Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/06/2004 E=j!Tk4R I Lk I City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda April 6, 2004 Mayor Jim White Julie Peterson, Council President Councilmembers Tim Clark Debbie Raplee Ron Harmon Les Thomas Bruce White Deborah Ranniger IIIS74#,40 �0 KENT WA5HINGTON City Clerk's Office SUMMARY AGENDA • KE T KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING W"S"'"G T G" April 6, 2004 Council Chambers 7.00 p.m MAYOR Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS Julie Peterson, President Tim Clark Ron Harmon Deborah Ranmger Debbie Raplee Les Thomas Bruce White I CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 ROLL CALL 3 CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B FROM THE PUBLIC 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A Kent Sister City Association/Sister Cities International 2004 Youth Art Competition Presentation B Introduction of Appointee C Arbor Day Proclamation D Employee of the Month E-. Pwb�icSac�l*t lel�cernrv�uw.cofers tJee� G;ticl� �ev� • 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan and Initial Zoning Designations, Second Public Hearing- Establish 6 CONSENT CALENDAR A Minutes of Previous Meeting-Approve B Payment of Bills-Approve C Lodging Tax Advisory Board Re-Appointment-Confirm D Christopher Ridge Infrastructure Improvements Bill of Sale-Accept E. Industrial Air Systems Contract-Authorize F. King County Cultural Development Authority Grant-Accept and Amend Budget G King County Community and Human Services/Disabilities Grant-Accept and Amend Budget H State of Washington Military Department, Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant Funds-Accept and Amend Budget I Purchase of One Replacement Fire Engine -Authorize J Professional Services Agreement for Medical Examinations for Fire Department- Authorize K. Starwood Final Plat-Accept L Meridian Ridge Division 2 Final Plat-Accept —�� Plat of Starwood Infrastructure Improvements Bill of Sale -Accept (continued next page) • SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 7. OTHER BUSINESS None 8 BIDS A LID 355 and 356 Sanitary Sewer Improvement/LID 357 Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION A Pending Litigation 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) KENT SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION/SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL 2004 YOUTH ART COMPETITION PRESENTATIIOOfN B) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEE C) ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION D) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH C2uJ U • Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: IMPOUNDMENT RESERVOIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AND INITIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS, SECOND PUBLIC HEARING —ESTABLISH 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 comer of the intersection of 124`h Avenue SE and South 304`h Street Tonight's meeting is the second of two public hearings to be held by the City Council pursuant to state law; the first hearing was held on March 2nd 2004. 3. EXHIBITS: Minutes of 2/23/04 and 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, 2/23/04 Letter to LU&PB from State Dept. of Community, Trade & Economic Development, 2/27/04 Letter to LU&PB from 1000 Friends of Washington 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 COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember�'Kwtoves, Councilme ber U; k conds to approve/ approve as modified the Land Use & Planning Board's recommendation of Alternative #4, with a Comprehensive Plan Designation of ev, Urban Separator and Initial Zoning of SR-1, Single Family Residential for the Impoundment Reservoir Property, and to direct/not direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, C. D Director PLANNING SERVICES Z • Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager K EN T Phone:253-856-5454 W A S N I N O T O N Fax- 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 23, 2004 Chair Jon Johnson called the meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board to order at 7.00 p.m. on Monday, February 23, 2004 in Chambers West of Kent City Hall. LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson, Chair Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, C.D. Director Greg Worthing, Vice Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Steve Dowell William D. Osborne, Long Range Planner David Malik Kim Marousek, SEPA Responsible Official Elizabeth Watson Nathan Torgelson, Economic Dev. Director Patrick Fitzpatrick, City Attorney Bill Wolinski, Environmental Engr Manager Kim Adams Pratt, Asst City Attorney Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary LUPB MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicole Fincher, Unexcused APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to approve the Minutes of January 26, 2004. Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #CPA-2003-21CPZ-2003-1 IMPOUNDMENT RESERVOIR PROPERTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & INITIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS Mr. Osborne submitted Exhibits #10-24 for the record citing written and e-mail correspondence from citizens and various agencies. Elizabeth Watson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to receive Exhibits #10424 into the record. Motion CARRIED. Mr. Osborne described the nature of the subject site as well as the zoning surrounding this site. He stated that the site is located in the Lea Hill area of Auburn's potential annexation area. Mr. Osborne stated that throughout this process issues have been raised concerning critical areas, wetlands, the headwaters of Olson Creek within the watershed, steep slopes on the site, traffic, impacts on schools and parks, urban densities and the definition of urban densities with recent Growth Management Hearings Board decisions. He stated that further concerns relate to the coordination with Auburn and King County on provision of services, the dual role of the City as both property owner and regulatory authority, and comprehensive plan and initial zoning designation of being a non-project area-wide action. Mr. Osborne stated that many site-specific concerns are best addressed through a project or site-specific proposal. Mr. Osborne stated that a natural habitat zoning district has been suggested, wetland banking and regional water detention facilities have been suggested but these are site specific uses that would be better addressed in a project proposal. Mr. Osborne described the first four (4) options considered by staff, which includes one designation for the entire 156.5-acre subject site. He stated that the Urban Separator Designation allocates at least fifty percent of the developable acreage (not counting sensitive areas)for open space. He also described the following split designation alternatives: • Alternative Five (5) considers designating 120.55 acres of urban separator area and approximately 36 acres of non-urban separator designated area. He described Alternative Five's Options A, B, and C. • Alternative Six (6) considers designations of SR-2 to SR-4 5 for the northern portion of the site consisting of approximately 60 acres with the potential for 130 to 335 developable units in the northern portion of the site and 96 units in the Urban Separator designated area. • Alternative Seven (7) designates a development of 142 units minimum with up to 365 units under a PUD for the 65 acre designated northern area and the 91 acre southern portion designated Urban Separator. • Alternative Eight (8) from Yarrow Bay proposes designating this same amount of acreage as Alternative Seven as non-urban separator to the north with an SR-4.5 designation for the 65.43 acres. He stated that Yarrow Bay proposes designating the southern portion of the site south of the northern boundary of the Bonneville Power Administration transmission lines as SR-2, which could yield 234 units under a PUD or 198 units of 16,000 square feet and up to 349 units in the north Mr. Osborne stated that staff recommends Option 7-C , as it provides Urban Density Residential at SR-4.5 in the North as defined by recent Growth Management Hearings Board decisions, but also recognizes the environmentally sensitive areas in the south that are related to the Olson Creek Watershed. City of Kent Economic Development Manager Nathan Torgelson described the City of Kent's historic involvement with the subject site and Kent's connection to the Tacoma P-5 Pipeline Project. Mr. Torgelson stated that the City must find a source of revenue to pay for their portion of the Tacoma P-5 Pipeline project by early 2005 without increasing customer water rates. He stated that proceeds from the sale of the subject property would flow into the water utility fund to pay for the deal the City has negotiated on this LP-5 project. Mr. Torgelson stated that the Council authorized the Mayor to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with Yarrow Bay Development on October 22, 2003, pointing out that the sale price is not contingent upon any zoning designation or land use capacity. Mr. Torgelson addressed the types of services that would likely be provided by Kent and Auburn 0 for any development on the site. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 2 of 11 Chair Johnson declared the Public Hearing Open. Colin Lund with Triad Associates, stated that Triad concurs with staffs recommendation of SR-4.5 for the northern portion of the property. Mr. Lund opined the rationale in support of Alternative 8 as offered by Triad. He described Alternative 8 making comparisons to Staffs recommendation of Alternative 7-C. Mr. Lund urged the Board to consider forwarding Alternative 8 to City Council. Andy Kindig, 12501 Bel-Red Road, Suite 210, Bellevue, WA 98005 stated that his company is an aquatic resource management firm specializing in water quality. He spoke about the 1995 Wetland Delineation by Watershed Dynamics stating that the property is a valuable resource in terms of the aquatic resources. Mr. Kindig described the existing vegetation and the characteristics of the wetlands on the site. Mr. Kindig stated that water quality benefits from biofiltration, storm water storage, hydrologic support, ground water recharge, and biological functions. He stated that although these functions currently work on the site, there is room for enhancement. Mr. Kindig stated that the other four functions are hydrologic in nature and occur within the delineated boundaries of the wetland, and will continue to function at their present level, with the existence of a sufficient buffer to protect the integrity of those delineated wetlands in the future. Mr. Kindig stated that the 1994 Eastern Tributaries of the Green River the Enhanced Reconnaissance Report prepared by King County discusses the large wetland and generally agrees with the 1995 Wetland Delineation Assessment. He stated that this report describes the Olson Creek conditions. Mr Kindig stated that the Department of Ecology is required to submit their list of impaired water bodies to the APA, known as the 303-0 Draft List. He stated that this list is not finalized Mr. Kindig stated that existing data describe the site, drainage, wetlands and off-site Olson Creek downstream. He stated that the data do not seem to indicate any on or off-site features requiring unusual measures or restrictions that are not already anticipated in the Code, the Critical Areas Ordinance, the drainage requirements, or requirements for water quality treatment, or the SEPA provisions. Mr. Kindig stated that SEPA acts as a protective regulator at the time a specific site development is considered, such as proper implementation of regulations in order to protect the natural resources. Brian Derdowski, 70 East Sunset Way, Issaquah, WA 98027 entered the following maps as exhibits for the record: 1) Site map showing the current zoning of one house per acre, and those areas zoned four homes per acre as well as indicating Auburn and Kent's city limits. 2)- Map indicating the existing urban-separator designation as--adopted-by-the Countywide Planning Policies. 3) Map indicating a topographic feature with Olson Creek, steep slopes and erosion hazard areas. 4) Map showing wetlands on the subject site, indicating hydrologically and geologically sensitive areas. Mr. Derdowski stated that portions of the site proposed for urban separator as indicated from the plat submittal from the applicant, shows that the wetland is located between two erosion hazard areas 5) Aerial map of the site Mr. Derdowski further submitted his testimonial for the record documented as Exhibit#25. Mr. Derdowski stated that the City could require higher standards for development now without incurring legal liability even though staff has made the argument that the best time to apply and analyze environmentally sensitive issues is when the proposed application is submitted to the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 3 of 11 City. He reminded the Board that zoning is a discretionary decision and that they have the ability to impose additional conditions without fear of a legal lawsuit. Mr. Derdowski stated that if the City's environmental review suggests additional conditions after zoning has been approved, the City could be subject to a takings argument and other legal recourse. He stated that the Growth Management Act's bright line of four dwelling units per acre applies to net area, citing Benaroya versus the City of Redmond in which the Hearings Board ruled that the four homes per acre "Bright Line Test" only applies to the net buildable area. Mr. Derdowski described the Urban Separator Designation as it relates to the GMA. He stated that low-density zoning for the site would be consistent with the GMA. Mr. Derdowski stated that the City's existing environmental regulations are insufficient to protect Olson Creek and that the City's 1998 Drainage Manual is obsolete and out of date. Mr. Derdowski stated that he speaks on behalf of a group of citizens that believe that the City intends to implement spot zoning. In lieu of spot zoning, the City should consider executing a sub-area plan that would encompass Auburn and Kent's annexation area and analyze the long- term land use patterns and concurrency issues Mr. Derdowski stated that he believes the SEPA statute would compel the City to generate a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prior to rendering a decision. Mr. Derdowski expressed concerns regarding legal liability in connection with the City's purchase and sales agreement for the subject site. Mr. Derdowksi stated that it is the recommendation of the group that the City should consider conditional rezoning for the subject site, tabling a decision until staff drafts their findings and the language to support the following specific rezone conditions: • Applying the requirements of the most recent Department of Ecology Storm water Management Manual applying low impact development guidelines. • No transfer of density credits for the environmentally sensitive area. • No potential for a PUD • Wetland and stream delineations would be consistent with the Olson Creek Basin analysis. Mr. Derdowski stated that the citizen group he represents recommends Alternative#4 in support of an Urban Separator Designation with rezone conditions. Ron Novak, 29226 118' Ave. SE, Auburn, WA stated that the State Department of Ecology has directed all Cities in King County to update their critical area ordinances to bring them up to date, incorporating the latest science. He stated that the Department of Ecology recognizes that the City's Surface Water Management Regulations and buffer requirements are obsolete. Mr. Novak submitted the following quote for the record from the Department of Ecology Manual. "The Department of Ecology acknowledges that even universal implementation of its Storm Water Management Manual under ideal conditions would be insufficient to protect fish habitat- _ _- and production. Despite the application of appropriate practices and techniques identified in this manual, some degradation of urban and suburban receiving waters will continue and some beneficial uses will continue to be impaired or lost due to the new development." Mr. Novak submitted (2) two articles for the record by Dr. Derek Booth, a noted ecological scientist from the University of Washington titled: "DB Booths, Hart Mass, CD Jackson, Forest Covering Impervious Surface Area and Mitigation of Storm Water Impacts"found in the Journal of American Water Resources Association and "Urbanization of Aquatic Systems Degradation Thresholds Stonn Wafer Detention and Limits of Mitigation" found in the Journal of American Water Resources Association documented as Exhibit#26. Mr. Novak described the function of the wetland serving Olson Creek and explained what would happen with storm water runoff were the subject site to be developed. He explained that continued development would degrade water quality, alter the runoff and hydrology, and reduce Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 4 of 11 the holding capability of the soils around the stream bank creating the potential for rural road washouts. Mr. Novak stated that he does not believe that consideration has been given to the effect of the P-5 Pipeline Project's construction through the main wetland on the subject site in terms of whether the development of that property will undermine the mitigation set aside for the Tacoma Pipeline Installation. He stated that mitigation includes the improvement of the lower Olson Creek to retain its viable function as a salmonid habitat. Mr. Derdowski submitted two maps each titled "Former Kent Reservoir" generated by the King County GIS Center with one map showing Countywide Zoning and the second map showing rivers, lakes, wetlands, streams, freeway and streets to be entered into the record as Exhibit #27. Jude Restis, 12025 SE 2W St., Kent, WA stated that the Auburn School District serves the subject site and that the GMA requires that the City provide a Capital Facilities Plan which he sees no evidence of in the record. Mr. Restis addressed concerns with the rural roadways and intersection systems surrounding the subject site located in unincorporated King County stating that there is no evidence in the record that the City has coordinated road improvement issues with King County. Mr. Restis voiced his concern that the subject area is not served by sewer or municipal water, nor is there evidence in the record that this site is included in Aubum's Comprehensive Sewer. or Water Plan. He stated that the City's Concurrency Analysis does not fully consider traffic impacts from projects in the pipeline nor adequately identify level of service standards and funded capital improvement projects to serve the development. Mr. Derdowski submitted a handout for the record with four photographs indicating a recently measured high water mark documented as Exhibit#28. Tom Williams, 28624 124`h Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he is part of a group of over 100 citizens known as "S.O.S." Save Our Urban Separators. Mr. Williams voiced concern that a zoning recommendation would disrespect the citizens who want to see a progressive and comprehensive community plan for growth that would not compromise the environment or jeopardize quality of life. He urged the Board to consider implementing a Sub area plan working with King County, Auburn and the citizens who love this area and want to find a way to preserve it. Ms. Jackie D'Agosto, 28702 120th Place SE, Kent, WA stated that her property is located on the northern border of the subject site. Mrs. D'Agosto expressed her concerns that development of the site would affect property values, compromising quality of life with increased traffic volumes and air pollution and running the risk of depleting the irreplaceable wildlife in the area. Mary Roberts, 502 8"' St. NE #24, Auburn, WA 98002 stated that-when the Trust for Public -- Land offered to work with the City of Kent to retain the reservoir property in the public domain two years ago, Kent was not interested. The Trust for Public Land still wishes to work with the City of Kent to keep the reservoir property in the public domain. She stated that Federal, State and Regional grants are available to accomplish this with citizens willing to work with the City of Kent to write these grants Ms. Roberts stated that the wetland complex on the subject site provides ecological benefits to wildlife, citing a national program that is working to retain common species in addition to protecting sensitive species under the Endangered Species Act. Ms. Roberts stated that natural systems work as a whole and according to the 1997 Department of Ecology document "The Economic Value of Wetlands"a strong economic rationale exists for communities in Western Washington to protect wetlands today in order to avoid what could be greatly increased costs of flood protection in the future. Ms. Roberts stated that wetland Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 5 of 11 complexes and natural areas provide society with a multitude of goods and services and this is an issue of social justice. Noel Gllbrough, 7359 23rd Ave. NW, Seattle, WA 98117 stated that he is the project manager for the Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. He stated that this project consists of the restoration of six streams over the course of the next ten years at an approximate cost of $130 to $150 million dollars. He stated that one of those streams is Olson Creek that has an existing Coho run and the probability of Chum moving up into that stream with the mouth of the stream likely used by Chinook for their habitat. He stated that paving of any portion of the upper basin would be destructive to that site, with the potential to increase flood flows. Dan Streiffert, 10102 SE 270th Place, Kent, WA 98030 stated that in the 30 years he has lived in Kent, there has been a plethora of development, increasing pollution levels and eliminating open spaces. He stated that he speaks on behalf of the South King County Chapter of the Sierra Club of which he is a member. Mr. Streiffert indicated that the Sierra Club has a membership of approximately 1500 members, with about 375 members living in Kent and Auburn. He stated that our position on this piece of property is that it is a unique area that holds far greater value if this site were retained as open space and the habitat restored, than if it were sold for development. Pete Dakan, 12821 SE 285th St., Kent, WA 98030 stated that he along with many of his neighbors moved to this area because it was designated as an urban separator. He stated that he would like it to remain as such to see that the quality of life is balanced with growth in the area. Kurt Siltman, 6715 88th St. E, Puyallup, WA 98371 stated that the City's decision to develop this land seems to be based on an 11.5 million dollar buy/sell agreement, whereby the effects of such development will affect everyone. He stated that an R-1 or an Open Space designation would not be lucrative for the City, although the subject site is best suited to either of those designations. Mr. Siltman disputed the City's generation of an Addendum to Kent's 1995 Comprehensive Plan rather than generating a new Environmental Impact Statement, using Best Available Science and actually determining what would be best for this site based on accurate wetland delineation and other critical studies. Mr. Siltman acknowledged Board Member Steve Dowell's written question to staff stating: "If all classes of wetlands are considered, how much area would be left for development if we considered a 200 foot buffer?" with a response from staff stating: "Staff has evaluated this concept and has determined that there would be approximately 16.44 acres available for development, scattered throughout the site." Staff had stated that for all practical purposes this renders the site undevelopable. Dietrich Riemer,_12221 SE 284"r St.,_Kent- submitted his written testimony for the record documented as Exhibit#28. He stated that he has resided north of the subject site since 1971 and has seen much development occur. He stated that we are told that the City of Kent has to surplus and sell the impoundment reservoir area for the benefit of its water customers, stating that he is a City of Kent water district customer, living outside the city limits, paying 18 to 33 percent higher rates than people do in the City. He stated that he does not wish to see the quality of their water diminished citing reasons why there is not a current water shortage. He stated that he would like the 156 acres developed as open park. Molly Whittaker, 30316 121`t Place SE, Auburn, WA 98052 stated that although she believes there are several reasons this site should not be developed, she cited school impacts as one reason. She stated when she attended Hazelwood Elementary as a fifth grader it was on the brink of being over crowded, indicating that Lea Hill Elementary is at about the same level of overcrowding. She stated that Rainier Middle School, which she currently attends, is overcrowded. Ms. Whittaker stated that if many homes were built, quite a few kids would be Land Use and Planing Board Minutes February 23,2004 Pane 6 of 11 moving in, requiring the construction of a new school and there are already four schools within a one-mile radius including the new high school. Susan Sanders, 29415 118'h Ave. SE, Auburn, WA thanked the Board for their efforts on this topic to date and feels that they have given it serious attention. She reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation currently applied is crucial and is not an issue of project or non-project designations. She stated that this land is in the public trust encouraging the Board to consider an appropriate zoning designation. Jim Kopp, 11854 SE 288th St., Kent, WA stated that he purchased his property due to the rural atmosphere, enjoying seeing the horses, geese, and ducks. Hawks and other species of birds. He spoke about conflicts of interest concerning appropriate zoning designations for the site deferring to Mr. Derdowski's testimony. C.D. Roberts, 30107 118'h Ave. SE, Auburn, WA stated that he has lived for 32 years near the subject site and has seen all the changes that have occurred. He stated that this property is an environmental haven to various migratory foul and animals and it transforms itself from a summer hayfield to a lake in the fall and winter and at one time a neighbor used to launch a small flat bottomed boat in that water area to hunt ducks. Mr. Roberts stated that this would be destroyed if the City proceeds with their plan. He stated that most of the folks that lost their property for this reservoir are still living In that area and it is not too late to return this property to them if they so desire. Mr. Roberts stated that we are all impacted by high-density development and perhaps this is the people's last chance to save this valuable property for future generations to use and enjoy. Elizabeth Walbridge, 27635 120th Place SE, Kent, WA stated that this last summer she has enjoyed frogs in her front porch flowerpots for the first time She stated that a development behind her residence displaced frogs from that area, noting that they have migrated up into her neighborhood. She stated that further development in the area could decimate the frog population. The City needs to be careful about what decision they make concerning the Impoundment Reservoir Property. Al Hurt, 293041181h Ave. SE, Auburn, WA 98092 stated that he relocated to his property that adjoins the subject site approximately three years ago from Alaska. He stated that as a former developer in Alaska, he understands the need to make money. However, the City needs to be careful about what they consider for this site. Mr. Hurt noted that at some point the finances of the City would dictate some type of development on the site. He urged the Board to consider Option 4, one home per acre as an urban separator. Neal Wanner, 12110 SE 288'h St., Kent, WA 98030 stated that he has resided for ten years on his property located on the northern boundary of the Impoundment Reservoir Property site. He stated that he would love to see the reservoir preserved and filled with water. He noted that if development were to occur that he would support Option 4 and that one house per acre would probably accommodate the rural nature of the area. Jeanette Wanner, 12110 SE 288'h St., Kent, WA 98030 stated that she feels blessed to live on one acre of land located on the northern boundary of the Impoundment Reservoir site. She stated that she enjoys Mt. Rainier, the sunsets, the wildlife, and the rural atmosphere that they have been able to enjoy and share with others. Ms. Wanner stated that the type of life they enjoy could be compromised if this site is developed. John McHugh, 12014 SE 288'h, Kent, WA stated that he feels that the City does not validate citizen input concerning the zoning process for this subject site. He stated that we are located in King County not Kent so we have no vote and this is in essence zoning without representation. He urged the Board to make a creditable decision. Noelle Rogerson, 10637 SE 2W St., Kent, WA 98030 read her testimonial letter, which she submitted for the record documented as Exhibit#29. She stated that she had spoken with one Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 7 of 11 of the neighbors on 112"' who shared that he actually saw elk on-his back property eating apples last October and treasured that. Ms. Rogerson stated that the students of Green River Community College are looking into the best way to preserve the 157 acres for future generations, the community, the college, for elementary, middle and high schools as well as for their environmental biology classes and us. Ms. Rogerson stated that it took thousands of years for this small area to become the efficient eco system that it is today. The soil alone takes 200 to 1000 years to reach its beginning stage as a resource level to begin serving the wildlife. She stated that even if a small section of the land were developed and part of the wetlands transferred, it alters its web of life and the whole system is disrupted. She stated that if we tamper with this already efficient wetland, grassland and forest system, it would affect our ways of living in negative ways, like lowering the water quality, drying up our endangered and precious salmon runs. Ms. Rogerson spoke about the importance of how the wetland on this site needs to be protected as it contributes to the environment. She quoted two excerpts from the text book "Environmental Science Working with the Earth, Ninth Edition by G. Tyler Miller Junior, 2003" "Environmental Wisdom World View". Ms. Rogerson stated that using precautionary strategy; she would propose R-1 maximum zoning. She stated that these 156.58 acres need to be preserved. Ms. Rogerson stated that the GMA was created to help manage growth. She stated since the property was purchased under eminent domain, it seems fair that the original owners should be given their land back and that the City of Kent should maintain this property as open space to continue protecting our water quality. Vonda Marsland, 12129 SE 303`d Ct., Auburn, WA 98092 stated that she purchased her property three years ago because of the pastures, deer and cows. She stated that an increase In her water bill Is insignificant compared to the joy of watching her 12 year old son and his best friend enjoy playing in the creek. Ms. Marsland stated that the valuable qualities of this property would be destroyed by development as well as the quality of life for those In the area Dr. Catherine Hunter, 12045 SE 284th St., Kent, WA 98030 stated that what is decided for this site would affect many persons, generations, animals and all wetlands that spread out from all these watersheds and carry long-term ramification. She stated that the people from Yarrow Bay could change what they want to do with this property, zone it at a low density, thereby preserving it and protecting its environment. Bruce Burns, 28641 132nd Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98042 stated that the impoundment site favors low density or no density development. He spoke of the importance of protecting the valuable waterways and wetlands, encouraging the City to consider retaining this land. He stated that he is part of the SOS Group and although he is not against developing property, he stated that he would not touch this site. Todd Howe, 29312 118th Avenue SE, Auburn, WA 98092 stated that when he moved onto Lea Hill, there were open spaces, fields and meadows, which have been stripped away as property has been developed with 8 homes per acre on them. Mr. Howe stated that we are talking about developing low-income housing on this site and although a King County Journal article indicated that low-income housing should be disbursed throughout King County, South King County gets more than its fair share, particularly the Auburn and Kent areas. Mike Pratum, 30510 122"d Place SE, Auburn, WA 98092 stated that he and his wife are new members of the SOS Group. He stated that he lives just south of subject 156-acre site due to its natural and rural environment. He stated that he and his wife would like to see this site developed into a park. 01 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 8of11 Russ Jones, 11018 SE 322"d St, Kent, WA 98030 stated that he is opposed to the Olson Creek development as currently proposed. He stated that this area is in Auburn's potential annexation area. Mr. Jones stated that all existing roads on Lea Hill are redlined and cannot handle existing traffic loads. The addition of 400 homes would compromise the road's traffic capacity. He stated that the three routes available to reach Lea Hill are Lea Hill Road, 277d' St. Bypass and Highway 18, none of which provides efficient routes for emergency response vehicles. Mr. Jones stated that he opposes development as the cost of road and infrastructure improvements would equate to over 22 million dollars, which the City of Kent is going to pass on to the City of Auburn where the burden of payment will fall on Auburn's taxpayers. Vonda Marsland, 12129 SE 303rd Ct., Auburn, WA 98092 added to her earlier testimony by stating that she and her husband are financially prepared to support any effort that the SOS takes to go to court against the City of Kent if development occurs. Tom Bartholomew, 20437 90 Avenue S., Kent, WA stated that he is considering the purchase of a home located at the north end of the subject site and voiced his dismay that this site would be developed. He recommended that this site be developed as a park by Yarrow Bay. Brian Derdowski, 70 East Sunset Way, Issaquah, WA 98027 offered the following recommendations: • That the City applies the requirements of the most recent state of the art Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual with the mandatory application of infiltration and low impact development guidelines. • Do not authorize transfer of density from sensitive areas and their associated buffers. • No PUD or other bonus density shall be authorized. • The wetland and stream delineations should consider Olson Creek • There would be no variances for minimum buffer requirements. • There would be no variances from road standards. • Any proposed development shall require a certification of adequate school capacity to serve the development from the Auburn School District. • Any proposed development shall require a certification that sewer and water is available from the City of Auburn and that such service is consistent with Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. • Request that staff propose other rezone conditions that serve to accomplish the goals of protecting the Olson Creek Watershed and ensures that development utilizes the Best Available Science and the highest Urban Design Standards. David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried. Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt responded to the Takings issue as discussed by Mr. Derdowski. Ms. Pratt stated that a Taking would exist if the City took away all viable economic use from a piece of property. If a Taking did occur, an owner would have a right to sue the City for compensation. She stated that avoidance of a Taking is not reason to conditionally zone a piece of property. The City would analyze the Taking issue at the time that the City was going to impose new development regulations or whatever the circumstances were that the property owner felt was responsible for the Taking. SEPA Responsible Official, Kim Marousek, addressed questions concerning the City's Traffic Impact Analysis and the State SEPA statutes, which allow jurisdictions to generate environmental addendums based on the use of existing environmental documents to meet its needs under SEPA. She also addressed school impact issues. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 9 of 11 'Environmental Engineering Manager Bill Wolinski addressed comments made concerning inadequacies of the City's Storm Water Management Manual and the City's relationship with the State Department of Ecology's Manual and King County's Manual. Mr. Wolinski reiterated from previous testimony that the arena of storm water management has been rapidly evolving over the last three decades. Mr. Wolinski stated that the City is an active participant in the Green Duwamish Program and is involved in at least half a dozen preservation projects. Mr. Wolinski stated that the City has informally talked to the developers and they seem open minded to considering low impact development concepts to apply to this particular site. He stated that the City is sensitive to the wetland areas, recognizing their value. Mr. Wolinski stated that the City is active in the salmon recovery program and feels a strong sense of obligation to remain consistent in our actions and not be arbitrary. He stated that the City is the recipient of funding at the State and Federal level and therefore, is accountable for its actions. Mr. Wolinski responded to Mr. Malik's concerns over how development would affect Olson Creek, water quality and wetlands on this site including the potential for the City of Kent to lose Federal and State funds if the City were to compromise the water quality and wetlands on this site. Planning Manager Charlene Anderson addressed issues concerning the application of school district impact fees for Kent and Auburn and they are associated with the Capital Facilities Plans for each city. Community Development Director, Fred Satterstrom urged the Board to move the Impoundment Reservoir Property topic forward to the City Council, reiterating the history of this particular matter. Mr. Satterstrom stated that City Council would hold a minimum of two public hearings on this matter weighing the Board's advisory recommendation carefully as well as hearing additional testimony. He reiterated that staff is recommending Option #7C. Mr. Satterstrom encouraged the Board to pass their concerns along to the City Council with their recommendation, indicating that those concerns would show up in the form of a development agreement with whomever buys this property or as conditions of a rezone. Greg Worthing MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to accept Staffs Recommendation of Alternative #7A along with the following conditions as stated by Mr. Malik: • All wetlands will be combined to support Olson Creek on the West/Northwest property line. • No townhomes, condominiums, apartments, or attached houses will be allowed on this property. • No variances will be requested or guaranteed by the City of Kent • If wetlands are found to be less than 70 acres in size, then the City or developer will create a green area. After deliberations, Mr. Malik withdrew his SECOND. The MOTION DIED for lack of a second. The Board continued to deliberate on the available Options. Mr. Dowell stated why he favors staffs recommendation of Option 47C. Ms. Watson stated why she supports Option#4. Mr. Johnson stated his reasons for supporting Option 5C. Steve Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to accept Option #7C Urban Separator , Plan Designation allowing development of 387 units without the use of a PUD process or 456 units with a PUD process and with an average lot size of 5,733 square feet along with the following conditions as stated by David Malik: Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 10 of 11 • All wetlands will be combined to support Olson Creek on the West/Northwest property line. • No townhomes, condominiums, apartments, or attached houses will be allowed on this property. • No variances will be requested or guaranteed by the City of Kent • If wetlands are found to be less than 70 acres in size, then the City or developer will create a green area. Ms. Watson stated that she is a proponent of affordable housing and believes we do have to take on our fair share of growth and if this were any other piece of property on the East Hill, she would support this motion. She stated that she believes this piece of property to be unique and therefore cannot support this density at this time. Mr. Worthing and Johnson concurred with Ms. Watson that the density is too high with this option, therefore not supporting this motion. Steve Dowell] WITHDREW his MOTION of #7C and MOVED to accept Option #76 with David Malik SECONDING the MOTION with the following conditions as stated by David Malik • All wetlands will be combined to support Olson Creek on the West/Northwest property line. • No townhomes, condominiums, apartments, or attached houses will be allowed on this property. • No variances will be requested or guaranteed by the City of Kent • If wetlands are found to be less than 70 acres in size, then the City or developer will create a green area. MOTION FAILED 3 to 2 Elizabeth Watson MOVED and Greg Worthing SECONDED to adopt Option #4 and send it on to City Council. Motion Failed 3 to 2. David Malik MOVED and Greg Worthing SECONDED to adopt Option #7A with conditions as proposed by Mr. Malik. MOTION FAILED 3 to 2 with Greg Worthing and Elizabeth Watson Opposed. Steve Dowell MOVED and Elizabeth Watson SECONDED recommending adoption of Alternative #4 to be sent on to City Council. MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1. Ms. Anderson stated that public hearings are scheduled before City Council on March 2 and April 6 at 7:00 pm. SHORT PLAT MEETING REPRESENTATION Greg Worthing volunteered to act as the primary representative for the Land Use and Planning Board at the Short Plat meetings committing to coverage through May 2004 ADJOURNMENT Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, &F AAZ—� Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board S 1Permit\PlanXLUPB120031Mmutea1012703min doe Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 23,2004 Page 11 of 11 n COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, C. D. Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson,AMP,Manager K E N T Phone- 253-856-5454 w w a H I"a T o M 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 Attorney 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. #CPA 2003-ZCPZ­2003-1 IMPOUNDMENT RESERVOIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE&INITIAL 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 304t' St Mr. Osborne presented twelve (12) land use and initial zoning altematives 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 projections. 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 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, 11814115ei 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 88t' St. E, Puyallup, WA; Susan Sanders, 25415 118"'Ave. SE, Auburn, WA; Virginia Haugen, 2503 "R' St. SE, Auburn, WA; Noelle Rogerson, 10637 SE 24,e 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 284`" 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 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 Minutes January 26,2004 Page 3 of 5 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 2415' St., Kent, WA stated that he is a member of the Bicycle Advisory Board. He cautioned staff to not destroy the bicycle facilities along 1201 which was designated by King County as a bicycle route with a four to five foot ride 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 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, Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board 51PermtWianILUPB120o4Minutes1012604min doc Land Use and Planning Board Minutes January 26,2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 440 Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Ns:wr KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager W A S H 19 O T o M 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 124rh Avenue Southeast and Southeast 304`h 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 annexed parcels remains under Kin County jurisdiction, - p g ou y �u s ion, 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. Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing 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 (18%); 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 • 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 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 Hearing January 26,2004 Page 5 of 21 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 6-8 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 7-1B 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 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 muldmodal 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 Public 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 Heanng 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 Desi nated 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 (9600rP 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 Planning 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(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 (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-monthly 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 Public Hearing 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 13), 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 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. s Land Use and Planning Board Public Heanng 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 (12091o) 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 (21%) 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 eaming under 50 percent of median household income." (http.lAvww.metrokc.gov/exec/news/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 Hearing 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 Hearnig January 26,2004 Page 14 of 21 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 14t' 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 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 TR-4.2 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 Pubhc Hearing 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 Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 17 of 21 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 Ih 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 Planning Board Public Hearmg January 26,2004 Page 18 of 21 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 Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 19 of 21 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 i Consideration of Economic Impacts of Regulation Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 20 of 21 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 Alternatives 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. WO1pmS;1Permit\PlanicompPlanAmdments1200312031726-CPA200:,- LUPBPubHrg U12604.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 5/21/03 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 Planning Board Public Hearing January 26,2004 Page 21 of 21 .4 m § & ui C4 a c 2 - § - co a I f 2 Im f ■ £ _ ` m • k � ±on � f IL. 2 § 2 $ 3 ƒ I ■ . k 0. R 2k � m� � � \ CO OD Ln U. # mr § � = . / r f 2 + \ k ƒ m � i > s9 e \ § k ) ) LM ¥ cc § � r _ i � � � i k � f © Ln� � ~ � � 2 . a =■\N���_2cB22k&g� 72��� /■, CL ta ■j - } 2ceM / (. a + � �2§t < �� < k L § 2 _< k c0a tm @ m § mq - c � / @IL <�§ Ln cc ciz { 222 © © .4 ■ & ■ ` SEE x ƒ kk § ) f 2 k $ k CS � @ £ ju § CL kthom. I I L I A \ mm N mm �p �p b y� N N 1'1 5 N N IN�1 V1 N O c N � C N N ct N 1 a ALL m m N Z N � N $ R OR a a F b N .1 N OO N O g g TF �p N �T0 N N G 1y�'1 N N wl � O N r1 Q K N O� 9N $ ` FA x c g g' x N OP x c m 3 c R E 3 E m a co x ok C v iv „ QS n A a yCN a Qp C " MIA N Yl rrrEEE . 15 " 2E sE tu a. a. c = Jib g U Co N M N r+ Nf of • 1� {n N O O 14 M t0 (C FF N M .-1 M U co N O N MNy %D IC O N M O a M Ln N Z O .c a Q OD N M T 14 M 0 O I to c M O Q z IA m O N M Ln W � � J �v Q Fc 00 N �p �' ,..� M O IL Na 00 fV M f0 c fh N M N •.y �O Q d i > N .y c al ( = b N a E 0 V M may m K x LL L LL z + .� io O c II N + n y 1L N Y1 i ..r p T + Yl o W y � II O i V N o d`0 � �'O � v: MQ d � vl Q � f -°o ENN � z E L" N 62 � ca � c, .r p v u t L^ i > p� N •o ycn tn i7 7 N O w a) Vl D. VI (/I N y� c w .O cmy � p � E � a a c � o E �'ooZ w tn vo - S f0 c c oc ud' oN o c cxE a Erw � vN ° o pu 0) ao va' ut opC NCM cn y 075 u ��Cpp ,gyp .� '� O y .N d 7 = aO J LL }7 7 O a Yf L 1r 6 (rl fC CZ i M N Q� N 00 a% U C J J j U M M N U m 1D U.�-� � L M N P% go co tD ti I� ID to to Q M M N Q CO tD ti a Ln Ln CD U o a M ;' U co U to to oD to m O M '! to m co tD ID to to Z Z Z K a a O M '�� Q c7 tD ,�� a a Ln an m 0 0 0 X co co to CW V O M '1 LU U OD �D ti W U N to 4.0 > N m O M '~ IA m co tD 2 IA m m Ln O d W W tY Q Q Q •V Q O �• M '� Q aD tD Q u1 to O a o �r o T to N a et a un to FA o fn O �'? M v M to to m a .y N d t Cl a' en N ri eY tp CD rl to ul CD a 0 x > � rn M Ln in ca rn Q Z o d °' L' v o - o2S c t �0 v C7 o v W N p N O m c N O > > of d. +' fkc 01 to VI Oti i Ln Q N C y O i+ a c 7 }�1 C O C cm va Xvo a cy fn 3g '' cy jn .rn Q Of c o > > � o. � O3 � � mcl — ., Co a g c7 8 " � r E — c c a os r ati O W " O 3 Z c d � p 3 vi C 0 $ a cas x d E o1O oy c W — in ,nEL° a� m Wv � E � y A O o > a L E O d 9A > d w O a C c _ v_ ai O a H c u �o $' aV g' 8 d aE � °uwrs wea = ac � u'Sro � n � +`_g w Z ~ N lz C;6 E � U .+ .fir N to N tn � N M fV E — u c°D d d n 3 c = i c°� Q Ln Ln o u � _ _ _ A to N min 9 o n ■ - - D « Ln ® to § � QLn Ln Li 1 u C4 o � ■ m Lne o ■ ■ eq 0 2 'r § Ln \ o « r K FacFc4- (n o u f o § Q o C V" � E E > § Ln ■ $ o § ■ 0 2 Ln 1-1 / « Ln $ f « r4 c r-i Lq o . a 2 # Ln � o % � Lq � 2 m Lno Lnm o o $Ln C4 L E > •N , . . , . , . L Ln■ $ 94 Ln LP o - o o 95 r4 14 Ln E Ln Ln o ® Lq LiF4 Ln a ^ x 2 v co �£ k _ mE � 2 � ) § k � m � o � � mcr § c E / Ln § a 8 - e . t 2 ' _ fu wLn � � � 3 � � v ƒ _ < d . © « G r - \ £ t & \\ > Ch o § II C / � • 2 ! � % � 2 © k o _ � 3 c c E � 7 . 2 � 26 � ° 2 2likk ■ § ` £ ■ § • o - e M £ | 22 m E 1A it& % 7wCL � � = § Ig 2f � _ ■ 22 / § 3 � � 2 l 3 _ § § CA k k a- " (� N N in U 00 14 m V � r P td N N 00 to 1� fa +4 Ln P m Q N N V) Q '7 .4 LI'1 Q (n C U o N N U co +-r rn U tD %D co O N N H ID m V' r+ In %D m H O O O x Ln Ln T C Ln a N m O O O x co O W U c CO ni ni W U o .y O+ W U a+ > > Lo 10 a a a ll1 m O N N Y1 m +••r to If) m W W 4Y W •V a Q O N N a F-c to Q a N .O a N H O cz N N In N O C M O O O M C O V' M p% a eq r d +ri O O O M O V N a 0 Ln in V IV N to j .4 Ln m C 4 .0 C W o = Ln Y v o a�i c aci E ,`", a; a 10 � � Ln co � � D � c vM > � ou a in � 93. in � .2r C U b J a� c d rn Q cm y O 7 W N n c � � E m u E coo � $ O c � — d Gl m C y o c � -0 j C E O `M a4Z 3 r, � c p c c m u �° W N V m — In y y 0 n %p d > C V ++ a t •� •t� 5�.+ pC Q c C U ` c t a0 lJ S U i`J Il C t7 O a0 2� m .-r d{ � of C ri L E y N U (0� � UC07W LU 0 ILI -- - AS At/Z£-V--- M -- - - — - --- — M h r' +' O co to co IL W N V Q ca - CO O Oco - LL cd Q. CL a. ca ---- -- N N Nch00O — — - AS 3AV VZL -- - --- i I - -- N I W 11 -3S-3AV $6L N cm - C T _ a J 1L1 - - - ti ILL.. tWM - ----- - - -- - N ch -- - i. - -- - —------ -- --0 .20 O p W 0 i r ti o 0T- NN C N LL (D cn v Q m U v _ C - LL Q Q CL U da OD to000 77 6::�, ' ---- r{ o e t co -- Cy I r W -- �' -- -L ---'-- --:- N - -- --- 3S 3AV 8C1 --- - LLJ _ J cry � i------_--I T � c O - N TILL LOOP 0) 6. - - OD CD - a J 41 oMo LO rn to ----- - — - — - --- - -- r' N M L --- - - -- - - - ---- - O O O -- - --- - O -- - - - -- - - --- --- N ti to CV) 0) Cu tA �a N � NN d 0. LL • . 4) amii a m w - - - M O O D ca to C ---- Q Q QLL Lei -- -- - cncQ000 Ora' -- --- -- 4 1 r---- -- N W'� —U)l 3AV9V4 _-- ---- N - - UY + m T = a J • 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 0 1-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. Auburn 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. 1111111'A.a01+.�-��/ " 'I _�� =ab��i� I� ■�-Door `,� r-a .� per_ _Or ,'I Pt■Illltt tt 1■rr/fi+Itl:-� MEN ZZ 1•T������ i �I I �.all�_� =n14�y�• � 1 11 ut iia�lu■�r I11/li �� — =rd'eti_-i��. :��-=C�•inlllun nalu six_:.�:_siu __- o.f■ .:ate: - � unll fff --• .l ili q p I�tuulu�:nt�p • ■ 1_'_IIII !I'IiII■erM�r.�� rm _: i�,�-■ S�'O 1 IIIt111 :'d11 II III �II I'1 "I'�1 ■1�,,;'1 _I •L{:Lu s �I1111- y1 tt'1 �• t�Iitll\GX 111 -■■ i�l:, - ' lii��■ I Novi Mm EL slam 006 OWN" SUN 1 11-_-■1-- - 1100 ML to JIM ..�1 a• '* ffuarY/7t�t rnn. � .� � .►q pl.���,IIIrOO1111� 111�1� fiilll. I�urr non a �,' ��'��`� ■a Imo/: q=I A ��• `au� �� Ross 1010111 fill IN IIII�II�11 •�..>....,. S r�� m LEA HILL TASK FORCE PRINCIPLES FOR ANNEXATION REPORT TO THE CITY OF AUBURN CITY COUNCIL Adopted December 15, 1997 1 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. 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 shall contribute to the development of new parks at-a 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 shall be environmental limitations,accessibility, maintenance costs, consistency with the Parks and Recreation Plan and the ability to meet more of the Communi recreational needs by the coordinated development of parks located elsewhere.(Policy PR-2, ACP) The City shall 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 PR4,ACP) Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of essential public facilities(sewer,water,storm drainage, and parks)prior to or concurrent with development (Policy CF-1,ACP) Issue#2 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 Farm,should it be acquired for future park. 19 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?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.04... 1/14/2004 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.feg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.04... 1/14/2004 Page 3 of 3 (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 § 6.3 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?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.04... 1/14/2004 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.cfm7fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.12... 1/14/2004 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.cfm?fubeaction=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/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=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 11 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). http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.13... 1/14/2004 KENT J W ws+ waios 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`h Avenue SE, south of SE 288`h Street and north of 3041h 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(or 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 Kent, WA 98032 r Da Signature KM jm1S•lpermitWanknv1200312032222adoptdoc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager Phone:253-856-5454 KENT Fax- 253-856-6454 Wws H;Norow 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 lying west of 124th Ave SE, east of 118't' Avenue SE, south of SE 288th Street and north of 3041h 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 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 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 18, 1994 (#ENV-93-51). The DEIS analyzed three comprehensive plan land use alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures, which were used in preparing comprehensive plan policies. The preferred land use alternative which was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan was most closely related to Alternative 2 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 of Addendum —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-1 97-11-600(4)(c). ENVIRONMENTAL 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 124d'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 nonproject 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 Is filled to create the impoundment site. At the time the modeling was completed, Wetland A Page 4 of 9 ENV-2003-26 City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum (identified in the report as wetland #24), provided up to 100 acre/feet 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. Stormwater — 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 pawpnnts). 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 transitioning from a rural 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 124`h 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 GreenbeltfUrban 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 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`h 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 I 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 I is expected to generate 2,260 daily and 230 PM peak hour trips and Alternative 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 TIA 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 284'h Street/112`h Avenue SE. Construct southbound left-turn and westbound right- turn lanes to support Alternatives 1 or 2. 2. SE 304'h Street/124th Avenue SE.Construct left-turn lanes SE 304'h Street and a southbound right-turn lane on 124'h Avenue SE to support Alternatives 1 and 2. 3. SE 304`s Street/132nd Avenue SE. Widen the eastbound approach to provide separate left-and right-turn lanes to support Alternatives 1 and 2. 4. SE 304th Street/112t'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 304'h Street/116'h Avenue SE. Install a traffic signal to support Alternatives 1 and 2. 6. SE 284'h Street/124'h Avenue SE.To support Alternative 2,widen the eastbound approach to provide separate left-and right-turn 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 272nd/ 277m 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 1241h Avenue SE, SE 304'h Street, 118`h Avenue SE,and/or potentially on 1121h Avenue SE. Access design and control would be evaluated with a development-specific proposal to determine intersection geometry,' control,and turn-lane needs. Frontage improvements would be required with development of the site. King County has identified the need for three-lane roadways on 124d' Avenue SE and SE 304`' 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 I I8'h 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 124`h Avenue SE and SE 304'h Street. In addition, a pedestrian crossing should be considered near the north end of the site on 1241h 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 124h 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. I1. 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 Dated: January 16,200 Signature. 4 Kim o sek,AICP,Responsi e Official KM jm\\S\Permit\Plan\Env\2003\2032222addendum doc Page 9 of 9 RECEIVED rj CITY OF KENT j ASSOCIATES JAN 2 6 2004 ®•--� LAND USE&PLNG BOARD EXHIBIT 1� 11814 115thAverw NE January 25, 2004 Kirkland WA 98034-6923 425.8211.8448 4258213481 fax 800488 0756 toll free TO: Jon Johnson,Chair and Land Use and Planning Board Members v tnadassoccom 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 SR11.5 Initial Zoning. • South of the north boundary of the BPA Easement: (91.15 ac)Urban Separator Comprehensive PIan and SR-I Zoning. s 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 1 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 S,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 r . . ,. . . . Mountain Trails, a 30 lot subdivision where a majority of the lots will be clustered adjacent to the boundary of the subject site. All adjacent parcels south of the BPA easement are zoned either R4 or R-6. All parcels east of 12e Avenue SE are zoned either R4 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 R-4. 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 ''/z 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 criteria 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 Residential 2.18 Units perAcre(SR-2)would be consistent with the interim designations given to other Kent annexations. Assuming 65.43 acres of SF-4.5 Zoning north of the BPA Easement and 91.15 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 ofPUD 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 stormwater 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 Q. 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-10.3—This policy allows more flexibility in residential setbacks and parking, particularly on small lots, to encourage infill development and innovative site design. Alternative 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 Iarger 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 lots 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 163—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. Housint;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 Staff s 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 Element 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 Develonment 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 4-S x R-1 M,"T ----- list, lot"-it R-4 -1; 0 R W--3— 'LlU Sr 7HS1 St E s R-4 a -80 I/ EE 02HI P R4-SD 1-6 R-6-SO SE R-1-SO 2 61 1 -5-SO 4-Sa— /ARA 0 M 8-so -wt, Ba -1 UgN&R4SO KII: I 4-so 4.t JN ------ ------- EXHIBIT A- 5URROLINDING UVAD USES 1\1 T I 5 0 YAPaOWW north development a ' 1(" µTT �f 'k. 1{ 2P 4t n_ . .kt o � '� 1 �• �, '3NOZ HIS,•�,.,F s ..� �; —:�:. .,� i•' •tom-;;` i:'fi u LAA �I _ LLI 4. 7 itµ .�.• 'i�� �'`k� D. 17 0 9- r3 .i ------- 6 --{1{ .te. �ra �,^t .p..Y,3r t .�'.• LU ��r,.K�y�-,mot : •� � p f ' J u fir�rg RECEIVED o' CITY OF KENT y MAR 0 8 2004 obi tees� LAND USE&PLNG BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON EXHIBIT_ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128—10"'Avenue SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 • (360) 725.4000 February 23,2004 Mr. Jon Johnson, Chair Kent Land Use and Planning Board 220 0 Avenue South Kent,Washington 98032 Re- Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Mr. Johnson: We appreciate that your staff sent the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development(CTED)the proposed update to the City of Kent's comprehensive plan that we received on January 16,2004. We recognize the substantial investment of time, energy, and resources that this document represents. We especially like the following. This W A. sw lus plan is very complete. It includes all the elements required by RC 36 70 070,a well as optional Economic Development, Community Design, and Park and Recreation elements. It demonstrates consistency with the requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA)and with County-wide Planning Policies. The plan includes a number of excellent policies to support a vibrant and livable community. • The Housing Element policies allow a variety of housing options to suit the needs of people of all walks of life. We especially appreciate the policies that the city will provide density bonuses for affordable rental and purchase housing for low-and moderate-income households. We also appreciate the policies that state the city will explore exempting affordable housing from impact fees and/or expediting plan review. • The Transportation Element contains a heavy policy emphasis on multi-modal transportation, and on making it easy to bicycle and walk within the community. This element states that a Non-Motorized Transportation Plan will be developed this year as part of its Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The plan is to include a prioritized list of bicycle improvements, and earmarks over$600,000 in the current Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)for these improvements. We look forward to seeing this document and its Mr. Jon Johnson February 23,2004 Page 2 implementation. CTED has examples of non-motorized transportation plans that we would be happy to provide to you. • We appreciate that the plan includes many policies to add flexibility to development standards,especially standards such as street widths,clustering,low-impact design,and setbacks to encourage more compact infill development and innovative site design. We also appreciate the efforts that have gone into the planning of Kent Station. Good urban design standards form the basis for a successful project and a vibrant center for your city. • The plan states that the city has completed a Wellhead Protection Plan,prepared in cooperation with the Covington Water District and King County Water District#111. We appreciate that the city is also in the process of assessing critical aquifer recharge areas, and will be developing a protection program in the future. Protection of wellheads and lands that recharge aquifers from incompatible uses,such as those which use hazardous chemicals, is important to protecting ground water quality. • We commend the city for choosing to include an optional Economic Development Element. An Economic Development Element can help a community to plan for a good jobs/housing balance,can tie together other elements such as capital facilities and transportation, and helps the city plan for diversified sources of revenue. This element includes good policies, which are consistent with other elements of the plan. Kent has done an exceptional job of attracting a diversified range of economic activity. We have the following concerns regarding density that you should address before you adopt your plan update: • The GMA was intended to ensure that lands inside urban growth areas(UGAs)are developed at urban densities,unless there are compelling reasons for developing at lower densities. The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board(CPSGMHB)has determined that lands within a UGA should be divided at a minimum of four dwelling units per net(buildable) acre to ensure efficient provision of urban services such as sewer, water, and public transit. Lands within a UGA are expected to eventually be served with these services,and providing them is much more cost-effective as densities increase. Land that currently has insufficient services should not be zoned at lower densities,but should be zoned so that it is platted at urban densities. The land may be developed at lower densities, but should allow for infill when services become available. Where there are clear,compelling, and well-documented reasons, densities of one unit per acre or lower may be justified. For example, some larger lots sizes may be appropriate in order to avoid excessive development pressures on or near environmentally sensitive areas, or in documented,unique circumstances,but must not constitute a pattern over large areas. In general, environmentally sensitive areas must be significant,with complex structure and functions,to justify these lower conservation densities. Mr.Jon Johnson February 23,2004 Page 3 King County's"Urban Separator"land use is required by the King County County-wide Planning Policies to be low-density,or areas of little development,within the UGA and its low density of one unit per acre can be justified. However,Table 4.1 of the Land Use Element shows that almost 1,300 acres of land within the City of Kent are zoned at two and three units per acre,and almost 1,450 acres are zoned at one unit per acre, including lands designated"Urban Separator". CTED recommends that the city review lands designated one and three units per acre,and zoned at one, two or three units per acre, and determine whether these should be at a conservation(one unit per acre or less)density in environmentally significant areas,or at an urban density(a minimum of four units per net acre). As the city assesses critical areas,this may be a good time to determine if the densities set by your zoning districts will yield net minimum densities of four units per acre. A number of CPSGMHB cases have discussed the issue of density. We recommend you review Bremerton, et al v. Kitsap County, No. 95-3-0039c(Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995),Benaroya, et al. v. City of Redmond, No. 95-03-0072 (Final Decision and Order, March 25, 1996),Litowitz v. City of federal Way,No. 96-3-0005 (Final Decision and Order,July 22, 1996),and MBA v. Pierce County,No.02-3-010(Final Decision and Order, February 4, 2003). These cases may be found on the Growth Management Hearing Board Web page at www.gmhb.wa.gov. • Policy LU-9.1 is "to encourage average net residential densities of four units per acre, as defined through decisions by the CPSGMHB in order to adequately support urban services". The CPSGMHB has found that a net, average density of four units per acre over one parcel to allow for clustering is permissible,but that a net average density of four units per acre over a large subarea,or throughout a jurisdiction is not consistent with the GMA. CTED recommends that every parcel within a UGA should be subdivided to a minimum density of four units per net(buildable)acre,and cautions against averaging across a wide area to reach a minimum density. We recommend that this policy be refined to clarify that net residential density can only be averaged across one parcel and not over a large area,or that this policy be removed from the plan. We also suggest the city ensure that development is platted to at least four units per acre by adopting a policy of minimum densities. Section 15.04.070 of the Kent Zoning Code sets maximum densities for each zone. CTED recommends that cities also set mimmum numbers of dwelling units within each zone. If land is not developed to full density, the development should be placed in an appropriate manner and allowances for future infrastructure should be made so that future urban densities will not be precluded. All lots do not have to be developed but they should be platted. We have some suggestions for strengthening your plan that we encourage you to consider either in these or future amendments: • CTED suggests that the City of Kent include a table in the comprehensive plan that shows the relationship between land use designations and zoning districts as it is unclear how they Mr. Jon Johnson February 23,2004 Page 4 are related. This element should also include a table showing the general distribution of land uses rather than zoning districts. • A comprehensive plan should include the goals and policies of a jurisdiction's shoreline master program(SMP). These can be added as an additional Shoreline Element or they can be added to goals and policies in the Land Use Element. Including SMP goals and policies into the comprehensive plan can help ensure consistency between the SMP and rest of the city's planning documents. We suggest that all environmental goals,policies, and text be consolidated into an Environmental Element to provide a comprehensive element on this topic. • The Capital Facilities Element states that the 2002 stormwater manual is a modified version of King County's 1998 manual, and will be adjusted to meet Ecology's stormwater manual in the future. We encourage the city to continue updating its manual, or adopt Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001)or its equivalent. Congratulations to you and your staff for the good work these amendments embody. If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth management issues,please call me at(360)725-3064 or Ike Nwankwo at(360) 725-3056. We extend our continued support to the City of Kent in achieving the goals of growth management. Sincerely, Anne Aurelia Fritzel Associate Planner Growth Management Services AAF:lw cc: The Honorable Jim White, Mayor of Kent Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager, City of Kent Gloria Gould-Wessen,GIS Coordinator/Long Range Planner,City of Kent Ike Nwankwo, Technical and Financial Assistance Program Manager,CTED Lor I n RECEIVED �'7dsofWaskgton MAR 0 12004 February 27,2004 1000 Friends of Washington CITY OF KEN r 1617 Boylston Avenue,Since 200 PLANNING SERVICES Seattle,WA 98122 (206)343-0681 phone (206)709.8218 fax RECEIVED www l000friends org CITY OF KENT Aaron Ostrom MAR 0 8 2004 Executive Director Mr. Jon Johnson, Chair Dave Russell Kent Land Use and Planning Board LAND USE:t�t�BOARD President 220 4th Avenue South EXHIBIT Board of Trustees Kent,Washington 98032 ( Fran Abel Dta Atmenta Langley Dear Mr. Johnson: Bainbridge Island Jay Arnold I am writing to ask that you carefully examine your city's densities as you prepare Nancy Ball Kirkland to update your comprehensive plan. 1000 Friends of Washington urges cities and - Walla Walla counties to provide for development intensities that wisely and efficiently use Margot Blacker Bellevue land to avoid the negative impacts of sprawl. The negative impacts of low- David Brncklm densitydevelopment include increased capital facility costs and traffic, lack of Bambndge Island Pmen P y Vance corum affordable housing to all income segments and destruction of critical areas. Vancouver If Eustis Seattle The Growth Management Act (GMA) goals encourage development Inside urban :ould Edmonds growth areas (UGAs) and the reduction of low-density sprawling development.! Bart Haggm Further,urban growth at urban densities shall be encouraged within the UGA? Spokane Bruce Long Mercer Island To address these issues and carryout the goals and requirements of the GMA,the MaryMtc°tuber Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board has adopted a bright • Seattle g g g P Henry McGee line'rule that comprehensive plans and development regulations must have a Seattle maximum density of no less than four residential dwelling units per net acre for Barbara McIntosh Y g Poulsbo all lands within the UGA s This density"is clearly compact urban development Bill Ross and satisfies the low end of the range required b the [Growth Management] Seattle g q Y g Dave Russell Kirkland Act."4"Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is Will Stelle not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is Seattle prohibited."5 The board has recognized a limited exception for"... Margaret Studer Anacoms environmentally sensitive systems [that] are large in scope (e.g., watershed or Nancy Tosta Bunen drainage sub-basin), their structure and functions are complex and their rank order Jodie Vice value is high, ...." Then a local government can apply densities of less than four Seattle Daryl Williams Tulalip Tribe 'RCW 36.70A.020(1)&(2). Advisory Board 2 RCW 36.70A.I I0(1). James Ellis 3 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L Brink, et al. v. Pierce County Dick Ford (MBAIBrink),CPSGMHB Case No.02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Virgoua Gunby Continuing Invalidity p. *8,2003 WL 22896415 p *7 (September 4,2003)&Bremerton, et al V. oe King Kitsap County,CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.:95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision aid "Steers Order p. *33(October 6, 1995). Everett Wilcock 4 Bremerton, et al. v.Kitsap County,CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No :95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order p. *33(October 6, 1995). 5 Id and RCW 36.70A.I 10(l). housing units per net acre.6 All three of these criteria must be met to qualify for the exception and generally few lands in the UGA will qualify for this limited exception. - To assist cities and counties who are required to review and update their comprehensive plans and development regulations to comply with the goals and requirements of the GMA by December 1,2004, 1000 Friends of Washington has reviewed the densities for zones with the urban growth areas for large cities and counties. This initial review has identified the City of Kent's SR1, SR2, and SR3 zones as having densities of less than four units per net acre and are, therefore,in violation of the GMA. We urge you to bring these low-density zones and the comprehensive plan designations that provide for the zones into compliance with the GMA as part of the 2004 comprehensive plan and development regulations update. We also encourage your city to adopt higher density zones. While the four dwelling unit per acre nunimum helps,it is not sufficient in itself. Higher densities are necessary to support transit service and provide affordable housing to all income levels. Generally, a minimum density of 7-12 units per acre is necessary to support transit. Increasing densities can be a difficult issue, but density is perceived and good design can make high density development extremely attractive. 1000 Friends also recognizes that changing zoning densities can be controversial in many communities. We stand ready to publicly support the necessary changes during the 2004 comprehensive plan and development regulations update. Please contact Sydney McComas or Tim Trohimovich both at(206)343-0681 or e-mail: Sydney@1000friends.org or tim@1000friendLM to let us know of hearings or other public involvement opportunities where this support would be helpful. We have enclosed a supporting document with more detailed information about urban densities and the 'bright line'rule establishing four units per acre as the legal minimum under GMA. If you have any questions or believe we have misidentified any zones, please contact Sydney McComas or Tim Trohimovich at the telephone numbers and a-mails above. Please include this letter and the enclosed report in the record of the 2004 update. b Master Builders of Pierce County&Brink(MBABrink), et al v. Pierce County,CPSGNM Case No.:02-3-OW6 Final Decision and Order p. *10,2002 WL 31998487 p. *11 (February 4, 2002). Thank you, city staff, the community, and your city's elected officials for your continuing efforts to successfully carryout the Growth Management Act and to ensure that Washington remains a great state in which to live and operate a business. Sincerely, Sydney."McComas Urban Policy Advocate Enc: 1 Cc: The Honorable Jim White,Mayor of Kent Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager,City of Kent Gloria Gould-Wessen, GIS Coordinator/Long Range Planner, City of Kent Ike Nwankwo,Technical and Financial Assistance Program Manager,CTED Anne Fritzel,Associate Planner,CTED RECEIVED MAR 01 2004 CITY of KENT PLANNING SERVICES February 27, 2004 Requirements for Compact Urban Development, a Minimum of Four Net Housing Units Per Acre Friends ofWhsilingbri Why Sprawl is Bad and Density is Good Poorly planned low density sprawling development results in many adverse impacts on Washington's residents, local governments, and environment.' A partial list of the adverse impacts include: • Higher public facility capital and maintenance costs. • Higher housing costs and the exclusion of minorities and low-income families. • More traffic because more people drive alone and must drive longer distances to work and to meet the needs of their families. Sprawling places are likely to have more traffic fatalities per capita than more compact regions due to higher rates of vehicle use. • Sprawl converts more prime agricultural land from farming to urban uses than more compact forms of development. • Sprawl destroys more critical areas and other environmentally sensitive areas than compact development. Sprawl results in fish and wildlife habitat losses and habitat fragmentation, the separation of habitats by development. Sprawl's dispersed development pattern leads to the degradation of water quality by increasing runoff volume, altering regular stream flow and watershed hydrology, reducing groundwater recharge, and increasing stream sedimentation. Scientists at the University of Washington have concluded that although impacts on salmon habitat from urbanization occur in a linear fashion, changes to the physical and biological factors necessary for high quality salmon habitat occurs most rapidly when five to ten percent of a river basin is covered by impervious surfaces (roads,buildings, and parking lots). Assuring that urban areas have sufficient densities to wisely use the land addresses each of these adverse affects and others. 