The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/02/2002 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda KEN T W A S H I N G T O N r Mayor Jim White Councilmembers Tim Clark, Council President Connie Epperly Bruce White Leona Orr Judy Woods Julie Peterson RicoYingling April 2, 2002 Office of the City Clerk SUMMARY AGENDA � � KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING V KEN- - April 2 , 2002 WA$.1.0 OH Council Chambers 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Tim Clark, President Connie Epperly Leona Orr Julie Peterson Judy Woods Bruce White Rico Yingling 1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Proclamation - Sexual Assault Awareness Week B. Government Finance Officer' s - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Award C Elan�r �Iar,�. Pra`��a�� Prep Jnan� � 5 . PUBLIC HI GS A. DeMarco Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan - First Hearing G . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Approval B. Bills - Approval C. SW Quadrant S . 260th Street/Pacific Highway South - Condemnation Ordinance D. Street Vacation, 48th Place South - Resolution Setting Hearing Date E . Sale of Surplus Public Works Equipment - Authorize F. Council Chambers Audio and Visual Equipment Purchase and Installation - Authorize G. Copier Contract - Authorize H. 2001 Traffic Striping Contract - Accept as Complete 7 . OTHER BUSINESS None 8 . BIDS None 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES Q I 11 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS fl - 84,vee-bonct I ►t SA-rP 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 a 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 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WELCOME, The Kent City Council meets on the first and third Tuesday of each month except December at 7.00 p m In December, the Kent City Council meets on the second Tuesday of the month at 7 00 p m The public is welcome and encouraged to participate in the meeting Meetings are televised on local cable television either live or tape delayed The following is a guide to insure that your participation is effective and timely 1 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2 ROLL CALL 3 CHANGES TO THE AGENDA: When the Mayor asks for changes to the agenda from the public, please give your name and address and the subject of your concem The Mayor,with the consent of the Council, will then determine whether or not this should be added to the agenda and if added, whether it should be added as an Other Business item (#7) or a Continued Communications item (#11), and will call upon you at the proper time. 4 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Presentations, proclamations, introductions, etc. 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS* When the Mayor asks for public comment, you should rise or raise your hand Upon being recognized, step to the lectern, give your name and address, and state the nature of your interest or concern Please speak into the microphone on the lectern All comments should be addressed to the chair(Mayor). 6 CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar is designed to expedite the business of the City Council These items have been previously discussed by the City Council and are considered so routine that passage is likely. All items listed are passed in a single motion An item on the Consent Calendar may be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately upon request of a Councilmember 7 OTHER BUSINESS. Other Business items may require discussion by the City Council prior to reaching a decision You may be given the opportunity to address the City Council on any item listed by following the same procedure as in Public Hearings If there is a great deal of public input on any dam, the City Council may elect to set a public hearing for a future date 8 BIDS This part of the agenda is for the approval and award of contracts for the purchase of equipment or construction projects, 9 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF This section is for reports from the Council President, Chair of the City Council Committees or City staff 10 REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES This section is for reports from special committees 11 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS- Items added to the agenda will be introduced at this time In order to better serve the public, please limit your comments to three minutes 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION. When necessary, the Council may recess to an Executive Session. These are closed sessions during which only certain subjects may be discussed, such as personnel matters, litigation concerns, and the sale or acquisition of property 13 ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Council Committees are composed of three Councilmembers The Committees meet regularly, and the Council is best able to address the concerns of constituents during these meetings Recommendations are then taken to the full Council, and action is taken at a City Council meeting. The five Council Committees are Operations, Parks, Planning, Public Safety and Public Works The Council• also holds a workshop prior to each Council meeting. If you would like a schedule of Council Committee meetings, please call the Council Secretary at (253)856-5712,the City Clerk's Office at (253)856-5725, or Administration at(253)856-5721. 4roo CHANGES TO THE 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 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) PROCLAMATION - SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS WEEK B) GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER' S - COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - AWARD Kent City Council Meeting Date April 2 , 2002 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: DEMARCO ANNEXATION ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FIRST HEARING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On March 11, 2002, the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on both the annexation zoning map amendments and the comprehensive plan land use map amendments for the DeMarco Annexation area. The Board' s recommendation is included in the City Council ' s packet . Tonight ' s meeting is the first of two public hearings to be held by the City Council pursuant to state law; the second hearing is scheduled for May 7, 2002 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo dated 3/26/02 and attached maps; Land Use and Planning Board minutes of 3/11/02 ; Staff report dated 2/13/02 ; and Revised Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (ENV-93-51) 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL 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. 5A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager WA9NINOTON Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 March 26, 2002 TO MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIM CLARK AND CITY COUNCIL MBERS FROM ;,-LARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER RE DEMARCO ANNEXATION#AZ-2001-1/#CPA-2001-1 (KIVA#2011034) INITIAL ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION DATE OF FIRST CITY COUNCIL HEARING APRIL 2, 2002 Attached is the Land Use&Planning Board's recommendation on initial zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use map amendments for the DeMarco Annexation area You may recall that the City Council repealed Ordinance No 3572 that previously had adopted zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use map designations Further pursuant to the November, 2001 Settlement Agreement with the Lotto and Toppano petitioners the City agreed to undertake a new review process to reconsider the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning for the DeMarco Annexation area The Land Use & Planning Board conducted a public hearing on these matters on March 11, 2002 At their public hearing, the Board received public testimony and was asked to consider six alternatives for the annexation area These alternatives are mapped and described in the staff report to the Board dated February 13, 2002, After considering the public testimony, staff report, and Revised Environmental Impact Statement Addendum, the Board is recommending zoning and comprehensive plan land use maps for Altemahve Five, as amended By City ordinance, the City Council must hold two hearings on the proposed zoning, which also includes consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map The first hearing is scheduled for April 2,2002, and the second hearing is scheduled for May 7, 2002 By State law, the hearings must be held at least 30 days apart Planning Services staff will be available at both hearings to further explain the recommended zoning and comprehensive plan land use map designations for the DeMarco Annexation area CA\pm Slpermit\Plm\ANNEXATIONS12001\2011034-2001-Icc5 DOC Attachments Maps of Board recommendation Minutes of 3/11/02 Board meeting Staff report dated 2/13/02 Revised Environmental Impact Statement Addendum#ENV-93-51 dated March 4, 2002 TIM In rpm d � F �• ,977 l l f1 ' �' i Ll Fl •I n MI „-' -- >t� p �l Ci,RSli iJf , , trii ip �1r1 1�11J'f, Mi �>wa Ir- 7111 I � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 WASHINGTON Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAA'D USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING March 11, 2002 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Terry Zimmerman at 7 00 p in on Monday,March 11, 2002 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Terry Zimmerman, Chair Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Mgr David Malik, Vice Chair Kim Adams-Pratt,Asst City Attorney Steve Dowell Leonard Olive, Dev Mgr,Public Works Engmeenng Nicole Fetcher Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary Ron Harmon Jon Johnson Les Thomas APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve the Minutes of February 11, 2002 with one correction to add Jon Johnson's name to the LUPB members present Motion CARRIED ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that an open house will be held at 7 30 a in , 11 30 a in and 6 00 p in. Thursday,March 21 on the Kent Station Project to invite public comment Ms. Anderson stated that the City of Bonney Lake will conduct a session on local planning Thursday, March 14 from 6 30-9 30 p in in Bonney Lake City Hall at no charge She stated that the agenda includes Conduct at Public Meetings, Liability, Role of the Planning Commission or Agency, and a Design Review Case Study Ms Anderson stated that there would be a Short Plat Committee meeting Thursday, March 14 at 1100 a in There will be a Planning Committee meeting March 19 at 3 00 p in to discuss the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update #AZ-2001-1/#CPA-2001-1 DEMARCO ANNEXATION ZONING Ms Anderson stated that this issue has returned to the Board for zoning and comprehensive plan amendment reconsideration as part of a settlement agreement Ms Anderson stated that the DeMarco Annexation area was affective July 1, 2001 and is located within an urban growth area She stated that the DeMarco site is located on Kent's East Hill between 116th and 132nd from 240th Street north to 231 st Place on the west and 233rd Street on the east Ms Anderson stated that staff brings six options before the Board for consideration She stated that the option City Council adopted last year via Ordinance was appealed December 2001 Ms Anderson stated that the Lotto/Toppano petitioners are proposing Alternative #6 She stated that staff is recommending Alternative#4, the same proposal they initially recommended last year Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2002 Page 2 of 13 Ms Anderson described Alternatives 1 through 6 • Alternative 1 proposes a comprehensive plan land use map designation of Neighborhood Services with a zoning designation of NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial for the Lotto/Toppano properties located at the northeast corner of 116th and 240th Ms Anderson stated that property to the East will be designated with a Low Density Multifamily land use designation with a MRT-16 zoning designation (Multifamily Residential Townhouse Distnct) on the 8 8 acre and 4 76 acre parcels lust east and northeast of this property Ms Anderson stated that the remainder of the area will be designated Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with zoning designations of SR-6 and SR-4 5 Ms Anderson stated that Alternative One matches pre-2000 King County zoning designations with the closest equivalent City of Kent zoning designations Ms Anderson stated that King County changed the zoning designation to recognize commercial for the Kent East Hill Nursery site in 2000 • Alternative 2 provides a Comprehensive Plan land use map designation of Low Density Multifamily for three properties located at the northeast comer of 116th and 240th and a zoning designation of MRT-16, Multifamily Townhouse zoning, 16 units per acre Ms Anderson stated that the remainder of the site would have a Comprehensive Plan land use map designation of Single Family Residential, (6) six units per acre and a zoning designation of SR-6, 6 05 Single Family Dwelling units per acre, and SR-4 5, 4 53 Single Family Dwelling units per acre • Alternative 3 provides a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of Neighborhood Services at the northeastern corner of 116th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street with a zoning designation of NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Ms Anderson stated that two adjacent properties to the east will be given a Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation of Low Density Multifamily,MRT-16(Multifamily Residential Townhouse Distnct) The remainder of the site would be SF-6/SR6, Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre • Alternative 4 is the option staff recommends This alternative provides a Comprehensive Plan land use map designation of Low Density Multifamily for the three properties at the northeast comer of I I6th and 240th with a zoning designation of MRT-16, and a Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use map designation of SF-6/SR6, Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre for the remainder of the properties • Alternative 5 provides for a comprehensive plan land use map designation of Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per acre for the entire site and a zoning designation of Single Family Residential, SR-6 or SR-4 5 Ms Anderson stated that this was the option adopted by City Council last year However,the ordinance was repealed and the process reopened • Alternative 6 is the option requested by the Lotto/Toppano property owners This alternative provides a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of Neighborhood Services at the northeast comer of 240th and 116th, extending to the western boundary of a wetlands stream/sensitive area to the east, with a zoning designation of NCC,Neighborhood Convenience Commercial The remainder of the Lotto/Toppano property would be given a land use map designation of Low Density Multifamily Residential and a zoning designation of MRT-12, Multifamily Residential Townhouse District, 12 dwelling units per acre The property immediately north of the NCC-designated area would be designated Open Space with zoning of SR-1 Ms Anderson stated that the remainder of the site would be given a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of SF-6, Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre, and a zoning map designation of SR-6 and SR-4 5 units per acre Ms Anderson stated that staff has proposed the use of a Neighborhood Services designation with Neighborhood Convenience Commercial in some of the options This designation incorporates the use of small scale, neighborhood onented shops adjacent to selected rights-of-way in high-density neighborhoods Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2002 Page 3 of 13 Ms Anderson stated that staff is not recommending a Neighborhood Services designation as there already is a commercial designation south of this area on the southeast corner of 240th and 116th Ms Anderson stated that the surrounding neighborhood is generally designated single family residential with from one to three dwelling units per acre to the southeast and southwest of the annexation She stated that staff recommends an MRT-16 zoning designation at the northeastern comer of the SE 240th/116th Avenue intersection under Alternative 4 Ms Anderson stated that this zoning designation would bolster the viability of the Neighborhood Services designation at the southeastern comer, promote additional home ownership opportunities, and promote a land use pattern that supports public transportation She stated that this designation would create a buffer from the impacts of the intersection on the lower density neighborhoods in the remainder of the annexation area Ms Anderson stated that an MRT-16 zoning designation on all three parcels would allow for a unified development proposal with better management of the sensitive areas on the site Ms Anderson stated Alternative 4 would allow an overall single family residential density of six units per acre, recognizing this as an urban growth area and supporting urban densities The SF-6/SR-6 comprehensive plan land use and zoning designations provide a means for developing at a somewhat higher level than is currently allowed Ms Anderson stated that staff recognizes that much of the area consists of larger lot subdivisions She stated that it is unlikely that these lots would be subdivided within the next ten-year timeframe, but by allowing for a designation of six dwelling units per acre, redevelopment could occur Ms Anderson stated that not creating another commercial designation at this intersection recognizes and supports the existing major commercial operations at the activity center intersections of 240th and 104th and 132nd Avenues Southeast Board member Dowell asked Charlene if the property to the east of the Lotto/Toppano property heading down hill- was declared open space by the County in their comprehensive plan In response to Board member Dowell, Ms Anderson stated that the County had property specific development standards and special district overlays for the property lying east of the Lotto/Toppano property Ms Anderson stated that one of the County's overlays relates to the retention of significant trees She stated that King County attached property specific development standards These standards designated the natural area on the Lotto/Toppano property as permanent open space and indicated that the open space shall not comprise less than 30%of the total sites Ms Anderson submitted the following Exhibits for the record • Exhibit#1 -Response letters from approximately 628 residents relating to the Lotto Property Zoning, supporting the NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial zoning for the northeast comer of the Lotto property with Multifamily Townhouse zoning for the remainder of the site • Exhibit #2 - Correspondence from Amy Kosterlitz with Buck and Gordon, Attorneys for Lotto/Toppano discussing the appropriate comp plan designation and zoning • Exhibit #3 - Correspondence from Russell Hanscome, Exe Dir of Arbor Village Retirement and Assisted Living, supporting the Neighborhood Convenience Commercial designation and the MRT Townhouse zoning • Exhibit #4 - Correspondence from Frederick Mendosa with Curran Mendosa Attorneys, supporting Neighborhood Convenience Commercial and Multifamily Townhouse zoning • Exhibit#5 - Correspondence from Mark Beacraft, does not support Mr Lotto's zoning request • Exhibit#6- Correspondence from Kathy Withem, supports Alternative#5 • Exhibit#7- Correspondence from Mr Donald Becker does not support Mr Lotto's zoning request • Exhibit #8 - Correspondence from Dr and Mrs James Dupree, requesting Commercial, Multifamily zoning of his property at 12126 Southeast 240th • Exhibit#9 - Correspondence from Stephen and Debora Mackey, supports Alternative #5 and opposes Commercial or Multifamily Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 4 of 13 • Exhibit #10 - Correspondence from Christine Hawkes-Lewis and Joseph Paolmo, Supports Alternative#5 • Exhibit#11 - Correspondence from Charles Adams supports Mr Lotto's zoning request Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to open the public hearing Motion Carried Chair Zimmerman declared the public hearing open Mike Lotto, 11644 SE 240th, Kent, WA stated that he has owned property for 25 years at the northeast comer of 116th and 240th, which includes a commercial nursery on eight acres Mr Lotto stated that the County gave this portion of his property a commercial zoning designation He stated that the balance of his property has been zoned Multifamily and MRT-16 for several years Mr Lotto stated that the City of Kent had told him that if they annexed their property to the City, they would be able to retain their existing zoning He stated that the Board formerly recommended Alternative #1, which supported the existing neighborhood commercial and multifamily zoning on his property Mr Lotto stated that his new proposal, Alternative #6 proposes a permanent two-acre open space buffer between the single-family residential developments and the commercial He stated that Alternative #6 offers a lower density townhouse zone, which allows for condominium development and not apartments Board members Malik and Thomas asked Mr Lotto if he had received correspondence from the City of Kent indicating that the City intended to preserve his current zoning Mr Lotto indicated that he was told it is the City's policy to take in property as it is already zoned through annexations, but that he did not have this in writing Amy Kosterlitz, 1011 Western Avenue#902, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that she works with the firm of Buck and Gordon and represents Mike Lotto Ms Kosterlitz reaffirmed the long time zoning and use of the Lotto Kent East Hill Nursery property and the surrounding property as the proper annexation zoning in Kent She stated that she supports the Board's prior recommendation of NCC and MRT Ms Kosterlitz stated that the new Alternative #6 incorporates additional protections for the neighbors She stated that the City of Kent has a sensitive areas ordinance with strong buffer requirements and that over seven acres of this site cannot be developed due to wetlands, streams and buffers Ms Kosterlitz stated that the Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily Townhouse zoning is the type of zoning envisioned by the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use and Transportation policies support denser nodes of development at arterial intersections, creating opportunities for a variety of housing and multi-model transportation, and opportunities for pedestrian friendly mixed-use developments Ms Kosterlitz stated that single family zoning at such an arterial is unrealistic due to the increase in traffic as a result of the commercial development, which is going to occur across the street Ms Kosterlitz stated that single family zoning would contravene most of these policies, including the City's policy of providing a variety of housing types in annexation areas such as this area Ms Kosterlitz stated that because of prior concerns voiced by the Board, her firm hired a traffic consultant who analyzed traffic impacts at this site and determined that the proposed type of project would not degrade the level of service at this intersection Ms Kosterlitz stated that she believes that the correct recommendation was made at the time this proposal was first presented to the Board and that this new proposal considers the sensitive area issues, Maggie Potter, 1011 Western Ave. #902, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that she actively interviewed neighbors who reside from Southeast 227th Street to Southeast 244th Street and from 112th Avenue Southeast to 124th Avenue Southeast She stated that she has explained Mr Lotto's proposal to them, obtaining their viewpoints Ms Potter stated that these interviews indicated that large majorities of Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 5 of 13 neighboring citizens support Mr Lotto's request to be able to use his property for commercial and multifamily zoning Ms Potter stated that these neighbors recognize the long-standing commercial use on the site and these people desire the availability of goods and services in their community She stated that these neighbors believe that the City of Kent should not down zone property after it is annexed into the City Ms Potter stated that she has been able to quell concerns that apartments might be developed in this area when she explains that MRT-12 Townhouse zoning allows for the construction of condominiums and not apartments Ms Potter stated that neighbors were pleased when told that acreage must be set aside as undeveloped so as to protect streams and wetlands, and to provide open space buffers between the commercial and residential sites Ms Potter stated that the City has received over 600 letters supporting Mr Lotto's zoning request and urged the Board to consider these submissions Sandra Mathews, 11828 SE 231st Place, Kent, WA questioned the justification in building new retail space since Kent's East Hill has many existing unoccupied spaces for rent She stated that she has contacted a number of property managers representing those available properties who have indicated that these spaces are unoccupied because supply is greater than the demand Ms Mathews stated that the best interests for the residents of our community is to retain a high quality of life which includes preserving the wildlife, wetlands and retaining this area's peaceful environment Ms Mathe\is cited increased traffic congestion and other safety issues, which could jeopardize the quality of life they now enjoy She stated that the residents in her community support Alternative #5 with SR-6 zoning Jean Lambert, 12451 SE 235th St., Kent, WA stated that she is one of the residents who initiated the DeMarco annexation process stating that a major factor for being annexed to Kent was the belief that the City would respond to input from its residents She stated that the support for Mr Lotto seems strong but indicated that the support letters are signed by residents from Issaquah, Renton,Normandy Park, Sumner, and Covington, to name a few, noting that there are several pages that indicate "occupant" support as the signatures are illegible Ms Lambert submitted over 125 support letters for the record, as Exhibit #12, some with multiple signatures of residents living within or adjacent to the DeMarco Annexation area, within Kent's boundaries Ms Lambert stated that there were many presentations made to the Land Use and Planning Board and the City Council She stated that these presentations covered documented concerns on increased traffic and safety issues, stress on the four overcrowded schools, preservation of wildlife and wetlands The City Council saw,in her belief, the wisdom to rezone this area for single family homes Ms Lambert asked the Board to consider supporting the decision the Council originally made in September 2001 to zone the entire area, as Single Family Residential, SR-6 which will signal Board support for the majority of the land owners within the DeMarco Annexation area Bill Moore, 12305 SE 237th Place, Kent, WA stated that he represents the Oakdale development He stated that his neighbors are concerned with the overcrowding that the four area schools are experiencing and which would be exacerbated by single family residential development Mr Moore stated that his community signed the DeMarco Annexation with the belief that the City would implement a comprehensive plan for development unlike what they were seeing in the County Mr Moore stated that it was the consensus of his community that they moved to this area to live in a rural setting and not in a commercial, over densely populated area Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 6 of 13 Tony Arnone, 15861 132nd Place SE, Renton, WA stated that he has lived on the East Hill in the Fairwood development for 67 years and supports Alternative #6 He stated that he believes this option provides additional commercial services in an area where commercial activity already exists, within walking distance from residential areas and does not increase traffic congestion Janet Hoffman, 24115 120th Avenue SE, Kent, WA stated that she resides across from the annexation area on 240ei Avenue She voiced support for Alternative #6 with commercial zoning on the comer so that services will be conveniently located close to residential areas within walking distance Doug Peterson, 25323 121st Place SE, Kent, WA stated that he has lived in the community I years, thirteen blocks south of the annexation area He stated that he represents the Martin Sortun Elementary School PTA as their Co-President He stated that as the elected representative of 158 parents and 37 teachers from Martin Sortun, this school would be directly impacted by the development of new homes Mr Peterson stated that Martin Sortun is already overcrowded, using portables, hallways and storage rooms to absorb the overflow Mr Peterson stated that any new elementary age children would move into Martin Sortun if their home were built in the DeMarco Annexation worsening an already critical overcrowding situation He stated that the PTA adamantly opposes multifamily development within the DeMarco Annexation boundaries and would prefer no further development at all Makenna Martin,23628 116th Avenue SE,Kent,WA stated that she is eleven years old and has heard a lot about the DeMarco Annexation She stated that if this property were zoned R-12, 14, 16 or 18, it would have a negative effect on the neighborhood kids Ms Martin stated that if the Board decides to place condominiums, town homes or apartments on this property, it would increase the already overcrowded conditions in the Martin Sortun Elementary School and eventually Meridian Junior High Ms Martin stated she lives on two acres next to the annexation area She stated that the Board needs to carefully consider their decisions Ms Martin stated that development of apartments, retail, commercial and multifamily could place her, her brother and many of the kids in the area in danger She stated that crime rates are three times higher in these types of developments than in single family residential areas Ms Martin stated that she sees the beautiful wetlands from her home along with the pheasants, the red tailed hawks, ducks, geese and other wildlife She stated that she does not want the wetlands to be destroyed Ms Martin stated that she is in attendance to inform everybody how much all of them care for this area Lena Teter, 23607 120th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she owns 4 75 acres of property zoned R-6,located adjacent to the MRT portion of the Lotto property She voiced support for Alternative #6 stating that Mr. Lotto should be able to retain his original zoning, obtained legally according to the Growth Management Act and as she understands it, is in compliance with the Kent Comprehensive Plan Ms Teter addressed the concern which implied that Mr Lotto should not have commercial zoning due to a high rate of existing commercial vacancies in the area She stated that she and her husband had owned commercial and multifamily property in this area for over 30 years and she still owns two professional buildings in Kent Ms Teter stated that many factors govern vacancies, it can be the building, location, management or pricing,but mostly vacancies are based on an economic business cycle Ms Teter stated that the demand for space could turn around in a short time She stated that as the econorhy turns around, the demand for space would turn around Ms Teter stated that to base zoning on temporary conditions is shortsighted Ms Teter voiced her concern with what single family residential development would do to impact schools, stating that it would be reasonable to develop condominiums to attract retired and single people Ms Teter stated that her property forms the northern boundary (236th on the north and 120th on the east) of what would be the MRT-12 section Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2002 Page 7 of 13 Kim Scott, 11623 SE 231st Place, Kent, WA stated that she supports SR-6 zoning and voiced her concern with school overcrowding and the increase in crime, citing that her husband's car parked off 248ei at a park and nde lot, near an apartment complex, was broken into lust that morning Ms Scott stated that an increase in construction would destroy the rural areas David Swanson, 27228 120th Ave. SE, Kent, WA stated that he grew up within the DeMarco Annexation area at 11824 SE 236e1 and has lived in Kent with his family his entire life Mr Swanson stated that two years ago it was his understanding that King County granted his neighbor Mr Lotto, permission for a legal yet nonconforming business on his property Mr Swanson stated that he has observed a decline in the wetlands over time, as ponds and ditches have been drained and wetland plants mowed down by tractors Mr Swanson applauded the young lady who spoke about preserving the animal habitat and the wetlands He stated that the wetlands and animals that inhabit those wetlands should be studied more Mr Swanson voiced his desire to have these wetlands incorporated as part of the Clark Lake Park and left undeveloped Mr Swanson voiced concern with school overcrowding, urging the Board to consider the quality of life for this community when considering this issue Julie Reece-DeMarco, 13004 SE 234th St., Kent, WA stated that she grew up in the DeMarco Annexation area She stated that over 150 people within her community petitioned the County in August 2000 The petition was generated in an attempt to bring serious traffic and pedestrian safety issues to the County's attention, as it relates to the inadequacy and unacceptability of the residential roads for handling traffic impacts Ms De-Marco submitted this petition for the record as Exhibit# 13 Ms DeMarco stated that she supports SR-6 Ms DeMarco spoke at length on serious traffic and pedestrian safety issues as well as school overcrowding concerns She cited the numerous commercial business vacancies that Kent East Hill is currently experiencing and has experienced over the last 30 years Kathy Withem, 12346 SE 236th Place,Kent,WA stated that she supports Alternative#5, Single Family Residential, urging the Board to return a recommendation to the Council, supporting Council's earlier decision,which recognized the desires of the home owners living in the impacted area Ms Withem stated that what Mr Lotto would like to do with his property is no longer feasible She stated that she has not heard any plan that would mitigate school or traffic impact concerns if commercial and multifamily development occurs Dan Withem, 12346 SE 236th Place, Kent, WA stated that he supports Alternative #5 which appears compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, although at six units per acre, this alternative would still stress the junior high school and the grade schools in the area Mr Withem stated that he enjoys the wildlife in the area He stated that numerous commercial retail businesses currently exist east on 240th east to 132nd Avenue Southeast Mr Withem cited some of these businesses as QFC, Rolands Cleaners, Martm Pharmacy, Edwards Jones Investment, Blockbusters, Meridian Eye Clinic, 76 Mini-Mart/Gas Station, 7-11 Mini-Mart/Gas Station, Kent East Hill Physical Therapy, Papa Johns, Prudential Insurance, Hair Masters, Dance Academy, Tenyaki Restaurants, Kim Marshall Arts,Jay's Tanning Mr Withem stated that west of 116th on 240th at 108th,just a few of the businesses which exist are 7-11 Mini-Mart/Gas Station, Asian Choice Restaurant, York Pizza, Firestone Tire Store, Benson Veterinary Clinic, Mail Boxes of Kent, We Care Cleaners, Best