Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 03/02/2004 2�ell� MEWAL 44 :1 L 1 P7�� City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda March 2, 2004 Mayor Jim White Julie Peterson, Council President Councilmembers Tim Clark Debbie Raplee Ron Harmon Les Thomas Bruce White Deborah Ranniger KENT WAS - INGTON SUMMARY AGENDA KENT VENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WASNINOTON March 2, 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 ORDERIFLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL,ADMINISTRATION,OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Employee of the Month B. National Night Out Awards C. Proclamation—Red Cross Month 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning—First Hearing 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting —Approve B. Payment of Bills—Approve C. Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency Management Performance Grant Funds—Accept D. Master Planned Unit Development Modification Criteria, Zoning Code Amendment Ordinance—Adopt 3 6$ 1 E. Vision Service Plan Contract—Approve F. Morrill Meadows Park—Accept as Complete G. Canterbury Park—Accept as Complete H. Riverbend Driving Range Protective Netting and Pole Replacement—Accept as Complete I. King County Capital Fund for Kent Pool—Accept and Amend Budget J. The Fund for Improvement in Post Secondary Education Grant—Authorize Application K. Em g y ai2d Basic Life Support Ambulance Services Agreement—Authorize L� E pp/ b5�- Rttnn;&e( 7. OtHER B SINESSe A. Aulgur-Fawcett Rezone 8. BIDS A. Russell Road Park Field Light Replacement B. Russell Road and Utility Relocation (continued next.page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION �y None 44,0 Yro�oe� / e. On-goingGi�iyaf+'on 13. ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page is on the City of Kent web site at www.ci.kent.wa.us. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at (253) 856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC • PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH B) NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AWARDS C) PROCLAMATION-RED CROSS MONTH • Kent City Council Meeting is Date March 2, 2004 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: IMPOUNDMENT RESERVOIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INITIAL ZONING—FIRST HEARING 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: After holding public hearings on January 26, 2004 and February 23, 2004,the Land Use & Planning Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of comprehensive plan and initial zoning designations of Urban Separator/ SR-1 for the impoundment reservoir property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 124th Avenue SE and South 304th Street. Tonight's meeting is the first of two public hearings to be held by the City Council pursuant to state law; the second hearing is scheduled for April 6, 2004. 3. EXHIBITS: Minutes of 1/26/04 LU&PB Meeting; Staff report 1/15/04 to LU&PB, w/attachments; Addendum to Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement#ENV-93-51; Adoption Notice 1/16/04; 1/25/04 letter from Triad Associates 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use & Planning Board (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 COUNCI ;T / � P A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N.Satterstrom,C.D.Director PLANNING SERVICES �• Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager IKENT Phone:253 856-5454 WASH IN OTON Fax 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 26,2004 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 26, 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 William Osborne, Planner Steve Dowell Kim Marousek, Principal Planner David Malik Pat Fitzpatrick, Deputy City Attomey Elizabeth Watson Bill Wolinski, Environmental Engineer Mgr, Public Works Gary Gill, City Engineer, Public Works LUPB MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicole Fincher, Excused Janette Nuss, Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Malik MOVED and Greg Worthing SECONDED to approve the Minutes of January 12, 2004. Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The Board was reminded of Auburn's invitation to attend a January 29`" workshop titled "Short Course on Local Planning"from 6:30-9:30 pm in Auburn's Council Chambers. #CPA4003-2CPZ0003.1 IMPOUNDMENT RESERVOIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE&KW ZONING Planner William Osborne described the City of Kent's association with and the history of the 156.58 acres of incorporated, municipally-owned land in the Lea Hill area located in the vicinity of 124"'Avenue Southeast and Southeast 304u' St. Mr. Osbome presented twelve (12) land use and initial zoning alternatives and options for the subject site. Mr. Osborne stated that staff recommends Option 7-C. Mr. Osborne entered nine (9)Exhibits for the record as follows: 1) Email letter dated July 24, 2003 from David and Susan Sanders concerning developable land issues. 2) Correspondence letter dated August 4, 2003 from Ron Novak with an attached report from W.R I A. — Water Resource Inventory Area concerning environmental issues. 3) Correspondence letter dated August 13, 2003 from Ron Novak with attached correspondence from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 4) Correspondence letter dated August 20, 2003 from Ron Novak concerning water capacity and demand r ' p oiections. 5) Correspondence letter dated August 27, 2003 from Ron Novak as a follow-up to the August 25, 2003 workshop concerning financial implications and establishment of future development parameters. 6) Email letter dated September 8, 2003 from David and Susan Sanders urging staff to carefully consider Land Use and Zoning due to the sensitive nature of the site. 7) Email letter dated September 16, 2003 from AI Hurt inviting staff and the Board to view the Impoundment Property from his property bordering the subject site. 8) Correspondence letter dated November 13, 2003 from Ron Novak concerning environmental issues. 9) Correspondence letter dated January 21, 2004 from Ron Novak concerning (GMA)Growth Management Act and CAO issues. T Steve Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to accept these exhibits into the record. Motion CARRIED. Chair Johnson declared the Public Hearing open. Colin Lund,Yarrow Bay Development, 1181411 a Ave. SE, Kirkland,WA 98034 submitted written testimony concerning a Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Initial Zoning Analysis and Alternative Proposal request with (3)three exhibit maps for the record as Exhibit#10. Mr. Lund stated that he favors Option#8 as it provides the necessary flexibility to achieve more efficient use of the property. Mr. Lund described several scenarios for potential development of the subject site. The following citizens spoke on their concerns that development of the subject site would disrupt the Green River Watershed, destroy wetlands and erode the current eco-system's natural salmon habitat. Jim Kopp, 11854 SE 288' St., Kent, WA; Ron Novak, 29226 118'"Ave. SE, Kent, WA; Kurt Siltman, 6715 88'" St. E, Puyallup, WA; Susan Sanders, 25415 118'n Ave. SE, Auburn, WA; Virginia Haugen, 2503 "R" St. SE, Auburn, WA; Noelle Rogerson, 10637 SE 244 h St , Kent, WA; Mary Roberts, 502 "A: St. NE, Auburn, WA. Mssrs. Kopp, Hurt and Chatman, Ms. Sanders and Ms. Roberts voiced support for Alternative 4 as the least obtrusive choice. Mr. Novak objected to all alternatives as premature, in light of Critical Areas Ordinance and Best Available Science requirements. Mr. Siltman opined the City was trying to allow development under old protection criteria in order to get a higher dollar return. Ms. Sanders is concerned there is not enough park land to accommodate development of this site. She also spoke of wildlife concerns. Ms. Roberts and Mr. Siltman were concerned about jeopardizing $120 million to restore salmon habitat by allowing development of this environmentally sensitive site to occur. Jim Kopp stated that he is appalled at the development the City may consider for this site, with no consideration made to those who live in the surrounding area, who for a number of years, have enjoyed a quality of life that would be destroyed. Mr. Kopp referred to a hearing held last summer where Mr Kopp stated a member of the staff said, "with all of the housing and building that we are going to put on this site, we can show that it will be economically, ecologically and environmentally enhancing." Mr. Kopp stated that this was an incorrect statement and there is no way this could happen. He questioned how the City intends to market this development concept where development would increase traffic, air, water and noise pollution and still creates a more ecologically and environmentally enhancing environment. Virginia Haugen, 2503 R St. SE, Auburn, WA suggested a water recycling plant to address future water supply issues. The following citizens spoke about their concerns that development of the subject site would create traffic issues and impact area schools: Allen Hurt, 29304 118"' Ave. SE, Auburn, WA and Steven Chatman, 30643 127" Place SE, Auburn, WA. Mr. Hurt stated the City is relying on old studies that evaluated issues based on the use of the site as an impoundment reservoir. Mr. Dietrich Reimar, 12221 SE 2W St., Kent, WA questioned the logic of allowing the City to determine the zoning and comprehensive plan designation for this particular piece of property in light of the fact that the City owns the property. Mr. Brian Derdowski, 70 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah, WA stated that he is a member of Save Our Separators. He stated that the addendum to the EIS was prepared just ten days ago, which does not afford adequate time for the public to give meaningful testimony. He suggested a supplemental EIS would be more appropriate. He stated the Soos Creek Plan did not anticipate hundreds of units on the site. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes January 26,2004 Page 2 of 5 r Mr. Derdowski stated that the impact of development to the Soos Creek drainage or the surrounding neighborhood drainage has not been evaluated. He stated that impacts to the road infrastructure have been given only cursory review by staff. Mr Derdowski stated that the staff report is replete with references to the assertion that the site specific impacts are going to be evaluated at the time of a project application. Mr. Derdowski stated that the SEPA statutes clearly indicate that impacts should be evaluated at their earliest reasonable opportunity suggesting that staff was not doing this. Mr. Derdowski stated that there are a number of inaccurate statements in the SEPA Addendum, citing the statement 'the Comprehensive Plan Map and initial Zoning Designations under consideration by the City of Kent are all within the scope of the King County Designations." He stated that within the city of Kent, R-1 or one dwelling unit per acre density can be modified through the application of various bonus densities to achieve a range of two to three dwelling units per acre whereas in King County there is no such mechanism. Mr Derdowski stated that the staff report implies that the King County Soos Creek Plan contemplated applying urban densities to the subject site after the GR-2.5 zoning was lifted. Mr. Derdowski said that the staff report makes a false statement where it states that `urban densities equate to single family residential development at 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre" He stated that King County's zoning density designation for urban separator areas is one dwelling unit per acre and that zoning for an urban separator area should be designated as one house per acre with clustering; however, Kent's Zoning Code doesn't enable that, although urban separators are embodied in the Growth Management Planning Council Policies. Mr. Derdowski stated that the City of Kent is required to apply the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan's policies, but remain consistent with County-wide Planning Policies which clearly designate the subject site as an urban separator area. Mr. Derdowski stated that although one of the applicant's maps suggests that the surrounding uses will be converted to four to six houses per acre it is intended to be used as a prospective map; assuming that the County-wide Planning Policies are modified to either impose or remove an urban separator designation which is why Auburn pulled out of their comprehensive plan amendment process. Mr. Derdowski stated that this site is being reviewed as a site specific rezone with preferential treatment given to one applicant, where substantial detail has been given to impacts that a specific development could have on the subject site. He stated that when you cross that threshold, you are no longer in an area-wide zoning situation, rather in a quasi-judicial specific land use. If you treat the land use in any other manner, you have in effect, what amounts to a spot zone. Mr. Derdowski suggested that the Board consider taking the following actions: • Request that staff prepare an analysis on whether a supplement would be a more appropriate vehicle for evaluating the environmental impacts of this application. • Ask the SEPA Responsible Official to reconsider his contention that no threshold determination is required for an action that will take a reservoir piece of property and place 400 units on it. • Allow public input into that decision making process. • Leave the record open if people wish to provide written testimony during the Board's deliberations. • Have staff prepare an option establishing one dwelling unit per acre for the urban separator designation including the preparation of a summary of all applicable urban separator policies that emanate from the County-wide Growth Management Planning Policies. • Request that staff provide them with the entire environmental record developed to date for further review, including a topographic and area-wide map showing the drainage facilities and the wetlands. Mr. Derdowski stated that at the time the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by King County in 1993, the law said that credits would not be given for sensitive areas. . Susan Sanders, 25415 118th Ave. SE, Auburn,WA stated that she would like the Board to be provided with documentation she submitted to Kim Marousek in response to the SEPA document which included Land Use and Planning Board Mnutes January 26,2004 Page 3 of 5 r r Mr. Reimer's photographs of the 1996 roadway washout, a video of the flooding, a copy of a Army Corp of Engineers document and a letter addressed to Mayor White concerning the headwaters of Olsen • Creek. Mel Roberts, 9421 SE 241" St., Kent, WA stated that he is a member of the Bicycle Advisory Board. He cautioned staff to not destroy the bicycle facilities along 124th,which was designated by King County as a bicycle route with a four to five foot nde able shoulder from Kent-Kangley down to the Green River Community College. As there were no further speakers, David Malik MOVED and Greg Worthing SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. Mr. Osborne responded to concerns by the Board and those who testified to this issue. He clarified that the purpose of this hearing is to consider a comprehensive plan land use and an initial zoning process and not to consider a site specific development. Ms. Marousek addressed the Board's concerns and responded to comments made by those who testified. She stated that staff has carefully evaluated options for this site emphasizing that this is a non-project action. Mr. Wolinski stated that he is the environmental engineering manager in the City of Kent Public Works Department. He stated that he was involved with the proposed development of the subject site as an impoundment reservoir. He worked with the consultants who completed the delineation reports and is actively working with planning staff on this proposal. Mr. Wolinski stated that he has been actively involved with the Green-Duwamish Watershed discussions. He stated that he has a heightened sensitivity towards protecting the environmental resources indicating that the City has a lot at stake with current projects along the Green River. Mr. Wolinski stated that in the environmental field, regulations are in a constant state of change and several citizens have alluded to the updating of the Critical Areas Ordinance. He stated that staff has been working with the City's consultants for over a year in evaluating Best Available Science in the areas of storm water, wetland and groundwater protection. Mr. Wolinski stated that staff is actively involved in analyzing existing ordinances with respect to what improvements might be needed for staff to create regulations based on Best Available Science. Mr. Wolinski said that he recognizes that the headwaters of Olsen Creek are a highly valuable system located on the subject site. He stated that staff is working with the City of Auburn to protect and upgrade that system. Mr. Wolinski stated that whatever would be proposed for that site would be scrutinized by Kent's environmental staff, colleagues at the Army Corp of Engineers, the State Fisheries and other regional participants in the Green-Duwamish. Ms. Anderson explained that following the Board's recommendation there will be two public hearings held before City Council. Ms. Anderson stated that an actual development requires the completion of an additional environmental review. She stated that a general subdivision follows the normal zoning requirements with a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner and if the development is a (PUD) Planned Unit Development, a community meeting would be held in addition to a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Anderson deferred to Deputy City Attorney Pat Fitzpatrick to address a question brought up about `The appropriateness of the City following this process when we are in fact the owner of the property" Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that Mr. Riemar and the Board had questioned a potential conflict of interest with the City determining the zoning and comprehensive plan designation for this subject site in light of the fact that the City owns the property. Mr. Fitpatrick stated that State law clearly and unequivocally places that power with the City of Kent and it is understood that this power cannot be delegated. Mr. Fitpatrick stated that there is no conflict of interest as there is no specific gain to the City of Kent in • designating a zoning or comprehensive plan designation for this property. He stated that even if the City determined that it would like to transfer that duty to some other body, that duty rests solely with the Kent City Council and the Board is the body that makes a recommendation to the Council. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes January 26,2004 Page 4 of 5 r After Board deliberations, David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a Motion to return the • Impoundment Reservoir Amendment to workshop for further consideration after receiving more information from staff and to continue this hearing perhaps in two to four weeks. Ms. Anderson asked the Board what additional specific information they would like staff to provide them with which was not addressed at this hearing. Ms. Marousek responded to concerns expressed by the Board. She stated that staff had evaluated the option of completing a wetland bank on the site, determining that this bank was infeasible for two reasons 1)the hydrology of the site, and 2)staff was specifically responsible for establishing zoning for the site. Ms. Marousek stated that staff was not asked to look at alternatives for creating a regional detention facility on this site. Ms. Marousek stated that the Environmental Review follows zoning alternatives developed by the Planning Services Office. Ms. Marousek deferred to the traffic consultant and the City's traffic engineer to answer specific questions concerning traffic impacts that could occur as a result of future development. Ms. Marousek stated that an exhaustive traffic analysis was completed factoring in the potential for developing from 230 to 670 dwelling units. Ms. Marousek suggested that the Board hold another workshop, stating that she, along with Mr. Wolinski and Mr. Mullen would be available to address their questions and they could share the process staff went through to complete the environmental review. After further Board deliberations, Greg Worthing MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to hold a Land Use and Planning Board workshop on February 9, 2004 with a public hearing date to be set following the workshop. Motion CARRIED. Ms. Anderson announced that this evening's proceedings would serve as a notice for the upcoming Land Use and Planning Board workshop on Monday, February 9, 2004. ADJOURNMENT Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, &Iu�"Q Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board 5:1PemePlanW.UP812004VAWas1012604mm doe Land Use and Planning Board Minutes January 26.2004 Page 5 of 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager W A S H I N O T O N Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253.856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 January 15, 2004 TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: WILLIAM D. OSBORNE, LONG-RANGE PLANNER RE: IMPOUNDMENT RESERVOIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AND INITIAL ZONING #CPA-2003-2 &#CPZ-2003-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 26, 2004 INTRODUCTION The City of Kent is seeking to establish Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning District designations for 156.58 acres of incorporated, municipally-owned land in the Lea Hill area. In the subject case, the interim zoning for the subject property was never succeeded by an annexation initial zoning process, nor was a Comprehensive Plan designation made, as the intended use of the property in question was solely for municipal purposes — a water impoundment reservoir. The impoundment reservoir property was purchased and annexed by the City of Kent prior to the adoption of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)(1990), and the subsequent Kent Comprehensive Plan (1995). In compliance with GMA, the City of Kent desires to apply appropriate Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning District designations for the property. Establishing City of Kent Zoning Districts for the annexation area is a Comprehensive Plan implementation action. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide land use, development standards and capital improvement decisions within the City and its PAA. Upon annexation of properties into the City of Kent, interim zoning of Single Family Residential, 2.18 units per acre (SR-2) is typically assigned until final annexation zoning is adopted. BACKGROUND In 1983 the City purchased several parcels located in the vicinity of 124to Avenue Southeast and Southeast 304tt, Street for a municipal water impoundment reservoir with 2,500 acre-feet of storage capacity (City of Kent Water System Plan, page 10-2). These parcels and the surrounding area were under King County jurisdiction at the time of purchase. On September 16, 1985, the Kent City Council voted to annex these parcels into the City for municipal purposes. The annexation was adopted by the Council In Ordinance#2743, effective on September 9, 1987. The land surrounding the i r annexed parcels remains under King County jurisdiction, and is characterized by low- density residential uses and undeveloped open space. Much of this surrounding King County land is part of Auburn's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and some of this King County land is designated Urban Separator. The purchase of additional water rights from the Tacoma P5 Pipeline project has resolved supply concerns that previously justified the impoundment reservoir project, and at a savings of more than $15,000,000 in capital costs. The additional water rights will provide supply to Kent customers beginning in 2007, whereas the development process for an impoundment reservoir would have a nine (9) year duration. The purchase of the water rights was approved through a rate increase to City of Kent Water customers. Therefore, the sale of the impoundment reservoir property has been identified as the most financially prudent course of action. Proceeds from the sale would be delivered into the City's water utility account to defray costs of future rate increases. A high level of interest has been expressed in the purchase of the impoundment reservoir property for residential development, and the sale of the property under favorable market conditions will best protect the interests of the City's water utility and its customers. An emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment resolution (Kent Resolution #1646) was adopted on June 17, 2003 by the Kent City Council to proceed with establishing Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning District designations for the impoundment reservoir property. The Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning District designations will be reviewed concurrently because they must be consistent with one another, according to RCW 36.70A.120. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Staff is bringing forward six (6) land use and initial zoning alternatives which estimate buildout potential for all three (3) parcels of the Subject Site under one (1) development application. Three (3) of these alternatives consider partial Urban Separator Comprehensive Plan designation for the Subject Site and contain a subset of three (3) Initial Zoning options. Urban Separators are described in King County's Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 and are defined in Kent City Code 15.02.531 as "low-density lands that define community or municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits." Analysis of the Alternatives and Options includes the following factors: 1. Relevant Kent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and land use recommendations for land within and adjacent to the impoundment site property; 2. Relevant water and sewer service facilities plans of the City of Kent, City of Auburn, and Water District#111; 3. Cost of impoundment reservoir development estimated at $30,000,000. Annual maintenance and operating costs estimated at over$430,000. 4. Cost of purchase of Tacoma P5 Pipeline water rights from Seattle is approximately $15,000,000. Annual maintenance and operating costs estimated at $430,000. Laud Use and Planning Board Public Heanng January 26,2004 Page 2 of 21 5. Discussions with the City of Auburn, the Kent School District, and the Auburn School District regarding intent and provision of public services and facilities; 6. Preliminary housing unit capacity analysis, with consideration of utilizing development regulations (Kent City Code 15.04) and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process (Kent City Code 15.08.400) with or without attached housing units, and the summary appraisal of the Subject Site provided by the Eastman Company. This appraisal indicates that approximately 85.75 acres of developable site area (54.7% of 156.58 acres) would be available for residential development. For detached single-family unit development, the two-percent (2%) PUD density bonus including a mix of multifamily dwelling unit types is assumed to be unavailable—yielding a maximum PUD density bonus of eighteen-percent 0 8%); 7. Existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations and policies. The Alternatives and Options that offer partial Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Separator on the Subject Site acreage recognize the proximity of King County Urban Separator land; although a large Class II Wetland (delineated in 1996) and associated buffer located in the southern portion of the Subject Site is a primary consideration in such designation; 8. Anticipated City of Auburn Zoning designations and existing development regulations; 9. Available data regarding natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. The Land Use and Planning Board and Kent City Council will hold public hearings to consider application of Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning District designations for the Subject Site. Actual development of the Subject Site would require additional permits such as subdivision or planned unit development land use permits, and therefore, additional public hearings. An updated wetland delineation report and map also would be required with an application for development. See Appendix A for buildout summary tables for each Alternative and Option. The buildout numbers are estimates only. • Alternative One would approve a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single-Family Residential, Three Units per Acre (SF-3) and an Initial Zoning District designation of Single-Family Residential, 2.18 Units per Acre (SR-2). Such designations would be consistent with the interim designations given to other Kent annexations not serving municipal purposes. Assuming 85.75 developable acres without the use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and a minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet, development of the Site would yield a maximum of 233 single-family detached housing units. Use of the PUD process, which does not require a minimum lot size and includes density bonuses, could yield up to 402 single-family detached units. Using 85.75 developable acres and 402 possible dwelling units, the average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-2 Zoning is 9,292 square feet; slightly smaller than the typical SR-3 lot (9,600 square feet). Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 3 of 21 1 r • Alternative Two, which featured a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single- Family Residential, Six Units per Acre (SF-6) and an Initial Zoning District designation of Single-Family Residential, 4.53 Units per Acre (SR-4.5) for the entire Subject Site was presented to the Land Use and Planning Board in the initial workshop, but is not being evaluated nor recommended by staff in this report. • Alternative Three assumes that the historic King County zoning district designation for the Subject Site prior to annexation by Kent is most appropriate. The original Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan (1978) noted the Subject Site was rezoned from S-R (Suburban Residential) to S-R (9600) (Suburban Residential, 9600 square foot lots), which is analogous to Kent's SR-3 Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, 3.63 units per acre) which allows a minimum lot size of 9600 square feet. The property would be designated for Single-Family Residential, Three Units per Acre (SF-3) Comprehensive Plan, and Single-Family Residential, 3.63 Units per Acre (SR-3) Initial Zoning. Assuming SR-3 Zoning for the Subject Site, the number of single-family detached units allowed without use of the PUD process, assuming a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet and 85.75 developable acres, is 389. Use of the PUD process would allow for development of up to a maximum of 670 detached units. The number of units allowed under a PUD process might exceed the carrying capacity of both infrastructure and the land itself. Using 85.75 developable acres and 670 possible dwelling units, the average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-3 Zoning is 5,575 square feet; slightly smaller than the typical SR-6 lot (5,700 square feet). • Alternative Four, assumes that the entire Subject Site should be designated as Urban Separator (Single Family Residential, One Unit per Acre Zoning). Assuming the City of Kent applies an Urban Separator Comprehensive Plan designation (US) and a Single Family Residential, One Unit per Acre Initial Zoning District designation (SR-1), residential development would occur in clusters with at least 50% of the developable 85.75 acres of the Subject Site set aside as open space. An anticipated maximum of 156 detached units could be developed, assuming clustering of units with a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet. Urban Separator development regulations could yield expanses of open space between more densely concentrated (eight 2,500 square foot lot) clusters of housing. The PUD process would not be allowed under this Alternative. Alternatives 5. 6 and 7 each consider different demarcations of Urban Separator (US) and Single-Family Residential Comprehensive Plan (SF) designations for the Subject Site. Any land with Urban Separator-designation is zoned Single-Family Residential, One Unit per Acre (SR-1), with special development conditions pertaining to Urban Separators. As noted in Alternative 4, Urban Separator development regulations could yield expanses of open space between more densely concentrated (eight 2,500 square foot lot) clusters of housing. Each of the following Alternatives considers two Comprehensive Plan designations and three Initial Zoning District designation options for the non-Urban Separator land. Single-Family Residential, Three Units per Acre (SF-3) Land Use could accommodate either Single-Family Residential, 2.18 Units per Acre (SR-2) or Single-Family Residential, 3.63 Units per Acre (SR-3) Zoning. Single-Family Residential, Six Units per Land Use and Planning Board Pubhc Heanng January 26,2004 Page 4 of 21 r Acre (SF-6) Land Use could accommodate Single-Family Residential, 4.53 Units per Acre (SR-4.5) Zoning. The maximum Planned Unit Development (PUD) bonuses for detached dwelling units (18%) can be calculated separately for differently-designated portions of the Subject Site, including the Urban Separator acreage, but all bonus units must be developed on non-Urban Separator designated acreage. The average lot sizes described below apply only to PUD development on non-Urban Separator designated acreage. • Alternative Five assumes an Urban Separator Comprehensive Plan designation of 120.55 acres to the northern tip of the largest Class II wetland and its associated fifty foot (50') buffer. The remaining 36.03 acres to the north, which also includes a large Class II wetland, would be designated SF-3 or SF-6 Land Use. The developable area reductions for the Class II wetlands and associated fifty-foot (50') buffers would be applied regardless of designation. • Option 5-A assumes a SF-3 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-2 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 198 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 35 single-family detached units — for a total of 233 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-2 Zoning, and assuming 31.91 developable acres, is 12,300 square feet; halfway between the typical SR-2 lot (16,000 square feet)and SR-3 lot (9,600 square feet). • Option 5-13 assumes a SF-3 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-3 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 250 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 44 single-family detached units — for a total of 294 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-3 Zoning, and assuming 31 91 developable acres, is 7,988 square feet; slightly larger than the typical SR-4.5 lot (7,600 square feet). • Option 5-C assumes a SF-6 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-4.5 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 283 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 50 single-family detached units — for a total of 333 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-4.5 Zoning, and assuming 31.91 developable acres, is 6,525 square feet; almost halfway between the typical SR-4.5 lot (7,600 square feet) and SR-6 lot (5,700 square feet). • Alternative Six assumes an Urban Separator Comprehensive Plan designation of 96.91 acres to the south boundary of the middle parcel (PIN: 0421059016) of the Subject Site. The remaining 59.67 acres to the north would have a Comprehensive Plan designation of SF-3 or SF-6. The developable area reductions for the Class II wetlands and associated fifty foot (50') buffers would be applied regardless of designation. • Option 6-A assumes a SF-3 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-2 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 226 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 40 single-family detached units — for a total of 266 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-2 Zoning, and • Land Use and Planning Board Public Heanng January 26,2004 Page 5 of 21 r assuming 44.96 developable acres, is 11,521 square feet; approximately twenty percent (20%) larger than the typical SR-3 lot(9,600 square feet). • Option 6-B assumes a SF-3 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-3 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 312 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 55 single-family detached units — for a total of 367 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-3 Zoning, and assuming 44.96 developable acres, is 7,227 square feet; slightly smaller than the typical SR-4.5 lot (7,600 square feet). • Option 6-C assumes a SF-6 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-4.5 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 366 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 65 single-family detached units — for a total of 431 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-4.5 Zoning, and assuming 44.96 developable acres, is 5,846 square feet; slightly larger than the typical SR-6 lot(5,700 square feet). • Alternative Seven assumes an Urban Separator Comprehensive Plan designation of 91.15 acres to the north boundary of the Bonneville Power Administration easement. The remaining 65.43 acres to the north would be designated SF-3 or SF- 6 Land Use. The developable area reductions for the Class II wetlands and associated fifty foot (50') buffers would be applied regardless of designation. • Option 7-A assumes a SF-3 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-2 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 233 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 41 single-family detached units — for a total of 274 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-2 Zoning, and assuming 48.04 developable acres, is 11,434 square feet; approximately nineteen percent (19%) larger than the typical SR-3 lot(9,600 square feet). • Option 7-13 assumes a SF-3 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-3 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 328 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 58 single-family detached units — for a total of 386 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-3 Zoning, and assuming 48 04 developable acres, is 7,093 square feet; slightly smaller than the typical SR-4.5 lot (7,600 square feet). • Option 7-C assumes a SF-6 Comprehensive Plan designation and SR-4.5 Initial Zoning. Without use of the PUD process, 387 single-family detached units could be developed for the whole Site. PUD development could yield an additional 69 single-family detached units — for a total of 456 dwelling units. The average lot size of detached units developed using the PUD process with SR-4.5 Zoning, and assuming 48.04 developable acres, is 5,733 square feet; the same as the typical SR-6 lot (5,700 square feet). Several 'no action' scenarios were suggested in earlier Land Use and Planning Board workshops. The City of Kent was asked to consider development of a park, create a wetland mitigation bank, or build a water impoundment reservoir. These scenarios are essentially projects and do not address the issue at hand, which is a non-project action — the appropriate designation of Land Use and Zoning for the 156.58 acre Subject Site Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 6 of 21 r pursuant to the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act. Any project actions (or 'no actions') related to the Subject Site may or may not follow the conclusion of the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning District Map designation process. Issues: The continued transition of the Lea Hill area (external to the Subject Site) from rolling, undeveloped and underdeveloped rural acreage to a more suburbanized residential community may impact the natural and aesthetic environment on- and off- site. Full or partial designation of the Subject Site as Urban Separator would reduce nonpoint pollution and decrease the visual impact to the surrounding properties. Adjacent development and future development of the Subject Site will create demand for infrastructural improvements. RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS$POLICIES The following discussion of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies provides a rational framework for the consideration of issues related to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning District designations of the Subject Site. Some of the listed goals and policies illuminate general issues related to development, and are not necessarily points of comparison among the aforementioned Alternatives and Options. staff recommendations related to each Comprehensive Plan Element are provided prior to a final recommendation. LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies relating to increasing the flexibility In residential building and site design, protection of the . natural environment, provision of infrastructure, and inter jurisdictional coordination. Overall (LU) Goal Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements the community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and enhances the quality of life of all of Kent residents. Goal LU-2 Establish a land use pattern throughout the urban growth area that will facilitate a multimodal transportation system and...provide efficient public facilities. Ensure that overall densities in the urban growth area are adequate to support a range of urban services. Policy LU-8.3 Locate housing opportunities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and human and community services. Goal LU-9 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the city and the Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-9.4 Allow single-family housing on a variety of lot sizes, including 5,000 square foot lots. Locate smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the urban center or activity centers, Land Use and Planning Board Pubhc Heanng January 26,2004 Page 7 of 21 Goal LU-10 Revise development regulations to encourage more single- family development and more flexibility and innovation in terms of building and site design. Policy LU-10.1 Calculate the allowable density for single-family developments based on the size of the overall development site, as opposed to individual lot sizes. Policy LU-10.2 Allow clustering of housing units in subdivisions in order to maximize potential build-out of single-family homes while preserving open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Policy LU-10.3 Allow more flexibility in residential setbacks and parking, particularly on small lots, to encourage infill development and innovative site design. Goal LU-18 Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and systems in determining the overall environmental quality and livability of the community. Goal LU-20 Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption of City regulations and programs which encourage well-designed land use patterns such as clustering and planned unit development Use such land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use densities and intensity of uses in specified areas in order to preserve natural features such as large wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and forests. Goal LU-23 Protect and enhance water resources for multiple benefits, including recreation, fish and wildlife resources and habitat, flood protection, water supply, and open space. Policy LU-23.2 Protect wetlands not as isolated units, but as ecosystems, and essential elements of watersheds. Base protection measures wetland functions and values, and the effects of on-site and off-site activities. Goal LU-25 Regulate development In environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes and landslide-prone areas to prevent harm, to protect public health and safety, and to save the remaining sensitive areas In the City. Staff Evaluation Environmental Considerations The Subject Site is located between the Green River and Soos Creek valleys and can be characterized generally as rolling terrain that slopes from three sides to form a basin wetland, which has been characterized as a former small upland lake in King County documents. The majority of on-site drainage is collected and conveyed through a series Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 8 of 21 of constructed ditches which exit the site near the west-central property line. These ditches, which flow through Wetland A, form the headwaters of Olson Creek. The 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan Update identifies wetlands in the southern portion of the Subject Site associated with the Olson Creek system. Approximately 49 acres of wetlands exist on-site based upon a 1995 wetland delineation completed for the City of Kent. The City of Kent regulates for the protection of sensitive areas, preservation of agricultural or other resource lands, preservation of landmarks or landmark districts and surface water control. The City of Kent environmental regulations equal or exceed King County regulations. Kent has adopted the Soos Creek Basin overlay restrictions for stream buffers and is dedicated to protecting wetlands, associated buffers, and geologically unstable areas. The City currently is reviewing critical area regulations as required by GMA to ensure best available science is used, and the City recently adopted the updated King County Stormwater Manual. Staff Comment The presence of sensitive areas will impact site development. Goals LU-18, LU-20, LU- 23, and LU-25 and Policy LU-23.2 consider protection and enhancement of environmentally-sensitive areas and ecosystem functions through programs and development regulations — including clustering and planned unit development site design. Urban Separator designation would only permit development of units in clusters of eight (8) on fifty percent (50%) of the developable area. Clustering reduces the amount of impervious surface in site development, and limits the proximity and number of potential sources of pollution to sensitive areas. Consideration of Designated and Existing Land Uses The King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map generally designates the area adjacent to the east, south and the southern half of the west boundary as Urban Residential, Medium, 4-12 units per acre. The remaining perimeter of the Subject Site is adjacent to Greenbelt/Urban Separator designated lands to the northwest and north. The corresponding King County zoning designations are R-4 Residential (4 dwelling units per acre)to the east and southwest of the Subject Site, R-6 Residential (6 dwelling units per acre) to the south, and R-1 Residential (1 dwelling unit per acre) to the northwest and north. King County will be considering changes to the Urban Separator designations in this area, transferring properties in and out of the designation within Auburn's Potential Annexation Area (see attached map). Some future comprehensive plan and zoning changes may be applied for properties in the vicinity of the Subject Site. Residential zoning districts in the City of Kent are designated separately as single family or multifamily. However, King County residential zoning is inclusive of detached single family, attached and "stacked" multifamily dwelling units. The P-suffixes attached to designations such as S-R (9600)-P on the King County Zoning Maps provide for property-specific (P) conditions on development. Between December 30, 1991 and December 31, 1994, King County zoning surrounding the Subject Site per the adopted 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan Update was phased as a GR-5 (Growth Reserve, One Unit per Five Acres) Overlay until December Land Use and Plannwg Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 9 of 21 31, 1994; thereafter, most of the properties surrounding the southern half of the Subject Site were zoned S-R(9600rP, and those surrounding the northern half were zoned either Suburban Cluster-P (1 dwelling unit per acre, with P-Suffix Conditions) to the north and northwest, or Growth Reserve-2.5-P (1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres, with P- Suffix Conditions). The language of the Soos Creek Community Plan Update noted that "urban densities" would be allowed in the area around the Subject Site after the expiration of the GR-5 Overlay (pages 30-31). Urban densities in King County equate to single-family residential development at four to twelve dwelling units per acre. In December 1995, King County organized and hosted an informational public meeting about establishing boundaries for the Lea Hill Potential Annexation Area. Staff from Auburn and Kent attended this initial meeting. In October of the following year, an ad- hoc task force was appointed by Auburn Mayor Charles Booth to study issues related to annexation of Lea Hill. This task force was comprised of citizens, public service providers, and members of the Auburn Planning Commission and City Council. After several bi-monthiy meetings, the Lea Hill Task Force hosted a public forum in May 1997 to present and discuss recommendations. The City of Auburn City Council adopted final recommendations of the Lea Hill Task Force on Principles for Annexation on December 15, 1997. In concert with the Soos Creek Community Plan, the Lea Hill Annexation Task Force Report contains policies that guide land use in the vicinity of the City of Kent impoundment property. This document also referred to the Subject Site as an area under purchase consideration by the City of Auburn Parks (page 19) The existing land use pattern in the vicinity of the Subject Site is primarily large lot low- density single family residential and larger unplatted parcels, particularly south of Southeast 282"d Street. Several residential subdivisions of densities greater than four (4) units per acre, up to eight (8) units per acre are in various stages of development across from the Subject Site along 124"' Avenue Southeast. The land use pattern has been developed and supported through King County's Soos Creek Community Plan and the King County Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, a significant amount of land in the Lea Hill area proximate to the Kent City limit has been designated as urban separator. In describing urban separators, King County's Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 reads: "Urban separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low- density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence." Staff Comment The development of housing with flexibility and innovation in site design to reduce impacts on environmentally-sensitive areas, particularly using planned unit development Land Use and Planning Board Pubhc Hearmg January 26,2004 Page 10 of 21 and unit clustering regulations (as with Urban Separators), is consistent with the Overall Land Use Element Goal. More specifically, Goals LU-9, LU-10, LU-18, LU-20, LU-25 and Policies LU-10.2 and LU-10.3 support such approaches to minimize the environmental impacts of residential land use. Increasing the availability of a variety of housing types at urban densities in close proximity to public services and transit is supported by Goals LU-2, LU-9, LU-10 and Policies LU-8.3, LU-9.4, LU-10.2, LU-10.3. Several of the Alternatives and Options considered would encourage development at densities appropriate to the context of surrounding land use. Land Use Element Recommendation After assigning weights for the relative importance of the selected Land Use Element Goals and Policies (see Appendix B), staff finds that Option 6-C is the most desirable. The reason for this preference is in the densities considered and the preservation of open space and sensitive areas — particularly in the fact that a high percentage of buildout would be comprised of clustered units in the Urban Separator area, COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT The Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating to the function and aesthetics of the natural and built environment in the context of land use, transportation and community values. Goal CD-1 Establish street and circulation patterns that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. Policy CD-1.2 Encourage major neighborhood streets (e.g., collectors) to converge on neighborhood centers, parks, landmarks, and schools so that people quickly and easily can reach these destinations by foot, bicycle, car, or bus. Policy CD-1.3 Provide street and trail connections between new residential developments and established neighborhoods. Goal CD-14 Attain a wide variety of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. Policy CD-14.1 Allow single family on small lots (e.g., 5,000 square foot conventional lots and 4,000 to 5,000 square foot zero lot line lots). Establish design standards to ensure housing at such densities is a pleasing addition to the neighborhoods. Goal CD-15 Lay out neighborhoods that have a human scale and are oriented to the pedestrian. Policy CD-15.1 Whenever possible, encourage a land use pattern wherein churches, stores, services, parks, jobs, entertainment, transportation, and schools are within walking distance of a person's place of residence. Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 11 of 21 i r Goal CD-16 Encourage creativity and high quality in the design of residential buildings. Policy CD-16.3 Establish flexible standards for small lot design. Smaller lots have a greater need to address issues related to garage location and treatment Policy CD-20.2 Encourage the preservation of healthy, attractive native vegetation during land development Where this is not possible, encourage site landscaping which uses appropriate native plant materials. Staff Evaluation Consideration of Aesthetics The apparent increased residential densities to the east (unincorporated King County) support similar development of the Subject Site. Consideration of extensive development of the southern portion of the Subject Site, which is known to have significant sensitive areas constraints, would raise significant aesthetic challenges that would be addressed in the development review process. Staff Comment The development considered for all of the Alternatives and Options would be guided by all of the above goals and policies. Designation of a southern portion of the Subject Site as Urban Separator, while allowing for urban residential densities in a northern portion commensurate to recently built and permitted development in unincorporated King County would be consistent with most of the above goals and policies. As noted previously in the discussion of Land Use Goals and Policies, the use of flexible design standards to allow for development of attractive housing with smaller lot sizes while preserving environmentally-sensitive areas is encouraged. Goal CD-16 and Policies CD-14.1, CD-16.3 and CD-20.2 support the flexibility of PUD and clustering development regulations. The large scale development of residential use without proximity to commercial uses tends to discourage walking and other non-motorized transportation choices. Community Design Element Recommendation As with the Land Use Element discussion, staff analysis considered relative importance of selected Community Design Element Goals and Policies. Alternatives 4 and 7 emerged as the preferred choices. Alternative 4, which assumes full Urban Separator designation for the Subject Site, leads all other choices in the preservation of native vegetation and natural systems, although Alternative 7 and its Options allow for significant retention of native vegetation while offering a greater likelihood of the aesthetic benefit of utilizing the Bonneville Power Administration/Tacoma P5 Water Supply Pipeline right-of-way for a trail. HOUSING ELEMENT The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating to provision and distribution of affordable housing choices. Land Use and Planning Board Pubbc Hearing January 26,2004 Page 12 of 21 Goal H-1 Promote healthy neighborhoods by providing a wide range of housing options throughout the community that are accessible to community and human services, employment opportunities, and transportation and by being sensitive to the environmental impacts of development. Goal H-2 Provide sufficient, diverse, and affordable housing for the existing and projected population of Kent. Policy H-2.1 Promote a wide range of housing to meet the needs of our diverse population and ensure that this housing is available throughout the community for people of all income levels and special needs. Policy H-2.2 Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs, including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low-income households, single- family housing, small lot sizes, townhouses, multifamily housing, manufactured housing, group homes, and foster care facilities. Goal H-4 Expand home ownership opportunities for all income groups via land use regulations, financial strategies, and the removal of barriers to lending. Policy H-4.1 Revise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single-family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, and other options which increase the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities. Staff Evaluation Consideration of Affordable Housing According to King County, "...buying a first home remains extremely difficult for those under one hundred twenty percent (120%) of median household income, making less than $78,500 in 2002. The median price for a single family home or condominium was $256,000 in 2002. Twenty-one percent (21916) of households earn less than half of the $65,000 median income, but only about fifteen percent (15%) of King County's housing stock, rental or ownership, is affordable to that group. Only ten (10) out of King County's forty (40) jurisdictions have sufficient housing for those earning under 50 percent of median household income." (http.1/wwwmetrokc.00vlexeclnews/2003/092303.htm) According to Dupre + Scott, the 2002 Kent median sales price for a single family home was $217,500 and for a condominium was $143,850 (first half 2002 combined was $183,500). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates King County 2002 average household income as $63,500; using the 2001 Kent percentage of 86.6% King County income places Kent's average household income for 2002 at $54,991, generally a moderate income household. The affordable home price for an average household of 2-4 persons earning $54,991 would be approximately $211,000, slightly lower than the 2002 Kent median sales price for a single family home. Land Use and Planning Board Public Heating January 26,2004 Page 13 of 21 Staff Comment Generally positive in view of the Comprehensive Plan, new construction of homes provides housing opportunities for different segments of the population. Purchasers of new housing typically vacate older, less expensive housing to provide affordable housing opportunities for younger, smaller, and less affluent households. All of the above-listed Housing Element goals and policies support the type of development anticipated on the Subject Site under the considered Alternatives and Options. Housing Element Recommendation Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 provide sufficient land zoned to allow the variety of both Urban Separator unit clustering, and planned unit development (PUD) regulations — and are therefore preferred. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies relating to the provision of public services and facilities to accommodate population and economic growth. Goal CFP-1 As the City of Kent continues to grow and develop, ensure that an adequate supply and range of capital facilities are available to provide satisfactory standards of public health, safety, and quality of life. Goal CFP-2 Encourage and support patterns of growth and development which are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan by concentrating capital facilities spending in those areas where growth is desired. Goal CFP-3 Define types of public facilities, establish standards for levels- of-service for each type of public facility, and in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, determine what capital improvements are needed in order to achieve and maintain the standards for existing and future populations, and to repair or replace existing public facilities. As growth and additional development occur in the City and adjacent growth areas, consistently reassess land use, update the capital facilities data, and use these data as a basis for making financial decisions regarding capital facilities Investment Identify alternatives to spending and establish priorities. Policy CFP-3.6 Encourage non capital alternatives to achieve and maintain the adopted standard for level of service. Non capital alternatives, which use programs, strategies, or methods other than traditional "brick and mortar" capital facilities to provide the level of service standards, may include, but are not limited to the following: (1) programs that reduce or eliminate the need for the capital facility, (2) programs that provide a non capital substitute for the capital facility; (3) programs that reduce the Land Use and Planning Board Public Heanng January 26,2004 Page 14 of 21 r demand for a capital facility or the service it provides; (4) programs that use alternative methods to provide levels of service, (5) programs that use existing facilities more efficiently In order to reduce the need for additional facilities. Goal CFP-4 To ensure financial feasibility, provide needed public facilities that the City has the ability to fund, or that the City has the authority to require others to provide. Staff Evaluation Consideration of Public Services and Capital Facilities In accordance with the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), increasing residential density is desirable where sufficient infrastructure capacity either exists or is planned to coincide with development. Increasing residential density is also desirable where site conditions, neighborhood context, and zoning regulations are supportive. Water and sewer services are available to the property either through the City of Kent or the City of Auburn. Lea Hill Elementary, Hazelwood Elementary, and Rainier Middle schools of the Auburn School District and Pine Tree Elementary of the Kent School District are located in close proximity to the Subject Site. On May 30, 2003, the Auburn School District broke ground for a new high school to be located at 28900— 124"' Avenue SE, directly across from the Subject Site. Approved bonds for this school are anticipated to be supplemented by development impact fees. Since the July 10 Land Use and Planning Board workshop, the Kent School District notified Planning staff that the junior high school site featured in its 2003-2008 Capital Facilities Plan has been deleted from future consideration and the property will likely be surplused for sale in the future. Discussion of capital street improvements is contained in the discussion of Transportation Element Goals and Policies in the section below. Staff Comment The City of Kent will coordinate with other jurisdictions in the provision of capital facilities. The above-listed Capital Facilities Element Goals and Policies support such coordination, as well as the consideration of non-capital approaches to public service provision where appropriate. Capital Facilities Element Recommendation None of the Alternatives stand out as preferred. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating to coordination of development and road improvements, and the relationship between land use and the transportation system. Policy TR-1.2 Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to improve affected roadways. Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 15 of 21 r Policy TR-1.5 Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible. Policy TR-1.7 Promote land use patterns which support public transportation. Policy TR-4.1 Maximize traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Policy TR4.2 Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased traffic and reducing accessibility for the City-wide road network. Policy TR-4.3 Balance the dual goals of providing accessibility within the local street system and protecting neighborhoods. Where overflow traffic from the regional system significantly impacts neighborhoods, protect the residential area. Staff Evaluation Consideration of Impacts to Street System In accordance with the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), increasing residential density is desirable where sufficient infrastructure capacity either exists or is planned to coincide with development. Increasing residential density is also desirable where site conditions, neighborhood context, and zoning regulations are supportive. The site is not proximate to retail and employment activities for non-motorized transportation, but facilities and improvements have been provided along the frontage of 124th Ave. SE by recent subdivision developments. The City evaluated transportation impacts associated with the comprehensive plan/zoning alternatives. The transportation analysis identified two alternatives with impacts ranging from 233 to 670 PM peak hour trips. Twenty-one (21) intersections were identified and evaluated based on background traffic conditions and with the additional trips anticipated by future development of the site. The analysis also looked at transit and nonmotorized facilities within the subject area. Impacts to the transportation network resulting from future site development can be mitigated with signal and roadway improvements. Provisions should also be made for frontage roadway improvements and the inclusion of pedestrian/bicycle facilities. Staff Comment All of the Alternatives and Options considered would have street improvements consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Transportation Element. Policy TR-1.7 promotes land use patterns which support public transit— patterns which usually include higher density residential development served by a well-connected multimodal circulation system. Transportation Element Recommendation Land Use and Planning Board Public Heating January 26,2004 Page 16 of 21 The densities of Options 6-C and 7-C would best support public transit use, and are . therefore preferred. PARKS ELEMENT The Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating to coordination of development of recreational spaces and programs, and the relationship between land use and demand for parks and recreation services. Goal P&R-9 Work with other agencies to preserve and increase waterfront access and facilities. Policy P&R-9.1 Cooperate with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public and private agencies to acquire and preserve additional shoreline access for waterfront fishing, wading, swimming, and other related recreational activities and pursuits, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake Young. Goal P&R-19 Investigate innovative methods of financing park and recreational requirements, including joint ventures with other public and private agencies. Policy P&R-19.1 Investigate innovative, available methods, such as growth impact fees, land set a-side or fee-in-lieu-of-donation ordinances, and interlocal agreements, to finance facility development, maintenance, and operating needs in order to reduce costs, retain financial flexibility, match user benefits and interests, and increase facility services. Policy P&R-19.2 Where feasible and desirable, consider joint ventures with other public and private agencies such as King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, regional, state, federal, and other public and private agencies including for-profit concessionaires. Goal P&R-20 Coordinate public and private resources to create among agencies a balanced local park and recreational system. Policy P&R-20.1 Create a comprehensive, balanced park and recreational system that integrates Kent facilities and services with resources available from King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other state, federal, and private park and recreational lands and facilities, in a manner that will best serve and provide for the interests of area residents. Policy P&R-20.2 Cooperate, via joint planning and development efforts, with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public and private agencies to avoid duplication, improve • Land Use and Plannmg Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 17 of 21 r facility quality and availability, reduce costs, and represent interests of area residents. Goal P&R-21 Create and Institute a method of cost/benefit assessment to determine equitable park and recreation costs, levels of service, and provision of facilities. Policy P&R-21.1 in order to effectively plan and program park and recreational needs within the existing city limits and the potential annexation area, define existing and proposed land and facility levels of service (LOS) that differentiate requirements due to the impacts of population growth as opposed to improvements to existing facilities, neighborhood as opposed to community nexus of benefit, requirements in the City as opposed to requirements in the potential annexation area. Policy P&R-21.2 Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and maintaining park and recreational facilities in manners that accurately distribute costs and benefits to public and private user interests. This includes the application of growth impact fees where new developments impact level-of-service (LOS) standards. Staff Evaluation Consideration of Parks and Recreation . Lea Hill Park is located along SE 304't' Street to the south of the Subject Site, and the City of Auburn has indicated its intent to convert an undeveloped parcel to the west of the Subject Site into Auburndale II Park. Sports fields are being developed as part of the Auburn High School #4 site. A proposed trail in the 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan was designed to follow the easement for existing electricity transmission lines and the planned Tacoma Pipeline 5 project. Staff Comment The City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department does not plan to develop space in the immediate vicinity of the Subject Site for park or recreational use beyond that being provided or planned for by King County and the City of Auburn. Kent Parks may, however, coordinate with King County and the City of Auburn as appropriate. On the Subject Site, planned unit development requirements for open space (35% of total site area) provision are greater than for normal platting, and the Urban Separator open space requirement includes a fifty percent (50%) reduction of developable area. Parks Element Recommendation The Urban Separator designation of significant areas featured in Alternatives 4, 5, 6 and 7 raise the desirability of these choices. Coordination with utilities providers in the sharing of right-of-way for recreational use adjacent to an area designated for higher intensity residential development, as featured in Option 7-C, makes this choice the most preferred. Land Use and Planwng Board Public Heanng ]anuary_26,2004 Page 18 of 21 r UTILITIEs ELEMENT The Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating to coordination of development and provision of utilities services, and the relationship between land use and demand for utilities services. Goal UT-1 Designate the general location and capacity of existing and proposed utility facilities. Policy UT-1.2 Coordinate with utility providers to ensure that the general location of existing and proposed utility facilities is consistent with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal UT-2 Make decisions regarding utility facilities within the Potential Annexation Area in a manner consistent with, and complimentary to, regional demand, resources, and systems. Policy UT-2.1 Accommodate those additions and improvements to utility facilities that enhance the capacity and reliability of regional resources, particularly when multi jurisdictional benefits within the region can be achieved. Policy UT-2.3 Encourage the designation and development of utility corridors and facilities, consistent with local and regional needs and resources. The City shall encourage the joint use of utility corridors, including with transportation rights of way, . where applicable. The City understands that some utilities may have unique safety and maintenance requirements which limit their inclusion in joint use corridors. Policy UT-2.4 Coordinate with utility providers to promote the joint use of utility corridors as pedestrian and nonmotorized trails and/or wildlife habitat. Goal UT-4 Facilitate and encourage conservation of natural resources to prevent the unnecessary consumption of land and to improve regional air quality. Policy UT-4.1 Promote the conservation of energy and resources through both public education and land use policies which do not encourage inefficient and costly sprawl development. Policy UT-4.2 Provide opportunities for alternative energy sources, such as solar power, through development regulations and energy building codes. Policy UT-4.3 Encourage utility providers to seek methods such as cogeneration to make efficient use of energy opportunities. Cogeneration is the use of heat, as a byproduct of power Land Use and Plammng Board Pubhe Heanng January 26,2004 Page 19of21 r generation, for industrial processes or for space and water heating. Staff Evaluation Consideration of Utilities Services Utilities providers, of electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable television, among others, are involved in the process of planning and coordinating services to serve development. These utilities providers typically contact jurisdictions for information about private utility service areas. Joint-use utility corridors such as the Bonneville Power Administration Tacoma-Covington Transmission Line/Tacoma P5 Water Supply Pipeline could provide additional public open space and recreational opportunities. Staff Comment Most of the above-listed Utilities Element Goals and Policies address inter jurisdictional cooperation and encouragement of development that minimizes consumption of resources. Policy UT-2.4 also encourages use of utility corridors such as the BPA transmission lines, as non-motorized trails and wildlife habitat areas. This policy would add further support to a demarcation of Urban Separator land at the BPA transmission lines right-of-way. Utilities Element Recommendation Alternative 7 and its Options are preferred, as incorporation of BPA/P5 right-of-way as a recreational and wildlife enjoyment amenity is most likely to be realized in proximity to the boundary of higher intensity residential use. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT The Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating to the relationship between economic development and regulation of land use, transportation, and environmental quality. Policy ED-1.7.1 Work with adjacent cities and King County on consistency among regulatory codes. Policy ED-1.7.2 Encourage predictability and consistency In the City's land use regulations, while also allowing for flexibility and creativity in the site development process. Policy ED-2.1 Encourage home ownership to foster stakeholders in the community. Policy ED-2.3 Discourage further large-scale multifamily residential projects outside of the downtown. Policy ED-2.5 Encourage a land use pattern that integrates housing with natural amenities, shopping opportunities, and recreational facilities. Staff Evaluation Consideration of Economic Impacts of Regulation • Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearmg January 26,2004 Page 20 of 21 r The development of owner-occupied housing provides shelter and long-term investment opportunities that tend to encourage positive economic activity within the community. Staff Comment The City of Kent will continue to work with appropriate jurisdictions to ensure a level of predictability and consistency in the application of land use development regulations to minimize unnecessary delays in development permit processing. Most of the above-listed Economic Development Element Policies address inter- jurisdictional cooperation and regulatory consistency, environmentally-sensitive development, home ownership, that minimize consumption of resources. Policy UT-2.4 also encourages use of utility corridors such as the BPA transmission lines, as non- motorized trails and wildlife habitat areas. This policy would add further support to a demarcation of Urban Separator land at the BPA transmission lines right-of-way. Economic Development Element Recommendation Altematives 5, 6 and 7 with split designation of the Subject Site into Urban Separator and higher intensity residential use are respectful of the context of surrounding lands. Options 5-C, 6-C and 7-C are most preferred. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of OPTION 7-C, which would designate an estimated 91.15 acres as Urban Separator Comprehensive Plan (US)/Single-Family Residential, One Unit per Acre Initial Zoning (SR-1), and an estimated 65.43 acres as Single-Family Residential, Six Units per Acre Land Use (SF-6) and Single-Family Residential, 4.53 Units per Acre Initial Zoning (SR-4.5). The development of housing units at urban densities is appropriate on land so designated. The buildout potential considered under Option 7-C could accommodate residential development of similar density and aesthetic character with its King County neighbors to the east, while preserving a large amount of acreage proximate to Olsen Creek under a development-restricted Urban Separator designation. WOlpm S:1PermihPlanlCormPlanA m[Irrrenie1200312D91726-CPA-200,"�2,�LIVSNbHig_012604.doc Enclosures: Appendix A.Considering Land Use&Zoning Alternatives Appendix B:Comprehensive Plan Goals&Policies Evaluation Matrix Appendix C•Maps of Alternatives 5,6 and 7 GMPC Agenda&Map from 50/03 meeting Lea Hill Task Force Report,Page 19 Copies of RCW 36.70A,040(3),36.70A 120,and 36 70A 130(1)(b) CC. Fred N.Satterstrom,CD Director Don Wickstrom,Public Works Director Nathan Torgelson,Econ Development Manager Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Kim Marousek,AICP,Responsible Official File CPA-2003-2&#CPZ-2003-1 Land Use and Plaruung Board Pubbc Heanng January 26,2004 Page 21 of 21 r � } ate © & • • t \ 2 & 00x § � co2 $ f / 2L 22f Ef § s »m § s2 . \ k � � � � � ■ ` 2 § kos J _ se � ® = � go2 k00 On ¥ � ■ \ j � m §CO . ■ � £ � ° a � § A. 2 � ` ! 2 & f2 ■ &] � ! ƒ ) Q2 \ d 7 § f N � � � 2 aE ) . \) ( | 2 u = \ 7 lacm c § 2 § 2 m cn k � \ E - m ( B / g § i \ ■ tn , \ C C / a2E � - - 2 I . Uj m O y- IL Yl A ro w pw� w nT m ^ n $ n y n $ ^ n N < Z a n P • g$ P wn1 O� M $ Z n , N Oo n N S /Y~�1 b n .^-� n 1n• T N aP � n N � N n ' N N N NP •' N A O� !� 1/1 w yam) P 1� CN a x� N q � a � R T ie I In te., gam q A �••� N l�l N N c � s lu 0 G� 00 N M N M O1 N a m O' N O O r+ M tO R m S co a Go a� Q N M i M ^ J V 00 N O N M N %a to O N M O r+ M 1A Z O x0 Q N " ., M IL to O G ; V 7 N M ON Q Rz W m O lV M CD +-� m LM W � � J 00 N O x p, x _y X_ W a y � �07 N M p .-+ tO T a� � 10 ro � w = NI d pMo ' C y q4q dILU U s �y � N M N C E O M N NY .r M m 3 ., x ~ ^ LL - c II N O + G y �+ ra \ f o n v W O j H � .� +O g } a � � Gy th 11 O a+ 0) ` e 0 V1 Q = f Ln O Z N N 1] 7 N O>1 a O !A y > C w O LA c .O o y TO C x Z y a+ ` > y d 01 N 8 W O N Ol WOp UI } oC0 � CE d O O ' C N C O 70y 9. N RB N O- . N O W � rT t7i O Za � UT m v L otS M r 4 E N O O J J u n T u Go %0 V, u © Ln S # m n IT s 2 n m Ln LM co Ln L o £ B u o f n Q & u Ln L S # taco o f m ■ ■ co %0 _ ■ Ln LFA S § § § 2 E « o f f E « 3 E « Ln LMo 2 2 2 2 § @ u o f n MA u � 3 § u LM � 14 o � « � E ku � W) goo T r y § ■ « § Ln co Ln Ln s u « o f M « m W 3 « Ln LnS © o f _ * Ln Ln e � 0 � § _ o IT m R _ - % 3 m tA Ln E � 2 - c f m - - _ W o r4 LM tA o E vM _ en f CD ( tn Lne � . — m e & % & ) \ /*r e o § 2f c \ g § kb2o a 2 i § & � k /m 2 cn ) § § % ■ §� � > � � 92 22 � � . • co � § k . $ $ $ W $ 2 { � Ik & \ k IM E / ` 7 �c 2 ® ek2 � 2102 MLl? .39 U. � E 8 JCL Lu § � ■ spit Lk � cka §i ] M E 2 � - q � E j3 � � ] d R � N M k § § A § G k i 7 k $ § § u Ln L ° u C4 _ - ry %0 - : ■ e o ■ N - _ C4 « tx « L § © « ® - - ® © § \ u Lm Ln e u 0 2 _ _ ■ Lnf o _ ■ 0 2 N Li ■ z 2 § « f E « c 2 2 2 2 2 § Q » f oLU uC4 0 2 V- ■ Ln tip be ■ . o f e ■ o 2 ry Ln k k LM u « Ln « C4 Cl N co £ - \ ® a o { ® c 0 � ® c ~� � c" o o d a � / ■ - LM f o o o Ln C6 % Ln Lno r4 Li � N Ln CA o . 22 + 2 z § � G � § u 0� 1. @ , ® uj § B > - « . Cl \ B $ \ §33k // ® « � £ E Lr; _ � _ / ƒ / Cid Ln / c c $& tcn § ` C Ic § c 2 $$ 2 § ef2 � m2sb £ . c _ � c § ` } § ƒ ) kp a ; 2 e 3 e a k } /� CL ck � . § ik7k � / / \_ Ln ^ E S � Li Ln U N LiV W •� 01 U It 0 so ►� m N N Ln ^ m q ti LM ^ m130 A S Q N Ln N N In Q M 4 J (� O N N V c0 Im () N %a co O N N N Li 10 m Ir .r LM N %a M v0' x O O O F eyytf aiS {a/i�� 0p LLl U O N N ui V coco :0 OL N f0 O Ln Ln tV N 9 N LO .r to Cie Ln co J J J U Q LM Ln e Q .O Q O N N Q ti to Q N a IAO N N In a N 14 Ln O c M O o O M V o o M oC a m .N C d t 8 ,�+ o 0 0 a 0 V Ln in zcxri I v .r uMN NC c N01 m 'e 'C O _ +' W 'r aami 7 C ` O y H c V O G 7 O w. 0 3 l0 D N CL O N N C E O C nwBjg L° y we g W 0 0 Lon 0) 4 c E r 8 � -a O c 0 cCL E � •o N O �n r3 N a D d Y C _ EEoaS " — E d y>g� " " at m a c� 2c O �Q � g .88 b UT c 8 8 o f az' 3 3 .. AD 5 3 W a d M - ..+s - 3S 3AV Z£1-- - - - - _ __ cM 1� - - G o 4.0 O ----— G - - - -- - '' O M ++ y 1%- ce) to 6 N d) U N o � c � � gym _ -- M O O O CLc) _ MaM t� M000 � NN - - - _3S 3Ab VZL a o N _ - LO Q� N `> --11 4=0 CD cu 0 cm N L r CA m 41 a m ,r r N M .1.r •Id id � L LL � � ntN Qtl� o � ccc •- - - - ti000 to - - -- I 0.]. Q. c, o - M � � -- r o w - -- --=_ 3S 3AVS o N m a J r YI C) - -- - --• e- N M L ---- - - - - - ��, r ---- - - - O - - - -- - t4 a 0) eT- NN L Q d N vQmU N v � - - - - - ---- p cQ C C C n► cr! O O O � 3 -- Ll. � QQQ - - - - !n c� O O O O) d� --- - - -- = - -- -- -- 3S 3AV VU - - - - 40 -- - , - N o) - --- -- - - Lull IS 3AV w N ca m a • J r Council Meeting Date:May 21,2003 Agenda Item: IV GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON AGENDA TITLE: Auburn Urban Separator Report PRESENTED BY: Paul Krauss-Auburn,Paul Reitenbach-King County BACKGROUND On December 11, 2001 the GMPC adopted Motion 01-I which added maps of existing Urban Separators to the Countywide Planning Policies. These maps also identify potential Urban Separator areas within the Potential Annexation Area of Auburn that do not reflect a consensus of affected jurisdictions. Staff was directed to work to resolve this issue and report back to GMPC. Aubum did not agree with the Urban Separator designation in King County for 183.5 acres of land in Auburn s PAA in an area known as Lea Hill. In 1997 the City of Auburn conducted a planning process for the Lea Hill area that concluded the area in question was appropriate for higher single family residential densities due to topography,access,available services and the goal of meeting GMA growth targets. King County staff concluded that the area in question did not contain critically important environmental features that required low-density land use designations to protect. Auburn and King County staff identified 184 acres of land that meets the criteria for designation of Urban Separators in the Countywide Planning Policies and the King County Comprehensive Plan(Policy LU-27 below). Some of this land is adjacent to the Green River,Olsen Creek and Olsen Canyon. The other areas are in public ownership and are existing or future park sites and a school site. This includes the historic Olsen Creek Farm homestead that is being preserved for future generations by the City and the White River Valley Museum. Even when developed,these properties will provide the visual break from higher density residential development and the recreational opportunities envisioned by policy LU-27. LU-27 Urban separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas,and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental,visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future(in the 20-year planning cycle)to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore,no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a Motion approving the proposed modifications to the Auburn Urban Separator for consideration and possible approval at the September GMPC meeting. .,� -JAI ��■'ELI sitSPUN �mom glp 1AP au ��� 1{� �rl[�_- /i �I ■.�RLr/ Rom■ 1111111'jl'l'':'�Ja It p II r �i / ulllli/LD�1�' fill moll I All assail111111 all .! aaass� aaa111 11111 I lit�� :..".111 :-:11{ 'Al all "•; "r 11 11 1111 i L.IV _ IlI 1111�IN---�I� : onus R :mp''r ���_ass!'+ '■-I '� • I-� __N_M. �o___-,__ !�. Ian ■rii�o-•__ �■�—■ass�l assess cr.�O011 will CFI�� � 1.`pnn�i►/h„nn-. . nunnnnG tuub 1C=�.� . 1l1aa1=- �.... ■ ■ HIS 7,� WE of 1�d.'a�tala■nn•■,����nl�c!*fit � oil �I�t ■■%�/11/wal nlr+!•. :►w Fi R�``S1 �/ �.�i�(�IF■uM■Iqp no ass■IrrF�� ■ - �1V��Iu■■uu■e a o1 a■PI 1 q �l7_•1�C�ia��� riir���.riiaaa� �`�i ou■a■N+ •'waC �..- ...rah:•..... O`V All R� LEA HILL TASK FORCE PRINCIPLES FOR ANNEXATION REPORT TO THE CITY OF AUBURN CITY COUNCIL Adopted December 15, 1997 neighborhood park within a quarter mile of each residence. Auburn's current policy to provide neighborhood parks has led to the creation of over a dozen within the City limits. is The current level of service for parks on Lea Hill is approximately 20 acres for 9,000 residents; or,2.2 acres per 1,000 residents. Should the Lea Hill area be annexed into the City,the Parks Department will develop a plan to ensure that the residents of Lea Hill are served by local parks to an equivalent level as the residents of Auburn. This will benefit the residents of the Lea Hill area as well City residents as it will relieve some of the strain on existing City parks which are currently used by residents of Lea Hill. Areas under consideration include:the City of Kent watershed property,remnant WSDOT parcels and the wooded property located east of Lea Hill elementary school. Methods for financing new parks must be determined. The City is a strong supporter of King County's acquisition of a large,regional park at the tree farm. This acquisition would help to alleviate the lack of park facilities available to area residents. Should King County purchase the property,the City is willing to work towards developing and maintaining the park once it is within the City limits. Supporting Policies: New developments shag contribute to the development of new parks ata level commensurate with their share of new facility needs as established by the Park and Recreation Plan. If the City determines that the development does not contain an acceptable park site, the City shall require the payment of cash in lieu of land. The funds shall be used to acquire land and/or develop recreational facilities at a location deemed appropriate by the City. Criteria for site acceptability and appropriateness shag be environmental limitations,accessibility,maintenance costs, consistency with the Parks and Recreation Plan and the ability to meet more of the Community's recreational needs by the coordinated development of parks located elsewhere.(Policy PR-2, ACP) The Cary shag explore all means of funding the purchase of park land including,but not limited to, bond issuance, the collection of cash in lieu of land and federal, state or county grants. (Policy PR-3,ACP) The City shall evaluate the impacts of new development on parks and recreational resources through the SEPA environmental review process,and shall take appropriate steps to mitigate significant adverse impacts.(Policy PR-/,ACP) Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shag have an urban Level of essential public facilities(sewer,water, storm drainage,and parks)prior to or concurrent with devebpmenL (Policy CF-1,ACP) Issue 92 The area needs more baseball and soccer fields. City Response: The City's park concept includes providing different sized parks including: neighborhood, community and regional parks for the enjoyment of the citizens. Soccer and ball fields will generally be located in community parks,or larger. Aside from Auburndale, it is envisioned that ball fields will be installed at the Tree Famt,should it be acquired for future park. 19 r Page 1 of 3 RCW 36.70A.040 Who must plan -- Summary of requirements -- Development regulations must implement comprehensive plans. (1) Each county that has both a population of fifty thousand or more and, until May 16, 1995, has had its population increase by more than ten percent in the previous ten years or, on or after May 16, 1995, has had its population increase by more than seventeen percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, and any other county regardless of its population that has had its population increase by more than twenty percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, shall conform with all of the requirements of this chapter. However, the county legislative authority of such a county with a population of less than fifty thousand population may adopt a resolution removing the county, and the cities located within the county, from the requirements of adopting comprehensive land use plans and development regulations under this chapter if this resolution is adopted and filed with the department by December 31, 1990, for counties initially meeting this set of criteria, or within sixty days of the date the office of financial management certifies that a county meets this set of criteria under subsection (5) of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, a county not currently planning under this chapter is not required to include in its population count those persons confined in a correctional facility under the • jurisdiction of the department of corrections that is located in the county. Once a county meets either of these sets of criteria, the requirement to conform with all of the requirements of this chapter remains in effect, even if the county no longer meets one of these sets of criteria. (2) The county legislative authority of any county that does not meet either of the sets of criteria established under subsection (1) of this section may adopt a resolution indicating its intention to have subsection (1) of this section apply to the county. Each city, located in a county that chooses to plan under this subsection, shall conform with all of the requirements of this chapter. Once such a resolution has been adopted, the county and the cities located within the county remain subject to all of the requirements of this chapter. (3) Any county or city that is initially required to conform with all of the requirements of this chapter under subsection (1) of this section shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a) The county legislative authority shall adopt a county-wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city located within the county shall designate critical areas, agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands, and adopt development regulations conserving these designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands and protecting these designated critical areas, under RCW 36.70A.170 and 36.70A.060; • (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110; (d) if the county has a population of fifty thousand or more, the county and each city located within the county shall adopt a http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseacdon=Section&Sedion=36.70A.04... 1/14/2004 r Page 2 of 3 comprehensive plan under this chapter and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan on or before July 1, 1994, and if the county has a population of less than fifty thousand, the county and each city located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive plan under this chapter and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan by January 1, 1995, but if the governor makes written findings that a county with a population of less than fifty thousand or a city located within such a county is not making reasonable progress toward adopting a comprehensive plan and development regulations the governor may reduce this deadline for such actions to be taken by no more than one hundred eighty days. Any county or city subject to this subsection may obtain an additional six months before it is required to have adopted its development regulations by submitting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regulations. (4) Any county or city that is required to conform with all the requirements of this chapter, as a result of the county legislative authority adopting its resolution of intention under subsection (2) of this section, shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a) The county legislative authority shall adopt a county-wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city that is located within the county shall adopt development regulations conserving agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands it designated under RCW 36.70A.060 within one year of the date the county legislative authority adopts its resolution of intention; (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110; and (d) the county and each city that is located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan not later than four years from the date the county legislative authority adopts its resolution of intention, but a county or city may obtain an additional six months before it is required to have adopted its development regulations by submitting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regulations. (5) If the office of financial management certifies that the population of a county that previously had not been required to plan under subsection (1) or (2) of this section has changed sufficiently to meet either of the sets of criteria specified under subsection (1) of this section, and where applicable, the county legislative authority has not adopted a resolution removing the county from these requirements as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the county and each city within such county shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a)The county legislative authority shall adopt a county-wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city located within the county shall adopt development regulations under RCW 36.70A.060 conserving agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands it designated within one year of the certification by the office of financial management; (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110; and http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&SecUon=36.70A.04... 1/14/2004 r Page 3of3 (d) the county and each city located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan within four years of the certification by the office of financial management, but a county or city may obtain an additional six months before it Is required to have adopted its development regulations by submitting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regulations. (6) A copy of each document that is required under this section shall be submitted to the department at the time of its adoption. (7) Cities and counties planning under this chapter must amend the transportation element of the comprehensive plan to be in compliance with this chapter and chapter 47.80 RCW no later than December 31, 2000. (2000 c 36 § 1; 1998 c 171 § 1; 1995 c 400 § 1; 1993 sp.s. c 6§ 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17§4.] NOTES: Effective date -- 1995 c 400: 'This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [May 16, 1995]." [1995 c 400 § 6.] Effective date -- 1993 sp.s. c 6: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect June 1, 1993." [1993 sp.s. c 6 § 7.] http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseacbon=Section&.Section=36.70A.04... 1/14/2004 r Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.70A.120 Planning activities and capital budget decisions --Implementation in conformity with comprehensive plan. Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall perform its activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with its comprehensive plan. [1993 sp.s. c 6§3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 12.) NOTES: Effective date -- 1993 sp.s. c 6: See note following RCW 36.70A.040. http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&section=36.70A.12... 1/14/2004 r Page 1 of 3 RCW 36.70A.130 Comprehensive plans-- Review--Amendments. (1)(a) Each comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the county or city that adopted them. A county or city shall take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter according to the time periods specified in subsection (4) of this section. A county or city not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall take action to review and, if needed, revise its policies and development regulations regarding critical areas and natural resource lands adopted according to this chapter to ensure these policies and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter according to the time periods specified in subsection (4) of this section. Legislative action means the adoption of a resolution or ordinance following notice and a public hearing indicating at a minimum, a finding that a review and evaluation has occurred and identifying the revisions made, or that a revision was not needed and the reasons therefore. The review and evaluation required by this subsection may be combined with the review required by subsection (3) of this section. The review and evaluation required by this subsection shall include, but is not limited to, consideration of critical area ordinances and, if planning under RCW 36.70A.040, an analysis of the population allocated to a city or county from the most recent ten-year population forecast by the office of financial management. (b) Any amendment of or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall conform to this chapter. Any amendment of or revision to development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. (2)(a) Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program consistent with RCW 36.70A.035 and 36.70A.140 that identifies procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year. "Updates" means to review and revise, if needed, according to subsection (1) of this section, and the time periods specified in subsection (4) of this section. Amendments may be considered more frequently than once per year under the following circumstances: (i)The initial adoption of a subarea plan that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea; (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW; and (iii) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget. http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cf n?fuseacbon=Section&Section=36.70A.13... 1/14/2004 Page 2 of 3 (b) Except as otherwise provided in (a) of this subsection, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. (3) Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110 shall review, at least every ten years, its designated urban growth area or areas, and the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of each urban growth area. In conjunction with this review by the county, each city located within an urban growth area shall review the densities permitted within its boundaries, and the extent to which the urban growth occurring within the county has located within each city and the unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas. The county comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the comprehensive plans of the county and each city located within the urban growth areas, shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period.The review required by this subsection may be combined with the review and evaluation required by RCW 36.70A.215. (4) The department shall establish a schedule for counties and cities to take action to review and, if needed, revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter. The schedule established by the department shall provide for the reviews and evaluations to be completed as follows: (a) On or before December 1, 2004, and every seven years thereafter, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties; (b) On or before December 1, 2005, and every seven years thereafter, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties; (c) On or before December 1, 2006, and every seven years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima-counties and the cities within those counties; and (d) On or before December 1, 2007, and every seven years thereafter, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the cities within those counties. (5)(a) Nothing in this section precludes a county or city from conducting the review and evaluation required by this section before the time limits established in http://www.leg.wa.gov/ROW/index.cfm?fubeaction=Section&Section=36.70A.13... 1/14/2004 Page 3 of 3 subsection (4) of this section. Counties and cities may begin this process early and may be eligible for grants from the department, subject to available funding, if they elect to do so. (b) State agencies are encouraged to provide technical assistance to the counties and cities in the review of critical area ordinances, comprehensive plans, and development regulations. (6) A county or city subject to the time periods in subsection (4)(a) of this section that, pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the county or city establishing a schedule for periodic review of its comprehensive plan and development regulations, has conducted a review and evaluation of its comprehensive plan and development regulations and, on or after January 1, 2001, has taken action in response to that review and evaluation shall be deemed to have conducted the first review required by subsection (4)(a) of this section. Subsequent review and evaluation by the county or city of its comprehensive plan and development regulations shall be conducted in accordance with the time periods established under subsection (4)(a) of this section. (7) The requirements imposed on counties and cities under this section shall be considered "requirements of this chapter" under the terms of RCW 36.70A.040(1). Only those counties and cities in compliance with the schedules in this section shall have the requisite authority to receive grants, loans, pledges, or financial guarantees from those accounts established in RCW 43.155.050 and 70.146.030. Only those counties and cities in compliance with the schedules in this section shall receive preference for grants or loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.17.250. [2002 c 320§ 1; 1997 c 429 § 10; 1995 c 347§ 106; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 13.] NOTES: Prospective application -- 1997 c 429 §§ 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Severability-- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Finding -- Severability -- Part headings and table of contents not law - - 1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470. RCW 36.70A.130(2) does not apply to master planned locations in industrial land banks: RCW 36.70A.367(4). i http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.13... 1/14/2004 KENT ww�w �a�o• ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS Adoption Document(s): EIS Description of current proposal:The proposal is for the establishment of Comprehensive Plan Land Use and initial zoning designations for approximately 155 acres of property which was annexed into the City of Kent but is surrounded by unincorporated King County and within the City of Auburn's Potential Annexation Area. Proponent: City of Kent Location of proposal: The property lies west of 124'h Ave SE, east of 118`" Avenue SE, south of SE 288a'Street and north of 304 Ave South. Title of document(s)being adopted: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement Draft(July 1994)and Final (January 1995)—Prepared by the City of Kent. Soos Creek Community Plan Environmental Impact Statement Draft (July 1991) and Final (December 1991)—Prepared by King County Department of Parks,Planning and Natural Resources. Description of document(o;portion)being adopted: The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS is being adopted in total. This document evaluated three different land use alternatives for the city. The analysis evaluated the type and range of impacts to the environment associated with each land use alternative. The King County Soos Creek Community Plan EIS is adopted in total. This document evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the Soos Creek Community Plan and associated Area Zoning Documents. The analysis covered a range of impacts to both the natural and built environment as associated with the Community Plan and alternatives. If the document has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630).please describe: Neither document has been successfully challenged. Document availability: These documents are available for review at the City of Kent Planning Services office,220 Fourth Ave S,Kent,WA 98032 from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. We have identified and adopted these documents as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. Along with the addendum,these documents meet our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker(s). Name of agency adopting the document:City of Kent Contact person/Responsible Official: Kim Marousek,AICP(253)856-5436 Principal Planner City of Kent Community Development Dept. 220 Fourth Ave South J 7 Kent,WA 98032 Daw. Signature KM 3m\S 1permitlpianknv\2003Q032222adopt doc I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager Phone.253-866-5454 KENT Fax. 253-856-6454 WASMINGTOM Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 CITY OF KENT ADDENDUM TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(#ENV-93-51) KENT IMPOUNDMENT RESERVOIR SITE(#ENV-2003-26) Responsible Official: Kim Marousek SCOPE The City of Kent has completed environmental analysis, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),for options related to the establishment of Comprehensive Plan Land Use and initial zoning designations for approximately 155 acres of property ling west of 124s Ave SE, east of 118'h Avenue SE, south of SE 288w Street and north of 304' Ave South. Establishing comprehensive plan land use and zoning designations is identified as a nonproject action under the SEPA rules(WAC 197-11). Therefore,this analysis looks at a range of potential impacts and mitigation alternatives. A more site-specific,project level environmental review for this site will be completed when a development proposal is identified and an application is submitted to the City of Kent. The City has identified a number of land use alternatives for this site. All designation options are for single-family residential, which may include the option of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The alternatives include: SF-3/SR-2 (Comprehensive Plan Map Designation of Single Family 3 units per acre/Zoning Designation of Single Family 2 units per acre); SF-3/SR-3 (Comprehensive Plan Map Designation of Single Family 3 units per acre/Zoning Designation of Single Family 3 units per acre); US/SR-1 (Comprehensive Plan Map Designation of Urban Separator/Zoning Designation of Single Family 1 unit per acre); and alternatives of split zoning where a portion of the property would be designated US/SR-1 and a portion designated single family (of varying densities) without the Urban Separator designation. Among the alternatives, potential residential densities range from 156 dwelling units to 670 dwelling units. Additional information about the zoning alternatives can be found in the Planning Services Staff Report to the Land Use and Planning Board. The SEPA analysis covers the range of alternatives described above. The scope of this addendum adds analysis to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) in the following areas: earth, water, plants, animals, land use, aesthetics, transportation, public services and utilities. BACKGROUND In 1983, the City of Kent purchased the subject site for the purpose of developing a water impoundment reservoir to serve projected water supply needs. In 1985, these parcels were r ENV-2003-26 City of Kent impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum brought into the City's boundary through a municipal annexation process. Interim zoning to newly annexed lands is SR-2, Single Family Residential. In this case, a final zoning and comprehensive plan map designation were never established since the property was intended solely for a municipal purpose. Since the time of purchase, the City has continued to explore options for obtaining sufficient water supply to meet the needs identified in the Water Comprehensive Plan. The City has been able to secure additional water rights though the Tacoma P-5 Pipeline project thereby nullifying the need to impound water on this site. The City has determined that an appropriate course of action is to sell this property as it is no longer needed for its once intended use. It is therefore appropriate at this time that the City proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the property. This environmental analysis provides an addendum to the City's Comprehensive Plan EIS related to this nonproject action. SEPA COMPLIANCE In October 1993, the City of Kent issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and Notice of Scoping for the Comprehensive Plan (ENV-93-51). After a series of public meetings, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on July 18, 1994 for the Draft Comprehensive Plan, issued on the same date. The DEIS was distributed to City Council and Planning Commission members, adjacent jurisdictions, affected agencies and other parties of interest. After comments on the DEIS were solicited and reviewed, a Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)was issued and distributed on January 30, 1995. The EIS analyzed the environmental impacts of the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted April 18, 1995. The purpose of the EIS for the Comprehensive Plan was to assess the impacts of the Plan on the City and its growth area. The EIS does not analyze the significance of site specific impacts;it analyzes the significance of impacts on a broad area. This Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS provides additional information regarding the subject property as it was not evaluated in the original Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map seeks to establish the density and development potential for the subject site. Analysis of the additional information shows that although adopting any of the zoning alternatives proposed will cumulatively add density greater than previously evaluated, that action will not create unavoidable adverse environmental impacts beyond those previously identified in the EIS. STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY Future project permit applications on the subject property will be subject to and shall be consistent with the following: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, the Kent City Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code, Public Works Standards and all other applicable laws and ordinances in affect at the time a complete project permit application is filed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW—SCOPE OF EIS ADDENDUM The City of Kent has followed the process of phased environmental review as it undertakes actions to implement and amend the Comprehensive Plan. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and rules established for the act, WAC 197-11, outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and preparing addenda to environmental decisions. Non project Documents—An EIS prepared for a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or other broad based policy documents are considered"non-project,"or programmatic in nature Page 2 of 9 i r ENV-2003-26 City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum (see WAC 197-11-704). These are distinguished from EISs or environmental documents prepared for specific project actions, such as a building permit or a road construction project. The purpose of a non-project EIS is to analyze proposed alternatives and to provide environmental consideration and mitigation prior to adoption of an alternative. It is also a document that discloses the process used in evaluating alternatives to decision-makers and citizens. Phased Review—SEPA rules allow environmental review to be phased so that review coincides with meaningful points in the planning and decision making process, (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Broader environmental documents may be followed by narrower documents that incorporate general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on issues specific to that proposal. SEPA rules also clearly state that agencies shall use a variety of mechanisms, including addenda,adoption and incorporation by reference,to avoid duplication and excess paperwork. Prior Environmental Documents — The City of Kent issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Comprehensive Plan on July t8, 1994 (#ENV-93-51). The DEIS analyzed three comprehensive plan land use alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures, which were used in preparing comprehensive plan policies. The preferred land use alternative which was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan was most closely related to Alternative 2 of the DEIS, (the mixed-use alternative). A Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)was issued on January 30, 1995,and the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 18, 1995. Therefore,the impacts of the Land Use Element adopted in the Comprehensive Plan are within the range of impacts evaluated in the EIS. Scope ofAddendum—As outlined in the SEPA rules,the purpose of an addendum is to provide environmental analysis with respect to the land use and zoning designation for the subject property. This analysis builds upon the Comprehensive Plan EIS but does not substantially change the identified impacts and analysis; therefore it is prudent to utilize the addendum process as outlined in WAC-I97-I1-600(4)(c). ENVIRON MENTAL ELEMENTS All environmental elements were adequately addressed within the parameters of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final. Further, subsequent "project' actions would require the submittal of separate environmental checklists, pursuant to SEPA, which will be analyzed for consistency with the original mitigating conditions and may require new mitigation based upon site-specific conditions. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Existing Conditions The property is currently vacant but was historically used as a managed livestock pasture and hay crop production pasture. A few cleared home-site areas are present along the eastern boundary along 120 Ave SE. The site is located within an upland area bordered on the west and south by the Green River Valley and to the southeast by the Soos Creek Valley. Soos Creek is a tributary to the Green River. The rolling upland area averages at an elevation of approximately 400 feet whereas the Green River Valley and Soos Creek Valley are at elevations of approximately 50 feet and 75 feet, respectively. The site is largely comprised of open pasture grasses, a large wetland Page 3 of 9 ENV-2003-26 City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum complex in the central and southern portion of the site, and a smaller forested area along the west-central property line. Earth Soil sampling completed in conjunction with the wetland delineation confirmed that soils are representative of those identified in the King County Soils Survey published by NRCS. Those soils include Tukwila muck, Norma sandy loam and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. The steepest slope on the site is estimated at roughly 30 percent. Upon future development considering the land use alternatives, impervious surface area could range between 40-70 percent of the site area. Extensive grading is anticipated with future project actions which will be subject to site-specific environmental review and the application of appropriate City codes and ordinances. No impacts will result from the nonpreject action of establishing land use and zoning designations. Water Wetlands— In 1995, a wetland evaluation and delineation was completed for the City of Kent. This report, based upon the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, found 16 separate wetlands for a combined 48.9 acres. Those wetlands range from 0.007 to 43.64 acres in size. Wetland A(43.64 acres)and Wetland O(3.73 acres)are identified as Category 2 while the remainder are identified as Category 3 wetlands as defined by the City of Kent wetland regulations. Notably, Wetland A is identified as having a moderate to high function and value though it is partially drained by a field ditch system. The wetland receives some surface stormwater drainage from on and off-site sources and has a shallow ponded water component located in the central portion of the site. Wetland O is identified as having low to moderate function and value while all other on-site wetlands are identified as having low function and value. The establishment of a Comprehensive Plan Map designation and initial zoning could lead to future development. However, creating that designation will not create impacts to the wetland area Any impacts will be associated with a specific project proposal which will be evaluated upon submittal. Future projects will be required to meet the City of Kent wetland ordinance requirements as well as any requirements from outside agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers or the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Hydrology—Generally, the northern portion of the site drains southward toward the center of the site then westward combining with a series of ditch-lines that flow from the south. Surface water in the extreme northeast comer of the site flows northerly off-site while the extreme northwest portion of the site flows off-site in a westerly direction. The majority of on-site drainage is collected and conveyed through a series of constructed ditches which exit the site near the west-central property line. These ditches, which flow through Wetland A, form the headwaters of Olson Creek. In 1994, King County SSWM published a report entitled, "Eastern Tributaries of the lower Green River. Enhanced Reconnaissance Report." This report looked at primarily the Soos Creek and Olson Creek Basins and evaluated existing (at that time) water quality concerns and projected potential future impacts both from various pollutant sources and land use development. Throughout the report, the City of Kent property was modeled with an impoundment reservoir as the intended use. Further,that use assumed that Wetland A would be filled to create the impoundment site. At the time the modeling was completed, Wetland A Page 4 of 9 -- - r ENV-2003-26 City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum (identified in the report as wetland #24), provided up to 100 acrelfeet of storage or 1.5 to 3.0 inches of natural water storage. Significant downstream flows were anticipated in Olson Creek with the projected land conversion resulting from the reservoir development. It is unlikely that future development will result in the filling of Wetland A; therefore, future potential downstream impacts could be less than what was projected in the report. Not only will the wetland continue to store surface water flows but future development will be required to meet City stormwater standards. Srormwater — Stormwater impacts will be evaluated upon submittal of a specific project proposal. Any future development will be required to meet the City's stormwater management regulations. This nonproject action will not alter the existing surface water flows nor add to stormwater runoff. Plants The majority of the site is dominated by a mixture of seeded pasture grasses, invasive grasses and invasive herbs. A few scattered mature Western red cedar trees can be found throughout the pasture areas. In many areas, reed canary grass has formed mono-typic stands. Additionally, invasive shrubs such as Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom have formed extensive thickets. The edge of several ditch lines near the west central site boundary are dominated by a mixture of trees and shrubs. A forested area dominated by mature second- growth Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, red alder and Western red cedar is present along the west- central property boundary. The central area of the site, which is defined as Wetland A,ponds water through the late winter and early spring. The plant communities within this area are typical of wet soil plants and include buttercup, common cattail, softrush, water-cress, water parsley and slough sedge. The establishment of the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and initial zoning for the subject property will not create adverse impacts to the plant communities on the property. Animals Three main wildlife habitats were identified in the 1995 Wetland Report: open meadow habitats; a seasonally flooded wetland habitat; and a mixed deciduous/coniferous forest area. Wildlife species were noted either through direct observation or identification by secondary evidence (i.e. vocalization, scat, or pawprints). The identified species included various small songbirds, raptors, mice, opossum, coyote, various duck species, Pacific treefrog, and Northwestern salamander. No threatened or endangered species were noted on the subject site. A more current evaluation of wildlife will be required upon a site specific development proposal. Future development proposals will impact some areas currently used as wildlife habitat. The establishment of the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and Zoning is a nonproject action that will not impact wildlife on the subject site. Land Use The subject property is surrounded by unincorporated King County and lies within the City of Auburn's Potential Annexation Area. The area within the general vicinity of the subject site can be characterized as land that is truisitioning from a Waal to suburban development pattern. The properties adjacent to the subject site, particularly along the north and west edge, can be described as large lot, low density, single family development. The area is also interspersed with larger underdeveloped or unplatted parcels. Conversely,lands to the south and east can be characterized as rapidly developing to suburban densities which are consistent with the King Page 5 of 9 ENV-2003-26 City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum County zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. Additionally,a new high school is under construction adjacent to the subject site on the east side of 1241,Ave SE. The King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map generally designates the area adjacent to the east, south and the southern half of the west boundary as Urban Residential, Medium,4-12 units per acre. The remaining perimeter of the subject site is adjacent to Greenbelt/Urban Separator designated lands to the northwest and north. The corresponding King County zoning designations are R-4 Residential (4 dwelling units per acre) to the east and southwest of the subject site, R-6 Residential (6 dwelling units per acre) to the south, and R-1 Residential (I dwelling unit per acre) to the northwest and north. King County will be considering changes to the Urban Separator designations in this area, transferring properties in and out of the designation within Auburn's Potential Annexation Area (see attached map). Some future comprehensive plan and zoning changes may be applied to properties in the vicinity of the subject site. Between December 30, 1991 and December 31, 1994, King County zoning surrounding the Subject site,per the adopted 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan Update,was phased as a GR-5 (Growth Reserve, One Unit per Five Acres) Overlay until December 31, 1994; thereafter, most of the properties surrounding the southern half of the Subject site were zoned S-R(9600)-P,and those surrounding the northern half were zoned either Suburban Cluster-P (1 dwelling unit per acre, with P-Suffix Conditions) to the north and northwest, or Growth Reserve-2.5-P (1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres, with P-Suffix Conditions). The language of the Soos Creek Community Plan Update noted that"urban densities"would be allowed in the area around the subject site after the expiration of the GR-5 Overlay. Urban densities in King County equate to single-family residential development at 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. Lea Hill Elementary, Hazelwood Elementary,and Rainier Middle schools of the Auburn School District and Pine Tree Elementary of the Kent School District are located in close proximity to the subject site. Lea Hill Park is located along SE 304°i Street to the south of the subject site, and the City of Auburn has indicated its intent to convert an undeveloped parcel to the west of the Subject site into Auburndale II Park. A proposed trail in the 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan was designed to follow the easement for existing electricity transmission lines and the planned Tacoma Pipeline 5 project. The Comprehensive Plan Map and initial zoning designation alternatives that are under consideration by the City of Kent are all within the scope of the King County designations for the surrounding properties. In all cases, future development will be largely consistent in scale and scope to the residential developments that exist, are under construction, or are currently proposed in King County. Aesthetics Through the establishment of the Comprehensive Plan Map and initial zoning designations the future use of the property will change from vacant land,set aside for an impoundment reservoir, to residential development. It is anticipated that residential development will be consistent with the development pattern to the south and east of the subject site. If a planned unit development (PUD) is proposed,the project will need to meet specific City of Kent design review standards. Transportation A transportation impact analysis(TIA)was completed to evaluate the zoning alternatives for the subject property. This report, titled City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Site Traffic Impact Page 6 of 9 ENV-2003-26 City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum Analysis was prepared by the Transpo Group in January 2004 and is part of the environmental record. Two alternatives were evaluated in the TIA which covered the spectrum of anticipated development densities under the proposed zoning/comprehensive plan alternatives. Alternative 1 assumed a Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of SF-3 and a zoning designation of SR-2. Alternative 2 assumed a Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of SF-3 with a zoning designation of SR-3. Total future site development ranged from 233 single family to 670 single family detached units for Alternatives 1 and 2,respectively. For the purposes of the study, development of the site was assumed to be complete by 2008, which is termed the "horizon year." This level of development was anticipated to generate a range of additional trips to the localized transportation system. Alternative 1 is expected to generate 2,260 daily and 230 PM peak hour trips and Altemative 2 is expected to generate 5,970 daily and 596 PM peak hour trips. In addition to the trips generated by potential future development of the site, the T1A also looked at projects that are in the permitting process or have been approved but not yet constructed. These "pipeline" projects are anticipated to add additional traffic to the system between now and the horizon year of the study. Thirty (30) projects were identified which anticipate more than 800 single-family units,more than 1 million gross square feet(gsf)of retail and/or commercial space, 170 senior and multi-family dwelling units, an additional 37,000 gsf of space to Green River Community College and approximately 80 student housing units at the Community College. This background development added significant impacts to the localized transportation system around the subject property. In comparison, the proposed land use and zoning alternatives would generate significantly less traffic at the study area intersections than the pipeline project development. The transportation analysis for the subject site was coordinated among Auburn, Kent and King County. Based upon the potential range of impacts, 21 intersections were evaluated for PM peak hour impacts. Of those intersections,5 were also evaluated for AM peak hour impacts. Of the 21 intersection, nine(9) would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F based upon baseline (without project) conditions and the addition of Alternative 1 trips. However, in many cases, the traffic associated with potential build-out of the site contributed only a minor amount of additional volume to an already degraded system. The analysis looked further at intersections that would be more significantly impacted by future development of the subject property. Those intersections and recommended mitigation are identified below. Future development of the subject property will necessitate a contribution, either construction or payment,toward the following intersections improvements: 1. SE 284t°Streetd112t6 Avenue SE.Construct southbound left-turn and westbound right- tam lanes to support Alternatives 1 or 2. 2. SE 304te Street/124th Avenue SE.Construct left-turn lanes SE 304'Street and a southbound right-turn lane on 1241"Avenue SE to support Alternatives 1 and 2. 3. SE 3041d Street/132°d Avenue SE.Widen the eastbound approach to provide separate left-and right-turn lanes to support Alternatives 1 and 2. 4. SE 304th Street/112t6 Avenue SE.Install a traffic signal to support Alternatives 1 and 2. Page 7 of 9 ENV-2003.26 City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum 5. SE 304t°StreeU116`"Avenue SE. Install a traffic signal to support Alternatives 1 and 2. 6. SE 284"Street/124"Avenue SE.To support Alternative 2,widen the eastbound approach to provide separate left-and right-tam lanes.No improvements are necessary to support Alternative 1. Additionally, future development of the property would be subject to the City of Kent's South 272"d/ 277d' Street corridor impact fees to mitigate transportation impacts into the Kent system. The exact amount attributable to development would be dependent on the number of units constructed on-site.The City collects$1,068 per trip(in 1986 dollars) sent through City of Kent limits. Based on the overall distribution of traffic, approximately 66 percent of site-generated traffic would travel through Kent city limits. In today's dollars (factor of 1.66 applied to the $1,068 fee in 1986 dollars), the impact fees would range between $269,000 and $697,000, depending on the number of residential units constructed on-site. Vehicular access to the site is recommended in at least two locations on 124h Avenue SE, SE 304"'Street, I I8'"Avenue SE,and/or potentially on 112'"Avenue SE.Access design and control would be evaluated with a development-specific proposal to determine intersection geometry, control,and tum-lane needs. Frontage improvements would be required with development of the site. King County has identified the need for three-lane roadways on 124 h Avenue SE and SE 304d' Street, consistent with their design standards for a minor and collector arterial, respectively. The County has identified the need for a two-lane roadway on 118'"Avenue SE,consistent with their standard for a neighborhood collector. With development of the site, half-street improvements would be required to comply with the County's design standards. The County-required frontage improvements would include new pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the frontage of 124d' Avenue SE and SE 304d' Street. In addition, a pedestrian crossing should be considered near the north end of the site on 1240' Avenue SE and across from the Auburn High School access to provide connection to the school. A new transit stop should also be considered on 124d'Avenue SE that is within proximity to the primary site entrance. Public Services City of Kent will provide primary police and fire protection to the subject site. The subject property lies within the Auburn School District. Kent has passed an ordinance to collect school impact fees for the Auburn School District which will be assessed against future development on the subject property. Utilities Utilities,adequate to serve the range of development densities,are available to serve the subject property. II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. SUMMARY Kent City Code section 11.03.510 identifies plans and policies from which the City may draw substantive mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act. This nonproject action has been evaluated in light of those substantive plans and policies as well as within • the overall analysis completed for the City's Comprehensive Plan EIS. Page 8 of 9 ENV-2003-26 City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum B. DECISION The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final, provided extensive analysis with regard to the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The mitigating conditions included anticipated impacts associated with the increased traffic, sensitive areas and stormwater runoff, as well as impacts to public services and utilities. The City has reviewed this proposal and has found it to be consistent with the range, types and magnitude of impacts and corresponding mitigation outlined in the Comprehensive Plan EIS. The proposal is similar to the types and intensities of surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the subject property and is similar to development in other locations within the City of Kent. This analysis and subsequent addendum did not identify any new significant impacts associated with this proposal. Mitigation options specific to this proposal are identified in this document to address minor environmental impact. Therefore, this addendum, combined with the Comprehensive Plan EIS adequately evaluates potential adverse environmental impacts and provides appropriate mitigation. Based upon this analysis, a separate threshold determination is not required for this action This document and corresponding environmental record may be utilized in the future in conjunction with environmental review for future project-specific land use proposals on the subject property in accordance with the guidelines provided by WAC 197-11. 41 i Dated: January 16,200 Signatur . Kim sek, AICP,Respons"llire Official KM.jm1\S.Termn\Plan\Env\2003\203222?.addendum doc Page 9 of 9 RECENEE TT�RI /�D CITY OF KNT j ASSOCIATES JAN 2 6 2004 LAND USE&PLNG BOARD 11814 115th Avenue NE January 25,2004 T EXHIBI Kirkland,WA 98034 6923 42S.821.8448 4258213481 fax 800 468 0756 toll free TO: Jon Johnson,Chair and Land Use and Planning Board Members vAvwtriae&,ss«com From: Colin Lund-Representing Yarrow Bay Development Re: Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Initial Zoning Analysis and Alternative Proposal Request. For Public Hearing on January 26,2004 Introduction The City of Kent Planning staff has put forth considerable effort towards the formation of a recommended Comprehensive Plan designation and implementing zoning for the impoundment reservoir site. The analysis considers 7 different scenarios, some with sub options,generating 13 alternatives for staff consideration. A weighted matrix was used in the analysis based primarily on how each proposal met a corresponding comprehensive plan policy or element. Although it is not clear how different land use policies and elements were weighted,the matrix ranked option 7C highest. This option is,therefore, the staff recommended land use and zoning alternative. It would apply the following: ■ North of the BPA Easement: (65.43 ac) SF-6 Comprehensive Plan and SR-4.5 Initial Zoning. • South of the north boundary of the BPA Easement: (91.15 ac)Urban Separator Comprehensive Plan and SR-1 Zoning. *The actual land area as surveyed by Triad Associates is 63.21 acres and 92.19 acres after consideration of encroachments,gaps and overlaps Analysis of Staff Recommendation The planning staff recommendation is accompanied by several pages of analysis in the body of the report presented to the Planning Board Members. Within this analysis are statements and assumptions worthy of discussion. As part of the Background analysis,Page I and continued on Page 2,staff indicates that the"land surrounding the annexed parcels remains under King County jurisdiction, and is characterized by low density residential uses and undeveloped open space. Much of this surrounding King County land is part of Auburn's Potential Annexation Area(PAA)and some of this King County land is designated Urban Separator." While portions of this statement are true, it is critical to point out that adjacent to the southwest portion of the site is a somewhat recent 27-lot plat(approximately 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots)and land use applications have been submitted for at least one additional King County plat in this area. Adjacent to the Northwest portion of the site is the approved plat of White Mountain Trails,a 30 lot subdivision where a majority of the lots will be clustered M adjacent to the boundary of the subject site. All adjacent parcels south of the BPA easement are zoned either R-4 or R-6. All parcels east of 120 Avenue SE are zoned either RA or R-6 and have realized both single-family residential development and the development of a new public school(Please refer to Exhibit A). The Urban Separator designation along the north boundary is currently being revised to"Urban Residential, medium,4-12 dwelling units per acre"as part of King County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and expected to carry an implementing zone of R4.While only portions of the land surrounding the subject site are fully developed,the zoning clearly acknowledges that this area is Urban and is intended to be developed with urban densities. The site is less than 1 mile from State Route 18 and is in close proximity to a regional employment center(Kent Valley) ,as well as other urban facilities such as Green River Community College. In the staff analysis under Land Use Alternatives(Page 2)Staff has noted the definition of Urban Separator as found in Kent City Code 15.02.530 as: "low-density lands that define community or municipal identities and boundaries,protect adjacent resource lands,rural areas,and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental,visual,recreational and wildlife benefits" Further analysis of this definition will find that an Urban Separator designation on this site does not help define a community or municipal identity. The community or municipal identity, the City of Kent,is actually substantially north of the subject site. The site is currently surrounded by King County and is part of a proposed future annexation to the City of Auburn. The other attributes, to protect adjacent resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas,open space,wildlife benefits, etc.would be provided regardless of the site zoning as a result of the large wetland area located primarily on the southern portion of the property. Development of the southern portion of the site as Urban Separator would not necessarily provide any greater protection of the sensitive areas and may not necessarily provide any additional open space(this is discussed further in subsequent sections of this analysis). Under#6 on Page 3, staff has assumed an 18 percent density bonus under all PUD options throughout the analysis. While achieving this density incentive is optimal,staff would concur that a full 18 percent may not be achieved. The actual PUD bonus is predicated upon a project's site design utilizing specific,incremental PUD bonus incentives. As part of Alternative 3 on Page 4, Staff notes that if this option were implemented, up to 670 detached units might be achievable. Staff further notes that"The number of units allowed under a PUD process might exceed the carrying capacity of both infrastructure and the land itself." While it is not the intention to attempt to develop 670 units on the site,no evidence is provided why staff has suggested 670 units could not be 2 accommodated by upgrades to the infrastructure and why 670 units could not be developed on site if there is no minimum lot size under the PUD criteria. Under the heading of Issues on Page 7,staff notes"Full or partial designation of the Subject Site as Urban Separator would reduce nonpoint pollution and decrease the visual impact to the surrounding properties. Adjacent development and future development of the Subject Site would create demand for infrastructural improvements." As indicated in Exhibits B and C,a larger consolidated area of native vegetation and a higher number of significant trees are able to be retained if the site is developed under a zoning designation other than Urban Separator. As with infrastructure,a marginal increase or decrease in the number of units does not significantly increase the demand for infrastructure improvements. For example,a project would not construct h a travel lane or a sewer line that is 2/3rds of the pipe width. Extra capacity is almost always created as a result of any infrastructure improvement. Under Staff Comment,Page 9,the statement is made that"Clustering reduces the amount of impervious surface in site development,and limits the proximity and number of potential sources of pollution to sensitive areas." On several sites,this statement might prove true. On the subject site, constraints imposed by the large wetland the cnteria for clustering in the Urban Separator zone,and the need for roadway access actually increased the amount of roadway by over 2 acres. The requirement to spread the clusters of units out across the entire proposed Urban Separator area also increases the access points of nonpoint discharge to the wetland. If the site were developed in a more traditional clustered pattern,it would require less roadway and a substantial area of the site could remain in native forest. Development Alternative 8 While City staff analyzed several potential land use and zoning designations for the Subject Site,the following preferred alternative was not considered: • North of BPA Easement: (65.43 ac)SF-6 Comprehensive Plan and SR—4.5 Zoning(same as recommended option 7C) ■ South of north boundary of BPA Easement: (91.15 ac)SF-3 Comprehensive Plan and SR-2 Zoning. The actual land areas as surveyed by Triad Associates is 63.21 acres and 92 19 acres after consideration of encroachments,gaps and overlaps. For the purpose of this analysis,this preferred option will be referred to as Alternative 8. For the southern portion of the site, a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single Family Residential, Three Units Per Acre(SF-3)and an implementing Zoning District designation of Single Family Residential2.18 Unitsper Acre(SR-1)would be consistent with the interim designations given to other Kent annexations. Assuming 65.43 acres of SF4.5 Zoning north of the BPA Easement and 9 1.15 acres of SR-2.18 zoning south of the north boundary of the BPA Easement, approximately 493 units could be developed on the site. PUD development could yield an additional 88 units if 18 percent density bonus is achieved. While the number of potential units under Alternative 8 is greater than 3 proposed by Exhibit C,the SR-2.18 zoning provides the flexibility necessary to achieve a more efficient use of the property,thereby allowing a larger consolidated portion of the site to remain as native forested vegetation. Comparison between Alternative 7C and Alternative 8(Exhibit B and Exhibit Q Environmental Consideration Goal LU-18—Both Alternatives recognize the significant role natural features and systems play in the overall environmental quality and livability of the community. However,Alternative 8 provides for a larger and higher quality consolidated open space to be preserved through retention of the southwesterly forested portion of the property. The design of Alternative 8 will also help limit the locations where nonpoint discharge could occur into the wetlands by not spreading development throughout the southerly portion of the site. Goal LU-20—Both alternatives provide for protection of the environmentally sensitive areas through clustering with the implementation of PUD standards. This goal encourages land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use densities and intensity of uses in specific areas to preserve natural features such as wetlands,streams, steep slopes and forests. Both Alternatives would provide protection of wetlands and Olson Creek through appropriate setbacks and stormwater management. Alternative 8 will provide for greater over-all environmental protection by respecting steep slopes and forested areas through the preservation of the southwesterly forested sloped area(See Exhibit Q. Goal LU 23—Since any development of the site would be required to comply with appropriate setbacks from natural features the resulting area for development is virtually the same in either Alternative being evaluated. However,the flexibility afforded in Alternative 8 through the SR-2.18 zoning criteria would permit the clustering of lots in a pattern that would result in less roadway(by more than 2 acres),preservation of a heavily forested area of the site, and better stonmwater management. Retaining the forested area of the site will enhance not only the visual character of the site by providing a larger consolidated open space,but will provide for greater wildlife habitat. Goal LU-25—Both Alternatives are regulated by City of Kent environmental regulations. This Land Use Goal specifically highlights steep slopes and landslide-prone areas. Although only a limited portion of the site contains steep slopes(over 40%grade), Alternative 8 provides greater protection of the sloped and forested portion of the site. Policy LU-23.2—This Policy recognizes the need to protect wetlands as an ecosystem and watershed and that protection measures should be based on functions and values of the wetlands and potential effects of on-site and off site activities. Both Alternatives recognize the wetland and its function and value and would provide similar long-term protection. 4 Consideration of Designated and Existing Land Uses A substantial portion of the Planning Staff analysis associated with Land Use is based on King County Land Use Planning Policy LU-27 which defines the intent of an Urban Separator as low density lands which protect adjacent resource lands,Rural Areas,and environmentally sensitive areas and creates open space corridors within and between Urban Areas to provide environmental,visual,recreational and wildlife benefits. The limited staff discussion notes that"The development of housing with flexibility and innovation in site design to reduce impacts on environmentally-sensitive areas, particularly using planned unit development and unit clustering regulations (as with Urban Separators),is consistent with the Overall Land Use Element Goal." Staff correctly points out that the flexibility provided through the PUD criteria and clustering of units is consistent with this Land Use Element Goal. The application of Urban Separator is not necessary to achieve consistency with this Goal. Goal LU-9—Both Alternatives provide for a variety of housing types with single family lots ranging from 40 feet wide to 60 feet wide. Neither alternative contemplates attached housing or multi-family housing on the subject property.Alternative 8 does provide for substantially more 5,000 square foot lots as desired by Policy LU-9.4. Goal LU-10—This goal suggests the revision of development regulations to encourage more single-family development and more flexibility and innovation in terms of building and site design. Alternative 8 will provide more single-family housing while providing innovative site design to allow the retention of a significant forested area of the site. Goal LU-18—Both Alternatives provide a site design that recognizes the natural features,however,Alternative 8 provides additional protection for the forested portions of the site. Goal LU-20-Both alternatives provide for protection of the environmentally sensitive areas through clustering with the implementation of PUD standards. This goal encourages land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use densities and intensity of uses in specific areas to preserve natural features such as wetlands,streams,steep slopes and forests. Both Alternatives would provide protection of wetlands and Olson Creek through appropriate setbacks and stormwater management. Alternative 8 will provide for greater protection of steep slopes and forested areas through the preservation of the southwesterly treed,sloped area(See Exhibit C). Alternative 7C would result in the loss of a substantial portion of the westerly forested area as a trade-off to retention of more pasture area. Goal LU-25-Both Alternatives are regulated by City of Kent environmental regulations. This Land Use Goal specifically highlights steep slopes and landslide-prone areas. While only a limited portion of the site contains steep slopes(over 40%grade),Alternative 8 provides for a greater protection of the sloped, forested portion of the site. 5 Policy LU-10.2—While both Alternatives allow clustering of housing,Alternative 8 more closely aligns with this policy by providing more single-family homes while preserving a larger consolidated area of open space. Policy LU-103—This policy allows more flexibility in residential setbacks and parking, particularly on small lots,to encourage infill development and innovative site design. Altemative 8 provides greater flexibility in site design by not requiring clusters of up to 8 units with minimum cluster separations of over 100 feet as required in Alternative 7C. Alternative 8,with the implementation of the PUD criteria,will not limit the clusters of housing to 8 and will not require relatively unusable open space areas between clusters, thus encouraging a more innovative site design by providing larger consolidated open space and less roadway. The increased availability of a variety of housing types at urban densities in close proximity to public services and transit is supported by Goals LU-2, LU-9, LU-10 and Policies LU-8.3, LU-9.4,LU-10.2, and LU 10.3. Because Alternative 8 would provide for more housing than Alternative 7C while maintaining a very similar product mix,it more closely aligns with the above noted Goals and Policies. Community Design Element Goal CD-16—This goal encourages creativity and high quality design of residential buildings. Staff has suggested this goal be applicable to the subdivision of the property, but is more appropriately applied to the building permit or design review processes. The design elements of the future residential buildings is not currently known for any of the alternatives. Policy CD-14.1 —This policy encourages single-family small lots of 5,000 square feet and 4,000 to 5,000 square foot zero lot line product. It further encourages design standards to ensure housing at such densities is a pleasing addition to the neighborhood. While both alternatives anticipate Iots in the 5,000 square foot range, Alternative 7C would require a more 6,000 to 7,500 square foot lots,which is in conflict with this Policy. Alternative 8 would be consistent with this Policy by providing 5,000 square foot lots in the southern portion of the subject site. Policy 16.3—This policy encourages flexible standards for small lot design. Smaller lots have a greater need to address issues related to garage location and treatment. The Urban Separator zoning of Alternative 7C discourages small lots as a result of the clustering provisions that require clusters of not more than 8 lots and more than 120 feet between clusters. Alternative 8,with the application of PUD standards would provide for more small lot creation. Policy CD-20.2—This policy encourages the preservation of healthy, attractive native vegetation during land development. The requirements of limiting cluster groups in no more than 8 units with a minimum 120 foot separation between clusters will require substantially more site grading and roadway construction,thus eliminating a greater 6 portion of existing on-site native vegetation. Alternative 8 allows for greater retention of natural vegetation as a result of clustering larger groups of lots. Housing Element The staff discussion of Goals and Policies related to the City's housing element is primarily related to housing affordability. As a general comment, staff notes that"new construction of homes provides housing opportunities for different segments of the population." Alternative 8 would provide for a marginally higher number of single- family homes and therefore would,by City Staffs evaluation,more closely meet the City's Housing Element goals. Capital Facilities Element In the City Staff analysis,it is noted"In accordance with Growth Management Act (GMA),increasing residential density in desirable where sufficient infrastructure capacity either exists or is planned to coincide with development. Increasing residential density is also desirable where site conditions,neighborhood context and zoning regulations are supportive." Staff notes that urban services are or will be available to the subject site. With appropriate protection measures of the site's environmental features,providing for higher density of single-family detached housing on the property would be consistent with the stated provisions of the GMA. Alternative 8 will provide for more single-family housing while preserving a larger consolidated area as native open space. Transportation EIement Staff has again referred to the GMA as it relates to Transportation in that"increasing residential density is desirable where sufficient infrastructure capacity either exists or is planned to coincide with development. Increasing residential density is also desirable where site conditions,neighborhood context and zoning regulations are supportive." Kent Policy TR-1.7 promotes land use patterns which support public transportation. Staff has suggested that this policy relates to land use patterns associated with higher density residential developments served by well-connected multimodal circulation system. Staff further notes in their analysis that the higher densities in Alternative 7C would best support public transit use. Given this analysis,Alternative 8 will provide for a marginally higher density that Alternative 7C and would therefore be a preferred Alternative. Parks Element Staff has provided a limited analysis of the City's Goals and Policies related to the Park Element. In this analysis,it is suggested that the PUD provisions will provide for greater open space and an Urban Separator designation for the southern portion of the site will provide yet more open space. However,this conclusion did not consider the benefits of innovative site design when greater flexibility is provided. Alternative 7C and Alternative 8 provide for similar quantity of open space,however Alternative 8 is able to consolidate a larger area of open space that would not otherwise be possible under the 7 Urban Separator designation due to clustering requirements. Either Alternative would maximize the use of utility corridors as recreation spaces with the implementation of trails and passive recreational areas. Utilities Element Policy UT-2.4 encourages coordination with utility providers to promote the joint use of utility corridors as pedestrian and nonmotorized trails and/or wildlife habitat corridors. Staff suggests that Alternative 7C would likely incorporate the BPA right-of-way as a recreational and wildlife enjoyment amenity and is more likely to be realized in proximity to the boundary of higher intensity residential use. Alternative 8 would provide for a marginal increase in densities in the vicinity of the BPA easement and, therefore,would be the preferred alternative based on the staff's analysis. Economical Development Element Staff has recommended that a split zoning of the Subject Site into Urban Separator and higher intensity residential use respect of the surrounding neighborhood.There is no discussion of how this conclusion relates to the Economic Element. Review of the City's economic policies did identify Policy ED-2.5 which encourages a land use pattern that integrates housing with natural amenities, shopping opportunities, and recreational facilities. Alternative 8 provides for a greater integration of housing with the natural amenities by allowing a more concentrated clustering of units while preserving a significant forested area of the property. Conclusion Based on this analysis of the City of Kent Alternative 7C and Alternative 8,we request the Land Use and Planning Board recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning of Alternative 8, as noted below,to the Kent City Council: • North of BPA Easement: SF-6 Comprehensive Plan and SR—4.5 Zoning. • South of north boundary of BPA Easement: SF-3 Comprehensive Plan and SR-2 Zoning. 8 1111 . i -- .i kill M` ,lY — r_- an dim -� •I n11 J S� MIMI IF a+ ��== � i ■.nut =,i.�a�/i Soi - M.'— �. pp IILL.. L+1111Y.� ��in LEI Iw� 1 ;�nn+virS � �Iiniw- .'.Icl•4`�Ib. r 1 1 ij �i 1 � i • :i• •. dFN e- ! ,G . '1' 'cam fin, � �. -• rrlTr�� r: 0 lit .• tiw., . fil� t z Fq :Zil Ile \ ( ; LLJ •«;}. • Rpp• IA T .� \Y• <kc 'j' _ k;�� `��• � •mac. 1.'. �. . : .U , q ILJ � v LLI LL.1 LLJ\ Page i of 1 RCW 35A.63.070 Comprehensive plan -- Notice and hearing. After preparing the comprehensive plan, or successive parts thereof, as the case may be, the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing on the comprehensive plan or successive part. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of such public hearing shall be given as provided by ordinance and including at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation delivered in the code city and in the official gazette, if any, of the code city, at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. Continued hearings may be held at the discretion of the planning agency but no additional notices need be published. [1967 ex.s. c 119§35A.63.070.] http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=35A.63.07... 2/23/2004 Page 1 of 1 RCW 35A.63.071 Comprehensive plan -- Forwarding to legislative body. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings on the comprehensive plan or successive parts thereof, the planning agency, after making such changes as it deems necessary following such hearing, shall transmit a copy of its recommendations for the comprehensive plan, or successive parts thereof, to the legislative body through the chief administrative officer, who shall acknowledge receipt thereof and direct the clerk to certify thereon the date of receipt. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.071.] i http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=35A.63.07... 2/23/2004 Page 1 of 1 RCW 35A.63.072 Comprehensive plan -- Approval by legislative body. Within sixty days from its receipt of the recommendation for the comprehensive plan, as above set forth, the legislative body at a public meeting shall consider the same. The legislative body within such period as it may by ordinance provide, shall vote to approve or disapprove or to modify and approve, as modified, the comprehensive plan or to refer it back to the planning agency for further proceedings, in which case the legislative body shall specify the time within which the planning agency shall report back to the legislative body its findings and recommendations on the matters referred to it. The final form and content of the comprehensive plan shall be determined by the legislative body. An affirmative vote of not less than a majority of total members of the legislative body shall be required for adoption of a resolution to approve the plan or its parts. The comprehensive plan, or its successive parts, as approved by the legislative body, shall be filed with an appropriate official of the code city and shall be available for public inspection. [1967 ex.s. c 119 §35A.63.072.] http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm7fuseaction=Section&Section=35A.63.07... 2/23/2004 r Page 1 of 1 RCW 35A.63.073 Comprehensive plan --Amendments and modifications. All amendments, modifications, or alterations in the comprehensive plan or any part thereof shall be processed in the same manner as set forth in RCW 35A.63.070 through 35A.63.072. [1967 ex.s. c 119 §35A.63.073.] http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm7fuseaction=Secbon&Section=35A.63.07... 2/23/2004 Page 1 of 1 RCW 35A.14.340 Notice and hearing -- Filings and recordings. The legislative body of the code city shall hold two or more public hearings, to be held at least thirty days apart, upon the proposed zoning regulation, giving notice of the time and place thereof by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the annexing city and the area to be annexed. A copy of the ordinance or resolution adopting or embodying such proposed zoning regulation or any part thereof or any amendment thereto, duly certified as a true copy by the clerk of the annexing city, shall be filed with the county auditor. A like certified copy of any map or plat referred to or adopted by the ordinance or resolution shall likewise be filed with the county auditor. The auditor shall record the ordinance or resolution and keep on file the map or plat. (1967 ex.s. c 119 §35A.14.340.] NOTES: Annexation of water, sewer, and fire districts: Chapter 35.13A RCW. • http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=35A.14.34... 