1000 Friends of Washington urges cities and 1 For a comprehensive study of the adverse effects of sprawl see Robert W.Burchell,Naveed A.Shad, David Listokin,Hilary Phillips,Anthony Downs,Samuel Seskin,Judy S. Davis,Terry Moore,David Helton, and Michelle Gall. The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited(Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 39,Transportation Research Board,National Research Council 1998). Available at: httu-//www4 nationalacademies org/trb/onlmepubs nsf/web/TCRP Reports Also see Bremerton,et al. v. Kitsap County,Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board(CPSGMHB)Consolidated Case No•95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order pp.*17—*22(October 6, 1995) (a listing of the adverse effects of sprawl). Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 1 ' counties to provide densities that wisely and efficiently use land. While the four dwelling unit per net acre rule helps, it is not sufficient in itself. To provide transit supportive densities, at least seven homes per acre is necessary? In most communities, to provide housing affordable for working families also requires higher housing densities. These needs must be considered in planning for sustainable communities. Minimum Urban Densities The Four Dwelling Units per Net Acre Bright Line Rule To address these adverse impacts the Growth Management Act goals encourage development within the urban growth area(UGA) and call for reducing sprawling low density development.3 Urban growth must be encouraged in UGAs.4 To meet these goals and requirements, The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Central Board)adopted a `bright line" rule that a residential pattern of four net dwelling units per acre or higher "is clearly compact urban development and satisfies the tow end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act."5 "Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is prohibited."' In subsequent cases, the board has clarified that all properties that do not meet limited exceptions have to be designated and zoned at four or more housing units per net acre. As the Central Board recently wrote: In LMUChevron, the Board held, "the GMA requires every city to designate all lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." LMUChevron, [Final Decision and Order], at 23; (underlining in original, italics supplied). This concept of designating lands at appropriate urban densities within unincorporated UGAs was extended to counties and zoning designations in z Bons Pushkarev&Jeffrey Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy(Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1977)(public transit use is minimal below a net residential density of seven dwelling units an acre). 3 RCW 36 70A.020(1)&(2). 4 RCW 36.70A.110(1). 5 Bremerton,et al.v. Kitsap County,CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No:95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order p.*33(October 6, 1995). 61d. Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 2 Forster Woods Homeowners Association, et al., v. King County (Forster Woods), CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3-008c, Final Decision and Order, (Nov. 6, 2001), at 32 7 The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board used four dwelling units per acre as a minimum urban density for determining if land was characterized by urban growth for the purposes of establishing an UGA.6 The Eastern Board has not adopted such a rule as of this date. Limited Exceptions The Central Board has recognized two exceptions to the bright line rule requiring all urban residential properties to have minimum density of four dwelling units per net acre. First, if part of the UGA contains "... environmentally sensitive systems [that] are large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), their structure and functions are complex and their rank order value is high, ..." then a local government can apply densities of less than four housing units per net acre.9 All three of these criteria must be met to qualify for the exception. Examples of areas found to meet this test have been the "large environmentally sensitive system [that] includes overlapping flood hazard areas, wetlands, critical fish and wildlife habitat areas and corridors ..." and wildlife habitat diversity areas in MBA/Brink, a wetlands system adjacent to Hylebos Creek in Litowitz, and the overlapping seismic hazards, floodplains, wetlands, and aquifer recharge areas in Benaroya.10 In contrast, in MBA/Brink four areas had "isolated, sporadic and scattered occurrences of flooding, wetlands, or priority habitats that can be appropriately addressed through 7 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L. Brink,et al.v.Pierce County(MBA/Brink), CPSGMHB Case No.02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity p *8,2003 WL 22896415 p. *7(September 4,2003). 9 Fred R. Klein v.San Juan County, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board _ (WWGMHB)Case No.02-2-0008,Michael Durland,et al v. San Juan County,WWGMHB Case No.00-2- 0062c,& Town of Friday Harbor,Fred R. Klein,John M. Campbell, Lynn Bahrych,et al.v.San Juan County, W WGMHB Case No.99-2-0010c Final Decision and Order Compliance Order,2002 WL 31405482 p.*7 (October 15,2002). 9 Master Builders of Pierce County&Brink(MBA/Brink),et al. v.Pierce County,CPSGMHB Case No:02-3- 0006 Final Decision and Order p. *10,2002 WL 31998487 p. *11 (February 4,2002). This exception is sometimes referred to as the Litowitz test because the three part test was first enunciated in Litowitz v. City of Federal Way,CPSGMHB Case No.96-3-0005 Final Decision and Order p.*12,1996 WL 678415 p.*9(July 22, 1997). to MBA/Brink,Final Decision and Order p.*13,2002 WL 31998487 p.*13, Litowitz p.*12, 1996 WL 678415 p. *9, &Benaroya v City of Redmond,CPSGMHB Case No.95-3-0072c Finding of Compliance p *10—11 (March 13,1997). Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 3 existing critical areas regulations."" So these areas did not qualify for densities of less than four dwelling units per net acre. Similarly, in LMUChevron a 2.4-acre part of a wetland and pleated woodpecker and banded pigeon habitat on a 60.8-acre property did not meet the Litowitz test.12 Second, in Bremerton the Central Board also indicated that a major equestrian facility surrounded by "horse-acre lots" may also justify densities less than four dwelling units net acre" However, this potential exemption was in dicta which is not an essential part of the decision and is not legally binding. So this potential exemption should be carefully evaluated before it is used. In footnote 6 of the MBA/Brink Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity, the Central Board included this note of caution against using applicant initiated rezones or planned unit developments (PUDs) to reach the minimum four dwelling units per net acre density. It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that lands within UGAs do not yield a minimum density of 4 du/acre. In such exceptions, a variety of flexible regulatory mechanisms are available to local governments to accommodate new development when challenged by difficult topography, parcel shapes or other localized constraints. Nevertheless, the Board cautions against reliance on certain pre-GMA tools, such as planned unit development permits and site specific rezones, as the primary mechanism to enable developers to reach the GMA-mandated minimum urban densities. The growth accommodation mandate of RCW 36.70A.110 and the permit processing guidance of RCW 36.70A.020(7) would be thwarted if, in order to meet these mandates,an applicant would also be required to show "changed circumstances" (pre-GMA rezone criteria) or "public benefit" (classic PUD criteria).14 Indeed, the four housing unit per acre minimum should be allowed as of right. Also, to meet the other requirements of the Growth Management Act and to wisely use our limited land resources, most residential zoning should have maximum densities much higher than four dwelling units per net acre. 11 MBA/Brink, Final Decision and Order pp.*12-13 2002 WL 31998487 p. *13. 12 Lawrence Michael Investments, LLC &Chevron(LMI/Chevron)v. Town of Woodway, CPSGMHB Case No. 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order p. *17(January 8, 1999). 13 Bremerton at p.*33. 14 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L Brink,et al. v Pierce County(MBA/Brink), CPSGMHB Case No 02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity Footnote 6 p.*12, 2003 WL 22896415 p.*11 (September 4,2003). Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 4 The Central Board has also addressed the issue of whether capital facility deficiencies affect the duty to accommodate growth. The board answered no: Notwithstanding maintenance backlogs, RCW 36.70A.110 clearly imposes a duty upon local governments to accommodate urban growth. There is no question that the Act requires local jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate new growth --that projected by OFM and allocated by the County. jFN 151 Thus, capital facilities plans must certainly identify, locate, and take steps to finance those capital facilities that are needed to accommodate new growth. There is no provision in the GMA to suggest that the Act allows a jurisdiction not to accommodate new growth because it has a capital facilities maintenance backlog, or it has not guaranteed funding to remove any maintenance backlog, or it is postponing indefinitely its duty to accommodate new growth until its maintenance backlog is removed or reduced. To do so would fly in the face of one of the cornerstones of the GMA.is This same reasoning would indicate that a lack of capital facilities in the urban growth area would not allow densities lower than four dwelling units per acre. Rather, the city or county is required plan for and finance the capital facilities needed to accommodate compact urban development at a minimum of four dwelling units per acre. The Meaning of Net For properties that do not qualify for the limited exceptions, the definition of net may be an issue in crafting comprehensive plan policies and development regulations. The Central Board defined "net" in Benaroya v. City of Redmond: As applied to GMA planning exercises, "net' has the same general meaning as "buildable." Most cities within King County determined what their "net" land is West Seattle Defense Fund and Neighborhood Rights Campaign(WSDF IV)v. City of Seattle,CPSGMHB Case No.96-3-0033, p.*32,1997 WL 176356, p *27(March 24, 1997). (FN15.In Hensley v. City of Woodinville, CPSGMHB Case No.96-3-0031,Final Decision and Order(1997),at 9,the Board held:The GMA creates an affirmative duty for cities to accommodate the growth that is allocated to them by the county.This duty means that a city's comprehensive plan must include:(1)a future land use map that designates sufficient land use densities and intensities to accommodate any population and/or employment that is allocated;and(2)a capital facilities element that ensures that over the twenty-year life of the plan,needed public facilities and services will be available and provided throughout the jurisdiction's UGA.In Benaroya,et al. v. City of Redmond,CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0072c,Finding of Compliance(1997),at 8, the Board clarified that this affirmative duty means that cities are to. "give support to, "foster'and "stimulate"urban growth throughout the jurisdictions'UGAs within the twenty-year life of their comprehensive plans.) Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 5 l supply was for purposes of the County's UGA allocation exercise. From the record in Vashon-Maury, the Board is aware that various cities in King County deducted, for example, public rights-of-way and environmentally sensitive lands in order to determine the "net supply" of buildable land. Generally speaking, the concept of"net" remains the same when applied to a specific parcel of land — that portion which is encumbered with rights-of-way or certain critical areas would not be available for the placement of housing, for example.16 So in calculating net densities, the unbuildable land may be deducted from the gross acres to determine the net acres. Additional Growth Management Act Provisions that Require Higher Residential Densities It is important to remember that the four dwelling unit per net acre rule is a floor. There are other Growth Management Act provisions that will require higher residential densities. They include: • The Growth Management Act goals to encourage growth in the UGA, reduce sprawl, protect natural resource based industries and protect the environment.17 • The Growth Management Act goal to encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state and promote a variety of residential densities and housing types." • The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development regulations, shall include mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement and development of housing.19 • The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development regulations, shall identify sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities.21 • The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development regulations, shall make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.21 16 Benaroya, et al. v. City of Redmond,CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.95-3-0072 p.*21,1996 WL 650317 p.*25(March 25, 1996). 17 RCW 36.70A.020(l),(2),(8),&(9). Is RCW 36.70A 020(4). 19 RCW 36.70A.070(2)&RCW 36.70A.040(3)&(5)(counties and cities shall adopt development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan). 20 Id. 21 Id. Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 6 • The requirement that the UGA shall include "areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period."zz Also, if most of our cities and towns are zoned for four housing units per acre, the land needed to accommodate our future growth will be much greater than if we accommodate more homes per acre. Practice Tips In planning for urban densities, consider the following recommendations: • Almost all of the land within the UGA will require a density of four housing units per net acre and most will require greater densities to achieve community goals and to comply with all of the goals and requirements of Growth Management Act. Remember four units per net acre is "the low end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act."13 • If an area has extensive critical areas, do not add it to the urban growth area in the first place. If it is not annexed, move it outside of the urban growth area That will provide the land with the most protection since it will not be subject to urbanizing pressures. Both the Central and Western Boards have held that extensive critical areas should not be added to the UGA24 • Build a good record showing why the less than four housing units per acre density is needed and that you have enough land elsewhere to meet your adopted growth targets. Maps showing the critical areas are very helpful and were specifically referred to in MBA/Brink. Aerial and ground photos help too. In both Litowitz and Benaroya, the fact that it was undisputed that both cities had adequate land for there growth targets impressed the board. • The more critical areas the merrier. In both Benaroya and MBA/Brink, the areas that were upheld for less than four housing units per acre zoning had multiple critical areas. • The critical areas should cover the whole area or almost entirely the whole area if you want to apply the Litowitz rule. This was important in Litowitz, Benaroya, and MBA/Brink. • The critical areas should be serious natural hazards or important habitats. u RCW 36.70A.110(2). v Bremerton,et al.v. Kitsap County,CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.:95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order p.*33(October 6, 1995)(underlining added). 21 Bremerton,et al.v. Kitsap County,CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.:95-3-0039 Final Decision and Order P.*33-34 (October 6,1995)&Abenroth v. Skagit County,WWGMHB Case No.:97-2-0060 Final Decision and Order p.*11 of 63,1998 WL 1985337(January 23,1998). Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 7 r For Additional Information Contact Tim Trohimovich,ACID,JD, Planning Director 1000 Friends of Washington. Telephone (206)343-0681 or e-mail tim@1000friends.org Copies of the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions referenced in this report are available at their website: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/index.html The boards'also have excellent digests that summarize their decisions. The digests are also available at their website. F\1000 Friends Reports\Compact Urban Development 4 DU per acre for Density Letter.doc Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 8 Page 1 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.63.070.1 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.] 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.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=35A.63.07... 2/23/2004 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.cfm?fuseaction=Section&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 PA;"er✓ moves, Councilmember e&A A seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through L . Discussion r1A Action Y1'1- 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 16, 2004. 6B. Avvroval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through February 27 and paid on February 27 after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 16, 2004. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/27/04 Wire Transfers 1631-1644 $1,081,296 19 2/27/04 Prepays& 559860 509,32815 2/27/04 Regular 560174 1,378,585.99 $2,969,210.33 Approval of payment of the bills received through March 15 and paid on March 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 16,2004. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 3/15/04 Wire Transfers 1645-1657 $1,308,950.54 3/15/04 Prepays& 560175 332,967.64 3115/04 Regular 560992 893,378.55 $2,535,296.73 Approval of checks issued for p_avroll for February 1 through February 15 and paid on February 20,2004: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/20/04 Checks 275346-275617 $ 200,198.80 2/20/04 Advrces 160050-160708 1,179,03062 $1,379,229.42 Approval of checks issued for payroll for February 16 through February 29 and paid on March 5,2004: Date Check Numbers Amount 3/5104 Checks 275618-275904 $ 215,562.48 314/04 Interim Check 275905 120.05 3/5/04 Advices 160709-161366 1,168,137.24 $1,383,819.77 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B • KEN T Kent City Council Meeting WASHINGTON March16, 2004 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor White. Councilmembers present: Clark, Harmon, Ranniger, Raplee,Thomas and White. Council President Peterson was excused from the meeting. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO AGENDA A. From Council. (CFN-198) At the request of Mayor White, Public Communications Items E and F and Consent Calendar Items Q and R were added to the agenda. Martin noted the addition of an Executive Session of approximately ten minutes having to do with a personnel matter, and said no action is anticipated. He also noted that a copy of the ordinance referred to in Consent Calendar Item E containing exact figures has been distributed to Councilmembers. From the Public. (CFN-198) There were no changes to the agenda from the audience. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Employee of the Year. (CFN-147) Mayor White announced that Rosalie Givens, Facilities Assistant in the Parks Department, has been selected as Employee of the Year. B Introduction of Appointees. (CFN-198) Mayor White introduced Jennifer Hooper, his appointee to the Drinking Driver Task Force, and C. J. Bell,his appointee to the Kent Arts Commission. C. Economic Update. (CFN-198) Nathan Torgelson, Economic Development Manager, gave a brief update of economic growth in the area. D. Kent Downtown Partnership Economic Update. (CFN-462) Lee Porter and Suzanne Reeder of the Kent Downtown Partnership expressed appreciation for the support of the Mayor and Council. E. Lezislative Update. (CFN-198) Martin gave a brief legislative update, and noted that a complete presentation will be held at the April 6t'workshop. F. Police and Fire Chaplain. (CFN-122sf) Police Chief Crawford introduced Reverend Pat Ellis, Jr., the new volunteer Police and Fire chaplain. CONSENT CALENDAR CLARK MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through R, with the exception of H. White seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 2, 2004, and approval of a correction to the minutes of February 17, 2004, by adding the words "regarding a personnel matter"as follows: CHANGES TO THE AGENDA From Council or Staff. ... CAO Martin added an Executive Session regarding a personnel matter. 1 Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 2004 B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) No bills were approved at the Operations Committee meeting of March 2, 2004. C. Aulgur-Fawcett Rezone Ordinance. (CFN-121) Ordinance No. 3684, rezoning property comprised of approximately .48 acres, located at I I I Central Avenue South, from Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE)to General Commercial (GC) (Aulgur-Fawcett Rezone)was adopted. D. 2003 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report. (CFN-118sf) The 2003 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report was approved and authorization to submit the report to HUD was granted. E. 2004 Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds Ordinance. (CFN-104sf) Ordinance No. 3682,which refunds the 1996 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds was adopted. F. Budget Adiustment Ordinance for Adiustments on December 31, 2003. (CFN-186) Ordinance No. 3683 amending the 2003 Budget for final budget adjustments made on December 31, 2003 in the amount of$2,244,226 was adopted. These budgets were for LIDs 355, 356, and 357 and were not included on the year-end budget adjustment ordinance approved by Council on December 9, 2003. G. Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Recycling Grant. (CFN-904) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant Agreement in the amount of$82,971, and to direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within the project. H. Pacific Highwav High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Agreement with Metro Transit for Bus Shelter Pads. (CFN-1038) This issue was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Councilmember Clark. After a brief discussion about the locations of the shelters, the issue was referred to the Public Works Committee for further discussion. I. 94th Avenue South and S. 248th Sanitary Sewer Installation Charge In Lieu of Assessment. (CFN-553) The Public Works Department was authorized to establish a charge in lieu of assessment for sanitary sewer connection for affected properties on a portion of 90 Ave S and S 248`h Street. J. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Indefinite Term Lease for Land Agreement. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Indefinite Term Lease for Land Agreement with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad, subject to the Public Works Director's concurrence. K. Puget Sound Energy Agreement For S. 228th St. Underground Power Conversion. (CFN-1134) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Puget Sound Energy Construction Agreement, upon concurrence by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. L. Right of Way Quit Claim Deed for S. 228th St./Russell Road. (CFN-1269) The Mayor was authorized to execute a Quit Claim Deed dedicating a portion of South 228th Street and Russell Road as public right-of-way, upon concurrence by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. 2 Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 2004 M. Washington Conservation Corps Labor Agreement. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Washington Conservation Corps Sponsor Agreement in the amount of $69,616 and to direct staff to pay any expenses out of various capital improvement projects. N. King County Agreement for Construction of Pioneer Street Improvements. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Interagency Agreement to widen Pioneer Ave.between the City of Kent and King County, in the amount of$300,000, subject to the Public Works Director's concurrence and to authorize staff to accept the money and establish a budget for the same. O. 1st Avenue Northl4th Avenue North Widening& Utility Trenching Proiect. (CFN-1038) The 1 S`Avenue North/4ffi Avenue North Widening and Utility Trenching project was accepted as complete and release of retainage to Pivetta Brothers upon receipt of standard releases from the state and release of any liens was authorized. P. Drinking Driver Task Force Appointment. (CFN-122sf) The Mayor's appointment of Ms. Jennifer Hooper to serve as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force was confirmed. ADDED Q. Kent Arts Commission Appointment. (CFN-839) The Mayor's appointment of Ms. C. J. Bell to the Kent Arts Commission was confirmed. ADDED R. Excused Absence. (CFN-198) An excused absence from tonight's meeting for Council President Peterson was approved. BIDS A. S. 228th Street Corridor Stone Columns. (CFN-1269) The bid opening for this project was held on March 3, 2004 with three bids received. The low bid was submitted by Scarsella Brothers, Inc. in the amount of$617,875.00. The Engineer's estimate was $596,000.00. WHITE MOVED that the South 228th Street Corridor—Stone Columns contract be awarded to Scarsella Brothers, Inc. for the low bid amount of$617,875.00. Clark seconded and the motion carried. B. S. 228th Street Corridor Sound Barrier. (CFN-1269) The bid opening for this project was held on March 9, 2004 with four bids received. The low bid was submitted by Harlow Construction Company Inc. in the amount of$364,570.00. The Engineer's estimate was $438,850.00. Wickstrom noted that residents had been concerned about the sound barrier,but that the issues have been resolved. WHITE MOVED that the South 228th Street Sound Barrier contract be awarded to Harlow Construction Company Inc. in the amount of$364,570.00. Clark seconded and the motion carried. C. Riverbend Golf Course Carts. (CFN-118sf) The Parks Director recommends rejection of the E-Z-Go golf cart bid due to concerns of reliability and authorization for the Mayor to enter into a four year agreement with Northwest Yamaha to lease forty-eight(48) Yamaha G-Max golf carts at a cost of$37,178.88 annually. Pete Peterson explained the problem and answered questions from Council members. RANNIGER MOVED to authorize the Mayor to reject E-Z-Go's golf cart bid due to concerns of reliability and to enter into a four year agreement with Northwest Yamaha to lease forty-eight (48) Yamaha G-Max golf carts at a cost of$37,178.88 annually. Clark seconded and the motion carried. 3 Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 2004 REPORTS Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) White noted that there will be a hearing on LID 353 at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 23d. Administrative Reports. (CFN-198) In response to a question from Council at a previous Council meeting, CAO Martin and Finance Director Nachlinger gave a presentation regarding funding of and staffing alternatives for open public safety positions. Martin then reiterated that there will be an Executive Session regarding a personnel matter,that it should take 10-15 minutes, and that no action is anticipated from Council. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. (CFN-198) ADJOURNMENT At 8:40 p.m.,WHITE MOVED to adjourn. Clark seconded and the motion carved. (CFN-198) ram,/ Brenda Jacober, C City Clerk 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LODGING TAX ADVISORY BOARD RE-APPOINTMENT— CONFIRM 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee, approve the re-appointment of Vickie Molzer, General Manager of the Hawthorne Suites in Kent, to an additional three-year term on the Lodging Tax Advisory Board. 3. EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? None Revenue? None Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: • ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CHRISTOPHER RIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS BILL OF SALE—ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Bill of Sale for Christopher Ridge her Rid P P g submitted by Scott Otey for continuous operation and maintenance of 368 feet of street improvements and 20 feet of storm sewer. The bonds are to be released after the maintenance period. This project is located at 9631 South 242nd Street. 3. EXHIBITS: Vicinity map • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A 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 w t vi 00 W co Q W LAi w z .� a o W co m .�- cn JAMES ST. S.E. 40 th ST. S. 242 nd ST. S.E. 244 th ST. SI TE i S.E. 1256 th ST. o KENT KANGLEY RD. VICINITY MAP N.T.S. CHRISTOPHER RIDGE 9631 SOUTH 242M STREET Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AIR SYSTEMS CONTRACT—AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Industrial Air Systems Inc. for the purchase and installation of the Plymovent Vehicle Exhaust System at Fire Stations 71 and 74, in the amount of$80,000.00. Staff has obtained a waiver, pursuant to the Mayor's authority under Kent City Code 3.70.080 of the City's procurement ordinance, as the City needs a vehicle exhaust ventilation system for the Fire Stations and is limited to a single source condition. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo 3/5/04 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A 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 LAW DEPARTMENT Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Phone: 253-856-5770 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6770 WASSHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2004 TO: Mayor Jim White THROUGH: Mike Martin, Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Tom Brubaker, City Attorney -fCX'j CC: John Hodgson, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services RE: Single Source Procurement—Plymovent Vehicle Exhaust Ventilation System Charlie Lindsey, Facilities Superintendent is requesting a waiver, pursuant to Kent City Code 3.70.080, of the City's procurement ordinance as the City needs for a vehicle exhaust ventilation for the City's Fire Stations are limited to a single source. After a detailed evaluation of exhaust extraction systems, Plymovent Vehicle exhaust ventilation Systems incorporates the necessary features that the City requires. Currently, the Plymovent system is in use at Fire Stations 71 and 74. These systems were installed in 1999 and have performed flawlessly. The Plymovent system is the only system that has an airtight seal around the engine exhaust pipe, thus minimizing the amount of diesel exhaust fumes in the Fire Station Bays. Furthermore, the Plymovent system's airtight seal, allows for engine pump tests to be performed within the bys of the stations. Additionally, by installing the Plymovent System the City would be able to standardize the systems thereby greatly assisting in the maintenance of the systems. The Plymovent Systems are installed by Industrial Air Systems, Inc. Industrial Air Systems Inc. is the sole authorized representative to sell and install Plymovent Exhaust Systems for the West Coast. Therefore, because the Plymovent Exhaust Systems are limited to a single source and are the only exhaust systems that incorporate the features most desired by the City, Facilities Management is requesting a waiver of the City's procurement policy and authorization to enter into a contract with Industrial Air Systems Inc. for the purchase and installation of the Plymovent Vehicle Exhaust System for the City's Fire Stations and that you, the Mayor, are authorized to enter into a contract with Industrial Air Systems, Inc. for the purchase and installation of a Plymovent Vehicle Exhaust System. If you agree with this memorandum and these findings, please indicate your approval by signing below. JIM IMayor Dat : P�C&AFIIES\OpenFAe%0365-20041ndtoWm ArSysLe Pro mWave 4%m dw Kent City Council Meeting Date Apri16, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GRANT—ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $3,400.00 grant from King County Cultural Development Authority and authorize the expenditure of funds to support the "Black to My Root's" Cultural presentation. 3. EXHIBITS: King County Contract#104008 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks & Human Services Committee and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director (Committee, Staff,Examiner, Commission,etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund 10006222.64190.4310 Amount $3,400.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund 10006222.56710.4310 Amount $3,400.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F Agreement No. 104008 Contractor's Federal Taxpayer ID No. Contractor City of Kent -Arts Commission Project Title: "Black to My Roots" Contract Amount: $ 3,400.00 Fund Source: CP- Performance Network Contract Period From: 01/01/04 To: 12/31/04 AGENCY SERVICES CONTRACT 2004 THIS CONTRACT is entered into by the CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF KING COUNTY (the "CDA"), whose address is 506 Second Avenue, Ste 200, Seattle, WA 98104-2307 and telephone number is(206) 296-7580 and the City of Kent-Arts Commission (the"Contractor"), whose address is 220 4th Ave S. Kent WA 98032 and telephone number is(253)859-3991. Contractor is an art,cultural or historical organization or specialist qualified to receive funds pursuant to King County Code Sections 2.48 and 4.42 and RCW 67.28.180 and as hereinafter may be amended.The CDA Board approved providing funds for this project by Motion No.2004-05. The CDA desires to provide funds with which the Contractor shall render certain services to Kng County citizens. Such services are for the benefit of art museums, cultural museums, heritage museums, the arts, and/or the performing arts and are consisfant with those defined in RCW 67.28.180 ("Public Benefit Services"). The CDA is organized pursuant to King County Ordinance 14482 and RCW 35.21.730, et seg. RCW 35.21.750 provides as follows: "[All] liabilities incurred by such public corporation, commission, or authority shalt be satisfied exclusively from the assets and properties of such public corporation, commission or authority and no creditor or other person shall have any right of action against the city, town,or county creating such corporation, commission, or authority on account of any debts, obligations, or liabilities of such public corporation, commission,or authority." The legislative authority of the CDA has found and declared that providing funds to Contractor to reimburse Project costs in consideration of services provided hereunder constitutes a public purpose with the meaning of Article VII, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution for which public funds may properly be expended or advanced. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the parties hereto, the parties covenant and do mutually agree as follows: AG SVC 04 Page t of 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. The Contractor shall provide services and comply with the requirements set forth hereinafter a,* in the following attached exhibits which are incorporated herein by reference: ® Specific Scope of Services & Reimbursement Schedule Attached hereto as Exhibit A ❑ Project Proposal and Budget Attached hereto as Exhibit B Insurance Requirements Attached hereto as Exhibit C ❑ Personnel Inventory(K.C.0 12.16.060A) (In combination with Attached hereto as Exhibit D other agreements, in excess of$25,000 in a calendar ear ❑ Affidavit and Certificate of Compliance(K.C.0 12.16.060B) Attached hereto as Exhibit E for A reements in excess of$25,000 ❑ Disability Assurance of Compliance/Section 504 Attached hereto as Exhibit F KCC 12.16.060D ORGANIZATIONS ONLY] B. Purchase of Services. Funds awarded under this Agreement shall be used solely to reimburse the Contractor for expenses incurred expressly and solely in accordance with the Project Proposal and Budget and/or the Specific Scope of Services attached. Any amendment or modification to the Project Proposal and Budget or the Specific Scope of Services and Payment Schedule must be approved in writing by the CDA. The work described generally by the Project Proposal and Budget and more specifically by the Specific Scope of Services shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Project". C. In addition to performing the Project, Contractor shall provide any Public Benefit Provisions that may be specified in the Specific Scope of Services attached. D. The Contractor agrees to acknowledge the CDA as a source of support for the Project in prominently located permanent signage utilizing the following logo: cultura development authoriW King County Hotel/Motel Tax Fund E. The Contractor agrees to notify the CDA in advance of any public Project activities, including but not limited to ground breaking events, dedications, and other public programs. It. DURATION OF CONTRACT This Agreement shall commence on January 1s'. 2004 and shall terminate on December 313t. 2004. This Agreement, however, may be terminated earlier as provided in Section IV hereof. III. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The CDA shall reimburse the Contractor for its actual and authorized expenditures incurred in satisfactorily completing the Specific Scope of Services attached and otherwise fulling all requirements specified in this contract in an aggregate amount not to exceed 3 400.00. AG SVC 04 Page 2 of 7 B. Contractor may apply to the CDA for reimbursement upon completion of specified phases as detailed in the Specific Scope of Services and Reimbursement Schedule attached to this contract. C. Contractor shall submit an invoice and all accompanying reports in the forms attached hereto as "EXHIBITS", not more than 30 days after the completion of each specified phase identified in the Specific Scope of Services and Reimbursement Schedule. The CDA will initiate authorization for payment after approval of corrected invoices and reports. The CDA shall make payment to the Agency not more than 60 days after the appropriate invoice is received. D. Contractor shall submit its final invoice and all outstanding reports within 30 days of the date this Agreement terminates. If the Agency's final invoice and reports are not submitted by the day specified in this subsection, the CDA will be relieved of all liability for payment to the Agency of the amounts set forth in said invoice or any subsequent invoice E. Accompanying the final invoice for the project, the Contractor shall also submit: I 1. A project evaluation report upon the form provided by CDA. 2. If CDA requests, at least two images (prints, slides, or digital images accompanied by a high-quality print-out)of publishable quality for use by the CDA to publicize its funding programs. Photos shall have credits, caption information, and permission to publish. F. If the Contractor fails to comply with any terms or conditions of this contract or to provide in any manner the work or services agreed to herein, the CDA may withhold any payment to the Contractor until the CDA is satisfied that corrective action, as specified by the CDA, has been completed. This right is in addition to and not in lieu of the CDA right to terminate this contract as provided in Section IV, any other rights of CDA under this Agreement and any other right or remedy available to CDA at law or in equity. IV. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. If, through any cause, the Contractor shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement or if the Contractor shall violate any of its covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, the CDA may terminate this Agreement and withhold the remaining allocation. Prior to so terminating this Agreement, CDA shall submit written notice to the Contractor describing such default or violation. The CDA shall not so terminate this Agreement if CDA determines that Contractor has, within twenty(20)days of the date of such notice, fully corrected such default or violation. V. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS A. The Contractor shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, properly, financial, and programmatic records and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the CDA to ensure proper accounting for all contract funds and compliance with this Agreement. All such records shall sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended and services provided in the performance of this Agreement. B. These records shall be maintained for a period of six(6)years after termination of this Agreement unless a longer retention period is required by law. AG SVC 04 Page 3 of 7 VI. AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS A. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by the CDA and/or federal/state officials soauthorized by law during the performance of this Agreement and six(6)years after termination hereof. B. The Contractor shall provide right of access to its facilities, including by any subcontractor to the CDA, the King County, state and/or federal agencies or officials at all reasonable times in order to monitor and evaluate the services provided under this Agreement. The CDA will give advance notice to the Contractor in the case of fiscal audits to be conducted by the CDA. C. The Contractor agrees to cooperate with the CDA in the evaluation of the Contractor's performance under this contract and to make available all information reasonably required by any such evaluation process. The results and records of said evaluations shall be maintained and disclosed in accordance with RCW Chapter 42.17(Public Records Act). VII. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS If any patentable or copyrightable material or article should result from the Project, all rights accruing from such material or article shall be the sole property of Contractor. Contractor agrees to and does hereby grant to the CDA, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, and royalty-free license to use,according to law, any material or article and use any method that may be developed as part of the work under this Agreement. The foregoing license shall not apply to existing training materials, consulting aids, checklists, and other materials and documents of Contractor which are modified for use in the performance of this Agreement. Vill. FUTURE SUPPORT CDA makes no commitment to support the services contracted for herein nor guarantee regarding the success of the services and assumes no obligation for future support of the Project except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. IX. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION A. In providing services under this Agreement, the Contractor is an independent contractor, and shall determine the means of accomplishing the results contemplated by this Agreement. Neither the Contractor nor its officers, agents or employees are employees of the CDA for any purpose. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations regarding employment, minimum wages and hours, and discrimination in employment. The Contractor is responsible for determining the compensation of its employees, for payment of such compensation, and for all federal and/or state tax, industrial insurance, and Social Security liability that may result from the performance of and compensation for these services. The Contractor and its officers, agents, and employees shall make no claim of career service or civil service rights which may accrue to a CDA employee under state or local law. The CDA assumes no responsibility for the payment of any compensation,wages, benefits, or taxes by, or on behalf of the Contractor, its employees and/or others by reason of this Agreement. The Contractor shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the CDA and its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, and/or losses whatsoever occurring or resulting from (1) the Contractor's failure to pay any such compensation, wages, benefits, or taxes; (2)the supplying to the Contractor of work, services, materials, or supplies by Contractor employees or other suppliers in connection with or support of the performance of this Agreement. The Contractor shall also defend, indemnify, and save harmless the CDA, and its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any an all claims made by Contractor's employees arising from their employment with Contractor. AG SVC 04 Page 4 of 7 B. To the full extent provided by applicable law, the Contractor shall protect, defend,indemnify, and save harmless the CDA its officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims,judgments, and/or awards of damages, arising out of or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the Contractor, its officers, employees, and/or agents, except to the extent resulting from the CDNs sole negligence. If this Agreement is a"a covenant, promise, agreement or understanding in, orh connection with or collateral to, a contract or agreement relative to the construction, alteration, repair, addition to, subtraction from, improvement to, or maintenance of, any building, highway, road, railroad,excavation, or other structure, project, development, or improvement attached to real estate"within the meaning of RCW 4.24.225, the Contractor shall so protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless the CDA its officers, employees, and agents only to the extent of the Contractor's, its officers', employees', and/or agents' negligence. The Contractor agrees that its obligations under this subparagraph extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any employees, or agents. For the purpose, the Contractor, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, as respects the CDA only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. In the event the CDA incurs any judgment, award and/or cost arising there from including attomey's fees to enforce the provisions of this article, all such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the Contractor. Claims shall include, but are not limited to, assertions that the use or transfer of any software, book, document, report, film, tape or sound reproduction or material of any kind, delivered hereunder, constitutes an infringement of any copyright, patent, trademark, trade name, and/or otherwise results in unfair trade practice. X. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance as described on the Exhibit labeled as Insurance Requirements attached here to. XI. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Chapter 42. --p 23 RCW (Code Of Ethics For Municipal Officers Contract Interests) is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein and the Contractor agrees to abide by all the conditions of said Chapter. Failure by the Contractor to comply with any requirements of such Chapter shall be a material breach of contract. In addition, Contractor represents, warrants and covenants that no officer, employee,or agent of the CDA who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and implementation of the Specific Scope of Contract Services funded herein, has or shall have any beneficial interest, directly or indirectly, in this contract. The Contractor further represents, warrants and covenants neither it nor any other person beneficially interested in this Agreement has offered to give or given any such officer, employee, or agent of the CDA, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with this Agreement.The Contractor shall take all appropriate steps to assure compliance with this provision. AG SVC 04 Page 5 of 7 XII. NONDISCRIMINATION During the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall comply with state, federal and local legislation requiring nondiscrimination in employment and the provision of services to the public, including, but not limited to: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; chapter 49.60 RCW (the Washington state law against discrimination); K.C.C. chapter 12.16 regarding discrimination and affirmative action in employment by contractors, subcontractors and vendors; K.C.C. chapter 12.17 prohibiting discrimination in contracting; K.C.C. chapter 12.18 requiring fair employment practices; K.C.C. chapter and 12.22 prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation. The Contractor shall maintain, until 12 months after completion of all work under this contract, all written quotes, bids, estimates or proposals submitted to the Contractor by all businesses seeking to participate in this Agreement. The Contractor shall make such documents available to the CDA for inspection and copying upon request. XIII. NOTICES Whenever this Agreement provides for notice to be provided by one party to another, such notice shall be in writing and directed to the chief executive officer of Contractor and the Executive Director of the CDA at the addresses first written above. Any time within which a party must take some action shall be computed from the date that the notice is received by said party. XIV.GENERAL PROVISIONS No modification or amendment to this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by writte amendments to this Agreement. The CDA's failure to insist upon the strict performance of any provision this Agreement or to exercise any right based upon a breach thereof or the acceptance of any performance during such breach, shall not constitute a waiver of any right under this Agreement. In the event any term or condition of this Agreement or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions, or applications of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition, or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are declared severable. The parties agree that this Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Both parties recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement. XV. ATTORNEYS'FEES: EXPENSES Contractor agrees to pay upon demand all of CDA's costs and expenses, including attorneys'fees and CDA's legal expenses, incurred in connection with the enforcement of this Agreement. CDA may pay someone else to help enforce this Agreement, and Contractor shall pay the costs and expenses of such enforcement. Costs and expenses include CDA's attomeys'fees and legal expenses whether or not there is a lawsuit, including attorneys'fees and legal expenses for bankruptcy proceedings(and including efforts to modify or vacate any automatic stay or injunction), appeals, and any anticipated post judgment collection services. Contractor also shall pay all court costs and such additional fees as may be directed by the court. AG SVC 04 Page 6 of 7 XVI. SURVIVAL The terms and conditions of Sections III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII,XIII, XIV and XV shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall be continuing obligations of the parties. CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: CONTRACTOR: Executive Director Signature Date Name(Please type or print) Title (Please type or print) Date • AG SVC 04 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICE City of Kent-Arts Commission and the Cultural Development Authority of King County mutually agree that the following services be provided in accordance with the application and contract work sheet submitted to and approved by the Arts Advisory Committee/CDA Board. Partial support for: Participation as a presenting organization in the 2004 King County Performance Network;to include one performance of Brownbox Productions' `Black to My Roots"presented by Kent Arts Commission. Performances are open and publicized to the community. Payment One Amount: $3,400 For artist fees and program expenses. Payable upon submittal of invoice and documentation regarding Schedule, Location and Budget for Performance Network events. Upon completion of Performance Network events,please submit: ■ Final budget, actual and completion of evaluation form ■ Final report of program accomplishments ■ Programs,brochures, flyers if available PUBLIC BENEFIT All performances will be open and accessible to the public. Events will be affordable for family audiences. PUBLICITY/PROMOTION POLICY Prominent acknowledgment of the King County is required of all recipients for use in all publicity and promotional materials,including, but not limited to brochures,press releases, programs, posters,public service announcements, flyers and advertisements. The following graphic is recommended: c u itu ra development authority King County Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Final payment will not be made until acknowledgment is submitted on printed material EXHIBIT C INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contractor shall procure, at its sole cost and expense, insurance against claims for injuries topersons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with the performance of work hereunder by the Contractor, his agents,representatives, employees,and/or subcontractors. The costs of such insurance shall be paid by the Contractor or subcontractors. For All Coverages: Each insurance policy shall be written on an"Occurrence"form. The Minimum Scope of Insurance needed for this contract is as follows: ® Commercial General Liability I Insurance Services Office form number(CG 00 01 Ed. 11-88)—Minimum Combined Single Limit of$1,000,000 BI &PI)with a General Aggregate per project 1. Deductibles and Self Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by, the CDA. The deductible and/or self-insured retention of the policies shall not apply to the Contractor's liability to the CDA and shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. 2. Other Insurance Provisions A. The insurance policies are to contain,or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (a) General Liability Policies (1)The CDA, its officers, employees and agents are to be covered as primary additional insured as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor in connection with this Agreement. (2)To the extent of the Contractor's negligence,the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CDA, its officers,employees, and agents. Any insurance and/or self-insurance maintained by the CDA, its officers, employees, or agents shall not contribute with the Contractor's insurance or benefit the Contractor in any way. (3)The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made and/or lawsuit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (b)All Policies (1)Coverage shall not be suspended, voided,canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits,except as reduced in aggregate by paid claims, at any point during the life of this contract. 3. Acceptability of Insurers Unless otherwise approved in writing by the CDA, insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A: VIII, or,if not rated with Bests,with minimum surpluses the equivalent of Bests'surplus size VIII. 4.Verification of Coverage Unless otherwise approved in writing by the CDA, Contractor shall furnish CDA with certificate(s)of insurance evidencing compliance with requirements set forth above,which certificate(s) shall provide that no material change,or cancellation or nonrenewal of policies referred to herein shall occur without thirty(30)days'prior written notice to CDA. I Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES/ DISABILITIES GRANT—ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $14,000.00 Community and Human Services/Developmental Disabilities Grant from King County and authorize the expenditure of funds to support the "Access the Future" computer program. 3. EXHIBITS: King County Contract#D33265D . 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks & Human Services Committee and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund 10006230.64340.4310 Amount $14,000.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund 10006230.53407.4310 Amount $14,000.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G King County Contract No. D33265D Federal Taxpayer ID No. 91-1085999 Department/Division Community and Human Services/Developmental Disabilities Division Agency City of Kent Project Title Developmental Disabilities Contract Amount$ 14,000 Fund Code 0107 Contract Period From: January 1, 2004 To December 31, 2004 KING COUNTY AGENCY SERVICES CONTRACT-2004 THIS CONTRACT is entered into by KING COUNTY (the "County"), and City of Kent, whose address is 315 E Meeker Street, Kent,WA 98031, (the°Agency"). WHEREAS, the County has been advised that the following are the current funding sources, funding levels and effective dates: FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING LEVELS EFFECTIVE DATES COUNTY $10,000 01/01/04 to 12/31/04 FEDERAL Federal Catalogue No. STATE $4,000 01/01/04 to 12/31/04 TOTAL $14,000 01/01/04 to 12/31/04 and WHEREAS,the County desires to have certain services performed by the Agency as described in this Contract, and as authorized by Ordinance No. 14797. This form is available in alternate formats for people with disabilities upon request. City of Kent 2004 Contract ATTACHMENT A Social and Recreational Activities 2004 Contract Project Data Sheet January— December 2004 1. Project Name: Recreation and Social Inclusion 2. Name of Agency/Organization: City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services 3. Date project (services) will begin: January 1, 2004 (Cannot be earlier than January 1, 2004) 4. Date project (services) will end: December 31, 2004 (Cannot be later than December 31, 2004) 5. Project goal or goals. What results are expected from project? (Limit your response to 50 words or less.) Kent Parks expects that more individuals with developmental disabilities will participate in general recreation programs provided by the City, and the Specialized Recreation programs will become more inclusive. All full time and part time staff will receive training regarding inclusion; also additional staff and technical support for including individuals in after-school programs, day camp, sports programs, the senior center activities, will be hired and purchased as needed. 6. Check the theme(s) that best describes your project: X Community Resource Development (Community activities, recruitment of volunteers, support to clients, etc.) Parents Helping Parents (Support groups) _ Provider Support Development (Respite) _ Information and Education Initiative (Gather, prepare and disseminate information, etc.) 7. How many eligible (DDD enrolled individuals living with their families) participants will the project serve? There are currently 230 unduplicated individuals participating in classes, programs and services provided by the Specialized Recreation division within the Kent Parks and Recreation department every quarter. We believe that about half of our participants live at home with their families. 8. Identify service population: Adults Only Children Only X Both Adults and Children 9. What area(s) of the County will the project serve? South King County and primarily citizens within the City of Kent. City Of Kent 2004 Contract Exhibit N,Attadunent A EXHIBIT IV CITY OF KENT Social and Recreational Activities 1. WORK STATEMENT The Agency shall provide services to enrolled participants in accordance with the terms and conditions described hereinafter and in accordance with Exhibit 11. General Requirements. The total amount of reimbursement pursuant to this Exhibit shall not exceed Ten Thousand Dollars 10 000 from County Funds for the contract period January 1 - December 31, 2004. Of this amount $5,000 are only for services rendered January 1 - June 30, 2004. The remaining amount of $5,000 will be available only for services rendered July 1, 2004— December 31, 2004. Funds reserved for services in the first half of 2004 shall not be used for services delivered in the second half of 2004. 11. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION A. Goal Increase social and recreational opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities in community locations that are used by non-disabled individuals for the same or similar activities. B. Objectives 1. Reflect the values and principles in the County Guidelines including supporting inclusion and integration of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in their communities. 2. Create and support opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities and other community citizens to come together and share common experiences. 3. To develop multi-faceted internal systems for inclusive programs and services. C. Eligible Population Services funded by this Exhibit shall be provided to assist only children and adults with developmental disabilities as defined in Exhibit II, General Requirements, III Service Delivery,A and B. D. Program Requirements 1. Provide a vision for promoting the inclusion of children and adults with developmental disabilities into community life as contained in the Statement on Inclusion adopted by the King County Developmental Disabilities Division Board. 2. Develop and implement community-based social and recreational activities as described in Attachment A, "Social and Recreational Activities 2004 Contract Project Data Sheet(SRA)". 3. Expand opportunities for individuals (children and adults) who live with their families. City Of Kent 2004 Contract Exhibit IV ATTACHMENT A Family Support Community Service Grant 2004 Contract Project Data Sheet January—December 2004 1. Project Name: "Access the Future" Computer Classes 2. Name of Agency/Organization: Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services. 3. Date project (services) will begin January 1, 2004 (Cannot be earlier than January 1, 2004) 4. Date project (services) will end December 31, 2004 (Cannot be later than December 31, 2004) 5. Project goal or goals. What results are expected from project? (Limit your response to 50 words or less.) The computer classes are structured to meet the needs of the novice computer user to the more advanced user. The instructor works with each individual to meet their personal goals for the class whether it is learning how to turn the computer on and use a mouse or how to access the internet, send emails, or do work-related tasks. Individuals with developmental disabilities will benefit by learning computer skills they can use on their home computers, at libraries, and in employment. 6. Check the theme(s) that best describes your project: X Community Resource Development (Community activities, recruitment of volunteers, support to clients, etc.) — Parents Helping Parents (Support groups) Provider Support Development (Respite) _ Information and Education Initiative (Gather, prepare and disseminate information, etc.) 7. How many eligible (DDD enrolled individuals living with their families) participants will the project serve? Up to 15 8. Identify service population: X Adults Only—and some teens Children Only Both Adults and Children 9. What area(s) of the County will the project serve? South King County — primarily Kent residents. 10. What are these funds being used for? (Limit your response to 50 words or less.)The funds are used to subsidize program expenses including the instructor fee and computer training supplies and materials. City Of Kent 2004 Cmtrad Exhibd IU,Affachment A EXHIBIT III CITY OF KENT Family Support Community Service Grant I. WORK STATEMENT The Agency shall provide services to enrolled participants in accordance with the terms and conditions described hereinafter and in accordance with Exhibit 11. General Requirements. The total amount of reimbursement pursuant to this Exhibit shall not exceed Four Thousand Dollars 000 from State and/or County Funds for the contract period January 1 - December 31, 2004. Of this amount $2,000 are only for services rendered January 1 — June 30, 2004. The remaining amount of $2. 000 will be available only for services rendered July 1, 2004 — December 31, 2004. Funds reserved for services in the first half of 2004 shall not be used for services delivered In the second half of 2004. IL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION A. Goal Promote and support community opportunities for individuals (children and adults) with developmental disabilities who reside with their families. B. Objectives 1. To be family focused 2. Increase inclusion of persons with developmental disabilities in their communities 3. Promote community collaboration 4. Provide computer training classes to individuals with developmental disabilities, serving up to 15 individuals per quarter. C. Eligible Population Services funded by this Exhibit shall be provided to assist only children and adults with developmental disabilities as defined in Exhibit II, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, III SERVICE DELIVERY, A and B. D. Program Requirements 1. Develop and implement community based service projects that benefit individuals (children and adults) with developmental disabilities and their families as stated in Attachment A, "Family Support Community Service Grant 2004 Contract Project Data Sheet (FSCSG)". 2. Eligible participants are individuals (children and adults) who live with their families or independently. 3. Facilitate the use of generic community resources. City Of Kent 2004 Contract Exhibit III Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STATE OF WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANT FUNDS— ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the grant from the State of Washington Military Department, Department of Transportation in the amount of$3,000 and authorize the mayor to sign the contract. The Emergency Management Division received a grant in the amount of$3,000 from the Washington State Military Department to review and update the City of Kent's Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan and Emergency Response Guidelines for Hazardous Materials Incidents. 3. EXHIBITS: Contract 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 3/18/04 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) . 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Yes Revenue? Yes Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund 10003100.63110.2150 Amount $3,000 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund 10003100.63110.2150 Amount $3,000 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H � s r� f Ca —� ,i nv "1 IL89 &T47[ C=F �NASHINGTON t`A!L I A Y DEPARTMENT ( gp p ,— a !_'?'R f,^./ WL TA Building 20 .7 i3a. a"iaskngfon 43430-5122 cs;_7n �5� s FAX: I27s1 5t2-71L February 11, 20044 TO: Brian W. Felczak Kent Emergency Ma agement FROM: Chris L. Mooresg� Programs SeGretary Senior SUBJECT: Contract# E04-198 Attached for review and signature are two original contracts of E04-198 for the 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 UBl#must to be included in the Contract Face Sheet under box#9. Please review the enclosed contracttagreement and have each copy signed by the appropriate person. Once all documents are signed and returned to our office, a fully executed original 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. /cim Attachments Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility or Voluntary Exclusion Certification Form NAME Doing business as(DBA) ADDRESS Applicable Procurement WA Uniform Business Federal Employer Tax or Solicitation#,if any: Identifier(UBI) Identification#: This certification is submitted as part of a request to contract. Instructions For Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING THE CERTIFICATION. Federal regulations require contractors and bidders to sign and abide by the terms of this certification, without modification, in order to-participate in certain transactions directly or Indirectly involving federal funds. 1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. if it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies,including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department, institution or office to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or had become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549.You may contact the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. S. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under the applicable CFR, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with whi is transaction originated. 6. The prospective tower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include this clause tied "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under applicable CFR, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to,check the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement Programs. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business activity. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under applicable CFR, suspended,debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal or contract,that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred,suspended,proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, orvoluntarfly excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this form. Is Bidder or Contractor Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: Washington State Military Department CONTRACT FACE SHEET 1. Contractor Name and Address: 2. Contract Amount: 3. Contract Number City of Kent Emergency Management 246 11 116th Avenue SE $3,000 E04-198 Kent,WA 98030-4939 4. Contractor's Contact Person,phone number: 5. Contract Start Date 6. Contract End Date Brian W. Felczak, (253)856-4345 February 1, 2004 September30,2004 7. MD Pro ram Mana er/ hone number: 8. State Business License#: 9. UBI#(state revenue): 9 9 P Mark Ligman,(253) 512-7069 na 173-000-002 10. Funding Authority: Washington State Military Department(the"Department"), and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 11. Funding Source Agreement#: 12. Program Index# 13.Catalog of Federal Domestic Asst. 14. TIN or SSN: HMEWA3039110 74352 (CFDA)#and Title: 20.703 HMEP 91-6001254 15. Service Districts: 16. Service Area by County(les): 17. Women/Minority-Owned,State (BY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT): 31, 47 King County Certified?: X N/A ❑ NO (BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT): 8,9 ❑ YES,OMWBE# 18. Contract Classification: 19. Contract Type(check ail that apply): ❑ Personal Services ❑ Client Services X PubliGLocal Gov't X Contract ❑ Grant ❑ Agreement ❑ Collaborative Research ❑ A/E ❑ Other ❑ Intergovernmental(RCW 39 34) ❑ Interagency 20. Contractor Selection Process: 21. Contractor Type(check all that apply) ❑ "To all who apply&qualify" ❑ Competitive Bidding ❑ Private Organization/Individual ❑ For-Profit ❑ Sole Source ❑ A/E RCW X N/A X Public Organization/Junsdiction X Non-Profit ❑ Advertised? D YES 0 NO ❑ VENDOR X SUBRECIPIENT ❑ OTHER 22. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: To review and update both the City of Kent Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan and Emergency Response Guidelines for Hazardous Materials Incidents. 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, Fire Chief Emergency Management Division Washington State Military Department APPROVED AS TO FORM: for Spencer W. Daniels (signature on file) 11/25/03 City of Kent Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Form 10/27/00 kdb IFFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 1 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARTICLE I -- COMPENSATION SCHEDULE: This is a fixed price, reimbursement contract. Within the total contract amount, travel, subcontracts, salalls and wages, benefits, printing, equipment, and other goods and services or other budget categories willlW reimbursed on an actual cost basis unless otherwise provided in this contract. Some flexibility to shift funds between/among budget categories is allowed as follows: Changes to any single budget category, except for an equipment line item, in excess of 20%, will not be reimbursed without the prior written authorization of the Department. Increases to the equipment line item requires prior written approval of the Department. Budget categories are as specified or defined in the budget sheet of the contract. ARTICLE 11 — 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 Mid-Term Report 1 April 30,2004 Final Report 2 September 30, 2004 All contract work must end on September 30, 2004, however the contractor has up to 45 days after expiration date to submit all final reports and/or deliverables. ARTICLE III -- KEY PERSONNEL: The individuals listed below shall be considered key personnel. Any substitution must be notified in writing by the Military Department. CONTRACTOR: MILITARY DEPARTMENT: Brian W. Felczak, Program Manager Mark Ligman, 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 Department of Transportation (DOT) solely for the purpose of supporting hazardous materials management preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery planning programs and exercises as provided by the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grant. This contract is contingent upon the receipt of federal funds awarded for this purpose. The Contractor shall use the funds to perform tasks as described in the Statement of Work and Budget portions of the Contractor's request for funding, as approved by the Department. This contract is contingent upon receipt of federal funds awarded for this purpose. 2. The Contractor shall provide a match of$750 of non-federal origin. Said match may be in the form of goods, services, and in-kind services. FFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 2 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 3. 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 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 if federal funds are not appropriated or are not appropriated in a particular amount. FFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 3 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 Exhibit A Subrecipient Washington State Military Department GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1191 1. DEFINITIONS As used throughout this contract, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: a. "Department" shall mean the Washington State 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 agreement. "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 authority 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 whom 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. 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 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 htto://www omb aov 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. Department reserves the right to recover from the Contractor all disallowed costs resulting fro audit. FFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 4 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 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 attorney'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 agreement, 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. 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 04 HMEP-74352 Page 5 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 b. The Contractor shall take affirmative action to ensure that employees are employed and treated during employment without discrimination because of their race, color, 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, t following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment selects for training, including apprenticeships and volunteers. 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 Part 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 government services, 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 fulfill 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 providing written notice of such termination, specifying the effective date thereof, at least th (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 funds are the basis for this contract. 11. CONTRACTOR NOT EMPLOYEE The Contractor, and/or employees or agents performing under this agreement 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. IFFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 6 of V City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 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 for six (6) years after the date of grant closure or contract final expiration date, whichever applies to this 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. 13. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE REIMBURSEMENT In the absence of provisions included herein, travel expenses shall be paid in accordance with rates set pursuant to RCW 43.03.050 and RCW 43.03.060 as now existing or amended. 14. 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. 