Laundromat, McDonalds/Chevron Mini-Mart-Gas Station, Mud Bay Gramery Pet Stores, Marshall Art Studios, Check Cashing Stores and at 104th we have Fred Meyers, Schucks Auto, Texaco Mini-Mart/Gas Station, 76 Circle K/Gas Station, Rite Aid, Washington Federal Savings, US Bank, Golden Steer Restaurant, SoHo Teriyaki, Jack in the Box, Hollywood Video, A&H Hallmark card stores, Booksale World, Valley Harvest Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 8 of 13 Debora Mackey, 12334 SE 236th Place, Kent, WA stated that she has lived in this area over 11 years and appreciates the rural feel of the area She stated that she has one child in elementary, one in Meridian Junior High and one at Kentwood and has seen the overcrowding in the schools She stated that she would like to see the wetlands preserved Ms Mackey stated that she supports the recommendation to retain SR-6 zoning Ted Nixon, 911 E. Temperance St., Kent, WA stated that he has practiced architecture for 27 years in Kent He stated that Kent has created an agreement with adjoining cities, governments and Kent's citizens to protect Kent's rural areas although Kent officially is not designated as a rural area Mr Nixon stated that this agreement is encapsulated in the Comprehensive Plan and believes that the City should adopt NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial and MRT-12 zoning, which would allow for a variety of residential housing in the surrounding annexation area Mr Nixon stated that the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan states that every resident, where practical, should be able to walk to shopping. He stated that according to the Sierra Club's growth management analysis, the walking distance should be no more than half a mile He stated that the distance between 104th and 132nd is two miles Mr Nixon stated that for most goods and services, the City is now forcing people to travel onto 240th and down to 104th which currently experiences traffic congestion problems Mr Nixon stated that 116th and 240th is recognized as a major intersection and the Comprehensive Plan specifies that NCC zoning should be established at these major intersections. Mr Nixon stated that this intersection is served by bus and is a logical location for this type of zoning as 116th connects directly to the 277th Corridor and 240th is a four lane road Mr Nixon stated that based on the City's Comprehensive Plan concerning the protection of wetlands and sensitive areas,it indicates that MRT zoning should be used to provide cluster types of development Mr. Nixon stated that to protect this neighborhood, the owner has indicated that he will provide open space Mr Nixon urged the Board to recommend supporting open space zoning for the Lotto portion of the DeMarco Annexation area Mr Nixon stated that Kents MRT-12 zoning only allows condominiums He stated that in looking at development, development densities, setbacks, and parking requirements need to be considered which could restrict a residential townhouse development to no more than 36 residential units Mr Nixon stated that if this property were zoned SR-6, over 100 single family residences could be developed which would have a much greater impact on the local schools and services In response to Mr Thomas, Mr Nixon stated that to his knowledge the City plans to build a skate board park on the southwest corner of 240th David Markley, 16310 NE 80th St., Redmond, WA 98052-3861 stated that he works for Transportation Solutions Incorporated, a firm specializing in short range transportation planning, traffic operations and analysis He stated that he performs studies, including neighborhood subarea plans, comprehensive plans and analysis of impacts on private development Mr. Markley stated that based on experience, his firm believes that they have an understanding of the relationships needed to consider appropriate zoning He stated that only zoning and not development is under consideration at this time, therefore, the details of impacts will be assessed during a thorough review under SEPA Mr Markley stated that he prepared a conceptual analysis to look at the impacts of additional traffic as it relates to various zoning considerations for the DeMarco site He stated that the analysis indicated that a commercial development would generate more traffic than a single-family development Mr Markley stated that in evaluating traffic patterns both in the immediate area, as well as area wide,the inter-relationships of origins and destinations of trips must be considered Mr Markley stated that traffic studies for the intersection at 116th and 240th indicated that this intersection functions at a Level C.based on highest levels of service measured from A down to F Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 9 of 13 Mr Markley indicated that if Mr Lotto's zoning proposal Alternative #6 were approved, the level of service in this area would remain at C He stated that in evaluating Benson Road and 240th he found it to be operating at a low level of service of E to F Mr Markley indicated that the level of service would deteriorate further if Mr Lotto's zoning proposal were not approved Mr Malik voiced concern over increasing traffic congestion in the morning and evenings near the schools and as a result of potential commercial development on Mr Lotto's corner property Mr Markley stated that by consolidating commercial within the neighborhood, it allows for diverted link trips, serving to reduce traffic congestion at other intersections, as this type of development intercepts traffic that would otherwise have to travel down through heavily congested areas for goods and services Mr Markley stated that vehicle delays at the intersection of 116th and 240th will increase from only 25 to 27 seconds if Mr Lotto's rezone is approved as compared to Benson Road which currently operates at about an 80 second average vehicle delay He stated that if this rezone does not gain approval, the average vehicle delay on Benson Road could increase to 90 seconds M.F. Johnson, 12229 SE 234th St., Kent, WA stated that his family has lived in Kent since 1967 and voiced his support for SR-6 zoning He stated that the quality of life is good and he would like to see it remain that way Karen Merle, 23515 128th CT. SE, Kent, WA stated that she supports Alternative #5, as there is no other alternative that would provide less density and designate the entire annexation area as single family residential, six dwelling units per acre Ms Merle stated that she recommends this alternative as she believes the DeMarco Annexation area is mostly a single family housing community She stated that such a community is in the best interest of preserving the quality of life, schools and transportation infrastructure within and around the area Ms Merle read a letter submitted by her husband who was unable to attend Mr Merle's letter summanzed the reasons he supports Alternative #5 and recommends that an alternative be considered for even lower housing densities then Alternative #5 provide, as many homes in this area are on larger parcels of land Mr Merle's letter indicated that he is not in favor of any type of commercial business activity on any of the comers of 116th Avenue Southeast and 240th Street Carol Fuchs, 12125 SE 236th St., Kent, WA stated that she lives four houses up from 120th and the wetland area She stated that she believes that Mr Lotto's business has not had a detrimental effect on the wetlands and he has been a good neighbor Ms Fuchs stated that the type of development occurring in this area could create negative impacts on the wetlands and its wildlife Ms Fuchs stated that she would like the junior high to be involved in learning about and maintaining the wetlands She voiced her concern over the potential of higher density impacts to the schools if residential development occurs Rodney Bishop, 24314 135ih Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he has lived close to the Lotto property for 42 years and has watched the area change dramatically He,stated that he has done business with Mr Lotto and is delighted with having a neighborhood commercial operation close to his home Mr Bishop stated that it was his understanding that when the City of Kent incorporates an annexation that they retain the zoning on that land as it exists at the time the annexation occurs Mr Bishop stated that he believed the Board originally favored Alternative #1, which made good sense at that time Mr Bishop stated that Mr Lotto has changed his zoning request in order to accommodate the wishes of the general community Mr Bishop stated that he believes that neighborhood commercial services are needed at the intersection, voicing support for entry level housing such as MRT-12, Multifamily Residential Townhouse Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 10 of 13 Tom Bankord, 23702 116" Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031 stated that his property is adjacent to and on the northwest comer of the property proposed for rezoning by the owners of Kent East Hill Nursery He stated that at the time he purchased his property in 1986, he inquired about proposed changes to commercial uses in the surrounding area and none was brought to his attention at that time He was informed two months after beginning escrow proceedings that Mr Lotto intended to build a commercial nursery on 2 5 acres Mr Bankord stated that the nursery property has adversely affected his property the most He stated that the nursery property has been filled considerably and slopes towards his property, creating a drainage problem Mr Bankord stated that noise is generated from vehicles and equipment on the business site during the day and sometimes during the evening He stated that if any type of commercial business were developed on that comer, traffic would increase dramatically Mr Bankord voiced support for SR-4 5 zoning Martin Durkin Jr., 22401 Sweeney Road, Maple Valley, WA stated that he has been a land use consultant for twenty years, having worked on the 277'"Corridor and the Justice Center He stated that today, the 277'h Corridor serves as a fundamental part of Kent's transportation system,used by thousands of individuals daily He stated that the Kent Justice Center has been a magnet to attract business to the Kent downtown area Mr Durkin stated that Mr Lotto's property was zoned R-18 in King County and if King County had been aware that Kent intended to down zone this property to R-6,King County would not have allowed Kent to annex this property Mr Durkin stated that Mr Lotto has run a commercial business at this location for twenty years with a commercial zoning designation obtained from the County in 2000 Mr Durkin stated that if Mr Lotto's property were down zoned, it would become a nonconforming use and banks do not give loans for nonconforming uses, which could be a determent to Mr Lotto if he wished to repair or expand his business Mr Durkin stated that he favos Alternative #6 and would like to see a balance of residential and commercial zoning to allow Mr Lotto to continue his operations Mr Durkin stated that residential properties do not pay for themselves, but that commercial property will help pay for schools Mr Durkin urged the Board to deliberate in a fair manner In response to Mr Thomas, Mr Durkin stated that he believes the City of Kent had posted a general comment letter on their web site The comment indicates that the City of Kent will assign the closest possible zoning from what a property owner had at the time of annexation Darlene Jevne, 23636 120'" SE, Kent, WA stated that she owns five acres on 120th with wetlands and a pond across from Mike Lotto She stated that she supports SR-6 or lower and does not support commercial Ms Jevne said that in the 35 years she has lived in Kent, City Council has chosen to change zoning,which has taken away all the agricultural land David Malik MOVED and Nicole Fetcher SECONDED to close the Public Hearing Motion CARRIED. Leonard Olive, Development Manager, with Kent, Public Works Engineering stated that a commonly used method to measure how intersections are functioning is through "A through F" levels of service grading system Mr Olive concurred with Mr Markley that the level of service is rated "C" at the intersection of 116th and 240th Mr, Olive stated that the City measures traffic flow based on p in peak hours and not on daily trips. He stated that the nature of the business is important in evaluating what traffic patterns may occur Mr Olive addressed concerns at length from the Board regarding impacts to the schools with the increase in vehicular travel near the schools and how a commercial development on the comer of 140 and 116" could impact traffic Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 11 of 13 Board member Fmcher asked how rezoning the entire area for single family residential, six units per acre could impact traffic, with the potential of additional 100 new homes in the area Mr Olive stated that the nursery site currently generates about 60 p m peak hour trips and if the entire acreage were developed with single family, the p in peak hour trips could double to approximately 114 Mr Olive stated that if the City combines NCC zoning on the corner with MRT-16 to the east, this could potentially generate 320 to 760 vehicular trips Mr Olive emphasized that he could not hypothesize unless he knows the nature of the business and its propensity to generate a new trip on the system rather then utilize one that is going by there anyway Mr Olive stated that MR-12 zoning could potentially generate 152 trips and MRT-16 could generate approximately 176 trips Mr Olive stated that the City's current model estimates that 2600 cars enter that intersection from all four directions during our p m peak hour Ms Anderson referred to the Zoning Code in listing types of businesses allowed in the NCC zone In response to the Board members, Asst City Attorney Ms Adams Pratt stated that she does not find documentation that states zoning will remain the same She stated that she found the DeMarco Annexation Notice of Intention which reiterates the history of how this annexation came to the City and what the King County Comprehensive and Ordinances have implemented for this area Ms Pratt stated that this report refers to the zoning designation given to Lotto in 2000 In response to Ms Zimmerman, Ms Anderson stated that she has not heard of the City informing individuals interested in annexation that the City will guarantee that their current zoning would remain the same She stated that the City has been asked by those interested in annexation if the City could guarantee a specific zoning, and the City's response has been "no" Ms Adams-Pratt stated that the closest documented quote she found that speaks about the Lotto zoning designates them Commercial Outside of Centers with a zoning designation of Neighborhood Business and states that this site might develop into a more active commercial use Mr Dowell said that the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan states that the GMA requires that the comprehensive plans of neighboring jurisdictions are coordinated and consistent with the comprehensive plans adopted by King County He stated that in this case, it seemed like zoning was effected before the annexation area was adopted as part of the City of Kent Ms Anderson stated that the City may have started the zoning process but it would not take affect until after the annexation was effective Mr Dowell stated that if the City ratified the County's zoning in that area and if the City is supposed to maintain consistent zoning with the County and outside jurisdictions, the City needs to consider the commercial designation that the County gave to the Lotto property Ms Anderson stated that Kent coordinates with neighboring jurisdictions including King County when we consider our zoning designations and what impacts these designations may have on neighboring jurisdictions She stated that she believes that the City is not required to agree with what zoning might have been in place in King County Ms Anderson stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan does not ratify the County's zoning She stated that the City agreed to retain the County's comprehensive plan designation within the potential annexation areas Ms Zimmerman stated that the Lotto's are proposing to leave a piece of their land as open space with a zoning of SR-1 asking if this would be considered a contract rezone that the Lotto's would be held to Ms Zimmerman questioned if there is permanency in an open space Ms Anderson stated that the City does not require the Lotto's to donate their land to the City and the most compatible zoning the City has to Open Space is SR-1 Staff is not proposing a contract zoning Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 12 of 13 Mr Dowell stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) shall be located in areas designated for neighborhood services He stated that the Lotto's corner site should be limited to 2 acres of NCC zoned property with the remainder of the DeMarco property zoned as Single Family Residential, 4 5 up to 6 5 units per acre and not consider a MRT designation Mr Dowell suggested this option as Alternative#7 Mr. Harmon stated that he is concerned that Neighborhood Commercial would increase traffic Mr Harmon pointed out that although he appreciates the list of names supporting the applicant, approximately half of those people do not live in Kent Mr Harmon stated that he supports Option #7, designating 2 acres of Commercial for the comer property with a SF-6 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning designation for the rest of the area Mr Johnson said that he supports single family development in the area stating that he sees no reason to change the Board's prior recommendation to the Council as it recognized a NCC zone, which provides needed services to the neighborhood Mr Johnson stated that based on three proposed subdivisions, with the potential to increase impacts to schools, traffic and the intersection, he believes that NCC development is a valid recommendation for the comer property Mr. Johnson stated that he supports Alternative#6 with NCC, MRT-12 and SF-4 5 in order to maintain a lower density zoning which reflects the characteristic of existing development in that area Mr Johnson stated that he likes the open space proposal as it provides a buffer to the residences north of the site Ms Fmcher stated that the Board's decision needs to be based on the City's Comprehensive Plan and that SF-6 zoning seems to oppose that plan She stated that she would support either Alternative #6 or #7 Ms Fincher stated that she likes the concept of NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial, but would restrict the size of the NCC zone She stated that she favors a SR-4 5 zoning Mr Thomas stated that he favors Alternative 6 or 7. He stated that he sees only the corner section of the Lotto property as a viable development for NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial use, although he would not restrict that property to two acres Mr Thomas voiced concern that the City could face either ethical or legal obligations to retain the same zone as King County had, based on zoning implications to the Lotto's and other property owners in the DeMarco annexation area Mr Thomas assured Ms Martin that the wetlands would be preserved, and he envisioned a green section with walking trail, perhaps a bridge across a section of the wetlands with the potential to develop the wetlands area into a beautiful park like setting along with the open space Ms Zimmerman stated that that she supports the Board's former recommendation of Alternative 4 Steve Dowell MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to recommend Alternative #7 which designates the entire annexation area as SF, Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and SR, Single Family Residential, SR-6 or SR-4 S on the Zoning Map and with a two acre parcel in the southwest corner of 116th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 240th Street designated with NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial zoning Ms Anderson questioned if the Board's motion included a Neighborhood Services Comprehensive Plan Designation to support the NCC zoning designation, asking if this parcel would consist of two acres and how it would be configured at the intersection Mr Olive discussed several scenarios with the Board on how the Lotto's property could be configured at the corner of the intersection at 116" and 240" Chair Zimmerman stated that the Board's recommendation has not been studied or proposed, therefore she cannot support the Motion before them Ms Zimmerman asked Ms Pratt if the Board has a legal right to recommend a down zone Ms Pratt said that the City Code states that if the City Council believes that the comprehensive plan land use Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 11,2002 Page 13 of 13 designation in that area is not current, then the Planning Manager can apply to the Land Use and Planning Board to look at the designation Ms Adams-Pratt stated that under Kent's Zoning Code, the City saw that they were not current with the comprehensive plan land use designation that was established for the DeMarco area at the time of annexation She stated that the City is endeavoring to respond to the situation now Ms Zimmerman stated that we have a motion before us for Alternative #7 which designates the entire annexation area as SF, six dwelling units per acre on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and SR, SR-6 or SR-4 5 on the zoning map with a 2 acre as yet undefined area in the southwest corner designated as MCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Ms Zimmerman called for the vote Motion DEFEATED with 3 voting in favor and 4 opposed Ron Harmon MOVED to recommend Alternative #5 designating the entire annexation area as SF, Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and SR, Single Family Residential, SR-6 or SR-4 5 for the zoning map Motion FAILED far lack of a second Les Thomas MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to recommend Alternative #6 allowing MRT-12, Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 12 units per acre zoning with NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial zoning for 11 acres of the area to include a buffer area with a SR-I, Single Family Residential, one unit per acre zone Motion DEFEATED with 2 voting in favor and 5 opposed David Malik MOVED and Les Thomas SECONDED to recommend Alternative #5 designating SR-6, Single Family Residential, six units per acre for both the comprehensive plan designation and zoning designation on the balance of the property, and designating a two acre square parcel at the corner of Ile and 240`h with NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial zoning and NS, Neighborhood Services for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map MOTION CARRIED with 4 voting in favor, and 3 opposed Chair Zimmerman announced that the City Council would hold future public hearing meetings on this issue and the public will be notified Ms Anderson stated that if approved on March 19 by City Council, hearings will be held before the City Council for the zoning and comp plan designations on April 2 and May 7, 2002 ADJOURNMENT Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 10 45 p in Resp tfully Submitted, �J Charrene_n&rson, AI PC , Planning Manager Secretary \\EARTH_FS\SDATA\Pe=it\Plan\LUPB\2002Winutes\020311 min doe COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 February 13, 2002 TO TERRY ZIMMERMAN, CHAIR AND LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP,PLANNING MANAGER RE: DEMARCO ANNEXATION#AZ-2001-1 (KIVA#2011034) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING ON MARCH 11, 2002 Introduction The DeMarco annexation was effective on July 1, 2001 On September 18, 2001, the Kent City Council passed Ordinance No 3572 that established the comprehensive plan designation of Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre (SF6), and zoning designations of Single Family Residential, either 6.05 or 4.53 units per acre, for the entire annexation area A lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court and a petition was filed before the Growth Management Hearings Board challenging the comprehensive plan and zoning designations that had been adopted under Ordinance No. 3572 The litigation alleged, among other things, that there were deficiencies in the process used by the City in adopting the comprehensive plan and zoning designations. Upon consideration of the process deficiency allegations, the City Council adopted a motion in which it stated its intention to reconsider the zoning for the annexation area. On December 11, 2001, the City Council repealed Ordinance No 3572 and the zoning reverted to an interim zoning designation and the City of Kent's pre-annexation comprehensive plan designations,pending the reconsideration. The DeMarco annexation area encompasses approximately 266 6 acres (42 square miles) and is home to an estimated 770 people The area is located on the East Hill of Kent, from 1161h Avenue SE to SE 132nd Street and from SE 240`h Street north to approximately SE 231s'Place on the west and SE 233`d Street, if extended, on the east The annexation area is within the Urban Growth Area and Potential Annexation Area boundaries that were defined and established by the City of Kent according to the Washington State Growth Management Act When the Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995, land uses for the Potential Annexation Area generally were based on King County's adopted land use plan in order to ensure consistency between the City's and County's Comprehensive Plans However, in late 2000, King County amended their Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to adopt land use map and zoning designations of Commercial Outside of Centers and Neighborhood Business, respectively, for an eight-acre parcel at the northeastern comer of the intersection of 116'h Avenue SE and SE 240`h Street Furthermore, as each annexation is approved by the City of Kent, the annexation area is analyzed in greater detail through a public process in order to refine land use designations, zoning, and policies under the context of the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide land use and capital improvement decisions Establishing City of Kent zoning districts for the annexation area is a Comprehensive Plan implementation action The Comprehensive Plan amendment and initial zoning designation will be reviewed concurrently because they must be consistent with one another, according to RCW 36.70A.120 Background The King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map generally designates the area as Urban Residential 4-12 units per acre, with the property at the northeastern comer of the intersection of SE 240'h Street and 1160' Avenue SE recently designated Commercial Outside of Centers, and the two properties just adjacent to the east and northeast of that property designated Urban Residential 12+ units per acre. The corresponding King County zoning designations are R-6 Residential (6 dwelling units per acre) along 110h Avenue SE and along SE 240'h Street, with Neighborhood Business and R-18 Residential (18 dwelling units per acre) at the northeast comer of the intersection of 116`h Avenue SE and SE 240" Street The zoning designation changes to R-4 Residential (4 dwelling units per acre), in an irregular pattern generally east of 120'h Avenue SE and north of SE 237`h Place, if extended, excluding approximately 3 unplatted parcels at that southern boundary. There also is R-4 zoning west of and abutting 120'h Avenue SE from about SE 236`h Street north to approximately SE 232"d Street, if extended Residential districts in the City of Kent are designated separately as single family or multifamily However, King County residential zoning is inclusive of detached single family, attached and "stacked"multifamily dwelling units. The P and SO suffixes attached to designations such as R- 4-P-SO on the King County Zoning Maps provide for property-specific (P) development standards and special distract overlays (SO). There is a special district overlay that covers all of the properties within the DeMarco annexation area. This overlay, Condition SO-220, relates to retention of significant trees The three larger parcels at the northeastern comer of the intersection of 116'h Avenue SE and SE 240`h Street also have had property-specific development standards attached to them by King County (further explained in the Environmental Characteristics section, below). The existing land use pattern in the DeMarco annexation area is primarily single family residential with densities ranging from townhomes to one-acre lots and larger unplatted parcels. Meridian Junior High School is located within the area. Kent East Hill Nursery is located at the northeastern comer of the intersection of SE 240'h Street and 116`h Avenue SE There are two large churches and a church hall also located in the area The Pinendge 27-lot subdivision (on 4.76 acres) has been approved recently and is located north of SE 234`h Street, approximately 600 feet east of 116`h Avenue SE. The23-lot preliminary approved plat of Birdsong Meadows is located to the northwest of the Pmendge Subdivision. Planning staff also received recently a request for civil construction drawing approval for the Chelmsford 32-lot subdivision (on 7.42 acres) at 116`h Avenue SE and SE 234 Street The land use pattern has been developed and supported through King County's Soos Creek Community Plan and the King County Comprehensive Plan. Land Use and Planning Board Hearmg March 11,2002 Page 2 of 5 Using King County zoning designations, looking at vacant vs underdeveloped properties, discounting for sensitive areas, public rights of way, and market availability, and estimatmg likelihood of development considering date of most recent platting activity, age of existing residence, and surrounding plat activity, staff projects 471 additional dwelling units in the proposed annexation area within the next 10 years. Environmental Characteristics The DeMarco annexation area is located on Kent's East Hill (aka, Soos Creek) plateau and can be characterized generally as rolling terrain. The Middle Fork of Garrison Creek, North Meridian Valley Creek, and a Clark Lake Outlet all run through the area The 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan Update identifies wetlands near the Middle Fork of Garrison Creek at the northeastern comer of the intersection of 116`h Avenue SE and SE 240`h Street King County attached the following P-suffix condition to the three parcels at this location: "The natural drainage area on the Lotto/Toppano property shall be designated as permanent open space. This area shall not comprise less than 30% of the total sites " Upon annexation, the City of Kent regulations for the protection of sensitive areas, preservation of agricultural or other resource lands, preservation of landmarks or landmark districts and surface water control will become effective for the proposed annexation area The City of Kent environmental regulations will equal or exceed King County regulations. Kent has adopted the Soos Creek Basin overlay restrictions for stream buffers and is dedicated to protecting wetlands, associated buffers, and geologically unstable areas The City currently is reviewing critical area regulations as required by GMA to ensure best available science is used, and the City is expected to adopt the King County Stormwater Manual in the near future Public Participation—Community Meeting There were two meetings held in June and August, 2000 in the DeMarco annexation area prior to the submission of a 10 percent petition to the City of Kent. Citizens expressed concerns about a proposed condominium development and concerns regarding safety and traffic. The annexation proponents also held a community meeting on January 24, 2001. City staff members were present at the January 24`h meeting to address fire and police protection, traffic and stormwater issues, zoning and land use, and general City administration, including financing The citizen attendees generally expressed support of single family detached dwelling units within the annexation area Land Use Alternatives Staff is bringing forward six zoning and land use alternatives for the annexation area Analysis of the alternatives includes the following factors: 1 Relevant Kent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and land use recommendations for land within and adjacent to the DeMarco area 2 Preliminary housing target analysis. 3 Existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations and policies. 4 Information received from the public at the community meeting 5 Available data regarding natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. The Land Use and Planning Board and Kent City Council will hold public hearings to establish initial zoning and to amend the Kent Comprehensive Plan, if required Land Use and Planning Board Heanng March 11,2002 Page 3 of 5 • Alternative One would match the existing King County zoning designations with the closest equivalent City of Kent zoning designations In the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Update (Map Amendment #19), King County changed the land use and zoning designations for the 8-acre site located at the northeast comer of the intersection of SE 240`h Street and 116`h Avenue SE The Land Use designation went from Urban Residential High to Commercial Outside of Centers, with a zoning change from R-18 (18 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Business Alternative One proposes a land use designation of Neighborhood Services and zoning of NCC,Neighborhood Convenience Commercial for this property,with a Low Density Multifamily land use designation and MRT-16 zoning designation (Multifamily Residential Townhouse District) on the 8.8 acre and 4.76 acre parcels just east and northeast of this property. To the north and east would be areas designated Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre, on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with zoning designations of SR-6 and SR-4 5. • Alternative Two differs from Alternative One in that it would remove the comer commercial designation and designate it MRT-16 along with the adjacent parcels just east and northeast of the comer parcel The remainder of the annexation area would be designated Single Family Residential, either 4 53 or 6 05 dwelling units per acre • Alternative Three maintains the commercial and townhouse designations at the northeastern comer of 116`h Avenue SE and SE 2401h Street but designates the remainder of the annexation area as Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre, on the comprehensive plan land use map and SR-6 on the zoning map • Alternative Four designates the three properties at the northeastern comer of the SE 240th/116th Avenue intersection as MRT-16, with the remainder of the annexation area designated as Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre, on the comprehensive plan land use map and SR-6 on the zoning map • Alternative Five designates the entire annexation area as Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre, on the comprehensive plan land use map and Single Family Residential SR-6 or SR-4 5 on the zoning map. • Alternative Six amends Alternative Five for four properties at the northeastern comer of the intersection of SE 240`h Street and 116`h Avenue SE. This alternative designates the 8-acre site at the intersection and adjacent property to the east up to the westerly boundary of the stream, wetland and buffer as Neighborhood Services, with zoning of NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial. The stream, wetland and buffer areas on the remainder of the 8.8 acre parcel, as well as the 4.76 acre parcel adjacent to the north, would have a land use designation of Low Density Multifamily Residential, with zoning of MRT-12 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse District — 12 dwelling units per acre). The property unmediately north of the NCC-designated area would be designated Open Space, with zoning of SR-1. Recommendation Planning staff is recommending approval of Alternative Four The Kent Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-13 5 supports " .."comer store", small-scale, neighborhood-onented shops adjacent to selected rights-of-way in higher-density neighborhoods ." and further states, "Ensure that projects are pedestrian-onented and developed with minimum parking provisions " However, designating additional commercial parcels other than the existing commercial property at the Land Use and Planning Board Heanng March 11, 2002 Page 4 of 5 southeastern corner of this intersection would create additional land use pressure to further erode the residential character of this area, and could jeopardize the policy for "comer store" retail The surrounding neighborhood generally is single family residential, mcluduig low densities of one or three dwelling units per acre to the southeast and southwest of the annexation A zoning designation of MRT-16 at the northeastern comer would bolster the viability of the neighborhood business designation at the southeastern comer, would promote additional homeownership opportunities, would promote a land use pattern that supports public transportation, and also would create a buffer from the impacts of the intersection on the lower density neighborhoods to the north and east It also encourages developing the three parcels designated NMT-16 as a unified development proposal with better management of the sensitive areas on the sites. Allowing an overall single family residential density of six (6) units per acre recognizes the area lies within an Urban Growth Area and provides a means for developing at a somewhat higher level than currently is allowed At the same time, staff recognizes that much of the area currently is designed as larger lot subdivisions, and it is unlikely they will be further subdivided within a 10-year time frame. Providing for a slightly increased density facilitates and anticipates growth in a shorter time frame on those parcels not currently subdivided but that he within Kent's designated Urban Growth Area. Not creating another commercial designation at this intersection reconizes and supports the existing major commercial operations at the intersection of SE 240` Street with 104`h and 132d Avenues SE. CA/pm\\EARTH FS%SDATA\Perm" [=\ANNEXAnONS\2002\20110342001-1b DOC Enclosures: 12 Maps • Land Use and Planning Board Heanng March 11,2002 Page 5 of 5 O 4�4 O .