HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/15/2003 x7
rti
City of Kent
4 ?
= Agenda �
= April 15, 2003
Mayor Jim White
Councilmembers
Judy Woods, Council President
Tim Clark Julie Peterson
Connie Epperly Bruce White
Leona Orr Rico Yingling
Zoo K�wr . T
City Clerk's Office
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
KENT April 15, 2003
W A 3 H I M O T O H Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods,President
Tun Clark Comae Epperly Leona Orr
Julie Peterson Bruce White Rico Yingling
*�r•r�r****►ax**�r�r*rrrtr�****r+srstrr*s**r**r*r�*rt**r***r*s*r***:*�*�:►*e*sr�s*
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—Records and Information Management Month
B. Proclamation—Lions White Cane Days
C. Tree City USA Presentation
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Planned Unit Development Zoning Code Amendment#ZCA-2002-5
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Previous Meeting—Approve
B. Payment of Bills—Approve
C. Office of Emergency Medical and Trauma Prevention Grant—Accept
D Postage Equipment Lease—Approve
E. Transportation Improvement Board Grant Agreement—Authorize
F. Kent Springs Transrmssion Main Repair—Authorize
G. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Budget Recommendation— ^
Authorize j U
H. Puget Sound Energy Construction Agreement—Authorize
I Qwest Construction Agreement—Authorize V�
J. Excused Absence for Councilmember Clark—Approve
K. Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone Ordinance—Adopt 36LI I
L. Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 350, 352 and 354 Bond Ordinance
Adopt
M. Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl Management—Authorize
N. Fee in Lieu of Funds for East Hill X Park—Accept and Amend Budget
-- O. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Grant for Land Acquisition—
Accept, Amend Budget and Authorize Signature
P. King County Funds for Kent Meridian Pool—Accept and Amend Budget
Q. Chelmsford Final Plat—Approve
7. OTHER BUSINESS
A None
(continued next page)
Sc✓vX e> .ro eTY3 i_tarW'rmb_urv,r _ ry-z A-3nMay.Sr =JL44k.nt w..JY}
SUNPAARY AGENDA CONTINUED
8. BIDS
A. Pacific Highway South Storm Drainage Improvements—Award Contract
9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
10, REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A C)
/Q11/W,l t,aA/
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Property Acquisition
13. ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
14. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE- A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the
Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page is on the City of Kent web site at
www.ci.kent.wa.us
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at
(253) 856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at
1-800-833-6388.
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-RECORDS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
MONTH
B) PROCLAMATION-LIONS WHITE CANE DAYS
C) TREE CITY USA PRESENTATON
•
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT (#ZCA-2002-5)
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use & Planning Board held a public
hearing on February 24, 2003 and recommended PUD amendments to reduce the
mimmum acreage in single family zones, to establish parking, walkway and design
requirements, and to add review criteria.
The Planning Committee recommended approval with additional modifications,
including amendment of density bonus provisions. The Committee requested
consideration of one additional modification, the length of one-way loop streets within
PUD's and tonight is set for a public hearing on this single issue only.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo; Proposed amendments; Minutes of 2/24/03 LU&PB
Hearing; and LU&PB Staff Report w/o attachment
® 4 RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee and Land Use &Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X 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 1J 6 seconds
to appreuelde%Vniodify the Planning Committee's recommendation of approval of the
Planned Unit Development Zoning Code Amendment(#ZCA-2002-5), and to direct
City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
WASHINGTON Phone 253-856-5454
Fax 253-856-6454
Address 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE: APRIL 8, 2003
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUDY WOODS AND CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT—PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD)
#ZCA-2002-5 (KIVA#2023895)
SUMMARY: At their March 18`s meeting, the Planning Committee modified and
recommended approval of amendments to the Kent Zoning Code to allow Planned Unit
Developments on a minimum of 5 acres in single family residential zoning districts. The
amendments also provide for design review, parking, pedestrian walkways, additional review
• cntena, and modified density bonuses The Land Use & Planning Board held a hearing on the
issue on February 241h and sent their recommendation of approval to the City Council. At their
April 15`h meeting, the City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding the length of one-
way loop streets within PUDs to consider adding an additional amendment to those already
recommended by the Planning Committee
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing I move to approve/deny/modify the Planning
Committee's recommendation of approval of#ZCA-2002-5, including staff recommendation on
the length of one-way loop streets within PUDs
BACKGROUND: Kentview, L L C. submitted an application for a zoning code text
amendment to reduce from 100 acres to 20 acres the minimum acreage requirements for Planned
Unit Developments (PUDs) in Single Family Residential zoning districts. Kentview, L L C.
proposed allowance of the acreage reduction only when the PUD consisted of detached single
family dwellings and when appropriate buffers were provided for adjoining properties PUDs
permit departures from conventional siting, setback and density requirements of the Kent Zoning
Code in the interest of achieving superior site development, creating open space and encouraging
imaginative design by permitting design flexibility
After conducting a public heanng on the issue on February 20, the Land Use & Planning Board
modified and recommended, by a 4 to 3 vote, approval of staffs proposed amendments to the
Kent Zoning Code regarding PUDs The Planning Committee considered the Board's
#ZCA-2002-5 (KIVA#2023895)
Staff Report
Page 2
recommendation at their March 18`h meeting and further modified the recommendations to
include the following:
1) PUDs are allowed in single family zoning districts with a minimum of 5 acres.
2) PUDs in single family zoning districts on less than 100 acres shall be detached single
family dwellings only
3) Density bonuses shall not be allowed on PUDs of less than 20 acres in size.
4) In single family PUDs, parking shall be provided at a ratio of 1.8 parking spaces per
dwelling unit; garages may not be counted toward the parking requirement
Additional parking may be required based upon site design and project land uses.
5) Pedestrian walkways shall be provided to connect residences to public walkways and
streets
6) PUDs shall be subject to administrative design review.
7) Additional review criteria for PUDs include compatibility with adjacent land uses,
integration of open space within the PUD, and addition of features that promote
community interaction, such as porches, common areas, and de-emphasized garages
The full text of the Planning Committee's recommendation is included in the agenda packet,
with shading of the Planning Committee's recommended changes.
Public Hearine: The Planning Committee requested the City Council hold a public hearing
on the issue of the length of one-way loop streets within PUDs, in consideration of removing
the limitation on length Existing code limits one-way loop streets to 1500 feet in length.
This limitation equates with the maximum block size allowed within subdivisions, whether
residential, commercial or industrial.
As a means of comparison, under the existing Kent Zoning Code, residential cul-de-sacs may
not exceed 500 feet in length. Traffic calming improvements are required on streets within
subdivisions, the measures may include mid-block chokers on blocks greater than 500 feet in
length. Approval criteria for subdivisions also include connectivity of sidewalks, pedestrian
accessways, streets and other public ways within and between subdivisions and
neighborhoods
Limitation on the length of one-way loop streets, block sizes, or residential cul-de-sacs are
made for a variety of reasons. The general themes of the limitations within residential areas
are connections of subdivision to subdivision, neighborhood to neighborhood, residents to
retail, public and recreational services, as well as safety and ease of circulation — for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, including delivery and emergency vehicles One-way
streets can cause confusion Residents at the far end of a one-way loop street may choose to
travel the wrong direction rather than travel completely around the loop. Emergency vehicles
also may be required to travel a longer distance or travel in the wrong direction depending on
the location of an event along a one-way street. If visitors, sightseers or delivery vehicles
perceive the one-way street to be wide enough, they may choose deliberately or inadvertently
#ZCA-2002-5 (KIVA#2023895)
Staff Report
Page 3
to travel in the wrong direction. One-way loop streets provide no option for escape or
turnaround to those who erroneously enter the roadway.
Staff believes one-way streets are appropriate only when the neighborhood circulatory
pattern provides options for turnarounds within short distances, such as is the case within
urban downtown areas. Staff therefore recommends no change to existing code regarding
one-way loop streets within PUDs.
CA S\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2002\2023895-2002-5cc DOC
Enclosure PUD Amendments proposed by Planning Committee 3/18/03, Minutes of 2/24/03 LU&PB
Meeting,Staff memo dated 2/18/03
As recommended by Ldiid U • o. Pl••-im • ❑.."Planuing Committee'_,_4 a,13/18/03 .
Sec.15.08.400. Planned unit development,PUD.
The intent of the PUD is to create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design,and
protect and enhance natural and community features The process is provided to encourage unique
developments, which may combine a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The PUD
process permits departures from the conventional siting, setback and density requirements of a particular
zoning district in the interest of achieving superior site development,creating open space and encouragmg
imaginative design by permitting design flexibility By using flexibility in the application of development
standards,this process will promote developments that will benefit citizens that live and work within the
city.
A Zoning districts where permitted PUDs are permitted in all zoning districts with the exception
of the A-IQ,agricultural zone,provided,however,that PUDs in SR zones are only-only allowed if the site
is at least one hundred(100)acres in size,except as provided in subsection(C)of this section
B Permuted uses
1 Principally permitted uses The principally permitted uses in PUDs shall be the same as
those permitted in the underlying zoning classifications except as provided in subsection (13)(4) of this
section.
2 Conditional uses The conditional uses in PUDs shall be the same as those permitted in
the underlying zoning classification The conditional use permit review process may be consolidated with
that of the PUD pursuant to procedures specified in subsection(F)of this section
3 Accessory uses Accessory uses and buildings which are customarily incidental and
subordinate to a principally permitted use are also permitted
4 Exceptions In residential PUDs of ten{l%-one hundred(100) acres or more located in
SR zones,and in residential PUDs of ten(10)acres or more located in other zoning districts,commercial
uses may be permitted Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted in the neighborhood
convenience commercial district In PUDs of one hundred (100) acres in size located in SR zones,
attached dwelling units are permitted only if they are condominiums created in accordance with the
Washington Condominium Act, Chapter 64 34 RCW,provided that if a proposed PUD in a single-family
zoning district includes condominiums, the density bonus provisions outlined in subsection (D) of this
section shall not apply, and further provided that no condominium building may exceed two (2)stories
In PUDs of less than twenty (20) aci es in sine located in SR cone%, the densih bonus pros i+ions
outlined in subsection (D)of this section shall not apuh.ls ni ps •.vi_, thli_ __ unti-_, nnm _-,
- SR genes. the dens%, bentis efeviseens outlined in subseeilen (D) f this seet16" shall
C Development standards The following development standards are minimum requirements for a
planned unit development:
� 4-144-4303/25 03 1
I Minimum lot size exclusion The minimum lot size requirements of the districts
outlined in this title shall not apply to PUDs
2 Minimum site acreage Minimum site acreage for a PUD is established according to the
zoning district in which the PUD is located,as follows
Zones Minimum
Site Acreage
SR zones(Sli SR-2,
SR-3,SR4 5,SR-6, SR-8) 100 acres a
Multifamily(MR-D,MR-G,
MR-M,MR-H,MRT-12, MRT-16) None
Commercial,office and
manufacturing zones None
a Minimum acreage requirements in SR zones may be reduced to N5 acres
provided the proposal
m consists entirely of detached single family dwellings(KCC 15 02 115),
3 Minimum perimeter building setback The minimum perimeter building setback of the
underlying zone shall apply Multifamily transition area requirements shall apply to any multifamily
developments (as provided in KCC 15 08 215), except where specifically exempted by administrative
design review (as provided in KCC 15 09 045) The hearing examiner may reduce building separation
requirements to the minimum required by the building and fire departments according wrthto the criteria
set forth in subsection (17)(1)of this section If an adjacent property is undevelopable under this title,the
hearing examiner may also reduce the perimeter building setback requirement to the minimum standards
in the city building and fire codes
4 Maximum height of structures The maximum height of structures of the underlying
zone shall apply Multifamily transition area requirements shall apply to any multifamily developments
(as provided in KCC 15 08 215)except where specifically exempted by administrative design review (as
provided in KCC 15 09 045) The hearing examiner may authorize additional height in CC, GC, DC,
CM, MI, M2 and M3 zones where proposed development in the PUD is compatible with the scale and
character of adjacent existing developments
5 Open space
a The standard set forth in this subsection shall apply to PUD residential
developments only Each PUD shall provide a minimum of thirty-five (35) percent of the total site area
for common open space In mixed use PUDs containing residential uses, thirty-five (35) percent of the
area used for residential use shall be reserved as open space
�N303,25,03 2
b For the purpose of this section, open space shall be defined as land which is
not used for buildings,dedicated public rights-of-way,traffic circulation and roads,parking areas,or any
kind of storage Open space includes but is not limited to privately owned woodlands, open fields,
streams, wetlands, severe hazard areas, sidewalks, areas, trails through parks and
sensitive areas (not including required sidewalks), gardens, courtyards or lawns Common open space
may provide for either active or passive recreation.
c Open space within a PUD shall be available for common use by the residents,
tenants or the general public,depending on the type of project
6 Sweets If streets within the development are required to be dedicated to the city for
public use,such streets shall be designed in accordance with the standards outlined in the city subdivision
code and other appropnate city standards If streets within the development are to remain in private
ownership and remain as private streets,the following standards shall apply
a Minimum private street pavement widths for parallel parking in residential
planned unit developments Minimum private street pavement widths with and withoutfor parallel
parking in residential planned unit developments are as follows
"-- 4?PO-,/25 03 3
No Parking Parking
Parking One Side Both Sides
(feet) (feet) (feet)
One-way streets 20 29 38
Two-way streets 22 31 40
The minimum widths set out in this subsection may be modified upon review and approval by
the city fire chief and the city traffic engineer providing they are sufficient to maintain emergency access
and traffic safety A maintenance agreement for private streets within a PUD shall be required by the
hearing examiner as a condition of PUD approval
b Vehicle parking areas Adequate vehicular parking areas shall be provided
appFOved by the heaFing examinef based apen a padang need assessment study stilifnetted by the apphean
Vehicular parking areas maybe provided by on-street parking or
off-street parking lots The design of such parking areas shall be in accordance with the standards outlined
in Ch 1505 KCC In single famils PUDs, parking %hall be proiided at a ratio of 1 8 parking Stalls
per diielhnn unit; garnges a i e excluded from the parkme calculation. ' • m_' 1 k i"ID- ....�
,_ _. ffld OeteNEell! Ile . The Planning
Manager may recommend for Hearmg Examiner approval additional parking based upon site design and
proiect land uses;the recommendation may include a requirement for on-street parking
c One-way streets. One-way loop streets shall be no more than one thousand
five hundred(1,500) feet long
d On-street parking On-street parking shall be permitted Privately owned and
maintained"no parking" and"fire lane" signs may be required as determined by the city traffic engineer
and city fire department chief
7 Pedestrian walkways Pedestrian walkways shall be provided to connect residences to
public walkways and streets and shall be constructed of material deemed to be an all-weather surface by
the public works director and planning manager
8 Landscaping
a Minimum perimeter landscaping of the underlying zone shall apply
Additional landscaping shall be required as provided in Ch 15 07 KCC and KCC 15 08 215
b All PUD developments shall ensure that parking areas are integrated with the
landscaping system and provide screening of vehicles from view from public streets Parking areas shall
be conveniently located to buildings and streets while providing for landscaping adjacent to buildings and
pedestrian access
c Solid waste collection areas and waste reduction or recycling collection areas
shall be conveniently and safely located for onsite use and collection,and attractively site screened
9 Signs The sign regulations of Ch 15 06 KCC shall apply
303 251)3 4
10. Platting If portions of the PUD are to be subdivided for sale or lease,the procedures of
the city subdivision code,as amended,shall apply Specific development standards such as lot size,street
design,etc,shall be provided as outlined in subsection(E)of this section
it. Green River Corridor. Any development located within the Green River Corridor
special interest district shall adhere to the Green River Corridor special interest district regulations.
12 View regulations View regulations as specified in KCC 15 08 060 shall apply to all
PUDs
13 -P—Shoreline master program Any development located within two hundred(200)
feet of the Green River shall adhere to the city shoreline master program regulations
14 Design review PUDs shall be subtect to KCC 15 09 045 Administrative design review
PUDs of only single family detached residences shall be evaluated using the review
criteria of KCC 15 09 045(C)Multifamily design review
D. Density bonus standards The density of residential development for PUDs shall be
based on the gross density of the underlying zoning district &Eeevt in PUDS .._de_
leeaIed on SR gene , Except in PUDs under 20 acres in cite located in SR zones, the heating
examiner may recommend a dwelling unit density not more than twenty (20) percent greater than that
permitted by the underlying zone upon findings and conclusions that the amenities or design features
which promote the purposes of this subsection, as follows, are provided: (PhDs under 20 acres in size
located in SR zones mai not be allowed density bonuses )
zones may net be allowed deasity benuses4
I Open space A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at least ten (10)
percent of the open space is in concentrated areas for passive use Open space shall include significant
natural features of the site, including but not limited to fields, woodlands, watercourses, and permanent
and seasonal wetlands Excluded from the open space definition are the areas within the building
footprints, land used for parking, vehicular circulation or rights-of-way, and areas used for any kind of
storage
2 Active recreation areas A four(4)percent density bonus may be authorized if at least
ten (10)percent of the site is utilized for active recreational purposes, including but not limited tologging
or walking trails, pools, children's play areas, etc Only that percentage of space contained within
accessory structures that is directly used for active recreation purposes can be included in the ten (10)
percent active recreation requirement
3 Stormwater drainage A two (2) percent density bonus may be authorized if
stormwater drainage control is accomplished using natural onsite drainage features Natural drainage
feature may include streams,creeks,ponds,etc
4 Native vegetation. A four(4)percent density bonus may be authorized if at least fifteen
(15)percent of the native vegetation on the site is left undisturbed in large open areas.
4;4P 403'25 03 5
5 Parking lot sae. A two (2) percent density bonus may be authorized if off-street
parking is grouped in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or less. Parking areas must be separated from other
parking areas or buildings by significant landscaping in excess of type V standards as provided in KCC
15.07.050 At least fifty (50) percent of these parking areas must be designed as outlined in this
subsection to receive the density bonus
6 Mixed housing types A two (2) percent density bonus may be authorized if a
development features a mix of residential housing types Single-family residences, attached single units,
condominiums, apartments and townhomes are examples of housing types The mix need not include
some of every type
7 Project planning and management A two(2)percent density bonus maybe granted if
a design/development team is used Such a team would include a mixture of architects, engineers,
landscape architects and designers A design/development team is likely to produce a professional
development concept that would be consistent with the purpose of the zoning regulations
These standards are thresholds, and partial credit is not given for partial attainment The site
plan must at least meet the threshold level of each bonus standard in order for density bonuses to be given
for that standard
E Master plan approvals The master plan process is intended to allow approval of a generalized,
conceptual development plan on a site which would then be constructed in phases over a longer period of
time than a typical planned unit development The master plan approval process is typically appropriate
for development which might occur on a site over a period of several years, and in phases which are not
entirely predicable.
I Submittal requirements The distinguishing characteristic between a master plan
development application and a planned unit development application is that a master plan development
proposal is conceptual in nature However, the master plan application shall provide sufficient detail of
the scope of the development, the uses, the amount of land to be developed and preserved, and how
services will be provided The specific submittal requirements are noted below
a A written description of the scope of the project, including total anticipated
build-out(number of units of residential,gross floor area for commercial),and the types of uses proposed,
b A clear vicinity map,showing adjacent roads,
c A fully dimensional site plan, which would show the areas upon which
development would occur,the proposed number of units or buildings in each phase of the development,
the areas would be preserved for open space or protection of environmentally sensitive features, and a
generalized circulation plan,which would include proposed pedestrian and bicycle circulation,
d A generalized drainage and stormwater runoff plan,
e A site map showing contours at not greater than five (5) foot intervals and
showing any wetlands,streams,or other natural features.
f A description of the proposed phasing plan
4_-4;- aO3 '_5 01 6
g. Documentation of coordination with the Kent school district
h. Certificates of water and sewer availability
i Generalized building elevations showing the types of uses being proposed.
2 Density. The gross density of a residential master plan project shall be the same as the
density allowable in the underlying zoning district
3 Open space The criteria in subsection(C)(5)of this section shall apply
4 Application process The application process for a master plan application shall be as
outlined in subsection(F)of this section
5 Review criteria The review criteria for a master plan application shall be the same as
those outlined in subsection(G)of this section.
6 Administrative approval of individual phases Once a master site plan PUD has been
approved pursuant to subsection (F) of this section, any individual phase of the development shall be
reviewed and approved administratively, as outlined in Ch 15 09 KCC, provided that for each phase of
development that includes a residential condominium, the applicant shall submit a copy of the
condominium declaration recorded against the property,and as outlined in RCW 64 34 200
7 Time limits The master plan approved by the hearing examiner or city council, as
provided in subsection (F)of this section,shall be valid for a period of up to seven (7)years At the end
of this seven-year period, development permits must be issued for all phases of the master plan
development An extension of time may be requested by the applicant A single extension may be
granted by the planning manager for a period of not more than two(2)more additional years
S Modifications Once approved, requests for modifications to the master plan project
shall be made in writing to the planning manager The planning manager shall make a determination as to
whether the requested modification is major or minor as outlined in subsection(1)of this section
F Application process The application process includes the following steps informal review
process, compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act, community information meeting,
development plan review,and public hearing before the hearing examiner
1 Informal review process An applicant shall meet informally with the planning
department at the earliest possible date to discuss the proposed PUD The purpose of this meeting is to
develop a project that will meet the needs of the applicant and the objectives of the city as defined in this
title
2 SEPA compliance Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act and
regulations and city SEPA requirements shall be completed prior to development plan review
3 Development plan review. After informal review and completion of the SEPA process,
a proposal shall next be reviewed by city staff through the development plan review process Comments
received by the project developer under the development review process shall be used to formalize the
proposed development prior to the development being presented at a public hearing before the hearing
examiner
t> 1303 25 03 7
4 Community information meeting
a A community information meeting shall be required for any proposed PUD
located in a residential zone or within two hundred (200) feet of a residential zone At this meeting,the
applicant shall present the development proposed to interested residents Issues raised at the meeting may
be used to refine the PUD plan Notice shall be given in at least one (1) publication in the local
newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing Written notice shall be mailed first class to
all property owners within a radius of not less than two hundred(200) feet of the exterior boundaries of
the property subject to the application Any alleged failure of any property owner to actually receive the
notice of hearing shall not invalidate the proceedings
b Nonresidential PUDs not located within two hundred(200)feet of a residential
zone shall not require a community information meeting
5 Public notice and hearing examiner public hearing The hearing examiner shall hold at
least one (1) public hearing on the proposed PUD and shall give notice thereof in at least one (1)
publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10)days prior to the public hearing Written notice shall
be mailed first class to all property owners within a radius of not less than two hundred(200) feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property subject to the application Any alleged failure of any property owner
to actually receive the notice of hearing shall not invalidate the proceedings
6 Consolidation of land use permit processes The PUD approval process maybe used to
consolidate other land use permit processes,which are required by other sections of this title The public
hearing required for the PUD may serve as the public hearing for the conditional use permit, subdivision,
shoreline substantial development and rezoning if such land use permits are a part of the overall PUD
application When another land use permit is involved which requires city council approval, the PUD
shall not be deemed to be approved until the city council has approved the related land use permit If a
public hearing is required for any of the categories of actions listed in this subsection, the hearing
examiner shall employ the public hearing notice requirements for all actions considered which ensure the
maximum notice to the public
7 Hearing examiner decision The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision within
ten (10) working days from the date of the hearing Parties of record will be notified in writing of the
decision The decision is final unless notice of appeal is filed with the city clerk within fourteen(14)days
of receipt by the developer of the decision For PUDs which propose a use which is not typically
permitted in the underlying zoning district as provided in subsection (B)(4) of this section, the hearing
examiner shall forward a recommendation to the city council, which shall have the final authority to
approve or deny the proposed PUD For a proposed residential PUD that includes condominiums as
outlined in subsection (B)(4)of this section, a condition of approval by the city council shall be that for
each development phase the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of the covenants, conditions and
. restrictions recorded against the property. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the hearing examiner's
recommendation,the city council shall,at a regular meeting,consider the application
4_+11z03'25,03 8
8. Effective date In approving a PUD, the hearing examiner shall specify that the
approved PUD shall not take effect unless or until the developer files a completed development permit
application within the time periods required by this title as set forth in subsection(G)of this section. No
official map or zoning text designations shall be amended to reflect the approved PUD designation until
such time as the PUD becomes effective.
G. Review criteria for planned unit developments. Upon receipt of a complete application for a
residential PUD, the planning department shall review the application and make its recommendation to
the hearing examiner The hearing examiner shall determine whether to grant, deny or condition an
application based upon the following review criteria
1. Residential planned unit development criteria
a a--The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect upon the
community and users of the development, which would not normally be
achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and shall not be detrimental to
existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive
plan
b The proposed PUD proiect shall be compatible with the existing land use or
property that abuts or is directly across the street from the subject rp_opertv
Compatibility includes but is not limited to apparent size, scale, mass and
architectural design
be Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall be preserved,
maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community
ed The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of openness by using techniques
such as clustering, separation of building groups, and use of well-designed open space and landscaping
Open space shall be integrated within the PUD rather than be an isolated element of the project
de The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and innovation in site and
building design,and shall include architectural and site features that promote community interaction, such
as porches, de-emphasized garages, sidewalks/walkways and adjacent common areas Buildings in
groups shall be related by common materials and roof styles,but contrast shall be provided throughout the
site by the use of varied materials,architectural detailing,building scale and orientation
of Building design shall be based on a unified design concept,particularly when
construction will be in phases.
2 Nonresidential planned unit development criteria
a The proposed project shall have a beneficial effect which would not normally
be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and not be detrimental to present or potential
surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan
b Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall be preserved,
maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community
4-;4P4430 t'25-03 9
c The proposed project shall provide areas of openness by the clustering of
buildings, and by the use of well-designed landscaping and open spaces Landscaping shall promote a
coordinated appearance and break up continuous expanses of building and pavement
d The proposed project shall promote variety and innovation in site and budding
design. It shall encourage the incorporation of special design features such as visitor entrances, piazas,
outdoor employee lunch and recreation areas,architectural focal points and accent lighting
e Building design shall be based on a unified design concept,particularly when
construction will be in phases
H Time limits
I Application for development permit The applicant shall apply for a development
permit no later than one (1) year following final approval of the PUD The application for development
permit shall contain all conditions of the PUD approval
2 Extensions An extension of time for development permit application may be requested
in writing by the applicant Such an extension may be granted by the planning manager for a period not
to exceed one (1) year If a development permit is not issued within two (2) years, the PUD approval
shall become null and void and the PUD shall not take effect
I Modifications of plan Requests for modifications of final approved plans shall be made in
writing and shall be submitted to the planning department in the manner and form prescribed by the
planning manager The criteria for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those criteria
covering original approval of the permit,which is the subject of the proposed modification
1 Minor modifications Modifications are deemed minor if all the following criteria are
satisfied
a No new land use is proposed,
b No increase in density,number of dwelling units or lots is proposed,
c No change in the general location or number of access points is proposed,
d No reduction in the amount of open space is proposed,
e No reduction in the amount of parking is proposed,
f No increase in the total square footage of structures to be developed is
proposed,and
g No increase in general height of structures is proposed
Examples of minor modifications include but are not limited to lot line adjustments, minor
relocations of buildings or landscaped areas, minor changes in phasing and timing, and minor changes in
elevations of buildings
2 Major modifications Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the
planning manager, substantially change the basic design, density, open space or other similar
requirements or provisions Major adjustments to the development plans shall be reviewed by the hearing
examiner. The hearing examiner may review such adjustments at a regular public hearing If a public
47 1u03'25'03 10
hearing is held, the process outlined in subsection(F)of this section shall apply The hearing examiner
shall issue a written decision to approve,deny or modify the request Such a decision shall be final Any
appeals of this decision shall be in accordance with KCC Section 12 01040.
S P�rinii Plan'70M(ODFAM1 WY2002 2021N9+2(N12-iwdc4 duel-7�eanx.PJar�711Y1_C-(- Fh471�N1���M12da1� 95-24142-
_ Sexde�.alar
•
4303,1_5,03 11
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,C D Director
PLANNING SERVICES
• Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
KEN T Phone 253-856-5454
WASMI„Gi0„ Fax 253-856-6454
Address 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent,WA 98032-5895
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
FEBRUARY 24, 2003
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at
7*00 p m on Monday, February 24, 2003 in Chambers West of Kent City Hall
LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ron Harmon, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Nicole Fincher, Vice Chair Leonard Olive, Public Works Engineering
Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst City Attorney
Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary
David Malik
Deborah Ranniger
Les Thomas
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Les Thomas MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve the Minutes of January 27, 2003
Motion CARRIED.
ADDED ITEMS:
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the annual 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
applications would be heard before City Council on Tuesday, March 4, 2003
#ZCA-2002-5 - P.U.D. AMENDMENT
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that this proposal is the result of an application for an
amendment of the zoning code received from Kentview LLC with a request to change the acreage
requirements for (PUD's) Planned Unit Developments
Ms Anderson stated that currently PUDs are allowed only on 100 acres or more within single family
zones She stated that the applicant requests changing that requirement to 20 acres with conditions
Ms. Anderson stated that the applicant recommended that the reduction be allowed only if the PUD
consisted entirely of single family dwellings and that a portion of the 35% required open space is
located in a minimum 35-foot landscaping buffer along adjoining incompatible uses
Ms Anderson stated that upon review of the application, staff offers three options as described in the
staff report Ms. Anderson stated that staff is amenable to reducing the acreage requirements to less
than 20 acres with conditions, including excluding density bonus provisions for low acreage PUDs.