15. SUBCONTRACTS All subcontracting agreements entered into pursuant to this Agreement shall incorporate this Agreement by reference. 16. LEGAL RELATIONS Each party to this Agreement 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. 17. 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 Agreement 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. 18. 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 ansing under this contract,the parties shalt 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. 19. NONASSIGNABILITY Neither this contract, nor any claim arising under this contract, shall be transferred or assigned by the Contractor. 20. 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. FFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 7 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 21. 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. 22. TAXES All payments accrued on account of payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, any other taxe insurance or other expenses for the Contractor or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 Fede Procurement or Non-procurement Programs". 26. 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. Form Approved 8/23/01 FFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 8 of 12 My of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 Exhibit B STATEMENT OF WORK HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS(HMEP)GRANT (Federal Fiscal Year(FFY)2003) INTRODUCTION: The Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division, through its Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Material Emergency Preparedness (HMEP)Grant provides funds to increase state, territorial, tribal, and local effectiveness in safely and efficiently handling hazardous materials accidents and incidents, enhance implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), and encourage a comprehensive approach to emergency training and planning by incorporating the unique challenges of responses to transportation situations. The year 20D4 HMEP grant (funding source #74352)is providing funds to City of Kent Emergency Management. The Contractor Agrees To: 1. Coordinate the review and update both the City of Kent Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan and our Emergency Response Guidelines for Hazardous Materials Incidents. 2. Review of authorities, standards and procedures. The updating of Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act sites and corresponding site information. 3. Revise equipment inventories. Updating of associated agency, facility, and contractor contact lists. 4. The updating of communication avenues and sources used locally and regionally. Review and update all checklists up to and including decontamination. 5. To provide improved electronic formatting of the plan for distribution and printing. To update the page design, print, tabulate and assemble 25 copies of the plan, place in 3 ring D binders and distribute as appropriate. . 6. Conduct EPCRA-Tier 11 inventory and notification training workshop for hazmat first responders and LEPC. 7. A mid-program report due by April 30, 2004 to provide a summary of the project to date and a revised timeline if applicable. B. All contract deliverables and the products of this grant to include exercise results with any proposed remedial actions documented and captured in a "lessons learned" format, lesson or briefing slides, plans, templates, studies, etc. are to be provided in both hard copy and electronic format to Emergency Management Division and your contiguous local emergency management jurisdictions. 9. Submit a final signed, approved invoice voucher (state form A-19) to the Military Department within 15 calendar days following the end of the period in which the work was performed. Each invoice will be accompanied by documentation of expenses and the tasks accomplished to date. The Department Agrees To: 1. Reimburse the Contractor within 30 days of receipt and approval of a final signed, dated invoice voucher (state form A-19) and documentation of satisfactory completion of tasks-to-date, and documentation of costs. FFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 9 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 Project Timeline: February Meet with stakeholders and solicit input, changes and/or comments: reviewing both plans. Update master list of SARA sites and associated information, communication lists and all other contact information. Update all checklists and inventories. Coordinate and conduct training workshop. March Begin updating of plan. May Present Draft plan to stakeholders for review June Revise draft and write second Draft July Send out second draft for review August Send out to printing, assemble and distribute plan FFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 10 of 12 City of Kent Emopncy Management E04-198 Exhibit C BUDGET HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (HMEP) GRANT (Federal Fiscal Year(FFY) 2004) ITEM DESCRIPTION COST SALARIES & BENEFITS (Not for payment of overtime). $2,100 FACILITY RENTAL $400 TRAVEL AND PER DIEM $100 GOODS AND SERVICES $100 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $500 MAIL AND POSTAGE $50 PRINTING AND REPRODUCTION $500 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,750 LESS 20 PERCENT MATCH $750 L!ONTRACT OR GRANT AMOUNT $3,000 ➢ 20% of total award amount may be shifted between approved budget object codes. ➢ Final signed invoice voucher (A-19) to be submitted with final report & deliverables —A-19's not to exceed total amount of contract award. Non-allowable expenses: ➢ Overtime pay (unless required for first responder exercise participation). ➢ Purchase of equipment. ➢ To replace or supplant local government funding of existing planning or exercise programs. I IFFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 11 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 Exhibit D PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (HMEP) GRANT (Federal Fiscal Year(FFY) 2004) The mid-term and final reports are due to EMD by April 30,2004 and September 30, 2004, respectively. • The mid-term report to provide a summary of the project to date and a revised timeline Kapplicable. • The final report to provide a summary of the work completed, and all contract deliverables to include exercise results with any proposed remedial actions documented and captured in a "lessons learned" format, lesson or briefing slides, plans,templates, studies, etc. All reports and attachments are to be provided in both hard copy and electronic format(m.ligman@emd.wa.gov). Electronic copies of the final report, including contract deliverables are to also be provided to the county's contiguous local emergency management jurisdictions. I FFY 04 HMEP-74352 Page 12 of 12 City of Kent Emergency Management E04-198 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF ONE REPLACEMENT FIRE ENGINE— AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to enter into an agreement to purchase a replacement fire engine, subject to approval of the final terms and conditions by the Fire Chief and the City Attorney. The Public Safety Committee has recommended the purchase of a replacement fire engine, as identified in the Department's Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The Mayor has authorized the Fire Department to enter into direct negotiations with Pierce Manufacturing for the purchase of this replacement fire engine so that all engines in the City will be purchased from the same manufacturer. Using fire engines in all stations from a single manufacturer will increase safety and efficiency and reduce maintenance costs. 3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum signed by Mayor authorizing Fire Department to enter into direct negotiations with Pierce Manufacturing for the purchase of the replacement fire engine, Previous contract utilized to purchase fire engine. 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 3/18/04 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Yes Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I FIRE DEPARTMENT Jim Schneider, Fire Chief Phone: 253-856-4300 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6300 WASHINGTON Address: 24611 116"'Ave SE Kent,WA. 98030 Memorandum DATE: March 2, 2004 TO: Mayor Jim White FROM: Jim Schneider, Fire Chief RE: Purchase of a Fire Engine This is a request to allow the Fire Department to purchase one (1) Pierce Quantum fire engine using a contract similar to the previous contract for Pierce Quantums, three (3) of which were purchased by the City and one (1) that was purchased by King County Fire District #37 in 2001, and one (1)for the City that was ordered in 2003. The Kent Fire Department has purchased Pierce fire engines since (at least) 1978, and the reliability has been excellent. Due to a decision by the sales representative of Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., the company did not bid in 1995 when we purchased two (2) fire engines. Without a bid from Pierce, the bid was awarded to Boise Mobile Equipment (BME). Our experience with the two (2) BME engines cost the City a tremendous amount of money and repair time, resulting in a rejection of the fire engines after having them for two (2) years. Of the two (2) years we had the fire engines, they were out-of- service for one (1) year, and only in-service for one (1) year. That caused a great deal of frustration and lost maintenance time. In 2000, we were given permission by the Kent City Council to purchase three (3) fire engines and at the same time, King County Fire District #37 authorized the purchase of one (1) engine. We were able to "piggy-back" on a bid at that time, from Mesa, Arizona. As a result, the Department purchased four (4) first-rate fire engines that were placed in service in late 2001, and has since ordered one (1) in 2003, that we expect to receive in April, 2004. It is our request that we be authorized to purchase one (1) fire engine from Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. that is substantially the same as the previous five (5) engines. The primary reasons for this request deal with safety, cost savings and efficiency of operation. Memorandum March 2, 2004 Page: 2 Currently, our Department has nearly 100 firefighters who are qualified as fire engine driver/engineers. With that number, it is very difficult to maintain proficiency because they do not individually get the chance to drive often enough, which is a definite safety issue. We have two (2) basic styles of engines with their own, unique pump panels and other features critical to the operating efficiency by a pump operator. As mentioned above, it is difficult to maintain proficiency when a firefighter does not drive an apparatus very often, and when he/she does (under emergency conditions), it is challenging with two (2) different styles and arrangements of fire engine. We have been able to work around this issue up to this point. However, if we were to add another type of apparatus, built by a company with their own, unique style, it would definitely complicate the matter. Another cost efficiency consideration, is having our mechanics maintain different apparatus, and the need to stock parts from a different manufacturer. Currently, they deal with one company and stock parts that are often consistent between engines. The purchase of an engine from a different manufacturer may result in the need to stock different parts from manufacturers. In addition, it is much more efficient for city mechanics to become familiar with, and maintain, engines produced by the same manufacturer. Although not the least expensive, we believe that Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. makes the best fire engine for our application, and the benefit of having consistency with our fire engines, provides a safer and more efficient operation. Authorization of this purchase would be advantageous to the interest of the City and the Fire Department. By this memo, the Fire Department requests that you determine that the bidding process usually required by Kent City Code Section 3.70.030 and 040 is not in the best interest of the city. The Department requests that, as Mayor, you authorize the city to enter direct negotiations with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for the purchase of one (1) engine. In the event that the Department successfully negotiates a purchase contract, the contract will be brought before the Public Safety Committee and the City Council for approval. Signed, Jim Schneider, Fire Chie Memorandum March 2, 2004 Page: 3 I, Mayor Jim White, find that, in lieu of the formal bid or request for proposal process, negotiating with Pierce Manufacturing for the purchase of one (1)fire engine would best serve the interests of the city. Therefore, I hereby authorize the Fire Department to negotiate a contract for the purchase of one (1) fire engine from Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. that is substantially similar to the previous four (4) engines purchased in 2001 and the one (1) ordered in 2003. Ji White, Mayor Date ity of Kent Approved by / i / > --�' LP patrick Date Deputy City Attorney t ENGINE AGREEMENT PIERCE MANUFACTURING,INC.AND THE CITY OF KENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation, with its principle offices at 220 Fourth Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032- 5895, hereinafter"City," and Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., hereinafter"Pierce", with its principle place of business at Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., P,0 Box 2017, 3600 American Drive,Appleton, WI 54913. WrINESSETH: That in consideration of the payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made or performed by the parties hereto, the parties covenant and agree to the following. 1. Term-Agreement The term "Agreement" as used herein, shall constitute this document entitled "Engine Agreement Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. and the City of Kent," Attachment A, entitled "Payment Options Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. and the City of Kent," Attachment B entitled "Minimum Specifications Engine Unit," and Attachment C entitled "Proposal Triple Combination Pumper Pierce Quantum Chassis," dated September 23, 2003, which incorporates by reference the finalized and approved drawings for the Engine. 2. Term-"Engine" l This Agreement is for the purchase of one (1) Engine that conforms to the terms of tlus I Agreement. 3. Scone of Work Pierce agrees to build and deliver to the City one(1) fully functional Triple Combination Quantum Pumper Engine(hereinafter"Engine")as specified in this Agreement The City promises and agrees with Pierce to engage Pierce to provide the Engine as described in this Agreement and to complete and finish the same according to the plans and specifications set forth in this Agreement and as set forth in the final approved drawings as called for in the specifications. The parties agree that the Engine will, at a minimum, conform with all Federal Department of Transportation rules and regulations in effect at the time of signing of the Agreement, and with all National Fire Protection Association guidelines for Automotive Fire Apparatus as published at the time of signing of this Agreement. ENGINE AGREEMENT - 1 {Seprem6rr26.2M3) (Peke fire Apparatus and Q)of Kede) 4. Delivery and Risk of Loss Pierce agrees to deliver to the City one fully functional Engine in conformity with this Agreement within 210 calendar days from the date of signing of this Agreement, FOB Kent, WA. The risk of loss for any defect or damage to the Engine shall remain with Pierce until the Engine is accepted by the City. Notwithstanding any right of inspection, Pierce shall notify the City of any ]mown or discoverable defect in the Engine that exists on the date that the Engine is delivered. Pierce shall, at the request of the City, provide a representative to demonstrate the operation of the Engine and to train and instruct City representatives regarding the operation of the Engine at the time of delivery. 5. Time is of the Essence The City and Pierce agree that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 6. Payment and Options The total amount to be paid for each Engine purchased is $432,660.00, plus any applicable sales tax at the time of invoice. Seller shall designate the Sales Tax paid to fall under Washington State Local Tax Code 1715. The City may, at its discretion, exercise any of the payment options set forth in Attachment A. If the City does not exercise any of the payment options set forth in Attachment A, the City agrees to pay Pierce within thirty (30) days from the date the City accepts the Engine. If the City chooses to exercise one of the payment options set forth in Attachment A, such payment shall not act as an acceptance of the Engine as conforming to the requirements of this Agreement and shall not alter the terms of Section &of this Agreement. Payment shall be wade by the City directly to Pierce at its Appleton, Wisconsin office or such location as designated on its invoice. Any representation that payment is authorized to be made to another party is in violation of this Agreement. 7. InsDection The City is entitled to inspect the Engine at four (4) different stages. The inspections shall include: (i) a pre-construction inspection; (it)a mid-construction inspection prior to painting the Engine; (iii) a final construction inspection prior to leaving the factory; and (iv) a post-dehvery final inspection. With the exception of the post-delivery inspection, the inspections shall occur at the Pierce manufacturing site. Pierce shall provide and pay ENGINE AGREEMENT - 2 (Stptember26.2M) (Puree Fire Apparatus and City ofKait) the expenses for travel by air,meals, and accommodations for three(3)representatives of the City of Kent for each of the inspections that occur at the Pierce manufacturing site. The City representatives shall, at a minimum, be afforded sixteen (16) hours of time to inspect the Engine during the mid-construction pre-paint inspection and twenty-four(24) hours of time to inspect the Engine during the final construction inspection. Additional inspection time shall be afforded for the inspection of any item that is discovered by a City representative to be defective. Inspection periods shall include only the time that City representatives actually spend at the Pierce manufacturing facility inspecting the Engine. There shall be a post-delivery final inspection conducted at the City's premises to ensure that the Engine conforms to the teens of this Agreement and passes all inspections and tests as required by the City or by laws or regulations.The initial post-delivery inspection and testing shall be completed within thirty (30) days of delivery of the Engine In the event the Engine fails to meet the tests as required by the City on first trials, second trials may be conducted by the City, at the option of the City, within thirty(30) days from the date of the first trials. Such trials shall be final and conclusive. Failure to comply with these requirements shall be cause for the rejection of the Engine. S. Acceptance Acceptance of the Engine shall occur after the Engine passes post-delivery inspections and tests. The fact that the City uses the Engine for the above mentioned inspection and testing period shall not constitute acceptance. 9. Resection The City reserves the right to inspect the Engine for any defects, irregularities, non- conformities and defects in workmanship, and to reject a nonconforming or defective Engine within one(1) year from when the engine was placed into service. The City will notify Pierce of the rejection of the Engine in writing. The City will also provide Pierce with a written description of the reason(s) for rejection. The City will hold the Engine in its possession with reasonable care at Pierce's disposition for a time sufficient to permit Pierce to remove the Engine. If Pierre gives no instructions within a reasonable time after notification of the rejection, the City will store the Engine at Pierce's expense and such expense shall become a security interest in favor of the City. The parties understand that in the case of rejection,the City is not required to store the Engine in an enclosed area. 10. Cure If the City has rejected the Engine for a defect or non-conformity, or the Engine has or develops a defect covered by a warranty, either express or implied, Pierce shall have thirty(30)days to cure the defect,provided that Pierce provides the City written notice of ENGINE AGREEMENT - 3 (Sq*vxkr 26.2W3) (Pierre FwApporX"and CityOfKent) s =a • Pierce's intent to cure, and assures the City that it is capable of curing such defect. The City shall notify Pierce in writing of any defect within thirty (30) days of the actual discovery of the defect. Unless otherwise agreed to in a separate writing signed by the parties, Pierce shall have one opportunity to cure each defect for which it has been placed on notice. Any agreement to cure defects of the Engine shall not constitute a settlement of claims brought pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. If, while attempting to cure a defect associated with the Engine, Pierce discovers further defects,Pierce shall, within two (2) days of discovery, notify the City of such defects in writing. 11. Warranty The warranties that apply to the Engine are set forth in Attachment C to tlus Agreement and modified by the requirements of the body warranty set forth in Attachment B. The warranties set forth in the Attachments to this Agreement are in addition to any statutory remedies or warranties imposed by law upon the seller. If any component, unit, or subsystem is repaired, rebuilt, or replaced by Pierce, such warranty work, component, unit, or subsystem shall have the remaining unexpired warranty of the original component, unit or subsystem. Pierce shall provide all paperwork relating to warranty coverage of the Engine or its components to the City upon delivery of the Engine. The warranty periods set forth in this Agreement shall not begin to run until the Engine is placed in service by the City. The City will promptly notify Pierce of the date that the Engine is placed in service and the mileage of the Engine when it is placed in service. The warranty periods set forth in this Agreement shall not run during any period in which the Engine is not functional due to a defect in the Engine so long as the City places Pierce on written notice of such defect. All nonstatutory warranties will be registered with the respective manufacturer in the name of the City of Kent-Kent Fire Department. 12. Performance Bond Pierce shall provide and execute a performance bond for the full contract amount. This performance bond shall: (1) Be signed by an approved surety(or sureties)that: ENGINE AGREEMENT - 4 (Sepiewba 2b,2003) (Pierce Fire Apparaw and Cay of Ken) a. Is registered with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner,and b. Appears on the current authorized Insurance List for the State of Washington published by the Office of the Washington Insurance Commissioner. (2) Be conditioned on the faithful performance of the contract by Pierce within the prescribed time. (3) Guaranteed that the surety shall indemnify, and defend and protect the City against any claim of direct or indirect loss resulting from the failure: a. Of Pierce (or any of the employees, sub-contractors, volunteer sub- contractors of Pierce)to faithfully perform the contract, and b. Of Pierce (or the sub-contractors) to pay all laborers, mechanics, sub- contractors,volunteers, material person,or any other person who provides supplies or provisions for carrying out the work. i (4) The City may require the surety companies on the Performance Bond to appear and qualify themselves. When the City deems the surety or sureties to be inadequate, it may, upon written demand, require Pierce to furnish additional surety to cover any remaining work. Until the added surety is furnished,payments on the contract will stop. (5) The parties agree that no liability shall attach to the City by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. 13. Independent Contractor The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created by this Agreement. As Pierce is customarily engaged in an independently established trade that encompasses the specific service provided to the City, no agent, employee, representative or sub-contractor of Pierce shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent, representative or sub-contractor of the City. In the performance of the work, Pierce is an independent contractor with the ability to control and direct the performance and details of the work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-contractors of Pierce. Pierce will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Pierce's agents, employees, representatives and sub-contractors during the performance of this ENGINE AGREEMENT - 5 (Septa�bi►16 2003) (herce Fire Apparatus and Coy ofKew) E ; Agreement. The City may,during the tern of this Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or similar work. 14. Non-Assi¢nment Pierce shall not assign this Agreement nor any part thereof, nor any monies due or to become due thereunder, without the prior written approval of the City. Pierce shall not sublet any part of this Agreement without first having obtained the written consent of the City to do so. IN CASE SUCH CONSENT TO SUBLET ANY PART OF THIS AGREEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE CITY IT SHALL IN NO WAY RELEASE PIERCE FROM ANY RESPONSIBILITY, AND PIERCE SHALL BE HELD IN ALL RESPECTS ACCOUNTABLE AS IF NO CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN. PIERCE WILL BE REQUIRED TO GIVE PERSONAL ATTENTION TO THE WORK THAT IS SUBLET 15. Indemnification Pierce shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, it's officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from injury and all claims, injuries, damages, losses and suits including all legal costs and attorney fees arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement except for injuries and damages resulting from the sole negligence of the City. The City's inspection or acceptance of the Engine when is completed will not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. The City shall: (1)promptly notify Pierce of any claim for which indemnification may be sought;(2) cooperate fully in the defense of such claim; and (3)permit Pierce to settle or compromise such claim on terms and conditions which, in good faith, it determines are appropriate. 16. Insurance Pierce shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement, insurance of the types in the amounts described below against claims for injury to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Pierce, it's agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub- contractors. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, Pierce shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: Commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000.00 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: ENGINE AGREEMENT - 6 (&pre�derss JOrV) (Peeve Fire Apparatus and Cuy of Ken# 4 .+ Blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion;and employer's liability THE INSURANCE MUST REFER TO THE PROJECT NAME, PROJECT LOCATION AND CONTAIN A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ANY PAYMENT OF DEDUCTIBLE OF SELF-INSURED RETENTION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PIERCE. The City, it's officers, officials, agents and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of Pierce and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. Pierce's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought,except j with respects to the limits of the insured's liability. Pierce's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the City shall be given thirty (30) calendar day's prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. The City also reserves it's unqualified right to require,at any time for any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements of the insurance coverage. 17. Discrimination In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub- contract hereunder,Pierce,its sub-contractors,or any person acting on behalf of Pierce or its sub-contractor shall not,by reason of race,religion, color, sex, 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. Pierce shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the contract work,file the attached Compliance Statement. 1& Severability If any tern,provision, condition, or other portion of this Agreement,or it's application to ENGINE AGREEMENT - 7 (Sep+anber26 2Q03) (Aerce Free Appa aw and Cuy of Kew) any person is held to be inoperative, invalid or void, than the same shall not affect any other term,provision,condition,or any other portion of this Agreement or it's application to any person. 19. Cumulation of Remedies All remedies available to either party for breach of this Agreement are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately, and the exercise of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of such remedy to the exclusion of other remedies. 20. Non-Waiver of Breach No term or provision hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived or consented. Any,consent by any party, or waiver of, the breach of the other whether expressed or implied shall not constitute a continuing waiver of or consent to, nor excuse a different or subsequent breach. The failure of the City to enforce one portion of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver, or excuse the breach, of another portion of this Agreement. 21. 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 and understands and agrees to be bound by its terms. 22. Choice of Law This Agreement shall be exclusively governed and controlled by the laws of the City of Kent and the State of Washington, including, but not limited to, the State's Uniform Commercial Code as contained in Chapter 62A.2 RCW. To the extent that this agreement conflicts with the provisions of Chapter 62A.2 RCW, the terms of this Agreement shall control. Jurisdiction and venue for any action relating to this Agreement shall exclusively be in the Superior Court for King County,Washington. 23. Termination This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part: (a) If Pierce fails to deliver a conforming Engine after thirty (30) days for a cure of any defect or non-conformity. The City shall notify Pierce of the termination, the ENGINE AGREEMENT - 8 (Septem*26.2003) (Pierce Fire Appwww and Coy of Kent) L `•• reasons thereof and the effective date. (b) By the mutual written agreement of the City and Pierce. The Agreement to terminate shall include the conditions of termination, the effective date, and in the case of termination in part,the portion to be terminated. After the effective date of termination, no charges incurred under this Agreement, or terminated portions thereof, are allowable. 24. Liguldated Damaees Liquidated damages at a rate of$100.00 per calendar day shall be assessed against Pierce for the late performance of any condition or term set forth in this Agreement. Pierce's delay in the performance of any term of this Agreement shall be excused if the cause of such delay is beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, Pierce, including acts of god, acts of the public enemy, acts of a government entity, fires,floods, and earthquakes. 25. Notice to Proceed Pierce shall commence all work immediately upon execution of the Agreement and shall provide a performance bond, a copy of an insurance policy(ies)lcertificate(s), a copy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, and an additional insured endorsement. 26. Sales Tax The City shall be responsible for paying Washington State Sales Tax on the contract amount at a rate that is current when and where the unit is purchased. Sales tax collected by Pierce will be subject to WAC 458-20-145, Special Rule No. 1. Seller shall designate the Sales Tax paid to fall under Washington state Local Tax Code 1715. 27. Ownershiu and Title Upon acceptance of the Engine and payment by the City pursuant to this Agreement, ownership and title of the Engine shall pass to the City. 28. Modification This Agreement may only be amended or modified by the mutual written agreement of the parties. All amendments or modifications shall be signed by both parties and be attached to this Agreement. ENGINE AGREEMENT - 9 (SCOOPOW26,2003) (Pierce Pare Apparaw and Cuyofrou) 29. Standard of Performance All work to be performed by Pierce shall be performed in a worlanan-like manner in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such work is performed. 30. Notices Any notices to be delivered shall be directed to the attention of the following: CITY:: PIERCE:Attn:v Attn: -JC 71 'c4 City of Kent Pierce Manufacturing,Inc. 220 Fourth Avenue South P.O.Box 2017 Kent, WA 98032 3600 American Drive Appleton,WI 54913 31. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City and Pierce. With the exception of properly executed Modifications, representations, either written or oral,that are not contained in this Agreement,shall not be considered part of this Agreement. 32. Conflict of Terms The terms of this Agreement, including the Attachments, shall be read together. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, in the event that any of the terms of the Agreement including the Attachments conflict with each other, the following shall be the order of precedence: The terms of this Document entitled "Engine Agreement Pierce Manufacturing,Inc. and the City of Kent," shall take precedence over the terns of any other portion of this Agreement. Attachment A entitled"Payment Options Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.and the City of Kent," shall take precedence over Attachments B and C. Attachment B entitled "Minimum Specifications Engine Unit,"shall take precedence over Attachment C. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year written below. If the dates written below do not coincide,the latest written date shall act as the effective date of this Agreement. ENGINEAGREEMENT . 10 (Sepun6n?6,200lj (Pierce Fire oparaw and City of Kent) L i PIERCE: CITY: PIERCE MANUFACTURING,INC. CITY F KENT By: By: Print N f peach Pn It e: Jim White Title: Sales National Accounts Title Ma or Date: 9-26-03 Date: /d -/O- 0-3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By,. �c Fow Arthur M.Fitzpatrick Assistant City Attorney for the City of Kent ATTEST: By Brenda Jacoher,CijW Clerk !'CmPJ6ES0y®PomeaS/A ENGINE AGREEMENT - I 1 (September 24 2003) (Pierce Fire dpparaws and Cay oJKent) ,{ DECLARATION CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors,subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this contract shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contactor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific contract to adhere to An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this contract to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier Willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines,it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the contract, The questions are as follows: i I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2 2 During the time of thus contract I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin,age,or the presence of all sensory,mental or physical disability 3 During the time of this contract the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 4 During the time of the contract I, the prime contractor,will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and mmonties. 5 Before acceptance of this contract, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above By signing below,I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. Dated this�94_day of 200E By- For P41A , Title -WA667e- Date. - A ,`, 290 2003 EEOC PROVISIONS Page I of 3 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 contracts with the City amounting to S10,000 or more within any given year, most 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 contract 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 farnihar 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 EEOC PROVISIONS Page 2of3 CITY OF E ENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the contract I,the undersigned,a duly represented agent of Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contract for the contract known as that was entered mto on the (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 contract. Dated this day of 2000 By For Title Date. EEOC PROVISIONS Page 3 of 3 MOW CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 9008HP& Rio 002 3 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION Hays Companies of WI ONLYAND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIIFICATE 1200 N. Mayfair Road HOLDER THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND,EXTEND OR Suite 250 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Milwaukee Wr 53226 Phone: 414-443-0000 fax:414-259-8448 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL/ INSURED INSURER Scottsdale Insurance INSURERN Gulf Underwriters Insurance Co Pierce Manufacturing Inc. INSURER Travelers IndemnityCo. of L P O Sox 2017 UIstRERD Lexington Insurance Co. Appleton WI 54912-2017 svSURERE Travelers Ind. of Connecticut COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REOU REMENT.TERM OR CONMTON OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT VAnM RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTMATE MAY BE ISWRD OR MAY PERTAK THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAD CLAIMS LTR TYPE OF HOUTANCI POLICY NUMBER DA MMID UNITS GENERAL LM81LnY EACH OCCURRENCE 31,000,000 X X COMMERCIALGEWRALLNBILRY RESOOOO196 04/01/03 04/01/04 PREMISES E' $250 000 CLAW MADE XX occult MED EW(Any erM pwom) $ PERSONA.A ADV INAIRY S1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE s5,000,000 GENT.AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLES FEU. PRODUCTS-OpALP1op AGG s 2 OO O 0O0- POLICY 7 Spa 7 LOC AUTOMONU LIMIUTY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT C X Y AUTO TJCAP11SD200403 04/01/03 10/01/04 (BeoI"d) s1,000,000 AN g ALL OWNED AUTOS TECAP118D201603 ( ) 04/01/03 10/01/04 BODILY INJURY s SCFEOUL.90 AUTOS (Per Wean) HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY s NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per&=donQ PROPERTY DAMAGE s (Per emd" GARAGE UAID LITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT S ANY AUTO OTHER THAN EA ACC S AUTO ONLY AGO $ t7(CESSNMBRE.LANJABILRY EACH OCCURRENCE S 5 OOO O00 Es X OCCUR C A"mADE GU6731115 04/01/03 04/01/04 AGGREGATE $5,000 000 s DEDUCnBLE 1 RETENTION s s WORKERS COMPENSATION AND XOMPLOVIERW TORY YRS ER C myPROm PA�NERIEXEcuTMVE TRJU8117D757703 10/01/03 10/01/04 EL EACHACCDENT s 1 000 000 MOFFICERRAE►eEREXCUDE9 T=08117D756503 10/01/03 10/01/04 EL DISEASE-EAEMPLO s 1,000,000 SPEC�PROVISIONS below EL DISEASE-POUCYLMT IS 1 000 000 OTHER D Ezcess Liability 2905786 04/01/03 04/01/04 Each Occ. $20,000,000 r Ste $20 000 000 DESCF4PMMOPOPERATIONSILOCATOWIVF.MCLESImaC umn ADOEDOYE DORSEAIENT I SPECUL PRO VWOIq RE: Contract for One (1)Pierce Triple Combination Quantum Pumper Engine The City of Kent wall be included as an additional insured for general liability per the attached Additional Insured Endorsement CG2026 1185 sub3act to the Policy terms, forms, conditions,& exclusions CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATMN 9xnM SHOULD ANY OF TH@ ABOVE DESCWSEO POUCHES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE IMM DATE TM8W",THE 94LPM POUIIER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MALL 30 BUYS wwm NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE MOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT.MIT FAILURE TO DO SO City of !Cent IMPOSE LIooIN GATtaNDRLIAe1LTn,GFANYKINDUPONTHERsuHsRITSA" 220 Fourth Avenue S Kant WM 98032-5985 REMMUNTATNEB AUDONIZED REPRESEMATTYE Daniel J. Bavxro ACORD 25(200 M) O-CORD CORPORATION 1995 POLICY NIJMBER: RBS0000186 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - DESIGNATED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION THAT THE INSURED HAS AGREED AND/OR IS REQUIRED BY CONTRACT TO NAME AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED. (Its*entry appears above,information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN D=JRED(Section 11)is amended to iadade as an insured the person or organization shown in the Sc6edole as an iffinrad but only with respell to liability arising out of your operations or premises owned by or reacted to you. CC;20 26 1185 Copyright,Insurance Scrviees Office,h4t.1994 M"e•e.vr RAVELERS ND PANY OF -PERFORMANCE AND TAM RIICA CASUALTY H=fford, Connecticut 06156 PAYMENT BOND Bond Number 104146861 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,THAT, Pierce Manufacturing Inc. 2600 American Drive, PO Box 2017 Appleton, WI 54913-2017 (hereinafter called Principal),as Principal and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA.a corporation organized and exishng under the laws of the State of Connecticut with its principal office in the City of Hartford, Connecticut, (hereinafter called Surety),as Surety,are held and fknniy bound unto City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave.S Kent, WA 98032-5895 (hereinafter called the Owner),and to of persons who furnish labor or material directly to the Principal for use in the prosecution of the work hereinafter named,in the just and full sum of Four Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars and 00/100 Dollars ($427,660.00 )1 to the payment of which sum well and frufy to be made,the said Principal and Surety bind themselves,and their respective heirs,administrators,executors,successors and assigns,Jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS,the Principal has entered into a certain written contract with the Owner,doled the 30th dayof September , 2003 for One(1)Pierce Quantum Pumper which contract is hereby referred to and made apart hereof as fully and to the some extent as if copied at length herein. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION 19 SUCH,that if the said Principal shall fully indemnify the Owner from and against any failure on his/her part faithfully to perform the obligations imposed upon him/her under the terms of said contract free and clear of all fens arising out of claims for labor and material entering into the work,and if the said Principal shall pay all persons who shall have furnished labor or material directly to the Principal for use in the prosecution of the aforesaid work,each of which said persons shah have a direct tight of action on the instrument in his/her own name and for ha/her own benefit,subject,however,to the Owner's priority.then this obligation to be void;otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED,HOWEVER,that no action,suit or proceeding shall be had or maintained agaiist the Surety on this instrument unless the some be brought or instituted and process served upon the Surety within two years after completion of the work mentioned in said contract,whether such work be completed by the Principal Surety or Owner,but if there is any maintenance period provided in the contract for which said surety is Gable,an action for maintenance may be brought within two years from the expiation of the maintenance period,but not afterwards.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said Principal and Surety have signed and sealed th'a instrument this 3 cloy of September 2003 Piece atunng I By ISEAL) 1Ni ess Principal TRAVELERS CASUALTY D SURETY CO d? ,f AMER)CX_ - a� B Witness Toni Schink .Att -In-W Sixstq. S Travelers " 44r,� IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE NOTICE OF TERRORISM INSURANCE COVERAGE On November 26, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (the "Act'). The Act establishes a short-term program under which the Federal Government will share in the payment of covered losses caused by certain acts of international terrorism. We are providing you with this notice to inform you of the key features of the Act, and to let you know what effect, if any, the Act will have on your premium. Under the Act, insurers are required to provide coverage for certain losses caused by international acts of terrorism as defined in the Act. The Act further provides that the Federal Government will pay a share of such losses. Specifically, the Federal Government will pay 90% of the amount of covered losses caused by certain acts of terrorism which is in excess of Travelers' statutorily established deductible for that year. The Act also caps the amount of terrorism-related losses for which the Federal Government or an insurer can be responsible at $100,000,000,000.00, provided that the insurer has met its deductible. Please note that passage of the Act does not result in any change in coverage under the attached policy or bond (or the policy or bond being quoted). Please also note that no separate additional premium charge has been made for the terrorism coverage required by the Act. The premium charge that is allocable to such coverage is inseparable from and imbedded in your overall premium. and is no more than one percent of your premium. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY Hartford,Connecticut 061ffi- M POWER OF ATTORNEY AND CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY(S)4 -FACT' KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS. THAT TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF 4MRIWA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, ,4v§& it=duly orgaruzed under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and having their principal offices in.the City of Hartford, A. of Hardxo..State of Connecticut, (hereinafter the "Companies")path made. constituted and appointed, and do by these _pre b jzL , mite and appoint Richard J. DeVnes,Toni Schh"Stacey L Ryan, Timothy R.Nickels, of Appleton, �WiscyeaPR_'lhehf !Cai and lawful Attomey(s)-mFact, with fill power and authority hereby conferred to sign, exearie and = owlafge, at--a�yblaoe within the United States, the following msnument(s). by Ins/lier sole signature and act, any and all =;{ipiids, r000gyi , contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditiauutl �ajidgti+4lq�B ;Aaly and all consents madent thereto and to bind the Companies,thereby as folly and to the same east as if the seine wem si gt"by the duly authorized officers of the Companies, and all the acts of said Attomry(s)-m Fact,pursuant to the authority herein given,are hereby ratified and confirmed. Thus%Vomtmeut is made under and by authority of the followmg Standing Resolutions of said Companies,which Resolutions are now m full farce and effect: VOTED That the Chinaman,the precedent,any Vice Chinaman.any Executive Vim President,any Senor Vice President,any Vice Resident,any Second Vim piendeut,the Treasurer.nay Assistant Treasure.the Cocpomte Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys-in-Fact and Agents to act for and on behalf of the company and may give such appointee such authority as fis or her certificate of autlwrty may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal wiffi the Company's seas bonds,recoSmonces,contracts of indemnity,and other vmtmgs obligatory m the nature of a bond,recognizance,or conditional undertaking,and any of said officers or the Board of Directors at any tmhe may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given.hum or her VOTED That the Chairman,the President,my Vim Chairman,any F=live Vim President.any Senor Vim President or my Vim President may delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company,provided tint each such delegation is in wntiag and a copy thereof is filed in the office ofthe Secretary VOTED That any bond, recogarzence, contract of mdemmity, or wnnng obligatory in the nature of a bond, recogozzaooe, or conditional undertaking stall be valid and binding upon the Company when(a)signed by the Precedent,any Vim Chairman,any Encutrve Vex Resident,any Senior Vice President or any Vim Presrdmt,any Second Vice Piendent,the Treasurer',any Assistant Treasurer,the Corporate Secretary or say Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary,or(b)duly exeorted(under seal,if required)by one or more Attouieys--m-Fad and Agents pursuant to the power prescribed in ha or her caufrcate or their arufiwtes of authority or by are or more Company*Mean pusuant to a written delegation of suuthw4 This Power of Attorney and Certificate of Authority is signed and seated by facsimile(mechanical or printed)under and by amtborlty of the following Standing Resoimtliom voted by the Boa nk of Directors of TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERLCA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY,which Resoltitiom is now in hall force and effect: VOTED That the signature of each of the followmg officers. President.any Executive Vim President,any Samar Vice Yrendent,any We Precedent,any Assistant Vim Resident,any Secretary,any Assistant Secretary,and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any power of attorney at to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Precedents,Resident Assistant Sectdmws or Aoomeys•m-Fsd fa purposes only of euecutmg and atte tmg boods amd undertakings and other writings obhgatexy is the nature thereofy and any suipowur of attamay or certificate bearing such facsimile sapstore or faramile seal stalk be v&W and binding upon to Camay and any such power so exeenkd and certified by such facsimile sigo and facsimile seat shall be valid and binding upon the Company in the fntuve with raped to any bond or undertaking to wbwh it is attached (11.00 9wndnd) x c PAYMENT OPTIONS PIERCE MANUFACTURING,INC.AND THE CITY OF KENT "ATTACHMENT A" Basic Bid Price Each $427,660.00 *FOB Kent,WA,plus applicable sales tax at time of invoice, if any Options to City of Kent Proposal 1. If the chassis is paid for upon invoice form Pierce,a credit of$6,275.00 will be issued on the final invoice. Chassis cost is$209,154.00.Net 30 days. 2. If 90%or more of the balance is paid upon drive away at the factory, a credit of$4,200.00 will be issued on the final invoice. 3. If the City desires to drive the unit(s)out from Appleton,WI,a certification of insurance is required. If the unit(s)are under Pierce insurance the drivers must have CDL drivers license endorsements. A drive out allowance of$2,400.00 is included in our basic bid price,which will refunded if the City chooses to drive the units out from Appleton,WI. I ATTACHMENT"A"TO ENGINE AGREEMENT - 1 (SV mba 26,2003) (Pierce Fire Apparoea and Coy of Kent) Kent City Council Meeting Date Apri16, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT—AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign Addendum B with HealthForce Partners, Inc. The Fire Department has had an agreement with HealthForce Partners, Inc. (formerly Virginia Mason)to conduct yearly physicals for firefighters since 2001. This Addendum B will extend our current agreement until December 31, 2008 and will also increase cost of services by 100% of the CPI-W Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton annually. 3. EXHIBITS: Current agreement and Addendum B (extending contract) • 4. RECOMMENDED BY:Public Safety_Committee 3/18/04 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Yes 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. W KENT WA a H."O TOM ADDENDUM B NAME OF CONTRACTOR, CONSULTANT, OR VENDOR: HealthForce Partners, Inc. ("Contractor") NAME OF AGREEMENT: Professional Services Agreement for Medical Examinations for Kent Fire ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DATE: July 9, 2001 PRIOR AMENDMENTS TO ORIGINAL AGREEMENT: Notice of Acquisition & Request for Consent of Assignment, executed on February 25, 2002; and Addendum A, executed January 21, 2003. This Addendum B amends the above-referenced Agreement; all other provisions of the Agreement that are not inconsistent with this Addendum B shall remain in effect. For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the Agreement is modified as follows: 1. Section 2 of the Agreement, entitled "Payment," is amended to read as follows: For said services, City shall pay Contractor in accordance with the compensation schedule set forth in Exhibit "B" attached to this Agreement and incorporated by this reference. A cost of living adjustment, that is equivalent to 100% of the CPI-W Seattle- Tacoma-Bremerton. June to June, shall be applied annually to all rates established in Exhibit"B" of this Agreement, commencing January 1. 2005. In the event of increases in laboratory fees or other ancillary fees that are outside of Contractor's control, the rates established in Exhibit "B" may be reviewed and adiusted from time to time upon mutual written agreement of the parties. The Contractor is to submit periodic invoices. The periodic invoices shall contain an itemized breakdown of the medical services performed during the time covered by the invoice. The City will pay Contractor by check within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice. 2. Section 6 of the Agreement, entitled "Term," is amended to extend the termination date of the Agreement from June 30, 2004, to December 31, 2008. The parties whose names appear below swear under penalty of perjury that they are authorized to execute this Addendum B, which is binding on the parties. IN WITNESS,the parties below have executed this Addendum, which will become effective on the last date written below. CONTRACTOR: CITY OF KENT: 2 By: - ;e- By: (signature) 7 (signature) Print N' me: Print Name: Jim White Its 279 Its Mayor (rue)DATE: ZI i y/0`I DATE: (Tide) ADDENDUM B -Pale I of 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kent City Attorney P1CK4PFILESWPenFllea10090.2W3WeaMF=e-Chengeorderl doc CHANGE ORDER NO 1 -Page 2 of 2 Dorm Sm._h - MAdioal Rhysical Contract.dc Page 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND Virginia Mason Occupational Medicine FOR MEDICAL EXANIINATIONS FOR KENT FIRE & life safety THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation, ("City')and Virginia Mason Occupational Medicine,a Washington , whose address is 6720 Fort Dent Way, Tukwila, Washington 98188 ("Contractor"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City desires to retain services for medical examinations for the City's Fire and Life Safety Department as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Contractor agrees to perform said services under the terms and conditions set forth in the Scope of Work and Exhibit"A'; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the City and Contractor: AGREEMENT I. Contractor Reslonsibilities Contractor agrees to provide to City the medical examination services set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Pavment For said services City shall pay Contractor in accordance with the compensation schedule set for in Exhibit "B" attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR KENT FIRE& life safety +' J�Ohm City of Kent and VnArnea Maton Occupational Medrnne) RECEIVED JUL 6 2001 KENT FIRE DEPT Dann Smi` -Medical Physical Contract.dc Page 2 The Contractor is to submit periodic invoices. The periodic invoices shall contain an itemized breakdown of the medical services actually performed during the time covered by the invoice. The City will pay Contractor by check within 30 days of receipt of an invoice. 3. Status of Contractor This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of the Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. The Contractor and/or its subcontractor(s) shall secure at its own expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, Worker's Compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor and its officers, agents and employees and the costs of all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Contractor will be solely responsible for its acts and the acts of Contractor's agents, employees, servants, and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 4. Discrimination In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub- contract hereunder, the Consultant, its sub-contractors, or any person acting on behalf of such Consultant or sub-contractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, 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. Consultant shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the work required of this Agreement, file the attached Compliance Statement. 5. Indemnification The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits. This includes all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACTOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR KENT FIRE&life safety (Btwn.City of Kent and Virunia Mason Occupational Medicine) Darin Smith - Medical Physical Contract.dc- Page 3 FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. Term of Agreement. Performance under this Agreement shall commence on the I J(d Kt ZCV ( , and shall terminate on the 30 )u N C JCp 4C Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon giving 30 days written notice of termination. Said termination shall be effective as of the time stated in the written notice, provided that Contractor shall be entitled to compensation under the terms of this Agreement to the extent of the actual work performed hereunder. Upon termination, the City may thereafter take possession of all records and data pertaining to this Agreement. 7. Insurance The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, or subcontractors. Before beginning the work described in this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Comprehensive General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000.00 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 aggregate for personal injury,bodily and property damage. 2. Professional Liability - insurance covering medical services provided under this Agreement with limits no less than$1,000,000.00 limit per occurrence. Coverage shall include but not limited to, blanket contractual, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR KENT FIRE&life safety (Bova City of Kent and Virernra Mason Occupational Med�une) Dann h -Medical Physical Contract.dc Page 4 applicable, and employers liability, and any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the comprehensive general liability insurance policy, for work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor for the City and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the certificate of insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought,except with respect to the limits of insurers' liability. Contractor and insurance shall be primary insurance, as respect the City and the City shall be given thirty- (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. 8. Ownershitof Records and Drawings Original documents, drawings, designs and reports developed under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Contractor in connection with the services performed by the Contractor under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Contractor to at least the same extent as the Contractor safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available, is already in Contractor's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Contractor from third parties, Contractor shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. 9. Entire Agreement The written provisions and terms of this Agreement shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City and Contractor, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of, or altering in any manner whatsoever, this Agreement or the Agreement documents. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein is contained in this Agreement, its Exhibits, any addenda attached hereto, and all bid related documents, if any, which may or may not have been executed prior to the execution of this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement and form the Agreement document as fully as if the same were set forth at length herein. 10. Waiver and Modification No waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR KENT FIRE&life safety (Bhm.City of Kent and Vvrtnfa Mason occuoanonal Medicine) Donn Smit - Medical Physical Contractdc _ rayr o q binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Contractor. 11. Amendments Any amendment to this Agreement shall not be effective until both parties have agreed to it in writing. A copy of the written amendment, including signatures of the parties, shall be attached to the original of this Agreement. 12. Assignment Any assignment of this Agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. 13. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement should be sent to the parties at the addresses below,unless notified to the contrary: If to Ci : If to Consultant: City of Kent %1.�qinid. 1�asot% OCLLL(�ft�°^,l fdledicine, Fire and Life Safety Department Aittt: Darin Sml- K 24611 —1161 Avenue SE 6,120 Fort Dens' Way , SLL;k 150 Kent, WA 98031 '1"ukW1*1a,WA 98188 Any written notice hereunder shall become effective on the date personally served or, if mailed, as of the date of mailing, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may hereafter be specified in writing. 14. Dilutes. Any disputes arising between the parties shall first be referred to the City for resolution. j Any dispute that cannot be settled between the parties after the City's determination shall only be brought within the venue and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court subject to the laws of the State of Washington and to the Rules of Practice and Procedure for King County, Washington. 15. Miscellaneous The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, pledge as collateral or otherwise encumber any PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR KENT FIRE&life safety (Btwn.City of Kent and Vnrmia Mason Occupational Medictnt) Dann Efi -Medical Physical Contract.dc Page 6 rights, duties, or interest accruing from this Agreement without the written consent of City. City makes no commitment and assumes no obligation for support of Contractor, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This agreement is binding on the parties hereto,their heirs,successors, and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties below have executed this Agreement CONTRACTOR THE CITY OF KENT Vir inia Mason 0ccLLp4-h'oa><.l.blai&uac. to 0 Fart Otn4 Way, Suit ISO T&LWLa, WA 42144 4W By Yna&oa.u� g u.w� By Jim White Its MaAA�er Its Mayor DATE: to/ 1 c,t DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Kent City Attorney City Clerk e c.uw¢.esa,�uwoanm�n,.ac�euaeo PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR KENT FIRE&life safety (Btwn City of Kent and Virgin Mason Occumigna!Medicine) barn Smi�h -Medical Physical Contract.dc- Page 7 DECLARATION CITY OF KENT EQUAL E1IPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this contract shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific contract to adhere to. An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this contract to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole determination _regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the contract; The questions are as follows: 1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2. 2. During the time of this contract I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory,mental or physical disability. 3. During the time of this contract the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. _ 4. During the time of the contract I, the prime contractor,will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this contract, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below,I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. Dated this /i6t day of 44V-A-1- , 2001. By: &LLu For: l/itginia /Mason OtLupafiol itilcdtunc. Title: "jYl"u' EEOC DOCUMENTS Bann Smith - Medical Physical Contract.dr= Page 81 Date: b EEOC DOCUMENTS Dsnn Sm:Lli-Medical Physical Contract.dv=- Page 9 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 contracts 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 contract. 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. EEOC DOCUMENTS ' hFi-Medical Physical Contracts Page 10 CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the contract. I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contract for the contract known as that was entered into on the 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 contract. Dated this day of ,2001. By: For: Title: Date: EEOC DOCUMENTS On N OL May 25. ?001 Re: Employees of Virginia Mason Medical Center(VMNfC) Professional Liability Insurance To Whom It May Concern: The employees of Virginia Mason Medical Center(VMMC). acting within the scope and during the course of their employment with VMMC are covered by VMNIC's self-insured Professional Liability Program. VMMC is substantially self-insured for professional . liability with a retention of 51.0 million per occurrence and 57.0 million in the annual a_er egare. Excess professional liability coverage is provided by various domestic insurance companies. Renev,al dates are ivlay 31. 2001 to May 31. 200:, and continuous. Copies of this letter should be considered as valid as the original. If you have any questions. please contact the Risk Management Department at (206)d 83-E1067. Sinc rely Mic el D. 0 terman Dire or_ Risk Management . F:ldatalriskmgmtlinsutwcelplltrgeninsur 1100 Ninth Avenue P.O.Box 9W Ms. NIU-CM Sestdr.WA 991114900 Tekppoue�o.: :06.5113.605? PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND VIRGINIA MASON OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR KENT FIRE & LIFE SAFETY Exhibit "A" Medical Physical Services Criteria Annual Member Medical Examination Criteria sirxvvraor_.,s '•-• _. sviaawr� _ _.-•e4suewwaRsmsvvw.ac+.s...• 9. Medical History Questionnaire $ 135.00 An initial pre-employment history questionnaire must be completed to provide baseline information with which to compare future medical concerns.A periodic medical history questionnaire must be completed to provide follow-up information.Periodic questionnaires focus on changes in health status. 1O.Hands-on Physical Examination INCLUDED Vital Signs Head,Eyes,Ears,Nose, and Throat Neck Cardiovascular Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation Pulmonary Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation Gastrointestinal Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation Genitourinary Hernia exam(Also, see cancer screening) Rectal (See cancer screening Lymph Nodes The examination of organ systems must be supplemented with an evaluation of lymph nodes in the cervical, auxiliary, and inguinal regions Neurological The neurological exam for uniformed personnel must include a general mental status evaluation and general assessment of the major cranial/peripheral nerves (motor, sensory, reflexes) Musculoskeletal Includes an overall assessment of range of motion (ROM of all joints. Additionally, observation of the personnel performing certain standard office exercises or functions is helpful in assessing joint mobility and function. v I1.13lood Analysis $_70.00_ The following are components of the blood analysis.At a minimum, laboratory services must provide these components in their automated chemistry panel(a.k.a. SMAC 20)and complete blood count(CBC)protocols: White Blood Cell Count Differential Red Blood Cell Count(Hematocrit) Platelet Count Liver Function Tests Includes SGOVAST,SGPTIALT, LDH,Alkaline Phosphatase, and Bilirubin Triglycerides Glucose Blood Urea Nitrogen Creatinine Sodium Potassium Carbon Dioxide Total Protein Albumin Calcium Cholesterol Includes Total Cholesterol. Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL-C) level, High Density Lipoprotein(HDL-C)level, and Total Cholesterol/HDL.Ratio 12.Urinalysis Dip Stick INCLUDED WABOVE Includes pH, Glucose, Ketones, Protein, Blood, and Bilirubin Microscopic INCLUDED WABOVE Includes WBC, RBC, WBC Casts, RBC Casts, and Crystals 13.Vision Tests $ 1^ Assessment of vision must include evaluation of distance, near,peripheral, and color vision. Evaluate for common visual disorders including cataracts,macular degeneration, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy. 14.Hearing (Audiogram) $ 9 00 15.Pulmonary (Spirogram) $ SOAO 16.Chest x-ray - Every five years— mandatory $ 5 17.EKG (Resting) $ 55.00 18.Cancer Screening Elements Prostate Specific An.igen $ 60.00 Annual on all male uniformed personnel who have a positive family history of prostate cancer or are African-Americans beginning at age 40.All male uniformed personnel beginning at age 50. Digital Rectal Exam N/C Fecal Occult Blood Testing $ 27.00 Skin Exam N/C Testicular Exam N/C 19.Immunizations and Infectious Disease Screening Tuberculosis Screen-Annual $ 20.00 Tetanus/Diphtheria Vaccine (Booster every I0 years) $ 20.00 Hepatitis A Vaccine $ 65.00 Vaccine shall be offered to high risk(HazMat, USAF and SCUBA) and other un formed personnel with frequent or expected frequent contaminated water exposures. (Required to be offered)HIV Screening $ 75.00 + 75.00/Hr pre/post HIV testing should be offered on a confidential basis as part of post-exposure protocols and as requested by the physician and patient. 20.Annual Fitness Evaluation-Identired at risk members and any member over the a^e of 46 Aerobic Capacity Gerkin Protocol(Treadmill) $ 225.00 Maximal cardiopulmonary test with EKG $100.00 Hazardous Materials Team M,mber Medical Examination Criteria 1. Medical History Questionnaire $ 135.00 An initial pre-employment history questionnaire must be completed to provide baseline information with which to compare future medical concerns.A periodic medical history questionnaire must be completed to provide follow-up information. Periodic questionnaires focus on changes in health status. 2. Hands-on Physical Examination INCLUDED WABOVE Vital signs Head,Eyes,Ears,Nose, and Throat Neck Cardiovascular Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation. Pulmonary Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation. Gastrointestinal Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation. Genitourinary Hernia exam(Also, see cancer screening). Rectal (See cancer screening). Lymph Nodes The examination of organ systems must be supplemented with an evaluation of lymph nodes in the cervical, auxiliary, and inguinal regions. Neurological The neurological exam for uniformed personnel must include a general mental status evaluation and general assessment of the major cranial/peripheral nerves (motor, sensory, reflexes). Musculoskeletal Includes an overall assessment of range of motion(ROM of all joints. Additionally, observation of the personnel performing certain standard office exercises or functions is helpful in assessingjoint mobility and function. •/I 4. Blood Analysis $ 70.00 The following are components of the blood analysis.At a minimum, laboratory services must provide these components in their automated chemistry panel(a.k.a. SMAC 20)and complete blood count(CBC)protocols: White Blood Cell Count Differential Red Blood Cell Count(Hematocrit) Platelet Count Liver Function Tests Includes SGOVAST,SGPT/ALT, LDH,Alkaline Phosphatase, and Behrubm Triglyeerides Glucose Blood Urea Nitrogen Creatinine Sodium Potassium Carbon Dioxide Total Protein Albumin Calcium Cholesterol Includes Total Cholesterol. Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL-C) level, High Density Lipoprotein (HDL-C)level, and Total CholesteroUHDL Ratio 5. Urinalysis Dip Stick INCL UDED W ABOVE Includes pH, Glucose, Ketones, Protein, Blood, and Bilirubin Microscopic INCLUDED W ABOVE Includes WBC, RBC, WBC Casts, RBC Casts, and Crystals 6. Heavy Metal and Special Exposure Screening Baseline testing,for heavy metals may be assessed on the initial physical but is not required under the Initiative since the utility of such testing has not been medically established. However,evaluations are required to be done under special circumstances,such as following a known exposure,for recurrent exposures,or where required under federal,state or provincial regulations(e.g.,OSHA standards). Arsenic(urine) $ 110.00 Mercury(urine) INCL.INMETALS Lead(urine) $ 19.00 Lead(blood) $ 19.00 Aluminum ALL INCL.IN.:!.ETALS Antimony " Bismuth " Cadmium " Chromium " Copper " Nickel Zinc " Organophosphates(RB cholinesterase) $ 42.00 Polychlorinated Biphenyls(blooiq $ 75.00 + handlin 21. 3. Vision Tests $ 15.00 Assessment of vision must include evaluation of distance,near,peripheral, and color vision. Evaluate for common visual disorders including cataracts,macular degeneration,glaucoma, and diabetic retuiopathy. 4. Hearing(Audiogram) $ 29.00 5. Pulmonary (Spirogram) $ 50.00 6. Chest x-ray -Every five years—mandatory $ 50.00 7. EKG (Resting) $ 55.00 8. Cancer Screening Elements **May be provided to medical record b members personal physician Y P Y P PY Prostate Specific Antigen $_60.00 Annual on all male uniformed personnel who have a positive family history of prostate cancer or are African Americans beginning at age 40. All male uniformed personnel beginning at age 50. Digital Rectal Exam N/C Fecal Occult Blood Testing $ 27.00 Skin Exam N/C Testicular Exam N/C 13.Immunizations and Infectious Disease Screening Tuberculosis Screen-Annual $ 20.00 Hepatitis C Virus Screen-OPTIONAL $ 555_00 Hepatitis A Vaccine $ 6� 5_00 Vaccine shall be offered to high risk(HazMat, USAR, and SCUBA) and other uniformed personnel with frequent or expected frequent contaminated water exposures. (Required to be offered)HIV Screening $ 75.00 + 75.00/Hr pre/ ost HIV testing should be offered on a confidential basis as part of post-exposure protocols and as requested by the physician and patient. 14.Annual Fitness Evaluation Aerobic Capacity Gerkin Protocol(Treadmill) $ 225.00_ Maximal cardiopulmonary test with EKG $ 100.00 . Pre-Employment Medical Examination Criteria t>_•rfn..�aacwvaci« muvvanveym�wwm�rnews.�+ii�v�ssiasiai�ii.�uiivs�,vivw.uumiiv�ym 1. Medical History Questionnaire $_135.00 An initial pre-employment history questionnaire must be completed to provide baseline information with which to compare future medical concerns.A periodic medical history questionnaire must be completed to provide follow-up information.Periodic questionnaires focus on changes in health status. 2. Hands-on Physical Examination INCLUDED WABOVE Vital Signs Head,Eyes,Ears,Nose, and Throat Neck Cardiovascular Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation. Pulmonary Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation. Gastrointestinal Inspection, auscultation,percussion and palpation. Genitourinary Hernia exam(Also, see cancer screening). Rectal (See cancer screening). Lymph Nodes The examination of organ systems must be supplemented with an evaluation of lymph nodes in the cervical, auxiliary, and inguinal regions. Neurological The neurological exam for uniformed personnel must include a general mental status evaluation and general assessment of the major cranial/peripheral nerves (motor, sensory, reflexes). Musculoskeletal Includes an overall assessment of range of motion(ROIL of all joints. Additionally, observation of the personnel performing certain standard office exercises or functions is helpful in assessing joint mobility and function. ', .• '!. , , • ;:.ill•% ,'�' r . '� , l "6 . _ ' /11.: ! i• � ! _/ !rdl.d(A :1 1117117 till ii';'it'�,rr ,l it '', r 'rl • ' rh/ r_ ,l'1.:!}'Li ".S 'i7.r'\ iirJ,SlSl :s1l�:'ri'St'J!'C'l: 4. Blood Analysis $ 70.00 The following are components of the blood analysis. At a minimum, laboratory services must provide these components in their automated chemistry panel (a.k.a. SMAC 20) and complete blood count(CBC)protocols: White Blood Cell Count Differential Red Blood Cell Count(Hematocrit) Platelet Count Liver Function Tests Includes SGOT/AST,SGPTIALT, LDH,Alkaline Phosphatase, and Bilirubin Triglycerides Glucose Blood Urea Nitrogen Creatinine Sodium Potassium Carbon Dioxide Total Protein Albumin Calcium Cholesterol Includes Total Cholesterol. Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL-Q level, High Density Lipoprotein(HDL-C) level, and Total Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 5. Urinalysis Dip Stick INCLUDED WABOVE Includes pH, Glucose,Ketones,Protein, Blood, and Bilirubin Microscopic Includes WBC, RBC, WBC Casts, RBC Casts, and Crystals INCLUDED WABOVE 6. Heavy Metal and Special Exposure Screening Baseline testing,for heavy metals may be assessed on the initial physical but is not required under the Initiative since the utility of such testing has not been medically established.However, evaluations are required to be done under special circumstances,such as following a known exposure,for recurrent exposures,or where required under federal,state or provincial regulations (e.g.,OSHA standards). Arsenic(urine) $ 110.00 Mercury(urine) EVCL. INMETALS Lead(urine) $ 19.00 Lead(blood) $ 19� Aluminum ALL INCL.INMETALS Antimony " Bismuth " Cadmium " Chromium " Copper " Nickel Zinc " Organophosphates(RB cholinesterase) $ 42.00 Polychlorinated Biphenyls(bloodg $ 75.00 + handling 1. 7. Vision Tests $ 15.00_ Assessment of vision must include evaluation of distance,near,peripheral,and color vision. Evaluate for common visual disorders including cataracts,macular degeneration,glaucoma,and . diabetic retinopathy. 8. Hearing (Audiogram) $.P 00 9. Pulmonary (Spirogram) $ 50.00 10.Chest x-ray -Initial Baseline $ 50-00 11.EKG (Resting) $ 55.00 12.Cancer Screening Elements **May be provided to medical record by members personal physician **Clinical Breast Examination NIC **Mammogram $_120.00 **Pap Smear $_27.00_ Prostate Specific Antigen $_60.00_ Annual on all male uniformed personnel who have a positive family history of prostate cancer or are African-Americans beginning at age 40. All male uniformed personnel beginning at age 50. Digital Rectal Exam NIC Fecal Occult Blood Testing $27.00_ Skin Exam NIC Testicular Exam NIC 13.Immunizations and Infectious Disease Screening Tuberculosis Screen $ 20.00 (Entry Baseline)Hepatitis C Virus Screen-OPTIONAL $ 55.00_ (Mandatory at initial) Hepatitis B Virus Vaccine $ 65.00_ (Booster every 10 years verify or provide) TetanuslDiphtheria Vaccine $ 25.00_ (Entry Baseline Verfy or Provide)Measles,Mumps, Rubella Vaccine(MMR)Measles Vaccine $ 24.00_ Vaccine is required for all uniformed personnel born in or after 1957 if there is no medical contraindication and no evidence of at least one dose of live vaccine on or after one's first birthday. (Entry Baseline Vero or Provide)Mumps Vaccine $_24.00_ Vaccine is required for all uniformed personnel born in or after 1957 if there is no documentation ofphysician-diagnosed mumps,no adequate immunization wilh.live mumps after their first birthday and no evidence of laboratory immunity. (Entry Baseline Verb or Provide)Rubella Vaccine $ 10.00 Vaccine is required unless proof of immunity is available. (Entry Baseline Ver fy or Provide)Polio Vaccine $_24.00 Vaccine shall be given to uniformed personnel if vaccination or disease is not documented. L . (Required to be offered) Varicella Vaccine $_10.00 (Required to be offered)Influenza Vaccine $_10.00 (Required to be offered)HIVScreening $ 75.00 + 75.00/Hr pre/post HIV testing should be offered on a confidential basis as part of post-exposure protocols and as requested by the physician and patient. 