Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/17/2004
City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda February 17, 2004 Mayor Jim White Julie Peterson, Council President Councilmembers Tim Clark Debbie Raplee Ron Harmon Les Thomas Bruce White Deborah Ranniger KEN WASHINGTON SUMMARY AGENDA KEN T KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING W A S X 1 N G T O N February 17, 2004 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Julie Peterson, President Tim Clark Ron Harmon Deborah Ranniger Debbie Raplee Les Thomas Bruce White ********************************************************************************* I. 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. Kent Arts Commission Grant Presentation B. Economic Update 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None • 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting —Approve B. Payment of Bills—Approve C. Waste Reduction& Recycling Grant—Accept D. Pacific Highway 2003 Storm Drain Project—Accept as Complete E. 11 lth Avenue Sidewalks Project—Accept as Complete F. Water Installation and Connection Charges Inside City Limits, Ordinance Amending Kent City Code 7.02.160—Adopt 3671 G. LID 353, S. 228th St. Corridor, Final Assessment Roll, Ordinance SettingPublic Hearing Date—Adopt H. Birdsong Meadows Final Plat—Approve I. Highland Park Final Plat—Approve J. Larcher Office Building Bill of Sale—Accept C/Dw� }� 7. 4 HER B ' A. Master Planned Unit Development Modification Criteria, Zoning Code Amendment 8. BIDS A. Riverbend Golf Course Carts • (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONSq 12. IEXECUTIVE ES QN d 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 i • PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) KENT ARTS COMMISSION GRANT PRESENTATION r B) ECONOMIC UPDATE • CONSENT CALENDAR 6. City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember 4"4� seconds to approve donsent Calendar Items A through�d! L L't-C, Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 3, 2004. • 6B. Approval of Bills. No bills were approved due to the cancellation of the Operations Committee meeting of February 3, 2004. Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B 440 • KEN T Kent City Council Meeting W A S N I N G T O N February 3, 2004 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by Mayor White. Councilmembers present: Harmon,Peterson,Ranniger,Raplee, Thomas and White. (CFN-198) FLAG SALUTE Tiger Scout Troop Pack 506 presented the colors. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA From Council or Staff. (CFN-198) Consent Calendar Item 6G was added by the Council President;the City Attorney explained that Other Business Items 7A through D had been approved unanimously at yesterday's Public Works Committee meeting and they were moved to the Consent Calendar as Items 6H-K. From the Public. (CFN-198) Continued Communications Items 1 I and B were added at the request of audience members. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Employee of the Mouth. (CFN-147) Mayor White announced that Kathleen Senecaut, Senior Budget Analyst,has been selected as the February Employee of the Month. CONSENT CALENDAR PETERSON MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through K. Harmon seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Minutes of the regular meeting of January 20, 2004 were approved. B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through December 15 and paid on December 15, 2003 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 20, 2004 was approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/15/03 Wire Transfers 1573-1582 $1,059,119 15 12/15/03 Prepays& 556641 238,696 21 12/15/03 Regular 557314 796,454 50 $2,094,269 86 Payment of the bills received through December 31 and paid on December 31, 2003 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 20, 2004 was approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/31/03 Wire Transfers 1583-1594 $1,175,47904 12/31/03 Prepays& 557315 1,140,206.12 12/31/03 Regular 557936 2,393,549 92 $4,709,235 08 1 Kent City Council Minutes February 3, 2004 Payment of the bills received through January 15 and paid on January 15, 2004 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 20, 2004 was approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers Date Check Numbers Amount 1/15/04 Wire Transfers 1595-1606 $1,012,776 77 1/15/04 Prepays& 557937 896,770 81 1/15/04 Regular 558510 894,715.70 $2,804,263 28 Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 16 through November 30 and paid on December 5, 2003: Date Check Numbers Amount 1214/03 Checks 274086-274092 $ 151,481 74 12/4/03 Advices 156620-156752 146,700 74 $298,182.48 12/5/03 Checks 274093-274327 $ 241,363 83 12/5/03 Advices 156753-157408 1,364,15145 $1,605,515 28 Approval of checks issued for payroll for December 1 through December 15 and paid on December 19, 2003: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/8/03 Advice 0-157409 $ 213.44 12/19/03 Checks 274328-274568 217,615 27 12/19/03 Advices 157410-158068 1,156,774.71 $1,374,603 42 Approval of checks issued for payroll for December 16 through December 31, 2003 and paid on January 5, 2004: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/5/04 Checks 274569-274811 $ 201,943.89 1/6/04 Advices 158069-158725 1,152,662 81 1/6/04 Advice 0-158726 65961 $1,355,266 31 Approval of checks issued for payroll for January 1 through January 15 and paid on January 20, 2004: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/20/04 Checks 274812-275068 $ 236,375 98 1/20/04 Advices 158727-159389 1,427,837.23 1/20/04 Check 0-275069 12539 $1,664,338.60 C. Kin2 County Youth Sports Grant for Uplands Playfield. (CFN-118) The Youth Sports Facility Grant for$36,000.00 from King County was accepted and the Uplands Playfield Budget was amended. 2 Kent City Council Minutes February 3, 2004 D. Fee-In-Lieu of Funds for 132nd Street Park and 272nd Street Park. (CFN-118) The $46,349.68 for fee-in-lieu from three subdivisions was accepted and the 132nd Street Park and 272nd Street Park budgets were amended. E. Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. (CFN-377&745) March 2, 2004 and April 6, 2004 were set as the public hearing dates to establish the initial zoning for the Impoundment Reservoir area. Amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map also shall be considered. F. Interlocal Agreement with Auburn School District (CFN-1000) The Mayor was authorized to sign an interlocal agreement with the Auburn School District to effect the school impact fees according to the capital facilities plan approved by the City Council on December 9, 2003 under Ordinance Nos. 3674 and 3675. G. Excused Absence for Councilmember Clark. (CFN-198) An excused absence for Councilmember Clark from tonight's meeting was approved. H. Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Amendment No. 1. (CFN-738) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Local Hazardous Waste Management Amendment#1 with Seattle King County Department of Health in the amount of$39,075.35, and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds. I. S. 212th Pavement Rehab Proiect Fund Authorization Agreement. (CFN-1054) The Mayor was authorized to accept the funding agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation in the amount of$388,828, and authorize staff to accept the funds and establish a budget for the funds J. Upper Meridian Valley Creek Improvements Proiect Utility Relocation Agreement. (CFN-470) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Utility Relocation Agreement with Soos Creek Water and Sewer District upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director, and once that agreement is signed, authorize staff to accept the funds and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within the Soos Creek Drainage Improvement Project. K. Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Proiect Fund Authorization Agreement. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to accept the funding agreements with Washington State Department of Transportation for the total amount of$1,168,789, and authorize staff to accept the funds and establish a budget for the funds. REPORTS Council President. (CFN-198) Peterson announced that workshops will be held from 5:30 to 6:15 p.m. on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) White noted that the Committee will meet at 5:00 p.m. on the 1 st and 3rd Monday of each month. • Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) Peterson announced that the Parks Committee will meet on the 3rd Thursday of each month at 4:00 p.m. 3 Kent City Council Minutes February 3, 2004 Administrative Reports. (CFN-198) The City Attorney reminded Councilmembers of an Executive Session of approximately 20 minutes to discuss property disposition and labor negotiations, with no action anticipated. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. Kent Station. (CFN-171) Bob O'Brien, 1131 Seattle St., spoke about revisions to the City's web page and the Purchase and Sale Agreement. B. Salary Commission. (CFN-198) Ted Kogita, 25227 Reith Road, urged the Council to review and turn down the Mayor's salary increase. Mayor White said that under the guise of saving citizens money,Kogita and others actually cost citizens money. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 7:18 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 p.m.,PETERSON MOVED to adjourn. Harmon seconded and the motion carved. (CFN-198) Brenda Jacober, CM City Clerk 4 • Kent City Council Meeting Date February 17, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING GRANT —ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the King County Waste Reduction and Recycling Program grant agreement in the amount of$84,241 to be used for two special recycling and collection events, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said project. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant agreement • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund M17103.53701 Amount $84,241 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E Wickstrom, P E Public Works Director �O Phone Fax 253-656-6500 KENT Address 220 Fourth Avenue S W A S H I M O T O M Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: January 28,2004 TO: Public orks Committee FROM: Do c trom,Public Works Director THROUGH SUBJECT: King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recycling Program Grant MOTION Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Waste Reduction and Recycling Program Grant in the amount of$84,241, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said project SUMMARY: We are in receipt of the King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recycling Program grant in the amount of$84,241 for the year 2004 The funds will be used for two special recyclmg and collection events BUDGET IMPACT No Unbudgeted Fiscal/Personnel Impact BACKGROUND The King County Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Program Grant is used for two special recycling and collection events,for the collection of scrap metal and appliances, concrete,tires, wood waste and other materials,to fund activities and events associated with the business and multi-family recycling programs, and to purchase and promote products made from recycled plastic materials, such and Rain Pails and plastic lumber Mayor White sod Kent City Council Waste Reduction and Recycling Program Grant January 29,2004 1 CONTRACT#D33520D INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Between KING COUNTY and the CITY OF KENT This Interlocal Agreement(hereinafter referred to as the Agreement)is executed between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,and the City of Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,hereinafter referred to as"County" and "City"respectively. This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each party as designated below: King County Ordinance No 2003-0462 city PREAMBLE King County and the City of Kent adopted the 2001 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan,which includes waste reduction and recycling goals. In order to help meet these goals, the King County Solid Waste Division has established a waste reduction and recycling grant program for the cities that operate under the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan This program provides funding to further the development and/or enhancement of local waste reduction and recycling projects and for broader resource conservation projects that integrate with waste reduction and recycling programs and direction. This grant program does not fund household hazardous waste collection activities Program eligibility and grant administration terms are discussed in the Grant Guidelines,attached to this agreement as Exhibit B. Grant funding for this program is subject to the yearly budget approval process of the King County Council. Grant funding approved by the King County Council is available to all King County cities that operate under the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan The City will spend its grant funds to fulfill the terms and conditions set forth in the scope of work which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The County expects that any information and/or experience gamed through the grant program by the City will be generously shared with the County and other King County cities I. PURPOSE The purpose of tlus Agreement is to define the terms and conditions for funding to be provided to the City of Kent by the County for waste reduction and recycling programs and/or services as outlined in the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A. t 11. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES The responsibilities of the parties to this Agreement shall be as follows• A The Q 1 Funds provided to the City by the County pursuant to this Agreement shall be used to provide waste reduction and recycling programs and/or services as outlined in Exhibit A The total amount of funds available from this grant in 2004 shall not exceed$84,241. The City understands that even though tins agreement is two years in duration,funding for this program is subject to the yearly budget approval process of the King County Council. 2 During the two year grant program,the City will submit a nummum of two,but no more than eight,progress reports to the County in a form approved by the County Reports must be signed by a city official. These reports will include a) a description of each activity accomplished pertaining to the scope of work;and b) reimbursement requests with either copies of invoices for each expenditure for which reimbursement is requested or a financial statement,prepared by the city's finance department,that includes vendor name,description of service,date of service,date paid and check number If the City chooses to submit up to the maximum of eight(8)progress reports and requests for reimbursement during the two year grant program,they shall be due to the County on the last day is of the month following the end of each quarter-April 30,July 30, October 31,January 31 - except for the final progress report and request for reimbursement which shall be due by March 31,2006 If the City chooses to submit the minimum of two progress reports and requests for reimbursement during the two year grant program,they shall be due to the County on January 31, 2005 and March 31,2006. Regardless of the number of progress reports the City chooses to submit,in order to secure reimbursement, the City must provide in writing to the County by the 5a'working day of each January,the dollar amount of outstanding expenditures for which the City has not yet submitted a reimbursement request 3 The City shall submit a final report to the County which summarizes the work completed under the grant program and evaluates the effectiveness of the projects for which grant funds were utihzed,according to the evaluation methods specified in the scope of work The final report is due within six months of completion of the project(s)outlined in the scope of work,but no later than June 30, 2006. 2 4. If the City accepts funding through tins grant program for the provision of Waste Reduction and Recycling programs and projects for other incorporated areas of King County,the City shall explain the relationship with the affected adjacent city or cities that allows for acceptance of this funding and the specifics of the proposed programs and projects within the scope of work document related thereto 5. The City shall be responsible for following all applicable Federal, State and local laws, ordinances,rules and regulations in the performance of work described herein. The City assures that its procedures are consistent with laws relating to public contract bidding procedures, and the County neither incurs nor assumes any responsibility for the City's bid, award or contracting process. 6 During the performance of this Agreement,neither the City nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall discriminate on the basis of race,color,sex,religion, nationality,creed,marital status,sexual orientation,age,or presence of any sensory,mental,or physical handicap in the employment or application for employment or in the administration or delivery of or access to services or any other benefits under tlus Agreement as defined by King County Code,Chapter 12.16. 7 During the performance of this Agreement,neither the City nor any party subcontracting under the authority of tins Agreement shall engage in unfair employment practices as defined by King County Code,Chapter 1218 The City shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws,ordinances, executive orders and regulations that prohibit such discrimination. These laws include,but are not limited to,RCW Chapter 49 60 and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 8 The City shall use recycled paper for the production of all printed and photocopied documents related to the fulfillment of this Agreement. The City shall use both sides of paper sheets for copying and printing and shall use recycled/recyclable products wherever practical. 9 The City shall maintain accounts and records,including personnel, financial, and programmatic records, and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the County, to ensure proper accounting for all project funds and compliance with this Agreement. All such records shall sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended and service provided in the performance of this Agreement. These records shall be maintained for a period of six(6)years after termination hereof unless permission to destroy them is granted by the Office of the State Archivist in accordance with RCW Chapter 4014 These accounts shall be subject to inspection,review or audit by the County and/or by federal or state officials as so authorized by law 10. The City shall maintain a record of the use of any equipment that costs more than$500 and is purchased with grant funds from King County for a total period of three(3)years The records shall be compiled into a yearly evaluation report,a copy of which shall be submitted to King County by March 31 of each year through the year 2008 3 11. The City agrees to credit King County on all printed materials provided by the County,which the City is duplicating,for distribution. Father King County's name and logo must appear on King County materials(including fact sheets,case studies,etc),or,at a minimum,the City will credit King County for artwork or text provided by the County as follows. "artwork provided courtesy of King County Solid Waste Division"and/or"text provided courtesy of King County Solid Waste Division." 12 The City agrees to submit to the County copies of all written materials which it produces and/or duplicates for local waste reduction and recycling projects which have been funded through the waste reduction and recycling grant program. Upon request,the City agrees to provide the County with a reproducible copy of any such written materials and authorizes the County to duplicate and distribute any written materials so produced,provided that the County credits the City for the piece 13 If the City accepts funding through this grant program for the provision of special recycling collection events for adjacent areas of unincorporated King County,the City shall send announcements of the events to all residences listed in the carrier routes provided by King County The announcements and all other printed materials related to these events shall acknowledge King County as the funding source 14.The City understands that funding for special recycling collection events for adjacent areas of unincorporated King County will be allocated on a yearly basis subject to the King County Council's yearly budget approval process and that provision of funds for these events is not guaranteed for the second year of the grant program 15 This project shall be administered by Robyn Bartelt, Conservation Specialist,City of Kent,220 O Ave South, Kent,WA 98052-5895,253-938-8262,rbarteltQci kent.wa.us,or designee B. The County. 1 The County shall administer funding for the waste reduction and recycling grant program. Funding is designated by city and is subject to the King County Council's yearly budget approval process. Provided that the funds are allocated through the King County Council's yearly budget approval process,grant funding to the City will include a base allocation of$5,000 per year with the balance of funds to be allocated according to the city's percentage of King County's residential and employment population. However, if this population based allocation formula calculation would result in a city receiving less than$10,000 per year,that city shall receive an additional allocation that would raise their total grant fundmg to$10,000 per year. The City of Kent's budgeted grant funds for 2004 are$84,241 4 2. Within forty-five(45)days of receiving a request for reimbursement from the City,the County shall either notify the City of any exceptions to the request which have been identified or shall process the request for payment If any exceptions to the request are made, tlus shall be done by written notification to the City providing the reason for such exception The County will not authorize payment for activities and/or expenditures which are not included in the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A,unless the scope has been amended according to Section V of this Agreement. King County retains the right to withhold all or partial payment if the City's report(s) and reimbursement request(s)are incomplete(i e,do not include proper documentation of expenditures and/or adequate description of each activity described in the scope of work for which reimbursement is being requested),and/or are not consistent with the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A. 3 The County agrees to credit the City on all printed materials provided by the City to the County, which the County duplicates, for distribution. Either the City's name and logo will appear on such materials(including fact sheets,case studies,etc),or, at a minimum,the County will credit the City for artwork or text provided by the City as follows, "artwork provided courtesy of the City of Kent"and/or"text provided courtesy of the City of Kent." 4. The County retains the right to share the written material(s)produced by the City which have been funded through this program with other King County cities for them to duplicate and distribute In so doing,the County will encourage other cities to credit the City on any pieces that were produced by the City. 5. The waste reduction and recycling grant program shall be administered by Morgan John,a Project Manager, or designee,to be specified by the King County Solid Waste Division. III. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective on either January 1,2004 or the date of execution of the Agreement by both the County and the City,if executed after January 1,2004 and shall terminate on December 3l, 2005 However,if execution by either party does not occur until after January 1,2004, this Agreement allows for disbursement of grant funds to the City for County-approved programs initiated between January 1,2004 and the later execution of the Agreement provided that the City complies with the reporting requirements of Section II A of the Agreement IV. TERMINATION A This Agreement may be terminated by King County,in whole or in part, for convenience without cause prior to the termination date specified in Section III,upon thirty(30)days advance written notice B Tlus Agreement may be terminated by either party,in whole or in part, for cause prior to the termination date specified in Section III,upon thirty(30)days advance written notice. Reasons for termination for cause may include but not be limited to nonperformance,misuse of funds,and/or failure to provide grant related reports/mvoices/statements as specified in Section II A 2 and Section IIA3 5 C. If the Agreement is terminated as provided in this section:(1)the County will be liable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for services rendered prior to the effective date of termination;and(2)the City shall be released from any obligation to provide further services pursuant to this Agreement D Nothing herein shall limit,waive,or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Agreement or law that either party may have in the event that the obligations,terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are breached by the other party. V. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of both parties. Amendments to scopes of work will only be approved if the proposed amendment is consistent with the most recently adopted King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Funds may be moved between tasks in the scope of work,attached as Exhibit A, only upon written or verbal request by the City and written or verbal approval by King County. Such requests will only be approved if the proposed change(s)is (are) consistent with and/or achieves the goals stated in the scope and falls within the activities described in the scope VI. HOLD HA.RIID..ESS AND INDEMNIFICATION The City shall protect,mdemmfy, and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, costs,and/or issues whatsoever occurring from actions by the City and/or its subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement The City shall defend at its own expense any and all claims,demands, suits,penalties, losses,damages, or costs of any kind whatsoever(hereinafter"claims") brought against the County ansing out of or incident to the City's execution of,performance of or failure to perform this Agreement. Claims shall include but not be limited to assertions that the use or transfer of any software,book, document,report,film,tape,or sound reproduction or material of any kind, delivered hereunder, constitutes an infringement of any copyright,patent,trademark,trade name,and/or otherwise results in unfair trade practice 6 VD. INSURANCE A The City,at its own cost, shall procure by the date of execution of this Agreement and maintain for the duration of the Agreement,insurance against claims for mjunes to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with performance of work pursuant to this Agreement by the City,its agents,representatives,employees,and/or subcontractors The minimum limits of this insurance shall be$1,000,000 general liability insurance combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury,and property damage Any deductible or self-insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of the City. Such insurance shall cover the County,its officers, officials,employees,and agents as additional insureds against liability ansing out of activities performed by or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Agreement. A valid Certificate of Insurance is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C,unless Section VII B applies. B. If the Agency is a Municipal Corporation or an agency of the State of Washington and is self-msured for any of the above insurance requirements,a written acknowledgement of self-insurance is attached to this Agreement as Exlubit C. VIH. ENTIRE CONTRACTIWAIVER OF DEFAULT This Agreement is the complete expression of the agreement of the County and City hereto,and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of breach of any provision of thus Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated to be such through written approval by the County,which shall be attached to the original Agreement. IX TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE The County and City recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. X SEVERABILITY If any section,subsection, sentence,clause or phrase of this Agreement is, for any reason,found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions 7 M. NOTICE . Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given or served if sent to the King County Solid Waste Division and the City at the addresses provided below: Morgan John, Project Manager,or a provided designee, King County Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 If to the City- Robyn Bartelt Conservation Specialist City of Kent 220 4th Ave South Kent,WA 98052-5895 IN WITNESS WIEREOF flits Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below: Clot King Coonri Accepted for King County Executive BY (Title) Director of Natural Resources and Parks Date Date Pursuant to Pursuant to Ordinance No.2003-0462 Approved as to form Approved as to form: City Attorney King County Prosecuting Attorney Date Date Grant Nfb%M4-2005 CmntUlaat2004-2005 Mwa MA 8 Exhibit A King County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Program City of Kent 2004/05 Scope of Work A. Basic Information 1 City of Kent 2 Grant project manager- Robyn Bartelt Conservation Specialist City of Kent 220 4th Ave. South Kent,WA 98052-5895 TEL-(253)856-5549 FAX- (253) 856-6500 Email- rbartelt@mkent wa us 3 Consultant name Paul Devine Olympic Environmental Resources 4715 SW Walker Street Seattle,WA 98116 TEL-(206)938-8262 FAX- (206) 938-9873 Email—PaulDevme@MSN com 4 Budget: 2004 $84,241 2005 $84,241 2004/2005 total. $168,482 B. Scope of Work Task One: Special Collection Events A Schedule-Spring and Fall,2004/05 B.Task Activities • Number of Special Collection Event—Four • Appliances • Refrigerators and Freezers 1 • Ferrous Metals • Non-ferrous Metals • Concrete,Asphalt,Rock, and Brick* • Tires • Lead Acid Batteries • Household Batteries • Porcelain Toilets and Sinks+ • Propane Tanks+ • Cardboard • Reusable Household Goods • Textiles • Used Motor Oil • Used Motor Oil Filters • Used Antifreeze • Used Petroleum Based Products • Paper Shredding** • Electronic Equipment • Computer Equipment+ • TV Sets+ • Bulky Yard Debris* • Scrap Wood* *Collected in the spring ** Collected in the fall +User fees apply Other materials when possible • The following educational materials will be distnbuted • Information on City Recycling Programs • Educational Materials produced by King County Department of Natural Resources and Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan • Other educational materials as appropriate • Event promotional methods • Tlus event will be coordinated with King County and flyers will be sent to King County Solid Waste Division, and Kent households • By distributing a promotional flyer through direct mailings. • By notices in City newsletters(whenever possible). • By posting a notice at City Hall and on the City cable channel and City web site (if available) • By publicizing the event through the King County Solid Waste Division Promotional Activities 2 C)Task evaluation.Event reports will include: • Number of vehicles attending • Volume of each material collected • Event cost by budget category • Event comments • Graphic or tabular comparison of 2004/05 volumes and vehicles with pnor year's events D) Task Budget $54,400.00 Budget Category 20D4105 2004 2004 2005 TOTAL WRR LHWIAP WRR WRR City Staff Costs $$000.00 51,500 00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 S3,S00 OD Contractor/Stafting Costs 512,000.00 $6,350.00 56,000.00 $B4O00.00 $18,350.00 Event Staff Costs $4,000.00 $0.D0 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 54,000 00 Collection/Haulang Costs Wood Waste $1,800.00 $0.00 $900 00 $900 00 $1,800.00 Scrap Metal,Appliances,etc 58,400.00 $0.00 200 00 $4,200.00 $8700 00 Concrete $2,000.00 50.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,00000 Paper Shreddm $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 Time $4,000.00 50.00 52,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,00000 .90 Used OiUAnWreezaletc $0.00 52,$00.00 S0.00 $0.00 $2,900 00 Battenes $0.00 $500 00 $0.00 $0.00 5500 00 PnntmglMailmg $18,000.00 $8,000 00 $9,000 00 $9,000 00 26,000.00 Event Supplies $600.00 $300.00 ENE 5300.00 $300.00 59D0 00 Other Expenses•rentals,etc 51,600 00 $603.32 E800.00 $800.00 52,203.32 Promotional Items 50.00 SO 00 50.00 $0 00 1 $0.00 TOTALS $54,400.00 $20,D53 32 $27,200 00 $27,200 00 $74,453 32 NOTE Hourly rates for consultants are as follows Project Manager-$70 00,Event Staff-$55 00,and Ad:mrustrative Staff-$40 00 E)Task Performance Objectives The City plans to send out approximately 41,000 promotional flyers to Kent households per event and publicize the events through King County promotional activities, including County websites and telephone assistance. The City anticipates collecting 175-200 tons of material from the local waste stream per year The benefits expected by the collection of these materials will be to divert them from the waste stream and process them for recycling. The event will also provide an opportunity to recycle moderate risk waste The Kmg County Health Department and Washington State Department of Ecology may pay for event expenses as well. 3 F)Task Impact Objectives, By hostmg Special Collection Events, Kent can reduce the amount of recyclable material finding their way to the local landfill. The City of Kent has a population of roughly 85,000 The City expects, based on past events, that 2,000-2,200 households will actively participate each year by bringing recyclable materials to the event for proper disposal and recycling This will result in 175-200 tons of material diverted from the local waste stream for recycling per year In addition to diverting materials from the City waste stream, attracting residents to events provides an opportunity to distribute educational material on City and King County recycling programs. The educational materials can enhance the knowledge of residents and improve behavior in purchase,handling, and disposal of recyclable materials Task Two: Business Recycling Program A)Task Schedule:2004/05 B)Task Activities: Through continued recycling assistance to businesses, the City will promote participation in waste reduction,recycling,and recycled product procurement programs and increase the knowledge of recycling alternatives in the commercial sector, Program Activities: 1)Kent Business Information Prepare,print, and coordinate distribution of a Kent Recycling Report Newsletter to all Kent businesses The newsletter will be sent to Kent businesses two times a year. 2)Kent Business Collection Events •Number of Business Recycling Events—Two • Task Description - The City will implement two Business Recycling Events The events will be held on a summer weekday at a central location in Kent •Materials to be collected: • Clean Scrap Wood/Pallets • Electronic Equipment • Computer monitors+ • Fluorescent Lghts • Office Recyclables/Cardboard • Toner Cartridges • Cellular phones 4 • Plastics • Other materials if feasible +User fees apply • The following educational materials will be distributed: • Information on City Recycling Programs. • Educational Materials produced by King County Department of Natural Resources and Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan • Other educational materials as appropriate • Event promotional methods. • By distributing a promotional flyer through direct mailings. • By notices in City/commumty newsletters/and local newspapers(whenever possible) • By posting a notice at City Hall and on the City cable channel(if available) • By publicizing the event through the King County Solid Waste Division Promotional Activities • Task evaluation.Event reports will include: • Number of vehicles attending • Volume of each material collected • Event cost by budget category • Event comments • Graphic or tabular comparison of 2004/05 volumes and vehicles with pnor year's events 3)Kent Business Assistance To provide business recycling assistance to City businesses,the City will customize the King County Tool Kit with City information and send a City Tool Kit to all new Kent businesses each year with intro letter and offer of on-site visit In the Tool Kit, the City hopes to work with the City recycler to include a coupon for free desk-side recycling containers from the hauler In addition, the City will provide assistance to City businesses on an on-call basis 4)Kent Business Recognition To provide Kent businesses with motivation to recycle, the City will implement a Kent Business Recycler of the Year Award. The City will work with the Kent Chamber of Commerce and past program information to seek out businesses that have put in place outstanding recycling programs and award up to three City businesses with awards The purpose of the award/recognition program will be to acknowledge City businesses with strong commitments to recycling and use their programs as examples for other Kent businesses to follow 5 S C)Task Budget $75,600 00 Business Budget Category 2004 2005 2004105 Cost Cost Total Promotional lnserts rs Production and Graphics $2,500.00 $2,500 00 55,000.00 Printing costs 17200.00 $1,200 00 $2,400.00 SortlinglMailling costs $1,300.00 $1,300 00 $2,600 00 Business Collection Event Consultant staff $5,500.00 55,500.00 it1,000.00 Project Vendors $Z800.00 $2.800.00 $5,600.00 Event Promotion 51,200 00 $1,200 00 52700.00 Other Costs $150.00 $150.00 $300.00 Business Assistance To Include Educational material distribution 9,900.00 391900 00 $19,80000 Telephone assistance $1,100 00 $1,100 00 $2,200 00 Business consultations reports $3,800 00 53,800 00 S 6600.00 Follow-up calls to businesses $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 Program Promotion $250.00 $250.00 $500.00 Business Recognition Program Plannmglimplementlon 51,500.00 $1,500.00 53,000.00 Program Promotion $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 Other Costs 5400.00 $400.00 5800 00 Business Web Site Web Site Assistance $1,000.00 OTALS 537,800 00 $37,800 00 1 $73,600 00 The business program will be funded with use of King County WRR grant funds Hourly rates for consultants are as follows Project Manager-$70.00,Event Staff-$55 00,and Admrnistrahvc Staff-S40 00 D)Task Performance Objectives 1) The Kent Recycling Report Newsletters will be sent to all Kent businesses two times a year With regular information on recycling, City businesses will be able to take advantage of mew recycling services and divert more materials from the Kent waste stream 2) The City plans to send Out approximately 3,100 promotional flyers to Kent busmesses per event and publicize the event through Kmg County promotional activities, including County websites and telephone assistance The City anticipates collecting 50-75 tons of material from the Kent businesses waste stream over a two-year period. The benefits expected by the collection of these materials will be to divert them from the waste stream and process them for recycling 6 3) Kent Business Assistance will provide new and existing City businesses with information and technical assistance on recycling and waste prevention Consultant staff will include the information as requested in the King County business database Summary program evaluation will include the number of contacts made to businesses and their response rates to the offer of recycling technical assistance; the number of businesses receiving information; and the number of businesses beginning or expanding recycling activities 4) Kent Business Recognition Program will provide Kent businesses with motivation to recycle by recognizing a Kent business(s) that have put in place outstanding recycling programs The purpose of the awards program will be to acknowledge City businesses with strong commitments to recycling and use their programs as examples for other Kent businesses to follow. E)Task Impact Objectives By providing information, web site assistance, technical assistance, and hosting Business Collection Events, Kent can reduce the amount of recyclable material finding their way to the local landfill The City of Kent has an employee population of roughly 60,000 The City expects that 125-175 businesses will actively participate in the Business Collection Event each year by bringing recyclable materials to the event for proper disposal and'recycling This will result in 50-75 tons of material from the Kent businesses waste stream over a two- year period. In addition to diverting materials from the City waste stream,providing information to Kent business at events provides an opportunity to distribute educational material on City and King County recycling programs. The technical assistance,web site assistance,recognition, educational materials can enhance the knowledge of business and improve behavior in the purchase, handling,set-up,and disposal of recyclable materials. Task Three: Kent Multifamily Recycling Program A)Task Schedule 2004/05 B)Task Activities- The task will include promoting waste reduction, participation in Kent multifamily residential collection programs for recyclables, distributing multifamily signs and bags, and promoting the purchase of recycled products by working with multifamily residents and property owners/managers The City will: • Distribute multifamily educational brochures through direct mailings, special City events,and door-to-door delivery • Distribute multifamily signs for use at multifamily complexes for proper recycling of materials • Providing on-site waste consultations and follow-up assistance 7 • Distribute multifamily educational brochures m Spanish and Russian through direct mailings,special City events,and door-to-door delivery. C)Task Budget:$11,500.00 IMuttifarnily audget Category 1 2004 GottCost I 20OV05Tota &Prowdess stance an o ow-u 0 1 , 00.00s s nce 0 . 1,00 0 isce ansous .0 .00 500. , 1 , lmm The business program will be fimded with use of King County WRR grant funds Hourly rates for consultants are as follows Project Manager-$70 00,Event Staff- $55 00,and Administrative Staff-$40 00 D)Task Performance Objectives The goal of this program rs to achieve greater resource efficiency in the City of Kent by collection of more recyclable material in the City's multifamily sector. The City will continue to promote recycling in the Kent multifamily community by distributing educational brochures, signs, and recycling totes to multifamily managers and tenants. As City residents better manage their waste and recycle more, less recyclable material will end up in local landfills.This program will help the City of Kent reach its recycling goals. Kent multifamily web site enhancements and service will provide Kent multifamily owners and managers with tools to recycle by making the information easy to access and convenient to use The program will also help reduce paper, as more recycling information will be in an electronic format. E)Task Impact Objectives- With program promotion and technical assistance and web site assistance, Kent multifamily residents will have better knowledge of recycling. Recycling service to Kent multifamily properties is provided with garbage service and assistance will be provided on how to better use the service. By recycling more, City multifamily properties can reduce the amount of material ending up in the local landfill. Task Four: Purchase Products Made From Recycled Materials A)Task Schedule: 2004105 B)Task Activities In order to support the recycling industry and close the recycling loop, the City would like to purchase products made from recycled materials Doing so will support recycling collection programs and help ensure the success of the recycling industry The City will support recycling programs by purchasing recycle content rain barrels for distribution and recycled lumber/benches for City parks and open space areas. The rain barrels weight approximately 40-50 pounds each and divert roughly twice that amount of plastic material 8 from the waste stream when produced The recycle content lumber/benches weigh approximately 600.800 pounds and will divert roughly twice that amount of plastic material from the waste stream when produced. The City will work to install the recycled content lumber/benches in highly visible areas with a notice that the benches are made from recycled content The City will promote these locations in our newsletters and parks brochure as most of these will be installed in heavy recreational use areas. The City will sell the ram barrels at City Special Collection Events in 2004 and 2005 It is expected that the City will purchase and distribute 125 recycled content ramsavers over the two-year period C)Task Budget. $23,002 00 Recycled Product Purchase 2004 Cost 2005 Cost 2004105 Total Distribute Rain Barrels $9,375.00 S9,3T5 00 $18,750.00 Purchase and Install Plasbc Lumber $4,313.50 $4,313 50 58,627.00 Income-125 bins $35 each 42.187.50 42,157.50 -$4,375.00 O AL 11,501.00 I1,501.00 $23,002.00 D)Task Performance and Impact Objectives The goal of this program is to help ensure the success of the recycling industry by adding to the demand for products made from recycled materials. By purchasing products made from recycled content, the City will divert recyclable material from the waste stream The City will distribute the ram barrels to City residents and install the recycle content lumber/benches in highly visible areas and that will help promote recycled products The City will promote these locations in our newsletters and parks brochure as most of these will be installed in heavy recreational use areas. The additional benefits of the rain barrels are that they will help reduce household water consumption and reuse natural rainwater It is expected that after installation the ram pails will continue to conserve water resources for many years 9 Task Five: Grant Administration The City will work with OER to administrate this Scope of Work. OER will • Track project expenses; • Provide ongoing grant administration through the completion of the tasks,as outlined in this Scope of Work, • Prepare reports for the grant program; and • Prepare final report Task Budget: $3,980 00 RKIngCountyWRR Grant 2004 2005 2004105 Total m Management $1,240.0DS1,240OD 52,480 00t Ex enses age 515000 5150 00 $300.00 lies $600.00 $600.00 $1,20080 $1,990 00 51,990 00 53,980.00 10 Err B Grant Guidelines Program Eligibility: Grant fiords may be used for any of the programs previously funded by the City Optional and Waste Reduction Recyclmg Programs,including residential and commercial waste reduction and recycling education programs,business assistance programs,and special recycling events.Cities may also use their funds on broader resource conservation programs,as long as they are part of an overall waste reduction/recycling program Cities may choose to use their funding on one program or a combination of programs For WR/R program ideas,please refer to the Program Eligibility section below and the City Waste Reduction and Recvchn¢web page at htto.