shall not interfere with the Public Improvements. This work shall be done at Lessee's sole cost and must comply with the terms and conditions of that certain Easement between the City of Kent and Puget Sound Power & Light Company, dated December 28, 1987, and recorded under King County Recording No. 8712311349. Upon the expiration or termination of this Lease, Lessee shall, at Lessor's option, remove all Lessee's improvements, together with its equipment, and shall restore the Premises to its - 2 - original condition within ninety(90) days of the expiration or termination date, at Lessee's sole cost and expense. 10. Condemnation. If a substantial portion of the Premises is taken by any public authority under the power of eminent domain, so as to render the remaining Premises economically untenantable, this Lease Agreement shall terminate as of the time of such taking at the option of either party. If a portion of the Premises is so taken, and neither party elects to terminate this Lease Agreement, or until termination is effective as the case may be, the rent shall be reduced in direct proportion to the leased property taken. Lessee shall have no claim to any portion of the compensation for the taking or damaging of the land or building. Lessee shall be entitled to negotiate compensation for its own moving,costs and its leasehold improvements. 11. Liens and Insolvency. Lessee shall keep the Premises free from any liens arising by reason of work, labor, services or materials performed or supplied to Lessee and shall hold Lessor harmless against the same. Should Lessee become insolvent, bankrupt, or if a receiver, assignee or other liquidating officer is appointed for the business of Lessee, Lessor may cancel this Lease Agreement at its option. 12. Access. Lessor shall have the right to enter the Premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection. 13. Damage or Destruction. In the event the Premises are rendered untenantable in whole or in part by fire, the elements, or other casualty, Lessee may elect not to restore or rebuild the Premises and shall notify Lessor, in which event Lessee shall restore the Premises to its original condition and then vacate the Premises and, at that time, this Lease shall be terminated. In the alternative, Lessee shall notify Lessor within fifteen (15) days after such casualty that Lessee will undertake to rebuild or restore the Premises. If Lessee is unable to restore or rebuild the Premises within thirty (30) days, then the Lease may be terminated at Lessee's option by written notice to Lessor. 14. Hold Harmless. Lessee agrees to defend and hold Lessor and its employees, officers, elected officials, and agents harmless from any claim, action and/or judgment for damages to property or injury to persons suffered r alleged to be suffered in or about the Premises by any person, firm or corporation, but only to the extent of Lessee's negligence. 15. Liability Insurance. Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole expense, obtain and keep in force during the term on this Lease Agreement a policy of comprehensive public liability insurance insuring Lessor and Lessee against any liability arising out of the ownership, use, occupancy, or maintenance of the Premises and all appurtenant areas. This insurance shall be in an amount not less than $2,000,000.00 combined Single Limit with respect to injuries to or death of persons, and/or destruction of or damage to property. The limit of this insurance shall not, however, limit the Lessee's liability. Lessee shall deliver to Lessor certificates of proof of this insurance. No policy shall be cancelled or reduced without the prior written consent of Lessor. 16. Termination of Lease. If Lessee fails to perform any of the covenants and agreements in this Lease Agreement, and that failure continues for thirty (30) or more days after receiving written notice from Lessor specifying Lessee's failure(s), unless appropriate action has been taken by Lessee in good faith to cure such failure, Lessor may terminate this Lease Agreement and reenter the Premises. Lessee shall pay Lessor any deficiency arising from its default, including any rent owed, the cost of recovering the Premises and any repairs, maintenance, or utilities attributable to Lessee. - 3 - 17. Costs and Attorney's Fees. If by reason of any default or breach on the part of either party in the performance of any of the provisions of this Lease Agreement a legal action is instituted, each party shall pay all its own legal costs and attorneys' fees in connection therewith. 18. No Wavier of Covenants. The failure of the City to insist up on strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 19. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Lease Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of Lessor and Lessee. 20. Surrender of Premises. Lessee agrees, upon termination of this Lease Agreement, to surrender the Premises peacefully, to leave the Premises neat and clean, and to deliver all keys to the Premises to the Lessor. 21. Real Estate Commission. Lessor and Lessee each hereby represent and warrant to the other that they have not dealt with any broker, agent, or finder in connection with the negotiation and execution of this Lease Agreement or the consummation of the transaction contemplated hereby. Lessor and Lessee shall each indemnify, defend, and save the other harmless from and against any loss, cost, damage or expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from the claim of any real estate broker or agent with whom either may have dealt with respect to this transaction. 22. Signs. Lessee may, at Lessee's sole expense, place external signs on the Premises provided such signs have been approved in advance by Lessor, and provided such signs do not violate any statute or regulations existing during the term of this Lease Agreement. Lessee shall pay the costs of removal of such signs upon termination of the Lease. 23. Assignment and Sublease. Lessee may assign its interest in this Lease Agreement at any time -or may sublease all or any portion of the Premises provided, however, assignee complies with paragraph 15. "NOTE" Assignment will not be valid without said compliance. 24. Binding Upon Heirs, Successors and Assigns. The covenants and agreements of this Lease Agreement shall be binding upon the subtenants, heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of both parties, except as limited elsewhere in this Lease Agreement. 25. Notices. Any notice to be given by either party to the other shall be delivered either in person or deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the following addresses, or at such other address as either party may designate to the other in writing from time to time. Notice shall be deemed to have been given three (3) days after mailing. Lessor: Lessee: Public Works Director Invesco Realty Advisors Inc. City of Kent One Lincoln Centre, Suite 700 220 4`h Ave. South 5400 LBJ Freeway/LB2 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dallas, TX 75240 Attn: B. Todd Marney 972-715-7400 -4 - 26. Authority. The individuals executing this Lease Agreement represent and warrant that each of them is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Lease Agreement, and that this Lease Agreement is binding upon that party in accordance with its terms and conditions. 27. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in all respects under the laws of the State of Washington. EXECUTED as of the date first above written. LESSEE: LESSOR: SPP Real Estate (Kent Valley) Inc., a Delaware Corp. CITY OF KENT By By JIM WHITE, Mayor DATE DATE Currently Billing Address: ATTEST: SPP Real Estate (Kent Valley), Inc. C/O CB Richard Ellis, Inc. By 22118 201h Avenue SE, Suite 138 JERRY McCAUGHAN Bothell, WA 98021 PROPERTY MANAGER DATE - 5 - T 47 DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 319 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, OF THE SOUTIIEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.H. WITH THE EAST QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE NORTH 89012' 17" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH 319.00 FEET, 50.00 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 890I2'17" WEST 700.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0'53'41" EAST 75.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'12117" EAST 700.00 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE 0£ THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11, SOUTH 0"53'41" WEST 75.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 87042.03 ENG 17 Aye- S ri v 75 E N a � • rn In / H I.pNpyci•�lvtr P 25 we-sr VAGLWY HWY F P; Kent ici j 'C', ouncil Meeting itember 18, 2001 Catemrnsent Calendar ,ht rN� 1 . Ste: WATERSHED, BASINS WITHIN WATER Rtp6ftCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 'NO. 9 AMENDMENT - )WTHCRIZE i 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by, th* -piib1ic Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to Sign"�1�e First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for tle Vatershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 9: 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and amendment " F 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, oto. ) ; 5 . UNBUDOETED FISCAL/PERSO L IMPACT: Nq YES 6. EXPMITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: s 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: • Councilmember moves, Councilmemb0i seconds j DISCUSSION: ACTION: i Council Agenda Item No. 6F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 -ENT Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINOTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date : September 10, 2001 To : Public Works mittee 6 From: Don Wickstrom, ublic Works Director Subject : Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA) First Amendment We are in receipt of the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for the Watershed Basins Within Water Resource Inventory Area 9 . (Original agreement attached) The amendments to the original agreement are noted in the attached memo from Steve Mullet, Mayor, City of Tukwila. At this time, we are requesting that the Mayor be authorized to sign this amendment . MOTION: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for the Watershed Basins Within Water Resource Inventory Area 9 . WRIA9 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 9 This First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, which was entered into by the County of King and the Cities and Towns of Algona, Auburn, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, and Tukwila ("Agreement"), amends the terms of the Agreement to provide for changes as desired by the parties to the Agreement, that include: 1) to allow for the addition of the City of Tacoma, which has a major interest in WRIA 9, as a party to the Agreement; 2) to change the number of members of the WRIA 9 Forum Management Committee from five to seven members; 3) to allow for each party to name, as an alternate to its named elected official, a senior staff member or other elected official as its representative to the WRIA 9 Forum; 4) to provide for an additional financial contribution to be made by King County to account for the addition of Vashon/Maury Islands to the WRIA 9 Forum activities and planning efforts. This First Amendment is effective upon execution by all of the parties to the Agreement and may be executed in counterparts. The Agreement is hereby amended by substituting the text provided below for each of the identified sections(underlining of text indicates a textual change, and is not to be considered as part of the amended text): 1. The Preamble to the Agreement is amended to read as follows: This agreement("Agreement") is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among the eligible county and city governments signing this agreement that are located in King County or Pierce County and lie wholly or partially within or have a major interest in the management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area("WRIA") 9,which includes all or portions of the Green- Duwamish and Central Puget Sound forums, all political subdivisions of the State of Washington (collectively,for those signing this agreement, "parties"). The parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation for the watershed basins in WRIA 9 and wish to provide for planning,funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein. 2. Section 1.1 is amended to read as follows: ELIGIBLE COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENTS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement as parties are the County of King, and the Cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle,Tacoma and Tukwila. 3. Section 1.6 is amended to read as follows: MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: Management Committee as referred to herein consists of seven M elected officials or their designees which elected officials are chosen by the WRIA 9 Forum, according to the voting procedures in Section 5,charged with certain oversight and administrative is duties on the WRIA 9 Forum's behalf. 7/2/01 4:17 PM 1 4. Section 4 is amended to read as follows: ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF WRIA 9 FORUM. The parties to this Agreement hereby establish a governing body for WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages (hereinafter the"WRIA 9 Forum,"the precise boundaries of which are established in Chapter 173-500 WAC, or as determined by the WRIA Forum) to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement. Each party to the agreement shall appoint one (1)elected official to serve as its representative on the WRIA 9 Forum. The parties shall also appoint an alternate representative who may be a different elected official or senior staff person. The WRIA 9 Forum is a voluntary association of the county and city governments located wholly or partially within the management area of or having a maior interest in WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages who choose to be parties to this Agreement. 5. Section 4.1 is amended to read as follows: Upon the effective execution of this agreement and the appointment of representatives to the WRIA 9 Forum, the WRIA 9 Forum shall meet and choose from among its members, according to the provisions of Section 5, seven 7 elected officials or their designees, to serve as a - Management Committee to oversee and direct the funds and personnel contributed under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual budget and such other directions as may be provided by the WRIA 9 Forum. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as non-voting ex officio members thereof. The Management Committee shall act as an executive subcommittee of the WRIA 9 Forum, responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants, administration of the budget, and for providing recommendations on administrative matters to the WRIA 9 Forum for action,consistent with other subsections of this section. 6. Section 4.2.2 is amended to read as follows: The WRIA 9 Forum shall by September 1 of each year establish and approve an annual budget establishing the level of funding and total resource obligations of the parties which are to be allocated on a proportional basis based on the average of the population, assessed valuation and area attributable to each party to the Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A=1, which formula shall be updated annually by the WRIA 9 Forum as more current data becomes available. Tacoma's cost share will be determined on an annual basis by the parties and will be documented on the annual updates to Exhibit A-1. The weight accorded Tacoma's vote for weighted voting pursuant to Agreement section 5 shall correspond to Tacoma's cost share for each year relative to the cost shares contributed by the other parties. 7. Section 6.4 is amended to read as follows: After approval of the plan by the WRIA 9 Forum, the plan shall be referred to the parties to this Agreement for ratification prior to the plan's submission to any federal or state agency for further action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution or ordinance of the jurisdiction's legislative body, by at least five jurisdictions representing at least seventy percent (70%) of the total population within the-geographic area of WRIA 9 as defined in Chapter 173-500 WAC. Upon ratification, the WRIA 9 Forum shall transmit the WRIA-based Watershed Plan to any state or federal agency as may be required for further action. 7/2/01 4:17 PM 2 8. Section 7.2 is amended to read as follows: The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties during the first year of this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit A=1, which shall be updated annually as described in Section 4.2.2. 9. Section 8 is amended to read as follows: A county or city government in King County lying wholly or partially within the management area of or with a major interest in WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and adjacent Puget Sound drainage which has not become a party to this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a party only with the written consent of all the parties. The provisions of Section 5 otherwise governing decisions of the WR/A 9 Forum shall not apply to Section 8. The parties and the county or city seeking to become a party shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a party. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the parties of the amount determined jointly by the parties and the county or city to represent such county or city's fair and proportionate share of all costs associated with activities undertaken by the WR/A 9 Forum and the parties on its behalf as of the date the county or city becomes a party. Any county or city that becomes a party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other parties to this Agreement. 10. Exhibit A-1, attached to this First Amendment, is hereby substituted for Exhibit A to the Agreement, and is incorporated therein and made a part thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment is executed by the entities so signing on the dates indicated below: Approved as to form: TOWN OF ALGONA By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF AUBURN By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 3 Approved as to form: CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF BURIEN By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF COVINGTON By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF DES MOINES By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF ENUMCLAW By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: 7/2/01 4:17 PM 4 Approved as to form: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF KENT By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: KING COUNTY By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF NORMANDY PARK By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: 7'2/01 4.17 PM 5 Approved as to form: CITY OF RENTON By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF SEATAC By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF SEATTLE By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF TACOMA By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Approved as to form: CITY OF TUKWILA By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: 7/2/01 4.17 PM 6 Q o T O N 0 0 () 7 (0 ` c C d U ma Cc FC o o > y 3c J c E 5 o 0 cvd ) c>i Q QmmU � W LLYYmZir0UF- � ~ N o O �'.j r N M V tO Cp f� O O O r N M V CO CO ♦` m C F� » 00 r tO V f` r r- LO M O M r ^ N CO CO f� p O _IT - tA r 1p CD CO V M M r V M M COO f` O O O lCJ O M r- w N F.- M O m N CO O m to m t0 CO p O to O O '" C) L CD C V O_ V (D � Cn M O vi F. C7 of N O N 6H r 69 r 69 0 V fie 69 — N O r C.) M r ti 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 �{ V' 69r f^ W W cc W O In 0 V 0 0 0N rr- CA O c C 3 0) O > O V r V N M O N N M r r M V CA V ( O d a (0 r M r e C O •- C9 co O O N v ' a a V o Q M O M M O O) O V M N N O F- N M f.- r >� j m O M r CO M CO h l0 O r CO CO (A N O > O fA — C iR f�: CD c ti CO C'r) CO O CO CA M as C7 N N v 6969 - O j r r 69 69 69 M V) 9 69 69 69 6 r M r 69 69 69 NfH to 69 fR O Y c h O o 0 0 o e o e o e e o 0 0 o e e Cp tC r 0 Cn M CO O CD V; O O V: CO O N U( CD C V m Im O V r N r N C r O CA r C N M N U C 0 3 a O C C N C W. O U C�0 O CO O W N LO O 00 V r CO M N r r CA CO 0 r N CO r N V' I-- S O N r 1, M CO CCU CO N V co r CA N V: It If! W h Cn CA M O N M 6s CA C7 C; CD CO Ch r CO(O ^ CO r� CO N C>D O ^ N 69 N 69 .- fA r CO CO 14 69 .- N O N a 44 69 69 69 69 fA 69 f/i�69 . CL 3 VZ o e e o e o �o o � a e e o 0 0 0 o e o e e f0 e o � e o 0 o e o � > r O r-: CC) q (O CD ^ V: O ti (O O M CO CO Q O CO O vr M O N 0 N r r V (O N CO N 3 m c N .y X Q W f• V M O CC7 (A N N t` r r M M V M (O d U CO r- (D M r V O lO O O t- M CO f` V CO > M O O 00 or ti M r V: Cn W W W W N W N m 49 O) M Cal O r (n C6 f-: f- r- Cn V7 @) CV r c +.. r 69 N r N 69 r- O M fA 61% r r _N r CU 49 6969 69 69 fH 69 69 69 696-0 y e o o e o e o o e o o e e e e e p, VJ L a o e e e e o e e o e e e e o e V t- O V O N O C'7 O C'7 V V: N t` 4 aO V' O CO N CA r M C6 N r r M V• N N C i LL o C 0 v (o 0 a c c m m l0 Q c E c ayi ; mc >. Z_ O to o c m 1S o m *0V c O O O a O V o m (0 0 F7 O O O Q c = Y aci - E w U 0 c m 5 o m c 0 (D � m o m 4) af0i � o) C QQmm0OWLLYY � ZIrCA (nF- O CO CO f- w CA O r N M V lO (O Y •� r r r r r r r Ld F- Cr. N Z z v e - �o H O � _Q h c j Y CC co � z ma M c p CM o 0 io 0 0 > c c m c �c c E o� o, a o I. E O U •C > V1 7 a C C m f0 U Y 0 7 N 7 O O c m Gl C C Cl) O m m m l0 7 Q Q m m U p W ti X Y Y Zcr r N M "r LO 0 !- w 0 O !p r' N M V 0 f- �" O O d � N C \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O. O U C p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - N 9 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 -- (p N n it. X R _ w r E o r O m ` e w l0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N \ \ \ \ o \ \ O ^ ` O r tt O O C7 O N r r 1� lA r O M N l+) 1� O O ' CDO t1 r C7 r C7 O N Cl)r CV r r N �fj M 0 c0 C C a ' o (D 'O C> > U = d Y. ♦� N N O � � o ycII V 3 o 0 0 � o -o 0 0 ° � o 0 0 0 0 � o o ti v V CM w r N 0 IA � O 0 N r 1- cq cc O c 0 L m TC+ C O 4 4 N M O N N r M 01 E i r O w 3 > Cc h G > ` > s o 11 = m N N H Aloofca l0 V f/f N c O]C h � c Y O C O O cEa c 3 c e a mac. `c. y _ a> o m > > O c Q. _ c o v aoUU m mc a • o C ccQ .Y > o m c ( QmW 11 Y Y Z m fn cn F— H c0 M N r Q r r r r r ^ r O O INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 9 PREAMBLE THIS AGREEMENT("Agreement') is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among the eligible county and city governments signing this agreement that are located in King County, lying wholly or partially within the management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area ("WRIA")9, which includes all or portions of the Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound forums, all political subdivisions of the State of Washington (collectively, for those signing this agreement, "parties"). The parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation for the watershed basins in WRIA 9 and wish to provide for planning, funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein. MUTUAL CONVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning provided for below: 1.1 ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement as parties are the County of King and the Cities and Towns of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, 0 Kent, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, and Tukwila. 1.2 WRIA 9 FORUM: The WRIA 9 Forum created herein is the governing body responsible for implementing this Agreement and is comprised of designated representatives of eligible jurisdictions who have authorized the execution of and become parties to this Agreement. 1.3 WRIA 9 STEERING COMMITTEE: The WRIA 9 Steering Committee referred to herein is the cooperative representational body comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate to the creation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans. 14 WRIA-BASED WATERSHED PLANS- WRIA-based Watershed Plans as referred to herein are those documents to be developed for WRIA 9 including its sub-basins which recommend actions related to watershed protection, restoration and salmon recovery. 1 5 WRIA SUB-FORUMS: WRIA Sub-Forums as referred to herein are those cooperative representational bodies currently meeting and working on issues, preparing plans and implementing projects within watersheds. These groups are comprised of elected officials from the general purpose governments located within the watershed. 1 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM 1 6 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: Management Committee as referred to herein consists of five (5) elected officials or their designees which elected officials are chosen by the WRIA 9 Forum, according to the voting procedures in Section 5, charged with certain oversight and administrative duties on the WRIA 9 Forum's behalf. 1.7 SERVICE PROVIDER: Service Provider, as used herein, means that agency, government, consultant or other entity which supplies staffing or other resources to and for the WRIA 9 Forum, in exchange for payment. The Service Provider may be a party to this Agreement. 1 8 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent refers to that agency or government who performs all accounting services for the WRIA 9 Forum, as it may require, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW. 1.9 STAKEHOLDERS: Stakeholders refers to those public and private entities within the WRIA who reflect the diverse interests integral for planning for the recovery of the listed species under the Endangered Species Act, which may include but is not limited to environmental and business interests. 2 PURPOSES.The purposes of this Agreement include the following: 2.1 To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the joint funding, development, review and approval of WRIA-Based Watershed Plans. Such plans shall include reconnaissance, assessment and analysis of conditions and recommendations for the WRIA Forum. It is understood that the maximum financial or resource obligation of any participating eligible jurisdiction under this Agreement shall be limited to its share of the cost of developing the WRIA-Based Watershed Plans. 2.2 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from state agencies or other sources. 23 To provide a mechanism for the implementation of other habitat, water quality and flood projects with regional, state,federal and non-profit funds as may be contributed to the WRIA 9 Forum. 24 To provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among the parties on issues relating to the WRIA or sub-WRIA planning or to meet the requirement of a commitment by any party to participate in WRIA-based or watershed basin planning in response to any state or federal law which may require such participation as•a condition of any funding, permitting or other program of state or federal agencies, at the discretion of such party to this Agreement. 2.5 To develop and articulate WRIA-based positions on salmon habitat, conservation and funding to state and federal legislators. 2 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7.23 AM 26 To provide for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in such efforts and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current and future ESA efforts. It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of any individual jurisdiction or water quality policy bodies such as the Regional Water Quality Committee. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM.This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by at least five (5) of the eligible jurisdictions within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the affected population, as authorized by each jurisdiction's legislative body. Once effective, this Agreement shall remain in effect for an initial term of five (5)years; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the parties may agree to in writing. 4. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF WRIA 9 FORUM. The panties to this Agreement hereby establish a governing body for WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages (hereinafter the"WRIA 9 Forum"the precise boundaries of which are established in Chapter 173-500 WAC, or as determined by the WRIA Forum) to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement. Each party to this agreement shall appoint one(1) elected official to serve as its representative on the WRIA 9 Forum. The WRIA 9 Forum is a voluntary association of the county and city governments located wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainage's who choose to be parties to this Agreement. 4.1 Upon the effective execution of this agreement and the appointment of representatives to the WRIA 9 Forum, the WRIA 9 Forum shall meet and choose from among its members, according to the provisions of Section 5, five (5)elected officials or their designees, to serve as a Management Committee to oversee and direct the funds and personnel contributed under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual budget and such other directions as may be provided by the WRIA 9 Forum. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as non-voting ex officio members thereof. The Management Committee shall act as an executive subcommittee of the WRIA 9 Forum, responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants, administration of the budget, and for providing recommendations on administrative matters to the WRIA 9 Forum for action, consistent with other subsections of this section.. 4.1.1 It is contemplated that services to the WRIA 9 Forum and WRIA 9 Steering Committee for the year 2001 shall be provided by Service Provider, King County Department of Natural Resources. The Management Committee 3 WRIA 9 IIA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM shall prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be executed with the Service Provider, to be approved by the WRIA 9 Forum, which shall set out the expectations for services so provided_ Services should include, without limitation, identification of and job descriptions for dedicated staff in increments no smaller than .5 FTE, description of any supervisory role retained by the Service Provider over any staff performing services under this Agreement, and a method of regular consultation between the Service Provider and the Management Committee concerning the performance of services hereunder. 4.1.2 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement, and the selection of the Management Committee, the Management Committee shall review existing work products and plans and make recommendations to the entire WRIA 9 Forum for action, including initial decisions related to work program, staffing and service agreements, and budget and financial operations, for the year 2001. All duties of the Management Committee shall be established by the WRIA 9 Forum. 4.2 The WRIA 9 Forum shall have the authority to establish and adopt the following: 4.2.1 The WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall develop and propose for consideration, amendment and adoption by the WRIA 9 Forum, a scope of work for development of WRIA-based Watershed Plans, including planning priorities for each year of this Agreement, and performance review of work under this Agreement. The scope of work may provide for certain tasks or processes to be the responsibility of the WRIA Sub-Forums.The scope of work shall specifically identify the level of staff support to be provided to the WRIA Sub-Forums in furtherance of their agreed upon tasks or processes. 4.2.2. The WRIA 9 Forum shall by September 1 of each year, establish and approve an annual budget, establishing the level of funding and total resource obligations of the parties which are to be allocated on a proportional basis based on the average of the population, assessed valuation and area attributable to each party to the Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A, which formula shall be updated annually by the WRIA 9 Forum, as more current data becomes available. 4.2.3 The WRIA 9 Forum shall review and evaluate annually the duties to be assigned to the Management Committee hereunder and the performance of the risca/agent and Service Provider(s)to this Agreement, and shall provide for whatever actions are necessary it deems appropriate to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the 4 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM performance of the purposes of this Agreement. In evaluating the performance of any Service Provider, at least every two years, the WRIA 9 Forum shall retain an outside consultant to perform a professional assessment of the work and services so provided. 4.2.4 The WRIA 9 Forum shall oversee and administer the expenditure of budgeted funds and shall allocate the utilization of resources contributed by each party or obtained from other sources in accordance with an annual prioritized list of planning activities within the WRIA during each year of this Agreement. 4.3 The WRIA 9 Forum may contract with similar watershed forum governing bodies or any other entities for any lawful purpose related hereto. The parties may choose to create a separate legal or administrative entity under applicable state law, including without limitation a nonprofit corporation or general partnership, to accept private gifts, grants or financial contributions, or for any other lawful purposes. 4.4 The WRIA 9 Forum shall adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation. 5 VOTING. The WRIA 9 Forum shall make decisions, approve scope of work, budget, priorities and any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement as follows: 5.1 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each party agrees to use its best efforts and exercise good faith in consensus decision-making. Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the parties, or by a majority recommendation with a minority report. Any party who does not accept a majority decision may request weighted voting as set forth below. 5.2 In the event-consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures adopted by the WRIA 9 Forum, the WRIA 9 Forum shall take action on a dual- majority basis, as follows: 5.2.1 Each party, through its appointed representative, may cast its weighted vote in connection with a proposed WRIA 9 Forum action. 5.22 The weighted vote of each party in relation to the weighted votes of each of the other parties shall be determined by the percentage of the annual contribution by each party set in accordance with Subsection 4.2.2 in the year in which the vote is taken. 5.2.3 For any action subject to weighted voting to be deemed approved, an affirmative vote must be cast by both a majority of the parties to this Agreement and by a majority of the weighted votes of the parties to this Agreement. No action shall be valid and binding on the parties to this Agreement until it shall receive majority votes of both the total number of 5 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM parties to the Agreement and of the members representing a majority of the annual budget contribution for the year in which the vote is taken. A vote of abstention shall be recorded as a "no"vote. 6. CREATION APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF WRIA-BASED WATERSHED PLANS. WRIA-based Watershed Plans shall be developed, drafted and recommended by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, approved by the WRIA 9 Forum and subject to ratification by the legislative bodies of the parties to this Agreement, consistent with the following: 6.1 The WRIA 9 Forum shall appoint a WRIA 9 Steering Committee, comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate to the creation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans. It is intended that representatives of local general purpose governments will continue to participate on the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall be responsible for the development and recommendation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans consistent with the purposes of this Agreement and shall act as an advisory body to the WRIA 9 Forum. Changes in the membership or composition of the WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall be made pursuant to the voting procedures in Section 5. The WRIA 9 Forum shall establish procedures for naming and replacing representatives on the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 6.2 The WRIA 9 Forum shall act to approve or remand any final long-term WRIA-based Watershed Plan prepared and recommended by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee within ninety (90)days of receipt of the final plan, according to the voting procedures described in Section 5. 6.3 In the event that any plan is not so approved, it shall be returned to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee for further consideration and amendment and thereafter returned to the WRIA 9 Forum for decision. 64 After approval of the plan by the WRIA 9 Forum, the plan shall be referred to the parties to this Agreement for ratification prior to the plan's submission to any federal or state agency for further action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution or ordinance of the jurisdiction's legislative body, by at least five jurisdictions within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy per cent(70%)of the total population of WRIA 9. Upon ratification, the WRIA 9 Forum shall transmit the WRIA- based Watershed Plan to any state or federal agency as may be required for further action. 6.5 In the event that either any state or federal agency to which such plans are submitted shall remand any such plan for further consideration, the plan shall be remanded to 6 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM the WRIA 9 Forum for consideration, which may include further referral to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee for recommendation on amendments thereto. 6.6 The parties agree that no WRIA-based Watershed Plan developed and funded pursuant to this Agreement shall be forwarded separately by any of them to any state or federal agency unless it has been approved and ratified as provided herein. 7 OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES: BUDGET: FISCAL AGENT: RULES. 7 1 Each party shall be responsible for meeting its financial obligations hereunder as established in the annual budget adopted by the WRIA 9 Forum under this Agreement, including all such obligations related to WRIA 9 Forum and WRIA 9 Steering Committee funding, technical support, and participation in related planning projects and activities as set forth herein. It is anticipated that separate actions by the legislative bodies of the parties will be necessary from time to time in order to carry out these obligations. 7.2 The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties during the first year of this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit A,which shall be updated annually as described in Section 4.2.2. 7.3 No later than September 1 of each year of this Agreement, the WRIA 9 Forum shall adopt a budget, including its overhead and administrative costs,for the following calendar year. The budget shall propose the level of funding and other(e.g. staffing) responsibilities of the individual parties for the following calendar year and shall propose the levels of funding and resources to be allocated to specific prioritized planning activities within the WRIA. The parties shall thereafter take whatever separate legislative or other actions that may be necessary to timely address such individual responsibilities under the proposed budget, and shall have done so no later than December 1 st of each such year. 7.4 Funds collected from the parties or other sources on behalf of the WRIA 9 Forum shall be maintained in a special fund by King County as rrsca/agent and as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the WRIA 9 Forum pursuant to rules and procedures established and agreed to by the WRIA 9 Forum. Such rules and procedures shall set out billing practices and collection procedures and any other procedures as may be necessary to provide for its efficient administration and operation. Any party to this Agreement may inspect and review all records maintained in connection with such fund at any reasonable time. 8. LATECOMERS. A county or city government in King County lying wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and adjacent Puget Sound drainages which has not become a party to this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a party only with the written 7 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM consent of all the parties. The provisions of Section 5 otherwise governing decisions of the WRIA 9 Forum shall not apply to Section 8. The parties and the county or city seeking to become a party shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a party. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the parties of the amount determined jointly by the parties and the county or city to represent such county or city's fair and proportionate share of all costs associated with activities undertaken by the WRIA 9 Forum and the parties on its behalf as of the date the county or city becomes a party. Any county or city that becomes a party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other parties to this Agreement. 9. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by any party, as to that party only, upon sixty (60)days'written notice to the other parties. The terminating party shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding and other obligations through the end of the calendar year in which such notice is given, together with any other costs that may have been incurred on behalf of such terminating party up to the effective date of such termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the written agreement of all parties. It is expected that the makeup of the parties to this Agreement may change from time to time. Regardless of any such changes, the parties choosing not to exercise the right of termination shall each remain obligated to meet its respective share of the obligations of the WRIA 9 Forum as reflected in the annual budget. 10. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law,.and for the limited purposes set forth in this agreement, each party shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other parties, their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits, penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever)arising out of or in any way resulting from such party's own negligent acts or omissions related to such party's participation and obligations under this agreement. Each party agrees that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents For this purpose, each party, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other parties only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title 51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to parties exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9. 11 NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the parties to this Agreement intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any other party to this Agreement or otherwise with regard to any party's duties, responsibilities or liabilities under the Endangered Species 8 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM Act, or any other act, statute or regulation of'any local municipality or government, the State of Washington or the United States. 12 VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This is a voluntary agreement and it is acknowledged and agreed that, in entering into this Agreement, no party is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in a WR/A-based Watershed Plan developed pursuant to this Agreement. 13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or more of the parties to this Agreement from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or action, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation or other obligation of any kind on any party to this Agreement which is not a party to such decision or agreement. 14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation the WR/A 9 Steering Committee, NMFS, USFWS, any agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of the WR/A 9 Forum or any of the parties, or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. 15. AMENDMENTS, This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous consent of the parties to this Agreement, represented by affirmative action by their legislative bodies. 16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 17. APPROVAL BY PARTIES' GOVERNING BODIES. This Agreement has been approved for execution by appropriate action of each parry's governing body. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below: Approved as to form: KING COUNTY By By: Title: Title: Date: Date: 9 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM Main: Purposes: WRIA ILA: A Summary (10/5/00) ♦ To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the joint funding, development, review, and approval of WRIA-based salmon conservation plans - ♦ To provide a mechanism for securing additional technical assistance and funding from state and federal agencies and other sources ♦ To provide a mechanism for the implementation of other habitat, water quality, and flood projects, using any regional, state, federal, and non-profit funds that may be contributed to or accumulated by the WRIA Forums ♦ To develop and articulate WRIA-based state and federal legislative positions on salmon habitat conservation and funding ♦ To provide for on-going participation of citizens and other stakeholders in these efforts, and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current and future ESA activities ♦ To meet the requirement of a commitment by any party to participate in WRIA-based planning, in response to any state or federal law which may require such participation as a condition of any funding,permitting,or other state or federal program. Key Provisions: ♦ Effective Date: Goal is January 1,2001. ♦ Term: Five years,with annual review and approval of work program and budget. ♦ Organization: 0 ■ Newly configured WRIA Forums consist of one elected official from all participating local governments in the Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA). ■ WRIA Forums establish 5-member Management Committee to shape, direct, oversee, and evaluate implementation of ILA and expenditure of ILA-generated funds ■ King County is initial ILA service provider and fiscal agent ♦ Cost-Sharing: Each party shall contribute funds under the ILA,based on a formula that averages population, geographic area, and assessed valuation. ♦ Voting Procedures: Decisions are made by consensus. When consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by a double-majority voting procedure, which requires a majority of the overall votes,plus a majority of the votes weighted by the parry's financial contribution. ♦ Plan Development,Review,Approval, and Ratification: ■ WRIA Steering Committees,comprised of balance of watershed stakeholders, develop proposed WRIA-based salmon conservation plans; ■ WRIA Forums, comprised of elected officials from participating local governments, review,remand if appropriate, and adopt WRIA Plan; ■ WRIA Plans ratified by individual local governments ■ Once ratified,WRIA Forums transmit WRIA Plan to any state or federal agency as may be required for further action ♦ Latecomers: After 12 months from effectiveness date, latecomers to the ILA may join only with the written consent of all parties. ♦ Termination: The ILA may be terminated at any time by written agreement of all parties. A single party may terminate its participation upon 60 days notice. GREEN / DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED FORUM " WRIA 9 FORUM " CITY OF K E IN T *na AUG 2 4 2001 U� K Auburn ENGINEERING DEPT ,July 3, 2001CO U N T YBlack Diamond t The Honorable Jim White Burien - �; - Mayor, City of Kent Covington'., _` 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Des-Moinli4 ` .; _ Dear Mayor White: Enumtravi -, On May 16, 2001 the WRIA 9 Forum referred the following amendments to the - . - _,r Interlocal Agreement to the Forum Management Committee for final editing. The Federal;Waq; :Y_ Committee met on June 15 and has prepared an amended document for approval by _ T all existing parties to the interlocal by August 1,2001. The Management Committee Keo ;, recommends that you only act to approve the amendments and that you do not nullify yy _ the existing ILA. King Coun.01 ty The amendments would allow: ___ ♦ The addition of the City of Tacoma,which has a major interest in the upper No yP,ark Green, as a party to the ILA. => Tacoma's vote would be predicated on a negotiated financial contribution ter' ` ., ' Renton�: -� each year as opposed to the population method used by the rest of the WRIA. =SeaTac 'w_'_+ ♦ The transfer of V_ashon Island (along with its monetary contribution) from WRIA 15 to WRIA 9. = sea"ttle}= `z => For 2001 the additional monies from Tacoma and Vashon would be held in a contingency fund for unanticipated needs. In future years they would Tukwila = be figured into the overall cost shares to all parties. => Except for King County and Tacoma, the cost shares of the ILA parties remain the same. => There is a nominal weighted vote change due to the contingency fund. ♦ Changing the number of Forum Management Committee members from five to seven. y, => This would allow participation of small cities and those from the - nearshore area of WRIA 9. ♦ The selection of an official alternate from each city, which may be an elected official or a senior staff member This was necessary to maintain enough attendance at Forum meetings to establish a quorum. The Honorable Jim White July 3, 2001 Page 2 If you have not formally designated an elected official as your Forum representative, please do so as soon as possible. The amendments to the ILA also open the door for each party to designate an alternate Forum representative who can either be another elected official or senior staff. The Forum encourages you to appoint(or reconfirm if applicable) an alternate Forum representative as you proceed with approving the ILA amendment document. The existing roster of Forum members is attached. Two copies of the amendment are enclosed: one for review purposes and one for signature purposes. Once your jurisdiction has approved the amendment, please have it signed in the appropriate space and return the signed copy to: Linda Grob King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson, Suite 600 Seattle,WA 98104 Linda can be reached at 206-296-8016 if you need an additional amendment copy; it is important that all jurisdictions sign identical versions. Once all signed copies have been received, copies will be distributed to all ILA participants. Please contact Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 Watershed Coordinator, if you have any questions or would like a personal briefing about the amendment document and its implications. Doug can be contacted at 206-296-8069 or doug.osterman@metrokc.gov. Signed: SIV-14 � r Steve Mullet Mayor, City of Tukwila WRIA 9 Forum Chair Attachments (Amendment Document, Forum roster) cc: Forum members and alternates, Management Committee members, Forum staff ' rt 41 ',,!topncil Meetirij t,'eMber 18 2®0� *' nsent calendar . yr F iiFe q r 1. SUB_JPT: STREET VAICATION, 2 0 6TH AT Er • Y,, H'IGHWAY - RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING D� 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended -by',t# i6blic works Co;;7ttee, passage of Resolution No. n$ a Public �--, Hearing date of November 20, 2001 for the, 11E*�'-206th St. at East Valley Highway street vacation. }'r , E 3. EXHIBITS: Public works girector ,memor rd{ and �resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee. (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission',,';"Otc: ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERS "� ES .�L..,_, IMF_�,ACT I�b- �«=-: Y 6. E$PENDITURE RSQUIpjW: SOURCE OF Pus: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: t k Councilmember moves, Councilmemb%4 , seconds 4 . t i DISCUSSION• ACTION: ;,;Council Agenda ', 11','Item No. 6G • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director K E Phone:253-856-5500 N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: September 10, 2001 1 To: Pub ' kortks Committee From: Don rom, Public Works Director Subject: Street Vacation - South 206`h St @ East Valley Highway We have received a valid petition to vacate a portion of South 206`h Street at East Valley Highway. In accordance with state law, a public hearing must be held. As such the Public Works Department recommends adoption of a Resolution setting the public hearing date. MOTION: Recommend Council adoption of a resolution setting a public hearing date of November 20" for the South 2061h Street, street vacation. streetvacauon RECEIVED SEP 0 4 1001 WM0?0 mYr aF �vr CaElifFxrj KEN T 1"""otoo Mayor Jim White KIVA#: *SV 201 Z401 MAIL TO: APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT NAME: SPeC-(A tom? �AQ-'6 Property Management R El D 5 Z06 220 S.4'"Avenue ADDRESS: Kent,Washington 98032 AUG 0 1001 �„�. gYU32 Attn: Jerry McCaughan PROPE �j 3 1 Z b OF K O MAN4 EMEMT PHONE: Z b O� r, STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION Dear Mayor and Kent City Council: We,the undersigned aku�tting property owners,hereby respectfully request that ccrtair•jor+lam OF hereby be vacated. Legal Description of Street/AWq Sought to be Vacated (Must Contain Total Square Feet of Area Sought To Be Vacated) REFER Td R17W cfi e,0 1L:,X-9//31T A BRIEF STATEMENT WHY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT A 64 'title report must be submitted with this application that covers all the abutting properties contiguous to alley or street sought to be vacated. When Corporations, Partnerships, etc. are being signed for, and then proof of individual's authority to sign for same shall also be submitted. Attach a color-ceded map of a scale of not less than I"=200'of the area sought for vacation. (NOTE) Map must correspond with legal description. ABUTTAIC,PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT# SLUOPKTURES DRESSES LOT,BLOCK&PLAT/STbCTQWN RG cU &E,1J6WA L AIRTNE COW, E5GO MEMa 1 ih, 50.00 Fer Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. _^ Appraisal Fee Paid _ Treasurer's Receipt No. Land Valuc Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. Deed Accepted Date Trade Accepted _ Date S\Property ManagmenlWacaiwn App duc STREET VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF SOUTH 2O6TE STREET IN TEE SOU7Z AST QUARTER OF TEB SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION f, TOFNSHIP 22 NORTH,, AkWff 4 B.,' F-M., KING COUNTT, STATE OF FASHINGTON, DESCRImD AS FOLLOFS.• COAl"MING AT TBB SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAIL! SUBDIVISION,• TEENCB NOP55T "E ALONG THB BAST LINE OF SAIB SUBDIVISION 72f.57 FEET; THENCE N88'S9'23"F 30.00 FRET TO THB TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S0055'22"F PARALML TO TEE EAST LINE OF SAID MM177SION 30 FEET,• THENCE N88 59'23"F A DISTANCE OF 300 FRET,• THENCE NOP55'2.2"E A DISTANCE OF 30 FEET; THENCE S88'5ST "B A DISTANCE OF 300 FBBT TO TEE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. E<c EAST 7.,rll 877S' CONTAINING IMI SQ. FT. 01010W1rfM) - EXISTING BUILDING 1 6 13.85' El 1" = 100, 30' �j v oo EXISTING BUILDING ccs 260031 ad Cb QJ O 2 4 2 $Q. FT. N 9r y Cb to Cq W W� -1 Uco co �I 13.856r59'23"W 300.00' 1 30'I ti S. 206TH ST. ' N88'S9'23"W 300.00' 1 N b o o 0 1 0MCIO1CV 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the vacation of a portion of S. 206th Street, lying generally in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 1, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in King County, and setting the public hearing on the proposed street vacation for November 20, 2001. WHEREAS, a petition, attached as Exhibit A, has been filed by Specialty Metals to vacate a portion of S. 206th Street, a deeded street lying generally in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 1, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in the City of Kent, King County, Washington; and WHEREAS, the petition is signed by the owners of at least two-thirds of the real property abutting that portion of S. 206th Street and East Valley Highway that is now being sought to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the petition is in all respects proper; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A public hearing on the street vacation petition requesting the vacation of a portion of S. 206th Street shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council at 7:00 p.m.,Tuesday,November 20,2001, in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington, 98032. 1 Street Vacation — S. 206th Street SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by state law, Ch. 35.79 RCW. SECTION 3. The Planning Manager shall obtain any other necessary information from appropriate departments and shall transmit the information to the Council so that the Council may consider the matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on November 20, 2001. PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 2001. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 2001. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: KIM ADAMS PRATT, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 2 Street Vacation— S. 206th Street I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, on the day of , 2001. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Cml\Raolunon\STVAC S206thStreet doc 3 Street Vacation — S. 206th Street 2001. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1 Date: I CITY ,ter CITY �., TO: City Cleric FROM: Jerry McCaughan RE: Street Vacation S6 Z�fZ 71 �T c-- Regarding subject matter, please be advised that I have reviewed same and found everything in order. Therefore I am filing the original application with you and at the same time, by copy of this memo to the Public Works Director, the process should begin. cc: Don Wickstrom Planning Manager Attachment: Maps st.vacate n P,F'RTV F KErIT t,rRrl,zrl�jrrRlT j rr- ci ` I�T SENT OVA$ "I N G To N Mayor Jim whitc KIVA#: ?ESV 2MZ.�O ( MAIL TO: /� APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT NAME: smcc_ iAL ' Property Management RE EIV j] 220 S. 4"' AVC11Ue ADDRESS: � � Z Kcnt, Washington 98032 AUG 0 2001 (� Attn JCrry McCaughanU L r^OPF�rv'�'r r, rlT Inrd,ti. Fr-IFrrr P11ONE: STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION Deal M IV01- and Kent City C'0LI11CIl. WC, the 11I1d0IS{c_'11Cd ahuttlll�,, pl'Oj)Crty O) vI1C1'S, llelel)V I-CSije('llillly rrrliir•ct Or! Merely be vacated. Legal Description OfStI'CCt/A#PJr Sought to be VacatCd (Must Contain Total Square Fect of Area SOLH'ht To Be `'ICatCd) I31ZIEF STATENIENT WHY" VACATION IS BEING SOU(;IIT A "CURRENT" title I-Cl')Ort Illust be submitted with this application th;lt covers all the abutting properties contiguous to alley or stl'ccl soup-111l to be 1,11cated When Corporations, Partnc:'shlps, e(c. alc bent(' signed for, and then proof of nldivldual's authority to sign (or sank shall also be submitted. A0,1( 11 P ^lor-:'w-1cd 11ii1;) of d O IIOt 1C3S thall 1" = 200 OI tl1C al'Ca SOlig111t )vi' vacatloI1 (NOTE) Map Illust correspond with legal description. ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT S[ ATURES AND ADDRESSES LOT, BLOCK & PLAT/S . '.1'(-"WN RG. ,II c C) eYF_ &::r P�ar"rnlE I,� t ESGL' /NIE-Nn [3EP\ Oki i SI),I IU_FL:c I I I d Treasurer's Receipt No _ Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Reccll)1 No. Land Value Paid Treasurer's Reccmt Nn w 9 1 � o 0 o � o A -- - -- 00.00C A.CZ.69.99Nin - ----------------�--- 'IS H.L90z 'S h Cy W az mow �W Li � M a �— I •os NW V) w T £009Z 4 a CO oy v !v Maims JNIISIX3 �3 N `"W 0£ � Z � .001 = ,l 9 Maims ONIISIX3 (APMMAA* UY 'bS MM 9NINI V-rNO.? SL[8 SNINNI9.78 .10 .LNIOd .F/1?I.Z SB,Z O.Z J.7.7d OOS dO .7.?NV-SIQ F .7 SZ,6S.99S .7J V.7B.1 1.7.7.1 OS dO S'OIVVZSIQ V .7.,ZZ,.9S.00N .7J V.7Bd :Z.7.7.1' OOS dO .7.?Nd,LSIU V &SZ,6S.88N 0N.Mr d,7.7.1 OS NOISIAIQBIIS 9IYS JO ZJVI7 ,ZSFY .78.Z O.Z 77771Md A ZZ,SS.00S ,7.?N.7.9..Z !9NINN19.78 JO ,ZNIOd MIZU .7B.Z O.Z .1.7.7d 00'06' A..CZ 6S.88N ffOA". ffJ ,GS79,Z NOISL M12S QIY'S JO .7N17 .LSd,7 .7B.Z SAWY 2'.,ZZ,SS.00N .70Ar.FHJ •NOM110'912S QIVS -�! _h -�� h� ►� .10 Me7N7100 .LSI7B.LlI0S .7B.L .L F 9ArIONSA'A'09 SA0770.1 Sd Ua7BlY-?S.7iT W0.10A BSFA i `B,ZN'ON Z'Z dIBS"O,Z 'l NOI,L9.7S dO NZYd9126 ,TS[ISB.ZIJOS MJ JO d.7.6?I['!IB .LS6'.IBdI10S .7B.Z AT .Z.F"..ZS B.Z909 AMOS JO NOLZ?IOd .ZVH..Z NOLLd12L)S.7Q 7VO,77 MOLLd0VA 4 .11 Y.LS Kent �City Council Meeting Date ', September 18, 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SALE OF SURPLUS VEHICLES - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to declare certain vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next public auction. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Worka Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSOENEL IMPACT: NO . 1 YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION; ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director • K E N T Phone:253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date : September 10, 2001 To: Public Works om ittee From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Subject : Surplus Vehicles Attached is a list of Equipment Rental Vehicles no longer needed by the City and have been replaced. We are requesting that they be declared as surplus and sold at the next public auction. MOTION: Recommend authorization to declare the listed vehicles as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next public auction. surplusvehicles PUBLIC WORKS Don E. Wickstrom, Director OPERATIONS DIVISION Larry R. Blanchard, Manager K E N T Phone: 253-856-5656 WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6600 Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Location Address: 5821 South 240th Date: September 5, 2001 To: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director From: Alice Conrad, Fleet Superintendent — g '$•/ Through: Larry Blanchard, Operations Manager . Subject: Request for Council Approval to Surplus Replaced Equipment The following vehicles have been replaced as scheduled in the 2001 budget. The police vehicles will be sold to needy small police departments in Washington and Alaska. The other vehicles and equipment will be sold at auction. POLICE UNITS AND MISCELLANEOUS SEDANS 1020 1992 Chevrolet Caprice, mid size sedan, 58,293 miles, previously assigned to administrative staff, not desirable in the motor pool as an hourly rental. 3119 1996 Ford Crown Victoria, full size sedan, 87,151 miles, previously assigned to police patrol division, shows signs of wear due to patrol use and heavy idle hours, not desirable in the motor pool as an hourly rental. 3120 1996 Ford Crown Victoria,full size sedan, 74,591 miles, previously assigned to the police patrol division, showing signs of wear due to patrol use and heavy idle hours, not desirable in the motor pool as an hourly rental. 3121 1996 Ford Crown Victoria, full size sedan, 74,593 miles, previously assigned to police patrol division, showing signs of wear due to patrol use and heavy idle hours, not desirable in the motor pool as an hourly rental. 3142 1994 Chevrolet Caprice, mid size sedan, 77,660 miles, previously assigned to police traffic division. Vehicle has engine oil leaks and mounting repair costs. It is not suitable for motor pool assignment and will be sold to another police department in a smaller city if desired, may go to auction. 3155 1997 Ford Crown Victoria, full size sedan, 84,101 miles, previously assigned to police patrol division, showing signs of wear due to patrol use and heavy idle hours, not desirable in the motor pool as an hourly rental. 3165 1998 Ford Crown Victoria, full size sedan, 79,363 miles, previously assigned to police patrol division, showing signs of wear due to patrol use and heavy idle hours, not desirable in the motor pool as an hourly rental. 3167 1998 Ford Crown Victoria, full size sedan, 67,824 miles, previously assigned to police patrol division, showing signs of wear due to patrol use and heavy idle hours, not desirable in the motor pool as an hourly rental. Page I 3168 1998, Ford Crown Victoria, full size sedan, 74,850 miles, previously assigned to police patrol division, showing signs of wear due to patrol use and heavy idle hours, not desirable in the motor pool as an hourly rental. 6578 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity Wagon, 29,204 miles, previously assigned to the senior center and was replaced with a 12 passenger van. The wagon no longer meets the needs of the customer and will not be attractive to motor pool customers. Recommend that the vehicle be sold at auction as soon as possible to obtain highest possible salvage value. UTILITY TRUCKS AND VANS 1029 1981 Chevrolet 1 Ton Flatbed Utility Truck, 58,902 miles, previously assigned to Parks Facilities Division, the vehicle appears to have had its engine replaced sometime in the past but explanation notes and/or records are not available. Several emission test attempts were made but the vehicle cannot pass without extensive overhaul work. The vehicle will be sold at auction. 3141 1994 Ford Econoline Van, 8 passenger van, 63,069 miles, previously assigned to police traffic for weights and measures program which has been discontinued. The vehicle will not be useful in the motor pool as an hourly rental but is attractive to a smaller police jurisdiction as a jail van. 5304 1991 Chevrolet Cargo Van, 69,074 miles, previously assigned to engineering construction inspection division, not useful for the motor pool. 5305 1991 Chevrolet Cargo Van, 56,017 miles, previously assigned to engineering construction inspection division, not useful for the motor pool. 5366 1991 Ford Econoline Utility Service Van, 80,597 miles, previously assigned to the water division, high engine run hours related to hyrdaulic pumps used for water service activities. Currently showing engine leaks, exhaust leaks and oil leaks which will require extensive repair work. Not reasonable as a motor pool vehicle. MOWERS 5349 1995 Scag Mower, walk behind mower that was previously used extensively by the street vegetation division. Parts are difficult to find for repair work and the equipment is not currently operational. It will be sold at auction. 5351 1995 Scag Mower, walk behind mower, previously assigned to street vegetation division. Parts are difficult to find for repairs. 5398 1996 John Deere, walk behind mower, heavily used by the street vegetation division. Thanks. Ref: Rfleet/surplus/memo requesting council approval for september.doc Page 2 �k' DU �.� Kent" council Meeting 1St ijpMe 18, 2001 Cater Cnsent Ca1erla 1 . SUBJECT: STRAWBERRY PLACE PHASE I AND -Il FZNAL, PLAT (FSU-96-29/KIVA #2010552/#2010 58) , - APPROVE 2. SUM MY STATEMENT: Approval of staff's•,regbmmendation of approval with conditions of the Strawberry -,#lace Phase I and Phase II Final Subdivisions and authorizatj4n ,for the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. This agenda- item is to consider the final- '04at;, applications submitted by Jerry Prouty for the Strawberr' ­LPlace Phase I and Phase II Final Subdivisions. The Hearing Examiner issued the Findings with conditions on the preliminary,J'pl'at on June 30, 1999. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo with conditions and map 4 . ' RECONKMED BY: Staff - (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, -atc. ) C 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSO L IMPACT: N0.,....._�a YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ F_ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds - DISCUSSION: Ll ACTION: °, ouncil Agenda Item No. 6I COMMUNITY MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT September 11, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR, Manager AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Mailing Address. FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,ACTING PLANNING MANAGER 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 MEETING Location Address: DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: STRAWBERRY PLACE PHASE I AND PHASE II FINAL Phone:253-856-5454 SUBDIVISIONS #FSU-96-29(KIVA#2010552/2010556) Fax:253-856-6454 On June 30, 1999, the Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation with conditions on the Strawberry Place Phase I and Phase II Subdivisions#SU-96-29. In Phase I, the applicant, Jerry Prouty, is subdividing 3.93 acres into 17 single family residential lots. In Phase II, the applicant, Jerry Prouty, is subdividing 4.37 acres into 24-single family residential lots. The property is located north of the intersection of 100`h Avenue S. and SE 242"d Place. The applicant has complied with the conditions required prior to recording. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Strawberry Place Phase I and Phase II Final Subdivisions #FSU-96-29 (Kiva #2010552/#2010556) with the attached conditions and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. FNS/mjp/S:\Permit\Plan\longplats\2001\2010552-201055 6fsu9626cc.doc Enclosure c� L 00 IP jl"�k �I ---- ------------------- Ss •�y1 o . Cf) ----- I 1 1 LL_- I `--------------- I Q Z I I I n I I I I co W I I I m ` I I i71. * •� cmSl ,90'Ofl N1,6C,90.105 � .� �W 1 T V n CC L 0 I (� I I L, I 11 i.';; I 4 1 I m U II II ;:sTr• . FF M! 0. -- Q -- --� LL ILOI I O �1I U I rr LL w I I I 1 Q Z z LLI CL IX LU rr LL. as I I I Z r Z L_'I III .I ('3 / ' I (J ' �� I \ \ `�yf,�7 - :z3`.' •"''sir, � ]« �• 2 11.r.Y�RC 1tF��. N IT,SO'COL 3.iS,BO.ION -- E ■0 I 1 1 Yt. I I I r I j L N r C I r � I �I-•-� • � ' i I F _ I c ---- I II 8 _ I INS -_90•e6 3.tis.e0.10N - ---- - - - _ ---_ - d Cc -_• ---- _ ---- �i IVAN 31,111, LIS o V! f I 1 � ' Q Imo ' I Ems ' w I`W� c ; I � � ww ! IN t z w 1> ol SW 2'03' W I00 a Cl) = � »i { I I I I N / 41 LLI 0- I I f I !.'a) , Iui a LD M: -- W N r I N Q=N - 200.09— I I � �N n a J �U� I I I I I I N Ruo08 ! I I I I I I �0 a a U J , I ul `-- LL a -- LL u� co [E IT ♦ N W o co rr U I -- -- LL LL o CV .2 I \ \ co N \ wztn l'. IT V -- -- 00 8 W S 41M Ss cri -- STRAWBERRY PLACE PHASE I and PHASE II #FSU-96-29 KIVA#2010552 & #2010556 THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVED STRAWBERRY PLACE #SU-96-29 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 20, 1999. A. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE STRAWBERRY PLACE SUBDIVISION: 1. The Owner/ Subdivider shall receive approval for engineering drawings from the Department of Public Works, and either construct or bond for the following: a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The existing sanitary sewer system within 100`h Avenue SE is not deep enough to serve the entire subdivision as proposed. The lower portion of the site shall be served by an extension of the system within 98 Avenue South, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. Alternatives, such as extending the system within S. 242"d Street will require a detailed downstream analysis approved by the City, which shows that adequate capacity is available to serve the entire study area. Septic systems serving any existing home(s) within the proposed subdivision - if any - shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department Regulations once the gravity sewer system is constructed. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots within the subdivision. (1) The existing 10 inch diameter water main within 1001h Avenue Southeast shall be extended from the existing public water system at the north property line for this subdivision to its connection point at the southwest corner of the subdivision (at the intersection of 100`h Avenue Southeast and Southeast 244`h Street.). In addition, the water system shall be extended across the entire subdivision to serve adjacent properties as determined necessary by the City. (2) Existing wells—if any - shall be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Ecology. C. Detailed Drainage Plans meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and published City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures related to stormwater management. (1) Unless determined not feasible by the Public Works Department, the Owner / Subdivider shall construct an on-site infiltration Strawberry Place #SU-96-29 Conditions of Approval retention pond system meeting-the requirements of the Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to both stormwater runoff quantity and quality. This stormwater management system will include the retention and treatment facilities for all of the public street improvements as well as accounting for other impervious surfaces on the individual lots. The infiltration retention pond design and construction shall meet the requirements of Development Assistance Brochures #5-12, City of Kent Infiltration Criteria, and #5-13, Drainage Tract Requirements for Public Infiltration Systems. (2) An infiltration pond retention system is the preferred alternative for mitigation of stormwater impacts and this shall be utilized unless determined to be unfeasible by the Owner's engineer after conducting a detailed analysis of on-site soils and submitting a geotechnical engineering report with findings and recommendations to be approved by the Public Works Department of the City. (3) As development occurs within this subdivision, roof downspouts for each roofed structure (house, garage, carport, etc.) shall be directed to Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches, or Perforated Stubouts, meeting the requirements of the Department of Public works. These roof downspout conveyance and infiltration systems shall include overflow pipes connected to an approved conveyance system, which discharges into the infiltration or detention pond system, whichever is finally approved and constructed. The Detailed Drainage' Plans will include an approved detail for the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trench, meeting the requirements of Development Assistance Brochure #5-5, Roof Downspout Infiltration Trench Systems, Downspout Dispersion Systems, and Perforated Stubout Connections. The face of the recorded plat shall contain the following restriction: AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, RESIDENCES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE ROOF DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION TRENCH SYSTEMS PER THE DETAILS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED STORMWATER PLANS FOR THIS SUBDMSION. (4) The required downstream analysis for this development will include an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, and water Page 2 t Strawberry Place#SU-96-29 Conditions of Approval quality from the point of discharge from the site downstream a distance of at least one-quarter mile or to the point where stormwater discharges to Mill Creek, whichever distance is further. This downstream analysis shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and Development Assistance Brochure #5-4, Downstream Analyses, but the analysis shall be modified as appropriate to reflect emergency discharges only. (5) The provisions for the overflow discharge of stormwater from the infiltration or detention pond system shall direct all released stormwater into the public stormwater system. If approved by the City, the overflow discharge of stormwater within the natural drainage course onto adjacent private property as proposed by the Owner / Subdivider shall be designed in a manner to not exceed existing peak flow runoff conditions, and meet or exceed the City" HILL criteria for stormwater design, and not adversely impact downstream properties. The Owner/Subdivider shall design and construct necessary downstream drainage conveyance improvements, and obtain public easements for same, as determined necessary by the City. If the Owner/Subdivider is unable to obtain said downstream drainage easements after making a reasonable effort, as verified by the City, then the Owner/Subdivider shall provide alternative on-site or off-site stormwater mitigation measures, subject to approval by the City, or provide the City a satisfactory assurance that no liability will accrue to the City arising from the construction, operation, and use of said storm drainage system before the City will authorize the construction of the subdivision improvements. d. Landscape Plans for the retention infiltration pond facility. These plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #5, Landscape Plans. These plans shall be submitted to both the Planning Department and to the Department of Public Works for concurrent review and approval prior to, or in conjunction with, the approval of the Detailed Drainage Plans. e. An open-to-the-air stormwater treatment system. These plans shall meet the requirements of the Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff quality. The stormwater treatment• facilities for this development shall consist of infiltration, after successful pre-treatment via settlement basins and biofiltration swales. Page 3 Strawberry Place#SU-96-29 Conditions of Approval (1) The stormwater treatment system shall be within the approved retention/stormwater management facility tract. (2) Easements for biofiltration swales across private lots will not be acceptable to meet this requirement. f. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision. These plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #1-3, Excavation and Grading Permits & Grading Plans. These plans shall include provisions for utilities, roadways, retention / detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and a building footpad for each buildable lot within the subdivision. These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building Permits: phasing of grading on a lot-by-lot basis will not be considered. g. A Detailed Tree Plan meeting the requirements of Section 15.08.240 of the Kent City Code, and Development Assistance Brochure #3, Detailed Tree Plans. h. A Temporary Erosion / Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards. This plan shall specifically reflect the Detailed Grading Plan discussed above, and the Planning Department approved Detailed Tree Plan. i. Street Improvement Plans for 1001h Avenue Southeast. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, for a street designated as a Residential Collector Arterial Street Augmented With Bike Lanes by the City of Kent Master Plan of Roadways. (1) For this development, the Bike Lanes shall consist of 10-foot wide cement concrete sidewalks with South 212`h Street (bike lane/sidewalk) style curb returns on both sides of the street; the street section shall consist of, 36-feet of asphalt pavement, as measured from face-of-curb to face-of-curb. (2) Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, where 100`h Avenue SE is not directly abutted by this subdivision on the west side, the street improvement shall consist of a 10-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk with curb & gutter on the east side of the Page 4 ' l Strawberry Place #SU-96-29 Conditions of Approval street, plus a street width providing two 12 foot wide travel lanes plus a 12 foot wide northbound left turn lane immediately south of the intersection with proposed "Road A", with gravel shoulders on the west side, and related appurtenances meeting applicable City Standards. (The curb & gutter, and 10-foot sidewalk is not required on the west side of the street south of the subdivision area having double frontage along 100`h Avenue South.) (3) Approved Street Plans shall include an approved Pavement Analysis meeting the requirements of Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Requirements, providing a service life of 20-years. (4) To date, the final horizontal alignment of 1001h Avenue Southeast has not been determined by the Owner/ Subdivider as specified in the Tentative Subdivision conditions. City approval of this street alignment will require consideration of that portion of 1001h Avenue Southeast constructed south of Southeast 240 Street. This may require a revision to the centerline alignment for 100`h Avenue Southeast and will require additional dedication of right-of-way along that portion of the subdivision located east of 100`h Avenue Southeast and north of Southeast 244`h Street. j. Street Improvement Plans for 981h Avenue South. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, for a street designated as a Residential Collector Street by the City of Kent Master Plan of Roadways. In lieu of constructing the above roadway improvements, the Owner/ Developer may pay to the City the estimated costs of said improvements based on a City approved engineer's estimate for same. Said monies shall be deposited in a project fund for the future widening and improvement of 98`h Ave South. k. Street Improvement Plans for Southeast 244`h Street. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, for a street designated as a Residential Collector Street by the City of Kent Master Plan of Roadways. (1) For this development, these plans shall specifically provide for a total street width of 36-feet as measured from the face of the existing curb & gutter constructed along the south side of this Page 5 Strawberry Place#SU-96-29 Conditions of Approval street, and will include curb & gutter and a 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk along the north side of the street. (2) A traffic choker, or other City approved traffic,control device at the intersection of Southeast 244th Street and 100th Avenue Southeast. This will provide for appropriate measures to discourage cut through traffic, and control speeds in the area. 1. Street Improvement Plans for the two subdivision streets terminating with a cul-de-sac at their terminus. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements for a street designated as a Residential Street with a curb to curb width of 28 feet. in. Public Pedestrian Walkway , Improvement Plans for a 6-foot wide separated asphalt or cement concrete pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk constructed along proposed Road A at the west end of the cul-de- sac to that point where this path connects with 98th Avenue South. This will extend the neighborhood pedestrian walkway serving East Hill Elementary School to 98th Avenue South. n. Street Light Plans for 98th Avenue South, 100th Avenue Southeast, Southeast 244th Street, and both subdivision streets, meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure#6-1, Street Lighting Requirements. o. Street Improvement Plans for the Private Streets within Access Tracts. (1) The design of the Private Street within Tract D shall include the following: the 6-foot wide paved walkway or cement concrete sidewalk along the south side of the tract, a 20-foot width of asphalt pavement, and bollards installed at 98th Avenue South to prevent vehicle ingress and egress to and from 98`h Avenue South via this Private Street. (2) The design of the Private Street within Tract C or other private access tracts shall include a minimum 20-foot wide asphalt street. 2. The Owner/ Subdivider shall dedicate, or deed, all necessary public rights-of-way for the required improvements and provide all public and private easements . necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the required improvements. Page 6 Strawberry Place #SU-96-29 Conditions of Approval 3. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department, the Owner / Subdivider shall revise the plat to make Lots 18, 19, and 42 wider along the residential streets as needed to provide the minimum 50-feet of separation available from the curb line along 1001h Avenue South to the near side of any proposed driveway for these lots. 4. Direct vehicular access to 100`h Avenue South, 98`h Avenue South, and Southeast 244`h Street is prohibited, and the face of the recorded plat shall contain the following restrictions: DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS ABUTTING 100TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST IS RESTRICTED TO THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND CUL-DE-SACS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. (The final wording should be revised to reflect the actual street names when they assigned by the City.) DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS ABUTTING 98TH AVENUE SOUTH IS PROHIBITED. DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS ABUTTING SOUTHEAST 244T11 STREET IS PROHIBITED. 5. At the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works, the Owner / Subdivider may deposit the cash equivalent required to construct some of the street improvements specified above, in lieu of actually constructing these street improvements. 6. Prior to release of any construction bonds from the Department of Public Works, the Owner / Subdivider must receive approval for As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #A-6, As-Built Drawings, for :Streets, Street Lights, Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Management Facilities. 7. The developer or applicant shall dedicate five (5) percent of the total property being developed as open space or pay a voluntary fee-in-lieu of dedication as set forth in Ordinance No. 2975. Page 7 Strawberry Place#SU-96-29 Conditions of Approval B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THE STRAWBERRY PLACE SUBDIVISION.THE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SHALL: 1. Record the Plat. 2. Construct all of the improvements required above. 3. Receive approval of the required As-Built Drawings for Streets, Street Lights, Water, Sewer, Stormwater Management Facilities. 4. Receive Planning Department approval of a residential tree replanting plan if the site is mass graded based on the required tree plan/survey. Page 8 � ,.• ;° Kent, c F, ouncil Meeting AX, � e�bet 18, 2001 ` Mo; ent Cale idar 1 . SUBJECT: STATE ENV F 3NMENTAL POLICY A,&': ���,�A�''� INTERIM RESPONSE Ta ENDANGERED SPECIES" T1,-("A) - RESOLUTIOW AND ORDINANCE, 4 2 . SU1Y STA : Adoption of Resctt' .�1 " and Ordinance No. for State Environment 6ioy Act Interim Response to Endangered Species Act. { � r The proposed resolution sets forth guideliA mod review procedures to evaluate impacts to salmonto 4t*, proposed development and redevelopment projects wit4�n ,ihe" City of Kent in order to provide interim protection tc ,end candidate species and their habitat. It is anticipatiI'd � hat these interim measures will be superceded by m#+", changes to the City s codes in one' to two years. 13eo us , the applica- tion of the ESA in our region, the City'ha q,'fit ,;' peg ling , interest to provide interim rotecti - tc � P t, 0 ;and candidate species and their habitat. The proposed :o qe Adopts , the' resolution and itsguideiines into the C tantive SEPA, k ' authority, established `in Section 11'.,03.=5-1 D)� ) ,Of the Kent City Code. 3 • EXBIBITs: Memos of September tember 4 & 1260 A " Mem p 0, ; r 'bution; and ordinance • A 4 • RLC0NK=RD ,BY: Planning Committee „ (Committee,—Staff, Examiner, "Commis ior�, 5. UNBUDGRTRD FISCAL/PBF�L IMPi *T• N �w .._ACT 6 ' . YES 6. EXPSWITURE RR UIRZD: SOURCR OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY Y CQUNCiL AC.._TIM: d ' Councilmember moves, Councilmemb, seconds DISCUSSION ACTION: touncil Agenda t+`em No. • 6J, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 KENT W A 5 H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 September 10, 2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: ENHANCED INTERIM REVIEW PROCEDURES —ESA AND SEPA CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Following their meeting on September 10, 2001, the Planning Committee voted to recommend the enclosed ordinance and resolution to the full City Council for adoption. The resolution and ordinance require the submittal of a Fishery Study to evaluate the potential for impact to threatened and candidate species for development projects within the City. The review of the Fishery Study would correlate with the environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This process is proposed as an interim measure while the City works to update existing Sensitive Area Standards as mandated by the Growth Management Act. Presently, there are two different sets of standards for stream protection within the City: the Soos Creek Overlay standards and those covered by the Hazard Area Inventory Map. Staff has analyzed both standards and found that the stream standards covered under the Hazard Area Inventory may not adequately protect salmonids. The proposed resolution and ordinance would amend the Substantive Authority under the City's SEPA regulations to allow for the application of mitigating conditions on a project specific basis for the protection of Chinook and Bull Trout, (threatened species under ESA) and Coho salmon, (a candidate species under ESA). The enclosed resolution contains two modifications from the version considered by the Planning Committee. The first modification adds a citation (whereas) on page 4 to explain the rational for the selection of the areas affected by the resolution. The second modification located on page 6 adds further clarification of the measurement of the proposed management zone. KM\pm S.\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2001\esa memo(3).doc Enc: 9/4/Planning Committee Memo Ordinance&Resolution cc: Mike Martin,Interim Chief Administrative Officer Fred N.Satterstrom,Acting CD Director Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager Tom Brubaker,Deputy City Attorney Project file COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director PLANNING SERVICES K E N T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 September 4, 2001 TO: CHAIR TOM BROTHERTON&PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: ESA RESPONSE UNDER SEPA PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 Introduction At the July 2, 2001 Planning Committee meeting, staff presented an interim proposal to utilize the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)review process to obtain additional studies and possibly require greater mitigation to development in the Valley in an effort to provide protection for listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This proposal was modeled after programs implemented by the City of Everett and the City of Seattle and is meant to provide interim protective measures while the City pursues new Sensitive Area Standards as required under the GMA. On August 16, staff held an informal public meeting to present the draft Fisheries Study annotated outline and to answer questions posed by the public. The meeting announcement was published in local papers, placed on the City's web page and mailed directly to developers who have completed SEPA review with the City over the past year. The meeting was attended by City staff and approximately 12 interested members of the public, largely from the development community. Additionally, interested parties were given until August 31, 2001 to provide written comments on the draft proposal to the City. Two written comments were received and are enclosed. Discussion Generally, issues of concern that were raised regarding this proposal included: treatment of "minor" development projects, issues related to "ditches," and questions surrounding the inclusion of Coho, a candidate species, within this proposal. As discussed in the attached draft resolution, the City has retained the authonty to exempt certain types of development from this requirement in cases where SEPA review is required but where there will clearly be no impacts to salmomds (e.g., as interior tenant improvements). With respect to ditches, the waterways included in this proposal are limited to those areas identified on the City's Hazard Area Inventory Map as Major Creeks, Minor Creeks or ditches. This area was selected for additional protection because the existing stream setback and buffer requirements are less protective than in those areas recently annexed by the City. The City has retained the right to require a Fisheries Study in areas not included on the Hazard Area Inventory if it is believed a development project will result in significant impact to salmomds that would likely require mitigation beyond that which is provided for in the Soos Creek Basin Overlay. Finally, the decision to include Coho within the bounds of this proposal relates to the need to provide systematic water quality and habitat protection. Although Chinook are principally regarded as large river species, there is documented Chinook use in areas of lower Mill Creek, Mullen Slough, Midway Creek and Spnngbrook Creek as well as the Green Planning Committee Meeting 9/10/01 ESA Response Under SEPA Page 2 River system. Conversely, Coho primanly utilize smaller stream systems and have been documented throughout all of the systems within Kent. In many areas these habitats overlap at various life stages for both species of salmonids. Further, the network of stream and drainage systems that comprise the watershed collectively determine the overall quality of habitat for salmonid species. Upstream impacts to smaller systems cumulatively degrade larger downstream systems by introducing sediments, increasing water temperature, decreasing available dissolved oxygen and generally creating an inhospitable environment for insect life upon which salmon depend. Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA prohibits "take" of a listed species. "Take" is further defined as activities that harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect species, or attempt to do any of these. Further, impact on a protected species habitat may harm members of that species and, therefore, constitute a"take"under ESA. This proposal will apply only in instances where development is large enough to trigger environmental review pursuant to SEPA and requires that an independent study be provided along with the development proposal. This study will identify the direct and indirect effects of the proposed development upon to affected species and will propose mitigation to minimize or offset these impacts. In cases where no impact is identified between the development proposal and affected species, no additional mitigation would be required. It is intended that these regulations will remain in place while the City pursues the implementation of new Sensitive Areas Standards and will be replaced by the formal adoption of those standards. RECOMMENDATION: Forward draft resolution and ordinance to Council with a recommendation of approval. CAXMIpm S IPerm&P(anIESA memo(2)doc cc Mike Martin,Interim Chief Administrative Officer Fred Satterstrom,Acting CD Director Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager Tom Brubaker,Deputy City Attorney(with enclosures) Bill Wolinski,Environmental Engineering Manager(with enclosures) Simon Stocker,Assistant City Attorney(with enclosures) Kelly Peterson,Wellhead Prot Engr(with enclosures) Project file RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, implementing enhanced review procedures under the State Environmental Policy Act in response to the listing of endangered, threatened, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. WHEREAS, the City of Kent is covered by a complex network of permanent and intermittent streams that collectively form significant portions of the drainage basins of the Green-Duwamish and Cedar River basins; and WHEREAS, because of shifting priorities, many prior developments within the City have had the impact of degrading and otherwise adversely affecting these streams and river drainage environments; and WHEREAS, these degraded environments, both within the City of Kent and within the western Washington region, have also degraded fisheries and fisheries habitat, impacting the future viability of certain species; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) formalized its listing of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA); and WHEREAS, on or about May 24, 1999, NMFS also identified Coho Salmon as a candidate for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; and- 1 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA &EPA WHEREAS, on December 1, 1999, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) formally listed Bull Trout in Puget Sound as a threatened species under the ESA; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2001, the USFWS further announced that it is proposing to protect Dolly Varden char in the coastal Puget Sound region of Washington under the "similarity of appearance"provision of the ESA, because Dolly Varden so closely resemble Bull Trout; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, King County's Department of Natural Resources, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and City of Kent staff and consultants have all documented use by Chinook salmon of various areas of streams within the City of Kent. These streams include the lower reaches of Mill Creek, Mullen Slough, Midway Creek, and Springbrook Creek; and WHEREAS, Bull Trout are known to use the lower reaches of the Duwamish River, which is part of the Green-Duwamish River basin; and WHEREAS, a majority of the rivers, streams, and tributaries of the Cedar and Green-Duwamish River basins in the City of Kent constitute viable salmonid habitat; and WHEREAS, salmonids are defined as members of the family Salmonidae which includes salmon, trout, char and whitefish; and WHEREAS, the entirety of these stream and river systems within the City of Kent form an interconnected habitat critical for the survival of these salmonid species. For example, the lower and middle reaches of these rivers and streams may provide active habitat for mature adults; the middle and upper reaches of these rivers and streams may provide habitat for spawners and fingerlings in juvenile phases; and the further reaches of these streams may also form a complex assemblage of surface 2 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA&EPA water drainage channels, springs, streams, and wetlands that determine the overall quality of the habitat for salmonid species. In addition, although not directly used by these salmonid species, the upper reaches of these intermittent and permanent streams have a significant impact on water temperature, water quality, and food sources for these affected salmonid species; and WHEREAS, Puget Sound Chinook are regarded as a large river system species, and Coho are associated with smaller streams. As a result, in many areas throughout the Green-Duwamish and Cedar watersheds, their various habitat needs commonly overlap at different life stages. Because of the complex interconnectivity among these various riverine environments and because of the overlapping habitat concerns, it is appropriate to consider both listed and candidate salmonid species as the City addresses impacts of the Endangered Species Act on its land use and development practices, to the extent those practices affect this watershed environment; and WHEREAS, the condition of stream buffers, or riparian areas, has a direct influence on the quality and quantity of insect life, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen upon which all species of salmonids depend. Further, the conditions of these buffers directly affects the amount and type of vegetation along these streams, all of which have an interrelated and cumulative impact on the quality of these riparian environments. The condition of upstream environments has a direct effect on downstream environments and ultimately impacts the water quality of the Green, Duwamish, and Cedar Rivers; and WHEREAS, because past development practices resulted in ineffective management of these riparian areas, widespread problems currently exist related to temperature, water quality (in particular, dissolved oxygen), and insect life throughout the watershed; and 3 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA &EPA WHEREAS, the condition of these riparian buffer areas is recognized as a critical limiting factor to salmon habitat quality and, ultimately, to salmon survival; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent has two separate regulatory frameworks that establish development setbacks from watercourses. In the "Soos Creek Basin Overlay Area," an area including the City's Meridian Annexation Area and all lands annexed after that date, the City adopted King County setback standards, which provide greater buffer areas (from 25' to 100', depending upon the significance of the watercourse). Elsewhere in the City, predominantly in the Green River valley, the established setback requirements are less stringent (from 10' to 50'). As a result, a greater need exists to address development impacts on salmonids in areas subject to the less stringent setback requirements. Accordingly, the focus of.the City's review under this resolution will be in a 200' management zone, measured from the ordinary high water mark, or if that cannot be determined, the top of bank, of all rivers, streams, creeks, ditches and tributaries located on the City's Hazard Area Inventory map. WHEREAS, the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act to protect these candidate, threatened, and endangered species in western Washington makes it appropriate for the City of Kent, at this time, to develop interim land use and development regulatory procedures, under the authority of the State Environmental Policy Act, to provide for further analysis and review of impacts to salmonid habitat on all new development and redevelopment proposals; and WHEREAS, other planning and regulatory concerns also make it appropriate, at this time, to revise land use and development standards. Since 1999, the City of Kent has actively participated in a regional cost sharing proposal to develop Salmon Conservation Plans in the Green-Duwamish watershed and the Cedar River watersheds. These Salmon Conservation Plans are directed toward the recovery of multiple species of salmonids. These plans utilize a "shared strategy," which reflects a cooperative effort among federal agencies, tribal concerns, the State of 4 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA &EPA Washington, and environmental and business interests in the western Washington region. Their purpose is to effectively coordinate salmon recovery planning throughout the State of Washington, embracing a multiple species recovery plan; and WHEREAS, as a requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act, the amount of pollution that must be reduced to attain Federal Clean Water quality standards must be determined. Water bodies that are not in compliance with these standards have been identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Numerous stream reaches throughout the City of Kent are listed as inadequate for both temperature and dissolved oxygen. The lower Green River and the Duwamish River are also listed for temperature. The Washington State Department of Ecology is developing a program to reduce pollution and improve water temperatures that will also regulate development practices in riparian environments within the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, given the context of all the proceeding regulatory, development, and natural history, it is now appropriate to provide the following interim review procedures to evaluate impacts to salmonids from proposed development and redevelopment projects within the City of Kent; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into the body of this Resolution. SECTION Z Purpose. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide interim protection to listed salmonids and their habitat within the City of Kent. It is anticipated that these interim measures will be superceded by more formal changes to the City's codes. These changes, however, will take one to two years to fully 5 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA &EPA implement, and the City has a compelling interest to provide interim protection to listed and candidate species and their habitat. SECTION 3. Areas Affected—Management Zones. These policies and procedures will apply to all properties, projects or portions of projects that fall within the 200 ft management zone measured from the ordinary high water mark, or if that cannot be determined, the top of bank of all rivers, streams, creeks, ditches and tributaries located on the City's Hazard Area Inventory map. The City's SEPA Responsible Official may also apply these policies and procedures to major development proposals within the City's Soos Creek Basin Overlay area, if it appears that the development proposal may impact the 200 foot management zone adjacent to all rivers, streams, ditches and creeks within the Soos Creek Basin Overlay area. These policies and procedures will apply, even though the affected river, stream, creek, ditch or tributary may be intermittent or permanent and even though the course of the river, stream, ditch or creek is in a natural, altered, or manmade condition. These policies and procedures, however, will not apply to minor development proposals that do not impact the 200 foot management zones (e.g., and without limitation, certain changes in use, interior tenant improvements, above-ground"storage tanks (1200 gallons or under) that involve little or no paving, etc.) SECTION 4. Procedure. This process will be included as part of the City's State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") review under the City's substantive SEPA authority. SECTION S. Fisheries Study Required. Applicants will submit a concise Fisheries Study that evaluates the likelihood of construction and/or operational aspects,of the project that may have adverse affects on salmonid habitat adjacent to the project site. The Fisheries Study will be completed and submitted with the SEPA Checklist for all projects that occur within the described management zone. The Fisheries Study shall be prepared by a qualified engineer, hydrologist, biologist or geomorphologist who understands the requirements for properly functioning 6 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA&EPA conditions for Bull Trout, Chinook and Coho salmon. The consultant must demonstrate such expertise to the satisfaction of the City of Kent, which may require the submittal of resumes, work examples or other information demonstrating professional expertise on relevant fisheries issues. An annotated outline that describes the Fisheries Study contents is provided below for guidance: CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION — Identify the name of the applicant, date of submission, property address, tax parcel number and project name. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location of the Project and Action Areas - Provide a vicinity map (with its own north arrow) which clearly shows the location of the development parcel with respect to public streets and other parcels and developments. The map should identify the locations of staging and work corridors associated with the project The action area includes the project area and all areas surrounding the development parcel up to where effects will no longer be felt. 2.2 Project Description —Provide a narrative description of the proposed project and the project purpose. Describe the construction methods and timing of construction to be employed in building the project in sufficient detail to allow the evaluation of potential impacts. The objective is to identify both temporary • and permanent actions that could affect salmonid species or critical habitat. Consider actions such as, but not limited to, vegetation removal, temporary or permanent increases in noise level, temporary or permanent water quality impacts associated with sedimentation, turbidity and/or erosion, temporary or permanent channel modifications, temporary or permanent hydrological or hydraulic alterations. The project description should include secondary impacts such as access roads, power lines, etc. 3.0 HABITAT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Existing Environmental Conditions 3.1.1 Biota — List all federally listed or proposed species present in the vicinity of the project. Provide the species 7 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA&EPA listing status (threatened or endangered). Describe how the listed species is currently utilizing the action area, such as spawning, breeding, rearing, over-wintering, or travel corridor. 3.1.2 Habitat — Describe the present condition of the habitat elements essential for the listed or proposed species. For a list of habitat elements essential for listed or proposed salmonids in freshwater habitats, refer to the Pathways and Indicator developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in "A Guide to Biological Assessments (NMFS, March 1999), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) document entitled "A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale" (USFW, February 1998). 3.1.3 Other Sensitive Areas — Identify and describe all other sensitive areas as defined by the Kent City Code and reference all other environmental reports completed for the project. 4.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 4.1 Effects Analysis - These sections should describe the direct, indirect, and secondary effects of the development project on ESA listed or proposed species and their habitat. Direct effects are defined as effects that may result from the project that would directly affect the species. Indirect effects are effects that may result from the project that would occur later in time. 4.1.1 Construction Disturbances — Describe any dir ct or indirect effects resulting from project consti ction activities within the action area. The evaluation of construction effects should consider the construction sequencing, site preparation, equipment used, materials used, work corridor, staging areas and equipment wash outs, stockpiling areas, running of equipment during construction, soil stabilization, clean-up and re- vegetation, project timing, and the duration of construction. 4.1.2 Habitat - Describe any alterations to essential habitat identified for the ESA listed or proposed species within the action area. Include habitat alterations to essential 8 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA&EPA features such as spawning sites, over-wintering areas, travel corridors, loss of prey or food sources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation. Address the timing of disturbances to habitat relative to the life history of the listed or proposed species within the action area. 4.1.3 Biota - Describe any direct or indirect effects of the development project on listed or proposed species within the action area. Consider impacts to both individuals and the population. Describe any project effects relative to the life history of the species that may be affected. 4.1.4 Net Effects of Action — Provide a summary of the project impacts with a concluding statement for each listed or proposed species of effect. Effect determinations should be selected from the following three categories: No Effect (NE) — no effect whatsoever for the listed species or its required habitat; May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) — effects to the listed species of required habitat are insignificant. This determination would be made for activities that have only a beneficial effect with no short- or long-term adverse impacts; Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) —effects will result in a short- or long-term adverse effect on the listed species or their required habitat. 4.2 Conservation/ Mitigation Measures — Describe the conservation/mitigation measures that will be taken to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of the proposed project development. Include a discussion of how construction methods and/or site locations have minimized potential impacts to listed species. These conservation/mitigation measures may include alterations in the proposed activity such as timing restrictions or changes in project features or location which are intended to reduce impacts, or Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented. The report shall clearly propose on, and/or, off-site mitigation measures that will result in protection of affected species. 9 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA &EPA 4.2.1 Mitigation Plans — If applicable, conceptual mitigation plans shall be appended to this report. 5.0 REFERENCES—Provide a listing of the references cited in the report. SECTION 6. Review and Approval. The City must review and approve the Fisheries Study prior to issuing an Environmental Decision under SEPA. In the event it determines that insufficient content exists or that additional content is necessary to approve the Fisheries Study, the SEPA Responsible Official may require additional studies or additional supporting information. SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 8. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent,Washington,this day of September,2001. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of September, 2001. JIM WHITE,MAYOR 10 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA&EPA ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of September, 2001. BRENDA JACOBER,CITY CLERK P'CNAdumJSAJFPA-Iah�dPewPmdAu 11 Enhanced Review Procedures— SEPA&EPA I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 11.03.510(D)(3) of the Kent City Code to include Resolution No. , which addresses impacts of development in relation to the Endangered Species Act, under the City's substantive State j Environmental Policy Act authority. i WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") authorizes ' cities to place mitigating conditions on certain development proposals; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060, the City's substantive authority to place conditions on a proposal must be based upon policies identified by the governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes; and WHEREAS, the policies identified by the City of Kent are set forth under Section 11.03.510 Kent City Code; and WHEREAS, subsequent changes in law and policy have made it necessary to update the policies set forth in Section 11.03.510(D)(3) by adding a new subsection 11.03.510(D)(3)(aa) regarding Endangered Species Act ("ESA") mitigation measures; NOW THEREFORE, i 1 Endangered Species Act Mitigation Measures THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 11.03.510(D)(3) of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by adding a new subsection(aa) to read as follows: Sec. 11.03.510. Substantive authority. D. The city designates and adopts by reference the following additional policies as the basis for the city's exercise of authority pursuant to this section: I 3. The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, and resolutions: j a. The citywide comprehensive plan as prepared and adopted i pursuant to the State Growth Management Act and adopted on April 18, 1995 by the ;I Kent city council by Ordinance 3222 and its specific components and elements, and including all amendments thereto. b. Shoreline master program as adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology on June 16, 1992 and as adopted by the Kent city council on July 21, 1992 by Ordinance 3056 and including all amendments thereto. C. The surface water and drainage code, Ch. 7.07 KCC and including all amendments thereto. d. Underground installation of electrical or communications facilities, Ch. 7.10 KCC and including all amendments thereto. e. Transportation master plan (Resolution 1014 and amended by Resolution 1032) and Green River Valley transportation action plan (Resolution 1127) as may hereafter be amended and including all amendments thereto. 2 Endangered Species Act Mitigation Measures f. Wastewater facilities master plan, Ch. 7.09 KCC and including all amendments thereto. g. Comprehensive water plan (Ordinances 2829 and 2960) and conservation element Resolution 1361 and including all amendments thereto. h. Construction standards for public works, KCC 6.02.010 and 6.02.020 (Ordinance 3117) and including all amendments thereto. i. Street use permit requirements, Ch. 6.07 KCC and including all amendments thereto. j. Flood hazard protection, Ch. 14.09 KCC and including all amendments thereto. k. Subdivisions, Ch. 12.04 KCC and including all amendments thereto. i 1. Mobile home parks, Ch. 12.05 KCC and including all amendments thereto. in. Valley studies (as adopted in Resolutions 920, 921, 922, 923, and 924). n. Noise control, Ch. 8.05 KCC and including all amendments (thereto. o. State building code, together with the local implementing ordinances, KCC Title 14 and including all amendments thereto. p. State fire code, together with the local implementing ordinances, KCC Title 13 and including all amendments thereto. q. Zoning, KCC Title 15 and including all amendments thereto. r. Recreational vehicle park, Ch. 12.06 KCC and including all amendments thereto. S. Water shortage emergency regulations, Ch. 7.13 KCC and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227 and including all amendments thereto. t. Required public improvements, Chs. 6.02 and 6.03 KCC and including all amendments thereto. 3 Endangered Species Act Mitigation Measures U. Storm and surface water drainage utility, Ch. 7.05 KCC and including all amendments thereto. V. Storm drainage policies (Ordinance 2547) and including all amendments thereto. W. Six (6) year transportation improvement plan (Resolution 1444) and including all amendments thereto. X. Comprehensive sewerage plan (Resolution 915) and including all amendments thereto. y. Fire master plan (Ordinance 2511) and including all jamendments thereto. Z. Wetlands management (Ordinance 3109) and including all i amendments thereto. aa. Endangered Species Act development policies (Resolution No. i h including all amendments. I SECTION 2. —Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 4 Endangered Species Act Mitigation Measures APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 2001. I APPROVED: day of , 2001. PUBLISHED: day of , 2001. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK r c.,iaNa...orsn iwua.00eM�.m. i 5 Endangered Species Act Mitigation Measures ouncil Meeting ` E Dal 'i' er 16 2001 C , 01 _ .��Asient Calerca 1. SUS CT: ZONING CODE r AMENDMENT., PROPOSE ;g R 014S TO PERMIT PROCESS - OADINANCE ` 2. SMqa= STA NT adoption of Ordinan ,.; � which amends Chapter 12 .01 of the Kent City Code",' d a ated portions, of Chapters 2.32, 11.03; 14 . 01, and 14 . 11, amendments update- code provisions !elating to the adm* �i t, n of ` development regulations: ,l ;J ''` i' rj�•k "F-'t: '3. EXS_ISITS: Ordinance ' add memos dated° 9/lb-- "cf',§' /4/01 4 . RE EiD BY: Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commissior►',; ' � 5. t�D�fiED p'ISCAL/PBRS� IMP C�: t OL.,�'�' �� i; YES r 1,w 6. EBPMITURX REQUIRED: SOURCII. OF FUNDS 7 . CITY CbUNCIL ACTION: t Councilmember :moves, Councilmemi " r secondsi 14 „ DISCUSSION: ACTIONfi a i ; ?-;cduncil Agenda tem No. 6K COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager Phone:253-856-5454 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6454 W A s N I N 0 TON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 September 10, 2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISION ToKCCCHAPTERS 12.01 AND CORRESPONDING CHANGES T0232,11.03,14.01 AND 14.11(ZCA2001-3)/KIVA#2012516 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Following their meeting on September 10, 2001, the Planning Committee voted to recommend the enclosed ordinance to the full City Council for adoption. These changes primarily modify section 12..01 of the Kent City Code but also amend related portions of 2.32, 11.03, T4.01, and 14.11. In general, these revisions address sections of code conflict and provide clarifying language. The bulk of the proposed revisions are minor in nature but there are some substantive changes proposed One major part of this revision is to consolidate in the Code the process for appeals. This effectuates changes in Chapters 11.03 and 12.01. These changes align the City Code with state law requirements; however, they also delete the land use application appeal process before Council. If accepted, these changes would require an applicant to appeal a hearing examiner decision directly to Superior Court. In addition, these changes would eliminate the local substantive appeal process for SEPA decisions. Additionally, changes were made to Chapter 14.01 to clarify those types of permits that are subject to the processing requirements of Chapter 12.01 and those which are subject to processing and expiration timelines set forth in the Uniform Building Code. In addition, language is added to Chapter 14.11 and 12.01 to clarify permit vesting requirements. KM\pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2001\zca2001-3ccmemo.doc Eric: Ordinance cc: Mike Martin,Intenm Chief Administrative Officer Fred N. Satterstrom,Acting CD Director Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager Kim Adams-Pratt,Assistant City Attorney Project file COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 KEN T WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 September 4, 2001 TO: CHAIR TOM BROTHERTON & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA 2001-3 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO KCC CHAPTERS:232,11.03,12.01,14.01,14.11 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 At the August 6 Planning Committee Meeting, staff presented proposed changes to the City's permit processing guidelines. These changes primarily modify section 12.01 of the Kent City Code but also amend related portions of 2.32, 11.03, 14.01, and 14.11. In general, these revisions address sections of code conflict and provide clarifying language. The bulk of the proposed revisions are minor in nature but there are some substantive changes proposed. Planning has worked closely with the City Attorney's office to develop a draft ordinance, which incorporates the necessary changes in procedures, and it is attached to this report. Staff will review the proposed ordinance changes with the Committee although some highlights are as follows: Appeal Process One major part of this revision is to consolidate in the Code the process for appeals. This effectuates changes in Chapters 11.03 and 12.01. These changes align the City Code with state law requirements; however, they also delete the land use application appeal process before Council. If accepted, these changes would require an applicant to appeal a hearing examiner decision directly to Superior Court. In addition, these changes would eliminate the local substantive appeal process to SEPA decisions. Modifications to Chapter 14.01 and 14.11 (UBC and Vesting) These changes principally serve to clarify in Chapter 14.01 those types of permits that are subject to the processing requirements of Chapter 12.01 and those which are subject to processing and expiration timelines set forth in the Uniform Building Code. In addition, language is added to Chapter 14.11 to clarify permit vesting requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Forward draft ordinance changes to Council with recommendation of approval. KM\pm S.\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2001\12.O1RevMemo(2).doc cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,Acting CD Director Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager Kim Adams-Pratt,Assistant City Attorney Project file ORDINANCE NO. I AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, updating code provisions relating to the administration of development regulations by ! amending Chapter 12.01 of the Kent City Code, and ! i related portions of Chapters 2.32, 11.03, 14.01, and 14.11. i WHEREAS, in 1998 the City Council enacted Chapter 12.01 of the Kent City Code to provide provisions for establishing a set of processes to be used for I land use and development proposals subject to review under the following portions of the Kent City Code (KCC): Chapter 2.32 KCC, Office of Hearing Examiner; Chapter 11.03 KCC, Environmental Policy; and Chapter 12.04 KCC, Subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update these processes and related matters to provide for more effective and efficient processing of land use and development proposals; NOW THEREFORE, I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, I DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: II I� (I 1 Permit Processing SECTION 1. Section 2.32 of the Kent City Code, entitled, "Office of the Hearing Examiner," is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.32.150. Appeal of decision. A. Any party who feels aggrieved by the hearing examiner's decision may submit an appeal, if authorized by statute or Kent City Code, ;� * , *^ the eity e within twenty-one€ew4een(2114) calendar days from the date the final decision of the hearing examiner is rendered, feqaesting I i I ""a is be made dir-ee''_ to the superior court or to another designated forum. I B. The appeal shall be Lipen the r ,•rl established made at the lznn_r,_.ilt�held_by the hear-inb , the 11.11 1 Wed, that new ev*denee whieh A,as iiet available ai the time e hearing held the b examiner- inay be ineltided in seeh appeal. The term n rr hearing shall mean effly evidenee disea;,-ered after- the i J fi i C. The wntte appeal shall-allege spee�te—erreiS -O€ #a eedar-al plaii of new evidenee *hieh was iiet available at ihe time of the D lield by he .i- e. O it r-eseltitiatr B. No appeal may be made from a recommendation of the hearing examiner. Sec. 2.32.160. City council action. A. Any application requiring action by the city council shall be taken by the adoption of a motion, resolution or ordinance by the city council. When taking any 2 Permit Processing such final action, the city council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and conclusions therefrom which support its action. The city council may adopt all or portions of the hewing ex e�sfindings and conclusions from the hearing examiner's recommendation. B. In the case of an ordinance for rezone of property, the ordinance shall not be placed on the city council's agenda until all conditions, restrictions or modifications which may have been stipulated by the city council have been accomplished or provisions for compliance made to the satisfaction of the legal department. C. The action of the city council, approving, modifying, or rejecting a recommendation eF deeisrenof the hearing examiner, shall be final and conclusive_ Appellants have, .,..'.,.s vo-:rl,.., twenty-one (21) calendar days from of-the date of city i council action,to file an appeal is Filed with the Ssu nor Ecourt. I Sec. 2.32.170. City administrative staff are to be considered a person or j party. For the purpose of KCC 2.32.140 and 2.32.150, the city's administrative staff shall be considered a "person" and/or "party" and shall have the same rights as any other person or party to make requests for reconsideration to the hearing examiner � q —� g Ior to appeal decisions of the hearing examiner to .1— 6t, iie 'superior court or to another designated forum. SECTION 2. Section 11.03.520 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Appeals," is hereby amended to read as follows: I Sec. 11.03.520. Appeals. A. Administrative appeals. The city establishes the following administrative it j appeal procedures under RCW 43.21C 075 and WAC 197-11-680• 1. Procedural appeals. The eit establishes the fellewitig d appeal feeedufes-tinder-RG-W 1+-2i Q075 aFId W sC- 197 11 6 80 a. Any party of record may appeal the city's procedural compliance with Chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of the following: 3 Permit Processing (1) A final determination of nonsignificance: Appeal of the DNS must be made to the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the determination of nonsignificance is final. Notice of the issuance of a final DNS shall be provided in accordance with KCC 11.03.410(A)(2). Except as provided in (a)(3) of this subsection the appeal shall be consolidated with any hearing or appeal of the underlying permit. (2) A determination of significance: 44--aAppeal of the DS must be made to the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the determination of significance is issued. Notice of the issuance of a determination of significance shall be provided in accordance with KCC 11.03.410(A)(2). An appeal is not required to be consolidated with a hearing or appeal on the underlying permit. (3) Agency action: An appeal is not required to be i consolidated with a hearing or appeal on the underlying permit if it is an appeal (i) of a procedural determination made by the city when the city is the project proponent, or is I funding a project and chooses to conduct its review under SEPA, including any apeals of its procedural determinations prior to submitting an application for a project permit- (ii) of a procedural determination made by an agency on a nooroject action• and (iii) to the city council under RCW 43.21C.060 or other applicable state statute. b. The decision of the land use hearing examiner shall be final, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075(3)(a). No right to appeal the decision of the hearing examiner is granted by this section. C. The procedural determination by the city's responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. j 2. Substantive appeals. te the •* r-el e aster-pr-egfam, Reselutien 90-, There shall be no administrative appeal when any proposal or action a deeisien of the e'ty eouneil is conditioned or denied on the basis of State Environmental Policy Act by a nonelected official., the deeisien shall be-appealable-te the-hea examinen c„e" appeal S 4 Permit Processing _, ems-deeision are gaveffied-by-KC-C 2.32.1-50. 3. No other appeal provided. Except as provided in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(24 above, or as otherwise provided by law, no right to appeal is created by this section. B. Judicial appeals. 1. No right to judicial review or appeal, which does not now exist, is created by this chapter. The decision by the city to issue or deny nonexempt permits or licenses shall be final. As authorized in 43.21C.075(5), Jdicial review with superior court^ wnt of Feview must be sought within foufteen (I twenty-one (21) calendar days of the issuance or denial of the permit or license, if at all, by an aggrieved party or person_ RCW 43.21C.075(5). . PitFstiant te-PAW 43.21C-075(5) anc (6), sue-l3-ativrit apphc-ation shall ineuc#e, at- e I license to iiielude. issues Feiating to this ehaptef. it 2. The city shall give official notice under WAC 197-11-680(5) whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial review. SECTION 3. Chapter 12.01 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Administration of Development Regulations," is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 12.01. ADMINISTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 12.01.010 Purpose and applicability. 12.01.020 Definitions. 12.01.030 Application processes and classification. 12.01.040 Project permit application framework. 12.01.050 Exemptions from project permit application processing. 12.01.060 Joint public hearings. 12.01.070 Process VI legislative actions. 12.01.080 Pre-application conference. 12.01.090 Project permit applications. 12.01.100 Submission and acceptance of application. 5 Permit Processing 12.01.105 Application vesting. 12.01.110 Procedure for complete, but"incorrect applications". 12.01.120 Referral and review of project permit applications. 12.01.130 Public notice—Generally. 12.01.140 Notice of application. 12 01.145 Notice of public hearing. 12.01.150 Consistency with development regulations and SEPA. 12.01.155 Code of Conduct. 12.01.160 Open record puhk-hearings. 12.01.170 Notice of decision. 12.01.180 Time limitations. 12.01.190 Open record appeal'' se ..,eef: hear-ings and admini^ is. 12.01.195 Closed record appeal. 12.01.200 Judicial appeals. Sec. 12.01.010. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this chapter is to j establish a set of processes to be used for land use and development proposals subject to review under the following portions of the Kent City Code: A. Ch. 2.32 KCC, Office of Hearing Examiner; j B. Ch. 11.03 KCC, Environmental Policy; C. Ch. 12.04 KCC, Subdivisions;-and D. Ch. 14.01 KCC, Building Codes; and DE. KCC Title 15, Zoning. Sec. 12.01.020. Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section j apply throughout this chapter. A. Closed record appeals are administrative appeals under Chapter 36.70B RCW which are heard by the city council or hearing examiner, following an open record hearing on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal arguments allowed. B. Judicial appeals are appeals filed by a party of record in King County superior court. 6 Permit Processing C. Open record hearing means a hearing held under Chapter 36.70B RCW and conducted by the Kent hearing examiner who is authorized by the city to conduct such hearings, that creates the city's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the city by ordinance or resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to the city's decision on a project permit to be known as an "open record pre-decision hearing." An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record pre-decision hearing has been held on the project permit. D. Parties of record means: 1. The applicant; I� 2. The property tax payer as identified by the records available from the King County assessor's office; I' 3. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and/or; I 4. Any person who submitted written comments during administrative review or has submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing (excluding persons who have only signed petitions or I mechanically produced form letters). E. Project permit means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the city of Kent for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, site development permits, land use preparation permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development ;permits, development plan review, site specific rezones authorized by the ' comprehensive plan; but excluding adoption or amendment of the comprehensive plan and development regulations, zoning of newly annexed land, area-wide rezones, and zoning map amendments except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. F. Planning director means the director of the planning department of the city of Kent or his/her designee. j G. Public meeting means an informal meeting, hearing, or workshop, other public gathering of persons to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a 7 Permit Processing proposed project permit prior to the city's decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review meeting, a special committee meeting, such as the short subdivision committee, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the city's project permit application file. Sec. 12.01.030. Application processes and classification. A. Application processes. Project permit applications for review pursuant to this chapter shall be classified as a Process I, Process II, Process III, Process IV, or Process V action. Process VI actions are legislative. Project permit applications and decisions are categorized by type as set forth in KCC 12.01.040. B. Determination of proper process type. The planning d4eet-&gnana er shall determine the proper Process typespreeedur-e for all applications. If there is a question ;1 as to the appropriate Process type cli, the planning eet -manager shall resolve it in favor of the higher Processp}eeedaie type number. Process I is the lowest and Process VI is the highest. 1 C. Optional consolidated permit processing. An application that involves two (2) or more Process typespreeedufes may be treatedpreeessed collectively under the highest numbered Process typeprecedltxe required for any part of the application or treatedpfeeessed individually under each Process type +the pr-eee identified by I j the chapter. An applicant may ask that his or her application be treated collectively or individually. If the application is administeredpreeessed under the individual Processpxeeedu{e option, the highest numbered pProcess procedure must be finalizedpreeessed prior to the subsequent lower numbered Process being finalizedp}ee. If the application is processed under the individual procedure option there shall be no more than one (1) open record hearing and no more than one (1) closed record appeal for all application Processes Open records hearing and closed record appeals must be consolidated under the higher Process type number. 8 'Permit Processing 0 D. Decision maker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection (C) of this section which have the same highest numbered Process tyuepr-eeedLir-e but are assigned different hearing bodies shall be heard collectively by the highest decision maker(s). The city council is the highest, followed by the hearing examiner, and then the short subdivision committee and the downtown design review. committee. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according to KCC 12.01.060, Joint public hearings. E. Environmental review. Process I, II, III, IV, and V permits which are subject to environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW) are subject to the I i provisions of this chapter. An environmental checklist shall be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of a project permit application. One (1) environmental threshold determination shall be made for all related project permit applications. The city will not issue a threshold determination, other than a DS, prior to the submittal of a complete project permit application and the expiration of the public comment period forift the notice of application pursuant to KCC 12.01.140, but may utilize the public i notice procedures as outlined in KCC 11.03.410(A)(1) to consolidate public notice. i Sec. 12.01.040. Project permit application framework. A. Process types. The following table lists the Process types; the corresponding applications; and parenthetically, the corresponding final decision maker and appellate body. i i 9 Permit Processing Process 1 Process 11 Process 111 Process iV Process V Process Vi Applications: 1Vrka}m�rtt Administrativ Conditional user Planned unit Final plat Zoning of gle* a design permit H4L)F74 development ( 4L6) newly and Zoning review(1) (110) (�)(6)(S10)with OW ID annexed lands permit fL2 change of use WLl(910) review(1) 7 Performance Shoreline Sign variance Area-wide standards substantial 44u(10g) rezones to procedures(1) development implement (4)u permit(1)(74 new city (9) policies 014 U6 S10 Sign permit Accessory Special home Rezone(-+4U6 Comprehensive (1)t4 0 dwelling unit occupation (SLO) plan amendmen permit(1) permit k44U5 HiS6)(10S) f4 iU7 (LOOK) Lot line Administrativ Variance 44)L5) Development adjustment(1) e variance(1) (LOX) regulations ( 4M (4&)!?) (&U6 (LG9) Administrativ Downtown Shoreline Zoning map e design review, conditional use amendments interpretation all except for permit 4)J51 t�7-) (5lu(1 Q9) (1)(4*4 7 minor (9) remodels Application Downtown Shoreline Zoning text conditional design review, variance t-HM amendments certifi-cation only minor 4_j4 W019) mull-family remodels(1) tax exemption 4�4u { (1)(8).all other multi- family tax exemption.