2/23/2004 CONSENT CALENDAR 6. City Council Action:Councilmember P't'v6p ��rn moves, Councilmember. C� seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through�Cfq Discussion Action M CI-- 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 17, 2004, and approval of the following correction of the minutes of February 3: Addition of the words "at the request of the Council President" to the end of the sentence under Changes to the Agenda from Council or Staff. 6B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through January 30 and paid on January 30 • after auditing by the Operations Committee on February 17, 2004. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/30/04 Wire Transfers 1607-1619 $1,169,229.86 1/30/04 Prepays& 558511 201,990.01 1/30/04 Regular 559087 2,442,423.24 $3,813,643.11 Approval of payment of the bills received through February 13 and paid on February 13 after auditing by the Operations Committee on February 17, 2004. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/13/04 Wire Transfers 1620-1630 $1,235,757.55 2/13/04 Prepays& 559088 255,326.68 2/13/04 Regular 559666 916,408.30 $2,407,492.53 Approval of checks issued for payroll for January 16 through January 31 and paid on February 5, 2004: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/5/04 Checks 275070-275345 $ 219,545.42 2/5/04 Advices 159390-160049 1,173,723.63 $1,393,269.05 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B • KEN T Kent City Council Meeting WASHINGTON February 17, 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) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA From Councilor Staff. (CFN-198) Consent Calendar Items 6L and 6K were added by Mayor White and CAO Martin added an Executive Session. From the Public. (CFN-198) At the request of Bob O'Brien, Continued Communications Item 11 A was added. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Kent Arts Commission Grant Presentation. (CFN-839) Program Manager Ronda Billerbeck presented the Kent Arts Commission Grants. B. Economic Update. (CFN-198) Economic Development Manager Torgelson gave a brief update. C. Introduction of Appointee. (CFN-198) Mayor White announced his appointment to the Kent Human Services Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR PETERSON MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through L. White seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 2004 were approved. B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills were not approved due to the cancellation of the Operations Committee meeting on February 3, 2004. C. Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant. (CFN-904) The Mayor was authorized 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. D. Pacific Highway 2003 Storm Drain Project. (CFN-1278) The Pacific Highway HOV South—2003 Storm Drainage project was accepted as complete and release of the retainage to Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc. upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens was authorized. The original contract amount was $546,995.00. The final contract amount was $360,955.78. E. 111th Avenue Sidewalks Proiect. (CFN-1038) The 111d' Ave. S.E. Sidewalk Improvements project was accepted as complete and release of the retainage to Archer Construction,Inc. upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens was authorized. The original contract amount was $60,888.88. The final contract amount was $59,885.50. 1 Kent City Council Minutes February 17, 2004 F. Water Installation and Connection Charges Inside City Limits, Ordinance Amending Kent City Code 7.02.160. (CFN-110) Ordinance No. 3679 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 was adopted. G. LID 353, S. 228th St. Corridor, Final Assessment Roll, Ordinance Setting Public Hearing Date. (CFN-1269) Ordinance No. 3680 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 was adopted. H. Birdsong Meadows Final Plat. (CFN-1272) The Final Plat Mylar for Birdsong Meadows #FSU-2002-3, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to sign the mylar. I. Highland Park Final Plat. (CFN-1272) The Final Plat Mylar for Highland Park #FSU-2001-5 was approved and the Mayor was authorized to sign the mylar. J. Larcher Office Building Bill of Sale. (CFN-484) 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 was approved. The bonds are to be released after the maintenance period. This project is located at 24401 104" Ave SE. K. Excused Absence for Councilmember Clark. (CFN-198) An excused absence for Councilmember Clark from tonight's meeting was approved. L. Kent Human Services Commission Appointment. (CFN-873) The Mayor's appointment of Pastor Brett Hollis to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission was confirmed. OTHER BUSINESS A. Master Planned Unit Development Modification Criteria, Zoning Code Amendment. (CFN-131) 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. WHITE MOVED to approve the Land Use &Planning Board's recom- mendation of approval of Zoning Code Amendment#ZCA-2002-3 establishing modification criteria for Master Planned Unit Developments and direct the City Attorney to create the necessary ordinance. Peterson seconded and the motion carried. BIDS A. Riverbend Golf Course Carts. (CFN-118) 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. PETERSON MOVED 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. White seconded and the motion carried. 2 Kent City Council Minutes February 17, 2004 REPORTS Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) Councihnember Ranniger noted Public Safety will meet on Thursday,February 19 at 5:00 p.m. Administrative Reports. (CFN-198) Martin explained the streamlined sales tax initiative that would shift tax revenues away from certain cities like Kent and eventually tax the internet. The City of Kent would lose almost $4 million annually. Martin also noted that the City is watching this initiative very closely CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. Council Retreat. (CFN-198) Bob O'Brien, 1131 Seattle St., stated that the upcoming retreat being held at Port Ludlow would be hard for citizens to attend. He noted that public transportation would be hard on a Saturday morning especially for citizens without private transportation. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 7:20 p m. and reconvened at 7:42 p.m. (CFN-198) ADJOURNMENT At 7:42 p.m.,PETERSON MOVED to adjourn. White seconded and the motion carried. (CFN-198) Mary Simmons Deputy City Clerk 3 • Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2, 2004 Category.Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT FUNDS —ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Emergency Management Division received a grant in the amount of$53,236 from the Washington State Military Department to supplement local budget expenditures through the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Emergency Management Performance Grant. Approval of this item would accept the grant monies and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract to receive the funds. 3. EXHIBITS: Contract with State of Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (3-0) and Fire Chief Schneider (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure $53,236 Revenue $53,236 Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Other Operating Projects Amount $53,236 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Other Operating Projects Amount $53,236 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C �a�sTgrg ap o � a s 0 Y dye I880 a Y� STATE OF WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION MS: TA-20 Building 20 Camp Murray, Washington 98430-5122 Phone: (253)512-7000 • FAX. (253) 512-7200 January 14, 2004 TO: Brian Felczak City of Kent Emergency Management FROM: Chris L. Moores Programs Secret&y Senior SUBJECT: Contract# E04-132 Attached for review and signature are two original contracts of E04-132 for the City of Kent Emergency Management and three enclosed forms that must be submitted to this office. W-9 Form— IRS regulations require the Washington State Military Department(WSMD)to file Form 1099 for certain types of payments, which total an aggregate of$600 or more during the calendar year. Further, the Department is required to withhold twenty percent (20%) of any payment to an individual or company for which we do not have either a social security or a Federal Tax I D. Number. If you believe payments to you by the WSMD are exempt from the IRS reporting requirements, please provide an explanation of the exemption, with reference to the appropriate IRS regulations providing for such exemptions. Due to recent changes in our auditing requirements, we require that all of our contractors (even if you are exempt)fill out and sign the W-9 form for each contract or agreement and submit it to this office. Signature Authorization Form—This form identifies the persons who have authority to sign contracts, amendments, and requests for reimbursements. It is required for the management of your contract with the Military Department. Debarment Certification Form/UBI #—The original debarment form must be fully filled out, signed and returned with each signed contract. We are not able to accept copies of previously signed disbarment forms The UBI#must to be included in the Contract Face Sheet under box#9. Please review the enclosed contract/agreement and have each copy signed by the appropriate person. Once all documents are signed and returned to our office, a fully executed onginal will be returned to you for your files. Please forward to: Chris L. Moores Washington State Military Department Emergency Management Division Building 20 MS: TA-20 Camp Murray, Washington 98430-5122 If you have questions about this contract, please contact Mark Ligman, Program Manager, (253) 512-7069 or Deborah Henderson, Program Assistant, (253) 512-7467. 1 can be reached at(253) 512-7060. /clm Attachments Washington State Military Department CONTRACT FACE SHEET 1. Contractor Name and Address: 2. Contract Amount 3. Contract Number City of Kent Emergency Management $ 53,236 E04-132 24611 116th Avenue SE Kent,WA 98030-4939 4. Contractor's Contact Person,phone number. 5. Contract Start Date 6. Contract End Date Brian Felczak, (253) 856-4345 October 1, 2003 September 30,2004 7. MD Program Manager/phone number. 7 -na State Business License#: 9. UBI#(state revenue): Michelle Sabin, (253)512-7064 173 000 002 10. Funding Authority: Washington State Military Department(the"Department"),and Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 11. Funding Source Agreement#: 12. Program Index# 13.Catalog of Federal Domestic Asst. 14. TIN or SSN: EMS-2004-GR-0004 74314 (CFDA)#&Title: 97.042 EMPG 91-6001254 15. Service Districts: 16. Service Area by County(ies): 17. Women/Minority-Owned,State (BY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT): 31,47 King County Cerbfied?: X NIA o NO (BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT): 8,9 O YES, OMWBE# 18. Contract Classification: 19. Contract Type(check all that apply): O Personal Services O Client Services X Public/Local Gov't X Contract O Grant 0 Agreement O Collaborative Research o A/E O Other O Intergovernmental (RCW 39 34) O Interagency 20 Contractor Selection Process. 21. Contractor Type(check all that apply) X "To all who apply 8 qualify' O Competitive Bidding 0 Private Organization/Individual 0 For-Profit o Sole Source o A/E RCW o NIA X Public Organizabon/Jurisdiction X Non-Profit o Advertised? o YES o NO O VENDOR X SUBRECIPIENT 0 OTHER 1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: To provide FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds to local jurisdictions that have emergency management programs to supplement their local budgets. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Department and Contractor acknowledge and accept the terms of this contract and attachments hereto and have executed this contract as of the date and year written below. This Contract Face Sheet, Special Terms and Conditions, General Terms and Conditions, Statement of Work, and Budget govern the rights and obligations of both parties to this contract. In the event of an Inconsistency in this contract, unless otherwise provided herein, the Inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order (a) Applicable Federal and State Statutes and Regulations (b) Statement of Work (c) Special Terms and Conditions (d) General Terms and Conditions,and if attached, (e) any other provisions of the contract incorporated by reference. This agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. WHEREAS, the parties hereto have executed this contract on the day and year last specified below. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: FOR THE CONTRACTOR: Signature Date Signature Date Glen L Woodbury, Director Jim Schneider, Chief Emergency Management Division Washington State Military Department for APPROVED AS TO FORM: City of Kent-Emergency Management • Spencer W. Daniels (signature on file) 11/25/03 Assistant Attorney General Form 10/27/00 kdb FFY 2004 EMPG Page 1 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARTICLE I -- COMPENSATION SCHEDULE: . The funds awarded are a percentage of the jurisdiction's approved emergency management operating budget. The Contractor must submit quarterly reports demonstrating that deliverables specified in the Scope of Work are being accomplished in order to receive grant funds. ARTICLE II — REPORTS: In addition to the reports as may be required elsewhere in this contract, the Contractor shall prepare and submit the following reports to the Department's Key Personnel: Financial #/Copies Completion Date Final Invoice 1 September 30, 2004 (shall not exceed overall contract amount) All contract work must end on September 30, 2004, however the contractor has up to 45 days after the expiration date to submit all final billing. Technical #/Copies Completion Date First Quarter Report 1 January 31,2004 Second Quarter Report 1 April 30, 2004 Third Quarter Report 1 July 31, 2004 Final Report 1 September 30, 2004 All contract work must end on September 30, 2004, however the contractor has up to 45 days after the expiration date to submit all final reports and/or deliverables. ARTICLE III -- KEY PERSONNEL: SThe individuals listed below shall be considered key personnel. Any substitution must be notified in writing by the Military Department. CONTRACTOR: MILITARY DEPARTMENT: Brian Felczak, Program Manager Michelle Sabin, Program Manager ARTICLE IV -- ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS: The Contractor shall comply with OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; OMB A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments; and A- 133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. ARTICLE V-- ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND MODIFICATION TO GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. Funds are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) solely for the purpose of supporting local emergency management programs as provided by the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). The EMPG funds are awarded to the Contractor based on the local program costs identified in the budget, as presented by the Contractor. The local program costs which the award is based on do not contain federal funds. The Contractor shall use the funds provided through EMPG to perform tasks as described in the Scope of Work of the Contractor's request for funding, as approved by the Department. 2. Contractor acknowledges that since this contract involves federal funding, the period of performance described herein will likely begin prior to the availability of appropriated federal funds. Contractor agrees that it will not hold the Department, the State of Washington, or the United States liable for any damages, claim for reimbursement, or any type of payment whatsoever for services performed under this contract prior to distribution of appropriated federal funds. Contractor agrees that itwill not hold the Department, the State of Washington, or the United States liable for any damages, claim for reimbursement or any type of payment if federal funds are not appropriated or are not appropriated in a particular amount. FFY 2004 EMPG Page 2 of 12 city of Kent-EM E04-132 Exhibit A Subrecipient Washington Military Department GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS As used throughout this contract, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: a. "Department" shall mean the Washington Military Department, as a state agency, any division, section, office, unit or other entity of the Department, or any of the officers or other officials lawfully representing that Department. b. "Contractor" shall mean that firm, organization, group, individual, or other entity performing services under this contract, and shall include all employees of the Contractor. It shall include any subcontractor retained by the prime Contractor as permitted under the terms of this contract. "Contractor" shall be further defined as one or the other of the following and so indicated on face sheet of the contract. 1) "Subrecipient' shall mean a contractor that operates a federal or state assistance program for which it receives federal funds and which has the authonty to determine both the services rendered and disposition of program funds. 2) "Vendor' shall mean a contractor that agrees to provide the amount and kind of service or activity requested by the Department and that agrees to provide goods or services to be utilized by the Department. C. "Cognizant State Agency" shall mean the state agency from which the subrecipient receives federal financial assistance. If funds are received from more than one state agency, the cognizant state agency shall be the agency who contributes the largest portion of federal financial assistance to the subrecipient unless the designation has been reassigned to a different state agency by mutual agreement. d. "Subcontractor" shall mean one, not in the employment of the Contractor, who is performing all or part of those services under this contract under a separate contract with the Contractor. The terms "subcontractor"and "subcontractors" mean subcontractor(s) in any tier. e. "CFR"—Code of Federal Regulations • f. "OMB"—Office of Management and Budget g. "RCW" - Revised Code of Washington In. "WAC" -Washington Administrative Code. 2. SINGLE AUDIT ACT REQUIREMENTS (INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS) Non-federal contractors receiving financial assistance of $500,000 or more in federal funds from all sources, direct and indirect, are required to have a single or a program-specific audit conducted in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133-Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations (revised June 27, 2003, effective for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003). Non-federal entities that spend less than $500,000 a year in federal awards are exempt from federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular No. A-133. Circular A-133 available on the OMB Home Page at http 11www omb Qov and then select "Grants Management"followed by"Circulars". Contractors required to have an audit must ensure the audit is performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS); Government Auditing Standards (the Revised Yellow Book) developed by the Comptroller General and the OMB Compliance Supplement. The Contractor has the responsibility of notifying the State Auditor's Office and requesting an audit. Costs of the audit may be an allowable grant expenditure. The Contractor shall maintain records and accounts so as to facilitate the audit requirement and shall ensure that any subcontractors also maintain auditable records. The Contractor is responsible for any audit exceptions incurred by its own organization or that of its subcontractors. Responses to any unresolved management findings and disallowed or questioned costs shall be included with the audit report. The Contractor must respond to Department requests for information or corrective action concerning audit issues within 30 days of the date of request. T Department reserves the right to recover from the Contractor all disallowed costs resulting from audit. FFY 2004 EMPG Page 3 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 Once the single audit has been completed, the Contractor must send a full copy of the audit to the Department and a letter stating there were no findings or if there were findings, the letter should provide a list of the findings. The Contractor must send the audit and the letter no later than nine (9) months after the end of the Contractor's fiscal year(s)to: Accounting Manager Washington Military Department Finance Division, Building #1 TA-20 Camp Murray,WA 98430-5032 In addition to sending a copy of the audit, the Contractor must include a corrective action plan for any audit findings and a copy of the management letter if one was received. The Contractor shall include the above audit requirements in any subcontracts. 3. RECAPTURE PROVISIONS In the event that the Contractor fails to expend funds under this contract in accordance with state laws and/or the provisions of this contract, the Department reserves the right to recapture state funds in an amount equivalent to the extent of the noncompliance. Such right of recapture shall exist for a period not to exceed six years following contract termination or audit resolution, whichever is later. Repayment by the Contractor of funds under this recapture provision shall occur within 30 days of demand. In the event that the Department is required to institute legal proceedings to enforce the recapture provision, the Department shall be entitled to its costs thereof, including reasonable attomey's fees. 4. EVALUATION AND MONITORING a. The Contractor shall cooperate with and freely participate in any monitoring or evaluation activities conducted by the Department that are pertinent to the intent of this contract. b. The Department or the State Auditor or any of their representatives shall have full access to and the right to examine during normal business hours and as often as the Department or the State Auditor may deem necessary, all of the Contractor's records with respect to all matters covered in this contract Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, and records of matters covered by this contract. Such rights last for six (6) years from the date final payment is made hereunder. 5. SUBCONTRACTING Neither the Contractor nor any subcontractor shall enter into subcontracts for any of the work contemplated under this contract without obtaining prior written approval of the Department. Contractor shall use a competitive procurement process in award of any contracts with subcontractors that are entered into after original contract award. 6. PUBLICITY The Contractor agrees to submit to the Department all advertising and publicity matters relating to this contract wherein the Department's name is mentioned or language used from which the connection of the Department's name may, in the Department's judgment, be inferred or implied. The Contractor agrees not to publish or use such advertising and publicity matters without the prior written consent of the Department. 7. NONDISCRIMINATION During the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations. These requirements include, but are not limited to: a. Nondiscrimination in Employment: The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, creed, marital status, age, Vietnam era or disabled veterans status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment selection for training, including apprenticeships and volunteers. This requirement does not apply, however, to a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution or society of its activities. FFY 2004 EMPG Page 4 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 8. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. and its implementing regulations also referred to as the "ADA" 28 CFR Pan`. 35. The Contractor must comply with the ADA, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local govemment servica and telecommunication. 9. CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS The Department and the Contractor may, from time to time, request changes in services to be performed with the funds. Any such changes that are mutually agreed upon by the Department and the Contractor shall be incorporated herein by written amendment to this contract. It is mutually agreed and understood that no alteration or variation of the terms of this contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and that any oral understanding or agreements not incorporated herein, unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, shall not be binding. 10. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT a. If, through any cause, the Contractor shall fail to futfilI in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract or if the Contractor shall violate any of its covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the Department shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract and withhold the remaining allocation if such default or violation is not corrected within thirty (30) days after submitting written notice to the Contractor describing such default or violation. b. Notwithstanding any provisions of this contract, either party may terminate this contract by providing written notice of such termination, specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. C. Reimbursement for Contractor services performed, and not otherwise paid for by the Department prior to the effective date of such termination, shall be as the Department reasonably determines. d. The Department may unilaterally terminate all or part of this contract, or may reduce its scope of work and budget, if there is a reduction in funds by the source of those funds, and if such fun* are the basis for this contract. 11. CONTRACTOR NOT EMPLOYEE The Contractor, and/or employees or agents performing under this contract are not employees or agents of the Department in any manner whatsoever. The Contractor will not be presented as nor claim to be an officer or employee of the Department or of the State of Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Contractor make any claim, demand, or application to or for any right or privilege applicable to an officer or employee of the Department or of the State of Washington, including, but not limited to, Workmen's Compensation coverage, unemployment insurance benefits, social security benefits, retirement membership or credit, or privilege or benefit which would accrue to a civil service employee under Chapter 41.06 RCW. It is understood that if the Contractor is another state department, state agency, state university, state college, state community college, state board, or state commission, that the officers and employees are employed by the state of Washington in their own right. If the Contractor is an individual currently employed by a Washington State agency, the Department shall obtain proper approval from the employing agency or institution. A statement of "no conflict of interest" shall be submitted to the Department. 12. RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, AND REPORTS The Contractor shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices that sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this contract. These records shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review, or audit by Department personnel and other personnel duly authorized by the Department or the Office of the State Auditor. The Contractor will retain all books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this contract six (6) years after the date of grant closure or contract final expiration date, whichever applies to tMIW document. The Office of the State Auditor, or any persons duly authorized by the Department shall have full access to and the right to examine any of said materials during said period. FFY 20D4 EMPG Page 5 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 13. WAIVER OF DEFAULT Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of breach of any provision of the contract shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of the contract unless stated to be such in writing, signed by the Director and attached to the original contract. 14. SUBCONTRACTS All subcontracts entered into pursuant to this contract shall incorporate this contract in full by reference. 15. LEGAL RELATIONS Each party to this contract shall be responsible for injury to persons or damage to property resulting from negligence on the part of itself, its employees, agents, officers, or subcontractors. Neither party assumes any responsibility to the other party for the consequences of any act or omission of any third party. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW The Contractor and all subcontractors shall comply with, and the Department is not responsible for determining compliance with, any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and/or policies. This obligation includes, but is not limited to, nondiscrimination laws and/or policies; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Ethics in Public Service (RCW 42.52); Covenant Against Contingent Fees (48 C.F.R. Sec. 52.203-5); Public Disclosure (RCW 42.17); safety and health regulations. In the event of the Contractor's or a subcontractor's noncompliance or refusal to comply with any law or policy, the Department may rescind, cancel, or terminate the contract in whole or in part. The Contractor is responsible for any and all costs or liability arising from the Contractor's failure to so comply with applicable law. 17. DISPUTES The parties shall make every effort to resolve disputes arising out of or relating to this contract through discussion and negotiation. Should discussion and negotiation fail to resolve a dispute arising under this contract, the parties shall select a dispute resolution team to resolve the dispute. The team shall consist of a representative appointed by each party and a third representative mutually agreed upon by both parties. The team shall attempt, by majority vote, to resolve the dispute. Both parties agree that this disputes process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. 18. NONASSIGNABILITY Neither this contract, nor any claim arising under this contract, shall be transferred or assigned by the Contractor. 19. DISCLOSURE The use or disclosure by any party of any information concerning the Department for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of the Department's or the Contractor's responsibilities with respect to services provided under this contract is prohibited except by prior written consent of the Department. 20. ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce contract terms, each party agrees to bear its own attorney's fees and costs. 21. TAXES All payments accrued on account of payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, any other taxes, insurance or other expenses for the Contractor or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. 22. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY — "Authorized Signature" Only the assigned Authorized Signature for the Department or the assigned delegate by writing (delegation to be made prior to action) shall have the express, implied, or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condition of this contract. Furthermore, any alteration, amendment, modification, or waiver of any clause or condition of this contract is not effective or binding unless made in writing and signed by the authorized person. FFY 2004 EMPG Page 6 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 23. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This contract shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the validity and performance hereof shall be governed by, the laws of the state of Washington. Venue of any suit between the parties arising out of this contract shall be the Superior Court of Thurston County,Washington. 24. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT SUSPENSION OR INELIGIBILITY If federal funds are the basis for this contract, the Contractor certifies that the Contractor is not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in this contract by any federal department or agency. If requested by Washington Military Department, the Contractor shall complete and sign a Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion form. Any such form completed by the Contractor for this Contract shall be incorporated into this Contract by reference. Further, the Contractor agrees not to enter into any arrangements or contracts related to this grant with any party that is on the "General Service Administration List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Non-procurement Programs". 25. SEVERABILITY In the event any term or condition of this contract or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions, or applications of this contract, which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition, or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this contract are declared severable. Approved 11/25/03 FFY 2004 EMPG Page 7 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 Exhibit B STATEMENT OF WORK Emergency Management Performance Grant (Federal Fiscal Year(FFY) 2004) INTRODUCTION: The Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division (EMD), receives grant monies each year from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). A portion of this grant is earmarked by the state to be passed through to local jurisdictions that have emergency management programs to supplement their operating budget. Each jurisdiction that applies and meets the qualifications specified in WAC 118-09-040 is awarded a grant based on the size of their emergency management operating budget. Funds are utilized by local jurisdictions to help provide an emergency management capability. The Statement of Work outlines the objectives, goals, and deliverables the Contractor has identified for FFY 2004 for EMPG. The Contractor is required to report on the progress of the deliverables in quarterly reports to the Department. The Statement of Work also identifies several long-range goals and objectives beyond the scope of this contract. These are for planning purposes only and do not have to be addressed in the quarterly reports. All invoices must be submitted within 15 days following the end of the period in which the work was performed, no more frequently than monthly or one final invoice must be received by September 30, 2004. A. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Development or Updating Goal/Objective Performance Measurement (Deliverable) Quarter (Activity) 1. Update the City of Kent's a. Submit plan for State approval 4 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan 2. Update activation and notification a. Maintain current activation and notification 1S roster for Emergency Coordination information Center Operations Manual 3. Participate in King County regional a. Continue regional partnerships and increase Ongoing planning plan signatories a. Submit a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the 4 th 4. Identify comprehensive mitigation City of Kent and Fire District#37 strategies and projects 5. Participate in Local Emergency a. Serve as chair of the Local Emergency Ongoing Planning Committee Planning Committee 6. Coordinate Zone 3 Emergency a. Establish initial discipline representatives for Ongoing Managers to develop plans in support Zone 3 of the Regional Disaster Plan B. Training and Education Goal/Objective Performance Measurement(Deliverable) Quarter (Activity) 1. Emergency Management staff keep a. A well trained Emergency Management staff Ongoing up to date on necessary related training 2. Continue bi-monthly Emergency Planning Committee meetings with representatives for all City a. Well prepared and trained city employees Ongoing Departments to discuss emergency management issues and training opportunities IFFY 2004 EMPG Page 8 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 3. Provide ATC-20 training to city employees and other business a. Increase number of city employees trained in 2nd partners ATC-20 4. Provide Mobile Command Post a. Increase authorized driver/operator list. Trainingto Police and Fire 3d C. Direction, Control and Warning Goal/Objective Performance Measurement(Deliverable) Quarter (Activity) 1. Participate in scheduled National a. Improve notification Ongoing Warning System (NAWAS) test exercises through Valley Communications Center 2. Participate in scheduled EAS tests a. Improve notification Ongoing and support the Local Area Emergency Alert System Committee through Valley Communication Center 3. Conduct citywide emergency a. Continued reliability of citywide radio system Ongoing management 800mhz radio system (CRS) test with all Department Operating Centers 4. Create a CAP code for Emergency a. Improved citywide Emergency Management 15 Management personnel through notification capabilities paging system 5. Utilize a commercial community a. Test and update to assure system is working. Ongoing warning system for any appropriate incident. 6. Notify the State EOC immediately a. Notify the state EOC by CEMNET, telephone As upon activation of EOC. or fax. Necessary b. Provide updated information of the situation at least once daily while EOC is activated. D. Radiological and Hazardous Materials Incident Response Capabilities or Maintenance Goal/Objective Performance Measurement(Deliverable) Quarter (Activity) 1. Continued support of regional a. Team prepared to respond to incidents in Hazardous Materials team response Kent, Zone 3 and with regional partners Ongoing training and capabilities Zone 3 2. Review and update hazardous materials equipment, supplies and a. Continued reliability of Hazardous Materials Ongoing resources. team 3. Enhance reporting process between hazardous materials facilities in a. Improved hazardous materials response Kent/Fire District 37 and the prioritization and disaster accountability Ongoing Emergency Coordination Center 4. Collect Tier II reports from local a. Compile a comprehensive file on all 2nd hazardous materials facilities hazardous materials faculties 5. Participate in city/county Hazardous a. Improve awareness, training and response Materials Pipeline Consortium capabilities to pipeline incidence On oin FFY 2004 EMPG Page 9 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 E. Test, Drills and Exercises Goal/Objective Performance Measurement (Deliverable) Quarter (Activity) 1. Design, Conduct and evaluate a a. Provide training for citywide representatives 3 functional exercise to the operations section in the Emergency (May 12) Coordination Center ECC 2. Participate with Regional Homeland Security Zone to test the a. Improve training and response capabilities Ongoing Regional Disaster Plan with regional partners Four-Year Exercise Work Plan Federal Fiscal Year Date or Quarter Level of Exercise 2003 May 12, 2003 Full scale 2004 May 12, 2004 Functional 2005 3ra Quarter Functional 2006 3 Quarter Functional 2007 3 Quarter Full scale F. Public Education and Information Goal/Objective Performance Measurement (Deliverable) Quarter (Activity) 1. Deliver Community Emergency a. Well prepared citizens, city and businesses 1s & 3 Response Team (CERT) training to citizens, city employees and business groups 2. Deliver disaster preparedness and a. Improve the preparedness and response Ongoing response training to school capabilities of school district employees employees through School Emergency Response Team (SERT) training 3. Participate in April Disaster a. Well prepared community 3 Preparedness month th a. Improve city employee preparedness, 4 4. Participate in annual Statewide response, and accountability -earthquake drill a. Inform citizens of current emergency Ongoing 5. Update web page management events G. General Program Administration Goal/Objective Performance Measurement(Deliverable) Quarter (Activity) 1. Track Emergency Management a. Submit required quarterly reports on program program activities activities 1s'thru 4'' 2. Review and update inter-local a. Continued support of regional partnerships agreements On oin 3. Staff informational booths at local a. Promote emergency management programs fairs and events On oin 4. Participate in public presentations as requested a. Well informed community Ongoing 5. Submit training mission number a. Inform State Emergency Management L .requests Division of training activities 2nd &4t' IFFY 2004 EMPG Page 10 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 6. Attend Regional Homeland Security a. Participate in Regional Homeland Security Ongoing subcommittee meetings efforts 7. Act as applicant agent for City and Fire District recovery a. Recover disaster related costs Ongoing a. Inform elected officials of emergency 8. Provide orientation to elected management related authorities and Ongoing officials on emergency management. I responsibilities 9. Submit material for printed publications for citizenry. a. Well informed community Ongoing FFY 2004 EMPG Page 11 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 Exhibit C • BUDGET SHEET Contract expenditures shall be documented according to the following categories when appropriate: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BUDGET SUMMARY 2003 Approved Budget Personnel $ 306,686 Indirect Costs (if claimed) Travel I .S Y ril 81 t" In-state $ 880 Out-of-state Equipment $ 300 Other Direct Costs ° '= z t ., Supplies $ 2,300 Telephones Printing Jamt/Maint Auto Lease Space Rental Insurance Consultant $ 1,000 Other" $ 2,419 Total All Program Costs $ 313,585 The City of Kent, Department of Emergency Management award is approximately $ 53,236. This is based on FFY 2004 allocation factor of 16.976% of approved local emergency management budgets. ❖ As submitted with FFY 2004 Program Paper, with no federal funds included in budget costs. ❖ As enacted by governing authority (County Commission, City Council, etc.) FFY 2004 EMPG Page 12 of 12 City of Kent-EM E04-132 Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MASTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION CRITERIA, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE— ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. amends Section 15.08.400(1) of the Kent City Code to establish a process by which criteria are established to guide the Planning Manager in differentiating between minor and major modifications of master plans located in commercial, office, industrial, and manufacturing zoning districts consistent with planned action ordinances and development agreements. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use & Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? 0 Revenue? 0 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. 6D • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending section 15 08 400(I) of the Kent City Code, to establish a process by which criteria are established to guide the planning manager in differentiating between minor and major modifications of master plans located in commercial, office, industrial, and manufacturing zoning districts consistent with planned action ordinances and development agreements I RECITALS A. The City Council desires to amend section 15 08.400(I) of the Kent City Code to establish a process by which criteria are established to guide the planning manager in differentiating between minor and major modifications of master plans located in commercial, office, industrial, and manufacturing zoning districts consistent with planned action ordinances and development agreements B. On April 1, 2003, the City adopted Ordinance No 3639 amending section 15.08 400(I) of the Kent City Code. An appeal of Ordinance No. 3639 was filed with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (the "Board") who issued a Final Decision and Order finding that Ordinance No 3639 was noncompliant with RCW 36 70A.020(6) and (7) of the Growth Management Act (the "Act") The Board established March 31, 2004, as the deadline for the City to take appropriate legislative action to achieve compliance with the Act. 1 Master PUD-GMA Compliance Section 15.08.400(l) C. On December 10, 2003, the City provided the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 to the state of Washington of the City's proposed amendment to section 15.08.400(I) of the Kent City Code, and the sixty (60) day notice period has lapsed. D. After providing appropriate public notice, the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on January 12, 2004. E. On February 17, 2004, the Kent City Council considered this matter and authorized city staff to prepared the required ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. — Amendment. Section 15.08 400(I) of the Kent City Code entitled, "Modifications of plan," is amended as follows: Sec. 15.08.400. Planned unit developments, PUD. 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, and industrial and manufacturing zoning districtsi!eRes, where a master plan is consistent with a planned action ordinance and a development agreement the determination of whether a proposed modification is minor or and 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 criteria the planning manager's determination 2 Master PUD- GMA Compliance Section 15.08.400(I) shall be consistent with the criteria stated in subsection 101 and 1(2) below The c. Criteria for determining minor and major modifications in all other cases shall be as stated in subsection I(1) and 1(2). below. The criteria for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those criteria covering original approval of the permit which is the subject of the proposed modification. 1. Minor modifications. Modifications are deemed minor if all the following criteria are satisfied. a. No new land use is proposed; b. No increase in density, number of dwelling units or lots is proposed; C. No change in the general location or number of access points is proposed; d. No reduction in the amount of open space is proposed, e. No reduction in the amount of parking is proposed; f. No increase in the total square footage of structures to be developed is proposed; and g. No increase in general height of structures is proposed. Examples of minor modifications include but are not limited to lot line adjustments, minor relocations of buildings or landscaped areas, minor changes in phasing and timing, and minor changes in elevations of buildings 2 Major modifications. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning manager, substantially change the basic design, density, open space or other similar requirements or provisions. Major adjustments to the development plans shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may review such adjustments at a regular public hearing. If a public hearing is held, the process outlined in subsection (F) of this section shall apply The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision to approve, deny or modify the request. Such a decision shall be final Any appeals of this decision shall be in accordance with KCC 12.01.040. SECTION 2. —Application. This ordinance may be applied to all Master Plan applications, including applications currently in process upon the effective date of this ordinance. 3 Master PUD- GMA Compliance Section 15.08.400(1) SECTION 3. — Savings. The existing section 15.08.400(I) of the Kent City Code, which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 4. — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 5. — Severabllity. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED. day of 2004 APPROVED: day of 2004. PUBLISHED: day of 2004. 4 Master PUD- GMA Compliance Section 15.08.400(I) I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 1 RDINAN E115084001-MaslerPUD-GMACom hence do P Cry 110 C P 5 Master PUD- GMA Compliance Section 15.08.400(t) Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: VISION SERVICE PLAN CONTRACT—APPROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee has recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the Vision Service Plan (VSP) 2004 Contract. The City self-insures the employees' vision program through VSP. Premera Blue Cross administered the program through the VSP network prior to December 31, 2003. Administration fees and claims costs are paid on behalf of the employees' and their dependents. The City now contracts directly with VSP, saving approximately$4,100 per year. Approval of this item would authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. 3. EXHIBITS: Vision Service Plan 2004 contract 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount$ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E EMPLOYEE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Sue Viseth, Director Phone 253-856-5270 Fax. 253-856-6270 KENT Address 220 Fourth Avenue S W A S H I N G T O N Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: February 17, 2004 TO: Operations Committee FROM: Becky Fowler, Benefits Manager SUBJECT: Vision Service Plan (VSP) Health Contractfor 2004 MOTION: I move to recommend that the Vision Service Plan (VSP) Contract be placed on the Consent Calendar for the March 2, 2004, City Council Meeting approving the contract and recommending it for the Mayor's signature. SUMMARY: The City self-insures the employees' vision program through Vision Service Plan (VSP). Administration fees and claims costs are wired each month to VSP for payment of employees' vision services The annual administration fees for 2004 are approximately $19,594 Premera Blue Cross administered the program through the VSP network prior to December 31, 2003 The City now contracts directly with VSP saving the City $45 per employee for a total savings of$4,100 per year. EXHIBITS: Vision Service Plan (VSP) 2004 Contract RECOMMENDED BY: Employee Services Department, reviewed by City Attorney's Office BUDGET IMPACT- Budgeted in the Health & Welfare Program BACKGROUND: The VSP contract provides the following benefits through their contracted vision care providers for employees Eye Examination Covered in full Lenses Covered in full Frames Covered up to Plan Allowance, every other year Contact Lenses Visually Necessary Covered in full Elective Covered up to$200 t VISION SERVICE PLAN 3333 Quality Drive Rancho Cordova,Califorma 95670 GROUP VISION CARE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRAM Group Name CITY OF KENT Plan Number 12229020 State of Delivery WASHINGTON Effective Date JANUARY 1,2004 Plan Term TWENTY-FOUR(24) MONTHS Administrative Fee Due Date FIRST DAY OF MONTH • In consideration of the statements and agreements contained in the Group Application and in consideration of payment by Group of the administrative fees and other amounts due as herein provided, VISION SERVICE PLAN ("VSP") agrees to provide certain individuals under this Group Vision Care Plan ("Plan") the benefits provided herein, subject to the exceptions, limitations and exclusions hereinafter set forth This Plan is delivered in and governed by the laws of the State of Delivery and is subject to the terms and conditions recited on the subsequent pages hereof,which are a part of this Plan Gary Brooks, Senior Vice President, Operations s TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE I. DEFINITIONS 1 II TERM,TERMINATION, AND RENEWAL 4 III. OBLIGATIONS OF VSP 5 N. OBLIGATIONS OF THE GROUP 8 V. OBLIGATIONS OF COVERED PERSONS UNDER THE PLAN 10 VI. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE 14 VII. CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE 17 VIIL ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES 18 IX. NOTICES 19 X. MISCELLANEOUS 20 EXHIBIT A 22 SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS 22 EXHIBIT B 27 SCHEDULE OF ADVANCE PAYMENT AND ADMINISTRATNE FEE 27 i I. DEFINITIONS Key terms used in this Plan are defined and shall have the meaning set forth as follows, unless the context of a term's usage clearly requires otherwise. 1.01 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. The payments made to VSP by or on behalf of Group in consideration of administrative services rendered. 1.02. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRAM. A group vision care plan whereby Group pays VSP for the Plan Benefits in addition to a monthly Administrative Fee 1.03. ADVANCE PAYMENT- The amount paid in advance to VSP by or on behalf of Group to cover the estimated benefit costs of Group for one(1)month. 1.04 BENEFIT AUTHORIZATION: Authorization issued by VSP identifying the individual named as a Covered Person of VSP, and identifying those Plan Benefits to which Covered Person is entitled. 1.05 CLAIMS AMOUNT Total charges for benefits delivered, including the cost of professional services and ophthalmic materials, charges for VSP services related to materials purchased,and taxes. 1.06. CONFIDENTIAL MATTER: All confidential or personal information concerning the medical, personal, financial or business affairs of Covered Persons acquired in the course of providing Plan Benefits hereunder. 1.07. COPAYMENTS: Any amounts required to be paid by or on behalf of a Covered Person for Plan Benefits which are not fully covered. 1.08. COVERED PERSON: An Enrollee or Eligible Dependent who meets VSP's eligibility cnteria and who is covered under this Plan. 1.09. ELIGIBLE DEPENDENT Any legal dependent of an Enrollee of Group who meets the cntena for eligibility established by Group and approved by VSP in Article VI of this Plan under which such Enrollee is covered. 1 1.10. EMERGENCY CONDITION: A condition, with sudden onset and acute symptoms, that requires the Covered Person to obtain immediate medical care, or an unforeseen occurrence calling for immediate,non-medical action. 