//dnrmetrokc ¢ov/swd/resrecylrccyclmgLtywrr actmbeshtm Please note these lists are not exhaustive,but merely intended to provide some guidance on what islisn't eligible. Cities should also refer to the 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for direction in program development.If you are unsure if your proposed program is eligible for funding,please call Morgan John(296- $03)or Diane Yates(296-4406). Eligible for funding: • School WRR educabon/mmplementatron programs • Compost bm sales/giveaways • Cooperative grasscychng programs • Grants for turning yard waste and tree trimmings into mulch • Promotion and education of new solid waste and recycling services • Business recognition programs • Special Recyehng Collection Events,including collection of tires • Business,WRR,residential edueation/commumcations • Product stewardship mrhatives-could be education programs or working with other agencres/organrzabonstbusinesses to implement programs • City recycling programs and facilities Eligible for funding on a case by case basis,as long as program is part of an overall VVRR Program. However,the County would not provide reimbursement if,for example,all of a city's grant dollars were used to selligive away rain barrels or distribute compact fluorescent light bulbs. • Water Conservation-i e Ram Barrels • Energy Conservation • Water Quality integrated pest management;catch basin filters • Demonstration gardens;interpretive signage;recycled-content park furnishings i EXH rrB The following are not eligible for fading: Collection of Garbage,except for residual garbage related to the collection of recyclables Collection of any household hazardous waste items including,but not limited to* (Cities should pursue funding through LHW IP or CPG) • Treated wood • Pamt • bead acid batteries • Oil,gasoline,and antifreeze • Florescent lights • Household Hazardous Waste education programs Grant Administration: Requests for Reimbursement.• Cities may submit as few as two requests for reimbursement during the fundmg cycle,with the first request due by January 31,2005 and the final request due no later than March 15,2006. However,cities may submit requests for reimbursement as frequently as quarterly.Quarterly requests should be submitted on April 30,July 31,Oct.31 and Jan 31 of each year,except for the final request for reimbursement,which is due no later than March 15,2006 The Budget Summary Report Form(Attachment 4)should be used when submitting requests for reimbursement By December 31"of each year of the grant cycle,cities must notify SWD of their total expenditures for work that has been completed to-date,but for which requests for reimbursement have not yet been submitted. Progress and Final Reports Progress reports describing program activities,accomplishments and evaluation results need to accompany each request for reimbursement. A final report describing the outcome of grant-fimded activities is due with the final request for reimbursement If,however,the city does not have the results of its program evaluation by the end of the grant cycle,the final narrative report may be submitted no later than six months after the end of the grant cycle on June 30,2006.(Note. The final request for reimbursement would still need to be submitted by March 15,2006.)All Progress and Final Reports need to be signed by a city official Signed reports may be submitted via facsimile Amendments Formal amendments to grant ILAs are not necessary unless the city wishes to make significant changes to its scope of work and/or budget In general,a significant change would be one in which the city wishes to add or delete a task from their scope of work A minor change,such as moving dollars between tasks,would only require written notdication, which may be submitted via e-mail. However,the city should contact the Division when considering changes to their scopes and budgets to deternune if a formal amendment is needed. Kent City Council Meeting 40 Date February 17, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PACIFIC HIGHWAY 2003 STORM DRAIN PROJECT—ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept as complete the Pac Hwy HOV S—2003 Storm Drainage project and release the retainage to Gary Merlin Construction Co., Inc. upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $546,995.00. The final contract amount was $360,955.78. 3. EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: • ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D Kent City Council Meeting Date February 17, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 111TH AVENUE SIDEWALKS PROJECT—ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept as complete the 111t'Ave. S.E. Sidewalk Improvements project and release the retainage to Archer Construction, Inc. upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $60,888.88. The final contract amount was $59,885.50. 3. EXHIBITS: None • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: • ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E Kent City Council Meeting Is Date February 17, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WATER INSTALLATION AND CONNECTION CHARGES INSIDE CITY LIMITS, ORDINANCE AMENDING KENT CITY CODE 7.02.160—ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. amending section 7.02.160(C) of the Kent City Code waiving the additional system development charge for single-family residential homes if the fire marshal orders the installation of a fire sprinkler system and that installation requires a meter larger than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch. The system development charge assessed for the installation of a meter less than one (1) inch in size is $2,600. The system development charge increases to $4,627 if a one (1) inch meter is installed. It is not the City's intent that an applicant, on single-family residential home construction,pay a higher system development charge if the sole reason the larger meter is needed is due to an order of the City's fire marshal that a fire • sprinkler system be installed. This ordinance clarifies that intent. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? None Revenue? None Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F 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 DATE: January 28, 2004 TO: Public Wor Committee FROM: Don m,Public Works Director THROUGH Iz SUBJECT: Installation and connection charges inside city ltmits—Amending Kent City Code section 7 02 160 MOTION Recommend Council adopt the proposed ordinance that amends Ch 7 02 of the Kent City Code to clarify the installation and connection charges inside the City limits SUMMARY: Kent City Code 7 02 160(C) establishes installation and connection charges inside the City limits,the proposed ordinance waives the additional system development charge for single family residential homes in those instances where the fire marshal orders the installation of a fire sprinkler system and that fire sprinkler system requires installation of a larger than three-quarters inch meter BUDGET IMPACT No Unbudgeted Fiscal/Personnel Impact BACKGROUND Mayor White and Kent City Council ] Amend City Code 7 02 160 January 28,2004 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, waiving the additional system development charge established in Kent City Code section 7.02.160(C) for single-family residential homes only in those instances where the fire marshal orders the installation of a fire sprinkler system and that fire sprinkler system requires installation of a larger than three-quarters (1/4") inch meter. RECITALS A. Kent City Code ("KCC") section 7.02.160 sets forth various installation and connection charges assessed to those connecting to the City's water system. B. In accordance with subsection (C) of KCC 7 02.160, a system development charge is assessed to all who connect to the City's water system and that charge is based upon the size of the meter installed to support the normal user demand of the building being connected. C. In issuing a building permit on certain single-family residential developments, the City's fire marshal may require that a fire sprinkler system be installed. D. A three-quarter (%) inch meter is generally adequate to support a single-family residential development; however, if the fire marshal requires that a fire sprinkler system be installed, the addition of the sprinkler system may require installation of a larger water meter. 1 System Development Charge Single-family Residential—Fire Demand E. In those instances where a meter larger than three-quarters ('/4) of an inch is needed solely to support the fire sprinkler system, it is the City Council's intent that an applicant should not have to pay the additional system development charge assessed for the larger meter, and that the applicant would only be assessed the system development charge for a three-quarter (3/4) inch meter because the additional water capacity would only be used in the event the sprinkler system were activated NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. — Amendment. Section 7.02.160(C) of the Kent City Code s amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.02.160. Installation and connection charges inside city limits. C. System development charge. The system development charge is as follows- 1. Two thousand six hundred dollars ($2,600) for each meter less than one (1) inch in size. 2. Four thousand six hundred twenty-seven dollars ($4,627) for each one (1) inch meter. 3. Ten thousand four hundred dollars ($10,400) for each one and one-half (1 1/2) inch meter. 4. Eighteen thousand four hundred eighty-six dollars ($18,486) for each two (2) inch meter. 5. Forty-one thousand five hundred ninety-four dollars ($41,594) for each three (3) inch meter. 6 Seventy-three thousand nine hundred thirty-three dollars ($73,933) for each four (4) inch meter. 7. One hundred fifteen thousand five hundred twenty-eight dollars ($115,528)for each five (5) inch meter. 2 System Development Charge Single-family Residential—Fire Demand 8. One hundred sixty-six thousand three hundred seventy-six dollars ($166,376)for each six (6) inch meter. 9. Two hundred ninety-five thousand seven hundred eighty-six dollars ($295,786)for each eight (8) inch meter. 10. Four hundred sixty-two thousand one hundred sixty-two dollars ($462,162)for each ten (10) inch meter. However, if (a) the City's fire marshal has required that in conjunction with the City's issuance of a single-family residential building permit the applicant must install a fire sprinkler system and (b) the need for a meter size greater than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch is based solely on the fire marshal's requirement that the sprinkler system be installed the single-family residential permit applicant shall pay only the system development charge listed above for a meter less than one inch in diameter. It is not the City's intent to require an applicant to pay a higher system development charqe when the larger meter size is needed only in the unusual event of a fire demand rather than for normal daily user demand. SECTION 2. — Severabdity If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, iclause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION 3. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 System Development Charge Single-family Residential—Fire Demand APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: T day of February, 2004. APPROVED: day of February, 2004. PUBLISHED: day of February, 2004. 1 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 �o 'I PYivIDRgNRNLFWeMSylenhMVm�OaFmDem,M Ooc t� 4 System Development Charge Single-family Residential—Fire Demand Kent City Council Meeting Date February 17, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 3539 S. 228TH ST. CORRIDOR, FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, ORDINANCE SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE —ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. setting the public hearing on the final assessment roll on LID 353 for March 23, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. before the Public Works Committee, which shall sit as the Board of Equalization 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? None Revenue? None Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E Wickstrom, P E Public Works Director Phone 2SM56-55W Fax 253-856-6500 KENT Address 220 Fourth Avenue S W^SHINGTDN Kent,WA 96032-5895 DATE: Feb 2,2004 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Do kstrom,Public Works Director THROUGH. Q� SUBJECT: LID 353 S.2281h Street Extension(54`h Avenue South to Kent-Des Moines Road SR-516) MOTION Recommend that City Council pass on Ordinance# to set March 23, 2004 for the public hearing on the Assessment Roll of LID 353 and establish a Board of Equalization to conduct the hearing SUMMARY: The City formed Local Improvement District(LID)353 in 2002 to partially fund the above referenced project. Dunng the last several years,the City has budgeted funds for the proposed project and has obtained grant funding An LID is necessary to complete the project funding and to address special benefits from the improvements to the local properties within the project area An LID was formed in October 2002 Due to the project cost and the fact that construction will begin shortly,it is time to finalize the LID to secure the project funds BUDGET IMPACT No Unbudgeted Fiscal/Personnel Impact BACKGROUND For over 15 years,regional plans have identified South 228ei Street as a major arterial route in the center of the Kent Valley Construction of the South 228d' Street Extension will connect the South 228 h Street Corridor with I-5 and provide a much needed east-west access route from East Valley Highway to Military Road and I-5 Presently,the lack of an adequate east-west arterial system results in severe traffic congestion during peak hours The only current access to I-5 from this area is by Meeker Street and SR-516 The City completed the EIS for the proposed project in 2001 The City Council approved the EIS during December 2001 and directed the City staff to proceed with the project On June 13,2002,Engineering staff met with some of the property owners from The Lakes development regarding the need for a noise wall The residents just east of the Green River on Mayor White and Kent City Council 1 LID 353 Set Public Hearing Date February 2004 the south side of South 228 h Street expressed concern regarding noise increases from the increased traffic flow on the proposed roadway On July 16,2002,the Council directed staff to include a noise wall in the project design The City has been working to obtam grant funds to pay a share of the project costs A portion of the project cost will be paid with property assessments financed by formation of Local Improvement District#353 The grant funds are contingent on a local match,so the City formed the LID The Public Works Department held an informal meeting with property owners in the LID Boundary on July 25,2002 The Resolution of Intent was approved by City Council on August 20,2002 which set the public hearing for September 17,2002 There were no protests during the pubhc hearing Ordinance 3619 was passed October 1,2002 forming the LID The project is expected to be constructed over a 3-year period between 2004 and 2006. The estimated completion date is December 2006. Proposed Improvements The proposed LID will construct the South 228th Street Extension with a bridge over the Green River, from 54`h Avenue South to Military Road, and additional improvements to Military Road to accommodate the new roadway The new roadway will be 5 lanes with turning lanes at major intersections Sidewalks will be placed along both sides of the roadway with street lighting and street trees where practical Storm drainage will be constructed as necessary 42ed Avenue South will be constructed from its existing terminus in the Riverview Community to South 228`h Street The proposed LID will also include sidewalks and street lighting on 76 h Avenue South/4`h Avenue North between South 220" Street and SR-167 along properties that currently do not have these improvements. The project includes the following improvements on South 228ih Street and Military Road. 1 Construct a new 5-lane,mmor arterial street between 50 Avenue South and SR- 516(via Mihtary Road)which includes a bridge over the Green River 2 Improve Military Road to 5-lanes from the new intersection with 228`h to SR-516 3 Concrete curbs, gutter and sidewalks or paved shoulders 4 Installation of a noise wall along The Lakes 5. New traffic signal at Military Road/SR-516 6 Storm drainage 7 Upgrades to the existing illumination system 8 Sidewalks and street lighting in areas where none exist between 54`h Avenue South and the BNSF RR 9 Wetland mitigation 10.New eastbound to northbound left-turn at 72°d Avenue South 11 Various frontage improvements to complete minor arterial section 12. Sanitary Sewer new Military Road. Mayor White and Kent City Council 2 LID 353 Set Public Hearing Date February 2004 The following improvements will be included on 76`h Avenue South/4a'Avenue North 1 Sidewalks in areas where none exist in the vicinity of South 228`h Street 2 Street illumination system in areas where none exist in the vicinity of South 228 h Street Project Cost: The final LID assessments are still being determined The preliminary total project cost was $29,000,000 of which the total preliminary Lin assessment was$14,239,443 Mayor white and Kent City Council 3 LID 353 Set Public Hearuig Date February 2004 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington setting a date for public hearing on the assessment roll of Local Improvement District No. 353 relating to the construction of the South 228"' Street Extension project as provided by Ordinance No. 3619 RECITALS A. The assessment roll levying the special assessments against the properties located in Local Improvement District No. 353 in the City of Kent, Washington (the"City"), has been filed with the City Clerk as provided by law. I B. The City Council delegates under RCW 35 44.070 to the councilmembers now serving on the Public Works Committee the conduct of the hearing on the assessment roll. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1.—Heanng Date. The hearing on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 353 is set before a special committee (the "Committee") comprised of the three (3)councilmembers now serving on the Kent City Council Public Works Committee The Public Works Committee chair may substitute other councilmembers for this committee, should any member of the Public Works Committee become unavailable to conduct this hearing The hearing is to be held at the Council Chambers at the Kent City Hall, Kent, Washington, at the hour of 4:00 p m on March, 23, 2004. 1 LID 353—Public Hearing Date on Final Assessment Roll SECTION 2. - Protests. Property owners wishing to file a protest about the amount of the assessment must do so in writing and file any such protest with the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order for a protest to be considered valid, it must include proof that the property is not being benefited to the amount of the assessment One form of such proof would be an appraisal showing the value of the property before and after construction of the improvements. SECTION 3.-Board of Equalization-Recommendation The Committee will sit as a Board of Equalization for the purpose of considering such assessment roll and at such hearing will consider objections and may consider such corrections or modifications to the roll as may appear just and equitable. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee will make recommendations for consideration by the whole City Council at a regular meeting, and the Council shall then proceed to confirm the assessment roll by ordinance. SECTION 4.-Ratification and Confirmation. Ordinance 3619, and all acts prior to and consistent herewith are hereby ratified and confirmed I SECTION 5. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5)days from and after its passage and publication as required by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR K ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 LID 353-Public Hearing Date on Final Assessment Roll APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED. day of February, 2004. APPROVED: day of February, 2004. PUBLISHED: day of February, 2004 1 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 I P 1C,MORDINMCEUD35 NeamgDaleFinalA�Joc 3 LID 353-Public Hearing Date on Final Assessment Roll • Kent City Council Meeting Date February 17. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BIRDSONG MEADOWS FINAL PLAT—APPROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve the Final Plat Mylar for Birdsong Meadows #FSU-2002-3, and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo, map and King County Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Communijy Development Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? None Revenue? None Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager W A S N I N O T O N Phone:253-856-5454 Fax, 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: February 9, 2004 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT JULIE PETERSON AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP,PLANNING MANAGER THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE SUBJECT: BIRDSONG MEADOWS FINAL PLAT(#FSU-2002-3/KIVA#2033321) MOTION: Approve the final plat mylar for Birdsong Meadows #FSU-2002-3 and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. SUMMARY: John and Jayne Leet propose to subdivide approximately 4.76 acres into twenty-three (23) single-family residential lots. The property is located at 23230 116'h Avenue SE. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: On July 5, 2001, the King County Hearing Examiner issued a Report and Decision granting preliminary approval of a 23-lot single-family residential subdivision, with 20 conditions. The applicant has complied with the conditions required pnor to recording. S\PerrrutT]an\longplats\2002\2033321-FSU-2002-3cc DOC Enclosure- King County Hearing Exarruner Report and Decision O cJ 1 U� I r- N J N 34 N Qt E 100 OD 4000 L 40,00 4000 5832 W a W �r Vary p0 n 6,088 &f, n r 14 r r 10000, N00'4 'DB' .� 13 12 $ n zo DO,+4,119 a N n f$ a 46 r ry N 00 e r O 8 0 4,865.s.f SF-� 4,599 &f. 4,606. &f 4,000 &f �— 0 bow 404 4 (.t so'08'05�E 4111 J�O l9 II>r`G•T•p• .y 8 (� n I n �1 '1v%5,02 a W.Os c 4.339 &f. )� 5o1T15'10'W R. aid SOS SURVEY 55 BY N00'45'08E 15 00' .63' � ; J 3 9 FENCE O �� 3 q h INSTRUMENT. NII 4,276 a i Yam 6,857 a f { )-- METHOD USED: 11"Ot'1p"8 +'a 5,253 &1 o a T all 10215 f„ z �� z z m DATE OF SURVE' n 7 2 'g 4,OBb, at Cilg 2p' 20' JI &04& of W 550t' 6 2' BASIS OF BEAPoI of ~ N11'01'10'N ) 0. 0 40 n t0219 I N fl ^ I �N 20 I� H 1 n 4.122 at ( RESIDENCE Y ,"^.7 v p51'01't� )I 9 ��6 04V E OF FENCE 4i '1 BOUNDARY LINE �r T 3 N r `t 21 SEE Nn D, I 6 WATER EASEMENT w m 4,284 & . 82 a.l o ' -w 75 •O°t _ NltM1 O V V W 110 29' (N p 78 01' al 22 ♦ V ENL'E Z 4,583 a/ , 4Vi' AT� 5 ry N \\ v N71' '10r 5,384 o f c+�` y0'O A;I6 it 6,337 at 23s,o2G :tL \ \ �, n o a V) Z ttttDl'+Drw \ \ \ 4 0 to O LLJ Lg 43211 'Co 1 n ,� \ 5,076. s f i LV A , -1 � 04 RECREATIONAL \\y \ �n i\\ L1 NALL ��`.�j•C O8 N SPACE l O Lu >+ Y L�� (7p�`` ri \ 9 Vt nN 15.DO' 2 t 6.085 a f • 'L� � \ \ (.� 1 37' t0'UTILITY y EASEMENT Q TRACT'A' 0'. �"� �� Lt- PUBLIIC SENSITIVE q? TRACT'E' \ �5 B%'�� BARB Mir W RREE FENCE Q O N l.� a L Pusuc simm \\ n \' +� a 2,I••N BOUNDARY UNE <( •n \ \1N� d+P 1 OO�N'• GM1t}y TRA'S5 h r O� 411,194 AI FAFACILITIESS RtRCTB Ln APPROAMAX 1 20,184 &L 4,040s tOD-YER FL(>-- � (1) ''� 0 `y 20, 20 rSENSITOnE 12'RIGHT OFco ^ AREA DEDICATION " CITY OF KENT {•�, 57.25 — ——————147,76 — — 9014' �• ry • 3 ry — 327.0 _________ _______p_ I$ RW MARGIN ESTA13US14ED _-- I — 0 I�_ BY DEED 47757920 250 r�, o n I 2295 48' 77.93- N OVO4'38'E MEAS) 2623.42'(MEAS) R 116TH AVE S.E. , N 0104'4I_E (REC} 262341'(REC) NI ,14 3 OR8THE CITYY OF RENT vSE _ ' REC N0.20021120001182 400 NO TES: PUGET SWI40 POWER D LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT ;3 AN w '3I9T RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 5447320. THE LEGAL M1FC('RmT10N IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO LOCATE ON MAP i cC -30-2003 12 :01 AN F. Et4 o? D 3 33o,)/ July S. 2 U0l OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON 850 Union Bank of California Building N T O 2001 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98164 Telephone (206)296-4660 G6,• 1. fi II I Facsimile(206)296-1654 CORRECTED COPY REPORT AND DECISION ON PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.: 2001-0258 SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File No LOOP0011 BIRDSONG MEADOWS Preliminary Plat Application Location: 23230 116th Avenue Southeast Applicant: John end Jayne Leet, represenred by Mel L.Daley Daley-Morrow-Poblete Inc. 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 99002 Telephone: (253)333-2200 Facsimile: (253) 333-2206 King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services, Land Use Services Division,repreoented by Fereshteh Dehkordl 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98035-1219 Telephone- (206) 296-74*e-7173 Facsimile: (206)296-6613 SUMMARY OF DECISION: Department's Preliminary Recommendation- Approve, subject to conditions Department's Tonal Recommendation- Approve, subject to conditions Examiner's Decision. Approve,subject to conditions Complete application: May 25, 7000 .EXAMINER PROCEEDINCiS. Hearing Opened: June 26,2001 Hearing Cloned: June 26,2001 .�s� •:�t=tCklv�"� '1-RW,IT CE117t-F; P. © 1 �iC T-?C�-2t-+03 1271�F_. qM LOOP0011-Birdsong Meadows 2 Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner. ISSUES/TOPICS ADDRESSED: Neighborhood circulation Pedestrian access SUMMARY: Grants preliminary approval to the proposed plat of Birdsong Meadows,a subdivision of 4.76 acres into 23 single-family residential building lots. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &DECISION:Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. General information. Owner: John&Jayne Leet, (253)520-8185 23230 116th Avenue SE Kent,WA 98032 Fngineer- Dalcy-Morrow-Poblete,Inc,,(253)333-2200 726 Auburn Way North Auburn,WA 98002 STR: SW K of 16-22-5 Location. East of 116th Avenue Southeast and approximately 300 feet north of Southeast 234th Street Zoning: It-6 SO Acreage: 476 No of Lots: 23 Density: 4.8 Proposed Use: Single Family Residential Sewage: City of Kent Water Supply: City of Kent Fire District: 37 School District: Kent Complete Application Date: May 25,2000 2, rroposal- Jon and Jane Lett(the"Applicant"),represented by Mel Daley of Daley-Morrow- Pohlete Inc,propose to subdivide a 4.76 acre parcel into 23 single-family residential building lots. With a proposed density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre,the proposed development will be LooP00ii-81rdsong Meadows 3 within the density range authorized by the R-6 zoning classification. The proposed preliminary plat drawing is contained in this hearing record as exhibit no. 7 and is also attached to the Department's Preliminary Report(exhibit no.2). 3. State and Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). On April 20,2001,the Department issued a Mitigated Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(MDNS)pursuant to RCW 43.21C. That is, the Department issued its determination that,based upon its review of the applicant's environmental checklist and other relevant environmental documents,the proposal will not cause a probable significant adverse impact upon the environment pro vided that a wetland and wetland buffer protective fence is installed. No agency,person, tribe or other entity appealed that determination. That environmental review record is incorporated in this public review record 4. Department recommendation The Department recommends granting preliminary approval to the proposed plat of Birdsong Meadows, subject to the 21 conditions of final plat approval stated on pages 6-10 of the Department's Preliminary Report,with an amendment to recommended condition no.8. As originally proposed, recommended condition no. 8 specified a ten-foot-wide pedestrian tract with a 5-foot-wide paved surface. As revised in the Department's final rccommendalion to the Examiner,those dimensional specifications are deleted and a reference to King County Road Standards(KCRS) Section 3.0811 substituted. 5. Applicant response. The Applicant accepts the Department's final recommendation as described in finding no.4,preceding. The Applicant had raised the issue regarding tract and paved surface width for the Department-recommended pedestrian link to/through an abutting plat, The pedestrian connector will benefit Birdsong Meadow's residents by providing school access Residents of the easterly abutting property will benefit by obtaining more convenient bus access. The pedestrian linkage is supported by King County Comprehensive Plan Policy T-534 and KCRS Section 2.08.C. The Applicant had not objected to the pedestrian tract,but sought a more narrow one—a position with which the Department finally agreed Thus,we see the modification indicated in finding no.4, above. 6 Public parti rips ttnn No person appeared to express interest,opposition or support regarding the proposed plat of Birdsong Meadows during this public hearing review. 7_ Department report adopted. Except as noted above,the facts and analysis contained in the Land Use Services Division Preliminary Report dated June 26,2001 are correct and are incorporated bete by reference. A copy of the Land Usc Services Division report will be attached to those copies of the examiner's report which are submitted to the King County Council. CONCLUSIONS: 1. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below,the proposed subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives of the King County Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of King County. 2. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below,this proposed subdivision will make appropnote provision for the public health,safety and general welfare and for open spaces, for la'P0011-AlydaoM Meadows 4 drainage ways,streets, other public ways,transit stops,potable water supply, sanitary wastes, parks and teereations,playgrounds, schools and school grounds,and safe walking conditions for students who only walk to school; and it will serve the public use and interest, 3. The conditions for final plat approval recommended below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of this development upon the environment, 4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat,as recommended by the conditions for final plat approval or as shown on the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the applicant, arc reasonable and necessary as a direct result of the development of this proposed plat. DE�.:151ON: The proposed plat of Birdsong Meadows is GRANTED PRELlMrNARV APPROVAL;subject to the fall wing conditions of final plat approval. It is recommended that the subject subdivision,revised and received March 1, 2001 be granted preliminary approval subject to the following conditions of final approval: I. Compliance with all platting provisions of ritic 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 plot 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 or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger, except that minor revisions to the plat which do not rebvlt in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the Departrnent of Development and Environmental Services, 4. Proposed lot 6 containing the existing home and other structures shall meet the yard setback requirements of KCC 21 A. 12.030 The Setback requirements shall be shown on the engineering plan. 1 , 5. 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. 6 Final plat approval %hall 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 repregcnt portions of the drainage requirements. All other applicable iequirements in KCC 9.04 and the Surface Water Design Manual (SVMM)must also be satisfied during engineering and final review. LVOP0011-Birdsong Meadows 5 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. 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; J 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 Depar6rient 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 arc 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." d. Core Requirement No. 3: Runoff Control - Storm water runoff control shall be provided using the Level Two flow control design criteria outlined in the 1998 KCSWDM. The six of the proposed drainage tract may have to increase to accommodate the required detention storage volume and water quality facility. The runoff control facility shall be located in a separate tract and dedicated to King County unless portions of the drainage tract are used for required recreation space in accordance with XCC 21A.14.180, As specified in section 5 1.1 of the 1998 KCSWDM,roof drain storm water shall be infiltrated or dispersed within the lot area if the soil conditions are favorable Infiltration of storm water for both lot areas and roadway improvements is recommended if determined to be feasible. A geotechnieal report shall be provided to evaluate roil conditions, seasonal depth to groundwater, and other design requirements as outlined in the 1998 KCSWDM. e Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality -The site is located in the Black River subbasin of the Careen River hasin and is subject to the Basic water quality standard of the 1998 KCSWDM. f. Special Requirement No. 1: Othcr Adopted Area-Specific Requiretrients The ptopdsed plat is located within the Soos Creek Basin Plan which contains spacial P-Suffix conditions related to seasonal cleanng restrictions(KCC- 16.82.150D),clearing and grading(SC-P3) and significant tree retention(SO- 220) The applicable P-suffix requirements shall be addressed on the final engineering plans. g. Special Requirement No. 2:Floodplain/Ploodway Delineation -Because a wetland and stream are located on the property,a floodplain analysis shall be li v ti+J LOI,Poot t-Birdsciv Meadows ai performed.The 100-year floodplain boundaries shall be shown on the final engineering plans and recorded plat. 5. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS) including the following requirements: A. During preliminary review the applicant submitted a road variance application (File No. LOOV0118),regarding the plat entrance's intersecting spacing along 116th Avenue SE.The variance received approval on 1123/2001. b, Proposed SE 223rd Place shall be improved as an urban subaceess street, ,/e.) Tract D shall he improved as a private joint use driveway that serves a maximum i� of heft lots. The serving lots(proposed 9 and 10)shall have undivided ownership of the tract and be responsible for its maintenance. As specified in KCRS 3.01C,improvements shall include an 18 foot paved surface and a minimum tract width of 20 feet. Drainage control shall include a curb or thickened edge on one side. d Based on KCRS,Section 3.01.C.3 and Drawing#3-004,the minimum pipe stem width for Lot#3 must be 20 feet. e. Twelve feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along 116tb Avenue SE to provid'e'42 feet Pram centerline Frontage-improvements shall be provided to the urban,minor arterial classification standard. Provision for a bike lane along 116th Avenue SE may be required and confirmation from King County DOT will be required during engineering review. f The proposed road improvements shalt address the requirements for road surfacing outlined in KCRS Chapter 4. As noted in section 4.01F, full width pavement overlay is required where widening existing asphalt g. Street trees shall be included in the design of all road improvements, and shall comply with Section 5.03 of the KCRS. h. Street illumination shall be provided at intersections with arterial in accordance with KCRS 5.05. i. 116th Avenue SE is designated a minor arterial street and may require designs for bus zones and turn-outs As specified in KCRS Section 2.16, the designer shall contact Metro and the local school district to determine specific requirements. j. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered by King County pursuant to the variance procedures in KCRS 1.08. 8 A pedestrian tract to connect the cul-de-sac turn-around bulb to the east property line .hall be provided.The actual location of the pedestrian tract shall be coordinated with the r u � L03POOl t-airdsony Meadowe 7 proposed plat of Pine Ridge KC File No LO1P0008 for proper alignment with the pedestrian facility required of that plat.The tract shall be established and improved consistent with the minimum standards contained in KCRS Section 3.08.B,with a minimum 4-foot-high fence on both sides. 9. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the King County Council prior to final plat recording. 10. 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 building 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 Tf� date of building permit application. Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 21A 43,which imposes 1 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 duc 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 pnor to building permit issuance. 12_ The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Sensitive Areas Code as outlined in KCC 21A.24. Permanent survey marking,and signs as specified in KCC 21 A 24.160 shall also be addressed prior to final plat approval. Temporary marking of acnsitive areas and their buffers(e.g., with bright orange construction fencing)shall be placed on the site and shall remain in place until ull construction activities are completed. 13. Preliminary plat review has identified the, following specific requirements which apply to this project All other applicable requirements from KCC 21A 24 shall also be addressed by the applicant. 14 A Class III wetland shall have a minimum buffer of 25 feet,measured from the wetland edge. Buffet averaging may be allowed,pursuant to KCC 21A 24.320,-provided the total amount of the butler area is not reduced and better resource protection is achieved, subject to review and approval by a DDES Senior Ecologist. The wetland and its respective buffer shall he placed in a Sensitive Area Tract(SAT). A minimum building setback line of 15 feet shall be required from the edge of the tract. is. A Class III stream shalt have a 25-foot buffer from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Auffer averaging may be allowed,pursuant to KCC 21 A.24.3GO, provided the total amount of buffer area is not reduced and better resource protection is achieved, subject to review and approval by a DDES Senior Ecologist. The stream and its LGOPttnt 1-61rdsong Meadows w` a respective buffers shall be placed in a Sensitive Area Tract(SAT). A minimum building setback line of 15 feet shall be required from the edge of the tract. 16. If alterations of streams and/or wetlands are approved in conformance with KCC 21 A.24, then a detailed plan to mitigate for impacts from that alteration will be required to be reviewed and approved along with the plat engineering plans. A performance bond or other financial guarantee will be required at the time of plan approval,to guarantee that the mitigatton measures are installed according to the plan. Once the mitigation work is completed to a DDES Senior Ecologist's satisfaction,the performance bond may be replaced by a maintenance hond for the remainder of the five-year monitoring period to guarantee the success of the mitigation. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation,maintenance and monitoring of any approved mitigation. The mitigation plan must be installed prior to final inspection of the plat. �17. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat: RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREAS AND DUFFERS Dedication of a sensitive area tr-act/scmitive 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 arcs and buffer imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers cif the land subject to the tract/sensitive area and buffer the obligation, enforceable or) behalf of the public by King County,to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the tract/scnsitive 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 tractlsensitive area and buffer and the area of development activity must be marked or otherwtse flagged to the satisfaction of King County prior to any clearing,grading,building constriction or other development activity on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer_ 'llic 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 regtuted 15-Foot building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 18 11 The applicant has provided a suitable recreation space consistent with the requirements of KCC 21A 14.180. A suitable tot lot facility consistent with KCC 21 A.14.190(i e., sport courtts], chiidren's play equipment,picnic tablets],benches,etc.)shall be provided. 1' tlG . 4-J LOOPO011-Birdsong Meadows 6 a. An overall conceptual recreation spaco 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. f /19. A homeoyyner4'association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction of DDES which provldcs for i6c&mi a ffiifp'and continued maintenance of the recreation,open space and/or sensitive area tract(s). 20 Street trees shall be provided as toliows(per KCRS 5 03 and KCC 21A 16.050)- Trees shall he planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along all roads. Spacing may he modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for driveways and intersections. ORDERED this 5th day of July,2001, ' R.S s,Deputy K}49 unty Hearing Examiner TRANSMMM this 5th day of July,2001,to the follotwi parties and interested persons: K;Exec Horse Connell Melvin L,Daley SearKG Health Dept Attm Eleanor Moon DMP,INC 14350 SE Eastilata Wy 12230 SE gist Court 726 Auburn Way North Behewe WA SSW? K`rkland WA 98033 Auburn WA 98002 R,W Dorslad John 9 Debra Jackson John Leel 16651 NE 78th St. 11635 SE 231st Pi 23230 110th Ave.Se Redmond JJA 98052 monk WA v6031 Kent WA 9602 Bev Miller Paul E Morrow New Home Trends 14100 SE 162nd St DMP,Inc 18912 N Creek PKWY RE nlon WA, 9005a 726 Auburn Wy N. Bothell WA 98011 Auburn WA 98002 Kbnberly Scott Randall Smllh Lisa Twlllay 11523 SE 231st PL 11624 SE 234th 31 11731 SE 231it PI Ken% WA 98031 Kent WA 96031 ON WA 98031 1/ LOOPOOlf-Birdsong Meadows 10 WA St Ecology WgSW Unit Mark Beroatn Greg Borba -Inds Matlock DDES I LUSD DOESILUSO PO Box 47696 Enplrmaring Review MS OAK-DE-0100 Olympia WA 98507-700 MS OAK-DE-0100 KIM claussen Fareahteh Dshkordl Nick Gillen 13DESILUSO ODESUSO DOESiLUSD •lucrent pannlitg Current PanMng Site Development Sve -AS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAk•DE-0100 Kristen Langley Alletm McManus Carol Roger* KCDOT KGDOT LUSDlCPLN Roads DMalon Roads Division MS OAK-DE-0100 MS KSC-TR-0222 MS-KSC-TR.0222 Steve Townsend Larry West DOESILUIS DDES&USD Land Use Inspections alto Development Services MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL In order to appeal the decision of the Exarttiner,written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Commit with a fee of S125-00(check payable io King County Office of Finance)on or before daly 19,2001. It a notice of uppcil is filed, the original and six (6) copies of a written appeal scalcment specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council an or before Jwly 2C 2001, Appc al statements may refer only to facts contained in the hearing record;new facts may not be presented on appeal Filin requites actual delivery to the Onset of the Clerk of the Cotmcil,Room 403,King Counry Courthouse,prior to the close of business(a 30 p in)on the data due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the(aeik does not occur withi t the applicabic time pcnod The Exanriner does not have authority to ex lend the tune period unless the Office of the Cfed is not open on the specified closing date,in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day i sufficient to meet the tiling requirement. If a v r;tten notice of Appeal and filing fee arc not fled within fourtccu(14)calendar days of the date of this report,or if a written appeal a-taientcot and argument are not filed within twenty-one(21) calendar days of the date of this rcpon,the decision of the hearing examiner contained herein shall be the final decision of King Cuunry without the need for funhcr action by the Council_ MINUTES OF THE DUNE 26,2001 PUBLIC HFAWNG ON DEPARTMAN r OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FiLE NO LOOP0001 I- BIRDSONG MEADOWS. R S.Titus was the)tearing'.:amine:1n th.a nigher Fatticipa:nrg i:,the t;eaing a d r�pr �iitSnb die GcpaiY iiuu waa'reie5iiicii Dchkordi and Mork Bergam Participating in the hearing and representing the Applicant was Mel Daley There were no other partictpants in this hearing. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. Exhibit No, i DDP.S Pile!No LODPOWI I Exhibit No.2 f)DES staff report to the Heating Examiner,dated June 26,2001 Exhibit No . Application,dated Apnl 27.2OW r Exhibit No 4 Environinrntal Checklist,dated March 29,20M Exhibit No.5 Mitigated Determination of Non-significance(MDNS),dated April 17.2001 • Kent City Council Meeting Date February 17, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HIGHLAND PARK FINAL PLAT—APPROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve the Final Plat Mylar for Highland Park #FSU-2041-5, and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo, map and Hearing Examiner Conditions of Approval 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Community Development Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? None Revenue? None Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: • ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager WASH 1 N G T G N Phone 253-856-5454 Fax. 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: February 9, 2004 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT JULIE PETERSON AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE SUBJECT: HIGHLAND PARK FINAL PLAT (#FSU-2001-5/KIVA#2033036) MOTION: Approve the final plat mylar for Highland Park #FSU-2001-5 and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. SUMMARY: Mark Holland of Pacific Land Consulting, proposes to subdivide approximately 9 79 acres into twenty-six (26) single-family residential lots, one stormwater tract, three sensitive acre tracts, three private access tracts, and two tracts to be deeded to the City of Kent Parks Department. The property is located at 26605 132°d Avenue SE. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: On December 6, 2002, the Hearing Examiner issued a Findings, Conclusions and Decision granting preliminary approval of a 26-lot single-family residential subdivision, with 28 conditions. The applicant has complied with the conditions required prior to recording. S.\PernutlP1an11ongplats1200112033036-FSU-2001-5cc DOC Enclosure Conditions of approval—Hearing Exannner w 2 a= N s m I I is i 35' MN34 V Mferi Sun iYsz 3 rY,rnlox a — 8 R am Wnlr h �� r n - - - ✓ 0 _ F r y a r m �' O I lz I 'ry' p 1 N C\2 e N r o ✓ 3 I " >Z I b W z Ln I n to � •I n ¢ m A of US to rH Rim N � � N � N h Z ��nn` W m N O pm� W au Z 03 I i �N 0 N Z - - - - Z s-zz ez'r/l 3s 000 1 lzoct 3.rzraloN O U 'Y/l 3 N•Z/l'3'3Nn'M 3J4.KJON W Z I I - I Z ILLI n Y II Za o3i O w 0 I I ffo : s o J LLJ - - - - V1 W ( 2 W u uR N / OR W u Z I Wk I 8 J O m^ <br- Q � IS OZtI O,rnION S-ZZ-SZ Y/l 35'Y/1 3N'3Nf1 M � I I HIGHLAND PARK #FSU-2001-5 KIVA #RPP5-2033036 On December 6, 2002, THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVED THE HIGHLAND PARK SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The owner/subdivider shall implement all mitigation measures required by the Revised Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposed Highland Park Preliminary Plat, file ENV- 2002-18. B. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL PLAT 1. The Owner/Subdivider shall successfully complete the SE 266th Street vacation and comply with all the terms and conditions thereof including the subsequent land swap with the City of Kent Parks Department as depicted in the submitted application materials. No clearing o r construction s hall be a Ilowed i n t he a rea i dentified a s current 266'h Street right-of-way until the street vacation and land swap have been effected. 2. The Owner/Subdivider shall pay all Charges in Lieu of Assessments and/or Latecomer Fees, if any, prior to scheduling the Pre-Construction Conference and/or prior to recording this plat, whichever comes first. 3. The Owner/Subdivider shall submit and receive City approval of engineering drawings from the Department of Public Works, and shall then either construct or bond for the following: a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The City sanitary sewer system shall be extended from the existing City sanitary sewer system and shall be sized to serve all off-site properties within the same service area. In addition, the sanitary sewer system shall be extended across the entire subdivision as needed to serve adjacent properties within the same service area, unless otherwise determined by the Public Works Director. The septic system serving the existing home within the proposed plat, if any, shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department Regulations. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots to the requirements, specifications and standards of Water District 111. Existing wells, if any, shall be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Ecology. C. Detailed Drainage Plans meeting the requirements of the City of Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development A ssistance B rochure #5-3, D etailed D rainage Plans. Initial guidance is given in the conditions, which follow: (1) The Owner/Subdivider shall construct an on-site public detention/retention pond system in accordance with t he K ent C onstruction S tandards t o m itigate f or potential impacts to both stormwater runoff quantity and quality. This pond shall be constructed within a public stormwater management tract. The detention/retention pond storage volume and release criteria shall be that for Soosette Creek. The required stormwater detention and water quality facilities shall be located outside of the regional detention pond located on-site and south of this site. The outside slopes of the stormwater detention and water quality facilities will be allowed to extend a maximum of 25 feet into the wetland buffer for the wetland on Tract G. A restoration plan for any buffer area disturbed by the installation of these facilities shall be included in the wetland mitigation plan required for this proposal. (2) As development occurs within this subdivision, roof downspouts for each roofed structure (house, garage, carport, etc.) shall be directed to Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches, or Perforated Stubouts, meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5-5, Roof Downspout Infiltration Trench Systems, Downspout Dispersion System, and Perforated Stubout Connections. These roof downspout conveyance and infiltration systems shall include overflow pipes connected to an approved conveyance system. The Detailed Drainage Plans will include an approved detail for the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trench, or Perforated Stubout, and will provide for private stormwater stubouts to each lot for future connection from the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches, or Perforated Stubouts. The face of the recorded plat shall contain the following restriction: AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, RESIDENCES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE ROOF DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION TRENCH (PERFORATED STUBOUT) SYSTEMS PER DETAILS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED STORMWATER PLANS. (3) A d ownstream a nalysis h as b een c ompleted f or t his development and it includes an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, and water quality from the point of discharge from the site downstream a distance of at least one quarter mile or to the point where stormwater discharges to the maintained portion of the City of Kent stormwater drainage system, whichever distance is further. See City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5-4, Downstream Analyses, for the specific information required for downstream analyses. Amendment of the downstream analysis might be necessary if change in conditions warrant. (4) The Owner/Subdivider shall submit Landscape Plans for within and surrounding the retention/detention facility to Planning Services and to the Department of Public Works for concurrent review and approval prior to, or in conjunction with, the approval of the Detailed Drainage Plans. These Landscape Plans shall meet the minimum requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and the stormwater management landscaping requirements contained within City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5, Landscape Plans. Landscape Plans are not to be used to show required Street Trees. (5) The Owner/Subdivider shall execute Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenants for the private portions of the drainage system prepared by the Property Management Section of the Department of Public Works. See City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5-17, Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenants, for information on what is contained within this document. d. An open-to-the-air public stormwater treatment system in accordance with the requirements of the Kent Construction Standards and published City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures dealing with stormwater treatment, to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff quality. Acceptable stormwater treatment facilities meeting this requirement in order of preference include infiltration after pretreatment; biofiltration swales; wet ponds; extended detention ponds; and created wetlands. See City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures #54, through #5-15, for additional information on stormwater treatment requirements. (1) The stormwater treatment system shall be within the approved public stormwater management tract. (2) Easements for biofiltration swales across private lots will not be acceptable to meet this requirement. (3) Placement of a biofiltration swale in the wetland mitigation area will not be acceptable. The stormwater treatment system must be outside of the wetland and its buffer except as noted above. e. A D etailed G rading P Ian for t he entire s ubdivision m eeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #1-3, Excavation and Grading Permits & Grading Plans. Initial guidance for these plans is given below: (1) These plans will include provisions for utilities, roadways, retention/detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and a building footprint for each lot. (2) These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building Permits. f. A Temporary Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and the most recent version of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. These plans must reflect the Detailed Grading Plan discussed above, and the Planning Services approved Detailed Tree Plan. g. Final Wetland Mitigation Plans meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Wetlands Management Ordinance, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #10, Wetland Mitigation Plans and the approved Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan dated August 2, 2002, shall be submitted and approved. These plans shall provide for the avoidance or minimization of impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent possible by incorporating a comprehensive analyses of alternatives, as stated in Kent City Code, Section 11.05.120 - Avoiding Wetland Impacts. h Street Improvement Plans fort he 132"d Avenue Southeast frontage. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures 96-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, and #6-8, Street Improvement Plans, for a street designated as a Minor Arterial Street Augmented With Bike Lanes by the City of Kent Master Plan of Roadways. Initial guidance for the necessary street improvements is given below: (1) Vertical concrete curbs and gutters and a five-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk separated from the back of curb by a five-foot wide planter strip along the west side of the street. (2) A minimum of 34-feet of asphalt pavement as measured from the approved roadway design centerline to the face of curb constructed along the west side of the street, plus at least 12-feet of asphalt pavement as measured from the roadway centerline to the edge of the traveled lane on the east side of the street. (3) A City-approved shoulder on the east side of the street. (4) A City-approved street lighting system. (5) Public stormwater collection, conveyance, detention and treatment facilities. (6) Street Trees installed within the five-foot wide planter strip. These Street Trees shall be located at least 30- feet from streetlights, and the species shall be selected from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees. (7) Construct, or pay a fee in lieu of construction, a six- foot wide asphalt walkway from the south end of the five-foot wide concrete sidewalk constructed along the west side of the 132"d Avenue SF_ subdivision frontage to the existing concrete sidewalk serving the Metro Park 'n' Ride facility located approximately 300 feet south of the subject subdivision, i. Street Improvement Plans for the new public Residential Street terminating with a cul-de-sac at its west terminus. The Street Improvement Plans for this street shall be designed in conformance with the requirements for a Residential Street as required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans for a street 28-feet wide. Initial guidance for these street improvements is given below: (1) Vertical curbs and gutters, five-foot wide planter strips constructed between the back of curbs and the front of the sidewalks, and five-foot wide cement concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street, except as noted below. (2) A minimum of 28-feet of asphalt pavement, measured from face of curb to face of curb except that this minimum asphalt pavement section may be reduced to a minimum width of 20-feet through the wetland and wetland buffer areas of Tracts B and H. This reduction and subsequent expansion in width shall be accomplished through transition tapers as approved by the Public Works Department. The transition tapers shall be on both sides of the public street. (3) The five-foot planter strip may be excluded in the roadway section through the sensitive area tracts provided for this development, however, to provide additional pedestrian safety, the five-foot cement concrete sidewalk shall be increased to six and one- half feet in width where it abuts the curb and gutter. (4) A street lighting system shall be designed, constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of Puget Sound Energy; electrical bills for this street lighting system shall be paid for by the Home Owner's Association. (5) A public stormwater drainage system, including provisions for collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities. The Owner/Subdivider shall install an open bottom box culvert/bridge between the wetland in Tract B and the open drainage channel draining into the larger wetland to the south of this subdivision. The width and other design elements of the box culvert or bridge must be approved by the City's Environmental Engineering Section. • (6) Curb return radii of 25-feet at the intersection of the subdivision street and 132"d Avenue Southeast, and a 45-foot radius to the face of curb for the cul-de-sac. (7) Street trees shall be installed within the five-foot wide planter s trips. T hese street t rees s hall b e I ocated a t least 30-feet f rom streetlights, and the species shall be selected by the City from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees. Special street trees are required to be planted behind the sidewalk through the sensitive area tracts. Special street trees planted within the sensitive area tracts shall be appropriate upland or wetland species approved by the Environmental Engineering Section of Public Works and may not be contained within the brochure referenced in this section. j. Street Improvement Plans for the new Private Residential Streets constructed within Tracts A, C and D. The Street Improvement Plans for these streets shall be designed in conformance with the requirements for a Private Residential Street as required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-8, Street Improvement Plans for a street at least 20-feet wide. Initial guidance for these street improvements is given below: (1) A minimum of 20-feet of asphalt concrete pavement. (2) Sidewalks are not required for private streets serving four lots or less. If sidewalks are constructed along one side of the street for those private streets within Tract A or C, the sidewalk should be along the east side of the private street unless otherwise approved by Public Works. If a sidewalk is constructed along one side of the street within Tract D, the sidewalk should be along the west side of the private street unless otherwise approved by Public Works. (3) Unless otherwise determined by the Public Works Department, the private street, and sidewalks where applicable, should be centered within easements or tracts that are a t least f our f eet wider than the total impervious street and sidewalk section. (4) Turnarounds have been approved for this development. An alternate design might be required if conditions change. (5) A private stormwater drainage system, including provisions for collection, conveyance, d etention, a nd treatment facilities where applicable. (6) Unless additional asphalt concrete pavement width is provided for parking, all minimum width (20-feet wide) private streets serving more than two lots shall have pavement markings and traffic control signs installed which clearly designate these private streets as Fire Lanes, where no parking will be permitted. k. Pedestrian Walkway Improvement Plans providing for a six- foot wide ADA accessible pedestrian pathway, constructed with 3/8 inch minus crushed surfacing top course, shall be constructed within the wetland buffer in Tract B . This t rail shall provide pedestrian access to connect Tract A to the future park to the north. The trail shall be designed to minimize impacts to the wetland, with the final location to be determined during the development of the final wetland mitigation plan. Signage shall be placed at the tradhead attached to a 4 x 4 post placed within the wetland buffer, constructed of materials approved by the City, and shall read as follows: "This is a sensitive area, dedicated to protect wildlife and water quality. Please stay on trail. No dumping permitted." A split rail fence shall be constructed across the access to the trail until the park is constructed, at which time the City will remove the fence. To accommodate public access to this pathway, the Owner/Subdivider shall dedicate a public pedestrian/bicycle easement over the entirety of Tract A. Additionally, Pedestrian Walkway Improvement Plans providing for pedestrian access from the end of the cul-de-sac to the existing trail located within the wetland buffer of Tract G. A pathway shall also be constructed from the existing trail located within the Tract G wetland buffer through the east portion of detention Tract E connecting to the future City park to the north. These plans shall include provisions for a six-foot wide ADA accessible walkway constructed with 3/8 inch minus crushed surfacing top course. The pedestrian walkway shall be centered within a 10-foot wide public tract to provide for fences, interpretive signs, and pathway lighting as appropriate. Connection from the end of the cul-de-sac to the above referenced pathways may be met in either of two ways: (1) The Owner/Subdivider shall dedicate a public pedestrian/bicycle easement over the entirety of Tract D. Additionally, a 6-foot wide walkway, centered within a 10-foot wide tract, constructed with 3/8 inch minimum crushed surfacing top course shall be constructed from the end of Tract D to the newly created pathway in Tract E, OR (2) A 6-foot wide asphalt walkway centered within a 10- foot wide tract located between lots 15 and 16 connecting to the existing trail located within the Tract G wetland buffer. The Owner/Subdivider shall dedicate a public pedestrian/bicycle easement over the entirety of this tract. 4 The Owner/Subdivider shall create a Homeowner's Association for this subdivision to ensure that the property owners within this subdivision are advised of their requirement to pay for the provided street lighting system. The sections of the required document written to govern that association as they relate to any IntoLight Division of Puget Sound Energy street lighting systems, and the maintenance requirements for the private streets, shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the recording of these documents. 5. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall have an undivided interest in Tract A and shall be responsible for the maintenance of that private street. Lots 8, 9, 10, and 1 1 shall have an undivided interest in Tract C and shall be responsible for the maintenance of that private street. Lots 13 and 14 shall have an undivided interest in Tract D and shall be responsible for the maintenance of that private street. These requirements shall be stated on the face of the final plat. 6. The Owner/Subdivider shall submit and receive approval of a Detailed Tree Plan, meeting the requirements of the Kent Zoning Code, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #3, Detailed Tree Plans, prior to the issuance of any Construction Permits for the subdivision. Grading Plans cannot be approved by the Department of Public Works without an approved Detailed Tree Plan. Detailed Tree Plans are not to confused with required Street Tree Plans, which have an entirely different purpose. 7. The Owner/Subdivider shall deed all public rights-of-way, and otherwise convey all private and public easements necessary for the construction and maintenance of the required improvements for this subdivision development. 8. The Owner/Subdivider shall have their surveyor locate the two very large big I eaf maple trees located in the vicinity of the southwest corner of the City Park's parcel, and shall show both the caliper (about 44 inches) of both trees, AND the associated drip lines for both of these significant trees. Those trees and their drip lines shall be entirely included within the boundaries for Tract E. 9. Lot 1 shall have access restricted to that private street contained within Tract A. Lot 26 shall have a minimum frontage along the Residential Street of at least 80-feet unless otherwise approved by the City. 10. Direct vehicular access will not be permitted to and from 132"d Avenue Southeast from any lot that abuts it, and the Final Plat will carry the following restriction: DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AND FROM 132ND AVENUE SOUTHEAST IS PROHIBITED FROM LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 26. 11. The Final Plat shall clearly show both the edges of the Sensitive Area Tracts or Easements, and the 15-foot building setback lines from those sensitive tracts or easements. The face of the plat shall note that buffer averaging was permitted in accordance with Kent City Code Chapter 11.05. 12. The Owner/Subdivider shall permanently protect the approved and preserved, and/or enhanced, or created wetlands and their buffers by creating separate Sensitive Area Tracts and deeding the tracts in fee simple to the City, OR by granting Sensitive Area Easements to the City for the entire sensitive area, in conformance to the requirements of the City of Kent Wetlands Management Code. This Sensitive Area Tract or Easement shall be consistent with the wetland and wetland buffer map contained within the approved Wetland Delineation Report and/or approved Wetland Mitigation Plan as appropriate. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide a legal description of said easement or tract prepared by a licensed land surveyor prior to issuance of any Construction Permits. The Sensitive Area Tract and the following language shall be included on the face of the recorded plat: SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS / EASEMENTS DEDICATION OF A SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT CONVEYS TO THE PUBLIC A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND WITHIN THE TRACT 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, VISUAL AND AURAL BUFFERING, AND PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY, PLANT ECOLOGY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT IMPOSES UPON ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND SUBJECT TO THE TRACT/EASEMENT THE OBLIGATION, ENFORCEABLE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC BY THE CITY OF KENT, TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED ALL TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT THE VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT MAY NOT BE CUT, PRUNED, COVERED BY FILL, REMOVED OR DAMAGED WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM THE CITY OF KENT. THE COMMON BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TRACT/EASEMENT AND THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MUST BE MARKED OR OTHERWISE FLAGGED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF KENT PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING, GRADING, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. THE REQUIRED MARKING OR FLAGGING SHALL R EMAIN I N PLACE U NTIL ALL D EVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES I N T HE VICINITY OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT ARE COMPLETED NO BUILDING FOUNDATIONS, STRUCTURES, FILL OR OBSTRUCTIONS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO DECKS, PATIOS, OUTBUILDINGS AND OVERHANGS) ARE ALLOWED WITHIN 15 FEET OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT BOUNDARY UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY THE CITY OF KENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL PUBLIC UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN THIS SENSITIVE AREA TRACT, AND TO ENTER AND PERFORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE, BUT IS REQUIRED TO RESTORE OR ENHANCE THE SENSITIVE AREAS DISTURBED UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE. 13. The Owner/Subdivider shall permanently protect the approved and preserved, and/or enhanced, or relocated creek and its buffers by creating a separate Sensitive Area Tract and deeding the tract in fee simple to the City, OR by granting a Sensitive Area Easement to the City for the entire sensitive area, in conformance to the requirements of the City of Kent Zoning Code. This Sensitive Area Tract or Easement shall be consistent with the creek and creek buffer map contained within the approved topographic and boundary survey provided for this subdivision. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide a legal description of said easement or tract prepared by a licensed land surveyor, prior to issuance of any Construction Permits. The Sensitive Area Tract or Easement shall be deeded or granted to the City for drainage utility purposes for which said purposes shall take priority over all other rights and restrictions (present or future) encumbering the described property. The Sensitive Area Tract, and the same language for sensitive area tracts/easements stated in Item #12 above, shall be included on the face of the recorded plat. 14. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide the Department of Public Works with a copy of an approved Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) issued by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or written verification from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife that a permit is not necessary, before the City gives its final approval of the Detailed Drainage Plans for this project. Contact Larry Fisher of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife at (425) 649-7042 for additional information. 15. The Owner/Subdivider shall obtain an approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology before the City gives its final approval for any construction permits for this project if the total amount of soil disturbing activities (including grading, stump removal, demolition) exceeds five acres. 16. Prior to the release of any construction bonds, and prior to the approval of any Building Permits within the subject subdivision, the Department of Public Works must receive and approve As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #E- 1, As-Build Drawings, for Streets; Street Lighting System, Water; Sewer; Stormwater Drainage Facilities; and all off-site improvements where the locations and/or elevations are deemed critical by the Department of Public Works. 17. The parks fee-in-lieu of dedication in the amount of $20,025 shall be paid prior to recording of the short subdivision. 18. Mailboxes shall be installed at locations and per standards approved by the U.S. Postmaster and the Public Works Department. 19. The Owner/Subdivider shall remove the existing structures or otherwise relocate them via an approved permit from the City of Kent. 20. The Public Works Department shall review Conditions No. 1, 3(i), 30), 3(k), 5, 9 & 10 within 30 days from the date that engineered public works construction plans relating to street improvements are accepted as a complete submittal and made available for review The purpose of this review is to determine if the proposed ingress/egress to the subdivision will provide safe entry and exit to the subdivision and whether any other access point is suitable. If the City Public Works Department determines additional conditions are necessary, such conditions may be attached to this approval if the conditions clarify or refine an existing condition. If the City Public Works Department determines that an alternative access should be considered, the hearing on this application shall be re- opened for further testimony on the impacts of the proposed alternative access prior to final plat approval. 21. The Applicant shall construct a six-foot high wood fence (at the time of home construction) for the entire length of the common property line between the subject property and the Michael and Paula Egbert property immediately to the south. C. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THIS SUBDIVISION, THE OWN ER/SUB DIVIDER SHALL: 1. Record the Plat. 2. Pay the Environmental Mitigation Fee for that lot. 3. Construct all of the improvements required above. 4. Submit and receive City approval for As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #E- 9, As-Build Drawings, for street improvements, stormwater management system, street lighting system, and other off-site improvements where determined necessary by the City. 5. Complete all wetland mitigation and buffer enhancement as required by the approved final wetland mitigation plan. 6. Pay the Kent School District school impact fee for that lot. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 17, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LARCHER OFFICE BUILDING BILL OF SALE—ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept the Bill of Sale for the Larcher Office Building submitted by Benjamin P. Anstey, P.E. for continuous operation and maintenance of 30 feet of watermain, 25 feet of sewers, 286 feet of street improvements and 372 feet of storm sewers. Bonds are to be released after the maintenance period. This project is located at 24401 100'Ave SE. 3. EXHIBITS: Vicinity map • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J • co h W - - CN uj r O L R� - - - ate _ _ - w -°-3S 3Atr trot VO4 �° �_. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Jim White, Mayor Phone 253-856-5700 Fax 253-856-6700 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S KENT Kent,WA 98032-5895 WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL PRESIDENT JULIE PETERSON CITY COUNCIL MEMBE FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2004 RE: APPOINTMENT TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION I have appointed Pastor Brett Hollis to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. Pastor Hollis served as Associate Pastor of the Church By the Side of the Road for 11 years before becoming Pastor of Riverview Community Church where he has lead the congregation for 2 % years. He has worked with the Kent Chamber of Commerce and has been active with Young Life Youth Ministry. He was recently invited to travel to Italy in April as one of 14 ministers selected to preach at a conference there In his free time he enjoys hunting and fishing, likes to spend time reading and spending time with his wife and two children. Pastor Hollis will replace Reverend Edward Park and his term will be in effect until 111105. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date February 17, 2004 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: MASTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION CRITERIA, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: On January 12, 2004, the Land Use & Planning Board voted 5:0 to recommend approval of a zoning code amendment providing criteria for determining whether proposed modifications to certain Master Planned Unit Developments are major or minor in nature. The amendment is in response to a Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order. 3. EXHIBITS: Minutes of 1/12/04 LU&PD meeting; Staff memo 1/5/04 to LU&PB; Hearings Board Final Decision & Order; 1/1103 (sic) letter from Don B. Shaffer and 1/13/04 staff response • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use & Planning Board 5-0 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? None Revenue? None Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember I moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/deny/modify the Land Use & Planning Board's recommendation of approval.,.l of Zoning Code Amendment#ZCA-2002-3 estabjishing modification criteria for Imo" Master Planned Unit Developments. 01-(/ � G7 , �'�- ^� `"`� DISCUSSION: / V% ' G ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N.Satterstrom, C. D Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager Phone.253-856-5454 WASH IN DT O N Fax: 253-856-6454 Address- 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 12,2004 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Jon Johnson at 7.00 p m. on Monday, January 12, 2004 in Chambers West of Kent City Hall LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Greg Worthing, Vice Chair Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst City Attorney Steve Dowell Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary Nicole Fincher David Malik Janette Nuss Elizabeth Watson LUPB MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicole Fincher, Unexcused Janette Nuss, Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Malik MOVED and Greg Worthing SECONDED to approve the Minutes of December 8, 2003 Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the Board would need to assign members to cover the 2004 scheduled Short Plat meetings to be discussed after the hearing COMMUNICATIONS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the #CPA-2003-2 Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan Initial Zoning designations will be brought to the Land Use and Planning Board at their January 26 hearing. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Auburn has invited the Board to a January 29th workshop titled "Short Course on Local Planning" from 6.30-9:30 pm in Auburn's Council Chambers. Six Board Members have confirmed their attendance #ZCA-2002-3 MASTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson described the textual changes to Kent City Code 15 08.400 concerning criteria for determining major and minor modifications in specified master plans Steve Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Seeing no speakers, David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. Steve Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to accept ZCA-2002-3 Master Planned Unit Developments amendment with the amended language as proposed by staff. Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEM The Board decided to move the Short Plat meeting coverage discussion to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:08 pm Respectfully Submitted, Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board S 1PermRlPlanlLUP812lxI4Vdmutes1D11204mm doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Director • PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager W AS NIN6TON Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: JANUARY 5,2004 TO: CHAIR JON JOHNSON AND LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP,PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: MASTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT #ZCA-2002-3 For January 12,2004 Public Hearing SUMMARY: On April 1, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No 3639 allowing the Planning Manager in office,commercial and manufacturing zones to determine the nature of proposed amendments t o a Master Planned Unit Development when the project is a planned action and consistent with a development agreement. Minor amendments are processed administratively, major amendments are onsidered by the Kent Hearing Examiner A decision by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board found adoption of the ordinance noncompliant with two sections of the Growth Management Act, the Board suggested the City provide criteria for the Planning Manager to utilize in determining the nature of amendments BACKGROUND: On September 23, 2002 after holding a public hearing, the Land Use &Planning Board recommended approval of an amendment to Kent City Code to provide flexibility in determining the type of, and process for amendments to Master Planned Unit Developments. The City Council subsequently approved the Board's recommendation and adopted Ordinance No 3624, repealed the Ordmance because the required state notification had not been given, then after proper notification,held a new public hearing on April 1, 2003 and adopted Ordinance No. 3639 effecting the same amendment. The amendment reflects the umque circumstances of planned actions and development agreements and allows the Planning Manager to determine the nature (major or minor) of proposed amendments to a Master Planned Unit Development and, therefore, the process for reviewing them An appeal of Ordinance No. 3639 was filed with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board On December 1, 2003, the Hearings Board issued a Final Decision and Order (enclosed) that found adoption of the ordinance noncompliant with RCW 36 70A 020(6) and (7) of the Growth Management Act. The Board stated on page 16 of the document, " .the City's ordinance does not establish a GMA-compliant process and criteria to guide the administrator in differentiating minor from major modifications..." The Board suggested the City spell out the criteria to be used, or, alternatively spell out in the development regulations that Planned Action Ordinances or development agreements must include the specific criteria for making the determination of minor or major The Board established March 31,2004 as the deadline for the City to take appropriate legislative action to achieve compliance Land Use&Planning Board Public Hearing January 12,2004 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff proposes adding the following verbiage to Kent City Code: 15.08.400 I Modifications of plan. Requests for modifications of final approved plans shall be made in writing and shall be submitted to the planning services office in the manner and form prescribed by the planning manager. In commercial, office,arid-industrial and manufacturing zoning distncts$e13es, where a master plan is consistent with a planned action ordinance and a development agreement the determination of whether a pmposed modification is minor oraPA major shall be made at the sole discretion of the planning manager, provided, however, that the planning manager's determination must be consistent with criteria established in either the planned action ordinance or the development agreement If the planned action ordinance or the development agreement does not establish such cntena. the Planning_ manager's determination shall be consistent with the criteria stated in subsection I0) and I(2) below The Ccntena for determining minor and major modifications in all other cases shall be as stated in subsection I(1) and I(2)below The cntena for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those cntena covering original approval of the permit,which is the subject of the proposed modification.. CA1pm S 1PermrtlPlan1ZONECODEAMEND1200212022901-2002-3ph011204-rev.doc Enc Hearings Board Final Decision and Order I CENTRAL PUGET SOUND 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON 4 5 ) 6 KENT C.A.R.E.S.and DON B. SHAFFER, ) Case No.03-3-0012 7 8 individually, ) 9 ) (Kent C-A.R.E.S.III) 10 Petitioner, ) 1 t ) FINAL DECISION AND ORDER 12 V. ) 13 ) 14 CITY OF KENT, ) RECEIVED 15 ) 16 Respondent. ) DEC 2 2003 17 ) 1 1s KENT LEGAL OEPT 19 I. CASE SYNOPSIS 20 21 22 Petitioner Kent C.A.R.E.S. and Donald B. Shaffer challenged the City of Kent's 23 adoption of Ordinance No. 3639, which amended the City's development regulations 24 governing the administrative modifications of planned unit development/planned 25 action ordinance actions. Among their allegations, Petitioner contended that the 26 amendments constituted violations of the Growth Management Act's goals and 27 requirements relative to public participation,protecting property rights from arbitrary 28 and discriminatory actions, and ensuring predictability in the development permit 29 process. 30 31 The Board agreed with the City that the challenged ordinance does not violate the 32 public participation goals and requirements of the GMA and affirmed that cities have 33 the authority to delegate to administrators the flexibility and discretion to modify 34 35 development permit conditions, subject to certain provisos. However, the Board 36 agreed with Petitioner that the City's ordinance was not sufficiently clear in 37 establishing the process and criteria to be used by the administrator when 38 differentiating minor modifications from major modifications. 39 40 The Board has remanded the ordinance to the City and directed that legislative action 41 be taken to bring it into compliance with the goals and requirements of the Growth 42 Management Act. Due to the narrow scope of the noncompliance, and the ease with 43 which it be� y ma cured, the Board did not invalidate the Ordinance and instead gave 45 Kent until March 31,2004 to correct the flaw. 46 47 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 48 49 On June 4, 2003, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 50 (CPSGMHB or the Board) received a Petition for Review (PFR) from Kent 12/1)2003 3:05 PM Cen"Paget sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Managementliearlaga Board Page 1 900 4°Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 99164 Tel.(206)389-2625 Far(206)389-2598 i I C.A.R.E.S., Northwest Alliance, Inc, and Don B. Shaffer (Petitioner, Kent 2 C.A.R.E.S. or Shaffer). The matter was assigned Case No. 03-3-0012, and is 3 hereafter referred to as Kent C.A.R.E.S. III v. City of Kent. Board member Lois H. 4 North was assigned as the Presiding Officer for this matter. Petitioner challenge the 5 adoption by the City of Kent (Respondent, City or Kent) of Ordinance No. 3639. G The basis for the challenge is alleged noncompliance with various provisions of the 7 Growth Management Act(GMA or the Act). 8 9 On July 3,2003,the Board received the Rcspondent's Index to the Record. 10 11 On July 7, 2003 the Board conducted the Preheating Conference at the Board's 12 13 Office, 900 4tb Ave., Suite 2470, Seattle. Board member Lois H. North, presiding 14 officer in this matter,conductcd the conference. Petitioner Don B.Schaffer appeared 15 pro se. Representing the City was Kim Adams Pratt. Also in attendance were the 16 Board's Legal Externs Simi Jain and Lynette Meachum. After a review of the legal 17 issues,the schedule and other procedural matters, the presiding officer indicated that 18 the preheating order would be issued by July 10, 2003. 19 20 On July 7, 2003 the Board issued tfie Preheming Order setting forth the Final 21 Schedule and the statement of eleven Legal Issues. 22 23 On July 14, 2003 the Board received "Respondent's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of 24 Service of Process, Standing and Jurisdiction." Four exhibits accompanied the 25 motion. 26 27 On July 21, 2003 the Board received"Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Motion 28 to Dismiss"with two exhibits. 29 30 On July 28, 2003, the Board received "Respondent's Petitioner's Reply to 31 32 Petitioner's Response." 33 On Jul 31, 2003, the Board issued "Order on Motions" the Order on Motions 34 y ( ). 35 The Order on Motions dismissed Legal Issues 5, 10 and a portion of 11 for Lack of 36 Jurisdictions 37 38 On August 28,2003,the Board received"Petitioner's Prehearing Brief'(the FRB): 39 40 On September 22, 2003, the Board received "Respondent's Prehearing Brief' (the 41 City's Response). 42 43 On September 29, 2003, the Board received "Petitioner's Petitioner's Reply to 44 Respondent's Prehearing Brief'(the Petitioner's Reply). 45 46 47 48 49 50 Appendix A lists all eleven original legal issues. Strikethroughs show portions that were dismissed by the Order on Motions and the remaining issues are renumbered to nine. 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Paget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board Page 2 900 4'Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 —_ r,i r,en vcn?6�e Far 211 r�989•?,SAB I The Board conducted the Hearing on the Merits in this matter on October 6, 2003 in 2 the conference room on the 2e Door of the Bank of California Building,900 Fourth 3 Avenue in downtown Seattle. Present for the Board were Edward G. McGuire and 4 Joseph W.Tovar,presiding officer.` Representing Petitioner was Donald B. Shafer, 5 appearing pro se. Representing the City of Kent was Kim Adams Pratt. Also 6 present for the City was Charlene Anderson Court reporting services were provided 7 by BrendaJ.Steinman of Mills and Lessard, Seattle. No witnesses testified. 8 9 10 11 III. FINDINGS OF FACT 12 13 1. The Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3639 on April 1, 2003. PFR, 14 Exhibit A. 15 16 2. The caption of Ordinance No. 3639 reads: "AN ORDINANCE of the city 17 council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending section 15.08.400(D of the 1B Kent City Code, regarding planned unit developments, to provide a process for 19 the modification of master plans located in commercial, office, and 20 manufacturing zones consistent with planned action ordinances and development 21 agreements." Id 22 23 3. Section I of Ordinance No. 3689 reads as follows, with deletions shown in 24 stnkethrough and additions shown in underlining: 25 26 I. Modification of plans. Requests for modifications of final approved plans 27 28 shall be made in writing and shall be submitted to the planning services 29 office degaAment in the manner and form prescribed by the planning 30 manager. In commercial, office, and manufacturing zones, determination 31 of minor and major modifications in master plans consistent with a 32 planned action ordinance and development agreement shall be made at 33 the sole discretion of the tilatming manager. Criteria for determining 34 minor and maior modifications in all other cases shall be as stated in 35 subsection IN)and I(2)below. The criteria for approval of a request for a 36 major modification shall be those criteria covering original approval of 37 the pemiit which is the subject of the proposed modification. 38 39 1. Minor modifications. Modifications are deemed minor if all the 40 following criteria are satisfied. 41 42 43 a. No new land use is proposed 44 b. No increase in density,number of dwelling units or lots is 45 proposed. 46 c. No change in the general location or number of access points is 47 proposed. 48 49 50 On August 1,2003,Joseph W.Tovar became the Presiding Officer for this case due to Ms.North's retirement effective that date. 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Paget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Page 3 Growth D4anagement Herrings Board 900 0 Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 Tat (2nbi IR9.262C Fac f?O613A9 29RA l d. No reduction in the amount of open space is proposed. 2 c. No reduction in the amount of parking is proposed. 3 f. No increase in the total square footage of structures to be 4 developed is proposed,and 5 g. No increase in general height of structures is proposed. 6 7 Examples of minor modifications include but are not limited to lot s line adjustments, minor relocations of buildings or landscaped areas, 9 10 minor changes in phase and tinting, and minor changes in elevations 1 l of buildings. 12 13 2. Major modifications. Major adjustments are those which, as 14 determined by the planning manager, substantially change the basic 15 dcsign, density, open space or other similar requirements or 16 provisions. Major adjustments to the development plans shall be 17 reviewed by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may review 18 such adjustments at a regular public hearing. If a public hearing is 19 held, the process outlined in subsection (F) of this section shall apply. 20 The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision to approve, deny 21 or modify the request. Such a decision shall be final. Any appeals of 22 this decision shall be in accordance with KCC 12.01.040. 23 24 Id. 25 0 26 27 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW/BURDEN OF PROOF/DEFERENCE 28 29 A. Board Review of Local Government Decisions 30 31 Petitioner Kent C.A.R.E.S. challenges The City's adoption of Ordinance No. 03-006 32 alleging that the Ordinance does not comply with the goals and requirements of the 33 Growth Management Act. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.320(1), Ordinance Nos. 03- 34 006, is presumed valid upon adoption by the City. Kent C.A.R.E.S. bears the 35 burden of proof of overcoming the City's presumption of validity by presenting 36 evidence and argument that demonstrates clear error. 37 38 The Board is directed by RCW 36.70A.320(3) to review the challenged action using 39 40 the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. The Board "shall find compliance 41 unless it determines that the actions taken by [a city or county] are clearly erroneous 42 in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and 43 requirements of [the GMA]." For the Board to find the City's actions clearly 44 erroneous, the Board must be "left with the firm and definite conviction that a 45 mistake has been made." Dept of Ecology v. PUD 1, 121 Wn.2d 179,201 (1993). 46 47 Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.3201, the Board will grant deference to the City in how it 48 plans for growth, provided that its policy choices are consistent with the goals and 49 requirements of the GMA. In 2000, the State Supreme Court reviewed RCW 50 36.70A.3201 and clarified that, "Local discretion is bounded . . . by the goals and 12 I12003 3:05 PM Central Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Headnps Board Page 4 900 46 Avenue,Suite 2470,Seittle,WA 98164 I requirements of the GMA." King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth 2 Management Hearing Board(Icing County), 142 Wn.2d 543, 561, 14 P.3d 133, 142 3 (2000). 4 5 In 2001, Division II of the Court of Appeals further clarified, "Consistent with King 6 County, and notwithstanding the 'deference' language of RCW 36.70A.3201, the 7 Board acts properly when it foregoes deference to a . . . plan that is not `consistent 9 with the requirements and goals of the GMA." Cooper Point Association v. 10 77rurston County, No. 26425-1-11, 108 Wn. App. 429, 31 P.3d 28 (Wn.App. Div. II, 11 2001). In 2002, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in 12 Cooper Point. Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management 13 Hearing Board, Docket No. 71746-0,November 21,2002, at 7. 14 15 B. Judicial Review of Board Decisions 16 17 Any party aggrieved by a final decision by a growth management hearings board 18 may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 19 36 01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the Board. RCW 36.70A.300(5). 20 21 RCW 36.70A.260(1) requires that board members be "qualified by experience or 22 training in matters pertaining to land use planning." The Board has been endowed _3 24 by the legislature with quasi-judicial functions due to its expertise in land use 25 planning.3 Accordingly, under the Administrative Procedures Act, a reviewing court 26 accords substantial weight to this agency's interpretation of the law. The Supreme 27 Court, in Cooper Point, specifically affirmed this standard of review of a Growth 28 Management Hearings Board decision: 29 30 Although we review questions of law de novo, we give substantial 31 weight to the Board's interpretation of the statute it administers. See 32 Redmond, 136 Wn.2d at 46. Indeed"Mt is well settled that deference 33 [to the Board] is appropriate where an administrative agency's 34 35 construction of statutes is within the agency's field of expertise . . . 36 Id. 37 38 V. BOARD JURISDICTION 39 40 The Board finds that Petitioner's PFR was timely filed, pursuant to RCW 41 36.70A290(2); that Petitioner has standing to appear before the Board, pursuant to 42 RCW 36.70A.280(2); and the Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the 43 remaining legal issues,pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280(l)(a). 44 45 46 47 48 3 The Board members possess the expertise required by RCW 36.70A 260(1). Vitae for Central Puget 49 Sound Board members are posted on the Board's website at www,Qmbb wa eov/central/index.html. so M12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central PoYet Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Bnrings Board Page 5 900 46 Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 99164 Tel (204)IRo-2625 Far t2061389-2588 1 VI. LEGAL ISSUES 2 3 Prefatory Note 4 5 Although the PHO listed eleven legal issues, two of these issues, and a portion of a 6 third,were dismissed by the Order on Motions. The remaining nine legal issues are 7 addressed below. In response to the briefing of the parties,the Board has grouped its 8 discussion and analysis of these legal issues. 9 10 1 l A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 12 13 14 LeQal Issue No. 2 15 16 Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail to comply with 17 mandate to include and consider transportation "land-use assumptions"? [RCW 18 36.70A.020 and .0701 19 20 1. Applicable Law 21 22 The Petitioner did not specify in the PFR or briefing which of the thirteen planning 23 24 goaIs listed in RCW 36.70A.020 are relevant to this issue. Nor did the Petitioner 25 reference which portion of RCW 36.70A.070 (i.e., the preamble, as opposed to 26 subsections (1)through(9))is at issue. 27 28 2.Discussion 29 30 a. Positions of the Parties 31 32 Kent C.A.R.E.S. 33 34 Petitioner states that, by its explicit wording, the amendments apply with regard to 35 "commercial land uses,office land uses,and/or manufacturing land uses"but argues: 36 37 38 However, these land uses interrelate to other land uses in the city, 39 such a transportation,public and utilities land uses, service land uses, 40 resource land uses,cultural, entertainment, and recreational land uses, 41 and residential land uses. Petitioner argue that it is difficult, if not 42 impossible, to consider a proposed plan modification concerning 43 commercial, office, or manufacturing land uses without their [sic) 44 being some functional interconnection to other land uses, as defined 45 by the City Zoning Code, but excluded from the amendment 46 language. 47 48 PHB, at 6. 49 50 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Puget sound 03-3-0012 F1nal Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board Page 6 900 4'b Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 _ — - T.• "nr.096.+45'c F"f2461499-25RA I City of Kent .2 3 The City assumes that Petitioner is concerned with Goal 3 because that is the only 4 planning goal that refers to transportation" and that the reference to "land use 5 assumptions" means that Petitioner are concerned about the transportation element 6 (i.e., RCW 36.70A.070(6)). City's Response, at 5-6. The City points out that 7 Ordinance No. 3639 does not amend the transportation element of the Kent 8 comprehensive plan and argues that the ordinance "in no way changes any land use 9 10 assumptions made by the City in its Comprehensive Plan." City's Response,at 6. 11 12 b. Analysis 13 14 The Board agrees with the City that it is difficult to understand Petitioner's 15 arguments with regard to Legal Issue No. 2. City's Response, at 6. It may be,as the 16 City surmised, that Kent C.A.R.E.S. is specifically concerned about noncompliance 17 with planning goal 3 and Subsection(6)of RCW 36.70A.070. It is impossible to tell 18 from the issue as stated, and the City's sumuse, though logical, requires deductive 19 reasoning. 20 2 1 The burden of proof in a GMA challenge is the petitioner's to carry, and fundamental _2 23 to doing so successfully is pointing to which statutory provision is the focus of an 24 allegation of noncompliance. Because Petitioner do not meet this most basic of 25 requirements with respect to Legal Issue No.2,they fail to carry the burden of proof. 26 27 Moreover, even if the Board were to conclude that this legal issue implicates RCW 28 36.70A-020(3) and RCW 36.70A.070(6), this claim fails. The Board notes that 29 RCW 36.70A.060(7) applies only to comprehensive plans and amendments thereto, 30 not development regulations and their amendment. Ordinance No. 3639 amends the 31 City's development regulations with respect to certain planned unit development 32 permits. Finding of Fact 2. 33 34 35 3.Conclusions re:Legal Issue No. 2 36 37 The Board concludes that the Petitioner have failed to carry the burden of proof 38 relative to Legal Issue No.2. 39 40 41 42 B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 43 44 Legal Issue No. 1 45 46 Did the City of Sent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail to comply with 47 mandate to "encourage lire involvement o citizens in the planning process"and 48 8 f P 8 49 ensure community coordination to "reconcile conflicts"? [RCW 36.70A.020(11)] i 50 12W2003 3:05 PM Central Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Groa tL Manageateat Heuiags Board Page 7 900 4"Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 TM nn�2R0-76,�Fax f�061'189-?5RA 1 Legal Issue No.3 2 3 Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail to set up provisions 4 for ensuring adequate enforcentent of develapntent regulations (including civil 5 rind criminal penalties)? [RCW 36.70A.1401 6 7 Le2al Issue No.4 8 9 10 Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail to provide for 11 "early and continuous" public "open discussion" in "the development and 12 amendment" of `proposals and alternatives" prior to adoption? [RCW 13 36.70A.1401 14 15 L_eeal Issue No.5 16 17 Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail to comply with 1 mandate to provide for "consideration of and response to public comments '. 19 20 [RCW 36.70A.140J 21 Legal Issue No.7 22 23 24 Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fait to comply with the 25 mandate to involve the public at the "earliest possible tinte" to begin with the 26 "visioning process in which the public is invited to participate in a broad definition 27 of the kind of future to be sought for the contmrmity"? [RCW 28 36.70A.140/WAC365-195-6001 29 30 1. Applicable Law 31 32 RCW 36.70A.020(11)provides: 33 34 5 Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and 3 36 ensure coordination' between communities and jurisdictions to 37 reconcile conflicts. 38 39 RCW 36.70A.140 provides: 40 41 Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 42 36.70A.040 shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a 43 public participation program identifying procedures providing for 44 early and continuous public participation in the development and 45 amendment of comprehensive laud use plans and development 46 regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide 47 48 for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for 49 written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision 50 for open discussion, communication programs, information services, 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Centel Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board Page 8 900 4t*Avenue,Suite 2470,Soffit,WA 98164 Try n��zRo.'fF?S Fax ROfi3 3R9-2588 l and consideration of and response to public comments. In enacting 2 legislation in response to the board's decision pursuant to RCW 3 36.70A300 declaring part or all of a comprehensive plan or 4 development regulation invalid, the county or city shall provide for 5 public participation that is appropriate and effective under the 76 circumstances presented by the board's order. Errors in exact compliance with the established program and procedures shall not 9 render the comprehensive land use plan or development regulations 10 invalid if the spirit of the program and procedures is observed 11 12 13 2. Discussion 14 15 a. Positions of the Parties 16 17 Kent C.A.R E.S. 18 19 Petitioner groups arguments addressing Legal Issues Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 under the 20 heading of"Non-Compliance with the GMA Prior to Adoption." Petitioner asserts: 21 22 23 A key principle of the GMA mandates that the City,when reviewing a 24 proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan or the 25 adoption of a development regulation encourage [rather than 26 discourage or restrict] citizen involvement in the process. In addition, 27 such citizen involvement should provide early and continuous 28 opportunity for the public to interact with the City. Under the GMA 29 [RCW 36.70A.140] the City should have earnestly considered the 30 comments from the public and the City should have generated actual 31 responses to the comments received prior to passing Ordinance No. 32 3639 . . . [and]work to reconcile conflicts within the community. 33 34 PHIB,at 2-3. 35 36 37 Kent C.A.R.E.S. complains that the City's process, as modified by Ordinance No. 38 3639, provides no "mechanism for ongoing interaction with the public regarding 39 decisions dictated by the placating manager." PHB, at 3. Petitioner contends that the 40 amendatory language is vague, inviting alternative interpretations of the word 41 "zones"for example (PHB, at 4-5) and that the phrase "determination of minor and 42 major modifications in master plans" could be read to be either "disjunctive or 43 conjunctive." PHB, at 5. Petitioner expresses concern that the City's administrator 44 could interpret such language in a way that would"totally restrict all public comment 45 regarding large-scale, multi-phase, master-planned PUDe' contrary to RCW 46 36.70A.140. Id. 47 48 49 Finally, Petitioner points to RCW 36.70A.020(5) to argue that the amendments do 50 not"promote economic opportunities"for all citizens, but instead confer that benefit 12IM003 3.05PM Central Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth MaaaeementHearinesBoard Page 9 900 4°Avenue,Sulte 2470.Seattle,WA 98164 Tel fS0613R9.2625 Parr2061389-2588 I only "on the friends of City Hall." PHB, at 6. Kent C.A.R.E.S. further contends • 2 that the amendments violate RCW 36.70A.020(6)because they would "compromise" 3 the ability of property owners outside the area of a PUD master plan to protect their 4 property rights. Id. 5 6 City of Kent 7 8 in refuting the Petitioner's public participation claims, the City cites to the record of 9 10 citizen input regarding Ordinance No. 3639, including a public bearing before the 11 City Council on April 1, 2003 and the City's Land Use and Planning Board on 12 September 23, 2002. City's Response, at 3. Grouping its response Petitioner's 13 arguments regarding Legal Issues 1,4,5 and 7, the City argues: 14 15 Contrary to Petitioner's argument, the City is not compelled to 16 "generate actual responses" to the public comments received. In the 17 case of, the petitioners argued that the County had not complied with is the GMA because the county did not specifically answer petitioners' 19 individual questions or provide them with an explanation of how the 20 County responded to petitioners' comments. The Board [in 21 Bremerton] held that a"response may,but need not,take the form of 22 23 an action,either a modification to the proposal under consideration,or 24 an oral or written response to the comment or question." 25 26 City's Response, at 34, Citing Bremerton v. Kitsap Count),, CPSGMHB 27 Case No. 95-3-0039c, Final Decision and Order (February 8, 1999), at 24. 28 Emphasis omitted. 29 30 In responding to the arguments regarding Legal Issue No. 3,Kent cites a more recent 31 Board case for the proposition that a petitioner's mere "dissatisfaction and 32 disappointment with the decision made by the City does not mean that the City did 33 not comply with RCW 36.70A.140." City's Response, at 4, citing Montlake 34 35 Community Club v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB Case No.99-3-0002c, Final Decision 36 and Order(July 30, 1999), at 9. In response to the Kent C.A.R.E.S. contention that 37 Ordinance No. 3639 is flawed because it allegedly lacks "adequate enforcement of 38 development regulations"the City points out that no enforcement provision is listed 39 in RCW 36.70A.140. Therefore, the City reasons, Petitioner can demonstrate no 40 breach of a non-existent duty. Id. 41 42 The City contends that Petitioner misstates Legal Issue No.3 in its Prehearing Brief., 43 attempting to insert for the first time the argument that the Ordinance violates RCW 44 36.70A-140 because it does not require"ongoing interaction with the public"and"an 45 opportunity to appeal." City's Response, at 5. Kent points out that no such 46 requirement exists in the statute,nor appears in Legal Issue No. 3. Finally,the City 47 disputes the relevance of the Petitioner's complaint that the City declined the 48 sP P tY 49 Petitioner's offer to discuss the issues at settlement conference proposed by Kent 50 C.A.R.E.S. Id. 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Paget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearlaga Board Page 10 900 4'h Avenue,Sulte 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 .. - _... "Anion,coo T 1 2 b. Analysis 3 4 The Board agrees with the City on every point raised under these five legal issues. 5 The record shows that the City met its obligations under RCW 36.70A.140 to afford 6 public participation opportunities to the public in general and to Petitioner in 7 particular. The City correctly observes that the Board has previously held that a 8 local govemment has no GMA duty to provide a specific response, either written or 9 10 oral,to each comment or criticism offered by members of the public. Likewise,the 11 GMA imposes no duty upon a local government to "meet with petitioners" for the 12 Purposes of discussing their comment, nor within the context of a potential 13 settlement conference. While the Board commonly inquiries whether the parties 14 might wish to avail themselves of other Boards' resources in order to pursue 15 settlement, nothing in the Act, the Board's rules or orders mandates that a local 16 government engage in settlement conference proceedings. Likewise, a local 17 government decision to decline to participate in such proceedings does not constitute 18 a violation of RCW 36.70A.140. 19 20 The"ongoing interaction with the public"that Petitioner describes is, in fact a GMA 21 objective, certainly with respect to the process of developing and considering 22 23 adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. RCW 36.70A.140. ' 24 However, Petitioner's arguments seem to suggest that the GMA mandates that such 25 "ongoing interaction"continue into the permit processing, issuance and enforcement 26 phases, including the consideration of possible amendments. This is a mistaken 27 impression. Once the highly discretionary and public participation-intensive 28 legislative process culminates in the adoption of plans and regulations, the 29 opportunity for "public participation" is greatly reduced, and rightly so. The 30 "timeliness" and "predictability" that must be assured by the development permit 31 process(RCW 36.70A.020(7))would be thwarted if a city were obliged to engage in 32 the kind of"ongoing interaction"during the permit phase that Petitioners' describe. 33 34 35 3. Conclusions re: Legal Issues Nos. 1,3,4,5 and 7 36 37 The Board concludes that the Petitioner have failed to carry the burden of proof 38 with regard to legal issues Nos. 1, 3,4, 5 and 7. 39 40 41 C. FAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS 42 43 Legal Issue No. 6 44 45 Did the City of Kent in its adoption of subject Ordinance No. 3639 fail to comply 46 with the mandate that the City's permit applications be processed in a `fair 47 48 manner"? [RCW 36.70A.020(7)] 49 50 12/l/2003 3:05 PM Central Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board Page Ll 900 4°Avenue,Sulu 2470,Seattlq 1i'A 98164 1 Leeal Issue No. 8 2 3 Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail to comply with 4 mandate to be fair and non-discriminatory in the City's promotion of"economic 5 opportunity'T [RCW 36.70A.020(5)] 6 7 t; Leeal Issue No. 4 9 Did the City of Kent in its adoption o Ordinance No. 3639 ail to comply with the to tY p � f f � FY 11 inaitdate to protect private property owners front arbitrary and discriminatory 12 actions? f RCW 36.70A.370/RCW 36.70A.020(6)] 13 14 15 1. Applicable Law 16 17 RCW 36.70A.020(5)provides: 1a 19 Encourage economic development throughout the state that is 20 consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic 21 opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed 22 23 and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion 24 of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize 25 regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, 26 and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic 27 growth,all within the capacities of the state's natural resources,public 28 services,and public facilities. 29 30 RCW 36.70A.020(6)provides: 31 32 Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation 33 having been made.The property rights of landowners shall be protected from 34 35 arbitrary and discriminatory actions. 36 37 RCW 36.70A.020(7)provides: 38 39 Applications for both state and local government pens its should be 40 processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. 41 42 2.Discussion 43 44 a. Positions of the Parties 45 46 Kent C.A.R.E.S. 47 48 Petitioner identify a common thread among these three legal issues as "mandating 49 that development regulations under the GMA be written so as to be non- 50 discrimivato ry, non-arbitrary, and fair." PHB, at 7. Petitioner argue that the City's 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board Pate 12 9D0 4'aAvenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 1 planning manager could act in an unreasonable manner, approve modifications that 2 financial benefit a master plan developer, but not other property owners, and that 3 there are inadequate safeguards for review of adverse environmental impacts. PHB, 4 at 6. 5 6 Petitioner argues that the amendments render the City's PUD modification process 7 vague and confusing, vest too much authority in an administrator, and improperly 8 insulate modification decisions from the public's review, comment and appeal. 9 10 Petitioner summarizes this position as follows: 11 12 Petitioner assert that regulations concerning proposed modifications 13 to a multi-acre, multiple land use, multiple-phased PUD project to be 14 consistent with the GMA should work to provide additional public 15 participation opportunities rather than work to exclude public 16 participation . . . [the Ordinance] would give totalitarian power to a 17 City employee to classify even the most significant modifications of a 18 PUD Master Plan to be "minor modifications" which would then 19 allow that employee to amend the formal conditions of approval 20 without any opportunity for public obj ection or appeal. 21 22 23 Petitioner's Reply, at 3. 24 25 City of Kent 26 27 Kent disputes Petitioner's allegations and characterizations. The City asserts: 28 29 Contrary to Petitioner's allegations, Ordinance No. 3639 does not 30 give the planning manager unrestrained power. The amendment . . . 31 did not change the requirement that the hearing examiner, after a 32 public hearing, will still decide whether to approve, modify, or deny 33 all major modification. When asked by the City Council after the 34 35 public hearing whether this amendment would change the public 36 process,the planning manager explained that it would not. 37 38 City's Response, at 7. 39 40 With respect to minor modifications,the City contends. 41 42 Under the amendment, the planning manager only has this authority 43 [to approve minor modification] when the planning manager is 44 already working within the confines and the restrictions imposed by 45 the PAO, the PAO's EIS, and development agreement. These 46 a evep 47 documents would have already gone through extensive public 48 process. RCW 36.70B.200,RCW 43.21C.031. 49 50 City's Response, at 7-8. 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Puget sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth ManagementHtatinga Board Page 13 900 4'Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 1 b. Analysis 2 3 Many of Petitioner's arguments about"fairness"revisit prior City actions, including 5 actions not presently before the Board.° It is outside the scope of the present matter 6 for the Board to opine on the lawfulness or advisability of alleged actions or motives 7 of the City or its employees. Here, the Board looks only to the specific language of 8 Ordinance No. 3639 in order to determine whether, on its face, that legislation fails 9 to comply with the cited statutes. 10 11 Before taking up the arguments of the parties, it is useful to note that the Board has 12 previously examined questions related to the discretion delegated to administrators. 13 In Pelchuck Audubon Society, et al., v. Snohomish County [Pilcltuck], CPSGMHB 14 Case No.95-3-0047,Final Decision and Order, (Dec. 6, 1995),the Board stated: 15 16 The successful delegation of such decisions to administrators will 17 depend largely upon the diligence, competence and judgment of the 18 individuals that local governments place in such roles, yet it is not the 19 20 place of this Board to make personnel decisions, nor to evaluate their 21 performance. 22 23 What is within our realm are the development regulations that provide 24 administrators with clear and detailed criteria so that, in wielding 25 professional judgment, the Director has regulatory "sideboards" and 26 policy direction. Failure to provide such parameters does not just 27 place an administrator in an uncomfortable position — it would 28 undermine, perhaps fatally, the duty of the legislative body to 29 articulate in its adopted development regulations its expectations and 30 requirements with regard to critical areas protection. 31 32 33 Pilchuck,at 36. 34 35 More recently, the Board examined the discretion of a local government to authorize 36 its administrator to consider extensions to the life of an approved development 37 permit. In Olson, et al., v. City of Kenmore (Olson) CPSGMHB Case No. 03-3- 38 0003,Final Decision and Order(June 30,2003),the Board stated; 39 40 The Board notes that the addition of the extension process 41 "diminishes" the predictability originally set forth in KCC 42 21A.41.100(A) and (B). Nonetheless, it is clearly within the City of 43 44 Kenmore's discretion to determine whether it desires a permit 45 extension process or not, and to establish the criteria for granting, 46 47 49 'For example,Petitioner complains that the City made"no effort to reconcile conflicts or respond to 49 comments relating to... Kent C.A.R.E.S.M" PHB,at 3. 50 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Centrof Fuget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Deelslon and Order Growth Management Burings Board Page 14 900 46 Avenue,Suite 2470,Sattte,WA 99164 ___ Trl nnT 7Ao_�F2q Fart201g389-2588 l denying or otherwise limiting the frequency or duration of such 2 extensions. 3 4 Olson, at 7, footnotes omitted. 5 6 From the Olson and Pilchuck holdings, the Board gleans that the GMA does not 7 preclude a local government from adopting development regulations that delegate to 8 9 administrators a degree of flexibility in making modifications to approved permits 10 However,the Board's Olson reasoning makes clear that,in order for an administrator ]l to wield such discretion,he or she must be guided by a specific process and criteria 12 for doing so. To delegate such authority without providing the necessary "direction 13 and sideboards"to guide an administrator's discretion would constitute a substantive 14 noncompliance with both RCW 36.70A.020(6) and(7).5 To paraphrase and amplify 15 the above-cited Olson holding,the Board holds: 16 17 It is within a local government's discretion to determine whether 18 or not it desires a development permit modification process and 19 whether that process will be administrative as opposed to quasi- 20 judicial; however, in doing so, it must establish the process and 21 criteria for granting, denying or otherwise limiting the frequency, 22 23 scope or duration of such modifications. Development regulations 24 that fail to do so may be in substantive noncompliance with RCW 25 36.70A.020(6) (7). 26 27 Here, the City of Kent has authorized its administrator, the planning manager, at his 28 or her"sole discretion"to determine what proposed modifications to certain permits 29 (i.e.,permits that have been issued pursuant to an adopted planned action ordinance 30 and development agreement) shall be considered to be minor. In response to the 31 allegation that there are no criteria to guide the planning manager in the exercise of 32 his/her discretion,the City contends that the range of discretion is limited by the fact 33 that such modification requests must be "consistent" with "a planned action 34 ordinance and development agreement." City's Response, at 2. 35 36 37 While"consistency" is a laudable goal, in this context it does not provide clear and 38 unambiguous direction about the scope and nature of discretion reserved to an 39 administrator evaluating whether a modification request to permit conditions is 40 "minor"as opposed to "major." There is a sharp contrast between vague direction to 41 42 43 44 s For example, if a development regulation were to grant to an administrator,explicitly or implicitly, 45 the authority to post-hoe impose or remove conditions or restrictions of an approved permit absent 46 clear direction about process and cnteria in that permit, both Goal 6 and 7 would be undermined. 47 Such a legislative enactment could well constitute an "arbitrary" as well as "discrirmnatory" action 48 Y.e., a violation of Goal 6),to say nothing of thwarting, rather than ensuring, "predictability"(i e,a 49 violation of Goal 7.) For further Board discussion relative to the interplay of Goal 7 with local 50 government development regulations, see King County, el al, Y. Snohomish County, et A [King County],Final Decision and Order,(Oct 13,2003),at 1S-16. 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Puget sound 03-3-Q012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board Page 15 900 4"Avenue,Sulte 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 .. ..., ...n , r r '-- — -' ----' - -- - ----- -' -- - -" — T -- I "be consistent" with an approved permit and clear delineation of the criteria to be 2 used to guide administrative discretion.6 3 4 Applying the above holding to Ordinance No. 3639,the Board agrees with Petitioner 5 that the City's ordinance does not establish a GMA-compliant process and criteria to 6 guide the administrator in differentiating minor from major modifications. 7 Ordinance No. 3639, as written, authorizes the planning manager, in wielding his or 8 her sole discretion, to approve or require modification of conditions of an approved 9 10 PAO/development agreement permit — yet it does so without providing the City's l l administrator with clear direction about what process and criteria are to be employed 12 to determine whether a proposed modification is a minor or major one. Absent 13 spelling out such criteria in the development regulation itself, or, alternatively 14 spelling out in the development regulation that each PAO/development agreement 15 permit must include specific criteria to guide subsequent administrative 16 determinations regarding minor/major modifications, the City's modification 17 provisions fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.020(6)and(7). 18 19 The Board finds and determines that Ordinance No.3639 is clearly erroneous and is 20 in noncompliance with RCW 36.70A.020(6) and(7) and will remand it to the City 21 to take legislative action consistent with the requirements of the GMA as interpreted 22 23 in this Order. 24 25 3.Conclusions re:Legal Issues Nos. 6, 8 and 9 26 27 The Board concludes that the Petitioner have failed to carry the burden of proof with 28 regard to legal issue No. S. The Board concludes that the Petitioner have carved the 29 burden of proof with regard to Legal Issues Nos. 6 and 9 which allege 30 noncompliance with RCW 36.70A.020(7) and(6),respectively. The Board finds the 31 City's action clearly erroneous and issues to the City of Kent a finding of 32 noncompliance for Ordinance No. 3639. The Board will remand the Ordinance to 33 the City for legislative action to cure the defect 34 35 36 VIII. INVALIDITY 37 38 1. Applicable Law 39 40 RCW 36.70A.302 provides in relevant part: 41 42 (1) A board may determine that part or all of a comprehensive plan or 43 development regulations are invalid if the board: 44 (a) Makes a finding ofnoncompliance and issues an order of 45 remand under RCW 36.70A.300; 46 47 48 s An example of the latter appears at the end of the amended paragraph describing the criteria used in 49 "all other cases"(". . .The criteria for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those 50 criteria covering original approval of the permit which is the subject of the proposed modification.") Finding of Fact 3. [2/1/2003 3:05PM Central Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Flnal Decision and Order Growth Management HaringsBoard Page 16 900 4t"Avenue,Sulte2470,Statue,WA 9B164 I (b) Includes in the final order a determination, supported by 2 findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the continued 3 validity of part or parts of the plan or regulation would 4 substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this 5 chapter. . . 6 7 2. Discussion 8 9 10 While Petitioner did allege noncompliance with a number of GMA goals (RCW 11 36.70A 020(5), (6), (7), and (11)), their prayer for relief points to no specific goal 12 that will be thwarted by the continued validity of Ordinance No. 3639 during the 13 period of remand. PFR, at 3; PHB, at 10; Petitioner's Reply, at 4-5. The City's 14 Response brief does not speak directly to the question of invalidity, instead arguing is that the Board should not even reach the question of noncompliance, which finding 16 would be precedent to considering the question of invalidity. 17 18 With respect to the narrow and specific noncompliance alleged in Legal Issues 6 and 19 9, supra, the Petitioner has carried the burden of proof to show that Kent Ordinance 20 No. 3639 failed to be guided and did not substantively comply with RCW 21 36.70A.020(6) and (7). The Board has remanded the Ordinance for the City to 22 23 amend it to bring it into compliance with the goals and requirements of the Act 24 25 3. Conclusions re: Invalidity 26 27 The Board has found Kent's adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 noncompliant with 28 RCW 36.70A.020(6)and (7). The Board believes that it has provided the City with a 29 reasonable amount of time to make the relatively minor but necessary revisions to 30 the ordinance to achieve GMA compliance. There is no evidence in the record to 31 suggest that there is a danger of inappropriate vesting during the period of remand. 32 Therefore, the Board declines to enter a determination of invalidity for Ordinance 33 No. 3639. 34 35 36 IX. ORDER 37 38 Having reviewed and considered the above-referenced documents,having considcred 39 the arguments of the parties, and having deliberated on the matter, the Board 40 ORDERS: 41 42 1. The Board issues the City of Kent a finding of noncompliance with RCW 43 36.70A.020(6) and(7)with regards to Ordinance No. 3639, and remands it to the 44 City with the following direction. 45 46 47 2, The Board establishes 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 as the 48 deadline for the City of Kent to take appropriate legislative action to achieve 49 compliance with the goals and requirements of the GMA as interpreted and set 50 forth in this Order. • 12/1n003 3:05 PM Central Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Grosvtb biannYement Hearings Board Page 17 900 4°Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 — .-• +n. •.r rt. -mr,'f on 1CCo _ T - 1 3. By Wednesday, April 7, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., or within one week of taking the 2 legislative action described in paragraph 2 above,whichever comes first, the City 3 shall submit to the Board, with a copy to the Petitioner, an original and four 4 copies of its Statement of Actions Taken to Comply(the SATC. Attached to the 5 SATC shall be a copy of any legislative action taken in response to this Order. 6 7 4. By Wednesday, April 21, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., or within two weeks of receiving 9 the SATC, whichever comes first,the Petitioner shall submit to the Board, with a 9 10 copy to all opposing counsel, an original and four copies of any Response to the 11 SATC. 12 13 5. The Board schedules a Compliance Hearing in this matter for 10:00 a.m on 14 Monday, May 3, 2004. The Compliance Hearing will be held at the Board's 15 offices at 900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2470, in Seattle, WA. In the event that the 16 City takes legislative action earlier than the date established in paragraph 2 17 above, the Board will issue a subsequent Order setting the revised date for is Compliance Hearing. 19 20 So ORDERED this 1st day of December 2003. 21 22 23 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD 24 25 26 27 Edward G. McGuire,AICP 28 Board Member 29 30 / 31 32 Josep ovar,AICP 33 Board Member 34 35 36 Note: T11is older constitutes a final order as specified by RCW 36.70A.300 unless a 37 party files a motion for reconsideration. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Peget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board Page 19 900 0 Avenue,Sufte 2470,Seattle,WA 98164 1 APPENDIX A—RE-NUMBERED LEGAL ISSUES PURSUANT TO THE 2 ORDER ON MOTIONS 3 4 LEGAL ISSUE No. 1: Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail o 5 comply with mandate to "encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process" • d 6 ensure community coordination to"reconcile conflicts"? [RCW 36.70A.020(1 I)] 7 8 LEGAL ISSUE No. 2: Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail o 9 10 comply with mandate to include and consider transportation "land-use assumptions? [RC 11 36.70A.020 and 070] 12 13 LEGAL ISSUE No. 3: Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail to set i ip 14 provisions for ensuring adequate enforcement of development regulations (including civil al id 35 criminal penalties)? [RCW 36.70A.140] 16 17 LEGAL ISSUE No. 4: Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail to 18 provide for "early and continuous" public "open discussion' in "the development ai d 19 amendment"of"proposals and altematives"prior to adoption? [RCW 36.70A 140] 20 21 22 LEGAL 19SUB • „' ith nts to 23 „ • .� ,. 24neWding 25 effeFts within the areas 26 . 27 28 LEGAL ISSUE No. 6 5 : Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No.3639 fail to 29 comply with mandate to provide for "consideration of and response to public comments '? 30 [RCW 36.70A.140] 31 32 LEGAL ISSUE No. 7 6 : Did the City of Kent in its adoption of subject Ordinance No. 36 9 33 34 fail to comply with the mandate that the City's permit applications be processed in a "f ir 35 manner"? [RCW 36.70A.020(7)] 36 37 LEGAL ISSUE No. 8 7: Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail LO 38 comply with the mandate to involve the public at the "earliest possible time" to begin with t ie 39 "visioning process in which the public is invited to participate in a broad definition of the kind f 40 future to besought for the community"? [RCW 36.70A.1401WAC365-195-600] 41 42 LEGAL ISSUE No. 9 8: Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail o 43 comply with mandate to be fair and non-discriminatory in the City's promotion of"econon 'c 44 opportunity"? [RCW 36.70A.020(5)] 45 46 47 48 f 49 50 1211l2003 3:05 PM Central Paget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board Page 19 900 4*Avenue,Suite 2470,Seattit,WA 98164 •r,, ,+nf%•ton 141, c., MAA 1R0.'f:RR z 3 661iS1d£fyt ..L.A.M.-± id n a ? rRGW 36 70 A n7n .,.,a RGW 42 i q 4 5 L4GAL ISSUE No. 14 9: Did the City of Kent in its adoption of Ordinance No. 3639 fail o 6 comply with the mandate to protect private property owners from arbitrary and discrimmato y 7 actionstakings? (RCW 36.70A.370/RC 8 36.70A.020(6)) 9 10 11 . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 12/1/2003 3:05 PM Central Puget Sound 03-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearing&Board Page 20 900 4°Avenue,Suite 247%Seattlq WA98164 CFSGMHB Case No.03-3-0012 Kent CARES Ill, et aL v City of Kent DECLARATION OF SERVICE: I certify that I mailed a copy of the Final Decision and Order to the persons and addresses listed hereon, postage prepaid,in a receptacle for United States mail at Seattle, Washijagton,on December 1,2003. 1 Signed: / P 2319 206-517-7815 Rr 2319 253-856-5770 fax 253-856-6770 Don B. Shaffer Kim Adams Pratt Kent CARES/Northwest Alliance Asst.City Attorney 2070 N. 78`h Street 220 4 h Ave. S. Seattle,WA 98103 Kent,WA 98032 4eo, - KENT WASHINGTON January 13,2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP Director Don B.Shaffer PLANNING SERVICES Kent C.A.R.E.S. Charlene Anderson,AICP 2070 North 78`"Street Manager Seattle,WA 98103 Mailing Address 220 Fourth Ave.S. RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PUD REGULATIONS#ZCA-2002-3 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Dear Mr.Shaffer: Location Address: 400 West Gowe Thank you for your letter dated January 11, 2003 regarding the above-referenced Kent,WA 98032 code amendment. We received the letter via FAX on January 12, 2004 at 19:38, Phone:253-856-5454 i.e.,7:38 PM. (The clock stamp showed 20.38,but the clock hasn't been changed Fax:253-856-6454 to Daylight Saving Time.) Unfortunately,because your letter was not received in a timely manner,we were unable to submit it for the record at the public hearing before the Land Use & Planning Board on January 12111 However,we will include the letter in the packet on this issue that is sent to the City Council. Sincerely, N"4825� Charlene Anderson,AICP Planning Manager CAkb1S•1Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND1200212022901-2002-31tr doc cc: File 4 r y� ,� a Kent C.A.RE.S. ' �t �U Community Action for Responsible and Lffident Spending y� January 11, 2003 Ms. Ch arlene Anderson Planning Services City of Kent 220 4"' Ave South Kent Washington 98032 Subject: Proposed Amendment to PUD Regulations #ZCA-2002-3 Dear Charlene: In the response to your proposed modifications of the wording for the P 9 proposed amendment to the City of Kent's PUD regulations I would first like to thank you for correcting the reference to the word "zones "- As Kent C.A.R E.S asserted in our appeal documents the term "zones" is not defined in the Kent City Code. It is good to see that despite the City's argument during the appeal hearing that poorly defined terms in this City's regulations don't really matter, that you ultimately decided to change the wording from "zones" to "zoning districts" as we had suggested. Your current proposal for the wording for your suggested PUD amendment is better than the wording would you proposed for Ordinance 3624 and Ordinance 3639, however regrettably, there is still room for misinterpretation. Your current wording relates to a possible future modifications of a PUD Master Plan, involving only certain land uses, if contained within a planned action ordinance (PAO), wherein the terms and conditions of the development are spelled out in an approved Development Agreement Modifications of PUD's, minor or major, which don't have all of the above characteristics would not be subject to the proposed amendment Kent C.A R.E.S. still has some concerns regarding your most recent wording. Such concerns include the problem that there still has been no effort by the City to provide any,sense of what"minor "criteria might consist In addition, your wording implies that the Planning Manager would have the power to select between the criteria provided in the PAO or the criteria provided in the Development Agreement, were such criteria to differ. In other words the City has failed to provide any indication of what minor— modification criteria might be for PUD's subject to the proposed ordinance. 2070 North 78th St.,Seattle,WA 98103 Tel:206-517-7815 Fax:206-517-4604 TO 39bd 83d3CHS 7097LTS90Z 8E:2Z 700Z/ZT/10 Furthermore, this city proposes to give the planning staff the power to select the criteria from the PAO or the Development Agreement whichever might best facilitate the staffs intentions. Since the City has never approved a PAO with "minor modification"criteria or a PAO-related Development Agreement (with or without minor-modification criteria), the City cannot provide an example of what it intends to include as criteria. Therefore Kent C.A.R.E S hereby objects to the City's latest wording as proposed to the Kent Land Use and Planning Board for their review at their 7:00 geeting on January 12�", 2004. , Don B. Shaffer Kent C.A.R.E.S. Representative 2 Z0 39Vd il3ddCHS 009%1990L 8E:0Z 900Z/ZL/t0 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 17,2004 Category Bids I. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE CARTS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Director, authorization for the Mayor to enter into a four year agreement with Farwest Golf to lease 48 EZ-Go golf carts at a cost of$32,303.04 annually. Three bids were received to replace the golf carts at the Riverbend Golf Complex. The low bid was received from Farwest Golf for $32,303.04 annually to lease for four years 48 EZ-Go golf carts. 3. EXHIBITS: Bid Specifications and Bid Tab 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure $32,303.04 Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CouncilmemberhL�,kth, moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: C� Council Agenda Item No. 8A IR— verbevud CloLf CovupLex City of Kent— Parks Department 220 4t' Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 253.854.3673 Golf Cart Leasing Comparison and Analysis Contact: R. D. Pete Petersen, Jr. Supt. of Golf Operations 253.856,5190 Comparing: Club Car Precedent E-Z-Go TXT Yamaha G-Max Number of Carts: 48; 46 cart fleet and 2 marshal carts Terms of Lease: 48 months lease — 32 payments, no payments for the months of November, December, January and February, residual amount and warranty Basic Specifications: • Gasoline engine • Roof • Front Windshield (one piece) • Rear enclosure • Club Cover • Message Holder Options: • Extended warranty • Service contract • Rental / Leasing additional carts for tournaments Riverbend Golf Complex Golf Cart Leasing Comparison and Analysis Club Car EZ-Go* Yamaha Precedent TXT G-Max Fleet of 46 carts and 2 marshal carts 32 Payments over 48 Months (No payments November,December,January and February) per cart/ month $110.06 $87.78 $96.82 per cart/ year $880.48 $702.24 $774.56 per cart/ lease $3,521.92 $2,808.96 $3,098.24 Monthly Cost of Lease $5,282.88 $4,037.88 $4,647.36 Annual Cost of Lease $42,263.04 $32,303.04 $37,178.88 Total Cost of Lease $169,052.16 $129,212.16 $148,715.52 * E-Z-Go/ Farwest Golf will provide 2 (two) E-Z-GO workhorse turf vehicles for marshal carts free of charge for the length of the lease. i 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.. , pp `T REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS EXECUTIVE SESSION A) ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A)