(1) u Development Multifamily Preliminary plat plan review design review N-L1 F7,4M Tannin (1)(4 M manager, building official,or public works director 7 Administrativ Binding site e plan( 04(2) approval/WTF (7)R-) 1 (4r17 j Short Planned unit subdivision development (-34L4�(4)U7 (4-)U5)(-;)110) without a change of use (1)Final decision made by planning direetemianager (74)Appeal to hearing examiner (2)Final decision by binding site plan committee (8-7)Appeal to city council (22)Final decision made by downtown design review committee (9) kpreal to bup (P)Final decision made by short subdivision committee. (9) Appeal to shoreline hearings (54)Final decision made by hearing examiner. board. (¢5)Final decision made by city council. (44 -{4n"ecisi*w,4 y-b+nd+rig-yrte {ilea to tee. 10 No administrative aSpeals. 10 Permit Processing B. Process proceduresdeei-sieits.. The following table lists the Process type and the corresponding procedures. Project Permit Applications(Processes I—V) Legislative Process I Process II Process Ili Process iV Process Process Vi V Requires pre- Yes,for projects Yes,for projects Yes,for Yes No No application requiring SEPA requiring SEPA projects conference review review requiring SEPA review Notice of Yes,for projects Yes,for projects Yes Yes No No application requiring SEPA requiring SEPA review review,short plans and shoreline sub- substantial de- velopment permits Recommendation N/A N/A N/A Hearing N/A Land use and made by examiner planning board I Final decision Planning Planning Hearing City council City City council made by e4iFe--kmTnanager, d+reeR*manaeer, examiner based upon council building otTcial downtown design record made or public works review before hearing director as committee, examiner applicable binding site plan committee or short subdivision coin-mittee,as noted in KCC 12.01 140 Ot*n+eciir+4 (4n4y-+fatnvdle d. OM -il ippealed: VesJv4r+Fe }e,;h *we Vie+ 1 eti;lwfoi e-4and WHI rRr Rpe++ the brlAre theR lae+e*e Fica+}iwWall w yte aild plannhaig ree;Hftt-eippeO heafine ekeR+i+iei liedF+++g-eX@R fAff e*a"Ref-to a xa+{Mer-tti bNaFai to niAe fig Mid -F++ FI +Ritke elee+4N+R FftOFnR+eRF4$t+ C+FaF t;I+W+C-+l , tai--FNtii+� ek+m" Open record Yes,if appealed. Yes.if appealed. No No No No appeal then before then before heann exammer hearing xaminer Open record No Ng Yes.before Yes.before Ng Yes,before land hearing heanne hearing use and planning examiner to examiner to board to make make final make recommendation decision recommendan to city council, on to council and/or before ctty council Reconsideration No No Yes,of Yes,of No No heanng hearing examiner's examiner's decision recommendan on 11 Permit Processing F+nal Only if appeal of ?oQn-Iy if Only if Now NoYes,of dee+stenfeClosed denial of multi- appealed.then appealed,then eity eauneil-te be€ere eity-eouned record appeal: family before the before the r-eader finsi e+ty eeuid-Held conditional shoreline shoreline dee+sten soune+l to its e%-R certificate,then heannes board if heanngs board reedef Heat g before the city ap2licable if applicable €teal council No s+ty eotined, deetsten eta: OeeWPHWOR pemilts aild saftance5: ,,el e oo! ! appeal-t5 to Judicial appeal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes I !II Sec. 12.01.050. Exemptions from project permit application processing. A. General exemptions. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter: i 1. Landmark designations; ! 2. Street vacations; and 3. Street use permits. 4. Pursuant to RCW 36.7013.140(Q), boundary line adjustments, building permits., and other construction permits, which are categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA or that do not require street improvements; 5. Administrative approvals which are categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW) and the city's SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Ch. 11.03 KCC, or for which environmental review has been li completed in connection with other project permits. See. 12.01.060. Joint public hearings. A. Planning dipee�&&manager's decision to hold joint hearing. The planning i feetamana er may combine any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as long as: 12 Permit Processing 1. The other agency consents to the joint hearing; 2. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so; 3. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies' adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, ordinance, or rule; 4. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the local government hearing; and I 5. The hearing is held within the Kent city limits. �B. Applicant's request for a joint hearing. The applicant may request that the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be Iheld within the time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant it may agree to a particular schedule if additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings. Sec. 12.01.070. Process VI legislative actions. A. Legislative actions. The following Process VI actions are legislative, and are not subject to the procedures in this chapter, unless otherwise specified: 1. Zoning newly annexed lands; 2. Area-wide rezones and zoning map amendments to implement city policies; 3. Comprehensive plan amendments; 4. Development regulations and zoning text amendments; and 5. Other similar actions that are non-project related. j Sec. 12.01.080. Pre-application conference. I A. Applicability. The purpose of a pre-application conference is to provide city staff with a sufficient level of detail about a proposal so that the city staff can arcguaint the applicant e-an-b with the requirements of the Kent City Code. Pre- application conferences are required for Process I, II, III, and IV permits which require environmental review. Only one (1) pre-application conference shall be required for 13 Permit Processing all project permit applications related to the same project. Pre-application conferences shall precede the submittal of any project permit application, including an environmental checklist. The planning manager 44ec may waive in writing the requirement for a pre-application conference for proposals that are determined not to be of a size and complexity to require the detailed analysis of a pre-application conference. B. Pre-application conference initiation. To initiate a pre-application conference, an applicant shall submit a completed form provided by the city and all information pertaining to the proposal as prescribed by administrative procedures of the planning department. Failure to provide all pertinent information may prevent the city from identifying all applicable issues or providing the most effective pre-application conference. C. Scheduling. A pre-application conference may be conducted at any point prior to application for a project permit. A pre-application conference shall be scheduled by I ;the city within five (5) working days of a completed pre-application conference request. The pre-application conference shall be held within thirty (30) calendar days lof the receipt of a completed request, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of (this time period in writing. -D. At the conference the applicant may request the following information be provided: 1. A form which lists the requirements of a complete project permit j application; 2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the iapplication; I 3. The references to the relevant code provisions on development; and 4. The city's design guidelines. E. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues. The discussion at the conference or the form sent to the applicant under 12.01.080(D)(1) shall not bind or prohibit the city's future application or enforcement of the applicable law. 14 Permit Processing Sec. 12.01.090. Project permit applications. A. Required materials. Applications for all project permits shall be submitted upon forms provided by the city. Sec. 12.01.100. Submission and acceptance of application. A. Determination of completeness. Within twenty-eight (28) calendar days after receiving a project permit application for review for completeness, the city shall mail or personally provide a written determination of completeness to the applicant, which to the extent known by the city, identifies other agencies with jurisdiction over the project permit application, and states either: 1. That the application is complete; or j 2. That the application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. i If the city does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete, the application shall be deemed complete. The time period guidelines for review of project permit applications begin following the determination of a complete application. B. Additional information for "complete applications. " A determination of completeness shall be made when an application is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The city's determination of completeness shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or at some later time, if new information is required or where there are substantial changes in the proposal. C. Procedure for "incomplete applications. " 1. Prior to a determination of a complete application, if the applicant receives a written determination from the city that an application is not complete, the applicant shall have up to ninety (90) calendar days to submit the necessary information to the city. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after an applicant has 15 Permit Processing submitted the requested additional information, the city shall make the determination of completeness as described in KCC 12.01.100(A) above, and notify the applicant in the same manner. 2. If the applicant either refuses in writing to submit additional information or does not submit the required information within the ninety (90) calendar day period, the application shall lapse because of a lack of information necessary to complete the review. D. Date of acceptance of application. When the project permit application is determined to be complete, the planning 44nana er shall accept it and note the date of acceptance. E. Project review. Following a determination that an application is complete, the city shall begin project review. Sec. 12.01.105. Application vesting. A project permit application shall vest upon the submission of a fully completed project permit application as defined in �KCC 12 01 100 Vesting shall apply to land use regulations in effect on the land at the ltime a fully completed project permit application has been accepted as complete I pursuant to 12.01.100(D). 'I Sec. 12.01.110. Procedure for complete, but"incorrect applications". A. Following a determination of a complete application and the commencement i of project review, the city may make a determination in writing that some information is incorrect, and that corrected information be submitted. The applicant shall have up Ito ninety(90) calendar days to submit corrected information. !IB. The city shall have fourteen (14) calendar days to review the submittal of corrected information. If the corrected information is still not sufficient, the city shall notify the applicant in writing that the submitted information is incorrect, and the time period set forth in subsection (A) shall be repeated. This process may continue until complete or corrected information is obtained. 16 Permit Processing C. If the applicant either refuses in writing to submit corrected information or does not submit the corrected information within the ninety (90) calendar day period, the application shall lapse. D. If the requested corrected information is sufficient, the city shall continue with project review, in accordance with the time calculations exclusions set forth in KCC 12.01.180. Sec. 12.01.120. Referral and review of project permit applications. Within ten (10) calendar days of accepting a complete application, the planning id4ee+e+manaeer shall do the following: A. Transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state, federal and county requirements. IThe affected agencies and city departments shall have fifteen (15) calendar days to i comment. The referral agency or city department is presumed to have no comments if comments are not received within the specified time period. The planning comanager shall grant an extension of time only if the application involves ;unusual circumstances. Any extension shall only be for a maximum of three (3) additional calendar days. Sec. 12.01.130. Public notice—Generally. The available records of the King County assessor's office shall be used for determining the property taxpayer of record. Addresses for mailed notice shall be 'obtained from the county's real property tax records. All public notices shall be deemed to have been provided or received on the date the notice is deposited in the mail or personally delivered, whichever occurs first. Failure to provide the public notice as described in this chapter shall not be grounds for invalidation of any permit decision. 17 Permit Processing Sec. 12.01.140. Notice of application. A. Notice of application. A notice of application shall be issued for Process I and Process II permits requiring SEPA review, short plats, shoreline substantial development permits, and all Process III and Process IV applications within fourteen (14) calendar days after the city has made a determination of completeness pursuant to KCC 12.01.100(A); provided, that if any open record hearing is required for the requested project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the open record hearing. One (1) notice of application will be done for all permit applications related to the same project at the time of the earliest complete permit application. it iB. SEPA exempt projects. A notice of application shall not be required for project permits that are categorically exempt under SEPA, unless a public comment period or �an open record pre-decision hearing is required. C. Contents. The notice of application shall include: I 1. The case file number(s), the date of application, the date of the ;determination of completeness for the application and the date of the notice of !application; 2. A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested by the review authority pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070; 3. The identification of other permits not included in the application, to the extent known by the city; 4. The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate i IIthe proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing notice of application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; 5. A statement of the limits of the public comment period, which shall be not less than fourteen (14) nor more than thirty (30) calendar days following the date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights; 18 Permit Processing 6. The tentative date, time, place and type of hearing. The tentative hearing date is to be set at the time of the date of notice of the application; 7. A statement of the preliminary determination of consistency, if one has been made at the time of notice, and of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and of consistency as provided in KCC.12.01.150; 8. The name of the applicant or applicant's representative and the name, address and telephone number of a contact person for the applicant, if any; 9. A description of the site, including current zoning and nearest road intersections, reasonably sufficient to inform the reader of its location; and j 10. Any other information determined appropriate by the city, such as a DS, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of application or the city's statement of intent to issue a DNS pursuant to the optional DNS process set forth in i WAC 197-11-355. D. Mailing of notice of application. The city shall mail a copy of the notice of application to the following: i 1. Agencies with jurisdiction; and 2. Any person who requests such notice in writing delivered to the j121anning services office; and- 3. Applicant. E. Public comment on the notice of application. All public comments received on the notice of application must be received by the planning department by 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the comment period. Comments may be mailed, personally delivered or sent by facsimile. Comments should be as specific as possible. i. F. Posted notice of application. In addition to the mailed notice of application, i i the city will poste notice of application at Kent City Hall, and in the register for public review at the planning services depaFtment office. The applicant shall be responsible for posting the property for site-specific proposals with notice boards provided by the city. Public notice shall be accomplished through the use of a four(4) by four (4) foot plywood face generic notice board to be issued by the planning services office depaftment as follows: the applicant shall apply to the city for issuance 19 Permit Processing ♦ . i th he of the notice board, and shall pay to the deposit planning services office depar4ment the amount of money on the fee schedule currently approved by the city council and available at the planning services_office.E4ie hundred fifty dellar-s (S150) Upon Fettm+of the netiee beafd in b planning applic-ant, seven", fiN,e dellars (S75) ef-the initial netiee bear-d depesit shall be 1. Posting. Posting of the property for site-specific proposals shall consist of one (1) or more notice boards as follows: a. A single notice board shall be placed by the applicant in a conspicuous location on a street frontage bordering the subject property. b. Each notice board shall be visible and accessible for inspection by members of the public. C. Additional notice boards may be required when: (1) The site does not abut a public road; or i (2) Additional public notice boards are required under other I I provisions of the Kent City Code; or (3) The planning manazerdireete�determines that additional notice boards are necessary to provide adequate public notice. d. Notice boards should be: (1) Maintained in good condition by the applicant during the notice period; (2) In place at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the end of any required comment period; and I II (3) Removed by the applicant after expiration of the applicable notice period.-andr-etufmed ' the eity within en «) e le.+daF days "f'ethe end of the neke pefied-. e. Notice boards that are removed, stolen, or destroyed prior to the end of the notice period may be cause for discontinuance of the departmental review until the notice board is replaced and remains in place for the specified time period. 20 Permit Processing The city shall notify the applicant when it comes to their attention that notice boards have been removed prematurely, stolen, or destroyed. f. An affidavit of posting shall be submitted by the planning direeteiinanager at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing. If the affidavits are not filed as required, any scheduled hearing or date by which the public may comment on the application, may be postponed in order to allow compliance with this notice requirement. g. Notice boards shall be constructed and installed in accordance with specifications determined by the planning dtnanaQer. I 1; h. SEPA information shall be added by the city to the posted sign within applicable deadlines. An affidavit of posting shall be submitted by the planning d4-ec�-manager. G. Published notice of application. Published notice of application in an official newspaper of general circulation in the area where the proposal is located is required j !I 1 for Process I and II permits requiring SEPA review, short plats., and aIl-Process III, IV, and all Preeess V permits, except subdivision final plat; applications. Published notice J shall include at least the following information: i 1. Project location; 2. Project description; 3. Type of permit(s) required; 4. Comment period dates; and 5. Location where the complete application may be reviewed. j I� ofptibbe J pubkr. heanng z r ., .aaaT a. The name of the applieant or-the appheant's r-eprzesenta4ive; b Der+ en o « .a -Y�..p efty f .hi as h b the f pt: f the ff b 21 Permit Processing d. The natufe of the proposed use of develepmeati e. A statement that all inteFested per-sons may appear- and pr-evide examined, hew wr-itten eemments addressing a b may be bedy a n,,mbeF...her-e additional infefmation be ebtainedi. That a eopy of the staff fepai4 will be available fbi- b and eepies will be pfevided shall be pr-evided by Oie eity as folio I � b i' �w4rrcTre F2qu}fem2nts 6f WAG 173=--r—rr� �I be mailed tei ) ++ 1 (2) All e e .,f real et4y shown, by the e erdC .�he _ ) 41.V appliea4iefi. 22 Permit Processing tiotiee of publie hear-in shall be pr-evided as fellews. .7 Tr-ansnnrtµtiet wh^ st ..,J :rh: f t4e !1 Gl 1 ,1 1 + h t' .,r , ..., ...,..,. .,.�1.',.^,.... ......... ........1 curcziaisr-cirp-:rtrr-�u�n--nvcrcr. ashall bea aiid awner-s by aiiy other- HRS81iabie-ffi a ety deems-r eEesJal=v--ndjaeefittiand �ewnei*s ---- ,ho _ fiefs of ,.o.,l pr-epei4y, as she =- by the ._...er-d, ef tile K. COW" i ill it _8.17.090�14(h) shall be I I �gk-e+i to a%iiei-9f real piepe}4y l6Fdted within three t,..ndr-,.,1 (inn) c__. of h aEE aeentlyr_t,w-ned par-e_.1s I 27 , the eity thekls of ., .r: e.i by RGW 25 A 1'1 160 -• ti. b and W aetions. The posted netiee of D shall he added to the sip air-eady pasied Vll 11I�.. the ei4 nt to ibs^..t; !C\ of'this seetien. j , t f 43--Comment-period-e a -aa,Q� 23 Permit Processing (5) Leven where-4he eewple cc-Pic�vc� a. \4 t' shall b mailed. posted and nfst published net to than ten 1 m 1 a days pr-ier- te the heEwing date. sted fietiee shall be _ �a HL Shoreline master program permits. 1. Notice of the application of a permit under the purview of the city's shoreline master program shall be given in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 11.04 KCC, the Kent shoreline management master program. Sec. 12.01.145. Notice of public hearing. A Notice of public hearing for all types of applications. The notice given of a public hearing required in this chapter shall contain: 1 The name of the applicant or the applicant's representative; t 2 Description of the affected property, which may be in the form of either I 1 a-vicinity location sketch or written description other than a legal description; 3 The date time and place of the hearing; 4 The nature of the proposed use or development; 5 A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide I testimony; 6 When and where information may be examined and when and how written comments addressing findings required for a decision by the hearing body may be submitted; 7 The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained; 8 That a copy of the application all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at the cost of reproduction; and 24 Permit Processing 9. That a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least five (5) calendar days prior to the hearing and copies will be provided at the cost provided for in the citys Public Record Disclosure Policy. B. Mailed notice of public hearing. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided b the he city as follows: 1. Process I. II and V actions. No public notice is required because no public hearing is held. Notice for short plat meetings is mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet. Shoreline permit notices shall be in accordance with the requirements of WAC 173-27-110. 2. Process III and IV actions. The notice of public hearing shall be I I mailed to: (a) The applicant; (b) All owners of real property as shown by the records of the county assessor's office within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property and (C) Any person who submits written comments, delivered to the 'planning services offices, regarding the project hermit. i 3. Process IV preliminary plat actions. In addition to the general notice of public hearing requirements for Process IV actions above, additional notice shall be provided as follows: (a, Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed 'subdivision located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway or within two (2) miles of the boundary of a state or municipal airport shall be given to the Secretary of Transportation, who must respond within fifteen(15) calendar days of such notice I (b) Special notice of the hearing shall be given to adjacent land I'owners by any other reasonable method the city deems necessary. Adjacent land owners are the owners of real property, as shown by the records of the King County assessor, located within three hundred (300) feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed subdivision. If the owner of the real.property which is proposed to be subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the jreal property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW 58 17 090(1)(b) shall be 25 Permit Processing given to owners of real property located within three hundred (300) feet of such adjacently owned parcels. 4 Process VI actions For Process VI legislative actions, the city shall publish notice as described in subsection (H)(3) of this section, and use all other methods of notice as required by 35A.12.160. C. Procedure for posted or published notice of public hearing. 1 Posted notice of the public hearing is required for all Process III and IV actions The posted notice of hearing shall be added to the sign already posted on the property pursuant to subsection (F) of this section. 2 Published notice of the public hearing is required for all Process III and i IV procedures The published notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the city and contain the following information: (a) Project location; (b) Project description; (c) Type of Qermit(s) required, (d) Comment period dates; and (e) Location where the complete application may be reviewed. D. Time and cost of notice of public hearing. 1 Notice shall be mailed posted and first published not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing date. Any posted notice shall be removed by the applicant within seven (7) calendar days following the conclusion of public hearing(s). I Sec. 12.01.150. Consistency with development regulations and SEPA. A. Purpose. When the city receives a project permit application, consistency (between the proposed project and the applicable regulations and comprehensive plan should be determined through the process in this chapter and the city's adopted SEPA ordinance, Ch. 11.03 KCC. B. Consistency. During project permit application review, the city shall determine whether the items listed in this section are defined in the development regulations applicable to the proposed project. In the absence of applicable 26 Permit Processing development regulations, the city shall determine whether the items listed in this section are defined in the city's adopted comprehensive plan. This determination of consistency shall include the following: 1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed under certain circumstances, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied; 2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density; I 3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure, including public facilities and services identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development or funding of these facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A j regulations provide f RCW; and 4. Characteristics of the development, such as development standards. 5. In deciding whether a project is consistent, the determinations made j pursuant to KCC 12.01.150(B) shall be controlling. I i 6. Nothing in this section limits the city from asking more specific or !related questions in subsections (1) through (5) of this section. C. Initial SEPA analysis. The city shall also review the project permit application under the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and Ch. 11.03 KCC. 1. This SEPA analysis shall: a. Determine whether the applicable federal, state and local j regulations require studies that adequately analyze all of the project permit application's specific probable adverse environmental impacts; b. Determine if the applicable regulations require measures that i adequately address such environmental impacts; C. Determine whether additional studies are required and/or whether the project permit application should be conditioned with additional mitigation measures; and 27 Permit Processing d. 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 been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level. 2. In its review of a project permit application, the city may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the application. 3. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local, state or federal law provides adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of an application when: a. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or b. The city has designated as acceptable certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards or other land use planning required or allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW. 4. The city's determination of consistency with the items identified in KCC 12.01.150(B) shall not prohibit the city from denying, conditioning, or mitigating impacts due to other aspects of the project. 5. In its decision 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 city shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the city 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 the city in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW. 7. The city shall also review the application under Ch. 11.03 KCC, the city's environmental policy provisions. 28 Permit Processing D. Categorically exempt actions. Actions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned or denied under SEPA. E. Planned actions. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to environmental review and mitigation under SEPA. 1. A"planned action"means one (1) or more types of project action that: a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution adopted by the city; b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with: (1) A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under (Chapter 36.70A RCW; or (2) A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phasedproje ct; C. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in KCC 12.01.150(E)(1)(b) above; d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030; e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW !36.70A.200; f. Are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan adopted !under Chapter 36.70A RCW. 2. The city shall limit planned actions to certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period identified in the environmental impact statement or in the ordinance or resolution designating the 1 planned action under RCW 36.70A.040. 29 Permit Processing 3. During project review, the city shall not reexamine alternatives or hear appeals on the items identified in KCC 12.01.150(B) except for issues of code interpretation, the process for which is outlined in KCC 15.09.060. 4. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal's probable adverse environmental impacts. Sec. 12.01.155. Code of Conduct. i A General The following shall apply to open record hearings in KCC 12 01 160 open record appeals in KCC 12 01 190 and the closed record appeals in , 12.01.195. B. Conflict of interest The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics and prohibitions on conflict of interest as set forth in RCW 35A.42.020 and Chapter 42.23 RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended. C. Exparte communications. j 1 No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding_ any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in communications necessary to procedural aspects of maintaining an orderly process unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate; except as provided in this section: a The hearing body may receive advise from legal counsel; or b The hearing body may communicate with staff members (except where the proceeding relates to a code enforcement investigation or prosecution). 2 If before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives an ex pane communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving the member of the hearing body, QroMptly after starting to serve shall disclose the communication as described in KCC 12.01.160(D)(3)below. 30 Permit Processing 3. If the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall place on the record: a. All written communications received,• b. All written responses to the communications; C. The substance of all oral communications received and all responses made; and d. The identity of each person from whom the hearing body ireceived any ex parte communication The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the ex �parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the record D. Disqualification. i1. A member of the hearing body who is disqualified may be counted for jpurooses of forming a quorum. Any member who is disqualified may be counted only by making full disclosure to the audience abstaining from voting on the disqualification, vacating the seat on the hearing body and physically leaving the 11 lhearing 2. If all members of the hearing body are disqualified all members present after stating their reasons for disqualification shall be re qualified and shall ;;proceed to resolve the issues. 3. Except for Process VI actions a member absent during the presentation i iof evidence in a hearing may not participate in the deliberations or decision unless the !member has reviewed the evidence received I' Sec. 12.01.160. Open record publie hearings. A. General. Open record hearings shall be conducted in accordance with this section. B. Responsibility of the planning manager dio;eeter for hearing. The planning manager shall: 31 Permit Processing 1. Schedule an application for review and public hearing; 2. Give notice (applicant responsible for some of the notice requirements); 3. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report stating all of the decisions made as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permits in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record pre-decision hearing. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the city's authority under SEPA. If the threshold determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this determination. In the case of a Process I or II project permit application, this report may be the permit; and 4. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and/or (mail a copy of the notice of decision to those required by this code to receive such I I decision. RCW s the same nwvv exists , may hefea e-be ., flde a 1 No membef of the-1 eating bedy fnay eenifounieate, dire,.*l,, 7 any issue in a O I as PFON,ided in this seeti • I� The b body may Feeeive advise fiem legal e pfeseeutien). 2—i before sen,ing as-the-hear-i g bed,- zTaucrrT" r'viceeding, 32 Permit Processing promptly aftef b 12 !11 16@(D)(3) halew, 3. if the he.,.ing bedy r-eeeives aii &i ..ai a eemmunieatien : .,elt:e„ of this seet:e., he or- she shall ple.,e e„ the feee-d- e e , b. All wr-44en f:espenses to the eemmunieafiens; e. The Subst flee of •,lvz—cll O al eemmunkEat, d and all I �.espens .le; n.1 i i i The he... ,,b -: . shallhedy shall advisee all ..hies that these atre.-.._h ,,e l.00.-. ..1.,...�.�1 e I the r-eeE) E (10) `.zlo.,da- days aFte.- , et:ee e f t)��- it • b to Febut the eenimunieatien shall be allewe i A embe,• of the he.,.4ag hedy, „ilia this a1i_ie „, he e „te,l C b ' abstaining, b disqualifieati en the bbedy afe disqualified, all Fnembei-s , pr-eee eel to elye the issues. it , b «he.•has r- e.J the a i e.,ee Feeee,i CF. Burden and nature of proof. Except for Process VI actions, the burden of proof is on the proponent. The project permit application must be supported by proof that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city's development regulations, 33 Permit Processing comprehensive plan and that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately addressed. DG. Order of proceedings. The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as appropriate. 1. Before receiving information on the issue, the following shall be determined: a. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and if there is objection, the hearing body has the discretion to proceed or terminate; and b. Any abstentions or disqualifications shall be determined. 2. The presiding officer may take official notice of known information related to the issue, such as: a. A provision of any ordinance, resolution, rule, officially j adopted development standard or state law; and b. Other public records and facts judicially noticeable by law. 3. Matters officially noticed need not be established by evidence and may j be considered by the hearing body in its determination. Parties requesting that a i matter be officially noticed shall do so on the record; however, the hearing body, on its own accord, may take notice of matters listed in subsections (G)(1) and (G)(2) of this section if stated for the record. Any matter given official notice may be rebutted. 4. The hearing body may view the area in dispute with or without notification to the parties, but shall place the time, manner, and circumstances of such view on the record. 5. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may approve or deny a request from a person attending the hearing to ask a question. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, if the request to ask a question is approved, the presiding officer will direct the question to the person submitting testimony. 34 Permit Processing 6. When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the hearing, the hearing body shall openly discuss the issue and may further question a person submitting information or the staff if opportunity for rebuttal is provided. 7. When the hearing bodvekamHw is unable to formulate a recommendation on a project permit, the hearing bodge reef may decide to forward the project permit to the city council to render a decision without a recommendation. E14. Recommendation/decision. The hearing body shall issue a recommendation or decision, as applicable, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the record being closed. FI. Reconsideration by hearing examiner. Reconsideration is not authorized for i j Process I and Process II applications. A party of record may ask for a reconsideration of a decision by the hearing examiner for a Process III action or a recommendation by the hearing examiner for a Process IV action. A reconsideration may be requested if either: 1. A specific error of fact or law can be identified; or 2. New evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. A request for reconsideration shall be filed by a party of record within five (5) working days of the date of the initial decision/recommendation. Any reconsideration request shall cite specific references to the findings and/or criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. A request for reconsideration temporarily suspends the appeal deadline. The hearing examiner shall promptly review the reconsideration request and within five (5) working days issue a written response, either approving or denying the request. If the reconsideration is i,denied, the appeal deadline of the hearing examiner's decision shall recommence for i the remaining number of days. If a request for reconsideration is accepted, a decision is not final until after a decision on reconsideration is issued. Sec. 12.01.170. Notice of decision. A. Following a decision onef a-project permit by the applicable decision-maker, the city shall provide a notice of decision that also includes a statement of any 35 Permit Processing threshold determination made under SEPA(Chapter 43.21 C RCW) and the procedures for appeal. B. The notice of decision shall be issued within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days as calculated by KCC 12.01.180_, after the city notifies the applicant that the application is complete. The time &7ames set feAhthis ""+' " "'"'t' aPPIN to C. The notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant and to any person who, prior to the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive comments on the application. D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public as set forth in KCC it 12.01.145(B)(2)(a) and (cl"'u"�"''"' ` ""a �'' Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes. The city shall provide notice of the decision to the county assessor's office in which the property is located. IE Pursuant to RCW 36 70B 140(1) building_permits grading permits and civil 1 construction permits are exempt from the requirements in subsection (C) and (D), except for notice to the applicant. I EF. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on a project permit application within the time limits provided for in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this 'Ifact to the parties of record. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. i Sec. 12.01.180. Time limitations. A. Calculation of time periods for issuance of notice of final decision. In determining the number of calendar days that have elapsed after the city has notified the applicant that the application is complete for purposes of calculating the one hundred and twenty (120) daytime limit in KCC 12.01.070 for issuance of the notice of decision,the following periods shall be excluded: 1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies, provide additional required information, or 36 Permit Processing otherwise requires the applicant to act. The period shall be calculated from the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the local government determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or fourteen (14) calendar days after the date the information has been provided to the city; 2. Any period during which the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under KCC 12.01.100 and 12.01.110 is insufficient or incorrect and has requested the applicant to provide sufficient or correct information; 3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW, if the city by ordinance has established time periods for completion of environmental impact statements, or if the city and the applicant in writing agree to a time period for completion of an environmental impact statement; 4. Any period for administrative appeals of project permit applications, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, are allowed. The time period for consideration and decision on appeals shall not exceed: a. Ninety(90) calendar days for an open record appeal hearing; or b. Sixty(60) calendar days for a closed record appeal. The parties may agree to extend these time periods; and 5. Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the local government. 1 B. Time limit exceptions. The time limits established in this section do not apply if a project permit application: 1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation; 2. Requires approval of the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or 3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete pursuant to KCC 12.01.100. 37 Permit Processing C. Failure to meet time limit. If the city is unable to issue its final decision within the time limits provided in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of a final decision. The city is not liable for damages due to the city's failure to make a final decision within the time limits established in this chapter. Sec. 12.01.190. Open record appealGlosed Feeer-d hearings and administr-adve appeals. A. :4fea4 of e ens. This section allows for adminisl•ativ- pen record appeals as provided in the framework in KCC 12.01.040. "dminist_a ve Open record appeals are heard by the hearing examiner., downtewn design r-eview eeFflinittee e l !B. Consolidated appeals. 1. All open record appeals on a ef-project permit application decisions, , other than an appeal of determination of significance (DS), shall be considered 1 together in a consolidated open record appeal. 2. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA, Ch. 11.03 KCC, including administrative appeals of a threshold determination shall proceed as provided in that chapter. C. Initiation of ' ' " 5' "' appear. Only parties of record may initiate an , admi.,:s,,..,t:.,e appeal on a project permit application. ID. Time to file. An appeal must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days following issuance of the notice of decision. Appeals must be delivered to the planning services officedepafanei4 by mail, personal delivery or received by fax before 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. if an applieant initiates .r-efifnental detefmination issued at the same time as the pr-ejeet deeisien shall be filed within r.,.enty a (21) ealendar- days after- the .,etiee of deeisien has been made and is appealable. 38 Permit Processing E. Computation of time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the notice of decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, a day designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by the city's ordinances as a legal holiday, then it also is excluded and the filing must be completed on the next business day(RCW 35A.28.070). F. Content of appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by an appeal fee as set by the city council, and contain the following information: 1. Appellant's name, address and phone number; 2. Appellant's statement describing his or her standing to appeal; 3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; 4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based; 5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and 6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the icontents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. I G. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until such time as the appeal is adjudicated by the hearing examiner, H. Notice of adp iii-sf wiive appeal. Public notice of the appeal shall be given as provided in KCC 12.01.145(B)(2)(a) and (b)0(:-:;, 'L1,-11 ,blappe l rr ,b 4,a.0�0(F) B a d �i f P f , 39 Permit Processing I. Burden of Proof The burden of proof is on the appellant. Sec. 12.01.195. Closed record appeal. A. This section shall allow for closed record appeals as provided in the framework of KCC 12.01.040. A closed record appeal hearings shall be on the record before the hearing body and no new evidence may be presented, unless the new evidence is limited to information that could not have been placed on the record previously. B. Administrative appeals. Only parties of record may initiate an administrative appeal on a project permit application. C. Time to ale. An appeal must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days following issuance of the notice of decision. Appeals must be delivered to the j planning services office by mail, personal delivery or received by fax before 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. !,D. Computation of time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal the day the notice of decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, a day designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by the city's ordinances as a legal holiday, then it also is excluded and the filing_must be completed on the next business day(RCW 35A.28.070). E. Content of appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by an appeal fee as set by the city council, and contain the following information: 1. Appellant's name, address and phone number; 2. Appellant's statement describing his or her standing to appeal; 3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; 4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based; 5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and 6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. 40 Permit Processing F. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until such time as the appeal is adjudicated by the hearing examiner. G. Order of Proceedings. The closed appeal shall only be open for oral argument by the parties to the appeal. H. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is on the appellant Sec. 12.01.200. Judicial appeals. A. Appeal. The city's final decision or appeal decision on a Process I, II, III, IV, or V application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in King County superior court. B. Petition period. A land use petition must be filed within twenty-one (21) calendar days of issuance of the notice of decision or appeal decision. C. Filing and content of a land use petition. A land use petition shall be filed !according to the procedural standards outlined in Chapter 36.70C RCW, Judicial I Review of Land Use Decisions, also known as the "Land Use Petition Act". I it SECTION 4. Section 14.01.020 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Amendments to Uniform Building Code,"is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14.01.020. Amendments to Uniform Building Code. The following 'amendments to the Uniform Building Code adopted in KCC 14.01.010 are hereby adopted. A. Building code appendices adopted. Divisions I, II, and IV of Chapter 3, Chapter 15 and Chapter 33 of the Appendix of the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition (as adopted in KCC 14.01.010), are adopted, except that the director of public ii 1 works shall have the authority to enforce and interpret Chapter 33 of the Appendix of the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition, and accordingly, all references to the "building official" in Chapter 33 of the Appendix shall be substituted with the words, "Director of Public Works." I 41 Permit Processing B. Lot lines and setback lines. Notwithstanding the authority of the building official to administer and enforce the building code, the building official shall have no duty to verify or establish lot lines or setback lines. No such duty is created by this chapter, and none shall be implied. The location of lot lines and/or setback lines at a development and construction related thereto shall be the responsibility of the applicant/owner. C. Expiration of Proiect Permit Application. 1. Project permit applications that are not subject to Ch. 12.01 KCC and that do not require SEPA review, shall expire by limitation if no permit is issued within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the i determination that a fully complete project .permit application, as defined in KCC 14.11.020, has been submitted. Plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action on the permit application for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty (180) days upon request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. An application shall not be extended more than once. In order to renew action on an expired application, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new review fee. 2. Project permit applications subject to Ch. 12.01 KCC are not subiect to i I the expiration dates above. Said project permit applications shall be subject to the deadlines in Ch. 12.01 KCC. I SECTION 5. Chapter 14.11 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Vesting of Development Permit Applications,"is hereby amended to read as follows: CH. 14.11. VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS 42 Permit Processing Sec. 14.11.010. Vesting. Vesting of rp oiec0evelepRiein permit applications occur upon the determination that sp a fully completed proiectdevelepRient permit application, as defined in KCC 12.01.100, has been submitted. Vesting shall only apply to land use regulations in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application has been submitted. A project permit application shall be reviewed under the land use regulations in effect at that time. To establish a vested right, the applicant shall file an application on a form furnished by the cit official, which form may be amended from time to time. Every application shall, at a minimum, provide the information required by the city for filing of rU oiect permit applications as well as othe- siteh itifefRiatieti rvii uii�.e�a d by the building effiei l as set forth in the application form and applicable j codes. Sec. 14.11.020. Completed application. In order to be accepted as fully ;;completed herein, an application for a a,,.,.,lepf,•ent. permit shall be reviewed by the building official, or his/her designee, to verify that all information required has been (provided in a clear and usable format. Once it has been determined that all required information has been provided, the building official, or his/her designee, shall accept ,the filed application and determine the date the application is considered complete and therefore vested. Sec. 14.11.030. Other. iA. A completed develepmentproject permit application, as defined herein, does i (not mean or imply approval of the project. B. A completed de-velepmentproject permit application herein may not necessarily I constitute a completed application for the purpose of processing the same. Additional information, steps or procedures may need to be taken or completed in order to process j and obtain the requested permit. C. Vesting hereunder shall apply only to the scope of the project applied for under the permit application. 43 Permit Processing D. Vesting under this chapter expires with the expiration of the develepmext rp oject permit application or with the expiration of a permit issued pursuant to an application. SECTION 6. —Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. —Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after passage as provided by law. i I� I j JIM WHITE, MAYOR i ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK i APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 44 Permit Processing PASSED: day of , 2001. APPROVED: day of , 2001. PUBLISHED: day of , 2001. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P'Cx14Tdmm,Pomm.He.eu�Tiubd ClxSeiJa ' ail it I II i I' 45 Permit Processing r4F In "ai�i`, ♦♦ yyyy d` y yy F.4 • t `}F rvt 1 ; ', 'S , . iy _ i�a ip kh d:. _ � `a a"fps a-,• • . I I 'a � �; s,��s�^e •, r,.o-., ,,� }}3ky i� �y + p '�i.°r'. hy�"' , l Meeti r' 4 'fI N d i,= - s 9s ' •! en C81 ehd; 1 . s-- : MORFORD, GLE4 'JNAL•,; !LAT FSV ��� ; .," r'i it 49901670) APPROVE r 2 . Spy�.��. pproval of- staff ,' 3ation of o,■ ..�� appsouai with conditio of the Mt)rfa ',d lij and autho i Subdivision r ration fore; 'kayof' toi .�a ' `: ' plat mylar. This agenda item is, to;o:�on". sider the f ii , ! t � �i�.�ication submitted b Paul• ••� . �� y Mor;foj-_d' for the Morforol Subdivision. The Heari° ig,,,9xamifter is_s a, �� �i.�dix�gs with conditions on the pre,lW-ngry plat •on '; 4. The City,, Council approved '• pp the pro, prat or�'��� ' ; 6, 1994 . • , f 3. 8I8Z_ s■ t ,gip,' p ° ��_ Memo wi h' d d,�tions and p �r';� �{�,� 4 . R8C «■_ -BY: Staff (Co aittee, Staff, r, Comm' 5. UNA MESCAL/P�RSCI � IMF ` `i YES ' n ��a ■tea l+04 1 Is �� � 6. zxpzmxT R�QUIR�T�1: . $ y, +■�ir��F.��r.■ ■�■.+.�.�� il IT soy=i OF S s et .'i." 7 CITY , SoUM= T € Coun mbar ;{ , ci�.me .,movies, Council ,�'�� t��-'� seconds; DISCUSSION• `' x ' !�• 4 f, ncil Agenda; r;Xtem No. 6L SP , T f COMMUNITY MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT September 11, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR, Manager AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Mailing our Address. 220 Fourth Ave. S FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, ACTING PLANNING MANAGER Kent,WA 98032-5895 MEETING Location Address- DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: MORFORD GLEN FINAL SUBDIVISION#FSU-94-01 Phone:253-856-5454 (KIVA#9901670) Fax:253-856-6454 Regarding the Morford Glen preliminary subdivision (#SU-94-01), the Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation with conditions on July 27, 1994. The City Council approved the Morford Glen preliminary plat on September 6, 1994. The applicant, Paul Morford is subdividing 3.74 acres into seven single family residential lots. The property is located at 21615 940' Place S. The applicant has complied with the conditions required prior to recording. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Morford Glen final subdivision (#FSU- 94-01/Kiva #9901670) with the attached conditions and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. FNS/mjp/S:\Permit\Plan\longplats\2001\2010552-2010556fsu9626cc.doc Enclosure MORFORD GLEN A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SE1/4, SEC. 7, T.22N., ME., W. CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON MORFORD GLEN FINAL AND A REPLAT OF LOT 1 OF KENT SP 93-6 #FSU-94-1/KIVA#9901670 �pdQ�4[ D I I TI N 36'10' '�� 15.95 N 89'17'57' E 329.47' 11- 113.47 81.00 70.00 — 65.00 ;'-40.29' '�i 4.26'y C-161'� .y0 15' PRIVATE SEWER L onlG EASEMENT PER CITY �, o 30' EASEMENT- OF KENT SP 93 6 Cc ujFOR ROAD REC. � 1 zl k— 4 AACIRRES)ORCHARD ^� Z w NO. 5418185 ^� 16720 sf a 3 b^ SLOPE AND SIGHT b I I o N 9661 sf o 9616 sf o 1 REC. `COE EASEMENT =\ z b a 9678 sf `'' 20010214001436 \ a ^� \ '19.62' 15' PUBLIC r-N 61'59'40" W z ^ MM o 0 0 0 \E ACCESS 17.33' R — W��� �� \ a�a� EASEMENT 10 DEDICATED Z 10' SLOPE & UTILITY \ PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT REC. NO. EASEMENT 20010214001437 fr, -6=08'03'31" ' L=7 52' �� 2G. I'l 65 00' --- 80.77'\ - 55'47'47" E 0.50��� in 31.82 24.91' R rN 00-43'45" W v N --_ 10.00' _" S. 216th PL. _ S 89'16'15" W 300.00' — v os 0 50�, "" 24 TRACT 'A' a 51.12' 30 00' -- --- ' 17909 SF ' TO BE DEDICATED TO \elf,` \ C- 10' DEDICATED 10' SLOPE do UTILITY THE CITY OF RECORDING OF KENT U PLAT \$� y° \ PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT REC. NO. \ ` 15' PUBLIC C-7 EASEMENT 20010823001021 �l DRAINAGE EASEMENT KI�Ccro1 91i-6 \ \ w W LS e�11�� N� 9986 sf oLn 4 �$ ,n \65 \. \ "n z o 2166sf \ � z^ ` 15' PUBLIC °D PTN OF THIS LOT IS AN UTILITY EASEMENT N - - EASEMENT FOR WETLANDS �\\ FOR SANITARY AND ANY AND ALL SEWER - SEE PURPOSES WEST OF WEST MUNICIPAL \`\\ DETAILL 'A' THIS o W LINE OF THIS EASEMENT \ 1 SHEET m rn O S 89'16'15" W 7499 "'M V. 204.90' ', S 822507' W N y' — to 9.35 1 Z 7 1 1 1 N �� �0� 48104 sf I I BUILDING SETBACK 1� �{ �" LINE o� ft PTN OF THIS LOT IS AN jz 11 � ((((( qq��?'� 2 EASEMENT FOR WETLANDS ull.�i 1 5'26" V Oo AND ANY AND ALL MUNICIPAL R=65 I lu+ PURPOSES WEST OF WEST lolnuil L=58.15' LINE OF THIS EASEMENT �o 1 U 1 S 15' WIDE SAN. SEWER_4 q EASEMENT REC. NO. o u 8203300007 1 i $�p i 1 cn 1 i :: 6800, --- 96.67 - NJ - - S 89'16'15' W 309.03' C MORFORD GLEN #FSU-94-1 KIVA#9901670 The Hearing Examiner recommended APPROVAL with conditions of the Morford Glen preliminary plat. The Kent City Council approved the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval with the following conditions on September 20, 1994. A. PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH RECORDATION OF FINAL PLAT: 1 . Comply with any applicable conditions related to the original Short Plat of Orchard Acres. 2. Comply with SEPA conditions in the MDNS (#ENV-94-9) dated May 5, 1994. 3. All necessary right-of-way for S.216th Place shall be dedicated and the subdivider shall acquire and deed to the City (as provided in Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance condition #3) all right-of-way necessary to construct the 35-foot radius curb returns, with sidewalks and utility strips, at the intersection with 94th Place S. 4. Gravity sewer service shall be provided to all lots. 5. City water service shall be provided to all lots. The size of the water main extensions shall be in accordance with City construction standards. 6. The delineated boundary of the wetland, the associated buffer, and the buffer setbacks shall be denoted on the face of the plat map. 7. The subdivider shall grant any necessary drainage easements along Garrison Creek (modification of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance condition M. 8. The subdivider shall provide shall provide the on-site detention and water quality treatment (modification of Mitigation Determination of Nonsignificance condition #9). 9. The preferred location for the stormwater detention pond and biofiltration swale is within a tract dedicated to the City. If this is not feasible, appropriate easements, as determined by the Public Works Department, must be granted to the City. * ^^ 10. Storm drain stubs shall be provided to all lots and all roof drains form the proposed residences (modification of MDNS condition #9). C f 1 1 . Building setback lines from the existing sanitary sewer shall be denoted on the face of the plat map. The building setback lines shall be adequate as determined by the Public Works Director to enable the reconstruction of the existing sanitary sewer system. 12. The subdivider shall provide engineering drawings to the Public Works Department for review and approval of all of the improvements identified in the above conditions and shall either construct or bond same. 13. The subdivider shall grant to the City all easements necessary for the operation and maintenance of the improvements described herein and also shall provide easements necessary for utility service to be provided to the individual lots in this subdivision. These easements shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 14. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of any building permit on any lot within this plat, construct all improvements noted in the above conditions. 15. The subdivider shall dedicate five (5) percent of the total area of the proposed for public parks and open space, or pay a fee-in-lieu of dedication as set forth in Ordinance No. 2975. If an area within the plat is to be dedicated, this may be administratively approved as long as the number of building lots is not increased and all building lots meet applicable standards. If the area to be dedicated is located off-site, it shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 2975 and may be administratively approved. 16. Wood stoves shall not be permitted. Wood burning fireplaces, which shall not be the primary source of heat, may be installed. 17. Development on all lots shall protect solar access to properties to the north of each lot according to the calculations identified in the Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.08.234. ;1ounci 1 yMeet' bait . '' er 1'B, 2 ' Catlioo sent Cale 1 . SLu3Bj GAT: SYMTRON SYSTEM LEASE AGREEMENT,— 4b,THORIZE 2 • SUBM4Y 3T T: f,uthorizAtion fo't tj4*I' 1jiyqr to sign the lease agreement with Sytron Systems. SymtrQn Systems will be�'''ileasing, office space trom Kent Fire & Life Safety to improve iesponse,, times f orrs and maintenance to our training tower burn 'strW'T0t*g,. Currently their office is in New'Oersey and their re, # Ss ,-,dimes are s,low� and costly. This will �nable Kent Fire & 1� 614 �-fety to save money and improve sere$ F i • . f EXHIB Copy of le3le agreement 3• ITS: , 4 . RECONDBD .BY: Fire Chief z; (Committee, Staff, Z4 Miner, Commission tci ) t 5. UNBUDGETED pISCALjPER$ ti =� _ _. �!" ,� � YES 6. EXPENDITURE RZ�UIRED: ' SOVRCE Off VWDS: 7'. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: '{ • �" r� Coun cilmember moves, Councilmemb seconds DISCUSSION: a ACTION: x� t 4 , '< Council Agenda ��; '';'w+' , item No. 6M LEASE 1. PARTIES. This Lease is entered into this 2001, by and between THE CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation("Landlord"), and Symtron Systems Inc., a corporation ("Tenant"). 2. PREMISES. In consideration of the rents and covenants and under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby leases from Landlord upon the terms and conditions herein set forth that certain space (the "Premises") containing approximately_100_ square feet of net leasable floor area, all as shown on Exhibit A to be attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference upon mutual satisfaction of the contingency set forth. The Premises constitute a portion of a building (the "Building") located at 24611 1161h Ave SE, Kent, Washington. 3. COMMON AREAS. The following areas adjacent to or located in or on the Premises, Building or Land shall constitute common areas available for Tenant's non-exclusive use including without limitation: walkways, hallways, stairways, dnveways. lavatories. janitonal rooms, mechanical rooms, electncal rooms, landscaped areas and grounds, parking areas, and all other areas used in common by the tenants of the Building, Landlord, and invitees and employees of Tenant. All common areas shall be subject to Landlord's management and control and shall be operated and maintained in such manner as Landlord, in its reasonable discretion, shall determine. Landlord may, from time to time in Landlord's reasonable discretion, alter, modifv or change the dimensions and location of the common areas, or designate portions of the common areas for the exclusive use of tenants of the Building; provided, however, that any such alterations, modifications or changes shall not materially interfere with Tenant's use and enjoyment of the Premises as set forth in this Lease. Tenant and others entitled or allowed to use the common areas shall be subject to and shall comply with rules and regulations applicable to the common areas as may be established by Landlord from time to Time. 4. LEASE TERM AND COMMENCEMENT DATE. This Lease shall be for a term of _l_year and shall commence on (the " Commencement Date") and shall end on_December 31, 2001_ (the "Termination Date"). 5. RENT; ADDITIONAL RENT. 5.1 Monthly Rent. Tenant agrees to pay Landlord as Rent, without notice or demand, the sum of S_200_per month; ("Monthly Rent"), in advance, on or before the first day of the first full calendar month of the term hereof and a like sum on or before the first day of each and every successive calendar month thereafter during the term hereof. Monthly Rent for any period during the term 1 hereof which is for less than one month shall be a prorated portion of the Monthly Rent herein, based upon a thirty- (30) day month. The Monthly Rent payable hereunder shall be subject to adjustment as hereinafter provided in subparagraph 6.2, and Tenant agrees to pay the amount of the rental adjustments, additional rent and other charges required by this Lease, all as "Additional Rent." All Rent ("Rent" being defined to include Monthly and Additional Rent) shall be paid to Landlord at the address to which notices to Landlord are to be given, in accordance with paragraph 30.16 herein, without deduction or offset in lawful monev of the United States of America, or to such other persons or at such other place as Landlord may from time to time designate in writing. 6. Additional Rent. 6.1 Definitions. In addition to the ,Monthly Rent called for in subparagraph ; 1 above, Tenant shall pay Tenant's share of"Operating Expenses" in accordance with this subparagraph 6.2, and the following definitions shall apply: 6.2 Operating Expenses. "Operating Expenses" include any and all costs and expenses directly related to and incurred by Landlord in connection with: (1) the repair, operation, and maintenance of the Building, including periodic painting, roof membrane, floor covering and all other areas used in common by tenants of the Building, (ii) all costs of services furnished by Landlord (provided, however, Landlord shall be required to obtain such services at rates generally competitive in the marketplace), (iii) any damage caused by breaking and entering, (iv) all costs of compliance with governmental laws or the board of fire underwriters (or similar organization) now or hereafter constituted applicable to the Building. Land and common areas. 7. Lease Year. "Lease Year" shall mean the twelve-month period commencing January 1 and ending December 31, except for the first Lease Year which shall commence on the Commencement Date and end on the following December 31. 3. Actual Operating Expenses. "Actual Operating Expenses Allocable to the Premises: shall mean the actual amount paid or incurred by Landlord for Operating Expenses dunng anv Lease Year of the term hereof, and allocable to the Premises based upon Tenant's share. 9. Payment Of Actual Operating Expenses. Within ninety (90) days after the close of each Lease Year during the term hereof, or as soon thereafter as practicable, Landlord shall deliver to Tenant a written statement setting forth the Actual Operating Expenses Allocable to the Premises during the preceding Lease Year. Tenant shall pay the amount of such excess to Landlord as Additional Rent within thirty(30) days after receipt of such statement by Tenant. 2 10. Nonpayment of Operating Expenses. In the event of nonpayment of Operating Expenses Allocable to the Premises hereunder, Landlord-shall have the same rights with respect to such nonpayment as it has with respect to any other nonpayment of Monthly Rent hereunder. 11. USE OF PREMISES. Tenant's use and occupancy of the Premises shall be for general office uses and for no other business or purpose, without the prior written consent of Landlord. 11.1 Use. Tenant shall conduct and carry on in the Premises, continuously during each and every business day of the Lease term, the business for which the Premises are leased, and shall not use the Premises for any illegal purpose. Tenant shall not commit or allow to be committed any waste in or upon the Premises. Tenant shall not do or permit anything to be done in or about the Premises which will in any way obstruct or interfere with the rights of other tenants or occupants of the Building. 11.2 Compliance With Law. Tenant shall not use or permit the use of the Premises in any way in conflict with any law or governmental rule. Tenant shall, at its sole cost, promptly comply with all such laws and governmental rules and with the requirements of any board of fire underwriters OR other similar bodies now or hereafter constituted relating to the condition, use or occupancy of the Premises only. The judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction or the admission of Tenant in any action against Tenant that Tenant has violated any law or governmental rule, whether or not Landlord is a party, shall be conclusive of the fact as between Landlord and Tenant. 12. ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS. Tenant shall not make or allow to be made anv alterations, improvements, or changes to or of the Premises or any party thereof without the prior written consent of Landlord, and all improvements, alterations, or changes so made shall become a part of the lease Premises and shall belong to Landlord upon expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. With respect to such alterations. improvements or changes to the Premises requested by Tenant, Landlord's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event Landlord consents to the making of any alterations, additions, or improvements to the Premises by Tenant, the same shall be made by Tenant at Tenant's sole cost and expense, the Premises and Tenant's leasehold interest therein shall remain free from any lien of any kind whatsoever, and construction of such alterations, additions or improvements shall be done in compliance with all laws and governmental requirements. 13. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. 13.1 Tenant's Obligations. By taking possession of the Premises, Tenant shall be deemed to have accepted the Premises as being clean and in good order, condition, and repair. Tenant shall, at Tenant's expense, keep the Premises and every part thereof in good condition and repair including without limitation the maintenance, replacement, and repair of any doors. windows, window casements, floor covering, and the plumbing, pipes, electrical wrong, and conduits within and serving the Premises, it being the intention of Landlord and Tenant that Tenant shall only have the obligation to maintain, replace or repair such plumbing, pipes and electrical wiring as are located within the exterior partition walls of the Premises. Tenant shall, upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. surrender the Premises to Landlord in good condition, broom clean, excepting oniv ordinary wear and tear and destruction or damage by such conditions over which Tenant has no control, or such damage as may )e due to the failure of Landlord to comply with any covenant herein contained to be performed by Landlord. Damage caused by Tenant's use of the Premises shall be repaired at the sole cost and expense of Tenant. 13.2 Use of Contractor. Tenant shall obtain Landlord's wntten approval with respect to a choice of contractor before Tenant undertakes the making of any repairs hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Additionally, the Tenant shall secure written proof and assurances that person(s) retained for such work are appropriately bonded and insured 13.3 Landlord's Obligations. Landlord shall, at Landlord's expense. repair and maintain the structural portions of the Building, including the roof(and the roof membrane, except that the maintenance of the roof membrane shall constitute an Operating Expense), foundation, bearing and exterior beams and supports. flooring and subflooring. There shall be no abatement of Rent and no liability of Landlord by reason of any injury to or interference with Tenant's business arising from the making of any repairs, alterations, or improvements in or to any portion of the Building or the Premises or in or to fixtures, appurtenances, and equipment if Landlord shall have taken every reasonable measure to avoid any such injury and interference. 14. LIENS. Tenant shall keep the Premises, Tenant's leasehold interest therein and the Building and Land on which the Premises are situated free from any liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished, or obligations incurred by Tenant. 15. HOLD HARMLESS. Tenant shall indemnify and hold harmless Landlord from and against any and all claims arising from Tenant's use of the Premises or from the conduct of its business or from any activity, work, or other things done, permitted, or suffered by 4 Tenant in or about the Premises or arising from any act or negligence of Tenant or any officer, agent, employee, guest, or invitee of Tenant, and from all costs, attorneys' fees, and liabilities incurred in or about the defense of any such claim, Tenant, upon notice from Landlord, shall defend the same at Tenant's expense by counsel reasonably satisfactory to Landlord. Tenant hereby assumes all risk of damage to property or injury to persons in, upon, or about the Premises from any cause other than the negligence of Landlord, and Tenant hereby waives all claims in respect thereof against Landlord. Landlord or its agent shall be not liable for any loss or damage to persons or property resulting from fire, explosion, falling plaster, steam, gas, electricity, water, or rain which may leak from any part of the Building or from the pipes, appliances, or plumbing works therein or from the roof, street, or subsurface, or from any other place resulting from dampness, or from any other cause whatsoever, unless caused by or due to the negligence of Landlord or its agents. Tenant shall give prompt notice to Landlord in case of casualty or accidents in the Premises. Landlord shall indemnify and hold harmless Tenant from and aslainst any and all claims anstng from the activities, word or other things done, permitted or suffered by Landlord in connection with the Premises, Building, Land and common areas or arising from anv act or negligence of Landlord or any officer, agent, employee, guest or invitee of Landlord, and from all costs, attorneys' fees, and liabilities incurred in or about the defense of any such claim or any action or proceeding brought thereon. In any action or proceeding brought against Tenant by reason of such claim. Landlord, upon notice from Tenant, shall defend the same at Landlord's expense by counsel reasonably satisfactory to Tenant. 16. SUBROGATION. As long as their respective insurers so permit. Landlord and Tenant hereby release the other from any and all liability or responsibility to the other or anvone claiming through or under them by way of subrogation or otherwise for anv loss or damage to property caused by fire or any of the extended coverage or supplementary contract casualties, even if such fire or other casualty shall have been caused by the fault of negligence of the other party, or anyone from whom such party may be responsible. 17. LIABILITY INSURANCE; HAZARD INSURANCE. 17.1 Liability Insurance. Tenant shall, at Tenant's expense, obtain and keep in force during the term of this Lease a policy of comprehensive public liability insurance insuring Landlord and Tenant against any liability arising out of the Tenant's use, occupancy, or maintenance of the Premises. Such insurance shall be in amount not less than $2,000,000 Combined Single Limit with respect to injuries to or death of persons, and/or destruction of or damage to property; provided, however, that Landlord acknowledges and agrees that Tenant may self-insure its liability up to $1,000,000. The limit of any such insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of Tenant hereunder. Tenant may provide this insurance under a blanket 5 policy provided said insurance shall have a landlord's protective liability endorsement attached thereto. If Tenant shall fail to procure and maintain said insurance, Landlord may, but shall not be required to, procure and maintain the same at the expense of Tenant. Tenant shall deliver to Landlord, prior to right of entry, certificates evidencing the existence and amounts of such insurance with loss payable clauses satisfactory to Landlord. All such policies shall be written as primary policies not contributing with and not only in excess of coverage which Landlord may carry. 17.2 Hazard Insurance. Throughout the term of this Lease. Landlord shall procure and maintain fire, hazard and extended coverage insurance in the amount of replacement cost of the Building, as may be adjusted from time to time, in the exercise of Landlord's reasonable discretion. 18. SERVICES AND UTILITIES. Provided that Tenant is not in default hereunder. Landlord agrees to furnish to the Premises during the hours of%:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Generally recognized business days, and during non-business hours and non-business days on an access and override basis, and subject to the reasonable rules and regulations of the Building of which the Premises are a part, the following services: (a) electricity for normal lighting and routine office machines, (b) heat and air conditioning required in Landlord's reasonable judgment for the comfortable use and occupation of the Premises, (c)janitorial services unless Tenant advises Landlord of Tenant's desire to provide its own janitorial services; and (d) water in quantities reasonably used by Tenant. Landlord shall also maintain and keep lighted the common stairs, common entries and toilet rooms in the Building of which the Premises are a part. Landlord shall not be liable for. and Tenant shall not be entitled to. any reduction of Rent by reason of Landlord's failure to furnish anv of the foregoing when such failure is caused by accident, breakage, repairs, strikes, lockouts or other labor disturbances or labor disputes of any character, or by any other cause, similar or dissimilar, beyond the reasonable control of Landlord. Landlord shall not be liable under any circumstances for a loss of or injury to property, however occurring, through or in connection with or incidental to failure to furnish any of the foregoing, except to the extent such loss or injury is directly caused by Landlord. Wherever heat generating machines or equipment are used by Tenant in the Premises which affect the temperature otherwise maintained by the air conditioning system. Landlord reserves the right to install supplementary air conditioning units in the Premises and the cost thereof, including the cost of installation, and the cost of operation and maintenance thereof shall be paid by Tenant to Landlord upon demand by Landlord. Tenant will not, without written consent of Landlord, use any apparatus or device in the Premises, including machines which require electricity in excess of that normally used by office machines such as photocopiers and personal computers, which will in any way increase the amount of electricity usually furnished or supplied for the use of the Premises as office space; no connect with electric current except through existing electrical outlets 6 in the Premises as agreed to in Tenant Improvements, any apparatus or device, for the purpose of using electric current. If Tenant shall require water or electric current in excess of that usually furnished or supplied for the use of the Premises as general office space, Tenant shall first procure the written consent of Landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, to the use thereof and Landlord may cause a water meter or electrical current meter to be installed in the Premises, so as to measure the excess amount of water and electric current consumed for any such use. The cost of any such meters and of installation, maintenance and repair thereof shall be paid for by Tenant and Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord promptly upon demand therefor by Landlord, for all such water and electric current consumed as shown by said meters, at the rate charged for such services by the local public utility furnishing the same, plus any additional expense incurred in keeping account of the water and electric current so consumed. If a separate meter is not installed, such excess cost for such water and electric current will be established by an estimate made by a utility company or electrical engineer. 19. PERSONAL PROPERTY. Where furnished by or at the expense of Tenant, all movable property, furniture, furnishings and trade fixtures, other than those affixed to the Premises so that they cannot be removed without material damage, shall remain the property of and be removable by Tenant, and in case of damage by reason of such removal, Tenant shall restore the Premises, Building or common areas to good order and condition. Tenant shall pay or cause to be paid before delinquency any and all taxes levied or assessed and which become payable during the term hereof upon all Tenant's Tenant Improvements, equipment, furniture, fixtures, and other personal property located in the Premises. 20. ENTRY BY LANDLORD. At any and all reasonable times during regular business hours, upon one (1) day's prior notice to Tenant. Landlord reserves and shall have the nght to enter the Premises to inspect the same a reasonable number of times, to submit the Premises to prospective purchasers or tenants, to repair the Premises and any portion of the Building that Landlord may deem necessary or desirable, without abatement of Rent, and may for the purpose erect scaffolding and other necessary structures where reasonably required by the character of the work to be performed, always providing that the entrance to the Premises shall not be blocked thereby and further providing that the business of Tenant shall not be interfered with unreasonably. Tenant hereby waives any claim for damages or for any injury or inconvenience to or interference with Tenant's business or any loss of occupancy or quiet enjoyment of the Premises, and any other loss occasioned thereby, if Landlord shall have taken every reasonable measure to avoid any such injury, inconvenience or interference. Landlord shall have the right to use any and all means which Landlord may deed proper to open any doors or otherwise obtain access to the Premises in an emergency, without liability to Tenant except for any failure to exercise due care for Tenant's property, and any entry to the Premises obtained by Landlord by any of said means or otherwise shall not under any circumstances be construed or deemed to be forcible or unlawful entry into a detainer of the Premises or an 7 eviction of Tenant from the Premises or any portion thereof. 21. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Tenant shall not either voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, mortgage, pledge hypothecate, or encumber this Lease or any interest therein and shall not sublet the Premises or any part thereof or any right or privilege appurtenant thereto or allow any person (the employees, agents, servants, and invitees of Tenant excepted) to occupy or use the Premises or any portion thereof, without the prior written consent of Landlord, which consent by Landlord shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any such assignment or subletting without compliance with the terms of this paragraph shall be void and shall, at the option of Landlord, constitute a default under the terms of this Lease. If Tenant is a corporation, any transfer of this Lease from Tenant by merger, consolidation, or liquidation or any change in the ownership or power to vote in the majority of the outstanding voting stock of Tenant shall constitute an assignment for purposes of this paragraph. A consent to one assignment, subletting, occupation, or use by any other person shall not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment, subletting, occupation, or use by another person. Consent to any such assignment or subletting shall in no way relieve Tenant of any liability under this Lease. Landlord may assign the Rent herein provided to any person, partnership, corporation, or bank, and Tenant agrees when notified in writing by the assignee of such assignment to make the Rent payments to assignee under the terms of said assignment. 22. HOLDING OVER. If Tenant remains in possession of the Premises or any part thereof after the expiration of the term of this Lease without the express written consent of Landlord, such occupancy shall be a tenancy from month-to-month at a rental in the amount of 120°'0 of the last Monthly Rent, plus all other charges and Additional Rent payable hereunder, and upon all the terms hereof applicable to a month-to-month tenancy. 23. TENAh1T'S DEFAULT. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute a default and breach of this Lease by Tenant. 23.1 Abandonment. Tenant vacates or abandons the Premises; 23.2 Failure to Pav Rent. Tenant fails to make any payment of Rent or any other payment required to be made by Tenant hereunder, as and when due; 23.3 Failure to Observe Other Covenants. Tenant fails to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions, or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by Tenant, other than described in subparagraph 19.1 above, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty(30) days after written notice thereof by Landlord to Tenant; provided, however, that if the nature of Tenant's default is such that more than thirty(30) days are reasonably required for such cure, then Tenant shall not be deemed to be in default if Tenant commences such cure within said thirty(30) days and thereafter, diligently prosecutes such cure to completion; 8 23.4 Misrepresentation. Tenant makes or has made or furnishes or has furnished any warranty, representation or statement to Landlord in connection with this Lease, or any other agreement to which Tenant and Landlord are parties, which is or was false or misleading in any material respect when made or furnished; or 23.5 Failure to Take Possession. Tenant fails to take possession of the Premises when landlord delivers the same by notifying Tenant that the Premises are ready for occupancy. 24. REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. In the event of any default or breach by Tenant, landlord may, at any time thereafter with or without notice or demand in the exercise of a n2ht or remedy which Landlord may have be reason of such default or breach, terminate this Lease by written notic_ to Tenant, revoke Tenant's right to any free Rent, reenter and take possession of the Prer::ses without termination of this Lease. or pursue any remedy allowed by law. Tenant agrees to pay Landlord the cost of recovering possession of the Premises, the expense of reletting, and anv other costs or damages arising out of Tenant's default including, without limitation, the costs of removing persons and property from the Premises, the costs of repairing or altering the Premises for reletting, brokers' commissions, and legal expenses and fees. Notwithstanding any termination, reentry, or reletting, the liability of Tenant for the Rent and Additional Rent for the balance of the term of this Lease shall not be extinguished and Tenant shall pay and Landlord may recover from Tenant at the time of termination, reentry, or reletting, the excess, if any, of the amount of the Rent reserved in this Lease for the balance of the term hereof over the then reasonable rental value of the Premises for the same period. Reasonable rental value shall mean the amount of rental which Landlord does or could reasonabiv be expected to obtain as rent for the remaining balance of the Lease term. In the event that Landlord relets the Premises or any part thereof without first terminating Tenant's right to possession pursuant to this Lease, Landlord reserves the right, at anv time thereafter, to elect to terminate Tenant's right to possession to that portion of the Premises for the default that originally resulted in the reletting. 24.1 Remedies Cumulative. The remedies hereinafter described shall be cumulative and Landlord shall be entitled to pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to landlord under the law orjudicial decisions of the State of Washington. 24.2 Removal of Personal Property. In the event of a retaking of possession of the Premises by Landlord, Tenant shall remove all personal property located thereon and upon failure to do so upon demand of Landlord, Landlord may remove and store the same in any place selected by Landlord, including but not limited to a public warehouse, at the expense and risk of Tenant. If Tenant shall fail to pay the cost of storing any such property after it has been stored for a period of thirty(30) 9 days or more, Landlord may sell any or all of such property at a public or private sale and shall apply the proceeds of such sale first to the cost of such sale, secondly to the payment of the charges for storage, if any, and thirdly to the payment of any other sums of money which may be due from Tenant to Landlord under the terms of this Lease, and the balance, if any, to Tenant. Tenant hereby waives all claims for damages that may be caused by Landlord's lawfully reentering and taking possession of the Premises or lawfully removing and storing the property of Tenant as herein provided and will save Landlord harmless from loss or damages occasioned by Landlord thereby, whether such lawful reentry shall be considered or construed to be a forcible entry. 25. DAINIAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION. Should the Premises be damaged dunng the term of this Lease, Tenant shall immediately notifv Landlord and the n6ts and responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant shall be as follows: 25.1 Insured Damage. In the event the Premises are damaged by fire or other perils covered by extended coverage insurance. Landlord agrees to forthwith commence repair of the same to the extent of insurance proceeds available and this Lease shall remain in full force and effect, except that Tenant shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction of the Monthly Rent and Additional Rent from the date of such damage and while such repairs are being made until such repairs are substantially completed, such proportionate reduction to be based upon the extent to which the damage and making of such repairs shall unreasonably interfere with the business carried on by Tenant in the Premises. If the damage is due to the fault or neglect of Tenant or its employees, there shall be no abatement of Rent. 25.2 Other Damage. In the event the Premises are damaged as the result of any cause other than the perils covered by fire and extended coverage insurance, then Landlord shall forthwith commence repair of the same, provided the extent of the destruction is less than ten percent (10%) of the then full replacement cost of the Premises. In the event the destruction of the Premises is to an extent of ten percent (10%) or more of the full replacement cost, then Landlord shall have the option (a) to repair or restore such damage, this Lease continuing in full force and effect, but the Monthly Rent and Additional Rent shall be proportionately reduced as hereinabove provided as of the date of such damage and while such repairs are being made until such repairs are substantially completed, or (b) to give notice to Tenant at any time within sixty(60) days after such damage, terminating this Lease as of the date specified by Landlord. 