}� r c J ra o N C? (� p o w O N U) X Ccm D v K z v a`9+ (1) N � m w c x CN _ Y � 3 a `° 9 ai N a 0 tle C N C C � ter, , � � � 0. Ct r I H \' r.ti • K' b J a LI � . J • t t� ♦ Si _ - J•I �- rti ■• • ♦ _ ■ Jill �►>~ �� } i ,. . , ■ 7 • s o '' art` -`i� . w , •■•'i I+ {; � ■ e �t - :., ■ aft' r■ '1 '■r . 42 }} 1 •A ii'i'♦~�' r1 j- J•L Jti •irM / a .■ ` I - ^ i•�_ ;}, ■.- a i:F;.'� �^=;•=ems... .. a i. _f�� _� �� ! � '� �� Sties �� •� ��a�. _ ,Yl. fti i LLLL MRS Owl _ Via,�}�,�- �t f 1 :;�:,+�. �.t,� � • _ • 7f �Yi..yy . •r► ` • � • • �• • • 3S Y9GL .r � ww raa M.� AMta�il _ N m w N � 0 r c > � o o Q) O A x CD f!1 w to N m 'm em > c Ux z � c �(6 L " d r C = 4t ` C N r _ N Si 1 •• • �� 1 1 h � N cL • i! 4 w . d� a 2 d • w � ' C r • 10 ■ _- � a f ' ♦..mac � �� • �r ' 0♦ per -1 r.1 I• w�` ^� � v• � r ■•o • - C i A Cp 6 �. w• '- - � � i •• • •,', -�_. n._` "; ': "' . ,,_-fir �i a`d'`! %� .._ � -' - �� °'•a,'� 3S AY OZL �`c.; •,.vYa; "+�+.ti` _v M SR_-{T.s�Ys.iwh•»'' 7 M T� I ' ry ♦ �' r Cj {/� i- &ir y ALI • .. ♦. . ♦ 1 Opp a A U_ CD U) rn 3 J Cp N G z c L. 07 X N C 67 \V O c cc 3 0- .o N 1: '0 Yd Q d a� N c c 0 0 a) '��; a) m N Q Q 0 � Y o J ' . e N CL C � Ilk �9 �+ _ • . ram' • � y 61 � r . • ' � ��I J 'Lij loll . • ■ 1 r m J nil 40 wa '■ sr■} ■u 'f i�iy�t �V♦ t` ` I � � • i }l;. '! rests 1r AP V I Ar3S AV OzI _ or-r.+ •',.' `??; ' 'Au 11 ir • �'�! 2ty P ' q(n„ :a'��' �amrn�'7 psi � � �� T 'i ♦ w w•F ntw (' I Am . • 1 s Y ^ cc N O T-- oa E $ N C L CD> N c a Y 3 co Q QQ , ' �I IL CDmN U �u Y ofo C N w Air t r Y, . 8 •t i 7 • ■ems i d co misin IF d • � r r t H d � • r I � • 7 V • C A w. .. r '� r1�' o♦ 0 • < ti e s rr J • is o � _ w r. � �-r Y r• p rz nb =ma`s'=.�--•"�'uaiT-'�Yy�`s LL 'yd x G A ■ a•..��'y+�.�cS �n-B Gam:'i 2 � a v � w • 's . is r •• ti •i . .ti..>... t raaaa> �� 1 .. •� \ ....s > . . . � ,ran r—+ • 0 0 O U cu ♦�♦r�!! •� .0 ^ J C O Cn C vXz I CCU N c a m a 9 ❑ Q � ¢ ¢ °' Y'� mcm tm CD J Iry jr 0 MAINS m �I ir�r„ " 4Lin OL ri�—.� y ALI Ttl ■ 77�. . � f �� a s♦• a _ • + f ---�y4/♦ ♦ ice• -' • ♦ � ♦ I ■ ■ 1� t4/4�� + ♦rr • c"s a. ♦ ♦ r. .e ♦.i ,Q♦sr4 ♦, v• r��i alit 6 C �Y�jt �M +' � '� ■ j�` tl+ 1■ 7 Y�f tl�%�♦ ,a5 _q-+� AN ■w e I +1 �i ■ t •+fr l7.�y� e aI(sm �1 r '� as ♦ v !h +r■'■q■71r ■■•pyty+' .._.-s , a acs a v a ;^ ` .. y, ,'�i0�•'17 f�'` 4,0 - t � • .♦ ��i,�`,• 1f� �,-ay_r �l <!- 4"7!r♦ral�►� bb 1 as--♦ I/ a" ��i ' •I� i - .r I `'[r�- �= 4 cv-;yq, ♦+� �• + 1 I'm .,� _'/ `�i . Syr Y/' nv✓L . F fall ♦ J • 1.♦ ♦♦• s�` :� I - t ,_.. �. :i- •! z :alp a 1ti �I�■��♦ !rlr rr+rf rM-♦� '1;c 1 � '-,6 "r'* _ it �,z.'%"x}`4��,"�+�,.:rs.� ■. _ I 3S AV OZI X`i� .A t'.�.C'.$-yr .'.3: '=ec•4. .,, :m k 3SAYOULot -e Mu■I y Nor AwAvo ME r .149 I !• a.r•r.r.r.�r a , �(a ■ - • {{�� • _ 35 Atl 9u w.. Ls 7 T • �- �"1 ]1•r ♦I ■ f. � i ♦J�� •. a {ir�l"' ,♦+•• ' � �7! ■rw■o• a , LIN � MCI -��SOSIE�1� 0ran mg r ,. rmAhnn pG p?. o Uu sun 'r'i lug l�D�,rA O_:� ,� C• a an p0��'�c riiir ��1 � Fll�dACLlL'? ci r` ��'�1 c�h 'ecru,er�vv` Ei�� 4 Nil CIO MR MAN 11111011 ....... goo , - V� in o - "� 1700 n � ' ' �r r � =cam - • -5 w_ y O E � W a 0 O cm V O LL m ccL > tU x ` G = Nmo me 3 `° o a x N Y m Qf C N MOM ■[ N 44UU ` �r `J J .■ � VIC Can r 7 Y ■ N r ry , low AN 44 vit t.■ r S ■ f ■ -1 _ .4 i • i. : 7Lar i i,I a ! ■ �It r 1 r!,r ♦'• + O ■ � ,' ,. AA■rSRa +71ar.Fr � w♦r,of ■ i N �♦ _-:;e a a " ♦. i i f . R' I s ■ > �.r� ■.■ftq"f9iY ■aa;pam'♦t� `9 i p V 4 r.7.r■ F ^^ Yam♦ ; +/ / f O 7 so a ", 16 grrr WOW r 1 ♦ ♦ Yeq a too fn 3SAVOn 3S AV OZL oil €� �Ist ` • tfa gam' 1 �1LL Esc- �� _� ' _ lyapr■ + • ♦♦♦ 1i9.a ♦ ■ J _ J r 7 �*� . ♦• �� •parr .f j 7[ r• ,. ■ L —, 11 • it/� Ili\�•/\�� • i�i'��i�1 i�li r •. ♦♦'at 1�7p,aa.. . ■� '� n ILI n.on CJr�r► G ME Ll Gam},C4�■:�[■Y��■C/�s� ®®Iry.J�'P �]a CGr��CVLLI LG{JV � �1f2FtlJ, U MR � b2v� 0 NO EM 70 Ell i rmo ■� 47 CFO KI wou rm LV o A �' �37197Y+x'a pa � 7 Q�� Q Mal -• ,•� �:on „ �.; s � • a%c- _ um ON no , fdip `4 . : V Mau=J\�,Q�■�-��a HIM Be ■�7 7 r Y � 1 - Y ■ - , • 17 a ltl a fOFER, CIS Malon y�' i' r111 ih71S, ar uu Elm a r��rraa-n•.fN D j� � �DQ�OQ .. �(3 �) iR f' [; C�� o�WA� �� ee �,,ll Ill�il II ono oer r�� ■i• n r • ,1 . r � �� ❑I �pQ ��-,°o otr. �� ILA I um al lu .: ol. e_Clll�ri 'g3` E ._ roMOVIE■. un n� i�io Of �irYl Innis r♦ C�QC' �6 p� �71 � � � MOM n rSGcGG�►�Ctceai ee _ _ ca a �+ � M IRI i`f i ■ Ri ta us 65 9-1 ou jan a Iin Ai n n ME r•�,`�---NYC •� .,1n _ ��c�, a� �= ,r1long��1��O do 01 In V f �� n.► BOB i ■ems o t, 21 per 4!00 KENT WAe HINOTON REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM (ENV-93=51 ) DeMarco Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments This is a revised addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan (#ENV-93-51 ). This document has been prepared pursuant to WAC 197-11 -625, and is being distributed to all recipients of the DEIS of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. S 1PermitWlankFnv120011DeMa=EISAddendumCvrSht(R)doc City of Kent May 23, 2001 March Q. 2002 Fact Sheet (REVISED) Proposed Action: The proposed action is the adoption by the Kent City Council of Comprehensive Plan map amendments and Zoning Map designations for the DeMarco Annexation Area The annexation area is 266.6 acres, with an estimated population of 770 people Action Sponsor and Lead Agency: City of Kent Planning Services Office 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Responsible Official: Kim Marousek, Senior Planner City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Contact Person: Charlene Anderson, AICP,Planning Manager City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 (253) 856-5454 License/Permits Required: Adoption of ordinance(s) by the Kent City Council EIS Addendum Authors: City of Kent Planning Services Office 220 4th Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Location of Background Data: City of Kent Planning Services Office Centennial Center, 3rd Floor 400 West Gowe Street Kent, WA 98032 Date of Issuance: May 21, 2001, Revised March 4, 2002 Cost of Document: No charge Environmental impact Statement Page 1 of 8 Addendum ENV 93-51 May 21, 2001 Revised March 4. 2002 City of Kent DeMarco Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment Initial Annexation Zoning EIS Addendum I. Background and Summary of Proposed Action The proposed action consists of the adoption of zoning designations and corresponding Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments for the DeMarco annexation area, At their regular meeting on November 21, 2000, the Kent City Council accepted the 10% annexation petition, established the annexation boundaries and authorized the circulation of a sixty percent (60%) petition to annex the proposed DeMarco Annexation area to the City of Kent On April 3, 2001 the Kent City Council accepted petitions signed by owners of at least sixty percent (60%) of the assessed valuation of the area proposed for annexation The DeMarco annexation area encompasses approximately 266 6 acres (42 square miles) and is home to an estimated 770 people The annexation generally is located on the East Hill of Kent, from 1161h Avenue SE to SE 132"d Street and from SE 2401h Street north to approximately SE 231"Place on the west and SE 233 d Street, if extended, on the east (reference attached map) The annexation area is within the Urban Growth Area and Potential Annexation Area boundaries that were defined and established by the City of Kent according to the Washington State Growth Management Act An amendment to the 1995 Kent Comprehensive Plan is required to include the annexation area within the municipal boundaries of Kent, In addition to the required boundary changes, minor changes to the Land Use Plan Map in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are necessary to ensure consistency between the adopted zoning designations and the Comprehensive Plan -When the Kent Comprehensive Plan was drafted, land use recommendations for the Potential Annexation Area generally were based on King County's adopted land use plan in order to ensure consistency between the City's and County's Comprehensive Plans In 2000, King County amended their Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to adopt land use map and zoning designations of Commercial Outside of Centers and Neighborhood Business, respectively, for an eight-acre parcel at the northeastern comer of the intersection of 1161h Avenue SE and SE 240`h Street As each annexation is approved by the City of Kent, the area is analyzed in greater detail through a public process in order to refine land use designations, zoning, and policies under the context of the City's Comprehensive Plan The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide land use and capital improvement decisions Therefore, establishment of City of Kent zoning districts for the annexation area is a Environmental Impact Statement Page 2 of 8 Addendum ENV-93-51 May 21, 2001 Revised Afarch 4 2002 Comprehensive Plan implementation action Staff is bringing forward four zoning and land use alternatives for the annexation area Analysis of the alternatives includes the following factors 1 Relevant Kent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and land use recommendations for land within and adjacent to the DeMarco area 2 Preliminary housing target analysis 3 Existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations and policies 4 Information received from the public at an open house 5 Available data regarding natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas The existing land use pattern in the DeMarco annexation area is primarily single family residential with densities ranging from townhomes to one-acre lots and larger unplatted parcels Meridian Junior High School is located within the area Kent East Hill Nursery is located at the northeast comer of the intersection of SE 240`h Street and 116`h Avenue SE There are two large churches and a church hall also located in the area. Notice of a proposed subdivision called Birdsong Meadows is posted in the area, and staff has been notified of preliminary approval of a 32-lot subdivision and an application for a 27-lot subdivision along SE 234`h Street This land use pattern has been developed and supported through King County's Soos Creek Community Plan, adopted in 1991, and the King County Comprehensive Plan On September 18, 2001, the Kent City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan designation of SF-6 and zoning of SR 4 5 and SR-6 for the Demarco Annexation area This revision to the EIS Addendum contemplates those alternatives that were not onginallyput forth through the public hearing process Two new alternatives are considered and are identified in this document as Alternatives 5 and 6 II. Framework for Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Development Regulations Growth Management Act Requirements The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires most jurisdictions in the State, including the City of Kent, to adopt comprehensive plans with thirteen planning goals, and lists several requirements which jurisdictions must meet in preparing plans The City of Kent, after a long process, including dozens of community meetings and workshops and ten months of public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, adopted its Comprehensive Plan in April 1995 in conformance with these requirements The GMA also requires each county to establish an Urban Growth Area and requires adoption and ratification of Countywide Planning Policies that provide a framework from which local comprehensive plans are to be developed The area within the Urban Growth Area must accommodate a mimmum of 20 years of projected population growth In accordance with GMA and King County policies, in November, 1992 and May, 1993 the City of Kent passed resolutions approving and adopting Interim Urban Growth Area and Potential Annexation Area boundaries for its comprehensive planning and future annexation efforts The DeMarco annexation area is one more in a series of annexations expected through a phased annexation process The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented in each annexation through establishment of land use regulations that will be consistent with the Plan Environmental Impact Statement Page 3 of 8 Addendum ENV-93-51 May 21, 2001 Revised March 4. 2002 SEPA Compliance In October 1993, the City of Kent issued a Determmation of Significance (DS) and Notice of Scopmg for the Comprehensive Plan (ENV-93-51). After a series of public meetings, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on July 18, 1994 for the Draft Comprehensive Plan, which was issued on the same date The DEIS was distributed to City Council and Planning Commission members, adjacent jurisdictions, State agencies, and other interested parties After comments on the DEIS were solicited and reviewed, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued and distributed on January 30, 1995. The EIS analyzed the environmental impacts of the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted April 18, 1995. The purpose of the EIS for the Comprehensive Plan was to assess the impacts of the Plan on the City and its growth area The EIS does not analyze the significance of site- specific impacts, it analyzes the significance of impacts on a broad area This Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS provides additional information regarding the area-wide impacts of this particular phase of Comprehensive Plan implementation in the DeMarco annexation area The proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and the zoning alternatives that are the subject of this addendum generally are consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan Map and the goals and policies of the adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan, and would not create significantly different environmental impacts For its 2000 annual comprehensive plan amendments, King County analyzed in a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS") a proposal to amend comprehensive plan and zoning designations for an 8-acre parcel located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of 116`h Avenue SE and SE 2401h Street. The proposal included a change in land use and zoning designations from Urban Residential High/R-18 (18 dwelling units per acre) (P-SO) to Commercial Outside of Centers/Neighborhood Business (P-SO) This designation recognizes the existing commercial nursery operation on the site The King County FSEIS projected a loss of 143 dwelling units as a result of the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning change for this 8-acre parcel It was stated that when compared to population targets, the changes proposed overall in the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan were minor changes that "would neither significantly alter existing capacity in the urban area, nor significantly alter the land use pattern set by the 1994 Comprehensive Plan." Furthermore, " Any specific impacts associated with development of parcels affected by land use and zoning amendments will be addressed through project level review No significant adverse environmental impacts are associated with these land use and zoning amendments." III. Description of Proposed Action This section of the Addendum will describe in more detail the proposed zoning alternatives and Comprehensive Plan amendments for the DeMarco annexation area • Alternative One would match the existing King County zoning designations with the closest equivalent City of Kent zoning designations In the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Update (Map Amendment #19), King County changed the land use and zoning designations for the 8-acre site located at the northeast comer of the intersection of SE 240`h Street and 116`h Avenue SE The Land Use designation went from Urban Residential High to Commercial Environmental Impact Statement Page 4 of 8 Addendum ENV-93-51 May 21, 2001 Revised March 4. 2002 Outside of Centers, with a zoning change from R-18 (18 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Business Alternative One proposes a land use designation of Neighborhood Services and zoning of NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial for this property, with a Low Density Multifamily land use designation and MRT-16 zoning designation (Multifamily Residential Townhouse District) on the 8.8 acre and 4.76 acre parcels just east and northeast of this property To the north and east would be areas designated Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre, on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with zoning designations of SR-6 and SR-4 5 • Alternative Two differs from Alternative One in that it would remove the comer commercial designation and designate it MRT-16 along with the adjacent parcels just east and northeast of the corner parcel The remainder of the annexation area would be designated Single Family Residential, either 4.5 or 6 dwelling units per acre • Alternative Three maintains the commercial and townhouse designations at the northeastern comer of 116`h Avenue SE and SE 240"' Street but designates the remainder of the annexation area as Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre • Alternative Four designates the three properties at the northeastern comer as MRT-16, with the remainder of the annexation area designated as Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre • Alternative Five would desimate the entire annexation area as SF-6, Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per acre, on the land use plan ma r, with zonine designations of SR-6 and SR-4 5 The area designated as SR-4 5 is generally_bound ed by 132"d Ave SE to the east, approximately 122"d Ave SE on the west and SE 237°i PL alone the south The remaining properties within the annexation area would be zoned SR-6 • Alternative Six would amend Alternative Five for four properties at the northeastern corner of the intersection of SE 2401h Street and 11011 Avenue SE Tlus alternative would designate the 8-acre site at the intersection and adjacent property to the east up to the westerly boundary of the stream, wetland and buffer as Neighborhood Services, with zonine of NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial The stream. wetland and buffer area including the entire 4 76 acre parcel to the northeast of the NCC-designated area would have a land use designation of Low Density Multifamily Residential, with zoning of MRT-12 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse District — 12 dwelling units per acre) The property immediately adiacent to the NCC-designated area on the north would be designated Open Space, with zoning of SR-1 The alternatives are supported by the following goals and policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Goals and Policies Policy LU-1 1 — Provide enough land in the City's urban growth area to accommodate the level of household growth projected to occur in the next 20 years Environmental Impact Statement Page 5 of 8 Addendum EAT93-51 May 21, 2001 Revised March 4. 2002 Goal LU-2 — Establish a land use pattern throughout the urban growth area that will facilitate a multimodal transportation system and provide efficient public facilities Ensure that overall densities in the urban growth area are adequate to support a range of urban services Policy LU-2 2—Concentrate development in order to promote public transit Housing Goals and Policies Policy LU-8 1 —Provide in the land use plan adequate land and densities to accommodate both city and county housing targets within the Potential Annexation Area Average net residential densities through the Potential Annexation Area should be at least four units per acre in order to adequately support urban services Policy LU-8 3 — Locate housing opportunities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and human and community services Goal LU-9 — Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the City and the Potential Annexation area Policy LU-12.3 — Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas Regulatory incentives may include urban, mixed use zoning and lugher-density zones, Commercial Goals and Policies Policy LU-13.2 — Provide opportunities for residential development within existing business districts to provide support for shops, services, and employment within walling distance Policy LU-13.5 — Analyze the potential for development of"comer store", small scale, neighborhood-onented shops adjacent to selected rights-of-way in higher-density neighborhoods Use the conditional use permit or another process to evaluate proposals on a case-by-case basis Ensure that projects are pedestnan-onented and developed with minimum parking provisions. Natural Resource Goals and Policies Goal LU-21 —Encourage well-designed, compact land use patterns to reduce dependency on the automobile, and thereby improve air and water quality and conserve energy resources Establish mixed use commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient opportunities for travel by transit, foot, and bicycle. Transportation and Land Use Goals and Policies Policy TR-1 1 — Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily, and other uses that generate high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections of principal or minor artenals or around freeway interchanges Environmental Impact Statement Page 6 of 8 Addendum ENV-93-51 May 21, 2001 Revised March 4. 2002 Policy TR-1 5 — Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible Policy TR-1 7 —Promote land use patterns which support public transportation Housine Element Policy H-1.1 —Ensure that community and human services, including, but not limited to, fire, police, library facilities, medical services, neighborhood shopping, child care, food banks, and recycling facilities, are easily accessible to neighborhood residents Policy H-2 2 — Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low-income households, single-family housing, small lot sizes, townhouses, multifamily housing, manufactured housing, group homes, and foster care facilities IV. Environmental Review- Scope of EIS Addendum The City of Kent has followed a process of phased environmental review as it undertakes actions to implement and amend the Comprehensive Plan The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the rules established for the act in WAC-197-11 outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and preparing addenda to Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) These will be further discussed below Non-Project Documents. An EIS prepared for a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or other broad based policy documents are considered "non-project", or programmatic in nature (see WAC-197-11-704) These are distinguished from EISs or environmental documents prepared for specific project actions, such as a building permit or a road construction project The purpose of a non-project EIS is to analyze proposed alternatives and to provide environmental consideration and mitigation prior to adoption of an alternative. It is also a document that discloses the process used in evaluating alternatives to decision-makers and citizens Phased Review. SEPA rules allow environmental review to be phased so that environmental review coincides with meaningful points in the planning and decision-making process (WAC 197-11-060(5)) Broader environmental documents may be followed by more narrowly focussed documents that mcorporate general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on issues specific to that proposal SEPA rules also clearly state that agencies shall use a variety of mechanisms, including addenda, to avoid duplication and excess paperwork The proposed Land Use Plan Map amendments, zoning implementation, and this Addendum are part of phased review for the City's planning process under the Growth Management Act Prior Environmental Documents. The City of Kent issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Comprehensive Plan on July 18, 1994 (#ENV-93-51) The DEIS analyzed three comprehensive plan land use alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures, which were used in preparing comprehensive plan policies The preferred land use alternative which was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan was most closely related to Alternative 2 in Environmental Impact Statement Page 7 of 8 Addendum ENV-93-51 May 11, 2001 Revised March 4. 2002 the DEIS, the Mixed Use Alternative. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on January 30, 1995, and the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 18, 1995. Therefore, the impacts of the Land Use Element adopted in the Comprehensive Plan are within the range of impacts evaluated in the DEIS It should also be noted that King County to date has undertaken extensive environmental review for the land use and zoning decisions made in the DeMarco annexation area. As mentioned, the annexation area is part of the Soos Creek Community Plan and zoning, which was adopted in 1991 A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was prepared most recently in 2000 for the King County Comprehensive Plan, which originally was adopted in 1994 Scope of EIS Addendum. As outlined in the SEPA rules, the purpose of an addendum is to provide new information about a proposal or impacts evaluated in a prior environmental document but does not substantially change the prior analysis (WAC-197-11-600(4)(c)). This EIS addendum has been prepared to provide additional information about Kent's actions to implement its Comprehensive Plan through annexation zoning This addendum does not identify new impacts or significantly change the prior environmental analysis done as part of the DEIS on the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan contains many goals and policies which are intended to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act and mitigate the impacts of future growth Several of the policies, particularly in the Land Use Element, are the direct result of mitigation measures identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIS As the City undertakes actions to implement the Comprehensive Plan through additions and amendments to its zoning and development standards, it is anticipated that the environmental impacts associated with these regulations will be the same as those impacts previously analyzed as part of the Comprehensive Plan EIS Additional analysis was completed to mcomorate the two new alternatives Both alternatives promote a development patter that is less dense than that which was previously analyzed under the environmental documents outlined in this addendum. Therefore, these actions will not create additional or sigmficant impacts beyond those already identified in the Draft EIS, as long as these actions are consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan KM im\\S\Pemnt\P1an\Env\2001\DeMucoE1S Addendum dm Environmental Impact Statement Page 8 of 8 Addendum ENV-93-51 May 21, 2001 Revised March 4. 2002 `cj v cCP� � :J� • IA Sol Ga'� CLFt - 06M ®�MEAN" Iid rsflu �S7 _I�IQ �Ban 6cEl a .� ' �'i ��`�'i�lti Cis .w�R1?��,J .�♦iG•►/�V 13 ate KI ��:� •_- lei 1� It+i �upuV��,>>O��j�a J ' l^ C` u_rJi v r� q� Via ► FIaL'E�7LAW �' 35 w��® �� T��•`��- 13ZJ�C7i E3ri'p��Ki'9�7.��I'u' LO•'� y� !� �,•`ti. fib n y� � �V e! '7 1� r • h n a�0 � � i IMP ;'' dMil Ll In as ON PH IILJ IN b mill �l M�n 13�IMMII I Li qrj�ill kF; LL PNow ill LE V.Pda j FIFI L193 17ju I AN JOIN WIN OG l Epp '. r�n•r. W�7i otm onvi22103 MOM o �"oHI �ado°��•� all IN, INISM I:u�� .�c�e�� ,�o •ev'af:�r � � s: ' :ate rr IF�Mliljlvplf.W NJ 07 In di MM HE Eill ILI uj Oak 1313go 02 n 81 C IMM13 lu ME -gLy w mmm FIN" U13 �� o ��o �'� ��a �'��1aVir7 JIM mail do S �r rrr♦7 jiN l�rr.a ��i�.� :I . «i i�� v I .it lr 116 AV SE • P • •t • • 7!�7 w a r.w.wTi-W '/ illy «I� � _u'�1 ! , `t if ■ Jt >r f W■ �A•• _ -lj �.ik'Ba_ a '� esl� fi III 1 ■ . •C f �1'6 ■f ji. �I all 120 AV SE r 494 4 (I - � I r afar Yfarwa • ,ice' Jy�, ♦ � I � raarr aar r♦ ::�i � L' '� � ti f —�� r ww• f r f .. aJAI I ��+\ a.7 '1� '. _ r, yy L7�d'.- 1 t►p j fTc ♦a■■a$■■ .1 1M4Y•l►. 1 a '1h J al ir� r •a t r t� •a a ■ .(��.y •� �+�rrfr .frr.rar.r {� ',�� ; L ='�� _4 f a _.% ,�i ♦i'11**�'�♦i�i' �■..��♦ OL ♦>,\�♦{ � (Q+it t �,�'►��j��♦��a ill■ stir _•. I,a I ; la r_zcT L ,♦ ■! ♦\ ♦ ♦♦■ • ■ a 11■ ►y�/ w I m ■ ,il - fll'o' • ! ii�3C7 ' /Ir• �` u ■�IIr fir �� 4 1 19 E. Ir > D D v CD CD CD f N CD 1 z A' N y 2 0 `� (17 O i✓ n cf) p 3 r 1 r-IL G CDn CD 1 O. n m y _3 CD V) N �� T l��o ,WY J17 r,C000D� �� ■ a Il [t qD vlu �-_,y�am _■ . T�1I 93 WIN LIM _� TF-F`�l�P[ yq l�Lrr,�f�.[+.-1{�'•2rj � e ❑w�v.;,, ua .ro u. �/•a�j u`' r-err��D 07c� .rr�' f �,. �L - ,�.,,.,� ' i Will LEDClrr�. � ��■,' i� 1_ 4110MONO ■ • a • • purl■ +sf .• � ti�� i,�j'I�n� i ........ ♦.f• �i.�� i�i t 7 !E■■■' 4.. Tyr•� r y` fps ♦#4 44 MINOR 0), Me •i♦ T76 AV VSE • • 1 ■ 7 fm■.•.i ♦%..r•r•r.rT••r 1 r rIN JILTI some j .it - • •� 1712( '1 Aft•. r ps Apo 12.0 AV n�f - T - x-- •< t20 AV SE y • ' •eE_ � ,.. 1 _ 1 IFYI• 1� a } Fn4 1 •• i '_�"� �,_- y,' * � ♦■err• srsr•; •.•r. "zL' 1 a � a � • 1 f rq ow tP�s■ VrTrrr . J, . rIr■►K. t11►rT 7 L �' f rr♦ i.1� ` «. `!� r:, • ' �A 11 ! �-,, a■as�lu aVSM,iN■spa oat ♦ s!I i,,, h �` ■ra-. - of o ► � r■+I rn++r►r+ �. : v,L i • ♦ r ♦ •♦• +try i .rar. qr r - r r ■ T t NO Ir N� ■ I r d�; OL CD CD D D :3 v � x a 0MN a) < 5 N CD m M 5 < O x 0 a:) - M. ? y Z .d+, T7 O to N C O _a (�D 00 3 r 1 IMMOL 0 2 0 n >S1 N (C N Qn L 1 ra LM UL053 elm Flea ;6016 imam p 13 FREM I U_ 13 ail Egg NJ C Ffp ------ KM "FIN Emu in LA "J Jam IN ®R nin NOR � . ZVI OEM ��o o • Jail �u �.■�a� �� r � , r,r. D�Qd� -AM. PER- ��' a• Ifflo Clio lrMrI wig r�n`� Q•� �i o, _ �,. .� =� ,d fir• �,_ `�� .gyp f � � - ■ °i � �,� � �• .•,��JIO� .�� of ��1��' =��••i��oo 00 0 • 1� _�e��1 ��+• Cry 3 t•��] �' � �:f G�dC�:Gii a �� a I•`,'�, r1 a7f�'1 /1 a PER F-M gal s', �;1L p ,- v fly �J�°V'•V��iVtj/ KIDit ruln LEO RIG AL f�m a �I' - �� ►� ►i�+.1��c"• cOu p pOn �`�9 !.f ff-1 In 1114 �K3 n ;;�: �3�♦� �C •ire 15 M M Le ■ C�; A g Cif\,�n to �s 1 11LIS In in �. n ce rn min IP,Mw a.a CrC� vo u �V�; = � KRONOR gloom memo J FEES .�man cue h.� -�.��-•-� ��,::; gj tJ �`JT Vufm o rL! n 94 le 11 lu re W-1 in JU �f ��1L��J �� L"JC3L�'i`�rr.r � �i��%�"""•' ��MQAi �r►C= :.ILLr�I•�1'l/ U �i�il�i 1� �� i✓Gv `j`/V�� o"] Di�O�c7 �� •s o13 � r ilunAu��l■ a& o a i�11 r1cw�. �4�9C��, F: FT J IFS - i pnmp Buc,k o MAR 2 7 2002 f o�((LL�a�� 50- 4intcrfront LLP CITY QF KENT `'1aOe (V' Attorneys M taw CITY CLERK Seaiolt Wes teen Avenue Seattle, WA 98'04- :097 206-382-9540 206-626-0675 cae March 20, 2002 Mayor Jim White and Members of the City Council City of Kent 220 4th Avenue S Kent, WA 980J2 Re Lotto Property--Appropriate Annexation Zoning Dear Mayor White and Members of the City Council This letter is written on behalf of the Lottos to address the appropriate zoning designation for their twenty-two acre property, located at the NE corner of the intersection of S E 240th St and 1 16th Ave S E, in the DeMarco Annexation Area("the Property") As set forth in detail in the attached Memorandum, we believe that the historical Neighborhood Commercial (NCC)Townhouse (MRT-1 6) zoning[ for the Property is supported by your Comprehensive Plan policies and that very low density zoning at this arterial node would violate the Plan policies (See Memorandum. attached as Exhibit A) It would also be unfair and illegal for the City to annex the Lottos with the promise that they would retain their historical zoning, as occurred here, and then downzone the property after it is too late for the Lottos to oppose the annexation However, as explained below, the Lottos have a compromise proposal which they believe will meet the goals of your Plan, retain some of their historical zoning rights and yet address the concerns expressed by the single family neighbors By way of background, the Planning Board initially recommended retaimng the Lotto's Km, County zoning of 8 acres of NCC for the existing commercial nursery portion of the site and the balance of the site as MRT-16, a plan known as Alternative 12(See Alt l,attached as Exhtbtt B) The Staff recommended and continues to recommend Alternative 4,which would have the entire site zoned for MRT-16 (See Alt 4 attached as Exhrbrt Q As you know, a prior City Council proposed a downzone to all single family zoning(Alternative 5)and in consideration of the concerns expressed to the Council which resulted in the downzone, Mr Lotto came up with an Initial Compromise Proposal, Alternative 6, which he presented to the Planning Board on reconsideration Alternative 6 contained a slightly expanded NCC boundary to make the stream area a buffer between commercial and MRT, it proposed a reduction in MRT from 16 to 12 units/acre, and it proposed a 2 acre open space buffer between the single family residential and the commercial NCC zoning (See Alt 6 attached as Exhibit E) Unfortunately, the Planning Board, without justification based on the Comp Plan, instead chose to recommend a "modified Alternative 5," which gives the Lottos only 2 acres of NCC, with the rest of the I In requesting the NCC/MRT zoning,we also request the requisite Comprehensive Plan designations to support that zoning, which are "Neighborhood Services" and"Low Density Multifamily " However, for convenience, we will simply reference the zoning, and assume that the necessary Comprehensive Plan designations are implicit '- The City previously had listed Alternatives as follows Alts 1 and 3 would keep the historical Lotto NCC/MRT and differ only in options of SR 6 and 4 for other properties, Ails 2 and 4 would have the entire Lotto Property as MRT-16, and differ only in options of SR 6 and 4 for other properties, Alternative 5 would downzone the Lotto Property to SR 6, Modified Alternative 5 is the Planning Board's recommendation of 2 acres of NCC and the balance SR 6, Alternative 6 was the Lottos prior Compromise Proposal of NCC/MRT-12/open space, Alternative 7 is the Lotto's current Compromise Proposal — 2 — March 27, 2002 property down-zoned to single family 6 units/acre(SR 6) (See Modified Alt 5, attached as Exhibit D) The Lottos will present evidence at the Council hearing that the Planning Board's proposal of 2 acres of NCC, which was never studied by the City, does not meet the City's Comprehensive Plan policies and is not a feasible size to provide neighborhood goods and services given the development constraints (setbacks, parking and drainage requirements, separation of access points from the intersection. etc), nor is it financially feasible Now, in response to feedback at the Planning Board, the Lottos have come up with a"Final Compromise Proposal" for the City Council, called Alternative 7,which is explained below, which they believe meets your Plan policies and also addresses the concerns raised by single family residents and the Planning Board (See Exhibit F, Alternative 7, Final Compromise Proposal) Despite their rights to the historical NCC/MRT zoning, the Lottos have been willing to entertain some reductions in the density to address these concerns Alternative 7 pulls back from the expanded NCC boundary of Alternative 6, and proposes to keep the 3 acres of NCC In addition with Alternative 7 the Lottos would accept a reduction in the density of the balance of the site from MRT-16 to SR 6(single family. 