1.11. ENROLLEE: An employee or member of Group who meets the criteria for eligibility specified under VI. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE. 1.12. EXPERIMENTAL NATURE: Procedure or lens that is not used universally or accepted by the vision care profession,as determined by VSP. 1.13. GROUP: An employer or other entity which contracts with VSP for coverage under t}us Plan in order to provide vision care coverage to its Enrollees and their Eligible Dependents 1.14 GROUP APPLICATION: The form signed by an authorized representative of the Group to signify the Group's intention to have its Enrollees and their Eligible Dependents become Covered Persons of VSP. 1 15 GROUP VISION CARE PLAN (also, "THE PLAN"). The Plan provided by VSP in favor of a Group, under which its Enrollees, and their Eligible Dependents are entitled to become Covered Persons of VSP and receive Plan Benefits in accordance with the terns of such Plan. 1.16. MEMBER DOCTOR: An optometrist or ophthalmologist licensed and otherwise qualified to practice vision care and/or provide vision care materials who has contracted with VSP to provide vision care services and/or vision care materials on behalf of Covered Persons of VSP. 1.17. NON-MEMBER PROVIDER: Any optometrist, optician, ophthalmologist, or other licensed and qualified vision care provider who has not contracted with VSP to provide vision care services and/or vision care materials to Covered Persons of VSP. 1.18. PLAN BENEFITS: The vision care services and vision care materials which a Covered Person is entitled to receive by virtue of coverage under this Plan, as defined in the Schedule of Benefits attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 1 19. RENEWAL DATE: The date on which the Plan shall renew, or terminate if proper notice is given. 1.20. SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS. The document, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which lists the vision care services and vision care materials which a Covered Person is entitled to receive by virtue of this Plan. 1.21 SCHEDULE OF ADVANCE PAYMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE- The document, attached hereto as Exhibit B,which states the payments to be made to VSP by or on behalf of a Covered Person to entitle him to Plan Benefits 1.22 VISUALLY NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. Services and materials medically or visually necessary to restore or maintain a patient's visual acuity and health and for which there is no less expensive professionally acceptable alternative,as determined by VSP. 3 II. TERM.TERMINATION,AND RENEWAL 201. This Plan shall become effective on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for the Plan Term. At the end of the Plan Tenn, it will renew on a month to month basis unless either party notifies the other in writing, at least sixty(60) days before the end of the Plan Term,that the party is unwilling to renew the Plan. If such notice is given, the Plan will terminate at 12:00 midnight on the last day of the Plan Tenn,unless the parties reach mutual agreement on its renewal. If the Plan continues on a month to month basis after the Plan Tenn, either Party may thereafter terminate the Plan upon thirty(30)days advance written notice to the other party If VSP issues written renewal materials to Group at least sixty (60) days before the end of the Plan Term and Group fails to accept the new terms and/or rates in writing prior to the end of the Plan Term, this Plan shall terminate at 12:00 midnight on the last day of the Plan Tern as noted above. 2.02 In the event of termination of this Plan by either party, Group agrees to provide funds for payment of the Claims Amount associated with Plan Benefits provided pursuant to Benefit Authorizations issued prior to the Plan termination date, provided claims for such Plan Benefits are filed with VSP witlmn six(6)months after termination of this Plan. 4 III.OBLIGATIONS OF VSP 3.01. Coveraee of Covered Persons: VSP will enroll each eligible Enrollee and his Eligible Dependents, if dependent coverage is provided, all of whom shall be referred to as "Covered Persons." To institute coverage, Group may be required to complete and sign a Group Application and forward such application to VSP, along with information regarding Enrollees and Eligible Dependents, and applicable amounts due (Refer to VI. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE for further details) Following enrollment, VSP will provide Group with Vision Care Brochures for Covered Persons. Such Brochures will summarize the terms and conditions of this Plan 3.02. Provision of Plan Benefits: Through its Member Doctors (or through other licensed vision care providers in cases where a Covered Person is eligible for, and chooses to receive Plan Benefits from a Non-Member Provider)VSP shall provide Covered Persons such Plan Benefits listed in the Schedule of Benefits, Exhibit A hereto, as may be Visually Necessary or Appropriate, subject to any limitations,exclusions,or Copayments therein stated Benefit Authorization must be obtained prior to a Covered Person obtaining Plan Benefits from a Member Doctor When a Covered Person desires to receive Plan Benefits from a Member Doctor, the Covered Person must schedule an appointment and identify himself as a VSP Covered Person in order for the Member Doctor to obtain Benefit Authorization from VSP. VSP shall provide Benefit Authorization to the Member Doctor to authorize the provision of Plan Benefits to the Covered Person. Each Benefit Authorization will contain an expiration date, allowing a specific period of time for the Covered Person to obtain Plan Benefits. Benefit Authorization shall be issued by VSP in accordance with the latest eligibility information famished by Group and the Covered Person's past service utilization, if any. Any Benefit Authorization so issued by VSP shall constitute a certification to the Member Doctor that payment will be made. VSP shall not be held liable to Group for any Benefit Authorization issued in error in reliance on the latest eligibility information available to VSP as provided by the Group 5 VSP shall pay or deny claims for Plan Benefits provided to Covered Persons, less any applicable Copayment, within a reasonable time but not more than thirty (30) calendar days after VSP has received a completed claim,unless special circumstances require additional time. In such cases, VSP may obtain an extension of fifteen (15) calendar days of this time hrmt by providing notice to the claimant of the reasons for the extension. 3.03. Determination of Visual Necessity: Plan Benefits are covered only when they are deemed Visually Necessary or Appropriate for the proper treatment of a Covered Person's condition Questions involving necessity or appropriateness of treatment shall be decided by the doctor responsible for the Covered Person's care and are subject to review and final determtnation by VSP. Any objections of a Covered Person regarding such decisions may be made to VSP in accordance with VSP's grievance procedures(See Paragraphs 5 05 and 5.06). 304. Provision of Information to Covered Persons: Upon request, VSP will make available to Covered Persons necessary information describing Plan Benefits and procedures A copy of this Plan will be placed with Group The Plan will also be available at the offices of VSP for copying or inspection by Covered Persons. VSP shall provide Group with an updated list twice annually of Member Doctors'names, addresses, and telephone numbers for distribution to Covered Persons Covered Persons may also obtain a copy of the latest Member Doctor list by contacting VSP's Customer Service Department in writing or via the toll-free Customer Service telephone line, or by visiting VSP's Web site at www.vsp.com 3.05. Preservation of Confidentiality: VSP will hold in strict confidence all Confidential Matters. VSP will also exercise its best efforts to prevent any of its employees, Member Doctors, or agents, from disclosing any Confidential Matter. An exception would be if disclosure is necessary to enable any of the above to perform their obligations under this Plan, including but not limited to sharing information with medical information bureaus, or as may otherwise be required by law. Covered Persons and/or Groups that want more information on VSP's Confidentiality Policy may obtain a copy of the policy by contacting VSP's Customer Service Department or by visiting VSP's Web site at www.vsp.com 6 3 06. Emereencv Vision Care: When vision care is necessary for Emergency Conditions, Covered Persons may obtain Plan Benefits by contacting a Member Doctor or Out-of- Network Provider No prior approval from VSP is required for Covered Person to obtain vision care for Emergency Conditions of a medical nature. However, services for medical conditions, including emergencies, are covered by VSP only under the Acute EyeCare and Supplemental Primary EyeCare Plans. If Group has not purchased one of these plans, Covered Persons are not covered by VSP for medical services and should contact a physician under Covered Persons' medical insurance plans for care. For emergency conditions of a non-medical nature, such as lost, broken or stolen glasses, the Covered Person should contact VSP's Customer Service Department for assistance. Reimbursement and eligibility are subject to the terms of this Plan. 7 IV. OBLIGATIONS OF THE GROUP 4.01. Identification of Eligible Enrollees: An Enrollee is eligible for coverage under this Plan, if he satisfies the enrollment criteria specified in Paragraph 6.01(a) and/or as mutually agreed to by VSP and Group. Group shall provide monthly eligibility information to VSP in a mutually agreed upon format and medium to identify all Enrollees who are eligible for coverage under this Plan. Group will supply to VSP, on or before the last day of each month, eligibility information sufficient to identify all Enrollees to be added to or deleted from V SP's coverage rosters for the coming month. The eligibility information shall include designation of family status for each such Enrollee, if dependent coverage is provided Group shall, when requested,make available for inspection by VSP records having a bearing on the coverage of Covered Persons under this Plan. 4.02 Claims Amounts and Advance of Payment: Group shall provide all funds necessary to pay the Claims Amount associated with Covered Persons pursuant to this Plan. In order to assure timely and adequate payment, Group agrees to make an Advance Payment as outlined on the attached Schedule of Advance Payment and Administrative Fee, Exhibit B This Advance Payment is an estimate of the Claims Amount for one(1) month Group agrees to pay the actual Claims Amounts on a monthly basis within ten (10) days after receipt of VSP's statement. The Advance Payment amount may be adjusted each Plan Term if the average of monthly Claims Amount increases or decreases. The parties agree that such Advance Payment is reimbursable to the Group upon termination of this Plan, after the Group's indebtedness to VSP and/or its benefit providers has been satisfied. However, amounts paid to VSP as Advance Payment shall not be considered assets of the Group,and need not be held in trust by VSP. s 8 • 403 Administrative Fee: Additionally, on or before the first day of each month,Group shall remit to VSP an Administrative Fee as outlined on the attached Schedule of Advance Payment and Administrative Fee, Exhibit B. Change will not be made to the Administrative Fee during any Plan Term unless there is a change in the Schedule of Benefits or a material change in any other terms and conditions of the Plan, provided any such change is mutually agreed upon in wntmg between VSP and Group. Notwithstanding the above, VSP reserves the right to increase amounts due hereunder during a Plan Term by the amount of any tax or assessment not now in effect wluch is subsequently levied by any taxing authority, which is attributable to the amount due VSP from Group. 404. Grace Period: Group shall be allowed a grace period of thirty-one (31) days following the due date for making any payment of amounts due under this Plan. During the grace period, this Plan will remain in full force and effect for all Covered Persons. Late payments will be considered by VSP at the time of Plan renewal and may impact Group's Advance Payment and Administrative Fees in future Plan Terms. If Group fails to make any payment of amounts due by the end of any grace period, VSP may notify Group that the payment of amounts due has not been made, that coverage is canceled and that the Group is responsible for payment for the Claims Amount associated with Plan Benefits provided to Covered Persons after the last period for which amounts due were fully paid, including the grace period and through the effective date of the termmation Group shall also remain responsible for payment,in accordance with Paragraph 2 02,of any Claims Amount associated with Benefit Authorizations outstanding at the time of termination, and for any legal and/or collection fees incurred by VSP in collecting amounts due under this Plan. 405. Distribution of Required Documents: Group agrees to distribute to Enrollees any disclosure forms, plan summaries or other materials that may be required to be given to plan subscribers by any regulatory authority. Such materials shall be distributed by Group no later than thirty(30)days after receipt or as otherwise required under state law. 9 i V. OBLIGATIONS OF COVERED PERSONS UNDER THE PLAN 5.01. General: By this Plan, Group makes coverage available to its Enrollees and their Eligible Dependents, if dependent coverage is provided. This Plan may be amended or terminated by agreement between VSP and Group as otherwise indicated herein. Consent or concurrence of Covered Persons for any such amendment or termination is not necessary. Tlus Plan, and all Exhibits, attachments and amendments, constitute VSP's sole and entire undertaking to Covered Persons under this Plan. All Covered Persons under this PIan shall have the following obligations as a condition of their coverage. 502. Copavments for Services Received: Where, as indicated on the Schedule of Benefits, Exhibit A hereto, Copayments are required for certain Plan Benefits, these Copayments shall be the personal responsibility of the Covered Person receiving the care and must be paid to the Member Doctor (or Non-Member Doctor if Non-Member Provider benefits are indicated on the . attached Schedule of Benefits at Exhibit A)on the date the services are rendered. 5.03 Obtainine Services from Member Doctors: Benefit Authorization must be obtained prior to receiving Plan Benefits from a Member Doctor. When a Covered Person desires to receive Plan Benefits from a Member Doctor, the Covered Person must select a Member Doctor, schedule an appointment, and identify himself as a Covered Person in order for the Member Doctor to obtain Benefit Authorization from VSP. Should the Covered Person receive Plan Benefits from a Member Doctor without such Benefit Authorization, then for the purposes of those Plan Benefits provided to the Covered Person, the provider will be considered a Non-Member Provider and the benefits available will be limited to those for a Non-Member Provider,if any. 10 5.04. Submission of Non-Member Provider Claims: All claims for services received from Non-Member Providers (if Non-Member Provider coverage is indicated on the attached Schedule of Benefits at Exhibit A) shall be submitted by Covered Persons to VSP within one hundred eighty(180)days of the date of service. VSP reserves the right to reject such claims which are filed more than one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of service Failure to subrrut a claim within one hundred eighty(180) days, however, shall not invalidate or reduce the claim if it was not reasonably possible to submit the claim within such time period, provided the claim was subnmtted as soon as was reasonably possible and in no event, except in absence of legal capacity, later than one year from the required date. 5.05. Complaints and Grievances: Covered Persons shall report any complaints and/or grievances to VSP at the address given herem. Complaints and grievances are disagreements regarding access to care, quality of care, treatment or service. Complaints and grievances may be submitted to VSP verbally or in writing. A Covered Person may submit written comments or supporting documentation concerning his/her complaint or grievance to assist in VSP's review VSP will resolve the complaint or grievance within thirty (30) days after receipt, unless special circumstances require an extension of time. In that case, resolution shall be achieved as soon as possible, but not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after VSP's receipt of the complaint or grievance If VSP determines that resolution cannot be achieved within thirty (30) days, VSP will notify the Covered Person of the expected resolution date. Upon final resolution, VSP will notify the Covered Person of the outcome in writing 5.06. Claim Denial Appeals: If, under the terms of this Plan, a claim is denied in whole or in part, a request may be submitted to VSP by Covered Person or Covered Person's authorized representative for a full review of the denial. Covered Person may designate any person, including his/her provider, as his/her authorized representative References in this section to "Covered Person" include Covered Person's authorized representative,where applicable. 11 a) Initial Appeal: The request must be made within one hundred eighty (180) days following denial of a claim and should contain sufficient information to identify the Covered Person for whom the claim was denied, including the VSP Enrollee's name, the VSP Enrollee's Member Identification Number, the Covered Person's name and date of birth, the provider of services and the claim number. The Covered Person may review, during normal working hours, any documents held by VSP pertinent to the denial. The Covered Person may also submit written comments or supporting documentation concerning the claim to assist in VSP's review. VSP's response to the initial appeal, including specific reasons for the decision, shall be provided and communicated to the Covered Person as follows: 1. Prior Authorization for Visually Necessary or Appropriate Services. within thirty(30)calendar days after receipt of a request for an appeal from the Covered Person 2. Denied Claims for Services Rendered: within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of a request for an appeal from the Covered Person b) Second Level Appeal If the Covered Person disagrees with the response to the initial appeal of the claim, the Covered Person has a right to a second level appeal. Within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of VSP's response to the initial appeal, the Covered Person may submit a second appeal to VSP along with any pertinent documentation. VSP shall communicate its final determination to the Covered Person in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations and shall include the specific reasons for the determination. c) Other Remedies: When Covered Person has completed the appeals process stated herein, additional voluntary alternative dispute resolution options may be available, including mediation, or Group should advise Covered Person to contact the U.S Department of Labor or the state insurance regulatory agency for details. Additionally, under the provisions of ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), Covered Person has the right to bring a civil action when all available levels of review of denied claims, including the appeals process,have been completed,the claims were not approved in whole or in part,and Covered Person disagrees with the outcome. 12 5 07. Time of Action: No action in law or in equity shall be brought to recover on the Plan prior to the Covered Person exhausting his grievance rights as described in Paragraphs 5 05 and 5.06 above and/or prior to the expiration of sixty (60) days after the claim and any applicable invoices have been filed with VSP. No such action shall be brought after the expiration of six (6) years from the last date that the claim and any applicable invoices may be submitted to VSP, in accordance with the terms of this Plan 13 VI. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE 6.01. Eligibility Criteria: Individuals will be accepted for coverage hereunder only upon meeting all the applicable requirements set forth below. (a) Enrollees: To be eligible for coverage,a person must: (1)currently be an employee or member of the Group,and (2) meet the criteria established in the coverage criteria mutually agreed upon by Group and VSP. (b) Eligible Dependents: If dependent coverage is provided, the persons eligible for coverage as dependents shall include: (1)the legal spouse of any Enrollee,and (2) any unmarred child of an Enrollee, including any natural child from the moment of both, or legally adopted child from the moment of placement for adoption with the Enrollee, or other child for whom a court holds the Enrollee responsible,and (A) for whose support the Enrollee is legally responsible and who has not yet attained the age of 23 years (3) as further defined by Group. If a dependent unmarred child, prior to attainment of the prescribed age for termination of eligibility,becomes and continues to be, incapable of self-sustaining employment because of mental or physical disability, that Eligible Dependent's coverage shall not terminate. Coverage will continue as long as he remains cluefly dependent on the Enrollee for support and the Enrollee's coverage remains in force; PROVIDED satisfactory proof of the dependent's mcapacity can be finnished to VSP within thirty-one (31) days of the date the Eligible Dependent's coverage would have otherwise terminated, and at such other tunes as VSP may request proof, but not more frequently than annually. 6.02. Documentation of Elizibility: Persons satisfying the requirements for coverage under either of the above classes shall be eligible if. 14 (a) in the case of an Enrollee, the individual's name and Social Security Number have been reported by the Group to VSP in the manner provided hereunder,and (b) in the case of changes to an Eligible Dependent's status, the change has been reported by the Group to VSP in the manner provided herein. As indicated in Paragraph 4.01 above, VSP may elect to inspect the Group's records in order to verify eligibility of Enrollees and dependents. Plan Benefits will be available only to persons on whose behalf applicable amounts due have been paid for the current period, or Grace Periods outlined above in Paragraph 4.04. If a clerical error is made, it will not affect the coverage to which the Covered Person is entitled under the Plan. 6.03. Retroactive Eligibility Changes: Retroactive eligibility changes are lumted to sixty (60) days prior to the date notice of any such requested change is received by VSP. If coverage is retroactively terminated for an individual, Group shall remain responsible for the Claims Amount associated with any Plan Benefits provided to that individual pursuant to the Benefit Authorization issued by VSP in reliance on the latest eligibility information available to VSP at the time of such Benefit Authorization. 604 Change of Participation Requirements, Contribution of Fees, and Eligibility Rules: Composition of the Group, percentage of Enrollees covered under the Plan, and Group's contribution and Group's eligibility requirements are all material to VSP's obligations under this Plan. During the tern of this Plan, Group must provide VSP with written notice of changes to its composition, percentage of Enrollees covered, contribution or eligibility requirements Any such change which materially affects VSP's obligations hereunder must be mutually agreed upon in writing between VSP and Group and may constitute a material change to the terms and conditions of this Plan for purposes of Paragraph 4.03 Nothing in this section shall limit Group's ability to add Enrollees and/or Eligible Dependents in accordance with the terms of ttus Plan 15 6.05. Change in Family Status: In the event Group is notified of any change in a Covered Person's family status (by marriage, the addition (e.g., newborn or adopted child) or deletion of dependent children, etc.) Group shall provide notice of such change to VSP via the next eligibility listing required under Paragraph 4.01. If such notice is given, the change in the Covered Person's status will be effective on the first day of the month following the request for change, or at a requested later date. Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, a newborn child will be covered for thirty-one (31) days after birth and an adopted child will be covered for thirty-one (31) days after the date the Enrollee or Enrollee's spouse acquires the right to control the health care of the child. To continue coverage for a newborn or adopted child beyond the initial thirty-one (31) day period, the Group must be properly notified of the Enrollee's change in family status and applicable amounts due must be paid to VSP on behalf of the child. 6.05. Family and Medical Leave Act: The federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA),requires that under certain circumstances health plan benefits available to an eligible Enrollee and his or her Eligible Dependents be made available during certain periods of leave. Benefits will be available at the level and under the conditions coverage would have been provided if the ehgible Enrollee had not gone on leave. If, and only to the extent, FMLA applies to the parties to this Plan, VSP shall make the statutorily-required continuation coverage available based on the eligibility information provided by the Group. 16 VII. CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE 7.01. COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) requires that under certain circumstances health plan benefits available to an eligible Enrollee and his or her Eligible Dependents be made available to said persons upon the termmation of employment of said Enrollee, or the termination of the relationship between said Enrollee and his or her dependents. If, and only to the extent, COBRA applies to the parties to this Plan, VSP shall make the statutorily-required continuation coverage available in accordance with COBRA 17 VIII. ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES 8.01. Dispute Resolution: Any dispute or question arising between VSP and Group or any Covered Person involving the application, interpretation, or performance under this Plan shall be settled, if possible, by amicable and informal negotiations. This will allow such opportunity as may be appropriate under the circumstances for fact-finding and mediation. If any issue cannot be resolved in this fashion,it shall be submitted to arbitration 802. Procedure: The procedure for arbitration hereunder shall be conducted pursuant to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association in effect at the time of the dispute 803. Choice of Law: Question(s) and dispute(s) hereunder are to be resolved by arbitration. However,if there are any matters ansing in connection with this Plan which do become the subject of legal process,the applicable law shall be that of the State of delivery of this Plan i 18 IX. NOTICES 9 01. Any notices to be given under this Plan to either the Group or VSP shall be in writing and delivered by United States First Class Mail. Notices sent to the Group will be mailed to the address shown on the Group Application. Notices sent to VSP shall be sent to the address shown on this Plan. Any notices may be hand-delivered by either party to an appropriate representative of the party, with the burden being on the party effecting such hand-delivery, to prove,if questioned,that such delivery was made. i it 19 X. MISCELLANEOUS 10.01. Entire Plan: This Plan, the Group Application, and all Exhibits and attachments, and any amendments hereto, constitute the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes any prior understandings and agreements between them, either written or oral. Any change or amendment to the Plan must be approved by an officer of VSP and attached to be valid. No agent has the authority to change this Plan or waive any of its provisions. Communication materials prepared by Group for distribution to Enrollees do not constitute a part of this Plan 10.02. Indemni : VSP agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Group, its shareholders, directors, officers, agents, employees, successors and assigns from and against any and all liability, claim, loss, injury, cause of action and expense (including defense costs and legal fees) of any nature whatsoever arising from the failure of VSP, its officers, agents or employees,to perform any of the activities, duties or responsibilities specified herein. Group agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless VSP, its members, shareholders, directors, officers, agents, employees, successors and assigns from and against any and all liability, claim, loss, injury, cause of action and expense (including defense costs and legal fees) of any nature whatsoever arising or resulting from the failure of Group, its officers or employees to perform any of the duties or responsibilities specified herein. 10.03. Liability: VSP arranges for the provision of vision care services and materials through agreements with Member Doctors, who are independent contractors responsible for exercising independent judgement. VSP does not itself directly furnish vision care services or supply materials. Under no circumstances shall VSP or Group be liable for the negligence, wrongful acts or omissions of any doctor, laboratory, or any other person or organization performing services or supplying materials in connection with this Plan. 10.04 Assienment: Neither this Plan nor any of the rights or obligations of either of the parties may be assigned or transferred, except as noted herein, without the prior written consent of both parties. • 20 10.05. Severability: Should any provision of this Plan be declared invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 10.06 Governing Law: Tlus Plan shall be governed by and construed in accordance with applicable federal and state law. Any provision that is in conflict with, or not in compliance with, applicable federal or state statutes or regulations is hereby amended to conform with the requirements of such statutes or regulations,now or hereafter existing. 10.07. Gender: All pronouns used herein are deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine, neuter, singular,or plural,as the identity(ies)of the person(s)may require. 10.08. Communication Materials: All Communication materials created by Group which relate to this vision care Plan must adhere to VSP's Member Communication Guwdelmes, distributed to Group by VSP Such communication materials may be sent to VSP for review and approval in advance of mailing to Enrollees VSP's review of such materials shall be limited to approving the accuracy of Plan Benefits and shall not encompass or constitute certification that Group's materials meet any applicable legal or regulatory requirements, including, but not limited to,ERISA requirements. 21 EXHIBIT A VISION SERVICE PLAN SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS PLAN B GENERAL This Schedule lists the vision care services and vision care materials to which Covered Persons of VISION SERVICE PLAN ("VSP") are entitled, subject to any Copayments and other conditions, lunitations and/or exclusions stated herein. If Plan Benefits are available for Non- Member Provider services, as indicated by the reimbursement provisions below, vision care services and vision care materials may be received from any licensed optometrist, ophthalmologist, or dispensing optician, whether Member Doctors or Non-Member Providers. This Schedule forms a part of the Plan or Certificate to which it is attached. When Plan Benefits are received from Member Doctors, benefits appearing in the first column below are applicable subject to any Copayments as stated below. When Plan Benefits are available and received from Non-Member Providers, the Covered Person is reimbursed for such benefits according to the schedule in the second column below less any applicable Copayments COPAYMENT The benefits described herein are available to each Covered Person subject only to payinent of the applicable Copayment by the Covered Person Copayments are required for Plan Benefits received from Member Doctors and Non-Member Providers. Covered Persons must also follow the proper procedures for obtaining Benefit Authorization. The applicable Copayment for Covered Persons under this Plan is. There shall be no Copayment for the examination. If materials (lenses and frames) are provided, there shall be a Copayment of$25.00 payable at the time the materials are ordered However, the Copayment for materials shall not apply to elective contact lenses. PLAN BENEFITS MEMBER DOCTOR NON-MEMBER BENEFIT PROVIDER BENEFIT VISION CARE SERVICES Eye Examination Covered in Full* Up to $ 45 00* Complete initial vision analysis which includes an appropriate examination of visual functions, including the prescription of corrective eyewear where indicated Subsequent regular eye examinations once every plan year beginning on January I st. *Less any applicable Copayment. 22 VISION CARE MATERIALS MEMBER DOCTOR NON-MEMBER BENEFIT PROVIDER BENEFIT Lenses Single Vision Covered in Full* Up to$ 42.00* Bifocal Covered in Full* Up to$ 72.00* Trifocal Covered in Full* Up to $ 82 00* Lenticular Covered in Full* Up to $ 122.00* Available once every plan year beginning on January 1 st. Frames Covered up to Plan Up to$ 45 00* Allowance* Available once every other plan year beginning on January 1 st. *Less any applicable Copayment. Lenses and frames include such professional services as are necessary, which shall include- Prescribing and ordering proper lenses; • Assisting in the selection of frames; • Verifying the accuracy of the finished lenses; • Proper fitting and adjustment of frames; • Subsequent adjustments to frames to maintain comfort and efficiency; • Progress or follow-up work as necessary. 23 Contact Lenses Contact lenses are available once every plan year in lieu of all other lens and flame benefits available herein. When contact lenses are obtained, the Covered Person shall not be eligible for lenses again for one plan year and frames for two plan years. Visually Necessary — When Visually Necessary contact lenses are obtained from a Member Doctor, they will be covered in full with prior authorization from VSP. When Visually Necessary contact lenses are obtained from a Non-Member Provider, VSP will provide an allowance toward the cost as outlined below. Coverage for Visually Necessary contact lenses regardless of whether they are obtained from a Member Doctor or Non-Member Provider are subject to review and authorization from VSP's Optometric Consultants. MEMBER DOCTOR NON-MEMBER BENEFIT PROVIDER BENEFIT Professional Fees and Professional Fees and Materials—Covered in Full* Materials—Up to $210.00* Elective- Contact lenses for other than Visually Necessary circumstances MEMBER DOCTOR NON-MEMBER BENEFIT PROVIDER BENEFIT Professional Fees** and Professional Fees and Materials—Covered up to$200.00 Materials—Up to$125.00 *Less any applicable Copayment **Additional discount applies to Member Doctor's usual and customary professional fees for contact lens evaluation and fitting (see section on Additional Discounts below) 24 ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT Each Covered Person shall be entitled to receive a discount of twenty percent (20%) toward the purchase of additional complete pairs of prescription glasses (lenses, lens options, and frames) from a Member Doctor. Additional pair means any complete pair of prescription glasses purchased beyond the benefit frequency allowed under this Plan. Additionally, Covered Persons shall be entitled to receive a discount of fifteen percent (15%) off Member Doctor professional fees for elective contact lens evaluations and fittings Discounts are applied to the Member Doctor's usual and customary fees for such services and are available within twelve (12) months of the covered eye examination from the Member Doctor who provided the covered eye examination Contact lens materials are provided at the doctor's usual and customary charges. Additional discounts noted on this schedule are subject to change as deemed appropriate by VSP with prior notification to the Group. LOW VISION BENEFIT The Low Vision benefit is available to Covered Persons who have severe visual problems that are not correctable with regular lenses and is subject to prior approval by VSP Consultants MEMBER DOCTOR NON-MEMBER BENEFIT BENEFIT Supplementary Testing Covered in Full Up to $125.00 Complete low vision analysis and diagnosis which includes a comprehensive examination of visual functions, including the prescription of corrective eyewear or vision aids where indicated Supplemental Care Aids 75%of Cost 75%of Cost Subsequent low vision aids as Visually Necessary or Appropriate. Copayment for Supplemental Aids. 25%payable by Covered Person, Benefit Maximum The maximum benefit available is$1000.00(excluding Copayment) every two years NON-MEMBER PROVIDER BENEFIT Low Vision benefits secured from a Non-Member Provider are subject to the same time limits and Copayment arrangements as described above for a Member Doctor. The Covered Person should pay the Non-Member Provider his full fee. The Covered Person will be reimbursed in accordance with an amount not to exceed what VSP would pay a Member Doctor in similar circumstances. NOTE: There is no assurance that this amount will be within the 25% Copayment feature 25 EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF BENEFITS PATIENT OPTIONS This Plan is designed to cover visual needs rather than cosmetic materials. When the Covered Person selects any of the following extras, the Plan will pay the basic cost of the allowed lenses, and the Covered Person will pay the additional costs for the options. • Blended Lenses. • Oversize lenses. • Cosmetic lenses. • Optional cosmetic processes. • Progressive multifocal lenses. • UV(ultraviolet)protected lenses. • The coating of the lens or lenses • The laminating of the lens or lenses. • Certain limitations on low vision care. • A frame that costs more than the Plan allowance. • Contact lenses (except as noted elsewhere herein). • Photochromic lenses; tinted lenses except Pink#1 and Pink#2. NOT COVERED There is no benefit for professional services or materials connected with• • Orthoptics or vision training and any associated supplemental testing; piano lenses (less than a f.38 diopter power); or two pair of glasses in lieu of bifocals; • Replacement of lenses and frames furnished under this Plan which are lost or broken, except at the normal intervals when services are otherwise available; • MedicaI or surgical treatment of the eyes; • Corrective vision treatment of an Experimental Nature; • Costs for services and/or materials above Plan Benefit allowances; Services and/or materials not indicated on this Schedule as covered Plan Benefits. VSP MAY, AT ITS DISCRETION, WAIVE ANY OF THE PLAN LIMITATIONS IF, IN THE OPINION OF VSP'S OPTOMETRIC CONSULTANTS, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE VISUAL WELFARE OF THE COVERED PERSON 26 EXHIBIT B VISION SERVICE PLAN SCHEDULE OF ADVANCE PAYMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE PLAN B VSP shall be entitled to receive amounts due for each month on behalf of each Enrollee and his/her Eligible Dependents, if any in the amounts specified below ADVANCE PAYMENT. $1630.68 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE- $ 2. 14 per month for each eligible Enrollee (includes coverage for eligible dependents) NOTICE: The amount due under this Plan is subject to change upon renewal (after the end of the Plan Term or any subsequent Plan Term) or upon change of the Schedule of Benefits or a material change in any other terms or conditions of the Plan. 27 • • Group Care Plan EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE Provided by VISION SERVICE PLAN 3333 Quality Drive, Rancho Cordova,CA 95670 (916) 851-5000 (800) 877-7195 7/99 REGASP-00898 To be filled in by employer in the event this document is used to develop a Summary Plan Description: NAME OF EMPLOYER • NAME OF PLAN. PRINCIPAL ADDRESS EMPLOYER ID # PLAN h� PLAN ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER REGISTERED AGENT FOR SERVICE OF LEGAL PROCESS,IF DIFFERENT FROM PLAN ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS This form is a summary of the Plan provisions and is presented as a matter of general information only The contents are not to be accepted or construed as a substitute for the provisions of the Plan itself A specimen copy of the Plan will be furnished on request DEFINITIONS: ANISOMETROPIA A condition of unequal refractive state for the two eyes,one eye requiring a different lens correction than the other BENEFIT Authonzaton issued by VSP identifying the individual named as a Covered Person of VSP,and identifying those Plan AUTHORIZATION Benefits to which a Covered Person is entitled COPAYMENTS Any amounts required to be paid by or on behalf of a Covered Person for Plan Benefits which are not fully covered COVERED PERSON An Enrollee or Eligible Dependent who meets VSP's eligibility criteria and on whose behalf Premiums have been paid to VSP,and who is covered under this plan ELIGIBLE DEPENDENT Any legal dependent of an Enrollee of Group who meets the criteria for eligibility established by Group and approved by VSP under section VI ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE of the Group Plan document maintained by your Group Administrator under which such Enrollee is covered EMERGENCY A condition, with sudden onset and acute symptoms, that requires the Covered Person to obtain immediate CONDITION medical care,or an unforeseen occurrence requiring immediate,non-medical action. ENROLLEE An employee or member of Group who meets the criteria for eligibility specified under section VI ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE of the Group Plan document maintained by your Group Administrator EXPERIMENTAL Procedure or lens that is not used universally or accepted by the vision care profession,as determined by VSP. NATURE GROUP An employer or other entity which contracts with VSP for coverage under this plan in order to provide vision care coverage to its Enrollees and their Eligible Dependents KERATOCONUS A development or dystrophic deformity of the comea in which it becomes coneshaped due to a thinning and stretching of the tissue in As central area. 7/99 1 REGASP-00898 MEMBER DOCTOR An optometrist or ophthalmologist licensed and otherwise qualified to practice vision care and/or provide vision care materials who has contracted with VSP to provide vision care services and/or vision care materials on behalf of Covered Persons of VSP NON-MEMBER Any optometrist,optician,ophthalmologist,or other licensed and qualified vision care provider who has not contracted PROVIDER with VSP to provide vision care services and/or vision care materials to Covered Persons of VSP PLAN BENEFITS The vision care services and vision care materials which a Covered Person is entitled to receive by virtue of coverage under this plan,as defined on the enclosed insert or in the Schedule of Benefits attached as Exhibit A to the Group Plan document maintained by your Group Administrator. PREMIUMS The payments made to VSP by or on behalf of a Covered Person to entitle him/her to Plan Benefits,as stated in the Schedule of Premiums attached as Exhibit B to the Group Plan document maintained by your Group Administrator, RENEWAL DATE The date on which this plan shall renew or terminate 6 proper notice is given SCHEDULE OF The document,attached as Exhibit A to the Group Plan document maintained by your Group Administrator,which lists BENEFITS the vision care services and vision care materials which a Covered Person is entitled to receive by virtue of this plan SCHEDULE OF The document, attached as Exhibit B to the Group Plan document maintained by your Group Administrator, which PREMIUMS states the payments to be made to VSP by or on behalf of a Covered Person to entitle him/her to Plan Benefits VISUALLY NECESSARY Services and materials medically or visually necessary to restore or maintain a patient's visual acuity and health and for OR APPROPRIATE which there is no less expensive professionally acceptable alternative ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE Enrollees To be eligible for coverage, a person must currently be an employee or member of the Group, and meet the criteria established in the coverage criteria mutually agreed upon by Group and VSP Eligible Dependents If dependent coverage is provided,the persons eligible for coverage as dependents shall include the legal spouse of any Enrollee, and any unmarred child of an Enrollee who has not obtained the limiting age as shown on the enclosed insert, including any natural child from the moment of birth, legally adopted child from the moment of placement for adoption with the Enrollee, or other child for whom a court or administrative agency holds the Enrollee responsible A dependent,unmarred child over the limiting age as shown on the enclosed insert may continue to be eligible as a dependent if the child is incapable of self-sustaining employment because of mental or physical disability,and chiefly dependent upon the enrollee for support and maintenance PREMIUMS Your Group is responsible for payments to VSP of the periodic charges for your coverage You will be notified of your share of the charges,if any,by your Group The entire cost of the program is paid to VSP by your Group PROCEDURE FOR USING THE PLAN t When you desire to receive Plan Benefits from a Member Doctor,contact VSP or a Member Doctor A list of names,addresses and phone numbers of Member Doctors in your geographic location can be obtained from your Group, Plan Administrator or VSP If this list does not cover the geographic area in which you desire to seek services,you may call or write the VSP office nearest you to obtain one which does 2 If you are eligible for Plan Benefits,VSP will provide Benefit Authorization directly to the Member Doctor If you contact the Member Doctor directly, you must identify yourself as a VSP member so the doctor knows to obtain Benefit Authorization from VSP 3 When such Benefit Authorization is provided by VSP and services are performed prior to the expiration date of the Benefit Authorization,this will constitute a claim against the Plan in spite of your termination of coverage or the termination of the Plan Should you receive services from a Member Doctor without such Benefit Authorization or obtain services from a provider who is not a Member Doctor,you are responsible for payment in full to the provider 4 You pay only the Copayment(it any)to a Member Doctor for services covered by the Plan VSP will pay the Member Doctor directly according to their agreement with the doctor 7/99 2 REGASP-00898 Note If you are eligible for and obtain Plan Benefits from a Non-Member Provider, you should pay the provider his/her full fee You will be reimbursed by VSP in accordance with the Non-Member Provider reimbursement schedule shown on the enclosed insert, less any applicable Copayments 5 In emergency conditions,when immediate vision care of a medical nature such as for bodily trauma or disease is necessary,Covered Person can obtain covered services by contacting a Member Doctor (or Out-of-Network Provider if the attached Schedule of Benefits indicates Covered Person's Plan includes such coverage) No prior approval*from VSP is required for Covered Person to obtain vision pre for Emergency Conditions of a medical nature However,services for medical conditions, including emergencies,are covered by VSP only under the Acute EyeCare and Primary EyeCare Plans. If coverage for one of these plans is not indicated on the attached Schedule of Benefits or Addendum, Covered Person is not covered by VSP for medical services and should contact a physician under Covered Person's medical insurance plan for pre. For emergency conditions of a non-medical nature, such as lost, broken or stolen glasses, the Covered Person should contact VSP's Customer Service Department for assistance. Emergency vision pre is subject to the same benefit frequencies, plan allowances, Copayments and exclusions stated herein Reimbursement to Member Doctors will be made in accordance with their agreement with VSP. 6. In the event of termination of a Member Doctor's membership in VSP,VSP will remain liable to the Member Doctor for services rendered to you at the time of termination and permit the Member Doctor to continue to provide you with Plan Benefits until the services are completed or until VSP makes reasonable and appropriate arrangements for the provision of such services by another authorized doctor BENEFIT AUTHORIZATION PROCESS VSP authorizes Plan Benefits according to the latest eligibility information furnished to VSP by Covered Person's Group and the level of coverage (i a service frequencies,covered materials,reimbursement amounts,limitations,and exclusions)purchased for Covered Person by Group under this Plan When Covered Person requests services under this Plan, Covered Person's prior utilization of Plan Benefits will be reviewed by VSP to determine if Covered Person is eligible for new services based upon Covered Person's Plan's level of coverage Please refer to the attached Schedule of Benefits for a summary of the level of coverage provided to Covered Person by Group. Prior Authorization Certain Plan Benefits require VSP's prior authorization before such Plan Benefits are covered VSP's prior authorization determinations are based upon crtena developed by optometric and ophthalmic consultants and approved by VSP's Utilization Management Committee and Board of Directors A. Initial Determination: VSP will approve or deny requests for prior authorization of services within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the request from the Covered Person's doctor In the event that a prior authorization cannot be resolved within the bme indicated,VSP may,if necessary,extend the time for decision by no more than fifteen(15)calendar days B. Appeals, If VSP denies the doctor's request for prior authorization, the doctor, Covered Person or the Covered Person's authorized representative may request an appeal of the denial. Please refer to the section on Claim Appeals, below,for details on how to request an appeal VSP shall provide the requestor with a final review determination within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the request is received. A second level appeal, and other remedies as described below, are also available VSP shall resolve any second level appeal within thirty (30) calendar days Covered Person may designate any person, including the provider, as Covered Person's authorized representative For more information regarding VSP's criteria for authorizing or denying Plan Benefits,please contact VSP's Customer Service Department 7/99 3 REGASP-00898 BENEFITS AND COVERAGES Through its Member Doctors,VSP provides Plan Benefits to Covered Persons as may be Visually Necessary or Appropriate,subject to the limitations,exclusions and Copayment(s)described herein.When you wish to obtain Plan Benefits from a Member Doctor,you should contact the Member Doctor of your choice,identify yourself as a VSP member,and schedule an appointment If you are eligible for Plan Benefits,VSP will provide Benefit Authorization for you directly to the Member Doctor pnor to your appointment IMPORTANT: The benefits described below are typical services and materials available under most VSP plans. However,the actual Plan Benefits provided to you by your Group may be different.Refer to the attached Schedule of Benefits and/or Disclosure to determine your specific Plan Benefits. 1 Eye Examination A complete initial vision analysis which includes an appropriate examination of visual functions, including the prescnpbon of corrective eyewear where indicated 2 Lenses The Member Doctor will order the proper lenses necessary for your visual welfare The doctor shall verify the accuracy of the finished lenses 3 Frames The Member Doctor will assist in the selection of frames, properly fit and adjust the frames, and provide subsequent adjustments to frames to maintain comfort and efficiency. 