25.3 Damage to Tenant's Property. Landlord shall not be required to repair any injury or damage by fire or other cause or to make any repairs or replacements of any leasehold improvements, fixtures, or other personal property of Tenant, unless 10 such damage shall have occurred as a result of the gross negligence of Landlord. 26. EMINENT DOMAIN. If the whole of the Premises (or the whole or part of the Building) shall be acquired or condemned by eminent domain for any public or quasi- public use, or if a part of the Premises is so taken so that the Premises are rendered unsuitable for the business of Tenant, then the term of this Lease shall terminate as of the date title or possession shall be transferred in such proceeding, whichever shall occur first. In the event of a partial taking or condemnation which is not extensive enough to render the Premises unsuitable for the business of Tenant, then Landlord shall restore the Premises to a condition comparable to its condition immediately prior to such taking less the portion lost in the taking, and this Lease shall continue in full force and effect provided. however, that the Monthly Rent and Additional Rent shall abate in the same ratio that the portion of the Premises so taken bears to the whole of the Premises. Landlord shall have the right to receive the compensation of damages awarded upon either such total or partial taking and Tenant shall have no claim thereto: provided that Tenant may independently pursue an award or compensation to Tenant for the taking of Tenant's personal property or fixtures or for the interruption of or damage to Tenant's business and for any other interest of Tenant. 27. TENANT SIGNS. No signage shall be installed on the Premises or Building by Tenant. The Landlord shall install all signage within the Building and Premises at Landlord's expense, as a part of the completion of the Tenant Improvements. 28. SUBORDINATION AND MODIFICATION BY LENDER Tenant agrees that this Lease shall be subordinate to any mortgage or deed of trust that may hereafter be placed upon the Premises or the Building and to any and all advances to be made thereunder. to the interest thereon. and all renewals, replacements, and extensions thereof, provided. the mortgagee or trustee named in such mortgage or deed of trust shall agree in wntmg to recognize the Lease of Tenant in the event of foreclosure, if Tenant is not in default. In the event anv mortgagee or trustee elects to have the Lease a prior lien to its mortgage or deed of trust, then in such event, upon such mortgagee or trustee notifying Tenant to that effect, this Lease shall be deemed prior in lien to the said mortgage or deed of trust whether or not this Lease is dated prior to or subsequent to the date of said mortgage or trust deed. Within fifteen(15) days of presentation, Tenant agrees to execute any documents which such mortgagee or trustee may require to effectuate the provisions of this paragraph. Tenant further agrees that, if in connection with obtaining financing for the Land, Building, or Premises, a lender shall request modification of this Lease as a condition to such financing, Tenant shall not withhold, delay or defer its consent.thereto. provided that such modifications do not increase the financial obligations of Tenant hereunder or materially adversely affect the leasehold interest hereby created. 29. TENANT'S STATEMENT. Tenant shall at any time and from time to time upon not less than three (3) days' prior written notice from Landlord execute, acknowledge, and 11 ' deliver to Landlord a statement in writing (a) certifying that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if modified, stating the nature of such modification and certifying that this Lease as so modified is in full force and effect) and the date to which the rental and other charges are paid in advance, if any, and (b) acknowledging that there are, to Tenant's knowledge, no uncured defaults on the part of Landlord hereunder, or specifying such defaults if any are claimed, and (c) setting forth the Commencement Date and Termination Date of the term hereof. Any such statement may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser or encumbrancer of the Land, Building, or Premises. 30. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Landlord and Tenant agree to the following general provisions: 30.1 Waiver. The waiver by Landlord,of any term, covenant, or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be the waiver of such term, covenant, or condition upon any subsequent breach of the same or of any other term, covenant. or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of Rent hereunder by Landlord shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding default by Tenant of anv term, covenant, or condition of this Lease other than the failure of Tenant to pay the particular rental so accepted. regardless of Landlord's knowledge of such preceding default at the time of the acceptance of such Rent. 30.2 Time. Time is of the essence of this Lease and each ad all of its provisions in 0 which performance is a factor. 30.3 Paragraph Headings. The paragraph headings of this Lease are not a part of this Lease and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part hereof. 30.4 Successors and Assigns. The covenants and conditions herein contained, subject to the provisions as to assignment, apply to bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns of the parties hereto. 30.5 Recordation. Neither Landlord nor Tenant shall record this Lease, but a short form memorandum hereof may be recorded at the request of Landlord. 30.6 Quiet Possession. Upon Tenant paying the Rent reserved hereunder and performing all of the covenants, conditions, and provisions on Tenant's part to be observed and performed hereunder, Tenant shall have quiet possession of the Premises for the entire term hereof, subject to all the provisions of this Lease. The Premises are leased subject to any and all existing encumbrances, conditions, rights, covenants, easements, restrictions, rights-of-way, and any matters of record, applicable zoning and building laws, and such matters as may be disclosed 12 by inspection or survey. 30.7 Overdue Rent. Unpaid installments of the Monthly Rent, Additional Rent, or other sums due hereunder shall, if not timely paid, be subject to a late charge of Fifty and No/100 Dollars ($50.00) to cover the excess costs of administration. Tenant hereby further agrees to pay any attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by Landlord by reason of Tenant's failure to pay Monthly Rent. Additional Rent, or other charges when due hereunder. Acceptance by Landlord of partial payment of Rent and/or interest thereon shall not constitute a waiver of any remaining unpaid Rent and/or interest. 30.3 Prior :agreements. This Lease contains all of the agreements of the parties hereto with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Lease and no prior agreements or understandings pertaining to any such matters shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Lease may be amended or added to except by agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto or their respective successors in interest. This Lease shall not be effective or binding upon any party until fully executed by both parties hereto. 30.9 Inability to Perform. The time period within which any party is to fulfill an obligation of such the party under this Lease shall be extended by such time period that any party is unable to fulfill any of its obligations hereunder or is delayed in doing so, if such inability or delay is caused by reason of strike, labor troubles, acts of God, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of such party. 30.10 Partial Invalidity. Any provisions of this Lease which shall prove to be invalid, void, or ille_al shall in no way affect, impair, or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other provision shall remain in hill force and effect. 30.11 Cumulative Remedies. No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed exclusive but shall whenever possible be cumulative with all other remedies at law or in equity. 30.12 Choice of Law. The laws of the State of Washington shall govern this Lease. The parties agree that venue for any action hereunder shall properly lie in King County, Washington. 30.13 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any action or proceeding brought by either party against the other under this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover for the fees of its attorneys in such action or proceeding, including costs of appeal, if any, in such amount as the court may adjudge reasonable attorneys' fees. In addition, should it become necessary for any 13 party to employ legal counsel to enforce any of the provisions herein contained because of such other parry's breach of its obligations under this Lease, such party against whom enforcement is sought agrees to pay all attorneys' fees and court costs reasonably incurred. For the purposes of this provision, the terms "action" or "proceeding" shall include arbitration. administrative, bankruptcy, and judicial proceedings including appeals therefrom. 30.14 Real Estate Commission. Tenant warrants that no real estate broker or agent has been employed by Tenant or is entitled to receive any commission or fee with respect to this transaction other than the brokers or agents to whom Landlord has consented by written agreement. Tenant and Landlord shall each indemnify and save harmless the other from the claims of anv real estate brokers or agents with whom either party may have dealt with respect to this transaction. other than as so consented to by Landlord. Insofar as Landlord shall have consented by written agreement to such brokers or agents. Landlord shall pay such commissions. 30.15 Execution. This Lease may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original instrument. 30.16 Notices. All notices to be given hereunder shall be in wnting and shall be personally delivered and receipt acknowledged, sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, sent by facsimile, with original delivered within three (3) days, or sent by overnight delivery through public or private service, delivery charge prepaid, and addressed to the party at the respective mailing address as herein set forth. To Landlord at: i To Tenant at: Kent Fire & Life Safety Svmtron Systems Inc. 24611 166`h Ave SE P.O. Box 950 Kent, WA 98032 17-01 Pollitt Drive Fair Lawn, NJ 07410-0950 It is understood that each party may change the address to which notice may be sent by giving a written notice of such change to the other party hereto in the manner herein provided. 30.17 Tenant's Corporate Authority. Tenant is a corporation, and each individual executing this Lease on behalf of said corporation represents and warrants that he or she 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 or in accordance with the bylaws of said corporation, and that 14 this Lease is binding upon said corporation in accordance with its terms. Tenant father represents and warrants that it is fully registered and qualified to do business in the State of Washington. 30.18 Landlord's Authority. Landlord is a Washington municipal corporation, and each individual executing this Lease on behalf of said corporation represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on behalf of said corporation, in accordance with the provisions of such agreement as governs said corporation, and that this Lease is binding upon said corporation in accordance with its terms. Landlord further represents and warrants that it is fully registered and qualified to do business in the State of Washington. 30.19 Limited Partnership. It is understood and agreed that any claims by Tenant on Landlord shall be limited to the assets of the limited partnership. 30.20 Measurement Standard. All measurements of area to be made under this Lease shall be completed pursuant to the standards promulgated by the Building Owners and Manaaers Association ("BOMA"). 31. CONTINGENCIES. Landlord and Tenant's obligations hereunder shall be contingent upon and subject to the mutual satisfaction of the following matters, on or before the date set forth hereinbelow: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. TENANT LANDLORD By By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF K I N G ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he,,she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the of the City of Kent to be the free and voluntary act of such City for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires 15 , � iF' I gv �� es; rp,`,yi I e gx�C', p g I '�" w ""�s E •���� Es, 31-1yi y��y zt,l" ` . lids l e� I ' r ;Y. 1y •� ' 9' PROTECTIVE;` LQTHING' REEL RI E , f A MOM ky 4 e I�..i 3� � 4tl sad f ill 5 ��,�p,�,.��_' ;,Authorigation Eor,,'� & �, fe ` Saflety to purchase Se;uiebx tact v pro ol-rom Santiain, Eiter�ggncy Equipment C an (the nor�t4w6 y {!'for Securitex) for the he�t+�lf�igr (4)' Yea°�ra. Firefighting clothing, 'pie s to rbe rep1a.c+ ,, t oing basis; due, to " o, noel near anal;hie��, to,' �e'et • r�er��'��, ' �� dards anal, ,} � to utilize att�proved� to 4ol;ogy:'. � As equipnient is evaluated; y;'Dent Fire ,c_' ` tea insure t these .criteria are xne+t ; ad (that we p ' effectiv r ." proiu!dt fmr the tax d0F ,sper�� T, e ,�'1knt 'has found that the SecuritO hand has met"- I, � '` �.�objectiv�e$' ' � for, the last several ye' rs. After an4g, nt available' ` equipment it has been ;tohaluded that , ,k - ' '" st .;otill the: only product on the' mse 'that,me' ts: ��i ice a y't ��� I � •� � � requirements nd sa f ei� ,'��s' �ndar��. �� Executive, ���x'y , 4 . C �F: Fir +' 0 rt Fro�, to iv, � - ;ff and Fire Administration' (Committee, Staff; a' 5• $CAL' I ; a E'rl '; h, F ���''` ,YES 9qi p, ICJ r 6• IB �• �T+�ri rk' ' � , I $ ���W `i i�� R Yr^1�� i'�'h�i J �� r $wr�/MM Vii•l IQ i IS: l l��lw M+rti...lq 'MIS. - F t f S 1` Y �7 CITE C�FT, AC"112N�f Iri glMrrri ` Couricilmember mq'ves, .401'nc `'� � , �t'o second JAI 7AP � i c ,l Agene �d "to. 6N, o- ai , I a 'i• it Ir; F ' Executive Summary August 4, 2001 To: Public Safety Committee Council for the City of Kent From: Dale Robertson, Battalion Chief— B Shift Kyle Ohashi, Lieutenant— B Shift Subject: Protective Clothing Selection Authorization Summary: On May 12, 1997 Kent Fire and Life Safety submitted to the city council to purchase personal protective clothing (bunker gear) from Securitex Inc. In addition, the fire department asked to utilize a Sole Source Authorization for a period of four — (4) years. This authorization allowed the fire department to bypass the need for purchasing another brand of bunker gear simply because it was the least expensive. After extensive testing it was found that while Securitex gear was not the least expensive it was the best quality for the money and would be a better investment over the long run. The Sole Source Authorization was approved (see attachment 1) and Securitex SMS and has been in used ever since. History: Kent Fire and Life Safety has now used Securitex fire fighting gear for fifteen years beginning in 1986. We are their oldest customer in Western Washington. During that time the bunkers that we have purchased have gone through several major changes in composition. The outer shell, which was once white and prone to abrasion, has evolved into a more durable material, which is a combination of Nomex (for fire resistance), and Kevlar (for strength). The thermal liner, which is about eighty percent of the thermal protection, has become a better insulating and slicker material. This slickness is due to filament fibers being used instead of the older spun material and allows for greater movement under the bulkiness of the bunker gear. This in turn helps to reduce fatigue under stressful conditions. Finally, the greatest change has come in the moisture barrier. This barrier is what offers protection against water from entering into the suit making it heavy and prone to steam burns, protects against blood borne pathogens and the potential for infection, and what allows body heat (in the form of sweat) to evaporate and cool the body. Fifteen years ago neoprene was used. It worked on a limited basis. As material advancements took place it was eventually Sole Source Purchasing SECURITEX Inc. Summary: In May 1997 Kent Fire and Life Safety requested and received (see attachment 1) Sole Source Authorization for a period of four—(4)years for the purchase of personal protective clothing(bunker (year) from Secuntex Inc. Because of Securitex's constant advancements in safety we have relied on their products for over fifteen years. Since they have set a high standard for us all other brands were compared to Secuntex during the evaluation process. None offered a superior product and tracking system that exceeded Secuntex. Research: Brands tested: Secuntex SMS; Janesville by Lion Apparel; Morning Pride by Total Fire Group: Globe Firefighters Suits by Globe Manufacturing. Tested from April 15 until July 15. 2001 in similar environments in the training tower and on actual calls. All participating personnel completed detailed evaluations. Criteria: NFPA 1851. 2001 edition is the National Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Structural Fire Fighting Protective Ensembles. Conclusion: In the end there was no one brand that stood out against Secuntex's product. All the brands performed well and would be acceptable all things being equal. All offered Total Heat Loss (THL) and Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) well above the minimum required by NFPA 1971, 2001 version. All of the tracking systems also would fulfill the needs of NFPA 1851. It is requested that Sole Source Authorization be granted in accordance with City purchasing guidelines and we be authorized to purchase Secuntex SMS protective clothing as well as the hardware necessary to use the tracking system web site from Secuntex's northwest distributor Santiam Equipment Company. Justification: 1. Secuntex will offer Kent Fire and Life Safety the best possible price due to the Sole Source Authorization as well as our long-standing relationship with them. 2. Having one brand of;ear (Secuntex) creates uniformity and standardization. It is much easier to make changes or have supplemental work done to a single line of gear than to have several different ones. 3. The Securtex tracking system is web based. It does not require any software to be downloaded into the city's computer reducing the chances of system corruption and does not require any memory storage from the city. 4. The cost for hardware is minimal. Two hand held bar code scanners and existing computer equipment is all that is necessary to begin tracking our 1000 plus pieces of protective clothing. 5. Having a remote web site will allow our bunker repair service, Southern Laboratories, to enter data required by NFPA 1851 without compromising the city's system. 6 Cleaning requirements are based on manufacturer's recommendations. Having different brands of protective clothing can lead to mistakes in washing procedures. This can lead to the voiding of the warranty and can affect the life of bunker gear. 7. Secuntex has agreed to buy back the thermal liners of our current bunkers so that we may buy the newest product available.This would minimize costs.The conversion cost would be approximately S33,000 versus $112,000 to change to another manufacturer. 8 Because Secuntex makes our current equipment,they are willing to repurchase our unused gear for more than we would be able to receive if we had to sell it to a third parry broker. 9. For a minimal fee, Secuntex will guarantee production of new bunker gear within five days of ordering.The industry standard for production is four to six weeks. If they fail to meet this goal, they will deliver the item and discount the price ten-percent.No other manufacturer offers this guarantee and reduces inventory level. 10. Company open to suggestions and requests by Kent Fire and Life Safety. replaced by polyurethane which was in turn replaced by the best material yet, Polytetrafleuralethylene (PTFE). This current technology allows for the greatest heat loss, which results in cooler firefighters and less heat stress. Because of Securitex's constant advancements in firefighter safety we have stayed with their product over the last fifteen years. Since they have set a high standard for us all other brands were compared to Secuntex during the evaluation process. None offered a superior product and tracking system that exceeded Secuntex. Research: On May 12. 2001 that authorization expired. Because of improvements to all brands of bunker gear we once again have tested several different products to see if a change was necessary - keeping in mind the goal of purchasing the best equipment possible for the money while balancing that with the economics of our budget. The brands tested were: Secuntex SMS with an improved moisture barrier: Janesville by Lion Apparel; Morning Pride by Total Fire Group; Globe Firefighters Suits by Globe Manufacturing. 0 These four brands were evaluated from April 15 until Jul 15 2001. P Y Lieutenants Jeff Barsness and Pat O'Hem of our training division first tested all four. They were all tested in similar environments in the training tower where fire situations are simulated. They were then washed and turned over to suppression firefighters to try on actual calls. All participating personnel completed detailed evaluations. A baseline of our current bunker Cear (Secuntex SMS) was used for comparison purposes. The three new companies that we looked at offered products that have never been used by Kent Fire and Life Safety. PBI and Basofil outer shells as well as new thermal liners were examined and compared to our current gear. Those findings were recorded by our firefighters on the evaluations. After the testing period was over all the evaluations were examined. As was expected there were positive aspects of all four brands found by the evaluators. While everyone had their preference, none were rated unsuitable by anyone. In addition to the bunker testing process there was another aspect of the four companies which we looked at. NFPA 1851, 2001 edition is the National 2 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Structural Fire Fighting Protective Ensembles. It requires, among other things, the tracking of all pieces of protective clothing from date of manufacture and issuance to washing and inspection records. Within the fire department we have approximately one thousand pieces of protective clothing that must be tracked in this manner. Since it is recognized that tracking this many pieces by hand is impractical the four protective clothing manufacturers have all developed software or web sites to do the tracking in an organized manner. An evaluation of these computer aids was also a part of the selection process. Conclusion: All of the brands tested had advantages which individual firefighters liked. Almost all the advantages mentioned in the evaluations were items, which are available in all the bunker lines. What is standard on one set of gear might be an option on another (i.e. lmee pad inserts). What the final decision was based on was: "what brand of protective clothing and tracking system had enough advantages to cause Kent Fire and Life Safety to switch from Securitex to that other brand". In the end there was no one brand that stood out against Securitex's product. All the brands performed well and would be acceptable all things being equal. All offered Total Heat Loss (THL) and Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) well above the minimum required by NFPA 1971, 2001 version. All of the trackinc, systems also would fulfill the needs of NFPA 1851. Therefore, it is requested that Sole Source Authorization be granted in accordance with City purchasing guidelines and that Kent Fire and Life Safety be authorized to purchase Securitex SMS protective clothing as well as the hardware necessary to use the tracking system web site from Secuntex's northwest distributor Santiam Equipment Company. During the life of the authorization the personnel in charge of protective clothing will continually monitor the level of quality and customer service offered by Securitex. The justification and advantages of staying with Securitex brand bunker gear is explained later in this Executive Summery. Justification: As stated above, the decision to stay with Securitex brand fire fighting equipment was made after an extensive evaluation process. In the end we could find no compelling reason to switch to another brand. The following are the reasons for selecting Securitex over Morning Pride, Globe, and Janesville: 1. Securitex will offer Kent Fire and Life Safety the best possible price due to the Sole Source Authorization as well as our long-standing relationship with them. ?. Having one brand of gear (Securitex) creates uniformity and standardization. This is better for firefighters who know the abilities and limitations of the bunkers they wear. They also present a more professional visual appearance to the public when all firefighters are wearing similar equipment. 3. It is much easier to make changes or have supplemental work done to a single line of gear than to have several different ones. 4. Protective clothing tracking systems differ for the companies involved and having more than one type of bunker gear can result in added expense in keeping compliant with NFPA requirements. 5. The Secuntex tracking system is web based. It does not require any software to be downloaded into the city's computer thus reducing the chances of infecting the entire system. 6. This web-based system does not require any memory storage from the city. The entire site is hosted out of state. 7. The cost for hardware is minimal. Two hand held bar code scanners and existing computer equipment is all that is necessary to begin tracking our 1000 plus pieces of protective clothing. S. Having a remote web site will allow our bunker repair service, Southern Laboratories, to enter data required by NFPA 1851 without compromising the city's system. 9. Cleaning requirements are based on manufacturer's recommendations. Having different brands of protective clothing can lead to mistakes in washing procedures. This can lead to the voiding of the warranty and can affect the life of bunker gear. IO.Having to go out to bid on an annual basis is costly and time consuming. The equipment does not change much year to year. A bidding process would require a similar time and cost commitment on an annual basis. 1 l.By staying with Securitex we will not be forced to sell off our current gear in order to outfit our firefighters with new equipment. Seuritex has agreed to buy back the thermal liners of our current bunkers so that we may buy the newest product available. This would minimize the amount of money that the initial purchase would require. The conversion cost 4 would be approximately $33,000 versus S 112,000 to change to another manufacturer. 12.Because Securitex makes our current equipment, they are willing to repurchase our unused gear for more than we would be able to receive if we had to sell it to a third party broker. 13.Securitex has started a new program for producing protective equipment. For a minimal fee they guarantee production of new bunker gear within five days of ordering. The industry standard for production is four to six weeks. If they fail to meet this goal, they will deliver the item and discount the price ten- percent. No other manufacturer offers this guarantee. 14.This quick turn around in bunker production means that we will not be required to maintain as high an inventory level. This reduces costs. 1 5.Our firefighters have been satisfied with the Securitex bunker gear for the last fifteen years. There have been no major problems with safety issues or quality control. 16.Recently two of our personnel traveled to Montreal to inspect the manufacturing facilities of Securitex. The operation was well run. the quality control good, and the company open to suggestions and requests by Kent Fire and Life Safety. 5 Attachment 1 6 PUBLIC SAFETY COMNUTTEE DATE: MAY '10. 1997 l ,SITR E T• Protective clothing replacement - sole vendor authorization. 2. sj NaJARY: Firefighting clothing nerds to be replaced on an ongoing basis due to normal wear and tear, to meet new safety standards and to utilize improved technology As standard practice, equipment is evaluated by the Kent Fire Department to insure this cntena is met and that we purchase the most effective product for the tax dollar spent. The Fire Department bps found that the Sevihtes brand has met all of these objectives for the last several years. After anaivzing current available equipment. it has been concluded *hat the Secuntex is still zhe only product on te market that :veers our performance requirements and safety standards. -�lttiouan :rie Secuntex, brand .s S33.73 more than :he other brand :hat met our -eauired standaras. ;!xc--rr durability, ILL is our opiuon that the adder cost woula ce :veil offset bv -ninimizing _eniacetne:.t ana repair. The replacement of the protective clothing will be onased M over a four 1-tl year time span wor.'=_1 lthm the esisun; buaget at an est=atea cost or S-50.,300.00 a year. It is therefore requested that sole source authonzanon be Trantea in accoraance with City purchasing guideiines and that the Fire Denartmeni ce autftonzea to purchase Secuntex, protective clothing from Sanuam Emergence Equipment Companv tthe northwest vendor for Secuntex) for the nest four (=t) years. Tlus request is subject to the Department clothing staff annually monitonng protective clothing market to determine if acceptable alternatives become available. 3 F77rT-IBITS S. Attac.ed Executive Summary 1 REco-N jENDED BY: Fire Department Protective Clothing staff and Fire Administration 5. UN T TDGETFD CSC>I,'PERSONNEL TNIPACT . NO YES _ b. FYPFNDM RE REOL�FD: Funded within existing clothing budget. sub]ecr to inflationary adjustments. 7. P(TRi TC SAFFTY _ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the request for sole source authorization and purchase of replacement protective clothing from Secuntex brand clothing be placed on the next Council consent calendar. EX—E-CUTIVE SUMMARY MAY 12, 1997 TO: PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE COUNCIL:MEMBER JIM BENNETT, CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBERS TIM CLARK . luND LEONA ORR FROM: DALE ROBERTSON, BATTALION CHIEF/"B" SHIF; RICK COX. FIREFIGHTER/PROGRAM MANAGER SUBJECT: PROTECTIVE CLOTHING PROGRAM The current orotective clothing that the Kent Fire Department :s using needs to be upgraaed because of advancement in technology and safety standards. The newer generation or protective clothing impiemenu safer reatures and the current outer shell material .s ao longer avadabie to purchase. The Toal of the protective clotting program is to rind aria ourcnase safe and aepencable protective clothing for the performance or emergency operations. We nave reviewed and tested several products that are avaliable and our search has led us to the Secuntex Ultraiite SKIS senes as an acceptable replacement for our zurrent prctective clothing nee-as. Replacement of ail uniformed members' protective clotting wouid continue under our curent cycle. This means the newer generation orotective clothing wouid be phased m as the older generation gear is retired aue to contamination. damage or age. Back=ound/ ntroduction: The protective clotting program of the Kent Fire Department is currently managed at Station 76. "B" Shift. The lead person for the program is Rich Cox who is assisted in the distribution of protective clotting by other members of Station 76. The program is, set up so that there is sufficient stock on hand to fulfill the minimum replacement requirements of protective clothing for members or the Kent Fire Department. This tncomvasses the keeping of records of protective clotting issuance, an inventor, of ciotning that ensures all members have three (3) sets due to the ume needed to order arotecave clothing), and monitoring of technology and new innovations in the protective clothing tieid. Tare protective clothing program of the Kent Fire Department has been served well by Se--Idn*tex, Inc. for approximateiy the past twelve years. When the Kent Fire Department decided to examine new bunker ciothinQ a number of years ago, an extensive study was conducted. We chose a leader in the field of protective clothing, Secuntex. The durability and quality of the bunker clothing and the Quality customer service we have received from Secuntex has been excellent. In the past year and a half, the protective clotting program has become aware that the nomex filament that we are currently using as an outer shell material is no longer being manufactured for this purpose by the textile mills.. The reason the material has been discontinued is the lack of demand and the advancement in technology with new materials. We have examined the 10 bunker clothing of several manufacturers that have applied new material and technology to the design of their bunker clothing. With the unavailability of our current bunker material, we must decide the direction that the Kent Fire Department will go to ensure safe and dependable protection for its members. Public Safety COMUUttee May 1*2, 1997 Page ,Specifcations: The protective clotting program has determined rev_uirements for the purchase of future bunker gear research and actual testing. First, the gear will be lighter in weight than what has traditionally been used. Second, we will move away from a non-breathable moisture barrier and require that a breathable moisture barrier be used. Third, the bunker gear will have umroved freedom of movement. Fourth. reduction of retained body heat through the elimination of the bib pants. Fifth, the gear must meet all NFPA and WISHA standards. Sixth. the protective clothing that we purchase will be of good quality and durability. The orotective clothing program =eaiizes that not all manutacturers can meet the above demands, so we are in search of an ensembie of protective clothing hat will best meet our needs. There were only 7xo (Z) ienaers who could meet the totai specified �msemoie. We tested both. Research: The protective clotting program field tested 'Dunker ziothuna that was manufactured by Lion Apparel. This clothing also users new material and tecimoiogy m their deveiooment. Durng the testing perioa and interviews with other departments that have used the same sryie of outer sheil, a conc--m was raised about the durabihn, and auaiit<r control of the garment. We experienced the loss of buckles from both sets or pants in the first few months. Another department had also experienced poor quality in the sewing of seams of the bunker clothing requiring repair when it was new This had resulted in bunker clothing that was out or service when it should have been issued to firefighters. With this information, the field testing of the Lion Apparel has been suspended. Another brand of protective clotting we tested was manufactured by Securitex, Inc. Secuntex. Inc. has deveioned the Ultralite SMS series of bunker clothing that has implemented new matenals (nomexikeviar multi-filament biena), and technology (breathable moisture barrers and lighter thermal protection) that will make the firefighters safer.and more comfortable when performing their dunes. The clothing has been proven to be a quality proauct through interviews with surrounding fire departments and cimartments in the Portland. Oregon area as well as a repair facility in Oregon that repairs manv styles of protective clothing. The Kent Fire Department has also purchased four (4) sets of the Ultralite SMS bunker clotting for testing. This clotting, through testing, has proven its durability, ease of movement. and comfort that is essential to performing safely at an emergency scene. Finally. Secuntex. Inc. has been a reliable manufacturer that has provided a high quality of protective clothing and customer service for the Kent Fire Department. There are several reasons that the Ultralite SMS manufactured by Securitex. Inc. will improve freedom of movement, reduce fatigue, and improve the comfort of firefighters at an emergency scene; which in turn makes the fire scene safer: V Less weight: technology has produced lighter materials that provide thermal protection as well or better than more traditional clothing. This will reduce the weight that a firefighter must carry while working at an emergency scene. Public Safety Committee May l-, 1997 Page 3 Breathable moisture barriers: this style of moisture barrier allows heat and moisture Generated by the wearer to move away from the body. The bunker clothing •mill'also be able to dry in a matter of hours instead of days when it has become wet. This will reduce heat related fatigue and stress that is a common dilemma at the emergency scene. ./ "Slick" 'Liners: the siick liner is a new innovation that is made with nomex filament and has a sifppery feel to it. This liner allows for a greater ease of movement ;hat benenrs the wearer. The liner has eiiminated the need for bib pants, but still :flowing for a short coat. This :s accomiished because the coat does :et rise wtien me arms are lifted. ;txDostna the ftreriahter. This will reauc-- the we,.2m of the ciothtng ane heat retention which translates to less fauaue for to firer:anter. lmriemenang the Ultrahte SMS m future ourcnases. he dre:ianter's overall safery will be imoroved throuah the freedom of movement. reducuon of heat related stress, and improved comfort wtuie performing at emergency scenes. Theretore. it :s our .--commendation that all future purchases of bunker clotting be the Ultraiite SMS series manufactured by Secuntex, Inc. because it best meets the requirements that we have set for protective clothing. The protective clothing program believes this bunker clothing will be a prudent choice for the members of the Kent Fire Department. Si ifcance: There .s a necessity to make a timely decision so that bunker clothing can be purchased and rece.ved :n a emery :Wanner. As we have been researching and testing new protective clothing, winch started :n the fall of 1Q95. our stock has fallen below the minimum requirements. With the purchase of the Ultralite SMS clothing to replace our current supply of bunker clothing, as :r is retired from service, we will be providing a safer environment for our firefighters as well as a durable product that the Kent Fire Department can rely on. L,mform Distribution: The goal of the protective clothing program is to maintain two (12) sets of bunker clothing and a replacement set from the stock on hand for all uniformed members of the department. All uniformed personnel currently carry two (2) sets of bunker clothmg with them while they are at work for health and decontamination reasons. The Zone 1 personnel carry their third set of bunker clothing with them so that they also can be called in from off duty and have ail their protective clothing. Recommended Action: The protective clothing program believes the Securitex SMS protective clothing is a prudent choice for the Kent Fire Department and recommends that it be purchased under sole source authorization. The clothing complies with the most current NFPA Standards and Washington State Vertical Standards for Firefighters. This is requested because of the durability and superior qualities of the Securitex SMS, and also the unacceptable performance of other products curren6y available. Public Safety Commmittee May 12, 1997 Pave 4 alternatives: The alternative to sole source purchasing of the Securitex SMS would be to ao to bid for protective clothing. This could result in the purchase the Lion Apparel protective clotting. We annc:pate this would result in a lessor quality of clothing that may need repairs sooner or require earlier retirement. In the beginning it may be cheaper, but in the long run the costs will be higher due to replacing clotting sooner. 1r t Tin tic•: The phase in of she Sevintex SMS protective clotting will be implemented over a Number of years as clothing :s retired. The protective clothing program will try to oerrorm this within :he annual buaget as muca as possible. As necessary, budget adjustments would be requested :f :he annuai buaQet vas unable to cover the costs. P-•c•ng: The currant o_ ncmg �f '=tecuve clothing for an order of 25 sets of sear with f asrliQht coc:,ets and tnicrorhone iabei loops ,s as foilows: Secur:te� StitS , :on Ar_.are., -Re!'ni na SS-t9 73 S816.00 Recognizing hat there is a S34.00 difference on pnce quotes. it :s our conclusion that. based on our research. the required repair and maintenance for the Lion brand would exceed the initial pnce significantly :ca November 1. 1996 *TO: Battalion Chief Dale FR: Firefighter Patrick Cox RE: Protective Clothing Evaluations This is a summary of the information that I gathered while researching the new style of protective clothing. Issaquah ,irs Department-Dave tinneman Issaquah Fire Department has teen using the Securitex SMS clothing for the past two _ears and have been very satisfied with this product. They had been using the :,anesvil-e PSI prior to switching to the Securitex. They were unhappy with weight and durability of 0 the Janesville ( ie. seams coming undone) . Also, the protective clothing was only lasting about three years. Since switching to the Securitex they have been satisfied with the durability and the duality of the product. It is also lighter and they have had favorable response from the vendor on warranty issues. Oak Lodge RFPD-Assistant Chief ? They have had the Securitex SMS for the past six months and have been very pleased with the fit and lightness of the gear. They also have switched from a PBI based protective clothing. They stated the PBI gets very heavy when wet. Ruby J Custom Sewing-Bob Smith This company provides protective clothing repair for the Greater Portland area fire departments and fire schools. He stated that the PBI based clothing does not last as long as the Nomex based clothing. also, the foam thermal barrier holds water in its pores and has a tendency to rot the PBI material if not allowed to dry thoroughly between uses. The ?,rashield* that we :could like to use on our future purchases of protective clothing does not rot and lasts longer unlike leather patches . He has not seen very much of the Securitex gear but has heard many positive comments on the durability and quality of the clothing. KC.PD 443-Greg Lewis Currently FD #43 is using the Janesville PBI and they are calling researching who is using what type of gear. They have had around g g YP quality control problems with the stitching of gear that has not been used. They are also experiencing a poor service rife for their protective clothing, approximately three years. This is a summary of telephone conversations that I have had that have bolstered my confidence in selecting the Securitex SMS as the protective clothing that we should purchase in the future. Attachment BUNKER CLOTHING EVALUATION SHEET You have been chosen to evaluate and rate possible new bunker clothing for use here at Kent Fire and Life Safety. You were chosen due to your experience. expertise. and overall general knowledge of the fire service. ?!ease rate the bunker clothing you have been evaluatin, as it compares to the currently_ issued bunker clothing, by circling the appropriate number. much worse than the current bunkers. =- slightly .nfenor to our current bunker clothing. 2- the same as our current bunker ciothtng. =- 'Defter than our current bunker ciothin__ muc:: better .han cur current runnier clot inu,. :f-ou did not try the bunker cloth:nu unaer the conditions asked please Z.rcle 'N/A' After each numerical rating there is space :or any uCher comments that ,,ou may have ?tease out both positive and neaauve comments �o that eve can uuv the best orotec.ive :..otti:ng possible Your name: 4 � Model/Brand being rated: (fz.-o S� 1) How well do you stay dry from eater absorption sue to rain or fire streams' N/A 1 =) How well do the bunkers '"wick' nwisture;sweat away from %-our bou ", N/A 1 3) How is your maneuverability in the bunkers when they are dry? N/A 1 2 a 4) How is your maneuverability when the bunkers are wet or you are sweaty? N/A 1 2 3a 4 5 5) How is the fit and comfort of the suspenders'? N/A 1 ? 3 4 5 o) How Well do the bunkers 'keep you comtortaole? N/A 1 2v -1 How eve:l uo the bunkers issioatz :;apeec� !heat near ,,our :�ouy' N/A 31 -jOW •.Vel1 10 Clle N/A = a) How is the overall comfort ' NiA i - ' If you have any other comments ,iiat %vere not covere:: :n :,'le juesuonnaire. please add them in the space provided be:ovv When compieteu oiec:se return to station -B Sill t. Kept �puncil Meetixc Dated. 3ft tuber 18 2,0,0 Cate '*r 'Consent Calendar` 1. SECT: KING COUNTY'3BASIC LIFE SUPPORT' SERVTCZS CONTRACT AMENDMENTAUTHORI&E 2 . SUMMY STATEMENT: Authorization for tho Mj o,°r to sign the contract amendment with ', ing County EMS for ,,asic ,Life Support Services. In 1998 an ,Emergency Medical Services (EMSf°, l.e �t -was passed for a three-year period, be�#nning in 1999. TN6 City has signed a. .; contract with King Covn EMS since 1981 to, ire4eiVe EMS Funding. { This amendment to the : contract is for grant �wjOy! of $6, 846 for the Heart Attack Survival Kit (HASK) progr,a�:., ;,,,Ttie,se grant funds are for partial , rgimbursement for expensos. ;j'ncurred in distributing the Heart Attack Survival Kits.j 'Th�:HASK program has been used to educate, seniors, 65 or a1cX;, ;. n' a face to face intervention desig" d `to break down ,c c ,,b,arri ers to calling 911 when experiencing the symptons;i� �' ;'hart attack. 