Ms. Anderson discussed a clarification to Kent City Code, Section 15 08 400 B 4 regarding commercial
uses for PUDs located in single family residential areas Ms Anderson stated that commercial uses
are permitted in a single-family residential area for PUDs of 100 acres or more Ms Anderson stated
that commercial uses are permitted in residential PUDs of 10 acres or more located in other zoning
districts
Ms Anderson referred to the revisions made to the PUD ordinance. She stated that staff recommends
language that may Include a requirement for on-street parking.
Ms. Anderson stated that language has been added to the PUD ordinance stating that density bonuses
will not be allowed in PUDs of less than 100 acres in single family residential zones
Ms Anderson stated that the sentence under letter "e " of the Review cntena for planned unit
developments has been revised to clarify those types of site features that are examples and not strictly
required.
Ms. Anderson stated that staff recommends changing the PUD ordinance to allow PUDs in single family
zones with a minimum of 10-acres
Ms. Anderson acknowledged the Board's concern on a proposal requiring that one side of a road be
lined with on-street parking Ms Anderson stated that one reason staff objected to a parking
requirement was that it would remove flexibility and she presented a case where the required parking
would not make sense, as Individuals could access the PUD residences through pedestnan
connections from the public roadway.
Mr Malik, Harmon and Thomas voiced their concerns with parking access and street width Issues
Mr Olive responded to Mr Harmon's inquiry about comparing minimum street widths for one and two-
way streets for PUDs versus street widths in Kent Mr Olive stated that Kent does not have a one-way
street standard but that staff has considered evaluating the City's current standards to reduce street
widths within PUDs, to maintain consistency with the City of Kent's street standards
In response to Mr Dowell, Mr Olive stated that a two-way street with curb and gutters and cars parked
on both sides would be constructed of two eight foot lanes which would allow room for an emergency
vehicle to travel that roadway
Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams-Pratt requested the Board to be aware that if they wish to change
the one and two-way street standards, they need to consider if the public has been adequately notified
the issue was to be a topic of discussion at this public hearing Ms Pratt voiced concern that the Fire
Department has not had a formal opportunity to look at changing these standards Ms Pratt stated that
the Board might wish to consider creating language which would require maintaining consistency with
other Public Works and Fire Department standards
In response to Mr Dowell, Ms Anderson stated that staff has endeavored to clarify that PUDs of 100
acres or more in single family zones are allowed to have specific components such as commercial uses
and PUDs of less than 100 acres would be subject to different requirements, such as not obtaining
density bonuses
Mr Harmon requested clarification of Section B 4 — Exceptions In response to Mr Harmon, Ms
Anderson stated that this section clarifies that commercial uses are allowed in residential PUDs of 100
acres or more in single family zones and on ten acres or more in other zoning districts
In response to Mr Harmon, Ms. Anderson stated that condominium provisions would not apply to PUDs
developed on less than 100 acres and that the density bonus provisions statement is intended to
reiterate that density bonuses are not applicable to PUDs on less than 100 acres
In response to Mr Harmon's request for clarification of Section C — Development Standards, Ms
Anderson stated that PUDs do not have minimum lot sizes. She stated that staff does not propose
changes to this section even if the PUD is on less than 100 acres in single family zones
In response to Mr. Harmon, Ms. Anderson stated that staff is not suggesting adding a minimum lot size
She stated that staff has added criteria to Section GA b. which states "the proposed PUD project shall
be compatible with the existing land use or property that abuts or is directly across the street from the
subject property. Compatibility includes but is not limited to apparent size, scale, mass and
architectural design "
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 24.2003
Page 2 of 8
Ms. Anderson stated that criteria under Section G of the code Indicates that planning staff will review
PUD applications and make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner in a public hearing Ms
Anderson stated that renumbered Section G 1 e says "The proposed PUD project shall promote variety
and innovation in site and budding design, and shall include architectural and site features that promote
community interaction Ms Anderson stated that this section refers to compatibility and how the PUD
is designed to promote that Interaction.
Ms Anderson responded to Mr Malik by stating that commercial use is allowed in PUDs of ten or more
acres, in all but single family zones. Mr Malik voiced his concern over allowing commercial
development within any size PUDs, citing taking a 20-acre parcel and developing 3 of those acres for
commercial use Ms Anderson stated that she would not consider this type of development as a
residential PUD, stating it is unlikely that staff would recommend approval of this type of development
In response to Mr. Malik, Ms Anderson stated that there is no limitation on how many acres designated
for a PUD can be developed as commercial She stated that staff evaluates each application, looks at
the site and the criteria and encourages public participation prior to making a determination Mr Malik
voiced his concern that the criterion allows too much flexibility for commercial development within
PUDs
Ms Anderson concurred when Ms Ranniger questioned if the intent of Option 3 is to reduce the size of
PUDs from 100 to 10 acres and eliminate commercial development in those PUDs of less then 100
acres within single family residential zones In response to Mr. Dowell's concern that commercial would
be allowed in a 20 acre PUD, Ms Anderson stated that a commercial component is only allowed in
PUDs in single family zones of 100 acres or more, or 10 acres in other zones, clarifying that this
language exists.
Mr Malik voiced concern that the City is allowing developers to place any type of commercial they
desire in a PUD development In response, Ms Anderson stated that commercial is currently allowed
in multifamily zoning areas of 10 acres or more She stated that no acreage limitations exist in
commercial office or manufacturing zones
Chair Harmon declared the Public Hearing open
Randall Forsyth, Kentview LLC, 11624 SE Wh Avenue, Bellevue, WA stated that the intention in
requesting a change to the PUD ordinance was to allow for the flexibility a PUD offers without being
confined to minimum lot sizes and allowing PUDs on parcels other than 100 acres in size
Mr Forsyth stated that he placed some restrictions on his original proposal such that the only way you
could reduce the acreage requirement and apply the PUD code to any parcel other then 100 acres, was
if it contained only detached single family dwellings with no commercial development, which is the
proposal on the table
Mr Forsyth stated that this ordinance would allow them to use acreage in a PUD as open space for use
by all the residents in the development, rather then creating fenced off yards Mr Forsyth stated that
his initial proposal indicated leaving some open space as a natural preserve area and using some open
space along the perimeters of the site to buffer adjoining single family neighborhoods He stated that a
PUD allows more versatility in ownership options Mr Forsyth voiced his support for Option 2 or 3
Mr. Forsyth stated that the typical PUD developments he has designed for other jurisdictions have
constructed roads 28' in width with parking on one side of the road and 34' in width with parking on both
sides of the road He voiced his opinion that standards proposed by staff are more restrictive than
normal. Mr. Forsyth stated that parking should be allowed on both sides of a street whenever possible.
Mr Forsyth stated that a lot of jurisdictions either do not count garages or they preclude the aprons in
front of the garages as parking spaces, stating that at least one additional parking area needs to be
provided per dwelling unit Mr Dowell and Mr Harmon discussed various parking options with Mr
Forsyth
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 24,2003
Page 3 of 8
Gerald Schneider, President of Schneider Homes submitted a letter by way of Paul Morford Ms.
Mottram read this letter for the record as Exhibit #1. Ms. Mottram stated that the letter expressed
support of Option #3
Paul Morford, PO Box 6345, Kent, WA 98064 stated that the City needs to consider that the Growth
Management Act encourages in-fill development. Therefore, PUDs should not be limited to a particular
acreage size. Mr. Morford stated that he believes density bonuses should apply to any size PUD as a
means to encourage an appealing site development
Mr Morford questioned the validity of restricting open space to 35 percent, as many people would
prefer private yards to communal open space
Mr. Morford encouraged the city to consider authorizing a 2% density bonus for storm water drainage
control in every zone
Tom Sharp, PO Box 718, Maple Valley, WA 98038 submitted a case study report on PUD vs Current
Code A Case Study(5 Acres-4.5 D.UJAcres)for the record as Exhibit#2.
Mr Sharp stated that he had his engineer compile a case study plan for a five acre square parcel
zoned SR 4 5 based on current code He stated that the scheme selected for this case study
accommodated 22 dwelling units, private streets, 22-foot wide pavement with pullouts, not limiting
parking to one side He stated that the site design would provide five parking spaces per unit
Mr. Sharp stated that this site plan creates large open spaces, along with the inclusion of the drainage
pond in the center of the site He stated that garages were placed in back of the lots whenever
possible to fill in the corners and remove parking from the street as much as possible Mr Sharp stated
that this design format eliminates wasted space, by maximizing open space
Mr Sharp stated that this design scheme cannot be developed under current code, but a PUD would
allow this to be developed in a flexible manner Mr Sharp voiced his support for no density increase,
two acre minimum PUDs with no mix of land use within single family zoning districts
The Board members discussed design scheme #4 in relation to parking and green space
Steve Dowell MOVED and Les Thomas SECONDED to close the Public Hearing Motion CARRIED.
Ms Anderson stated that the open space in PUDs is meant to be used as common open space She
stated that PUDs are typically built on sites where there are sensitive areas Ms Anderson voiced her
belief that allowing private yards to be counted as open space is merely changing development
standards for existing zoning districts and staff would not be supportive of counting that as open space,
unless it was common areas
Mr Harmon and Mr Thomas stated that standards should include language requiring sidewalks in
PUDs Ms Anderson stated that language could be added to the review criteria mandating sidewalks
within planned unit developments such as. "The PUD shall provide access to the sidewalks on the
streets"
In response to Mr. Harmon, Ms. Anderson deferred to Leonard Olive concerning street designs Ms.
Anderson stated that additional criteria have been added to the code encouraging community
interaction. She stated that staff is looking for connectivity within the PUD such as sidewalks
throughout the site.
In response to Mr Harmon, Mr Olive stated that engineers review street plans, based on whether they
are private or public streets He stated that public streets are reviewed against the City's public street
standards but that the standards for private streets are vague
Mr. Olive stated that public streets would be constructed with a combination of vertical curbs and
gutters He stated that developers have the option of using rolled curbs at the bulbs of cul-de-sacs
Mr Olive stated that developers are required to collect storm water on private streets with curbs or a
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 24,2003
Page 4 of 8
shed section depending on the topography of the land Mr Olive stated that a developer is not
necessarily precluded from using something other than vertical curbs, which could be included as one
of the conditions of the PUD and would be looked at during the review process
Mr. Olive stated that today if a private street in a PUD served more than four homes, Public Works
would require a sidewalk on one side of the street.
Mr Olive stated that Kent requires a minimum standard width of 28-feet for a local access residential
street He stated that Kent's street standards apply to parking on both sides of the street
Ms. Ranniger stated that the City needs to give developers flexibility and consider creative uses for
parcels of land remaining in Kent Ms Ranniger voiced her support of Option #3, further stating that
she would support less than a 10-acre minimum site
Mr Malik voiced his support for Option #2 requiring a 20-acre minimum with conditions.
• Mr Thomas voiced his support for Option #3 offering an amendment to Deborah Ranniger's motion
to allow density bonuses by deleting the following sentence at the end of Paragraph D on Page 5
• Mr Thomas offered a second amendment to Deborah Ranniger's motion to add language that
reads "All public access streets shall have a minimum of parking on at least one side of the street "
at the end of Paragraph d on Page 4 of the code concerning on-street parking
Ms Fincher stated that PUDs offer innovative and alternative housing options She concurred with Ms
Pratt's recommendation that street widths in PUDs should be consistent with current City code Ms
Fincher voiced support for commercial development as it is limited to neighborhood community
commercial zoning areas Ms Fincher voiced her support for Option #3.
• • Ms. Fincher voiced concern over parking issues, offering a third amendment to Deborah Ranniger's
motion to add language "to include a minimum of 3 to 4 parking spaces per unit, with at least two of
those parking spaces being either on or adiacent to each property-within fifty feet of the residential
dwelling unit."
Mr Johnson stated that he favors reducing the acreage size for PUDs He offered a fourth amendment
to amend Option #3 by reducing the acreage requirements to two acres
Mr Dowell stated that he favors Option #2 for a 20 acre PUD along with the amendments offered by
Les Thomas and Nicole Fincher regarding density bonuses and parking.
Mr Harmon stated that he supports the 20 acre PUD Option #2 along with the parking amendment,
offering a fifth amendment to add the following language "requiring pedestrian sidewalks or walkways "
Ms Anderson stated that since Option #3 was on the table for a vote, the Board may wish to consider
amending that option to align closer with Option #2 Ms. Anderson stated that the following language
could be added at the beginning of existing language concerning pedestrian walkways "pedestrian
walkways shall be provided to connect residences to public walkways and streets and shall be
constructed of matenal".
In response to Mr Dowell, Ms Anderson clarified that it was her intent to recommend that the Board
consider changing the acreage for Option #3 to a 20-acre minimum.
Ms Anderson reiterated the amendments to Ms Ranniger's motion as follows.
1 Allow density bonuses, removing any references to disallowing density bonuses
2 Street widths shall be consistent with current City code
3. Add language affecting parking such as "a PUD shall include a minimum of four parking spaces per
unit with two parking spaces in the garage or driveway and the two others adjacent to (within fifty
feet of) each residence.
4 Change the acreage to a minimum of two acres
5 Add language to include sidewalks
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 24,2003
Page 5 of 8
Ms. Anderson pointed out that when an apron is nonexistent next to a garage, city code requires
recorded agreements stating that the garage will not be used for anything but parking.
Mr. Thomas withdrew his amendment concerning public access streets.
Ms. Ranniger voiced concern that the Board would limit flexibility by placing too many restrictions on
the option currently on the floor for consideration
Ms Anderson indicated that there is a statement in the code that says `The minimum widths set out in
this subsection may be modified upon review and approval by the City Fire Chief and the City Traffic
Engineer, providing they are sufficient to maintain emergency access and traffic safety."
Ms Ranniger stated that she believes the purpose of PUDs is to provide developers and designers
flexibility in configuring difficult sites She stated that as Kent's land availability decreases, sites will
present more challenges, requiring this flexibility, yet the three amendments the Board has laid out, are
so prescriptive, it ties the hands of those trying to be creative in making use of these challenging sites.
Ms Ranniger accepted the density bonus, parking and sidewalk amendments for further consideration,
rejecting the other two amendments
Ms Anderson reiterated Ms Ranniger's motion as follows Accept Option #3, remove the restriction to
disallow density bonuses, amend the parking for PUDs related to Ms Fmcher's proposal and accept an
amendment to the PUD to require sidewalks.
The Board then decided to consider each proposed amendment separately
Mr Thomas MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to accept the amendment allowing for density
bonuses in any size acreage Motion CARRIED unanimously
Ms Anderson stated that if the Board wanted to move on the second amendment concerning street
widths, they would need to amend the PUD ordinance to provide that street widths are consistent with
current City code
Ms Fincher withdrew her amendment concerning street widths
Ms Fincher MOVED and Les Thomas SECONDED to accept an amendment to include a minimum of
four parking spaces per dwelling unit, two of those parking spaces to be in a garage or driveway with
two parking spaces to be located adjacent to or within fifty feet of each residence.
Mr Malik MOVED and Ms Fincher SECONDED to amend Ms Fincher's amendment changing the
minimum parking spaces from four to three spaces.
After Ms Fincher clarified her intentions concerning parking requirements in PUDs, Ms Anderson
revised the amendment to state. "The PUD shall include a minimum of four parking spaces per dwelling
unit with at least two parking spaces on, adjacent to, or within fifty feet of each residence."
Ms Ranniger voiced concerned that the Board is being overly prescriptive concerning parking
requirements, voicing her belief that the Board should trust the Planning Department to use their
expertise when it comes to design guidelines rather than trying to write it into this amendment
Mr. Johnson recommended that language be added that says "parking shall be required on at least one
side of the street" He stated that staff would have the option of requiring additional parking if deemed
necessary Mr Johnson stated that he would offer this language as an amendment at the appropriate
time
Ms. Anderson reiterated the modified amendment made by David Malik stating that "the PUD shall
include a minimum of three parking spaces per unit with at least two parking spaces on, adjacent to, or
within fifty feet of each residence " Chair Harmon called for the vote, with 3 in favor and 4 opposed
The Motion was DENIED
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 24,2003
Page 6 of 8
Ms. Anderson reiterated the original amendment made by Nicole Fincher stating "the PUD shall include
a minimum of four parking spaces per unit, with at least two parking spaces located on, adjacent to, or
within fifty feet of each residence." Chair Harmon called for the vote, with 3 in favor and 4 opposed
The Motion was DENIED
Mr Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to amend the motion as stated by Ms Ranniger
"requiring streets constructed to City Code Street Standards of 28 feet in width curb to curb with parking
to be designated by staff."
After consideration, Mr. Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to withdraw the amendment
requiring streets in PUDs to be constructed to City Code Street Standards Motion CARRIED
Mr Johnson questioned if staff had a problem with his recommendation to add additional language
requiring parking on at least one side of the street He stated that his proposal applies to public streets,
not private streets Mr. Johnson stated that provisions need to be made to provide for an adequate
amount of parking
Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED an amendment adding language stating "In single
family PUDs parking shall be provided on at least one side of every public and private street except
alleys " Chair Harmon called for the vote with 7 in favor. Motion CARRIED Unanimously
Les Thomas recommended amending the language to his original amendment on public access streets
excluding private streets and alleys
After conveying his position concerning parking, Mr Johnson offered an amendment requiring public
parking on one side of public streets only stating that language exists in the proposed ordinance that
gives staff the flexibility to require additional parking if necessary Mr. Thomas voiced opposition to Mr
Johnson's amendment
Ms Fincher voiced concerns with parking proximity and access issues to residences, as well as
granting staff the authority to determine the amount of appropriate parking spaces She stated that she
believes that the code currently does not adequately address parking
In response to Mr Johnson, Ms Anderson stated that the code defines an "alley" as "a public or private
way, not more than thirty feet wide at the rear or side of property, affording only secondary means of
vehicular or pedestnan access to abutting property "
In response to Mr Dowell, Ms Anderson stated that City Code contains a provision that says minimum
street widths may be modified upon review and approval by Fire and Public Works
Mr. Olive stated that the City of Kent currently does not have a two-way street standard with provisions
for parking only on one side of the street He stated that parking on one side of a street requires that
signs be posted indicating "no parking"which is a decision made by City Council
Mr. Olive stated that if the City had a standard for local access streets, 24 feet would be a fair width to
accomplish parking on one side while maintaining traffic in both directions and allowing safe fire
vehicular access with people being mindful of sirens and light, and pulling over
Mr Harmon clarified that the amendment on acreage limitations amends Option #3 for 10 acre PUDs
Mr. Dowell MOVED and Mr Malik SECONDED to amend Option #3 by increasing the acreage
limitations from 10 to 20 acres
Ms Ranniger, Mr Thomas, Ms. Fincher and Mr Johnson voiced support for 10 acre PUDs.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 24,2003
Page 7 of 8
Mr. Malik and Mr. Dowell voiced their support for 20-acre PUDS.
Mr. Johnson stated that he supports his amendment to reduce PUDs to 2 acres. He stated that
changes of land use over the last 20 years indicates that the City needs to recognize that not many*
people are large land holders and reducing the acreage offers another tool for the property owner to
develop the property
Mr. Harmon stated that he favors a 20-acre PUD along with the language extracted from Option #3,
which includes density bonuses.
Chair Harmon called for the vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Dowell to increase the minimum
acreage for PUDs in Single Family Residential zones to 20 acres deleting any reference to 10 acres,
with 3 in favor and 4 opposed. Motion FAILED 4 to 3.
Ms. Ranniger restated her original motion to accept Option#3 as proposed by staff with the inclusion of
the amendments
Mr. Johnson recommended amending the acreage to 2 acres as a minimum for single family PUDs
Chair Harmon called for the vote on Mr Johnson's amendment to reduce acreage to two acres. Motion
FAILED 6 to 1.
Chair Harmon called for the vote on Mr. Malik's amendment to reduce acreage to 15 acres Motion
FAILED 4 to 3.
Chair Harmon called for the vote regarding the amendment to Option #3 that "pedestrian walkways
shall be provided to connect residences to public walkways and streets and shall be constructed of
material deemed to be an all weather surface by the Public Works Director and Planning Manager
Motion CARRIED Unanimously
Ms. Anderson stated that a motion is on the table for Option #3, to allow density bonuses, parking on
one side of every public and private street, except alleys and add language to include pedestrian
walkways.
Mr. Harmon, Dowell and Malik voiced opposition to Option #3. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Fincher, Mr. Thomas
and Ms. Ranniger voiced their support for Option #3
Chair Harmon called for the vote on Ms Ranniger's Motion to accept Option #3 for a ten acre PUD with
the amendments as voted on. Motion CARRIED 4 to 3.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Harmon adjourned the meeting at 10.45 p m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board
S\Pe it Plan\LUPB\2003\Minules\012703mm dm
Land Use and Planning Board lAnutes
Jaauary-2fi 2003
Pane 8 of 8
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
WASHINGTON Phone 253-856-5454
Fax 253-856-6454
Address- 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent,WA 98032-5895
February 18, 2003
TO: CHAIR RON HARMON AND LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS
FROM- CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP,PLANNING MANAGER
RE: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT—PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD)
#ZCA-2002-5 (KIVA 42023895)
For February 24, 2003 Public Hearing
Introduction
On behalf of Kentview, L.L.0 , Randy Forsyth submitted an application for a zoning code text
amendment to reduce to 20 acres the minimum acreage requirements for Planned Unit
Developments in Single Family Residential zoning districts The proposal specifies that the
. acreage reduction would apply only when the PUD consists of detached single family dwellings
and when appropriate buffers are provided at the adjoining properties. Existing Kent City Code
(KCC) Sections 15.08.400(A) and (C) allow Planned Unit Developments in Single Family
Residential zoning districts only when the site is at least one hundred acres in size.
According to KCC 15.02.332, a planned unit development "...permits departures from the
conventional siting, setback and density requirements of other sections of(the Zoning Code) in
the interest of achieving superior site development, creating open space and encouraging
imaginative design by permitting design flexibility." There are five review criteria the hearing
examiner uses to determine whether to grant, deny or condition an application for a residential
PUD [Reference KCC 15.08.400(G)(1)]. The criteria relate to benefits/detriments to the
community and users of the development, unusual environmental features, open areas, variety
and innovation in site and building design, and unified concept in design.
The Board held an initial workshop on the Kentview application on January 13ih. At their
subsequent February 10's workshop on the issue, the Board reviewed a draft PUD code
amendment that was presented by staff and expressed concerns about on-street parking and
compatibility of PUDs with adjacent single family zoning development
Backeround
PUDs have been permitted as part of the Kent Zoning Code since 1973. In 1987, the Planning
Commission reviewed a new PUD ordinance that, among other things, shortened the review time
and refined allowable density bonuses for PUDs After referring the amended provisions to the
Planning Committee for review, the City Council adopted the amended PUD ordinance in
August, 1988(Ordinance No. 2802).
In 1990, the City Council received a petition from the Responsible Urban Growth Group
(RUGG) requesting that the City Council revise the PUD ordinance to require that all units in
single family PUDs are detached and to establish a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet in
single family PUDs. In July, 1991, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to look
at the PUD ordinance and address these concerns. The Planning Commission examined several
alternatives and recommended to the City Council that PUDs simply not be permitted in single
family residential zoning districts. The City Council concurred with this recommendation and
adopted Ordinance No. 3007 on October 15, 1991, eliminating the ability to develop a PUD in
single family zoning districts.
In April, 1997, Polygon Northwest submitted a regulatory review request to amend the PUD
regulations to allow PUDs to be developed in single family zoning districts as long as the site is
at least 100 acres in size. The applicant also requested changes to the permitted uses in a single
family PUD to allow attached dwelling units in PUDs and to allow a phased or "master plan"
approval process for PUDs. On April 15, 1997, the City Council Planning Committee sent the
request to the Land Use and Planning Board (the `Board") who recommended approval with
revisions. The Board recommendation included limiting multifamily dwellings to two stories in
height, disallowing density bonuses with attached units, requiring the attached dwelling units to
be condominium units, disallowing on-street parking, requiring coordination with the school
district, and reducing the time period for obtaining all development permits for a master planned
development from ten years to seven years. After a public meeting on August 19, 1997 the City
Council sent the Board's recommendation to the Planning Committee for further review. On
November 18, 1997, the Planning Committee recommended approval of the Board's
recommendation including allowing condominiums in PUDs in single family zoning districts.
The City Council concurred with the Planning Committee recommendation and adopted
Ordinance No. 3381 on December 9, 1997. This is the ordinance that remains effective today.
On April 5, 1999, the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee voted to request the
Board study and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning strategies that would
encourage home ownership opportunities in Kent. This Committee vote stemmed from a series
of meetings on the topic of`condominium zoning." The Board discussed and reviewed the
condominium zoning issue at length,evaluated several alternative strategies including creation of
a special zoning district, revisions to the PUD ordinance, and other proposals, and toured various
condominium developments. Initial considerations brought forward by staff on the PUD
amendment alternative included lowering the site minimum size to a range of one to three acres;
disallowing density bonuses for PUDs in single family zoning districts; disallowing stacked
units; assisting the decision-making process by developing critena such as access to collector
and arterial streets, proximity to transit services, proximity to and convenience of commercial
services, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhood; and limiting PUDs to certain single
family zoning districts such as SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts. The Board decided to move
forward to public hearing only the special townhouse zoning district alternative and to revisit the
PUD amendments at a later date.
Discussion
The PUD process is intended to promote diversity and creativity in site design and to protect and
enhance natural and community features. It encourages unique developments. Through
flexibility in the application of development standards, it promotes developments that will
benefit citizens that live and work in Kent. (Reference KCC 15.08.400.) Kent City Code
requires a minimum of thirty-five percent common open space for residential development and
provides incentives for amenities and design features. Applications for PUDs within or adjacent
Land Use&Planning Board Public Hearing—February 24,2003
Paee 2 of 4
to residential zones require community meetings and a public hearing. Kent City Code also
defines review criteria for PUDs, including benefits/detriments to the community and users of
the development, unusual environmental features, open areas, variety and innovation in site and
building design,and unified concept in design.
The Kent Comprehensive Plan supports creation of a wide range of housing options;
accommodation of targeted household growth; expansion of home ownership opportunities;
quality design; flexibility and innovation in building and site design; development of innovative
and affordable demonstration housing projects by exploring alternative design, land
development, and construction techniques; open space linkages within the developed area;
clustering of housing units to maximize allowable build-out while preserving open space and
environmentally sensitive areas; and protection and enhancement of environmentally sensitive
areas (Reference Policy H-2 1, Policy LU-1.1, Goal LU-9, Goal H-4, Goal H-9/Policy
9.1/Policy 9.2, Goal LU-10/Policy LU-10.2, Goal LU-20, Policy P&R-3.2, and Goal CD-14.) At
the same time the City's adopted framework policies support preservation, maintenance, and
improvement of existing single family residential neighborhoods and providing opportunities for
a diversity of housing that is available to all income levels. The PUD process can accommodate
each of these goals and policies, whether in single family or multifamily residential
neighborhoods.
Options
Following are options that staff suggests for consideration as the Board reviews the Kentview
proposal.
1. No Change
This option maintains the existing zoning code regulations regarding PUDs, i e., PUDs
would be allowed in single family zoning districts only on sites of 100 acres or greater.
This option does not encourage variation or flexibility in residential subdivision site
design for most lots in single family zoning districts, especially when a site is constrained
by sensitive areas Applicants for residential subdivisions of less than 100 acres in size
typically create lots of similar configuration meeting minimum lot sizes, and replicate
existing housing styles throughout the City.
2. 20-acre Minimum PUD (as prepared by applicant, Kentview, L.L.C.1
This option amends existing code to reduce to 20 acres the minimum acreage for a PUD
in single family residential zoning districts, under certain conditions. This reduced
acreage allowance would be permitted only when (1) the PUD consists entirely of single
family dwellings as defined by Kent City Code 15.02.115, and (2) a portion of the
required open space is provided in a thirty-five (35)-foot Type II landscaping buffer or
native growth equivalent along any areas adjoining incompatible uses. Residential design
review would be applicable. The applicant desires to take advantage of the existing
density bonus provisions.
For the purposes of a PUD, open space currently is defined [KCC 15.08 400(C)(5)(b)]
"...as land which is not used for buildings, dedicated public rights-of-way, traffic
circulation and roads, parking areas, or any kind of storage. Open space includes but is
not limited to privately owned woodlands, open fields, streams, wetlands, severe hazard
areas, sidewalks, walkways, landscaped areas, gardens, courtyards or lawns. Common
Land Use&Planning Board Public Hearing—February 24,2003
Pane 3 of 4
open space may provide for either active or passive recreation." Incompatible use is not
defined in existing code. However, New World Dictionary of the American Language
Second College Edition, defines incompatible as "l. Not compatible; not able to exist in
harmony or agreement; not going, or getting along, well together; incongruous,
conflicting, discordant; etc. (often followed by with)." A definition of incompatible use
can be created for the purposes of a PUD under this option.
This option would allow some flexibility for development in single family zoning
districts while maintaining the detached residential character of the district. It would also
provide a buffer between what would be considered incompatible uses.
3. Low acreage PUD
This option would allow PUDs in all single family zoning districts, with a 10-acre
minimum site area requirement. This option allows only detached single family
dwellings; density bonus provisions are not allowed. The proposed code amendment
(attached) includes additional review criteria regarding compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood, provisions for variety and innovation in site and building
design,amends the parking and open space requirements, and provides some minor code
updates Residential design review would be applicable.
This option provides increased flexibility in single family residential site design
Recommendation
Staff is recommending Option 3 and will be available at the February 20 public hearing to
further discuss the options.