4 Contact lenses Unless otherwise indicated on the enclosed insert,contact lenses are available under this Plan in lieu of all other lens and frame benefits described herein for the current eligibility period Visually Necessary contact lenses, together with necessary professional services, will be provided as indicated on the enclosed insert Coverage for Visually Necessary contact lenses,regardless of whether they are obtained from a Member Doctor or Non-Member Provider,are subject to review and authorization from VSP's Optometric Consultants If you select contact lenses for other than Visually Necessary circumstances,they will be considered Elective contact lenses.When Elective contact lenses are obtained from a Member Doctor,VSP all provide an allowance towards the cost of professional fees and matenals as shown on the enclosed insert A 15%discount shall also be applied to the Member Doctor's usual and customary professional fees for contact lens evaluation and fitting Contact lens materials are provided at the Member Doctors usual and customary charges 5 If you elect to receive vision rare services from a Member Doctor, Plan Benefits are provided subject only to your payment of any applicable Copayment If your Plan includes Non-Member Provider coverage and you choose to obtain Plan Benefits from a Non-Member Provider, you should pay the Non-Member Provider his/her full fee VSP will reimburse you in accordance with the reimbursement schedule shown on the enclosed insert,less any applicable Copayment.THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT THE SCHEDULE WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR THE EXAMINATION OR MATERIALS Availability of the services under the Non-Member Provider reimbursement schedule is subject to the same time limits and Copayments as those described for Member Doctor services Services obtained from a Non-Member Provider are in lieu of obtaining services from a Member Doctor and count toward plan benefit frequencies 6 Additional Discount: Each Covered Person shall be entitled to receive a 20% discount toward the purchase of additional complete pairs of prescription glasses(lenses,lens options, and frames)from a Member Doctor.Additional pair means any complete parr of prescription glasses purchased beyond the benefit frequency allowed by your Plan,as indicted on the enclosed insert Additionally, each Covered Person shall be entitled to receive a 15%discount off the Member Doctors professional fees for contact lens evaluations and fittings Contact lens materials are provided at the doctors usual and customary charges Discounts are applied to the Member Doctor's usual and customary fees for such services and are available within twelve(12) months of the covered eye examination from the Member Doctor who provided the covered eye examinabon 7 Low Vision Services and Materials (applicable only d included in your Plan Benefits outlined on the enclosed insert) The Low Vision Benefit provides special aid for people who have acuity or vision field loss that cannot be corrected with regular lenses If a Covered Person falls within this category, he or she will be entitled to professional services as well as ophthalmic materials, including but not limited to supplemental testing, evaluations,visual training,low vision prescription services, plus optical and non-optical aids, subject to the frequency and benefit limitations as outlined on the enclosed insert Consult your Member Doctor for details COPAYMENT The benefits described herein are available to you subject only to your payment of any applicable Copayments as described in this booklet and the enclosed insert ANY ADDITIONAL CARE, SERVICE AND/OR MATERIALS NOT COVERED BY THIS PLAN MAY BE ARRANGED BETWEEN YOU AND THE DOCTOR 7r99 4 REGASP-00898 EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF BENEFITS This vision service plan is designed to cover visual needs rather than cosmetic materials.If you select any of the following extras,the Plan will pay the basic cost of the allowed lenses,and you will be responsible for the additional cost for the options,unless the extra is defined as a Plan Benefit in the Schedule of Benefits attached as Exhibit A to the Group Plan document maintained by your Group Administrator. 1. Blended lenses 2 Oversize lenses 3. Photochromic lenses(allowed at no additional charge under Plan C) 4 Tinted lenses except pink#1 or#2(allowed at no addrtonal charge under Plan C) 5 Progressive mulbfocal lenses 6 The coating of a lens or lenses 7 The laminating of a lens or lenses 8 Cosmetic lenses 9. Optional cosmetic processes 10 UV(ultraviolet)protected lenses NOT COVERED There is no benefit for professional services or materials connected with: 1 Orthoptics or vision training and any associated supplemental testing,piano lenses(less than t 38 diopter power),or two pair of glasses in lieu of bifocals. 2 Replacement of lenses and frames furnished under this Plan which are lost or broken except at the normal intervals when services are otherwise available 3 Medical or surgical treatment of the eyes. 4 Corrective vision treatment of an Expenmental Nature 5 Costs for services andlor materials above Plan Benefit allowances indicated on the enclosed insert 6 Serwceslmatenals not indicated as covered Plan Benefits on the enclosed insert. LIABILITY IN EVENT OF NON-PAYMENT IN THE EVENT VSP FAILS TO PAY THE PROVIDER,YOU SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE PROVIDER FOR ANY SUMS OWED BY THE VISION PLAN OTHER THAN THOSE NOT COVERED BY THE PLAN COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES If Covered Person ever has a question or problem,Covered Person's first step is to call VSP's Customer Service Department The Customer Service Department will make every effort to answer Covered Person's question and/or resolve the matter informally.If a matter is not initially resolved to the satisfaction of a Covered Person,the Covered Person may communicate a complaint or grievance to VSP orally or in writing by using the complaint form that may be obtained upon request from the Customer Service Department Complaints and grievances include disagreements regarding access to care, or the quality of care, treatment or service Covered Persons also have the right to submit written comments or supporting documentation concerning a complaint or grievance to assist in VSP's review VSP will resolve the complaint or grievance within thirty(30)days after receipt, unless special circumstances require an extension of time In that case, resolution shall be achieved as soon as possible, but no later than one hundred twenty(120)days after VSP's receipt of the complaint or grievance. If VSP determines that resolution cannot be achieved within thirty (30)days,a letter will be sent to the Covered Person to indicate VSP's expected resolution date Upon final resolution,the Covered Person will be notified of the outcome in writing Claim Payments and Denials A. Initial Determination VSP will pay or deny claims within thirty(30)calendar days of the receipt of the claim from the Covered Person or Covered Person's authorized representative. In the event that a claim cannot be resolved within the time indicated VSP may, I necessary, extend the time for decision by no more than fifteen(15)calendar days. 7/99 5 REGASP-00898 B. Request for Appeals: If a Covered Person's claim for benefits is denied by VSP in whole or in part,VSP will notify the Covered Person in writing of the reason or reasons for the denial.Within one hundred eighty(180)days after receipt of such notice of denial of a claim,Covered Person may make a verbal or written request to VSP for a full review of such denial.The request should contain sufficient information to identify the Covered Person for whom a claim for benefits was denied,including the name of the VSP Enrollee,Member Identification Number of the VSP Enrollee,the Covered Person's name and date of birth,the name of the provider of services and the claim number The Covered Person may state the reasons the Covered Person believes that the claim denial was in error.The Covered Person may also provide any pertinent documents to be reviewed VSP will review the dam and give the Covered Person the opportunity to review pertinent documents, submit any statements, documents,or written arguments in support of the claim, and appear personally to present materials or arguments. Covered Person or Covered Person's authorized representative should submit all requests for appeals to: VSP Member Appeals 3333 Quality Drive Rancho Cordova,CA 95670 (800)877-7195 VSP's determination, including speck reasons for the decision, shall be provided and communicated to the Covered Person within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of a request for appeal from the Covered Person or Covered Person's authonzed representative If Covered Person disagrees with VSP's determination,he/she may request a second level appeal within sixty(60)calendar days from the date of the determination VSP shall resolve any second level appeal within thirty(30)calendar days When Covered Person has completed all appeals mandated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974("ERISAI,additional voluntary alternative dispute resolution options may be available,including mediation and arbitration Covered Person should contact the U S Department of Labor or the State insurance regulatory agency for details Additionally, under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B),Covered Person has the right to bring a civil (court) action when all available levels of reviews of denied claims,including the appeal process,have been completed,the claims were not approved in whole or in part,and Covered Person disagrees with the outcome TERMINATION OF BENEFITS Terms and cancellation conditions of your vision care plan are shown on the enclosed insert Plan Benefits will cease on the date of cancellation of this Plan whether the cancellation is by Group or by VSP due to nonpayment of Premium If service is being rendered to you as of the termination date of the Plan,such service shall be continued to completion, but in no event beyond six(6) months after the termination date of the Plan INDIVIDUAL CONTINUATION OF BENEFITS This program is available to groups of a minimum of ten(10)employees and is,therefore,not available on an individual basis When a Group terminates its coverage,individual coverage is not available for Enrollees who may desire to retain same THE CONSOLIDATED OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1985(COBRA) The Consolidated Omnibus Budge(Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA)requires that under certain circumstances health plan benefits available to an eligible participant and his or her dependents be made available to said persons upon the termination of employment of said participant,or the termination of the relationship between said participant and his or her dependents If,and only to the extent,COBRA applies to your Group Plan,VSP shall make the statutorily required continuation coverage available in accordance with COBRA 7/99 6 REGASP-00898 VISION SERVICE PLAN 3333 Quality Drive Rancho Cordova, California 95670 Group Name: CITY OF KENT Plan Number 12229020 Effective Date JANUARY 1, 2004 Plan Term TWENTY-FOUR (24)MONTHS VISION CARE PLAN DISCLOSURE FORM AND EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR: BECKY FOWLER (Name) 220 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH (Address) KENT, WA 98032-5895 (City, State, Zip) 253 856-5290 (Area Code, Telephone Number) MONTHLY PREMIUM' YOUR GROUP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT TO VISION SERVICE PLAN OF THE PERIODIC CHARG ES FOR YOUR COVERAGE. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED OF YOUR SHARE OF THE CHARGES, IF ANY, BY YOUR GROUP. ELIGIBILITY: ENROLLEES&ELIGIBLE DEPENDENTS UNMARRIED DEPENDENT CHILDREN ARE COVERED TO AGE 23, OR TO AGE 23 IF FULL-TIME STUDENTS WAITING PERIOD IS THE SAME AS YOUR OTHER HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN AND SCHEDULE. PLAN.B EXAMINATION. ONCE EVERY PLAN YEAR* LENSES. ONCE EVERY PLAN YEAR* FRAMES ONCE EVERY TWO PLAN YEARS* *PLAN YEAR BEGINS JANUARY 1ST TERM, TERMINATION AFTER THE PLAN TERM, THIS PLAN WILL CONTINUE ON A MONTH AND RENEWAL: TO MONTH BASIS OR UNTIL TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY GIVING THE OTHER SIXTY (60)DAYS PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE. TYPE OFADMINISTRATION: VSP WILL PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OF THE FOLLOWING NATURE:CLAIM AND BILLING ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS PROVIDED UNDER THIS PLAN ARE SELF-INSURED BY THE EMPLOYER VSP'S ADDRESS IS: VISION SERVICE PLAN 3333 QUALITY DRIVE RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 CSLF-EOC-Genenc ASP(2101) 01/30/04 RAS SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS GENERAL This Schedule hsts the vision care services and vision care matenals to which Covered Persons of VSP are entitled, subject to any Copayments and other conditions,limitations and/or exclusions stated herein if Plan Benefits are available for Non-Member Provider services as indicated by the reimbursement provisions below, vision care services and vision care matenals may be received from any licensed optometrist, ophthalmologist, or dispensing optician, whether Member Doctors or Non-Member Providers When Plan Benefits are received from Member Doctors,benefits appearing in the first column below are applicable subject to any Copayment(s)as stated below When Plan Benefits are available and received from Non-Member Providers,you are reimbursed for such benefits according to the schedule in the second column below less any applicable Copayment PLAN BENEFITS MEMBER DOCTOR NON-MEMBER BENEFIT PROVIDER BENEFIT VISION CARE SERVICES Vision Examination Covered in Full' Up to $45 00' VISION CARE MATERIALS Lenses Single Vision Covered in Full' Up to $42 00' Bifocal Covered in Full' Up to $72 00' Trifocal Covered in Full' Up to $82 00- Lenticular Covered in Full' Up to $122 00- Frames Covered up to Up to $45 00' Plan Allowance` CONTACTLENSES Visually Necessary Professional Fees and Matenals Covered in Full' Up to $210 00' Elective Professional Fees"and Materials Covered up to$200 00 Up to $125 00 "Subject to Copayment if any "Additional discount applies to Member Doctoes usual and customary professional fees for contact lens evaluation and fitting. COPAYMENT There shall be a Copayment of$0 00 for the examination payable by the Covered Person to the Member Doctor at the time services are rendered, if materials(lenses and frames)are provided, there shall be an additional$25 00 Copayment payable at the time the materials are ordered However, the Copayment for materials shall not apply to elective contact lenses LOW VISION Professional services, as necessary, for severe visual problems not corrected with regular lenses,including Supplemental Testing Covered in Full Up to$125 00 (includes evaluation, diagnosis and prescription of vision aids where indicated) Supplemental Aids Covered up to 75%of cost Covered up to 75%of cost • Maximum allowable for all Low Vision benefits of$1000.00 every two(2)years VSP EOCINSERT PEC THERAPEUTIC NNM 7/99 THIS EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE CONSTITUTES ONLYA SUMMARYOF THE VISION PLAN. THE VISION PLAN DOCUMENT MUST BE CONSULTED TO DETERMINE THE EXACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COVERAGE. VSP EOCINSERT PEC THERAPEUTIC NNM 7199 • Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2. 2004 Category Consent Calendar I. SUBJECT: MORRILL MEADOWS PARK—ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department is requesting authorization to accept the Morrill Meadows Park Project (a.k.a. East Hill Park Expansion) as complete. Services were performed by Fuji Industries, Inc. and approved by the project manager on February 11, 2004. Approval of this item would accept the project as complete. 3. EXHIBITS: Letter of acceptance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT N/A 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. 6F e00' 0 KENT WASHINGTON PARKS, RECREATION& February 11, 2004 COMMUNITY SERVICES John Hodgson Director, Richard Osaka - Fuji Industries, Inc. j Phone:253 -51-85600, PO BOX 1847 Fax:253-856-6050 Milton, WA 98354-1847 220 Fourth Ave.S. ` Kent,WA 98032-5895 RE: Morrill Meadows Park (AKA East Hill Park Expansion) Dear Rich: I made a final inspection of the new park construction at Morrill Meadows Park on December 26, 2003 and found that the work has been completed to my satisfaction. This letter serves as a final acceptance of the public works project. received the as-built plans on February 11, 2004 and will now close-out the project and accept it as complete. Please make sure that all necessary State and Federal documents have been completed and filed. The one-year warranty period on parts and labor will remain in effect through February 11, 2005. The park is beautiful and is enjoyed by many! Thank you for a job well- done. If you have any questions, please call me at (253) 856-5112. Sincerely, Lori M. Flemm, uperintendent Parks Planning & Development C: John M. Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation & Community Services Pam Baum, Parks Accountant LMFItb Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CANTERBURY PARK—ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department is requesting authorization to accept the Canterbury Neighborhood Park Development Project as complete. Construction services were provided by TF Sahli Construction and approved by the project manager on December 31, 2003. Approval of this item would accept the project as complete. 3. EXHIBITS: Letter of acceptance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT N/A 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. 6G s KEN T WASHINGTON PARKS, RECREATION& December 31, 2003 COMMUNITY SERVICES` s John Hodgson Director.=. Tom Sahli TF Sahli Construction Phone:253-856-51W0 ,,-'-PO Box 332 ' Fax: 253-856-6050. , a`> '._�.% ,Seahurst, WA 98062-0332 220 Fourth Ave,S.' t<ent',wAsao32-5es5; RE: Canterbury Neighborhood Park Development < - Dear Tom: I made a final inspection of the new park construction at Canterbury --, Neighborhood Park and found that the project is completed to my satisfaction. This letter serves as final acceptance of the public works project effective as of December 31, 2003. s ,y --,The one-year warranty period on parts and labor will remain in effect through December 31, 2004. Please make sure that all necessary State .h. documents have been completed and filed. If you have any questions, please call me at (253) 856-5115. Sincerely, M z Shane Gilbertson, Project Manager Parks Planning and Development C: John Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation & Community Services Lori M. Flemm, Superintendent Parks Planning and Development Pam Baum, Project Accountant SMG/jb Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND DRIVING RANGE PROTECTIVE NETTING AND POLE REPLACEMENT—ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department is requesting authorization to accept the Riverbend Driving Range Protective Netting and Pole Replacement Project as complete. Services were provided by Driving Ranges, Inc. and approved by the project manager on January 30, 2004. Approval of this item would accept the project as complete. 3. EXHIBITS: Letter of Acceptance • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks,Recreation and Community Services Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT N/A 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. 6H 10%so - - ENT WASHINOTON PARKS,RECREATION$OOMMUNITY SERVICES January 30, 2004 John Hodgson Director Del Brown Phone:253- DriVing Ra Fax:2 53_856-5140 9 Ranges, Inc. 856-6o5o 2003 West BeLeriake Drive SE Z sSammarnish, WqKet, WFourth8si 98075 RE: Riverbend Drivi Dear Del: n g Range Protective Netting & Pole Replacement 1 have inspected the Driving Ran Pole and protective nettin satisfaction. in Kent, WA and found that the g installation at Riverbend Project is completed to my The one-year warranty period on parts and lobo through January 30 2005. r will remain in Please effect is filed. make sure that all Washington State Labor& Industries if you have any questions, Paperwork please call me at(253) 856-5115. Sincerely,9t:z-'' Shane Gilbertson, Project Manager Parks Planning and Development C: John Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation Lori Flemm & Co Su mmunity Services penntendent Parks Planning & Development Pam Baum, Project Accountant Pete Petersen, Golf Operations Superintendent SMG/jb • Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY CAPITAL FUND FOR KENT POOL —ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Parks,Recreation and Community Services Committee recommends accepting the $25,000.00 from King County for capital repairs at the Kent Pool and amending the capital budget. Approval of this item would accept the funds and amend the budget. 3. EXHIBITS: Copy of check • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks &Human Services Committee & Parks Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure $25,000.00 Revenue $25,000.00 Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund P20032.641990.530 Amount $25,000.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund P100053804 Amount $25,000.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERIVCES , John M. Hodgson, Director Phone.253-856-5100 Fax 253-856-6050 KEN T Address. 220 Fourth Avenue S W A f N I N G T O N Kent,WA.98032-5895 DATE: February 19, 2004 TO: Kent City Council Parks Committee FROM: John M. Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation & Community Services SUBJECT: King County Capital Funds for Kent Pool -Accept and Amend Budget MOTION: I move to recommend accepting the$25,000.00 from King County for the capital repairs at Kent Pool and amending the aquatic budget. SUMMARY: In the agreement to transfer the Kent Pool, King County agreed to provide $50,000.00 over two years for capital repairs. This is the first $25,000.00 installment of these funds. EXHIBITS: King County Check FISCAL IMPACT: Unbudgeted revenue of$25,000.00 (100053804) and expenditure of $25,000.00 (P20032.64190.530). I ai-o5-o4 I 0909911 i Y OF KENT PARKS AND RFC 52295 0300021201 D33237Z 1Z192033 S.0 S25r00 TOTAL f.0 f25t0U Pl �' Alp- '�In�� �rinda " P-4 KING COUNTY 12'50 N019Q8 ( STATE OF WASMINGTON .E THFIU:KEY BANK to00 SECOND AVE. BEAT'iLE WA98104-1088 °ICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.KI;G COUNTY,SEATTLE.WA NOT VALID T YEAR FROM I"UE DATE llfj A Y 5 2:*OOC DOu.AR9 00 CENTS 525� 000.00 Tow a.�gr{.urd¢ fret.r�o.,aroe w�b►aptaAr..l czq GY4TN �YENUgAS0UT11ND RECNT WA 98032 KY+a00Y1rtYE7FQUflNi ILevI} wicr 'diOLLL,Poo� �acx�3 53 -701 �,h5 Coke Cnrn ,. } `4 , Ooo,00 --Ir gaCl ba4rl1J 9�z vcc+ 516-' TOTAL P.01 • Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: THE FUND FOR IMPROVEMENT IN POST SECONDARY EDUCATION GRANT—AUTHORIZE APPLICATION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Fund for Improvement in Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) Grant Program "supports innovative educational improvement projects that respond to problems of national significance". The Kent Police Department's Opening Doors Project will provide opportunities for inmates at the city jail to improve their ability to transition back into the community as a responsible citizen and open educational doors. The program funds projects for up to 36 months and the grant funding request is for $242,500 over 36 months. Approval of this item would authorize the Police Department to apply for the grant funds. • 3. EXHIBITS: Opening Doors Budget document 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 2/19/04 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N Revenue? N 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. W � 2 ` \ \ % � E \ m§ fn fn I6 \ E < @ $ ° o � LO = _® � N 00 / � ) mo 00 " 8 8 @ ( ( ca m VM� � / / � / � \ � g 00 L. /� \ E ) ƒ O ) ■ ) } } $ $ & 2 � \ / f D f / ƒ � f / & ( k0 f on \ { kn 2 § / f � k� 2 ` k° / 2 % G � 8kQJ2cu ° ° �— k \ / k2 :3C \ 7 4aV)Luw 0 _ / Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EMERGENCY AND BASIC LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT—AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This agreement for services is between the City of Kent Fire Department and the two private ambulance companies which currently provide service to our response area. It will be become effective on May 1, 2004 for three years and may be renewed for two additional one-year terms. The proposed agreement requires that each ambulance company make a payment of$3,000 per month to the City to cover the costs of administering the agreement. Approval of this item would authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. 3. EXHIBITS: Emergency and Basic Life Support Ambulance Services agreement • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 2/19/04 and CityAttorney's Office (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Revenue? Y Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund V00025.64190.2700 Amount $6,000/month Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund V00025.53840 Amount $6,000/month 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6K FIRE DEPARTMENT Jim Schneider, Fire Chief KO• Phone 253-856.4300 T Fax 253-856-6300 Wwl wi woro. Address 24611 116'"Ave SE Kent,WA 980304939 DATE: February 19, 2004 TO: Public Safety Committee FROM: Jim Schneider, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Emergency and Basic Life Support Ambulance Services Agreement MOTION: I move to recommend placing the Emergency and Basic Life Support Ambulance Services Agreement on the Consent Calendar of the March 2, 2004 Council Meeting and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. • SUMMARY: This agreement for services is between the City of Kent Fire Department and the two (2)private ambulance companies that currently provide service to our response area. We have had an agreement for ambulance services since the late 1980's. This agreement is for three (3)years and may be renewed for two(2)additional one(1)year terms. The proposed agreement continues to ensure that performance standards are met and maintained, that patient care performance continually meets or exceeds standards provided by State law and the most current King County Patient Care Guidelines for Basic Life support, and that response time performance is met or exceeded. Previous agreements dispatched ambulance services on a rotation basis,this new agreement assigns an ambulance company to one (1)of two(2)areas within our response area, this will provide our citizens with quicker service to area medical facilities. The proposed agreement requires that each ambulance company make a payment of$3,000 per month to the City to cover our costs of administering this agreement. The monthly payment amount shall be annually adjusted on the anniversary of the effective date of the agreement using the preceding calendar year's annual Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers Seattle- Tacoma-Bremerton metropolitan area. This proposed agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. EXHIBIT: Emergency and Basic Life Support Ambulance Services Agreement • BUDGET IMPACT: Revenue of$6,000 per month beginning on May 2004 Kent Council Public Safety Committee Emcrgency&0asit,Life Supaaq February 19,2004 Ambulance Services Agreement 6 Page 1 of 34 Jacober, Brenda From: Thompson, Jolene Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 2:27 PM To: Jacober, Brenda Subject: Agreement doc Emergency and Basic Life Support Ambulance Services Agreement between the City of Kent and This Agreement is made this 1st day of May, 2004, (the "Effective Date"), by and between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), and a corporation (the "Contractor") RECITALS 1 The Kent Fire Department ("KFD") is the first responder for all 9-1-1 calls and performs tnage and interrogation of all patients that utilize the 9-1-1 system within the City and the area served by King County Fire District No 37 ("KCFD No. 37"). 2. Advance Life Support ("ALS") services within the City are provided by King County Medic 1 3. The City desires to enter into an Agreement with the Contractor to provide Basic Life i Support ('BLS") transport services 24 hours per day, 365 days per year within the primary coverage area as set forth in section 5 1 of this Agreement and as further defined in Exhibit "A" The BLS transport service shall be provided when requested by KFD AGREEMENT 1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be three (3) years from the effective date of May 1, 2004. The City, at its sole discretion, may renew this Agreement for two (2) additional one (1) year terms, each upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the City The renewal shall be completed upon execution of an addendum by all parties 2. Definitions. For the purposes of clarity and consistency, the following words shall have the following meanings in this Agreement, unless the context clearly requires a different meaning 21 "Ambulance Unit" means the vehicle and personnel provided by the Contractor responding to a request for BLS service 22 "At Scene Time" means the point in time when the ambulance unit reports it is physically stopped at the correct scene In situations where the unit has been directed to respond to a location other than the scene, a g., staging areas for hazardous materials/violent crime incidents, or non-secured scenes, "at scene time" shall be the point in time the ambulance unit reports it has arrived at the designated staging location. In instances when an ambulance unit fads to report when it has arrived "at scene," "at scene time" shall mean the point in time of the first communication or status transmission from the i scene by that ambulance unit. 2.3 "Business License Clerk" means such City employees or agents as the Mayor shall 2/20/2004 6 Page 2 of 34 designate to issue and administer business licenses under the Kent City Code, or any designee • thereof. 2.4 "City" means the City of Kent and includes the Kent Fire Department 2.5 "Contract Administrator" shall mean the City's Chief of Emergency Medical Services 2.6 "Contractor" means any person, corporation, or other legal entity that operates an ambulance for hire and in compliance YAth federal, state, county, and City rules and regulations. 2.7 "Emergency and Non-Emergency BLS Services" means basic life support services provided in support of KFD, which are the subject of this Agreement. 2.8 "Fire Department" or "Department" means the Kent Fire Department and includes the City. 2.9 "Fire Official" means the Fire Chief or the Fire Chiefs designee 210 "Incident Commander" means the Kent Fire Department person in charge of the emergency response at an incident 2.11 "Performance Standards" are those standards as required in section 5 of the Agreement 212 "Region" means the geographical boundaries of King County, Washington 213 "Request Received" means the point in time when the incident address is confirmed by • the Contractor's dispatcher. 2.14 "Response Time" means the time interval from the time when the Contractor's dispatcher receives a request for service to the time an ambulance unit arrives at the scene of the incident 2.15 "Unit Hours" means amount of time calculated in hours that a fully staffed and equipped apparatus is available for service. 3. Business Licensing and Ch 5.11 of the Kent City Code. Ch 5 11 KCC, as now enacted or hereafter amended, shall apply for the duration of this Agreement The Contractor shall obtain and maintain a City business license and shall meet all conditions of Ch 5 11 KCC throughout the duration of this Agreement. A true and correct copy of Ch 5.11 KCC, as currently enacted, is attached as Exhibit "B." 4. Volume of Business. The City does not guarantee a volume of business Actual volume will be depend upon demand for services and the Contractor's performance 5. Scope of Services — Performance Standards. 5.1 Primary Coverage Area The Contractor shall provide BLS transport services for the section of the area served by the City as defined in Exhibit A of this Agreement 5.2 Patient Care Performance. 2/20/2004 6 Page 3 of 34 5 2.1 Standards. The Contractor shall continuously meet or exceed the patient care performance standards as provided by State law and the most current King County Patient Care Guidelines for Basic Life Support. Additionally, the Contractor shall have its own Medical Direction Program. In the event there are conflicts among these standards, the controlling standard shall be State law, then the King County Patient Care Guidelines, and then the Contractor's Medical Direction Program 5.2 2 Transport Protocols. The Contractor shall adhere to KFD transport protocols for services performed under this Agreement. 5 2.2 1 The Contractor agrees that it is the responsibility of KFD to provide rapid initial BLS response to all requests for medical assistance and advanced field life support to medical emergencies within the City. Except when authorized by KFD, the Contractor shall not provide rapid initial response or advance life support to medical emergencies within the City 5 2 2 2 When the Contractor arrives at an incident scene in response to a KFD request, the Contractor's personnel shall report to the incident commander, or his/her designee, in charge of the emergency who shall, when appropriate, designate the mode of transportation and the hospital to be utilized. Patients in a life-threatening or potentially life-threatening condition shall be transported to area hospitals as directed by KFD, 5223 The Contractor shall immediately request the services of KFD and, if appropriate, King County Medic 1, it if the Contractor receives a citizen request for emergency medical assistance. In the event that a non-life- threatening emergency being handled by the Contractor becomes an emergency requiring the services of an ALS technician, the Contractor shall immediately request the services of KFD 523 Liquidated Damages In the event the Contractor fads to meet or exceed patient care performance standards and transport protocols, the Contractor shall pay the City liquidated damages as described in section 8 524 Patient Care Performance Standards Monitoring The Contractor shall ensure its personnel complete documents related to responses and patient care, including, but not limited to, Pre-hospital Care Reports (PCRs), Against Medical Advice Summary Audits (AMA), and ambulance response failure/unusual occurrence forms. Such documents shall be made available to the City upon request. The Contractor shall provide to KFD by the loth day of each calendar month a report summarizing its patient care performance during the preceding month. Monthly during the first three months of operation, and quarterly thereafter, the Contractor and KFD shall meet to discuss matters of concern and to review adherence to patient care performance standards and transport protocols. The purpose of these meetings will be to maintain open and proactive communications, resolve problems, and to provide an arena to confer M about patient care performance on the part of the Contractor or KFD. 2/20/2004 6 Page 4 of 34 53 Response Time Performance 5 3 1 Standards. Every calendar month, the Contractor shall meet or exceed the following standards within its primary coverage the area as set forth in Exhibit A. Response times shall be measured in minutes and seconds, and shall be timed-stamped by the Contractor's computer aided dispatch (CAD)system 5.31 1 Emergency Incident Response Performance Standard The Contractor shall respond to ninety percent (90%) of all requests within 9 minutes, 59 seconds, provided, this requirement shall not apply in the event that the Contractor is requested to arrive on scene by utilizing a "code yellow" status. The maximum response time is 14 minutes, 59 seconds on any request. 532 Liquidated Damages. In the event the Contractor's response time does not fall within the emergency incident response performance standard, and the City does not grant an exemption to the delay or non-response, the Contractor shall pay to the City liquidated damages as described in section 8 5 3 3 Performance Incentive During a calendar month and in the event the Contractor meets or exceeds a ninety-five percent (95%) response rate in its primary coverage area, KFD shall waive liquidated damages described in section 8.1 and 8.2 for that month; provided, that during that month KFD has not performed BLS transport due to the Contractor exceeding the maximum response time, failing to respond, fading to properly staff or equip unit, failing to report on-scene, or for mechanical failure. 534 Exemption to Response Time Performance Standards The Contractor may apply and KFD may grant exemptions to response time performance standards in situations beyond the Contractor's control that cause unavoidable delays or no response KFD shall examine each request for exemption and shall take into consideration the Contractor's staffing levels, dispatch times, in-service times, traffic, street blockages, severe weather, and other influencing factors If KFD determines the circumstances warrant, KFD shall grant an exemption of the response from the performance standards To be eligible for such an exemption, the Contractor shall apply for the exemption with supporting documentation no later than the month following the month of the occurrence. The following subsections describe situations where KFD may grant an exemption 5 3 4 1 Multiple Unit Response. In the event two (2) or more units are simultaneously committed to one (1) incident, the first arriving unit shall be held to the response time standard KFD shall grant an exemption for each unit starting with the second unit provided the additional units arrive at the scene within 20 minutes 5 3.4 2 Concurrent Responses In the event three (3) or more units are simultaneously committed to one (1) incident, and two (2) or more additional units are concurrently responding to at least two (2) other separate incidents, KFD shall grant an exemption for each unit starting with the third unit. 2/20/2004 6 Page 5 of 34 5343 Declared Disaster In the event an emergency is declared as defined by Ch 43.06 RCW, KFD shall grant an exemption for all units during the declared emergency. 5344 Canceled Request. In the event a request is canceled prior to or at the unit's arrival on scene for reasons other than exceeding the maximum response time standard, KFD shall grant an exemption. 5.3 4.5 Response Location Errors In the event KFD provides an inaccurate address, or if the location does not exist, KFD shall grant a response time exemption, except if the incorrect response is the result of an error made by Contractor's personnel, in that event KFD shall not grant an exemption 5 3.4 6 Response Location Change. In the event KFD changes the incident location and the change delays the unit's response time because the unit must reroute farther than one (1) city block to respond to the call, KFD shall grant an exemption 53.47 Response Delayed by Accident. In the event the unit is involved in an accident and cannot continue to respond to the call, KFD will grant an exemption provided the accident is not the fault of the ambulance unit 5348 Response Requested to Area Outside PrimaryCoverageArea. In the event the City requests the Contractor respond to an area outside of its pnmary coverage area, KFD shall grant an exemption to the Emergency Response Performance Standard on the condition that the Contractor use diligence to respond to the scene within a reasonable time 5.35 Response Time Performance Monitoring The Contractor shall provide to KFD by the loth day of each calendar month, a report detailing its response time performance for its primary coverage area, as designated in Exhibit A, during the preceding month and any applications for exemptions The Contractor shall document each instance wherein a response resulted in a response time in excess of the response performance standard, and shall detail the reason for such delayed response time. Contractor shall take all steps necessary to eliminate causes of poor response time performance and upon request shall provide the City with a summary of such corrective actions. 5.4 Inquiries and Complaints. The Contractor shall provide prompt written responses and follow-up to inquiries and complaints. Such responses shall be subject to the limitations imposed by patient confidentiality restrictions Contractor shall provide to KFD by the loth day of each calendar month a list of all complaints received and their respective dispositions Copies of such complaints will be made available to the City upon request. Any complaint received by the City shall be forwarded to the Contractor for action, and the Contractor shall forward the disposition of the incident to the City within twenty-one (21) days of receipt. 55 Dispatch and Communications 55.1 Contractor's Dispatch/Communications Equipment and Personnel. The Contractor shall furnish, operate, maintain, and replace or upgrade its dispatch and communications equipment, radios, telephone equipment, computer aided dispatch system equipment, including hardware and software, and all other 2/20/2004 6 Page 6 of 34 equipment and software necessary for its provision of emergency BLS services • 5 5 2 Computer Aided Dispatching. The Contractor shall utilize a CAD system to record dispatch information for all requests for services. Contractor's CAD system shall generate, either automatically or through manual entry, a dispatch record using generally accepted coding conventions and time-stamping rules The City may require dispatch information to be provided on diskette or modem download for integration and review. The Contractor shall ensure that all dispatching and communications with its ambulance units is conducted in a manner that meets or exceeds all federal, state, and local requirements, including KFD's policies and procedures. If, upon the effective date of this Agreement, the Contractor does not utilize an acceptable CAD system, it shall, no later than six (6) months after the effective date of the Agreement obtain and fully utilize an acceptable CAD system The failure of the Contractor to obtain and utilize a CAD system within the time period provided in this subsection shall result in liquidated damages as provided in section 8 5 5 3 Dispatch Communications The Contractor shall record and maintain for a minimum of 365 days by tape or other voice recording media all radio and telephone communications with and between persons or agencies requesting ambulance service, its units, personnel, and the Valley Communications Center, including time track Such recordings and records shall be made available to the City upon request. . 554 Emergency Alerting Devices The Contractor shall equip each ambulance unit with installed radio communications equipment capable of notifying ambulance personnel of response needs In addition, each ambulance unit shall contain at least one (1) portable two-way radio to provide the driver or attendant with alerting and two-way communications capabilities when away from the ambulance unit. 55.5 The Contractor shall not refuse to transport any person, when such person is determined by the KFD Incident Commander to fall under the category of having a fife-threatening, potentially life-threatening, or other medical emergency Charges for services shall be made only to a patient actually transported by Contractor Under no circumstances shall the City have any liability whatsoever for the Contractor's transportation of the patient, or cost incurred by the Contractor whether or not they transport 5 5 6 The Contractor shall transport a patient to the nearest hospital capable of providing the needed emergency medical services, or to a hospital of the patient's choice If a specific hospital is designated by Hospital Control in a multiple casualty incident or by a paramedic or higher medical authority at the scene of the emergency, the Contractor shall transport the patient to that facility All patients in life-threatening, potentially life-threatening, or other serious medical emergencies may be transported to area hospitals by KFD aid units, medic units, or ambulances as determined by the KFD Incident Commander, 5.5.7 The Contractor shall not install or operate any device or means on its units that can be utilized to control traffic signaling devices, including, but not limited, to Opticoms. 2/20/2004 6 Page 7 of 34 56 Vehicle Markings and Advertising Restrictions. Markings on ambulance units shall not include seven (7) or ten (10) digit phone numbers or other advertising. The only telephone number allowed is "9-1-1". The Contractor's standard logo, including its name, is permitted Temporary display applications must be approved by KFD prior to use 57 Equipment Maintenance. 5.7.1 The Contractor shall be solely responsible for furnishing all equipment and parts for the maintenance of vehicles, on board equipment, supplies, and facilities used by the Contractor in performance of its work 572 All equipment and supplies used by the Contractor must meet and comply with all standards established by federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations 5.7.3 The Contractor shall be responsible for its radio system, channel selection, securing, authorization for use, and the proper operation of the radio system. 5.8 Contractor's Personnel. 5.8.1 Staffing. For each ambulance unit responding to requests for BLS service, the Contractor shall have at least two (2) personnel who are certified and accredited as Emergency Medical Technicians-B ("EMT-B") 582 Character and Competence of Personnel The Contractor shall ensure that its personnel conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner The . Contractor's personnel shall be competent and shall hold all required licenses, permits and certificates in their respective trades or professions. The Contractor's personnel shall wear uniforms that clearly identify the Contractor's business name as well as the name of the particular employee All personnel shall have a neat, clean appearance, shall be courteous to patients, shall refrain from unprofessional conduct or the use of foul language, and shall abide by all applicable federal, state, and City laws and regulations The City may demand the removal of any employee or subcontractor of Contractor, subject to appropriate investigation and determination, for misconduct or incompetent or negligent performance. Such persons shall not be allowed to perform services under this contract without the written consent of the City 59 Outside Work The Contractor may do other work within the City limits (e 9 , scheduled transports, non-ambulance medical transportation, special event standby coverage, HMO/Government contract work, etc ), provided, the outside work does not negatively affect the Contractor's peak load capacity, disaster readiness, and overall efficiency, and does not detract from the Contractor's primary service responsibilities to the City 5.10 Back-up Work. The Contractor may provide back-up ambulance seances outside of the City limits, but shall not utilize the equipment, personnel, or resources, which are the subject of this contract, for providing primary ambulance coverage outside the City limits. 5.11 Major Emergency and Disaster Response within the City and KCFD 37 Limits 511 1 Maior Emergency or Disaster Declared In the event the Fire Chief determines there is a major emergency or disaster, KFD may notify the Contractor that the 2/20/2004 6 Page 8 of 34 normal course of business under the Agreement may be interrupted Immediately upon such notification, the Contractor shall commit such resources as are requested by KFD, given the nature of the incident, and shall assist in accordance with applicable disaster plans and protocols 511 2 Response Time Performance Standards. The Contractor shall be released by the City from response time performance standards and liquidated damages, until notified by the City, that such disaster assistance may be terminated, provided, however, that the Contractor shall use due diligence to respond to the scene in an expeditious manner. 5 11.3 City — First Priority The Contractor acknowledges that the City is entering into an Agreement with the Contractor for the benefit of the public The Contractor shall consider the City as a customer of its first priority and shall make its best effort to provide emergency and non-emergency BLS seances to the City in a timely manner. The Contractor shall develop a mechanism for the immediate recall of personnel to staff units during multi-casualty situations, times of peak overload, or major emergency and disaster situations This plan shall include the ability of the Contractor to alert off-duty personnel 511.4 Major Emergency or Disaster Terminated When major emergency or disaster assistance has been terminated, the Contractor shall resume normal operations as rapidly as is practical considering exhaustion of personnel, need for restocking, and other relevant considerations 512 Incident Response to Other Local Jurisdictions. In the event the Kent Fire Official determines an incident affects a local or neighboring jurisdiction, KFD may notify the Contractor that the normal course of business under the Agreement may be interrupted Immediately upon such notification, the Contractor may commit such resources as are requested by KFD, given the nature of the incident, and shall assist in accordance with disaster plans and protocols applicable in the locality where the disaster has occurred Normal (i.e., not disaster related) mutual aid or multi-casualty incident assistance rendered by the Contractor shall be performed in accordance with approved instant aid/mutual aid agreements, and EMS agency policies and procedures In the course of rendering such instant aid/mutual aid services, the Contractor shall not automatically be exempt from response time standards otherwise imposed by this Agreement The Contractor shall manage any response to such instant aid/mutual aid requests in a manner that does not jeopardize the Contractor's ability to render response time performance as required herein 513 Local Administrative Office The Contractor shall maintain an administrative office within twenty miles of KFD Headquarters, which is located at 24611 116th Av. SE Kent, WA 98030. 5.14 Inspections. 5.14.1 Examination and Audit of Records At any time during normal business hours and as often as may reasonably be deemed necessary, City representatives • and the EMS Medical Director(s) may observe the Contractor's operations. Additionally, the Contractor shall make available for examination and audit, all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, inventory records, records of personnel (with the exception of confidential personnel records), daily logs, conditions of employment, all operational and procedure policy manuals, excerpts or 2/20/2004 6 Page 9 of 34 transcripts from such records, all relevant fiscal records and other data related to all matters covered by this contract 514.2 Observe Operations and Ride Along. City representatives and the EMS Chief, may, at any time, and without notification, directly observe Contractor's operation of its EMS Communications Center, maintenance facility, and any ambulance post location. A City representative and the EMS Chief, may, after providing at least five minutes notice, ride as third person on any of the Contractor's ambulance units, provided however, that in exercising this right to inspection and observation, such representatives shall conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner, shall not interfere in any way with Contractor's personnel in the performance of their duties and contractual responsibilities, and shall, at all times, be respectful of Contractor's employer/employee relationship. 5.14.3 Time and Notification The City's right to observe and inspect Contractor's business office operations or records shall be restricted to normal business hours, and reasonable notification shall be given by Contractor in advance of any such visit 5.14.4 Cooperation. The Contractor will cooperate with and respond to the KFD, its EMS Chief and the City on all matters related to the provision of emergency and non-emergency BLS ambulance services 515 Billing, Collections, and Reporting The Contractor shall be responsible for all billing and collection functions related to services rendered pursuant to this Agreement The Contractor shall perform all such billing and collection functions in a professional and courteous manner and in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, procedures and policies including, without limitation, collection and credit reporting laws. The Contractor will not attempt to collect fees at the scene, in route, or upon delivery of the patient to a health facility for services rendered 6. Contractor Rates. 6.1 Compensation. The Contractor's sole financial compensation for services rendered under this Agreement shall be the rates billed and collected from patients and responsible third parties The City, local taxes, or subsidies shall not fund any services provided by Contractor 62 Rates to be Filed. The Contractor shall file with the City Clerk and the Fire Official its schedule of rates to be charged for services during the period of this Agreement. The schedule of rates shall be a matter of public record open to public inspection in the City Clerk's Office The schedule of rates must be adhered to by the Contractor If rates are periodically adjusted during the business license period, they must be filed with the City Clerk. 7. Contractor Payments to the City. 71 Monthly Payment. By the loth day of every calendar month, the Contractor shall make a payment of $3,000 per month to the City. The first payment shall be due on May 10, 2004 Payment shall be made payable to the "City of Kent" to cover the City's costs of administering this Agreement. Such costs include, but are not limited to, the following• 2/20/2004 6 Page 10 of 34 71 1 The City's costs associated with monitoring Contractor's compliance with this Agreement; and 71 2 The City's incremental costs associated with medical control 7.2 Adjusted for Inflation. The monthly payment amount shall be annually adjusted on the anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement using the preceding calendar year's annual Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton metropolitan area, All items (1982-1984 = 100), as determined by the U.S Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, to eliminate the effects of inflation On the annual anniversary date of this Agreement, the City shall provide the Contractor with a letter delineating the bases for the monthly payments in order satisfy Medicare requirements 8. Liquidated Damages. This Agreement provides for the payment of liquidated damages in certain circumstances of non-performance, breach, and default. Each party agrees that the damaged party's actual damages in each such circumstance would be difficult or impossible to ascertain, and that the liquidated damages provided for herein with respect to each such circumstance are intended to place the damaged party in the same economic position as it would have been in had the circumstance not occurred Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any remedies, including termination, provided for herein with respect to any non-performance, breach, or default by the Contractor Each and every call that does not adhere to the scope of services - performance standards shall first be classified as an alleged performance failure Each alleged performance failure shall be investigated by the Contractor and evaluated by City The City shall determine whether there were appropriate or acceptable extenuating circumstances that caused or significantly contributed to the performance failure The Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the City for all performance failures that are determined to be the fault of the Contractor and not the result of an extenuating circumstance All payments for liquidated damages shall be made payable to the "City of Kent " 81 Liquidated Damages for Emergency Request For any individual response to a request that exceeds the 9 minutes, 59 seconds, the Contractor shall be assessed liquidated damages at a rate of fifty dollars ($50) per minute, or fraction thereof, for each minute to a maximum of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) 8.2 Liquidated Damages for Exceeding the Maximum Response Time For any individual response exceeding the maximum response time, or being cancelled due to exceeding the maximum response time, the Contractor shall be assessed liquidated damages of five hundred dollars ($500) and shall not be assessed the liquidated damages described in section 8 1 and 8 2 8.3 Liquidated Damages for Failure to Respond In the event the Contractor fails or is unable to respond, the Contractor shall be assessed liquidated damages of five hundred dollars ($500) per incident 84 Liquidated Damages for Failure to Properly Staff Unit In the event the Contractor fails to staff any ambulance unit pursuant to subsection 5.71, the Contractor shall be assessed five hundred dollars ($500) per unit hour or portion thereof 85 Liquidated Damages for Failure to Furnish Required Documentation In the event Contractor fails to furnish required information, reports, or documentation within the time period specified by this Agreement or by the City's request, the City may, at its option, impose liquidated damages of fifty dollars ($50) per day for each item of such information, report, or document. Such liquidated damages shall not be applied in cases where the cause of such reporting deficiency was beyond the Contractor's reasonable 2/20/2004 6 Page 11 of 34 control. 8.6 Liquidated Damages for Mechanical Failure If an ambulance vehicle experiences a mechanical failure (breakdown) while transporting a patient to a hospital, the Contractor shall be assessed liquidated damages of Five Hundred Dollars ($500 00) except when the Contractor has provided timely and appropriate patient transfer and when the Contractor has properly maintained the vehicle 8.7 Liquidated Damages for Failure of Crew to Report. The Contractor shall be assessed liquidated damages of Fifty Dollars ($50) for failure of the ambulance crew to report their on-scene arrival to its dispatcher for any of its calls The Contractor shall be assessed liquidated damages of five hundred dollars ($500) for each incident where KFD determines that the crew, dispatchers, or management personnel of the Contractor reported a false on-scene arrival time 88 Liquidated Damages for Failure to Obtain and Utilize CAD. The Contractor shall be assessed liquidated damages of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) per day for failure to utilize an acceptable CAD system within six (6) months of the effective date of this Agreement 8.9 Aggregated Failure. If in any contract year the Contractor maintains a response time performance level at less than 90% monthly compliance in any four(4) months or two(2) consecutive months, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. 8.10 Invoicing and Payment of Liquidated Damages No more frequently than monthly and at least quarterly, the City shall invoice Contractor for any liquidated damages assessed during the prior period. The Contractor shall pay the liquidated damages within 30 days of receipt of invoice In the event the City fails to invoice within 30 days of the end of the prior period, the liquidated damages shall be deemed waived for the period 811 Appeal of Liquidated Damages Assessment The Contractor may request that the City's Contract Administrator reconsider imposition of liquidated damages In instances when the City's Contract Administrator reviewed the circumstances for imposing liquidated damages and determined that the grounds were sufficient to justify the imposition of the liquidated damages, the Contractor shall have the right to appeal such determination to the Kent Fire Official The Contract Administrator shall report the reasons for the determination to impose liquidated damages to the Kent Fire Official. The ruling of the Kent Fire Chief shall be final. 812 Liquidated Damages Waived for Start-Up Period. The City shall waive the response time liquidated damages described in subsections 8.1 and 8.2 for the first six (6) months of this Agreement 9. Termination. 9.1 Written Advance Notice Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing ninety (90) days advance written notice to the other party of that party's intent to terminate. A breach of the terms of this agreement need not occur to terminate under this section. If this Agreement is terminated, the City of Kent has the right to offer the remainder of the existing Agreement and it's extensions to an existing Contractor within the City for right of first refusal. In the event that the Contractor chooses to exercise its right to terminate under this 2/20/2004 6 Page 12 of 34 section, it shall pay to the City a penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), to offset the City's costs in procuring a new contractor 92 Contractor Breach and Provisions for Early Termination Conditions and circumstances that constitute a breach of the Agreement include, but are not limited to, the following- 9 2 1 Failure of the Contractor to perform in accordance with any of the provisions of this Agreement 9 2 2 Failure of the Contractor to operate the system in a manner that enables the City and the Contractor to remain in compliance with federal or state laws, rules, or regulations. 923 Falsification of information supplied by the Contractor during the term of this Agreement, including but not limited to altering the presumptive run code designations to enhance the Contractor's apparent performance or falsification of any other data required under the contract 9.24 Creating patient responses or transports so as to artificially inflate run volumes 925 Failure of the Contractor to provide data generated in the course of operations, including but not limited to dispatch data, patient report data, response time data, or financial data. 926 Excessive and unauthorized scaling down of operations to the detriment of performance during a "lame duck" period. 923 Failure of Contractor's personnel to conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner and present a professional appearance 928 Failure of the Contractor to maintain equipment in accordance with manufacturer recommended maintenance procedures 929 Failure of the Contractor to cooperate with and assist the City after breach has been declared 9210 Acceptance by the Contractor or Contractor's personnel of any bribe, kickback or consideration of any kind in exchange for any consideration whatsoever, when such consideration or action on the part of the Contractor or Contractor's personnel could be reasonably construed as a violation of federal, state, or local law 9.2.11 Payment by the Contractor or any of Contractor's personnel of any bribe, kickback, or consideration of any kind to any federal, state, or local public official or consultant in exchange for any consideration whatsoever, when such consideration could be reasonably construed as a violation of any federal, state, or local law 92.12 Failure of the Contractor to meet the standard of care as established by this Agreement. 9213 Failure of the Contractor to maintain insurance in accordance with this Agreement. 92.14 Failure of the Contractor to meet response time requirements as set forth in 2/20/2004 6 Page 13 of 34 this Agreement 9.215 The filing of any bankruptcy or any other similar action, which, in the opinion of the City, places the performance of the contract at risk. 9216 Failure to submit reports and information under the terms and conditions outlined in this Agreement 10. City's Remedies. 10.1 If conditions or circumstances constituting a breach as set forth above are determined to exist, the City shall have all rights and remedies available at law or in equity under this Agreement, specifically including the right to terminate the Agreement 11. Process for Termination of Contract Due to Breach. 11 1 In the event of breach, the City will give the Contractor written notice, return receipt requested, setting forth with reasonable specificity the nature of the breach Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of such notice, the Contractor will deliver to the City, in writing, a plan to cure such breach. The plan will be updated, in writing, every five (5) calendar days until the breach is cured The Contractor shall have the right to cure such breach within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of notice of breach If the Contractor fads to cure such breach within the time period allowed for cure (such failure to be determined by the sole and absolute discretion of the City), or the Contractor fads to timely deliver the cure plan, or updates to the City, the City may immediately terminate the Agreement The Contractor will cooperate completely and immediately with the City to effect a prompt and orderly transfer of all responsibilities to the City 11.2 The Contractor will not be prohibited from disputing any findings of breach through litigation; provided, however, that such litigation will not have the effect of delaying, in any way, the immediate transfer of operations to the City These provisions will be specifically stipulated and agreed to by both parties as being reasonable and necessary for the protection of public health and safety Any legal dispute concerning the finding that a breach has occurred will be initiated and shall take place only after the transfer of operations to the City has been completed, and will not, under any circumstances, delay the process of transferring operations to the City 11.3 The Contractor's cooperation with and full support of the City's termination of the Agreement will not be construed as acceptance by the Contractor of the finding of breach However, failure on the part of the Contractor to cooperate fully with the City to effect a smooth and safe transition shall itself constitute a breach of contract. 114 In the event an agreement with one contractor is terminated, the remaining contractor shall have the right to assume the territory served by the terminated contractor The intent to assume such territory shall be provided to the City in writing within fourteen (14) days of receiving notice from the City of the termination of the other contractor. 12. "Lame Duck" Provisions. Should the Contractor fail to prevail in a future procurement cycle, 10 the Contractor will agree to continue to provide all services required in and under the Agreement until a new contractor assumes service responsibilities. To assure continued performance fully 2/20/2004 6 Page 14 of 34 consistent with the requirements of the Agreement through any such period, the following provisions will apply 12.1 The Contractor will continue all operations and support services at the same level of effort and performance that were in effect prior to the award of the subsequent agreement to a competing provider. 122 The Contractor will make no changes in methods of operation, which could reasonably be considered to be aimed at cutting Contractor services and operating costs to maximize profits during the final stages of the Agreement 123 The City recognizes that if a competing provider should prevail in a future procurement cycle, the Contractor may reasonably begin to prepare for transition of the service to a new contractor The City will not unreasonably withhold its approval of the Contractor's request to begin an orderly transition process, including reasonable plans to relocate staff, scale down certain inventory items, etc as long as such transition activity does not impair the Contractor's performance during this period 13. Proprietary and Confidential Information. The Contractor acknowledges that the City is required by law to make its records available for public inspection, with certain exceptions (see RCW Chapter 4217) City staff believe that this legal obligation would not require the disclosure of proprietary descriptive information that contains valuable designs, drawings, or formulas The Contractor, by submission of materials marked proprietary and confidential, nevertheless, acknowledges and agrees that the City will have no obligation or any liability to the Contractor in the event that the City must disclose these materials 14. Indemnification. The Contractor does hereby release and shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its employees and agents harmless from all losses, liabilities, claims, costs (including attorneys' fees), actions or damages of any sort whatsoever arising out of Contractor's performing the services contemplated by this Agreement except to the extent attributable to the negligent acts or omissions of the City The indemnification provided for in this section shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement If any action is brought against the City by any employee of Contractor, the indemnification obligation of Contractor set forth in this section shall not be limited by a limit on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for Contractor under RCW Title 51, the Industrial Insurance Act, or any other employee benefit act In addition, solely for the purpose of giving full effect to the indemnities contained herein and not for the benefit of Contractor's employees or any third parties, Contractor waives its immunity under RCW Title 51 Contractor acknowledges that the foregoing waiver was mutually negotiated 15. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit "C" attached and incorporated by this reference 16. Compliance with Law. 161 General Requirement The Contractor, at its sole cost and expense, shall perform and comply with all applicable laws of the United States and the State of Washington, the municipal code and ordinances of the City, and rules, regulations, orders, and directives of their administrative agencies and the officers thereof Without limiting the generality of this paragraph, the Contractor shall specifically comply with the following requirements of this section. 16.1 1 Licenses and Similar Authorizations The Contractor, at no expense to the City, shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this 2/20/2004 6 Page 15 of 34 Agreement all required licenses, permits, and similar legal authorizations, and comply with all requirements thereof 16.1 2 Taxes. The Contractor shall pay, before delinquency, all taxes, levies, and assessments arising from its activities and undertakings under this Agreement, taxes levied on its property, equipment and improvements, and taxes on the Contractor's interest in this Agreement. 16.1.3 Use of Recycled Content Paper The Contractor shall, whenever practicable, use recycled content paper on all documents submitted to the City 17. Contractual Relationship. This Agreement does not constitute the Contractor as an agent or legal representative of the City for any purpose whatsoever, and the relationship of the Contractor to the City by reason of this Agreement shall be that of an independent contractor. The Contractor is not granted any express or implied right or authority to assume or create any obligation or responsibility on behalf of or in the name of the City or to bind the City in any manner or thing whatsoever. Both parties, in the performance of the Agreement, will be acting in their individual capacities and not as agents, employees, partners, joint ventures or associates of one another. The employees, subcontractors, or agents of one party shall not be deemed or construed to be the employees, subcontractors, or agents of the other party for any purpose whatsoever. The Contractor shall ensure that all Contractor's employees, subcontractors, and agents are properly trained and fully equipped to perform their assigned tasks 18. Discrimination. 181 In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub- contract, the Contractor, its sub-contractors, or any person acting on behalf of the Contractor or sub-contractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates 182 Contractor shall execute the City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1 2, and upon completion of the contract work, file the Compliance Statement, which are all attached and incorporated as Exhibit"D." 19. Assignment and Subcontracting. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract any of its obligations under this Agreement without the City's prior written consent The City's written consent may be granted or withheld in the City's sole discretion Any subcontract made by the Contractor shall incorporate by reference all the terms of this Agreement The Contractor shall ensure that all subcontractors comply with the obligations and requirements of this Agreement. The City's consent to any assignment or subcontract shall not release the Contractor from liability under this Agreement, or from any obligation to be performed under this Agreement, whether occurring before or after such consent, assignment, or subcontract 20. Amendments. No modification or amendment of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the parties hereto. The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to modify this Agreement, from time to time, by mutual agreement. 21. Executory Agreement. This Agreement will not be considered valid until signed by both parties. 22. Binding Effect. The provisions, covenants and conditions in this Agreement apply to bind the parties, their legal heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns. 2/20/2004 6 Page 16 of 34 23. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for King County. 24. Remedies Cumulative. Remedies under this Agreement are cumulative; the use of one remedy shall not be taken to exclude or waive the right to use another 25. Captions. The titles of sections are for convenience only and do not define or limit the contents. 26. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement shall, to any extent, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 27. Waiver. No covenant, term, or condition or the breach thereof shall be deemed waived, except by written consent of the party against whom the waiver is claimed, and any waiver of the breach of any covenant, term, or condition shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other covenant, term, or condition Acceptance by the City of any performance by Contractor after the time the same shall have become due shall not constitute a waiver by the City of the breach or default of any covenant, term, or condition unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the City in writing 28. Entire Agreement. This document, along with any exhibits and attachments, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the scope of work herein No verbal agreements or conversations between any officer, agent, associate, or employee of the City and any officer, agency, employee, or associate of the Contractor prior to the execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in this Agreement 29. Negotiated Agreement. The parties to this Agreement acknowledge that it is a negotiated agreement, that they have had the opportunity to have this Agreement reviewed by their respective legal counsel, and that the terms and conditions of this Agreement are not to be construed against any party on the basis of such party's draftsmanship thereof 30. Breach of Agreement The City considers any breach of the Agreement serious and will seek remedies commensurate with the seventy and magnitude of the event Remedies could include but are not limited to corrective measures, liquidated damages, probation or suspension, or termination of the Agreement It is the intent and desire of the City to maintain a good working relationship with the Contractor while at the same time ensuring service to the community 31. Addresses for Notices. All notices to be delivered hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered or mailed to the following addresses If to City. If to Contractor and to. and to. 2/20/2004 6 Page 17 of 34 or such other respective addresses as may be specified herein or as either party may, from time to time, designate in writing. 32. Disputes. Any disputes or misunderstandings that may arise under this Agreement concerning the Contractor's performance shall first be resolved through amicable negotiations, if possible, between the Contractor's Project Manager and the City's Contract Administrator, or if necessary shall be referred to the Fire Chief and the Contractor's senior executwe(s). If such officials do not agree upon a decision within a reasonable period of time, the parties may pursue other legal means to resolve such disputes, including but not limited to alternate dispute resolution processes 33. Authority. Each party has full power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement, and the person signing this Agreement on behalf of each party has been properly authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement. Each party further acknowledges that it has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by it. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Contractor have caused this Agreement to be executed. CITY: CONTRACTOR: City of Kent By By Print Name. Print Name: Its, Its- Date Date Approved as to form: Approved as to form. By- By: Arthur"Pat" Fitzpatrick Print Name. Its Deputy City Attorney Its r c..eri�ssnp.nrr.n'rua..a+.suw.ss.a+a.•m.s me 2/20/2004 6 Page 18 of 34 EXHIBIT A Primary Coverage Area The City of Kent provides emergency medical response to the areas within the city limits of Kent and the area served by King County Fire District No. 37. For purposes of the Emergency and Basic Life Support Ambulance Services Agreement between Contractor and the City ("Agreement'), this service area has been divided into an east section and a west section East Section The east section shall be defined as that area including 100th Avenue SE and the area east of 100th Avenue SE extending from the northern city limits to the southern city limits, provided that in areas where 100th Avenue SE dead-ends or does not exist, the east section shall be defined as if 100th Avenue SE extended uninterrupted from the northern city limits to the southern city limits West Section The west section shall be defined as that area including 100th Avenue SE and the area west of 100th Avenue SE extending from the northern city limits to the southern city limits, provided, that in areas where 100th Avenue SE dead-ends or does not exist, the west section shall be defined as if 100th Avenue SE extended uninterrupted from the northern city limits to the southern city limits The attached map, which is incorporated into this Exhibit A, accurately sets forth the east and west sections The parties recognize that there is dual coverage on 100th Avenue SE The City will make a good faith effort to apportion calls that originate on the east side of 100th Avenue SE to the East Section and calls that originate on the west side of 100th Avenue SE to the West Section. 2/20/2004 6 Page 19 of 34 EXHIBIT B Kent City Code Ch 5.11 Ch. 5.11 KCC -AMBULANCES KCC § 6.11.010. Purpose. The city council declared it to be in the public interest and for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city and its environs to provide for the highest level of emergency medical services reasonably practicable. The city council finds it to be in the public interest to provide for the inspection, regulation and control of emergency medical services to achieve high standards and thereby to eliminate inadequate, improper and harmful practices that may endanger the health and safety of the people The city council also designates the chief of the fire department as the city's representative with respect to matters of emergency medical services and the coordination of health care issues to collate with the fire department provision of emergency medical services, health care services and transport Such issues include but are not limited to the fire department responsibilities to be the city's prime provider of emergency medical services, along with related health care and transportation issues which must be coordinated to deliver our overall quality of emergency medical services (Advanced Life Support, Basic Life Support and relationships with related health care providers) KCC § 5.11.020. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meaning unless the context clearly requires otherwise: Ambulance means any privately or publicly owned vehicle that is especially designed, constructed, equipped, maintained and licensed by Washington state for the transportation of patients who are sick, injured or otherwise incapacitated Aid unit means any publicly owned vehicle that is especially designed, constructed, equipped, maintained, used and licensed by the state of Washington to primarily deliver emergency medical personnel and equipment to an emergency scene An aid unit has limited means to transport patients who are sick, injured or otherwise incapacitated This specifically relates to Kent fire department engine/aid apparatus. Ambulance attendant means any trained or otherwise qualified individual responsible for the operation of an ambulance and the care of the patients, whether or not the medical attendant also serves as a driver, who is the holder of a valid certificate issued under this chapter Ambulance company means any person corporation or other legal entity who operates an ambulance for hire Business license or license means a license to operate an ambulance company within the city. Business license clerk means such city employees or agents as the mayor shall designate to issue and administer business licenses under this chapter, or any designee thereof, City means City of Kent City clerk means the city clerk of the city of Kent designated as the official keeper of records. Fire department or department means the fire department of the city Fire official means the fire chief or the fire chiefs designee to perform the duties provided for inle this chapter. 2/20/2004 6 Page 20 of 34 Patient means an individual who is sick, injured, wounded or otherwise incapacitated or helpless Licensee means a person in whose name a license to operate an ambulance company within the city has been issued as well as the individual listed as an applicant on the application for a license Person means any individual, firm, joint venture, co-partnership association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, or any other group or combination acting as a unit KCC § 6.11.030. Administration of licensing. The business license clerk, subject to a review and recommendation from the fire official, is responsible for issuing, denying, revoking, renewing, suspending, and canceling business licenses to operate aid ambulance company within the city The fire official is responsible for ascertaining whether a proposed application complies with all the requirements enumerated herein and all other applicable codes and regulations now in effect or as amended or enacted subsequent to the effective date of this chapter. The fire official shall make all necessary investigations and inspections for enforcement of this chapter KCC § 5.11.040. Conditions of a business license. The fire official is responsible for ascertaining whether a proposed application complies with all the requirements enumerated herein and all other applicable codes and regulations now in effect or as amended or enacted subsequent to the effective date of this chapter. The fire official shall make all necessary investigations and inspections for enforcement of this chapter. As a condition of issuance of a business license, the operator of each ambulance company consents to the following 1 The fire official shall be permitted to make regular inspections of any ambulance company operating under a business license issued, at all reasonable hours, with or without advance notice, upon the presentation of appropriate credentials to an authorized representative of the company, and shall make such reports relative to conditions existing at such times and in such manner as the fire official may direct 2 The fire official is given authority to determine whether and to what extent an ambulance rotation list, fire department units, sole contract/franchise approach or a mix of the above will be utilized to transport patients from an emergency medical scene The fire official is authorized to establish procedures, guidelines and contracts for implementing the above mentioned approaches for emergency medical service transport 3 The fire official shall be the final authority to determine if an ambulance company should be added to or removed from the fire department rotation list 4. It is recognized that the fire department currently transports patients where it serves the interest of the public The fire official shall determine the distribution of transportation responsibilities as it relates to calls within the scope of the fire department's responsibilities 5. Further, the fire department is authorized to provide transport, preventative and cooperative medical services to serve the interests and needs of our citizens. It is 2/20/2004 6 Page 21 of 34 recognized that this may be done in conjunction with other health care providers in order to manage the risk to our citizens and to control the rate of growth in the demand for EMS services. 6. It is understood that a significant expansion of services shall be reviewed by city administration and any significant additional program costs are subject to council approval. 7 In the future, if it is determined that it would best serve the interests of the city to provide ALS services in lieu of the county, the fire department shall be designated as the provider and/or coordinator of AILS services. Such a program change would be subject to review and approval of the mayor and city council. KCC § 5.11.050. Response criteria. A. The city shall be the first response provider of emergency medical services (EMS) Ambulance companies receiving a direct request for EMS services shall notify the fire department's 9-1-1 communications center immediately so that a fire department first response can be initiated The only exception to this requirement shall be for the transport of stable patients from one (1) medical facility to another and routine medical transports and exams B The 9-1-1 system must be activated for all pre-hospital EMS primary examinations and unstable patient care C The department shall establish ambulance response criteria and make such cntena known to each ambulance company at the time of application and renewal of business license Application for a business license does not automatically qualify an ambulance company to be on the rotation list for the fire department for ambulance services. D. Each ambulance company shall submit a response report quarterly or on demand of the fire official outlining compliance with the response criteria. KCC § 5.11.060. Business license required for each ambulance company. Every person who operates an ambulance company within the city shall be required to obtain a business license from the business license clerk An ambulance company operates within the city if it is: 2/20/2004 6 Page 22 of 34 A Stationed within the corporate limits of the city, or B Dispatched from within or without the corporate limits of the city and repeatedly or customarily makes trips for hire within the city to pick up injured or sick fares, or C Making any trips into the city for hire to pick up injured or sick fares after occasional or repeated advertising, within the city, for such service The business license shall be renewed on an annual basis The business license clerk shall not issue such business license unless the applicant has fulfilled all requirements of this chapter and any applicable provisions of the state law relating to personnel, equipment and operations including but not limited to Chapter 18.73 RCW and Chapter 246-976 WAC as now or hereafter amended Provided, that the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any ambulance which shall pass through the city in the delivery of fares picked up at points beyond the corporate limits of the city KCC § 5.11.070. Application for business license—Issuance. A Application for a business license to operate an ambulance company shall be made upon forms provided by the city and shall contain 1 Name, home address and telephone number of the applicant, 2 Business name under which the ambulance company will be operated within the city, and business address and telephone number, 3 The number of ambulances to be initially placed in service within the city, 4 The number of licensed ambulance attendants initially to be employed, 5 A roster of ambulances to be used in the city with proof that each ambulance is currently licensed as an ambulance by the state of Washington, 6. A roster of certified ambulance attendants with proof that each attendant is currently certified as an emergency medical technician (EMT) by the state of Washington (including certification expiration date), 2/20/2004 6 Page 23 of 34 7. Proof that ambulances and personnel are verified trauma providers as provided in Chapter 246-976 WAC; 8. Certificate of insurance as required by the city; and 9. The schedule of rates. B. Prior to the issuance of a business license, the application and all pertinent records shall be reviewed by the fire official to ensure compliance with the license requirements under this chapter, as well as, any rules or regulations referenced herein or issued hereunder Upon written approval of the application by the fire chief or the chiefs designee and the payment of fees, the business license clerk shall issue an ambulance operator's business license All equipment proposed for use shall be subjected to random inspection by the designated fire official, who shall determine whether said records and equipment conform to all the requirements of this chapter. C Business license fee. The business license fee schedule for issuance and renewal of business licenses under this chapter shall be that currently charged for general business licenses under Ch. 5.01 KCC until such time as the city council may, by resolution, modify the fee schedule. KCC § 5.11.080. License renewal. The business license clerk shall mail the forms for application of business license renewals to business enterprises in the city to the last address provided to the director by the licensee Failure of the business enterprise to receive any such form shall not excuse the business enterprise from making application for and securing the required license or renewal, or for payment of the license fee when and as due hereunder KCC § 6.11.090. Licenses not transferable. No business license issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be transferable or assignable unless otherwise specifically provided for, except that a license may be transferred when a business changes its structure of ownership, provided, however, that a new license shall be required upon a substantial change of ownership whereby those primarily accountable for the business have changed or upon a substantial change in the type of business operated, whereby the primary business being conducted has significantly changed. KCC § 5.11.100. Denial, revocation or suspension of business license. A. Grounds. The issuance of a business license to operate an ambulance company may be denied, or such license may be suspended or revoked by the business license clerk, upon the 2/20/2004 6 Page 24 of 34 recommendation of the designated fire official when the public interest will be served thereby, upon any of the following grounds. 1. The license was procured by fraud, false representation, or material omission of fact, or for the violation of or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter by the person holding such license, or any of his servants, agents, or employees, while acting within the scope of their employment, or 2 The licensee violates any applicable city, state, or federal law, or the purpose for which the license was issued is being abused to the detriment of the public, or such license is being used for a purpose different from that for which it was issued, or 3 Overcharging of customer rates set forth in the company's schedule of rates filed with the city clerk or fraudulent billing; or 4 Failure to maintain ambulances and equipment to the standards set forth in Chapter 246-976 WAC, or 5 Repeated complaints by citizens of poor customer service such as rudeness, misrepresentation, unprofessional behavior, etc B. Suspension and revocation A business license procured by fraud or misrepresentation shall be revoked Where other violations of this chapter or other applicable ordinances, statutes, or regulations are found, the license shall be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days upon the first such violation, ninety (90) days upon the second violation within a twenty-four (24) month period, and revoked for a third and subsequent violation within a twenty-four (24) month period, not including periods of suspension, except that where the fire official finds that any situation exists in licensee's operations which constitutes a threat of immediate serious injury or damage to persons or property, the business license clerk may immediately suspend any license issued under this chapter, pending a hearing in accordance with this section The business license clerk shall issue a notice setting forth the basis for the action and the facts that constitute a threat of immediate serious injury or damage to persons or property C Notice Except when a business license is immediately suspended as set forth in subparagraph (B) above, the business license clerk shall provide at least ten (10) days' prior written notice to the licensee of the decision to suspend or revoke the license Such notice shall inform the licensee of the right to appeal the decision to the hearing examiner and shall state the effective date of such revocation or suspension under grounds for revocation or suspension An appeal at the denial, suspension or revocation of a business license shall be made within thirty (30) 2/20/2004 6 Page 25 of 34 days of notice of such denial, suspension or revocation Such appeal shall be processed pursuant to the hearing procedures set forth in Ch 2.32 KCC The hearing examiner shall set a date for hearing such appeal, to take place within forty-five (45) days of the date of the receipt of the notice of appeal unless such time is extended by mutual consent At such heanng, the appellant and any other interested persons may appear and be heard, subject to the rules and regulations of the heanng examiner. The decision of the business license clerk shall be stayed during the pendency of any appeal to the hearing examiner and during any appeal unless the license was immediately suspended pursuant to subparagraph (B) above. D. Final administrative review. Appeal to the hearing examiner shall constitute final administrative review. E. Appeal to superior court An appeal of the decision of the hearing examiner must be filed with the superior court within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the hearing examiner's decision was personally served upon or was mailed to the person to whom the notice of denial, suspension or revocation was directed or is thereafter barred. KCC § 5.11.110. Insurance and identification. No ambulance operator's business license shall be issued, nor shall such license be valid after issuance, nor shall any ambulance be operated in the city, unless the operator maintains a policy or policies of insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of activities associated with the operation of the ambulance company Such insurance shall name the city as an additional insured. The ambulance company shall also indemnify and hold the city harmless from any causes of action arising from the operation of the ambulance company The minimum scope and limits of coverage shall be set by the city's risk manager or other person designated by the mayor Evidence of such insurance shall accompany the application for license and shall be maintained on a continuous basis through subsequent license renewal periods KCC § 5.11.120. State license and standards and requirements. All ambulances operating in the city must be licensed by the state and must meet the standards and requirements set forth in Chapter 246-976 WAC, as now or hereafter amended Proof of a state license as a transport ambulance must be provided with any application for a city business license for each transport vehicle. KCC § 5.11.130. Ambulance attendants. Each ambulance company shall have, for each ambulance in service, on duty and available for immediate response, two (2) ambulance attendants who are currently certified as emergency medical technicians (EMT), as provided in Chapter 246-976 WAC A certificate of license shall be carried on the person of each ambulance attendant while on duty. KCC § 5.11.140. Verification. Any ambulance company operating in the city must be a verified trauma provider and must meet the requirements for personnel and equipment as required in Chapter 246-976 WAC for trauma providers. The ambulance company must specifically be authorized to act as a trauma provider by the Seattle/King County trauma council or successor KCC § 5.11.150. Rates to be filed. Each ambulance company applying for a business license or renewal of license pursuant to this chapter shall, at the time of filing its application therefor, file with the 2/20/2004 6 Page 26 of 34 city clerk its schedule of rates to be charged for services during the license period for which application is made Such schedule or rates shall be a matter of public record open to public inspection in the city clerk's office during normal city business hours and such schedule must be adhered to by the licensee throughout the period for which the license is issued KCC § 6.11.160. Community events. When an ambulance company is contracted to provide emergency medical standby (i e., 10K Fun Runs, etc) by community event promoters, the following conditions shall apply: 1 The ambulance company shall notify the fire official in writing fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the event, or as soon to the event as reasonably possible, stating the date, time and scope of standby responsibilities 2 Ambulance companies engaging in standby activities shall notify the fire department's 9- 1-1 communications center immediately on all advanced life support/life threatening or significant basic life support calls as required pursuant to subsection (3) Calls will be considered significant based upon extent of injury/illness or when there are multiple patients (more than three (3)) 3 Ambulance company standby for handling basic life support calls must obtain prior approval and parameters for care set by the fire official 4 All EMS activity provided by the ambulance company at such events shall be documented and a report forwarded to the fire official within one (1) week subsequent to the completion of the event KCC § 5.11.170. Violations — Penalties — Misdemeanor. In addition to other remedies provided for in this chapter, any person who operates an ambulance company within the city without a business license as required in KCC 5 11 060 above, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or by both such find and imprisonment at each and every day during which any violation is committed, continued or permitted, shall be deemed a separate offense KCC § 5.11.180. Additional enforcement. The remedies found in this chapter are not exclusive The city may seek any other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to enjoining any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of any business license, ordinance, or other regulations herein adopted 2/20/2004 6 Page 27 of 34 -END- 2/20/2004 6 Page 28 of 34 EXHIBIT C INSURANCE REQUIREMENT Indemnification / Hold Harmless Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City of Kent, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of the Contractor in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Insurance The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1 Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage 2 Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury The City shall be named as an insured under the Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City. 3. Excess Liability insurance covering both the Commercial General Liability and Automobile policies. with limits not less than $4,000,000 in excess of the limits cited above. 4 Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 5 Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Contractor's profession 2/20/2004 6 Page 29 of 34 EXHIBIT C (Continued) B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. 3. Excess Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $4,000,000 per occurrence in excess of both the CGL and Auto Liability policies cited above. 4 Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability, Professional Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it 2 The Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A M. Best rating of not less than A VII. E. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work Evidence of Insurance - The following documents must be provided as evidence of insurance coverage- EXHIBIT C (Continued) A. A copy of the policy's declarations pages, showing the Insuring Company, policy effective dates, limits of liability and the Schedule of Forms and Endorsements. The City reserves the right to require a copy or certified copy of said policy or policies including all 2/20/2004 6 Page 30 of 34 forms and endorsements attached. B A copy of the endorsement naming the City of Kent as an Additional Insured (excluding Professional Liability Insurance), showing the policy number, and signed by an authorized representative of the insurance company on Form CG2026 (ISO) or equivalent. C A copy of the "Endorsements Form List' to the policy or policies showing endorsements issued on the policy, and including any company-specific or manuscript endorsements D. A copy of an endorsement stating that the coverages provided by this policy to the City or any other named insured shall not be terminated, reduced or otherwise materially changed without providing at least forty-five (45) days prior written notice to the City of Kent E A copy of a "Separation of Insureds" or "Severability of Interests" clause, indicating essentially that - except with respect to the limits of insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned to the first named insured, this insurance applies as if each named insured were the only named insured, and separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought (Commercial General Liability & Business Automobile Liability Insurance) 2/20/2004 6 Page 31 of 34 EXHIBIT D DECLARATION CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement; The questions are as follows: 1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2 2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical disability. 3 During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer 4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities 5 Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above Dated this day of 2004 By For Title. Date. 2/20/2004 6 Page 32 of 34 CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER. 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE. January 1, 1998 SUBJECT- MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES April 1, 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor POLICY Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and state laws All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps 1 Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 2 Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments 1 Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity policy 2 Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and guidelines 2/20/2004 6 Page 33 of 34 CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the Agreement I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered into on (date), between the firm I represent and the City of Kent I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement. Dated this day of 2004. By. For Title Date. 2/20/2004 AMBULANCE RESPONSE AREAS /V v � w� I I� s .] &Otis. 74 TrrMed (West) 100 Av.SE. Dividing Line rya AMR (East) Map (Emergency and Basic Life Support Ambulance Services Agreement) Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2, 2004 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This request by Campbell/Nixon & Associates is to rezone approximately one-half acre of property from DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise, to GC, General Commercial. The property is located on the west side of Central Avenue, between Meeker and Gowe Streets. The Kent Hearing Examiner held a Public Hearing on January 21, 2004, and issued Findings, Conclusions and a recommendation for approval on February 4, 2004 3. EXHIBITS: Staff report with map; Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions and Decision 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmem I ber �X,CrAX moves, Councilmember seconds to accept4ejeeth%e the Findings, Conclusions and Decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Aulgur-Fawcett Rezone and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. CRAaWQ 4�C AZL ,` Q(i DISCUSSION: - '7 �K " ') ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES 0 Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 WASHINOrow Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 KENT PLANNING SERVICES (206) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF January 21, 2004 FILE NO: AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA#RPP4-2033025 APPLICANT: Campbell/Nixon &Associates 420 W Harrison, Ste 202 Kent, WA 98032 Ted Nixon (253) 854-2470 REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 0.48 acres of property from DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise, to GC, General Commercial, zoning. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Marousek, AICP STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL as Modified to GC-MU I. GENERAL INFORMATION A Description of the Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone approximately '/2 acre from DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise to GC, General Commercial. Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 B. Location The subject property is located on the west side of Central Avenue between Meeker Street and Gowe Street. C. Size of Property The property consists of one parcel which is approximately one-half acre in size (parcel #9179600825). D. Zoning The subject parcel as well as properties to the north, east and west are . zoned DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise. The property to the south of the subject site is zoned GC, General Commercial. E. Land Use The subject property is presently developed with a commercial use which is consistent with the General Commercial zoning designation. The use, Sounds on Wheels, is an automotive stereo facility and is a legal nonconforming use within the DCE zone. F. History The subject property has been included in a number of downtown planning documents and processes over the past 30 years. In 1974, the property was identified in the Kent Central Business District (CBD) Plan. At that time, the property and other properties which fronted Central Avenue North were identified as "auto-oriented commercial." In 1989, the Kent City Council passed Resolution 1203 which adopted the Downtown Kent Plan. The subject property was included as part of the downtown planning area. The goals and objectives of the Downtown Plan were carried forward and incorporated by reference into the Kent Comprehensive Plan of 1995. In August 1990, the Mayor's office directed an advisory committee to evaluate an "enterprise" zone in the downtown area. The subject property was included in the study area. The committee presented recommendations on types of economic incentives and regulatory relief to enhance and revitalize the downtown area This analysis was undertaken concurrently with development of the implementation strategy for the 1989 Page 2 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 Downtown Kent Plan. The zoning on the subject property was at that time equivalent to a general commercial zone. While the Mayor's committee was evaluating this "enterprise" zone option, the Planning Department was evaluating a number of zoning district alternatives consistent with the 1989 Downtown Kent Plan. The subject site was developed to a commercial use, but in the 1991 Implementation Plan, staff proposed the subject site as "mixed-use." Staff stated, "While it is necessary to recognize and preserve the automobile-oriented nature of the General Commercial area along Central Avenue, the area between Gowe and Smith streets function as a link to the western part of the downtown, and it is recommended that this area be rezoned to mixed- use." Kent Downtown Implementation Program, January 1991, page 24. In 1992, in response to the 1991 Implementation Program and public testimony related to development standards and nonconforming uses, the City produced the Revised Downtown Plan Zoning Program. This was the first document to introduce the DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise, zone. It built upon the Mayor's committee report from the previous year and essentially replaced the proposed mixed-use zone with the DCE zone on the subject property. Additionally, the document identified Meeker and Gowe Streets at Central Avenue as Class A pedestrian streets and Central Avenue at this location as a Class B pedestrian street. The report further identified a need to impose design review within the downtown planning area because the DCE zone had very limited development standards. The City Council adopted the proposed zoning from this recommendation under Ordinance 3051 in July 1992. In 1995, the City published its Comprehensive Plan. This document consolidated a number of issues relative to the downtown planning area. First, the document formalized the adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Within this realm the City Council identified downtown Kent as an Urban Center as defined by the CPPs. Urban Centers are defined as compact areas, located within close proximity to public transit, which can accommodate both high density residential and office/retail development. As an Urban Center, the Comprehensive Plan identified growth targets of 15,000 employees and 4,500 households within the 20- year planning timeframe. Additionally, the Land Use Element set forth a number of goals and policies relative to downtown planning, revitalization and development. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan formally incorporates the 1989 Downtown Kent Plan into the Land Use Element. Page 3 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 In 1996, the city formed the Downtown Strategic Planning Team to focus on downtown subarea planning and to develop an implementation program for public and private improvements within the downtown planning area. This effort resulted in the 1998 Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement (DSAP). The subject property is located in the Central Avenue Corridor District of this plan. The DSAP acknowledges Central Avenue as an auto-dominated street. As such, the plan anticipates that development along Central will be more auto-dependent than the pedestrian-oriented uses/focus of the DCE zone. Further, the DSAP identified Smith and Meeker Streets as gateways into the downtown area. As such, the plan recommended upgrading sidewalks along Meeker and Gowe Streets between 15t and Kennebeck with street trees and special lighting. These improvements were meant to provide a pedestrian linkage from the downtown core across the Central Avenue strip to the residential development at the base of Scenic Hill to the east. The final major planning element within the downtown area was the revision of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Although the design guidelines had been in place since the early 1990's City Council approved a significant modification to the guidelines in 2000. These guidelines apply to all site development, redevelopment or external building construction/reconstruction within the downtown planning area II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) (#ENV-2003-38) for the nonproject rezone proposal was issued without conditions on December 1, 2003. No comments or appeals were made to the SEPA decision. Site specific impacts will be analyzed in the SEPA checklist submitted with the specific project that is proposed for the site. B. Significant Physical Features Topography. Wetlands and Vegetation No sensitive areas have been identified on the subject site. The site is currently developed with nearly 100 percent impervious surfaces. The site is generally flat. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject property and consists of street trees and some parking area plantings. Page 4 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 Because the proposed rezone does not contemplate development at this time, site specific environmental impacts associated with potential re- development have not been analyzed. However, general impacts to the transportation system, utilities and other public infrastructure were analyzed with respect to capacity impacts associated with the zoning change. Upon a site specific development proposal, the City will require approval of detailed drainage plans, approval of plans for a stormwater retention/detention facility, and any other approvals which may impact nearby sensitive areas and/or public facilities. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property is located on Central Avenue between Meeker Street and Gowe Street. The subject property takes primary access to Central Avenue which is currently developed with five lanes of travel, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. 2. Water\Sanitary Sewer Systems The site is served by City of Kent water and sanitary sewer services. 3. Stormwater System Modification to the existing stormwater system, consistent with current codes and ordinances may be necessary to accommodate any subsequent re-development. III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: Public Works Department Police Department Building Official Fire Department Washington DOE Washington DOT City Clerk Law Department Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. A Notice of Page 5 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 Application/DNS was mailed and posted on the subject property on November 10, 2003. No public comments were received on the aforementioned notice. Staff andlor agency comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. IV. PLANNING SERVICES REVIEW A. Comprehensive Plan In 1995, the Kent City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan, which represented a complete revision to the City's 1977 comprehensive plan. The 1995 plan was prepared under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act. The Comprehensive Plan, through its goals and policies, presents a clear expression of the City's vision of growth for citizens, the development community, and other public agencies. The p Ian i s u sed by t he M ayor, C ity C ouncil, L and U se a nd Planning Board, Hearing Examiner, and City departments to guide decisions on amendments to the City's zoning code and other development regulations, which must be consistent with the plan, and also guide decisions regarding the funding and location of capital improvement projects. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this subject property as City Center. The following discussion outlines applicable goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan relative to this rezone application. FRAMEWORK POLICIES — KENT PLANNING GOALS Urban Growth Goals Goal #5 Mixed use development shall be encouraged in designated areas within the planning area. Goal #6 Kent shall designate an Urban Center area, within which employment, housing, infrastructure and transit improvements shall be concentrated. Housing Goals Goal #6 Encourage residential development in designated medium and high density commercial and mixed use areas. Page 6 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 Goal #7 Ensure opportunities for affordable housing in close proximity to employment, public transportation, and human services. LAND USE ELEMENT Land Use Goal 3: Designate the Downtown Planning Area as a city center. Focus both city and regional household and employment growth in the downtown area. Land Use Policy LU-3.1: Allow a nd a ncourage mixed u se d evelopment which combines retail, office, and residential uses throughout the downtown area to provide a diverse, vibrant city center Land Use Policy LU-3.3: Encourage medium- and high-density residential development in the downtown area Land Use Policy LU-3.4: Enhance links between the downtown area and adjacent residential neighborhoods. r� Land Use Policy LU-3.5: Encourage pedestrian-oriented retail uses and development in the downtown area. Planning Services Comment: Within the city center a diverse mix of residential, office and commercial uses are anticipated. Further, connecting the downtown core and the residential development to the east of downtown is one of the main themes within the Downtown Kent Action Plan. This can be achieved by a continuity of types of uses but also may be achieved through a pedestrian- oriented connection which has been identified along Meeker and Gowe Streets. This connection is anticipated through a combination of public improvements and through the application of the Downtown Design Guidelines on individual projects. By applying the mixed-use designation, the city preserves the future option of multifamily development on the site consistent with Policy LU-3.3. HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES Housing Policy LU-9.1: Allow and encourage high to medium density residential development in the downtown and designated activity centers. Planning Services Comment: This policy supports the expressed need to develop and maintain a diverse stock of housing in the downtown area. Housing in the downtown Page 7 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 area is convenient to public transportation and employment centers. The DCE zone, unlike the GC zone, allows for mixed use and stand-alone residential developments. It is important to allow for the potential development of residential in the downtown planning area to meet the CCP's definition of an Urban Center and for Kent to meet expressed housing targets. Therefore, staff recommends adding the mixed-use designation to this request. COMMERCIAL GOALS AND POLICIES Commercial Policy LU-12.1: Maintain and enhance Kent's city center as a vital and unique commercial district. Planning Services Comment: Kent's city center is comprised of a mixture of uses. Notably, Central Avenue historically has been developed as an auto-oriented street. Allowing the rezone to GC will be consistent with much of the development that exists along Central Avenue. 1989 KENT DOWNTOWN PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Land Use Element Goal 1/0bjective 1: The planning area should continue to contain a mixture of compatible uses all of which contribute to the vitality of the area. Policy 1: Encourage mixed-use development as a means of diversifying and revitalizing downtown Policy 3: Create linkages between areas of downtown which are bisected by the railroad tracks. Goal 2/Obiective 2: Encourage office use and multi-use development in the planning area. Planning Services Comment: The proposed implementation of the Land Use Element included the acknowledgment of the multiple uses within the planning area, including auto-oriented uses. It also stressed a need to allow mixed-use development that would also permit higher density multifamily. The proposal, as modified by staff, supports these goals and objectives. Page 8 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 Circulation Element Goal 2: Provide for safe, efficient pedestrian movement into and within the Planning area. Planning Services Comment: The adopted Downtown Design Guidelines require pedestrian-related improvements which support this goal. The re-development of the subject property would likely be subject to the design guidelines. Any re- development of the property would need to take into account the Class A pedestrian streets to the north and south and Class B pedestrian street along Central Avenue. Housing Element Goal 1/Objective 1: Increase residential populations in and around the planning area. Policy 2: Encourage them ixing of residential and commercial and/or office uses where appropriate. Planning Services Comment: The current zoning designation of DCE allows for the potential of mixed- use or stand alone residential development. The proposed rezone to GC would not permit residential development. Adding the mixed-use overlay along with the GC zone would allow for the potential of residential development. Economic Element Goal 1: Create an atmosphere conducive to developing and maintaining a viable retail trade function which provides goods and services required by the area residents and specialty uses which attract shoppers from the larger region. Obiective 2/Policy 3: Encourage redevelopment of appropriately zoned mixed-use land. Goal 4: Provide for the most appropriate use of the land in the planning area. • Page 9 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 Planning Services Comment: At the time the Downtown Kent Plan was developed, the subject property was identified as Commercial which included general retail and office uses. Providing for auto-oriented development along Central Avenue is appropriate, provided that other goals and policies of the downtown planning area are also supported. B. Standards and Criteria for a Grantinq a Request for Rezone The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.09.050) are used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant Response The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise under the City Center Comprehensive Plan. Planning Services Comment The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property as City Center which is discussed in the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan. This designation defines the downtown planning area and allows high density mixed-use development. Retail, office, multifamily residential, and public facilities are permitted outright. Zoning designations within the City Center designation include Downtown Commercial, Downtown Commercial Enterprise and General Commercial zoning. As outlined in the staff report, a change in zoning from DCE to GC would generally be consistent with the City Center designation. However, in zoning this property to DCE, the property became available for potential residential redevelopment. Therefore, it is more consistent with the Urban Center designation if the property were zoned GC with the mixed-use overlay. Page 10 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Applicant's Response The site is located adjacent to GC, General Commercial, zoning which is under the City Center Comprehensive Plan. The site was zoned GC prior to the creation of the DCE zoning. "Sounds on Wheels" is an existing non- conforming use under the DCE zone. Planning Services Comment Development around the subject property has historically been and continues to remain auto-oriented in nature. The subject site is also developed to a legal nonconforming use that is auto-oriented. Additionally, G C zoning a xists o n t he p arcel d irectly t o t he s outh of t he subject property. The current development is compatible with the GC zone and with the surrounding uses. Zoning of the subject site would be more compatible with future DCE uses on properties located to the north, east and west of the site, if residential mixed-use were permitted as well as the General Commercial uses. DCE-type uses are generally less intensive than the General Commercial uses. However, the site upon re-development must be consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines which would require pedestrian amenities and architectural treatments. Those requirements will work to "soften" the potential GC uses and allow the site to blend with future DCE redevelopment of adjacent parcels. 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. Applicant's Response The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property. The subject property is located on Central Avenue S., a major north-south arterial. The business has operated without significant adverse impacts to Central Avenue South or other local streets. No mitigation is expected with this rezone. Planning Services Comment It is not anticipated that the proposed rezone will unduly burden the transportation network. The current use is a general commercial-type use. Page 11 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 The transportation network and future improvements are planned based upon the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. The zoning would change from a commercial to another commercial designation. It is anticipated that any impacts associated with the re-development of the subject property subject to the GC zone could be mitigated. Any site- specific transportation impacts will be addressed upon site re- development. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Applicant's Response The DCE zoning was created to encourage an East-West pedestrian connection within the City Center. Since then, the vision of the City has changed to focus on a North-South pedestrian connection between the new K ent S tation Project a nd t he H istoric D owntown a long 2"d A venue. Central Avenue South and East Smith Streets have seen increased traffic flows and road improvements in order to meet the needs of Kent Station. This new direction of the City and its related traffic impacts no longer support the DCE zoning at this site. Planning Services Comment The subject parcel has remained developed to a General Commercial use since it was rezoned to DCE, approximately 12 years ago. As such, it has continued to exist as a nonconforming development. The DCE zone was applied to this section of Central Avenue to create a connection between the downtown core and the developed residential to the east. Further, at the time, the DCE zone was seen as an economic benefit to the property owners since the development standards were significantly less than that of the previous zoning designation. However, since Central Avenue is automobile-dominated many of the uses along this stretch of roadway have not redeveloped over the past 10 years. However, the City Council elected to adopt the Urban Center designation for the downtown area which applies significant targets for employment and housing in the downtown. The DCE zone in part, allows the potential to meet those targets. Rather than a rezone to GC, General Commercial, staff recommends that the property be zoned GC — MU to allow the potential of residential, mixed use developed on the site to be more compatible with the Urban Center designation and requirements. Page 12 of 13 Staff Report AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033024 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Applicant's Response The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of Kent's citizens. This rezone only seeks to reclaim its original GC General Commercial status which will make the current business a conforming use. Planning Services Comment The proposed rezone as modified is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent development on the site will have to meet applicable codes and regulations, including mitigation of anticipated environmental impacts. Therefore, the rezone proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a rezone, the City staff recommends APPROVAL of this rezone as modified to GC- MU, General Commercial — Mixed Use. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 14, 2003 KM ch S 1PermitlPIanlrezone1200312033024rept doc Page 13 of 13 ' rc E i El cl �J a ILI Meeker Street Subject Site L C c4 Gowe S reet APPLICATION NAME: AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE REQUEST: #RZ-2003-3 KIVA#RPP4-2033024 SITE MAP OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER Theodore P. Hunter Hearing Examiner FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE NO: AULGUR-FAWCETT REZONE #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033025 APPLICANT: Campbell/Nixon &Associates REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately .48 acres of property from DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise, to GC, General Commercial. LOCATION: 111 Central Avenue S. APPLICATION FILED: October 2, 2003 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: December 1, 2003 MEETING DATE: January 21, 2004 DECISION ISSUED: February 4, 2004 DECISION: APPROVED STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Marousek, Planning Services Gary Gill, Public Works PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Ted Nixon, applicant Other Alan Gray EXHIBITS: 1. Staff Report dated January 21, 2004, with the following attachments: a. Application b. Correspondence between Applicant and City c. City Staff Routing & Comments d. Public Notice / Public Routing e. Notice of Application / Notice of Completeness f. Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance and SEPA checklist 2. Comment letter from neighboring landowner, Joe Simmons FINDINGS 1. Campbell/Nixon & Associates (Applicants) request a zoning map amendment (rezone) for an existing tax parcel from DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise, to GC, General Commercial, for approximately .48 acres of property located on the west side of Central Avenue between Meeker Street and Gowe Street.' Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 1, Attachment a, Application. 2. The subject property is currently zoned DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise, as are the properties to the north, east, and west. The property to the south is zoned GC, General Commercial. The subject property was vacant at the time of hearing, but the use in existence at the time of application was an automotive stereo facility, which was a legal non-conforming auto-related use in the DCE district. That auto-related use was more consistent with uses permitted by GC zone regulations. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 2. 3. The subject property is generally flat and nearly 100% developed with impervious surfaces. The site has minimal vegetation, largely in the form of street trees and some parking area plantings. No sensitive areas or sensitive area buffers have been identified on-site. The site takes access to public roads on Central Avenue that is currently developed with five lanes of travel, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The site is served by City of Kent water and sanitary sewer services. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4 & 5. 4. Kent adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1995. In 1996, Kent formed the Downtown Strategic Planning Team to work on the details of downtown planning. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as City Center, to which the following goals and policies apply. Urban Growth Goal #5 encourages mixed use in the City Center. Goal # 6 designates the area as Urban Center, defined as a compact area located within close proximity to public transit, within which employment, housing, infrastructure, and transit improvements are to be concentrated. The Comprehensive Plan identified Urban Center growth targets of 15,000 employees and 4,500 households in a 20-year period. The 1998 Downtown Strategic Action (DSAP) places the subject property in the Central Avenue Corridor District and designates Central Avenue as an `auto-dominated" street. As such, the D SAP projected that d evelopment along Central Avenue would be more auto-dependent than the pedestrian-oriented focus of the DCE zone. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 4; Testimony of Ms. Marousek. The legal description of the subject property is a portion of the NE %of Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King County. Exhibit 1, Attachment a. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation City of Kent Hearing Examiner Aulgur-Fawcett Rezone #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033025 Page 2 of 7 5. The Applicant proposes a rezone to from DCE GC. 2 A rezone to GC would result in the following previously allowed uses no longer being allowed on the subject property: commercial parking lots, railway and bus depots, and taxi stands. Uses not previously allowed under DCE zoning that would be allowed under the proposed GC zoning are: transitional housing; printing, publishing, and allied industry; outdoor storage including heavy equipment, trucks and contractor storage yards; mini-warehouse self-storage; wireless telecommunication facilities; bakeries, confectioners, and wholesale bakery; bulk retail; retail hardware including lumber; farm equipment and farm supply; auto, aircraft, motorcycle, boat, and recreational vehicle sales and accessories outlets; rental and leasing services for cars, trucks, trailers, furniture, and tools; auto repair and washing services; heavy equipment and truck repair; gas stations; nurseries and greenhouses; pet shops, boarding and breeding establishments and veterinary hospitals; computers/electronics retail; mortuaries; building maintenance and pest control businesses; contract construction business offices; research, development, and testing facilities; outdoor public assembly, such as athletic fields, tennis courts, drive-in theaters, and fairgrounds. KCC 15.04.020 and.030. 6. The City expressed a concern that the GC district does not allow the same level of mixed use and stand alone residential development as the DCE zone. The City's concern is that a reduction in residential uses would be contrary to the Kent Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on residential development in the City Center. Therefore the City proposed that a Multi-Use overlay zone should apply, making the rezone from DCE to GC-MU. Mixed Use Overlay zone at KCC 15.04.200-205 contains standards regarding floor area ratio, site coverage, height, front yard, rear and side yard, and off-street parking. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7& 8; KCC 15.04 et seq. 'Uses allowed as permitted, conditional, special, or accessory uses under both DCE and GC districts include: multifamily dwellings and townhouses; Groups Homes from Classes IA, IB, IC, IIA, IIB, IIC, and III; rebuilt or accessory uses to existing dwellings; accessory dwellings and living quarters; home occupations; drive-in churches,welfare, and emergency shelter services, hazardous substance land uses that are accessory to any permitted use, accessory uses to permitted uses; transportation and transit facilities; utility facilities, public safety facilities, such as fire houses and police stations, libraries, vocational schools, governmental offices and colleges, retail sales of hardware and home remodel supply, dry goods, general merchandise,food and convenience stores, apparel, home furnishing,eating and drinking establishments, drive-thru eating establishments other drive through business, miscellaneous retail, liquor stores, hotels, and motels;finance, real estate, insurance, medical, and other professional services, laundry, dry cleaning, beauty salons, and other personal services, home day care and day care centers, copying and business services retailers, watch, shoe, electronic and upholstery repair, educational and vocational training services, churches; municipal use and buildings; performing arts and cultural uses such as museums and galleries; indoor public assembly venues, such as for indoor sports and recreation, as well as convention centers and community and civic clubs; and, open space, such as cemeteries, parks, and playgrounds. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation City of Kent Hearing Examiner Aulgur-Fawcett Rezone #RZ-2003-3 K1VA #RPP4-2033025 Page 3 of 7 7. It is not anticipated that redevelopment of the subject property will cause any increase on public utilities or rights-of-way over the services required by the previous development on-site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11. 8. The subject property is on Central Avenue, which is already developed with sidewalks. The intention of the rezone is to enhance auto-dependent development in the City Center. Potential degradation of pedestrian access will be controlled and addressed through the building permit process at the time of future development. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 9. 9. DCE zoning was applied to the subject property 12 years ago in an attempt to spur economic growth in the downtown corridor. Kent was attempting to create successful pedestrian access between Kent Station Project and Historic Downtown. Subsequent to DCE zoning being applied to this property, pedestrian access developed elsewhere in the downtown area. Central Avenue has experienced increased traffic flows by becoming a route to Kent Sound Transit Station, making it more appropriate for auto-traffic related development to take place on Central Avenue, rather than pedestrian related development. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 12, Testimony of Ms. Marousek; Testimony of Mr. Nixon. 10. The Applicant presented testimony to the effect that legal non-conforming uses from the previously GC zoned Central Avenue have experienced problems with redevelopment since DCE zoning was applied in that area. According to the Applicant, legal non-conforming uses face barriers when seeking financing and also are limited by restrictions against expansion that apply to non-conforming uses, a nd i f G C z oning were t o return t o t his p ortion o f C entral a venue, s uch obstacles to successful redevelopment along Central Avenue could be alleviated. Testimony of Mr. Nixon. 11. Any subsequent redevelopment of the subject property will have to comply with development standards protecting public health, safety, and welfare, as well standards requiring mitigation of any environmental impacts. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 13. 12. The City entered a recommendation of approval for this rezone, but requested a Multi Use Overlay be applied to maximally enhance future potential residential development in the new zone. This would make the rezone from DCE to GC- MU. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 12. 13. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this non-project rezone on December 1, 2003. No comments or appeals were made on the SEPA decision. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 4; Exhibit 1, Attachment f. Findings, Conclusions &Recommendation City of Kent Hearing Examiner Aulgur-Fawcett Rezone #RZ-2003-3 KI VA #RPP4-2033025 Page 4 of 7 14. Notice of the rezone application and of the public hearing was given to all persons owning property within 300 feet and posted on the subject property on November 10, 2003. No public comments were received other than the letter at Exhibit 2 from neighboring land owner Joe Simmons, who supports the rezone. Testimony of Mrs. Marousek; Exhibit 1, Attachments d and e. One neighboring business owner appeared at the hearing to express support for the rezone, but also to register his concerns regarding potential impacts to his parking access, off of an alley adjacent to the subject property. The City addressed this concern by stating that the alley is a public right-of-way regardless of zone and will not be developed without a vacation of the alley and a specific development proposal. Neither vacation nor development is proposed at this time or anticipated for the alley. Testimony of Mr. Gray, Testimony of Ms. Marousek. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold an open record hearing on this quasi- judicial rezone and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the Council, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Chapters 2.32 and 15.09 of the Kent City Code. Criteria for Review Section 15.09.050(C) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and criteria the Hearing Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a rezone shall only be granted if: a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity; C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation City of Kent Hearing Examiner Aulgur-Fawcett Rezone #RZ-2003-3 KIVA #RPP4-2033025 Page 5 of 7 Conclusions based on Findings: 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning map amendment will change the zoning of the site back to its previous zoning designation, which remains compatible with the subject property's comprehensive plan designation. The proposed rezone would allow for development on the subject property in a manner that will further the City's development goals in the area. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 12. 2. The proposed rezone would be compatible with development in the vicinity. The proposed rezone and any subsequent development of the site authorized within the proposed zoning designation would be compatible with the existing development in the vicinity. The land immediately to the south of the subject property is zoned GC. Several nearby uses are legal non-conforming uses from when the area used to be zoned GC, and those non-conforming uses will be returned to permitted uses under the present rezone. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10. 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. The proposed rezone will not generate added trips to the existing transportation system. It is not anticipated that redevelopment in the area under the new zoning code will create additional impacts on the transportation system. Each proposed redevelopment under the rezone will be subject to development standards including traffic impact mitigation standards. Findings of Fact Nos. 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. The land use designation and zoning of a portion of this site was changed 12 years ago from GC to DCE in an effort to spur economic growth in the downtown area. This anticipated economic growth did not successfully develop along Central Avenue. Many area developments that were permitted under the previous GC zoning became legal non-conforming uses under the new DCE district, which created legal and financing obstacles to redevelopment. In addition, the Kent Sound Transit Station was built and Central Avenue became a major traffic route to that destination. These circumstances are sufficiently changed from the time the DCE zone was enacted to warrant the proposed rezone. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 9, and 10. 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. The Applicants do not propose development at this time, but propose rezoning the subject property Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation City of Kent Hearing Examiner Autgur-Fawcett Rezone #RZ-2003-3 K1VA #RPP4-2033025 Page 6 of 7 consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Because the applicant does not propose development of the subject property at this time, the proposed rezone would have no impacts, Any subsequent development on the site will have to meet applicable codes and regulations in place at the time of a development proposal, as well as mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the rezone proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Findings of Fact Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends the application by Campbell/Nixon & Associates for a rezone of an existing tax parcel from DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise, to GC, General Commercial, of approximately .48 acres located on the west side of Central Avenue between Meeker Street and Gowe Street, tax parcel # 9179600825, be APPROVED, subject to the following condition, to be incorporated into the rezone ordinance: 1. A Multi-Use Overlay Zone will be applied to the General Commercial distnct3. DATED this 4th day of February 2004. THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner ch S.1Permit%Plan%rezone1200312033-25-2003-3findings.doc 'The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3346 on May 7, 1997, to establish a zoning map designation of GC-MU for specific properties within the City. The City Council also established an MU overlay zone in Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code However, the City Council has not established a GC-MU zoning district in the list of zones provided in Chapter 15 03 of the Kent City Code. The approved rezone must reference to a zoning district designated in the Kent City Code, and not to a zoning map designation Thus, it is necessary to include specific language in the rezone ordinance to make certain the MU overlay applies to the recommended GC zoning designation to accomplish the intent of the Applicant and City in this request. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation City of Kent Hearing Examiner Auigur-Fawcett Rezone #RZ-2003-3 KlVA #RPP4-2033025 Page 7 of 7 Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2, 2004 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: RUSSELL ROAD PARK FIELD LIGHT REPLACEMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: One bid was received for the replacement of light fixtures at Russell Road Park on Ballfields 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 from MUSCO Sports Lighting, LLC in the amount of$114,50/tionand 3. EXHIBITS: Bid tab 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks RecreCommunity Services Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Comm' sion, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? $114,500.00 Re enue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: n i Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to enter into an agreement with MUSCO Sports Lighting LLC in the amount of $114,500.00 for the Russell Road Park Field Light Replacement Project. DISCUSSION: -� ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8A BID TABULATION FORM KENT PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON PROJECT: PR 04-01 NAME: Russell Road Park Field Lights Replacement DATE: February 20, 2004 TIME OPENED: 10:15 a.m Bidder: Total Lump Sum Bid: in dollars 1. MUSCO Sports Lighting LLC $114,500.00 Engineer's Estimate: $100,000.00 One bid was received. The low bidder is MUSCO Sports Lighting, LLC for $114,500.00. Kent City Council is expected to award the bid on Tuesday, March 2, 2004. Kent City Council Meeting Date March 2. 2004 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: RUSSELL ROAD AND UTILITY RELOCATION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on February 23, 2004 with nineteen bids received. The low bid was submitted by Ceccanti, Inc. in the amount of $449,008.11. The Engineer's estimate was $554,460.40. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Ceccanti, Inc. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director's memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED Y: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, E aminer, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure X Revenue Currently in the Budget. Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: F nd Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: F nd Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACT Councilmember W UL., moves, Councilmember ItA seconds that the Russell Road and Utility Relocation contract be awarded to Ceccanti, Inc. for the low bid amount of$449,008.11. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8B PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E Wickstrom, RE Public Works Director Phone 253-856-5500 Fax 253-856-6500 KENT Address 220 Fourth Avenue S WASHINGTON Kent,WA 98032-5895 Memorandum DATE: March 2, 2004 TO: Mayor White and Kent City Council FROM. Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director RE: Russell Road and Utility Relocation Bid opening for this project was held on February 23, 2004 with 19 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Ceccanti, Inc. in the amount of $449,008.11. The Engineer's estimate was $554,460.40. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Ceccanti, Inc. Bid Summary Ceccanti Co. $449,008.11 Wagner Development $449,810.20 Dennis R. Craig Company $469,194 36 Scarsella Brother's $470,437.96 Americon, Inc. $471,447.42 Construct Co. LLC (Bid Rejected missed line item 1000) $436,431 89 Laser Underground $474,964.12 R.W. Scott Const. Co. $488,593.68 Rodarte Construction, Inc. $492,019.13 SCI Infrastructure, LLC $492,902.04 Fury Construction Co. $503,434.46 Scotty's General Construction, Inc. $511,504.61 Pivetta Brothers Const., Inc. $516,086.49 Evergreen Utility Cont , Inc. $520,713.71 CW Williams Const. Co. $536,590.25 Road Construction N.W., Inc. $546,224 44 Gary Merlin Construction Co., Inc. $572,051 36 Westwater Construction Co. $578,431.96 R.L. Alia Company $582,343.40 Engineer's Estimate $554,460 40 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENTS Zl B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE r D. PUBLIC WORKS E. PLANNING COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE r G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS GS ct p Z I- REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES Operations Committee Minutes January 20, 2004 Committee Members Present: Chair Tim Clark, J ulie Peterson, Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Tim Clark, Chair at 4.00 P.M APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2003 Julie Peterson moved to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2003, Operations Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Bruce White and passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED DECEMBER 15, 2003, DECEMBER 31, 2003, AND JANUARY 15, 2004 Finance Director Robert Nachlinger presented the vouchers for December 15, 2003, December 31, 2003, and January 15, 2004, for approval. Bruce White moved to approve the vouchers dated December 15, 2003, December 31, 2003, and January 15, 2004. Julie Peterson seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. SALARY COMMISSION ABOLITION ORDINANCE Chief Administrative Officer Mike Martin presented the Salary Commission Abolition Ordinance. Mr Martin advised the Operations Committee that by the adoption of Ordinance No 3617 on October 1, 2002, the City Council established an Independent Salary Commission to set the salaries of the City's elected officials. The Mayor would like the City Council to consider abolishing the commission. If the commission is abolished, it is necessary to repeal the Kent City Code provision that established the commission and to amend other sections of the Kent City Code to set forth the current salaries paid to Kent's elected officials The salaries set forth in the proposed ordinance are the current salaries paid to each elected official as established by the Salary Commission for 2004 As required by law, the ordinance does not increase or reduce the salaries of the City's elected officials Mr. Martin advised that this ordinance merely amends the City Code so that it accurately reflects the salaries set by the Independent Salary Commission City Attorney Tom Brubaker distributed a revised Ordinance which added a provision regarding the Municipal Court Pro Tern Judges Mr. Brubaker advised that the Municipal Court Pro Tern Judges are paid through the Municipal Court's budget, however, the salary is set via the City Council. Operations Committee, 1/20/2004 Councilmember Peterson stated that she would like more time and further discussion on this issue before voting on the abolition of the salary commission ordinance. Councdmember White questioned whether passage of the ordinance would abolish all prior issues regarding the salary commission City Attorney Brubaker stated that only legislative action can abolish all prior issues regarding the salary commission, and that if the ordinance is adopted, then the City Council would be the one to increase the salary of the Mayor as well as the City Council. City Attorney Brubaker further stated that the 2004 salary levels are in effect and would stand during the current term of each counclmember A councilmember cannot vote to increase or decrease their salary while in their current elected position. However, since neither the Mayor or the Judges set their own salaries (Council does), state law allows Council to increase-but not decrease-their salaries Any vote for an increase or decrease of salary would become effective upon the next Co uncil term Julie Peterson moved to table the Salary Commission Abolition Ordinance until the next Operations Committee meeting on February 3, 2004. The motion was seconded by Bruce White and passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4.22 P M. Renee Cameron Operations Committee Secretary 2 Parks Committee Minutes January 13, 2004 Committee Members Present: Chair Julie Peterson, Debbie Raplee Committee Members Absent: Deborah Ranniger Staff Present: John Hodgson, Tom Brubaker, Lon Flemm, Shane Gilbertson, Brenda Jacober, Lori Hogan Recorder Teri Petrole The meeting was called to order by Chair Julie Peterson at 4:08 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes of December 9, 2003 Councilmember Raplee moved to approve the minutes of December 9, 2003. Councilmember Peterson seconded Councilmember Ranniger was contacted and concurred. The motion carried. 2 . Glenn Nelson Park Hazardous Tree Removal Report Superintendent of Parks Planning and Development Lon Flemm reported that 35 trees in Glenn Nelson Park have been identified hazardous and need to be removed, with five trees in need of monitoring. The trees were evaluated by an outside consultant, Sound Urban Forestry, and city arborists. The recommendations are based on potential for failure; potential for striking a target in the event of failure; potential for serious damage as a result; and the value of the potential target(s). Trees were placed into categories; monitoring, decayed, dead and dying, health and competitive growth area and snags. A public notice of the tree removal was mailed to the neighborhood. One response was received from Ken Brunner who is an environmental/wildlife biologist. Mr. Brunner visited the park and reviewed all of the recommendations made by the consultant and city staff. His analysis concurred with the addition of more trees on the snag list. Mr. Brunner's email is attached. 2.a (ADDED MOTION) Councilmember Peterson moved to have the email from Mr. Brunner become a part of the public record on this project. Councilmember Raplee seconded. Councilmember Ranniger was contacted and concurred. The motion carried. Director John Hodgson added that outside consultants are hired to assist in evaluations when projects are of this scale. 3. Fee-In Lieu of Funds for 132nd Street Park and 272nd Street Park -Accept and Amend Budget Ordinance 2975, RCW 58.17.110 establishes a land dedication requirement upon subdividers to provide for public parks and open space and alternatively, a method to compute fees in lieu of land dedication. 1 of 2 From October through December 2003, the City of Kent received fee in lieu funds totaling $46,349.68 from three subdivisions. The City has five years from the date of deposit to spend these funds for park acquisition, development, or open space. Funds are used at a park closest to the subdivision - see breakdown of funds received below. Park Subdivision Developer Fee-in-lieu 132nd Street Highland Park SBI Development LLC $20,025.00 272nd Street Alvin's Pond William Ruth $9,149.68 272nd Street Autumn Glen Bennett Sherman LLC $17,175.00 Councilmember Raplee moved to recommend accepting the $46,349.68 from developers for fee-in-lieu-of funds and amending the 132nd and 272nd Street Parks. Councilmember Peterson seconded. Councilmember Ranniger was contacted and concurred. The motion carried. 4. King County Youth Sports Grant- Accept and Amend Budget Park's staff applied for and received a grant from the King County Parks and Recreation Division of the Department of Natural Resources and Parks for improvements at Uplands Playfield. The improvements include ADA accessible sidewalks and ramps, fencing, player benches and an automatic irrigation system. Councilmember Raplee moved to recommend accepting $36,000.00 from King County for the Youth Sports Facility Grant and amending the Uplands Playfield budget. Councilmember Peterson seconded. Councilmember Ranniger was contacted and concurred. The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. 2of2 SPECIAL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 15, 2004 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Debbie Raplee, Les Thomas,Deborah Ranniger,Chair The Special Meeting was called to order by Deborah Ranmger at 5.00PM. Introduction of the newly appointed committee members was made by Chair Deborah Ranmger Deborah announced that future meetings will be held on the third Thursday of the month at 5 00 PM Approval of Minutes of December 9,2003 Committee Member Les Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2003 meeting The motion was seconded and passed 3-0 State of WA Department of Health Brant—Accept Fire Chief Jim Schneider reviewed the grant and the proposed use of funds Debbie Raplee moved to recommend accepting the grant from the State of Washington Department of Health in the amount of$2,000.00,and the in-kind grant of 150 smoke detectors (10-year lithium),and placing it on the Consent Calendar of the January 20,2004 Council Meeting,and to establish budget documents as required. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Bureau of ATF and the Citv of Kent Fire Department-Authorize Fire Chief Jim Schneider explained the purpose of the memorandum Les Thomas moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Agreement Between the Bureau of ATF and the City of Kent Fire Department,and that this be placed on the Consent Calendar of the January 20,2004 Council Meeting. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. Washin>ton Traffic Safety Commission Brant —Accept Police Chief Ed Crawford reviewed the WTSC grant award Debbie Raplee moved to recommend authorizing the Kent Police Department to accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant for 2004 in the amount of$5,000.00, and placing this on the Consent Calendar for the January 20,2004 Council Meeting,and to establish budget documents as required. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. National Night Out Award—Information Only Police Chief Ed Crawford introduced Judi Mauhl, Publication Education Specialist for the Kent Police Department,who explained how the City of Kent won the award for its NNO and Block Watch activities in 2003 The meeting adjourned at 5 13 PM Jo Thompson PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES December 1, 2003 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT- Chair Tun Clark,Rico Yingling,Julie Peterson The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Tim Clark at 5 02 P.M. Approval of Minutes of November 3.2003 Committee Member Julie Peterson moved to approve the minutes of November 3, 2003. The motion was seconded by Committee member Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Vehicle and Equipment Surplus Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said the listed equipment/velucles comply with current replacement policy guidelines and have been replaced The items will be sold at auction or sold to smaller cities. Alice Conrad,Fleet Superintendent was present at the meeting to answer any questions. Rico Yingling moved to recommend the Council authorize the staff to appropriately dispose of the equipment as described and listed in the memorandum dated November 12, 2003. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Utility Service Outside City Limits Ordinance Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said Public Works is proposing to amend the City Code and bring it up to date. This section of the code was last updated in 1990 Since then many things have changed concerning both the annexation laws and the City's future corporate boundary limits. Wickstrom noted that with the recent court decision and subsequent legislative action the annexation laws have changed Further, with the 1990 Growth Management Act and the incorporation of new cities such as Seatac the City's utilities service area now extends beyond our future corporate boundaries The proposed changes address both these issues Wickstrom showed a map denoting the areas effected by the changes. Wickstrom also noted that for those service areas lying within other jurisdiction's or their respective PAAs the department was proposing to retain the right to require traffic and drainage mitigation in conjunction with providing utility service. Brett Vinson Assistant City Attorney was present to answer questions Committee member Rico Yingling asked if it was legal to have someone requesting services sign a No Protest Agreement. Brett Vinson stated that RCW 35 67.310 allows the City to provide utility service to properties located outside the City limits upon terms and conditions established by ordinance. Both statutory and case law authority allow us to do this Committee Chair Tun Clark asked Wickstrom what caused the changes to be needed. Wickstrom said when this was originally set up it was assumed that all properties serviced by city utilities would eventually be part of the city. This is not so today. Our service area now includes other jurisdictions such as Seatac or their designated Potential Annexation Areas such as Aubum's. 2 Julie Peterson asked about the copy of the Ordinance that was included with the packet . The text that had been deleted was lined out but the text that was added was not noted She requested an amended copy. Brett Vinson said he would provide all Council Members an amended copy so they could review the document and have the item placed on the Other Business section of the agenda for the December 9`h City Council Meeting. Wickstrom denoted that the section 7.11.010 is basically the original ordinance and section 7 11.020. is all new Julie Peterson moved to have the Utility Service Outside City Limits Ordinance placed on the Other Business agenda at the December 9`h City Council meeting with the provision we see the amended draft ordinance. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Council Member Rico Yingling said it would be his last Public Works Committee meeting and he wanted to thank Chair Tim Clark for all of his hard work on the committee and leadership. He also wanted to thank Don Wickstrom and his staff for the great work they do in the City of Kent. Rico said the citizens of Kent have a lot to be proud of in what you have accomplished Rico said he was pleased to have been on the Public Works Committee for his entire 6 years on the City Council The meeting adjourned at 5:24 P.M Janet Perschek Administrative Assistant CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION A) ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A)