6 units/acre) It is notable that approximately 7 acres of the balance of the site is covered by a stream, a wetland and their buffers Alternative 7 is illustrated with a conceptual retail layout in the attached Exhibit While the Planning Board expressed a concern that a large department store or a "Costco" could be developed on the NCC portion of the site, they were apparently unaware that NCC does not allow a Costco-type use, and it prohibits department stores and other General Commercial uses by specifying the uses that can go into the Neighborhood Commercial (NCC), the City has pre-determined that these uses are what it considers appropriate in NCC areas and the Lotto site would be limited to these NCC uses The Lottos feel that they are giving up quite a bit with the Alternative 7 Compromise Proposal and they believe that any further down-zoning of their property is not supported by the City's Comprehensive Plan and subject to legal challenge, as set forth in their attached Memorandum The Lottos urge the City Council to follow its Comprehensive Plan policies, which include policies of fairness to property owners Very truly yours 5� Amy L Kosterlitz Attorney for Lotto/Toppano Attachments Exhibit A Legal Memorandum Exhibit B Alternative l (Existing zoning, Planning Board initial recommendations) Exhibit C Alternative 4 (Staff Proposal) Exhibit D Alternative Modified 5 (PB revised recommendations) Exhibit E Alternative 6 (Lotto Initial Compromise Proposal) Exhibit F Alternative 7(Lotto Final Compromise Proposal) Cc Charlene Anderson Kim Adams-Pratt Mike Lotto Angelo Toppano EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUPPORT FOR RETAINING HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND MRT TOWNHOUSE ZONING 1. Introduction /Compromise Proposal for Zoning As explained further below, the historical NCC/MRT zoning of the Lotto site is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies and the public benefits anticipated thereby, and this zoning will not create detrimental impacts, such as traffic impacts To the contrary, downzomng the entire Property to single family residential (Alternative 5) contravenes the City's Plan policies, will not create benefits for the area, and represents unfair treatment of the Lottos. who did not voluntarily annex into the City of Kent, and who were told they would retain their commercial and multifamily zoning upon annexation to Kent 2. Factual Background on the Property and City Process to Date Michael Lotto and Angelo Toppano have operated a commercial nursery on an eight acre portion of the Property for approximately sixteen years Until July, 2001, the Property was located in unincorporated King County where the nursery acreage was designated "Commercial Outside of Centers" (Comprehensive Plan) and zoned "Neighborhood Business " The remaining fourteen acres of the Property was designated for multifamily residential use at a density of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre In April, 2001. the City accepted a petition from single-family property owners to annex the "DeMarco Annexation Area " The DeMarco Annexation Area included the Property, however, the Lottos did not join in the annexation petition. and would have opposed the annexation but for the City's representations that they would retain similar zoning in Kent as they had in King County As the DeMarco annexation was being considered by the City, the Planning Board initiated proceedings to determine the appropriate land use and zoning designations for the DeMarco Annexation Area On May 14, 2001. the Kent Department of Community Development issued a staff report in which four alternative Comprehensive Plan/Zoning designations were presented for review ("Alternatives") In each of those Alternatives, the subject property was designated for a mixture of commercial and multifamily development (Alternatives 9. 1 and#1) or exclusively for multifamily development (Alternatives 92 and 44) On May 21, 2001, this Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the four Alternatives, to discuss the appropriate Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the DeMarco Annexation Area. At the conclusion of that public hearing, this Planning Board voted four to one to recommend that the Kent City Council adopt Alternative#1 from the staff proposal, which provided for a mixture of commercial and multifamily residential uses on Petitioner's property In adopting the land use and zoning designations in Alternative # 1, this Planning Board expressed a strong commitment, consistent with City policy, not to downzone any of the property annexed in the DeMarco Annexation C\MY DOCUMENTS\4MY DOCSCOUNCIL MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT DOC Area. At no time was single family zoning found to be an appropriate land use designation for the Property On June 19, 2001, following the Planning Board recommendation, the City adopted Ordinance No 3562, approving the annexation of the DeMarco Area, including the Property of Kent. The effective date of Ordinance No 3562 was July 1, 2001 The Lottos did not object to the DeMarco annexation during the public hearings on the annexation because two of the land use and zoning Alternatives for the subject property proposed by staff and the final Alternative 41 recommended by the Planning Board, were consistent with the Lottos' ultimate plans for commercial/multifamily development of the Property However, in September, 2001, after public hearings, the City Council downzoned the Property to single family residential, an alternative that was not recommended by staff or the Planning Board The Lottos would have strenuously opposed the annexation if they had been given any idea that the City was considering- annexing their commercial and multifamily zoned property in order to downzone it to single family, but unfortunately the Council's downzone action occurred after the annexation became final The Lottos appealed the City Council's decision to the state Growth Management Hearings Board and the Superior Court, and based on procedural problems the City repealed the downzone and agreed to reprocess the zoning for the De Marco annexation area, which is why this matter is now back before the Plannm-Board The City then presented to the Planning Board the original four Alternatives, with an additional Alternative 5 of SR 6 zoning, and an Alternative 6 which was a compromise proposal from the Lottos with NCC, MRT-12 and a two acre open space area(in addition to the large stream/wetland/buffer area) The Planning Board came up with its own recommended new alternative, "Modified Alternative 5" with 2 acres of NCC and the balance of the site as SR-6 The matter is now before the City Council 3. The City's Growth Management Act (GMA) Planning Policies Support NCC/MRT Zoning at this Site Kent's GMA Comprehensive Plan establishes numerous Land Use and Transportation goals and policies that support the location of increased density generally, and in particular, more commercial and multifamily residential activity, at the intersections of principal arterials in the East Hill area The intersection where the Property is located, S.E. 240th St. and 116th Ave. S E., is an intersection of major existing/or planned artenals in the East Hill area (Kent Comprehensive Plan, Figure 9 1) a. Land Use and Urban Growth Policies The City Comprehensive Plan's "Urban Growth Goals and Policies" support the historical zoning the site of Neighborhood Commercial (NCC) and Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT)development Those policies include accommodating increased household growth in the twenty year period (LU-1 1), establishing a land use density to facilitate multimodal transportation (LU-2), concentrating development in order to promote public transit (LU-2), and providing efficient public facilities and ensuring that overall densities are adequate to support a range of urban services (LU-2) Concentrating more intense development in nodes at C WY DOCUMENTS\AMY DOCSICOUNCIL MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT A DOE arterial intersections such as the subject Property meets the City's goals of accommodating increased household growth in a land use pattern that facilitates multimodal transportation, including the ability to walk or take the bus to shop. Concentration of density at such nodes also provides for more efficient use of public facilities and supports a range of urban services better than would less dense development It is notable that while the City's Comprehensive Plan supports Neighborhood Commercial development at arterial nodes in close proximity to residential uses, in order to serve the daily needs of nearby residents and cut down on use of automobiles, the City of Kent has only three small parcels in the entire City (totaling just under 7 acres, less than 1% of the total City area) set aside as Neighborhood Commercial Therefore, zoning a portion of this Property for NCC would be an important step in bringing the City into compliance with its stated Comprehensive Plan goals of providing neighborhoods with convenience retail services within walking distance of the residences See also City's Buildable Lands study which shows the lack of NCC zoning b. Transportation Policies Further, the City's Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Policies support the historical zoning the site for NCC/MRT These policies support the location of activity centers with commercial, multifamily and other uses that generate higher levels of traffic at intersections of principal or minor arterials, such as the Property here (TR 1 1) These policies also promote consistency between land use and transportation plans. and land use patterns that support public transportation (TR 1 5, TR 1 7) Locating NCC/MRT zoning at the subject Property, which is at the intersection of arterial streets, is consistent with the City's transportation policy that seeks to locate more density near the transportation facilities that can best handle it Also. locating commercial development at this site, with existing multifamily nearby and potential new MRT development, promotes the City's goal to have land use patterns that support alternative modes of travel such as public transit and pedestrian travel The NCC/MRT promotes alternative modes of travel because residents of the multifamily development can access the nearby commercial uses on foot/bicycle or bus, and also the MRT residents will likely use bus transit that is easily available on the adjacent arterials to travel to employment Zoning the property NCC/MRT also supports the City's aim to ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans Having denser development and NCC zoning at the subject Property makes the City's land use plan consistent with its transportation goals, such as the planned 277th corridor, of which I I6th is an extension. The purpose of the I I6th/277th corridor was to reduce congestion on 240th (James St. corridor) and Kent Kangley which are nearly at capacity There are no retail nodes of neighborhood shopping on the 116th/277th corridor and so traffic that otherwise might utilize shops on this corridor is forced back onto 240th or Kent Kangley to shop for goods and services Finally, designating the Property NCC/MRT puts neighborhood shopping opportunities within walking distance of nearby residents, improving the overall traffic situation. The 0enerally accepted definition of"walking distance" is no more than a quarter mile area urrently the closest existing commercial to the subject Property and nearby residential areas is C UNY DOCUMENTSIAMY DOCS\COUNCIL MEMORANDUM EYHIEIT A DOC approximately one mile away at 132nd Avenue Thus,the proposed zoning will help create the pedestrian friendly type of development and ease additional traffic impacts by placing commercial in walking distance of residential development c. Housing Policies In addition, the City's Comprehensive Plan' s Housing Goals and Policies support the historical NCC/MRT zoning at the subject site These policies support the provision of sufficient housing density in the Potential Annexation Area and the provision of a variety of housing types, options and densities throughout the City and the Potential Annexation Area (LU-8 and 9) Zoning the entire DeMarco annexation area for single family development does not further the City's policy of providing a variety of housing types, options and densities in the Potential Annexation Area Zoning the entire area single family is also in conflict with the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan designation for housing in the Potential Annexation Area, which was multifamily (Comp Plan Map Figure 4 7) NCC/MRT zoning for the site will also actively promote the City's policies "to locate housing opportunities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit and human and community services" (LU-8 3) and to ensure that community and human services, including neighborhood shopping are easily accessible to neighborhood residents" (H-1 1) Locating commercial and multifamily at the subject site promotes these Comprehensive Plan policies of providing a variety of housing types, because the large balance of the DeMarco annexation area is all proposed to be zoned single family In addition, the proposed mixture of multifamily and commercial locates housing opportunities in close proximity to shopping and transit, and makes neighborhood shopping easily accessible to neighborhood residents in accordance with the City's policies d. Commercial and Economic Development Policies Moreover, the City Comprehensive Plan's Commercial and Economic Development Goals and Policies require the City to provide opportunities for residential development within business districts to provide support for shops, services. and employment within walking distance, and to analyze the potential for development of"comer store." small scale neighborhood-oriented shops adjacent to selected rights of way in higher density neighborhoods, to encourage recruitment of new businesses and to encourage expansion and retention of existing businesses (see, LU-13 2, LU-13 5, ED-1 4, ED-1 5) Designating property at the comer of arterial intersections for single family residential flies in the face of the City's economic development policies for encouraging new businesses and the tax base it brings. Also, designating the Property for a modest area of neighborhood commercial, as proposed. ensures that goods and services are available to the residents, including the residents of existing retirement homes and apartments located at the southwest quadrant of the 249th and 116th Ave intersection e. Property Rights Policies/Fairness The historical NCC/MRT zoning also complies with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies such as the City Comprehensive Plan's Property Rights Framework Policies (Nos 2 and 3) which state that property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary or CWA DOCUMENTS\AMV DOCS\COUNCILMEMORANDUM EXHIBIT DOC discriminatory action and that in developing policies,plans and regulations, the City shall minimize impacts on private property rights, when feasible and consistent with the public's interest. The City also expressed to Mr Lotto on several occasions, including at the first Planning Board meeting that the City's policy on annexation is to keep the zoning as close as possible to the pre-existing King County zoning Thus, it would be contrary to the City's policies on property rights as well as arbitrary to downzone Mr Lotto's entire property It would also be discriminatory not to allow a portion of the Lotto Property to be zoned NCC when the Ranger property across the street(southeast corner of 240th and 116th) was recently rezoned to NCC, based on the same Comprehensive Plan policies that apply to the Lotto Property 4. Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Will Create Benefits and Will Not Create Unacceptable Impacts Zoning the Lotto Property NCC will bring all of the public benefits supported by the City's comprehensive plan policies above These include compliance with the City's Growth Management policies of concentrating more dense development in compact areas, at arterial intersections, in order to more efficiently serve development with public services and transit These also include creating pedestrian and transit friendly commercial development in proximity to residential uses where residents can walk to shops and services The proposed NCC zoning also will have benefits in terms of economic development,jobs and tax base Even though part of the property is zoned commercial. the single family residents are protected from intrusive commercial use because the commercial zoning is not General Commercial, but more limited use Neighborhood Commercial (NCC) and the area of NCC zoning is relatively small 5. The Proposed Zoning Will Reduce Negative Traffic Impacts Citywide and the Intersection Will Still Operate at a Good Level of Service The NCC zoning for the Lotto Property is beneficial because it retains trips in the neighborhood rather than shifting them to other more remote and congested locations This is because the neighborhood character of the commercial development will serve to "intercept" the local residential trips that would otherwise travel further to Benson Road or Kent-Kangley Road to satisfy their personal service and convenience shopping needs If this NCC zoning is not approved, the peak hour congestion at existing commercial areas (LOS D and E) would only get worse (LOS E and F--which are very poor levels of service) The proposed zoning will permit the added trips to be more readily absorbed at a location that operates at LOS B now and will continue to operate at LOS C or better with this zoning and other planned development in the area These are very good levels of service which exceed typical city standards The goal of good land use/transportation planning is to provide a balance so that day-to-day needs can be met within each neighborhood and additional miles of vehicle travel can be avoided This zoning accomplishes that objective If this zoning is not approved, traffic impacts will simply be transferred to an adjacent neighborhood that will increase traffic delay and safety problems for existing and future residents of the City C''MY DOCUMENTS\4MY DOGS\COUNCIL MEMORANDUM EXHIBITADOC U v ---------- OZL ---------------�-- Q c - ® pcc = TO a - ILL c� cJ LI — a,S�r 1 n � � 77 o, 1 I �I a6a Ov f 00 X Z Z 1 LLI W O J U = -0 O I _ ----------38 and H19L4 -------------- 1 -- O _ v, m Od xm r C> g Z o. O GOLU J no c,�- C cry ) n -8 Al 71 I i AIL I y u m 2 Z Ul U � o > ILL ICI W W ml > � Xu Q t; Lu Z < � _-- L ¢ M X� XY a �1 I L. i � LV � Q NGG ----------3S V H OZl - - ---------- = ( cD � C nag ©� I z � ry 0 co a (�' - f ILL � J i Qc J J , NI € ) C, � I 1 U p ito z TT � I ,Z , �I > Q m f— O U — X z ' (DC s® Im i w uIIIIm WIN J� Z 9 Luz 0w Q Q V a 3 C)Cl J A 3 r 'G ----------3s3ndHa 9 � -------------- - ; y m -------3S and H1OZ-------------- V A \ ��, F.d tip• �, I a /Ir KIM INS NI WI JI_ �h IJ.1 m N �- ON N LL K WCL K W m n � Y W O Z m W Q n r Z 0 � N N z J p --- ---¢Q ---------------�— — J ` 3S 3A`d Hi9 U u O N ------------— tltl-Z6 _-- _-------�-- Q 5 p� Q - 9 ' K z �� _: _ • `� � � per® g�I a' QCD( �, C 12 CQ cF CN LU Cl) - _ D I U O Jl, ry - f � s 'tom HIMIch Cn _ -_ ' - - = _ � = o_- w = z +-� I W 15 Z LL 0'- _ BOOM Q O ,PK I,C d YN ----------383A1fH1941 �---------- i -- �� I , 1 ; CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: A, I Ian AD Councilmember vt moves, Councilmember W seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through H. Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 19, 2002 , and approval of a correction to the minutes of March 5, 2002 , as follows : Consent Calendar Item 6B, date of advices should be 2/19/02 rather than 2/10/92 . 6B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through March 15 and paid on March 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 19, 2002 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/15/02 Wire Transfers 1133-1141 $1, 034 , 075 . 21 3/15/02 Prepays & 530475-530649 626, 455 .46 3/15/02 Regular 530650-531186 $1, 254 , 312 .28 $2 , 914 ,842 . 95 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington March 19, 2002 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White . Councilmembers present : Clark, Epperly, Orr, Peterson, White, Woods, and Yingling. Others present : Chief Administrative Officer Martin, City Attorney Brubaker, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Community Development Director Satterstrom, Interim Fire Chief Hamilton, Finance Director Miller, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Hodgson and Employees Services Director Viseth Approximately 16 people were at the meeting. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Continued Communications Item 11A regarding Kent Public Market was added at the request of Martin Plys . (CFN-198) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Arbor Day. Mayor White read a proclamation noting that Kent established a tree ordinance and a tree maintenance crew for the purpose of maintaining, protecting, and regulating street trees He declared the second Wednesday of April each year as Arbor Day in the City of Kent and encouraged all residents to consider planting a tree on their property, to take a moment to en3oy the trees in our local parks , and to appreciate the beautiful green open spaces and forests in the Northwest . John Hodgson, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director, accepted the proclamation and invited the community to Clark Lake on April 27 , where 400 trees will be planted. (CFN-155) Absolutely Incredible Kid Day. Mayor White read a proclamation noting that Camp Fire USA is commemorating its Sixth annual "Absolutely Incredible Kid Day. " He proclaimed March 21, 2002 as "Absolutely Incredible Kid Day" in the City of Kent, and encouraged all adults, moms, dads , grandparents, aunts , uncles , teachers , mentors and other adults to participate and make a dif- ference in the life of a child by composing a letter and mailing or delivering it to your absolutely incredible kid or kids (CFN-155) Highline Co=unity College Strategic Plan. Elizabeth Chen, Chair of the Board of Trustees of Highline Community College, explained that Dr. Priscilla Bell visited all cities within Highline ' s service area and 1 Kent City Council Minutes March 19, 2002 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS actively sought comments, suggestions, input from Council members, mayors, school superintendents and service clubs regarding their Strategic Plan. Steve Fenton, Director of the Federal Way Campus, dis- tributed copies of the College strategic plan and noted that Board of Trustees approved this plan on November 8 , 2001 . Mr. Fenton explained the four primary strategic initia- tives : (1) to achieve excellence in education, teaching and learning, (2) enhance the college climate to value diversity and global perspectives , (3) strengthen and expand the presence and role of the college within the communities that it serves , and (4) continue to foster a climate that nourishes the well being and productivity of the college community. Upon Clark' s question, Ms Chen explained that plans for the Central Washington University building and the computer science building are going well . Mr. Fenton noted that anyone who is interested in the strategic plan, can get a copy of it on Highline ' s web site at wwww.highline . ctc .edu. (CFN-198) CONSENT CALENDAR CLARK MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through J. woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM GA) (CFN-198) Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 5, 2002 . BILL OF SALE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) (CFN-484) McHugh Short Plat Bill of Sale. Accept the Bill of Sale for McHugh Short Plat submitted by Michael L. Baerny & Connie K. Baerny for continuous operation and maintenance of 304 feet of waterline, 284 feet of storm sewers, 117 feet of sanitary sewers and 280 feet of street improve- ments, as recommended by the Public works Director. Bonds are to be released after the maintenance period. 2 Kent City Council Minutes March 19, 2002 BILL OF SALE This project is located at 119th Place Southeast and Southeast 256th Street . STREET VACATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) (CFN-102) 266th Street Vacation Petition. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the 266th St . street vacation petition, as recommended by the Parks Committee In July of 2001 , Pacific Land Consulting, Inc . (PLC) submitted a Tentative Subdivision Application for the parcel directly south of the future 132nd Street Neighborhood Park, and subsequently has submitted an application for vacation of 266th Street right-of-way. This motion only authorizes the mayor to sign the peti- tion; it does not authorize the street vacation at this time . If the street vacation is subsequently approved by City Council after a public hearing on the proposed vaca- tion, one-half (twenty feet) of the right-of-way will return to the park. PLC has asked the city to consider trading its twenty-foot vacated right-of-way for open space property west of the regional retention pond, if the Council ultimately grants the 266th St . vacation PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) (CFN-1038) Kent Corrosion Control Facility Project Funding. Authorization to transfer $115 , 000 from the East Hill Reservoir Fund (W20059) to the Corrosion Control Fund (#W20030) , as recommended by the Public Works Committee The City of Kent is mandated by Federal Law to limit the copper and lead levels in our drinking water. The Kent Corrosion Control Facility Project accomplishes this with respect to the Clark Springs and East Hill sources . Based on the bids recently received, the overall project budget is short by an estimated $115 , 000 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) (CFN-171) King County Signal Synchronization Grant Agreement, Kent Kangley Road. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the King County Signal Synchronization grant agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said project, as recom- mended by the Public Works Committee . 3 Kent City Council Minutes March 19, 2002 PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) (CFN-1038) Purchase of Smith and Loveless Pump Stations, 3rd Avenue and Washington Street. Authorization to purchase the Smith and Loveless Package Pump Stations for the 3rd Ave & Washington Avenue Pump Stations for a total price of $279, 737, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. The pump station projects are scheduled for construction in the Summer/Fall of 2002 . (BIDS - ITEM 8A) (CFN-1038) Kent Corrosion Control Facilities . The Bid opening for this project was held on February 8th with 11 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Nordic Construction with a bid amount of $880 , 221 38 , include- ing sales tax The Engineer ' s estimate was $985 , 184 . 00 including sales tax The Public Works Director recom- mends awarding this contract to Nordic Construction. ORR MOVED to award the Kent Corrosion Control Facilities contract to Nordic Construction in the amount of $880 , 221 38 . Epperly seconded and the motion carried TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) (CFN-335) Transportation Improvement Board Grant, Central Avenue. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant Agreement #8-1-106 (028) -1 , direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said road improvement project, as recommended by the Public Works Committee COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) (CFN-1240&377) DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning (AZ-2001-2/CPA-2001-2) . Set April 2 , 2002 and May 7 , 2002 , as the public hearing dates to establish the initial zoning for the DeMarco Annexation area. Amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map shall also be considered. The public hearings are required to be held 30 days apart . On March 11, 2002 , the Land Use and Planning Board made a recommendation for initial zoning and corresponding comprehensive plan and land use map amendments . 4 Kent City Council Minutes March 19, 2002 PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) (CFN-118) King County Arts Commission Grant for _King County Performance Network. Accept the $4 , 500 . 00 allocation from the King County Arts Commission' s "King County Performance Network" program and amend the Kent Arts Commission budget accordingly, as recommended by the Parks Director . Funds will offset the artistic fees for two King County Performance Network events as part of the Kent Arts Commission' s Spotlight Series . (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) (CFN-118) City of Auburn Home Repair Interlocal Agreement. The Parks Director and Parks Committee recommends approval of the interlocal agreement with the City of Auburn to con- tinue to carry out Auburn ' s home repair needs in 2002 . The City of Auburn requested the City of Kent to continue to provide home repair services to Auburn residents in 2002 The City of Auburn would reimburse Kent for all costs associated with the program, including an administrative fee Katherin Johnson, Human Services Manager, explained that the City of Auburn contracted with Kent last year to pro- vide home repair services and were so pleased with the services that they have asked us to continue the program for a one-year period, January 1 through December 31 , 2002 , for a total of $125 , 000 ten percent of which is an administrative fee paid to the City of Kent . She explained the benefits and noted that the home repair program in Kent increased 40% over the prior year. She urged the Council to authorize Mayor White to execute this interlocal agreement WOODS MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement with the City of Auburn to provide home repair services in 2002 , subsequent to approval of final terms and conditions by the City Attorney. Clark seconded and the motion carried EMPLOYEE SERVICES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) (CFN-171) FlexPass Program Agreement - Commute Trip Reduction. The FlexPass Agreement, a King County/Sound Transit Program 5 Kent City Council Minutes March 19, 2002 EMPLOYEE SERVICES allows all eligible employees to choose from a variety of non-single occupancy vehicle commute options provided by King County and Sound Transit . Karen Ford from Employee Services, asked the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign a 15-month renewal of the FlexPass agreement between the City of Kent, King County and Sound Transit . Upon Clark' s question, Sue Viseth, Employee Services Director, explained that the program is tied to air quality and environmental issues and that a mandate in 1991 to all employers with more than 100 employees required that they meet these state commute trip reduction mandates by the year 2005 or face fines and penalties She said the City has put in place the com- mute trip reduction program with FlexPass being one of the more successful programs in hopes of bringing our single occupancy vehicle rates down to meet these requirements that have been mandated by the State She added that the City has an obligation to help private sector employers throughout the City who have 100 employees or more, to also meet that mandate Yingling clarified that when the last study was done in May of 2001, 68% of City employees were driving to work in single occupancy vehicles , and that there will be another reduction this year. Viseth added that flexible work schedules also help the City meet the mandate for bringing down that single occupancy vehicle rate . Yingling noted that the target is 56% by 2005 . YINGLING MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign a 15-month agreement for the sale of the F1exPasses, a King County/Sound Transit commute trip reduction program Woods seconded. Martin Plys voiced concern about asking the tax payers of Kent to give city employees a break on transportation to and from work. 6 Kent City Council Minutes March 19 , 2002 EMPLOYEE SERVICES White said the transit is already very highly subsidized by the tax payers and this is costing over $38 , 000 or roughly a thousand dollars per person. He said it is inappropriate for tax payers to provide free trans- portation to and from work for city employees . Clark responded that the Federal government is now struggling with the fact that air pollution standards are hitting critical points in virtually every metropolitan area in the country, and that when you look at the potential health costs that sort of situation aggravates , you begin to realize that it ' s one of those things that comes back to haunt you in many different forms if you don ' t address it . He said if the City doesn' t try to improve the environment and conform to federal mandate laws, we lose access to our own tax dollars . Upon questions from Council members, it was explained that prior to April 2002 there were 42 people in vanpools or using Metro buses, and that there is a complicated formula to determine rates . Viseth noted that the penalties wouldn' t be assessed until 2005 and all of her estimates show that we should be in compliance at that point Yingling emphasized that part of this is to give incentive to employees to carpool or take public trans- portation of some type, but that the bottom line is that the City is trying to comply with Federal and State laws . He added that this is the cost of complying with those laws . The motion then carried. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM GB) (CFN-104) Approval of Bills Approval of payment of the bills received through February 2B and paid on February 28 after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 5 , 2002 , Kent City Council Minutes March 19, 2002 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 2/28/02 Wire Transfers 1125-1132 $ 851, 943 . 07 2/28/02 Prepays & 529974 2 , 341 , 710 . 00 2/28/02 Regular 530474 2 , 320 , 512 . 14 $5, 514, 165 . 