3. EXHIBITS: Copy of contact amendment 4 . RECODiDED BY: Fire 6d9lnistration (Committee, Staff, Exeiminer, Commissa.o-,"' tc. ) 5 . UNSUDGETED FISCAL/MBR IMPACT: N4 YES 6. F.76 EMITURR REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: �' 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember Moves, Councilmemb ' � � seconds3: DISCUSSION. ACTION: 0141 G , en gouncil A d�i Item No. 60 CONTRACT AMENDMENT Page 1 of 3 Pages _ PROJECT NAME Basic Life Support Services CONTRACT NO. D26018D AGENCY/CONTRACTOR Kent Fire Department DATE ENTERED 7/1/98 ADDRESS 24611 116a'Avenue SE AMENDMENT NO. 4 Kent, WA 98031 DATE ENTERED 1/1/01 A1%1ENDMENT REQUESTED BY AMENDMENT AFFECTS SXCD PH ® Scope of Services ❑ Method of Payment Organization ❑ Time of Performance ❑ Reliance 0 Compensation ❑ Terms and Conditions Rowe ❑ Results of Services Name 1. Amend Contract Amount from $2,379,273.00 to $2,386,119.00 2 Amend "funding block" to appear as follows FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING LEVELS EFFECTIVE DATES Real Property Taxes $ 330,912.00 7/l/98 — 12/31/98 $ 682,787.00 1/1/99 — 12/31/99 $ 682,787.00 1/1/00 — 12/31/00 $ 682,787.00 1/1/01 — 12/31/01 DHHS-NIH HASK GRANT $ 6,846.00 1/1/01 — 12/31/01 TOTAL $2,386,119.00 1/1/01 to 12/31/0, - OADD Exhibit A, SCOPE OF WORK/BUDGET, as attached hereto ADD Exhibit B, INVOICE, as attached hereto. All other terms and conditions of the original contract and Amendments 1, 2, & 3 shall remain unchanged. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment to be executed and instituted on the • EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK The Heart Attack Survival Kit will be used to educate seniors, 65 or older,in a face to face intervention designed to break down common barriers to calling 911 when experiencing the symptoms of a heart attack BUDGET The total amount that is amended into the Basic Life Support contracts is$86,044. Below is the breakdown on how the amount is divided up to the fire departments(Pierce County,Fire Distncr 50 and 51 are not included): Fire Dept Contract# Total of Kits Amount Auburn D26993D 802 $2,3071 Bellevue D270360 3977 $13,920 Bothell D27033D 281 $9841 Enumclaw D26871 D 638 $2,2331 Eastside Fire & D26939D 1358 $4,753 Rescue Kent D26018D 1956 $6,846 Kirkland D26306D 1358 $4,753 Mercer Island D26913D 902 $3,157 North Highline D26934D 991 $3,469 Northshore D26326D 937 $3,280 Pacific D28481 D 138 $483 Redmond D27464D 746 $2,611 Renton D26016D 1309 $4,5821 SeaTac D263080 819 $2,867 Snoqualmie D27478D 61 $2141 Tukwila D26009D 383 $1,3411 Woodinville D26307D 711 $2,489 #2 D274670 842 $2,847 #4 D262660 1495 $5,233 #13 D26896D 268 $938 #17 D26288D 45 $158 #20 D26317D 374 $1,309 #26 D27460D 551 $1,929 #27 D26325D 84 $294 #39 D26892D 2298 $8,043 #40 D26324D 377 $1,320 #43 D26003D 461 $1.614 #44 D26891D 315 $1,103 #45 026332D 88 $308 #47 D26958D 19 $67 BASIC LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES (HASK) EXHIBIT B INVOICE & STATEMENT (Date) Fire Department Name Address City, State Zip Code Quantity Description Price Amount **Heart Attack Survival Kit $3.50/kit Total "Heart Attack Survival Kits were given to seniors that are sixty five of age or older Signature Title Date FOR KING COUNTY EMS OFFICE ONLY: I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above agency rendered services or performed the labor as described herein. Authorized Signature of Title Date King County Emergency Medical Services , Ia 4 iZ Oouncil Meeting, Dat i; ember 18 2001: Catonoqc Sa=n3ent CalendaE, 1 . SUBJZG�: DONATIONS, �o NADEN PARK AND S"�E BOARD PARK - ACCEPT AND ,AMEND BUDGET 2 . S� STATEENT: Acgept $100 from Der ele and amend the Skate Board park (E)Ftreme Park) budget" fan,o;,4ccept $100 from Good Sam RV Club and amend the Naden L4ik'; udget. F I I � I I T r I ! 3. EMBITS: Copy of ch 6ks 4 . RECOMM12M= BY: Parks CqlMittee (Committee, Staff, ZX'4'miner, Commission, t 5. UNBU FISCAL/PERS L IMW,T: NO, YES 6. EXPENDYTLIRE �t$QUIRED: $ ` SOURCE OF FMS: I � 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council.member 4moves, Councilmemb seconds. a DISCUSSION: � ' ACTION: "I I dCouncil Agenda -Item No. 6P c W N n1 O C'� >O CD W L CK M �7 O m jC O>CD ay � o o y r m CD O a aa3 cc CDiy o 2=ui { ^� Cz m L CD ury r Noa � LD m Umv 0 O ru X : ; Ln � I O r„ J CD O C;'f`� Mll -4 iy W cc rri a CD W P O e o 1 "' N N CD j O m -+ W = Q d'3 c < d i Z O Z ]CN ]G \v �- O ^J r a } WWtL 6.OHo� O O> ■■ S = �O{ m a� 00 �NX n T ti w � �^ mrL ru oD0 (' 8� roMm En ru 0 mN r o a � n N 'o'4 0 co _ CJ r u D r- r �a r � m� m CD QT3 V S I ! I r Q L ( > E N QCD �y e_. N r , N L I � I� = N ?A h. I1oil Mee Mber IS ant riiue -,' 1. Sim : FEE IN LIEU , DS F�R CIrAF ',,� "r Gi: , QUISI'TIONI' ,- $ � 1 ACCEPT ANC) ADD BU GET mallS j C apt $. k 125' fsr1,6 0i' funds fargm'� the C;ingsle ' Pond DeveJs 4 nt s bd i v s df the Clark Lake Park Acquisition 1440t�. From May through June 2004. Refit receivq, ���r�,f $1, 125 from a` subdivision tnear :C irk Lake Pak �, e-in-lieu oqf, ' funds,, dedicating park-;, a4d to ' itigat.el,,-- ppinent of ` single family homes. i • City. s f elu� ''the, date Off, deposit to spend these," cods for, pArLk� �C -, developmeniy, or open space. Funds! 4 4 �'A*eedic ted to,,t l ° , 1,�q:jazest to the subdivision 3. =HISM S: Treasury r t 4 . C $Y: a t i i�-ttee (Committ", Staff; t miner, it6i`��mifis ` 5. USCAL/ 11111116M: J� jit , YES ' 6. �JI Spy im, ort 7 . CITY 5 1 . ACTWN ;, Counc'ilmember �m4�ves, �p unC imp � .�� a4} �', secoB¢gl, DISCUSSION• � •_�" 'pq, Vht'r�i f ACTION: w� ncil Agenda' 4,4em No. 6Q h JUL 25, 2001, 2:25 PM PAGE 1 ID: PK1PL 01 CITY OF KENT REPORT GAC11,09 GENERAL LEDGER ARCHIVAL REPORT- VERCC' DETAIL I*RITERIA - GL: 3000 APPR INDX: P13 BEGIN PERIOD: 01/05 END PERIOD: 01/06 BANK DUE REIM DOCUMENT REFERENCE TRANSACTION ACCOUNT STRUCTURE ACCT ,TO/FROM CD NUMBER CCCUN_4T TRANSACTIC4 DESCRIPTION AXCUNT *** BEGINNING BALANCE 35,098.27- 175 P13 000 6110 671004 KV01-17878 201C936 ROBERT D HOu_/PKS FEE-EH 7,125.00- **+ ENDING BALANCE 42,223.27- yy , s• } t�, _ ,i I 4;• i , �Rom' �� +� "�;."' �,� mncil Meot ei DO 00,be r 18, �]� C , l '�:; r�' Dsent Ca e i Ib ' S JECT: CANTERBURY; tE� taHB0 3Op�"F 'k'h ! '` APPROVE t 2. S STJkTZNZNT: pprove; the C' ; `' a F hborhood Park," � In 998, the Cityby the 2.08 acre Rip to construct a neighbor ' dark tip '; �'Prt Y serve ,t e:�i, After the purchase and sale ' agrt tent was, execuF d;#;' a ;'meetings were, held to develop a prelx' Lnary m [ster� plorx- !o` 1 ding strateg y, On March 28, 2000 par}�• !staff P�'eid a ' pub '_ '� t-419 to get citizen input on the rqc ri oattion elements,°''!' a'nd concern A second public meeting was hehytn As �; , 00D. On August 28, 2001 staff ld a third public # 0 4 ,'to get citizen comments on thelproposed master,; , + etermine priorities. .� 3. ZXHIBTTS : Public me�;tp�,'ng minutes 5'_�,:;1" •� .� � '•. . 4 . RZ MRMW BY: (Committee, Staff, Miner, E;Mmiss, . 5. UNSVD TED FIS 1L/P YES 6. EXPENDTdR$ 2LTIRED ' somcs or FMWS: 7 . CITYL1AiCIL ACTIN ` - { i.�.��r,i. a Ir�r ♦jI Councilmembe'r 01OVes, Counctlm } seconds : ,i DISCUSSION: ACTION ' t ppk { 10ouncil Agen Item No. 6R KENT W A S M I N O T O N Memo To: Attendees at the August 28, 2001 Public Meeting CC: John M. Hodgson, Director; Lori Flemm, Superintendent; and Shane Gilbertson, Project Manager From: Joan Broom, Parks Planning & Development _ Date: 08/29/01 Re: Notes from the Canterbury Neighborhood Park Public Meeting The notes from the August 28tn public meeting, cost estimate, construction schedule, and the list of attendees and previous meeting attendees are attached for your use. City staff will present a summary of the public meeting at Parks Committee on Tuesday, September 11 to Parks Committee will review and recommend for approval to the City Council on Tuesday, September 18tn the proposed Master Plan for the Canterbury Neighborhood Park presented at the August 28tn public meeting that has been revised to include a BBQ grill at the picnic shelter. Parks Committee will meet on Tuesday September 11 , 2001 at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall, Chambers East, 220 4tn Avenue South. You are Invited to attend. If you have any questions, please call (253) 856-5110. Thank you. Kent Parks and Recreation,Parks Planning and Development HER -- - -- --- - -\S: • KENNT CANTERBURY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Public Meeting Notes August 28, 2001 INTRODUCTIONS MASTER PLAN 1 . Add BBQ Grill to the picnic shelter BUDGET—HIGH PRIORITY 1. Play Equipment $35,000 2. Picnic Shelter $15,000 (smaller than 16' X 24') with Two Tables 3. Skate Rail $500 4. Swings (one bucket and one belt) 5. Concrete Seat Wall $1 ,072.50 (possible art project) Subtotal $51 ,572.50 BUDGET—MEDIUM PRIORITY 1 . Swings $10,000 2. Play Equipment $5,000 (spring toys) 3. Pickleball $5,000 Subtotal $20,000 TOTAL $71,572.50 BUDGET—LOW PRIORITY 1 . Irrigate the Rest of the Park 2. One Picnic Table 3. Additional Fencing 4. Additional Lights (4) 5. Drinking Fountain EAGLE SCOUT PROJECTS 1. Benches 2. Volleyball • \S: KENT W A S M I N C T O N CANTERBURY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Public Meeting Agenda August 28, 2001 from 6:00 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. Introductions of City Staff: Lori Flemm, Shane Gilbertson. ar.d Dave Everett Introductions of Neighbors- Action Items: ❑ Introduction of Final Master Plan o Budget o Cost Estimate ❑ Construction Schedule o Traffic Calming Issues—Neighborhood Traffic Control P-ogram Group Discussion AW \1-117 • KENT WASHINGTON CANTERBURY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COST ESTIMATE Indicates Required Items Fencing 1 ,645 LF) 10 foot--80 LF--$12 per foot = $960.00 4 foot--1 ,565 LF--S1 0 per foot = $15,650 Mow Strip (14" X 4") 1,725.75 SF X S3 25 = $5,608.00 Sidewalk (8,610 SF) 8,610 SF X $3.25 = $27,982.50 Turf (65 950 SF crass) Irrigate Play Field 20,400 SQ X .75 =S 15,300.00 Hyd roseed .26 per foot = $17,147.00 Water Meter $5,000.00 Lights (4) $3,200 each X 4 = $12,800.00 Electric Meter $10,000.00 Trash Receptacles (5) $250.00 X 5 = $1,250.00 Half-street Improvements 100"' Avenue-1 65 LF X $250/1-17$42,000.00 98"' Avenue-30 LF X $250/1-F $7,500.00 TOTAL $161,197.50 Total Budget $230,000-00 Left Over $68,802.50 Canterbury Park 1 of 2 08/29/01 Cost Estimate • \S7KENO WAS Iy INGTOh CANTERBURY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COST ESTIMATE * Indicates Required Items EXTRA'S Concrete Seat Wall (55' X 24") $3.25 X 330 SF = $1,072.50 Paddle Tennis (20 X 45) $5,000.00 Volleyball $200.00 Drinking Fountain (1) $3,200.00 Picnic Tables (3) $500.00 each X 3 = $1,500.00 Benches (3) $450.00 each X 3 = $1,350.00 Picnic Shelter $20,000.00 Play Equipment $50,000.00 Skate Rail (1) $500.00 Additional Lights (4) Walkway $3,200.00 X 4 = $12,800.00 Irrigate Rest of Park 45,550 SQ FT X .75 = $34,162.50 Total Extra's $129,785.50 Canterbury Park 2 of 2 08/29/01 Cost Estimate ___ _ ___ .�:•���a�_�-�_ --'=myis-u'�-ru_�—.a�amvs.n._�.x�-css�aoaa.a- __ _ _ _ --__ r�` — _ _ Canterbury Neighborhood Park Tentative Schedule Revised 8/22/01 August 28th Public Meeting (Comment on prelimina^✓ master plan, review cost estimate, identify priorities for phased development) September 111h Parks Committee Adopts Master Plan October 315t Design Development 100% Complete November 2001-February 2001 SEPA Process—submit simultaneously with Conditional Use Permit Construction Documents 25% Complete Conditional Use Permit submittal March 2002 Construction Documents 90% Complete April 2002 Permit Submittal and Review May 2002 Construction Documents 100% Com le:e Public Bidding June 2002 Award Bid Construction Commences July-September 2002 Construction October 2002 Play Equipment Installation Landscaping (shrubs, bulbs) November 2002 Parks Open for Public Use r T co co co co M M M M M n (`') M M M M CM C7 M M c')I c7 c'7 co co i M c �00000000000000000 0000 O'OOIOIO IVi� rn (M (D � rnCD0) rnrn (M18)cn ) rnrnrn a) rnpla �c;imGM'C' � rn cirn i >. c! c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c - CN U Y Y Y�YIY YIY�Y YIY Y Y Y Y�Y Y Y !Y Y�YIY !vIY Y;YIY � N i I O M _ I _ a� a) a) W u 0 = c) N WI I c I C) L CZ I c3 O 2 - a) cB p U ca 2 V cO N U) U O W d U cB = Cn aELU - Wa- mW JU WULOt` co CO 0- E 0 CO (n Lo Lo L � - W > c coZr vv > � �r vv �r � � � Q N `rcNlNl N N r Q N N co N N N N N N O L7 N N N �_ Nl- It O,O W W W N O N co UJ LU N W/ U J LU W LU N LU N N W/•� 0 c0 c j �W/� w e ^c T Q) V) V) fn Cn Cn Cn U) U) . Cn T x � Cn (n O I O a) Cp lC) N CO CO r co a0 CC) U) N U) U) V d I O N co Lo I NOLO000N0 ONOONCONcn ONTC'.] TNO (MIL7 O CO N N O O CD CD O M O NU-) O l7 O O CD N OOO000O0 o0O � U OOOCOIOcODC2) l. o C:) 0) N O) CVT.- I r m T m m T N a !T r T C O I I c c E o mCa L Z' a) E c M "O c cn c O - c c c Q CO 0 O CO a) O c = jl Q) c Q > > Y c c� ( d -0 aD c°'i L � � � 0 N o W cu � � E m Mtn � E C7CL a) H _ _ = cB L = O = > N c O O U (� a) a� = _ ns U a) a)I-Cofn °� I O �— >: a�i Z v, Z c °� cn W � o _ °� cu c 'c : S E c 'L c ca U '� c .. N .— .— c = cn c E N Q] c c .. (� •= G] E m O O L E a) •L c ca — ,C 5 — '— m m .— — O = m L L a)'.— Z � � UQY � WUQn W (f) LLJ nI� cn2CnUd.l` I' Ai I� , 14 a ! ncil Meets beX 18, 200 Cat `=00hsent Calendar 1 . StMJZCT: EXCUSED AB kt Ff `,,CO3 UNCI?;,ft DS - APPROVE ' ' ,.' 2 . S Y ST : CQuncilmember J 1 r,f Ii, rau1d like to ' request an excused abp c from, the Septe ��' ;,$,s' 001, City Council meeting. She W5.1.1 be unable to att nClq, f. 3 , EX$ZB TS: Memo =i 4 . RECODD$D By: (Committee, Staff, "Miner, Qmnussi ri'M Fil' R N), 5. UNB FISCAL P IMP NQ. n r F YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE' OF S: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: a � '� ,�4, JV Councilmembermoves, Councilme*� ` !"i ;� second,9 i bI,SCUSSIO'N: ACTION: X ouncil AgendA' P �"item No. 6S q I, MEMORANDUM TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS I � FROM: JUDY WOODS, COUNCIL MEMBER DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting. I will be unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. JW:jb 3 adgj{, i I1,1 Iq �a.� IP A �,4ounc i" l Meet pv �i ember 16nt Ca its `i 4k1 . I�tZ • � KE� NT DIyE W��TftNT iyIl TY iADVJIS©RY 8OAR6 i , ' o4tirmatiou Qf :,th a ,appointment ` of Ms. Mar ya, Goy to Be ve, as a� memk r • t Advisory ! Diversity o y Board. Ms 4 GOV: Moved here it ja,JjU hree years ago. She and her hus�4d,,and three ch'•ii cl' ; 0,v 6nt resi- dents, ' She is empl®yec� dry Fred' Meyer,'. .,Z4; da Green River Community Colleed' is ! active : ,�� She wi ,>, replace Karen Minehan; d,, d-;her term 4.1-i d� � ' `, pail 9/30/04 .?' Y 3. LXHxB 8 memo f 4i ( om ittee, Staff, 9X,wi er, Commission;'' 5- FISCAL/P YES, Ik <i 11F ' 6. �' rd�M 1. k' �I `� $O RC +C 7 . CITY CIL-ACTIOU:, —�..r.-... ,..� ram...,.. "-3 Councilmember eves, Council�,t e a ' 1 "= sec ni ° Y "DISCUSSION,:,- ,�,t .ivi.'F ACTION �i } • .k � � "� J' t1I No. 6T _ 3'I 4 • KEN T WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCILMEMBER4,, FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT DIVERSITY ADVISORY BOARD I have appointed Ms. Mariya Goy to serve as a member of the Kent Diversity Advisory Board. Ms. Goy moved here from Ukraine three years ago. She and her husband and three children are Kent residents. She is employed by Fred Meyer, Inc., attends Green River Community College, and is active in her church. She will replace June Karen Minehan, who resigned, and her term will continue until 9/30/2004. I submit this for your confirmation. jb 5 ' µ,,(F �F'��,.�I` % t, x: ' I f.� i a�r r, ,i•e' �,_� -�"�„ i $��,� "� �4 ���, c41 � ,try �* •dj [I� ra'�r, .iS JIB E• AFL_ r , ZONING CCI �;k4NdME MANUFACT ;i4,;,USES 5 HOME 0C ,., :6 � � {� OhDINANC�* 2 . S - 8 : �} �dOption of an ,or � � ���. �� ding . 0'8 .'040 .of It � Kent Section 1 I- i City Code� utomative' repair as a home ocPupft i-On, and requir, g `� Ffw ',tailers to obtaix a special hone, �!�Eu ati n' per ti;'�;',,n'; : ,' :, " aa{{ h Ord inanaei "mop dated 8/20, 001, and LUPIWW " minutes of 8/27/01 � •";�'�'_ � Ras �i; �r.,� , 4 • RLC rY: Lands ' and Planning, (Co ittee, Staff ' %finer► j�• ' I �'i ' rat V ��.IF ; 'jE�.P�� �'d i 5• w{rf a ,YES F V.ZRW: vow 7 . CITY 'C !l1C3 Counc,ilmentoei �, - ! �ves, seconofs� adoption of Ordinance N6 uah fch ,. - of the ,KCode,' �� e ,' . 15.08.040 ent pity I. phi,bit�hq,,aut oM,16 �.� 'kr�, " 'r as' a home'� F occupation, and requir;u auto d6t i �' c � 1���,_ a special home occupation permit;, �'�' � ' DISCUSS � ACTION " I ¢ fie „I yfi , k 'lY •'ry f d'liM ✓ - �yS cil Agendai w`I A'P �, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 KENT W A 5 H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 September 10, 2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: AUTO REPAIR AND DETAILING AS HOME OCCUPATIONS, #ZCA-2001-2 KIVA 2012216 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Following their public hearing on August 27, 2001, the Land Use and Planning Board voted to amend the Kent City Code to disallow automobile repair as a home occupation and to allow automobile detailing as a home occupation contingent upon a Special Home Occupation Permit (SHOP). The proposed Code amendment contains language that will allow legally established automobile repair home occupations to continue until October 15, 2002 or until the business license expires, whichever time period is greater. Further, the proposed Code amendment includes a definition of automobile detailing. The City Attorney's Office has drafted an ordinance, included herewith, which would effectuate the amendments proposed by the Land Use and Planning Board. KM\pm S.\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2001\zca2001-2ccmemo doc cc Fred N Satterstrom,Acting CD Director Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager Kim Adams-Pratt,Assistant City Attorney Project file COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager 40 Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 KENT WAS H IN O T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 August 20, 2001 MEMO TO: CHAIR, TERRY ZIMMERMAN&LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT- AUTO REPAIR&MANUFACTURING AS HOME OCCUPATIONS #ZCA-2001-2 Date: 8/27/01 Public Hearing On July 23, 2001, the Land Use and Planning Board held a workshop to consider changing the home occupation business standards relative to automobile repair and manufacturing uses. During the workshop, the LUPB determined not to change any manufacturing uses but did decide to pursue automobile repair. Additionally, the Board added automobile detailing services as an item to consider. During the-workshop, staff presented three options to the Board: Option 1 —Continue to permit home automobile repair as a home occupation. Option 2 — Allow automobile repair via a Special Home Occupation Business License (SHOP) which includes a public hearing process. Option 3 —Denv automobile repair as a home occupation. The Board also requested that Staff consider an amortization period for legally established home automobile repair and detailing services. Attached is the draft ordinance that amends the home occupation standards to prohibit home automobile repair, building and servicing of vehicles as well as automobile detailing. Additionally, the ordinance allows for legally established occupations to continue for a period of one year following the adoption of this title or the length of the existing home occupation business license, whichever period is longer. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Option 3, which is reflected in the revised ordinance as drafted, and forward to the City Council for approval. FS\KM\pm S\Permit\Plan\autoLUPB2.doc encl Draft Home Occupation Ordinance-Revised cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,Acting CD Director Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager Kim Adams-Pratt,Assistant City Attorney File Folder ZCA-2001-2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting Community Dev. Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Manager KEN T Phone: 253-856-5454 WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING August 27, 2001 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair, Terry Zimmerman at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 27, 2001 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT PRESENT Terry Zimmerman, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP,Acting Planning Mgr. Steve Dowell Brian Swanberg, Code Enforcement Officer Ron Harmon Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst. City Attorney Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary David Malik LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair(Excused) Brad Bell(Excused) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve the minutes of May 21, 2001. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #ZCA-2001-2 AUTO REPAIR AND MANUFACTURING USES AS HOME OCCUPATIONS Acting Planning Manager, Charlene Anderson stated that generally home occupation regulations provide conditions that preserve the residential character of the city neighborhoods from commercial encroachment and they recognize certain select businesses that are compatible with residential uses. Ms. Anderson stated that generally, home occupations are not limited by their use, but rather by current development regulations. Ms. Anderson stated that the City began analyzing auto repair as an allowable home occupation in light of complaints received by the City of Kent's Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Anderson stated that in July the Board requested a definition of auto repair versus auto detailing. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 Page 2 Ms. Anderson stated the City's zoning code defines auto repair as 'fixing, incidental body or fender work, painting, upholstering, engine tune-up, adjusting lights or brakes, or supplying and installing replacement parts of or for passenger vehicles and trucks." Ms. Anderson stated that auto repair is allowed on a limited basis in the following commercial zoning districts: (CM) Commercial Manufacturing, (GC) General Commercial and by conditional use in the (CC) Community Commercial district. Ms. Anderson stated that auto repair is not permitted in the NCC,Neighborhood Convenience Commercial zoning district. Ms. Anderson stated that generally auto repair operations cannot meet performance standards for a home occupation. She stated that staff is asking the Board to consider the following three options i while recommending Option#3. i • Option 1 - Continue to allow auto repair as a home occupation. • Option 2 - Allow home auto repair by a special home occupation business license, which includes a public hearing process. • Option 3 - Deny auto repair and auto detailing as a home occupation. Ron Harmon noted that the definition of auto repair did not refer to commercial vehicles. Ms. Anderson stated that auto repair could be redefined to include commercial vehicles. Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to open the Public Hearing. Motion carried. Chair Zimmerman declared the public hearing open. Mr. Bill Levinson Attorne -at-Law 1316 S. Central Ave Suite 100 Kent WA stated that he represents Brian Matheny, owner of Bright Shine Detail, a car detailing business run from his home at 240th and 116th. Mr. Levinson voiced his concern with language used in the ordinance defining car detailing. He stated that Mr. Matheny has been providing an auto detailing service for 20 years under a City license and variance and has maintained this business in good standing with both the city and his neighbors. Mr. Levinson stated that Mr. Matheny's services do not include vehicle painting or the use of any prohibited or controlled substance as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. He indicated that Mr. Matheny limits the number of vehicles on his property at one time and that he does not discharge any substance directly into the City's sewer system. Mr. Levinson stated that if the Board were to deny car detailing as defined in the ordinance, then Mr. Matheny would be out of business. He stated that under case law, Mr. Matheny qualifies as a nonconforming use. Mr. Levinson stated that the ordinance has been well conceived. He stated that staff should consider expanding the car detailing definition by adding restrictions which could include "no painting, no toxins, no discharge, no effluents and limit the number of vehicles." Mr. Levinson responded to Ms. Zimmerman's concerns over wastewater discharge from Mr. Matheny's property. Mr. Levinson stated that Mr. Matheny uses water and biodegradable products, which flow through forty yards of soil and ground cover. He stated that this property functions as a drain field before discharging into the City's sewer system. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Harmon stated that if the Board decides to recommend approval of this ordinance, he would like to be assured that legitimately licensed auto-detailing businesses would be exempt from the guidelines as set forth in the ordinance. Mr. Harmon stated that he is more concerned with unlicensed auto detailing businesses. William Green, 23958 58th Court S., Kent,WA stated that he speaks on behalf of the Washington State Car Council National Street Rod Association of which he is a member. He stated that he holds a license in the City for dealing in wholesale and mail order sales of antique auto parts, with little business transactions occurring within the city. Mr. Green stated that after examining the draft ordinance and other applicable city codes, it seems there are current guidelines in place to enforce environmental and other compliance issues related to vehicular detailing and repair businesses. He stated that making changes to the code seems irrelevant. Mr. Green stated that the licensed businesses having met code compliance should not be forced to conform to a new set of regulations through the implementation of changes to the code concerning auto repair and detailing. Mr. Green suggested the addition of terminology to the code that would address how to handle complaints against a business. He stated that these guidelines could specify timelines by which a business owner would need to comply or the result could be that their license is denied and/or other action taken. John Dye, 3607 Stratford CT., Kent, WA 98032 Mr. Dye stated that a neighbor is running an auto repair service on a cul-de-sac in the residential community where he lives. Mr. Dye stated that the noise generated from this business is disruptive to the tranquility of the neighborhood due to the use of air compressors, tools with air motors, grinding and pounding. Mr. Dye stated that this business has a steady turnover of up to six vehicles at one time. He stated that most of the lots on this cul-de-sac are pie shaped with no more than 35 feet of frontage, most of which is taken up by a driveway. Mr. Dye stated that there is no way for the owner of this business to accommodate all these cars on his property so the vehicles have been parked on the public street around other residential curbing. Mr. Dye stated that even though the auto repair business in his neighborhood has almost ceased, possibly through City intervention, he urged the City to implement procedures to assure that this type of business will not start up again. In response to Mr. Harmon, Mr. Dye stated that he was not aware if his neighbor's business was licensed. Mr. Dye said that he heard that this resident worked only on his relatives' cars and if that were true,he would have had to adopt most of South King County. Ron Harmon MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion carried. City of Kent Code Enforcement Officer Brian Swanberg stated that he has served in this position for seven years. He stated that out of the open cases that he works with, many are complaints concerning auto repair business practices. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Swanberg stated that obtaining a business license does not necessarily equate to compliance with the law. He stated that at times legitimate businesses have to close down and relocate to a properly zoned area. Mr. Swanberg stated that the City's current code does not distinctly address the issues he has to enforce concerning auto detailing and repair as home occupations, thus it is imperative to further clarify the code. Mr. Swanberg stated that he commonly receives complaints related to noise occurring at all hours, generated from air ratchets, hammers, compressors, grinding and overspray. He stated that the use and storage of chemicals, along with vehicular storage and vehicle parts are also problematic. Mr. Swanberg stated that when a garage of a residence is used for auto detailing or repair, that garage is typically not built to code to accommodate this type of activity, posing safety issues. Mr. Dowell and Mr. Harmon questioned if the code could include a definition to differentiate between detailing and repair in order to assist Mr. Swanberg in the code enforcement process. Mr. Swanberg stated that at this point, it is necessary to depend on the integrity of the individual performing the work that they are indeed providing auto detailing or repair. He stated that the City is dealing with issues concerning major auto repair such as tune-ups, brake work, body repair or painting. Mr. Swanberg encouraged the staff to develop specific guidelines distinguishing between auto repair and detailing if this is what the Board desired. In response to Mr. Harmon, Mr. Swanberg stated that over 60% of the home occupation businesses in the City are licensed. In reiteration, Mr. Swanberg stated that a Kent resident is allowed to obtain a business license through the City without a determination made as to if this person's business is located within the proper zoning district. Jon Johnson directed questions to Ms. Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst. City Attorney. He asked if the City could add specific language to the ordinance that would separate the definition of auto repair and detailing. He asked if detailing could be defined in a mariner that would allow the Code Enforcement Officer leeway to enforce the home occupation complaints concerning detailing. Ms. Pratt stated that although ""automobile detailing" is included in the draft ordinance under Section G.Lb, it could be excluded and clearly defined in the body of the ordinance. Jon Johnson stated that he believes it would be beneficial to limit the definition of auto detailing. He stated that this would offer the code enforcement officer the ability to address both auto repair and detailing complaints easier, and perhaps revoke a license if necessary. Mr. Johnson stated that by defining "detailing",there would less of a tendency to open this up to subjectivity. Ms. Pratt stated that there is a mechanism available to require the auto detailing businesses to obtain a Special Home Occupation Permit. An auto detailing business would be required to undergo a public hearing process with conditions imposed. Ms. Pratt stated that if those conditions were violated, then the permit could be revoked. Mr. Dowell questioned if a person held a license for detailing, would their business be considered "grandfathered" if the most restrictive of the proposals that the Board has before us was in place. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 Page 5 Ms. Pratt stated that Section G.2 of the draft ordinance prohibits auto repair and detailing from continuing in business after the one-year target date. Ms. Pratt stated that if this clause were removed from the ordinance, those auto-detailing businesses would be treated as a nonconforming use under the code. She stated that then they could continue in business under the provisions of the code as a legal nonconforming use as long as they were operating correctly. Mr. Harmon stated that if detailing was exempted from Section G as a prohibited Home occupation, and placed under Section F. Special Home Occupation Permits as #5, requiring a special permit, then the business owner would be able to continue conducting business. He stated that it is his understanding that existing licensed auto detailing shops would be required to apply for a special use permit to continue in business before the one year deadline expires. Mr. Harmon further stated that it is his understanding that the licensee would go through a hearing process at which time criteria would be set up. Mr. Harmon questioned if staff could work with the City Attorney to draft language describing "auto detailing" for use by the Code Enforcement Officer and the Hearing Examiner in determining compliance. Ms. Pratt answered yes. Mr. Harmon questioned if those owners who hold auto repair licenses and operate those businesses within residential communities, would have to cease business one year from the effective date of the ordinance as it is currently drafted. Ms. Pratt answered yes. Ms. Zimmerman voiced her concern that the Board cannot assume that all detailing operations in residential neighborhoods are similar to Mr. Matheny's business. She stated that Mr. Matheny's situation is unique in terms of having drain fields set back off the street and that he was permitted to operate his business by the City 20 years ago. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she is unsure that detailing lends itself to the special home occupation permit. Ms. Zimmerman concurred with Mr. Harmon that Mr. Matheny's request to remain in business deserves special consideration and added that the Board needs to consider other situations going on in the City of Kent as described by Mr. Dye. Mr. Dowell reiterated staffs proposed options. In response to Ms. Zimmerman, Mr. Dowell stated that he is in agreement with the ordinance as it is drafted with the exception of"detailing", which he feels could effectively operate from a residential community if done correctly. Jon Johnson voiced his belief that auto detailing needs to be well defined to distinguish it from auto repair. He stated that he would favor the city establishing specific criteria for "auto detailing" and establishing "auto detailing" as a special use permit in residential areas. Mr. Malik stated that the city needs to establish criteria to distinguish the difference between an auto repair and detailing service in order to provide tools to monitor health and safety hazard issues as well as assist with code enforcement. He stated that he favors staff s recommendation for Option 3 to deny automobile repair as a home occupation. Mr. Malik stated that he would like to be assured that staff would work closely with Mr. Matheny in resolving any difficulties with retaining his business. In an attempt to craft an initial motion, Ron Harmon MOVED to approve Option 3 to deny automobile repair as a home occupation with the exception of auto detailing which requires the business owner to acquire a special use permit through the proper application process through the Hearing Examiner, prior to termination of the one year period that exists under the "draft" ordinance. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27,2001 Page 6 Appropriate language will be generated limiting auto detailing to specifically defined procedures; restricting the use of harsh chemicals, and providing an appropriate catch basin system for collecting drainage runoff prior to being discharged into the City's sewer system. Mr. Malik stated that he would like to see the following specific guidelines.and criteria concerning auto detailing in place before the Board sends this motion on to City Council Mr. Malik stated that the criteria should include: • methods for controlling the use of chemicals, • water runoff, and • number of vehicles allowed on site. He stated that these business owners will be required to obtain a special home occupation permit prior to the one year expiration date as specified in the draft ordinance. Ms. Pratt stated that the inclusion of guidelines for auto detailing would create a specific section in the code limited to one occupation. She suggested that an alternative way to prepare guidelines would be to use the Special Home Occupation Permit thereby using the conditions and criteria set forth for approval by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Pratt said that when a hearing is held, Planning Staff and Brian Swanberg would express their arguments to the Hearing Examiner, bringing in representatives from applicable city departments as necessary. She voiced her belief that it would not be appropriate to include specific guidelines for one occupation in the code, rather that each business would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Pratt reiterated her opinion that the unique circumstances concerning auto detailing would better be addressed through the Hearing Examiner process rather than by incorporating every detail into the law. Ms. Pratt stated that the Board could add a definition of"auto detailing" to the code, which would provide the Hearing Examiner with additional data to reference during a hearing. Mr. Harmon and Ms. Pratt concurred that the term "auto detailing" would be added under Section F. Special home occupation permits as #5. Ms. Pratt recommended dividing the motion into two parts or making a second motion as follows: • Add a definition to Section 15.02 for auto detailing. • Accept staffs recommendation to approve Option 3 with the following amendments: - Delete G.Lb Automobile detailing as a prohibited home occupation, - Add, "auto detailing" as Item#5 under Section F. Special home occupation permits. Mr. Harmon moved and Jon Johnson seconded to approve staffs recommendation for Option #3, denying automobile repair as a home occupation, except for auto detailing which would fall under Section F. Special home occupation permits granted by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Zimmerman interrupted the motion to remind the Board that Ms. Pratt had suggested that their first motion should consider adding a definition to Section 15.02 for auto detailing. Mr. Harmon MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to add a definition to Section 15.02 defining auto detailing. MOTION was defeated with a 3 to 2 vote. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 27, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Malik stated that he understood that Mr. Harmon had moved to approve Option#3, denying auto repair, accept the definition of car detailing, and adding auto detailing to Section F. Special home occupation permits as #5. Mr. Malik stated that the City Attorney would be directed to prepare the definition of car detailing before sending the ordinance to City Council for a vote. Ms. Pratt stated that the Board has the flexibility to formulate their motion in whatever order they would care to. Mr. Harmon RESTATED his MOTION and Mr. Malik SECONDED to add a definition to the City Code for auto detailing under Provision 15.02. Motion CARRIED. David Malik MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to accept Option#3 as recommended by staff to: • deny automobile repair as a home occupation, • delete G.Lb - automobile detailing from Prohibited Home Occupations • allow "auto detailing" by adding a definition for auto detailing to Section 15.08.040.F Special home occupation permits as Item #5 Motion CARRIED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Charlene Anderson, AICP,Acting Planning Manager Secretary S\Permit\Plan\LUPB\2001\minutes\010827mn doc C� � 1 � ORDINANCE NO. I it AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, prohibiting certain home occupations in Section 15.08.040 of the Kent City Code, and further amending Section 15.02 entitled "Definitions" to reflect the amendments to Section 15.08.040. WHEREAS, in 1983 the 1 City Council initially enacted Section 15.08.040 of the Kent City Code to outline the provisions by which home occupations would be permitted in all zoning districts where dwelling units are lawfully established; and WHEREAS, in 1997 the City Council adopted amendments to Section 15.08.040 to include provisions for special home occupation permits whereby certain home occupations require a public hearing and approval by the hearing examiner; and i WHEREAS, the City Council finds that certain home occupations, by the nature of their operation or investment, have a pronounced tendency, once started, to increase beyond the limits permitted for home occupations and impair the use and value of zoning districts for residential purposes; and I I WHEREAS, the City Council desires to eliminate the harm being done by certain home occupations; and 1 Home Occupations (Prohibitions) WHEREAS the City Council finds that Chapter 15.02, entitled "Definitions" must be amended to reflect the amendments to Section 15.08.040; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.08.040 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Home occupations," is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.08.040. Home occupations. I A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to outline general conditions in which (home occupations may be permitted in all zoning districts. These conditions have been designed to help preserve the residential character of the city's neighborhoods i from commercial encroachment while recognizing that certain selected business activities are compatible with residential uses. IB. Home occupations permitted. Home occupations which meet the requirements of this section are permitted in every zone where a dwelling unit was lawfully ,established. The requirements of this section shall not apply to the following home ,occupations: 1. Home child care. 2. The sale of agricultural products produced on the premises. IIC. Development standards. All dwelling units in which a home occupation is I located must meet the following minimum development standards: 1. The residential character of the exterior of the building shall be maintained. 2. The outdoor storage or display of materials, goods, products or equipment is prohibited. 2 Home Occupations (Prohibitions) 3. A home occupation shall not occupy more than three hundred (300) square feet. 4. The sign regulations of Ch. 15.06 KCC shall apply. D. Performance standards. All home occupations must meet the following minimum performance standards: 1. Employees. A home occupation may not employ on the premises more than one (1)person who is not a resident of the dwelling unit. 2. Traffic. The traffic generated by a home occupation shall be limited to four (4) two (2) way client-related trips per day and shall not create a need for !additional onsite or offsite parking spaces. 3. Sale of goods and services. The sale of goods and services from a home ,occupation shall be to one (1) customer at a time, by appointment only, between the i !hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only. 4. Electrical or mechanical equipment usage. The use of electrical or mechanical equipment that would change the fire rating of the structure or create visual or audible interference in radio or television receivers or electronic equipment or cause fluctuations in line voltage outside the dwelling unit is prohibited. 5. Utility demand. Utility demand for sewer, water, electricity, garbage or natural gas shall not exceed normal residential levels. 6. Other criteria. There shall be no noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare or other conditions produced as a result of the home occupation which would exceed that normally produced by a single residence, or which would create a disturbing or objectionable condition in the neighborhood. E. Permit required. A zoning permit is required as provided in KCC 15.09.020. F. Special home occupation permits. A special home occupation permit shall be required for the following home occupations when eendueted in sessiensof fn r-e than. ene (, individual: 1. Music lessons. I2. Dance lessons. 3 Home Occupations j (Prohibitions) I 3. Art lessons. 4. Academic tutoring. 5. Automobile detailing. A special home occupation permit may only be issued as follows: 1. Application. Applications for a special home occupation permit under this subsection shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of Ch. 2.32 KCC and Ch. 12.01 KCC. The application fee for a special home occupation permit shall be the same as for administrative variances unless otherwise established by city council resolution. 2. Criteria for approval. In conducting a hearing on an application for a jspecial home occupation permit, the hearing examiner shall consider the nature and conditions of all adjacent uses and structures. A special home occupation permit may only be approved by the hearing examiner if the hearing examiner finds that such ;permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located, and that the issuance of such special home occupation permit will be consistent with the spirit and purpose � of this section and subject to the applicable provisions of Ch. 12.01 KCC. 3. Conditions of approval. In approving a special home occupation permit, the hearing examiner may impose such requirements and conditions with respect to location, installation, construction, maintenance and operation and extent of open spaces in addition to those expressly set forth in this section, as may be deemed necessary for the protection of other properties in the zone or vicinity and the public interest. 4. Issuance. Any special home occupation permit application approved by i the hearing examiner shall be forwarded to the planning department for issuance. 5. Appeal of decision. The decision of the hearing examiner on a special home occupation permit application may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Ch. 2.32 KCC and Ch. 12.01 KCC. G. Home occupations prohibited. t4 Home Occupations (Prohibitions) 1. The following uses, by the nature of their operation or investment, have a pronounced tendency, once started, to increase beyond the limits permitted for home occupations and impair the use and value of zoning districts where dwelling units are lawfully established. Therefore, the uses listed below shall not be permitted as home occupations: a. Repair, body repair, building, or servicing of vehicles. 2. Home occupations now prohibited by the preceding section and which jwere operated lawfully in the city of Kent in compliance with the provision of this chapter as of the date of passage, may continue to operate for one (1) year from the effective date of this ordinance, or the expiration of a current business license, whichever is longer; after which date no prohibited home occupations may lawfully operate in the City of Kent. I SECTION 2. Chapter 15.02 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Definitions," is hereby amended in part to read as follows: Chapter 15.02 DEFINITIONS 15.02.027 Automobile body repair. 15.02.028 Automobile detailing. 15.02.030 Automobile repair. . . . Sec. 15.02.027. Automobile bodv repair. Automobile body repair includes those establishments primarily engaged in furnishing automotive vehicle body work and painting. I 'I Sec. 15.02.028. Automobile detailing. Auto detailing means any scratch and oxidation removal, buffing interior and i1 exterior washing or shampooing_paint overspray removal, stain removal, non-spray I, 5 Home Occupations (Prohibitions) touch a painting power washing hand drying road tar removal polishing, deodorizing, of any type of passenger vehicles and trucks. Automobile detailing does not include cleaning of engines or engine parts. Sec. 15.02.030. Automobile repair. Automobile repair includes fixing, incidental body or fender work, painting, upholstering, engine tuneup, adjusting lights or brakes, or supplying and installing replacement parts of or for passenger vehicles and trucks. SECTION 3. —Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after passage as provided by law. i JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: i BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK li II 6 Home Occupations (Prohibitions) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY i' PASSED: day of , 2001. APPROVED: day of , 2001. !PUBLISHED: day of 12001. I i I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the Citv Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P f inl0rdue,llama uecp,sa,.Nalubun.l doc ill III I 7 Home Occupations (Prohibitions) I K�0! `4 ].,.t, � puncil Meet. <, ��??�' , d" 'jf <�i,,_ Ivry, �, S El t i k j ' k A e`Jay;4 v !p'+' x� rt'�. e 1 , 2 ' nd e ' 1. 3V : 2001 TRAFFI'JP TRIPING 2 �.nll+S M� Y� ' YI' y-a ._� The ;bid` opening 1f6 '1' ht ° g j ect was F c Septa er 10th with tw �'� :c b s r®peived. io d was submitted b S � �P tripe Ri ,'!�, Inc. in the ammou I= 5, 498 .20. The Engineer' s estimat� ,,is $32,,290. 90. Th* � ' ,Works { Director recommends ajw 4d*ng this pro�,eCt � �'�'� �.'�ae Rite Inc , `Ajj 3 . E7€�T5 Public Wor4l Directo memora til" j, ', ' R01 Er� 4 . REMD BY: Pubs i �ork Director,, " � ( ittee Comp , Staff, . 5. UM "D FISCAL/P T: NOr 4, 9 i' S YE E r � 6. ZXPXIWIWI RX ITI SMS-31 .Q S: q0 .6-.364� 7 . CITY CCC,(� pit, ke �' Counci�.memberkolv'es, Councilme q4 u seconds' that the 2001 Traffic ;5 ding project 'be°`a M '�tCi Stripe Rite n t bISCUSSION 1 I l{ ACTION A en unc 1 g da{ i A term No. 8A ` , V COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director • K E N T Phone.253-856-5500 WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: September 18, 2001 To: May r City Council From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: 2001 Traffic Striping Bid opening for this project was held on September 10' with 2 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Stripe Rite, Inc. in the amount of $45,498.20, The Engineer's estimate was $39,290.90. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Stripe Rite, Inc. Bid Summary Stripe Rite, Inc. $45,498.20 Apply-A-Line, Inc. $86,644.10 Engineer's Estimate $39,290.90 MOTION: Councilmember moves Councilmember seconds that the 2001 Traffic Striping contract be awarded to Stripe Rite, Inc. 2001TrafficStnping Source of Fund R00025 6-364 cc NYoshitake r 5 r }• d , I� 1 � ), i"L �' 7f' .i. ➢ i�$a V l�`�., �7 rin J �'4 f�, Mfg sip �„I� 5diE Ae., COUNCIL PRESIDEN'IC, ;, f r B. +�� ! OPERATIONS COMMI'Y'�I� I C. , PUBLIC SAFETY Ca �E D'. M 5 n PUBLIC WORKS l ", e E. PLANNING COMMITT " ' Fl B I I :I �,�:I E F. PARKS 'COMMITTED 4� � � I r,. : F 4,..,'�i G. APMINISTRATIVE R� I Rp""s PF4�A, 4 C' v € 0 Planning Committee August 6, 2001 Committee Members Present: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark Staff Present: Charlene Anderson, Kim Marousek, Kim Adams-Pratt, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM by Chair Tom Brotherton. Approval of the Minutes of July 3, 2001 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of Julv_ 2, 2001. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Kent Citv Code Revisions Senior Plaruier Kim Marousek said the bulk of the revisions to the City Code look at Title 12.01 and 11.03 which are the Permit Process section and SEPA, respectively, and also 14.01 and 14.11 which deal with Uniform Building Code adoption and Vesting in the City. The original memo included sections for revision in Title 15. but those have been pulled from the discussion at this time. The ordinance was adopted as part of regulatory reform that the state put into place under Senate House Bill 1724 with the catch phrase being the 120 day review clock that the City had adopted. In implementing that Title for the last two years, there have been some areas stand out that really needed clarification because of inherent conflicts. The revisions clarify places in the Code that were a little less clear like when the Building Code takes effect and when Title 12 takes effect because thev both deal with project permit applications that might be a building permit. The recisions also help consolidate the open and closed record appeal process because of recent legislative changes. Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams-Pratt explained that the revisions make consistent in Chapter 14 as to when Vesting will occur under 12.01 and 14 so that an applicant looking at both the code provisions will see the consistency or what would happen to the Chapter 12 process with the time period running out in Code 14. It makes it very clear when time periods fit under 14, and if they don't fit there, when they fit in 12 with the 120 day time period kicking in, and making it clear for applicants when one versus the other applies. In Chapter 12.01.040, one of the revisions changes some of the appeal processes and looks at one open record and two closed records. Right now the state statute doesn't require internal appeals within the City, but if internal appeals are allowed, then there are requirements. In some instances there is an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner where people can present all relative testimony and evidence. In addition to that, there is sometimes a closed record appeal to Council; after that, there would be a closed record appeal to superior court. The closed record appeals in front of Council is removed so there's only one appeal of each kind: the open record appeal in front of the heanng examiner where all the evidence is brought out, and then just one closed record appeal in front of thejudicial audience in superior court. Tim Clark asked for clarification on who would compose the binding'site plan committee (Page 6 "Final decision by binding site plan committee"). Kim Marousek replied that the binding site plan Planning Committee. 3/6/01 was a process that was very rarely used because it only applied as written in City code to condominium developments. The only applicant the City has ever had was Polygon and that had to do largely with a financing option that they needed for certain types of loans that could be promoted as a package to potential buyers. The committee is made up of the Planning Manager, the building official, the Public Works Director, and the Fire Chief, or their designees. In response to Tom Brotherton's question about who would do the design review on buildings in an Urban Separator area, Kim Marousek said there are two existing design review processes in the City. One is for multi family design review which is an administrative decision that is done basically by the planner with authority of the Planning Manager, and there is a downtown design review decision which is either administrative or by committee. That ordinance can be checked to see if the Urban Separator design review would need to be added. Kim Adams-Pratt continued that there would be one closed record appeal that would go to Council which would be for the new multi family tax exemption. The statute that authorized that exemption required one of those appeals to go to Council and so that will remain in the Council's hands. Staff would also look at Chapter 11.03. Right now there is a substantive SEPA appeal process that is not required under the statute which constitutes testimony from a lot of experts regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of mitigation measures imposed by the City and is quite a lengthy detail onented technical hearing. The draft clarifies a little bit more the actual appeal process and the time limits. That substantive appeal would be eliminated because the better forum for evaluating expert testimony is Superior Court in considenng whether or not the City's decision on those mitigation measures was the right decision. Kim Marousek said the City would still retain a procedural appeal process for SEPA review so there would be an appeal at the City level before the hearing examiner to determine whether it was appropriate for the City to issue a Determination of Non Significance instead of an Determination of Significance. Tim Clark asked for clarification on whether email would represent a form of written determination as specified on Page 10, Section A, 12.01.100: Determination of Completeness. "Mthin tiventy- eight (78) calendar days after receiving a project permit application for review of completeness, the City shall mad or personally provide a written determination of completeness to the applicant, which to the extent known by the City, identifies other agencies with jurisdiction over the project perinit application... " Ms. Adams Pratt said it probably could, but by practice, the City doesn't use email for that purpose. Mr. Clark said email would make it easier in terms of processing and less paperwork floating around, but in working with other jurisdictions especially, a verifiable paper trail would be needed. Tom Brotherton suggested using the City's web system to allow people to check their permit status on line. Ms. Marousek said that staff was in the process of working that out so people could access permit status on line. She added that the only people the City notifies on the determination completeness is the applicant. The other agencies to contact are identified in the letter to the applicant. Kim Adams Pratt continued with the changes on Page 7, 12.01.050 which talk about exceptions to the permit application process. Some items don't have to go through the process and some may need to go through most of the process. Some items would just receive one notice. Some of the exceptions in 050 would be related to the notice in 12.01.170, Page 22. Staff may also look at whether or not initial hearings on some of the building permit issues would be closed record hearings or open record hearings in front of the Hearing Examiner. It may be more appropriate for those to be closed record hearings. The purview of the Hearing Examiner on appeals to building Planning Committee, 3/6/01 3 permits is very limited already and has more to do with language in the Uniform Building Code on what administrative appeal authority is, so he would just be reviewing documents. If an appeal is filed for environmental review to a SEPA decision, the appeal has to be consolidated to the underlying permit. Making it a closed record appeal rather than an open record appeal might shorten the time. It has to do with a state requirement to consolidate open record appeal hearings, and that may work out to become a much longer process than simply making the first appeal a closed record appeal process. Tim Clark asked what length of time a review would take for a closed record appeal. Kim Adams Pratt said that on a single application there could only be one open record appeal and one closed record appeal. If a SEPA procedural threshold determination issued with a mitigated determination was appealed, the wart would be until the pen-nit was granted or an appeal barring the SEPA: there could be months between the SEPA determination and the issuing of the permit before the first hearing. If the appeal on the permit were made a closed record appeal, then the open record appeal for the SEPA determination could go ahead, and later, if needed. there could be a closed record appeal on the permit itself. Tom Brotherton commented that Processes 4 and 5 were both non-legislative, but closed record appeals were still provided before the City Council. Since closed record appeals are not provided in other cases, he asked what the rationale was for leaving those in under Processes 4 and 5 Kim Adam Pratt replied that Final Decision/Closed Record Appeal were two separate items and the idea for Processes 4 and 5 was that a final decision would be made. Ms Adams Pratt suggested that Final Decision/Closed Record should be laid out in two separate lines so that an applicant would not be confused She suggested the same could be done with the Open Record Heanng%Open Record Appeal Hearin-, breaking those two out to make it clear exactly what the applicant would be facing. After discussion, it was decided that a revised copy of the changes should come back to Committee and then go to Council the following day. Tim Clark suggested also that there needed to be some exposure to the public with notification sent out when the issue was brought back to Committee. Tom Brotherton commented that the changes make the Kent Code more uniform with the rest of the cities. He asked if there were other things included that the state hadn't required but where the City had been more thorough than needed, and related that doing more notices than required was okay. but the property owners' work and the hearing processes should be simplified. Tim Clark suggested that any notices that go out should be red stamped with "Public Hearing" to get people's attention rather than looking like a genenc piece of paper. Tom Brotherton suggested talking to Graphics to find out a relatively inexpensive way to color code the envelope and make the notice stand out such as a red stripe across a top border or a map of the area with the change detailed in red. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary 0 Public Safety Committee August 14, 2001 Committee Members Present: Chair Connie Epperly, Tom Brotherton, Leona Orr Staff Present: Ed Crawford, Roger Lubovich, Steve Hamilton, Sara Grant, Stacv Judd, Tom Shepard, Simon Stocker, Brian Harvey, Bruce Weissich, Jackie Bicknell Public Present: Betty Stevens, John Granmo, Jeff Barker The meeting was called to order at 5:07 PM by Chair Connie Epperly. Approval of the Minutes of July 10, 2001 Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of July 10. 2001. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Leona Orr and passed =-0. Law Enforcement Education Partnership Grant Ed Crawford, Chief of Police, explained that the Law Enforcement Education Partnership Grant was part of the system that helps to fund the Youth Conference which has been in operation for about 12 vears. The Youth Conference is an opportunity to work with junior and senior high young people every year for 2-3 days. Throughout the year the same young people are given other tasks to perform. The amount of the grant is S26,000 and the matching funds were in-kind services that have already been performed. Tom Brotherton moved to recommend to Council acceptance of the Law Enforcement Education Partnership Grant funds in the amount of S26,528 and approve a city match of S92,346. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. FY2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Chief Crawford said The Law Enforcement Block Grant was another great opportunity that comes to each law enforcement agency in the state and is determined by population and cnme index. The grant comes from the federal government and has been used in years past for things such as domestic violence and youth issues. This year, the money will be used to bring the Kent Corrections Facility into accreditation (as has been done with the Police Department) through the American Correctional Association. People will be designated on an overtime basis to work in that area over a two year process. Kent would be one of the few jails in the state that would be accredited through the American Correctional Association. Tom Brotherton moved to recommend to Council acceptance of the FY2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of S81,310 and approve a City match of$9,034. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. Discussion on Banning Fireworks Chair Connie Epperly said she had asked to bring this item before the Committee because of all the email, letters, and phone calls that she had received over the fireworks issue. She said this year has Public Safety Committee, 8/14/01 2 been one of the worst statistically, and combining the weeks of June 28'b to July S`", and including a house fire from July 181", there was S269,000 in personal damage to people's houses and property. Along with that, there was almost S 19,000 in overtime to City public safety workers which brings the damage amount up in taxpayer dollars as well. There was only one call for an injury to Valley Medical Center from Kent, but the hospital treated over 200 minor injuries from fireworks in the local area. This is an important issue and needs to be brought up again because a lot of the surrounding cities have banned fireworks. Ms. Epperly said one of the Council Members had questioned a fireworks ban because a lot of the service clubs in the past have made their funding for the year by selling fireworks, but she checked the fire stand permits received for this year, and out of 12, only two were from the City of Kent. The others came from Ravensdale, McKenna, Lynnwood, Burien, and other places that don't allow fireworks. She expressed concern because this year it seemed the 4`" of July went on from the end of June to way after the 4'h. The police likened it to a war zone and said they got about 100 calls per hour. In some situations, police went into neighborhoods where people were complaining and having wars with fireworks and just pulled out because there was nothing they could do Ms. Epperly related that one citizen (in today's audience) heard a very loud boom at 2.30 kM. ran out to see what it was, and the front of his house was gone in a bombing. Leona Orr asked if-he house bombing was related to fireworks. Ms. Epperly said the bombing was on the 5`h of July at about 2:30 AM and was fireworks related. She commented that to July 2000 there was S178,S00 worth of property loss, and this year there was about S269,000. Ms. Orr asked her to explain why the July 1 S'h house fire was included because fireworks weren't even allowed for sale that early. Ms. Epperly said the fire was started by homemade pyrotechnics. Steve Hamilton, Interim Fire Chief, explained that an illegal M-1000 was used and two people had been arrested. One had purchased the illegal fireworks outside the City of Kent and brought it into the Citv. The other person actually placed it on the door and blew the door off. Chief Hamilton introduced Fire Marshall Tom Shepard who he said had been heavily involved with the fireworks issue and getting inspectors out to the stands and preparing the statistics. Chief Shepard also did a study of banning fireworks. Connie Epperly noted that there is concern, since the City is so close to the Indian reservation, that if the Safe and Sane fireworks were banned, illegal fireworks would be brought in. She asked Chief Hamilton if he had talked to fire personnel in other cities, and noted that the only Iocal city that has banned fireworks is Federal Way who was receiving about 30 calls an hour when they allowed fireworks, but this year received only two calls. Chief Hamilton responded that Auburn, Renton, Des Moines, SeaTac, and Maple Valley still allow Safe and Sane fireworks to be sold and discharged on the 4`" of July. Auburn allows them from June 26`" through July 61". A lot of the problems stem from the use of illegal devices and it's real difficult to manage those. Ms. Epperly said she had talked with the police department on the problem of policing fireworks, and they said they get so many calls for so many different kinds of fireworks that if they were banned it would be a lot easier to focus on the lawbreakers. Police Lieutenant Bruce Weissich commented that one thing that would be reduced by a ban is trying to sift between lawful and unlawful devices. There are commercially produced devices that can lawfully be exploded during the hours identified in the ordinance and there are devices that are Public Safety Committee, 8/14/01 3 lawfully purchased outside the City which are unlawfully exploded and detonated within those hours. If fireworks were banned, it wouldn't matter whether they were lawful or unlawful, the act of detonating the devices would be illegal. Connie Epperly commented that the legal fireworks are starting to look so much like the illegal fireworks that it makes it almost impossible to tell which is legal and which is illegal. Tom Brotherton said he was curious about the differentiation between those fireworks that are launched into the air and those that are Safe and Sane and operate on the ;round, as it seems less safe when someone is shooting a fairly erratic bottle rocket into the air, especially in a time of drought. Chief Hamilton replied that bottle rockets were illegal. He added that the fireworks industry had recently given a class to fire personnel about fireworks and distributed a video tape that talked about which is legal and which is illegal. He said it's not difficult for the firefighters to tell the difference, but it may be for the public. Connie Epperly commented that in drn,,ing around this year during the 4`h, she saw a lot of kids with matches and fireworks, but didn't see any parents, and it seems odd that parents tell their kids not to play with matches and lighters all year long but then one day a year allows them to buy gunpowder and gives them lighters in the name of fun. She added that the kids on her street were shooting Safe and Sane legal mortars down the street at each other and actually hitting people. Leona Orr questioned whether statistics were kept on the amount of citations issued on the days before and after the 4`' of July for shooting fireworks. She stated that whether they were illegal or Safe and Sane, it was illegal to discharge them except during the stated hours on the 4`h of July Bruce Weissich said that as a practical application of enforcement, it was difficult in a war zone to go in and single somebody out as opposed to dealing with the overall commotion, and there wouldn't be a lot of enforcement• particularly on the day fireworks were allowed. He said he didn't know whether there had been enforcement preceding or following the 41h, but guessed there had been, and that could have involved seizing the product as being unlawful in the circumstance or issuing a citation. He acknowledged that the fire department had been very good about making facilities available to dispose of items safely after they had been recovered. He offered to track down the actual citation or physical arrest data. Ms. Orr said she would like to know the statistics. and asked about New Year's Eve which has become like another 4`h of July. Lieutenant Weissich responded that the situation would be similar in terms of confiscation of unlawful product versus citation issuance. He said one advantage at New Year's is that it usually is not a dry period and there aren't a lot of folks that want to be out in the rain and cold temperatures popping single Fireworks. Some people acquire and hold aerial fireworks for use on the I" but they're harder to track down because those go up in the sky and it's hard to backtrack where they come from unless somebody calls in with a specific complaint for a specific location. Chief Hamilton added that January I" is a limited time period around midnight and is not drawn out over 7-8 days. Tom Brotherton commented that of the people who obtained licenses this year for the 12 stands in Kent, six were operated by private individuals, two were church groups, and four were community groups of various sorts such as clubs or athletic groups. He surmised that roughly half the money went to somebody's pocket for profit and the other half went to a community benefit. Public Safety Committee, 8/14/01 4 Leona Orr asked to get a list for future reference of the cities in King County that have banned fireworks and the ones that haven't, and the length of time people are allowed to sell and use them. She stressed that she was concerned that even if fireworks were banned, there would still be those people who would have them. She didn't want the public to get the perception that if fireworks were banned there wouldn't be any around anymore. She added that if the public were going to obey the laws, what happened to the gentleman's house wouldn't have happened because it was an illegal device that was used. Tom Brotherton suggested that if fireworks were banned, the City should provide more public fireworks displays. Leona Orr agreed and said that the S 19,000 spent in overtime for fire related incidents could be spent on a real nice fireworks display for the public. Connie Epperly added a suggestion for permits for the many homeowners associations and block watch groups that might want to get their neighborhood together and put on fireworks displays. Mr. Brotherton cautioned that to use the really large fireworks, there must be a licensed pyrotechnician to set them off. John Granmo, 26410 Cambridge Drive, related that he was the victim whose door was bombed with the illegal device, stating he felt he was targeted. He said he didn't think making another law would solve anvthing, and it would allow the police to pick and choose who they would want to target. Another law wouldn't stop the real bad people and there's way too many laws that aren't being enforced anyway. He added he was against making another law just to feel good, and banning fireworks completely wouldn't create any major change, especially when so many communities around allow them. People could go to the reservation and get the illegal stuff anyway. He stated it was bad people that caused the problems because bad people don't obey laws, and making very intricate laws that have loopholes and different ways of interpreting them gives the law enforcement way too much discretion as to who they pick up and who they don't. Mr. Granmo said he was leery of empowering the police more. City Attornev Roger Lubovich said that under the more current state law anv regulation or ordinance that restricts the discharge or banning of fireworks which is more restrictive than what the state law provides requires a one year effective date. Anything enacted today would not be effective for next summer for the 4`h of July. Also, a decision to ban fireworks would have to consider whether it would be just the discharge, discharge and sale, or just the sale. The sale can be more restrictive of when fireworks can be sold or the types of sale. Right now fireworks can be sold in the City of Kent from June 281h to July 5`h. Kent allows the discharge of fireworks from 9 AM to 11 PM on the 41h of July only. The sales are at the normal times allowed by state law. Nis. Epperly asked if the scope of when fireworks could be sold could be narrowed. Mr. Lubovich said he believed it could as Federal Way had banned the sale. However, the Attorney's Office is checking into that as the language isn't really clear. Ms. Epperly asked if Federal Way had banned the discharge. Mr. Lubovich said they had, and it's clear from the statute that the sales arld times can be restricted. Kent banned the New Year's discharge period that was authorized by law in 1995 which had to be done within 60 days of the enactment of the law. Tom Brotherton questioned if it would be possible to limit the people allowed to open stands in Kent to community groups or non profit groups that have 501C(3) status. Mr. Lubovich said they could look into that possibility, but that would make it a discretionary and subjective decision on Public Safety Committee, S/14/01 5 who could and who couldn't operate stands. He said the draft ordinance at this point has a total ban on sale and discharge of fireworks. Mr. Brotherton suggested that since there was a year's leeway that a survey question could be put on the City's web page to find out what people thought. Leona Orr added that there could also be a public hearing so the Council would truly hear from the general public on how they feel about the issue. Connie Epperly suggested having information on the City's page in the Kett Reporter Mr. Lubovich noted that the proposed ordinance excludes or exempts organized public displays such as the Lake Meridian Fourth of July Splash which is done by permit, and would allow organized, supposedly safe, community fireworks discharges. Tom Brotherton commented that Federal Way's experience had seemed very positive. He asked if staff could find out how many actual incidents there had been in Federal Way, whether there was any property damage and how long it took for them to achieve their present status. He suggested also checking out anv other cities with similar bans around the area. The meeting was adjourned at 5:43 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary Public Works Committee Minutes August 6, 2001 Committee Members Present: Chair Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Rico Yingling Staff Present. Don Wickstrom, Steve Mullen, Gary Gill, Cyndi Wilbur, Tom Brubaker, Kim Marousek, Charlene Anderson. Travis Young, Jackie Bicknell Public Present: Joel Ross. Gene Warden y The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 5:06 PM. Item 9, Highline Water District Inter-tie Agreement Amendment was dropped from the agenda. Approval of the Minutes of July 2, 2001 Committee Member Connie Epperly moved to approve the minutes of July 2. 2001. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Pacific Gateway Monument Signage Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said there were monuments and landscaping on triangular n`_hts-of-wav on two of the four quadrants on each of the intersections of West Vallev Highwav at 22S`h, 212`h, and 196`h Boeing is developing their Pacific Gateway Business Park at the southwest corner of the intersection of 196`h and West Vallev Highway where there already is a monument and has requested to put in a new monument that reflects their business park (similar to what was done at Van Doren's Landin, on 22S1h). The new monument would face both 1961h and West Valley Highway. Boeing would like to combine the Citv of Kent logo with their Pacific Gateway Business Park signaue. The Citv has S50.000 invested in the existing monument. Boeing proposes to put about S150,000 in extensive landscaping, lighting, and the monument sign, and to take over maintenance and operation of the site. Saving on the costs for landscaping over a period of time would more than cover the S50,000 the City has invested. Rico Yingling moved to concur with Boeing's use of the right-of-way for their monument signage subject to the terms, restrictions, and conditions approved by the Public Works Director and the City attorney, and to concur with the use of the City logo subject to the City approval of the monument design. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. C.T.R. Contract Don Wickstrom said there has been a recent change in the State law for the Commute Trip Reduction Program. In the past, the City executed a contract with the County and the County did the reimbursement. Now, instead of going through the County, the City must go directly to the State. The agreement is for a two year period. Tim Clark asked if the CTR program was actually required by State law. Mr. Wickstrom said it was, and Kent was one of the few agencies that actually did the program on its own. Most agencies contract with King County and that's where Public Works Committee, 3/6/01 2 their funds go. The City of Kent has a very good program administered by CTR Coordinator Cathy Mooney, and there are goals for reduction of trips over a period of time. 0 Connie Epperly moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Agreement, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attornev. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Second Supply Project Agreement Don Wickstrom said there were some changes coming in the financing of the Second Supply Project because most of the entities have Public Works Trust Funds for bonding that need to be detailed, but nothing affects the contract material. Kent's share of the project is S28,000,000. The Public Works Trust Fund has a three year loan of S11,000,000 out for the Kent Station project and another$4,000,000 loan for Clark Lake. In recapping the project, Tim Clark explained that the Second Supply Project was a S270,000,000 project, and in order to secure financing for Kent's share, a S10,000,000 grant was received from the Public Works Trust Fund with the hope of receiving another S 10,000,000. Mr. Clark said the one danger is that if the Citv didn't get the other S10,000,000 grant from the Public Works Trust Fund, then it would have to go for a bond, and if Initiative 747 were to pass, the City's bonding capacity would be severely impacted. Don Wickstrom clarified that I-747 would probable affect councilmanic bond issues, but this project would be a revenue bond issue where the revenue of the utility was pledged, and may not be an issue. There may, however, have to be a water rate increase to pay for it. It would be a function of whether the second Public Works Trust Fund loan was received or not. Tim Clark asked for clarification on several sections of the agreement: Page 15 where it says "..Project Committee composed of one representative of each participant... ", the vote structure requires three votes for the big players and one each for the smaller participants, but only requires a quorum of three participants. Mr. Clark asked if Lakehaven, Tacoma, and Kent could make up a quorum Don Wickstrom said it could, and added that the issue had taken a lot of thought and a long time to work out amongst all the parties for fear that one party could be given more leverage than they deserved. It would always take at least Tacoma and one of the other three purveyors (Kent, Lakehaven, or Covington) to join up with the other group to make any decision. Page 19, Initial Project Construction: "Tacoma shall maintain and provide to all Participants upon request complete up-to-date plans, drawings, and specifications and other documentation relating to the design, engineering, construction and operation of the Project. " Mr. Clark commented that he had thought Kent was building one section of the pipeline. Don Wickstrom said Kent was building a section but going through Tacoma and paying Tacoma to act as the lead consultant; Tacoma was coordinating their consultants and their contractor for the construction. Page 20: "Project Bonds to be issued by Tacoma I separate system to fund the costs of Initial Project Construction shall generally be in accordance with the Financing Plan for0 Initial Project Construct under Exhibit H. " Mr. Clark asked if the project bonds for the Public Works Committee, 8/6/01 3 initial construction was Tacoma's issue or if there was a bigger obligation. Mr. Wickstrom said the original setup was to be that Tacoma would create a separate entity within their own structure that would build and own the pipeline and everything that goes with the project. With that entity Tacoma could sell bonds to build the project which would include Kent's share. Kent would then pay debt service and wouldn't have to have its own bond coverage. That financial setup would eliminate the necessity to have a bond coverage requirement. Page 22, 11.4.5: "E.ccept as otherwise provided in this section 11, and sections 13 and 3 the obligation of the Participants to snake all such payments shall be apportioned among the Participants based upon their Participant Shares. " Don Wickstrom remarked that that section related to default. When selling those kind of bonds, in order to get to the market, the financial consultant who suns off on the bonds has to assure that if someone defaulted there would be a backup plan to pay; then the balance of the group would apportion the debt amongst themselves. Page 25, Use of Project for First Diversion Water: "Tacoma shall have the right to use its Project Capacity Share to move First Diversion PVater when Tacoma deems it appropriate to do so " Mr. Wickstrom said the Second Diversion Water Right was subject to the availability of the water to the river. In order to get water in the nver, 20,000 acre feet of water has to be stored behind the dam which means that between January 151h and Apnl 151h all the water that would have been available to come down the pipeline goes behind the dam. This allows Tacoma, if they have water from Diversion One to flow there or if they have a problem in the first pipeline, to flow the water to Tacoma by alternate means. Page 43, 32.4: "The fact that other Participants have assianed the obligation to make paYments which were due and owing froni the defaulting Participant shall not relieve the defaulting Participant of its liability for such payments, and the Participants. assiuning such obligations whether individually or cis a member of a group, shall have a right of recovers, from the defaidtitr;Participant. " Mr. Clark asked if Lakehaven defaulted, for example, and Kent still had to pay in, whether Kent would have the nght to try and reclaim from Lakehaven if Lakehaven was still a surviving financial entity. Mr. Wickstrom said if Lakehaven defaulted and Kent ended up paving, Kent would not only get Lakehaven's water and obligation but would get the right to go after them for defaulting. Pape 2 of 6, Exhibit Q. Water Supply: "An'v water committed to Kent/Covington may be recalled by Tacoma at airy time after the Year 7011 by Tacoma providing notice of recall not less than three Years prior to the effective date of recall. In pavinent for such water supphv, Kent/Covington agrees to pav to Tacoma an amount equal to the O&M costs and the capital costs of wells operated and developed to support this water supply to Kent/Covington. " Don Wickstrom said that part allows the building of the first piece of the pipeline in order to get intenm water to Kent, but the project won't be completed until 2006 and technically, there's no water flowing through it until 2006. Kent can't wait until 2006 so this gives the City the right to build that part and buy water from Tacoma. However, Tacoma can't guarantee that once they sell the water that it will be there forever, so they may wean Kent off of it, and by 2011 there could be zero water the rest of the project. The issue is about existing water rights. Public Works Committee, 8/6/01 4 Rico Yingling moved to recommend to full Council that the Mayor be authorized to execute the Tacoma Second Supply Project Agreement subject to the concurrence with the terms, conditions and language therewith by the Public Works Director and City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. Mr. Yingling extended his thanks and appreciation to Don Wickstrom for his work in bringing the material to the Committee in parts and explaining all of the different areas, especially the emergency pipeline that was needed. Water Latecomer Agreement—Lake Fenwick Estates Don Wickstrom reported that the Water Latecomer Agreement was for the residential development off Lake Fenwick Road adjacent to Lake Fenwick Park. The City's waterline was extended through the southerly property line of the development and they are now wanting a latecomer agreement. The City has agreed to pay the developers 535,000 as opposed to the park property because it is operating a community well to service some houses there. The main will mean other water is available and the park can get out of the business of operating a community well system. Connie Epperly moved to recommend Council authorization for the Public Works Director to execute a water latecomer agreement with Half, L.L.C. for Lake Fenwick Estates. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Sir Year Transportation Improvement Plan Don Wickstrom said that every year the City is required to update and adopt, through a Council public hearing, a Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. He said the final Comp Plan wasn't done so all of the improvements aren't known that would come from that. The Six Year - Transportation Improvement Plan is basically a roll over from last year. (It has been rolled over for the past few years). Hopefully, next year all the new pieces can be added relating to the Comp Plan Two projects were deleted that have been completed—the 2771h Corridor and 1961h Street Corridor Projects. A few projects have been added, with principle ones being those related to the Kent Station Project like the improvement of the westerly half of 1'` Avenue, 2"d Avenue, and Temperance streets. In order to receive any funds, those projects have to be in the Six Year Plan. Another project related to the Kent Station is the left turn pockets for all four legs of the 4`h Avenue and Smith Street intersection. The roundabout at 41h and Willis is another project that was added. The proposal designs the project in 2002 and constructs it in 2003. Staff has been working with Sound Transit on other projects such as their flyer stop on I-5, the Star Lake parking lot, and the issues of HOV's on 272"d and on the Pacific Highway Project. The linkage between I-5 and 167 on 272"d involves three projects. One is an interchange project at I-5 and 272"d; a second project at Pacific Highway and 272"d; and the third is a project with Sound Transit for the intersection at I-5. Sound Transit was going to commit 51,000,000 to the project but if everything falls into place, they will commit $5,000,000. In response to Rico Yingling's request for clarification on Number 11, the South 212`h Street Pavement Rehabilitation from the Green River Bridge to West Valley Highway, Don Wickstrom Public Works Committee, 8/6/01 5 said there were some Federal Funds in the Washington Avenue HOV Project and 583,000 in Federal Funds in the 212`h Overlay which were combined into the Overlay Fund because that makes it a lot easier to get all the various permits and approvals. Those funds don't become available until 2004, which is when the project would be done. Mr. Wickstrom showed maps outlining all the project areas. Connie Epperly moved to recommend setting a Public Hearing for the adoption of the Sir Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Roadside Memorial Transportation Engineering Manager Steve Mullen said policies and written guidelines were developed in response to a community request for accommodating a roadside memorial for victims of other than DUI accidents. In developing the policy, a similar pattern was followed as for the DUI policy, and a roadside sign policy was fashioned similar to what was requested by the family of the gentleman that was killed recently. In addition, guidelines were developed for allowing temporary roadside monuments during the grieving process. Tim Clark stipulated that he would have a problem with anything sponsored by the City where the fatality may be the cause of reckless dnving by the individual who became the victim. Steve Mullen said it would be no different than the DUI policy where the driver was possibly under the influence of alcohol and the family could still put up a sign. The intent would be to draw attention to driving carefully regardless of who was at fault. Mr. Clark asked if other jurisdictions had done the same thing. Mr. Mullen said there hadn't been much done by other jurisdictions other than for the DUI memorials. Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker said a policy to establish a memorial for a loved one at the roadside where the event occurred wouldn't be an endorsement by the City. Other jurisdictions have incorporated a policy linked only to dnving under the influence of alcohol or drugs as an opportunity to endorse or support safe driving in that respect. He recalled that previous discussion by the Committee concluded that a venue to allow the grieved family to simply establish a memorial would be a good way to go because it was unlikely there would be that many fatality accidents and therefore unlikelv there would be memorials all over town. The policy was drawn up in light of that discussion. Tim Clark said the issue has been the "non threatening to other traffic", temporary exhibit versus something more permanent. The DUI signs appear to be very permanent Rico Yingling commented that the X.X.2 Review Process gives the City five days to respond, and stated that period of time could seem like forever when someone is grieving a death and wants to do something about it. He asked if staff would be able to tighten the time period up a bit. Steve Mullen said that in terms of proximity to the death, staff would move as quickly as they could. Some policies allow a memorial for up to two years after the fact. Tom Brubaker noted that the proposal had been put together by staff as an administrative policy which added the advantage of being very flexible in that it was something that could quickly be modified. Public Works Committee, 3/6/01 6 LID #351 Segregation — Assessment#162 Don Wickstrom said that a property owner involved in the 277`h Corridor Project had asked that his assessment be distributed over the property on the individual lots versus one chunk. Rico Yingling recommended Council adoption of a resolution authorizing the segregation of Assessment #162, LID #351 into five parcels. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary - CQNT COMMUNICATIONS k , i y 1 ��%,,,_+�' L ul�'qF � �• E :'{ y'' i`rk G�.��Y ri,dJ@�< � F � - jSd WR 5 i U WtIVE StSSIO if ry i d Y �k t il,rF�.r NA N I ry I ¢^y �F pp 9 Y v,s y°� I �r ;q- ar, ,s r r -F I� {