%%MS\SDATA\Pemit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2002\2023895-2002-51upbph DOC
Attach. Sec 15 08 400 Planned unit development,PUD
cc Fred N Satterstrom,C D Director
Land Use&Plamuag Board Public Hearing—February 24,2003
Page 4 of 4
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through Q.
with C.6mcf w +o b
pm-s &A
Discussion
Action �G
6A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of April 1, 2003.
6B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through March 31 and paid on March 31
after auditing by the Operations Committee on April 1, 2003.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/31/03 Prepaids 546157 $ 313,624.67
3/31/03 Regular 546823 2,281,606.31
3/31/03 Wires 1387-1397 1,182,275.33
$3,777,506.31
Approval of checks issued for pavroll for March 16 through March 31 and paid on
April 4, 2003:
Date Check Numbers Amount
4/4/03 Checks 269328-269596 $ 242,855.88
4/4/03 Advices 145917-146606 1,193,995.43
$1,436,851.31
•
Council Agenda
Item No. 6 A-B
•
KEN T Kent, Washington
W/.S NIN GTON
April 1, 2003
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order
at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Woods . Councilmembers present:
Clark, Epperly, Orr, Peterson, White, and Yingling. Others
present : Chief Administrative Officer Martin, City Attorney
Brubaker, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Schneider, Public Works
Director Wickstrom, Employee Services Director Viseth and Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Director Hodgson. Approximately
75 people were in attendance. (CFN-198)
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Woods added Public Communications Item 4C. (CFN-198)
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods announced
that Bonnie Coleman of Parks Maintenance has been chosen
as Employee of the Month for April . She noted that
Ms . Coleman has proven herself to be a valuable asset
to the City, and that she is tenacious, hard working,
reliable and a pleasure to work with. Parks Director
Hodgson concurred, added that Bonnie has been filling in
for two other people recently in addition to her regular
duties, and offered his congratulations. (CFN-147)
Disaster Preparedness Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods read a
proclamation noting that the citizens of Kent need to
prepare themselves to be self-sufficient for at least
three days following a natural or man-made disaster, and
proclaiming April 2003 as Disaster Preparedness Month in
the City. Battalion Chief Webb pointed out that April 3,
2003 is a statewide earthquake drill, and urged everyone
to participate. (CFN-155)
Sister Cities International Young Artists Awards . Joanne
Schaut explained the history of the Young Artists Program
and noted that this year ' s theme is "Reach for a Hand and
Touch a Heart" . Artwork from Kaibara and Kent was then
displayed, and Mayor Pro Tem Woods presented the winners
with certificates . (CFN-155)
CONSENT CALENDAR
PETERSON MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A
through K. Clark seconded and the motion carried.
1
Kent City Council Minutes April 1, 2003
MINUTES
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) (CFN-198)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the
regular Council meetings of March 4 , 2003 and March 18,
2003 .
BILLS OF SALE
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) (CFN-484)
Bill of Sale, Pacific Gateway Business Park. Accept the
Bill of Sale for Pacific Gateway Business Park submitted
by The Boeing Company for continuous operation and
maintenance of 10, 191 feet of watermain, 6, 675 feet of
sewers, 8, 224 feet of street improvements and 11, 087 feet
of storm sewers that were constructed as part of the
Pacific Gateway Business Park plat, as recommended by the
Public Works Director. The bonds are to be released
after the maintenance period. This project is located at
S. 196th/S . 212th/West Valley Highway.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) (CFN-484)
Bill of Sale, HRP Warehouse. Accept the Bill of Sale
for HRP Warehouse submitted by H-P Properties, LLC for
continuous operation and maintenance of 315 feet of
watermain, and 333 feet of street improvements, as
recommended by the Public Works Director. The bonds
are to be released after the maintenance period. This
project is located at 19931-72nd Ave. S .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) (CFN-484)
Bill of Sale, Teutsch 228. Accept the Bill of Sale
for as recommended by the Public Works Director,
Pacific Gateway Business Park submitted by Valley
Freeway and 228th Street, LLC for continuous operation
and maintenance of 1, 098 feet of watermain, and 392 feet
of sewers, as recommended by the Public Works Director.
The bonds are to be released after the maintenance
period. This project is located at 7650 S. 228th St .
STREET VACATION
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) (CFN-102)
Street Vacation, Madison Avenue and Harrison Street.
Passage of Resolution No. 1637 setting a public hearing
date of May 20th for the proposed street vacation located
along a portion of Madison and Harrison, as recommended
by the Public Works Committee.
2
Kent City Council Minutes April 1, 2003
•
STREET VACATION
(PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5B) (CFN-102)
Street Vacation, 71st Avenue South and S. 181st Street
(#STV-2003-2) . Woods noted that Resolution No. 1635
established this date as the public hearing date for
the application by Loren D. Combs of McGavick Graves
Attorneys at Law, on behalf of InnVentures, Inc. and
Stonebrook Kent, LLC. , to vacate a portion of S. 181st
Street and 71st Avenue South. Staff recommends approval
with conditions.
Planning Manager Anderson displayed a photo of the area,
and pointed out the streets to be vacated.
Woods opened the public hearing.
Loren Combs, representing the applicant, concurred with
the recommendation and urged the Council to approve the
street vacation.
There were no other comments from the audience and ORR
MOVED to close the public hearing. Clark seconded and
the motion carried.
ORR MOVED to approved the staff' s recommendation of
approval with conditions of the application to vacate a
portion of S. 181st Street and 71st Avenue South, as
referenced in Resolution No. 1635, and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon com-
pliance with the conditions of approval . White seconded
and the motion carried.
FIRE
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) (CFN-136)
Surplus and Sale of 1987 Pierce Fire Engine.
Authorization for the Fire Department to surplus a 1987
Pierce fire engine, Vin#040171 and to advertise the
apparatus for sale to the highest bidder, and to place
funds received from the sale of this vehicle into the
facilities maintenance capital account to assist with
completing the installation of a drafting pit and enclos-
ing the outside bay at the Fire Department Apparatus
Maintenance Facility.
3
Kent City Council Minutes April 1, 2003
PUBLIC WORKS
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) (CFN-553)
Steiner Property - Charge in Lieu of Assessment.
Authorization for the Public Works Director to establish
a charge in lieu of assessment for the Steiner property
sewer service connections, as recommended by the Public
Works Committee.
(BIDS - ITEM 8A) (CFN-885)
LID 329 - 74th Avenue South & West Willis Intersection
Improvements. The bid opening for this project was held
on March 21st with five bids received. The low bid was
submitted by Signal Electric in the amount of
$205, 635 . 16 . The Engineer' s estimate was $225, 031 . 04 .
The Public Works Director recommends awarding this
contract to Signal Electric.
CLARK MOVED that the LID 329 - 74th Ave. S. and West
Willis Intersection Improvements contract be awarded to
Signal Electric for the bid amount of $205, 635 . 16 .
Yingling seconded and the motion carried.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
(PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) (CFN-131)
Master Planned Unit Development Zoning Code Amendment
ZCA-2002-3. Mayor Pro Tem Woods noted that this date
has been set for a public hearing to consider a proposed
amendment to the Kent Zoning Code to provide flexibility
in determining the nature of modifications of master
planned unit developments when associated with a planned
action ordinance and development agreement . The City
Council previously adopted an ordinance effecting the
proposed amendment, but subsequently repealed it because
required notice had not been provided to the State of
Washington. Notice to the State has now been given.
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson explained that
amendment allows the Planning Manager, under certain
circumstances, to determine the nature of proposed
revisions to an already-approved master plan development .
She added that these determinations by the Planning
Manager would only be allowed in commercial, office and
industrial districts when the master plan is subject to a
planned action ordinance and a development agreement .
4
Kent City Council Minutes April 1, 2003
i
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
Woods opened the public hearing. There were no comments
from the audience and ORR MOVED to close the public
hearing. Epperly seconded and the motion carried.
ORR MOVED to approve the proposed amendment to the Kent
Zoning Code ZCA-2002-3 , Ordinance No. 3639 . Yingling
seconded. Upon White ' s question regarding public input,
Anderson stated that there would be no change to the
public process with this amendment, since the modifica-
tions would be allowed only in those circumstances when
the City Council has reviewed the proposal . PETERSON
MOVED to make a letter from Kent C.A.R.E.S . a part of the
record. Orr seconded and the motion carried.
Orr' s main motion then carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K) (CFN-131)
Zoning Code Amendment - Planned Unit Development (PUD)
#ZCA-2002-5 (KIVA #2023895) . As approved by the Planning
i Committee on March 18, 2003, authorization to hold the
public hearing on this matter before the City Council in
lieu of holding the hearing before the Land Use and
Planning Board (as provided by KCC 2 . 57 . 040 (B) ) and to
direct staff to provide appropriate public notice for a
public hearing on April 15, 2003 , limited to the issue of
the length of one-way loop streets within PUDs .
At the last Planning Committee meeting, the committee
decided to add for consideration the issue of the length
of one-way loop streets within PUDs. Because the public
hearing on all other proposed amendments had already
been held, the committee determined to hold a second
public hearing on this one limited issue before the full
council, rather than the LUPB, in order to keep this
matter moving forward in a timely manner. This requires
staff to publish, mail and post appropriate notice for a
public hearing on this matter on April 15, 2003 . Council
will allow interested persons who wish to appear and
speak at the hearing up to three (3) minutes to address
the council . Anyone who wishes to submit written
materials may do so up to the close of the hearing.
i
5
Kent City Council Minutes April 1, 2003
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council will
consider the testimony regarding loop streets as well as
the Planning Committee' s recommendation of approval of
other amendments to KCC 15 . 08 .400 discussed in a public
hearing on February 24th before the Land Use & Planning
Board.
REZONE
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) (CFN-121)
Kent East Hill Townhoues Rezone (RZ-2002-3) . Woods
stated that this request by Dennis Johnson, Fremantle
Development, Inc . is to rezone approximately 1 . 06 acres
of property from CC, Community Commercial, to MR-T16,
Multifamily Residential Townhouse . The property is
located at 25200 104th Avenue SE. The Kent Hearing
Examiner held a public hearing on February 19, 2003 and
issued Findings, Conclusions and a recommendation for
approval on March 5, 2003 .
Sharon Clamp of Planning Services displayed a map of the
area, and noted that staff recommends approval . Upon
Yingling' s question, she outlined the surrounding zoning.
ORR MOVED to accept the Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner on the Kent East
Hill Townhoues Rezone (#RZ-2002-3) , and to direct the
City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Clark
seconded and the motion carried.
EMPLOYEE SERVICES
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) (CFN-171)
Commuter Challenge Grant. Accept the Commuter Challenge
Grant in the amount of $12, 000 . These funds will be used
to expand the current Vanpool program, as recommended by
the Operations Committee.
SISTER CITY
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) (CFN-155)
E1 Grullo Sister City Resolution. Passage of Resolution
No. 1636 establishing a sister city relationship between
the City of Kent and E1 Grullo, Jalisco, Mexico.
A group of Kent citizens and the City of Kent have had a
Friendship City relationship with the City of E1 Grullo,
6
Kent City Council Minutes April 1, 2003
•
SISTER CITY
Jalisco, Mexico for the past year. The communities have
exchanged delegations and developed a work plan for
ongoing relations . E1 Grullo recently invited Kent to
form a formal sister city relationship. The necessary
requirements for formation of this relationship have been
satisfied.
FINANCE
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) (CFN-104)
Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills
received through March 14 and paid on March 14 after
auditing by the Operations Committee on March 18, 2003 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/14/03 Wire 1376-1386 $1, 368, 030 . 19
3/14/03 Prepays & 545618 661, 908 . 82
3/14/03 Regular 546156 1, 140 , 055 . 62
$3 , 169, 994 . 63
Approval of checks issued for payroll for February 16 and
paid on March 5, 2003 -
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/5/03 Checks 268734-269030 $ 240, 685 .45
3/5/03 Advices 144551-145228 1, 164 , 519. 01
$1,405, 204 .46
Approval of checks issued for payroll for March 1 and
paid on March 20, 2003 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/20/03 Checks 266031-269327 $ 259, 224 . 82
3/20/03 Advices 145229-145916 1, 147, 550 . 66
$1, 406, 775 .48
REPORTS
Council President. Woods reminded Councilmembers of the
Suburban Cities quarterly meeting on April 9 . (CFN-198)
Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the next
meeting will be at 5 : 00 p.m. on April 8 . (CFN-198)
7
Kent City Council Minutes April 1, 2003
REPORTS
Parks Committee. Woods noted that the next meeting will
be at 4 : 00 p.m. on April 4th. (CFN-198)
Administrative Reports. Martin reminded Councilmembers
of a 45-minute executive session regarding pending
litigation and personnel . He noted that he had attended
the hearing on sex predators last Saturday and that he
will keep Council informed on the progress. (CFN-198)
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 7 :32 p.m.
and reconvened at 8 :45 p.m. (CFN-198)
ADJOURNMENT
At 8 :45 p.m. PETERSON MOVED to ad3ourn. Yingling
seconded and the motion carried. (CFN-198)
Brenda Jacobe r, CMC •
City Clerk
8
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND TRAUMA
PREVENTION GRANT—ACCEPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the grant funds received from the State of
Washington and authorize the Fire Department to apply said grant monies towards the
purchase of Pelican Boxes.
The City has received a $1,200 grant from the State of Washington Department of
Health, Office of Emergency Medical and Trauma Prevention, since 1998.
The purpose of these monies, provided through the Trauma Care Fund, is to assist with
meeting requirements to provide trauma care services to the public as a verified EMS
and Trauma Prehospital service. These monies will be used to purchase Pelican Boxes,
which will be used for aid kits on our apparatus.
3. EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6C
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: POSTAGE EQUIPMENT LEASE—APPROVE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at
their April 1, 2003 meeting, authorization for the Mayor to sign a five-year lease with
Nexxpost Corporation for the lease of the City's postage equipment.
3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director Miller
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION-
Council Agenda
Item No. 6D
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
May Miller, Director
Phone 253-856-5260
Fax 253-856-6255
KENT
WASHINGTON
DATE: March 25, 2003
TO Kent City Council Operations Committee
FROM May Miller, Director of Finance
THROUGH Mayor Jim White
SUBJECT Postage Equipment Lease-Approve
SUMMARY
Finance is recommending approval of a five year lease with Nexxpost Corporation Because of
technology changes and unbundling of services we are able to save approximately $11,256 per
year or $56,280 over the next five years
MOTION
I recommend the Mayor sign a five year lease with Nexxpost Corporation for the lease of the
city's postage equipment.
BACKGROUND.
Our current equipment with Pitney Bowes handles both United Parcel Service (UPS ) and
U S P S (the Post Office) services Because of technology and use of the internet, we are now
able to unbundle the postal services from the parcel services and reduce our equipment needs
resulting m significant savings The new UPS software will be provided at no cost for internet
processing of all UPS packages using a city PC
We issued a Request for Proposal for just the mail processing and two vendors submitted
proposals as shown Both systems offer mail processing of over 220 pieces of mail per minute
and provide the digital information based mdicia program (IBIP) which will be required by the
Post Office in the near future Nexxpost's references were reviewed and even though they are
new to our area the companies contacted expressed their pleasure with Nexxposts exceptional
customer services Based on references and low bid, we believe that Nexxpost should be
awarded the contract
Per Month Annual Lease Five Year
Pitney Bowes $474 $5,688 $28,440
Nexxpost $428 $5,136 $25,680
BUDGETIMPACT.
Based on the remaining seven months of 2003, the city will save approximately $6,566 in 2003
and$11,256 in 2004.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date -April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD GRANT
AGREEMENT—AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee,
authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement, to direct staff to accept the grant and
to establish a budget for the funds to be used on the Pacific Highway South SR 99 HOV
Lanes project.
The Public Works Department is in receipt of a TIB Grant for the construction phase of
the Pacific Highway South SR-99 HOV Lanes SR-516 to South 252nd Street project.
3. EXHIBITS: TIB grant agreement(#9-P-I 13(004)-4 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. 6E
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
• Don E. Wickstrom,P.E. Public Works Director
KENT
WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5500
Fax: 253-856-6500
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: Apnl 7, 2003
To: Public orks Committee
From: Don ckstrom, P.E. Public Works Director
RE: Transportation Improvement Board(TIB) Grant Agreement
#9-P-113(004)-4
We are in receipt of a TIB Grant Agreement for the construction phase of the Pacific Highway
South SR-99 HOV Lanes SR-516 to South 252nd Street project. At this time we are requesting
authorization for 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.
We have placed this item on the April 15`h Council Agenda,upon the Committee's concurrence,
due to the short window of time allowed to return the signed agreement to TIB.
Motion-
Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the TIB grant agreement, authorize staff to accept
the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said road improvement project.
Washington State
l-40i- I
Transportation Improvement Board
Transmittal Letter
TIB Members
Cato- t EarRabMowms March 12, 2003
Cl—awCawxr
Cwndaamaer Wwwm Oar*
acacx,.ceyareata6ra.rd Mr. Don Wickstrom
W Jahn MOM PE Public Works Director
r aaEaeaamaq City of Kent
"`Thanva BoWdPcaunw 220 -4th Avenue South
Canmsarona lac Ea•man Kent,WA 98032-5838
Eenron carry
faro Transportation Improvement Program
Kwhloens
s , 9-P-113(004)-4
wsoo
,,
010.N, Pacific Highway South SR-99 HOV Lanes
Cw4a'aTMW SR-516 to South 252nd Street
Cxundl
LM of Fos"way ay w Construction Phase Approval
M&Pauli Nammm4 P E
WSOT
Cwnd Pravac,y.f This is to confirm that the TIB has authorized the construction phase of this
sa Uta ww" project effective March 12, 2003. See the attached document for specific
GyOf&N.V r"n information regarding construction approval of this project.
M
In accordance with TIB Guidelines, complete an Updated Cost Estimate
"' °m sonC„AneN"Y (UCE) form after bid award and prior to award of the contract. Send the
M P"Rebans signed UCE form and a copy of the bid tabulations to the TIB. After you
CVy&E" receive either verbal or written concurrence from TIB staff, you may award the
Spokane TWON contract. Call or e-mail your TO project engineer to receive an Updated Cost
c�Wa Eh~ Estimate form.
bamocmv
stiyae Aatnce of Waah.prar" aaun"m For assistance with your project, contact Greg Armstrong, TIB Project
as Doug Vaughn Engineer, at (360) 586-1142 or via e-mail at GregAOTIB.wa.gov.
ON< of Fmmw Marrayp"ov
Mr Jay Weber
County Road Adnmyrwon Ownr
Mr stun 0aaaar
E+aaWw Daeae
Po am 4mm
OW PO&WA 9004 09M
Ph" 360-59&1140
Fax 360-U&/165
awa hb ua 0aa
Investing In your local community
Attachment
Construction Approval
Effective Date: March 12, 2003
Project Information
Lead Agency. City of Kent
Project Number. 9-P-113(004)-4
Project Title: Pacific Highway South SR-99 HOV Lanes
Project Termini: SR-516 to South 252nd Street
Reimbursement Ratio: 37.7%
TIB Phase Approved TIS Funds
Application/Design 96,574
Construction 363,426
Total Authorization $460,000
This confirms TIB has authorized construction approval for this project in the amount of
$363,426, for a total authorization of$460,000.
0 311 2/2 0 0 3
Execwve Direcfo Date
� ' i Washington State Transportation Improvement Board
8. Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement
LEAD AGENCY: City of Kent
PROJECT NUMBER: 9-P-113(004)-4
PROJECT TITLE: Pacific Highway South SR-99 HOV Lanes
PROJECT TERMINI: SR-516 to South 252nd Street
1.0 PURPOSE
The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board(hereinafter referred to as
"TIB') hereby grants funds for the project specified in the attached documents, and as
may be subsequently amended, subject to the terms contained herein. It is the intent of
the parties, TIB and the grant recipient, that this Agreement shall govern the use and
distribution of the grant funds through all phases of the project. Accordingly,the project
specific information shall be contained in the attachments hereto and incorporated
herein, as the project progresses through each phase.
This Agreement,together with the attachments hereto,the provisions of chapter 47.26
Revised Code of Washington, the provisions of title 479 Washington Administrative
Code, and TIB Policies,constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and
supercedes all previous written or oral agreements between the parties.
2.0 PARTIES TO AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are TIB, or its successor, and the grant recipient, or its
successor, as specified in the attachments.
3.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by TIB and shall continue through
completion of each phase of the project, unless terminated sooner as provided herein.
4.0 AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such
amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel
authorized to bind each of the parties.
5.0 ASSIGNMENT
The grant recipient shall not assign or transfer its rights, benefits, or obligations under
this Agreement without the prior written consent of TIB. The grant recipient is deemed
to consent to assignment of this Agreement by TIB to a successor entity. Such consent
shall not constitute a waiver of the grant recipient's other rights under this Agreement.
6.0 GOVERNANCE &VENUE
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
state of Washington and venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior
Court for Thurston County.
TO Form 190-SM Page 1 of 3 Rev 2MMAM
Wt, i Washington State Transportation Improvement Board
\C Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement
7.0 TERMINATION
7.1 UNILATERAL TERMINATION
Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days'prior written notice to
the other party. If this Agreement is so terminated,the parties shall be liable only
for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement prior to the effective date of termination.
7.2 TERMINATION BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT
Either party may terminate this contract in whole or in part, at any time, by mutual
agreement with a 30 calendar day written notice from one party to the other.
7.3 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
In the event TIB determines the grant recipient has failed to comply with the
conditions of this Agreement in a timely manner,TIB has the right to suspend or
terminate this Agreement. TIB shall notify the grant recipient in writing of the
need to take corrective action. If corrective action is not taken within 30 days,the
Agreement may be terminated. TO reserves the right to suspend all or part of
the Agreement, withhold further payments, or prohibit the grant recipient from
incurring additional obligations of funds during the investigation of the alleged
compliance breach and pending corrective action by the grant recipient or a
decision by TIB to terminate the Agreement. The grant recipient shall be liable
for damages as authorized by law including, but not limited to, repayment of
misused grant funds. The termination shall be deemed to be a Termination for
Convenience if it is determined that the grant recipient: (1)was not at fault, or(2)
failure to perform was outside of the grant recipient's control,fault or negligence.
The rights and remedies of TIB provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and
are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.
7 4 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE
TIB may, by ten(10) days written notice, beginning on the second day after the
mailing, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, because federal or state
funds are no longer available for the purpose of meeting TIB's obligations,or for
any reason. If this Agreement is so terminated,TIB shall be liable only for
payment required under this Agreement for performance rendered or costs
incurred prior to the effective date of termination.
7.5 TERMINATION PROCEDURE
Upon receipt of notice of termination,the grant recipient shall stop work and/or
take such action as may be directed by TIB.
TIB Form 190.500 Page 2 d 3 Rev PJ14/2003
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board
Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 specifies the grant program applicable to this project, identifies the grant
recipient, and contains the list of additional documents specific to the project which will
be attached and incorporated into this Agreement, together with subsequent
amendments, as the project progresses through each phase of design and construction.
Approved as to Form
This 14th Day of February, 2003
Christine O. Gregoire
Attorney General
By:
Signature on file
Jeanne A. Cushman
Assistant Attorney General
Lead Agency Transportation Improvement Board
9�� 3 it
Signature of CfwmuNMayor Date Executive Director I Date
Pmt Name Pmt Name
Tia Fora 19D-SM Page 3 of 3 Rev.VIAIM03
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT SPRINGS TRANSMISSION MAIN REPAIR—AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee,
authorization for the Mayor to award the Kent Springs Transmission Main Repair
project to the lowest responsible bidder subject to the Public Works Director and City
Attorney's concurrence of the language therein. The current estimate of the repair is
$160,000.
3. EXHIBITS: 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 REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
• ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6F
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don E Wickstrom, P E Public Woiks Director
K E N T Phone- 253-856-5500
WNSNINGTON Fax 253-856-6500
Address- 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Date April 7, 2003
To: Public Works Rilic
ttee
From: Don Wickstro Works Director
RE. Kent Springs Transmission Main Repair
Design Section staff have been working with our Water Division to prepare a design for a repair
of the 24 inch Kent Springs Transmission Main at the very East end of Town along Kent
Kangley Road The main is leaking approx 50 gallons per minute at a very difficult location to
reach
After review by a number of industry experts it was determmed that the best fix would be to
replace a section of main adjacent to it's current location which is under the Soos Creek Bridge
approach. The cost to fix is currently estimated at$160,000. The main could be out of service for
2 weeks while it is being fixed.
in a typical year.Tune becomes a high water demand month and so our desire is to bid this project
this week and open bids after the next Council meeting on April 15th to give bidders sufficient
time. We would like to award it before the first Council meeting in May so that the low bidder
could have the entire month of May to order pipe, schedule purities, etc.
Therefore Council approval at the April 151h meeting is requested to authorize the Mayor to
award this contract to the lowest responsible bidder subject to concurrence by the Public Works
Director and City Attorney.
Motion
Recommend authorization for the Mayor to award the Kent Springs Transmission Main Repair
project to the lowest responsible bidder subject to the Public Works Director and the City
Attorneys concurrence
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
BUDGET RECOMMENDATION—AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee,
authorization to establish the budget for the program listed in Public Works Director's
memo dated April 1, 2003 including the respective reallocation of the funds from the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Endangered
Species Act (ESA) Capital Improvement Project funds along with authorizing the new
Engineer II position, subject to a review after one year before it's included in the budget
for 2005.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and NPDES Phase II Stormwater
Permit application
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. 6G
eN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don E Wickstrom, P E , Public Works Director
K C N T Phone Fax 253-856-6500
W ON
Address 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Date* April 1, 2003
To Public Works Committee
From- Don Wrckstrom V
Regarding- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
Stormwater Permit— Budget recommendation
The City is Included in the group of municipalities (Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems, or Small MS4's) that are under a federal mandate to acquire an NPDES permit
for Its stormwater system.
Under the NPDES program, the U S Environmental Protection Agency has stated that
MS4's are required to meet six minimum measures The six minimum measures, also
listed in the attached permit application, Include:
• Public Education and Outreach on Storm Water Impacts,
• Public Involvement/ Participation,
• Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination,
• Construction Site Run-off Control,
• Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment,
and
• Pollution Prevention / Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations.
In Washington, as in many other areas, the State Dept. of Ecology has been delegated the
responsibility of administering the program The City of Kent has made an application and
already meets the majority of the six minimum measures However, there are a few work
programs which need to be added and / or Improved for the city's stormwater program to
meet these measures. The programs needed include Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination, some aspects of the city's construction site runoff program and the preparation
of pollution prevention plans for three municipal sites
The illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination program will Include several tasks
• Mapping of stormwater outfalls to creeks, channels and ditches in the city,
• Inspection of 20% of the outfalls per year during the summer dry season,
• Characterization of discharge during the dry season,
• Pollution source identification,
• Development of Control Strategies,
• Performance monitoring and reporting,
• Stormwater pollution investigation,
• Ongoing educational program for businesses and the public,
• Coordination with regulatory agencies, and
• Training of City Employees for stormwater pollution prevention.
This program will also require supporting tasks and costs:
• Integration of the mapping into the city Geographic Information System (GIS),
• Transportation,
• Water sampling analysis, and
• Legal assistance.
The two items of the Construction Site Run-off Control measure which need to be
upgraded to ensure the city meets the minimum measures include:
• Certification in Erosion and Sedimentation Control through the state of city
development inspectors and development review engineers as well as contractors
doing work in the city, and
• Hiring an Erosion and Sedimentation Control consultant for one year to facilitate the
city's implementation of its Erosion and Sedimentation control standards
The final item to meet the minimum measures is the preparation of pollution prevention
plans for the city's Riverbend Golf Course, the City Operations Site and the 114t' Ave. Fill
Site.
The Department of Ecology has not written the NPDES Phase II permit at this time We
have been told they may begin writing the permit later this year. The work items listed
above are needed to meet the Federal Minimum Measures; the Department of Ecology
may increase the requirements of MS4's above some of the minimum measures The
repercussions of not meeting the Federal Minimum Measures could result in future
problems with the City in acquiring permits and / or grants from the State and Federal
Governments. Although highly unlikely, there is also a potential for fines and imprisonment
as possible results of noncompliance.
To comply with this mandate will require additional staffing and budgetary funding.
Because this whole NPDES issue falls within the realm of responsibilities of the City's
drainage utility there is no impact to the City's general fund. To implement the Illicit
Discharge and Detection Program we estimate will require one additional full time
employee. Further there will be other costs associated with the GIS integration,
transportation, sampling and legal assistance. The following table summarizes our
estimate of the cost of compliance with respect to both annual operating costs and one
time capital costs.
While the tables reflects a significant sum on money it hasn't gone unanticipated. Within
the existing capital budget we presently have approximately $500,000 allocated between
two related project funds (the NPDES permit project fund and the Endangered Species Act
project fund). Since our compliance is mandated and its in the best interest of the City to
comply it's the Public Works Department recommendation that council authorize the
staffing and funding noted in the table herein with the initial funding therefore coming from
a reallocation of the monies within these two project funds. Please be aware that once
these funds are depleted the on going operational costs of this program would then come
from the Drainage Utility revenues where this program like all others would be part of the
annual budget review and approval process It should be noted that the funds within these
protect funds are near adequate to carry this program to the end of 2004 With respect to
this year (2003) in essence recommendation would be to transfer $112,710 therefrom to a
new Public Works Engineering Division fund which will be used to pay for the staffing and
activities listed herein.
Budget summary
First Year
Annual Costs Capital Costs.