21 Approval of checks issued for payroll for February 15 through February 28 and paid on March 5, 2002 - Date Check Numbers Amount 3/5/02 Checks 258614-258941 $ 253 , 290 . 89 3/5/02 Advices 125332-126061 1 , 062 , 370 . 63 $1 , 315 , 661 52 REPORTS Council President. Clark noted that the Suburban Cities Association has recently published bylaws and recommended that Councilmembers review them Operations Co=ittee. Yingling noted that the next meeting will be at 5 00 p.m. on April 2nd Public Works Co=ittee. Orr noted that the next meeting will be held at 4 . 00 p.m. on April 1 and that the final assessment roll for LID 350 will be heard. Planning Co=ittee. Orr noted that the next meeting will be held at 3 : 00 p.m. on April 16 . Administrative Reports. Martin noted that the second of three community meetings on the Kent Station will be held at Kent Commons on March 21st and invited all interested persons to attend KENT PUBLIC MARKET (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A) (CFN-462) Kent Public Market, Martin Plys, 30'04 S . 256th, said he thinks the Public Market building should be sold and the market put back on the street where it was when it made money. He voiced concern about the misuse and abuse of tax payers dollars, and said he intends to come up with a 8 Kent City Council Minutes March 19, 2002 KENT PUBLIC MARKET plan whereby the City won' t be able to buy any property or buildings without citizen' s permission He suggested that the City lease its property to bring in tax revenue. He said the Council needs to control spending, and suggested telling the Federal government that the City is not going to be forced to give away tax payer money. After the Executive Session, Clark voiced opposition to Plys ' comments regarding the Federal government and acknowledged Mayor White ' s leadership in working with the Federal delegation. He noted that the Mayor corralled $900 , 000 for the Kent Station project which will expand the City' s tax base . EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7 45 p m , the meeting recessed to an Executive Session of approximately 20 minutes . Martin noted that action is not anticipated on either item. The meeting reconvened at 8 09 p m (CFN-198) ADJOURNMENT After his response to Item 11A, CLARK MOVED to adjourn at 8 : 10 p .m. Woods seconded and the motion carried. (CFN-198) Mary immons Acting Deputy City Clerk 9 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 2, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SW QUADRANT S. 260th STREET/PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to adopt the respective condemnation Ordinance No. should negotiations fail on the purchase of a portion of property at S . 260th Street and Pacific Highway South. Said property is associated with the SR99 Street Widening project 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E W,ckstrom, P E Pubhc Works Dnector A G 1�► 1 Phone Fax 253-856-6500 W♦S HIN GTGn Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date March 19 , 2002 -0 Public Works Committee i Prom Don Wickstrom, Pubhc Works Director Sub] ect Purchase o Sale Agreement - S 260`h St/Pacific Highway Condemna a on Ordinance The Public Works Department ;s seeking condemnation authority for a portion of S . 260th St at Pacific Highway South in order to construct a water detention aond associated with the SR99 Street Widening project . We are presently negotiating to purchase this property but since we are on a tight timeline, condemnation may be eminent . MOTION Recommend Council authorization to adopt the respective condemnation ordinance ConneMatloz260th 3ICi,54 .r' 2CG 39• I 89 62 H low rrc or u /So, 1.2 � a r ru J G N (Or Z C 2 $�� Z a my p KC.SP.176058,�j 7604120624 m y. N nftlJ _ 4 C/ 7 FC, -4 wcf \ _ � Lu Nm ryry h I 1 ko '�� D ii O V 2.1 ;3 o LOT 6 U7 2 n,() � aoc 9962 � z K -v AD 13 �,l')tK 1 I z , ; ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for the acquisition of certain property and/or property rights for storm water drainage detention use in conjunction with Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Road Widening Project, providing for the condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of such property rights as are necessary for that purpose, providing for the payment thereof out of the "Pacific Highway HOV Phase 2" Fund (Fund R90062), and directing the City Attorney to prosecute the appropriate legal proceedings, together with the authority to enter into settlements, stipulations or other agreements, the property is located within King County, Washington. it THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES I HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS I SECTION 1. After receiving the report from City staff, and after reviewing the planned street improvements for Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Road Widening Project (the "Project"), the City Council fmds and declares that the public convenience, use, health, safety, and necessity demand that the City of Kent condemn, appropriate, take, and damage all or portions of certain real properties located in King County, Washington, in order to acquire the necessary property and/or property rights for the construction of storm water drainage detention necessary for the Project, including all necessary appurtenances This property is legally described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference (the "Property") The purposes for which this condemnation is authorized shall include, without limitation, all acts necessary to complete the construction, extension, improvement, 1 Pacific Highway (SR-99) SW Quadrant 260th Condemnation widening, alteration,maintenance and reconstruction of the storm water drainage detention for the Project SECTION 2 The City authorizes the acquisition by condemnation of all or a portion of the Property for the construction, extension, improvement, widening, alteration, maintenance, and reconstruction of the storm water drainage detention for the Project, including acquisition of property and/or property rights, together with all necessary appurtenances and related work to make a complete improvement according to City standards. SECTION 3. The City shall condemn the Property only after just compensation has first been made or paid into court for the owner or owners in the manner prescribed by law i I SECTION 4. The City shall pay for the entire cost of the acquisition by condemnation provided for in this ordinance through the City's "Pacific Highway HOV Phase 2"Fund (Fund R90062)or from any of the City's general funds, if necessary, as may be provided by law SECTION S. The City authorizes and directs the City Attorney to commence those proceedings provided by law that are necessary to condemn the Property In commencing this condemnation procedure, the City Council authorizes the City Attorney to enter into settlements, stipulations, or agreements in order to minimize damages, which settlements, stipulations, or agreements may include, but not be limited to, the amount of lust compensation to be paid, the size and dimensions of the property condemned, and the acquisition of temporary construction easements and other property interests 2 Pacific Highway(SR-99) SW Quadrant 260th Condemnation SECTION 6. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed SECTION Z The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances SECTION 8. This ordinance, being the exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City's legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect i and be in force five (5) days after publication as approved by law I RIM WHITE, MAYOR !ATTEST BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 2002 APPROVED the_day of 2002 PUBLISHED the_ day of 12002 I 3 Pacific Highway (SR-99) SW Quadrant 160th Condemnation I hereby certify that this is a true and correct 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. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\C[VLUOR WANCEVCONOEh S"9-SW20T D C it �I I lil �i ii III 4 Pacific H►ghway(SR-99) SW Quadrant 260th Condemnation The east half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W M , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion of the east 29 62 feet of said subdivision lying north of the south 60 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the west 60 feet of the east 89 62 feet of the north 230 feet of said subdivision; EXCEPT the west 200 feet of the north 230 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the north 30 feet of said subdivision for county road, AND EXCEPT the south 20 feet of the east 29 .62 feet of said subdivision; TOGETHER WITH the north 40 feet of the south 60 feet of that portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 26, lying west of State Road No 1 EXHIBIT "A" Kent City Council Meeting Date April 2 , 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: STREET VACATION, 48TH PLACE SOUTH - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to pass Resolution No. setting a public hearing date of May 21st for the street vacation located along that portion of 48th Place South, west of SR516. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and Public Works Director memorandum 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 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E Wickstrom,P.E. Public Works Director i Phone Fax 253-856-6500 WA5HIn G-OH Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 Dare March 16 , 2002 To Public WorksC1otlpm, ttee From Don W=ckscrom, JPublic Works Director Subject - Street Vacation - Portion of Frontage Service Road West of SR516 We have received a valid petition to vacate a portion of the frontage service road adjacent to SR51G (north of Reith Road) . 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 nearing date of May 21st for the street vacation located along that portion of the Frontage Service Road West of SR516 scvacation PE 1 SOLGHT TO BE N AC®TED - \ \15e� 01 Gov't. I 70 ,ACT"' � m i ce rJ o \\ ii n(� 1—DLO �� \ � ✓ram -"'� O 'r PHSZ53 h �4 UNIT W E S Er PMS�%Il ; ^, PHS 'ire \\1'\ 4UNI S PHS� Y� , 4 UNITS • /may\ PMS"9 \\\ .>b TOWN ,I '0 4 UNITS p HS ZT.' ad a u Z a COND PH- 4 \ \ UNITS on PHASE Z UNITS Pfl PHS•-" _ \ \ \\ 4 UNI79 J `9 9UN. 4 UNITS i�ty FPLi �� u3'=l-0UNI 414 62 L H$ 6 4UN NI ITS PHASE M p UNITS ` ry a ns Bay Cons'ruc�lc^ I \ y� I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington,regarding the vacation of a portion of surplus SR 516 in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 22, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W M in King County, and setting the public hearing on the proposed street vacation for May 7, 2002 WHEREAS, a petition, attached as Exhibit A, has been filed by Jim Cassel to vacate a portion of surplus State Route 516 legally described in Exhibit A and generally lying in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 22, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W M. in 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 surplus State Route 516 that is seeking 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 surplus State Route 516, legally described in Exhibit "A", shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council at 7 00 p m , Tuesday, May 7, 2002, in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington, 98032 1 Street Vacation — Surplus SR 516 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 May 7, 2002 PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this 2nd day of April, 2002 CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of April, 2002 JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM TOM BRUBAKER, 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, on the day of Apn1, 2002 (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 Street [vacation — Surplus SR 516 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS D MAR 0 7 2002 Date- _�F- 7 DZ.— CITY OF KENT CITY CLERK TO City Cleric FROM: Jerry McCaugh RE Street Vacation /7-',40 /god. FZE-K/r1Y 1W, 61F 9PP1 RA 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 Wicicstrom Planning Manager Attachment. Maps s[.vacace MAR 01 2002 • CCITY�LERKT KENT WA 5 Of 111 A4ayorAm While of TO II KIVA#: ZoZo5v8 MAIL TO: APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT NAME. TI rvt C(SSe Ili operly Management 220S 4"iAvenue ADDRESS: 35-o2 1� fHa� Kcnl, Washington 98032 p p Alta- Ieny MCCauglian �V C c (4 Wn 1 0 20 PHONE: �257�33S',r�101 STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PL'I'I'I'ION Dear Mayor and Kent City Council We, the undeisigned abutting piopcily owners, heieby respectfully iequest that ceilain nlDc �'t A o I $QfP�us SRsI(o iA +4e 5to & o{ tie NEyy ofi 2Z22Oy ��aae � N +0 2zzaoygoSB hpC'p be VaCafe'Q , 5.--{ 0L(,.,/, f' ,,,...r+ Legal Description ofShccl/Alley Sought to be Vacated (Must Contain Total Square Peel of Aiea Sought To Be Vacated) REFER T6 /77TI1C11ED f02 LEGAL �� /11/;LP 13RIE1T S'I'A1'EMEN'I' NVIIY VACATION IS 13EING SOUGIIT A "CURRENT" title iepoit must be submitted with this application that covets all Ilse lbultlog piepetlies Conlrguous to alley or street sought to be vacated When Coipotations, Pailneiships, etc are being signed foi, and then proof of mdrvldual's authouty to sign For same shall also be submitted Attach a color-coded map of n scale of not less than I" = 200' of the area sought for vacation (NOTE) Map must correspond with legal description ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT It SIGNAT LOT, BLOCK & PLA f/SEC TOWN RG 22zzc9�f�( o5 � MAR 0 7 2002 Lo OF KENT RIGHT-OF-VACATION CITY CITY CLERK LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE SOUTH 254 35 FEET OF THE NORTH 508 65 FEET OF THE EAST 143.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER LYING WEST OF KENT-DES MOINES ROAD MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W M , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT STATE HIGHWAY BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY THENCE SOUTH 100 13' 04"EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 157 51 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 10° 03' 11" WEST A DISTANCE OF 100 77 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY THENCE SOUTH 890 10' 00" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PROPERTY, A DISTANCE OF 117 23 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 720 52' 08"EAST, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1640 00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 060 52'47", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 196 92 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 79° 44' 55" WEST, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25 00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 580 38' 59", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 25 59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 210 05' 56" EAST THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 65 00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55° 40' 54", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 6117 FEET TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHLINE OF THE HEREIN-ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, THENCE NORTH 890 10' 00" WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY EXTENSION, A DISTANCE OF 25 59 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING Charles AD Ecklond NP 1\9 REA SOUGHT TO \ MAR 0 7 2002 BE VACATED CITY OF KEUL Tcs4 CITY CLEFS 1 V' O rc se a g10 1 a\ �'N " Gov't. Lot 2 =1 34.70 Acres �V Rashiord � � J 1 2 0 7(, v � PHSS^ .p O/ ¢4 UNIT 'ems S V WESTR ar pHSN=SII 4UNITS� m PHSSLT- - . r 4UNITS f\ PNSI TOWN ` g �ti~ 4UNITS'N \ PHS PH9 YID A CON PH 4 UNITS "�n 4UNITS ♦ -4UNI S u l]•1] wgf �i PHS ,o .• \/_/�j) PHASES `\ UNIT PAS pHSIIY ^1 4UNITS 4 UNITS �`^ i 4 UNITS I nr - ree>v ^i fat i /I pHs .Q y9 dLr S V3 4UNfTSni f 4 pHs 6 4UNITS PHASE IX 2 UNITS n 7 0 R / 5 I o n 40 6 I Q 1 i pC i Bay Construction Inc O V a m 7 ; c � llo 27 61 Ac Z r +� Kent City Council Meeting Date April 2 , 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SALE OF SURPLUS PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, declare the Equipment Rental vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next public auction. 3 EXHIBITS: Equipment Rental Vehicles list 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. 6E PUBLIC NVORhS DEPARTMENT Don E W,ckstrom, P E Pubhc Works Director K Phone 253-856-5500 E N T Fax 253-856-6500 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 96032-5895 _a_e March 18 , 2002 Publac Works Com-ittee _-cm. Don-Wickst-om, =ublic Works Director _-j ect St.-plus Ec-i p-ient A-=ached is a list c- Equipment Rental Ven_cles no longer needed n-: the City and have been replaced We are requesting that they ne declared as surplus and sold at the next public auction NOTION Recommend authorization to declare the listed equipment as surplus and authorize t7e sale thereof at the next public auction PUBLIC WORKS Don E Wickstrom, Director OPERATIONS DIVISION Larry R Blanchard, Manager ALNT Phone 253-856-5656 wa H I N c,o N Fax 253-856-6600 Mailing Address 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Location Address 5821 South 240th Date March 8, 2002 To Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director From Alice Conrad, Fleet Superintendent Through Larry Blanchard, Operations Manager Lfi,6 03 0 -c2 Subject Request for Council Approval to Surplus Replaced Equipment The following vehicles comply with current replacement policies A replacement vehicle has been purchased for each of the vehicles listed below The listed vehicles will be sold at auction 1008 1996 John Deere F525 Riding Mower, sin MOF525A150676, 5 year life cycle This unit was assigned and heavily used by the Parks department until it was replaced in 2001 It is well worn and no longer cost effective for city purposes 3222 2002 Harley Davidson, Roadking FLHP1, F dice Motorcycle, sin 1 HD1 FHW 122Y601236, 1000 miles It was totaled in an accident on 1/15,2002 5309 1990 Dodge Cargo Van, sin 2B7 FBI 1XBLK778460, 75,090 miles This vehicle was replaced in 2000 and reassigned temporarily until it was again removed from service in 2001 5434 1998 GMC Sonoma Extended Cab, ''/z Ton Pickup, sin IVFSUOOTAU003967 , 14008 miles This vehicle was totaled in an accident on 12/21/01 5350 1989 Chevrolet Celebrity, sedan, sin 1G1AW51W5K6217670, 77,322 miles This vehicle was originally assigned to the fire department until it was replaced and reassigned to the water department It is well used and starting to show signs of potential costly repairs 5359 1988 Dodge Pickup, sin 1B7JD24W3JS772064, 90,403 miles This vehicle currently needs major engine repairs and has been removed from service 5397 1997 JD 1145 mower, sin M01145X160781 This vehicle was used heavily by the street vegetation crew until it was recently replaced There are signs of extensive wear and potential major repairs It was removed from service on February 21, 2002 6531 1996 Toro 325D 72" Deck Groundmaster, sin 60319 This vehicle was replaced in 2001 and removed from service due to pump failure Repairs to this machine would not be cost effective 5374 1991 GMC with service body and crane, s/n 1GDJC34K4ME536043, 75,840 miles This vehicle was removed from service early this year due to high idle hours and engine wear 5377 1986 Torklift hydraulic Trailer, s/n TLCFB86696 This trailer is not stable, it was replaced and removed from service in August 2001 6559 1994 Mitsubishi Utility Vehicle, s/n IV4FSUDOTA0004000 This vehicle was heavily used by the golf course It currently has rear axle failure and parts are not available It was replaced earlier this year 6560 1994 Mitsubishi Utility Vehicle, s/n IVFSUDOTA0003967 This vehicle was also heavily used by the golf course It shows signs of engine failure and was replaced earlier this year 6530 1996 Toro 325-D, s/n 60319 This riding mower was assigned to the parks maintenance division and replaced in 2001 after signs of pump failure Repairs to this vehicle will be costly 8776 1989 Chevy Cargo Van, s/n 1GCEG25K5K7150669, 68,758 miles This vehicle came from a water department assignment and reassigned to the motor pool It currently has engine and coolant leaks and is no longer cost effective for city purposes Thanks Ref P fleeUsurplus/memo requesting council approval for March_02 doc Kent City Council Meeting Date April 2 , 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUDIO AND VISUAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to award the equipment purchase for Council Chambers audio and video equipment to VMI Inc . in an amount of $53, 000 and to award installation of the equipment to J.W. Teltronics in an amount of $33, 000, subject to review and approval of the contract documents by the City Attorney. 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: Technology Plan Funds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: • ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F • DATE March 12, 2002 KE ecrce N T 40000 W nsri TO Kent City Council Operations Committee CC Mike Martin, Chief Administrative Officer INFORMATION Marty Mulholland, Information Technology Director TECHNOLOGY Marty Mulholland, Director FROM Dea Drake, Multimedia Manager 220 Fourth Ave.S SUBJECT Council Chambers Audio and Video Equipment Purchase Kent,WA 98032-5895 Council Chambers Audio and Video Installation RFP Phone 253-856-4600 Fax.263.856.470o BACKGROUND The council chamber currently has poor presentation capability The equipment is 7 years old and has not kept up with changing technology A project to upgrade the council chambers equipment was funded through the City's last technology plan The intent of this project is to provide a very basic presentation system in which the council chambers will have a large screen in both chambers east and chambers west Citizens, visitors and staff will be able to use an overhead projector, a computer or a VCR to project information onto the large screens In addition it will provide some improvements in audio for the audience and filming on the east side of the council chambers SELECTION PROCESS The design has been completed and two RFP's released, one for purchase of the equipment and one for installation of the equipment Four vendors submitted proposals for the Equipment Purchase RFP Vendor responses are detailed in the attached spreadsheet These responses were analyzed for their ability to meet the RFP criteria, including price, product features, contract review, product support, compatibility, warranty, timing of delivery, reputation and references and other similar factors Only one response was received for the Equipment Installation RFP This bid met all the requirements listed in the RFP FUNDING SOURCE Technology Plan RECOMMENDED MOTION Request that the council authorize purchase and installation of the council chambers audio and video improvement as follows • Award the equipment purchase contract for audio and video equipment to VMI Inc in an amount not to exceed $52,829 including tax • Award installation of the equipment to J W Teltronics in an amount not to exceed $33,000 including tax Subject to review and approval of the contract documents by the City Attorney Thank you for your consideration of this request ATTACHMENTS 1 RFP Equipment Purchase Response Analysis Spreadsheet 2 Original RFP proposal documents for Equipment and Installation 3 J W Teltronics Bid Response y �3S N NNNNNNNNN + + do33dxOd Dom ' ' " '� IOmWJmVI AfJ N -+ N � E7 4 61 D :5 0 2 n t - p y N J a 3 D II y O n x O D T m DD XW mW 0K 0 s' a - mg K3 Smw Mai W 0000 MMWO f� a n a M d@ A < < w m m m v F m 8 y o O O N L O n o x D m m m m o 0 0 0 c m m m m ° ° ? D 3 m C ti P J F O m m N O J fD P J D ^ Cl 6S �j 3 ^ ll 0 (1 (1 <l O W ° D ° 8 'o a S D F ¢ O N m A O m m m a m o F c c D m ° m c 0 n 3 = D a c /^�m I lJ C 3 0 1tnm3 � 'n 03 o A OA GmmnO mtn OA ' �tm 0 rr r < o m o o m m m N d x 0 0 o N o — m o 0 0 0 `� 3 a 3 j 3 w m m A 3 < 0 3 i o p o p 3 C o m o a w ° 0 m ° ]J D o c m N 3 c3 8 3 O m z 0 , ° m o ° yDm ' m c<in= mxa F0F 0 0 o m '^ o m n 3 2 m o g xt ]1 O 'm c m CD E �^ O ' °_ q .« Qmc < � "- m °' onin3 � m � m � 7 a 6 m D O F o 3 A O m_ m o 3 F ul m 8 N =F 8 3 3 m N i 0 m � � n 3 v 23 �D AN 3m » 3333<Cla 3A cn(n yr w m JD r r m CD 71 Aid c3 D ° m�' r0000 � o r031 ZI Gx °. rn 2az .� O T. i.� QA Otn N ° mN 0 < G GD = Cl my < m3 0' ^� m (O0 .n o > m W vt N + UI m a o o wow p �_ CD o _ _ N ' w z o o � � �0 3 & D D < N OL U o y¢ Jt2 [J CZn- O AO Q m D� 0 0OI N b OI 0 fi tll d P C A N888mm8 S 8888888888 88888 88 m JIB p m W (q b N N N J b+ A fp +Wi N+ N N � aCD - D) W m 138 N Ol O m O O N . . . . . . . . .O N N 88809 O o 9 g $ 888888888 8888808888 888888 ss ° 2 !^� C2, n'i w wwww <n � wmw' m < m O w C2 A W W o m w o T m N 'M a O Z z Z a o Z Z Z Z o z z z o 0 0 0 yy� Q Doo D o o O o 0 0 + BoS`8imou � m� Sw O1rn Jm S. o �' o0 0 P P P DP P P P P P P P P o w moo W o 0 0 E 8 ° o S 8 S a S S 8 S S 8 S S'n d 5 n d n d d N o 0 o N N o o a S S o o w m vi w w w w N w N N w r u w w w w T a_ m 8888888888 0. 80088888 ° ` zpd zCd zOd nP oPd Pd zPd zad zPd zPd zVd zPd zqa Z� zvS z� z22d zvv3 zmgg6 z D D O D D D O DCCd f mI J MV Rill w w lI V A S fb0 VP Q m9 b b m ml M . 8 A A A fD N E S N+S+S+ O S n C_ 2 ry °O P A. rt n ry V m d n m m w w • KENT WASHINGTON *** REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS For Audio and Video presentation Equipment For City of Kent Council Chambers Issued• January 25, 2002 Date Due: February 11, 2002 Time Due 3 00 pm Pacific Time as shown by Clerk's Clock Address Responses To City Clerk Audio Video Presentation Equipment Proposal City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5725 Fax 253-856-6700 U WyD umenit�abk`c urc,klumbcnmpmurc nu fgcouncikMmE n_I_1fi 0L vE I City of Kent Request for Proposal for Purchase of Audio and Video Presentation Equipment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTENT OF THE CITY...............................................................................................3-7 11 Background 3 1 2 Communications Regarding RFP. . . 4 1 2 1 Response Date,Time,Location 4 1 2 2 City of Kent Contact . . 4 1 3 Vendor Clarifications and Questions 4-6 13 1 RFP Changes or Amendments 4 1.32 City of Kent Clarifications .. 5 13 3 Vendor Contact 5 1 3 4 Vendor Prime Contractor Responsibility . . .. . . 5 1 3 5 Period of Validity of Proposals 5 1 3 6 Costs Incurred by Vendors 5 1 3 7 Errors in Proposals 6 1 3 8 Right of Selection or Rejection of Proposal 6 1 4 Selection Process 6-7 1 4 1 RFP Evaluation 6 1 A 2 References 6 14 3 Cost Review 6 1 4 4 Final Vendor Selection 7 15 Selection Process Schedule of Events 7 2.0 VENDOR INSTRUCTIONS........................................................................................... 8 2 1 Proposal Format and Requirements 8 2 2 Interface and Support 8 3.0 VENDOR WORKSHEETS........................................................................................9-13 3 1 Vendor Profile 9 3 2 Vendor References 10-11 3 3 System Specification Standard Features and Pricing 12-13 3 3 1 Chambers and Control Room Equipment. ...... . ....... . ....... .... .. .............. 12 3 3 2 Audio Equipment 13 U UdyCbcumemslCa�kruurciklumbenmpmvememSrl�rourc�klumbers 1 Ib_Olrcv dw 2 1.0 INTENT OF THE CITY The City of Kent plans to improve Council Chambers in City Hall by providing the capability of doing audio and video presentations, which can be easily seen by both the Council and the audience When this project is complete presenter(s) will have the capability of utilizing PowerPoint on either a laptop or PC, overhead equipment and/or video taped materials in their presentations at Council Meetings, Council Committee meetings, workshops, and various other meetings The system specifications are broken into two sections Section 3 3,1 is for Chambers and Control Room equipment Section 3 3 2 is for Audio Equipment Vendors may respond to one or both of these sections The City's intent is to work with a maximum of two vendors for this project The City will be looking for vendor(s) who can sell, warranty and provide support to the installing vendor, as well as work with the installing vendor to assure successful operation and integration of all individual equipment It is the intent of the City to acquire this equipment from vendor(s) located within the general Puget Sound Region to better interface with the installing vendor at the time of installation Depending on the overall cost of the equipment, the City may elect to add additional items to the system or remove some functionality by eliminating some items from the list Vendors will be evaluated and product selected based on price, product features, product support, service, compatibility with existing products or services, warranty, timing of delivery, reputation of the supplier, equipment demonstrations, suitability of equipment in meeting the City's needs, and other sirrular matters See section 14 for more details This request for proposal is offered by the city pursuant to RCW 39 04 270 Electronic data processing and telecommunications systems--Municipalities--Acquisition method--Competitive negotiation-- Findings, intent 1.1 BACKGROUND The City of Kent began videotaping and broadcasting Council meetings and comrruttee meetings approximately seven years ago As part of this remodel, three television monitors and an Elmo presentation device were installed in council chambers to project both filrrung and presentations The televisions are small and far away and make viewing most materials difficult In addition, the increase in technology has created a great demand for a more adequate ability to present from PowerPoint and to be able to present on either side of the council chambers, which can be divided into two rooms This improvement will provide some very basic equipment, which will enable people to present in council chambers with a variety of tools while still providing for filming, when required It will also allow for presentations when no filming is being done, without cable TV staff intervention or time In addition it will provide some improvements in audio for the audience and flnung on the east side of the council chambers In order to begin this process, a request for proposals for a design vendor was released and a design vendor selected The design vendor selected was J. W Tel-Tronics, P O Box 1282, Bothell, WA 98041- 1282,425-485-4739 or Fax 425-481-0703,johnw@jwtel cam J W Tel-Tronics has now completed the design and specified the desired equipment The purpose of this proposal is to fulfill that equipment list U Wy Du rmcnu�CaEk�cuurc,klumherunprovemenu4f�courciklumGvs_I IM1 02,cv duc 3 1.2 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING RFP 1.2.1 Response Date, Time, Location Each Vendor shall provide one signed onginal and two copies of its proposal Proposals must be received at the City address listed below no later than February 11,2002,3 00 p m.,Pacific Time. Vendors are solely responsible for ensuring that proposals are delivered on time Delays caused by any delivery service, including the US Postal Service, will not necessarily be grounds for a waiver of the deadline requirement. Proposals subnutted after the deadline may be rejected at the City's sole discretion Electronic proposal copies, such as fax or E-mail, may be rejected at the City's sole discretion All proposals must be delivered to City Clerk Audio Video Presentation Equipment Proposal City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5725 Fax 253-856-6700 1.2.2 City of Kent Contact All communications regarding this Request for Proposals from vendors and other sources must be directed through Dea Drake, Multimedia Manager Inquiries may be made between January 25 and February 10, 2002 as follows Dea Drake Information Technology Department City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 Phone 253-8564646 Fax 253-8564700 Email ddrake@ci kent wa us 1.3 VENDOR CLARIFICATIONS AND QUESTIONS Specific vendor questions concerning the RFP should be submitted in writing (may be faxed or sent via E-mail) Copies of questions relevant to the RFP process,together with the City's response will be distributed to all participating vendors Vendors who seek information,clarification,or interpretations from City of Kent employees without using a written submission process are advised that such material is used at the vendors own nsk and the City shall not be bound by any such representations 1.3.1 RFP Changes or Amendments Any revisions to the RFP will be issued in the form of an addendum and will be distributed to all vendors prior to the Response Due Date 0 WY Wcumems'Cabk�cuurcikhamEer�mprv.emems4klcuurc,klumbcrs_I_IR a2m.&X 4 1.3.2 City of Kent Clarifications The City of Kent reserves the right to obtain clarification of any point in a vendor's proposal or to obtain additional information necessary to properly evaluate a proposal Failure of a vendor to respond to such a request for additional information or clarification may result in rejection of the vendor's proposal The City's retention of this right shall in no way reduce the responsibility of vendors to submit complete, accurate and clear proposals 1.3.3 Vendor Contact The proposal must include the name of the specific individual who will act as the primary contact for the vendor The proposal must identify the contact's position in the organization, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address, if available 1.3.4 Vendor Prime Contractor Responsibility The system specifications are broken into two sections Section 3 3.1 is for Chambers and Control Room equipment. Section 3 3 2 is for Audio Equipment Vendors may respond to one or both of these sections The City will work with a maximum of two vendors for this project There may be as many as one prime contractor for each of the above sections. If for either of the two specification sections, a vendor's proposal includes equipment, hardware, software, or services to be provided by entities other than it, it is mandatory for the proposing vendor to act as prime contractor for the procurement of all products and/or services proposed to meet this RFP The vendor, as the prime contractor for that section of the proposal, must be the sole contact for that section of the proposal If a vendor's proposal includes equipment, hardware, software, or services to be supplied by entities other than it,it is mandatory for the proposing vendor to act as prime contractor for the procurement of all products and/or services proposed to meet this RFP The vendor,as the prime contractor, must be the sole point of contact, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the purchase of the proposed equipment,hardware, software, and/or services with. The vendor, acting as the prime contractor, must take full responsibility for the demonstration, construction(if required), delivery, and acceptance testing of the proposed items supplied by itself or its subcontractor(s) Acting as a prime contractor on behalf of the City does not exempt the vendor from the policies set forth in the City's Policy and Procedure's Manual and other applicable City Codes 1.3.5 Period of Validity of Proposals Vendor must certify that its proposal will remain in effect for 120 days after the proposal due date The City may request an extension beyond the 120 days 1.3.6 Costs Incurred by Vendors The City shall not be liable for any costs incurred by a prospective vendor for preparing or submitting a proposal to the City or for any subsequent demonstrations required by the City Proposals should be prepared simply and econonucally, providing a straightforward, concise description of vendor capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the proposal U W,Dacumnus�CaLk4nu,c�kAunUerunpm xmenu4lQcuurciklumbers_I_Ifi 03rtv Juc 5 1.3.7 Errors in Proposals Vendors are responsible for all errors or omissions in their proposals and any such errors or omissions will not serve to diminish their obligations to the City. Vendors will not be allowed to alter proposal documents once proposals have been submitted The City reserves the right to allow corrections or amendments due to errors identified in the proposals by either the vendor or the City The City may waive minor adrrunistrative irregularities contained within the proposal documents 1.3.8 Right of Selection or Rejection of Proposal The City offers this RFP as a competitive negotiation The City, at its sole option, may select or reject any or all proposals for any reason, may waive any informality in the proposals received, and may waive minor deviations from the specifications and shall be the sole judge thereof Selection of a vendor shall not be construed as a contract award The City may award a contract on the basis of information in addition to that received in its proposal Therefore, it is emphasized that all proposals should be complete and submitted with the most favorable financial terms. 