14. Fitness Evaluation Aerobic Capacity Gerkin Protocol(Treadmill) $_225.00 Maximal cardiopulmonary test with EKG $_100.00 One Fee of$45.00 Push-up Evaluation " Leg Strength Evaluation " Arm Strength Evaluation " Grip Strength Evaluation " Curl-up Evaluation " Flexibility Evaluation it Follow-Up and Referral by Health Care Practitioner 1. Follow-Up or Consultation by Health Care Practitioner $ 80.00 The Wellness-Fitness Initiative recognizes the importance of consultation and/or referral to outside health care providers and/or specialists.Aspects of the follow-up and referral program include: • Abnormal findings on the annual physical must be addressed by follow-up or referral. • Revaccination or intervention following exposures must be managed by follow-up or referral. • Managed care or other provider referrals are appropriate for non-service connected problems. • Return to work determinations require clearance by the fire department physician or other provider following a consult with an outside physician or after extended leave. • Follow-up on findings from annual examinations must be reviewed by the fire department physician. 2. Individualized Health Risk Appraisal $ 80.00 The health care provider (organization or individual) shall provide written documentation regarding their follow-up/referral program or procedures. Written feedback to uniformed personnel concerning health risks and health status is required following the annual examination. Reporting findings and risks and suggesting plans for modifying risks improve the physician-patient relationship and helps uniformed personnel claim ownership of their health status. Individualized health risk appraisals also must include questions that attempt to accurately measure the uniformed personnel's perception of their health. Health perception can be a useful indicator of potential problems. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND VIRGINIA MASON OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR VENT FIRE & LIFE SAFETY Exhibit "B" ..rniW Y%'>F_Ir n/.}�.=l 1..'riV�iL'YI/gMd1GYS1daA.IF1WY P9iVO4//w'4/RWt/{OY,O.DJf�y.Ccl4MM F.W SYr.N I/q The Contractor is to submit periodic invoices. The periodic invoices shall contain an accounting of the medical services actually performed, reference Exhibit "A' for approved services and costs, and the names of members receiving services for reference. The City agrees to pay the Contractor by check within 30 days of receipt of an invoice. Vendor information and Set-up form attached. fiLerli;l r cr✓ JUH 1 El Reactivate Vendor oofo KEN Vendor Set-itPf iffiiDEPT. ❑ Address Change w.s^I M"T 0" To be filled out by Vendor ONLY Vendor Number FINANCE 220 Fourth Avenue South •Kent,WA 98032.5895•Phone: (253) 856-5231 •Fax: (253) 856-6200 r-MJSg1NMr4PJ An Incomplete form will create a delay In our payments)to you and your payment(s) could be subject to the IRS required back-up withholding. Na , as 11 will appear on check (NOA8BREVL4n0NSJ Doing Business As(If different than name on check) Payment Address Business Address Ci State Zip Ctty State Zip e-cJ f 1 Accounts Receivabl Contact Phone Number LTIMM• check the appropriate box OffeCorporation ❑ Government Agency ❑ Individual/Sole Proprietor E] Non-Pretlt ❑ Partnership IMMMMM This business is to Minority Owned ❑women Owned ❑ Both Minority and Women awned ❑ Neither Will you provide medical services to the City of Kent? ................................................................ Yes No Will you provide legal services to the City of Kent?............._..................................................... Yes No Will you provide services other than medical or legal to the City of Kent?.................................... Yes No Will you provide parts,supplies or materials to the City of Kent?.......................................... ...... Yes No Do you pay sales tax to the State of Washington? ................ ..................................................... Yes No if exem tfrom Form 1099 re ortin and check your qualltving exemption reason below: 1. Corporation,except there is no exemption for medical and healthcare payments / or payments for legal services M 2 Tax Exempt Charity under 501(a),or IRA © 3. The United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities ❑ 4. A state,the District of Columbia, a possession of the United States, or any of their poklical subdivisions ❑ 5. A foreign government or any of its political subdivisions Payment Terms: Social Security ik or Federal TIN: Under penalties of pedury,I certify that L The ntNnber shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number(or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me).and 2. 1 am not subject to backup withholding because: (a)1 am exempt from backup withholding,or(b)I have not been Notified by the Internal Revenue Service(IRS)that i am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all Interest or dividends. or(a)the IRS has notified me that 1 am no longer subject to backup withholding. LIM Signature! gate it I 01 -96-98 98: 32 RECEIVED FROM:253 859 3281 P. 91 Forte W-9 Request for Taxpayer ciie fortis to the "'".March 199a) Identification Number and Certification ca requester.Do NOT rn \ D.o. ,ma or a,a Toosm y send to the IRS. .„erro 111 . serve No=(if lost names,b lest sae prcks hN rums of IN prsoo or a"ahipta number you saw a Pan I btbw.sac Imsdcaou so pop 2 a yea Isar his rawest.) is euerteae name(sole propreters see iraMicsons on page 2) Name changed as of June 1, 1994, Virginia Mason Medical Center • formerly Virginia Mason Hospital. Pierce draft appropriate box ❑ Indmduaysae omnetor CapoaDon ❑ PannWaNp ❑ Other ► ............. Address(numb..street,anrapt or suite rio.) Requesters nuru and addrw ldpeaie0 P.O. Box 91o46 96 CAy.stag and ZIP code Seattle, WA 98111-9146 Taxpayer Identilcation Number IN Lht scoowt raxnberw hen(oe°aW Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. For individuals,this is your social security number So"s►co ty number (SSW For sole proprietors,see the instructions on page 2.For other entitles,it is your employer identification number(EIN).t you do not have a OR For Payees Enmpt From Backup number, see Mow To Get a TIN below. w1ftoldinq(Ses Part I Nob:if the account is in tritons than orie rw,m, Empl"p rr Idendaeaaen rnmser instructions on page 21 see the chart on page 2 forgUKWines on wtass 9 111015 16 1515 1r319 number to enter. ► Ear Certification Under penalties of perjury,I candy that: 1. The number shown on this lorm is my coned taxpayer identdlotion number(or 1 am waiting for a number to be hssu ix!to me).and 2. 1 am not wbted to backap withholding beaver.(a)I am exempt from backup withholding,or(b)1 have not been toblsd by the ktemal Revenue Service that 1 am subject to backup withholding a a result of a failure to report a1 merest or dividends,or Iq the IRS has notified me that 1 am no longer subject to backup with hddirS —Certification halruetionss—You must pose out item 2 above d you hove been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to bac kp withholding because of underrepontrg Into not or dividends an your tax return.For red estate transactions,item 2 does not apply.FFcvo interest pad.the acquisition or abandonment of secured property,cancellation of debt.coartnbutions to an individual retrwnerd arra --(IRA).and generally payments other than interest and dividends.you are not required to sign the Cartileation,but you must provide TIN.(Also see Part M Instructions on page 24 Sign Hera Signature Dads ► ? Section re/ensriees are to paymenns u certain conditions. This is interest and dividend accounts opened Revenue-Code. aped"backup withholding.'Payments after 1983 oxhly),or Purpose of Form.--A person who is that could be subject to backup S You do not certify your TIN. See the repined to Ilk an i nfoxmatim retum with withholding include interest. dvidends, Part III instructions for exceptions. rites IRS must get your core MN to report broker and barter exchange transactions, Certain and payments are inc nts income paid to you, real estate re ,royalties,nonemployee pay.and Pay transactions,mortgage Interest you Paid. certain payments from f1strng boat exempt from backup wdhitoldiing and the aequastim or abandorment of secured op"ore_ Real estate transactions are mot informationfeporbng.See the Part II property.cancellation of debt,or subject to backup evthholdng. instructions and the separate instructions contributions you made to an IRA.Use It you give the requester your correct for tee Flequumster of Fong W-d. Form W-9 to give your correct TIN to t:a TIN,make the proper certtficaticin s,and Now To Oat a Tlfit—N you do not have a requester(Cite person requesting your TIN) report all your taxable interest and TIN, apply for aria hwadistaly.To apply. and.when applicable. (1)to artfy the TIN dividends on your tax return.your get Form SS-6,Application for a Social you an gnvsng is correct(air you are wanting Payments w+71 not be subject to backup SsarrdY Number Card(tor individual* for a number to be issued),(2)to certify withholding.Payments you receive will be from your local office of the Stxaal Seoul* you are not subject to backup wrttholdhV. subject to backup withholding it Administration,or Fora SS-i,Applcatbn or(3) to claim exemption from backup for E�dotw identification Number(for withholding d you are an exempt payee. 1.You do not furraslh your TIN to the btsinessin and all other Nlbtiss),from nd Giving your correct TIN a making the requester, or your local IRS 011ie,. appropriate certifications will prev*M 2.The IRS tells the requester that you if you do not have a TIN,wift'Appled cartaiin backup w�li froigg. being subject to IRS tM an lb y u that you am subject a TIN,or aorA ndd data tethe IOM�give it 10Part I.ttw d� Nob. W a requester gives you a for►r other to backup withholding because you did riot rquesto.CwOuly,you WIN Wart have!60 than a W-9 to request your TIN,you must report all your interest and dividends on days to get a TIN and grin.it to the use the requester's form d f is substantially your tax return(for reportable interest and requester.If to requester does not r sirrWar to tins Form W-9. dividericts only).or your TIN wlMh 60 days,backup What Is Backup Withholding?—Persons 4.You do not crony to the requester withhoicling.if •will begIn and mating certain payments to you must that you are not subject to backup continue until you ftatastt your TIN. ati withhold and pay to the IRS 31% of such withholding under 3 above(for reportabis Form W-9 (Rev.3.9q Form W-9(Rev. 3.94) par,2 Note:6Wnting "Applied Far'oe ffe fomr It you are exempt from backup TIN whether or not you are requred to file means that you have already applied for a withholding,you should still complete this a tax return.Payers must generalty TIN OA that you intend to apply for on_a form to avoid possible erroneous bad%arp withtwid 31%of trade rrierest,dividend, soon withholding. Enter your correct TIN in Part and certain other payments to a payee As soon as you receive your TIN, 1,write-ExampC in Part It,and sign and who does not give a TIN to a paysr. complete another Forth W-9,include your date the form. If you are a nonresident Cartain penalties may also apply. TIN,sign and date the torn,and give it to alien or a foreign entity not subject to the requester• backup withholding, give the requester a What Name and Number To completed Form W-6,Certificate Of Give the Requester Penalties Foreign Status. Fafkrs To Famish TIN.--If you tag to Part II{—CortNicsdon For fts tpe at scoow a QW na"w one SeW't furnish your correct TIN to a requester,you For a joint account, only the person whose t• Incoriftnel fle h**,sr are subject to a penalty of SW for each TIN Is shown in Part I should sign. a. t�a;sa 1%W% re""�a ry Wit such faikre unless yaw failure is due to 1.Interest,Dividend,anti Barter a"W"4 to era serer an CA SOWL"I reasonable cause and not to mi fttf neglect Exchange Accounts Opened Before 1964 s. aarodre a mur of N er,er CIv6 Penalty for False Information Wkh and Broker Aoaounta Considered Active 0mmNrWwn at Respect to W ithho Idling.—If you make a During 1963.You must give your correct a s Its mekd itr p.nv-„s,w r false statement with no reasonable be= TIN, but you do not have to sign the ��WWW that results in no backup wftic li g,you eertificatiort. trio WWMr is are subject to a UW penalty, 2 intsnst,DMderd,Broker,anti am herw Crtmiread Penaky for Falsifying Barter Exchange Accounts Opened After a seea,d rut the dour"M Intonation.—WNNWy talslyftg 1903 and Broker Accountsid Consered .VON an ON a certifications or affirmations may subject Inactive During IN&You must sign the won wa tww you to enrrnrnal penalties atduding fines certification or backup wrtf>fwlding will a. Sale pciinvorwo All oa,+a' and/or imprisonment apply.If you are subject to backup Misuse of nNs.--ff the requester withholding and you are merely providing For�a too er re°°'.p W""rn."'d Ear"t discloses or uses TINS in violation of your correct TIN to the requester,you must a sib prapna,eanp Its a.ww a Federal law, the requester may be subject cross out item 2 in the certification before t«ur,r. A w W tne or 1pr w" the PWUMthat to duct and a�rttnal penaltiessigningtam s. t:Wrsorrre flee aummi on 3.Real Estate Transactions.You must e. #..ream aka. Its epr,aa.en Specific Instructions sign the2 Ocertification., tion. cross out «�`a"'Oew` Name.—If you are an individual,you must 4.Other Paymertts.You must give your generally enter the name shown on your correct TIN, but you do not have to sign vie. rrs,.rso Tfs Do -so+o social security card. However, if you have the certification unless you have been 11• a hair or ngnared The trew er nmv r changed our last name, tor+nsianu,due "°"Wall 9 Y notified of an incorrect TIN.Other u. Aeeeae woe to The mace u,akq to Marriage. without informing the Social payments Include payments made in the D,ahem of Security Administration of the name course of the requester's trade or business AWMA"n re norm change, please enter your first name, the for rents,royalties,goods(other than bills of.mr eWbcal� last name shown on your sodal securityfor merchandise), mod" and heam ewe ga,,,,,,,�„t 1d1Oy card. and your new last name. services.payments to a nonamployse for 1 . I or prsQy ask Sole Proprietor.—You must enter your services(including attorney and accounting MW "agcuftrw - individuat name.(Enter either your SSN or fees), and payments to certain fishing boat °rava"'Dar"""' EIN in Part I.)You may also enter your crew members. 'tat ya NW- , on rwre of vw F,wun.nor business name or'doing business as" &Mortgage kiteeeet Paid by Yea, Rome VMS tk"WL name an the business name Woe. Faster Aoqutaklon or Abandonment of Seetaed 'Okk to Rinds nens as aneere re ears erne your name as shown on your social Property,Carmollation of Debt,or IAA 'reu aaa ere.raa nee W rare,bra roe mr 00 security card and business name as it was Contirlbutionis, You must give your correct ""?as buww a or mq Ounaee ae naea tier used to apply for your EIN an Form SS4. TIN,but you do not have to sign the 'ire srs era gram V"ran.of as b"ru,t nm Part I.—Taxpayer Iderrgfleallon Number aertilfatlon s preon>,+ar.toe nA anon ss IN CO w ow+mr wad"morn+a•e ti I hwu ue„e eve Min ereeyr swt Privacy Ana Netl 1ae deoh* to esm.e ea,l You must enter your TIN it the appropriate Section 6109 requires you to give your Noise it no rime s craw when rreors lien ore box. If you are a sole proprietor,you may correct TIN to persons who must file rrra a iseaE rare n~xe be oonWWW to enter your SSN or EIN. Also see the dust information returns with the IRS to report be err of ens first none bom on this page for further clarification of interest, dividends. and certain other name and TIN combinations.If you do not income paid to you, mortgage Interest you have a TIN, follow the instructions under paid,the acquisition or abandonment of How To Get a TIN on page 1. secured property, cancellation of dtabt,at Peat 11--for Parye Exempt From contributions you made to an IR/l.The IRS Backup WfaPaysiiee a uses the numbers for identification Purposes and to help venly the acauat y hdviduafs(irndudng sole proprietors)we Of your tax velum.You must provide your not exempt from backup withholding. Corporations we exempt from backup withholding for certain payments,such as interest and dividends For a compete list Of exempt Payees. see the separate Instructions for the Requester of Form W-9. n0 4z5-�_570TiEALTNFO R C E WA81 1FaX 0 C C U P A T 1 0 N A L M E D I C I N E IDs r� N {�----- --� July 24 2002 Lj JUL 2 5 2002 Linda Mock-Administrative Assistant a v Kent Fire and Life Safety 24611116th Avenue SE Kent,WA 98031 Dear Linda, This letter is sent to clarify what has been soinewhat confusing for all concerned during the recent sale of our occupational medicine business by Virginia Mason Medical Center ("VMMC").The attached letter dated April 281h was sent to Kent Fire and Life Safety as a Notice of Acquisition and Request for Consent of Assignment by Virginia Mason Medical Center.The letter signed by Margaret Brewer was in fact dated April 281h and references the Medical Center's intent to sell its occupational medicine clinics and associated business to what was then called Health Practice Partners,Inc.,a Washington corporation effective the closing date of May 2002. As you are aware subsequent to this"Notice"the legal name of our business has been changed from Health Practice Partners to HealthForce Partners and in doing so has created some confusion as to who is now the legal owners of the former Virginia Mason Occupational Medicine clinics and business. HealthForce Partners will assume all of the prior obligations and responsibilities of the previous owners and will continue to provide the highest possible care for its clients in the Puget Sound region.We are committed to expanding our service base and continuing the excellent reputation established by the Virginia Mason Medical Center.I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion around the sale,if you have any questions or concerns simply contact me at (425) 806-5735. Sincerely, A eA�_ --` - Darin Smith Vice President Sales HealthForce Partners darins@healthforcepartners.com HEALTH A N k C E• E M E R { Darin R. Smith We Pnesrdent Soles occupoaonol"ane donnsCheotth/orce"emcom 18323 Bothell-Everett Highway Suite 220 425-806-5735 Duee Bothell,WA 98012 206-841-2018 Mobile 425-WS-57DO Tel 425-806-5701 Fox 1-IEALTFFQ R E Suite E�e Rothe➢- rettHighw� —____ _�------ 425-806-5700 Suite 220 �""� 1 1 , � -425-806.5701 Fax Bothell,WA 9 , 2} P A R T N E R S 1 � L�---�—'May 8, 2002 KENT 1,T I am writing to follow up on previous correspondence from Virginia Mason Medical Center regarding the sale of its Occupational Medicine business. Effective May 1,HealthForce Partners, a locally headquartered healthcare services company,acquired the Seattle and Southcenter Occupational Medicine Clinics. On behalf of the entire HealthForce Partners organization,we want you to know that the same great occupational medicine team you have come to know and trust will now be a part of Healthhorce Partners. The only change is that u.e physicians will nC. `..'CrI�T g,S rro '-'*- owners in our organization,and they'll have our expert administrative workforce helping them behind the scenes. We believe that physician partnership is key—that superior patient care results when the people who provide it have a voice in how it is delivered. Since 1998,we have provided physical and occupational rehabilitation services for thousands of inured workers every"year. Through our vision to"optimize"the private practice model, our patients receive excellent care,our healthcare professionals are engaged,and our clinics run efficiently. The result is that we bring to you the knowledge and expertise needed to take care of your employees so they can get back to living and working as quickly as possible. If you had a current contract with Virginia Mason for occupational healthcare services,here are some answers to questions you may have: ■ Virginia Mason has transferred your service protocols to HealthForce Partners. ■ HealthForce Partners will honor the current terms and conditions set forth in your contract. • The physicians providing patient care are now part of the HealthForce team. ■ The clinic locations and phone numbers will not change. I want to assure you that we are focused on ensuring a transition that is as smooth and swift as possible. We will soon be contacting you to discuss how we can serve your business. In addition. we'll be soliciting your feedback on our plans for new programs that include delivery options designed to make care more convenient for you and your employees. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns,please feel free to contact Dann Smith,Vice President Sales,Occupational Medicine at(425)806-5735 or e-mail at darins@healthforcepartners.corr We look forward to serving you. Sincerely, Jack L. Siemering Chief Executive Officer HealthForce Partners ,may i Mr.Dale Robertson Kent Fire&Life Safety 24611 116th Kent,WA 99031 Re: Notice of Acquisition and Request for Consent of Assignment Dear Nk. Robertson: This letter is.to notify.youthat Virginia Mason.MedicalCenter("VMMC"_}intends to sell its occupational medicine clinics located at(i) 6720 Fort Dent Way, Suites 100, 125 and 150, Tukwila, Washington, and(ii)3223 First Avenue S„ Seattle, Washington(collectively,the "Clinics")to Health Practice Partners,Inc., a Washington corporation, (collectively,"HPPD. Upon closing of the acquisition, currently scheduled f6r May of 2002,HPP will assume the obligations of VMMC with respect to the Clinics. You are party to that certain professional services agreement dated June 6,2001 with VMMC concerning the Clinics that will be acquired by HPP. Please evidence your conserl to the assigrunent of such contract to HPP by signing a copy of this letter where indicated below, and returning a copy of the signature page at your earliest convenience to to VMMC's attorney, Sarah English Tune, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,2600 Century Square, 1501 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 99101,206-628-7738 (phone) and 206-628-7799 (fax), Please let me know if I can provide any more information or explanation of the transactions described above. Very truly yours, VIRGINIA MASON MEDICAL CENTER Datc: �'`&4' 01001 By: YYIG1Ar j"Pf Accepted and agreed to this_day of April,2002. Date: By: Name: Title: F-%USBRS%FEDMCBVWCa c&doc Seerik µµ. •.Ryi a a—'°�ka-°ram �,i;•_e -r 717r ire-oaf-•,�,'.`1';c _ <'�. - r: .iy l a>��'yS:;x...; -...x,�;'{.._i Jk n t ..-.g;...� '. .. 'cad. L;�,x -:v_, _�.,,�:i `4.��f _',.'.a:.a:Si... _a_ic .:. _ .. .�. _n . _�. _. _ .,..4�.�'f",.L.-1�'r...:!�.'y�.....r.��.�..a......:�- ,...�..._ April 26, 2002 Dear Virginia Mason Customer: We want to share some important news about Virginia Mason's CC-Curational_Medicine Clinics. After much consideration,Virginia Mason has decided to sell the clinics. Effective May 1,2002,HealthForce Partners will assume ownership of the clinics,on First Avenue South in Seattle, and at Southcenter in Tukwila. As we evaluated potential purchasers,we wanted to be sure that the clinics would continue to provide the high standard of care that you have come to expect from Virginia Mason. HealthForce Partners is a locally headquartered organization with a proven track record in delivering high quality rehabilitation services for injured workers. Furthermore, . HealthForce Partners shares our strong commitment to quality care. While the ownership is changing,we are extremely pleased to report that the same physicians and staff you have come to know and trust will continue to serve you as part of HealthForce Partners. We will continue to work closely with HealthForce Partners to ensure our mutual clients have access to the variety of specialized medical services available at Virginia Mason. You have been a valued customer. Please know that it has been a privilege to serve you. We are committed to a transition that is smooth and seamless. In the next few days, HealthForce Partners w+ll contact you`v:th more inf0nnnt.on. But if you l ai-^ti''eoti0ilu or concerns at any time,please feel free to contact Darin Smith, Vice President of Sales, Occupational Medicine, at 425-806-5735. Sincerely, �k '5c, �. 44trX m) Sarah H. Patterson Brian McDonald, M.D. Senior Vice President Chief of Satellites L Mr. Dale Robertson Kent Fire & Life Safety 24611 116th Kent, WA 98031 Re: Notice of Acquisition and Request for Consent of Assignment Dear Mr. Robertson: This letter is to notify you that Virginia Mason Medical Center("VMMC") intends to sell its occupational medicine clinics located at(i) 6720 Fort Dent Way, Suites 100, 125 and 150, Tukwila, Washington, and(ii) 3223 First Avenue S., Seattle,Washington(collectively,the "Clinics") to U.S. HealthWorks of Washington,Inc., a Washington corporation, and U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group of Washington, P.S., a professional services corporation, (collectively, "U.S. HealthWorks"). Upon closing of the acquisition, currently scheduled for February of 2002, U.S. HealthWorks will assume the obligations of VMMC with respect to the Clinics. You are party to that certain professional services agreement dated June 6, 2001 with VMMC concerning the Clinics that will be acquired by U.S. HealthWorks. Please evidence your consent to the assignment of such contract to U.S. HealthWorks by signing a copy of this letter where indicated below, and returning a copy of the signature page at your earliest convenience to to VMMC's attorney, Sarah English Tune,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 2600 Century Square, 1501 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,206-628-7738 (phone) and 206-628-7799 (fax).] Please let me know if I can provide any more information or explanation of the transactions described above. Very truly _yours, VIRGINIA MASON MEDICAL CENTER Date: By: 772A 61..[_t.c..� Accepted and agreed to this QS Jay of February,2002. 7 Date: �.� SI D 2 By: Name: W. 44iihmiiii., Title: FAUSERMFEDMCBIconsent form lencr.doe Seattle Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STARWOOD FINAL PLAT - ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve the final plat mylar for Starwood Plat and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. Starwood Enterprises proposes to subdivide approximately 3.19 acres intol3 single-family residential lots. The property is located at 26521 and 25413 114 a Avenue SE. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo with conditions and map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Community Development and Public Works Staff (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: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6K COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager W A S H I N 6T O N Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: March 29, 2004 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT JULIE PETERSON AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP,PLANNING MANAGER THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE SUBJECT: STARWOOD FINAL PLAT (#FSU-2000-8/KIVA#2032463) MOTION: Approve the final plat mylar for Starwood and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. SUMMARY: Starwood Enterprises, LLC., proposes to subdivide approximately 3.19 acres into 13 single-family residential lots. The property is located at 26521 and 25413 114"' Avenue SE. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: On December 19, 2001, the Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and a Decision granting preliminary approval of a 13-lot subdivision, with 17 conditions. The applicant has complied with the conditions required prior to recording. S.1Pemut\Plan\longplats1200012032463-FSU-2000-8cc.DOC Enclosure: Conditions of approval—Hearing Examuner STARWOOD #FSU-2000-8 KIVA#RPP5-2032463 On December 19, 2001, the City of Kent Hearing Examiner approved the Starwood Preliminary Plat#SU-2000-8 (KIVA#RPP3-2012083) with the following conditions: A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The owner/subdivider shall implement all mitigation measures required by the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposed Starwood Preliminary Plat, file #ENV-2001-34. B. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL PLAT 1. The Owner/ Subdivider shall pay all Environmental Mitigation Fees, Charges in Lieu of Assessments and/or Latecomer Fees, if any, prior to scheduling the Pre-Construction Conference and/or prior to recording this plat, whichever comes first or as required by the Public Works Director. 2. The Owner/ Subdivider shall submit and receive City approval for engineering drawings from the Department of Public Works, and shall then either construct or bond for the following: a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The City sanitary sewer system shall be extended from the existing City sanitary sewer system and shall be sized to serve all off-site properties within the same service area; in addition, the sanitary sewer system shall be extended across the entire subdivision as needed to serve adjacent properties within the same service area, unless otherwise determined by the sanitary sewer purveyor. The septic system serving the existing home(s)within the proposed plat- if any - shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department Regulations. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots. The City water main extension system shall be extended from the existing City water system and shall be sized to serve all off-site properties within the same service area; in addition, the water main extension shall be extended across the entire subdivision as needed to serve adjacent properties within the same service area, unless otherwise determined by the water purveyor. Starwood #FSU-2000-8 KIVA#RPP5-2032463 Existing wells— if any- shall be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Ecology. C. Detailed Drainage Plans meeting the requirements of the City of Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5-3, Detailed Drainage Plans. Initial guidance is given in the conditions which follow: (1) The Owner/ Subdivider shall construct an on-site public detention / retention pond system in accordance with the Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to both stormwater runoff quantity and quality. This pond shall be constructed within a public stormwater management tract. The detention / retention pond storage volume and release criteria shall be that for the HILL; the pre-development condition shall be assumed to be grass only unless otherwise determined by the Department of Public Works. (2) As development occurs within this subdivision, roof downspouts for each roofed structure (house, garage, carport, etc.) shall be directed to Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches, or Perforated Stubouts, meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5-5, , Roof Downspout Infiltration Trench Systems, Downspout Dispersion System, and Perforated Stubout Connections. These roof downspout conveyance and infiltration systems shall include overflow pipes connected to an approved conveyance system. The Detailed Drainage Plans will include an approved detail for the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trench, or Perforated Stubout, and will provide for private stormwater stubouts to each lot for future connection from the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches, or Perforated Stubouts. The face of the recorded plat shall contain the following restriction: AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, RESIDENCES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE ROOF DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION TRENCH (PERFORATED STUBOUT) SYSTEMS PER DETAILS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED STORMWATER PLANS. Page 2 of 9 Starwood #FSU-2000-8 KIVA#RPP5-2032463 (3) A downstream analysis is required for this development, and it will include an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, and water quality from the point of discharge from the site downstream a distance of at least one quarter mile or to the point where stormwater discharges to the maintained portion of the City of Kent stormwater drainage system, whichever distance is further. See City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5-4, Downstream Analyses, for the specific information required for downstream analyses. (4) If determined necessary by the Public Works Department, the Owner/ Subdivider shall provide public drainage easements meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards for the specified downstream reach where adequate public drainage easements do not currently exist. (5) The Owner/ Subdivider shall submit Landscape Plans for within and surrounding the detention facility to the Planning Department and to the Department of Public Works for concurrent review and approval prior to, or in conjunction with, the approval of the Detailed Drainage Plans. These Landscape Plans shall meet the minimum requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and the stormwater management landscaping requirements contained within City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5, Landscape Plans. Landscape Plans are not to be used to show required Street Trees. (6) The Owner/Subdivider shall execute Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenants for the private portions of the drainage system prepared by the Property Management Section of the Department of Public Works. See City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #5-17, Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenants, for information on what is contained within this document. d. An open-to-the-air public stormwater treatment system in accordance with the requirements of the Kent Construction Standards, and published City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures dealing with stormwater treatment, to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff quality. Acceptable Page 3of9 Stanwood #FSU-2000-8 KIVA#RPP5-2032463 stormwater treatment facilities meeting this requirement in their preferred order include: infiltration after pretreatment; biofiltration swales; wet ponds; extended detention ponds; and created wetlands. See City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures #5-1, through #5-15, for additional information on stormwater treatment requirements. (1) The stormwater treatment system shall be within the approved public stormwater management tract. (2) Easements for biofiltration swales across private lots will not be acceptable to meet this requirement. e. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #1-3, Excavation and Grading Permits & Grading Plans. Initial guidance for these plans is given below: (1) These plans will include provisions for utilities, roadways, retention /detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and a building footpad for each iot. (2) These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building Permits. f. A Temporary Erosion /Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and the most recent version of the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. These plans must reflect the Detailed Grading Plan discussed above, and the Planning Department approved Detailed Tree Plan. g. Street Improvement Plans for 114`" Avenue Southeast. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards. and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, and# 6-8, Street Improvement Plans, for a street designated as a Residential Collector Street by the City of Kent Master Plan of Roadways. Initial guidance for the necessary street improvements is given below: Page 4of9 Stanwood #FSU-2000-8 KIVA #RPP5-2032463 (1) Combined concrete curbs & gutters, a 5-foot wide planter strip, and 5-foot cement concrete sidewalks along the west side of the street for the entire property frontage thereon. (2) A minimum of 36-feet of asphalt pavement as measured from the face of curb installed along the east side of the street for Lindental Meadows Subdivision to the new face of curb installed along the west side of 114th Avenue Southeast for this subdivision. (3) A City-approved street lighting system. (4) Public stormwater conveyance, detention and treatment facilities. (5) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strip constructed between the back of curb and the front of the cement concrete sidewalk. These Street Trees will be located at least 30-feet from street lights, and the species shall be selected from the Approved Street Tree List maintained by the Department of Public Works. h. Street Improvement Plans for the new Residential Street which will eventually connect 114th Avenue Southeast to 112th Avenue Southeast. The Street Improvement Plans for this street shall be designed in conformance with the requirements for a Residential Street as required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, for an asphalt street 28-feet wide. Initial guidance for these street improvements is given below: (1) Combined curbs & gutters, a 5-foot wide planter strip, and 5- foot wide cement sidewalks on both sides of the street. (2) A minimum of 28-feet of asphalt pavement, as measured from face of curb to face of curb. (3) A street lighting system designed, constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of Puget Sound Energy; electrical bills shall be paid for by a Home Owner's Association. Page 5 of 9 Stanwood #FSU-2000-8 KIVA#RPP5-2032463 (4) A public stormwater drainage system, including provisions for conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities. (5) Curb return radii of 25-feet at the intersection of the subdivision street and 110' Avenue Southeast, unless curb bulb-outs are required by the Department of Public Works as a traffic calming device. (6) Horizontal curves with centerline radii of no more than 100- feet, with a minimum 50-foot tangent length between adjacent horizontal curves. (7) Vertical curves with a K value of no less than 12 for crest vertical curves; and with sag vertical curve lengths no less than required by the AASHTO comfort curve: L = AV2/46.5; where L = minimum length of vertical curve in feet, A = percent algebraic difference in grades, and design speed V = 25 mph. (8) The offset distance between the new Residential Street tee intersection with 115t'Avenue Southeast from Southeast 265t' Street shall be 65-feet, unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. (9) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips constructed between the back of curb and the front of the cement concrete sidewalk. These Street Trees will be located at least 30-feet from street lights, and the species shall be selected from the Approved Street Tree List maintained by the Department of Public Works. i. Street Improvement Plans for the Private Residential Street within the proposed Tract C. The Private Street Improvement Plans for this private street shall be designed in conformance with the requirements for a Private Residential Street as required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans for a private street at least 20-feet wide. Initial guidance for these street improvements is given below: (1) A minimum of 20-feet of asphalt concrete pavement. Page 6 of 9 Starwood #FSU-2000-8 KIVA#RPP5-2032463 (2) A 5-foot wide vertically or horizontally separated sidewalk constructed along the north side of the street. (3) An approved cul-de-sac, or turnaround at its terminus, unless this requirement is waived by the City Fire Marshal. (4) A private stormwater drainage system, including provisions for conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities where applicable. (5) Unless additional asphalt concrete pavement width is provided for parking, this minimum width private street serving lots in this subdivision shall have pavement markings and traffic signs installed which clearly designate these private streets as Fire Lanes, where no parking will be permitted. (6) The Private Street shall be centered within a private roadway tract that is at least 4-feet wider than the combined width required to construct the asphalt street and sidewalk. j. Street Light Plans for 114t'Avenue Southeast meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-1, Street Lighting Requirements. 