Engineer II — $41,710 Workstation and related costs — $6,279
Water sampling - $50,000 Vehicle — $19,000
Supporting Staff Tasks — $20,000 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Vehicle fuel - $1000 certification - $10,000
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
consultant - $100,000
Pollution Prevention Plan consultant -
$50,000
Total Annual Costs - $112,710 Total Capital Costs - $185,279
Total — $297,989
Subsequent Years
Annual Costs.
Engineer II — $83,419
Water Sampling - $100,000
Vehicle (incl fuel) - $7,000
Supporting Staff Tasks — $20,000
Total - $210,419
MOTION Recommend to full City Council the establishment of the budget for the program
listed herein including the respective reallocation of the funds from the NPDES permit and
ESA capital improvement project funds along with authonzing the new Engineer It positron
therefore.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
Stormwater Permit Application
Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
r I S X iI XX6 r oX Yi SrIlf
951 l YI 0{
ECOLOGY
The purpose of this application is for local governments or special districts to apply for a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge storimvater runoff from a Phase 11 municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4s) The Department of Ecology may request additional information and a
notice of intent at a later date, upon development of a general permit
MS4s seeking coverage must complete this application, based on existing information, and return it to the
Department of Ecology before March 10, 2003 You may print this form and complete it by hand, or download
it from our website at ivxv-,v ecv.wa ,ov/pro rams/wq/stomiwater/index html
An authorized signature is needed to complete the application. All information should be included on this form
Supporting documents should be referenced in the text only. No attachments are necessary, other than those that
may be required under the Map Requirements.
Mail completed application to
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Ecology will send you an acknowledgment of receipt. If you have questions about this application, please
contact Janice Sedlak at (360) 407-6470 or email her at)sed461 necy wa gov
Part I. General Information
1. MS4 Operator
Name of city, county,special district,or other public entity City of Kent
Street Address 220 Fourth Ave S
City,State, Zip- Kent,Washin ton 98032
Ownership status ❑ Federal ❑ State ❑Private Public ❑ Other Entity
2. Local staff contact(person responsible for program implementation and coordination):
Name: Michael Mactutis Phone- (253)856-5520
Title: Environmental Engineering Supervisor E-coati: mmactutis@ci kent wa us
Does your MS4 presently have a web site? (If yes, list address www ci kent wa us) ®Yes/❑No
If so,are your ordinances available on your website(City Codes are available on the web site) ❑Yes/®No
If not,where are your ordinances available? The City Clerk
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page ] of24
3. Operator Type
® City ❑ Town ❑ Drainage District
❑ County ❑ Flood Control District ❑ Other(list) 101
4. Description of Storm Sewer System
A. Area of land served by your MS4(m square miles):
If city,town,or special district give:
Area within current corporate boundaries 29 2 s in (Includes non-contiguous annexed areas)
Additional area of urban growth area(UGA) 8 2 s m (Potential Annexation Area within urban gronIh area)
Area that is urbanized(2000 Census) 219 s m
For all MS4s,give 2000 Census population for area served 79524 Area located on Indian lands(if any) 0
B. Storm Drainage Infrastructure:
Please provide estimates, using the most accurate information available at this time, for the following storm drainage
infrastructure features owned or operated by the MS4.
Conveyance system- Flow Control system:
Open ditches(miles or feet) 68 m. Detention facilities(estimate number operated by MS4) 227 Regional
Storm sewers(miles or feet) 220 in Retention facilities(estimate number operated by MS4) 0 Facilities:
Outfalls(estimate number) 245 6
Catch basins (estimate number) 12796 Treatment system:
Treatment facilities(estimate number operated by MS4) 97
5. Map Requirements,
Include a map or maps that identifies:
• City,county, or district service area boundaries
• State or Federal vocational/technical/college/university campuses and military institutions
• Urban area(as defined by the 2000 Census)
• GMA urban growth area(UGA),even if partially in an Urban Area
• Municipal/county wastewater treatment plants,outfalls,uncontrolled sanitary landfills, vehicle Fleet maintenance
centers, power plants,airports,and other municipally owned or operated industrial activities
• Arterial city or county roads,(additional roads if needed), drainage basins,and receiving waters
Please assure that information is clearly readable. Submit CIS maps if available,and only in .pdf format on a CD-
ROM. Multiple maps must be of the same scale. I":1000 or V%2000 scales are recommended. Submit paper maps
folded to 8.5 x I I."
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 2 of 24
6. List all named receiving waters within your Jurisdiction and ''/,mile downstream,and indicate those identified as impaired
pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 303(d), and those with an existing Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) This
information is available at:www.ecv.wa.eov/nroerains/wg/hnks/impaired wtrs.html.
• WRIA Water Body Name Impaired? Parameters TMDL°
(and New ID k if avail
8 Rock Creek ❑Yes/®No ❑ Yes/®No
9 Lake Femi ick(669TAC) ❑Yes/®No ®Yes/❑No
9 Green River(FK76HV& ®Yes/❑No Chromium Fecal Coldorm,Mercury,Temperature ❑ Yes/®No
YD05HE)
9 Hill(Mill)Creek ®Yes/❑No Dissolved Oxygen,Fecal Cohferm,Temperature ❑ Yes/®No
(BI99NR)
9 Lake Meridian(148NFC) ®Yes/❑No Fecal Cohform,Total Phosphorous ❑Yes/®No
9 Mullen Slough ® Yes/❑No Dissolved Oxygen,Temperature ❑ Yes/®No
(BP27QP)
9 Sons Creek(VY43O1) ®Yes/❑No Fecal Coliform —Yes/®No
9 Little Soosette Creek ® Yes/ No Dissolved Ox)gen,Fecal Coldorm Yes/®No
(GS67LK&H1434YJ)
9 Spnngbrook(Mill)Creek ®Yes/❑No Cadmium,Copper, Sediment Bmassay,Zinc ❑ Yes/®No
(TS53NN)
4 Midway Creek Yes!®No ❑Yes 10 No
9 Garrison Creek ❑Yes/M No ❑ Yes/®No
9 Meridian Valley Creek ❑ Yes/®No ❑Yes/®No
9 Johnson Creek El Yes/E No ❑Yes/®No
9 Clark Lake ❑Yes/®No ❑Yes/®No
Please list any water bodies for which a TMDL,pollution prevention plan,water quality monitoring program,or
other relevant program is in place or in development.
A TMDL is in development for the Green River. There is a TMDL in place for Lake Fenwick for To Phos horous.
7. Does your MS4 have public infiltration facilities(infiltration basins or dry wells)? ❑Yes!®No
If yes,estimate the percentage of the Jurisdiction that discharges to these facilities.
8. Is your MS4 interconnected to a Washington State Dept.of Transportation facility? ®Yes/❑No
If yes, please identify : Interstate 5,State Routes 18, 167, 181,515
and 516
9. Is your MS4 interconnected,or do you discharge to another ®Yes/❑No
jurisdiction? if yes,identify betow.
Jurisdiction Name Contact Ultimate receiving water
King County Dave Clark Cedar River
King County Dave Clark Green River
City of Renton Ron Straka Green River
City of Covington David Delph Green River
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 3 of 24
Part II. Your Proposed Stormwater Management Program
This application requires you to identify Best Management Practices(BMPs)currently performed by your MS4, at
provide information on your planned stormwater management program and proposed BMPs. The following ie
sections correspond to the six minimum control measures for a Phase II stormwater quality management
program.
Minimum Control Measures
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Phase II Rule defines a stomwater
management program composed of six minimum control measures that, when implemented together, are
expected to reduce pollutants discharged into receiving water bodies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
(MEP). The six control measures include:
1. Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts
2. Public Involvement/Participation
3 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
4 Construction Site Runoff Control
5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Each minimum control measure requires the selection and implementation of BMPs that comprehensively
address the specific stormwater issues in your area
The minimum requirements are provided in Appendix I as the minimum level necessary to comply with
40 CFR 122.34. Regulatory guidance from 40 CFR 122 34 is also provided for each minimum control measur
Additional guidance on selecting BMPs and developing measurable goals can be found at the following EPA
website: www epa eov/npdes/stormwater/measurableaoals/index htm.
Instructions:
For each minimum control measure, state your control objective and describe BMPs selected for
implementation in your jurisdiction. For each BMP, include a brief description, measurable goal, and
milestones as appropriate towards achieving that goal. Indicate if the BMP is part of an existing program, and if
another entity will share responsibility for implementing the BMP
In cases where another entity will perform one or more BMPs or components thereof on behalf of the permittee,
specifically describe the activities each entity will conduct, and include reference to legal agreement where
appropriate
List as many BMPs as necessary to fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR 122 34 as referenced in Appendix I. If
you have more than 2 BMPs for a control measure, copy/paste additional tables as necessary.
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 4 of 24
1. Public Education and Outreach on Storm Water Impacts
Does your MS4 presently perform public education and outreach activities on stormeater (]Yes/❑ No
impacts?
Minimum Provide public education and outreach on storm water,sensitive areas,water quality,and the water cycle
Measure
Objective 1
BMP I(a): Water Festival 2003
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP El Yes/❑
program? No implementation? No
Measurable Educate Kent area elementary school students on the impacts of various activities on the environment,
Coal: including sensitive areas per year
Milestones: 1500 students attended the Water Festival 2002 The City has participated in the water festival for four
years
BMP I(b): Classroom presentations to schools(kindergarten-high school)
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes/
program? NO implementation? No
Measurable Present to 4 classes per year
Goal:
Milestones: Presented to 3 classes in 2002
BMP I(c): Educational tours of the City of Kent Green River Natural Resource Area for students and adults
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes/
program? I No implementation? No
Measurable Provide tours to 150 students and 30 adults per year
Coal:
Milestones: Provided four student tours and one adult tour in 2002
BMP I(d): Make Best Management Practices available to the public through the City's private stormwater inspection
pro-ram and the Ci 's web site
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP Yes/
program? I No I implementation? No
Measurable Availability of BMP materials through City field personnel
Coal:
Milestones: Program in place The private storm inspectors made 739 site visits in 2002,including 124 new contacts
•
BM P 1(e): Provide education and information on chemical,pesticide and fertilizer use
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 5 of24
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ® Yes/❑
program? I No implementation? I No
Measurable Provide BMP's through the City's web site,through recycle events and hazardous waste collection even
Coal: as well as through direct mailings to residents and businesses
Milestones: Program already in place
2. Public Involvement/Participation
Does your MS4 presently provide opportunity for the public to be involved or participate in the ®Yes!❑No
development or implementation of a stormwater management program?
Minimum Provide opportunity for the public to participate in the implementation of the City stormwater and
Measure sensitive area program
Objective 2
BMP 2(a): Volunteer Staff Gauge Program
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑Yes/
program? I N I implementation? No
Measurable Maintain regular records obtained by volunteers of creek staff and crest gauges installed on creeks through
Goal: the City before 2005
Milestones: Program has been implemented for three years
BMP 2(b): Participate in Watershed Resource Inventory Area(WRIA)Forum 8 and 9 with other goverment agencies
and citizen environmental erou s
Is this part of an existing N Yes/U Is another entity involved in BMP ® Yes/❑
program? I N I implementation? I No
Measurable Implement river and creek restoration projects advocated by the WRIA forum
Coal:
Milestones: A grant application to purchase property for use as a salmon restoration site is being evaluated by the
Salmon Recovery Funding Board after receiving a high ranking by the WRIA 8 forum
BMP 2(c): Provide public notice and receive comments on implementation of stormwater program
Is this part of an existing S Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP Yes/
program? No implementation? No
Measurable Compliance with State requirements for notification per the State Environmental Policy Act
Coal:
Milestones: The City implemented the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual following a public meeting
with area engineers and developers and public discussion at City Public Works Committee and Council
meetings
BMP 2(d): Volunteer planting opportunities for students(Trees program)
is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑Yes
ro ram? No implementation? No
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 6 of 24
Measurable Involve 500 students per year and plan 1000 trees
Goal:
Adllh
Milestones: 500 to 1000 students involved per year since 2000
BM P 2(e). Monitoring of Soos Creek by Kentridge High School students
Is this part of an existing Oyes/0 Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ yes/
program? I N I implementation? No
Measurable Provide education,maps,procedures for class to do monitoring each year
Goal:
Milestones: Have assisted high school class monitoring Soos Creek since 2002
BMP 2(f): Seasonal regional recycling and hazardous waste disposal events
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ®Yes/❑
program? N I implementation? No
Measurable Participate in providing four community hazardous waste disposal and recycle events per year
Goal:
Milestones: The City has participated in this regional program with King County for ten years
BMP 2(g): Volunteer Planting Events at the Green River Natural Resource Area
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/ Is another entity involved m BMP ❑Yes/
program? No im lementation? No
Measurable Involve at least 100 adults and children from local area in planting and restoring the Green River Natural
Goal: Resource Area per year
Milestones: At least 100 volunteers at 2-4 events planted 1000-2000 plants per year since 1998
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Does your MS4 presently have a program for the detection and elimination of illicit discharges to ®Yes/❑No
the storm sewer?
Does your MS4 presently have an ordinance in place that enables you to prevent and eliminate ®Yes/❑No
illicit discharges to the storm sewer?
Minimum Detect and Eliminate Illicit Discharges to the City Storm Sewer
Measure
Objective 3:
BMP 3(a): Inspect private storm systems within the City for compliance with City Codes
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ® Yes/❑
program? No implementation? No
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 7 of 24
Measurable Inspect the private storm systems on a three year cycle and provide instructions to the system omners on
Goal: requirements to maintain the system
Milestones: Have achieved a 100%compliance rate in the program's six years of existence
BMP 3(b): Inspect and Maintain the public storm drain system
❑ Yes/
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/El Is another entity invoked in BMP
program? NO implementation? No
Measurable Maintain City detention facilities semi-annually and conveyance facilities on a five year schedule
Goal:
Milestones: Inspected,cleaned or replaced 184,664 If of pipe, 1,011 manholes and 1,965 catch basins in 2002
BMP 3(c): Map public,private outfalls to Waters of the United States
Is this part of an existing ❑Yes/® Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes/
program? NO I implementation? No
Measurable Provide complete mapping of private storm outfalls and eliminate illicit outfalls Maintain mapping of
Goal: public outfalls.
Milestones: Map public and private outfalls by 2005
BMP 3(d): Identify illicit connections through dry weather screening and targeted video inspection
Is this part of an existing ❑ Yes/® Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes;
program? I N0 implementation? No
Measurable A survey during dry weather of 20%of the outfalls per year will be conducted to identify non-stormwater
Goal: flows Once each years survey is complete,areas with suspicious discharges will be inspected to detect
non-stormwater outfalls to the system
Milestones: 20%outfall survey and inspection per year
BMP 3(e): Provide a contact for illegal discharge/dumping
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes/
program? I NO implementation? No
Measurable Provide a contact person to coordinate illegal discharge and dumping activities and include on the City's
Coal: web site and in phone lists in 2003.
Milestones: Provide phone number for contact on the City web site in 2003
BM P 3(f): Require storm dram stenciling on public and private projects
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP Yes/
ro ram? NO im lementation? No
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 8 of 24
Measurable Require on all projects as of2003
Coal:
Milestones: Program already in place
4. Construction Site Run-off Control:
In the follow mg spaces, indicate if Sour MS4 presently performs these activities related to construction site runoff control.
Activities: Existing?
Construction site plan review ®Yes/❑No
Responding to public input and complaints ®Yes/❑No
Enforcement and inspection procedures ®Yes/❑No
Training and education ®Yes/❑No
Does your MS4 presently have an ordinance addressing construction site run-off control? ®Yes/❑No
If yes,code number-Kent City Code 7 05 074 and 7 07 114
Minimum Prevent construction site runoff from flooding or polluting downstream properties or water bodies
Measure
Objective 4:
BMP 4(a): Require Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan(TESCP)approval and implementation
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes/
program? I N I implementation? No
Measurable Require submittal of TESCP on all proposed developments in the City
Goal-
Milestones: Per the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual,TESCP is required and is being implemented for
all new construction
BMP 4(b): Require inspection of private construction sites for implementation of TESCP
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ yes/
program? I No implementation? No
Measurable Implementation of TESCP as required on all construction sites
Goal:
Milestones: Construction sites are visited by City inspectors and inspected for compliance with the approved TESCP
BMP 4(c): Establish a certification program for inspectors and contractors
Is this part of an existing ❑Yes/® Is another entity involved in BMP ®Yes/❑
program? No implementation? No
Measurable Require WSDOT Erosion and Sedimentation Control Certification by 2005 to be able to develop in the
Coal: City
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 9 of 24
Milestones: 100%required certification by WSDOT by the beginnmg of 2005
BMP 4(d): Provide contact procedure for the public on construction stormwater issues
Is this part of an existing N Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in QMP ❑ Yes/
program? I No implementation? No
Measurable 80%resolution of construction stormwater impacts to downstream waters by 2005
Goal:
Milestones: Provide public works phone number on City phone listing and web site
5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment
Please answer the following questions regarding post-construction stormwater management in new development and
redevelopment.
Does your MS4 presently have a development permit process in place? N Yes/❑No
Does your MS4 presently have a stormwater management technical manual? N Yes/❑No
If yes,has the MS4 adopted the Ecology 2001 Stormwater manual,or an equivalent manual? ❑Yes/N No
If no, what manual is currently adopted/used? Please list-2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual
(based on the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual)-Equivalency has not been determined
Does your MS4 presently have a plan review process for new development and redevelopment? N Yes/❑No
Does your MS4 presently inspect new stormwater facilities'[ N Yes/
Does your MS4 presently inspect existing stormwater facilities? N Yes/
Does your MS4 presently have a stormwater ordinance addressing post construction stormwater controls') N Yes/❑No
If yes,code number-7 05 074 and 7 07 114
Does your MS4 presently promote and/or provide incentives for Low Impact Development? N Yes/❑No
Minimum Continue to develop, implement,and enforce a program to address stormwater runoff from new
Measure development and redevelopment projects
Objective 5:
BMP 5(a): Enforce the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual
Is this part of an existing El Yes/El Is another entity involved in BMP N Yes/
program? I No implementation? No
Measurable Provide adequate surface water quantity control and quality treatment to protect downstream natural
Goal: resources
Milestones: Manual is adopted by the City and is being enforced
QMP
5(b): Enact an ordinance to allow private rainwater harvesting
Is this part of an existing E]Yes/Z Is another entity involved in BMP El Yes/N
ro ram? No implementation? N
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 10 of24
Measurable Passage of the ordinance by the City Council and installation of rainwater harvesting systems in new
Coal: construction by 2005
Milestones: Allowance of rainwater harvesting by commercial development for non-potable uses
BMP 5(c): Wellhead protection program
Is this part of an existing ®Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑Yes/
program? I No I implementation? No
Measurable In compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Washington State Drinking Water Regulations
Coal- (WAC 246-290-135),the City has developed a Wellhead Protection Program aimed at maintaining a high
quality municipal water supply
Milestones: As more development occurs within the Wellhead Protection Areas, the City has worked with adjacent
local jurisdictions to encourage the design of stormwater facilities that maintain a no-net-loss of infiltration
from pre-developed conditions,while ensuring that stormwater is properly treated
Maintain the reliable high quality drinking water currently utilized by the City of Kent and prevent future
development from impacting groundwater resources
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Does your MS4 presently have a program in place to promote pollution prevention and good ® Yes/❑No
housekeeping for municipal operations?
List municipally owned or operated facilities that would reasonably be expected to discharge contaminated runoff and are
not covered under a NPDES permit: for example—w chicle maintenance garages,waste transfer operations,golf courses,
salt or other materials storage,or open landfills. Also,indicate if there is a documented pollution prevention plan in place.
Facility or type of facilities/operation: Pollution Preiention
Plan?
Public Works Operations Facility ❑ Yes/®No
Riverbend Golf Course ❑ Yes/®No
1 14th Ave Fill Site ❑Yes/®No
Minimum Prevent pollution and waste from City of Kent municipal operations
Measure
Objective 6:
BMP 6(a): Implement Regional Road Maintenance ESA Program
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ® Yes/❑
program? I No I implementation? No
Measurable All maintenance supervisors, leads and crews complete training provided by WSDOT by 2005
Coal:
Milestones: 50%of maintenance supervisors, leads and crews to be trained in 2003 and 2004 Maintain certified
trainer on staff
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 1 I of24
BMP 6(b): Develop Pollution Prevention Plans for City owned or operated facilities
Is this part of an existing ❑ Yes/® Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes/
program? I N° implementation? I No
Measurable Completion and implementation of pollution prevention plans by the end of 2005
Goal:
Milestones: Standard Operating Procedures in place for operation of Public Works Operation Facility and 114th Ave
Fill Site Hire consultant to prepare Pollution Prevention Plans in 2004
BM P 6(c): Decrease water usage from City owned sites
Is this part of an existing 0 Yes I ElIs another entity involved inBMP ❑ Yes/
program? N° implementation? No
Measurable Decrease water usage by 10% in 10 years
Goal:
Milestones: Decrease 1%per year for 10 years beginning in 2000
BM P 6(d): Integrated Pest Management Program
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/ElIs another entity involved in BMP ®Yes/Elro ram? No implementation? No
Measurable Complete and implement a Final Integrated Pest Management Program(IPMP)within the City of Kent
Goal: and Wellhead Protection Areas outside the city limits
Milestones: The City of Kent has developed a draft IPMP The IPMP should be in final form and ready for
implementation during 2004
BMP 6(e): Standard Operating Procedures
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes/
program? N° im lementation? No
Measurable Provide procedures of Public Works Operations to minimize pollution due to municipal operations
Goal:
Milestones: Standard Operating Procedures revised to include BMP's to minimize pollution to downstream sensitive
areas in 2001
BMP 6(f): Implement BMP framework for maintenance and repair of water and sewer utilities in and near wetlands
and streams
Is this part of an existing ® Yes/❑ Is another entity involved in BMP ❑ Yes/
program? I N I implementation? No
Measurable Minimize pollution to wetland and streams to no occurrences from maintenance and repair of water and
Goal: sewer utilities
Milestones: Adopted framework in May,2001.
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 12 of 24
Part III. Recordkeeping and Reporting
isThe permittee will comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements per 40 CFR 122 34(g)
Recordkeeping-40 CFR 122 34(g)(2)
You must keep records required by the NPDES permit for at least three years You must submit your records to
the NPDES permitting authority only when specifically asked to do so You must make your records, including
a description of your stormwater management program, available to the public at reasonable times during
regular business hours(see 122 7 for confidentiality provision) (You may assess a reasonable charge for
copying You may require a member of the public to provide advance notice)
Reporting-40 CFR 122 34(g)(3)
Unless you are relying on another entity to satisfy your NPDES permit obligations under 122 35(a), you must
submit annual reports in year two and four unless the NPDES permitting authority requires more frequent
reports. Your report must include:
(1) The status of compliance with permit conditions, an assessment of the appropriateness of your identified
best management practices and progress towards achieving your identified measurable goals for each of
the minimum control measures;
(ii) Results of information collected and analyzed, including monitoring data, if any, during the reporting
period;
(iii) A summary of the stormwater activities you plan to undertake during the nett reporting cycle,
(iv) A change in any identified best management practices or measurable goals for any of the nummum
control measures; and
(v) Notice that you are relying on another governmental entity to satisfy some of your permit obligations (if
applicable).
Part IV. Certification
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those
persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief,true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations
Authorized Representative Name: Mike Martin
Title: Chief Administrative Officer
Signature:
Date:
3 0% 3
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 13 of 24
APPENDIX I.
Minimum Control Measure Requirements (source 40 CFR 122 34(b))
1. Public Education & Outreach on Stormwater Impacts
Minimum Requirements—40 CFR 122 3.1(b)(1)(t)
You must implement a public education program to distribute educational materials to the community or
conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of storinwater discharges on water bodies and the steps
that the public can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff
Regulatory Guidance-40 CFR 122 34(b)(1)(n)
You may use stormwater educational materials provided by your state; tribe, EPA, environmental, public
interest, or trade organizations; or other MS4s. The public education program should inform individuals and
households about the steps they can take to reduce stormwater pollution, such as ensuring proper septic system
maintenance, ensuring the proper use and disposal of landscape and garden chemicals including fertilizers and
pesticides, protecting and restoring riparian vegetation, and properly disposing of used motor oil and household
hazardous wastes. EPA recommends that the program inform individuals and groups how to become involved in
local stream and beach restoration activities, as well as activities that are coordinated by youth service and
conservation corps or other citizen groups. EPA recommends that the public education program be tailored,
using a mix of locally appropriate strategies, to target specific audiences and communities. Examples of
strategies include distributing brochures or fact sheets, sponsoring speaking engagements before community
groups, providing public service announcements, implementing educational programs targeted at school age
children, and conducting community-based projects such as storm drain stenciling and watershed and b
cleanups. In addition, EPA recommends that some of the materials or outreach programs be directed torA
targeted groups of commercial, industrial, and institutional entities likely to have significant stormwater
impacts For example, providing information to restaurants on the impact of grease clogging storm drains, and
to garages on the impact of oil discharges. You are encouraged to tailor your outreach program to address the
viewpoints and concerns of all communities, particularly minority and disadvantaged communities, as well as
any special concerns relating to children
2. Public Involvement/Participation
Minimum Requirements—40 CFR 122 34(b)(2)(i)
You must, at a minimum, comply with state, tribal, and local public notice requirements when implementing a
public involvement/parlicipation program.
Regulatory Guidance- 40 CFR 122 34(b)(2)(d)
EPA recommends that the public be included to developing, implementing, and reviewing your stormwater
management program, and that the public participation process should make efforts to reach out and engage all
economic and ethnic groups Opportunities for members of the public to participate in program development
and implementation include serving as citizen representatives on a local stormwater management panel,
attending public hearings, working as citizen volunteers to educate other individuals about the program,
assisting in program coordination with other pre-existing programs, or participating in volunteer monitoring
efforts (Citizens should obtain approval where necessary for lawful access to monitoring sites)
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 14 of 24
3. Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination
• Minimum Requirements—40 CFR 122 34(b)(3)(i)
You must develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges(as defined at Sec
122 26(6)(2)) into your small MS4
(ii) You must:
(A) Develop, if not already completed, a storm sewer system map, showing the location of all outfalls and
the names and location of all waters of the United States that receive discharges from those outfalls,
(B) To the extent allowable under State, Tribal or local law, effectively prohibit, through ordinance, or other
regulatory mechanism, non-stormwater discharges into your storm sewer system and implement
appropriate enforcement procedures and actions,
(C) Develop and implement a plan to detect and address non-stormwater discharges, including illegal
dumping, to your system; and
(D) Inform public employees, businesses, and the general public of hazards associated with illegal
discharges and improper disposal of waste.
(ui) You need address the following categories of non-stormwater discharges or flows (i e , illicit discharges)
only if you identify them as significant contributors of pollutants to your small MS4• water line flushing,
landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising ground waters, uncontaminated ground water infiltration (as
defined at 40 CFR 35 2005(20)), uncontaminated pumped ground water, discharges from potable water sources,
foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, water from crawl space pumps,
footing drains, lawn watering, individual residential car washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands,
dechlormated swimming pool discharges, and street wash water (discharges or flows from fire fighting activities
are excluded from the effective prohibition against non-stormwater and need only be addressed where they are
identified as significant sources of pollutants to waters of the United States)
Regulatory Guidance— 40 CFR 122 34(b)(3)(iv)
EPA recommends that the plan to detect and address illicit discharges include the following four components
procedures for locating priority areas likely to have illicit discharges, procedures for tracing the source of an
illicit discharge; procedures for removing the source of the discharge; and procedures for program evaluation
and assessment EPA recommends visually screening outfalls during dry weather and conducting field tests of
selected pollutants as part of the procedures for locating priority areas. Illicit discharge education actions may
include storm dram stenciling; a program to promote, publicize, and facilitate public reporting of illicit
connections or discharges, and distribution of outreach materials
4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
Minimum Requirements—40 CFR 122 34(b)(4)(r)
You must develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any stormwater runoff to your
small MS4 from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre
Reduction of stormwater discharges from construction activity disturbing less than one acre must be included in
your program if that construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that would
disturb one acre or more. If the NPDES permitting authority waives requirements for stormwater discharges
. associated with small construction activity in accordance with Sec 122 26(b)(15)(i), you are not required to
develop, implement, and/or enforce a program to reduce pollutant discharges from such sites
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 15 of24
(ii) Your program must include the development and implementation of, at a minimum.
(A) An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to require erosion and sediment controls, as weld
sanctions to ensure compliance, to the extent allowable under State,Tribal, or local law;
(B)Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control
(ESC) best management practices;
(C)Requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as discarded building materials,
concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause
adverse impacts to water quality;
(D)Procedures for site plan review which incorporate consideration of potential water quality impacts,
(E) Procedures for receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public, and
(F) Procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures.
Regulatory Guidance—40 CFR 122 34(b)(4)(m)
Examples of sanctions to ensure compliance include non-monetary penalties, fines, bonding requirements,
and/or permit denials for non-compliance. EPA recommends that procedures for site plan review include the
review of individual pre-construction site plans to ensure consistency with local (ESC) requirements.
Procedures for site inspections and enforcement of control measures could include steps to identify priority sites
for inspection and enforcement based on the nature of the construction activity, topography, and the
characteristics of soils and receiving water quality You are encouraged to provide appropriate educational and
training measures for construction site operators You may wish to require a stormwater pollution prevention
plan for construction sites within your jurisdiction that discharge into your system. See Sec 122 44(s) (NPDES
permitting authorities' option to incorporate qualifying State, Tribal and local erosion and sediment control
programs into NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from construction sites). Also see Sec 122 35(b) (The
NPDES permitting authority may recognize that another government entity, including the permitting autho�
may be responsible for implementing one or more of the minimum measures on your behalf).
5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development & Redevelopment
Minimum Requirements—40 CFR 122 34(b)(5)(i)
You must develop, implement, and enforce a program to address stormwater runoff from new development and
redevelopment projects that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that
are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, that discharge into your small MS4. Your program
must ensure that controls are in place that would prevent or minimize water quality impacts
(u) You must
(A) Develop and implement strategies which include a combination of structural and/or non-structural best
management practices (BMPs) appropriate for your community,
(B) Use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new
development and redevelopment projects to the extent allowable under State, Tribal or local law,
(C) Ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10, 2003 Page 16 of 24
Regulatory Guidance— 40 CFR 122 34(b)(5)(m)
If water quality impacts are considered from the beginning stages of a project, new development and potentially
redevelopment provide more opportunities for water quality protection EPA recommends that the BMPs
chosen- be appropriate for the local community, minimize water quality impacts, and attempt to maintain pre-
development runoff conditions In choosing appropriate BMPs, EPA encourages you to participate in locally-
based watershed planning efforts which attempt to involve a diverse group of stakeholders including interested
citizens
When developing a program that is consistent with this measure's intent, EPA recommends that you adopt a
planning process that identifies the municipality's program goals (e g., minimize water quality impacts resulting
from post-construction runoff from new development and redevelopment), implementation strategies (e g,
adopt a combination of structural and/or non-structural BMPs), operation and maintenance policies and
procedures, and enforcement procedures. In developing your program, you should consider assessing existing
ordinances, policies, programs and studies that address stormwater runoff quality. In addition to assessing these
existing documents and programs, you should provide opportunities to the public to participate in the
development of the program. Non-structural BMPs are preventative actions that involve management and source
controls such as policies and ordinances that provide requirements and standards to direct growth to identified
areas, protect sensitive areas such as wetlands and riparian areas, maintain and/or increase open space (including
a dedicated funding source for open space acquisition), provide buffers along sensitive water bodies, minimize
impervious surfaces, and minimize disturbance of soils and vegetation, policies or ordinances that encourage
infill development in higher density urban areas, and areas with existing infrastructure; education programs for
developers and the public about project designs that minimize water quality impacts, and measures such as
minimization of percent impervious area after development and minimization of directly connected impervious
areas Structural BMPs include. storage practices such as wet ponds and extended-detention outlet structures,
filtration practices such as grassed swales, sand filters and filter strips; and infiltration practices such as
infiltration basins and infiltration trenches EPA recommends that you ensure the appropriate implementation of
the structural BMPs by considering some or all of the following- pre-construction review of BMP designs,
inspections during construction to verify BMPs are built as designed, post-construction inspection and
maintenance of BMPs, and penalty provisions for the noncompliance with design, construction or operation and
maintenance Stormwater technologies are constantly being improved, and EPA recommends that your
requirements be responsive to these changes, developments or improvements in control technologies.
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Minimum Requirements —40 CFR 122 34(b)(6)(i)
You must develop and implement an operation and maintenance program that includes a training component
and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations Using training
materials that are available from EPA, your state, Tribe, or other organizations, your program must include
employee training to prevent and reduce stormwater pollution from activities such as park and open space
maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new construction and land disturbances, and stormwater system
maintenance.
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 17 of 24
Regulatory Guidance— 40 CFR 122 34(b)(6)(n)
EPA recommends that, at a minimum, you consider the following in developing your program. maintenance
activities, maintenance schedules, and long-term inspection procedures for structural and nonstruct
storimwater controls to reduce floatables and other pollutants discharged from your separate storm seIqW
controls for reducing or eliminating the discharge of pollutants from streets, roads, highways,municipal parking
lots, maintenance and storage yards, fleet or maintenance shops with outdoor storage areas, salt/sand storage
locations and snow disposal areas operated by you, and waste transfer stations; procedures for properly
disposing of waste removed from the separate storm sewers and areas listed above (such as dredge spoil,
accumulated sediments, floatables, and other debris); and ways to ensure that new flood management projects
assess the impacts on water quality and examine existing projects for incorporating additional water quality
protection devices or practices. Operation and maintenance should be an integral component of all stormwater
management programs. This measure is intended to improve the efficiency of these programs and require new
programs where necessary Properly developed and implemented operation and maintenance programs reduce
the risk of water quality problems.
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 18 of 24
APPENDIX II.
ABBREVIATIONS*
BAT Best Available Technology Economically O&M Operation and Maintenance
Achievable (applies to non-conventional and toxic OW Office of Water
pollutants)
BCT Best Conventional Pollutant Control OWbI Office of Wastewater Management
Technology(applies to conventional pollutants) PA Permitting Authority
BMP Best Management Practice POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
BPJ Best Professional Judgment SIC Standard Industrial Classification
BPT Best Practicable Control Technology Currently SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Available (generally applies to conventional TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
pollutants and some metals)
TSS Total Suspended Solids
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
UA Urbanized Area
CGP Construction General Permit
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CWA Clean Water Act(formerly referred to as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972)
CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
ELG Effluent Limitations Guidelines
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FIR Federal Register
MEP Maximum Extent Practicable
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSGP Multi Sector General Permit
NOI Notice of Intent
NOT Notice of Termination
NOV Notice of Violation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NPS Non-point Source
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 19 of 24
DEFINITIONS*:
Authorized Representative: For a municipahty, Slate, Federal, or other publtc agency (a) By either a
principal executive officer or ranking elected official For purposes of this section, a principal executive officer
of a Federal Agency includes (i) the chief executive officer of the Agency, or(it) a senior executive officer
having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the Agency (e g ,Regional
Administrators of EPA).
(b) All reports required by permits, and or other information requested by the Director shall be signed by a
person described in paragraph (a) of this section, or by a duly authorized representative of that person
Best Available Treatment(BAT)/Sest Control Technology (BCT) A level of technology based on the very
best (state of the art) control and treatment measures that have been developed or are capable of being
developed and that are economically achievable within the appropriate industrial category.
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Activities or structural improvements that help reduce the quantity and
improve the quality of stormwater runoff BMPs include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material
storage.
Category (xi) facilities: Specific facilities classified as light industry with equipment or materials exposed to
stormwater.
Clean Water Act (Water Quality Act): (formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972). Public law 92-500; 33 U S C. 1251 et seq ; legislation which
provides statutory authority for the NPDES program Also know as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Conveyance: The process of water moving from one place to another
Detention Facility: An above or below ground facility, such as a pond or tank, that temporarily stores
stormwater runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility
system. There is little or no infiltration of stored stormwater
Discharge: The volume of water(and suspended sediment if surface water) that passes a given location within a
given period of time.
Erosion: When land is diminished or worn away due to wind, water, or glacial ice Often the eroded debris (silt
or sediment) becomes a pollutant via stormwater runoff Erosion occurs naturally but can be intensified by land
clearing activities such as farming, development, road-building, and timber harvesting
Excavation: The process of removing earth, stone, or other materials from land
General Permit: A permit issued under the NPDES program to cover a certain class or category of stormwater
discharges These permits reduce the administrative burden of permitting stormwater discharges
Grading: The cutting and/or filling of the land surface to a desired slope or elevation
Illicit Connection: Any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of
stormwater and is not authorized by an NPDES permit,with some exceptions (e g, discharges due to fire
fighting activities)
Interconnected: See Physically Interconnected
Industrial Activity: Any activity which is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials sto
areas at an industrial plant 10
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 20 of 24
Large Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): An MS4 located in an incorporated place or county
with a population of 250,000 or more, as determined by
Light Manufacturing Facilities: Described under Category (xi) of the definition of"stormwater discharges
associated with industrial activity" [CFR 122 26(b)(14)(i-ix and xi)] Under the Phase I NPDES Stormwater
Program, these facilities were eligible for exemption from stormwater permitting requirements if certain areas
and activities were not exposed to stormwater As a result of the Phase lI Final Rule, these facilities must now
certify to a condition of no exposure
Low Impact Development: The integration of site ecological and environmental goal and requirements into all
phases of urban planning and design from the individual residential lot level to the entire watershed Hydrologic
functions of storage, infiltration, and ground water recharge, as well as the volume and frequency of discharges
are maintained through the use of integrated and distributed micro-scale stormwater retention and detention
areas, reduction of impervious surfaces, and the lengthening of flow paths and runoff time. Other strategies
include the preservation/protection of environmentally sensitive site features such as riparian buffers, wetlands,
steep slopes, valuable (mature) trees, flood plains, woodland and highly permeable soils
Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP): A standard for water quality that applies to all MS4 operators regulated
under the NPDES Stormwater Program Since no precise definition of MEP exists, it allows for maximum
flexibility on the part of MS4 operators as they develop and implement their programs
Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): MS4 located in an incorporated place or county
with a population of 100,000 or more but less than 250,000,as determined by the latest U.S Census
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): A publicly-owned conveyance or system of conveyances
that discharges to waters of the U S and is designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater, is not a
combined sewer, and is not part of a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW)
Multi-Sector General Permit(AISGP): An NPDES permit that regulates stormwater discharges from eleven
categories of industrial activities.
New Development: Land disturbing activities, including Class IV - general forest practices that are conversions
from timber land to other uses; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or
other structure; creation of impervious surfaces; and subdivision, short subdivision and binding site plans, as
defined and applied in Chapter 58 17 RCW Projects meeting the definition of redevelopment shall not be
considered new development.
No exposure: All industrial materials or activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent exposure
to ram, snow, snowmelt, and/or runoff. Industrial materials or activities include, but are not limited to, material
handling equipment or activities, industrial machinery, raw materials, intermediate products, by-products, final
products, or waste products Material handling activities include the storage, loading and unloading,
transportation, or conveyance of any raw material, intermediate product, final product or waste product
Non-authorized States: any State that does not have the authority to regulate the NPDES Stormwater Program.
Non-point Source (NPS) Pollutants: Pollutants from many diffuse sources. NPS pollution is caused by rainfall
or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and
human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even our
underground sources of drinking water.
Notice of Intent (NOI): An application to notify the permitting authority of a facility's intention to be covered
by a general permit; exempts a facility from having to submit an individual or group application
NPDES: "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System"the name of the surface water quality program
authorized by Congress as part of the 1987 Clean Water Act This is EPA program to control the discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States (see 40 CFR 122 2).
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 21 of24
O&M Expenditures: The operating and maintenance costs associated with the continual workings of a project
Outfall: The point where wastewater or drainage discharges from a sewer pipe, ditch, or other conveyance t�
receiving body of water.
Permitting Authority (PA): The NPDES-authorized state agency or EPA regional office that administers the
NPDES Stormwater Program. PAs issue permits,provide compliance assistance, and inspect and enforce the
program.
Physically interconnected MS4: This means that one MS4 is connected to a second MS4 in such a way that it
allows for direct discharges into the second system
Point Source Pollutant: Pollutants from a single, identifiable source such as a factory or refinery
Pollutant Loading: The total quantity of pollutants in stormwater runoff.
Qualifying local program: A local, State or Tribal municipal stormwater management program that imposes,
at a minimum, the relevant requirements of one or more of the minimum control measures includes in
122.34(b)
Redevelopment: On a site that is already substantially developed (i e , has more than 35% or more of existing
impervious surface coverage), the creation or addition of impervious surfaces; the expansion of building
footprint or addition or replacement of a structure; structural development including construction, installation or
expansion of a building or other structure, replacement of impervious surface that is not part of routine
maintenance activity; and land disturbing activities
Regional: An action(here, for stormwater management purposes) that involves more than one discrete property
Regional Detention Facility: A stormwater quantity control structure designed to correct the existing surfac
water runoff problems of a basin or subbasin The area downstream has been previously identified as having*
existing or predicted significant and regional flooding and/or erosion problems. This term is also used when a
detention facility is sited to detain stormwater runoff from a number of new developments or areas within a
catchment
Regulated MS4: Any MS4 covered by the NPDES Stormwater Program (regulated small, medium, or large
MS4s).
Retention: The process of collecting and holding surface and stormwater runoff with no surface outflow
Retention/detention facility (R/D): A type of drainage facility designed either to hold water for a considerable
length of time and then release it by evaporation, plant transpiration, and/or infiltration into the ground; or to
hold surface and stormwater runoff for a sort period of time and then release it to the surface and stormwater
management system
Retrofit: The modification of stormwater management systems through the construction and/or enhancement of
wet ponds, wetland plantings, or other BMPs designed to improve water quality
Runoff: Drainage or flood discharge that leaves an area as surface flow or as pipeline flow Has reached a
channel or pipeline by either surface or sub-surface routes
Sanitary Sewer: A system of underground pipes that carries sanitary waste or process wastewater to a treatment
plant.
Sediment: Soil, sand,and minerals washed from land into water, usually after rain. Sediment can destroy fish-
nesting areas, clog animal habitats, and cloud waters so that sunlight does not reach aquatic plants. .
Sheet flow: The portion of precipitation that moves initially as overland flow in very shallow depths before
eventually reaching a stream channel.
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 22 of 24
Site Plan: A graphical representation of a layout of buildings and facilities on a parcel of land
Site Runoff: Any drainage or flood discharge that is released from a specified area
. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): Any MS4 that is not regulated under Phase I of the
NIPDES Stormwater Program and Federally-owned MS4s.
Stakeholder: An entity that holds a special interest in an issue or program -- such as the stormwater program -
since it is or may be affected by it.
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: A four digit number which is used to identify various types of
industries.
Storm Drain: A slotted opening leading to an underground pipe or an open ditch for carrying surface runoff
Stormwater: Precipitation that accumulates in natural and/or constructed storage and stormwater systems
during and immediately following a storm event.
Stormwater Management: Functions associated with planning, designing, constructing, maintaining,
financing, and regulating the facilities (both constructed and natural) that collect, store, control,and/or convey
stormwater.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): A plan to describe a process whereby a facility thoroughly
evaluates potential pollutant sources at a site and selects and implements appropriate measures designed to
prevent or control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff
Surface Water: Water that remains on the surface of the ground, including rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams,
wetlands, impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The maximum amount of pollutants which can released into a water
. body without adversely affecting the water quality.
Tool Box: A term to describe the activities and materials that EPA plans to perform/produce to facilitate
implementation of the stormwater program in an effective and cost-efficient manner The eight components
include: 1) fact sheets,2) guidance documents; 3) menu of BMPs; 4) compliance assistance; 5) information
clearing house; 6) training and outreach efforts, 7) technical research, and 8) support for demonstration projects
Treatment BMP: A BMP that is intended to remove pollutants form stormwater A few examples of treatment
BMPs are detention ponds, oil/water separators, biofiltration swales, and constructed wetlands.
Uncontrolled Sanitary Landfill: a landfill or open dump, whether in operation or closed, that does not meet
the requirements for run-on or runoff controls established pursuant to subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
Urbanized Area (UA): A Bureau of the Census determination of a central place (or places) and the adjacent
densely settled surrounding territory that together have a minimum residential population of 50,000 people and a
minimum average density of 1,000 people/square mile This is a simplified definition of a UA,the full
definition is very complex
Urban Growth Areas means those areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW 36 70A 110
Urban Runoff: Stormwater from urban areas, which tends to contain heavy concentrations of pollutants from
urban activities.
Watershed: That geographical area which drains to a specified point on a water course, usually a confluence of
streams or rivers (also known as drainage area, catchment, or river basin)
Wet Weather Flows: Water entering storm drains during rainstorms/wet weather events
*The following references were used in these sections
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 23 of 24
• Stoi nnrater Phase 1I Coniphance Assistance Guide; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, March 2000,Publication # EPA 833-R-00-002.
• 40 Code of Federal Regulations,part 122 22,(3), United States Environmental Protection Agency
• Stornnrater Management Alanual for Western Washington, Washington State Department of Ecology, August 2000
Publication #99-11 through 99-13
• Loin Impact Development tit Puget Sound, Innovative Stormwater Management Practices, a conference sponsored by
the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team and King County Department of Natural Resources through a Water
Works Grant
• Low Impact Development Design Strategies, An Integrated Design Approach, Prince Georges County, Maryland,
Department of Environmental Resources,June 1999
10/15/02 Please submit before March 10,2003 Page 24 of 24
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT—
AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee,
authorization for the Mayor to sign an agreement with Puget Sound Energy for
relocating existing underground power utilities to a lower depth as part of the West
Fork Soosette Creek Improvements project, subject to the Public Works Director and
City Attorney's concurrence of the language therein. The estimated City's cost is
$106,278.93.
3 EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, Draft agreement and Exhibit A
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don E. Wckstroni, P.E. Public Works Director
Phone 253-856.5500
KENT Fax 253-856-6500
W.s.1.GTO.
Address 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Date: April 7, 2003
To: Public orks Committee
From: Don kstrom, Public Works Director
RE Puget Sound Energy Construction Agreement
West Fork Soosette Creek Improvements— Utility Relocation
As part of the West Fork Soosette Creek Improvements, four box culverts will be installed in the
Springwood Apartments, which are owned by King County Housing Authority The existing
underground power utilities need to be relocated to a lower depth to provide clearance for the
. four box culverts. It is estimated that our costs for Puget Sound Energy to lower its facilities will
be approximately $100,000. The attached is a draft of an agreement with Puget Sound Energy,
for relocating their facilities.
The Public Works Director Recommends that the Mayor be authorized to sign same subject to
final approval of the terns and conditions therm by City Attorney and myself.
Motion:
. Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Puget Sound Energy Construction Agreement
upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director
FACILITY RELOCATION/11IODIFICATION AGREEMENT e
o \& 0
THIS Facility Relocation/Modification Agreement("Agreement"), dated as of this
day of 1 200, is made by and between PUGET SOUND
ENERGY, Inc , a Washington corporation ("Company"), and KENT a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington ("City "). The Company and Kent are sometimes
referred to herein collectively as the"Parties".
RECITALS
A. The Company owns and operates certain facilities: (i) underground power
lines (such facilities are collectively referred to herein as "Facilities"). Some or more of
the Facilities occupy and use "existing easements". .
B. The City plans to construct improvements to four (4) culverts in the .
Springwood Apartment Complex. ("Improvements").
C. The Improvements necessitate the redesign and modification or relocation of
the Facilities. In connection with the Improvements, the City has requested the Company
to modify a portion of the Facilities to ensure proper clearances are maintained between
such Facilities and Improvements to accordance with prudent utility practices ("Relocated
Facilities") Acquisition of sufficient new operating rights for the Facilities may also be
necessary.
D. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to govern the installation of the
Relocated Facilities.
Page 1
City of Kent Culvert replacement project inside Springwood Apartments
Notification 10444436 Rev5/30/00
M M R 5 Y
employees, contractors, subcontractors, or representatives) for any claims, actions,
damages, or liability asserted or arising in connection with the Work Schedule.
1.4 Ownership of Facilities
The Company shall own, operate, and maintain all Relocated Facilities installed
pursuant to this Agreement.
1.5 Permits
Pursuant to paragraph 16,no jurisdictional permits aie required for the Company.
2. Costs
2.1 General
The City shall be responsible for, and reimburse the Company for, all Costs and
Expenses necessarily incurred or allocable to the Work. For the purposes of this
Agreement, "Costs and Expenses" shall include, without limitation, any and all direct or
indirect costs necessarily incurred or reasonably allocated to this Agreement or its
performance, including, but not limited to, the cost of labor, personnel, consultants,
attorneys and other professionals, travel, printing, supplies, taxes, permits, approvals,
assessments, inspections, tests, transportation, material, supplies, equipment, tools,
utilities, services, rental charges, consumables, premium for bonds or insurance, disposal
costs, overhead, administration and general expenses, and any other charges authorized
by applicable tariffs.
Page 3
ON of Kent Culvert replacement nroiect inside Sonnewood Apartments
D �
describing the Revision and the estimated Costs and Expenses associated with said
Revision. The City shall be responsible for, and reimburse the Company for, the actual •
cost of the Revision pursuant to paragraphs 2 1 and 2 3.
2.5 Costs Upon Termination of Work
In the event that the City cancels the Improvements proposed hereunder, the City
shall reimburse the Company for all costs reasonably incurred by the Company in
connection with the Work to be performed under this Agreement prior to the date
canceled
3. Limitation of Liability
The Company's liability in connection with the work hereunder shall be limited to
property damages or personal injuries caused by the intentional or negligent acts of the
Company, its employees or agents, limited to the extent of negligence attributable to the
Company, its employees or agents. In no event shall the Company be liable for any
consequential, indirect, special, or incidental damage, nor shall the Company be liable for
injuries or damages of any kind that arise from causes beyond the control of the
Company, including but not limited to acts of God, weather, labor disputes, procurement
delays,delays in plan or permit approvals, or other third party actions.
4. Indemnity
The City releases and shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Company harmless
from all claims, losses, harm, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses (including,but not
limited to,reasonable attorneys' fees)caused by, arising out of, or in connection with the
Page 5
City of Kent Culvert replacement project inside Spnngwood Apartments
Notification 10444436 Rev5130100
r, loe Fielding D
vironmental Engineer
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
04/07/2003 14: 35 27d-d'd? t'ddy rnt �uuin nuw uru -
Exhibit ROIL8 �!�Cdi �ti �
Puget Sound Energy
Facility Relocation/Modification Agreement
Soosette Creek Culvert Replacement-Sprinawood Apartments
The City of Kent has requested that PSE lower the existing underground power cables
that currently cross Soosette Creek. The cables currently are at a depth of about 4 feet.
The new box culverts that the city is installing are deeper and wider and the city has
requested that we bore at a minimum of 10'— 15' below the bottom of the existing creek
bed. A"fish window"between June 15, 2003 and September 15, 2003 has been
established. The city will need to utilize this window for construction of this project.
PSE's contractor, Potelco, will relocate the cables crossing Soosette Creek within the
borders of King County's Spnngwood Apartments at 4 locations. Each location will
require boring under the creek at a minimum of 10' below creek grade. Placement of 2-
3" conduits in three crossings, and placement of 3 -3"in one crossing w ill be regwred.
A new single 15kv solid aluminum jacketed electrical cable will be pulled into each
conduit to replace the existing cable
Existing cables will be de-energized and removed from the existing conduits New
conduits will be installed under the creek and attached to existing conduits on either side
of the creek at each location. The new cables will be pulled into the new conduits.
Extension of the bore conduits to intercept the existing conduits vary at each bore
location. The new conductors will start and end in existing vaults or handholes. New
connectors will be installed on the ends of each cable. New cables will be energized after
each installation.
Trenching is required to locate and expose existing conduits at the end of each bore
Removal and replacement of the asphalt is required at each bore pit and will be continued
to the PSE conduit intercept point. Select backfill will be used for areas within the
traveled roadway. Bore pits or trenching outside of roadways will be backfilled and
compacted with native materials and reseeded.
is
Notification$110444436
EI � � °
Date: 4n/2003
Project Title: SaoGette Creek Culvert Replacement
Project Description: Lower Existing Underground Cables
Rate Schedule: N/A
Project Manager/Phone#: Jerry Drake
Project Engineer/Phone it:
Municipal Liaison Mgr/Phone#: Mary Ausbuml263.395.6867
Project#: 1044"36
Revision#: NIA
Revision Date: N/A
Project Construction Summary Estimate '
tiovernment Costo the City
Company Entity Of Kent
Design & Engineering
PSE/GE Labor $0 00 $0 $0.00
Materials $0 $0 00
PSE Equipment $0 00 $0 $0.00
Service Provider Outside Services $0.00 $0 $15,940 29
PSE Overhead $0.00 $0 $2,391 04
Total-Design &Engineering $0 00 $0 $18,331.33
onstruction
PSE/GELabor $000 $0 $0.00
Materials $0.00 $0 $11,451.20
PSE Equipment $0.00 $0 $0.00
S:b= __m _ $0 $51,943.30
Service Provider Outside Services $0.00 $0 $13.042.94
PSE Overhead $0.00 $0 $11,510.16
Total-Construction $0.00 $0 $87,947.60
Property,
Operming Rights $0.00 $o $0.00
Total-Property 0.00 0 .00
I
Total Project cost $0.00 $0 $106,278 93
. Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1 SUBJECT: QWEST CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT—AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee,
authorization for the Mayor to sign an agreement with Qwest for relocating existing
underground telephone facilities to a lower depth as part of the West Fork Soosette
Creek Improvements project, subject to the Public Works Director and City Attorney's
concurrence of the language therein. The estimated City's cost is $65,565.38.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and agreement
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. 6I
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
*4100 Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director
Phone 253-856-5500
KENT Fax 253-856-6500
W�lNIMOTCM
Address 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date April 7,P003
To. Public orks Committee
From: Don Nil
kstrom, Public Works Director
RE- Qwest Construction Agreement
West Fork Soosette Creek Improvements—Utility Relocation
As part of the West Fork Soosette Creek Improvements, four box culverts will be installed in the
Spnngwood Apartments, which are owned by King County Housing Authority The existing
underground telephone facilities need to be relocated to a lower depth to provide clearance for
the four box culverts. It is estimated that the City's costs therefore is $71,211 82. Attached is
the agreement with Quest, for the relocation of its facilities
The Public Works Director Recommends that the Mayor be authorized to sign same subject to
the approval of the terms and conditions thenn by time City Attorney and myself.
Motion:
• Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Qwest Construction Agreement upon concurrence
of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director.
1
e6 .303224,033 2/ 5
rile tic IiIii
Qwest.
Date: 402003
CITY OF KENT DEPT.OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISON
WILLIAM S WOLINSKI
220 FOURTH AVENUE S
KENT,WA 98032
JOB NUMBER: C3W0087
RE: WTH WEST FORK SOOSETTE CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
KENT,WASHINGTON =
-- - _ - ___-Attachad are two copies of our Billing Proposal.-We must receive both copies,
signed at the acceptance paragraph,before the work described on the Qwest
proposal can be started. We will return one copy,with our manager's signature,
for your records.
We will need your 50%advance payment before the work or material
can be ordered.
Send to:
OWEST COMMUNICATIONS
BART-GROUP
700 W. MINERAL RM NE G29.29
LITTLETON,CO 80120
It you have any questions with the scheduling andtor work to be done,
please call your Engineer, Carol Davis,503.242-2835.
Sincerely,
Sandie M. Hess
Bart Coordinator
enclosures
RC-254WO
PROPOSAL [�2=
Contract Number. C3W0087
Job Authorization No:
to April 2,2003 Job Number QW0 87
;Customer/Billing Address Work Location.
CITY OF KENT DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION THE WEST FORK SOOSETTE
WILLIAM S WOLINSKI CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
220 FOURTH AVE S KENT,WASHINGTON
KENT, WA 98032
Description and/or specifications of work to be performed by Owest under this Proposal ('Work")
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION CHARGES FOR QWESTTO
RELOCATE COPPER CABLES FOR THE WEST FORK SOOSETTE
CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT(SPINGWOOD APARTMENTS)
LOCATIONS W4, W-5,AND W-6 A SEPARATE CONTRACT WILL
BE SENT FOR COST FROM POTELCO
50%ADVANCE PAYMENT REQUIRED
Advance Payment (Required before work begins) $ 32,828.19
$ 65,566.38
SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE AND 38/100 DOLLARS
-Customer will be responsible for these Charges only, unless a change order is signed by both parties in accordance with
Section 8 below. For outstanding balances Owest will submit an Invoice of Charges to Customer upon completion of all
construction work necessary to fulfill this Proposal Customer will pay the invoice within thirty(30)days of receipt All
ast due accounts may be assessed a late fee at 1 4%APR
Qwest shall perform the work in a professional manner, consistent with industry standards, shall be fit and sufficient for
the stated purpose and shall conform to the Specifications The work to be performed under this Proposal shall be
released to Construction for scheduling pending the return of the fully executed Proposal and receipt of the Advance
Payment Qwest may withdraw this proposal if not accepted by the customer within 30 days
Qwest Corporation
Authorized Signature
Name Printed/Typed Debbie J Young
Title. Manager
Date
Acceptance of this Proposal and all of its terms and conditions constitute a binding contract The charges and
specifications are satisfactory and are hereby accepted
Customer
Authorized Signature
ame Pnnted/ryped
e
ate
NOTE CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE PRINTED ON PAGE 2 OF THIS DOCUMENT
Proposal
mot CA a Caron w 1 W..02L1-02
4- 2-03. 11 45 ----
RG.25-065Y
PROPOSAL iNeotl
Contract Number* C3W0087
Job Authorization No
Date April 2,2003 Job Number. QW(3087
Customer I Billing Address, Work Location:
CITY OF KENT DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION THE WEST FORK SOOSETTE
WILLIAM S WOLINSKI CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
220 FOURTH AVE S KENT, WASHINGTON
KENT, WA 98032
Description and/or specifications of work to be performed by Owest under this Proposal ("Work"):
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION CHARGES FOR QWEST TO
RELOCATE COPPER CABLES FOR THE WEST FORK SOOSETTE
CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT(SPINGWOOD APARTMENTS)
LOCATIONS W-4,W-5,AND W-6 A SEPARATE CONTRACT WILL
BE SENT FOR COST FROM POTELCO
50%ADVANCE PAYMENT REQUIRED
Advance Payment(Required before work begins) S 32,828.19
$ 65,565.38
SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE AND 381100 DOLLAR
*Customer will be responsible for these Charges only, unless a change order is signed by both parties in accordance with
Section 8 below For outstanding balances Owest will submit an Invoice of Charges to Customer upon completion of all
construction work necessary to fulfill this Proposal Customer will pay the invoice within thirty (30)days of receipt All
past due accounts may be assessed a late fee at 14%APR.
Owest shall perform the work in a professional manner,consistent with industry standards, shall be fit and sufficient for
the stated purpose and shall conform to the Specifications The work to be performed under this Proposal shall be
released to Construction for scheduling pending the return of the fully executed Proposal and receipt of the Advance
Payment Qwest may withdraw this proposal if not accepted by the customer within 30 days.
Owest Corporation
Authorized Signature
Name Printed/Typed Debbie J Young
Title: Manager
Date
Acceptance of this Proposal and all of its terms and conditions constitute a binding contract The charges and
specifications are satisfactory and are hereby accepted
Customer
Authorized Signature
Name Pnntedffyped
Title
Date
NOTE CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE PRINTED ON PAGE 2 OF THIS DOCUMENT
P'p 'w
2W1 Qv Cqp . 1 When 02-01-02
4- 2-03, 11 45 -----
Pfi25d059
f�2�21
pWroposal, all terms and conditions and the tariff, if applicable,constitute the entire Agreement and supersede all
us agreements between Owest and Customer relating to the subject matter hereof.
1 Customer Responsibilities Customer shall furnish all surveys and a description of the site Customer shall secure and
pay for all necessary permits,approvals, easements,assessments and any other charges required for the Work to be
performed under this Proposal. Owest shall be under no obligation whatsoever and the Customer assumes all
responsibility to contact and make arrangements with any third parties, such as power companies, railroads, cable
companies,or other telecommunications companies to arrange for the relocation of wires and equipment or the temporary
disconnection of the transmission of electricity
2 Owest Responsibilities Owest shall supervise and direct the Work under this Proposal and shall be solely responsible
for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures of the Work and any safety precautions associated
with the Work hereunder
3 Concealed/Subsurface Conditions. Should concealed conditions be encountered below the surface of the ground, or
in an existing structure,during the performance of the Work, diffenng materially from those ordinarily encountered and
generally recognized as inherent in the Work,the Proposal Charges shall be equitably adjusted by change order upon
written claim by either party made within twenty(20)days after the first observance of such conditions
4 Limitation of Liability NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT,
- CfAt-ORC"EOUEitTiAtfJAMAGESiDFANMiQND,ANC-LUD#NGBUT-NOT-lMITEBFt3ANY- OS&OFUSE, — --- - -
LOSS OF BUSINESS OR LOSS OF PROFIT, provided, however,there shall be no limitation on a party's liability to the
other for any fines or penalties imposed on the other party by any court of competent jurisdiction or federal, state or local
administrative agency resulting from the failure of the party to comply with any tern or condition of this contract or any
valid and applicable law, rule or regulation
treeMajeure In the event the performance of Owest is interrupted or prevented by an event, not due to its own fault,
as not reasonably foreseeable and could not have been prevented through the exercise of reasonable care ("Event
of Force Majeure'),then the performance of Qwest's obligations hereunder shall be suspended until such time as the
Event of Force Majeure has been eliminated Owest shall use its best effort to eliminate an Event of Force Majeure.
6 DISPUTES. Any claim, controversy or dispute between the parties shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance
with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U S.0 1-16, not state law.
7 Warranty All workmanship is guaranteed against defects for a period of six(6)months from the date of completion
THIS WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO,ANY OTHER WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE The
exclusive remedy for Customer under this Proposal shall be that Owest will re-perform any part of its work which is found
to be defective Owest shall not be responsible for damage to its work by other parties or for improper use of the
equipment by others.
8. Changes Changes in the Work,an adjustment to the proposal price or the timeframe for the Work shall be made by
change order specifically stated in writing The cost or credit to the Customer from a change shall be determined by
mutual agreement.
9 Safety and Environmental Conditions Customer understands and acknowledges that should Owest encounter a
hazardous substance and determine that such substance presents a health or physical hazard, Owest may, without
penalty, discontinue work under this contract
10. Termination In the event Customer elects to abandon the project and terminate this contract for Customer's
enience, Owest shall be paid for all Work executed and any expense sustained plus a reasonable profit
P.p "
2001 Oweg Corpwr 2 Vvson 02.01.02
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EXCUSED ABSENCE FOR COUNCILMEMBER CLARK—
APPROVE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of Councilmember Tim Clark's request for
an excused absence from the April 15, 2003, City Council meeting, as he will be unable
to attend.
3. EXHIBITS:
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. W
City Council
Judy Woods, Council President
4400 Phone 253-856-5712
K ENT Fax 253-856-6712
WASHINGTON Address 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent,WA 98032-5895
MEMORANDUM
TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: TIM CLARK, COUNCILMEMBER
DATE. APRIL 15, 2003
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE
I would like to request an excused absence from the April 15, 2003 City
Council meeting. I will be unable to attend.
Thank you for your consideration.
TC:jb
. Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT EAST HILL TOWNHOMES REZONE ORDINANCE—
ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. relating to land
use and zoning, rezoning property comprised of approximately 1.06 acres located at
22050 104th Avenue Southeast, from Community Commercial (CC), to Multifamily
Residential Townhouse (MR-T16), (Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone, # RZ-2002-3).
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance; Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions &
Recommendations; and Staff report
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner and Council (4/l/03)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6K
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the city council of the city of
Kent, Washington, relating to Land Use and Zoning,
specifically the rezoning of approximately 1.06 acres of
property located at 25200 104`h Avenue Southeast from
Community Commercial (CC), to Multifamily Residential
Townhouse (MR-T16 ) (Kent East Hill Townhomes
Rezone, #RZ-2002-3)
WHEREAS, an application to rezone approximately 106 acres from the
current zoning of Community Commercial (CC) to Multifamily Residential Townhouse
(MR-T 16)was filed on October 1,2002(Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone,#RZ-2002-3);
and
I
WHEREAS,the city's SEPA responsible official issued a Determination of
Nonsigmficance (DNS) for the proposed rezone on December 23, 2002, and
WHEREAS,a public hearing on the Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone was
held before the hearing examiner on February 19, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2003, the hearing examiner issued findings that,
the Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan,'
that the proposed rezone and subsequent development activity would be compatible with
the development in the vicinity, that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
1
Kent East Hi[/Townhomes Rezone
transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which)
cannot be mitigated,that circumstances have changed since the establishment of the current
zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone, and that the proposed rezone will not
adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city of Kent;l
and
WHEREAS, the findings are consistent with the standards for rezone set
forth in sections 15.09 050(A)(3) and 15.09.050(C) of the Kent City Code; and
WHEREAS,the Kent Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the Kentl
East Hill Townhomes Rezone on March 5, 20031, and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the city council moved to accept the
findings of the hearing examiner and the hearing examiner's recommendation for approval
of the Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone from Community Commercial (CC) to
Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MR-Tl6); NOW, THEREFORE, .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
i
SECTION 1. - Rezone The property located at 25200 1041h Avenue
Southeast, Kent, Washington consisting of approximately 106 acres depicted in Exhibit
"A"(marked"Site"),attached and incorporated by this reference, and legally described in
Exhibit "B" attached and incorporated by this reference, is rezoned as follows
i
King County tax parcel number 2022059290 located in Kent, Washington,
shall be rezoned from Community Commercial (CC) to Multifamily
Residential Townhouse(MR-T16).
I
1 The city's hearing exammer apparently mistakenly entered the date of February 5, 2003, above his
signature in his recommendation,however,his hearing on this matter was held on February 19,2003,and the
issue date on his recommendation is March 5,2003 .
2
Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone
The city of Kent zoning map shall be amended to reflect the rezone granted above.
I
i
SECTION Z -Severabihty If anyone or more sections, sub-sections, orI
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall!
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. - Effective Dare This ordinance shall take effect and be m
force five(5)days from and after its passage,approval and publication as provided by law.l
t
I
I
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
I
1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 2003.
APPROVED day of 2003
PUBLISHED day of 2003.
3
Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. ,passed by
the city council of the city of Kent, Washington,and approved by the mayor of the city ofI
Kent as hereon indicated.
I
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
I
I
I
I
I
4
Kent East Hill Townhomes Rezone
�cs
3 � M
-+o �` f7
n - o
• z r" <
i I
c0i I II `' 1
Li C L
I ,
---------------
-- - ----- - -- - _
--- —
n
l _I
IR
$ig
lg
I
_---------- L�
_
til
CA
m
< imm
p D
> � r Pia a �jo eB �63i�tl � R 6 E
C Y C
G fill :
y a la; �:
TH
ii
• W s
Balms & Holmberg Inc t ^�
u� ww mn
wxort rxirc"v
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1 of 2
a
a
SE 2461N ST
se
!� i 250TH
S $ $ $
Y 210 i <
SE 25MF e
PL i $
a 2S6TH ST
is
APPLICATION NAME: KENT EAST HILL TOWNHOMES REZONE
REQUEST: #RZ-2002-3 KIVA 4RPP4-2023084
EXHIBIT "A"
VICINITY MAP Page 2 of 2
The legal description for the subject property is Lot B City of Kent Boundary Line Adjustment as
Recorded under Recording No. 9102220353, Records of King County,Washington; being a portion of
Lots 1 & 2, City of Kent Short Plat No. SP-87-8 as Recorded under Recording No. 8712080994, Records
of King County, Washington; Located in the SE %of the SW Y. of Section 20, Township 22 N, Range 5
E, W.M., King County, Washington; King County Tax Parcel No. 2022059290.
! EXHIBIT "B"
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 350,
352 AND 354 BOND ORDINANCE—ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. (1) establishing
Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 350 et al. and Consolidated Local
Improvement Fund, District No. 350 et al.; (2) fixing the amount, form, date, interest
rate, and maturity of the Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 350 et al. Bond;
(3)providing for the sale and delivery thereof to Bank of America,N.A. of Seattle,
Washington; and(4) fixing the interest rate on local improvement district assessment
installments.
The City Council has created Local Improvement Districts Nos. 350, 352 and 354 for
various purposes. RCW 35.45 160 authorizes the establishment of consolidated local
improvement districts for the purpose of issuing bonds only and provides that if the
governing body of any municipality orders the creation of such consolidated local
improvement district, the money received from the installment payments of the
principal and interest on assessments levied within the original local improvement
districts shall be deposited in a consolidated local improvement district bond
redemption fund to be used to redeem outstanding consolidated local improvement
district bonds.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION-
Council Agenda
Item No. 61,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
May Miller, Director
Phone 253-856-5260
K E N T Fax 253 656 6255
W aSMIN GT OM
DATE. March 25, 2003
Kent City Council Operations tee FROM:
FROM: May Miller, Director of Financee v\-\^1,
THROUGH Mayor Jim White
SUBJECT Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance- Pproval
SUMMARY
Finance recommends approval of a Consolidated Bond Ordinance for LIDS 350, 352, and 354 for
$1,363,439.
MOTION-
I recommend adoption of Bond Ordinance No for the issuance of$1.363,439 in
Consolidated LID Bonds for LIDS 350, 352, and 354
BACKGROUND
• The Operations Committee recommended proceeding with the LID prepay ment process and
bonds on November 19, 2002
• The original assessment was $1,675,779 with $312.340 in prepayments received. This reduces
the bond to $1,363,439
• The city's underwriters and Alex Johnson of Bank of America NA have presented an offer to
purchase the bond at approximately a 3 75% interest rate (see attached letter)
• The costs will be a $500 review fee and a $10,000 placement agent fee This is less than the
normal I% underwriter fee and saved staff time as an official statement was not required
• Foster Pepper& Shefelman, the city's bond counsel, has reviewed the proposal and prepared
the necessary ordinance (see attached draft ordinance)
• Staff recommends proceeding with the bond sale expected on April 29. 2003.
BUDGETIMPACT:
All projects completed by Public Works Bonds will reimburse city expenditures Interest rate
and bond costs are below amount expected
LID 350 Big K Sewer
LID 352 South Kent Storm Sewer
LID 354 Washington Ave HOV Lanes &Meeker Street Widening
BankofAmerica -
i
Bank of America
Public Sector Banking
WA7-501.34-03
800 51°Avenue,34t°Floor
Alex Johnston
Senior Vice President
Public Sector Banking
March 13, 2003
Mr David Trageser
Vice President
Banc of America Securities—Structuring Agent
800 Fifth Avenue, 30 floor
Seattle, WA 98104
RE City of Kent$1,363,439 CLID No 350 et al
Dear Dave,
On behalf of the Bank of America, N A (the 'Bank"), I am pleased to present the following offer to
purchase the below referenced Bond from the City of Kent(the"City")on the following proposed terms
Amount $1,363,439
Obligation Consolidated Local Improvement District Bond, Series 2003 (the"Bond")
Loan Type Fully amortizing term loan based on estimated annual payments
Loan Purpose Financing sewer extensions, storm drain improvements and road improvements related to
LIDs No 350, 352, 354
Interest Rates 3 75% estimate based on today's market rate The final loan rate will be set when the
City determines the closing date This rate assumes the Bond is a bank-qualified, tax
exempt obligation
Repayment Annual debt service payments beginning March 1, 2004
Maturity March 1, 2015
Fees The City will pay the Bank a $500 legal review fee The City will be responsible for Bond
Counsel fees and Banc of America Securities Placement Agent fees
Prepayments All or any portion of the outstanding principal amount of the Bond may be prepaid by the
City without penalty on each debt service payment date with funds generated from the
local improvement district (including installment payments, assessment payments,
surplus Bond proceeds, taxes levied to pay the Bond, delinquent payments, proceeds
from foreclosure, balances in the LID fund or any other legally available funds) Such
prepayments are to be applied first to interest and then to principal
Telephone(206)3W8938 Telefax(206)358-8818
Email ian a Johnston@bankofamenca com
Dave Trageser
10 March 13, 2003
Security Pledge of special assessments on affected properties and assignment of assessment
liens, including net proceeds of liquidation of foreclosed properties on settlement of such
assessments
To the extend that the assessment payments and any available general funds are not
sufficient to pay the Bond, the City will utilize the LID Guarantee Fund of the City to pay
the Bond
Other This offer is subject to the receipt and satisfactory review by the Bank and its Counsel of
all required bond documents to be prepared by the City's bond counsel Foster Pepper &
Shefelman
I look forward to answering any questions you may have about this offer and being of assistance to the
City with this financing
ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMTIMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, TO EXTEND CREDIT, OR TO
FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF A DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER
WASHINGTON LAW.
Sincerely,
Bank of America, N A
al.L -
Alex Johnston
Cc Ms May Miller, Finance Director, City of Kent
Mr John Hillman, Assistant Finance Director, City of Kent
Mr Lee Voorhees, Foster Pepper& Sheffelman
Ms Tracy Becht, Foster Pepper& Sheffelman
Mr Alan Schulkin, Schulkin Law
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the city council of the city of
Kent, Washington, relating to local improvement districts
(1) establishing Consolidated Local Improvement District
No. 350 et al. and Consolidated Local Improvement Fund,
District No 350 et al ; (2) fixing the amount, form, date,
interest rate, and maturity of the Consolidated Local
Improvement District No. 350 et al. Bond, (3) providing for
the sale and delivery thereof to Bank of America, N A of
Seattle, Washington; and (4) fixing the interest rate on local
improvement district assessment installments
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Kent, Washington(the "City"),
heretofore has created Local Improvement Districts Nos. 350, 352 and 354 for various
purposes; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.45160 authorizes the establishment of
consolidated local improvement districts for the purpose of issuing bonds only and
provides that if the governing body of any municipality orders the creation of such
consolidated local improvement district, the money received from the installment
payment of the principal of and interest on assessments levied within the original local
improvement districts shall be deposited in a consolidated local improvement district
bond redemption fund to be used to redeem outstanding consolidated local
improvement district bonds;NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES ORDAIN as follows:
2 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDS 350, 352, and 354.
SECTION 1. - Consolidation of Local Improvement Districts For the
purpose of issuing bonds only, those local improvement districts of the City established
by the following ordinances, respectively, the 30-day period for making cash payment
of assessments without interest in each local improvement district having expired in the
case of the assessments for each local improvement district, are consolidated into a
consolidated local improvement district to be known and designated as Consolidated
Local Improvement District No 350 et al :
Local Improvement Created by Assessment Balance After 30- Term of
District No Ordinance No day Prepayment Period Roll
350 3397 $ 466,359 36 10 years
352 3452 $ 525,791 92 10 years
354 3540 $ 371,287 23 10 years
SECTION 2. — Bond Fund There is created and established in the
office of the Finance Division Director of the City for Consolidated Local
Improvement District No. 350 et al. a special consolidated local improvement district
fund to be known and designated as Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District
No 350 et al (the 'Bond Fund") All money presently on hand representing
collections pertaining to installments of assessments and interest thereon in each of the
local improvement districts listed in Section 1 received after the end of the respective
legal prepayment period for each district shall be transferred to and deposited in the
Bond Fund, and all collections pertaining to assessments on the assessment rolls of
those local improvement districts when hereafter received shall be deposited in the
Bond Fund to redeem outstanding Consolidated Local Improvement Distract No. 350 et
al bonds.
SECTION 3. - Authorization and Description of the Bond. A single
Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 350 et al. Bond (the 'Bond") shall be
issued in the total principal sum of $1,363,438.51, being the total amount on the
assessment rolls of Local Improvement Districts Nos 350, 352 and 354 remaining
uncollected after the expiration of the 30-day interest-free prepayment period Bank of
✓, 3 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDs 350, 352, and 354.
America, N.A. of Seattle, Washington (the "Bank") has offered to purchase the Bond
under the terms of its purchase offer dated March 13, 2003 (the "Offer"), and this
ordinance. The Bond shall be dated its date of issuance, shall mature on March 1,
2015, and shall be numbered R-1, in the manner and with any additional designation as
the Bond Registrar (the Finance Director of the City, who is hereby appointed as Bond
Registrar, located in Kent, Washington) deems necessary for the purpose of
identification. Interest shall be computed on the basis of twelve 30-day months and a
360-day year, shall bear interest at the rate of 3.75% per annum, payable annually on
each March 1, commencing March 1, 2004 (the "Interest Payment Date") to maturity
or prepayment. Principal is payable at maturity or early prepayment.
SECTION 4. -Registration and Transfer of Bond, Bond Registrar The
Bond shall be issued to the Bank only in registered form as to both principal and
interest and shall be recorded on books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar
(the "Bond Register") The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address
of the owner of the Bond and the principal amount and number of the Bond. ,
The Bond may not be assigned or transferred by the Bank, except that
the Bank may assign or transfer the Bond to any successor to the business and assets of
the Bank.
The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at her office,
sufficient books for the registration of the Bond. The Bond Registrar shall serve as the
City's authenticating trustee, transfer agent, registrar and paying agent for the Bond
and shall comply fully with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations
respecting the carrying out of those duties The Bond Registrar is authorized, on
behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver the Bond in accordance with the
provisions of the Bond, the Offer and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying
agent for the Bond and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under
this ordinance.
4 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDS 350, 352, and 354.
The Bond shall state on its face that the principal of and interest on the
Bond shall be paid only to the owner thereof registered as such on the Bond Register as of
the record date set forth therein and to no other person or entity, and that the Bond may
not be assigned except on the books of the Bond Registrar
SECTION 5 - Payment of Bond. Both principal of and interest on the
Bond shall be payable solely out of the Bond Fund, and from the Local Improvement
Guaranty Fund of the City, and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States
of America Interest on the Bond shall be paid by check or draft mailed, or by
electronic funds transfer, to the Bank on the Interest Payment Date at the address
appearing on the Bond Register. Upon the final payment of principal of and interest on
the Bond, at maturity or prior repayment, the registered owner shall surrender the
Bond at the office of the Bond Registrar in Kent, Washington, for destruction or
cancellation to accordance with law.
SECTION 6 - Prepayment and Redemption of Bond. On each Interest
Payment Date, the City shall apply all amounts remaining in the Bond Fund, after
payment of accrued interest, to the prepayment at par of outstanding principal of the
Bond
Interest on the Bond or the portion thereof so prepaid shall cease to
accrue on the date of such prepayment
The Bond when fully redeemed under this section shall be cancelled
SECTION 7. - Failure to Redeem Bond If the Bond is not redeemed
when properly presented at its maturity or prepayment date, the City shall be obligated
to pay interest on the Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its
maturity or prepayment date until the Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full
or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund and the
Bond has been called for payment.
5 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDs 350, 352, and 354.
SECTION 8. -Pledge of Assessment Payments. Assessments collected .
in Local Improvement Districts Nos. 350, 352 and 354, together with interest and
penalties, if any, are pledged to the payment of the Bond, which is payable solely out
of the Bond Fund and the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City in the manner
provided by law. The Bond is not a general obligation of the City.
SECTION 9. - Form and Execution of Bond. The Bond shall be
printed, lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the
provisions of this ordinance and state law, shall be signed by the Mayor and City
Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of
the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon
The Bond shall bear a Certificate of Authentication in the following
form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, and only if so executed, shall the Bond
be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is the fully registered City of Kent, Washington,
Consolidated Local Improvement District No 350 et al Bond described in the
Bond Ordinance.
By
Finance Director of the City of
Kent,Washington,Bond Registrar
The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that
the Bond when so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated, and delivered and
is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance
If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bond ceases to
be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bond bearing his or her
facsimile signature is authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the
City, the Bond nevertheless may be authenticated, issued, and delivered and, when
6 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDS 350, 352, and 354.
authenticated, issued, and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that
person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. The Bond
also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of
signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or
she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bond.
SECTION 10- Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on the Bond
The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the
Bond from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will
neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bond or other
funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bond at any time during the term of the
Bond which will cause interest on the Bond to be included in gross income for federal
income tax purposes The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or
proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer
whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon.
SECTION it -Small Governmental Issuer Arbitrage Rebate Exception
and Designation of the Bond as a "OuahlW Tax-Exempt Obligation The City finds
and declares that (a) it is a duly organized and existing governmental unit of the State
of Washington and has general taxing power; (b) the Bond is not a "private activity
bond" within the meaning of Section 141 of the United States Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), (c) at least 95%of the net proceeds of the Bond will
be used for local governmental activities of the City (or of a governmental unit the
jurisdiction of which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City); (d) the aggregate
face amount of all tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other
obligations not required to be included in such calculation) issued by the City and all
entities subordinate to the City (including any entity which the City controls, which
derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City or which issues
tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) during the calendar year in which the
Bond is issued is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000; and (e) the amount of
7 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDs 350, 352, and 354.
tax-exempt obligations, including the Bond, designated by the City as "qualified
tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the
calendar year in which the Bond is issued does not exceed $10,000,000. The City
therefore certifies that the Bond is eligible for the arbitrage rebate exception under
Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code and designates the Bond as a "qualified tax-exempt
obligation" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code
SECTION 12 - Use of Bond Proceeds. Principal proceeds of the Bond
shall be used to finance the costs of the improvements in Local Improvement Districts
Nos 350, 352 and 354, including the repayment of any interim financing for those
improvements, and to pay the costs of issuance of the Bond Until needed to pay those
costs, the City may invest principal proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and
the investment earnings may be retained in the respective local improvement district
funds or accounts therein and be spent for the purposes of those funds, and earnings
subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement may be used for those tax or rebate
purposes.
SECTION 13. - Approval of Offer Bank of America, N A. of Seattle,
Washington, has presented the Offer to the City offering to purchase the Bond under
the terms and conditions provided in the Offer, which written Offer is on file with the
City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference The City Council finds that
accepting the Offer is in the City's best interest and therefore accepts the Offer
contained therein and covenants to comply with its terms and conditions
A Bank counsel review fee of$500 shall be paid to the Bank at closing
and may be paid from bond proceeds or other money of the City. An arrangement fee
of$9,500 shall be paid to Banc of America Securities, LLC at closing.
The Bond will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the
purchaser in accordance with the Offer, with the approving legal opinion of Foster
8 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDS 350, 352, and 354.
Pepper& Shefelman PLLC, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding
the Bond.
The proper City officials are authonzed and directed to do everything
necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bond to the purchaser and for the proper
application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof
SECTION 14 -fixmQ Interest Rate on Assessments. The interest rates
on the installments and delinquent payments of the special assessments in Local
Improvement Distncts Nos. 350, 352 and 354 are revised and fixed at the rate of
4.25%per annum
SECTION 15 -Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage and five (5) days
following its publication as required by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPRO D TO ORM
SPECIAL UNSEL AND BOND COUNSEL FOR THE CITY
9 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDs 350, 352, and 354.
PASSED: day of 12003.
APPROVED. day of 2003.
PUBLISHED: day of 12003
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No
passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, and approved by the mayor
of the city of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P\Civd\Ordrnantt\CmnoLdatedBondOrdmviceJ50 552 3N dac
10 Consolidated LID Bond Ordinance-
LIDs 350, 352, and 354.
Kent City Council Meeting
is Date Aril 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR WATERFOWL
I
MANAGEMENT—AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the 2003 Interlocal
Agreement for Waterfowl Management, as recommended by the Parks Committee.
Each year the city works with the Department of Wildlife and other King County cities
to manage waterfowl in our communities. The goal is to reduce/alleviate property
damage and to protect against human health and safety concerns from waterfowl,
including contamination of potable water and recreation areas.
3. EXHIBITS: Copy of agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks 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:
i For Your Action
2003 Interlocal Agreement for
Waterfowl
(Canada Goose)
Management Program
Please Note:
Final Form Ready for Your Submittal for Signature and Funding Authorization
2003 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR WATERFOWL (CANADA GOOSE)
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34.040 RCW(Interlocal Cooperation Act)permits local government
umts to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other
localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services in a manner pursuant to
forms of government organization that will accord best with recreational,park and natural
resources and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities and
WHEREAS,the various agencies, cities,counties, Washington State and agencies of the Federal
Government listed in Exhibit A-Page 6 of this Agreement,desire to manage waterfowl,
especially Canada Geese; and
WHEREAS,all parties require assistance from the Wildlife Services Program of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, to reduce negative impacts on water quality,minimize resource
damage, ensure safety from disease for park visitors, and enhance other property managed, and
WHEREAS,information dating to a 1989 Waterfowl Research Project done by the University
of Washington and current data indicates a large surplus of geese and other waterfowl species in
the greater Seattle area; and
WHEREAS,this program will be an ongoing resource management activity attempting to
maintain a manageable number of birds on a year-to-year basis; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants herein, it is mutually agreed as
follows:
SECTION I-PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide joint funding for an egg addling program,
lethal control,population monitoring and census; mainly of Canada Geese,within King County.
This program will assist each party in maintaining and managing public and selected and
approved private sites that are impacted by a surplus of waterfowl.
n staffmp\dh\waterfwl\ag ce nt\lnter2000
SECTION ii- SCOPE OF PRbGRAM
Wildlife Services(WS)will receive funds from each participating member for the
continuation of an egg addling program, lethal control and evaluation during spring and summer
2003.
Using best management practices WS will carry out an egg addling program, seeking as
many accessible nesting areas as possible and will make every effort to minimize damage to the
surrounding environment.
WS will also implement a program of"lethal control' as requested by the Waterfowl
Management Committee, subject to the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This will be done on a case by case basis in situations where an over
population of Canada geese may result in an impact on human health and safety, such as potable
water contamination,bird aircraft strikes,disease transmission or other situations as determined
by WMC members.
Agency and corporate participants acknowledge by approval signature
(below) that their participation includes a request to WS for direct assistance
through the removal of Canada geese, and will rely on the experience and
expertise of WS to identify locations where goose removal is appropriate.
Participants may identify locations where control is not to be carried out.
Approved by: for
Agency
Date:
WS will provide an annual report to the members of the WMC which will include
information regarding egg addling,the general location of nests and number of eggs addled,
number of geese removed, difficulties encountered and whatever other information would be
valuable to the WMC.
2003 will be the eleventh year of an egg addling program and the fourth year utilizing
"lethal control". All methods and tools utilized to accomplish addling and "lethal control"
activities in 2002 will again be used in 2003.
A census of urban Canada Geese will be conducted during 2003,however as in 2002
these census counts will be expanded using staff from local agencies and participants at times
and places to be specified.
Where possible, educational programs will be initiated to inform the public about urban
Canada Geese, the associated problems, and the efforts of this committee at addressing those
problems.
SECTION III-RESPONSIBILITIES
Each party, represented on the Waterfowl Management Committee, as shown on Exhibit
"A", and incorporated by reference herein,will share in the ongoing review of the programs
carried out by WS.
Each party agrees that if necessary, an Oversight Committee will be appointed to monitor
and report back to the general committee on a regular basis. Three members of the Committee
will make up the Oversight Committee chaired by the City of Seattle representative.
SECTION fV-COMPENSATION
The total cost of the 2003 waterfowl management program shall not exceed
Thirty eight thousand, five hundred dollars ($38,500).
Each party shall contribute to the financial costs of the program as shown in Table I.
SECTION V -TERM AND EXTENSION
The Tenn of this Agreement is from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. This
Agreement may be extended in time, scope or funding by mutual written consent from all parties
referenced herein.
SECTION VI-TERMINATION
This agreement maybe unilaterally terminated by any of the parties referenced herein or
Wildlife Services upon presentation of written notice to the Oversight Committee at least 30 days
in advance of the severance date shown in Section V.
Should termination of this agreement occur without completion of the egg addling, each
party shall pay only its' pro rata share of any expenses incurred under the agreement at the date
of the termination, and each party shall receive copies of all products resulting from the addling
activities up to the time of the termination.
SECTION VH-DELIVERABLE
Wildlife Services will make every effort to conduct a 1,000-2,000 egg addling program.
Field conditions or changing conditions may increase or decrease these numbers.
Lethal control will be implemented as necessary and the total numbers are established by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Permit.
Participants will receive a report on the number of eggs addled and geese euthanized in
2003.
4
06 SECTION VIII- FILING
As provided by RCW 39.34.040, this agreement shall be filed prior to its entry and force
with the City or County Clerks of the participating parties,the County Auditor and the Secretary
of State, and,if found to be necessary,with the State Office of Community Affairs as provided
by RCW 39.34.120.
SECTION IX-LIABILITY
Each party to this agreement shall be responsible for damage to person or property
resulting from the negligence on the part of itself, its employees,its agents or its officers. No
party assumes any responsibility to another party for the consequences of any act or omission of
any person, firm,or corporation not at party to this agreement.
EXHIBIT A
WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Cityof Bellevue....................................................... ....................................................... Pat Hams
City of Federal Way.......... .....................................................................Kurt Reuter
Cityof Kent........................................................................................Rick Weiss
City of Kirkland................................................... . ............ ......................................Mark Johnston
City of Mercer Island............................................................................................ ........Greg Brown
City of Mountlake Terrace................................... .......................................................Don Sarcletti
City of Redmond......................................... . ... .............. . ............. .........................Teresa Kluver
City of Renton... ......................... ... ........................ .... ......... ... ..........................Terrence Flatley
City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation........ ............ . ...................... Barbara DeCaro
City of Seattle Department of Public Utilities.............. ............... ............ ..............Mike Bonoff
City of Woodinville............................. .. ........................................... Brian Meyer
University of Washington........................................ ................... .................. ...Charles Easterberg
U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services.................. .. . ..... ....... .... .............Mike Linnel/Keel Price
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service.............................. ................. ..............................Brad Bortner
6
TABLE
AGENCIES CONTRIBUTIONS
City of Bellevue 2,930
City of Federal Way 2,930
City of Kent 2,930
City of Kirkland 2,930
City of Mercer Island 2,930
City of Mountlake Terrace 2,930
City of Redmond 2,930
City of Renton 2,930
City of Woodinville 2,930
Seattle Department of Parks and 4,600
Recreation
Seattle Public Utilities 4, 600
University of Washington 2,930
TOTAL $38,500
All checks will be made payable to the USDA-APHIS-ADC, earmarked for the Wildlife Services and sent
to the following addresses:
Mr.Roger Woodruff
State Director-Wildlife Services Program
U.S.Department of Agriculture
720 O Leary Street Northwest
Olympia,Washington 98502
(360)753-9884
In case of procedural questions regarding this project,please contact:
Maggie Rayls,Administrative Officer
Wildlife Services Program
(360)753-9884 FAX: 753-9466
For questions regarding implementation of control measures and census,please contact
Keel Price
(360)337-2779
SECTION X. - SEVERABILITY
If any section of this agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the
Is validity of any section so adjudged.
This agreement shall be executed on behalf of each party by its authorized representative It
shall be deemed adopted upon the date of execution by the last so authorized representative.
This agreement is approved and entered into by the undersigned county and local government
units, university and other private parties.
City of Bellevue City of Renton
By: By:
Patrick Fortin,Director of Parks and Community Jesse Tanner,Mayor
Services Date-
Date
City of Federal Way City of SeaTac
By. By.
Calvin Hoggart,City Manager
Jennifer Schroeder,Director of Parks,Recreation and
Cultural Sevices Date:
Date.
City of Kent City of Woodinville
By: By
John Hodgson,Director Donald D.Rose,City Manager_
Date- Date-
City of Kirkland King County
By: By
David Ramsey,City Manager Craig Larsen,Director of
Date: King County Parks System
Date.
City of Mercer Islaad Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation
By By
Rich Conrad,City Manager Kenneth R.Bounds,Superintendent
Date- Date.
Seattle Public Utilities
City of Mountlake Terrace By:
By: Chuck Clark,Managing Director
Name/Title: Date.
Date.
City of Redmond University of Washington
By. By.
Rosemarie Ives,Mayor Karen VanDusen
Date- Director of Env Health&Safety
Date:
is
8
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: FEE IN LIEU OF FUNDS FOR EAST HILL X PARK—ACCEPT
AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $6,294.00 from SWG Construction and
amend the East Hill X Park Budget, as recommended by the Parks Committee.
From January through March 2003, the City of Kent received a total of$6,294.00 from
SWG Construction who voluntarily paid a fee-in-lieu of dedicating park land to
mitigate the development of single family homes at Chelmsford subdivision. Funds will
be used for the East Hill X Park.
3. EXHIBITS: Copy of revenue report
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: Revenue of$6,2894.00 amending the East Hill X
Park Budget (P20075)
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Fee-in-lieu of funds from SWG Construction
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
• N a�
n
a
m
o
0
N
� C
m p
a
m m
O O
U
CL
3
N
N
O
`o
a
c
m
c
� N m
N
m m
C C C1
m m O
Y
O T
U J �
O O
� a
m
m
y
E
m »
a »
T N
r w
u
m Y
g g o
O Ip b 0
6
Ol _
d � m
a F F
N � C
t �
a
J �
y
m
m
a
z o
n
` a �
o
u
Q o
0
N
C
7
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
GRANT FOR LAND ACQUISITION—ACCEPT, AMEND
BUDGET AND AUTHORIZE SIGNATURE
60
I�S�6R�
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept $QA000 90 grant from the Interagency
'4 Committee for Outdoor Recreation, amend the Land Acquisition Budget, and authorize
the Mayor to sign the grant agreement.
In 1998, the city submitted an IAC grant application for the acquisition of 50.1 acres
from the Church of Latter Day Saints as the future site of the Valley Floor Athletic
Complex. It was not approved until 1999 when it was bumped up on the award list.
3. EXHIBITS: Copy of award letter
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of$120,000 amending the Land Acquisition
Budget (P20049)
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Intergency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation a' ��. Salmon Recovery Funding Board
o° V
360/902-3000 x 3601902-2636
360/902-3026 (fax) 360/902.3026 (fax)
email info@tac wa gov "` ^y' email salmon@iac wa gov
STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE
1111 Washington Street SE
PO Box 40917
Olympia,WA 98504-0917
March 27, 2003
Lori Flamm
Kent Parks Rec & Comm Sery
220 4th Ave S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
RE: Valley Floor Community Park Acquisition
IAC# 99-1113A
Dear Ms. Fjem. (Z
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the IAC Director recently approved partial
funding to the above referenced project. Funding for this project came available from
returned funds in the same catoegry. This project was selected because it was the next
available project on an alternate list.
Please complete the enclosed milestone worksheet by determining which milestones
apply to your project and identifying timelines for reaching those milestones. Once
completed, return the worksheet and we should be ready to Issue a Project Agreement.
If you have any questions, please call me at (360) 902-3020 or send an a-mai) to
darrell*(@iac.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
CZ4
Darrell Jennings
Project Manager
Enclosure
•
Kent City Council Meeting
Date Anri1 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY FUNDS FOR KENT MERIDIAN POOL —ACCEPT
AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept$74,130.00 from King County and amend the
Kent Meridian Pool Budget, as recommended by the Parks Comrmttee.
In May 2002, King County began discussing transferring facilities with cities after
determining that the King County Parks budget had to be dramatically reduced because of
a $52 million shortfall. On March 8, 2003, the City of Kent accepted the transfer of the
Kent Meridian Pool from King County and entered into an agreement with Aquatic
Management Group to operate the pool. As part of the agreement,King County will give
the city approximately$120,000.00, with a portion used for capital expenses at the pool.
On April 2, 2003, the city received a payment of$74,130.00 from King County.
3. EXHIBITS: Copy of check
4 RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner,Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: Revenue of$74,130.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: King County
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
• ACTION:
r71
C3? lt 1
CD
c
f,pIN V W 1
f� ]
I a
I �
Ln
cr
a
O ti
O
_ a
O IA
Ln
N N
r O O D
N t Ln
4 �4 Z W M rw
rd
Lv
Q c
'1
i Li
J
S S
U a� ti •�a l
3� Ln
z t
1 WED xa
IK
YUo }
r HU > r
J >O L-r
S �
WECI
� LL
s
F 4 O >p0
• u � D o0
Kent City Council Meeting
Date A1261 15, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CHELMSFORD FINAL PLAT—APPROVE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve the final plat for Chelmsford#FSU-2002-1,
submitted by Shupe Holmberg on behalf of SWG Construction. On August 24, 2000,
the King County Hearing Examiner issued a Report and Decision granting preliminary
approval of a 32-lot single family residential subdivision, with 22 conditions. On
July 15, 2002, the Kent Planning Manager approved a minor plat alteration for 31 lots,
with three conditions.
3. EXHIBITS: Memo; Map; Minor plat alteration conditions 7/15/02; and King
County Hearing Examiner Conditions 8/24/00
4. RECOMMENDED BY: King County Hearing Examiner and Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
WASHINGTON
Phone 253-656-5454
Fax 253-656-6454
Address 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE: APRIL 8, 2003
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUDY WOODS AND CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE
SUBJECT: CHELMSFORD FINAL PLAT (#FSU-2002-1/KIVA #2023715)
SUMMARY: SWG Construction, proposes to subdivide approximately 7 49 acres into 31
single family residential lots. The property is located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of 116'h Avenue SE and SE 234a' Street.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: I move to approve/deny/modify the King County Hcanng Examiner's and City of
Kent Staffs Findings, Conclusion and Decision of approval of#FSU-2002-1/KIVA #2023715
with the attached conditions and authonze the Mayor to sign the mylar.
BACKGROUND: On August 24, 2000, the King County Hearing Examiner issued a Report
and Decision granting preliminary approval of a 32-lot single family residential subdivision, with
22 conditions On July 15, 2002, the Kent Planning Manager approved a minor plat alteration
for 31 lots, with three conditions. The applicant has complied with the conditions required prior
to recording.
CA.S \Permit\PlanVongplats\2002\2023715-2002-]cc DOC
Enclosure- Conditions of approval—King County Hearing Examiner and City of Kent Staff
PSU-2002-1 t KriA/2023713
�raolaa a�ii s*A�+aR�e�
1
1 1 1
I
---- ► OF
r----- ----------
a aruus wmnfm r r
1 e
' • `rlrYi
.a ea Tl a I
Tl 22 1 my w Ort f YPI \� t LOT
I UNaLATTED
r— waaAl T �' ur.r vo
I .m i OxW Kp _ Tmv f mT � Y
� i .mYai MLt \ rllir<
I Ta1CrN� i
A� 1
44
! A LO• $ LOT 2
IPAM
y au
r lYla � .m.m[��Mi�. ♦ tl r�•r � lq
✓0 �P1�
T` Y 1rf r e I •�1 ,• •-. f 0 )•MrIE ral OM1
4
Y _aF�a �PT�r� 6iS.y 1011 \ • 1 lM
Ti-70
1 O ;• e ra! I f► = IIIBLATTED
1
A/IIw•rMl.
rrawu Rre ` is r Ii TDA1A!.rarr• 1
II H.aO .Atm! .1.IA ..YGOA�Prrr `\
I r
1 , y
TL Tr
uo"TTED
----- ----------'
p Ti u I LOT A
1
SLATTED I KCrr 574002
• .N auf l 1 fSL N2 7LOr22UM
1
D
CHELMSFORD
#FSU-2002-1 KIVA#RPP5-2023715
(Preliminary Plat approved by King County)
Plat Alteration Conditions
ON JULY 15, 2002, THE CITY OF KENT PLANNING MANAGER APPROVED A
MINOR PLAT ALTERATION ON THIS PLAT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL:
1. Road Improvements are required for this subdivision to be constructed according
to the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS)-
A. Tract I shall be Improved as a joint use driveway according to Section 3 01
of the 1993 KCRS
B. Tracts E and G shall be Improved as private access tracts according to
Section 2.09 of the 1993 KCRS.
C There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from SE 2341h Street from
those lots that abut it. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from
116i" Avenue SE from those lots that abut it. A note to this effect shall
appear on the engineering plans and final plat
D. Lots 19, 20 and 21 shall have undivided ownership of Tract G, lots 4 and 5
shall have undivided ownership of Tract I and lots 27 through 31 shall
have undivided ownership of Tract E and shall be responsible for their
maintenance. Tract I shall be 20-feet wide and Improved with an 18-foot
wide, paved surface and controlled drainage Tracts G and E shall be 26-
feet wide and improved with a 22-foot wide paved surface and controlled
drainage. A note to this effect shall be placed on the engineering plans
and final plat.
2. No removal of trees of six-inch or greater caliper shall be allowed without
approval of a revised tree plan. No removal of trees will be allowed beyond
those required for the proposed development
3. The Applicant/Owner/Subdivider shall meet all other conditions imposed on the
plat under the environmental review and land use approvals of King County.
S\PermitlPlan\longplats\2002\2023715-FSU2002.1CONDITIONS2,DOC
CHELMSFORD
___ _#FSU-2002-1_KIVA#RPP52023715_
(Preliminary Plat approved by King County)
ON AUGUST 24, 2000, CHELMSFORD PRELIMINARY PLAT #L99P3009 WAS
APPROVED BY THE KING COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-
1. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code.
2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the
face of the final plat a dedication that includes the language set forth in King
County Council Motion No 5952
3. The plat shall comply with the base density ( and minimum density) requirements
of the R-6 zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional
requirements of the R-6 zone classification and shall be generally as shown on
the face of the approved preliminary plat, except that minor revisions to the plat
which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of
the Department of Development and Environmental Services.
4. The applicant must obtain final approval from the King County Health
Department.
5. All construction and upgrading of the public and private roads shall be done in
accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by
Ordinance No. 11187, as amended (1993 KCRS).
6. The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection
Engineer for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main , and fire flow
standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code.
7. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set
forth in King County Code 9 04 Compliance may result in reducing the number
and/or location of lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. Preliminary
review has identified the following conditions of approval which represent
portions of the drainage requirements. All other applicable requirements in KCC
9.04 and the Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) must also be satisfied
during engineering and final review.
a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1998 King County
Surface Water Design Manual and applicable updates adopted by King
County. DDES approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required
prior to any construction
Chelmsford Final Plat#FSU-2002-1/KIVA#2023715
King_County_Hearing-Examiner_Conditions---
Page 2 of 6
b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established by DDES
Engineering Review, shall be shown on the engineering plans.
C. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat:
"All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious
surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the
permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction
drawings# on file with DDES and/or the King County Department of
Transportation. This plan shall be submitted with the application of any
building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and
approved prior to the final building inspection approval For those lots that
are designated for individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be
constructed at the time of the building permit and shall comply with plans
on file."
8. The stormwater management system shall be designed using the Level 2
KCRTS Flow Control Methodology as described in the 1998 King County Surface
Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), unless otherwise approved by D D.E S
9. Show the 100-year floodplarn of the onsite class 3 stream and wetlands on the
engineering plans according to the 1998 KCSWDM.
10. The following road improvements are required for this subdivision to be
constructed according to the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS),
a. FRONTAGE. The frontage along SE 234th Street (south side only) shall
be improved to the urban neighborhood collector street standard. The
frontage along 116th Avenue SE (east side only) shall be improved to the
urban minor arterial standard, with a provision for a bike lane.
b. Road A shall be improved to the urban subaccess street standards.
C. Tracts F and G shall be improved as joint use driveways according to
section 3.01 of the 1993 KCRS.
d. Tracts H and I shall be improved as private access tracts according to
Section 2.09 of the 1993 KCRS.
e. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered pursuant to
the variance procedures in Section 1.08 of the 1993 KCRS.
Chelmsford Final Plat#FSU-2002-1/KIVA#2023715
King County Hearing Examiner Conditions -_ --
Page 3 of 6
11. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise
approved by the King County Council prior to final plat recording.
12. The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code 14.75,
Mitigation Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and
administration fee as determined by the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant
has the option to either: (1) pay the MPS fee at final plat recording, or (2) pay
the MPS fee at the time of budding permit issuance. If the first option is chosen,
the fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of plat application and a note
shall be placed on the face of the plat that reads, " All fees required by King
County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid." If the
second option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the date
of building permit application.
13. Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 21A 43, which
imposes impact fees to fund school system improvements needed to serve new
development. As a condition of final approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact
fees due for the plat shall be assessed and collected immediately prior to
recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final
approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the
dwelling units in the plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance.
14, There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from SE 234th Street from those
lots that abut it A note to this effect shall appear on the engineering plans and
final plat.
15. 12 feet of additional right-of-way for 116th Ave. shall be dedicated along the
116th Avenue SE property line, allowing for 42 feet of right-of-way from
centerline.
16. Off-site access to the subdivision shall be over a full-width, dedicated and
improved road that has been accepted by King County for maintenance, If the
proposed access road has not been accepted by King County at the time of
recording, then said road shall be fully bonded by the applicant of this
subdivision.
17. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround bulb shall be provided within 150 feet of the
terminus of Road A.
18. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded i
plat:
Chelmsford Final Plat#FSU-2002-1/KIVA#2023715
_ King County Hearing Examiner Conditions_ - -
Page 4 of 6
RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREAS
AND BUFFERS
Dedication of a sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer conveys to the
public a beneficial interest in the land within the tract/sensitive area and buffer.
This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that
benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water
and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, and protection of plant and animal
habitat. The sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer imposes upon all
present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to the tract/sensitive
area and buffer the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King
County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the
tract/sensitive area and buffer. The vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and
buffer may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without
approval in writing from the King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services or its successor agency, unless otherwise provided by
law.
The common boundary between the tract/sensitive area and buffer and the area
of development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the satisfaction
of King County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other
development activity on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and
buffer. The required marking or flagging shall remain in place until all
development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive area are
completed.
No building foundations are allowed beyond the required 15-foot building setback
line, unless otherwise provided by law.
The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as
outlined in KCC 21A.24. Permanent survey marking, and signs as specified in
KCC 21A.24.160 shall also be addressed prior to final plat approval . Temporary
marking of sensitive areas and their buffers (e.g., with bright orange construction
fencing) shall be placed on the site and shall remain in place until all construction
activities are completed.
19. The applicant shall pay a partial fee-m-lieu of recreation space to King County.
The amount of the fee shall be determined by the King County Parks Division ,
consistent with the provisions of KCC 21A.14.186. 4,695 square feet of
recreation space shall be provided consistent with the requirements of KCC
21A.14.180 and KCC 21A.14.190 (i.e., sport court[s], children's play equipment,
picnic table[s], benches, etc.).
�I
Chelmsford Final Plat#FSU-2002-1/KIVA#2023715
_ King-County Hearing Examiner Conditions
Page 5 of 6
a. An overall conceptual recreation space plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by DDES, with the submittal of the engineering plans. This
plan shall include location, area calculations, dimensions, and general
improvements. The approved engineering plans shall be consistent with
the overall conceptual plan.
b. A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs,
etc.) consistent with the overall conceptual plan, as detailed in item a.,
shall be submitted for review and approval by DDES and King County
Parks prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the final plat documents.
C. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted
prior to recording of the plat.
d. A homeowners association or other workable organization shall be
established to the satisfaction of DDES which provides for the ownership
and continued maintenance of the recreation, sensitive areas and open
space areas. .
20. Street trees shall be provided as follows:
a. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage
along Road A. Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance
requirements for driveways and intersections.
b. Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in
accordance with Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road
Standards, unless King County Department of Transportation determines
that trees should not be located in the street right-of-way.
C. If King County determines that the required street trees should not be
located within the right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet
from the street right-of-way line.
d. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the
homeowners association or other workable organization unless the
County has adopted a maintenance program. This shall be noted on the
face of the final recorded plat.
e. The species of trees shall be approved by DDES if located within the right-
of-way, and shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any
Chelmsford Final Plat#FSU-2002-1/KIVA#2023715
King County Hearing Examiner Conditions
Page 6 of 6
fruit-bearing trees, or any other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to
obstruct sanitary or storm sewers, or that is not compatible with overhead
utility lines.
f. The applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for
review and approval by DDES prior to engineering plan approval.
g. The street trees must be Installed and inspected, or a performance bond
posted prior to recording of the plat. If a performance bond is posted, the
street trees must be installed and inspected within one year of recording of
the plat. At the time of inspection, If the trees are found to be Installed per
the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be submitted or the
performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, and held for one
year After one year, the maintenance bond may be released after DDES
has completed a second inspection and determined that the trees have
been kept healthy and thriving
h. A landscape Inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording.
The Inspection fee is subject to change based on the current County fees.
21. The plat shall comply with the provisions outlined In the p-suffix condition SO-
220
22. At engineering plan approval, King County Traffic Engineering shall determine
the appropriateness of, and appropriate location for, a cross walk across SE
234th Street, to be provided by the Applicant.
S 1Permit%Planlbngplats1200212023715-FSU2002-1 KINOCTYCONDITIONS DOC
Kent City Council Meeting
Date AILil 15, 2003
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS—AWARD CONTRACT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on
March 14th with twenty-one bids received. The low bid was submitted by Gary
Merlin Construction Co. in the amount of$546,995.00. The Engineer's estimate was
$794,653.20. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Gary
Merlin Construction Co., Inc.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum
• 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Q
Councilmember U)nn&/o moves, Councilmember I seconds
that the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes—2003 Storm Drainage, South 252°d St. to
Kent-Des Moines Rd. contract be awarded to Gary Merlin Construction Co., Inc. for
the low bid amount of$546,995.00.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: 7)1 C
Council Agenda
Item No. 8A
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don E. Wickstrom, P E Public Works Director
Phone 253-856-5500
Fax 253-856-6500
K E N T Address 220 Fourth Avenue S
WASHINGTON
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Memorandum
DATE April 15,2003
TO Mayor and Cit cil
FROM Don Wicksao blmc Works Director
RE Pacific Hwy S HOV Lanes—2003 Storm Drainage South 252nd St to Kent-
Des Moines Road
Bid opening for this project was held on March 14 with twenty-one bids received The low bid was submitted by
Gary Merlmo Const Co, Inc in the amount of$546,995 00 The Engineer's estimate was$794,653 20 The Public
Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Gary Merlmo Const Co,Inc
Bid Sumnmary
Gary Merlmo Const Co,Inc $546,995 00
Shoreline Construction Co $571,267 00
D D J Construction Co, Inc $581,03900
Frank Coluccio Const Co $593,368 00
Ceccanti,Inc $602,287 00
Pivetta Brothers Const, Inc $607,182 87
Archer Construction, Inc $612,880 00
SCI Infrastructure,LLC $621,857 50
1ucci&Jons,Inc $621,209 00
CA Goodman Const Co, Inc. $629,552 00
Buno Construction,LLC $635,125 00
Stan Palmer Construction,Inc $663,030 00
Kemper Construction Corp $677,356 00
DPK,Inc $682,176 00
Interwest Development NW,Inc $697,879 00
Rodarte Construction,Inc $709,984 00
Westwater Construction Co $711,157 00
Olson Brothers Exc, Inc $728,575 25
Laser Underground&Earthworks $733,705 00
Kar-Vel Construction $784,631 50
Tri-State Const,Inc $906,284 00
Engineer's Estimate $794,653 20
MOTION
Councilmember moves,Councilmember seconds that the Pacific Hwy S HOV Lanes—2003
Storm Drainage South 252nd St to Kent-Des Moines Road contract be awarded to Gary Merlmo Const Co, Inc for
the low bid amount of$546,995 00
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT-
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
D. PUBLIC WORKS
E. PLANNING COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
t 3
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 2003
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Leona Orr, Tim Clark
STAFF PRESENT May Miller, Galen Hirschi,Marty Mulholland, Judy Woods, Tom
Brubaker, Brett Vinson, Jackie Bicknell
The meeting was called to order at 4 00 PM by Chair Rico Yingling..
Approval of Minutes of December 3. 2002
Committee Member Tun Clark moved to approve the minutes of December 3, 2002. The motion
was seconded by Committee Member Leona Orr and passed 3-0
Approval of Vouchers Dated January 15, 2003
Leona Orr moved to approve the vouchers dated January 15, 2003 The motion was seconded by
Tim Clark and passed 3-0
Citv NeNwork Backbone Replacement— Phase H
Information Technology Senior Network Specialist Galen Hirschi said that Phase II of the City
Network Backbone Replacement involves taking the core technology and equipment for the City
• and pushing it out farther to remote sites such as the Senior Center, the Resource Center,and the
fire stations It will also include replacing equipment at the end of its life on the City Hall and
Centennial Building campuses Cisco would provide ongoing maintenance with response time
within four hours for the core equipment For other devices, response time would be the next
business day; for any immediate problems, spare equipment would be used Most of the
replacement work would be done in-house at a total cost of$191,739
Leona Orr moved to recommend that Council authorize the purchase of City neNtiork
backbone replacement equipment for Phase II and its related services, and that the Mayor,
subject to the City Attorney's approval of final terms and conditions, be authorized to sign
the agreements necessary to purchase Cisco equipment from the State DIS contract; to
purchase implementation assistance from vendor(s) as needed; and to purchase ongoing
annual maintenance directly from Cisco. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and
passed 3-0.
November Finance Report
Finance Director May Miller said that General Fund Revenue was worse in November than in
October by about $438,000 and was $3 5 million or 6 2% under budget However, General Fund
Expenditures were 4.2% under budget in both October and November because of planned
reductions and so made up for some of that loss The Property Tax was right on schedule, Sales
Tax was $1 million or 7% under budget (but that climbed to 8 1% under in December) Through
November, the Electricity Utility Tax was about 34% under budget (The state allowed some
major companies to buy off of the wholesale market, and they are not collecting utility tax Also,
businesses have cut back, so have reduced utility use ) Building Permits were 28.9% under
Operations Committee, 1/21/03 2
budget, or$435,000. Building Permit Values had a spike in October because of the Kent Station
initial permit, and in November, were only 8 8% under budget Plan Check Fees were 31 5%
under budget through November, Recreation Fees were 10.8%or$107,000 over budget through
November Fines and Forfeitures were 3 8%or$49,000 under budget.
Overall, the General Fund budget was $236,000 worse (as of November 30th)than the budget
that was actually adopted. Vacant Positions through November stood at almost 33 vacancies in
the General Fund. Last year at the same time, vacancies were at 26. In the whole City, there
were 46 vacancies, about 18% more than last year, which was at 37. The Street Fund showed a
very minimal $7,000 difference in restricted funds. The Capital Improvement Fund reflected the
Sales Tax decrease of$273,000.
The Golf Course saw its best November in six years with driving range fees $63,000 higher(a
25% increase)over last year. Merchandise sales came in less,but less was spent on the
expenditure side Four positions went unfilled all yearlong Overall, the Golf Course under-
spent its budget by 10 4%, and revenues came in over budget.
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
Council Secretary
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 18, 2003
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Leona Orr, Tim Clark
STAFF PRESENT: May Miller, Tom Brubaker, Lon Flemm, Shane Gilbertson,Bruce
Weissich, Cliff Craig, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT. Bobby Kesterson,Kobi Kesterson,
The meeting was called to order at 4 08 P M.by Chair Rico Yingling.
Approval of Minutes of January 21,2003
Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2003
Operations Committee The motion was seconded by Committee Member Leona Orr and passed
3-0.
Approval of Vouchers Dated February 15, 2003
Leona Orr moved to approve the vouchers dated February 15, 2003. The motion was seconded
by Tim Clark and passed 3-0.
King Countv Youth Sports Facility Grant
Parks Planning and Development Superintendent Lon Flemm said the City had received notice
from King County on February 1 Oth that it would receive a$50,000 Youth Sports Facility Grant
for Wilson Playfields, which opened in December Staff applied for the grant in 2001 but didn't
receive it The grant was resubmitted in 2002, however the county had suspended the grant
program at that time Then in 2003, they awarded grants that had been submitted in 2002 The
grant is a reimbursable grant to cover field equipment, dugout benches, and bleachers. Volunteer
installation of the trees, shrubs, and ground cover is the City's match for the grant
Tim Clark moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an
agreement with King County, accepting the $50,000 King County Youth Sports Facility
Grant and amending the Wilson Playfields budget. The motion was seconded by Leona
Orr and passed 3-0.
Seattle & King County Public Health Grant Increase
Police Lieutenant Bruce Weissich said an additional $4,000 mini grant would allow for the
expansion of the Youth Conference program The monies have to be used for follow-ups
involving alcohol and drug prevention programs
Leona Orr moved to recommend that Council accept the Seattle and King County Public
Health Grant increase of$4,000 and amend the budget for the same. The motion was
seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0.
Preliminary December Finance Report
Finance Director May Miller said that General Fund Revenues in October were 2%under
budget The decline continued in the following months and by December, General Fund
revenues were 7.1%or$4,288,000 short. Most all open positions were frozen last year, and by
December that had achieved a savings of 4.6% in the expenditure budget. In December,47
positions were vacant or frozen.
Property tax was right on budget with collections at 99%. Sales Tax was 7.8%or$1,254,000
down through October (December sales will show up in February.) Wholesaling was down
13.2%or$727,000, Contracting was down 10%or$200,000, Retail was down 3.7%or
$280,000, and Manufacturing was down 7.7% or$83,000. Utility tax through December was
down 15.8% or$1,432,000. Almost all of that was from the electric utility tax. About$800,000
was from buying on the open market and the balance was from efficiencies where businesses just
weren't using as much electricity The budget for Utility Tax was reduced to a conservative
revenue forecast for 2003.
Building Permits were down 30.1%or $492,000. The Value of Permits was down 7.2% The
spike in October was due to the Kent Station permits going through, but other commercial
permits were down. Plan Check Fees were down $1.1 million Recreation Fees were up$94,000
or 8.4%. Fines and Forfeitures were down 4.9% (or 68%in the amount of fines collected).
In the Adjustment column, total revenue was down$4,366,000 On the Expenditure side,
$2,951,000 was saved. Variance in the budget or ending fund balance was actually down
another$541,000, which is the amount short for starting 2003. There were 46 95 vacant
positions, 35 of which the budgets were removed from the 2003 budget. Keeping this many
positions vacant exceeded the October position by$500,000 The Street Fund was down
$360,000 in revenue. The Electric Utility had a loss of$354,000,but the variance in the budget
was only $5,794. The Lodging Tax took in $2,464 less than what was anticipated in revenue,but
$7,884 was saved on the expenditure side. That was down about$5,000 from last January. The
Youth/Teen (utility tax money) was down $17,000 The Capital Improvement Fund was down
$383,000. The Criminal Justice Fund was down $145,773, the Equipment Rental Fund was
down; the Central Service Fund will even out; and the IT Fund did not change from budget.
The Fire Equipment Reserve Fund had a credit balance of$89,000 out of the $200,000 set aside
per year for major repairs. The Unemployment Fund was down$30,000 (Claim costs have
increased.) The Workers Comp Fund was down$48,000 Health Insurance claims pulled the
fund balance down to $760,000,but it was found that several of the claims exceeded the
stop/loss and the City could bill for it, so $422,000 was recovered from the large claims that
exceeded $100,000 stop/loss. Liability Insurance was down$116,000. (The City is self insured
in this fund and has an actuarial reserve of$1 million.) Property Insurance saved $28,000.
The meeting adjourned at 4 43 PM
Jackie Bicknell M
Council Secretary
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 49 2003
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Chair Rico Yingling, Leona Orr, Judy Woods,sitting in
for Tim Clark
STAFF PRESENT Mike Martin,Dena Laurent,May Miller, Connie Epperly, Joanne Schaut, Cliff
Craig, Marty Mulholland, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT Roberto Gonzales
The meeting was called to order at 4 03 P M.by Chair Rico Yingling
Approval of Minutes of February 18, 2003
Committee Member Leona Orr moved to approve the minutes of February 18, 2003 The motion was
seconded by Council President Judy Woods and passed 3-0
Approval of Vouchers dated February 28, 2003
Judy Woods moved the approval of vouchers dated February 28, 2003. The motion was seconded by
Leona Orr and passed 3-0
Lofting Tax Advisory Board Member—Confirm
Chief Administrative Officer Mike Martin asked for confirmation of the appointment of Kent
Downtown Partnership Executive Director Jacquie Alexander to the Lodging Tax Advisory Board
Leona Orr moved to recommend that Council confirm the appointment of Kent Downtown
Partnership Executive Director Jacquie Alexander to the Lodging Tax Advisory Board. The
motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0.
I
Economic Development Strategic Plan Contract—Approve j
Mike Martin said that one of the major components of the City's Strategic Plan was the development
of an Economic Development Strategic Plan. Economic Development Manager Nathan Torgelson
looked at all the possibilities and came up with two separate contracts The $26,000 Economic
Development Strategic Plan Contract with Berk&Associates is for the development of the actual
strategy. The contracts are to be concluded in August or September, 2003.
Judy Woods moved to recommend that Council approve the contract with Berk &Associates to
draft an Economic Development Strategic Plan for the City of Kent in the amount not to exceed
$26,000. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr.
In further discussion, Rico Yingling asked why Nathan Torgelson wasn't capable of doing the work
Mr Martin answered that Mr Torgelson could put together a very credible document if that was how
the City wanted him to spend his time. He added that the consultants were all experts in their fields
and their specific expertise, brought together, would have an energy greater than Nathan's Also,
Nathan had been spending an extraordinary amount of time pulling together the Kent Station project,
. among others. Mr. Martin said money had been set aside in 2001 for the study and it was never
intended that it be done internally
Operations Coninuttee,3/4/03 2
Mr. Yingling suggested looking at the sources of revenue that came from the community, what could
be done to drive existing economies to improve revenues, and the revenue impacts from economic
development recommendations. Mr. Martin said he would check into that aspect and work with
Nathan Torgelson to make sure that specific language was added.
The motion then passed 3-0.
Business Sector Research Contract—Aaarove
Mike Martin said the Economic Development Strategic Plan Contract and the Business Sector
Research Contract were companion contracts with complimentary work that was intended to be
merged into a single document later in the summer. The Business Sector Research would be led by
Dr. Paul Sommers of the University of Washington. Dr. Sommers will conduct research on predicted
market demand and other issues for key South King County market subsectors and will identify what
actions the City and other Kent agencies can take to influence the rate of growth in those sectors. The
contract is not to exceed$31,000.
Leona Orr moved to recommend that Council approve the contract, in the amount not to
exceed $31,000,with the University of Washington Daniel J Evans School of Public Policy to
conduct business sector research related to the development of the City's Economic
Development Strategic Plan. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0.
El Grullo Sister City Relationship Consideration
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Dena Laurent said a citizens' group had come forward to the
City of Kent asking to develop a relationship with El Grullo,Jalisco, Mexico The relationship has
now progressed to the point where it is ready to form a sister city relationship, and a report will be
brought to the next Operations Committee on how the group may satisfy the requirements of Kent's
sister city formation process along with a resolution to formalize the relationship. A sister city
relationship is an exclusive relationship and no other sister city relationships would be formed in that
particular country. Ms. Laurent introduced International Programs Coordinator Joanne Schaut and
Roberto Gonzales, a key citizen leader of the El Grullo Sister City relationship interest group.
Ms. Schaut said that Mr. Gonzales and a number of his friends and business associates have ties to El
Grullo. They have established their lives in the Kent area and have a keen interest in sharing the
culture of their home area with the residents of Kent. Likewise, they want to share their culture of
Kent with the people of El Grullo Mr Gonzales and his associates have worked on the sister city
idea over the past year with the Friendship City relationship and have developed that relationship to
the point where they feel a formal Sister City relationship would be beneficial in a number of ways,
with cultural and educational benefits, as well as benefits for business, tourism, etc. There are 13
people on the El Grullo Friendship Committee, and to date,they have elected leadership and
collected donations, and also have two projects in progress to benefit the school and humanitarian
sectors of El Grullo. Others who are involved in going forward are state, elected and business
officials, and citizens of the Kent area.
A delegation went to El Grullo in January and visited municipal and social services offices. Ms
Schaut showed photographs that were taken on the trip. She said that when the El Grullo delegation
was in Kent last year they took photos of the welcome signs to Kent and, as a surprise to the Kent
delegation, fashioned their welcome signs after Kent's welcome signs and dedicated them on the day
that the delegation arrived.
Operations Comnuttee,3/4/03 3
January Finance Report
Finance Director May Miller presented the January Finance Report in a new streamlined format and
also handed out the financial report in the old format. She said January looked even and could end
$32,000 ahead of budget
♦ The Beginning Fund balance was $541,413 less than budgeted This was caused from a
combination of low sales tax,utility tax, and permits. (It's expected that a 1% savings in
expenditures this year will offset that)
♦ Preliminary overall Expenditures were$165,482 over the projected trend line for January
♦ Overall Revenues were estimated to end $57,959 under budget. January revenue was $94,076
higher than January, 2002
♦ Sales Tax through January was down$74,462 or 6.2%under budget (January's sales tax comes
from November's sales).
♦ Utility Taxes were down$43,396 or 5.2%under budget. Electricity was coming in over budget
♦ Cable Franchise Fees were down
♦ Building Permits and Plan Check Fees were over budget at$38,901 or 1 5%
♦ Fines and Forfeits were over budget $37,332 or 35.5%.
♦ Medical expenses in the Insurance Fund continued to increase and that may require an additional
rate increase later in the year if the current trend continues
♦ The Golf Course ended January over budget by about $50,000.
Mike Martin commented that revenue had been adjusted downward in this year's budget by almost
$900,000 between Plan Check Fees and Permits. The Kent Station fees should come in in about four
months. Ms Miller showed a chart of City of Kent Sales Taxes, comparison by groups,which
compared January 2002 with January 2003 and where the sales tax revenue was generated. Services
and Miscellaneous were the only groups showing an improvement.
Judy Woods suggested Finance staff and the Mayor do an informational item on the budget for the
Public TV channel to show the citizens what the operating side of the budget looks like and to let
them know that there are some very serious decisions to make and what types of reductions in service
they are likely to see, given the amount that will have to be taken out of the budget for 2004
The meeting adjourned at 4.48 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
Council Secretary
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2002
COMMITTEE PRESENT: Chair Leona Orr,Tim Clark, Bruce White
STAFF PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Charlene Anderson, Gloria Gould-Wessen,Judy Woods,
Kurt Hanson,Jemfer Naas, Matt Gilbert,Kim Marousek, Kim Pratt, Julie Peterson, Mayor
White, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT: Nicole Fincher, Gary Young, Linda Pruitt, Jim Soules, Tom Sharp, Steve
Dowell
The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 3:00 PM
Approval of Minutes of September 17, 2002
Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 17,
2002 The motion was seconded by Committee Member Bruce White and passed 3-0.
Innovative Housing
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson said Innovative Housing was being introduced as part of
the process of redoing/updating the City's Comprehensive Plan and was part of the public
education/public involvement process. She introduced Bill Kreager from MITHUN
Architecture, Design, and Planning, and Jim Soules and Linda Pruitt from the Cottage Company.
They gave a Power Point presentation.
Bill Kreager noted that the City has to meet the goals of the Growth Management Act with
regard to density,which solves, theoretically, the environmental and economic issues but doesn't
solve the problems that the community has with density. Cottage housing is another way to
achieve Growth Management goals, and can mean well designed, higher densities that do not
degrade the property values in the surrounding community. It is an alternative opportunity to a
condo, stack flat, or a townhouse that fits into the suburban and urban neighborhoods
appropriately to the scale and context of what's already there Mr. Krueger said typical
complaints or apprehensions for this style housing were parking, schools, vehicle trips into the
neighborhood, and smaller units that could mean a change to surrounding property values
Jim Soules, builder/developer for over 30 years, explained that Cottages is a term for a small
detached home of 3,000 square feet which has a tendency to have a craftsman style and is an
alternative lifestyle choice with a prescriptive code. Cottage housing/Cottage housing
developments create a detached home ownership option and provide lower cost choices for
people in existing neighborhoods and residential areas and are an exciting possibility for finding
compatible in-fill. He pointed out that 60%of the people out there now looking for housing are
one and two person families. So far, Cottage Housing has been considered a conditional use in
zone and requires prior neighborhood meetings. A primary concern is the impact on
adjacent properties.
Planning Committee, 10/15/02 2
Leona Orr suggested that any questions concerning Innovative Housing be funneled through
Charlene Anderson or Gloria Gould-Wessen for answers. Ms.Anderson said that staff was
obtaining comments and getting feedback and trying to gauge support from the public on the
community design and housing element design of the Comp Plan and how some of those goals
and policies might be related to other housing types. The housing element was a workshop at the
Land Use and Planning Board (as was the community design element) and will be coming back
for a public hearing before the Board on November 4`h.
The meeting adjourned at 4:02 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
Council Secretary
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 14, 2003
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT. Tim Clark, sitting in for Chair Conine Epperly,Julie Peterson,
Rico Yingling
STAFF PRESENT Jim Schneider, Ed Crawford, Jim Miller, Pat Fitzpatrick, Judi Mauhl,Michele
Walker, Rebecca Robertson, Jo Thompson, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT Cleo Wentz
The meeting was called to order at 5 05 PM by Chair Tim Clark
Aanroval of Minutes of November 12, 2002
Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of November 12, 2002. The
motion was seconded by Committee Member Julie Peterson and passed 3-0.
Corrections Facility Contract Extension
Police Captain Jim Miller said a contract extension with Occupational Health Services was needed
through the first quarter of this year for health services for the Corrections Facility The extension
would allow time for staff to checkout the market by sending out a Request for Proposal The City
has had a good relationship with Occupational Health Services, but prices are continuing to go up and
the number of inmates with problems is continuing to go up. Captain Miller said it was anticipated
that Occupational Health Services would be one of the vendors responding to the Request for
Proposal
Rico Yingling moved to recommend that Council approve the contract extension with
Occupational Health Services for a 3 month extension period from January 1, 2003 to March
31, 2003. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0.
Corrections Facilitv Procurement Policy Waiver Request
Captain Jim Miller said the Corrections Facility was requesting authorization to continue with
Consolidated Food Management as the food vendor for the year 2003 without going out to contract
bid Normal increases are anticipated in food costs but there would be no increase in food
preparation costs during the renewal period
Julie Peterson moved to recommend that Council approve a waiver from the City Procurement
Policy 1.1.4 in order to continue the contract with Consolidated Food Management from
January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed
3-0.
Surplus and Sale of 1986 Ford Aid Car
Fire Chief Jim Schneider said a 1986 Ford Aid car with 100,296 miles on it had exceeded its
expected life cycle The vehicle has been in reserve status for a number of years and it is no longer in
the best interest of the City to retain it due to age and maintenance expenses. Chief Schneider said
the minimum bid price was anticipated to be $2,500 Funds from the sale of the vehicle would be
placed in the Apparatus Replacement Fund
Public Safety Committee, 1/14/03 2
Rico Yingling recommended that Council approve the request to surplus one 1986 Ford Aid
Car,VIN #2FDKF3716GCA73136, and authorize the Fire Administration to advertise the
vehicle for sale to the highest bidder and place funds received into the Apparatus Replacement
Fund. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0.
Status of Volunteer Firefighter Program
Chief Jim Schneider said a volunteer firefighter program started in 1889 in the City of Kent would be
eliminated effective March 1, 2003. Besides budget cuts, there were other considerations in the
decision to eliminate the program. To be suppression personnel, the volunteers have to be trained
and certified for EMS, suppression, HAZMAT, and weapons of mass destruction, and it's very
difficult to maintain their training right now (The Department is having a difficult time maintaining
the training for its own personnel with the changes going on at the state level ) The number of
volunteers participating in the program has decreased, the volunteer retirement program requires the
volunteers to be suppression personnel and to document their hours (and it's getting difficult to meet
those hours); also, how the volunteers are paid was a consideration.
Staff will work with the volunteers and do everything possible to help get them on with another fire
department that has volunteers. There may also be some support roles within the Department besides
suppression that wouldn't require the same financial backing and training, and they can still
participate in the CERT Program. Chief Schneider stated that the individuals that have belonged to
the program have been very dedicated citizens in the community
National Night Out Report
Police Public Education Specialist Judi Mauhl gave a report on the 2002 National Night Out in the
City of Kent and presented a plaque of national recognition that the City had received for
participation. She said Kent was named eight in the Nation this last year in its category During
National Night Out,the police and City Council go to meet the citizens in an effort to help fight
crime It is also a good way to promote Block Watch, which is part of Homeland Security. National
Night Out is always the first Tuesday evening in August between 5 PM and 9 PM, and if citizens are
interested in organizing their neighborhoods for National Night Out or for a Block Watch,they may
call the Kent Police Department and ask for the Crime Prevention Department Ms. Mauhl said she
would go out to neighborhoods and give a presentation, teaching them how to effectively use 911 and
how to report suspicious activity
As a side note, Police Chief Ed Crawford asked Ms. Mauhl to explain about Judy's Jungle. She said
it is a Children's TV show that will be presented on the City's local, Public Channel 21 and is part of
the Police Department's crime prevention effort to teach safety in a fun way. Filming will take place
in February and the program will be shown in March Every half-hour episode will have a safety
subject, a special guest(mostly from the Police Department), and a craft or activity.
King County Prosecutor's Office Report of May 2, 2002
Chief Ed Crawford went over the process that takes place when there is a police involved shooting.
On May 2, 2002, Kent and Federal Way police were involved in a police shooting in Federal Way.
Chief Crawford said that when police shootings occur,the South County Police Departments share
the burden of the investigations (For this particular incident the Renton Police Department was the
investigating agency whose Job it was to take the facts of the case to the King County Prosecutor's
Office ) The King County prosecutor receives the documents from the investigating police
department and then makes a determination on whether charges should be filed If a death occurs,
there is also an inquest jury.
Public Safety Committee, 1/14/03 3
Chief Crawford handed out the report response of the May 2, 2002 investigation He said each
individual city has misdemeanor authority, but felony issues go to the Prosecuting Attorney. King
County is the overseeing agency and charging authority within the county in the criminal justice
system, and they interpret the facts from the statute and make the decision to charge or not to charge
officer violations of the law.
Closure of Bookine Hours at the Reeional Justice Center
Chief Ed Crawford said that one of the selling points of the campaign to try to get the Regional
Justice Center located in the City of Kent in 1993-94 was that it would give the South County police
agencies the opportunity to transport prisoners to the Kent Regional Justice Center instead of having
to transport them all the way to Seattle That aspect has never really affected Kent as the City has the
privilege of having a city Jail With the closure of more booking hours at the Regional Justice Center,
county officers outside of the City of Kent and other agencies have to transport prisoners all the way
to the King County Justice Building in Seattle and then travel back into their own jurisdictions
About a year and a half ago, the county reduced the graveyard booking in an attempt to reduce some
of their budget issues. The City worked a deal with the county to take the bookings at the Kent City
Jail and then transfer them over to the Regional Justice Center the next morning On the 27`h of
December, 2002,the county closed the Regional Justice Center to all bookings except between 8 AM
and 5 PM, Monday through Friday Because of that, the City's contract with the county was
suspended. Chief Crawford said he had tried to talk with Steve Thompson, Director of Adult
Detention with King County, to see if there was a way the Kent jail could still be used to help the
county and other agencies to either warehouse prisoners or stack them so that the trip downtown
wouldn't have to be made The prisoners could be transferred the next morning, all at once,when the
Regional Justice Center opened up for bookings If the plan works out, a contract would probably be
formed with the county as a basis for payback to the City
The meeting adjourned at 6 00 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
Council Secretary
SPECIAL PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 27, 2003
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Julie Peterson, Rico Yingling
STAFF PRESENT. Don Wickstrom, Brett Vinson, Gary Gill, Mark Howlett, Tim LaPorte,
Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT Nick Brannon, Gary Vangsen
The meeting was called to order at 5.04 PM by Chair Tim Clark
Approval of Minutes of January 6, 2003
Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of January 6, 2003 The
motion was seconded by Committee Member Julie Peterson and passed 3-0
Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Project—Interlocal Agreement with Highline Water
District
Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said the Public Works Department was proposing to
enter into an agreement with Highline Water district to provide for relocation by the City of
vanous District facilities on the North Phase of Pacific Highway South at District cost The
project will involve storm drainage work between Kent-Des Moines Rd and South 252"d Street,
and will be included within the City of Kent's 2003 Storm Drainage Project scheduled for
construction later this spring Various existing utilities are in conflict with the new storm drain
location
Julie Peterson moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign an Interlocal
Agreement with Highline Water District for the relocation of their facilities within the
City's North Phase of the Pacific Highway HOV Lane Improvement Project subject to the
Public Works Director's concurrence of the language therein and to establish a budget for
the same. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0.
Local Hazardous Waste Management Grant—Recvclinz Events in March and April
Don Wickstrom said the City of Kent was in receipt of a Seattle-King County Department of
Health Local Hazardous Waste Management Program grant in the amount of$19,022 03 to fund
two household hazardous waste collection and recycling events in March and October, 2003.
Rico Yingling recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement in
the amount of$19,022.03, and to 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.
Street Vacation —South 266'h Street: Set Hearing Date
Don Wickstrom said a petition to vacate a portion of Southeast 2661h Street,which abuts park
property on 128`h to 132"d and is part of a development on the south side,had received prior
approval by the City Council. Due to the complex issues and time constraints involved,and after
Public Works Comrmttee, 1/27103 2
review,the City Attorney felt it was best to begin the process again. In accordance with state
law, a public hearing must be held
Julie Peterson moved to recommend that Council adopt a resolution setting a public
hearing date of March 18, 2003 for the street vacation located along Southeast 266°i Street.
The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0.
Amend City Code 6.09.060—Compensation for Street or Alley Vacation
Don Wickstrom said that during last year's legislative session a new law was passed that now
allows cities to be compensated for their vacated nght-of-way at 100%of appraised value instead
of the previous 50%. Since the current City Code only allows for collection of half the full
appraised value of vacated street or alley rights-of-way, that needs to be amended to allow for
the full compensation. Staff recommends that the monies received go into pedestrian pathways
for schools.
Rico Yingling moved to recommend that Council adopt the proposed ordinance that
amends the City's Street Vacation Ordinance by allowing the City to collect up to the full-
appraised value of vacated street or alley property, as provided by state law, and removes
street classification provisions. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0.
Release of Public Eeress & Utility Easement: Authorize
Don Wickstrom said that when the Boeing Company platted the Pacific Gateway Business Park,
they wanted maximum flexibility with respect to lot configuration. Along the 196'�' Street
frontage they created a series of smaller lots which could be sold either individually or to a single
user. Easement rights were granted to the City of Kent for road and utility purposes so that upon
development of just a single lot, the City could require the developer to construct the necessary
access road and utilities to service the lot Three lots have been purchased by a single owner
who wishes to vacate the lot line and the easements
Julie Peterson moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
respective documents releasing any and all City rights in the public ingress/egress and
utility easement reflected on the southerly portion of Lots 15, 16, and 17 of the plat of
Pacific Gateway Business Park, as highlighted on the attachment. The motion was
seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0.
Tim Clark announced that the regular meetings of the Public Works Committee on the first and
third Mondays of February would be cancelled because of the holiday on February 17'h,and
there would be one single meeting on February 10`" at 5 00 PM.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 27 PM
Jackie Bicknell
Council Secretary
SPECIAL PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 10, 2003
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Chair Tim Clark,Rico Yingling
STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Pat Fitzpatrick, Gary Gill, Stan Wade,
Dennis Johnson, Tim LaPorte, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT: Mel Roberts, David Hoffman, Garry Stewart,Rod Call, Jarrod Call,
Kevin Welch
The meeting was called to order at 5 06 P M. by Chair Tim Clark.
Approval of Minutes of January 27, 2003
Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2003 Public
Works Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 2-0. Chair
Clark stated he had the concurrence of Council Member Julie Peterson.
71s' Ave South Street Vacation—Set Hearine Date
Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said the City had received a petition for the vacation of
7I51 Avenue South near 180'h and West Valley Highway. In accordance with state law, a public
hearing must be held
Rico Yingling moved to recommend Council adoption of a resolution setting a public
hearing date of April 1 for the street vacation located along a portion of 71" Avenue South.
The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 2-0. Chair Clark noted he had
received the concurrence of Councilmember Julie Peterson.
SE 288'h Street and 216'h Avenue SE Easement—Authorize
Don Wickstrom said that Shamrock Development was required to improve the intersection of SE
288'h Street and 216'h Avenue SE as part of the off-site improvements for their development
The proposed improvements will encroach on a comer of the Kent Sprigs Watershed property,
and the developer requests that the City of Kent grant an easement for roadway purposes to King
County. Plans for the improvements have been prepared and the City has received $2,500,
which is the value of the easement.
Rico Yingling moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
respective documents granting an easement for roadway purposes at the intersection of SE
288" Street and 216'11 Avenue SE. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 2-0.
Chair Clark noted he had received the concurrence of Councilmember Julie Peterson.
SE 256'h Street Improvements—Accept as Complete
Don Wickstrom said the original contract for improvements on 256`h Street was about$5 million
dollars, but the final cost had come in at $6.3 million dollars, or 28% over contract. The
contractor filed a claim, and staff thought it reasonable to settle The claim resulted in about half
Public Works Cornnnttee,2/10/03 2
of the total change order of$800,000. Mr. Wickstrom explained the change order items as
calculation errors in quantities, which amounted to $500,000 worth of materials. The onginal
contract would have been$5,500,000 had the quantities been correct. The changes weren't a
result of anything being added or of something gone wrong in the field.
As a result of the way this project turned out in terns of quantity miscalculations, the procedure
for implementing those types of jobs has been changed. When a consultant is hired, another
person is also hired to check the numbers in the overall project before it is bid. Then City staff
double-checks the quantities. Before, staff relied on the consultant.
Rico Yingling moved to recommend full Council acceptance of the 256`h Street
Improvements Project as complete. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed
2-0. Chair Clark noted he had the concurrence of Councilmember Julie Peterson.
The meeting adjourned at 5.18 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
Council Secretary
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 3, 2003
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT- Chair Tim Clark,Rico Yingling
STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Gary Gill,Pat Fitzpatrick, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT: Erin Kretzler, Gena Saucier,Lachelle Humphrey, Regina Saucier,
Sue Saucier,Vincent D Humphrey, Debra Humphrey, Karen M Kretzler,Mel Roberts
The meeting was called to order at 5 08 P.M.by Chair Tim Clark Puget Sound Energy
Construction Agreement was added to the agenda.
Approval of Minutes of February 10, 2003
Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 2003. The
motion was seconded by Chair Tim Clark and passed 2-0. Chair Clark stated he had the
concurrence of Committee Member Julie Peterson
Presentation: "Sidewalks in the Vicinity of Public Schools"
Enn Kretzler, Gena Saucier, and Lachelle Humphrey, 8 graders at Sequoia Junior High
School and members of Girl Scout Cadette Troop#119, gave their Silver Award Project
presentation, "Sidewalks in the Vicinity of Public Schools". They proposed a policy to add
more sidewalks in designated walking areas within the Kent School District boundaries
where busing is currently not available. They said the need for safe sidewalks was an issue
that is nationally recognized as a safety hazard and that child pedestrian accidents are the
second leading cause of death for children, 5-9 years of age. Most pedestrian accidents
involving children ages 9-15 happen after school and in broad daylight, and one half of all
child pedestrian deaths occur between 4 p.m and 8 p in Sidewalks are needed for the
children that have to walk to school,but the law only covers sidewalks for new construction
and leaves out all the old roads and arterials.
Rico Yingling thanked the girls for bringing the subject to the Committee's attention He
asked if they had looked into the cost of putting sidewalks in. The Girl Scouts said they
hadn't been able to find any information on costs Public Works Director Don Wickstrom
remarked that the City budgets about$300,000 a year for sidewalks, independent of
construction projects that have sidewalks in conjunction with new streets or street widening
When asked by Rico Yingling what the worst streets were, the Girl Scouts named 124`h and
116`h Streets Don Wickstrom noted that widening the curbs,gutters, and sidewalks on 116`h
between 256ih and Kent Kangley was in the City's Six Year Plan Mr. Yingling asked for a
short report on 116`h.
Tim Clark thanked the Girl Scouts and asked to borrow a copy of their Power Point
presentation to use in lobbying the state legislature for project funding.
Public Works Committee,3/3/3 2
Mel Roberts, a member of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board, noted that one of the slides
showed grass creeping up on the shoulder of the road, and said the shoulder should be
cleared of growing vegetation. He added that a bicycle lane on the outside of the driving lane
would provide a cushion between the walkers and automobiles and would be a benefit for
both bicyclists and walkers.
Del Web/Steiner Sanitary Sewer—Accept as Complete
Don Wickstrom said the final construction cost on the Del Web/Stemer Sanitary Sewer
Project exceeded the original construction cost estimate by 10%because of the need to haul
trees to the lagoon and dispose of debris.
Rico Yingling moved to recommend that the Council accept the Del Web/Steiner
Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project as complete. The motion was seconded by Tim
Clark and passed 2-0. Chair Clark stated he had the concurrence of Committee
Member Julie Peterson.
SR167 Corridor Project IES Interlocal Agreement—Authorize
Don Wickstrom said that the Puget Sound Regional Council had recently advised the City
that there was$12 million in federal funds available for distributing to road projects. Staff,
along with King County and Auburn,was successful in getting$400,000 to study SR167 so
it could be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement District. Kent's share of
the match would be $33,000,which money exists within the Street Capital Improvement
Fund.
Rico Yingling recommended that Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal
Agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation for the par�ose of
planning for the future improvements in the SR167 Corridor between South 180`
Street on the north, and 1-5 in Piece County to the south—project subject to the Public
Works Director and the City Attorney's concurrence of the language therein. The
motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 2-0. Chair Clark stated he had the
concurrence of Committee Member Julie Peterson.
James Street/Central Avenue Intersection Improvements—Condemnation
Don Wickstrom said the James Street/Central Avenue Intersection Improvements Project had
been on the City's six year Capital Improvement program since 1995. A TIB Grant of
$900,000 was received last year. He noted that the project cost of about $1,500,000 will be
fully funded. The project will widen the intersection of James Street and Central Avenue by
putting in an additional southbound to eastbound left turn lane on Central Avenue, and a right
turn lane, westbound to northbound, on James Street Out of the eight parcels needed, five
have been acquired and three remain outstanding. In the interest of finalizing the last
acquisitions in a reasonable time frame, staff is asking for authorization to condemn those
three parcels.
Rico Yingling moved to recommend that Council adopt the condemnation ordinance
for property acquisitions relating to the James Street/Central Avenue Intersection
Public Works Committee,3/3/3 3
Improvements. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 2-0. Chair Clark
stated he had the concurrence of Committee Member Julie Peterson.
Puget Sound Energy Construction Agreement
Don Wickstrom said the City was widening I"Avenue North and 4s' Avenue North between
James Street and Temperance Street as part of the Kent Station project Overhead utilities
need conversion to underground in accordance with the City ordinance. The agreement with
Puget Sound Energy establishes the scope of work, schedule, and costs.
Rico Yingling recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Puget Sound Energy
Construction Agreement upon concurrence of the language therein by the City
Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and
passed 2-0. Chair Clark said he would ask for concurrence from Committee Member
Julie Peterson.
The meeting adjourned at 5.50 PM
Jackie Bicknell
Council Secretary
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
•
•
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A) Property Acquisition
ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
A)