1.4 SELECTION PROCESS The proposal must include the name of the specific individual who will act as the pnmary contact for the vendor during proposal evaluation The proposal must identify the contact's position to the organization, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address, if available, 1.4.1 RFP Evaluation: The vendor responses will be evaluated based on the Qualification section of their proposal described in Section 3 Vendors may be contacted for response clarification to the Vendor Questionnaire. The selection committee will determine which vendor's solution can best serve the City's goals and environment. 1.4.2 References Reference checks will be done on the vendors identified as finalists The City reserves the right to contact any person or organization for information regarding a vendor regardless of the references provided by the vendor Vendor must provide a rrummum of three references that are currently using the product(or srnular products) and purchased the product from your company 1.4.3 Cost Review Comparison and analysis of all pricing submitted will be performed by the Multimedia Manager,and will be based on the total cost of the proposed equipment including such items as individual and group equipment pricing, shipping costs, tax, warranty coverage, support and other appropriate costs and fees U UIr D�cumenuYCabkkwrcikhambnr,mproemenu4fq.roumkbamhrs_I Ifi ULcv duc 6 Y 1.4.4 Final Vendor Selection A final vendor selection for each package as detailed in section 3 3 3 will be made based on each vendor's proposal, including without limitation, Feature Relative Importance (scale 1-5 with 1 being low) • Product features, 5 • Cost review, 5 • Contract review, 3 • Product support, 5 • Compatibility with existing products or services, 5 • Warranty, and extended warranty 2 • Tirmng of delivery, 4 • Reputation and references of the supplying vendor, 4 • Suitability of equipment in meeting the City's needs, 5 • Ability of the vendor to interface with the installing vendor 5 • And other similar matters The City reserves the right to negotiate with all vendors deemed qualified based on the selection process outlined in this section Qualified vendors are defined as those vendors qualified by the selection committee The City also reserves the right to select the vendor based on either the total costs for the entire package 3 3 1 Chamber and Control Room Equipment and package 3 3 2 Audio Equipment separately or together as referred to in 3 3 1.5 SECTION PROCESS SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Table 1, below, shows the anticipated schedule for each of the steps in the selection and implementation process EVENT TARGET DATE Releases request for proposal January 25,2002 Request for proposal due February 11,2002 Vendors notified of finalist February 25 , 2002 Final Vendor Selection February 28,2002 Council Committee Authorization March 5, 2002 Council Meeting Acceptance March 19,2002 Contract Signature/Purchase Order Signed March 20-25,2002 Installation A n12002 U W,Duavmcros�Labkrcmmcikbunberimgovcmenu4�cwrcikbambrn_1_Ifi Olrev Mx 7 2.0 VENDOR INSTRUCTIONS This section provides the format and description of the information required for a Vendor's response to be considered by the City The Vendor must provide the required hardcopies (paper) of their proposal by the date,time, and location given in Section 12 1 of this document 2.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND REQUIREMENTS The vendor's proposal shall be subrmitted m the format outlined in this section and section 3.0 Failure to comply with the specific format may result in the City's rejection of your proposal The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals Other subject headings may be added, as the Vendor believes necessary The City reserves the right to require additional information or materials after the proposals are submitted Vendors must respond to all requirements stated in this RFP, and must completely fill out all worksheets in Section 3 0 Proposal should consist of A Title Page and/or signature page The proposal must be signed by an officer authorized to negotiate for and contractually bind the Vendor This RFP includes selling, shipping, interfacing with installer during installation, troubleshooting and warranty replacement during the time period of the installation B Completed worksheets from section 3 0 (electronic worksheet available by e-mail upon request) ❑ 3 1 Vendor Profile(page S) ❑ 3 2 Vendor References(page 9-10) ❑ 3 3 System specification standard features and pricing ❑ 3 3 1 Chamber and Control Room Equipment Pricing(page 1 l)and/or ❑ 3 3 2 Audio Equipment Pricing(page 12) C Product sheets for all listed equipment D A copy of the proposed sales agreement E Warranty agreements for each item F Any additional materials you wish to submit The City's preference is to have this system installed and fully operational by May 1, 2002 Every effort will be made on the part of City staff to meet or beat this requirement 2.2 COMMUNICATIONS AND SUPPORT WITH INSTALLER The successful vendor will be required to communicate and work with the installing vendor on the equipment purchased. The vendor must identify the personnel that will serve as the contact and as technical support to the installing vendor The vendor must act as the contact on any equipment warranty during the purchase and installation period including replacement of any defective,equipment damaged during shipment,equipment with a manpfactunng defect or any other nonfunctioning as tested and determined by the installing vendor During the installation and testing period,the vendor must immediately replace any defective or nonfunctioning equipment It shall be the vendor's obligation to replace such defective or nonfunctioning equipment with new components and the vendor shall retain possession of any defective or nonfunctioning equipment during the installation and testing period The City shall not be required to seek repair or replacement of equipment through a manufacturer's warranty. The vendor must describe them service levels and availability to respond to installer questions and problems in both a normal and "emergency" setting V U/rU vmenu�C�lk�cuurc�k��mberunpivvemenµ4lgcouK�klumlen_I Ifi 02rtv dot g 3.0 VENDOR WORKSHEETS 3.1 VENDOR PROFILE Company Name Headquarters address Local address if different Length of time selling audio and video equipment Average rate of growth of sales Nearest service/support dealer name Service/support staff location #of trained service/support staff Contact person for this RFP Contact Address Contact Phone Fax Contact E-mail Other Pertinent Information you wish to tell us U W,a nenu�C��k�cuurcikhambcnmquremenu4l�courc�kMmEers_I 16 OLcr doc 9 3.2 VENDOR REFERENCES List at least three references that have purchased sirrular equipment from you within the last two years Reference#1 -Video Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Tide Address Telephone Fax, E-mail Reference#2 - Video Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Telephone Fax. E-mail Reference#3 - Video Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Telephone Fax E-mail Reference#4 -Video Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Telephone Fax. E-mail U V4,��^c�`��kkowcrklram�erimpoKmenu4GLmurcikNmEen_I_Ifi 03rtr Cac 10 Reference#1 —Audio Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Telephone Fax E-mail Reference#2—Audio Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Telephone Fax E-mail Reference#3—Audio Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Telephone Fax E-mail Reference#4—Audio Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Telephone Fax E-mail U\My Wcuncnu\Cabk�cvuiciNumbcnmpro.cmrnu4lycou�e�khambva_I_ R_02rtv Juc 1 1 3.5.2 CHAMBER AND CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT Item # Manufacturer Description Model 1 Sanyo LCD-Pro ector PLC XP-30 2 Sanyo Long Throw Lens LNS-T31 3 Da-Late Electric Screen 69 x 92" 73651 4 Da-Lite Floating Mounting Brackets screen option 5 Da-Lite 10 inch extra drop screen option 6 Da-Lite 42e Multimedia Lecturn Lexin ton 7 Samsung Document Camera SVP 6000N 8 JVC S-VHS VCR SR-TS1 U 9 Extron Computer Interface RGB 160xi 10 Extron Control Panel MLC 206 11 Scando Scan Converter w/ rack mount Pro II 12 Extron 8 x 4 RGSHV Router CrossPoint 84HV 13 Honta Video DA multi channel VDA-50 rack mnt 14 Middle Atlantic 12 space side rack w/top MDV-R12 15 Middle Atlantic 4 space overbrid a MDV-OB4 16 Middle Atlantic Caster Kit option for rack MDV-CK 17 Extron I Remote Controlled Switcher I MLS 306 3.5.3 AUDIO EQUIPMENT LIST Item # Manufacturer Description Model 18 Mackie Mixing Console 16X4X2 1642-VLZ-PRO 19 DBX Com ressor/Limiter 2 ch 1066 20 Sabine Feedback/EQ Controller Solo 21 Furman Monitor Panel w/Meters MS 2A-1 22 Shure Microphone w/On-Off Switch SM-58 23 RDL Stereo Audio DA RU-DA4 24 Ai hone Single Channel Intercom AT-406 25 Quantum Techno Talkback/Monitor Mute Controller Talkback 200 26 Furman Mic/Lme Monitor Mixer MM-313 27 Furman Rackmount Kit HRKIT-3 28 Audio Technica Gooseneck Microphone PRO-49-Q 16 RFP Vendor sheaf eput=wt list As • KEN T W A S H I N G T O N *** REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS For Installation of Audio and Video Presentation Equipment For City of Kent Council Chambers i Issued. February 8, 2002 Date Due: February 22, 2002 Time Due 3 00 pm Pacific Time as shown by Clerk's Clock Address Responses To. City Clerk Audio Video Presentation Equipment Installation Proposal City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-856-5725 Fax 253-856-6700 111My Ducumems�CabkscuurcikAsmMnmpruvemeni.Nlycouicikbambcrsunull 1_)11_01 Luc City of Kent Request for Proposal for Installation of Audio and Video Presentation Equipment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTENT OF THE CITY...............................................................................................3-7 L1 Background - . 3 1 2 Communications Regarding RFP 4 12 1 Response Date,Time,Location 4 1 2 2 City of Kent Contact 4 13 Vendor Clarifications and Questions 4-6 13 1 RFP Changes or Amendments 4 1 32 City of Kent Clarifications 5 1 3 3 Vendor Contact 5 1 34 Vendor Prime Contractor Responsibility 5 1 35 Period of Validity of Proposals 5 1 3 6 Costs Incurred by Vendors 5 1 3 7 Errors in Proposals 5 1 3 8 Right of Selection or Rejection of Proposal 5-6 14 Selection Process 6-7 14,1 RFP Evaluation 6 1 4 2 References 6 1 4 3 Cost Review 6 1 4 4 Final Vendor Selection 7 1 5 Selection Process Schedule of Events 7 2.0 VENDOR INSTRUCTIONS ...........................................................................................8 2 1 Proposal Format and Requirements 8 2 2 Communication and Support with Installation Partners 8 3.0 VENDOR WORKSHEETS........................................................................................9-13 3 1 Vendor Profile 9 32 Vendor Questionnaire 9-10 3 2 Vendor References 11-12 3 3 Scope of Work and Bid Pricing Proposal 13-14 3 3 1 Vendor Responsibility 13 3 3 2 City of Kent Responsibility 13 3 3 3 Proposal Price Quote 14 3 4 Design Documents 15-18 3 4 1 Video/Audio System Overview 15 3 4 2 Chambers and Control Room Equipment List 16 3 4 3 Audio Equipment List 16 Attachments Video System Flow Diagram 17 Audio System Flow Diagram 18 Council Chambers and Control Room Architectural Drawing, 19-20 U Wy W vmcnu%CabkkwwikhamkrunpmwmenuVf�cuumikbamkmnmbll_I_30_01 Jac 2 1.0 INTENT OF THE CITY The City of Kent plans to improve Council Chambers in City Hall by providing the capability of doing audio and video presentations, which can be easily seen by both the Council and the audience When this project is complete presenter(s) will have the capability of utilizing PowerPoint on either a laptop or PC, overhead equipment and/or video taped materials in their presentations at Council Meetings, Council Committee meetings, workshops, and various other meetings Presenters will be able to present different programs simultaneously in both council chambers rooms, (chambers east and chambers west), or make one combined presentation in the council chambers as a whole, projecting to both sides of the room The equipment will also interface with an existing videotaping and live broadcast system located on another floor, so that the presentations can be videotaped via direct connection to the taping system, or run independently without being videotaped The installation also involves some audio upgrades to the East side of the Council chambers for better audio taping quality and better room projection Please see section 3.4 for a list of equipment to be installed For this portion of the project, the City will be looking for a vendor who can install the equipment per the design vendor's specifications The successful vendor must be licensed and bonded The City intent is to enter into competitive negotiation with the installing vendor Vendors will be evaluated based on selection criteria detailed in Section 14 and scope of work detailed in section 3 3 1 This installation will be scheduled so as to avoid delay or interference with regular City business, particularly Council and Committee Meetings held in Chambers, and the ability to videotape meetings Warranty? This request for proposal is offered by the city pursuant to RCW 39 04 270 Electronic data processing and telecommunications systems--Municipalities--Acquisition method--Competitive negotiation-- Findings, intent 1.1 BACKGROUND The City of Kent began videotaping and broadcasting Council meetings and committee meetings approximately seven years ago As part of this remodel, three television monitors and an Elmo presentation device were installed in council chambers to project both filming and presentations The televisions are small and far away and make viewing most materials difficult In addition, the increase in technology has created a great demand for a more adequate ability to present from PowerPoint and to be able to present on either side of the council chambers, which can be divided into two rooms This improvement will provide some very basic equipment, which will enable people to present in council chambers with a variety of tools while still providing for filming, when required In order to begin this process, a request for proposals for a design vendor was released and a design vendor selected The design vendor selected was J W Tel-Tronics,P O Box 1282, Bothell,WA 98041- 1282,425-485-4739 or Fax 425-481-0703,johnw@jwtel cam J W Tel-Tronics has now completed the design and specified the desired equipment We are currently in a competitive proposal process for purchase of the equipment detailed in section 3 4 The equipment system specifications were broken into two sections Section 3 4 2 is for Chambers and Control Room equipment Section 3 4 2 is for Audio Equipment Vendors could respond to one or both of these sections The City's intent is to work with a maximum of two vendors for equipment purchase for this project U WyGz ntsWabk uunciklu rimy wmcn4Vf�cuuwlkNmpvin ii_I JO_OI Juc 3 1.2 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING RFP 1.2.1 Response Date, Time, Location Each Vendor shall provide one signed original and two copies of its proposal. Proposals must be received at the City address listed below no later than February 22, 2002, 3 00 p m, Pacific Time Vendors are solely responsible for ensuring that proposals are delivered on time Delays caused by any delivery service, including the US Postal Service,will not necessarily be grounds for a waiver of the deadline requirement Proposals submitted after the deadline may be rejected at the City's sole discretion Electronic proposal copies, such as fax or E-mail, may be rejected at the City's sole discretion All proposals must be delivered to City Clerk Audio Video Presentation Equipment Installation Proposal City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 253-856-5725 Fax 253-856-6700 1.2.2 City of Kent Contact All communications regarding this Request for Proposals from vendors and other sources must be directed through Dea Drake, Multimedia Manager Inquiries may be made between February 8 and February 22, 2002 as follows Dea Drake Information Technology Department City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 Phone• 253-856-4646 Fax 253-856-4700 Email ddrake@ci kent wa us 1.3 VENDOR CLARIFICATIONS AND QUESTIONS Specific vendor questions concerning the RFP should be submitted in writing(may be faxed or sent via E-mail) Copies of questions relevant to the RFP process, together with the City's response will be distributed to all participating vendors. Vendors who seek information, clarification, or interpretations from City of Kent employees without using a written subrrussion process are advised that such material is used at the vendor's own risk and the City shall not be bound by any such representations. 1.3.1 RFP Changes or Amendments Any revisions to the RFP will be issued in the form of an addendum and will be distributed to all vendors prior to the Response Due Date U Wy Doc ..LAC,hkkuurcikhunhnnipro cmemNk�.cuuncikhemhers�nuall 1_3l1_UI dM 4 1.3.2 City of Kent Clarifications The City of Kent reserves the right to obtain clarification of any point in a vendor's proposal or to obtain additional information necessary to properly evaluate a proposal Failure of a vendor to respond to such a request for additional information or clarification may result in rejection of the vendor's proposal The City's retention of this right shall in no way reduce the responsibility of vendors to submit complete, accurate and clear proposals 1.3.3 Vendor Contact The proposal must include the name of the specific individual who will act as the primary contact for the vendor The proposal must identify the contact's position in the organization, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address, if available 1.3.4 Vendor Prime Contractor Responsibility The vendor, as the prime contractor for that section of the proposal, must be the sole contact for this installation If a vendor's proposal includes equipment, wiring, cabling, connections, or services to be supplied by entities other than itself, it is mandatory for the proposing vendor to act as prime contractor for the procurement of all products and/or services proposed to meet this RFP The vendor, as the prime contractor, must be the sole point of contact, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the purchase of the wiring, cabling, connections, or services The vendor, acting as the prime contractor, must take full responsibility for the demonstration, construction (if required), delivery, and acceptance testing of the proposed items/system installed by itself or its subcontractor(s) Acting as a prime contractor on behalf of the City does not exempt the vendor from the policies set forth in the City's Policy and Procedure's Manual and other applicable City Codes 1.3.5 Period of Validity of Proposals Vendor must certify that its proposal will remain in effect for 120 days after the proposal due date The City may request an extension beyond the 120 days 1.3.6 Costs Incurred by Vendors The City shall not be liable for any costs incurred by a prospective vendor for preparing or submitting a proposal to the City or for any subsequent demonstrations required by the City Proposals should be prepared simply and econorrucally, providing a straightforward, concise description of vendor capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the proposal 1.3.7 Errors in Proposals Vendors are responsible for all errors or omissions in their proposals and any such errors or omissions will not serve to diminish their obligations to the City Vendors will not be allowed to alter proposal documents once proposals have been submitted The City reserves the right to allow corrections or amendments due to errors identified in the proposals by either the vendor or the City The City may waive minor administrative irregularities contained within the proposal documents 1.3.5 Right of Selection or Rejection of Proposal The City offers this RFP as a competitive negotiation The City, at its sole option, may select or reject any or all proposals for any reason, may waive any informality in the proposals received, U Wya mna� abkkouwtkhamEnun men"Vil councJcl kninmall_I 111OI dw 5 and may waive minor deviations from the specifications and shall be the sole judge thereof Selection of a vendor shall not be construed as a contract award, The City may award a contract on the basis of information in addition to that received in its proposal. Therefore, it is emphasized that all proposals should be complete and submitted with the mostfavorable financial terms. 1.4 SELECTION PROCESS The proposal must include the name of the specific individual who will act as the primary contact for the vendor during proposal evaluation The proposal must identify the contact's position in the organization, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address, if available. 1.4.1 RFP Evaluation: The vendor responses will be evaluated based on the Qualification section of their proposal described in Section 3, as well as the following ability to provide installation drawings, warranty coverage, ability to test and support system, ability to train staff, support, service, knowledge of the existing system,knowledge of installation procedures and processes for video and audio equipment,experience in installation of audio and video equipment,knowledge of state and local perrutting requirements, ability to install to the design specifications, ability to work with City Facilities Division staff for the City portion of the installation, timing of installation, reputation of the installer, suitability of installer in meeting the City's needs, and other similar matters Vendors may be contacted for response clarification to the Vendor Questionnaire Since council chambers east and west are high usage rooms, critical to the function of the City and the cable television broadcast function,the vendor must be able to work with the city to deterrrune an installation schedule base on the room availability and be able to adhere to that schedule The vendor shall not cause the City of Kent to incur overtime, or to interfere or disrupt those critical functions of the city, as a result of failure to adhere to the scheduled installation times and dates The selection committee will determine which vendor's solution can best serve the City's goals and environment. Therefore, it is emphasized that all proposals should be submitted with the most complete information possible. 1.4.2 City of Kent Chambers and control room visit Vendors will be provided an opportunity to visit the council chambers and the control room and ask clarifying questions related to the installation These visits are not mandatory, but are highly recommended Two times have been scheduled See section 1.5 The vendor should report at the stated time directly to Council Chambers, City of Kent, 220 40, Avenue South, Kent, WA, 1"Floor City Hall Building A brief presentation and tour will be made during the first 30 trunutes, then vendors will be allowed to ask questions for the second 30 minutes These will be the only two opportunities provided for a site visit on t his project 1.4.3 References Reference checks will be done on the vendors identified as finalists The City reserves the right to contact any person or organization for information regarding a vendor regardless of the U Wy WcumemslUble4vurcikhamhnmpm enm,gakl�marc.klumEers�iu,all 1�30_01 dm 6 references provided by the vendor Vendor must provide a mmtmum of three references where vendor provided installation of a smular type and scope 1.4.4 Cost Review Comparison and analysts of all pricing subrmtted will be performed by the Multimedia Manager, and will be based on the total cost of the proposed equipment including such items as overall pricing, pricing of other equipment, winng and cabling necessary to complete the installation, tax, and other appropriate costs and fees 1.4.5 Final Vendor Selection A final vendor selection for each package as detailed in section 3.3 3 will be[Wade based on each vendor's proposal, including without lumtation, Feature Relative Importance (scale 1-5 with 1 being low) • Reference check results 5 • Ability of the vendor to perform the installation, 5 • Ability of the vendor to test the installation 5 • Cost review, 5 • Suitability of installer in meeting the City's needs, 5 • Ability of the vendor to interface with the designing vendor and equipment vendor(s) 5 • Knowledge of the existing system 5 • Knowledge of installation procedures and processes for 5 video and audio equipment • Experience in installation of audio and video equipment 5 • Ability to set a predetermined installation schedule for use of the room during installation and to adhere to that schedule 5 • Ability to provide installation drawings 4 • Timing of installation, 4 • Reputation and references of the supplying vendor, 4 • Knowledge of state and local perimtnng requirements 4 • Ability to work as a team with the City Facilities Division on the City portion of the installation 4 • Contract review, 3 • Warranty, and extended warranty of installation 3 • And other similar matters The City reserves the right to negotiate with all vendors deemed qualified based on the selection process outlined in this section Qualified vendors are defined as those vendors qualified by the selection committee 1.5 SELECTION PROCESS SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Table 1, below, shows the anticipated schedule for each of the steps in the selection and implementation process EVENT TARGETDATE Releases request for proposal February S,2002 Council Chambers visit and questions February 14,3 00 to 4 00 pm or February 15, 9 00 to 10 00 am U U y Pocum=m dbkkUw lkbambcrvnpro,em UVI�COUMLkMMWMIM191_I_311-II I J 7 Proposals Due February 22,2002 Vendors notified of finalist February 28 ,2002 Final Vendor Selection February 28,2002 Contract negotiation and signing March 5-15 2002 Mayor's signature March 18-22,2002 Contract Signature/Purchase Order Signed March 25-29,2002 Installation A n12002 2.0 VENDOR INSTRUCTIONS This section provides the format and description of the information required for a Vendor's response to be considered by the City The Vendor must provide the required hardcopies(paper)of their proposal by the date, time, and location given in Section 12 1 of this document 2.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND REQUIREMENTS The vendor's proposal shall be submitted in the format outlined in this section and section 3 0. Failure to comply with the specific format may result in the City's rejection of your proposal The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals Other subject headings may be added, as the Vendor believes necessary The City reserves the right to require additional information or materials after the proposals are submitted Vendors must respond to all requirements stated in this RFP, and must completely fill out all worksheets in Section 3 0 Proposal should consist of A Title Page and/or signature page The proposal must be signed by an officer authorized to negotiate for and contractually bind the Vendor. B Completed worksheets from section 3 0(electronic worksheet available by a-mail upon request) ❑ 3 1 Vendor Profile(page 9) ❑ 3 2 Vendor Questionnaire(page 9-10) ❑ 3 3 Vendor References(page 11-12) ❑ 3 4 Scope of Work and Bid Pricing Proposal C A copy of the proposed contractual requirements by the vendor D Warranty agreements for installation E Any additional materials you wish to submit The City's preference is to have this system installed and fully operational by May 1, 2002 Every effort will be made on the part of City staff to meet or beat this requirement. 2.2 COMMUNICATIONS AND SUPPORT WITH INSTALLATION PARTNERS The successful vendor will be required to communicate and work with the equipment supply vendor(s), the City of Kent Facilities Department and the Multimedia Manager, as well as the design vendor The vendor must identify the personnel that will serve as the project manager The vendor must act as the contact between the City of Kent and the equipment supply vendor(s) on any equipment warranty during the purchase and installation period including replacement of any defective, equipment damaged during shipment, equipment with a manufacturing defect or any other nonfunctioning as tested and determined by the installing vendor During the installation and testing period, the vendor must immediately communicate with the equipment vendor(s) to replace any defective or nonfunctioning equipment. It shall be the equipment vendor's obligation to replace such defective or nonfunctioning equipment with U WY pucumeuvlCahklcwnnkhemhmmpmvemeniDrf4cmucikN9hesmuJl 1 ]14 01 d 8 new components and the vendor shall retain possession of any defective or nonfuncttonmg equipment during the installation and testing period The City shall not be required to seek repair or replacement of equipment through a manufacturer's warranty The vendor must describe their service levels and availability to perform the installation, and troubleshoot problems after the installation in both a normal and "emergency" setting. 3.0 VENDOR WORKSHEETS 3.1 VENDOR PROFILE Company Name Headquarters address Local address if different Length of time installing audio equipment Length of time installing video equipment Number of installations within the past 24 months Nearest service/support dealer name Service/support staff location # of trained service/support staff Contact person for this RFP Contact Address Contact Phone Fax Contact E-mail Project Manager Licenses Bonding 3.2 VENDOR QUESTIONNAIRE 1 Estimated hours on site to perform installation 2 Ability to perform the installation 3 Ability to test the installation U\My DocumenulCabk�auncikhambermn yemenuVi�counmkbamWuii all_I 111 01 Jm 9 4 Ability to interface with the designing vendor and equipment vendor(s) 5. Knowledge and experience with the existing system. 6. Knowledge and experience with government access broadcast facilities and PEG access broadcast facilities and equipment. 7 Experience in installation of audio and video equipment 8 Ability to set a predetermined installation schedule for use of the room during installation and to adhere to that schedule. 9 Ability to provide installation drawings Include a description of the type and detail of installation drawings you anticipate providing 10 Ability to schedule installation during the specified April/May times frames, subject to receipt of equipment Ability to slide the schedule to May, if equipment causes delay I I Knowledge of state and local permitting requirements 12. Describe your licenses and bonding. V Wy D um m\CahkkuumikhamE mprn =nuWq coumikL mb rs,uull 1 )O III Juc 10 13 Ability to work as a team with the City Facilities Division an the City portion of the installation. 14, Warranty Yofinstallation e costs are IncludedFork. bescribe necessary cessary and as Part of this a your proposal to provide are Willing9 Pment a testrn g and PPort you will Provide dunn8 this time he level of Seryicellanon Include the ttrifewarranty Period rov me Period You will provide and the typ eoyou ervue andte 15' Service levels and in both a availability to trouble and on-si e normal and ^pq ee`c shoot problem, taIlaho support' response Y"setting Includeafter the ins me and capability Your Proposed Jeve] of su' and toProvide support Including phone 16, At Chat point in tune would you anticipate changing and pport7 over from testing and warranty to compensated I U�Y�keumenslGAkkauaikhambrnmpp�n�4j�wYnclkhamhauuial!_1_'U_UI yx. ll 17 3.2 VENDOR REFERENCES List at least three references that have purchased sitn[lar equipment from you within the last two years Reference#1 -Video Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Tide Address Phone Fax- E-mail Brief description of project and your scope of work. Reference#2 -Video Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Tide Address Phone Fax E-mail Brief description of project and your scope of work Reference#3 - Video Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Phone Fax E-mail Brief description of project and your scope of work U WY pucunemslGpk`courcilc�>mbcrunpro cmenuVt�cuurciklumhrs�nsWll_I_311_01 Juc 12 Reference#1—Audio Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Phone Fax E-mail Brief description of project and your scope of work Reference#2—Audio Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Phone Fax E-mail Brief description of project and your scope of work Reference#3—Audio Related Equipment Organization Equipment Name Title Address Phone Fax E-mail Brief description of project and your scope of work u U4Y Doc�menu�c.ek�Co�zirn.mn«unpm.'erc�4b��w,ntm.neasi�uw�_� 3l��a.,c 13 3.3. SCOPE OF WORK AND BID PRICING PROPOSAL 3.3.1 Vendor Responsibility 1 Installation Drawings 2. Project Management and Oversight 3. Testing of equipment as it is received 4 Installation 5. Testing and troubleshooting of complete system 6. City Staff Training Audio Equipment 7 City Staff Training Video Equipment 8 All Cables 9 All Wiring 10 All connections I 1 All required permits 12. Vendor must be licensed and bonded 13 All equipment and cables clearly labeled 14 Defined schedule with dates and times deterrruned in advance mutually based on room usage 15, Misc Equipment and supplies not specified on the bid equipment and necessary to complete the installation 16 Support and follow up trouble shooting for a defined period Describe any other services you offer as part of installation not listed above Be sure to include these in your pricing, section 3 4 3 3.3.2 City of Kent Responsibility Chambers West 1. A raceway from the dais area of the Chambers West to the control room for connecting the lectern to the system. based on installation drawings specifying path size and requirements 2 A raceway from the projector location to the lectern for the projector cables based on installation drawings specifying path size and requirements 3 A raceway or cable path from the screen to the lectern based on installation drawings specifying path size and requirements 4 120VAC outlets at both projector and lectern locations,4 total (20 Amps Un-switched per each). 5 120VAC outlets with a switchbox(up/stop/down) at both screen locations. 6 A network drop in Chambers West moved to opposite side of the dais and installed in the dais in consultation with IT Network staff 7 Chambers East 8 A raceway from the lectern to the top of the "old stairway"and to the ceiling of the 2nd floor hallway, for all cables associated with Chambers East based on installation drawings specifying path size and requirements 9 120VAC outlets at both projector and lectern locations, 4 total (20 Amps Un-switched per each) 10. 120VAC outlets with a switchbox(up/stop/down) at both screen locations 11. Network drop in Chambers East moved back on the wall to a location in the back of the stairwell wall in consultation with IT Network staff. 