4. The Owner/ Subdivider shall create a Homeowner's Association for this subdivision to ensure that the property owners within this subdivision are advised of their requirement to pay for the provided street lighting system. The Homeowner's Association documents will also include provisions for the maintenance of the private streets created to serve this subdivision. Those sections of the required document written to govern that association as they relate to the IntoLight Division of Puget Sound Energy street lighting systems, and the maintenance of private streets, shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works, prior to the recording these documents. 5. The Private Street serving Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, and the stormwater management tract A shall be clearly labeled as the sole direct vehicular access point to and from the new City Residential Street for these lots Page 7 of 9 Stanwood #FSU-2000-8 KIVA#RPP5-2032463 and tracts by requiring the following restriction to appear on the face of the recorded plat: RESTRICTION: DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AND FROM LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 IS RESTRICTED TO THE PRIVATE STREET SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLAT. NO DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR THESE LOTS WILL BE PERMITTED AT ANY OTHER LOCATION ALONG THE PUBLIC STREET. 6. The Owner/ Subdivider shall submit and receive approval for a Detailed Tree Plan, meeting the requirements of the Kent Zoning Code, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #3, Detailed Tree Plans, prior to the issuance of any Construction Permits for the subdivision. Grading Plans cannot be approved by the Department of Public Works without an approved Detailed Tree Plan. Detailed Tree Plans are not to confused with required Street Tree Plans, which have an entirely different purpose. 7. The Owner/Subdivider shall deed all public rights-of-way, and otherwise convey all private and public easements necessary for the construction and maintenance of the required improvements for this subdivision development. 8. Prior to release of any construction bonds, and prior to the approval of any Building Permits within the subject subdivision, the Department of Public Works must receive and approve As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #E-1, As-Build Drawings, for: Streets; Street Lighting System; Water; Sewer; Stormwater Drainage Facilities; and all off-site improvements where the locations and/or elevations are deemed critical by the Department of Public Works. 9. A fee-in-lieu of park dedication shall be paid by the owner/subdivider in conformance with KCC 12.04.780. 10. To conform to the City's Access Management Policies and Standards, the owner/subdivider shall relinquish any and all rights that may be held by the property owner of this proposed plat to the 30-foot wide easement that lays across, upon and under the south 30 feet of that property identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 2922059054; otherwise known as the City of Kent Reservoir site. Page 8 of 9 Stanwood #FSU-2000-8 KIVA#RPP5-2032463 11. The applicant shall provide proof of water and sewer availability prior to final plat approval. 12. A wetland delineation may be required by the City prior to final plat approval. 13. The applicant shall complete the sidewalk along the west side of 114t' Avenue SE so that children may walk safely to and from school. C. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THIS SUBDIVISION, THE OWNER/ SUBDIVIDER SHALL: 1. Record the Plat. 2. Construct all of the improvements required above. 3. Submit and receive City approval for As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #E-1, As- Built Drawings, for street improvements, stormwater management system, street lighting system, and other off-site improvements where determined necessary by the City. S\Permit\Plan\longplats\routings\2032463-2000-8conditions.doc Page 9 of 9 i T U) N c - ^ SE Site N V) W W Q QLLJ Q FZ- Z N i NORM APPLICATION NAME: STARWOOD REQUEST: #SU-2000-8 KIVA#2012083 VICINITY MAP North ~ C m W� �$� N .,.._ . .z►•9s9z DS Dnd H19ll A gw .� a nn =Lj.�$Z�i/ ^ (V�� F wa Isl •�•' NO 33S NO 2f3m SRI 9N01V /• �.. Na W�NZ 6 d MA Na K"Vd 30 1Vld 3 I'. DNH 38 -40 SISV8 WJ-` •�I ve Y�rn_n n O W p4 W A 6C► _S 3Ay HltTT rr oesMhe I rss.n.00 r-% r.rc.s►.00 i g t .il•ic ,yr.l� .ai•rc I r to U u 4�a 0 1, �} I• al0 � 1 � 11-yyG "a1, I Vl i�^ I� N =.00•os ' W tc) 4 � R .Y/. .00 N 3 �� � � is .oa•9r O .91,. ►.00 N , 1 y . Ln �1 1 Ell III-Cal ` . ''rn S 3 r. O WO mt— Mv�• \ \V g CY 0? S ti' c aw a d. In a Ce'fl 0'66 0 toa W r.00. i d All R i4oil 62 44aa � iLW1. I ^ � 1� ' h 1 1•t rJ, I••� 19 n ^ 1• .61 AO INI,y� ! a.il'66 3.00 LI.10 N O W6 Z WZpp (/1 A r�'•� yj`�_ 90 76� 'Q``4p1p tro.6 N ty a n '\Wyyk Fqbus i IQr� �O > T' XX�IQYO 1�rJy�{ � � a' yew Aj3 .[Z'tLi r.[0.6i.00 i ' 52 >avd x1v�°iX LV-WA 3S 3/1b Hle�i Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MERIDIAN RIDGE DIVISION 2 FINAL PLAT—ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval the final plat mylar for Meridian Ridge, Division 2, Plat and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. Schneider Homes proposes to create 26 lots from former Tract B of Meridian Ridge, Division 1. The property is located west of 152nd Avenue SE at about the 280th Street block. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo with conditions and map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Community Development and Public Works Staff (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: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6L COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager WASHINGTON Phone-253.856-5454 Fax- 253.856.6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: March 29,2004 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT JULIE PETERSON AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP,PLANNING MANAGER THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE SUBJECT: MERIDIAN RIDGE,DIVISION 2,FINAL PLAT(#FSU-98-MIVA#2032773) MOTION: Approve the final plat mylar for Meridian Ridge,Division 2, and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. SUMMARY: Schneider Homes proposes to create 26 lots from former Tract B of Meridian Ridge, Division 1. The property is located west of 152nd Avenue SE, at about the SE 280te Street block. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: On January 20, 1999, the Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and Decision with conditions for the Meridian Ridge Subdivision. The Hearing Examiner also issued Findings, Conclusions and Decision with conditions for the Meridian Ridge Major Plat Alteration on December 7, 2001. The alterations amended the previously approved preliminary plat to include two phases of the plat, minor reconfiguration of some lots, and the addition of a new access and utilities tract. Phase 1 included 9.72 acres and 44 single-family residential lots and was approved by City Council on July 2, 2002. With Phase 2 of the plat, the applicant, Schneider Homes,is subdividing 4.95 acres into 26 single-family residential lots. The applicant has complied with the conditions required prior to recording the preliminary plat. S.\Permit\P1an\longplats\199912032773-FSU-98-Bcc.DOC Enclosure: Conditions of approval—Hearing Examiner • •T .�_� E WIN ow ar '• I1. 6 , ,Am :!»Isl Me g w_ X ra _ _ i = . f/ IIyXOPOW SE ^: k.-»^ • x , 'I tl + �l ■ II■ RIK IS.4.7 1 Di Val •YA > �� `r' • � �S E•�• Iu II ir MIT IST Li i • 214 �- J. IE. _ g ��t � '(•� Imo`- t \, mil~ E, v� I. i +!3'!I•iX t 1 3 1 L:u yR SE_MLw I�1 jE f 27 0_ -�. -ICYT— Y 7A t e L� S -jffrr So Own w ` � ram.r x - x r" r _ Ir �• ICE- Arx NwIR, s NGI C¢ .sr KA •f R[I tt M. - • , r , J�jp9cL` Q' . •�.rc .s I R� €^Y+ b■ W I t Uw0 + 'M� I � • 1 ^'• 'Ark f8r E` bi PINM =fa w 6 ' , ♦ i[tnM xo� I - ail 'M ^Ip_I'� g IF- an • w sE ter'uL. �r Lr-- • � � —� sr >v,e sr '- �' • E X MSM S rylp��•- �- {_EISI - Sr SE* t fy t f�Y ISfnl x,lx 1��-jl■IN :1_ _ _ �� '� iN • ySS VICINITY MAP APPLICATION NAME: MERIDIAN RIDGE DMSION II REQUEST: FINAL PLAT DIVISION H(SU-98-8) MERIDIAN RIDGE DM61ON 2 SU-98-8 KMA 42020753 A replal of TRACT'B', MERIDIAN FPoDGE DIVISION 1 A Portion of N.W. 1/4, S.W.1/4, Sec.35.Twp.22 N, Rge.5 E,W11A. City of Kent, King Washington - _ I I ��' �t• E,=gym., I rr .�ann rw • 1 13 �� 01VISId'I 1 �• 011� 2* µER101� 207/61-6' •o II7MWE .t JOtQq,?'Fury 13 $ 'a uo 107N• ; IJ "i��• n.•n tturr = . �•0•]� I $ � � r]7T S' � $ I °y f a 22 23 xa y� 25 8 26 I -�•'� p "".�r sir Y J"' P oil 2 - Ea mY lL G INM K fr � �i.tarA - .�"¢ 1 w. Li ' •4zr •i. , ;++ �'.�' " 31 1• • •�>! (g, MIMIr r dim ...fyi•a 3 u l to.w s� 1s cif 77aa� 1 w Us; Ji Owl, is ow 20 1 Yst7urrw s+ot q 7D i §4 7 at''J V. 4 I� 11 tots I Ry � R 6 0 5 , I� � s II YH701rY ��111yyyyy 10>.7r • � � I.F YW. �I . od ao' p. 16 J I l " to G t W f) t 4 wiv .E.= r o1Y lOr aOT1 L E�.y60 KC E�A" N4 SP 117707E 7EOE2610jo I,G[4 K Noe4,031 r-w g 8E.1n3.C' 22 riikuugd WM .o. trouts nN[�ec na.aw .a ur au.n..n.m.a MAN BEANiG4 K.u.r/anur mar s E. yoR DALEY-MORROW-POBLEM, INC.7 AUBURN A Q� N. OF IIASH/'QO,J` AUB RN WASHING TON 98002 G ! - PHONE: (2535333-2200 (FAX)333-2206 PR ENOWEERING -- SURVEYM S 1 E� SJ D LAND PLANNIN4 t.ttNo Inaerperetad E�wiReS 4 APR 05 03322 22 NOV 03 MERIDIAN RIDGE #SU-98-8 and#PTA-2001-2 KIVA#2012112 THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVED THE MERIDIAN RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT ON JANUARY 21, 1999 AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MERIDIAN RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT ON MARCH 2, 1999 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE MERIDIAN RIDGE SUBDIVISION: 1, The Owner/Subdivider shall receive approval for engineenng drawings from the Department of Public Works,and either construct or bond for the following: a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The septic system serving the existing home(s) within the proposed subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department Regulations. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots. Existing wells, if any, shall be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Ecology. C. Detailed Drainage Plans which show how the 100-year post-developed stormwater runoff from this development will be collected, conveyed, stored, treated and released to the City stormwater drainage system in compliance to the City of Kent Construction Standards, and as specified in the DNS for this development. d. Landscape Plans for the retention/detention pond facility, as referenced in Kent's Development Assistance brochure for same. e. Stormwater Treatment Plans for an open-to-the-air stormwater treatment system in accordance with the requirements of the Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff quality. (1) The stormwater treatment system shall be within the approved public retention/detention facility tract. (2) Easements for biofiltration swales across private lots will not be acceptable to meet this requirement. Meridian Ridge Final Plat Division 2 Conditions of Approval #FSU-98-8(Div 2)KIVA#2032773 Page 1 of 5 f. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision. g. A Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire subdivision which reflects the Detailed Grading Plan, and the Planning Department approved Tree Plan. h. Street Improvement Plans for 152"d Avenue Southeast, designed in conformance with the requirements for a Minor Arterial Street as described in the City of Kent Construction Standards. Street Improvement Plans for the subdivision street terminating with a cul-de-sac at its west terminus.The Street Improvement Plans for this subdivision street shall he designed in conformance with the requirements for a Residential Street as described in the City of Kent Construction Standards, including but not limited to: combined cement concrete curbs & gutters and 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street; at least 32-feet of asphalt pavement; a maximum grade of 15 percent; minimum horizontal radii of 100-feet; a City-approved street lighting system; public stormwater drainage, detention, and treatment facilities; internal street system curb return radii of 25-feet minimum; curb return radii of 50-feet at the intersection of the subdivision street system with 152"d Avenue Southeast; and a 45-foot radius to the face of curb all cul-de-sacs. Shifting of the right of way to the west to accommodate the stream shall be allowed. i. To provide adequate safe stopping distance within this subdivision, the Applicant/Owner/Subdivider shall either redesign the internal road system using minimum horizontal curve radii of 100-feet, OR the Applicant/ Owner/Subdivider shall provide approved sight distance easements based upon a 25 MPH design speed across the lots located inside the loop street at the northwest, northeast, and southeast curves in the "loop" portion of the internal street system. j. All comer lots shall be designed to provide at least 50-feet of driveway separation distance from the adjacent street corner as required by the City of Kent Construction Standards. The following Restriction shall appear on the face of the recorded plat: Where one frontage side of a comer lot provides the required driveway separation distance and the other frontage side does not, the driveway location for that comer lot shall not be permitted on the shorter lot side. k. Street Light Plans meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure for Street Lighting Requirements. This plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Meridian Ridge Final Plat Division 2 Conditions of Approval #FSU-98-8(Div 2)KIVA#2032773 Page 2 of 5 Washington. This brochure is available from the Transportation Section of the Public Works Department. 2. The Owner/Subdivider shall waive all abutter's direct vehicular access rights to 152nd Avenue Southeast, and the face of the recorded plat shall contain this Restriction. A similar restriction shall be put upon lots 1 and 69 to prevent access onto Southeast 280d'Street(extended). 3. The Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Detailed Tree Plan which shows the location of all trees of six inch or greater caliper. Detailed Grading Plans cannot be approved without a Planning Department and Department of Public Works approved Detailed Tree Plan. 4. The Owner/Subdivider shall dedicate or deed all necessary public rights-of-way for all of the required improvements listed, and shall provide all public and private easements necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the required improvements listed. Further the Owner/Subdivider shall reserve easements for any and all purposes as may be required by the Director of Public works. 5. Prior to release of any construction bonds, the Department of Public Works must approve As-Built Drainage Plans for the entire site prepared by a professional land surveyor licensed by the State of Washington in conformance to the requirements of Appendix "E"of the City of Kent Construction Standards. 6. The Owner/Subdivider shall comply with all of the conditions issued with the DNS for#ENV-98-59. 7. The developer or applicant shall dedicate five (5) percent of the total property being developed as open space or pay a voluntary fee-in-lieu of dedication as set forth in Ordinance No. 2975. B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THE MERIDIAN RIDGE SUBDIVISION (#SU 98-81, THE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SHALL: 1. Execute all EMAs required above and by the conditions of approval for the DNS issued for the SEPA Checklist for this project. 2. Construct all of the improvements required above and record the plat. THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVED THE PLAT ALTERATION REQUEST ON DECEMBER 7, 2001 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Meridian Ridge Final Plat Division 2 Conditions of Approval #FSU-98-8(Div 2)KIVA#2032773 Page 3 of 5 1. All conditions imposed with Meridian Ridge Preliminary Plat approval (#SU-98-8) and Environmental Review(#ENV-98-59) shall remain. 2. Delineation of the entire subdivision, including any alterations, phasing of development, and private easements, shall be indicated on the plat map prior to recording of Phase I of the preliminary plat. All streets, lots, easements and other relevant plat information shall also be indicated and clearly labeled as Phase II. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat noting that Phase It shall not be constructed until the existing private ingress and egress easement is resolved to the satisfaction of the City. Phase II configuration need not be recorded until final plat approval. 3. All frontage improvements adjacent to 152nd Avenue SE shall be completed with Phase I of the Meridian Ridge Preliminary Plat, The Applicant shall provide a curb cut for the existing private easement approach onto 152 Avenue SE in accordance with the City of Kent Standards for Residential Driveway Approaches. 4. The Applicant shall eliminate the private easement within all dedicated public right- of-way, and within lots 42 and 43. 5. Sanitary sewer and water utilities shall terminate at the delineation point between the two phases of development, to be extended upon completion of Phase 11. 6. The Applicant shall provide for a future access and utilities tract, within Phase 11, containing a sufficient amount of right-of-way for future extension of a public street. This street shall provide legal access to the western part of the plat (Original Plat Map, Lot 71), and provide a future connection to other existing properties west of the plat. This future Access and Utilities Tract shall be constructed to the City of Kent Residential Street Standards and be dedicated as public right-of-way prior to recordation of Phase It of the Meridian Ridge Preliminary Plat, unless alternative access is provided that is acceptable to the City. 7. The Applicant shall provide the private easement beneficiaries ingress/egress to pre- construction levels of service and safety at all times during construction of Phase I of the Meridian Ridge Preliminary Plat. 8. The Applicant shall restore the private easement to pre-construction conditions prior to recording Phase I of the Meridian Ridge Preliminary Plat. This includes re-paving the existing driveway; re-installation or re-location of service utilities; and re- vegetation with a groundcover acceptable to the City. Meridian Ridge Final Plat Division 2 Conditions of Approval #FSU-98-8 (Div 2)KIVA#2032773 Page 4 of 5 ent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PLAT OF STARWOOD INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS BILL OF SALE—ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to accept the Bill of Sale for The Plat of Starwood submitted by Robert Balmelli, P.E. for continuous operation and maintenance of 460 feet of watenmain, 698 feet of sewers, 410 feet of street improvements and 528 feet of storm water. The bonds are to be released after the maintenance period. This project is located at 265211 114th Avenue SE. 3. EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A 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. 6M KEN K�NGLEY RD SE 264TH PL SITE I SE Q 267TN PL SE N 2 sTH SE 269TH ST VICINITY MAP NTS PLAT OF STARWOOD 26521 114TM AVENUE S E Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 355 AND 356 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS/LID 357 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on March 25, 2004, with 13 bids received. The low bid was submitted by King Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of$943,146.95. The Engineer's estimate was $191275372.55. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director's memorand 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, et issio/net 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 IV ACTION: L�4 Councilmember hA moves, Councilmember UAILlk seconds that the LID 355 & 356 Sanitary Sewer Improvements and LID 357 Sanitary Sewer& Water Main Improvements contract be awarded to King Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of$943,146.95. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8A PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P E. Public Works Director Phone 253-856-5500 Fax 253-856-6500 K E N T Address 220 Fourth Avenue S WASH!NGTON -- Kent,WA 98032-5895 Memorandum DATE: March 26, 2004 TO Mayor White and Kent City Council FROM Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director RE LID 355 & 356: Sanitary Sewer Improvements LID 357• Sanitary Sewer&Water Main Improvements Bid opening for this project was held on March 25, 2004 with 13 bids received. The low bid was submitted by King Construction Co , Inc. in the amount of$943,146.95. The Engineer's estimate was $1,127,372.55. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to King Construction Co., Inc Bid Su mary King Construction Co., Inc $943,146 95 Evergreen Utility Contractors,Inc. $956,162.58 Pivetta Brothers Construction $962,749.87 Buno Construction, LLC $978,239.29 Rodarte Construction, Inc. $993,751.67 Shoreline Construction, Inc. $996,726.49 Gary Merlmo Construction, Inc $1,100,097.36 Westwater Construction Co. $1 014 481.66 R.L. Alia Company $1,138,390.71 D.D.J. Construction Co., Inc. $1,146,880.93 Laser Underground& Earthworks, Inc. $1,182,202.31 MidMountain Contractors, Inc. $1,225,185 93 Road Construction NW, Inc $1,531,931.75 Engineer's Estimate $1,127,372.55 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEE/S�AND STAFFC� A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT ( ((�C � ,/Y1 TU �it/t QG �r B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS E. PLANNING COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS r REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES �G Operations Committee Minutes March 2, 2004 Committee Members Present: Acting Chair Julie Peterson, Bruce White Tim Clark was absent, however, had previousl y concurred on all agenda items The meeting was called to order by Julie Peterson,Acting Chair at 4.03 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Bruce White moved to approve the minutes of the February 17, 2004, Operations Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED FEBRUARY 27 , 2004 Finance Director Bob Nachl roger presented the vouchers for February 27, 2004, for approval. Bruce White moved to approve the vouchers dated February 27, 2004. Julie Peterson seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 2003 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT (C.A.P.E.R.) Housing and Human Services' Manager, Kathernn Johnson, presented the 2003 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (C.A.P.E.R) Ms. Johnson explained that the 2003 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is a report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on the City's activities and accomplishments using Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and other funds. The report is required by HUD annually and must be submitted by March 31st of each year. The report includes information on how CDBG funds were used to further the Goals and Strategies of the Consolidated Plan. Other activities conducted by the City that also further the Consolidated Plan are included in the Report. Bruce White moved to recommend approving the 2003 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report and authorizing the Mayor to submit the report to HUD. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Operations Committee, 3/2/2004 2004 LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS ORDINANCE Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the 2004 Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds Ordinance for the 2004 refunding of the 1996 LTGO Bonds which he proposes will save the City $1.28 million over the life of the refunding issue. It will also shorten the term of these bonds by four years. The restructuring of the outstanding debt with this issue will eliminate the variability of the annual debt service costs. The annual debt service costs for the LTGO debt shows an extreme amount of variability over its life. By refunding and restructuring the debt the City can save a significant amount; allow for a lesser impact to the budget and allow for the issuance of additional debt with a reduced impact to future budgets. This transaction saves $800,000 in each of the next two years. Bruce White moved to recommend that the Operations Committee approve the 2004 Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds Ordinance and forward it to the City Council at their meeting of March 16, 2004. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE FOR ADJUSTMENTS ON DECEMBER 31 2003 Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the Budget Adjustment Ordinance for Adjustments on December 31, 2003. Mr. Nachlinger advised that authorization is requested to approve the gross budget adjustment ordinance totaling $2,244,226 for final budget adjustments on December 31, 2003, of which $1,013,866 has previously been approved by Council. These budgets were for three (3) LIDS. Nos. 355, 356, and 357. The $1,230,360.00 not yet approved by Council represents street mitigation contributions received from developers during the permitting process. Mr. Nachlinger advised that these budget items were not included on the year-end budget adjustment ordinance approved by Council on December 9, 2003. Paul Scott, Public Works Accounting Manager further advised that this proposed ordinance is primarily a housekeeping issue with the funds held in the asphalt overlay account prior to the implementation of JDE system. Bruce White moved to recommend that the Operations Committee approve the Budget Adjustment Ordinance for Adjustments on December 31, 2003,and forward it to the City Council at their meeting of March 16, 2004. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. DECEMBER 2003 PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL SUMMARY Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the December 2003 P reliminary Financial Summary for informational purposes on ly. No action on this item is necessary. The meeting was adjourned at 4.27 P.M. Renee Cameron Operations Committee Secretary 2 Parks Committee Minutes February 19, 2004 Committee Members Present: Chair Julie Peterson, Debbie Raplee, Deborah Ranniger The meeting was called to order by Chair Julie Peterson at 4:03 p.m. Chair Peterson announced that item 4. East Hill X-Park Presentation will be moved up on the agenda to item S. 1. Approval of Minutes of January 13, 2004 Councilmember Raplee moved to approve the minutes of January 13, 2003. Councilmember Ranniger seconded and the motion carried. 2 . King County Capital Fundinq for Kent Pool -Accept and Amend Budget Director John Hodgson explained that the $25,000.00 is part of the $50,000.00 agreement with King County to handle capital projects at the pool. The city hired the Aquatic Management Group (AMG) to manage daily operations and minor capital repair projects at the pool. Councilmember Raplee moved to recommend accepting the $25,000.00 from King County for capital repairs at Kent Pool and amending the aquatic budget. Councilmember Ranniger seconded and the motion carried. 3. East Hill X-Park Presentation Director John Hodgson explained that city staff reviewed all geographic areas in the east hill of Kent to identify and purchase a site appropriate for the proposed X-Park. The 1.9 acre site is located at SE 240th and 116th Ave. SE. The plan includes a BMX bike track, a skatepark, climbing rocks, shelter and a parking lot. Arbor Village, an assisted living center located next to the park conveyed opposition. Several meetings have been conducted with Arbor Village and city staff. Brian Yates of Arbor Village requested an alternate plan so that the park is multi- generational. He stated that Arbor Village is willing to donate an acre of property to the city, requesting the addition of senior-oriented elements such as: lawn bowling, a community center, garden beds, a butterfly garden, walking paths, putting green, Koi pond, and children's playground equipment. Mr. Yates requested mutual approval of the final design by Arbor Village and the City, prior to construction. Russ Hanscom, Director or Arbor Village referenced Ordinances 3676, 3222 and voiced concern that the property will be upzoned to commercial on March 16, if no decision is made today. Mr. Hanscom shared that they have no written 1 of 3 proposal, but they have developed a non-profit board, are incorporated, have staff soliciting for funds, and is currently researching designs and bonds. Mr. Yates expressed concern with the buffer of the current plan. He noted the potential noise and lack of privacy for the residents of Arbor Village. Mr. Hanscom said he wants to make sure both options Arbor Village has developed are reviewed. Chair Peterson explained that Council cannot vote on proposals which are informational only; a written plan must be submitted. It has to be recommended by Parks Committee and voted on by City Council. Chair Peterson stated that the project is currently just a proposal and a formal process will follow. She added that many people benefit if this property becomes a park. John Hodgson suggested a process to proceed. 1.) City staff work on a new Master Plan to include the new elements where possible, as outlined by Arbor Village in a written proposal. 2.) A public meeting will be conducted to gain input on the new Master Plan. 3.) The Master Plan will be presented at Parks Committee and recommended to City Council for vote; simultaneously staff will work with Arbor Village staff to transfer the property so that it benefits both parties. John pointed out that the additional acreage and new elements will extend the timeline for construction of the park and this will affect the original granting agency requirements. City staff will ensure the grant requirements are satisfied and will seek additional funding sources to pay for the new elements and park construction. John shared that he is confident a mutually agreed upon master plan will be established. Councilmember Ranniger asked City Attorney Tom Brubaker to clarify the conditions that City Council placed on re-zoning the property as outlined in Ordinances 3676 and 3222. Tom concurred that it is too late to meet the requirements before the March 16, deadline. Tom assured Arbor Village staff that it is a simple re-zoning and the city is still capable of re-designing the park to include the new elements. He added that the city is dedicated to working with Arbor Village to create a new design. Mr. Hanscom again shared his concern with the rezoning time constraints and asked for the Mayor to sign an agreement to show there is a plan. Chair Peterson reiterated that Council cannot vote on ideas and proposals, they must be in written form. She assured Mr. Hanscom that it is in the best interest for the city, as well as Arbor Village, to keep the property as park land. Debbie Ranniger recused herself from the issue because she owns property in the neighborhood. 2of3 Chair Peterson affirmed that after Council has reviewed both proposals from Arbor Village and negotiations with the city are conducted, an action item will be created at a later date. 4. 2004 Potential Grant Application List Presentation Superintendent Lori Flemm presented the list of grants that Parks Planning and Development will apply for in 2004. Lori stated that the Capital Facilities Projects previously submitted to Council listed all the projects from 2004-2009 and funding was identified. Lori clarified that the Interagency Commission for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) requires grants submitted for land acquisition on even years and renovation on odd years. Lori detailed the requirement of 50% in city grant matched funds by giving examples of funds generated by the city. They are: Real Estate Excise Tax (REST), misc. grants, fee-in-lieu of funds, excise tax. The matching funds are budgeted in the Capital Facilities Plan. If the funds are not met, the projects are dropped. She explained that fee-In-lieu of funds are from contractors who voluntarily pay a fee in lieu of dedicating parkland to mitigate the development of single family homes. King Conservation District grants are combined sources of funding generated by taxes; drainage and sanitary sewer tax. For a detailed list of each project and proposed funding, see attached list. Chair Peterson announced that due to the time, the Fourth Quarter Reports will be held until the next meeting. Councilmember Raplee moved to have documents pertaining to Ordinances 3676 and 3222 submitted by Russ Hanscom become public documents and included in the meeting minutes. Councilmember Ranniger second and the motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 3of3 PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 21,2003 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Leona Orr,Tim Clark,Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 3:00 P.M. Approval of Minutes of September 16,2003 Committee Member Bruce White moved and Committee Member Tim Clark seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 16,2003 meeting. The motion carried 3-0. Growth Management Act Update Grant Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the City of Kent has been awarded a forty-five thousand dollar ($45,000) to be used in the revision of Kent's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations specifically relating to the Transportation Element. Tim Clark moved and Bruce White seconded a motion to accept the $45,000 Growth Management Act Update Grant, authorizing the Mayor to sign the corresponding contract, according to the draft scope of work outlined in the application. The motion carried 3-0. Downtown Zonine Study DCE Area East of Burlington Northern Tracks Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom stated that this proposal was first brought to the Planning Committee at their September 161h meeting. He discussed the scoping of this study including the public participation process and timeline involved to research, analyze and complete this project. Mr. Satterstrom in deference to Chair Orr stated that he anticipates City Council will declare an emergency concerning this study in order to move this forward outside of the annual amendment process. Committee member Clark requested that mass transit impacts be considered during the evaluation process. The meeting adjourned at 3:25 P.M. Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary,Planning Services S IPermttLOlauLOlannmgCommtrteel2W3WtnulallO2103pc-mmdoc PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES February 19,2004 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Debbie Raplee,Les Thomas,Deborah Ranniger,Chair The Special Meeting was called to order by Deborah Ranniger at 5:07PM. Les Thomas was absent. Chair Ranger stated that she would contact Les Thomas following this meeting to review the action items on this agenda and to get his concurrence. Chair Deborah Ranniger called for any additions to the meeting. Chief Crawford asked to present an action item,Chair Ranger agreed and the U.S Department of Education Fund for Improvement in Post secondary Education Program grant was added to the agenda. Approval of Minutes of January 15,2004 Committee Member Debbie Raplee moved to approve the minutes of the January 15,2004 meeting. The motion was seconded and passed 2-0. FEMA Emergency Management Performance grant—ACCEPT Fire Chief Jim Schneider reviewed the grant and the proposed use of funds He thanked several of his members of his staff for their work on this grant Debbie Raplee moved to recommend accepting the grant from the State of Washington Military Department,Emergency Management Division in the amount of$53,236 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract,to place this on the Consent Calendar of tiie March 2,2004 Council Meeting,and to establish budget documents as required. The motion was seconded and passed 2-0. Emergency and Basic Life Support Ambulance Services Agreement -AUTHORIZE Fire Chief Jim Schneider reviewed the agreement and explained some changes from previous agreements. Debbie Raplee moved 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. The motion was seconded and passed 2-0. Fire Department Work Plan for 2004—INFORMATION ONLY Chief Schneider reviewed the Kent Fire Department Work Plan for 2004 Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)kits for police vehicles—INFORMATION ONLY Captain Mike Painter displayed one of the kits and thanked the Kent Police Explorer Post for many hours they spent assembling the kits for Region 6 agencies. He also spoke about die Region 6 Homeland Security Council Workgroups Structure. U.S.Department of Education.Fund for Improvement in Post secondary Education Program—AUTHORIZE Debra LeRoy,Research and Development Analyst,reviewed the grant and explained how the funds would be used. Debbie Raplee moved to authorize the Kent Police Department to apply for the U.S. Department of Education,Fund for Improvement in Post secondary Education (FIPSE) Program,and placing this on the Consent Calendar for the March 2,2004 Council Meeting. The motion was seconded. Les Thomas joined the meeting at this time. Chair Ranniger briefly reviewed the grant with him and the motion passed 3-0. Chair Ranniger asked for concurrence from Les Thomas on the three action items on the original agenda and he so concurred. Those items passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM. Jo Thompson Public Safety Committee Minutes 2 February 19,2004 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION A) Pending Litigation i ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A) •