12. Control Room 13 Enough additional electrical capacity in the Control Room to accommodate the additional equipmen U Nfy Doi mcnuKaEle`courc,k��mEemmpm�emenuYlµcawnkNmbersuwall_I lll-OI Jac 14 3.3.3 Proposal Price Quote Based on the Vendor Responsibility in the Scope of Work, Section 3 4 1, the vendor proposes the following Vendor understands that this price is subject to completive negotiation and that a City of Kent Contract will be required which adheres to all State and local requirements The vendor asserts that they have specified any additional work and or requirements they feel are necessary in order to complete this installation, but which have not been specified by the City in section 3 4 1, including any contingency costs and fees, and that those are included in this price Description Amount Installation Quote $ Description of any other services required for installation but not specified in section 3 4.1 $ $ Subtotal $ Tax $ Total $ Other Comments/Explanation Signature Title Date U Wy Dmumcnul abkc umLkhamb rimpro� nmViq cuml khamEeji 11 1 30 UI duc 15 3.4 DESIGN DOCUMENTS 3.4.1 Video/Audio System Overview The proposed system consists of the following major components; 2 LCD Projectors with Electric Screens,2 Lecterns each with Document Cameras,VHS VCR's,PC and Laptop Interfaces, Microphones with Feedback Controllers, and Control Panels operating Remote Switchers Added to the control room will be, a Router, Scan Converter, the remote controlled Switchers, an Audio Console,Monitoring Panel,Audio Processors, and a small Rack with an Overbndge. Each lectern will have a remote control panel that will enable the speaker to easily select which source is to be displayed on the projector The control panel includes an on/off switch for the Projector(which could also effect lighting changes and lowering the screen in the future) as well as illuminated source select pushbuttons and a volume control that will regulate the loudness of the source being used r e VCR, Laptop, etc , as heard through the PA System. The speakers in the TV Monitors will no longer have to be used although they will still be connected The TV Monitors will continue to display whatever is fed from the MX-50 Switcher, the Projectors are a separate feed but all sources except Cameras are available for display When the 2 rooms are opened up and used for large meetings the Lectern in the West Counsel area will be the master for both Projectors Some switching ahead of time will be necessary much the same as switching the Main PA System for whole room coverage. The Mackie Mixer currently in use will become the mixer for the PA System in the East side of the room. The wireless microphones, the podium microphone, the remote controlled switcher output, and the cassette deck will all feed this mixer, which will then feed the existing JBL Speaker System, and the Mackie Recording/Broadcast Mixer. This new rmxer will be fed ALL sources available and will feed the existing DA's, TV Monitors, etc as in the past It will also provide a mix to the West Chambers PA system as well as a Phase/Level Monitoring Panel with Powered Speakers Compressor/Lumters and Auto-Equalizers will be inserted in the signal paths providing more consistent performance of the Pa Systems and of the Recording/Broadcast System. The system controls, when used un-attended will be very simple to operate, and by installing the switchers in the control room an operator can override the system if necessary The Remote Controlled Switchers provide many possibilities for future expansion and control of additional functions but primarily they best address your needs for easy, reliable operation,not to mention excellent Video/Audio performance specifications All of the specified equipment represents excellent value for the price, and all components have long established reliability records As such,no substitutions should been made unless-approved by the City of Kent The accompanying drawings are for reference only and are not suitable for sending out for installation bids. If such drawings are required they will be supplied along with any descriptions/recommendations necessary as well as differentiation between existing and new construction A comprehensive grounding scheme will also be described in detail The materials for installation (wire,connectors,mounting hardware,etc) can be split out from our installation estimate u varo,��Msc,nk�o�rc�rn.mm�mnr�K��mv��,��mn�mxrs��ai_i 3o��mu 16 P 0 BOX 1282 BOTHELL,WA 98041-1292 PH(425)485-4739 FAX (425) 481-0703 i E L — T R O N I C S February 22, 2002 City Clerk Audio Video Presentation Equipment Installation Proposal City of Kent 220 4'h Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 To Whom It May Concern JW Tel-Tromcs, Inc will provide installation services based on section 3 4 1 and assuming provision of section 3 4 2 of the RFP issued February 11, 2002 for Council Chambers AN presentation equipment installation for a sum of$30,000.00 plus any applicable tax. Attachments are included as required by section 2.1 of the RFP Submitted by- Daryl Peck Project Manager JW Tel-Tronics, Inc Broadcast Engmeenng • Con uldng,Maintenance and Rep= 2.2 COMMUNICATIONS AND SUPPORT WITH INSTALLATION PARTNERS The successful vendor will be required to communicate and work with the equipment supply vendor(s),the City of Kent Facilities Department and the Multimedia Manager, as well as the design vendor. The vendor must identify the personnel that will serve as the project manager The vendor must act as the contact between the City of Kent and the equipment supply vendor(s)on any equipment warranty during the purchase and installation period including replacement of any defective,equipment damaged during shipment,equipment with a manufacturing defect or any other nonfunctioning as tested and determined by the installing vendor. During the installation and testing period,the vendor must immediately communicate with the equipment vendor(s)to replace any defective or nonfunctioning equipment. It shall be the equipment vendor's obligation to replace such defective or nonfunctioning equipment with new components and the vendor shall retain possession of any defective or nonfunctioning equipment during the installation and testing period, The City shall not be required to seek repair or replacement of equipment through a manufacturer's warranty. The vendor must describe their service levels and availability to perform the installation, and troubleshoot problems after the installation in both a normal and "emergency" setting 3.0 VENDOR WORKSHEETS 3.1 VENDOR PROFILE Company Name JW Tel-Tronics, Inc Headquarters address 18823 Beardslee Blvd , PO Box 1282 Bothell, WA 98041-1282 Local address if different Length of time installing audio equipment 22 years,established in 1980 Length of time installing video equipment 22 years, established in 1980 Number of installations within the past 24 months 50 Nearest service/support dealer name We support our own installations Service/support staff location Bothell. WA #of trained service/support staff 6 Contact person for this RFP Daryl Peck, Proiect Manager Contact Address 18823 Beardslee Blvd , PO Box 1282 Bothell, WA 98041-1282 Contact Phone (425)485-4739 Fax (425) 481-0703 Contact E-mail darvl2@iwtel com Project Manager Daryl Peck Licenses Electrical Contractor—Telecommunications JWTELI*OOOLH WA State Business—C 01 779 543 Bonding CBIC#SD0057 S Wy Sh Slimed FIesU(emVtFY roponaAoc 9 3.2 VENDOR QUESTIONNAIRE Please provide information with regard to the following I Estimated hours on site to perform installation. Approximately 250 man-hours on site This amounts to about 11 full days on site with a 3 person crew However, more days on site are anticipated to accommodate the meeting schedules and the work schedule of the electrical contractor. 2 Ability to successfully perform the installation JW Tel-Tronics, Inc has many years of experience in installing sirrular systems Many of these systems have been for other municipalities 3 Knowledge and experience with the existing system JW Tel-Tronics, Inc designed and installed the existing system. 4 Knowledge and experience with government access broadcast facilities and PEG access broadcast facilities and equipment JW Tel-Tronics, Inc has done work for many other municipalities, including TVSea, City of Tacoma, City of Kirkland, and City of Bothell, among others 5 Ability to set a predetermined installation schedule for use of the room during installation and to adhere to that schedule We employ an installation crew that can be fairly flexible in their work hours We work on several projects at a time, so we can be doing work on different projects as time is available at the sites 6 Ability to schedule installation during the specified ApnUMay times frames, subject to receipt of equipment Ability to slide the schedule to May, if equipment causes delay We have this time set aside for the installation 7 Ability to provide installation drawings Include a description of the type and detail of installation drawings you anticipate providing JW Tel-Tromcs, Inc has AutoCAD software and the ability to generate large format prints at our office As-built drawings will be provided complete with wire numbers and all detail needed to service the system 8 Knowledge of state and local permitting requirements Yes 9 Describe your licenses and bonding We area licensed Electrical Contractor—Telecommunications Project manager is a licensed Telecommunications adrruinstrator 10 Ability to work as a team with the City Facilities Division on the City portion of the installation Our references will be able to confirm that we have a reputation for working as a team player 11 Ability to meet testing period requirements described in section 12 1 JW Tel-Tromcs, Inc provides this support as a matter of policy 12 Ability to provide post-installation support described in section 12 2 JW Tel-Tronics,Inc presently provides system support to the City of Kent and would be pleased to continue to provide this service 5 Wy5N Sf R. ,.Nt � 10 33 VENDOR REFERENCES List at least three references that have purchased similar equipment from you within the last two years Reference#1 -Video Related Equipment Organization City of Seattle—TV Sea Equipment A/V Studio,with cameras for Council Chambers Name John Giamberso Title Station Manaeer Address 600 4w Ave Suite 109 Seattle,WA 98104 Phone 206-684-8328 Fax 206-684-8102 E-mail iohn giamberso@ci seattle wa us Brief description of project and your scope of work- Reference#2 -Video Related Equipment Organization City of Bothell Equipment AN Studio equiRment and cameras for their Council Chambers Name Cecelia Duncan Title Senior Administrative Analyst Address 18305 101"Ave NE Bothell,WA 98011 Phone (425) 486-3256 Fax (425) 486-2434 E-mail Cecelia Duncan@ci bothell wa us Brief description of project and your scope of work: Reference#3 -Video Related Equipment Organization City of Kirkland Equipment AN Studio equipment and cameras for their Council Chambers Name Janice Perry Title Administration Manager . Address 123 5th Ave Kirkland,WA 98033-6189 Phone (425) 828-1103 Fax (425) 828-1290 E-mail JPerry@ci.kirkland.wa us Brief description of project and your scope of work- 5 oar se.w D v MZ 11 sww FI.W.eJWP rmv�K� 11 Reference#1—Audio Related Equipment Organization Thurston Community Television Equipment AN Studio equipment Name Deborah Vmsel Title Executive Director Address 440 Yauger Way Suite C Olympia, WA 98502 Phone (360) 956-3100 Fax (360)357-2894 E-mail dvmsel@tctv net Brief description of project and your scope of work: Reference#2—Audio Related Equipment Organization VMI. Inc Equipment AN Studio Equipment to various clients Name Fred Boor Title Sales Representative Address 120 W Dayton St Suite B3 Edmonds WA 98020 Phone (425) 778-1330x203 Fax (425)771-5081 E-mail FBoor@vmivideo com Brief description of project and your scope of work. Reference#3—Audio Related Equipment Organization City of Renton Equipment AN Studio Equipment and Cameras for their Council Chambers Name Manlyn Peterson Title City Clerk Address 1055 S Grady Way 7th floor Renton. WA 98055 Phone (425)430-6502_Fax (425) 430-6516 E-mail mpetersen@ci renton wa us Brief description of project and your scope of work s Wy Sn D...\D"N sw.a R.W mw mcpwcea 12 3.4.3 Proposal Price Quote Based on the Vendor Responsibility in the Scope of Work, Section 3 4 1, the vendor proposes the followmg- Vendor understands that this price is subject to completive negotiation and that a City of Kent Contract will be required which adheres to all State and local requirements The vendor asserts that they have specified any additional work and or requirements they feel are necessary in order to complete this installation,but which have not been specified by the City in section 3.4 1, including any contingency costs and fees, and that those are included in this price. Description Amount Installation Quote $ 30,000 00 Description of any other services required for installation but not specified in section 3 4 1 Subtotal $ 30,000 00 Tax $ 2,64000 Total $ 32,640.00 Other Comments/Explanation 4 U Pro)ect Manager Februga 22,2002 Signature Title Date s var sew m�0 1y s FJftWm RFPxspomedx 14 Warranty for Installation: JW Tel-Tromcs, Inc. will provide warranty service of the proposed AN presentation equipment installation for a period of one year. This warranty will apply only to workmanship and materials provided by JW Tel-Tronics, Inc. In the event that a problem is determined to be with equipment purchased from other vendors for the project, normal service rates and repair charges will apply JW Tel-Tromcs, Inc will work with the city to obtain any warranty service provided by the equipment vendor or manufacturer that might apply JW Tel-Tromcs, Inc agrees to the requirements stated in the RFP, sections 1.2 1 and 1.2.2 for a Testing Period and Post-Installation Support. This form shall be required to be filled out by the Contractor awarded the contract i DECLARATION ! CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors,subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this contract shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific contract to adhere to An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this contract to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole deterimnation regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the contract, The questions are as follows 1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 12. 2 During the time of this contract I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical disability. 3. During the time of this contract the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 4 During the time of the contract I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this contract, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. Dated t ' 2 day of P:`6 —A 2002. By 02 - For: Jt ✓ TP /—T, . s c Title- 1" c C S Wy Shu D. \Dvyll SbM Fk\KCe R .� 17 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 2 , 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: COPIER CONTRACT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their March 19, 2002 meeting, approval for the Mayor to sign a three-year lease, with two one-year extensions, with Copiers Northwest Corporation. The lease is under the State contract and will provide for the new fleet of 30-37 digital Panasonic copiers . These replace the current analog copiers for the city departments which are at the end of the current five-year copier lease period. • 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from the Finance Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCALJPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G FINANCE DEPARTMENT May Miller, Director KENT Phone 253-856-5260 WASHINGTON Fax 253-856-6255 DATE March 12, 2002 TO Mayor White, City Council, and Operations Committee FROM May Miller SUBJECT Council Approval for the Mayor to Sign Copier Contract Proposal- Mayor to sign a three-year lease, with two one-year extensions, with Copiers Northwest Corp The lease is for the new fleet of 30-37 Panasonic copiers which replace the current analog copiers for the city departments Background: We are at the end of our current five-year copier lease with Copiers Northwest Corp A committee began the needs assessment and objectives review last fall which included 1) Using State of Washington bulk pricing 2) Converting from analog to digital technology 3) Assessment of department usage and volumes The Request for Proposal produced two finalists Copiers Northwest and Xerox Corporation Testing, reference checks, and cost analysis were completed The extensive Request for Proposal was part of the State of Washington Copier Agreement Notice was given for a rental cost and cost per copy proposal to be submitted to the Purchasing Department for a three-year rental and service contract agreement for the City of Kent The Xerox cost for a similar digital copier was considerably higher for meeting the same overall RFP requirements Analysis: Vendors Cost Per Coov Monthly Amount Copiers Northwest 00402 13,503 36 Xerox Corporation 00498 14,120 82 Budget for 2001 (actuals) $13,779 25 Budget for 2002 18,851 00 Conclusion. The committee has recommended that the lease be signed with Copiers Northwest Corp This is the most cost effective proposal for the city, is less than the current amount, and far below the budgeted amount for 2002 This will update the city's copier fleet from analog to digital technology Departments will get digital copiers that will give laser jet quality prints, have the ability to duplex, print multiple sets, and staple We will continue to explore the best options under the state contract for the highest volume users and PC connectivity COUNCIL ACTION: Recommend the Mayor sign a three-year lease, with two one-year extensions, with Copiers Northwest Corporation for the city fleet of 30-37 digital copiers MM Igd Kent City Council Meeting Date April 2 , 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 2001 TRAFFIC STRIPING CONTRACT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the 2001 Traffic Striping proDect as complete and release retainage to Stripe-Rite upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount and final contract amount was $50, 704 . 53 . • 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (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. 6H REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT Lok B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE �(fl �(uq C�O GUI �04j a d' C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS ►�/J� IS S E. PLANNING COMMITTEE �jyy `( '�c+ a� 3 F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES Operations Committee Minutes February 19, 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Judy Woods, Leona Orr, Tim Clark (filling in as third committee member) Rico Yingling was absent STAFF PRESENT May Miller, Charlie Lindsey, Tom Brubaker, John Hodgson, Larry Blanchard, Julie Peterson, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT Joe Rubio, Ted Kogita, Jeffrey Barker, Sandy Amodt The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Judy Woods at 4 05 PM Item number 3, Ordinance Repealing Term Limits, was moved to the end of the agenda Approval of Minutes of February 5. 2002 Committee Member Leona Orr moved approval of the minutes of February 5, 2002 The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 2-0 Ms Woods said Council Member Tim Clark would be asked for his concurrence Approval of Vouchers dated February 15. 2002 Leona Orr moved approval of vouchers dated February 15, 2002. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. (,YIr Clark-gave concurrence on the approval of the minutes of Febmary.i, 2002) Enerev Audit agreement — Authorization Facilities Superintendent Charlie Lindsey said last summer an interlocaI agreement was signed with the State of Washington General Administration for the purpose of doing an energy audit and using state financing to pay for the audit up front Quantum Engineering has done a preliminary audit and has come up with a list of potential energy projects that would pav for themselves through energy savings Items are ranked one to three, with one being a payback of three to four years, two, a payback of seven years, and three, maybe or maybe not having a savings payback The next step is to do a final audit which means the energy services company would project the actual cost savings and put together a program with a list of potential energy saving conservation measures and the savings that would be recet�,ed At that point, a decision would be made to either go through the financing process with the State General Administration or to decide not to proceed If the decision was not to proceed, the City would have to pay the S43,622 cost of the energy audit itself If the decision was to move forward, the audit cost would be financed into the overall package and would be recouped through the energy savings In response to Mr Clark's question about upgrading the energy management system to a graphics based system, Mr Lindsey said the building was 12 years old, and the energy management system had been upgraded as the building was being constructed It is a DOS based system which is being made to operate right now in a Windows system and that presents some difficulty Operations Coin=ttee Minutes, 2/19/02 2 Leona Orr moved to recommend Council authorization to enter into an agreement with Washington State Department of General Administration for $43,622 to conduct an audit of city-wide energy conservation measures. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark. In further discussion, Tim Clark asked if there were other sources of revenue that would become available to address some of the problems of the Ion;-term plan IVTx Lindsey said the energy services company would go to Puget Sound Energy for any available ;rants or funding which would be applied to the costs with the remainder financed through the state. The motion then passed 3-0. Corrections Facilitv Structural Report Charlie Lindsey said staff had identified what they thought was earthquake damage at the Corrections Facility after the Nisqually Earthquake of February 28, 2001 A contractor was brought in to analyze the damage and give a cost to repair which was submitted to FEMA and approved The contractor was concerned about some of the cracks and before starting work wanted assurance from a structural engineer that he wouldn't be held liable for any structural problems Staaleson Engineering analyzed the facility and came back with a report, based on preliminary examination, that said they couldn't get enough information to tell if the building was structurally sound enough to move forward They requested to be allowed to do further examination and to prepare detailed "as built" drawings of the structural soundness of the building The cost of the examination would be S26,550 and would include a more in-depth analysis of the building Remodeling work done last year at the Corrections Facility found some things that caused concern that there might be a structural problem, and it was feared there had been some shortcuts taken in construction Leona Orr asked if there would be any way to go back to the original builder and take some action if it was in fact found that the building hadn't been built the way it was supposed to be built. Mr Lindsey said he would have to discuss that aspect with the legal department Tim Clark moved to recommend to Council authorization to enter into an agreement with Staaleson Engineering to conduct further structural analysis of the Correction Facility and prepare a report for an amount not to exceed $26,550. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. Russell Road Maintenance Security —Authorization Charlie Lindsey said that a year ago Council authorized a sole source identification badge card access system with Honeywell that is now in place in City Hall and the Police Department The Public Works Department is asking to expand that to the Public Works Shops, replacing the two gates and having them operate off the access card/I.D badge as well as some of the doors in the facility Mr Lindsey said he didn't know if there had been any major security problems, but there had been little problems over the years, particularly with the rear gate Larry Blanchard, Operations Manager, added that the police officers need access in the evenings when they fuel their vehicles, and they have run into some problems Staff wants to track who is accessing the facility and who is using fuel Also, the emergency crews that come in at night need to be able to gain access and have it recorded Operations Committee Minutes,2/19/02 3 Leona Orr moved to recommend to Council authorization to enter into an agreement with Honeywell for $32,150 for added security to the maintenance facility located at 5821 South 240th. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Ordinance Repealing Term Limits Tom Brubaker, City Attorney, said he was asked by Council President Tim Clark to prepare an ordinance repealing the existing two Kent City Code provisions that establish a term limit for the Mayor and each Councilmember The 12 year term limit is from the time of appointment or election Tim Clark added that if the term limits remained in effect, at the end of this four year term the Mayor and four current members of the Council would be at the end of their terms Leona Orr and Judy Woods disagreed, and Ms Woods added that the ordinance, which passed in 1996, was for 12 years from that point on and would not affect any current council person who might be up for election in 2003 or 2007 The ordinance came into existence after the 1995 election Mr Clark stated that in 2007, all senior councilmembers would be faced with either running for Mayor or it would be their last term The term limits law wipes out the senior leadership all the way through, and one of the impacts is that any time there is no institutional memory present among the leadership. long term plan issues that have flowed through the government go back to staff by default, and it becomes an artificial device that doesn't necessarily improve the choices for the citizenry Throughout the 1990s, no councilmember was unopposed on the ballot Mr Clark stated that he failed to see what is gained from term limits because there is no question of whether there is gam in new councilmembers Leona Orr commented that term limits ordinances in other areas, statewide and nationwide, have been declared unconstitutional by courts over and over again Kent's law has never been challenged or taken to court, but because term limits have been declared unconstitutional in so many arenas, the question is whether or not it would stand up if it were challenged and whether or not it is even legitimate to have on the books Mr Clark contended that term limits would cause ramifications that would begin to show up in other areas that could be harmful If term limits were exercised in Kent but not in other cities, representation at regional forums would lose some of the people that know how and why things had evolved as they have It could be a major handicap in negotiating anew agreement In the realm of regional committees, particularly with King County, there are only a few people around that actually know where the heart of the problems lie and how far back they go In the suburban cities regional representation setting, that would be a handicap without any viable gam Issues in the regional forums may be about large sums of money and transportation projects (particularly in things that deal with the Puget Sound Regional governments) Representation will only be as good as the people in front if that institutional memory is lost Joe Rubio, 3831 S 248`h, Kent, said the Kent Community Council, Citizens for Common Sense, and the Kent Citizens Association do not want term limits to be repealed because different people need to be given a chance to experience being a councilmember New blood equals new ideas If there are ongoing problems from way back and there has to be a councilmember who knows all about it because he's been there a long time, then somebody is not doing his lob Maybe with new blood there could be new ideas. There are cities in the United States that require their residents to be a councilmember or mayor as spaces become open Spokane has Operations Committee Minutes,2/19102 _ 4 term limits Kent should give it a try, it would work fine If it's good enough for the President, it ought to be good enough for Kent. Ted Kogita, 25227 Reith Road, said he was for term limits The Council has put themselves to a position to vote on having no term limits, and passing a repeal is only a self preservation move and greed to hold onto a position as a City of Kent councilman or mayor Holding a long time position as a council person only spoons arrogance and breeds corruption as time passes on In the history of mankind, only a few people have not been corrupted by electing to put themselves in the powerful life Kent has now reached the position where there is no separation between the Mayor's vision and the Council's As an example, the City of Kent paid out $80,000 for the previous Kent City Administrator for breaking a no contact court order by his wife Brent McFall's wife was a supervisor in the Kent Parks Department at the time 580,000 was approved by the City Council to pay McFall's personal fine, the approval had no trouble passing. Things like that happen because there are people in office too long McFall was never fired or told to reimburse the 580,000, and Council never questioned the Mayor about why he authorized the payment from Kent City funds To unseat an incumbent, a new person not backed by the mayor has little or no chance to win a seat as council person To win a council position is to spend 525,000 in campaign money. Without term limits, people will never get in. Martin Plys, 3004 S 2561h, said he definitely was for term limits The previous City Council initiated term limits on their own and they should respect what they have done Everything done by the City Council is documented, whether it's liked or not (most of the time the Council does do a good job), so it doesn't matter whether a certain councilmember is here this term and not the next. The Council is elected to serve the citizens and it is the citizens' choice to choose who they want to represent them Mr Plys stated that a recall action would be started against the Mayor in the next couple of weeks and it should not be assumed that the Mayor would finish his term. If Council repeals term limits, it is going to cost a lot of money to do a special electron and the City doesn't need to spend or waste more money Leave term limits as they are and let the citizens decide Sandy Amodt, 226331 41" Ave SE, Kent, said Spokane and Tacoma both have term limits which are very similar to the City of Kent's She questioned how many years constitute a senior councilmember, and said when she was on the Council she had an expectation of the other councilmembers to educate her, and they did, so she knew about projects that went back many years Ms Amodt commented that she wasn't aware there was a hierarchy in the Council, but thought each councilmember was equal, as each had been elected and therefore should be equal (She acknowledged the Council does elect a Council president ) Ms Amodt said her argument for term limits was not that an incumbent has more capability to raise money In the last election that wasn't necessarily true as Mr White raised 321,000 for his electron, which he won People tend to be refreshed when they move and there's no reason why councilmembers cannot end their terms and then run for some other type of office A councilmember who's been in office three terms, if they so choose, can sit out two years or four years and then run again It places a fresh view on things and time to sit back and see what they have done and what they could have done differently—and then they can come back to it Oftentimes people who are in the same position for 10 or 20 years stalemate and the status quo is the status quo, few fresh ideas come in Terms limit should stay They are good, and anyone who chooses to run again could sit out two years— it's not like they would be out the door forever If term limits are repealed, the original citizens' term limit initiative that wasn't filed a number of years ago would probably be filed Operations Committee Minutes, 2/19/02 5 Tim Clark moved to recommend to Council adoption of the proposed ordinance to repeal the existing term limits for Councilmembers and the Mayor. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr. In further comments, Judy Woods said the only reason the president has term limits is because some people became upset that FDR had been elected four times When Ronald Reagan was president, folks rued the day when term limits were approved as part of the U S Constitution He clearly would have been reelected to a third term with great ease She reminded everyone that since 1997 in the City of Kent there have been five new councilmembers In 1997, two incumbents were defeated, Ms Amodt defeated a councilmember who had served for 20 years Serving a long period of time does not necessarily ensure that somebody is going to be reelected Also in 1997, Tom Brotherton defeated the incumbent In 1998, Councilmember Jim Bennett resigned because of health reasons and Rico Yingling was appointed to fill the vacancy In the recent election, Bruce White defeated Tom Brotherton (after one term) and Julie Peterson was elected to an open seat. Democracy works as there is a great deal of flux and constant turnover in city government Ms Woods said she personally does not believe in term limits Leona Orr said she originally supported the term limits ordinance but has since had a number of conversations with the city attomey's office about whether or not it was the right thing Ms Orr commented that in Ms Amodt's example, a very long-term councilmember was defeated on a very low budget campaign That blows out of the water the argument that the incumbent has the advantage Mr White, a newcomer, raised and spent more money than almost anybody in the last 7-10 years in running for the Council He proved that was not an issue, and he won an election When the Kent City Council adopted term limits there was a movement for term limits throughout the country George Nethercutt, at that time, ran for Congress on the idea that term limits were a good thing, but when his time should have been up, he chose to run again because he felt that he should be able to continue doing what he was doing, and he was reelected Clearly the citizens felt that it was important to keep him in office It would not be a good thing to take that nght of decision away from the citizens The citizens are the ones that make the decision, and they do that at the voting booth The motion then passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 4 45 PM Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leona Orr, Judy Woods, Bruce White STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Charlene Anderson, Michael Hubner, John Hodgson, Don Wickstrom, Bill Osborne, Tom Brubaker, Julie Peterson, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Bill Foster, Niernice Foster, Merry Marshall, Tom Sharp, Terry Zimmerman The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 3 00 PM Approval of Minutes of November 5, 2001 Committee Member Judy Woods moved to approve the minutes of November 5, 2001 The motion was seconded by Committee Member Bruce White and passed 3-0 Public Works Trust Fund Loan Agreement Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said the City had applied for a 20 year, $10 million Public Works Trust Fund loan for Kent's share for the Tacoma Second Supply Project at a 0 5% interest rate, and it was now before the legislature If the loan passes the legislature, the money would be received by June, but the Agency wants all the loans signed and ready to go now The bulk of the money will be received almost immediately 15% when the design is done, and up to 85% when construction starts (which is already happening) This project will provide about 7 2 million gallons a day of additional peak capacity water Kent's share is 1/9`h of the total project of$270 million Bruce White moved to recommend to Council authorization for the Mayor to sign the PWTF Loan Agreement and establish a budget. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Mobile Home Park Relocation Assistance City Planner Bill Osborne explained that staff had been directed to look into mobile home park closures and the tenant relocation assistance option, specifically with the City of Seattle's ordinances in mind, as Kent doesn't have anything in city code that refers to relocation assistance or mobile home park closures Seattle's ordinances adopts several sections of the Revised Code of Washington regarding mobile home park closures and tenant relocation assistance Their relocation assistance is generally applied to relocation of any type of housing and is not limited just to mobile home parks It carries a stipulation that financial assistance would go to those tenants who qualify at a family income level at or below 50% of the county's median family income Ptanmag Committee,2/19/02 2 Leona Orr questioned whether there might be other communities that have faced a similar situation and if there were ordinances in other cities that refer to the issue Mr Osborne said it was staffs understanding that other South King County jurisdictions were dealing with the same issue, but it wasn't known whether they did or didn't have ordinances or sections in their codes regarding relocation assistance Ms Orr stated she thought the best way for the City to go would be to see what's out there and how other communities are dealing with the issue rather than just moving forward in drafting something to bring back for approval In response to Mr Osborne's request for a geographical scope for the research, Judy Woods commented that South King County issues might be very similar in terms of the patterns of growth and change over the past 10-20 years Within Kent itself, there are a number of mobile home locations (22), and Auburn and Renton and other areas would probably have a similar pattern She concluded that the Still Manor situation was only the first of many such challenges that Kent would have Bill Osborne continued by saying the available statewide funding was currently at $1,317, which is a reduced amount from the number previously given of$14,500 The funding is available on a first come, first served basis and is not respective of the income level of those relocated Relocating households have to provide documentation of their moving costs before being reimbursed. Leona Orr asked how the fund got established and why the money was mostly gone Mr Osborne said the fund was established through a tax on mobile home park owners, but that was deemed unconstitutional so future funding using that revenue source was stopped. At that time, 4-5 years ago, the fund was around $1 5 million, but has since worked its way down to the present amount of$1,317 The state legislature is currently considering a funding mechanism that would tax the sale of mobile home units within the mobile home park $30-$40 per unit to build up a fund for relocation Not taken into account is that many of the reasons for moving are the closures of mobile home parks. Judy Woods asked why the City of Seattle was paying for half of relocation costs Mr Osborne said he didn't know how they had arrived at their amount for a commitment or how they had drafted their ordinance, but the RCW's and Chapter 59 20 and 59.21 regarding mobile home park closures and relocation assistance would have provided a foundation The state does not require the landlord to provide financial assistance, but there are certain requirements for notification and certain procedural steps that a landlord would have to take in order to close a mobile home park Seattle's approach was more proactive and indicated a willingness on their part to provide financial assistance for the applicant in a land use change for households that made 50% or less of the median family income. Leona Orr asked Mr Osborne for an indication of how long he thought it would take to do more research to see what other cities were doing and if there was anything that could be done to have a longer notification period over the state's one year. She noted that anybody interested could give their names to Council Secretary Jackie Bicknell so they could be notified when the issue came back to the Planning Committee Mr Planning Committee, 2/19/02 3 Osborne said an update could probably be given in April Bruce White asked also that statistics be provided on the number of closures that have taken place in the cities that will be researched Townhouse Zoning Process Planning Manager Charlene Anderson said Chair Leona Orr had requested that the Townhouse Zoning process be brought before the Committee to determine whether or not there should be a one step process versus the current process, which usually means two steps in going before the Land Use and Planning Board and then the Council for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, or two steps in a rezoning process In 1999, when the ordinance was first passed, it was the desire of the Council to have a chance to review the townhouse zoning district applications at least a couple of times Leona Orr remarked that townhouse zoning was sort of experimental when first set in place There was concern about too much additional density in neighborhoods and so restrictions were set as to where the zoning would be allowed. That resulted in a two- step process because other property owners, not in the zones originally set out, decided they wanted townhouse zoning, and to get it, they had to first get the zoning required in the ordinance and then the second zoning The Land Use and Planning Board has asked the Council to take a look at the process because they are getting questions from the public as to why they have to go through the two-step process Terry Zimmerman, Land Use and Planning Board President, said the Board believes that a one step process would be clearer for developers and those requesting rezones on their properties It presents confusion to have to apply for one kind of zoning while having in mind a plan to do something else The Land Use and Planning Board could deliver a more fair recommendation if it knew exactly where the developer was going with the process The Board recommends that it be a one-step process Bruce White asked if there had ever been an instance where an application was made and the first step was approved but the second wasn't Ms Zimmerman said not yet— the zoning hasn't been in place very long Ms Orr said there haven't been many projects built using the townhouse ordinance, so there hasn't been a chance to see how successful it's going to be One big concern was the market for condominiums, because Council doesn't want them turned into apartment complexes at some future point Ms Zimmerman added that one of the issues in completing a project is the difficulty of the two-step process in actually getting townhouses up and going Charlene Anderson added that multifamily comp plan designations are established, typically for a high density single family initially, and then they come back through the hearing examiner for townhouse zoning designation, The process can take up to two years Citizen Tom Sharp, 24254 143rd Avenue SE, Kent, said he has one of the condo developments that's going through the process right now called Selbome Lane The project was started immediately after the zoning and comp plan change with the proper zoning of SR8, then went to MRT16, which would have allowed 30 some units There are 22 units in the project, which is basically the same as what would be allowed in the Plannmg Comnnttee,2/19/02 4 SR8 zoning Mr Sharp said his experience has been very positive and he didn't have a problem with the comp plan and zoning change, because at that time the SR8 was the only permitted zone to go to MRT12 or 16 He said from a planning standpoint, that's probably about right. However, there are some anomalies in the zoning requirements versus the development standards There is a problem in categorizing the zoning as multiple family housing. Mass buildings, which are permitted under the zoning requirement, fit the multiple family designation but don't fit duplexes and triplexes, as there has to be additional processes for the setback Single family attached —which is the desired direction for everyone concerned — requires additional permits. Mr Sharp said City staff has been very supportive The process has been long - 18 months since submission, but the problem is not in the two-step process, it is in the various zoning versus the development standards Initially, multiple family standards were applied to single family attached housing, and that's where the problem lies. That aspect should be looked at in order to make the Townhouse Zoning a better zoning concept because the development and zoning standards force a person into massive buildings unless they're willing to take a lesser density from a marketing standpoint Mr Sharp suggested that there could be some changes in getting the size of the buildings down, adding more in neighborhood communities by having zero lot lines, or applying duplex standards in some instances A condominium built on one lot with each person owning a portion of a building in that lot can have a 20' wide private road with various setbacks from the road But the development standards say that if there are over 9 lots, there cannot be a private road (and all the standards have to meet the public works standards for the road) However, the only difference is the ownership in going from a condominium to single residential ownership In duplex buildings, the setback requirements between buildings and side yards are multiple family versus duplex (which would only be five feet to the property line) In the example of two duplexes and not much land, the development and zoning standards would force the buildings to be put together into one large massive four unit budding versus two smaller buildings. Judy Woods said she liked the idea of a one step process but would also like to take Mr Sharp's comments into consideration for development of a direction Leona Orr asked if the issue could be brought back to Committee in the next couple of months or if it would need to go to the Land Use and Planning Board for approval to change to a one step process Charlene Anderson said it would go through the Board as it would be a zoning code amendment. It could be brought back to Committee after that or, since it's not time sensitive, be incorporated into the Comp Plan and Development regulations review September, 2002, is the date for final adoption of the Comp Plan Public Participation Process Charlene Anderson said that some issues require public hearings, not only before the Land Use and Planning Board, but also before the City Council A site specific rezone is the one issue that has only a public hearing before some kind of board and then goes to the Hearing Examiner; the recommendation is then presented to the Council at a Planning Committee,2/19/02 5 public meeting. The issues before the Land Use and Planning Board relate to area wide rezoning, comp plan amendments, zoning text amendments, etc Some require a public hearing and some don't. They are the kinds of issues that aren't subject to regulation reform so they don't have the requirement for only one open record public hearing The Growth Management Act (GMA) also requires that the public be involved continuously in discussions, as specifically stated on page 2, "The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, etc , for open discussion " Leona Orr remarked that part of the difficulty in the process is that the Land Use and Planning Board holds a hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council, then the City Council holds a public meeting (not necessarily a public hearing), and may hear from different people than the Land Use and Planning Board heard from The Council has always been very open and receptive to hearing comments from the public at the last possible time, even when making the decision, but it does get confusing and it can be problematic when a different group of people comes other than was at the Land Use and Planning Board meeting It's a concern as far as what carries the most weight with the decision —whether it's based on the recommendation, the public hearing, or the Council's public meeting Ms Orr questioned whether public testimony should be allowed, but said the Council would never stop taking testimony from the public because that was their lob She suggested that, even though the Board does a very good lob of explaining the process, something in writing handed to people at the meetings, telling them what the next step is and where the issue would go from there, might be beneficial Ms. Orr commented that the Council is very appreciative of what the Board does because they hold a number of hearings and put together recommendations which help the Council make decisions It saves the Council a tremendous amount of time. Terry Zimmerman said part of the problem was the time limitations that presenters are under At the Land Use and Planning Board, if there is a full room, testimony is limited to 5-10 minutes The Council limits testimony to three minutes and it's difficult to get across a whole idea in three minutes Professional presenters sometimes arrange their time to have several people in a row get time slots so they can present a united front and an organized presentation Over the course of testimony of 5-6 people, a fairly clear idea develops of what someone is trying to say Ms Zimmerman said she knows that the Council receives much information to read and many attend the Land Use and Planning Board hearings or watch them on television But there have been 2-3 instances in the last year or so where the Board was surprised by the Council's decision and the Council had a distinctly different impression of an issue than the Land Use and Planning Board did, based on who showed up and how well organized their serial presentation was There needs to be a way to make the process work more consistently The Board doesn't want the Council to stop taking public testimony because that is very important, but the issue of different people and different issues surfacing at two different meetings is problematic to the Board and Council It's not problematic to the public - the public would probably take any opportunity to voice opinions about an issue — but maybe there needs to be a stop, look, Plannmg Committee,2/19102 6 and listen action on the part of the Council just to be sure that all that the Land Use and Planning Board heard gets added into what the Council hears and sees the evening of the decision Judy Woods said the system hasn't changed much over the last 20 years, but the City has changed a great deal— it's much larger and will become larger still It's bothersome that the Land Use and Planning Board may not hear all of the input that the Council hears because people who've never been heard at the Land Use and Planning Board may come to Council and speak from a different point of view, which brings new news Ms. Woods said she would prefer that all input occur at the Land Use and Planning Board. The same people can be heard again at the Council, but new folks should not appear at the Council meeting to present new testimony after the Land Use and Planning Board has heard hours of testimony, gone over the printed documentation and materials, and come up with what they believe was the very best recommendation they could make The other option is that the City Council can become the Land Use and Planning Board (which is how King County functions) Ms Woods stated she did not want to do that She suggested that whenever a new person comes to the City Council on an item previously heard by the Land Use and Planning Board, that the issue go back to the Board for another meeting The Council does not want new news — they want the document to be complete when it comes to them Leona Orr commented that one of the problems is that citizens who may have been affected by the hearing at the Land Use and Planning Board were not notified People can only come to a meeting if they know about it, and perhaps staff should look at the way affected parties are notified. At a recent City Council meeting, a couple of dozen people came who didn't know there had been a hearing before the Land Use and Planning Board They had a completely different perspective of what they felt should be done, so the Council had all the information from the Board but also received information that the Board never saw and that could have completely changed the outcome of its hearing Judy Woods contended that at that point the issue should be remanded back to the Land Use and Planning Board for another hearing where those folks could testify to see if the Land Use and Planning Board would make a different recommendation Terry Zimmerman said she thought that would be fine with the Board, as they would like to gather as much testimony as possible from as many different people as have an interest in the case Bruce White remarked that he could see the process being abused as a delaying tactic, and asked how the Council would know which people had truly not been notified —they could have been at the Board's meeting, deciding not to testify but then have a change of heart, wanting to talk to the Council A lot of the land use decisions have monetary implications to the applicant Terry Zimmerman agreed, and said that people regroup and restrategize in order to get a different decision from the Council than the Land Use and Planning Board's That's ' public process, and the opportunity for people to strategize shouldn't be eliminated. Ultimately, the Council is elected to make the decisions and may well come from a different perspective than the Board —the Council must try to be responsive to the citizens — and an evolving public process, or good strategizing, or good public relations, Planning Committee,2/19/02 7 or a group of people that decide to weigh in on an Issue now as they have just heard about it, shouldn't be turned away There may not be a definite answer to the dilemma Ms Zimmerman recalled that she and Ms Orr had made an agreement a year or so ago to keep each other posted when things were different on an Issue so they could be on the same wavelength. Bruce White suggested that a member from the Land Use and Planning Board be available to answer questions at the Council meetings when the Council was considering a recommendation handed down from the Board Leona Orr agreed that it would be really helpful at the time the Council was making a final decision if a member of the Land Use and Planning Board were present to give more explanation or answer questions as to why a recommendation had been made Ms Zimmerman said the request was very reasonable and she would take it back to the Land Use and Planning Board to see if they could arrange to have someone present at Council meeting The Board has classically relied on staff to communicate its position, but some issues have flavors and information that don't necessarily get recorded verbatim and have more to do with a perspective or feeling or what the majority of people had thought — and that may be important to the Council's decision making Buildable Lands & Targets — Status Report Michael Hubner, Buildable Lands Coordinator for the Suburban Cities Association, hosted by the City of Kent, said the Buildable Lands Analysis (which is a requirement under GMA) and the New Growth Targets (which are assigned to each jurisdiction in King County as a separate provision of the Growth Management Act) are two activities that have been proceeding simultaneously Buildable Lands requires that a reviewed evaluation program be carried out in each city and countywide, specifically looking at densities that have been achieved under prevailing zoning and the supply of land that remains in those zones to accommodate growth during the planning period which runs through 2012 under the countywide planning policies The bottom line of Buildable Lands is a measure of development capacity which stems from a research into permits and plats, an inventory of land that is vacant and redevelopable, and then an analysis which gives an estimate of how many housing units and how many employees can reasonably be anticipated to be accommodated on that land in each jurisdiction That information is evaluated against the remaining growth targets that are included in the countywide planning policies Page 3 of the memo summarizes the findings of that evaluation for the City of Kent For residential development, the City effectively has a surplus of around 2700 dwelling units of capacity over and above its remaining policy commitment under the countywide planning policies for housing unit growth, and thus passes the Buildable Lands test for performance of its GMA Plan On the employment side, the City also does well The total employment capacity of over 14,000 future additional jobs is greater than even the original target of 11,500 There is no accurate tally of the job growth since the beginning of the target period, but it's thought to be somewhere in the range of 8,000 jobs leaving a balance of 6,500 that would need to be accommodated So, in bath measures, the City passes and no further action is required under Buildable Lands Plammng Commmee,2/19/02 S What has been accomplished is the implementation of a valuable system for monitoring the performance of Kent's land use plan over time. Kent is getting the density that was planned and anticipated for how fast land is being consumed and how efficiently it is being utilized as development has occurred. Probably of more pressing concern to the Committee and the Council are the growth targets Cities in King County have been planning under a set of growth targets that extended from 1992 through 2012 The State Office of Financial Management has delivered its forecast of new population growth through the year 2022, adding an additional 10 years of growth that, under GMA, the jurisdictions in King County collectively must show they can accommodate An mtequnsdictional group, primarily comprised of planning directors, has been meeting for about 6-8 months to devise a methodology for allocating that population forecast to the jurisdictions (expressed as housing units, not as population per se), and also to allocate additional jobs that need to be accommodated in individual jurisdictions throughout the county That will go into the countywide planning policies The process is in mid course and is proceeding in somewhat of a two-tiered method in that the South County, versus the Eastside, versus ruralSeattle, and then the r all assigned targets for the sub areas and t allocated thin those areas s a negotiated process among the ju sdict onshen are w located within Kent is working with the other South County cities to allocate households and employees for that extended planning period Staff will come back to the Committee and present the recommended growth targets for Kent, which look to be fairly modest on the residential side (maybe as low as zero additional housing units), and on the employment Sou h County cites portion process 0 ongoing O and those numbers that will be divided among numbers may change the Leona Orr commented that it sounds like Kent has done more than its share, which may be reflected in the new numbers There has been concern that some cities are not meeting their targets under growth management and that the City of Kent, who has more than met its targets, may be asked to accept even more simply because someone feels that it is able to That's not what the residents want and it's not in the best interest of the City as a whole The meeting adjourned at 3 58 PM Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 4, 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leona Orr, Julie Peterson, Rico Yingling STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT- Don Wickstrom, Gary Gill, Tom Brubaker, Cyndi Wilbur, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Howard Montoure, Brian Hollinger The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 5 00 PM One item was added to the agenda Signal Light at 74ih and Willis Approval of Minutes of February 4, 2002 Committee member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of March 4, 2002 The motion was seconded by Committee member Julie Peterson and passed 3-0 Kent Corrosion Control Facility Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said that bids were recently opened on a project to install corrosion control on the Clark Springs water source and the East Hill well source The federal government mandates that copper and lead, which get leached out of the plumbing within residences or businesses, be removed from water systems To do that, the pH (acidity) in the water has to be raised That increases operating costs just in chemicals alone for those facilities Chemical feeders will have to be built at the 981h Street (north of James) reservoir and pump station that Clark Springs water comes into, and one at the East Hill well facility off of 140`h and 250`h Tests were done and about $300,000 spent in determining what had to be done and for the design of the facility The whole project is short on funds by about $115,000, but some excess money from the East Hill Reservoir Project can be used to help fund the project so construction and implementation of the facility can proceed Leona Orr questioned whether people would notice any difference in their water such as taste or soap sudsing more when washing clothes Mr Wickstrom said that right now the City has relatively soft water and the process might make the water harder, but there shouldn't be any other differences Rico Yingling recommended that Council transfer $115,000 from the East Hill Reservoir Fund (#W20059) to the Corrosion Control Fund (#W20030). The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant Agreement Don Wickstrom said that there were funds in the budget over the last two years for improving Central Avenue at the James Street intersection by putting in a double left turn lane going east on James and a right turn lane going west down James for cars to Public Works Committee,3/4/02 2 turn north on Central. Cars going south on Central would have two left turn lanes onto James The grant is for$192,000 to do the design and then a construction grant will follow for a total of about $900,000 The project was funded, but more work was added with an overlay down to Central, so the City picked up $900,000 for about $300,000 in additional expenses and now has, essentially, $600,000 more in funds than the project costs Grants are rated on a point system based on things like pavement conditions, and when the overlay was added, the project picked up a few more points and thus rated the advance Rico Yingling asked that staff look at what could be done in the way of center refuge islands because of the long stretch between stoplights, to make it safer for people crossing Central. Don Wickstrom commented that mid block crossings were a hazard, and the placement of any islands would be very important so as to not create a problem with pedestrians Julie Peterson recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the grant agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said road improvement project. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. King Coup Signal Grant Award Agreement Don Wickstrom said the King County Signal Grant was for a project to study optimizing signal operations on Kent-Kangley Road between 1521d Avenue SE and Central Avenue South Improved coordination through the signal systems will increase traffic flow, and the County's goal, specifically, is to move busses faster $170,000 was funded in the 2000 budget for a consultant to do the study, which will evaluate traffic counts and the time it takes to go from one end of the corridor to the other to see how lights can be coordinated to optimize the flow of traffic. Rico Yingling asked if that would involve hard wiring the lights together Mr Wickstrom said that almost the whole system was now hard wired to a master control in the engineering division that can be analyzed This study gathers the raw data needed to free up somebody's time to do that analysis Rico Yingling recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the grant agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said project. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Purchase of Smith & Loveless Package Pump Stations - 3`d Avenue South & Washington Avenue Don Wickstrom said there were two projects that would get the pump stations the 3`d Avenue storm system and detention facility, and the Washington Avenue and Meeker Street project. Both projects have separate outlets to the river, and in order to reduce and take advantage of the differential in rainfall versus the high river levels, pumps will be installed to work when the river is high and the gravity flow is blocked by floodgates in the river That will allow pumping that will prevent localized flooding Because all of Public Works Committee, 3/4/02 1 3 the City's pump stations are Smith & Loveless, this is a sole-source purchase. The pumps are very dependable and the crews are very familiar with how to maintain and operate them. Mr Wickstrom said the Washington Pump Station was put in for the purpose of controlling flooding of K-Mart and the area over by West Valley Highway, and LID 352 was formed to put in storm drainage in the industrial area just north of 259w The contractor just completed that system and there is a big detention pond there that doesn't have an outlet to the river yet It drains through a 12" pipe that was there when it was an orchard The pump station needs to be built so the pond can be drained Julie Peterson moved to recommend authorization to the full Council for the purchase of the Smith and Loveless Package Pump Stations for the total price of $279,737. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Signal Light at 74th and Willis Brian Hollinger, 917 S 28th Court, Renton, said that one of the conditions from the City when he built the Texaco station (of which is co-owner) for developing the property at 74th and Willis was to do a signal warrant analysis That analysis was done and given to the City traffic people (Ed White's office) in August of 1996 Mr White had WH Pacific start on a design, which then went to the DOT Mr Hollinger said he had a verbal commitment with the City for a signal light at Willis When he asked about it, he was told there was a LID formed for it and that as soon as there was enough traffic coming out of the industrial park, a signal would go in Mr Hollinger said he has spent thousands of dollars with an attorney to try and move the project along Emads were exchanged with Don Wickstrom and Steve Mullen when 1-695 got overturned Mr Wickstrom told Steve Mullen to get started on the project in April of last year, but nothing has happened Mr Hollinger asked who he could call to find out status information. Leona Orr commented that the Committee couldn't take action on the issue but would try to find out what was happening with it. Don Wickstrom said when the subject came to Committee last year, there was an issue of whether to install a signal or a round-about which would eliminate the need for the signal Staff went to the DOT and found they could go with whichever permit was received first —the signal or breaking the limited access Brian Hollinger argued that the limited access was broken by the DOT when the Foster Industrial Park was developed Don Wickstrom contended that it was limited access right of way, and with limited access, the City has no say. A permit has to be received from the DOT to do anything The whole issue is whether to install a round-about with a break on the limited access on the north side of 516, or install a signal Approval has been received to install the signal, but the final plans haven't been approved by the DOT They now want the City to do a study on why there is a 4' white line in a concrete curb and gutter (what the separation is there) Pubhc Works Comrruttee,3/4/02 4 Mr Wickstrom commented that dealing with DOT and getting approval in their right of way to build a facility has been a painstaking operation A project on West Meeker and 516 was actually dropped after six years of trying to get a permit because every time it was brought back there was a new issue, and now the same thing is happening with this intersection The City has to work at DOT's authority. Once DOT approves the plan, then the signal can be built So far, they haven't approved the channelization plan and now there is an issue with the white line Brian Hollinger asked who at DOT was in charge of the project. Don Wickstrom said the people keep changing He suggested that Steve Mullen would know who to contact Mr Hollinger contended that Steve Mullen was the one that wanted the round-about and not the signal Don Wickstrom said staffs preference is a round-about and a break of limited access versus the signal, but the issue now is that whichever permit is received first is what would be pursued. Mr Wickstrom repeated that the City has approval of the warrants and approval to install the signal, but doesn't have approval of the plans Brian Hollinger questioned why the round-about was being considered as it hadn't been an option given to him by the City Rico Yingling commented that he was under the impression that the Mayor and others had put their decision behind the traffic light and not the round-about Don Wickstrom said the traffic light wouldn't be the best option to serve the City, it would add to congestion and cause problems, but it's whichever permit comes first The issue would still be brought back to Committee to make the decision - if the break in the limited access was received before the signal permit, it would be brought to Committee to decide whether to go ahead with that or continue pursuing the signal If the signal permit was received first, it would still be brought back so staff could state that their preference for moving traffic was not putting in another signal Leona Orr asked what might be done to push DOT for approval. City Attorney Tom Brubaker said he and Don Wickstrom could try to work with the WSDOT people to try and get a firm answer, but staff doesn't have any leverage over that decision making process Brian Hollinger wanted to know what Mark Bandy had approved a year and a half ago He said the signal design was about 80% done and WASHDOT wanted to run their analysis on it. Don Wickstrom said that was the warrant issue, but Mr. Hollinger contended it wasn't the warrant and said he would get a copy of what Mark Bandy had sent to him (which he also sent to the City) Leona Orr suggested that if Mr Hollinger had approved documentation that the City wasn't aware of, he needed to get it to Don Wickstrom or Tom Brubaker. They could put their heads together to determine who was making the decision and when that decision could be expected, and then keep Mr. Hollinger informed Rico Yingling said he would talk to the Mayor and to CAO Mike Martin to see where they were on the issue, as he had thought the Mayor had made a decision to put the Public Works Committee, 3/4/02 5 light in Tom Brubaker commented that he had had just the opposite impression Mr Yingling said his concern was that Mr Hollinger had been made a promise Brian Hollinger commented that if the signal was something that wasn't going to happen because the City didn't want it to, then he would have to decide whether to take a legal course orjust drop the issue and chalk it up to experience He admitted it should have been in writing, but thought signing the participation in the LID for when the light was put in would be good enough He said it's a big impact on all the property owners in Foster Industrial Park Leona Orr told Mr Hollinger that someone would get back to him. The meeting adjourned at 5 40 PM Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION