Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/02/2004
tooly of Kent City Co Meeting : na : . A "I: November 2, 2004 i Mayor Jim White Julie Peterson, Council President Councilmembers Tim Clark Debbie Raplee Ron Harmon Les Thomas Bruce White Deborah Ranniger 1 K EN T WASWIMGTGN City Clerk's Office SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING KENO T November 2,20004 W A S N 1 N O T O N Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Julie Peterson,President Tim Clark Ron Hannon Deborah Ranniger Debbie Raplee Les Thomas Bruce White 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL,ADMINISTRATION,OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Suburban Cities Association Executive Director Karen Goroski B. Employee of the Month C. Introduction of Appointee 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. McMillin Street Vacation 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting —Approve B. Payment of Bills—Approve C. 2005 Annual Budget—Set Date for Second Public Hearing D. 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Plan—Set Date for Second Public Hearing E. 1,j 2004 Property Tax Levy for 2005 Budget—Set Date for Public Hearing F. N Third Quarter Parks Development Fee—Accept and Amend Parks Budget G. Eagle Creek Park Proceeds From Sale—Accept and Amend Budget H. P4 Dr.Jacob Wagner Donations—Accept and Amend Budget I. Washington State Arts Commission Grant—Accept and Amend Budget J. 2005 Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan—Approve K.( Clark Lake Management and Master Plan—Accept L.\ 6ORances Supporting Regulations to 2004 Comprehensive Plan—Adopt M.(b Addendum to Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operation of Facilities—Authorize N. Purchase of One Medium Duly Aid Vehicle—Authorize O. Local Hazard Mitigation Planolution—Adopt ((f'$R P. Department of Education Grant Award—Accept and Amend Budget Q. Release of Waterline Easement to Kent School District—Authorize R. S.212'h St.Pavement Rehabilitation—Accept as Complete S. Project Cooperation Agreement with the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers—Authorize T. S. 192°d/Springbrook Creek Culvert Replacement—Accept as Complete U. Comprehensive Ph /Capital Facilities Element Amendment and Update to Kent City Code Chapter 12.13—Set Hearing Date (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED V. Copper Ridg iution-Adopt It W. Deal Rezon ce-Adopt 3 7 0 3 X. Washington raffic Safety Commission Grant for"Drive Hammered Get Nailed" Campaign-Authorize Application Y. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for Holiday DUI Enforcement Campaign-Authorize Application Z. Land Use and Planning Board Appointment-Approve 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Critical Areas(Q-iance 3 u 4 8. BIDS None 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 10. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Pending Litigation 12. 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 r 1 B) FROM THE PUBLIC i PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) SUBURBAN CITIES ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KAREN GOROSKI IB) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH C) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEE I i i i i Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 1 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: MCMILLIN STREET VACATION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Resolution No. 1685 established November 2, 2004 as the public hearing date for the petition by Kent School District#415 to vacate a portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenues, and the alley directly north. A staff report recommending approval with conditions is included in the Council's packet. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff report, Resolution No. 1685, and map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? Yes Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund School Pedestrian Amount Approx $150,000 Walkway Fund (R20036) 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. ;;�� ' B. Councilmembermoves, Councilmember] ``'�`�`L_seconds ' to approve/di staff s recommendation of approval with conditions of the application to vacate a portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenues, and the alley directly north, as referenced in Resolution No. 1685, and to 1 direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of approval. ' DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom,AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager W w s H I M G T O N Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S ' Kent,WA 98032-5895 OCTOBER 26, 2004 To: Mayor Jim White, Council President Julie Peterson and City Council Members From: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Through: Mayor Jim Wlute Subject: Report and Recommendation on an Application to Vacate a Portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenues, and the Alley directly North I4STV-2004-2 (KIVA 92042630) MOTION: To approve/disapprove/modify staff's recommendation of approval with conditions of the petition to vacate a portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenues, and the alley directly north, as referenced in Resolution No. 1685, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of approval. SUMMARY: Kent School District #415, 12033 SE 256`h Street, Bldg. B., Kent, WA 98030 requests vacation of a portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenues, and the alley directly north, in order to facilitate development of the site. Staff recommends approval of the street vacation with conditions outlined below BUDGET IMPACT: As a condition of approval, staff proposes the City is compensated in U S currency equal to the full appraised value of the rights of way being vacated. BACKGROUND: Both McMillin Street and the allq north are opened but not fully improved rights of way'. i The rights of way currently facilitpedestrian access from the Temperance Street pedestrian bridge west to Central Avenue, wkhout necessitating use of the heavily-traveled Smith Street. There are utilities located within the rights of way proposed to be vacated STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff notified the following departments and agencies of this proposed street vacation. • Public Works Department ■ Police ■ Parks, Recreation and Community Services ' ■ Fire and Life Safety ■ Puget Sound Energy ■ Qwest ' • Department of Transportation ■ METRO Transit Division ' After a review of the comments received, the Planning Services Office recommends that the request to vacate a portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenues, and the alley directly north, as described in Resolution#1685 and as shown on the accompanying map be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1) The City shall be compensated in US currency for the full appraised value of the rights of way proposed to be vacated less crediting toward the Kent School District's share of said compensation the value of the property along Central Avenue that the Kent School District recently deeded to the City for street right of way. In no case shall the credit received by the District exceed the District's ' share of compensational value of the right of way being vacated. 2) All monies received for compensation shall be deposited in the school pedestrian walkway fund (R20036) and used for said fund's purpose. 3) For any private or quasi-private utility such as power, gas, telephone or cable TV which has existing facilities within (under, upon and/or over) the right of way petitioned to be vacated, the City shall retain the rights to grant to said utility operators an easement for the operation and maintenance of same. 4) The applicant shall grant to the City a 12-foot-wide public access easement for , bicycles and pedestrians. Said easement shall generally follow and parallel the alignment of the vacated McMillin right of way, or as otherwise approved by the , Public Works Department and Planning Services Division. T he alignment and legal description for said easement shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department and Planning Services Division. , 5) The City shall retain a 40-foot-wide easement for utility purposes over, under and upon that portion of McMillin Street right of way included in this vacation. Said easement shall be centered on the existing water main that lies within said right of ' way. With regard to the existing sanitary sewer that lies within the alley petitioned herein to be vacated, the Applicant shall cap off said sewer line in a manner approved by the Public Works Department at the respective manhole , within Kennebeck Avenue designated by the Public Works Department. 6) In conjunction with redevelopment of the vacated McMillin Street right of way the Applicant(s) shall construct a 12-foot-wide asphalt pathway along the alignment of the City's public access easement for bicycles and pedestrians. Said improvement shall comply with the City's Construction Standards and the ' Applicant shall submit detailed engineering plans thereof to the City for review and approval prior to constructing same. The pathway shall be located totally within the easement and/or public right of way of vacated McMillin Street, or as , otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and Planning Services Division, and shall extend from Kennebeck Avenue to State Avenue. Furthermore, the Applicant shall reconstruct State Avenue through the vacated ' McMillin Street intersection and the vacated alley with curb & gutter, cement concrete sidewalk, street pavement, appropriate drainage and other appurtenances associated with good road construction. All plans thereof shall be in accordance ' with C ity c onstruction s tandards a nd s ubject t o the r eview a nd approval o f t he Public Works Department. CA\pm S\Perrrut\Plan\vacahons\2004\2042630-2004-2CCl 10204 DOC Enclosure—Map,Resolution No 1685 cc Larry Price,Director Facilities&Construction,Kent School District#415, 12033 SE 256"Street#B,Kent,WA 98030 HKO Inc,4842 E Mercer Way,Mercer Island,WA 98040 Jerry McCaughan,Property Manager #STV-2004-2(KIVA ft2042630) Staff Report-City Council 11/2/04 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 16 96 ' A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the vacation of the portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenue and the alley directly north, in the City of Kent; and setting ' the public hearing on the proposed street vacation for November 2, 2004. RECITALS IA. A petition, attached as Exhibit A, has been filed by the Kent School ' District to vacate the portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenue and the alley directly north, located in the City of Kent, Washington. B. The petition is signed by the owners of at least two-thirds of the real property abutting that portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenue and the alley directly north to be vacated;. C. The petition is in all respects proper. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION ' 1 McMillin Street and Alley Vacation SECTION L —Public Hearing A public hearing on the street vacation petition , requesting the vacation of a portion of McMillin Street between State and Kennebeck Avenue and the alley directly north shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 2, 2004, in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Avenue South,Kent,Washington,98032. SECTION Z —Notice The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing ' and cause the notice to be posted as provided by state law, Chapter 35.79 RCW. ' SECTION d. — Information. The Planning Manager shall obtain any other ' necessary information from appropriate departments and shall transmit the information to the Council so that the Council may consider the matter at its regularly scheduled , meeting on November 2, 2004. SECTION 4. — Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, , clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any , reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. ' SECTION S. —Ratification. Any act consistent with the authonty and prior to ' the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 4. —Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. ' PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of ' Kent,Washington,this day of ,2004. ' 2 McMillin Street and Alley Vacation ' tk ' CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of September,2004. WHITE,MAYOR ' ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, TY CLERK— ' ' APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.&J�ypassed by the City Council of the City of Kent,Washington, the_7 day of September,2004. BRENDA JACOBEgXITY CLERK ' PCmIUMO11f7 OMMAC WMIb"ky-Pu%zHums dx 1 3 McMillin Street and Alley Vacation EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 of 2 r 1 ' r20� *!- m 2 r V Is , • " o CiE g 01E 1 I r 4 -AUG - .9 m 1 si I16 6 p1Y1lERK 1 14 7 &.4 , 1 o n _ s 1,, 13 it• . 6 M 1 2� _ D- id 3 UTl L:1 AC i ME V.CyOpDy.30ta >; 1 k*601ED .0 H1w LWL►TTED 1i 12� 1 e 30 szo n 17 • -�p 1640 NSF^ 1 1 2 a 4p 6 6 7 6 >f 10 11 1 !0' :e � I ffi 16 a�. Ltd so 1 oqD 21• n o' 1 !! 14 4 M�1200 20 t 0 18240 S cq' 23 1 a .1� `193� s s sd 1, 91 t' I e. ss 7sote 162�6 130 ' 1 ' 12 22 1200 20 to 17 24 10eoo -5 ' 1 26 1965 1 �/ q�s ds° 26 fu 3 40 T+� 9 y 7200 Sr < ' 30 0 1 1 (Sul 12000 5 27 MW n 2 2> 4 10 7 5 Y 101 11 W JI 6 F1 a g � I oo ,sda m ^y o W 1 26 g »o P' 5 IIODD F Z . i 7. 30 29 t• » W 5 2 s 1if16 96S 1 6 1 + 5u1! 1240 30 `0 4 ti at d�" o 32 1 e j} •3 ear a ». 17� r , d� --- ►' Za 5 ' 93 ^! 0 2 02 i 16 14 i 13 f2�3).11!912 sp . ,P �20 24 a 22 21 20 1i 16 16 so AS + 'n• / 1 - ,y —}`J 3 t 6+.s 3! 7 f 86l070°oii7 D-11 D' ,_� ��"�"i7-2-!!17 • L► nD' � 2 - 1 5 09-.f-Ss.S 105•� p•631.6 6.6! A7,`^ 0006-06b7~ �e709020060-6! 'D�� !6•�jdy0f016.B7D90f0110 1 o-li� 7+oilsooD+� S/1)/f// eslooeoo _ 7+ i 037 m - . . B61D2300 O r Yj 'MITH ETQ�Besess7D35s f.3f p_(, �• !s 120 12 303.4 383 ir _^� i - - ^ 1 "�'•_ 1. i`rg0• i f2 5 ass 7IM�— i „73 16 ! 6. City Council Action: CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember YAM M moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through Z. Discussion ! Action C/ 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 19, 2004. 6B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through September 30 and paid on September 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 5, 2004. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: ! Date Check Numbers Amount 9/30/04 Wire Transfers 1832-1845 $132011279.84 9/30/04 Prepays & 568352 1,822,083.40 9/30/04 Regular 568835 1,827,155.45 $4,850,518.69 Approval of checks issued for payroll for September 16 through September 30 and paid on October 5, 2004: ' Date Check Numbers Amount 10/5/04 Advices 169954-170609 $1,180,897.68 10/5/04 Checks 279726-279976 229,502.32 ! $1,4105400.00 ! Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B KEN• T Kent City Council Meeting W A 5~'~°'°~ October 19, 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, Peterson,Ranniger,Raplee, Thomas and White. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO AGENDA A From Council,Administration, or Staff. (CFN-198) CAO Martin removed the Executive Session and the Economic Development Update. B. From the Public. (CFN-198) Continued Communications Item 1 IA regarding Employee Overtime was added at the request of Bob O'Brien. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS B. Government Finance Officers Association Award Presentation. (CFN-155&186) Mayor White presented the award to Assistant Finance Director Cliff Craig. C. Proclamation—Make A Difference Day. (CFN-155) Mayor White read the proclamation and presented it to Parks Director Hodgson. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Street Vacation, S.E. 278th Street. (CFN-102) Resolution No 1688 established October 19, 2004, as the public hearing date for the application by Ms. Cherie Lang to vacate a portion of SE 278t' Street. A staff report recommends approval with conditions. Wickstrom briefly explained the project and noted that it had been approved in June 2003, but that the time period for payment lapsed. IMayor White opened the public hearing Upon a question from Stephanie Weeks, 27914 147th Avenue SE, Wickstrom explained the street vacation. There were no further comments and PETERSON MOVED to close the public hearing. Harmon seconded and the motion carried WHITE MOVED to approve staff s recommendation of approval with conditions of the application to vacate portions of SE 278`h Street, as referenced in Resolution No.1688, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of the approval. Raplee seconded and the motion carried. CONSENT CALENDAR PETERSON MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through H Clark seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) The minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 5, 2004 were approved. B. Approval of Bills (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through September 30 and paid on September 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 5, 2004 were approved. 1 Kent City Council Minutes October 19, 2004 Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/30/04 Wire Transfers 1832-1845 $1,201,279.84 9/30/04 Prepays & 568352 1,822,083.40 9/30/04 Regular 568835 1,827,155.45 $4,850,518.69 Approval of checks issued for payroll for September 16 through September 30 and paid on October 5, 2004: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/5/04 Advices 169954-170609 $1,180,897.68 10/5/04 Checks 279726-279976 229,502.32 $1,410,400.00 C. LID 358, Pacific Highway South High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, Formation Ordinance. (CFN-1292) Ordinance No. 3717 which establishes Local Improvement District 358 was adopted. D. Anderson Rezone Ordinance. (CFN-121) Ordinance No. 3718 relating to land use and zoning, rezoning approximately 1.96 acres of property located at 23519 98th Avenue South from Single Family Residential 4.5 units per acres (SR-4 5) to Single Family Residential 6 units per acre (SR-6)was adopted. E. Pacific Highway South/Kent-Des Moines Road Intersection Interlocal Agreement. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Des Moines for construction of improvements to the Pacific Highway South/Kent—Des Moines Road Intersection upon concurrence of the language by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. F. Kent Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Access Proiect Grant Agreement. (CFN-1038) Execution of the Local Agency Agreement and Local Agency Federal Aid Prospectus for the South Kent TOD Access Project was concurred with and ratified and staff was directed to accept the grant and establish a budget. G. Washington Conservation Corps Sponsor Contract. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Washington Conservation Corps Sponsor Agreement, in the amount of $85,000 and to direct staff to pay any expenses out of various capital improvement projects. H. Hazard Mitigation Grant for Reservoir Seismic Strengthening. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Hazard Mitigation Grant for Reservoir Seismic Strengthening in the amount of$533,750 and to direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget. REPORTS Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) Ranniger noted that the committee will meet at 5:00 p.m. on October 21. 2 Kent City Council Minutes October 19, 2004 Planning and Economic Development Committee. (CFN-198) Clark reminded Councihnembers of the Suburban Cities meeting in Tukwila on November 17. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) Ranmger noted that the committee will meet at 4.00 p.m. on October 21. Administrative Reports. (CFN-198) Martin pointed out that the City of Kent was the first city in the state to use new legislation reducing the amount of time the Growth Management Board has to review certain issues. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A Employee Overtime. (CFN-198) Bob O'Brien, 1131 Seattle Street, voiced concern regarding the amount of Police overtime. Martin acknowledged that overtime is a concern, and said it is continually monitored. OTHER BUSINESS A. Deal Rezone. (CFN-121) Louis and Linda Deal have requested to rezone 1.07 acres of property from MR-D, Duplex Multifamily Residential District, to MR-T16, Multifarmly Residential Townhouse District. The Kent Hearing Examiner held a Public Hearing on September 15, 2004, and issued Findings,Conclusions and Recommendation for approval on September 22, 2004. Chris Hankins of Planning Services explained the project. CLARK MOVED to accept the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the Deal Rezone and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. White seconded and the motion carved. B. Copper Ridee Appeal. (CFN-1293) This is a closed record appeal of the decision approv- ing a planned unit development and denying an appeal of the State Environmental Policy Act determination for Schneider Homes. The Kent Hearing Examiner's decision was issued on May 6, 2004 Mayor White and Councilmember Harmon recused themselves from the hearing. Councilmembers Clark and Ranniger disclosed their previous involvement; there were no challenges to their participation in the hearing. The Council adjourned to Executive Session at 7:34 p.m. to discuss the procedure and reconvened at 8:05 p.m. Elizabeth Thomas, attorney representing the City of Kent on this issue, confirmed that all of the material provided to the Councilmembers tonight by the appellant was contained in the evidentiary record which went before the Hearing Examiner or was part of the appeal process, and that Kresovich and Pratt did not object to inclusion of any of the material. The appellants and the City then made their presentations and answered questions from Council members. The Council went into Executive Session at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:08 p in. CLARK MOVED to sustain the Kent Hearing Examiner's May 6, 2004, decision. White seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the Council was doubtful that it has jurisdiction over the SEPA appeal. 3 Kent City Council Minutes October 19, 2004 ADJOURNMENT WHITE MOVED to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Thomas seconded and the motion carried. Brenda Jacober, CMC� � City Clerk i 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2005 ANNUAL BUDGET— SET DATE FOR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set November 16, 2004 for the second public hearing on the 2005 Annual Budget at the regular City Council meeting. 3. EXHIBITS• None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? _ Revenue? 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 November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2005-2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN— SET DATE FOR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set November 16, 2004 for the second public hearing on the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Plan at the regular City Council meeting. 3. EXHIBITS None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? _, Revenue? 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 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2004 TAX LEVY FOR 2005 BUDGET— SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set November 16, 2004 as the public hearing date for the 2004 Tax Levy on the 2005 budget. 3. EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? _ Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: 1 Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ # Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: THIRD QUARTER PARKS DEVELOPMENT FEE—ACCEPT AND AMEND PARKS BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept fee-in-lieu funds from developers in the total amount of$48,000, and authorize expenditure of funds in the Clark Lake Park and East Hill Skate Park budgets. From July through September 2004, the City of Kent received a total of$48,000 in fee in lieu of parks development funds. Bradley Goodwin for Village Creek Estates paid $22,875; Gurmit Singh for Singh Short Plat paid $8,175; and Distinctive Home Builders for Meridian Pointe paid $16,950. These individuals and entities voluntarily paid these fees in lieu of dedicating park land to mitigate the impacts from development of single family homes. Ordinance No. 2975 requires developers to construct a park or leave open space in proximity to new construction sites or in the alternative and if they qualify to pay"fee- in-lied' funds. The City spends these funds for park acquisition, development, or open space at an existing park closest to the development. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo, and finance revenue report 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks & Human Services Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) j 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund P20027 Amount $39,825.00 Unbudgeted Expense: Fund P20045 Amount $ 8,175.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund P20091356730 Amount $48,000.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F i L) a a a o a m a N ^ m 0 s t7 m 4 C T a � y to B � c O N U' m O �N N 7 O V O C C 7 N d y Q o 0 0 T L 0 a m N A a co �n o U N N N o Q l< c o?ac o m rn , o a d yy m A 3 a a. N J J � N co m d a j d N N c � a o, a a 7 O y pp O G O O J 7 J J m i Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EAGLE CREEK PARK PROCEEDS FROM SALE—ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the proceeds from the sale of the Clasen property for Eagle Creek park in the amount of$141,825.27 and authorize the expenditure of funds in the Eagle Creek park development budget. The City entered into a unique partnership with a developer(NW Housing Guild, LLC) and private land owner(Mr. and Mrs. Don and Barbara Clasen) to secure a five-acre tract that can accommodate a one-acre neighborhood park and four acres of open space. The City received $141,825.27 from the sale of the property to a developer. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is underway. 3. EXHIBITS: Copy of check 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks & Human Services Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund P20056 Amount $141,825.27 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund P20056.59530 Amount $141,825.37 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G i i n l co ` N 66 NI `c CD m cr) Za m i to c 0 Teo-{ _ P 'f tf-w w.tr.'�... .f• rim m h ' IlJ IrmLI \ IA s-1 I '� V S✓� a � _ cc Ln N O � •a I N �y 4M1� �:� y.1� r � W I m • •^„�u ��.Ta.:rye^ "'- �� wn I • \ ,y-�I rti O N i i'tP� F,-Z +�.rt"�, rm uj F kit ri'M 8k�._ y r•xLr• T- ti Lo t v� co U. - p� 3 2 a' rf7 M e O z = _. O U r-O ir w r. z C M ,U � Obi U L O � `i• U. mv m (�� x a 0 CL w m a i Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DR. JACOB WAGNER DONATIONS —ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $540 in donations from family and friends of the late Dr. Jacob Wagner to support a family memorial at Clark Lake Park and authorize the expenditure of funds in the Clark Lake Park budget. A long-time resident who lived on the property that is now Clark Lake Park died recently. His family requested that remembrances be made in his name for a family memorial at Clark Lake Park. 3. EXHIBITS: List of donors and donations 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks & Human Services Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund P20027 Amount $540.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund P20027.56710 Amount $540.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H Q pQ O P�j, A Q O O O C O C `w • CT N 10 30 N N N O O sO O w = MKNK4+401' N OOHS, �7i w rrAA ■ . v, W pp oo pp Q 6 0 0 0 S A S O Q S S O 4000 N m r c • 'c m• � a } W ; S U O r y LL � cr—S .U. u u ^p A ry m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m V N m W 7 • N m a v e e a rn m o 0 0 LL � � i • it i[ i! i! it iG it it it it it = U U U U U U U VV V V U L 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U C 0 0 ❑ O p O O p p cl a 00 0000000a Y A s s y + 0N2525 Cos 0go N N N N N p m rn a' m rn w a m m rn rn Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION GRANT —ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $6,361 grant from the Washington State Arts Commission (WSAC) for general operating support and authorize the expenditure of funds in the Kent Arts Commission's budget. The Washington State Arts Commission (WSAC) awarded the City of Kent Arts Commission a grant in the amount of$6,361 for the third year of the 2003-2005 funding cycle. WSAC's Organizational Support Program (OSP)provides funding intended for general operating support. The Kent Arts Commission applied this funding to the production of the annual Canterbury Arts Festival. 3. EXHIBITS: Copy of Contract Number 2005075 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks & Human Services Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund 10006221.64190.4320 Amount $6,361.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund 10006221.53403.4320 Amount $6,361.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds i DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I GRANT CONTRACT-ATTACHMENT"D" Invoice Voucher FOAM STATE OFWASHINGTON AGEWYUSEohtr AMIA AFRS AMCV MM LOCATM CODE PRORAUTN (REV TnuI INVOICE VOUCHER 387 001 AGENCY NAME AND LOCATION x+S7MXTa"To YEN"OR r1AMU"T. SLA)""F mo n CI&W Por d fa POW mvc wdw Or tnvket.Show"IplMt dated for"ch Am WASHI NGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION Vendor&CwQ1k;w . I Rrobycw*wbr pwaky of porwyttll Er REmt ardu*NF hrnn M prep,dwgr fr mt"FuE.,ftwo ntRw a MNVEM ANathed to tt"S"It d PO BOX 42675 WatEltlptaL wq tlrl EA gooOt iETRMsd n6'°r'r"Es"'"a"°N""b"^P°rde0" OLYMPIA WA 98$04-267$ n�"+'M°"b+""ofagF"�morwd "fmCrew&mrrAwndwon wb Cpia%a Vwtram ra Or"a"veww;"M VENDOR OR CLAIMANT(Warrant Is to be payable to City of Kent Arts Commission X By. 220 Fourth Ave South (SIGN*1 t Kent WA98032-5895 ry" Q !Q 6 (TrILE) to TEI I i FEDERAL LD NO OR EOGML dECUR{TT NO IfN NpoRMq PNnPNI NNMO GNaPO PPFw.mP w YTN) RRTtDrED NT d1TF RECENED 91-6001254 DATE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT FOR AGEN USE For Grants to Organizations— FY2005 I i Organizational Support Program i ! OSP Per Attachment-A-Scope of Work I Contract#: 2005076 101 State Funds: i ( $0.00 I 202 State Funds* —�— j $6,361.00 , 102 Federal Funds { $0.00 t November 2004 Payment Total: $6,361.00 I i PREPARED eY tELDM10ME NUMDEIL• M[F. AGENCY APPROVAL DATE OOC.DATR MAIM CURRENT DOC.NO- REF ODC NO. VENOM& IL VEE T" VENOM N.��-GE. YNI NUNINER DAiE• RFP M YANTER NO[I euN wr>wnut mrrn Tannar Doc Trw" o PUIID NMI PRooNAr I XLM sue MD e+Ntw PR T SUN PRa AMOUNT INVOICE MUM tuF CODE D IMIMI NRN1 Ow OAI NDEI A OC wN EIDa Ma ►wu 001 •101 00101 NZ SOSP $0.00 050sp0" 001 202 00101 NZ SOSP $6,361.00 050sp0". 001 102 00101 NZ 2005 SOSP $0.00 05osp0, ACCOUNTWD APPROVAL FOR PATNEMT• GATE. VAARKWT TOTAL WARRANT MULNIM i WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION Program:Organizational Support Program FY200S Contract No.2005075 GRANT CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into by and between the WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION,711 Capitol Way S,Suite 600,PO Box 42675,Olympia,WA 98504-2675 hereinafter referred to as the COMMISSION,and NarAe` City of Kent Arts Commission Physical 220Fourth Ave South Addr=: ,................ Kent WA 98032-5895 Mailing 220 Fourth Ave South Addrrcw ................................. K4nt WA 9QQ32-5895 Phone No- (253)856-5050 Web Site www Kkent.wa.us/artscommission ................................. Washington Sure UBINo: 173 OOQ-002 Federal Employee Id No 91-6001254 Social SeeurityNumber N/A hereinafter referred to as the CONTRACTOR THE PARTIES MUTUALLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: A. PURPOSE OF CONTRACT Thu Contract sets out the terms and conditions by which the COMMISSION awards a grant to the CONTRACTOR for the purpose of developing,sponsoring,promotmg or administering an activity,project or program which is related to the growth and development of the arts and humanities in the State of Washington. RC W 43.46 provides the statutory authorization for making the gwL The funding is administered under WAC Title 30. B DESCRJPTION OF THE ACTIVITY.PROJECT.OR PROGRAM CONTRACTOR shall use funds awarded under this Contract No.2005075 solely for the grant proposal funded through the Organizational Support Program for FY2005 as described in Attachment A.Scope of Work. C AMOUNT OF GRANT 1. The Commission awards State Funds in the amount of SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY- ONE AND 00/100 Dollars (S6,361.00) to the CONTRACTOR 2. The Commission awards Federal Funds in the amount of ZERO AND 00/100 Dollars (S0.00) to the CONTRACTOR. Applicable only if Contract includes Federal Funds: Federal Catalog or Domestic Auiamoc No: 45.025 Federal oraot No 04-6100-2026 Grant Contract No 2005075 1 of 3 t - 3. The Commission awards private funds in the amount of ZERO AND 00/100 Dollars ($0.00) to the CONTRACTOR 4. CONTRACTOR agrees to provide matching funds equal to or greater than the total funds provided by the COMMISSION. S. Payments will be made in accordance with the payment schedule set forth in Attachment B. D. CONTRACT PERIOD Funds are awarded for the period beginning July 1,2004 to June 30,2005. The CONTRACTOR must expend all funds by the ending date of this contract Funds not expended by the ending date of this contract shall lapse unless an extension is requested in writing by the CONTRACTOR and approved in writing by the COMMISSION.The CONTRACTOR shall notify the COMMISSION immediately upon knowledge that any portion of the funds will not be expended by the end of the fiscal year. E CONTRACT REPRESENTATIVES The following shall be the contact persons for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this Contract. Either party shall provide written notification to the other of changes in contract representation. !•!11}TT\1l.T/a\,}./�. ., _. }, � ._,' I•n•Al1I•/.\/a\Tl /', .w •3: aul.Vtw uG' ..$S.wu.L. a.-'v.i LiLSJI�.aY sl.Juti u' AO'.sLnwa.i Name Ronda Billerbeck Name Mary Frye and Title. and Title• Cultural Prgyrams Manager Program Manager . ............ ... Nn�rne City of Kent Arts Commisgion O nne Washington State Arts Commission— N Grants to Organizations Address, 220 Fourth Ave South, Address: PO Box 42675 ................ Kent,WA,48032-5895 Olympia,WA 98504-2675 Phone (253)856-5055 ext- Phone: (360)753-3858 Fax (253)856-6050 Fax. (360)586-5351 E-Mail rbillerbeck ci.kentwa.us E-Mad: marvfearts wa. ov F LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY The COMMISSION's Agent shall be the Executive Director of the Washington State Arts Commission Only the COMMISSION's Agent shall have the express, implied,or apparent authority to alter,amend,modify,or waive any clause or condition of this contract The Agent may delegate this authority,but such delegation is effective only if in writing.See General Terms and Conditions for Contract Amendment or Modification procedures. G. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS All rights and obligations of the parties to this Contract shall be subject to this Contra and its attachments including the following,which by this reference,are made a part of this Contract: Attachment A: Scope of Work Attachment B: Payment Schedule Attachment C: General Terms and Conditions Attachment D: Voucher Attachment E• Final Report Requirements Attachment F: National Endowment for the Arts General Terms and Conditions(deleted ifContract does not include federal funds) Grant Contract No 2005075 2 of 3 H INSURANCE Automobile Liabilit)r In the event that services delivered pursuant to this contract involve the use of vehicles, either owned or unowned by the CONTRACTOR,the CONTRACTOR shall require the owner or driver of the automobile to provide automobile liability insurance. The minimum limit for automobile liability is: $100,000300,000 bodily injury and$100,000 property damage. I. ENTIRE CONTRACT This Contract including all attachments contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings,oral or otherwise,regarding the subject matter of this contract and attachments shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties, I. FINAL REPORT The CONTRACTOR shall provide a final report to the COMMISSION within 45 days following the Contract Period ending date,submitted according to the forms and format identified in ATTACHMENT E. K -MODIFICATIONS TO GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS NA THIS CONTRACT is executed by the persons signing below who warrant that they have authority to execute this contract. CITY OF r RT C MMISSION WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION (Sig arur ofparry authormegoo /sign for CONTRACTOR) Kris Tucker,Executive Director f)�w yh t;�, Date: (printed name of signaiory) (printed titleofstgnatory) Date: Q APPROVED AS TO FORM: (Signature of Susan Thomsen,Assistant Attorney General,State of Washington,March,2003 on file in fiscal office) Grant Contact No. 2005075 3 of 3 GRANT CONTRACT-ATTACHMENT"C" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS City of Kent Arts Commission 2005075 TABLE OF CONTENTS This table of contents is for reference purposes only and shall not be considered a substantive part of this Contract. A. HEADINGS AND DEFINITIONS........»._...........................................................2 B GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS Amendments or Modifications..............._........................................................._._..2 Conformancewith Law..............................._....................................._...................2 Orderof Precedence................................................................................................2 Severability................................_.................................................._......_..............2 Waiver of Default or Breach..............................._..............................._................_.2 C PERFORMANCE AND GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Covenant Against Contingent Fees........................................................................2 Indemnification..................................................... ._.............................................3 Independent Capacity of Contractor......................... ..............................................3 Nonassignability..................................................................................................3 Publicity/Acknowledgements......................._.......................................................3 Reproduction................................................_.................................................... ...3 Services within Washington.................... ...............................__ ...... ...............3 D COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS,RECORDKEEPING AND INSPECTIONS Americans with Disabilities Act......... ................................................... ..............3 Compliance with Applicable Law.................. .......................................................3 Conflictof Interest......................................._.........................................................3 Hazardous Substances........................................................_......................................4 Nondiscrimination Laws......................................................................_................4 Public Disclosure/Confidentiality..............................................................................4 Records,Documents,and Reports............................................................................4 Registration with Department of Revenue............................................................4 Rightof Inspection ................................................................_..............................5 E. FUNDING.REIMBURSEMENT AND BUDGET Advance Payments Prohibited....................................... .................................... 5 Fundsnot Supplanting...........................................................................................5 Taxes.......................................................... ......................_ ................ ............5 Traveland Per Diem......... ............................... ...........................................5 F. TERMINATION AND DISPUTES Disputes............................................................................................... .................5 Governing Law and Venue................................................._..................................5 Savings ................................._............................._.........................................._..6 Termination for Convenience........................................................._.........................6 Termination or Suspension for Cause........................... ..................................6 G ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Application. ....._...................................................... ...........................................6 Public ity/Acknowiedgeinents................................................................. ...........6 NEA General Terms and Conditions................................................................ _.6 A. HEADINGS AND DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS-As used throughout this Contract,the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: Anachmeni C General Terma and Conditions I Of 6 Grant Contract 2MS075 "COMMISSION"shall mean the Washington State Arts Commission,any division,section,office,unit or other entity of the Commission,or any of the officers or other officials lawfully representing that Commission. "AGENT'shall mean the Executive Director,Washington State Arts Commission,and/or the delegate authorized in writing to act on hislher behalf. "CONTRACTOR"shall mean that firm,provider,organization,individual or other entity that has been awarded a grant of funds under this Contract,and shall include all employees of the CONTRACTOR. "NEA"shall mean the National Endowment for the Arts "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. HEADINGS-Headings used in this Contract are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered a substantive part of this Contract B. GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATION-This Contract may be amended or modified only by mutual consent of the COMMISSION and CONTRACTOR. To be effective,any amendment or modification must be in writing,signed by all parties,and attached hereto. No oral understanding or agreement binds the parties. CONFORMANCE-Ifany provision of this contract violates any statute or rule of law of the State of Washington,it is considered modified to conform to that statute or rule of law. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE—The items listed below are incorporated herein by reference. In the event of an inconsistency in this Contract,the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: 1. Applicable Federal and Washington State statutes and regulations including applicable Federal and State Executive Orders. 2. Special Terms and Conditions of this Contract,including a. Scope of Work and b. Modifications to the General Terms and Conditions 3. General Terms and Conditions 4. NEA General Terms and Conditions if Federal funds are committed by this Contract 5. All other attachments or material incorporated by reference SEVERABTLITY-If any provision of this Contract or any provision of any document incorporated by reference is field invalid,such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Contract which can be given effect without the invalid provision,and to this end the provisions of this Contract are declared to be severable. WAIVER OF DEFAULT OR BREACH--Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach.Waiver of any default or breach shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of the Contract C. PERFORMANCE AND GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES-The CONTRACTOR warrants that no person or selling agent has been employed or retained to solicitor secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee,excepting bona fide employees or a bona fide established agent maintained by the CONTRACTOR fox the purpose of securing business. The COMMISSION shall have the right,to the even of breach of this clause by the CONTRACTOR,to annul this Contract without liability,or,in its discretion,to Attachment C•General Terms and Conditions 2 of 6 Grant Contract 2005075 1 deduct from"contract price or consideration or recover by other means the full amount of such commission, percentage,brokerage or contingent fee. INDEMNIFICATION—To the fullest extent permitted by law,the CONTRACTOR shall indemnify defend,and hold harmless the State of Washington,including the COMMISSION and all officials,agents,employees of the State from and against any liability,damages,claims,suits andlor expenses arising out of or resulting from performance of this Contract,including,but not limited to,injury to persons or property,failure to follow applicable law,acts that are libelous or slanderous,and the violation or infringement of any copyright,patent,trademark,trade name or unfair trade practice law. The CONTRACTOR's obligation to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless includes any claim by the CONTRACTOR's agents,employees,representatives,or any subcontractor or its employees.The CONTRACTOR shall be required to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the State only to the extent claim is caused in whole or in part by negligent acts or omissions of the CONTRACTOR. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY OF CONTRACTOR This Contract creates an independent contractor relationship The CONTRACTOR and its employees or agents performing under this Contract are not employees or agents of the COMMISSION or the State of Washington.The CONTRACTOR and its employees or agents will not hold themselves out as nor claim to be officers or employees of the COMMISSION or of the State of Washington by reason or this Contract and will not make any claim,demand,or application to or for any right or privilege whicn would accrue to such an officer or employee under law. The COMMISSION shall not control or otherwise supervise the manner in which this Contract is performed. NONASSIGNABTLITY—The CONTRACTOR shall not assign this Contract,any rights or obligations under this Contract, or any claim arising under this Contract without prior written consent of the COMMISSION. PUBLICITY/ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS—The CONTRACTOR shall acknowledge the COMMISSION in all printed or oral material and announcements,including in-person interviews with audio,video,or print journalists, which result from this Contract,as follows:`This program is supported,in part,by a grant from the Washington State Arts Commission." REPRODUCTION-The CONTRACTOR relinquishes to the State and its assigns royalty-free,irrevocable,non- exclusive license to make photographic or graphic reproductions or otherwise use data and copyrightable materials that result from this Contract,provided that such use or reproduction shall be only for government purposes Data shall include,but is not limited to,reports,documents,pamphlets,other printed matter,photographs,and sound recordings Government purposes shall include,but are not limited to,(1)internal documents such as memoranda and(2)public releases such as advertising,brochures,media publicity and catalogs or other similar publications, provided that the artist is credited.All reproductions of copyrightable material by the State in public releases shall contain a credit to the artist and a copyright notice in the following form:"C(Artist's name),(date).' SERVICES WITHIN WASHINGTON-The CONTRACTOR agrees that no funds under this Contract will be used for activities or services outside the State of Washington,without prior authorization of the COMMISSION. D. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS,RECORDKEEPING,AND INSPECTION AMERICANS WITH DISABTLTTIES ACT(ADA)OF 19W.PUBLIC LAW 101-336,also referred to as the "ADA"28 CRF Part 35 —The CONTRACTOR must comply with the ADA,which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment,pubic accommodation,state and local government services,and telecommunications. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW The CONTRACTOR shall comply with,and COMMISSION is not responsible for determining compliance with,all applicable and current federal,slate,and local laws,regulations, and policies,including all applicable local,state,and federal licensing,accreditation and registration requirements/standards necessary for the performance or this Conrract. A111chmem C General Terms and Condmom 3 of 6 Grant Contract Z1105075 t In the event of the CONTRACTOR's noncompliance or refusal to comply with any applicable law or policy,the COMMISSION may rescind,carom]or terminate this Contract for cause in whole or in part. The COMMISSION also may declare the CONTRACTOR ineligible for further grant awards from the COMMISSION. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Notwithstanding any determination by the Executive Ethics Board or other tribunal, the COMMISSION may,by written notice to the CONTRACTOR,terminate this Contract if it is found afler due notice and examination by the COMMISSION that there is a violation of the Ethics in Public Service Act,Chapter 4252 RCW,or any similar statute involving the CONTRACTOR in the procurement of,or perfonttance under,this Contract. In the event this Contract is terminated as provided above,the COMMISSION shall be entitled to pursue the same remedies against the CONTRACTOR as it could pursue in the event of a breach of contract by the CONTRACTOR. The rights and remedies of the COMMISSION provided for in this clause shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. The existence of facts upon which the Agent makes any determination under this clause shall be an issue and may be reviewed as provided in the"Disputes"clause of this Contract. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. The CONTRACTOR will defend,protect and hold harmless COMMISSION and any and all of its employees and/or agents,from and against any and all liability,cost(including but not limited to all costs of defense and attorneys' fees)and any and all loss of any nature from any and all claims or suits resulting from the presence of,or the release or threatened release of,hazardous substances as defined by state and federal law on the property covered by the project. NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS—During the performance of this Contract,the CONTRACTOR shall comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination laws,regulations,or policies.If the CONTRACTOR does not comply or refuses to comply with nondiscrimination laws,regulations or policies,the COMMISSION may rescind,cancel,or terminate this Contract in whole or in part and may also declare the CONTRACTOR ineligible for farthercontracts with the COMMISSION. The CONTRACTOR shall be given a reasonable time in which to cure noncompliance. Any dispute may be resolved in accordance with the"Disputes"provision in this Contract. PUBLIC DISCLOSURFJCONFIDENTIALITY CONTRACTOR acknowledges that the COMMISSION is subject to Chapter 42.17 RCW,the Public Disclosure Act and that this Contract shall be a public record as defined in RCW 42.17.250 through 42.17.340. Any specific information that is claimed by the CONTRACTOR to be confidential or proprietary must be clearly identified as such by the CONTRACTOR. To the extent consistent with Chapter 42.17 RCW,the COMMISSION shall maintain the confidentiality of all such information marked confidential or proprietary. If it request is made to view the CONTRACTOR's information,the COMMISSION will notify the CONTRACTOR of the request and the date that such records will be released to the requester unless CONTRACTOR obtains a court order enjoining that disclosure. If the CONTRACTOR fails to obtain the court order enjoining disclosure,the COMMISSION will release the request information on the date specified. The CONTRACTOR shall not use or disclose any information concerning the COMMISSION,or information which may be classified as confidential for any purpose not directly connect with the administration of this Contract except(1)with prior written consent of the COMMISSION,or(2)as may be required by law. RECORDS.DOCUMENTS,AND REPORTS-The CONTRACTOR shall maintain complete financial records, including all accounts,books,records,documents,invoices and other evidence.that sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expenses incurred and revenues acquired under this Contract. Therccords must clearly show that matching expenditures,if required,are not less than the amount granted in the approved application and this Contract.The system of accounting employed by the CONTRACTOR shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,and will be applied in a consistent manner so that the project finances can be clearly identified. These records shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection,review,or audit by personnel duly authorized by the COMMISSION,the Office of the State Auditor,and Federal officials so authorized by law,rule,regulation,or ' contract. The CONTRACTOR will retain all books,records,documents,and other materials relevant to this Attachment C:General Terms and Conditions 4 of 6 (;rani r r l-'rt NO A7Z 1 - t Contract for six years after termination or expiration of the Contract,and[Hake them available for inspection by persons authorized under this provision. if any litigation,claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six(6) year period,the records shall be retained until all litigation,claims,or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. REGISTRATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF REVEN M The CONTRACTOR shall complete registration, if required by law,with the Washington State Department of Revenue,P.O.Box 47450,Olympia,WA 98504-7450, httpJ/dor.wa.gov. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes due on payments made under this Contract. RIGHT OF INSPECTION—The CONTRACTOR shall cooperate with and freely participate in any monitoring or evaluation activities conducted by the COMMISSION pertinent to the intent of this Contract,including right of entry for periodic site inspections.The CONTRACTOR shall provide right of access to the facilities and/or site of the activity,project,or program to the COMMISSION,or to any of its officers,or to any other authorized agent or official of the State of Washington or the Federal government at all reasonable times,in order to monitor and evaluate performance,compliance,and/or quality assurance under this Contract. E. FUNDING,TtEUgBURSEM ENT AND BUDGhI rADVANCE PAYMENTS PROHIBITED-No payments in advance or in anticipation of services or supplies to be provided under this Contract shall be made by the COMMISSION. FUNDS NOT SUPPLANTING-The CONTRACTOR agrees that the funds supporting activities and services under this Contract shall not be used to supplant funds normally budgeted for services of the same type. TAXES—All payments accrued on account of payroll taxes,unemployment contributions,any other taxes, insurance or other expenses for the CONTRACTOR or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the CONTRACTOR. TRAVEL AND PER DIEM-In the event the Contract allows the CONTRACTOR to be reimbursed for out-of- pocket expenses,the CONTRACTOR will be reimbursed for travel expenses at the State rates for mileage and per diem in effect at the time these expenses are incurred. The COMMISSION reserves the right to audit documents supporting billings made for out-of-pocket expenses. F. TERMINATION AND DISPUTES DISPUTES.Except as otherwise provide in this Contract,when a dispute arises between the parties and it cannot be resolved by direct negotiation,either party may request a dispute hearing of the other according to the process set out in this section. Either parry's request for dispute hearing must be in writing and clearly state. 1. The disputed issue(s); 2. The relative positions of the parties; 3. The CONTRACTOR's name,address and project title. The requesting party shall mail the request for hearing to the other party within 5 working days after the parties agree that they cannot resolve the dispute.Within 5 working days of receipt of the request,the receiving party shall respond by either accepting or refusing the request for dispute resolution. If both parties agree to a dispute hearing,the dispute shall be heard by a panel of three persons consisting of one person selected by the CONTRACTOR,one person selected by the COMMISSION,and a third person chosen by the two persons initially appointed.Any hearing under this section shall be informal,with the specific processes to be determined by the panel according to the nature and complexity of the issues involved The process may be solely based upon written material if the parties so agree. Provisions of this Contract shall govern the panel in deciding the disputes.The parties shall equally share all cost associated with implementation of this process. Attachment C•General Terms and Conditions 5 of 6 Grant Contract 2005075 The decision of the disputes panel shall bind the parties,unless the parties do not have the authority to perform the remedy directed by that panel or the remedy is otherwise unlawful. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE—Washington law shall govern this Contract. In the event of a lawsuit involving this Contract,venue shall be proper only in Thurston County. SAVINGS If any State,Federal,private,or other funding source withdraws,reduces,or limits in any way the funds appropriated for the work under this Contract prior to normal termination of the Contract,the COMMISSION may terminate the Contract without advance notice. At the COMMISSION's discretion,the parties may renegotiate the Contract under those new funding limitations and conditions.If this Contract is so terminated,the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Contract prior to the effective date of termination. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE-Either party may terminate this Contract upon 15 days'prior written notification to the other party. If this Contract is so terminated,the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Contract prior to the effective date of termination. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION FOR CAUSE--In the event the COMMISSION determines the CONTRACTOR has failed to comply with the conditions of this Contract is a timely manner,the COMMISSION has the right to suspend or terminate the Contract Before suspending or terminating the Contract,the COMMISSION shall notify the CONTRACTOR in writing of the need to take corrective action. If corrective action is not taken within fifteen(15)days of receiving notice,the COMMISSION may terminate or suspend the Contract If the Contract is terminated for cause,the COMMISSION reserves the right to require the CONTRACTOR to repay all or any poruon of funds paid to the CONTRACTOR prior to termination.The CONTRACTOR shall make repayment within thirty(30)days of the demand. If the COMMISSION is required to institute legal proceedings to enforce this repayment provision,the COMMISSION shall be entitled to its costs,including reasonable attorneys' fees.However,repayment shall not be the sole or exclusive remedy available to the COMMISSION No remedy available to the COMMISSION shall be deemed exclusive. The COMMISSION may elect to exercise any,any combination,or all of the remedies available to it under this Contract,or under any provision of law,common law, or equity. G. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS IF GRANT INCLUDES FEDERAL FUNDS APPLICATION—If federal funds are committed by this Contract,the CONTRACTOR shall abide by the following conditions. PUBLICITY/ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS—The PUBLICITY/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT provision elsewhere in this Contract is hereby amended as follows: '"The CONTRACTOR shall acknowledge the COMMISSION and the NEA in all printed or oral material and announcements,including in-person interviews with audio,video,orprintjournalists, which result from this Contract,as follows:"This program is supported,in part,by a grant from the Washington State Arts Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts." Additionally,all printed materials shall display the NEA logo as per NEA General Terms and Conditions, Attachment F. NEA GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS, The NEA has awarded the federal funds committed by this Contract to the COMMISSION. The COMMISSION is obligated to the NEA to administer the funds according to the NEA General Terms and Conditions set forth in Attachment F. All Legal Requirements(Federal laws,rules, regulations and OMB Circulars)enumerated in the NEA General Terms and Conditions apply to the CONTRACTOR.As a subgant recipient the CONTRACTOR shall abide by the NEA General Terms and Conditions not inconsistent with the Special and General Tenns and Conditions of this Contract Attachment C•General Terms and Condid me 6 of 6 Cirnnr Cnntrvt 70907: t;RANT CONTRACT-ATTACHMENT"A" Scope of Work Program: Organizational Support Program Contract No.2005075 CONTRACTOR: City of Kent Arts Commission 1. The CONTRACTOR agrees that funds shall be received solely for the services and/or reimbursements described here below: Organizational Support Program assistance with: General Operating Support Event Announcement and Documentation: The CONTRACTOR must provide to Grants to Organizations of the COMMISSION,any public announcement,press release,or other direct mail announcement of the event(s)funded under this contract. The rOWTRA!'T(-)R will mail such nnhlic annnlmcements to: Grants to Organizations Washington State Arts Commission PO Box 42675 Olympia,WA 98506-2675. Final Reports are due: Every grant recipient must submit a Final Report to the Washington State Arts Commission's Grants to Organizations,45 days following the contract ending date;this is a contractual obligation for the grant. The completed form must be received by the Washington State Arts Commission(WSAC),Grants to Organizations,by 5:00 P. M., August 15,2005. The Final Report Form should be downloaded from the COMMISSION website at www.arts.wa.¢ov,under Grants to Organizations. Final Report Penalty: Grant recipients that do not submit Final Reports by the August 15,2005 deadline will have a 10_/D Density deducted from any future grant from Grants to Organizations. Loeo Credit: VVMINGMNSUCE Recipients of grants and programs are asked to credit ARtSCOMMISSION WSAC in promotional communications about the grant. Logos are provided for recipients to use in print materials.They may be enlarged,reduced, or reversed as needed.Copies of print pieces which incorporate WSAC's logo should be N AT 10 N A l submitted with Final Reports to Grants to Organizations. For additional copies of the logo ENDOWMENT slick or electronic logo files contact WSAC's Communications Manager at(360)753-3860. Eoe THE AETr 1 1 GRANT CONTRACT-ATTACHMENT"B" Payment Schedule Program: Grants to Organizations Contract No.2005075 CONTRACTOR: City of Kent Arts Commission The CONTRACTOR agrees that funds as awarded in section(1)of the CONTRACT and in consideration of section j (2)of the CONTRACT,will be paid to the CONTRACTOR by the COMMISSION in consideration of the following terms and conditions: I. No funds will be paid to the CONTRACTOR in advance of the contract starting date stated in section(1) of the CONTRACT; 2. Payments will be made after the expenses for which COMMISSION funds were committed have been incurred; 3. Th.rONI'R AC I'OR must rnh>mm all invnirr vniwli (l to the.rOMMISSTOW nn later than the firs workbag day of each designated payment date; 4. A II requests for payment shall be on the form of voucher set forth in Attachment D. S. The COMMISSION will make payment to the CONTRACTOR by the 20th day of each designated payment date. 6. The schedule for payment is as follows: Month(Year Amount November 2004 S6,361.00 TOTAL AWARD S6361.00 I 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ANNUAL ACTION PLAN—APPROVE i 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve the proposed Community Development Block Grant 2005 Action Plan, including funding allocations and contingency plans, and authorize the Mayor to execute the appropriate certifications and agreements. Attached is the proposed 2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan for the City of Kent. The $957,366 is an estimate based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2004 budget. This may increase or decrease due to changes in the appropriation by Congress. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo, 2005 Proposed Annual Action Plan, Certifications, and Application for Federal Assistance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks & Human Services Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J i PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 400 John M. Hodgson, Director Phone:KEN T Fax: 253-856-6050 w h S H 1 N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 DATE: October 21, 2004 TO: Kent City Council Parks and Human Services Committee FROM: Kathenn Johnson, Housing and Human Services Manager THROUGH: John Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation & Community Services SUBJECT: 2005 CDBG Action Plan and Funding Allocations -Approve MOTION: Recommend Council approve the Proposed Community Development Block Grant 2005 Action Plan, including funding allocations and contingency plans, and authorize the Mayor to execute the appropriate certifications and agreements. Attached is the proposed 2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Action Plan for the City of Kent The estimate of$957,366 00 is an estimate based on the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)2004 budget. This may increase or decrease due to changes in the appropriation by Congress. On August 29, 2004, the City of Kent published a public notice letting the community know the Draft 2005 Action Plan was available for review and comment for a period of thirty (30) days On September 16, 2004, the Human Services Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of taking comments on the 2005 Action Plan, The Commission also reviewed and approved recommendations for CDBG funding for 2005. A description of each program is included in the Action Plan for your review. As in past years, a major portion of the CDBG funds is recommended to support the City's Home Repair Program. This program continues to serve many low-income, disabled and senior homeowners in Kent by providing needed repairs The program also guarantees that some of Kent's low and moderate income housing stock is maintained and preserved. The amount of money Kent may receive could change depending upon the final federal appropriations bill Congress passes in the fall. Therefore,the recommended funding includes a contingency plan to address any potential fund changes that may occur when Congress adopts the 2005 budget. The 2005 Action Plan is required by HUD and identifies the strategies and goals the City will focus on in 2005. EXHIBITS: City of Kent 2005 Annual Action Plan, Certifications, Application for Federal Assistance. BUDGET IMPACT: The estimate of$957,366.00 may increase or decrease due to changes in 1 the appropriation by Congress and impacts budgets- B00007.4891-4896, B000013, B20022, B00205, 1320023, and B00012. City of Kent Annual Action Plan i 2005 t Update to Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development Fiscal Years 2003 — 2007 KENT WAS H IN G T O N r MAYOR The Honorable dun White CITY COUNCIL Julie Peterson,Council President Tim Claris,Council Member Ron Harmon,Council Member Deborah Ranniger,Council Member Debbie Raplee,Council Member Les Thomas,Council Member Bruce White,Council Member PARKS&HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Julie Peterson,Chair Deborah Ranniger,Council Member Debbie Raplee,Council Member CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Mike Martin HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Rod Saalfeld,Commission Chair George Adams,Commissioner Jon Botten,Commissioner Brett Hollis,Commissioner Perry Raak,Commissioner Edna White,Commissioner Debbie Raplee,City Council Member CITY STAFF Parks,Recreation&Community Services Department John Hodgson,Parks,Recreation&Community Services Director Kathenn Johnson,Human Services Manager Menna Hanson,Senior Human Services Coordinator Dinah Wilson,Human Services Coordinator l 1 r I 1 CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT n TABLE OF CONTENTS r GENERAL 1 j HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES 1 • 2005 CDBG ESTIMATED RESOURCES 1 • OTHER RESOURCES 2 • CITY OF KENT FUNDING PRIORITIES 2 2005 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES TO ACHIEVE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 3 DEVELOPMENT GOALS ALLOCATION OF 2005 RESOURCES 7 r DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BENEFITTING LOWIMODERATE-INCOME 10 PERSONS SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 2005 USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 BLOCK GRANT ENTITLEMENT FUNDS MONITORING 12 FAIR HOUSING 12 t POLICIES AND CERTIFICATIONS 12 DOCUMENTATION AND ON-SITE MONITORING 13 FISCAL AUDITS 13 ATTACHMENTS r i CITY OF KENT 2005 ACT10N PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT m 2005 ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IrRm- I Each year the City of Kent executes specific actions to implement the Goals and Strategies of the five-year Consolidated Plan. Actions that will be undertaken in 2005 are outlined in this Annual Action Plan, which describes both the allocation of estimated resources and a narrative of what will be done. In a given year, it is possible that no steps will be taken to achieve a particular strategy Similarly, it is expected that during the course of the year, the City will be presented with unanticipated opportunities that can be capitalized upon to help meet goals and strategies When this occurs, the City will seize the moment to further the goals and strategies defined in the Consolidated Plan. This document describes actions planned for the 2005 calendar year. • • • • . • . 2005 CDBG ESTIMATED RESOURCES One of the major tools for accomplishing the goals of the Consolidated Plan is the annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds provided by the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City estimates that $957,366 in CDBG funds will be available for the January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 budget year. The following outlines the total anticipated resources to implement the 2005 Action Plan, Table 1 CDBG ESTIMATED RESOURCES Federal CDBG Allocation (estimated) $957,366 Recaptured $ -0- CDBG Program Income $ -0- ESG $ -0- HOME $ -0- HOPWA $ -0- Total Federal $957,366 1 Total Resources $957,366 OTHER RESOURCES Genera!Funds The City of Kent allocates one percent(1%)of the general fund to provide human services directly to Kent residents through contracts with non-profit agencies. The recommended allocation from the 2005 General Fund budget is$604,725. CITY OF KENT FUNDING PRIORITIES In addition to the Consolidated Plan, allocation of CDBG funds is guided by the City of Kenfs human services funding priorities as established by the Human Services Commission. The following priorities are considered when allocating funding for regional and local human services: PRIORITY 1: Those services which help meet basic and emergency needs(food, medical rare, shelter, and protection from abuse and neglect). PRIORITY 2: Programs which are preventive in nature and promote a high degree of self- dependence. PRIORITY 3: Programs which seek to enhance the quality of life in persons whose basic human ■ needs are already met. The City of Kent human service funding allocations are usually equally divided between Priorities One and Two. Pnonty Three programs have not been funded due to the critical needs in the other two priority areas. CDBG public service funding has historically been in Priority One. . r CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 2005 PROPOSED ACHIEVE :DEVELOPMENTOA GOAL H1: EXPAND HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS. rStrategy H1.B:Use zoning and building codes to encourage homeownership opportunities. • Action: Consider adding the option of allowing manufactured housing in single family residential zones. GOAL H2: EXPAND THE RANGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHOICES AVAILABLE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF BOTH CURRENT KENT RESIDENTS AND RESIDENTS PROJECTED IN GROWTH ESTIMATES. tStrategy H2.A, Maintain the existing stock of affordable housing. • Action: Allocate funds to the Home Repair Program to support the existing level of homeownership in Kent in the amount of$269,816. • Action. Assure that all homeowners served by the Home Repair Program receive and comprehend the Lead Based Paint informational materials. • Action: Conduct a performance audit and client satisfaction survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home Repair Program Strategy H2.B. Provide housing opportunities for low/moderate-income families. • Action: Allocate funds to a first-time homebuyer's program for low/moderate- income Kent residents. • Action- Provide homebuyer education and financial counseling to increase homeownership opportunities for low to moderate-income Kent residents. • Action: Provide housing resource and referral information to low/moderate-income individuals. • Action: Advocate for Kent service providers to access HOME funds through the King County Consortium Strategy H2.D- Support the development of housing near transportation hubs and employment centers. • Action Consider incorporating a 10-year tax exemption for rental housing in downtown Kent CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 r - - r GOAL H& PROVIDE STABLE, SERVICE-ENRICHED HOUSING FOR HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. Strategy H3.A: Actively support regional and subregional efforts to provide a coordinated continuum of housing and services for the homeless. Assure the interests of South Kng County are included in the countywide process to end homelessness. • Action: Continue providing staff support to efforts such as Safe Harbors (a homeless management information system) and the Committee to End Homelessness. • Action: Continue staff participation In the McKinney and the Regional Affordable Housing Program application review process. Strategy H3.B: Provide enhanced case management and stabilization services linked to transitional housing services for homeless persons. • Action: Re-activate Homeless Providers Network or participate in the South King County Homeless Alliance. • Action: Allocate funding in the amount of$10,000 to Catholic Community Services to support transitional housing for homeless single women in recovery. • Action.Allocate funding in the amount of$10,000 to Hospitality House to support a shelter for homeless women and link them to securing permanent or transitional housing. • Action: Allocate funding in the amount of $17,ODO to provide outreach and rase management services to homeless individuals. • Action Allocate funding in the amount of $9,500 to provide primary care and nursing services to homeless families and individuals living in transitional housing Strategy H3.C: Increase housing stabilization for those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. • Action: Allocate funding in the amount of $35,000 to the Multi-Service Center to provide housing stability grants to low-income families to support move-In costs and to prevent eviction. , • Action: Coordinate with the Committee to End Homelessness. • Action: Actively enforce code provisions requiring mobile home park owners to submit a relocation report and plan to the Human Services Department prior to issuing eviction notices to tenants who must relocate due to closure, change of use,or a zoning re-designation. GOAL Ell: IMPROVE THE POTENTIAL FOR KENT RESIDENTS TO OBTAIN AND RETAIN LIVEABLE WAGE JOBS. Strategy E1.A: Support mufti-dimensional approaches linking services to jobs to improve the ability of people to obtain, progress in,and retain livable wage lobs. CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 I l • Action: Partner with the Kent Chamber of Commerce to provide a"single-point-ot contact'for workforce development training programs and related resources. • Action: Apply for grant funds from the Federal Economic Development Administration to study the feasibility of creating a Center for Advanced Manufacturing. • Action: Allocate funding in the amount of $75,000 to the Multi-Service Center to improve employment skills and economic development opportunities for Kent residents. • Action. Allocate funding in the amount of $12,675 to Child Care Resources to provide child care vouchers to low/moderate4ricome families. • Action: Allocate funding in the amount of $10,000 to the Center for Career Alternatives to support a job readiness training and placement program for low/moderate-income fob seekers who have multiple barriers to employment and/or basic education. • Action: Allocate funding in the amount of $35,000 to Washington Women's Employment and Education (WWEE) to provide computer training and a job readiness class to low-income Kent residents. 1 GOAL E2: INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESSES TO DEVELOP AND EXPAND IN KENT,WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON SMALL BUSINESSES AND MICRO-ENTERPRISES. Strategy E2.A: Prepare an economic development strategy for the City • Action: Continue implementation of the 2003—2008 Kent Economic Development IStrategic Plan. Strategy E2.B:Develop incentives and supports for small businesses • Action: Support the existing One-Stop Shop for small business and micro- enterprise development and technical assistance which utilizes resources from the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and from the Small Business Administration. • Action: Develop a revolving loan fund for small business and micro-enterprise 1 development. • Action: Explore the possibility of developing an ethnic shopping and communitylbanquet center to add jobs and economic resources to the Kent community. • Action: Support existing and new Kent businesses on the procurement of 504 loans to purchase their own real estate and as a result promote business stability • Action: Fund Green River College Small Business Assistance Center through the Multi-Service Center Economic Development Program to provide technical assistance for micro-enterprise and small business development. 1 Strategy E2 D Support real estate development and redevelopment projects through Section 108 Guarantees and CDBG Float Loans that will benefit low/moderate-income CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5 persons or provide housing for low/moderate4noome persons. • Action: Execute a development agreement with the Boeing Company for the future use of business property in the Pacific Gateway Business Park. GOAL Cl:ADDRESS ISSUES OF INCLUSION AND INTEGRATION. Strategy C1.A: Increase inclusion of immigrants and refugees and people of color in the life of the Kent community. • Action: Translate housing and other human services brochures in other languages so that services can be more accessible to non-English and Limited English Proficient residents. GOAL C2: CREATE A COMMUNITY THAT SUPPORTS HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. Strategy C2.A: Build neighborhood centers/local access to services. • Action: Collaborate with non-profit providers for acquisition of the One Stop Service Center to provide a central location to meet the human service needs of the low/moderate-income community. Strategy C2.B:Create a community that supports healthy families. ■ • Action: Allocate funding in the amount of $37,450 to Community Health Centers of King County to provide primary medical and natural medicine services to low/moderate-income individuals. • Action:Allocate funding in the amount of$24,000 to the Church Council of Greater Seattle to provide emergency food to needy individuals and families. • Action. Allocate funding in the amount of $120,000 to upgrade the Kent j Commons Playfield. • Action: Continue to manage the Safe Havens Visitation Center for family Violence victims. r CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6 r r r ALLOCATION . , , . RESOURCES rACTIVITY: Rehabilitation FUNDS: $269,816 ' AGENCY: City of Kent, Parks,Recreation and Community Services: Human Services Department PROJECT: Housing and Human Services: Home Repair Program LOCATION: Citywide DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitation assistance and health and safety repairs to 100 unduplicated lowlmoderate-income Kent households. rACTIVITIES: Public Facilities &Improvements FUNDING TOTAL: $170,000 1 AGENCY- City of Kent,Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Planning and Development PROJECT- Kent Commons Playfield LOCATION: James Street&5"h Ave , Kent,WA FUNDS: $120,000 DESCRIPTION: Funds will be used to upgrade Kent Commons Playfield, a neighborhood park in a predominantly low/moderate-income neighborhood that is located adjacent to a King County Housing Authority housing program Improvements will include constructing a picnic shelter and replacing play requipment/park fixtures. AGENCY: King County Housing Authority PROJECT: Springwood Community Center LOCATION: 27360129t^Place SE, Kent, WA FUNDS: $50,000 rDESCRIPTION: Construction of a two-story community center to serve low-income youth. The facility will include a gymnasium, a game room,a computer room,a kitchen, administrative offices, a classroom,and an arts and crafts room. ACTIVITY: Homeownership Assistance FUNDS: $105,000 ' CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7 r AGENCY: HomeSight PROJECT: First Homes Program LOCATION: 5117 Rainier Ave.S.,Seattle,WA 98118 DESCRIPTION: ' Allocation of funds to a first-time homebuyer's program for low/moderate-income Kent residents. The program will also include a homebuyer education and financial counseling component. ACTIVITY: Community Based Development Organization(CBDO): Community Economic Development FUNDS: $75,000 AGENCY: Multi-Service Center PROJECT: Kent Employee Development Partnership LOCATION: Multiple Sites DESCRIPTION: The project will provide approximately 15 Kent residents with services to improve employment skills and to increase economic development opportunities. Services will include intake, employment plan development, workplace literacy assessment/classes, small business/micro- enterprise development, and child care scholarships. ACTIVITIES: Public Services FUNDING TOTAL: $142,950 , AGENCY: Catholic Community Services PROJECT: Katherine's House LOCATION: Confidential FUNDS: $10,000 DESCRIPTION: Funds will be used to provide 92 bed-nights of shelter and 63 case management hours to three(3) ' homeless,chemically-dependent women in recovery in the City of Kent AGENCY: Church Council of Greater Seattle PROJECT: Emergency Feeding Program LOCATION: Multiple Sites FUNDS: $24,000 DESCRIPTION: Funds will be used to provide 5,600 Kent residents with 33,600 nutritionally balanced and diet- specific meals,including infant feedings. AGENCY: Community Health Centers of King County , PROJECT. Health and Natural Medicine Services&Healthcare for the Homeless CITYOF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 r LOCATION: 403 E. Meeker St,#200, Kent,WA 98030 FUNDS: $46,950 DESCRIPTION: 1 Health & Natural Medicine: Funds will be used to provide 300 medical visits and 31 natural medicine visits to 124 low-income Kent patients. Healthcare for the Homeless: Funds will be used to provide 249 primary care and nursing visits to 96 homeless adults and children who reside ' In transitional shelters; services will also be provided at the Kent Community Health Center. AGENCY: Hospitality House PROJECT: Women's Homeless Shelter LOCATION. 15003141,Avenue SW, Burien,WA FUNDS: $10,000 DESCRIPTION: Funds are used to provide 614 bed-nights of shelter and case management services to 15 homeless women who formerly resided in Kent. AGENCY: Multi-Service Center PROJECT: Housing Stability LOCATION- 1205 S. Central,#209, Kent,WA FUNDS: $35,000 DESCRIPTION: Funds will be used to provide housing stability grants to 46 low-income or homeless individuals to prevent eviction or to assist with move-In costs AGENCY: Valley Cities Counseling PROJECT: Homeless Outreach LOCATION: 325 W. Gowe Street, Kent,WA 98032 and throughout S. King County FUNDS: $17,000 DESCRIPTION: Funds will be used to provide 227 hours of rase management to 47 homeless individuals in the City of Kent r r 1 CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 • : • • • • Funds are distributed based on priority needs identified for low/moderate-income persons that are consistent with goals and strategies in the Consolidated Plan. Project funds will primarily benefit low/moderate-income persons. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 2005 USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENTITLEMENT FUNDS PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS Project Funding Amount Catholic Community Services $ 10,000 1 Church Council of Greater Seattle $ 24,000 Community Health Centers of King County $ 46,950 , Hospitality House $ 10,000 Multi-Service Center $ 35,000 Valley Cities Counseling $ 17,000 Total Public Service: $142,950 Contingency Plan Increase • In the event of an increase in public service funds above the preliminary estimate, the additional funds will be divided equally among the funded agencies. Decrease In the event of a decrease in CDBG public service funds, the decrease will be proportionately , distributed among the funded agencies,with no agency receiving less than$10,000 in funding. CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , 10 i 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS Project Funding Amount HomeSi ht $105,000 Kent Commons Pla eld $120,000 Kent Home Repair Program $269,816 Kinq County Housing Authority $ 50,000 Multi-Service Center $ 75,000 Total Capital: $619,816 Contingency Plan Increase In the event additional capital funds are received or recaptured, the additional funds will be distributed as follows: ' Funding for Kent Home Repair Program will increase up to$400,000 • Funding for Multi-Service Center will increase up to$150,000. • Funding will be allocated to a Public Facility Project(a local non-profit or rehabilitation of a City park). Decrease If there is a decrease in funds, projects will be cut in the following order: ' 1. King County Housing Authority 2. HomeSight 1 3. Kent Commons Playfield 4. Multi-Service Center 5. Kent Home Repair Program PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION Planninq and Administration $194,600 Total Planning and Administration: $194,600 The City will expend the full 20%of Entitlement funding for Planning and Administration. ! CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11 MONITORING The City monitors its CDBG program throughout the year. For example, the City is collaborating with regional human services grantors to develop a catalogue of performance measures and indicators that demonstrate effectiveness. Monitoring tools to ensure compliance with CDBG regulations and development strategies for specific areas are discussed in subsequent sections of this document. 'FAIR HOUSING The City continues to monitor compliance with the Fair Housing Act and to respond , appropriately to alleged violations; complaints are referred to the Washington State Human , Rights Commission for resolution. Prior to receiving Its direct allocation of CDBG funds, the City of Kent was a member of the King County Consortium and joined the County to perform an Analysis of Impediments (AI)to Fair Housing Choice within King County. Now that Kent is a CDBG Entitlement City,the City is planning to conduct its own Al in the fall of 2004. The City will do the following in its Al, • Analyze impediments to fair housing choice, • Take actions to eliminate identified impediments;and • Maintain records documenting the analysis and action taken to eliminate impediments POLICIES Agencies applying for CDBG funds are required to respond to general and program specific polices in their applications.All projects are evaluated to determine if they are: 1. Eligible relative to federal guidelines; 2. Consistent with the program objectives and strategies; 3. Consistent with local,state and federal regulations; 4. Feasible within contract and timeline guidelines;and 5. Capable of developing and measuring outcomes These policies include, among others: f Consistency with local codes and policies; CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 12 1 I • Restrictions on the change of use of property and buildings which were acquired or improved with CDBG funds; • Minimization of displacement and the provision of relocation assistance; ! • Adherence to federal wage rates; • Compliance with federal audit requirements;and • Adherence to and enforcement of lead-based paint abatement regulations, fair housing laws and affirmative action. DOCUMENTATION AND •N-SITE MONITORING Detailed records are maintained and reviewed to determine and assure agency compliance with its contract and other applicable regulations. Deficiencies in record keeping are documented and technical assistance to correct noted deficiencies is provided.The failure to comply with contractual requirements and regulations could result in remedial actions and/or the termination of funding. FISCAL AUDITS ! The City conducts an internal audit to ensure that its records are complete and agencies are complying with applicable rules and regulations. In addition, the City's records are subject to an independent annual audit The auditor tested the City's compliance with the following CDBG requirements. • Political Activity; • Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, • Civil rights; ' Cash Management; ' Federal Financial Reports; • Allowable Costs&Cost Principles; • Drug-Free Workplace Act;and • Various administrative requirements. CITY OF KENT 2005 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13 CERTIFICATIONS In accordance with statutes and the regulations governing Consolidated Plan regulations,the City of Kent certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing—The City of Kent will affirmatively further fair housing, conducting an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, developing strategies and taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis, and maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions taken to further the strategies and actions. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan—The City of Kent will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d)of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. Drug Free Workplace—The City of Kent will continue to provide a drug-free workplace in accordance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 USC 701) by: 1 Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; 2. Maintaining an ongoing drug-free awareness to inform employees about: (a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. , (c) Available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; ' 3. Establishing a policy that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1; ' 4. Notifying each employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will - (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; 5 Notifying HUD in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under ' subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position i title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted ■ employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the 1 receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s)of each affected grant. 6. Taking one of the following actions,within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted: ' (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended;or (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State,or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; 7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 8. Providing the street address, city, county, state and zip code for the site or sites where the performance of work in connection with the grant will take place. For functions carried out by employees in several departments or offices, more than one location will be specified. It is further recognized that sites may be added or changed during the course of grant-funded activities The City of Kent will advise the HUD Field Office by submitting a revised Place of Performance form. The City of Kent recognizes that the period covered by this certification extends until all funds under the specific grant have been expended. Anti-Lobbying—To the best of the City of Kent's knowledge and belief: 1. No Federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract,the making of any Federal grant,the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; ' 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and 3. It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 1 Authority of Jurisdiction—The Consolidated Plan is authorized under State and local law(as 1 applicable) and the City of Kent possesses the legal authority to cant'out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations. Consistency with plan—The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, ' and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan. Section 3—It will comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1966, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135. Signature/Authorized Official Date Mayor Jim White i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 Specific CDBG Certifications The City of Kent,as an Entitlement Community,certifies that: Citizen Participation—It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105. Community Development Plan—Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long- term community development objectives that that have been developed in accordance with the primary objective of the statute authorizing the CDBG program, as described in 24 CFR 570 2 and 24 CFR, Part 570. Following the Consolidated Plan—It will follow the five year-Consolidated Plan as approved by HUD. Use of Funds— It has complied with the following criteria: 1. Maximum Feasible Pnontv. With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, the City of Kent certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs; ' 2. Overall Benefit. The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program years 2003, 2004 and 2005, shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period; 3. Special Assessments. The City of Kent will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds)financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (but not low-income)families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements ' financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment Excessive Force—It has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; ' and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; Compliance With Anti-discrimination laws—The grant will be conducted and administered in ' conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act(42 USC 3601-3619),and implementing regulations. Lead-Based Paint—The City of Kent's notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.608; Compliance with Laws— It will comply with applicable laws. Signature/Authorized Official Date Mayor Jim White APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS: ' A. Lobbying Certification ' This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S.Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. B. Drug-Free Workplace Certification 1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the City of Kent is providing the certification. 2. The certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that ' the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act. 3 Workplaces under grants,for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. If known, they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon award, if there is no application,the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s)on file in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements. ' 4. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings)or other saes where work under the grant takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio stations). 5. If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the HUD of the change(s), if it previously identified the Workplaces in question (see paragraph three). 6. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s)for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant: Place of Performance(Street address, city,county, state, zip code) , City of Kent 220 40'Avenue South , Kent, WA 98032 Check_if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. The certification with regard to the drug-free workplace is required by 24 CFR, Part 24, Subpart F. 7. Definitions of terms in the Non-procurement Suspension and Debarment ' common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this certification. Grantees'attention is called, in particular, to the following , definitions from these rules: "Controlled substance" means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act(21 U.S.C. 812) and as further defined by ' regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15); "Conviction" means a finding of guilt(including a plea of polo confendre)or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes;Criminal drug statute"means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance; ' "Employee" means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (1)All "direct charge"employees; ' (ii) all "indirect charge" employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and (iii)temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant , and who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers,even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll;or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces). i 1 MONITORING The City annually conducts formal contract monitoring visits and/or makes site visits to CDBG- ' funded projects to ensure that activities are in compliance with City and federal regulations, including an assessment of compliance with national objectives and activity eligibility. During the formal monitoring process, the provider agency's administrative structure is examined along with administrative policies and procedures to ensure compliance with regulations. A detailed ' contract monitoring checklist is completed and forwarded to agencies, along wrath recommendations for improvements and needed follow-up. Summaries of contract monitoring visits and recommendations are provided to the Kent Human Services Commission. I APPLICATION FOR OMB Approval No 0348- ' FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2.DATE SUBMITTED Applicant Identifier October 18, 2004 1.TYPE OF SUBMISSION: 3.DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Iderdrfier ' placation PreappbcaLon Construction []construction 4.DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier El Non-Construction Non-Construction S.APPLICANT INFORMATION ' Legal Name: Organizational Unit City of Kent Parks, Recreation & Community Serv. Address(give city,county,State,and zip code)' Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters mvc ' 220 4th Ave. S this appl J ication ive area code) Kent, WA 98032 Katherin ohnson 6.EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(E/AO. 7.TYPE OF APPLICANT:(enter appropriatelattar in bar) 9 1 - 6 0 10 1112 1 5 A.State H Independent Scholl Dist. 8.TYPE OF APPLICATION: B County I.State Controlled Institution of Higher Learning ❑New ®Continuation ❑Revision C Municipal J Private University D.Township K.Indian Tribe If Revision,enter appropriate letter(s)in box(es) ❑ E Interstate L Individual F Intermunicipal M Profit Organizabon ' A Increase Award B Decrease Award C.Increase Duration G.Special Distnd N Other(Specify) D Decrease Duration Otherispecify) 9.NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) , 10 CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 11 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT, 1 4 — 2 1 8 CDBG Entitlement Grant ' TITLE CDBG Entitlement Grant 12.AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT(Cities,Counties,States,etc). City of Kent, King County, Washington State 13.PROPOSED PROJECT 14.CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: Start Date Ending Date a Applicant ;b Pro/ect ' 1/1/05 1 12/31/05 8th Congressional Distl9th Congressional Dist i Same 15.ESTIMATED FUNDING. 16.IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS? ' a Federal $ D0 957,366 a YES. THIS PREAPPLICATIONIAPPLICATION WAS MADE b Applicant $ 00 AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON ' c State $ °0 DATE d Local $ 00 b No 0 PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BYE 0 12372 ' e Other $ 00 ❑OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW I Program income 17.IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? g TOTAL $ 00 957,366 ❑Yes If"Yes,"attach an explanation, 0 No 18.TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATIONIPREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT,THE ' DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED. a Type Name of Authorized Representative b Title c Telephone Number Jim White Mayor (253)856-5700 ' d Signature of Authonzed Representative a Date Signed Previous Edition Usable Standard Form 424(Rev 7-97) Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 ' INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SF-424 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including time for review instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collectior information Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions reducing this burden,to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project(0348-0043).Washington,DC 20503. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY. This is a standard form used by applicants as a required facesheet for preapplications and applications submitted for Federal assistanc( ' will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established a review and comment procedun response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process, have been given an opportunity to rev the applicant's submission Item Entry: Item: Entry: 1 Self-explanatory. 12. List only the largest political entities affected(e g,St counties,mites). 2. Date application submitted to Federal agency(or State if ' applicable)and applicant's control number(if applicable) 13 Self-explanatory 3. State use only(if applicable). 14. List the applicant's Congressional District and any District(s)affected by the program or protect. 4 If this application is to continue or revise an existing award, enter present Federal identifier number. If for a new project, 15. Amount requested or to be contributed during the first leave blank funding/budget period by each contributor Value of it ' kind contributions should be included on appropriate 5 Legal name of applicant, name of primary organizational unit lines as applicable If the action will result in a dollar which will undertake the assistance activity,complete address of change to an existing award,indicate paly the amour the applicant,and name and telephone number of the person to of the change For decreases,enclose the amounts it contact on matters related to this application parentheses If both basic and supplemental amount are included,show breakdown on an attached sheet. 6 Enter Employer Identification Number(EIN)as assigned by the For multiple program funding,use totals and show Internal Revenue Service breakdown using same categories as item 15 7 Enter the appropriate letter in the space provided. 16 Applicants should contact the State Single Pont of Contact(SPOC)for Federal Executive Order 123721 8 Check appropriate box and enter appropriate letter(s)in the determine whether the application is subject to the space(s)provided State intergovernmental review process. ' —'New"means a new assistance award 17. This question applies to the applicant organization,n, the person who signs as the authorized representativ —"Continuation'means an extension for an additionar Categories of debt include delinquent audit funding/budget period for a protect with a protected disallowances,loans and taxes. completion dale. 18 To be signed by the authorized representative of the ' —"Revision"means any change in the Federal applicant.A copy of the governing body's Government's financial obligation or contingent authorization for you to sign this application as official liability from an existing obligation representative must be on file in the applicant's office (Certain Federal agencies may require that this ' 9. Name of Federal agency from which assistance is being authorization be submitted as part of the application.) requested with this application 10 Use the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title of the program under which assistance is requested. ' 11- Enter a brief descriptive title of the project if more than one program is involved,you should append an explanation on a separate sheet If appropriate(e g.,construction or real Properly projects),attach a map showing project location For preapplications, use a separate sheet to provide a summary SF-424(Rev 7-97)1 description of this project �j Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CLARK LAKE MANAGEMENT AND MASTER PLAN—ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Clark Lake Management and Master Plan. For the past five years staff have conducted numerous public meetings and in the last year has been working with a citizen advisory board and consultant in the creation of a master plan and management plan for Clark Lake Park. Staff presented the management and master plan at the Council Workshop on October 5, 2004, detailing the proposed amenities for the park, and how the management plan will aid in the implementation of those proposals and sustainability of the park. The Clark Lake Park Management Plan is available upon request through the Parks, Recreation and Community Services office at (253)856-5050. 3. EXHIBITS: None ,i 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks & Human Services Committee (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. 6K t Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCES SUPPORTING REGULATIONS TO 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of ordinances for supporting regulations to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update as recommended by the Planning&Economic Development Committee. The State Growth Management Act("GMA")in RCW 36.70A.130(4)requires the City of Kent to review and revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations for compliance with the GMA by December 1, 2004. The Council previously approved the comprehensive plan update and directed that any supporting development regulations be brought to the Council for its consideration Adoption of Ordinance No. relating to zoning map changes for property more specifically identified in the ordinance Adoption of Ordinance No._amending Chapter 12.01 to include a notification process for owners of property located within 500 feet of real property with a land use designation of Agricultural Resource Land. Adoption of Ordinance No revising the zoning map legend for MR-G from Garden Density Multifamily to Low Density Multifamily. Adoption of Ordinance No._amending Chapter 12.02 to include a docketing process for comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinances (4) and exhibits referenced therein, 10/26/04 staff memo ' with attachments A-D; Minutes from 10/18/04 and 9/27/04 P&EDC and LU&PB meetings, respectively 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning & Economic Development Committee (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 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the Kent Zoning Map to change the zoning designations for six (6) study areas throughout the City as follows (1) from Single Family 6 05 units per acre (SR-6) to Community Commercial (CC),and from Single Family 6.05 units per acre(SR-6)to Single Family 8.71 units per acre (SR-8) for property located at 132"d Avenue Southeast and Southeast 270`h;(2) from Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU) for property located along Kent-Kangley and 116d' Avenue i Southeast; (3) from Single Family one unit per acre(SR-1) to Single Family 4.5 units per acre (SR-4.5), and from Single Family three units per acre(SR-3)to Single Family 4.5 units per acre (SR 4 5) for property located along 92"d Avenue South and South 208" Street, (4) from Industrial Agricultural(MA)to Garden Density Multifamily(MR-G) for property located along 64`h Avenue South and South 236`h Street, (5) from Single Family two units per acre (SR-2) to Community Commercial (CC) for property located along Military Road South and Kent-Des Moines Road; and (6) from Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial (CC) for property located along Military Road South and South 248`h Street. RECITALS A. Per RCW 36.70A.130(4),the Growth Management Act(GMA)requires Ithe City of Kent to review and revise its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations by December 1, 2004, to ensure that the Comprehensive plan and the j Zoning Map Amendments 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update development regulations are in compliance with the requirements of the GMA. These j amendments to the City's zoning map are adopted in accord with that GMA requirement. B. On March 1, 2004, the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the "SEPA Addendum"). This SEPA Addendum analyzed the potential impact of various amendments made pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(4) (#ENV-93-51). C. On August 25, 2004, the City provided the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 to the state of Washington of the City's proposed development regulations amendment. This sixty(60) day period has since expired. D The City's Land Use and Planning Board held a workshop on this issue on August 9, 2004, and a public hearing on September 27, 2004. The Council's Planning and Economic Development Committee addressed the issue at its meeting on October 18, 2004. , jE. In accord with 15.09.050 of the Kent City Code, on November 2, 2004, the City Council voted to amend zoning designations as follows (1) For property located at 132"d Avenue Southeast and Southeast 270d', from Single Family 6.05 units per acre (SR-6) to Community Commercial (CC), and from Single Family 6.05 units per acre(SR-6)to Single Family 8 71 units per acre(SR- 8), as shown on Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein. (2) For property located along Kent-Kangley and 116`h Avenue Southeast, from Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU), as shown on Exhibit B attached and incorporated herein. i 2 Zoning Map Amendments 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update (3) For property located along 92nd Avenue South and South 208`h Street, from Single Family one unit per acre(SR-1) to Single Family 4.5 units per acre (SR-4.5), and from Single Family three units per acre(SR-3)to Single Family 4 5 units per acre (SR 4 5), as shown on Exhibit C attached and incorporated herein. (4) For property located along 64'h Avenue South and South 236d' Street, from Industrial Agricultural (MA) to Garden Density Multifamily (MR-G), as shown on Exhibit D attached and incorporated herein. (5) For property located along Military Road South and Kent-Des Moines Road,from Single Family two units per acre(SR-2)to Community Commercial (CC), as shown on Exhibit E attached and incorporated herein (6) For property located along Military Road South and South 248`h Street,from Neighborhood Community Commercial(NCC)to Community Commercial j (CC), as shown on Exhibit F attached and incorporated herein NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, I WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS ORDINANCE I� SECTION I. - Amendment The City of Kent zoning map is amended to establish a new zoning map designation for the property located at 132"d Avenue Southeast and Southeast 270`h, as depicted in Exhibit A incorporated herein, from a zoning designation of Single Family 6 05 units per acre (SR-6) to Community Commercial (CC), and from a zoning designation of Single Family 6 05 units per acre (SR-6) to Single Family 8.71 units per acre (SR-8). 3 Zoning Map Amendments 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update i SECTION 2. - Amendment. The City of Kent zoning map is amended to , establish a new zoning map designation for the property located along Kent-Kangley and I l6th Avenue Southeast, as depicted in Exhibit B incorporated herein, from a zoning designation of Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU). SECTION 3. - Amendment. The City of Kent zoning map is amended to establish a new zoning map designation for the property located along 92"d Avenue South and South 208`h Street, as depicted in Exhibit C incorporated herein, from a zoning designation of Single Family one unit per acre(SR-1)to Single Family 4 5 units per acre ' (SR-4.5), and from a zoning designation of Single Family three units per acre(SR-3)to Single Family 4.5 units per acre (SR 4.5). i SECTION 4. - Amendment. The City of Kent zoning map is amended to establish a new zoning map designation for the property located along 64`h Avenue South and South 236`h Street, as depicted on Exhibit D incorporated herein, from a zoning f designation of Industrial Agncultural (MA) to Garden Density Multifamily(MR-G) SECTION S. - Amendment The City of Kent zoning map is amended to establish a new zoning map designation for the property located along Military Road South and Kent-Des Moines Road,as depicted on Exhibit E incorporated herein, from a zoning designation of Single Family two units per acre (SR-2) to Community Commercial (CC). SECTION 6. - Amendment. The City of Kent zoning map is amended to establish a new zoning map designation for the property located along Military Road South and South 248`h Street,as depicted on Exlubrt F incorporated herein,from a zoning , designation of Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial (CC). , 4 Zoning Map Amendments 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update i jSECTION 7. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid,such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8. -Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force jthirty(30) days from and after the date of passage and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY +I PASSED day of November, 2004 APPROVED day of November, 2004 IPUBLISHED day of November, 2004 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Civil\ORDINANCE\ZonmgMapAm d-forCoTnPWUpdme2oN do $ Zoning Map Amendments 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update i r n . ■ ,� Q� � y • ,S,N, , I� i O 0 1 23 i 2nd Ave -� 03 L r © , ;0 [ I en CA DK i i III 4� c•':4:Y^^'`[,^',ai'',•�. _ y rnm � omro D-a D b � Q _. O 0 Z CCD,- N NN. d O .� O O N 4 3 = O CAD Ca lD CE CND O• CD O• d fA c O 0 co CD _CO COD_ _ D cQ 2 C1 V1 C Q O C Cn`< C7`< CD Q ro 0 O 0ro `� C. _70 °D � a 00 � cn C 0) 0 O O CU CU N (0 CD 00 " xm " z Po 3 500 CD y N 3 .� N� Q� CDCL EXHIBIT A w S \\l � � art•, � r � �© � ® � �� T Q� 26, � ) I� , s % ! 7, [f ;w'.:' -04 ,: Ir &M rill lie C� > >� 'z o � ora O Q° -. O-. O h d C C O C CJl m CD (O O (fl y Q Q O. O CD —I z CD -! to m ? a Z =. D cfl 2 0 Qom nrn o o o CD l/nJ °' �� n to CO CD � n N EXHIBIT B I w � � Owe �� O Mee .2roll- Nu .-..,�.....•��r>� a..ri'�:i �i'.'��"'Ai3.rl1'M •.r3iJt=G.!'s+'+'��M-:. " r.P lV 7 � �^�/ ��—� yam' � _�_�_��•C`..� �� _1---� i i+l i L.®�. �rr � � 40 IWO _ n =^...1 �-� �L"',� Q �C1 IAA 1'41 -a�b* p 0-4 i ,�., SIB'i r\��-_�' i"�+7.����J/ta ✓ <�.C1�7'I *FJ"' � 'i J� � ..-- -• N m o m o D o D z CD CD O � am N o: N x -9 x •° "'", (A CoNCD CD CD CC � j oz m� coo m �� 3� 3Cl ° ? � o A� rnQ- mQ � m � rn ^aX. � � Q•= ro o � we a, � I '< I `< o °� a � (a CD CD W N n O E CDEn _ (n U:) CDSL F+' CD (DD 3_ fD VOi UOi EXHIBIT C @ �� owe loss ONO in C3 ° cc�l wo a=rzzuLd �•� 0 F-71 � e 0::SC2 oi -FEZ I :%•;•;•••�•��,;;'`h:•�ih�.,•• ;a - .-j�F_-�':�;a.'Y�c�(�iSy''S,�-t"�"'-Y� � t��,°r- .y,� � :.i::,,�y I S:5 ° 'e•;, _r1 'III - n %°.�`�c�`az 7 IL I Fri � M � ° 11�� °�, •, i,� ��� �F �.� �L�•R��.4�.1 �� 77 cn j mZ:q CD° � . CD � ` arfDa 3 cn in x d a �. m co �1 j ze `� �•< ? 0 CD a CD Qa c c n m ° 0 o CAO C Cl) o �� yz EXHIBIT D MINIM is t,l Em WAVE S /1103 ,I V ,ter 1 CA)N Ln C2 LA o -�, ---lu�loai( d �` to G) L m 1 wCO p �DCQOX_ d c' O_ � _oOCD m 0 Pr,Cc c m a CD � {...� go o cn N c71 � O � � Q. � --I 11J f Z7 � V)i cr CID 0 O w (n co CID K'cn 0 `n�z � � CD n N � N O^ N N N C m EXHIBIT E P II �� JIM Lf C)-C7 E�1�111 4, g @ CD 2 O C O O a X X ' CA co N nN (� xy ^ m N' < �G � N (p Nr O. .N_. O. C �_. N < CDC11 1� 1 o n , CD CD Z e `� � N (D N Q (fl 3 (Q 3 .y .G O. O OH O-. p A" a0 a90CD aC� m Zm o � � � n� � C�� v �' �oa c G �" O NC7N y cn F (D N 2. N W Vt F) (Q CD y C C) fll 0 v y .+ `+ j (p CD @ -1 -n N // m R CD 0 a N (D (n (/J CD CD (n iEXHIBIT F i 1 i ORDINANCE NO. t AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adding section 12.01.125, entitled "Notification of proximity to Agricultural Resource Lands," to the Kent City Code (KCC) to provide for a notification process of potential commercial agricultural activities as required by the Growth Management Act(GMA). �I RECITALS I A. Per RCW 36.70A.130(4), the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City of Kent to review and revise its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations by December 1, 2004, to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and the development regulations are in compliance with the requirements of the , GMA. This amendment to the City's development regulations is adopted in accord with that GMA requirement. B. RCW 36.70A.060(l) and Policy LU-30.1 in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update require a notification process for properties located within 500 hundred feet (500') of real property with the land use designation "Agricultural Resource Land." These owners must be notified of the potential for commercial agricultural 1 12.01.125-Notification Agricultural Resource Lands activities that are not compatible with residential development for certain periods of limited duration. C. On March 1, 2004, the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the "SEPA Addendum'). This SEPA Addendum analyzed the potential impact jof various amendments made pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(4) (#ENV-93-51). iD. On August 25, 2004, the City provided the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 to the state of Washington of the City's proposed development regulations amendment. This sixty (60) day period has since expired E. The City's Land Use and Planning Board held a workshop on this issue on August 9, 2004, and a public hearing on September 27, 2004 The Council's Planningand Economic Development Committee addressed the issue at its P meeting on October 18, 2004. F. On November 2, 2004, the City Council voted to amend chapter 1201 "Administration of Development Regulations" to include a "Notification of proximity to Agricultural Resource Lanes"process as required by the GMA. ORDINANCE NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. — Amendment Chapter 12 01 of the Kent City Code is amended to include section 12.01.125, entitled "Notification of proximity to Agricultural Resource Lands," as follows 2 12.01.125-Notification Agricultural Resource Lands T 1 I ORDINANCE NO. i AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the zoning map legend for MR-G from Garden Density Multifamily to Low Density Multifamily. RECITALS A. Per RCW 36.70A.130(4), the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City of Kent to review and revise its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations by December 1, 2004, to ensure that the Comprehensive j plan and the development regulations are in compliance with the requirements of the GMA. This amendment of the City's zoning map legend is adopted in accord with that GMA requirement. B. Section 15 03.010 of the Kent City Code (KCC) establishes the various districts for the City, including the Low Density Multifamily Residential District, or MR-G Section 15.03.020 establishes the official zoning map of the city, the legend of which includes MR-G, but labels MR-G as Garden Density Multifamily rather than Low Density Multifamily C. On August 9, 2004, the Land Use and Planning Board held a workshop on the issue of amending the zoning map legend to reflect that MRG is Low Density Multifamily. A public hearing followed on September 27, 2004. The 1 Zoning Map Legend Amendment Council's Planning and Economic Development Comnuttee addressed the issue at its meeting on October 18, 2004. D. On March 1, 2004, the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the jEnvironmental Impact Statement that was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the "SEPA Addendum") This SEPA Addendum analyzed the potential impact of various amendments made pursuant to RCW 36.70A 130(4) (#ENV-93-51) E On August 25, 2004, the City provided the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36 70A.106 to the state of Washington of the City's proposed amendment. This sixty(60) day period has since expired. jF. On November 2, 2004, the City Council voted to amend the zoning fmap legend to reflect that MR-G is Low Density Multifamily. ORDINANCE NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COLNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1. — Amendment. The legend of the official zoning map established under 15.03.020 KCC shall be amended to reflect that MR-G is Low Density Multifamily. fSECTION 2. —Savings The existing zoning map of the City of Kent, which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 3. — Severabrhty If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect 2 Zoning Map Legend Amendment SECTION 4. — Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: i TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED. day of November, 2004 APPROVED. day of November, 2004. PUBLISHED: day of November, 2004. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, and approved by the mayor of the city of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P lCinl\ORDINANCE\ZonmgD�atnaMapAm ndGzdmToLow da 3 Zoning Map Legend Amendment , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code to include a docketing process as required by the Growth Management Act. RECITALS A. Per RCW 36.70A 130(4), the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City of Kent to review and revise its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations by December 1, 2004, to ensure that the Comprehensive plan and the development regulations are in compliance with the requirements of the I I GMA This amendment to the City's development regulations is adopted in accord with that GMA requirement. B The GMA has outlined a docketing procedure for jurisdictions to follow that assists the public in making suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations on an annual basis C. On March 1, 2004, the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the "SEPA Addendum"). This SEPA Addendum analyzed the potential impact of various amendments made pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(4) (#ENV-93-51). 1 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process D. On August 25, 2004, the City provided the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 to the state of Washington of the City's proposed development regulations amendment. This sixty (60) day period has since expired. E. The City's Land Use and Planning Board held a workshop on this issue on August 9, 2004, and a public hearing on September 27, 2004. The Council's Planning and Economic Development Committee addressed the issue at its meeting on October 1 S, 2004. F. On November 2, 2004, the City Council voted to amend chapter 12.02 "Procedures for Amendments to Comprehensive Plan" to include a "Docketing"process as required by the GMA. i ORDINANCE NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. — Amendment. Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows Chapter 12.02 DOCKETING PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sec. 12.02.010 Annual Docket Amendments and Exceptions. Amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map, comprehensive plan text, and development regulations maw be proposed to respond to changing circumstances or needs of the city via the Annual Docket process The city council shall consider proposed amendments to the KePA comprehensive plan no more than 2 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process once each calendar year, except under the following circumstances, which may be processed separately and in addition to the standard annual update: A. If an emergency exists, which is defined as an issue of community-wide significance that promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare; B. To resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court; rC. To adopt or amend a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in Chapter 90.58 RCW; D. The initial adoption of a subarea plan; and jE The amendment of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of the city budget The city council will hold the public heanng on this matter rather than the land use and planning board i I See. 12.02.020. Concurrent review for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. � In considering annual amendments to the comprehensive plan, city staff, the land use and planning board, and the city council shall consider all proposed text and land use man amendments concurrently so as to assess their cumulative impact See. 12.02.025. Docketing Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the procedures and review criteria ifor amending the city of Kent comprehensive plan and to consider proposed amendment of development regulations through an open and public annual docketing tprocess. "Docketing"refers to compiling and maintaining a list of proposed changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that will ensure 3 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process such proposals will be considered by the city and will be available for review by the ) u Sec. 12.02.030. Time of filing. A. Any person, group or agency may apply to propose textAnnual amendments to the comprehensive plan or development regulations using a "Docket" form prescribed by the planning services office, which shall be submitted to the Ken4 planning services office by September 1 of each calendar year B. A property owner or authorized agent of the property owner may apply to propose an amendment to the land use map of the comprehensive plan using Requests fef amendments shall be submitted en forms prescribed by the planning services office, which shall be submitted to the planning services office by September 1 of each calendar year. Incomplete land use map amendment applications will not be accepted for filing. C. r i . a ent ph ,,.. ill t be Y ted f a,:nJ, Requests i received each year after September 1 shall be considered in the following year's eemI I - rehensive plan annual docket amendment process li Sec. 12.02.035 Emergency amendments. Repealed by Ord. 3650. Sec. 12.02.035. Process for review. A All proposals for amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map that have been filed with the planning services office in accord with 12 02.030(B)will be forwarded to the city council for action during the current annual comprehensive , plan amendment cycle. 4 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process l B. All proposals for amendments to development regulations that have been filed with the planning services office in accord with 12.02.030(A) will be considered in an Annual Docket Report and forwarded to the city council for action and possible inclusion in a city department work program. C. All proposals for amendments to the comprehensive plan text and development regulations filed with the planning services office in accord with 12 02 030(A) shall be compiled by the planning services office and distributed for jreview and comment to those city departments responsible for the applicable element of the comprehensive plan or implementing the development regulation D. Using the cntena provided in KCC 12.02.045 city staff will review and submit to the planning services office no later than October 31s', recommendations as to which proposals should have action taken on them or made part of a city department work program. E. The planning services office will compile all comments and recommendations on proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan text and development regulations in an Annual Docket Report along with a list of the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map The Annual Docket Report jshall be presented to the land use and planning board in a public heanng The land use and planning board will consider the Annual Docket Report and forward a recommendation to the city council, by no later than December 151, as to which proposals in the Annual Docket Report should be considered for action in the current Iannual comprehensive plan amendment cycle F. Council may accept or modify the recommendation given on the Annual Docket Report by no later than January 31". Proposed amendments to comprehensive plan text and development regulations not included for action by the city council shall be included for consideration in the next year's docket for a period of three (3) years. 5 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process G. For docketed proposals accepted by the city council for inclusion in the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle, the planning services office shall prepare a report and recommendation which shall be presented to either the land use and planning board in workshop and public hearing, or to another body designated to hold a public hearing. Recommendations on the annual comprehensive plan amendments shall be forwarded to the city council no later than March 315t. H. The Annual Docket Report will be posted on the city's web site throughout the year and updated annually. See. 12.02.040. SEPA review. After September 1 of each calendar year, the city's responsible official shall jreview the cumulative anticipated environmental impact of the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map, comprehensive plan text, and development amendfaents, pursuant to the Washington State (' Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). If the responsible official determines that an j environmental impact statement (EIS), draft supplemental envifefifflefital impaet statefaent--(EIS), or other appropriate environmental review is warranted, applicants for amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map may be I responsible for a full or proportionate share of the costs of preparing the necessary documents€I&-as determined by the responsible official. Sec. 12.02.045. Annual docket evaluation criteria. A Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan text and development regulations on the Annual Docket may be recommended for action if the following r criteria have been met: 1. The proposed comprehensive plan text amendment addresses a matter t appropriate for inclusion in the comprehensive plan, 6 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process 2 The proposal addresses the interests and changed needs of the entire city as identified in its long-range planning and policy documents, including but not limited to the comprehensive plan; ` 3 The proposal does not raise policy or land use issues that are more appropriately addressed by an ongoing work program approved by city council,• 4 The proposal can be reasonably reviewed within the time frame of the current annual work program and existing resources,, and 5. The proposal has not been considered by the city council in the last three (3) years. B. Staff may propose to expand the geographic scope of an amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map to allow for consideration of adjacent property, similarly situated property, or area wide impacts The following criteria shall be used in determining whether to expand the geographic scope of a proposed land use map amendment: 1. The effect of the proposed amendment on the surrounding area or I neighborhood or city; I� 2 The effect of the proposed amendment on the land use and circulation pattern of the surrounding area or neighborhood or city, and j3 The effect of the proposed amendment on the future development of the surrounding area or neighborhood or city See. 12.02.050. Comprehensive plan amendment£+standard of review. ' The planning services office may recommend and the city council may approve, approve with modifications, or deny amendments to the comprehensive plan text or land use map designations based upon the following criteria: � P g 7 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process 1. The amendment will not result In development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare; and 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan; and 3. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the ' comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. Sec. 12.02.060. Hearing pmeedures Notice requirements. The planning sen,wesefL:ee shall prepare a repeA and r nd.,tian a proposed plan amendments whieh shall be pfesented to the land use and Oaftnin'91 e.t y budget the eity eeuneil >.11 hold the publie heafi g instead of the land use an planning-beams—For the initial review of Annual Docket Report described in 12.02 035(17) pfepese,l te*t ....,e.,d..,e t notice of public hearing shall be given in at least one (1)publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the said hearing. For proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan land useplan map me menu, notice of the public hearing shall be given both by publication in the local newspaper as prescribed above, and by notification of all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the affected property. For revised geographic I scope of land use map amendments, notice of public hearing shall be given both by publication in the local newRQer as prescribed above, and by notification of all property owners within the revised land use map amendment area. ^fl eted ..rope ft y is defined as the par-eels identified by the appliearA, plus any additional par-eel-s eentigue,,s to the ph nt's prepe,-t. „h,..h the planning manager- .late 8 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process f 1. ld also by e.nside-ed The f lleyiii g enter;_should he used in deriding whether to expand the ..ph; e f prep sed amen l t. e iaea«u. 4- The eet of the proposed arae e..t en the stiff otindf ne area,-- 2- The e ff et e f the proposed arnendfrient on the land_, e and elation `�uxuzzvn pattern of the area, and The eFfeet e f the proposed .. eadment en the f ature development C 11Vllti pservthe area. Folle;�vtng a p4lie hearing by the land use and plapmtfig beard, the planning f eeseFF:e Feeaffffnend.,t.e shall he F riled to the .t. eourie,Lf et,nn � Sec. 12.02.070. City council action. fII Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the planningsef-,,tees Faee recommendation provided per 12.02 035(G), the city council shall ewer affirm, fdeny, or—modify, or return the proposed amendments appheation-to the planning departmen! services office for further consideration In the event the city council modifies the reeemmendatienproposed amendment; it shall make its own findings and set forth in writing the reasons for the action taken. See. 12.02.080. Standing. Comprehensive plan amendments may be initiated by the city planning services office or other administrative staff of the city, private citizens, or the city ' council. fSec. 12.02.090. Fees. Application fees for docketed comprehensive plan land use map amendments ishall be the same as the fee established for rezones. There shall be no fee for 9 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process i docketed proposals to amend the comprehensive plan text or development regulations. Sec. 12.02.100. Appeals. Appeals from a decision of the Kent city council shall be pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW. SECTION 2. — Sayin as. The existing chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code, which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 3. — Severabdity If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. li SECTION 4. — Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after passage as provided by law ' I 1 JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK , 10 Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of November, 2004. APPROVED: day of November, 2004. PUBLISHED: day of November, 2004. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. I passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the I Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. i I (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P�Crvil\OPDINANCE I1-02-DocketmgProcedu=doc 1 Ll Chapter 12.02 Amendments Docketing Process i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Director • PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager w A s H i N o r o M Phone 253-856-5454 Fax. 253-856.6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 October 26,2004 To: Major Jim White,Council President Julie Peterson and Council Members From: Gloria Gould-Wessen,AICP,GIS Coordinator/Planner Through: Mayor Jim White Regarding: Supporting Regulations To 2004 Comprehensive Plan(#CPZ-2004-1) MOTION: Approve Supporting Regulations to 2004 Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the , Planning and Economic Development Committee. Adopt Ordinances No.-, _, and_. The State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A 130(4)) requires the City of Kent to review and revise their comprehensive plan and development regulations for compliance with the Act by December 1, 2004. The Council previously approved the comprehensive plan update and directed that any supporting development regulations be brought to the Council for its consideration SUMMARY: The State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the City's development regulations are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following provides a brief description of proposed actions: 1 Rezone properties that are inconsistent with adopted land use designations; 2 Establish notification process for properties located within 500 hundred feet from"Agricultural Resource Land"; 3. Establish "Docketing" process to facilitate amendment process to the comprehensive plan and regulations as required by GMA, and 4. Change "Zone Map" name of "Garden Density Multifamily" to be consistent with nomenclature found in Kent City Code. The Planning & Economic Development Committee recommended by a 3-0 vote approval of the attached rezones and regulatory revisions as forwarded by the Land Use&Planning Board BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Each of the four actions has a separate staff report that is presented in four attachments. "Attachment A" concerns zoning district map changes and includes a location map, and staff reports for each study area which includes a detailed map. "Attachment B" proposes to establish a notification process by which property owners located within 500 hundred feet of land designated "Agricultural Resource Land" (AG-R) will be notified of their proximity to lands that have the potential for commercial agncultural activities. "Attachment C" proposes to establish a process for public input into land use, development or growth policies and regulations whereby "Docketed" items are compiled and published to ensure they will be considered by the city and available for public review. Lastly, "Attachment D"is a zoning map change whereby the zone distnct designation of MR-G changes from "Garden Density Multifamily" to "Low Density Multifamily" as per Kent City Code. The SEPA Responsible Official determined these amendments were consistent with previous environmental analysis and did not require additional environmental review. GG Wpm P tPlammngi2002 Comp Plan UpdatelCouncdComnutteeiCounctl_I 10204_Regs doc Attachments Attachments A•D and Minutes of 9/27/04 LU&PB Meetmg cc Fred N Satterstrom,AICP,Community Development Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Tom Brubaker,City Attorney Parties of Record—Attached Project File 1- �s .y � pit � �!•fN ' �. .� rr on ATTACHMENT "A" Zoning District Map #CPZ-2004-1 Supporting Regulations to 2004 Comprehensive Plan Introduction: The City's Zoning District Map needs to be brought into conformance with the Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) Consistency between zoning and the land use designations is required by the Growth Management Act(GMA). Background: On July 20, 2004, Kent City Council adopted the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update (Ordinance #3698) as required by the GMA. Overall, the proposed update does not substantially change the direction, theme, goals, or policies of the Plan adopted in 1995. At the time of the update, several land use designation areas were identified as inconsistent with updates to the Land Use Element. Additionally, separate land use studies had been conducted raising a need for a broader examination of existing land use designations. After a series of workshops and public hearings, Kent's Land Use Map was revised. The proposed amendments to the Zoning District Map are examined based on the following Kent City Code(KCC) section 15.09.050(C) criteria: 1 The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and 2 The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity, and 3 The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the , property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; and 4 Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; and 5 The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City Staff Analysis and Recommendations: Each of the six (6) study areas (see Study Areas for Proposed Zoning District Changes map for location) have been analyzed based on KCC 15.09 050 criteria, outlining existing conditions; analyzing environmental constraints and access, followed by a summary of the analysis; and concluding with staff recommendation. Each study area analysis is followed by a map that includes existing zorung, the location of streams and inventoried wetlands, parcel lines, and buildings, and a brief description of the site and the zoning recommendation. The study areas are highlighted with a thick dark line. All maps were constructed using the City's GIS data layers. The proposed zoning changes are based on changes in the Land Use designations made during the recent Comprehensive Plan update. The City's SEPA Official found the Environmental Impact Statement (4ENV-93-51) associated with the 1995 Comprehensive Plan was applicable for the recent update to the Plan, requiring an addendum that was completed March 1, 2004 The proposed zoning district map amendments were considered in the addendum and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations No additional SEPA review is required. Council November 1, 2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-I Attachment-R Page I of 11 l STUDY AREA 1: Properties located at 132nd Ave. SE and SE 270d'(private road) The 7 0 acre subject site consisting of six(6)tax parcels is located on slightly rolling terrain along the east side of 132"d Avenue SE, approximately 630 feet north of Southeast 272"d Street/Kent- Kangley Road. Existing Existing Proposed Land Use Map Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Area Designation Map Designation Map Designation Change Size C SR-6 CC 0.4 (Commercial) (Single-Family 6 05 unit/acre) (Community Commercial) acre SF-8 SR-6 SR-8 6 6 (Single-Family 8 unit/acre) (Single-Family 6 05 unit/acre) (Single-Family 8 71 unit/acre) acre Land Use Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North. Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) South Commercial (C)and Low Density Multifamily(LDMF) East- Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) West- Commercial (C)and Single-Family 8 unitslacre (SF-8) Zoning Districts Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) South Community Commercial (CC) and Garden Density Multifamily (MR-G) East- Single-Family Residential —6 (SR-6) IWest. Community Commercial (CC)and Single-Family Residential -8 (SR-8) Existing Land Uses Surrounding Properties: North. Single-family residences South Two single-family residences directly adjacent (zoned CC) to the site and adjacent to them, a Walgreen's store, and a large multifamily housing development East Single-family residences West The Lake Meridian Marketplace shopping center and a King County Metro Park & Ride facility Existing Land Uses: Tax Parcel #2722059189 — A single-family residence and a non-conforming automotive repair home occupation, Tax Parcel #2722059183 single-family residence, Tax Parcel #2722059187 single-family residence, Tax Parcel #2722059170 vacant land, Tax Parcel #2722059181 vacant land; and Tax Parcel #2722059026 vacant land. ` Council November 2, 2004 ' Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—A Page 2 of 11 1 Analysis of Environmental Constraints: Four (4) of the subject parcels and adjacent property appear to be encumbered by inventoried wetlands, upstream from Soosette Creek. This will limit developable area of the subject site. An estimated 1.21 acres of inventoried wetland area (17%) occupies the subject site — primarily along the frontage of 132nd Avenue Southeast If the inventoried wetlands are assumed to be classified as Category II, the requisite fifty (50) foot buffers further reduce developable area of the subject site. Approximately 4.31 acres of projected developable area would be available after such reductions. , Analysis of Access: Access to the subject site will be from 132nd Avenue SE (classified as a Minor Arterial). Approximately 630 feet north of the site is SE 272nd Street (a.k.a., Kent-Kangley Road) which is classified as a "Highway of Regional Significance". At present, pedestrian access to the subject site is limited, without curb, gutter and sidewalk Although the King County Metro Park & Ride facility is located to the west across 132"d Avenue SE from the subject site, the portion of 132"d Avenue SE adjacent to the subject site is presently not a pedestrian friendly environment. Three (3) subject site parcels are served by a private road off 132nd Avenue SE Sewer and water are available Summary of Analysis: The environmental constraints will be mitigated through Kent's development regulations, ensuring buffers, and if necessary, restoration Clustering or the use of a PUD can facilitate the citing of housing where areas are affected by wetlands. Having direct access to a minor arterial and a highway of regional significance provides the needed capacity for increased density. While there are deficiencies in multi-modal amenities (i.e , sidewalks), Kent's development regulations will ensure the necessary upgrade. The proximity to existing commercial uses and a METRO Park & Ride supports higher residential density and additional commercial uses. Staff Recommendation: Apply Community Commercial (CC)to Tax Parcel #2722059189 Apply Single-Family Residential — 8 (SR-8) to Tax Parcels #2722059183, #2722059187, #2722059170, #2722059181, and#2722059026 Council November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—A Page 3 of 11 1 U �' o w a U U) c O O L cn u) w z N 4 m rn co cc p ' O U .N N so EO — f• V: Colo C 3 cn p� m f� O— -0 o m o oU (flQ 0 -0 N c > L O .O a) >,U >,U) O C -0 O cn -0 fo C it O O C (n -0 O (o to Oz' i 1 � � U � (D - C � � cn �' �� •� y C N L H U A � NU = � m � A 0000 � � � � d � � : ti: ao 0- 2 CL X �r o 'Xco (n a r Q nQ awo asLUco co r• r r•r }•i• �.r 06 N � I � ram• �•r• r • a 'rti � � r• � W :. J: j 1 .1.1 _•�-- �... �- �'. tier .{j•l�f;:J"$'1 ■ r• TZ ® O f uH 11 N p � •r•r•r Q g ' ��:. ow '� _. `=� tip :;'. _:;�e_` r.".f. ♦ � e' ;' >� 1K'1•L•H �1K• + r•r•r•r•r• i,�ti�'}r •�Y•r•rY• - � •• der n'=�re jPS -_ .1}1.1.tir•r 1 �.,,,�-,=kau� — 3 �, J •r rr �r lrtirtirti~f ���- ' .�v •�, :.✓r,:. y r•r•r•r.r• r f•�'• �•. �7 -- - ': O 8 1. , r •Y�• ..; i 1 STUDY AREA 2: Properties located along Kent-Kanglev Road and 116th Ave. SE The 6.1 acre subject site consisting of four(4)tax parcels is located along Kent-Kangley Road on terrain that drops gently 10-15 feet to the south. Existing Existing Proposed Land Use Map Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Area Designation Map Designation Map Designation Change Size MU NCC CC-MU 6.1 (Mixed-Use) (Neighborhood Community (Community Commerciall acre Commercial) Mixed-Use Land Use Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North. Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) and Single-Family 8 units/acre (SF-8) South, Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) East: Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) ' West: Low Density Multifamily(LDMF) Zoning Districts Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) and Single-Family Residential -8 (SR-8) South Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) East, Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) West. Garden Density Multifamily(MR-G) Existing Land Uses Surrounding Properties: North: Single-family residences, a vacant lot, and a large day care facility South, Single-family residences East: Single-family residences West. Single-family residences and retirement home , Existing Land Uses: Tax Parcel #2722059092 -Small variety store and three (3)cabins; Tax Parcel #2722059096-Vacant,with building permit for gas station &mini-mart; Tax Parcel #2722059013- Single-family residence; and Tax Parcel #2722059014- Single-family residence. Analysis of Environmental Constraints: , The site slopes to the south approximately 10-15 feet and a creek flows between two of the properties (tax parcel #2822059092 and #2822059096) into off-site wetlands located to the south. This will limit developable area of the subject site. While no wetlands are inventoried on site,the buffer from the off-site wetland will impact the developable area, as will the creek that runs through the site. An estimated 480 feet of creek transverses the site. Applying the requisite twenty-five (25)foot buffer to the creek, the developable land area is reduced by an estimated 0.55 acre. The off-site wetland buffer also impacts the site by approximately 0.2 acre. In total 0.75 acre of critical area and buffer (12%) occupies the subject site Approximately 5.35 acres of projected developable area would be available after such reductions. Council November 2,1004 Supporting Regulation to 1004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-1004-1 Attachment—A Page 4 of 11 ! ! Analysis of Access: Access to the subject site will be from Kent-Kangley Road (a.k.a SE 272nd or SR-516). Kent-Kangley Road is classified as a "Highway of Regional Significance" and as such has limitations on ingress/egress access points Three (3)of the four(4) properties have access only from Kent-Kangley. One has additional access from 116`h Ave SE. Curb, gutter and sidewalk exist along the entire frontage of the site. Sewer and water are available. ! Summary of Analysis: The environmental constraints will be mitigated through Kent's development regulations, ensuring buffers to both on-site and off-site conditions. The existing slope can facilitate ! parking under buildings that face the street (Kent-Kangley Road) Development allowed within CC-MU would not adversely impact the capacity of Kent-Kangley and issues surrounding access would be address during the permit process. ! Staff Recommendation: Apply Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU) to Tax Parcels #2822059092, #2822059096, #2722059013, and##2722059014 1 1 i 1 Council November 2, 2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—A Page 5 of 11 r-1 N V o , z V am rn w m Cc O o co y � -a CO 11 O � Z C a) U M CD J -le S X Arn rA 00 c a� �; z _ � U m m .o � �° �w T ,O > A 0 . c pP-o .0 v U N U y m (n Q X :� V O C a¢ -127 IL s� 11 ,l t ti.wti.ti.ti•ti ti• ti.ti•ti •..'L.'.���•...}}} ti.ti � . , N CO , f We LU Ix >. ■ Al . CL .......... r rti�� a }' r rtiSti! rV STUDY AREA 3 Properties located along 92nd Ave. South and South 2081'St. The 22.7 acre subject site consisting of fourteen (14)tax parcels is located along 92nd Ave South on terrain that drops to the west at generally 16% down to State Route 167. The site is bound to the north by South 2001h and to the south by South 208d'Streets. Existing Existing Proposed Land Use Map Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Area Designation Map Designation Map Designation Change Size SF-6 SR-1 SR4.5 04 (Single-Family-6 units/acre) (Single-Family Residential 1) (Single-Family Residential 4.5) acre SF-6 SR-3 SR-4 5 22 3 I (Single-Family-6 units/acre) (Single-Family Residential 3) (Single-Family Residential 4 5) acre Land Use Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: ' North. Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) South. Commercial (C) and Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) East Single-Family 6 unitslacre (SF-6) and Single-Family 1 unit/acre (SF-1) West. Manufacturing/Industrial Center(MIC) Zoning Districts Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North- Single-Family Residential -4 5 (SR-4 5) South Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) and Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) East Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) & Single-Family Residential-1 (SR-1) ' West Limited Industrial (M2) Existing Land Uses Surrounding Properties: North Single-family residence South Single-family residence and a warehouse grocery store (across S 2081h) East- Single-family residences West Warehousing just past SR-167 ' Existing Land Uses: Tax Parcels #0622059045 �-Vacant, and I Tax Parcels #0622059007, #0622059099, #0622059105, #0622059034, #0622059083, #0622059056, #0622059036, #0622059063, #0622059057, #0622059071, #0622059068, and#0622059041 -Single-family residences Analysis of Environmental Constraints: The site slopes to the west are approximately 16% on average. At the base of the slope is a linear wetland abutting SR-167. Not all properties are affected by the wetlands, but all are affected by the slope. Research conducted on nearby properties during the annual comprehensive plan amendment process (#CPA-2002-2[Dj) found that sod conditions combined with slope lead to conclude that seismic hazards conditions exist Considering the existing environmental constraints, approximately four (4) acres are unconstrained by steep topography and may be easily developed Kent's clustering standards would allow density to be built on the portion of the site that is generally flatter and located along 92nd Ave South. Council November 2,2004 ' Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—A Page 6 of 11 Analysis of Access: Access to the subject site will be from 92nd Avenue South which is fed from the North by ' Talbot Road South and from the South by South 208"' Street. There are no curb, gutter and sidewalk nor drainage improvement along 92nd Ave. South. Access off of South 208'"Street is difficult from the east and would require safety improvements. Sewer and water are available. Summary of Analysis: The environmental constraints will be mitigated through Kent's development regulations. Clustering or the use of a PUD can facilitate the siting of development. Street improvements will be necessary at the time of development. Staff Recommendation: , Apply Single-Family Residential 4.5 (SR-4.5) to Tax Parcels #0622059007, #0622059099, #0622059105, #0622059034, #0622059083, #0622059056, #0622059036, #0622059063, #0622059057, #0622059071, #0622059068, #0622059045, #0722059116 and , #0622059041. i 1 1 t 1 1 i Council November 1,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 ' Attachment—A Page 7 of 11 ` m Q C° =off z rn con .. �, m cU � � � ° Q) Co (Drn 1 g o o = rna ¢' m0� a� 0� cOZ- a_i c � ca m E _ A aim> O O . U ~ �UNUCm (n XXcnCoO 'Ofn M '0 <44 _m AID 1p �J 06 or t --- .s o dko. m I lb ib — 47 / %L% 6 % Vo% %7,0,S 7-!:m i •�� Z� � 1 o C4 L67 ® _ __----- C � I e' a Y c •.I i STUDY AREA 4 Properties located along 6e Avenue South and South 23e Street , The 11.4 acre subject site consisting of one (1)tax parcel is located along 6e Avenue South and South 236"Street. The terrain consists of the flat Duwamish/Green River bottom land. Existing Existing Proposed , Land Use Map Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Area Designation Map Designation Map Designation Change Size LDMF MA MR-G 11.4 (Low Density Multifamily) (Industrial Agricultural) (Garden Density Multifamily) acre Land Use Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: Low Density Multifamily(LDMF) South: Low Density Multifamily(LDMF) East: Industrial (1)and Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) West. Low Density Multifamily(LDMF) , Zoning Districts Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: Garden Density Multifamily(MR-G) South: Garden Density Multifamily(MR-G) East. Industrial Park (M1)and Garden Density Multifamily (MR-G) West. Garden Density Multifamily (MR-G) Existing Land Uses Surrounding Properties: North Mixed residential community(PUD) South Mixed residential community(PUD) East Warehousing and vacant land (zoned MR-G) West Mixed residential community(PUD) Existing Land Uses: , Tax Parcel#1422049030—Elementary School Analysis of Environmental Constraints: The site has no environmental constraints. Analysis of Access: ' Access to the subject site will be from 64th Avenue South (classified as a minor arterial) and South 2361" Street (classified as a residential collector arterial). Both streets are improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. 64`" Avenue South is also improved for bicycle use (i.e., , bike trail). Sewer and water are available. Summary of Analysis: The Neely-O'Brien Elementary School was built in the early 90's and is surrounded by the housing development called "The Lakes". The change in land use was instituted because of the elimination of the Community Facilities land use designation and reflects the surrounding residential use. There are no environmental or access constraints. Staff Recommendation: Apply Garden Density Multifamily(MR-G)to Tax Parcel #1422049030 Council November Z 2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—A Page 8 of 11 �t N (0 N d to O rT. O �_ L�..) N r.+ >, L T � � V Vv /IC�I bcaa�u• C•n.\• .N m <�; _ ("i m -2'� E> m � c.n oNw UcvU = 2 ya �Xxcr U O V1 •}.r.r•r � r• r . {:•rti• fi •r. •. 06 I Wtir v •�� � � �S.e V O r.r.r r.r•r. _ ---- ------- ---- ----- • fc•.:r .... ��� - - LW ti ti••. ti•ti.ti.� ti � {. ti.ti.ti ,r,� .:f:t .._ �•r r• r r�r•r r• r•:• ; ti,,,, r•:•r � { J r•r r•r• r,r, rti. rtir tir�rt .: aa• ti :ti {:' tia'ti ' ' U rtir•r ti.ti{;.' b 99 � ti:{f{ ,,gp'• � t _ Q 'j t/-IyI •ytiitiiliS _ ____ • ti�tiJti -3•.Y Yry.,_ •. i .:� •J•r• : J•J rY• •O71• `�tn- L {•�?{d; •'� ?• rti {.{.{•{r�.{.{.' ' '4`K� .�{ {;dti ti ' �r�r�r�r�r4r�r� � •, {: {r4r{r{r{r{r{r fry - - — - „ era,, .>:• rrrrrr • :qkg r mkt.a-� ;�::...�:�c-:�:� ®•:a:��' 'R•'� 4f � ice;.:•.: .. i•' .,.,::. : :: • i►'•. �: :;� :+,.i:: :� wry - ++�'•-' ::4:.%_;•: •,•::: a -- :R�JJlR {�i.r ••?•• �•.: �'•:J:{fit!•� r ............ .•,yWE 4=4 .'M�•R. - r:....-.'Y'i.'h3�.:Rt.:'T^ .+��t•'. 1 .:s::: � 0 PEA •:; ;gam• �'"•`' 0 Pam .. '• .• i `• P 1 C40) STUDY AREA 5 Properties located along Military Road South and Kent-Des Moines Road The 5.5 acre subject site consists of one (1)tax parcel located along Military Road South and Kent_ Des Moines Road (a.k.a., SR-516). The zoning district boundary includes a portion of Interstate-5 and its northern access ramps. Approximately half of the tax parcel is presently zoned Community Commercial (CC). The terrain of the parcel gently slopes to the southeast. , Existing Existing Proposed Land Use Map Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Area , Designation Map Designation Map Designation Change Size C SR-2 CC 5.5 (Commercial) (Single-Family Residential—2) (Community Commercial) acre Land Use Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North- None (City of Sea-Tac) South. Commercial (C) , East- Commercial (C) West: Commercial (C)and (Pacific Ridge—City of Des Moines) Zoning Districts Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: i North: None (City of Sea-Tac) South: Community Commercial (CC) East Community Commercial (CC) West General Commercial (GC) and (Pacific Ridge—City of Des Moines) Existing Land Uses Surrounding Properties: ' North Freeway(1-5) South. Freeway(1-5), Highway (SR-516)and METRO Park & Ride East Auto repair shops, RV sales, commercial bakery distribution, and vacant land , West Hotels, multifamily and single-family residences Existing Land Uses: Tax Parcel #7260200095—METRO Park& Ride , Analysis of Environmental Constraints: The site has no environmental constraints. , Analysis of Access: Access to the subject site is from Military Road South (classified as a minor arterial), which is fed from the south by Kent-Des Moines Road (a.k.a , SR-516) a "Highway of Regional Significance". The METRO Park & Ride is developed to accommodate all modes of transportation. Summary of Analysis: ' With METRO's dedication to providing alternatives to single occupancy vehicles (SOV) and the Region's need for such facilities, the existing land use is not expected to change. There is no constraint to existing or commercial uses at this site. Staff Recommendation: Apply Community Commercial (CC)to Tax Parcel#7260200095 and 1-5 ROW Council November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 ' Attachment—A Page 9 of 11 r�M N o Cc z _ � o C (1)cp 0) v y :A oY «. c m � co -Ca •Z mo N U O C O a_ p c sV N � r., UNU Cam cn W O .X i ` ti. •yam QN X � W a M,■.� al Q O W - 00 06 ca ui v ti `t \ 1 CY •, I• a \J � _ co ` `' _ •- r J� ism —� • L �. f s iJ+ •■ s ■go s r joo16 K ¢ STUDY AREA 6 Properties located along Military Road South and South 248s'Street , The 2.5 acre subject site consisting of nine (9)tax parcels is located along Military Road South between South 248'h Street at the south end of the site and where 38`h Avenue South converges with Military Road South at the north end of the site. Several of the study area parcels are directly adjacent parcels zoned Community Commercial and have existing commercial and service uses (i.e., three parcels at a total of 2.3 acres). Located at a crest of a hill, the terrain is generally flat. Existing Existing Proposed Land Use Map Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Area Designation Map Designation Map Designation Change Size C NCC CC 2.5 (Commercial) (Neighborhood Community (Community Commercial) acre , Commercial Land Use Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: , North- Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) South. Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) East. Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) West Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) ' Zoning Districts Map Designations of Surrounding Properties: North. Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) ' South. Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) East. Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) West Single-Family Residential -6 (SR-6) Existing Land Uses Surrounding Properties: North Single-family residential South Single-family residential ' East. Single-family residential and Army National Guard facility West: Single-family residential Existing Land Uses: Tax Parcel #2222049145—Convenience store, Tax Parcel #2222049144—Office, , Tax Parcel #2222049153— Fast food; Tax Parcel#2222049010—Auto parts; Tax Parcel #1253200020—Single-family residence, Tax Parcel #1253200025— Daycare; and , Tax Parcel #1253200075, #1253200070, and #1253200015 -Vacant Analysis of Environmental Constraints: , The site has no environmental constraints. Council 1 November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—A Page 10 of 11 Analysis of Access: ' Access to the subject site is from Military Road South (classified as a minor arterial), which is fed from the north by Kent-Des Moines Road (a.k a., SR-516) a "Highway of Regional Significance" and from the south by South 272"d Street (classified as a minor arterial). There are older curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the entire western edge of the site and along the eastern edge up to the vacant land. There are no improvements along South 249th Street Sewer and water are available. Summary of Analysis: This vintage 1950's shopping mall has had some improvements over the years. It serves both the surrounding residential community as well as customers driving through the neighborhood. There are no constraints to re-development. Staff Recommendation: Apply Community Commercial (CC) to Tax Parcels #2222049145, #2222049144, #2222049153; #2222049010, #1253200020, #1253200025, #1253200075, #1253200070, and#1253200015 ' CA/GG W/pm P IPlanning12002 Comp Plan UpdatelRegulabonslAttachA—Counci1110204 CPZ-2004-1 doc 1 ICouncil November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—A Page 11 of 11 w � m«VU UV, � 2 m CID 23 o � t N m c: 101Tal In ch C iF= .F i CU U NVN cn O II V ap L >, cn p a) Z mU 0 cod -0 y . a., aN aa ,n a) , 3 cu U E m 06 on JE ♦ ti Z LU 1 •`n•\1 � • t 1 so ta 0 Poo .J� Q � ■ � ; � � f � — - I .� ....,.. �� . o - . � . 0 PEN • . K ,� "' .. ,��}y.�yi�� illy ATTACHMENT "B" Agricultural Resource Land Notification #CPZ-2004-1 Supporting Regulations to 2004 Comprehensive Plan Introduction: Properties within 500 hundred feet of the land use designation "Agricultural Resource Land" must be notified of the potential for commercial agricultural activities as required by the Growth Management Act(GMA). The process needs to first be codified and later implemented during the development permitting process. ' Background: In conjunction with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update (Ordinance #3698), the city conducted a study of agricultural lands to determine their status. The study determined that there were no lands of long-term commercial significance as defined by GMA with the exception of properties that had their development rights purchased during the King County Agricultural Preservation Program in the 1980's. Those properties were ' designated"Agricultural Resource Land" (AG-R) (see Ordinance #3612) Subsequently, goals and policies supporting the "Agricultural Resource Land" were incorporated into the Land Use Element They are• ■ Goal LU-30 Ensure the conservation and enhancement of productive agricultural land via regulation, acquisition, or other methods ' ■ Policy LU-30.1. Establish a notification process as specified by the GAM to ensure incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands are aware of adjacent agricultural resource land Staff Analysis and Recommendations: Land Use Policy LU-30 1 directs the city to establish a notification process The GMA specifies that "Counties and cities shall require that all plats, short plats, development ' permits, and buzldzng permits issued for development activities on, or within five hundred feet of land designated as agricultural lands.. contain a notice that the subject property is within or near designated agricultural resource lands on which a variety of ' commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development for certain periods of limited duration " Within Title 12 "Planning and Land Development" of Kent City Code (KCC), staff recommends the following text amendment: 12.01.125 Notification of proximity to Agricultural Resource Lands Project permit applicants for all plats, short plats, development permits and substantial building permits for development activities within 500 hundred feet of land designated as agricultural resource lands within the City of Kent, or the comparable land use designation within unincorporated King County, shall be informed by the city of the proximity to agricultural resource lands on which commercial agricultural activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development for certain periods of limited duration.. ' P lPlanning12002 Comp Plan Update Regulations lAtiachB—Council110204_CPZ-2004-1 doc Council November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—B Page]of I ATTACHMENT "C" , Annual Docket #CP2r2004-1 Supporting Regulations to 2004 Comprehensive Plan Introduction: Staff proposes amending Kent City Code (KCC) Title 12 "Planning and Land ' Development" Chapter 12.02 "Procedures for Amendments to Comprehensive Plan" to include a"Docketing"process as required by the Growth Management Act(GMA). Background: , The GMA has outlined a procedure for jurisdictions to follow that assists the public in making suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, and ' growth policies on an annual basis. The suggested amendment"shall be docketed"which refers to compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations to ensure they will be considered by the city and will be ' available for review by the public Planning Services provided an informal docket during the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update to solicit public input. There are existing procedures for the City Council to consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan found in Chapter 12 02 Staff proposes to expand the chapter to include the annual , docket, thereby formalizing what Planning Services has provided the public throughout the development and update of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendations: , Staff recommends a code text amendment to Chapter 12.02 that integrates language for an annual docket process. The following proposed text amendment includes. a new ' purpose section (12 02.025), a new process for review (12.02.035), a new annual docket evaluation criteria(12.02.045); and additions to existing sections to include docketing Council , November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—C Page I of 7 Chapter 12.02 DOCKETING PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 12.02.010 Annual Docket Amendments and Exceptions. ' Amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map, comprehensive plan text, and development regulations may be proposed to respond to changing circumstances or needs of the city via the Annual Docket process. The city council shall consider proposed amendments to the Kent comprehensive plan no more than once each calendar year, except under the following circumstances, which may be processed separately and in addition to the standard annual update: A If an emergency exists,which is defined as an issue of community-wide significance that promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare, ' B To resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court; ' C To adopt or amend a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in Chapter 90 58 RCW; D The initial adoption of a subarea plan; and E The amendment of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of the city budget The city council will hold the public hearing on this matter rather than the land use and planning board ' 12.02.020 Concurrent review for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. In considering annual amendments to the comprehensive plan, city staff, the land use and ' planning board, and the city council shall consider all proposed text and land use map amendments concurrently so as to assess their cumulative impact. ' 12.02.025 Docketing Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the procedures and review criteria for ' amending the City of Kent comprehensive plan and to consider proposed amendment of development regulations through an open and public annual docketing process. "Docketing"refers to compiling and maintaining a list of proposed changes to the ' comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that will ensure such proposals will be considered by the city and will be available for review by the public. Council November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—C Page 2 of 7 12.02.030 Time of filing. , A. Any person, group or agency may apply to propose texts amendments to , the comprehensive plan or development regulations using a"Docket"form prescribed by the planning services office which shall be submitted to the bent planning services office by September 1 of each calendar year. , B. A property owner or authorized agent of the property owner may apply to propose an amendment to the land use map of the comprehensive plan using bests e'er afftendfaents shall be submitted forms prescribed by the planning services ' office which shall be subrmtted to the planning services office by September 1 of each calendar year Incomplete land use map amendment applications will not be accepted for filing. ' C. filing.-Requests received each year after September I shall be considered in the following year's annual docket amendment process. , 12.02.035 Emergency amendments. Repealed by Ord 3650. ' 12.02.035 Process for review ' A All proposals for amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map that have , been filed with the planning services office in accord with 12 02.030(B)will be forwarded to the City Council for action during the current annual Comprehensive , Plan amendment cycle. B. All proposals for amendments to development regulations that have been filed ' with the planning services office in accord with 12 02 030(A)will be considered in an Annual Docket Report and forwarded to the City Council for action and possible inclusion in a city department work program. , C All proposals for amendments to the comprehensive plan text and development regulations filed with the planning services office in accord with 12.02.030(A) shall be compiled by the planning services office and distributed for review and ' comment to those city departments responsible for the applicable element of the comprehensive plan or implementing the development regulation. D Using the criteria provided in KCC 12.02.045, city staff will review and submit to , the planning services office, no later than October 31",recommendations as to Council , November 2,1004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 ' Attachment-C Page 3 of 7 which proposals should have action taken on them or made part of a city department work program. E. Planning services will compile all comments and recommendations on proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan text and development regulations in an Annual Docket Report along with a list of the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map. The Annual Docket Report shall be presented to the land use and planning board in a public hearing. The land use and planning board will consider the Annual Docket Report and forward a recommendation to the city council,by no later than December I", as to which proposals in the ' Annual Docket Report should be considered for action in the current annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. F Council may accept or modify the recommendation given on the Annual Docket Report by no later than January 315`. Proposed amendments to comprehensive plan text and development regulations not included for action by the city council shall be included for consideration in the next year's docket for a period of three (3)years. ' G. For docketed proposals accepted by the city council for inclusion in the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle,the planning services office shall prepare a report and recommendation which shall be presented to either the land use and ' planning board in workshop and public hearing,or to another body designated to hold a public hearing Recommendations on the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be forwarded to the city council no later than March 31'. ' H. The Annual Docket Report will be posted on the city's web site throughout the year and updated annually ' 12.02.040 SEPA review. After September 1 of each calendar year, the city's responsible official shall review the ' cumulative anticipated environmental impact of the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map, comprehensive plan text, and development regulations amendmen , pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) If the ' responsible official determines that an environmental impact statement(EIS),dra€t-fraal e-supplemental EIS), or other appropriate environmental review is warranted, applicants for amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map may be responsible for a full or proportionate share of the costs of preparing the necessary documents€48-as determined by the responsible official. Council November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—C Page 4 of 7 1 12.02.045 Annual Docket evaluation criteria ' A. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan text and development ' regulations on the Annual Docket may be recommended for action if the following criteria have been met: A. The proposed comprehensive plan text amendment addresses a matter appropriate ' for inclusion in the comprehensive plan; B. The proposal addresses the interests and changed needs of the entire city as ' identified in its long-range planning and policy documents, including but not limited to the comprehensive plan; C The proposal does not raise policy or land use issues that are more appropriately ' addressed by an ongoing work program approved by city council; D The proposal can be reasonably reviewed within the time frame of the current annual work program and existing resources; E. The proposal has not been considered by the city council in the last three (3) years. B. Staff may propose to expand the geographic scope of an amendment to the ' comprehensive plan land use map to allow for consideration of adjacent property, similarly situated property, or area wide impacts. The following criteria shall be used in , determining whether to expand the geographic scope of a proposed land use map amendment: 1. The effect of the proposed amendment on the surrounding area or neighborhood , or city, 2. The effect of the proposed amendment on the land use and circulation pattern of ' the surrounding area or neighborhood or city, and 3. The effect of the proposed amendment on the future development of the surrounding area or neighborhood or city. , 12.02.050 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Standard of review. The planning services office may recommend and the city council may approve, approve with modifications, or deny amendments to the comprehensive plan text or land use map designations based upon the following criteria: 1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare; and 2 The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan; and ' Council November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—C Page 5 of 3. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan 12.02.06 Notice requirements. The planning f ee shall prepare .. r and nd d t sed pl.,p e afnendments Much shall be t e.d to the 1pd.. a and planning board r resen i b ❑er-an d ent e f the aer p,teal f e,l,t;es el t f the . rehensiye plan budget, th 1J ..th the dent; e«dment of the :t.i the ,ty l eettfiei ' , it held the « hl:e heating instead e f the land use and planning'-eaFd.For the initial review of Annual Docket Report described in 12.02.035(D)pFepesed test amexidffieFlts,notice of public hearing shall be given in at least one(1)publication in the ' local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the said-hearing. For proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan land useplan map-affwndmeFits, notice of the public hearing shall be given both by publication in the local newspaper as prescribed above,and by notification of all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the affected property. For revised geographic scope of land use map amendments,notice of public hearing shall be given both by publication in the local newspaper as prescribed above, and by notification of all property owners within the revised land use map amendment area AFA t d pfoperty is defined as the pareels identtfied by the ph nt, Vl 1V11N pit _ e. .t' addl h ld i be eensidefed The f xroriiiS orte..e should he used in aeexdxne :nether to expand the geograph. seepe of e prepased nd ent 1 The eCteet nPhe« sed e adment on the o1 FF0 11,difig aFe '1 The eFFeet APhe« ed amendment en the lend iise rid 111etop «..tressa.e x xx eF the e and 3 The eF1'e et eC the p r-epesed e admen♦on the &ita•e development of the Fellewing e. ubl.e heea...ng by the land, e ..d pl.anp.ng heeafde aan the pin,ng se e 12.02.070 City council action. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the planning services efaee recommendation provided per 12.02.035(G), the city council shall either affirm,deny,er-modify,or return the proposed amendments appheatie t-to the planning depei#meatservices office for further consideration. In the event the city council modifies the proposed amendment;it shall make its own findings and set forth in writing the reasons for the action taken. Council November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment-C Page 6 of 7 12.02.080 Standing. Comprehensive plan amendments may be initiated by the city planning services office or other administrative staff of the city,private citizens, or the city council 12.02.090 Fees. Application fees for docketed comprehensive plan land use map amendments shall be the same as the fee established for rezones. There shall be no fee for docketed proposals to ' amend the comprehensive plan text or development regulations. 12.02.100 Appeals. Appeals from a decision of the Kent city council shall be pursuant to Chapter 36 70A RCW. P IPlammng12002 Comp Plan UpdateTegulaaonsL4ttachC Councill]0204_CPZ-2004-1 doc 1 Council Novemher2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—C Page 7 of 7 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 http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.1... 10/21/2004 Page 2 of 3 budget. (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 http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.1... 10/21/2004 Page 3 of 3 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 subsection (4) of this section. Counties and cities may begin this process early and may be eligible for grants from the department, subject to available funding, if they elect to do so. (b) State agencies are encouraged to provide technical assistance to the counties and cities in the review of critical area ordinances, comprehensive plans, and development regulations. (6) A county or city subject to the time periods in subsection (4)(a) of this section that, pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the county or city establishing a schedule for periodic review of its comprehensive plan and development regulations, has conducted a review and evaluation of its comprehensive plan and development regulations and, on or after January 1, 2001, has taken action in response to that review and evaluation shall be deemed to have conducted the first review required by subsection (4)(a) of this section. Subsequent review and evaluation by the county or city of its comprehensive plan and development regulations shall be conducted in accordance with the time periods established under subsection (4)(a) of this section. (7) The requirements imposed on counties and cities under this section shall be considered "requirements of this chapter" under the terms of RCW 36.70A.040 (1). Only those counties and cities in compliance with the schedules in this section shall have the requisite authority to receive grants, loans, pledges, or financial guarantees from those accounts established in RCW 43.155.050 and 70.146.030. Only those counties and cities in compliance with the schedules in this section shall receive preference for grants or loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.17.250. I [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 1 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(5). http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.1... 10/21/2004 ATTACHMENT "D" Official Zoning Map Nomenclature #CPZ-2004-1 Supporting Regulations to 2004 Comprehensive Plan Introduction: The City's Zoning Distnct Map nomenclature for Garden Density Multifamily(MR-G)is inconsistent with Kent City Code (KCC). Staff proposes to change the Zoning District Map label for MR-G from Garden Density Multifamily to Low Density Multifamily. Background: Chapter 15.03 establishes the official Zoning Map. In tins chapter, the various zoning districts are named with abbreviations, defined, and the official zoning map adopted as part of the title. The district regulations (Chapter 15 04) and other zoning chapters refer to the various zoning districts. Throughout the zoning code MR-G is referred to as Low Density Multifamily Residential. Nowhere in the Kent City Code is MR-G referred to as Garden Density Multifamily. The discrepancy may have occurred in 1999 during the extensive reformatting of the Kent Zoning Code(Ordinance #3409 ൯) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends amending the official Zoning Map legend from Garden Density Multifamily to Low Density Multifamily and maintain the abbreviation MR-G P IPlammng12002 Comp Plan Update lRegulatronsL4ttachD_COuncdl10204_CPZ-2004-1 doc Council November 2,2004 Supporting Regulation to 2004 Comprehensive Plan-CPZ-2004-1 Attachment—D Page 1 of I PLANNING&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 18,2004 1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tun Clark,Ron Harmon,Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 P.M. Approval of Minutes Committee Member White Moved and Committee Member Harmon Seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October 4,2004 meeting Motion Carried 3-0 #CPZ-2004-1 Supporting Regulations to 2004 Comprehensive Plan Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen stated that the Land Use and Planning Board held a hearing on September 27, 2004 and unanimously recommended approval of proposed supporting regulations to the updated Comprehensive Plan which comprised several area-wide rezones and three(3)regulatory text changes Ms Wessen described six (6) study areas for proposed area-wide rezones that establish consistency between the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning District Map, Ms Wessen described three (3) regulatory text changes 1) Establish a notification process for properties located within 500 feet of Agricultural Resource Lands, 2) Establish a docketing system required by the Growth Management Act to facilitate the amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan and regulations, 3) A proposal to change the nomenclature in the Zoning District Map from Garden Density Multifamily (MR- G)to Low Density Multifamily (MR-G)to be consistent with the zoning code Member Harmon asked staff why we don't have a land use designation of SF-4 5 to support the proposed zoning of SR-4 5 in Study Area 3 when 4 5 du/acre is the most appropriate density based on environmental constraints Member Clark recalled that SR4 5 zone was established during the Meridian Annexation and asked staff to clarify In response to Chair Clark, Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom stated that when the Meridian area was annexed in 1996 it was designated with a King County zoning of RS-9600 equivalent to Kent's SR-4 5 zoning district, and the result was that much of that area came into the City as SR4 5 He stated that the City's nearest land use designation allowing a 4 5 du/acre density at the time of annexation was SF-6 A good portion of the Lake Meridian area was designated as SR-6 or RS-7200 under King County He stated properties are not capped at SR-4 5, and that people can seek rezones to SF-6 and remain consistent with Kent's Comprehensive Plan Mr Satterstrom acknowledged Chair Clark's concerns regarding appropriate zoning densities for lands with environmentally constrained areas He stated that the Growth Management Hearings Board requires an urban density of 4 du/acre There is more flexibility to achieve density on environmentally constrained land with the higher density zoning For small areas with steep slopes the City can rely on the critical areas ordinance to control impacts If the natural carrying capacity of land can accommodate 4 5 du/acre there is probably nothing intrinsically different to handle 6 du/acre Member Harmon asked staff to explore adding an extra tool in the Comprehensive Plan to apply SF-4.5 if that's the vision Mr Satterstrom stated that staff at some point would like to eliminate the necessity for property owners to come forward with a rezone from SF-4.5 to SR-6 when the land use designation is already SF-6. Rather than a site by site rezone process, he believes an area should be looked at legislatively The City could do the analysis and decide the appropriate land use designation, eliminate a clumsy process, and establish some predictability in its zoning by applying zoning equivalent to the Comprehensive Plan designation Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that staff is not presenting a comprehensive plan change,but is presenting the area-wide zoning changes to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan comprehensive plan that was recently updated Member Harmon stated that he would like staff to consider a land use designation of SF-4 5 Chair Clark stated that the area under discussion is currently designated with SR-1 and SR-3 zoning which he believes is logical based on the complex issues associated with the lands Ms Anderson reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan Designation is already 6 units per acre and at the time a project application is submitted to the City for consideration, staff will review the proposal to determine how development will affect the land. The applicant then would be required to comply with sensitive area regulations for slope or wetland,roadway issues and detention areas Ms. Anderson responded to Chair Clark that this proposal is an area-wide zoning change as part of the comprehensive plan, and encompasses commercial, multifamily and some publicly owned space per the recent comprehensive plan update. Ms. Wessen clarified the zoning proposals with respect to Study Area 1 and Study Area 5 in response to questions from Member Harmon. Member Harmon MOVED to approve #CPZ-2004-1 Supporting Regulations to 2004 Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board and move this on to Council Member White SECONDED. Motion CARRIED 3-0. Urban Density Study Ms. Wessen stated that in June 2004 Council passed a resolution directing Planning staff to study Urban Densities related to the Comprehensive Plan She stated that a land use policy states that staff would look at urban density based on the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board rulings for the Puget Sound Region per their definition of Urban Density at 4 units per acre. Ms Wessen defined the areas affected as part of the urban density study She stated that staff has scheduled three community outreach workshops at three elementary schools on East Hill to inform the public of these rulings Ms Wessen invited the committee members to attend the scheduled workshops. Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt updated the Committee on court cases since Council's passage of the resolution directing staff to look at urban densities She stated that the City has been sued by 1000 Friends on an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board and we are involved in that process now under the Growth Board's Jurisdiction Ms Pratt stated that a recent case decided at the end of September against the City of Bonney Lake had issues similar to those our Council will be looking at Bonney Lake completed its comp plan update, lowering some densities of 2 to 4 units per acre The Growth Management Hearings Board(GMHB) found that these densities were too low for an urban area The GMHB found Bonney Lake's comprehensive plan update invalid and directed Bonney Lake to complete a study, change the densities, and return to the GMHB for review of Bonney Lake's corrective actions. Ms Pratt stated that once a city is involved in an appeal process with the GMHB,the City is under its scrutiny and must comply with its timeframes and directives. Bruce White questioned if the Urban Density study is being pursued as a result of the current case under appeal with Kent and the GMHB Ms Pratt stated that she believes that the urban density study will allow the City to receive an extension from the GMHB,thereby deferring a decision in this case until after Council has had opportunity to review urban densities Ms Pratt stated that 1000 Friends and Kent Legal staff believe that the GMHB will grant an extension to the current case schedule so that Kent will have the opportunity to carry out its urban density study before a hearing on the merits of the case In response to Member Harmon Ms. Wessen stated that after completing their research, 1000 Friends sent a letter to all cities in the King County area referencing that community's zoning and or land use designations in preparation for their own passage of the comprehensive plan City Attorney Tom Brubaker clarified Kim Adams Pratt statement by saying that based on the GMHB decisions the City can comp areas at less than 4 units per acre if they can demonstrate that parcels contain large, complex sensitive areas and the City's existing Critical Areas Regulations do not adequately address concerns associated with impacts to those sensitive areas #ZCA-2004-1 Manufactured Housing Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that this issue was brought forward to the Committee last July as the result of a Senate Bill signed by Governor Locke allowing designated manufactured housing in all residential,zoning districts and prohibiting discrimination in consumer housing choices Ms Anderson stated that this issue was heard before the Land Use and Planning Board who recommended a change to Kent's Zoning Code to allow designated manufactured homes in residential areas She stated that this issue was brought to the Committee in July and the Committee asked staff to bring it back for Planning&Economic Committee Meeting October 18,2004 Page 2 of 3 i iconsideration in October. Ms Anderson stated that current statewide legislation does not go into effect until July 1,2005. 1 Ms. Anderson stated that in the meantime it has been rumored that the State Legislature might reconsider their previous legislative decision. She stated that staff proposes that the Committee consider two options. 1) Approve the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations, then, if the State Legislature withdraws this law, the City could repeal that ordinance or 2) defer a decision until after this year's 2005 legislative session to determine if anything changes with that law. Ms Anderson stated that, theoretically, staff would have time before mid July 2005 to move forward with an amendment to the Kent City Code Tom Sharp, PO Box 918,Maple Valley,WA 98038 stated that he spoke before the Committee in July He stated that Kent regulations require $4000 for a building permit and would like to see that the rules and regulations that pertain to a stick built home are applied to factory housing citing for example zoning regulations,mitigation fees,structural analysis and storm drainage. Harmon asked if staff determined whether foundation standards differ for stick-built homes versus manufactured homes Ms Anderson stated that State Legislation refers to the manufacturer's specifications and allows the city to add exterior siding materials commonly used on conventional site built Uniform Building Code single family residences She cited the portion of the Senate Bill which states that this Federal regulation is equivalent to the State's Uniform Building Code,which indicates that the federal regulation does comply with the Uniform I Building Code Ms. Anderson stated that any siting would have to comply with setback standards and other codes and ordinances set for any single family residences, except the structure itself Ms Anderson addressed further concerns of Member Harmon by stating that staff has incorporated all of the caveats that are allowed in the State Code After deliberations by the Committee, Member Harmon MOVED to send this issue back to Committee in May 2005 Member White SECONDED Motion CARRIED 3 to 0 Countywide Planning Polices-Amendment to Table LU-1,Household & Emalovment Targets Ms Anderson stated that the King County Council will be reviewing changes to previously established household and employment targets which affect the city of Kent's potential annexation area. She stated that the housing target would decrease from 619 to 546 because of a King County error in allocating previous targets Ms Anderson stated that the increase in the employment target within the potential annexation area from 44 to 287 meshes with the capacity that is actually in our potential annexation area Ms Anderson stated that this is a countywide planning policy amendment that already passed the Growth Management Planning Committee and once approved by King County Council (potentially in December), it would be sent to all cities She stated that if this amendment is ratified, it is incorporated into the Countywide Planning Policies Ms Anderson stated that this amendment will return to the Committee possibly in December or January once it becomes official Adiournment Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 5 05 pm Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary, Planning Services S WermalPlanTlammng Commutee12004IMmutes1101804pc-min_ediied doc jPlanning&Economic Committee Meeting October 18,2004 Page 3 of 3 i Steve Dowell MOVED and Elizabeth Watson SECONDED not to take action on CPA-2004-1 Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update, rather to take this back to the Land Use and Planning Board at a workshop on October 11, 2004 to address recommendations brought forward through the public hearing process. Motion CARRIED. CPZ-2004-1 SUPPORTING REGULATIONS TO THE 2004 COMPRE)i11E�1IIV SIVE PLAN UPDATE Planner Glona Gould-Wessen stated that this is being brought forward as the result of Resolution 1680 directing staff to revise development regulations that are in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Wessen stated that at the August 9`h Land Use and Planning Board Workshop staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies using the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development's development regulations checklists and determined that staff needed to establish notification for agricultural resource lands, establish a docketing process and update the zoning district nomenclature. Ms. Wessen stated that as a result of land use changes in the Comprehensive Plan update, some zoning changes were also being presented Attachment A: Ms Wessen stated that the zoning district map must be consistent with the i Comprehensive Plan. She referred to Attachment A as having criteria to review proposed zoning amendments, as well as details on the six study areas which includes analysis and staff recommendations for each. Study Area 1 is 7 acres in size, consists of six parcels located off of 132"d Avenue Southwest, approximately 630 feet along the southeast edge north of Southeast 272"d or Kent Kangley Road. One parcel has a land use designation of(C) Commercial and the others are SF-8. Ms Wessen described existing land uses on and surrounding the subject site She stated that environmental constraints for this area include four lots with inventoried wetlands accounting for approximately 1.2 acres or 17% of the land area. She stated that staff has applied a fifty-foot buffer, estimating that about 4.1 acres of the 6.6 acres is developable based on the wetlands and buffers. She described clustering and PUDs could be applied at development. Ms. Wessen talked about access and transportation issues indicating that 132"d Avenue Southeast is a minor arterial and Kent Kangley Road is a highway of regional significance. Ms. Wessen stated that staff recommends applying a (CC) Community Commercial zone for tax parcel#2722059189 and (SR-8) Single Fanuly Residential for the remaining properties. Study Area 2 is approximately 6.1 acres in size with four tax parcels located along Kent Kangley Road and gently slopes to the south about 10 to 15 feet. She stated that the existing land use designation is Mixed Use (MU) with existing zoning of (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial. Ms. Wessen stated that staff is recommending changing the zoning to (CC-MU) Community Commercial Mixed Use. Ms Wessen stated that environmental constraints is a creek that runs through and between two parcels into a wetland off site. She stated that staff applied a 25 foot buffer from the creek reducing the developable land approximately 12% leaving 5 35 acres of possible developable land. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 27,2004 Page 4 of 8 i Ms. Wessen stated that access to the properties is from Kent Kangley Road with 116tb Avenue I providing access to one of the lots. She stated that curb, gutter and sidewalks surround the properties along 216'h and Kent Kangley Road with water and sewer available to the sites. Ms. Wessen stated that environmental constraints could be mitigated through the city's development regulations. She stated that the slope would accommodate underground parking She stated that staff recommends a zoning designation of (CC-MU) Community Commercial/Mixed Use for these properties. Study Area 3 is 22.7 acres consisting of 14 tax lots located along 92"d Avenue South and are zoned SR-1 and SR-3. Ms. Wessen stated that there is an error in the Land Use Map Table whereas the Land Use Designation should read 6 units per acre rather than 8 units per acre. She stated that the slope is fairly steep at a 16% slope down to SR-167. The Study Area is bounded by 208`a to the south and 200d'to the north. The land use designation is SF-6. Ms Wessen stated that the slope is the biggest environmental constraint with a linear wetland located at the base of that slope which runs along SR-167. She stated that through a previous I comprehensive plan amendment review process, it was determined that both the slope and soils created a seismic problem in this area. She stated that 92"d is a rural road with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks and that the city's development regulations would require upgrades to that road. Ms Wessen stated that the city's Clustering and PUD ordinances would allow density on developable portions of the properties. She stated that staff is recommending increasing the zoning to SR-4 5 (4 5 units per acre) for this area. Study Area 4 is located on the Valley Floor off of 1640' Ave South and is developed with the Nealy O'Brien School, constructed in the 90's She stated that the property is surrounded by "The Lakes" and industrial use located to the north and east. Sidewalks surround the school with a bicycle path separated from the streets Ms Wessen stated that during the Comprehensive Plan update process, staff eliminated the Community Facilities land use designation as it was never consistently applied and had been intended to designate schools, fire stations, police stations and parks. Ms. Wessen stated that since facilities like schools are allowed within any zoning district, staff created a new designation for open space and parks. The land use designation of (LDMF) Low Density Multtfarmly was applied. She stated that there are no environmental constraints associated with this property and that staff is proposing a zoning designation of (MR-G) Garden Density Multifamily consistent with surrounding zoning Study Area 5 is located off of Military Road, next to I-5 and close to SR-516, and consists of an I-5 interchange and an existing Metro Park and Ride. Ms. Wessen stated that this site had previously been designated SF-1 and then changed to (C) Commercial and indicated that there were no environmental constraints on this property She stated that staff is proposing to change this site to(CC)Community Commercial to remain consistent with surrounding zoning. Study Area 6 is located off Military Road and SR-516 and near an Army National Guard facility. Ms. Wessen stated that this site consists of 9 tax parcels totaling 2.5 and presently zoned ' (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial. Ms. Wessen stated that through the comprehensive plan process, staff changed the subject area to (C) Commercial with the intent to Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 27,2004 Page 5 of 8 be consistent with surrounding land uses and to change these nine parcels to (CC) Community Commercial, stating that existing land uses such as convenience stores, daycares and auto-part stores are appropriate for that kind of zoning. Ms. Wessen stated that there are no environmental constraints saying that Military Road is a minor arterial and presently slTports the local traffic as well as supporting pass-through traffic heading north or south to 272 or SR-516. Ms. Wessen stated that staff recommends rezoning these properties to (CC) Community Commercial to remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Wessen asked for questions from the LU&PB. Member Dowell stated that to obtain needed densities for housing development in Study Area #3, he recommends increasing zoning from SR-4.5 as recommended by staff to SR-6. Ms. Wessen stated that property owners would not be restricted from applying for a rezone to SR-6 and SR-4.5 was consistent with a recent annual comprehensive plan amendment. Member Watson questioned if the Study Area #2 property would have access through 116a' as I well as Kent Kangley Ms. Wessen stated that of the four properties, three parcels have access only off of Kent Kangley and one property has access off of 116a' and Kent Kangley. , Member Ferguson asked if the Midway Land Fill area will have any impacts on Study Areas #5 & #6 as those study areas are on affected ground Ms. Wessen stated that Study Area #5 involves the I-5 Interchange and a developed park and ride lot with the land fill located downslope to the east She stated she was unaware of Study Area #6 being effected by the Midway Landfill Ms. Wessen responded to concerns raised by Member Dowell with rezoning Study Area 6 from NCC to CC as Dowell related that this area is a neighborhood business area Ms. Wessen stated that staff evaluated NCC areas through the Comprehensive Plan Update process including Study Areas #2 and #6, whereby staff felt that CC was appropriate for Study Area #6 due to high traffic volumes that pass through the area and the existence of CC zoning interspersed with the existing NCC. Ms. Anderson clarified for Steve Dowell's benefit, that in Study Area #3 only properties zoned SR-1 and SR-3 are under consideration for rezoning to SR-4.5. She stated that City Council had approved a previous application for land use and zoning designation changes adjacent to this study area to SR4.5 and staff suggests carrying this forward to the properties being considered tonight. Ms. Wessen proceeded in her presentation to describe the regulatory changes as recommended by staff Attachment B: Ms. Wessen explained that GMA requires the city to notify property owners located within 500 feet of agricultural resource land of their proximity to agricultural land and the possibility of commercial agricultural activities from time to time. ' Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 27,2004 Page 6 of 8 i i Ms. Wessen stated that staff completed an agricultural land study several years back and determined that there were no commercially viable agricultural land uses in Kent with the exception of properties that had development rights purchased of which there were three. Ms. Wessen stated that Kent borders unincorporated King County to the south where a large amount of agricultural land exists. Ms. Wessen stated that as a result of establishing the Land Use Policy during the Comprehensive Plan update process, staff proposes the following adding the following language: KCC 12.01 125 -Notification of Proximity to Agricultural Resource Lands: "Project permit applicants for all plats, short plats, development permits and substantial building permits for development activities within 500 feet of land designated as agricultural resource lands within the City of Kent, or the comparable land use designation within unincorporated King County, shall be informed by the City of the proximity to agricultural resource lands on which commercial agricultural activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development for certain periods of limited duration " Attachment C: Ms. Wessen explained that this was an effort to formalize the annual Docketing process based on GMA requirements. Ms Wessen stated that staff proposes to incorporate this process within Section 12.02 of KCC where the procedures for amending the Comprehensive Plan is located. She stated that Docketing is a process where the public has opportunity to propose comprehensive plan text changes as well as regulatory changes. Ms. Wessen stated that the city is required to list them, maintain them and consider them in a public hearing She said the city has maintained an informal Docket process during the recent Comprehensive Plan update. Ms Wessen described the proposed textual changes as defining docketing and establishing review procedures, evaluation criteria, and filing deadline dates Ms. Wessen stated that during the annual review process if staff determines that a land use map amendment application is not complete it will not move forward to City Council All proposals for text amendments to the development regulations or comprehensive plan will be considered as part of the annual docket report All proposed text changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations will be reviewed by their specific city departments. Ms. Wessen stated that if someone were to suggest that a four-way stop was needed at a particular intersection, they could docket it, staff would accept it, it would go to Transportation where it would be reviewed based on review criteria, it would be placed on an annual docket report as either an action item to be included in the work program or it would be considered for further review and considered by City Council annually for 3 years. Ms. Wessen described the public hearing process involved with the annual docketing report. She stated that all map amendments would be taken to Council for action and considered in that year's docket. Ms. Wessen summarized staff s docket process as holding a public hearing by the Board; forwarding the "Annual Docket Report" to City Council for amendment or approval; moving forward any action items and all map amendments back to the Board for workshop and final public hearing, and concluding with final City Council action The annual docket report would be posted on the City's web site. Ms Wessen described the criteria staff would use to evaluate the annual docket referencing KCC Section 12.02 45 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 27,2004 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Wessen referred to KCC 12.02.090 in regards to fee charges indicating that any docketed items for text amendments to development regulations or the Comprehensive Plan are free of charge. There will be no fee changes for Comprehensive Plan map amendments. Attachment D: Ms. Wessen proposes a change to the Official Zoning District Map nomenclature to be consistent with Kent City Code. She stated that throughout the Zoning Code, Garden Density Multifamily(MR-G) is referred to as Low-Density Multifamily. Staff'proposes amending the Zoning Map's legend to Low Density Multifamily and maintain the abbreviation MR-G. Vice Chair Greg Worthing declared the Public Hearing Open. John Kastfen,20609 94t^Ave S,Kent,WA stated that he supports staffs proposal for a SR4.5 zoning designation for Study Area#3 as well as the concept of cluster housing. Paul Morford,PO Box 6345,Kent, WA stated that as a registered civil engineer,he is familiar with the property located next to SR-167 (Study Area #3). He stated that he believes this property would be better suited to SR-8 or SR-6 at the minimum in lieu of SR4.5 as recommended by staff. He stated that SR-6 exists to the east, the freeway to the west and commercial development to the south, so that SR-6 would allow the density needed for development of this area. Mr. Morford voiced his support for Commercial zoning off of 132nd next to the Metro Park and Ride(Study Area 41). Mr. Chang Kim, 23252 & 23254 Military Rd. S, Kent, WA stated that he is concerned with inconsistencies in the zoning of Study Area #5. He stated that he owns three businesses consisting of two auto mechanic and one auto body shop directly across from the Metro Park and Ride on Military Road. He stated that his property is surrounded by(GC) General Commercial zoning which allows large dealerships such as Poulsbo RV (located north of the Metro Park and Ride). Mr. Kim stated that his property is located across from the Metro Park and Ride and is zoned (CC) Community Commercial which restricts him from selling automobiles and would like it changed to GC. Mr. Kim stated that due to the anticipated increase in traffic volumes by 40 to 60 percent with the widening of Military Road to five lanes, changing his zoning to GC would be an advantage for his business. Steve Dowell informed Mr. Kim that he could apply for a rezone to GC Steve Dowell MOVED and Theresa Ferguson SECONDED a motion to close the Public , Hearing. Motion CARRIED. Vice Chair Worthing declared the public hearing closed. Steve Dowell MOVED and Elizabeth SECONDED a motion to approve CPZ-2004-1 Supporting Regulations to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan recommended by staff and to move this on to City Council for consideration. Motion CARRIED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Worthing adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Resp y Submitted, � Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Secretary,Land Use and Planning Board S T mntlPlan%LUPB12004Wanutes`092704non doc Land Use and Planning Board Minutes ' September 27,2004 Page 8 of 8 t Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY SERVICES AND JOINT OPERATION OF FACILITIES — AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Addendum to the Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operation of Facilities with King County Fire Protection District#37. The Fire District proposed to the voters of the District to lift the lid at the Primary Election, held in September 2004, from $1.29838 to $1.50 per$1,000 of assessed valuation. The voters approved this increase. Section 13 of the original agreement states that if the lid is lifted in the District then an addendum to the contract shall be prepared specifying how the additional revenues shall be allocated and that upon mutual acceptance of the addendum it shall become part of the contract. For the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 the City will continue to receive monies, as identified in the current agreement, based upon the levy rate of$1.29838 per$1,000 of assessed valuation as identified for that budget year. 3. EXHIBITS: Addendum to Agreement and Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operation of Facilities 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (3-0) and Fire Chief (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? ` Revenue? $3,111,681 (2004 budget) 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. 6M i ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY SERVICES AND JOINT OPERATION OF FACILITIES WHEREAS, Section 13 of the Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operations of Facilities provides as follows: A. "Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050, the determination of whether or not the District should submit a ballot proposition to the voters of the District to lift the tax lid within the District shall remain at the discretion of the Board of Commissioners. In the event the Board of Commissioners decide to lift the lid an addendum to the contract shall be prepared and reviewed by both parties. The addendum shall specify how the additional revenues shall be allocated. Upon mutual acceptance of the addendum it shall become part of the contract." B. "Areas requiring additional funding may include but are not limited to Lid Lift election expenses, covering costs of District Employee, need to design, construct, and equip new or replacement District station; need to increase staffing in the District; or payment of 1 unforeseen costs necessary for continued operation." C. "Under Section 3 the regular levy is controlled by the In-nits of the tax lid and does not require the District to automatically lift the tax lid" And, WHEREAS, RCW 52.16 140 and related laws allows fire districts, with at least one full time employee, to lift the lid to levy up to an additional fifty cents per each thousand dollars assessed valuation, and WHEREAS, the voters on September 14, 2004, approved lifting the lid to allow the District to collect$1 50 per each thousand dollars of assessed valuation, and jWHEREAS, growth of demand for services within the Fire District has significantly increased; and the City of Kent and Fire District have adopted the same Strategic Plan and its identified levels of service; and WHEREAS, the northeastern service area is in serious need of a fire station, apparatus, equipment, land and staffing; as this would help to maintain acceptable levels of service in other portions of the protection area, and the cost of additional services and facilities does not exceed available revenue; NOW, THEREFORE, The City of Kent, a municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as the "City", and King County Fire Protection District #37, a municipal corporation hereafter referred to as the "District", agree to the following addendum to the "Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operation of Facilities. Section 3 of the "Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operation of Facilities"is amended as follows: The additional revenue derived from the increased property tax levy authorized by a vote of the people on September 14, 2004, shall be utilized in the following manner. Page 2 of 2 Addendum to Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operation of Facilities For the three years (2005, 2006 and 2007) following this lid lift, the additional revenue shall be placed in the Fire District's Expansion of Service (Project) Fund and be utilized to purchase apparatus, equipment, land, construct and furnish at least a 3-bay fire station in the northeastern portion of the Fire District. j Also for the three years (2005, 2006, 2007) the City will continue to receive i monies, as identified in the current agreement, based upon the levy rate of $1.29838 per$1,000 of assessed valuation as identified for that budget year. From 2008 through succeeding years the additional revenue generated by the voter approved lid lift levy shall be divided in accordance with the "Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operation of Facilities." The additional revenue to the City shall be utilized for hiring, equipping and training additional firefighters to provide a minimum station staffing of one (1) line officer position and two (2) firefighters positions per shift on a 24 hour basis for the operation of the newly proposed station in the eastern area of the Fire District. It is further understood and agreed that the cost of maintaining these additional positions and station operations will be monitored by the City. Should the cost of providing additional staffing and the new station operation exceed future available revenues provided by the additional tax levy, the District shall provide additional funds sufficient to make up the difference in cost, or agree to a reduction of staffing. Except as expressly amended by this Addendum, the "Agreement for Fire and Life Safety Services and Joint Operation of Facilities" shall remain in full force and effect. City of Kent King County Fire Protection District#37 By: By- Jim White, Mayor Tom Sawyer, Chairman Date: Date Bill Stewart, Commissioner Pat Riordan, Commissioner j Linda Y. Mock, Secretary AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY SERVICES AND JOINT OPERATION OF FACILITIES This agreement is entered into,between the CITY OF KENT,a municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as "City" and KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO 37, a municipal corporation,hereafter referred to as "District" as follows: 1. Basis For Agreement A. The City and the District recognize the significant long term value(tangible and non-tangible)of a Joint operational agreement, functional consolidation and the higher level/quality of emergency and non-emergency services that can be attained through the synergistic benefits of this agreement. B. In light of the Growth Management Act,urban growth, limits of funding, limited resources and historical success of the agreement to date -the City and District seek to form a long term relationslup through this agreement. Further, the City I and the District continue to remain open to consider other such cooperative ventures between each other and other fire agencies when such contracts serve the service quality, long term equability and best interests of the citizens of the involved Jurisdiction C Given that a majority of the District lies within Kent's identified urban growth area and that as a result of potential annexations, the transfer of responsibility for service and assets in the future may be significant, it is essential that the City and District make long term agreements to insure the continuance of/or improvement to the current level of service in both the District and City D. By this agreement the District contracts with the City for the City to provide, through their Fire Department, fire prevention, suppression, medical aid/rescue services,hazardous materials,public education, fire apparatus and facility maintenance as well as fire administrative services to the District. E. This agreement is entered into by the City under the authority of RCW 35A.11.040 and the District under the authority of RCW 52.12 031 and in conformity with RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. F. It is the purpose of this agreement to provide the terms and conditions under which the City will provide services to the District. 1 � l i 2. Services to be provided by City A. The City agrees to furnish, through the Fire Department, fire and life safety protection to all properties and persons presently within or annexed to the District including all District owned or leased real and personal properties. Such fire and life safety protection shall be rendered, at least at the current level,and on the same basis as such protection is rendered to other areas within the City, or with which the City has contracts,but it assumes no liability for failure to do so by reason of any circumstances beyond its control and in the event of simultaneous fires or emergency medical calls within the City and outside of the City whereby facilities of the City are taxed beyond its ability to render equal protection,the officers and agents of the City shall have discretion as to which call shall be answered first and shall be the sole judge as the most expeditious manner of handling and responding to said calls. The City shall farmsh all personnel required to perform the services described above. B The City agrees that the long term services provided in this Agreement shall j include cooperation with the Board of Commissioners of the District to continue and enhance the quality of capital asset maintenance, serviceability and emergency readiness. Programs for the unprovement of training,public education, fire prevention, disaster planning and management, long range planning and professional/customer service orientation of the department will be continued by the City for the benefit of the City and the District in the event of the reduction in size and resources of the District as a result of annexations and incorporations. C The Commissioners agree that the Fire Chief of the City shall be the Fire Chief of the District and be their Chief Administrator and Operational Officer. D. In the event that the Fire Chiefs position becomes vacant, the City agrees to allow the Board of Fire Commissioners of the District meaningful input into the criteria for the selection of a new Fire Chief. This may include active participation in the selection process and the ability to provide input to the Mayor or the Mayor's designee regarding the finalists prior to final selection. 3. Payment by District A. The District agrees to levy the maximum regular tax rate permitted by statute, subject to RCW 84.55.010, tax LID limitations, on taxable property located within the District. From the annual operational revenue received by the District from tax levies and from all other non-capital reserve sources, the District shall retain sufficient funds for the payment of the following District operating expenses: 2 i i 1. Commissioner's fees pursuant to RCW 52.14.010. 2. Membership fees for state and local municipal corporation associations and commissioners associations j3. Operational,travel expenses, expenses incurred in attending meetings, training sessions, legislative and administrative hearings and all other such functions. 4. Insurance premiums. 5. Attorneys, accountants, auditors and investment officers fees and costs. 6. Election expenses. 7. Costs for obtaining inspections and permits 8. Maintenance and operational expenses for District equipment not covered per the agreement by the City. 9. Expenses of public education and information program for the District. 10. Payroll and associated employee benefits, costs and expenses for full time, full paid District employees. 11 Pension and medical benefits and expenses for former District employees. 12. Such other reasonable and necessary expenses as may be incurred from time to time by the District and its Board of Commissioners B From the remaining District annual revenue (total *annual operational revenue less District expenses set forth above)the District shall retain 10% of the remaining *annual operational revenue. These funds are to be accumulated in a reserve fund to be expended by the Board of Commissioners for the purchase, replacement, lease and installation of capital equipment and facilities, the purchase of land,major repair and improvement of District assets,unforeseen emergency or extraordinary expenses and the payment of related debt The balance (90%) of such remaining annual operational funds shall be paid to the City each year in semiannual installments on or before June 30 and December 31 *Annual revenue is the revenue achieved from the annual operational property tax levy and other miscellaneous operational revenues received during the year. It does not include existing capital assets, the sale of assets, funds or interest related to the Fire District reserve or capital project funds. i 3 1 1 4. Insurance The City shall provide for Fire District No. 37, insurance "dollar" linnts and coverage as described below: A. Property Coverage: The City of Kent shall provide property coverage to ensure the full replacement costs of all Fire District No. 37 buildings, apparatus and , equipment utilized by the City of Kent on behalf of Fire District No. 37. Unless the Fire District is negligent and as such directly contributes to the damage,the City shall cover the deductibles. For the purpose of this contract "full replacement costs" means the actual replacement of the asset with a new, modern, like and functional asset if it is not practical to do an acceptable level of repair. B. Liability Coverage: Recognizing that the City is self insured,the City of Kent shall provide general liability insurance to include errors, omissions coverage and automobile liability coverage to insure the City of Kent and Fire District No. 37 with regards to any and all operations by the City of Kent and it's personnel on behalf of Fire District No. 37. The limits of coverage to be provided by the City of Kent shall be equivalent to the highest per occurrence and total coverage which is provided for the City of Kent Fire Department. The City of Kent shall provide evidence of insurance to the District in wnting when requested by the District in writing. 5 Property Ownership All property acquired by the District to enable it to perform the services required under this agreement, shall remain the property of the District in the event of the termination of this agreement, except as provided by statue in the event of annexations of District areas by the City. All property acquired by the City to enable it to perform the services required under this agreement, shall remain the property of the City in the event of the termination of this agreement. 6 Equipment Marking All equipment and personal property that has been or will be purchased by the District for use by the City under the terms of this agreement shall be inventoned and distinctly marked as property of the District The inventory shall be maintained annually to reflect current status. 7. Normal Maintenance of District Facilities All station facilities owned by and located within the District and all equipment owned by the District shall be maintained to the highest quality standards by the City by funding adequate staff and modem preventative maintenance techniques to insure a continued quality and professional environment; emergency readiness and to protect the citizens long term investment. 8 Normal Vehicle Maintenance and Operation The City shall furnish all required fuel, lubricants, normal service, minor and moderate repair/parts necessary for the proper operation of District equipment used to perform the services to be provided by the City under this agreement. It is recognized that the vehicles will be utilized periodically in the City, which is the basis for the City handling moderate repairs. 4 9. Major Repairs The District shall be responsible to fund all major capital repairs as a result of normal wear to its station facilities,vehicles(e.g.pump/engine replacement or facility roofs/systems replacement). A major capital repair shall be any single extraordinary repair that results from normal wear to capital related equipment and costs at least$2,500. It does not include major repairs as a result of accidents and damages typically covered by insurance It is also recognized that some routine and moderate repairs may go beyond the$2,500 minimum. Fire Administration shall review each situation on a case by case basis to determine what warrants a moderate repair versus a major capital repair. The City and the Fire District have entered this agreement to share resources in order to give the best overall protection to citizens within the Fire District. However, there will be from tune to time a piece of apparatus or special equipment that only one party owns yet both parties equally utilize. Major repair costs to such apparatus shall be shared equally Examples of apparatus that typically fall into this category are, but not limited to, Shift Commanders Vehicle, Mobile Air Compressor System and Mobile Generator. Fire Adnitmstration will keep the City and Fire Commissioners informed of specific situations and the method of funding specific shared resources 10. Equipment Location All equipment purchased by the Distract shall be assigned to and stationed in District stations whenever practicable;provided however, that such equipment may be used for calls within the City and may be temporarily stationed within the City when deemed necessary by the Fire Department Administration. In the event District equipment shall be out of service, the City agrees to temporarily assign and station City equipment in District stations when deemed necessary by the Fire Department Administration. The City Fire Department Administration shall advise the District Board of Commissioners of the permanent assignment and location of all District equipment and shall further advise the Board of any changes in such assignments prior to the time that the permanent change shall become effective. Such notifications shall be made as soon as is practical. 11 Personnel Assignment The City Fire Department Administration shall maintain the current levels of personnel assigned to staff District stations and equipment In the event P g the City shall desire to make any permanent changes in any such staffing of District stations,the City shall submit a proposal for review to the District Board of Commissioners. If the District is providing funding for such resources they shall not be changed without written approval from the District Board of Commissioners 12. District Emplovee The District shall employ at least one full time, fully paid employee in order to deliver an adequate level of service and to qualify for the maximum allowable levy rate. The nature of the position to be filled and the job description of the position shall be established by the Board of Commissioners on the recommendation of the Chief. The employee shall be selected by the Chief in accordance with the standards established by the Board of Commissioners and shall report to and act under the supervision of the Chief or the Chiefs designee. In the event that the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of this contract are put into effect, 5 E and the City agrees to provide services to the remainder of the Fire District,the City agrees to continue the employment of the District's employee(s)in their position(s) within the Fire Department at an equivalent level to employees in a similar classification and job within the City. 13. Tax Lid Lift A. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050,the determination of whether or not the District should submit a ballot proposition to the voters of the District to lift the tax lid within the District shall remain at the discretion of the Board of Commissioners. In the event the Board of Commissioners decide to lift the lid an addendum to the contract shall be prepared and reviewed by both parties. The addendum shall specify how the additional revenues shall be allocated. Upon mutual acceptance of the addendum it shall become part of the contract. B. Areas requiring additional funding may include but are not limited to: Lid Lift election expenses; covering costs of District employee;need to design, construct, and equip new or replacement District station; need to increase staffing in the District; or payment of unforeseen costs necessary for continued operation C Under Section 3 the regular levy is controlled by the limits of the tax lid and does not require the District to automatically lift the tax lid 14. Liability The City shall, at all times,be solely responsible and liable for the acts or the failure to act of its personnel that occur or arise in any way out of the performance of this contract by its personnel The City agrees to save and hold the District, District personnel and officials harmless, and cover all costs, expenses, losses and damages, including costs of defense, incurred as a result of any acts or omissions of City personnel relating to the performance of this contract. 15. Term This Agreement shall be effective on execution, and shall continue until either party shall give to the other 60 months written notice of termination on or before January 1 of any year. The 60 month period shall commence on January 1 of the year following written notification. This 60 month period is deemed necessary by the parties to develop a plan for the orderly transfer of assets, service and to provide for the continuity of public safety. 16. Annexations And Contracts For Service To The Fire District It is understood that any District annexations,annexations to the District by another municipal Jurisdiction or contracts for fire and life safety services with other municipal jurisdictions or fire districts which impact the City's responsibility under this contract are subject to review and written approval by the City The intent of such written approval is to insure that the City has the opportunity to fully evaluate the impacts, benefits and desirability of such actions and to protect the City's rights as it relates to the City's obligations under this contract. 6 17. Fiscal Impacts Due to Annexation A. As result of the implementation of the Growth Management Act there is the probability that over a period of time portions of the District, if not all of the District, will be annexed to Kent or other cities or be incorporated into new cities. It is the objective of the District that its residents continue to receive a level of emergency and protective services at least as high as they currently receive from the City of Kent Fire Department. Annexations by cities of areas of districts and incorporation of cities in district areas result in several statutory impacts on fire districts including the loss of tax revenue and the loss of district assets. j Historically annexations and incorporations remove the higher assessed value areas from a district leaving the district with low tax revenue to serve larger low value geographic areas. This could result in a reduction in services to the residents and property owners that remain in the district. It is the intent of the parties that the areas that remain in the District continue to be served by the City of Kent Fire Department and that District assets continue to be used to provide the services. B. The parties agree that in the event of future annexations by the City that the parties will negotiate the transfer of assets from the District to the City, as set forth in section 18, to facilitate proper long term service capabilities. The parties further agree to cooperate to fund future services to the remainder of the District C The intent of the parties is to maintain or improve all existing services and the level at which the services are provided to the best ability of the parties,taking into consideration the resources available at the time. To that end the District and City agree to. 1. Continue to jointly plan for future capital, staffing and service needs in order to maintain or improve existing services. 2. To cooperatively fund operational needs with due consideration of the level of responsibility for,demand for service, assessed value and the overall benefits (tangible and non-tangible)to the City and District The iintent is to msure long term equity in the relationship. i 3. The City agrees to enroll transferred apparatus and equipment into it's Apparatus Replacement Program to continue the City/Distnct practice of timely replacement of apparatus and equipment to insure quality, dependability and a high emergency readiness. I7 18. Annexations Of The District A. It is important to note that the City of Kent and other jurisdictions may propose significant annexations within the District's protection area. Also,there are strong possible implications related to potential incorporations. It is in the interest of the City and Fire District to address the impacts and the potential resolutions of such issues. The parties agree that the asset transfer statutory requirements will determine asset transfer requirements, service area requirements under the applicable statutory provisions contained in chapters 35.02, 35A.14 and 52 04 RCW in the following manner: 1. In the event the City should,in a single annexation, annex any portion of the Fire Protection District that includes more than five percent(5%)of the area of the District but less than sixty percent(60%) of the assessed value of real property of the District, the District agrees to negotiate to transfer to the City within one year of the date of the annexation in cash, properties or contracts for fire protection services, a percentage of the value of the assets of the District equal to the percentage of the value of the real property of the entire District located within the annexed area. 2. The assets of the District to be transferred, shall be negotiated by the parties. The value of the assets shall be calculated by obtaining a current valuation of all real property owned by the District and calculating the depreciated cost basis of all personal property of the District From the total gross value of the assets obtained by this method, the liabilities of the District shall be deducted Liabilities shall include liquidated liabilities as well as unliquidated contingent liabilities All valuations shall be determined by usual and accepted accounting methods. The net value of the assets of the District as determined above, shall be used for the calculation of the value of assets to be transferred. 3 In the event the City, in a single annexation, shall annex sixty percent (60%) or more of the assessed value of the real property of the District, then the provisions of RCW 35A.14.380 will apply. The RCW states that : "If a portion of a fire protection district including at least sixty percent of the assessed valuation of the real property of the district is annexed to or incorporated into a code city, ownership of all of the assets of the district shall be vested in the code city,upon payment in cash,properties or contracts for fire protection services to the district within one year, of a percentage of the value of said assets equal to the percentage of the value of the real property in the entire district remaining outside the incorporated or annexed area. The fire protection district may elect, by a vote of a majority of the 8 i persons residing outside the annexed area who vote on the proposition, to require the annexing code city to assume responsibility for the provision of fire protection, and for the operation and maintenance of the district's property, facilities, and equipment throughout the district and to pay the code city a reasonable fee for such fire protection,operation, and maintenance." B. The City and the District also recognize that given the Growth Management Act and the likely separate incremental annexations that will take place over the next couple of decades,may not result in any one(1) annexation taking 60% of the District. Such incremental annexations could seriously impact the welfare of the citizens and the overall viability of the District and City to deliver the same quality of service to the citizens as they currently enjoy. As a consequence,the parties agree as follows. 1. In consideration for the past,present and future value of a long term contractual relationship, the City and Fire District agree that in the spirit of RCW 35A.14,Fire Administration will calculate and inform both parties as to the cumulative total of valuation of the Districts area that has been annexed by the City since January 1, 1993. This will be done on an annual basis. For the purpose of this section the base valuation of the total District will be calculated by the total valuation of the District as of January 1, 1994. Annual adjustments will be made to the base valuation as a result of re-evaluations by the King County Assessor Office, new construction and reductions as a result of the annexation of District area by other cities or fire districts. 2 In the spirit of RCW 35A.14.380, at any time after the total remaining valuation of the Fire District becomes less than 40% of the 1994 base the District may choose to go to a vote of the people remaining in the District. That vote would be to determine if the District residents want to implement the transfer of ongoing responsibility for the delivery of fire and life safety services to the City in exchange for the net value of remaining assets and continued annual payment to the City of a reasonable fee for services if approved by the voters of the District, the City agrees to continue to provide fire and life safety services to the residents who remain as part of the Fire District in exchange for transfer of the net value of the remaining assets of the District and an annual payment of a 1 reasonable fee The reasonable fee would be set by the District agreeing to levy the maximum regular tax rate permitted by statue subject to RCW 84.55.010, tax lid limitations on taxable property located within the District. 9 3. If section 18(B)2 is put into effect and the Commission is not dissolved then the Commission would deduct their operating expenses from annual operational revenue. All other operational revenue would be paid to the City to conduct operations and to provide needed assets. The intent is to insure that the citizens of the Fire District will continue to receive a high level of quality fire and life safety protection as the tax base for the District diminishes as a result of multiple annexations or incorporations. It is also to insure that the City receives appropriate compensation for continuing such services. 4. The protection area to be covered shall only be the area within the District at that time. Any jurisdictions contracting with the District will not automatically transfer to the City of Kent unless all the affected agencies so agree. 19. Modification This instrument constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements. No modification or amendment shall be valid unless evidenced in writing,properly agreed to and signed by both parties In the event that either of the parties shall desire to renegotiate any of the provisions of this agreement, such party shall notify the other party in writing of it's intent. Such request to renegotiate shall not be considered a notice of terimnation as provided for in paragraph 15 20. Severability If any provision of this agreement or its application is held invalid, the remainder of the agreement or the application of the remainder of the agreement shall remain valid and in full force and effect. 21 Benefits This agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties to the agreement only and shall confer no benefits, direct or implied, on any third persons. 22 Addendums Past addendums, as set forth in the previous agreement for service between the parties dated December 9, 1986, document lid lifts for improved levels of staffing which have resulted in the current level of service(1996). They are covered under the intent of this contract to maintain or enhance the current level of service as annexations occur. These lid lift addendums are incorporated by reference Dated. CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 37 BY BY Mayor Chairman of the Board Attest Attest 10 City Clerk Secretary Approved As To Form Approved As To Form: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney Clark B. Snure, District Attorney I 11 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF ONE MEDIUM DUTY AID VEHICLE— AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to purchase one medium duty aid vehicle from Pierce Manufacturing. In June of 2003 the Fire Department was given approval to purchase a medium duty aid vehicle. The vehicle was delivered in May of 2004 and was rejected due to numerous quality deficiencies. The Fire Department has evaluated and performed a quality review of a different manufacturer and has determined that this manufacturer is producing one of the higher quality vehicles at this time. The Mayor has authorized single source procurement from Pierce Manufacturing for the purchase of one (1) medium duty aid vehicle. 3. EXHIBITS: Single Source Procurement Authorization and contract 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? $159,708 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. 6N FIRE DEPARTMENT Jim Schneider,Fire Chief 1 Phone: 253-8564300 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6300 WASHINGTON Address: 24611 116u'Ave. SE Kent,WA.98030-4939 September 1,2004 To: Mayor Jim White Through: Mike Martin,Chief Administrative Officer From: Jim Schneider,Fire Chief b- Regarding: Single Source Procurement—Pierce Manufacturing Aid Car The City's Fire Department is requesting a waiver, pursuant to KCC 3.70.080, of the City's procurement ordinance as negotiation with a particular supplier is appropriate due to the specialized needs of the Fire Department. The Kent Fire Department has been extremely diligent in purchasing high quality fire vehicles at the lowest possible price The Apparatus Maintenance Division of the Fire Department has been instrumental in demanding that the vehicles purchased by the Fire Department are built to the highest standards of quality_ There have been two recent instances where apparatuses purchased by the Fire Department have failed to meet the department's quality standards. First, in 1996, the City purchased two pumpers from BME, Inc., who was the lowest bidder Both pumpers had major defects, and after a year of negotiations and a lawsuit, the matter finally settled with the City rejecting the pumpers and being fully reimbursed. More recently, in 2002, the City purchased two aid cars from Road Rescue, Inc. Those aid cars are currently in service. Later, in April, 2004, the City took delivery of a third aid car from Road Rescue. However, the third aid car was rejected and returned because it had numerous defects that Road Rescue was unable to cure. Thus, while the Public Safety Committee and the C.ry Council approved the purchase of the aid car, it was rejected,and the City still has the need to purchase an aid car. With the exception of the two pumpers that were purchased from BME and later rejected, the City has purchased its pumpers and aerials from Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., since the 1970s. The City has become accustomed to Pierce's high standards and its dedication to quality. Recently, Pierce purchased an ambulance company and is producing aid cars for fire departments. The Fire Department would like to contract with Pierce for the purchase of an aid car to replace the rejected Road Rescue aid car. The Fire Department is confident that Pierce can provide the City with the same quality it has come to expect of its pumpers and aerials. In fact, a recent inspection of the Pierce manufacturing plant convinced the Fire Department that Pierce is 1 Memorandum: Mayor Jim White September 1,2004 Page: 2 producing a higher quality aid car than other manufacturers. In addition, the aid cars produced by Pierce cost approximately the same as the aid cars offered by Road Rescue. The aid cars manufactured by Pierce utilize the same chassis utilized by Road Rescue. Therefore, the chassis of an aid car produced by Pierce will be substantially similar to the chassis of the Road Rescue aid cars that are currently in service. It is advantageous for the City to stock its fleet with the same or similar vehicles because it is easier to stock parts and mechanics become familiar with the design of the vehicle, making maintenance more efficient. Moreover, Fire Department personnel who operate and utilize aid cars can easily transition from one aid car to another when they are designed using the same chassis and similar features. By this memo, the Fire Department requests that you determine the bidding process usually required by KCC 3.70.030 and .040 is not in the best interests of the City and that you authorize the Fire Department to enter into direct negotiations with Pierce Manufacturing for the purchase of an aid car. In the event the Fire Department successfully negotiates a purchase contract with Pierce Manufacturing, the contract will be brought before the Public Safety Committee and the City Council for approval. If you approve of the Fire Department's request for a waiver of the City's procurement policies,please note your approval by signing below Thank you. Ji ite,Mayor Dat.. i i COMPANIES October 11,2004 City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent WA 98032-5895 RE. Med Tech Ambulance iTo Whom It May Concern: We, as sales representatives for Med Tech Ambulance Company, Ina, are pleased to present the following proposal for your consideration; YEAR 2005 MED TECH TYPE I AD-170, 170" X 96" UNIT, MOUNTED ON A NAVISTAR 440OLP CHASSIS, $159,708.00 EACH, FOB KENT, WA PLUS APPLICABLE TAXES AT THE TIME OF INVOICE,IF ANY. Please refer to options to the above prices and notes regarding your Contract Form on the following page. Delivery of this unit(s)will be approximately 150 calendar days from the date of receipt of the chassis at the Med Tech factory Thank you for the opportunity of quoting to your needs We are looking forward to serving you If you have any questions,please feel free to call us at 1-800-551-5001 1 Sincerely, PPIy Co. Edwin N Johnson, es Represeluative SALES (253) 537-3800 OFFICE - 1-900-551-5001 TOLL FREE - (253) 531-8007 FAX - 1-800-977-FIRE -TOLL FREE FAX SERVICE (253) 537-7465 OFFICE - 1-SM593-FIRE TOLL FREE - (253) 537-0587 FAX - 1-877-260-FIRE - TOLL FREE FAX OPTIONS TO KENT,WA FOR A MED TECH AIR CAR October 9,2004 We wish to submit the following items for your consideration; 1. If the entire contract price is paid upon factory final inspection and drive away,a credit of SUMA0 will be applied on the final invoice. Any balance due at the time of factory drive away is due net 30 days from date of invoice. if there is a balance is due at the time of factory drive away,a finance charge of 1.50%per month will apply beginning on the 3&day after factory drive away. 2. This apparatus is FOB Kent,WA. If you decide to receive the apparatus FOB Goshen, IN,you may deduct S2.000.00 from or basic bid price The apparatus must be paid in full at the time of delivery from the factory in Goshen,IN. Proof of insurance must also be provided to Med Tech before departure from the factory 3. Any changes to our proposal will be by a change order signed by both parties. Change orders made after the pre-construction conference are subject to a 25%surcharge on the original pnce. Change orders made after the mid-construction inspection are subject to a 50%surcharge on the original price. 4. Included are two(2)inspection trips for one(1)department representative on each trip. These will be a mid-construction review and a final inspection after the completion of the apparatus 5. Prices quoted are firm until October 15,2004. After that date the pricing will be subject to a 2.5% price adjustment good for one(1)additional year. For the next year,price adjustments would be based on the COL average for Seattle,WA and Goshen,IN. All above are based on per unit Thank you for your consideration NOTES REGARDING YOUR CONTRACT FORM Note#1. The City shall also be responsible for paying the Washington State new vehicle tax and Washington State Sales Tax at the rate current at the time of invoice Note#2: This unit will be built per the proposal provided by McPherson Supply Company before construction together with any change orders approved by the City of Kent or their representative. This document becomes an integral part of the contract between Agreement between City of Kent and McPherson Supply Co. as Sales Representatives for Med Tech Ambulance Company. Note#3. The warranty on the cab and chassis will be the standard Navistar warranty Note#4: This type of apparatus is not subject to NFPA guidelines for fire apparatus. By By- Print Name. Print Name _ Title, Title Date Date AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND McPHERSON SUPPLY, COMPANY FOR THE PURCHASE OF AID CAR 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 McPherson Supply, Co., hereinafter "Vendor," with its principle place of business at 8222 Portland Avenue Tacoma Washington 98404. WITNESSETH: 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 "Agreement between the City of Kent and Vendor for the Purchase of Aid Car," Attachment A, entitled "Specifications Medium Duty Aid Vehicle," and Attachment B, entitled "Photographs,"A ttachment C,"Buildsheet dated September 2, 2 004", a nd A ttachment D.1, D.2, and D.3, "Warranties Issued by Medtec for Paint, Modular Body Structural Warranty, and Electrical Warranty." 2. Term-"Aid Car". This Agreement is for the purchase of one (1) Aid Car manufactured by Medtec iAmbulance Corporation that conforms to the terms of this Agreement ■ 3. Scope of Work. Vendor agrees to build and deliver to the City one(1) fully functional Aid Car that meets the specifications set forth in this Agreement and its various attachments. The City promises and agrees with Vendor to engage Vendor to provide the Aid Car as described in this Agreement and to complete and f-ish the same according to the plans and specifications set forth in this Agreement and its Attachments. The parties agree that the Aid Car will, at a minimum, conforni with all Federal Department of Transportation rules and regulations in effect at the Unie of signing of the 1 Agreement, and with all Federal Specification for the Star-Of-Life Ambulance, KKK-A- 1822E. as published at the time of signing of this Agreement. AID CAR AGREEMENT - 1 (Ocrober 12,2004) i 4. Delivery and Risk of Loss. Vendor agrees to deliver to the City one(1) fully functional Aid Car that conforms to the specifications set forth in this Agreement within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days from the date of receipt of the chassis at Medtec Ambulance Corporation, 2429 Lincolnway East, Goshen, IN 46526. The risk of loss for any defect or damage to the Aid Car shall remain with Vendor until the Aid Car is accepted by the City. Vendor shall, at the request of the City, provide a representative to demonstrate the operation of the Aid Car and to train and instruct City representatives regarding the operation of the Aid Car at the time of delivery. 5. Time is of the Essence. The City and Vendor agree that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 6. Payment and Options. The total amount to be paid for the Aid Car is one hundred fifty nine thousand, seven hundred eight dollars ($159,708.00), plus any applicable sales tax. Payment shall be made within thirty(30) days of acceptance of the Aid Car by the City. Payment shall be made by the City directly to the party designated on the invoice. 7. Inspection. The City is entitled to inspect the Aid Car at three (2) different stages. The inspections shall include_ (i) a mid-construction Inspection prior to painting the Aid Car, (n) a final construction inspection prior to leaving the factory; and (iii) a post-delivery final inspection at the City of Kent. With the exception of the post-delivery inspection, the inspections shall occur at the Vendor's manufacturing site. Vendor shall provide and pay the expenses for travel by air, meals, and accommodations for one (1) representative of the City for each of the inspections that occur at the Vendor's manufacturing site. The City representatives shall,at a minimum,be afforded sixt, ::n(16) hours of time to inspect the Aid Car during the mid-construction pre-paint inspection and twenty-four(24)hours of time to inspect the Aid Car 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 Vendor's manufacturing facility inspecting the Aid Car. There shall be a post-delivery final inspection conducted at the City's premises to ensure r that the Aid Car conforms to the terms of this Agreement and passes all inspections and AID CAR AGREEMENT - 2 (ocvbu 12,2oot) i Itests as required by the City or other laws or regulations. The initial post-delivery inspection and testing shall be completed within thirty (30) days of delivery of the Aid I Car. In the event the Aid Car fails to meet the tests as required by the City on fast trials, second trials may be conducted by the City, at the sole option of the City, within thirty (30)days from the date of the first trials. Such trials shall be final and conclusive. IVendor specifically agrees that its failure to afford the City the opportunity to inspect the Aid Car pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be sufficient cause,in and of itself, Ifor the rejection of the Aid Car. Notwithstanding any right of inspection, Vendor shall notify the City of any]mown or discoverable defect in the Aid Car that exists on the date the Aid Car is delivered 8. Acceptance IAcceptance of the Aid Car shall occur after the Aid Car passes post-delivery inspections and tests. The fact that the City uses the Aid Car for the inspection and tests shall not constitute acceptance. 9. Reiection. IThe City reserves the right to inspect the Aid Cars for any defects, irregularities, non- conformities, and defects in worlananship and appearance, and to reject a nonconforming or defective A id C ar. T he C ity will n otify Vendor o f the rejection o f the Aid Car i n writing. The City will also provide Vendor with a written description of the reason(s) for rejection. The City will hold the Aid Car in its possession with reasonable care at Vendor's disposition for a time sufficient to permit Vendor to remove the Aid Car If Vendor gives no instructions within a reasonable time after notification of the rejection, the City will store the Aid Car at Vendor'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 Aid Car in an enclosed area 10. Cure. If th.; City has rejected the Aid Car for a defect or non-conformity, r the Aid Car has or I develops a defect after acceptance of the Aid Car, Vendor shall have thirty (30) days to cure the defect; provided, Vendor provides the City written notice of Vendor's intent to cure the defect and assures the City that it is capable of curing such defect. The City I shall notify Vendor in writing of its discovery of any defect within thirty (30)days of the actual discovery of the defect. The cure of the defect shall be at the sole expense of the Vendor,and Vendor shall cover all costs of such cure. In the event the cure requires that I the Aid Car be transported beyond the limits of the State of Washington,Vendor shall, in addition to covering all costs of such cure,pay to the City$0.40 per mile that the Aid Car is driven to cover the wear and tear on the Aid Car. ' AID CAR AGREEMENT - 3 (ocaaa iz,zoos) Unless otherwise agreed to in a separate writing signed by the parries, Vendor shall have one opportunity to cure each defect for which it has been placed on notice or which Vendor discovers. Any agreement to cure defects of the Aid Cars shall not constitute a settlement of claims brought pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. If, at any time,Vendor discovers a defect,Vendor shall,within two (2)days of discovery, notify the City of such defects in writing and shall cure such defect,if Vendor so chooses, pursuant to this section. ' 11. Warranty. Vendor warrants and guarantees it hat the A id C air w ill b e m anufactured r n accordance with the specifications set forth in this Agreement. Vendor further warrants that the Aid Car shall remain free from defect or malfunction for a period specified in Attachments D.l, D.2, and D.3; PROVIDED, that in the event any warranty issued by a component manufacturer extends beyond the periods specified in Attachments D.1, D 2, and D.3 years,the length of the warranty issued by the component manufacturer shall prevail and shall not be limited by this paragraph. The implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose,as set forth , in sections 62A.2-314 and -315 of the Revised Code of Washington, shall apply to the Aid Car. These implied warranties shall apply even though they may be disclaimed in an attachment to this Agreement, such that this section shall prevail over such disclaimer, ' and such disclaimer shall not apply. The inspection of or failure to inspect the Aid Car shall not constitute a waiver or cancellation of the implied warranties If the Aid Car or any component, unit, or subsystem is repaired, rebuilt, or replaced pursuant to this Agreement, such warranty work, component, unit, or subsystem shall have the remaining unexpired warranty of the original component,unit or subsystem Vendor shall provide all paperwork relating to warranty coverage of the Aid Cars or their components to the City upon delivery of the Aid Cars. The warranty periods set forth in this Agreement shall not begin to run until the Aid Car is placed in service by the City. The City will promptly notify Vendor of the date the Aid Car is placed in service and the mileage of the Aid Car when it is placed in service. The warranty period set forth in this Agreement shall not run during any period in which the , Aid Car is not functional due to a defect in the Aid Car so long as the City places Vendor on written notice of the defect. In the event a component manufacturer requires that the purchaser register its purchase r with the manufacturer to make effective a component manufacturer's warranty, Vendor AID CAR AGREEMENT - 4 (Oc"ei 12.2004) , i ishall take all steps necessary to register such purchase with the component manufacturer. In t he a vent V endor f ails t o p roperly register t he C ity's p urchase w ith t he c omponent manufacturer, then Vendor shall assume the status of warrantor of such component as if such registration had occurred. I Vendor guarantees that all warranties provided by the manufacturer and the component manufactures shall be for the benefit of the City, and shall take all necessary and prudent steps to ensure that the City is in a position to exercise any and all of its warranty rights provided by the manufacturer or the manufacturer of the individual parts. 12. Performance Bond. Vendor 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: 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 Vendor within the prescribed time. (3) Guarantee that the surety shall indemnify,defend, and protect the City against any claim of direct or indirect loss resulting from the failure: a. Of Vendor (or any of the employees, sub-contractors, volunteer sub- contractors of Vendor)to faithfully perform the contract, and b. Of Vendr,_ (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. (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 Vendor to furnish additional surety to cover any remaining work. Until the added surety is furnished,payments on the contract will stop. iAID CAR AGREEMENT - 5 (Oucber 12,20W) 1 (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 Vendor 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 Vendor shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent, representative, or sub-contractor of the City. In the performance of the work, Vendor 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 Vendor. Vendor will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Vendor's agents, employees,representatives, and sub-contractors during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform similar work. 14. Non-Assignment. , Vendor shall not assign this Agreement nor any part thereof, nor any monies due or to become due thereunder, without the prior Nvntten approval of the City. Vendor 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 VENDOR FROM ANY RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND VENDOR SHALL BE HELD IN ALL RESPECTS ACCOUNTABLE AS IF NO CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN VENDOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO GIVE PERSONAL ATTENTION TO THE WORK THAT IS SUBLET. 15. Indemnification. ' Vendor 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 Aid Cars when 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 Vendor of any claim for which indemnification may be sought; (2) cooperate fully in the defense of such claim; and (3) permit Vendor to AID CAR AGREEMEW - 6 (Omber li,loon rsettle or compromise such claim on terms and conditions which, in good faith, it determines are appropriate. 16. Insurance. Vendor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement, insurance of the types and 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 Vendor, it's agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants, or sub- contractors. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement,Vendor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: Commercial general Lability 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: Blanket contractual;products/completed operationsibroad 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 VENDOR. 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 Vendor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance Vendor's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply 1 separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insured's liability. 1 Vendor's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the City shall be given thirty calendar day's prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,of any cancellation, suspension,or material change in co"erage. IThe 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. AID CAR AGREEMENT - 7 (Ocober 12,2004) t 17. Discrimination. , In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub- contract hereunder, Vendor, its sub-contractors,or any person acting on behalf of Vendor 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. Vendor 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. 18. Severability. If any term,provision,condition, or other portion of this Agreement,or it's application to t 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. AID CAR AGREEMENT - 8 (Oaskr 12,2004) i 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) By the C ity i f V endor fails t o d eliver a c onforming A id C ar w ithin thirty(30) days after the time for delivery specified in this Agreement or after thirty(30) days for a cure of any defect or non-conformity. The City shall notify Vendor of the termination,the reasons thereof, and the effective date. (b) By the mutual written agreement of the City and Vendor. 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 iterminated portions thereof, are allowable i24. Liquidated Damages. Liquidated damages at a rate of$100.00 per Aid Car per calendar day shall be assessed against Vendor for the late performance of any condition or tern set forth in this Agreement. Vendor'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, Vendor, including acts of god, acts of the public enemy, acts of a government entity, fires, floods, and earthquakes. i25. Notice to Proceed. Vendor shall continence all work immediately upon execution of the Agreement and i shall provide a performance bond, a copy of an insurance policy(ies)lccrtificate(s),a copy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, and an additional insured endorsement. i AID CAR AGREEMENT - 9 (October 12,2^ 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 Vendor will be subject to WAC 458-20-145, Special Rule No. 1. 27. Ownership and Title. Upon acceptance of the Aid Car and payment by the City pursuant to this Agreement, , ownership and title of the Aid Car 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. 29. Standard of Performance. All work to be performed by Vendor shall be performed in a workman-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: Attn• Tom Arnson Attn: L City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South ' Kent,WA 98032 31. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City and Vendor. 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. AID CAR AGREEMENT - 10 (Ocwber 12,2004) ' 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: 1 Unless otherwise specifically and directly set forth in this Agreement, and notwithstanding the language in any of the attachments, the terms of this Document entitled"Agreement Between City of Kent and McPherson Supply Company For t he Purchase of Aid Car," shall take precedence over the terms of any A ttachment to this Agreement. Attachment A entitled ""Specifications Medium Duty Aid Vehicle," shall take precedence over Attachments B, C, and D. Attachment B entitled ""Photographs," shall take precedence over Attachment C and D. Attachment C, `Butldsheet dated September 2,2004", shall take precedence over Attachments D.1, D.2, and D3 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. CITY OF KENT By: C 4' By: Print Name: 7— Print Name: Jim White Title:-Sc (-f Z17 ,"r es,, { •1 Title: Mayor Date: C c Date: ' APPROVED AS TO FORM. 1 By: Arthur M. Fttzpr,rtck Assistant City Attorney for the City of Kent ' ATTEST By: Brenda Jacober, City Clerk F Y:v�I�FILFSYJpepFTetOS�q ,utl CusCowuLlor ' AID CAR AGREEMENT - 11 (ociober 12,2004) This page intentionally left blank. 1 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 Iopportunity 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 1 have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 12. 2. During the time of this contract I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin,age,or the presence of all sensory,mental or physical disability. 3. During the tune of this contract the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating conummient as an equal opportunity employer 4 During the time of the contract I, the prune contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5 Before acceptance of tlus contract, an adherence statement will be signed by me, ilie Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below,I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. Dated this day of By: r For. /"' �� , 1; i it ��5}Y'/ ti Title. SC �' � /rC,f li_St rr /:, /,,.'�. ' Date. L �j ,~ t`i ?�e e ' EEOC PROVISIONS Page 1 of 3 CITY OF KENT , ADNIINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE- January 1,1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1,1996 , CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jun 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 holdmg 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 nondiscrmunation and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspensinn or temmnation for all or part of the contract Contract Couipliance 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 ate familiar with t the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity policy 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal,state and local laws,policies and guidelines i EEOC PROVISIONS Page 2 of 3 ' 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 1 �� I C ��!�J�lY Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prune contract for the contract known as f I1z_' r r fl9 F c f Y42'`i t !! e k' , n 1�,�""o c✓ that was entered into on the '— v' i j cite. (date) 1-C , / between the firm I represent and the City of I:cnl. 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. f I Dated this r 1- day of By- - For. i/�tl�1�30, / R 1 Title 'C. lJ f i '' i< t , fi�� li Date: Z 0 C IL/bl- U iJ ' EEOC PROVISIONS Page 3 of 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2. 2004 ' Category Consent Calendar 1 1. SUBJECT: LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN RESOLUTION—ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. adopting the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. In order to obtain federal funds for hazard mitigation measures, the City must adopt a mitigation plan that identifies natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities within the City. The federal pre-disaster hazard mitigation funding will assist the City to ensure continued functionality of critical services and facilities in the event of a natural disaster. 3. EXHIBITS: Resolution and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (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. 60 RESOLUTION NO. ' A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. RECITALS A. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (42 U.S.0 § 5121, et seq.)provides that as a condition of receipt of federal funds for hazard mitigation measures, a local ' government must establish a mitigation plan that outlines processes for identifying natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of that local government. B. The purpose of a mitigation plan is to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering,economic disruption,and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters and to provide a source of pre-disaster hazard mitigation funding that will assist the City to ensure continued functionality of critical services and facilities in the event of a natural disaster. C. Having considered the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,the Council would like to adopt the same. ' NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan-Adopt RESOLUTION SECTION 1. — Local Hazard Mitigation Plan - Adoption. The Local Hazard ' Mitigation Plan,set forth in Exhibit"A,"which is attached and filed with the City Clerk,is hereby adopted. ' PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent,Washington this day of November, 2004. , CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent,this day of November, 2004. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: ' BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK ' APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,Washington, the day of November, 2004. ' , BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK (SEAL) ' P`CrvYLLF801lJIM'NvJ W ywmP W AhµCa[ 2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan-Adopt EXHIBIT A 1 r ' City O Kent (including ing County i Fire Protection District #37) 1 'i emu•., t�_`v',>' - _ � b?- x+�es � «ii�`•tom..r +�ch-.`(w F G,q�;-a �``W��+�. YY 33 _ N r r t � I .. ... _ r AXT 1�} v Mir anon-- _-Tan r FIRE ' KEN T "°� WASH INGTON GIST 3� r ' City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents Chapter One Introduction and Purpose Chapter Two Planning Process Chapter Three Jurisdictional Profile and Risk Assessment iChapter Four Mitigation Strategy Chapter Five Plan Implementation and Maintenance Chapter Six wM _ King County Fire Protection District#37 Annex, ' Appendix Outreach and Participation Appendix B Designation of Geographic'Areas Appendix C Hazard Profiles Appendix D , Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Appendix E Planning Committee Activities Appendix F Proclamation Appendix G Revisions and Updates References Chapter One ' Introduction and Purpose Introduction Kent Emergency Management has managed the development of a Hazard Mitigation Plan that is compliant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. A Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was established to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the vulnerabilities of the City to all relevant natural hazards in order to identify ways to make the City more resistant to their impacts. This document reports on the planning process and the outcome of the planning process. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long term risk to life and property from a hazard event. Mitigation encourages long-term reduction of hazard vulnerability. The goal of mitigation, and the goal of this plan, is to save lives and reduce property damage. Mitigation is a cost-effective way to reduce the financial impact of disasters to property owners and to all levels of government. In addition, mitigation can protect critical community facilities/infrastructure and minimize vital service disruption. Four basic phases describe the hazard mitigation planning process: organize resources, assess risk, develop a mitigation plan, and implement the plan and monitor progress. Communities need to focus resources needed for a successful mitigation planning process. It is important to include interested members of the community in addition to those with technical expertise. It is essential that a variety of people participate in the planning process to ensure a comprehensive look at hazard mitigation and build consensus. Next, communities need to identify the characteristics and potential consequences of natural hazards. It is important to understand how much of the community can be affected by specific hazards and what the impacts would be for important community assets. Once the risks posed by natural hazards are understood, communities need to determine what their priorities should be and then look at possible ways to avoid or minimize the undesired effects. The result is a natural hazard mitigation plan and strategy for implementation. Communities can bring the plan to life in a variety of ways ranging from implementing specific mitigation projects to changes in the day-to day operation of the local government. To ensure the success of an ongoing program, it is critical that the plan remains effective. Thus, it is important to conduct periodic evaluations and make revisions as needed. i City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.1 1 Purpose The City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan and its underlying planning process are intended to serve many purposes. These include the following: ■ Provide a systematic and long term approach to mitigation planning. ■ Enhance public awareness and understanding Create a decision tool for City officials ■ Promote compliance with State and Federal program requirements ■ Enhance local policies for hazard mitigation capability ■ Provide a flexible approach to the planning process City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.2 Chapter Two , Planning Process Kent Emergency Management, under the Kent Fire Department, coordinated the development and draft of the City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan that included King County Fire Protection District (KCFPD)#37. Since 1973, the City of Kent Fire Department has provided fire and life safety services to KCFPD#37 under a contractual agreement. The planning process began in January 2004. The Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed through a collaborative effort, involving City personnel, local business representatives, Kent School District representatives and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) members. These key stakeholders formed a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee that met regularly and received updates through the mail. Figure 2.1 below summarizes the planning process timeline. January 22, 2004 Planning Committee Kick Off Meeting Risk Assessment Activity February 26, 2004 Reviewed Risk Assessment data Explained Mitigation Strategy March &April Emergency Management developed a draft Risk Assessment May 27, 2004 Planning Meeting I Reviewed draft Risk Assessment Develo ed Mitigation Strategy June 24, 2004 Reviewed Mitigation Strategy July 27, 2004 Public Review Session August Plan reviewed by Washington State Emergency Management September Plan reviewed by Federal Emergency Management Agency (Figure 2.1) Emergency Management started by reviewing existing City plans and j information. Plans reviewed included: ■ The Comprehensive Plan ■ Capital Improvement Plan ■ Economic Development Plan ■ Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan The kick off Mitigation Planning Meeting was held January 22, 2004. Kent Emergency Management compiled a list of approximately 130 stakeholders that City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.1 were mailed an announcement letter. The list included other City departments, business representatives, Local Emergency Planning Committee members and I Kent School District representatives. The meeting announcement was also printed in the local paper. Appendix A lists the people who attended the meeting. Appendix A also includes the public announcements of planning meetings and the planning process. At the first meeting, Kent Emergency Management gave an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Kent's proposed planning process. In small groups, participants completed a Risk Assessment Exercise. ■ The format of the exercise is discussed in the Risk Assessment portion of this j plan. In order to identify those individuals who would participate as committee members, Emergency Management mailed a self-addressed stamped post card to all 130 of the pre-identified stakeholders. Fifty-seven responded with an agreement to participate. The committee members and their association are listed in Appendix A. The next meeting of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was February 26tn,2004. Emergency Management gave an update on the planning effort and reviewed the data collected from the Risk Assessment exercise. During the months of March and April, Emergency Management worked to produce a draft Risk Assessment. The draft included the data collected from the Planning Committee. The draft was presented to the group on May 27tn Discussion was held and individuals were encouraged to submit comments and recommendations. Those Planning Committee members not in attendance received the draft document by mail with an opportunity to comment. A mitigation strategy was also formulated at the May 27th meeting. The format of the exercise is discussed in the Mitigation Strategy portion of this plan. Emergency Management then created a draft Mitigation Strategy that was reviewed at the June 24th Planning Meeting and mailed to committee members not in attendance. Kent Emergency Management then created a complete draft Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Planning Committee as well as the public were invited to a Review Session on July 27tn for final comments and suggestions. The Review Session announcement was sent to all Planning Committee members, published in the local newspaper and listed on the local public access cable channel. A copy of the announcement is included in Appendix A. Washington State Emergency Management will review this Plan before formal 1 adoption and forwarding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final approval. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan I 2.2 Chapter Three Jurisdictional Profile and Risk Assessment The Risk Assessment for the City of Kent Hazard Mitigation plan provides the factual basis for the mitigation goals and activities proposed by the plan. This section of the City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan summarizes the results of the hazard identification and vulnerability assessment process undertaken by the Planning Committee. The intent of this section is to provide a compilation of the information gathered and the judgments made about the hazards threatening the City of Kent as a whole, and the potential vulnerability to those hazards. The Risk Assessment consists of two parts: a jurisdictional profile of the Cityof Kent and a profile of eight natural hazards and one technological hazard. This plan focuses on natural hazards. However, with the large quantity of hazardous materials facilities located in the City, it is important to also look at the risk of hazardous materials release. The Jurisdictional Profile describes the composition of the City and identifies specific geographic areas. Each Hazard Profile describes and documents the impact of past hazard events and identifies geographic areas most at risk to that hazard. Jurisdictional Profile The City of Kent, Washington is centrally located in a region known as the Puget Sound area. The Cities of Seattle and Tacoma lie 18 miles to the north and south respectively, with adjacent cities being Renton and Tukwila on the north; Des Moines on the west; Auburn on the south; Federal Way on the southwest; and the cities of Covington and Maple Valley along with unincorporated King County on the east. Kent is governed by an elected Mayor and 7 City Council members. Kent is the 7t' largest city in Washington State and is currently 29.4 square miles with a population that exceeds 84,500 people. The population of Kent and the surrounding area has grown tremendously in recent decades, and this growth is expected to continue in the next 20 years. *Kent In the past few decades, Kent has been transformed from a small, primarily residential and agricultural community into an employment and population center for South King County. Kent is strategically located between both the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and has rail and City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.1 truck transportation corridors that pass through the City. The majority of Kenfs economy is in manufacturing and warehouse space. Six square miles, which is t 1/3 of all land, is zoned industrial. Based on square footage Kent is also the third largest distribution center in the United States. There are approximately 100 Hazardous Materials facilities that fall under the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Perhaps the most striking demographic trend in Kent has been the change in the City's housing stock. In 1970, two-thirds of all housing units in the city were single-family residential, while one third were multifamily. By 1990, this trend literally had reversed; approximately one-third of all housing units were single- family and 60% were multifamily. Today housing stock is split approximately 50/50 due to annexation of areas consisting of primarily single-family households. Figure 3.1 lists the current allocation of land. of total Approximate Physical features have Type Area (acres) Number of defined several area Structures geographically distinct Agriculture 2,723 15 62 portions of the City. The planning team has divided Single Family ss21 s ass 17,34s Kent into six geographic , Residential areas based on topographic Multifamily 1,4670 8 3,908 features. Residential Commercial 1,8262 100 2.131 Industrial 4,200 B 229 Park&Open 2,030.8 47 Space (Figure 3.1) These areas are identified in Appendix B with a map and chart: ■ East Hill ■ East Hill Slope • West Hill • West Hill Slope ■ North Valley ■ Downtown Core The East and West Hills are similar in that both areas are mostly residential and support commercial activity. The East Hill Slope and West Hill Slope are also City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.2 mostly residential, however located on an incline. Most of the manufacturing and warehouse businesses including many that store hazardous materials are located in the North Valley. Most of the City's government and the central business district is located in the Downtown Core area. While these geographic areas typically have very similar vulnerability and risk, in some instances a geographic area does have a specific vulnerability and risk to a particular hazard. If a geographic area does have a unique vulnerability and risk, it is identified in the hazard profile. As with any city, the City of Kent has a variety of facilities that are critical or vital to the safety and welfare of the community. These facilities have been identified by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and are listed in Appendix D. Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation The planning process began with an identification of the natural hazards that could threaten the City of Kent. A list of hazards to be assessed was established by Kent Emergency Management. The list was based on the activity provided by the Mitigation 20120 software. Hazards that were determined by Emergency Management to be irrelevant were not included in the assessment. For the most part, natural hazards that were identified in the City of Kent's Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA) were assessed. After the hazard types were identified, an estimation of the risk from each hazard was completed. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee completed the risk assessment exercise at the January 2004 meeting. In small groups, participants completed the risk assessment exercise based on the Mitigation 20120 software. A copy of this exercise is included in Appendix E. Identified stakeholders who were not in attendance received the exercise through the mail. Each group (individual)was assigned one hazard to assess. For purposes of this analysis, "risk" is defined as a relative measure of the probability that a hazard event will occur in comparison to the consequences or impacts of that event. That is, if a hazard event occurs frequently, and has very high consequences, then that hazard is considered to pose a very high risk to the affected communities. In comparison, if a hazard event is not expected to occur frequently, and even if it did, the consequences would be minimal, then that hazard is considered to pose a very low risk. This relationship between frequency of occurrence and consequences of an event is illustrated by Figure 3.2. The graph illustrates that some hazards can be defined as "low risk," for they do not occur often enough and/or do not result in significant impacts even when they do occur. In comparison, other hazards may occur often enough and/or have City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.3 sufficiently severe consequences when they do occur, that they must be considered "high risk." Each of the hazards considered to be a threat can be qualitatively assessed for its probability of occurrence and its likely consequences. Very Frequent eat ' J Z w \_Qo INS c=7 v o� High Rlsk w V XeLow d a O _ Unexpected or Very RareRisk •• """"' Zero or minimal CONSEQUENCES Severe or consequences catastrophic OF THE EVENT consequences (Figure 3 2) By considering the relative risk of the different hazards that threaten the City of Kent, greater priority can be given to the "higher" risk hazards, in order to most effectively utilize the time and resources available for the mitigation planning process. This supports what can be termed "risk-based planning" because it facilitates the participants' capabilities to focus on the highest risk hazards. To do this, the Planning Committee derived a "relative risk score" using a qualitative process in which participants record, on a numeric scale, the likely frequency of occurrence, the extent of the community that would be impacted, and the likely consequences in terms of public safety, property damage, economic impacts and harm to valuable environmental resources. The numeric total of the assessments for each of these risk factors is considered in this plan to constitute the "relative risk score." The risk estimation numeric factors used are shown in Figure 3.3. A single, numeric value is selected from each of the five risk factors. The five values are then used to derive a total relative risk value for a particular hazard that is "weighted" for the probability of its occurrence. The total relative risk for a particular hazard in calculated by adding the selected numeric values for the "Impact Area,""Health & Safety,""Property," "Environment"and "Economy"and multiplying this total by the numeric value selected for the "Probability of Occurrence,"or, in other words, by using the formula shown in Figure 3.4. i City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.4 RISK FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERION ASSIGNED l VALUE No developed area impacted 0 Less than 25%of developed area impacted 1 Area Impacted Less than 50%of developed area impacted 2 Less than 75% of developed area impacted 1 3 Over 75%of develo d area impacted 4 Unknown but rare occurrence 0 Unknown but anticipate an occurrence 1 Probability of 100 years or less occurrence 2 Occurrence 25 years or less occurrence 3 Once a year or more occurrence 4 Health and No health or safety impact 0 Safety Few injuries/illnesses 1 Consequences Few fatalities but many injuries/illnesses 2 Numerous fatalities 3 No propertydama e 0 Consequences Few properties destroyed or damaged i to Property Few destroyed—many damaged 2 Few damaged—many destroyed 2 Many properties damaged and destroyed 3 Consequences Little or no environmental damage 0 to Environmental Resources damaged with short term recovery practical 1 Resources Resources damaged with long term recovery feasible 2 Resources destroyed beyond recovery 3 No economic impact 0 Economic Low direct and/or low indirect costs 1 Consequences Low direct and high indirect costs 2 HI h direct and low indirect costs 2 High direct and high indirect costs 3 (Figure 3.3) Area Consequences to Consequences to Economic Probability of Relative �-Health and Safety -1- -�- Environmental �- X Impacted Consequences Property Resources Consequences Occurrence — Risk (Figure 3.4) The resulting numeric value for relative risk can vary from zero, meaning the identified hazard poses no estimated risk to the jurisdiction, up to a maximum of 80, which means that the identified hazard poses a very substantial risk to the jurisdiction. Members of the Planning Committee were given the opportunity to assess an assigned hazard. Emergency Management assessed all hazards. Planning Committee members' responses were averaged, with the assessment done by Emergency Management. The scores of each hazard are listed in Figure 3.5 and City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.5 displayedn a ra h in Figure 3.6. Since the City of Kent and KCFPD #37 share o graph g S ty many demographic, geographic and hazard characteristics the hazards assessed are applicable to both the City of Kent and King County Fire Protection District #37. Hazard Impact Probability Risk High Winds 9.25 475 44 Earthquake 12-75 3.5 41.5 Urban Fire 8.75 4 35 Flood 9 3.75 3375 Hazmat 8 4 32 Winter Storm 75 41 30 Landslide 7.5 2.5 18.75 Volcanic Activity 1125 1.5 17 (Figure 3.5) Relative Risk ' J 5 ♦High Wmds I Le * 4 WmUrban Earthquake3 diumDroui HighG Lowisk` 2Risk •Ltghmmg ♦W ♦ Volcanic♦ Achv�ty 1 Hail 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Impact (Figure 3.6) City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.6 In order to simplify the numeric rating system, hazards were placed into three categories: high risk, medium risk, and low risk. Hazards that received a rating of over 30 were placed in the high risk category. Hazards that received a rating range of 15-30 were placed in the medium risk category. Hazards that received a rating below 15 were placed in the low risk category. Shown in Figure 3.7. Hazard profiles were completed for High Risk medium and high risk hazards. At this Earthquake time, low risk hazards will not be Flood discussed because they do not pose a Winter Storm Matesignificant threat. A detailed profile of Hazardous High Winds is Winds high and medium risk hazards is in Urban Fire Appendix C. Medium Riskr Landslide Volcanic Activity r - (Figure 3.7) City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.7 I Chapter Four Mitigation Strategy The next phase of the mitigation planning process is to develop a mitigation strategy. In an effort to reduce the effects of disaster to the community, a mitigation strategy is developed based on the information found from the Risk Assessment. The mitigation strategy for the City of Kent consists of five goals accompanied by supporting objectives and 11 recommended mitigation actions. I The mitigation goals identified by this plan are established to create a long-term vision for the City of Kent. These mitigation goals express the desire to protect the community and reduce the cost of disaster. To support each goal, the mitigation objectives define the implementation steps that will be used to successfully attain the goal. The objectives listed are specific and measurable. To make each goal a reality, a set of recommended mitigation actions have been developed. Mitigation actions typically can be grouped into six categories. • Prevention ■ Property Protection ■ Public Awareness ■ Natural Resource Protection ■ Emergency Services • Structural Projects The City of Kent is committed to mitigating the effects of disasters. Examples of this include: City Hall was recently retrofitted to increase its seismic stability,City of Kent Public Works Department pursued and was awarded a grant to perform seismic retrofit of a City water reservoir and Kent facilities has secured large objects. The City of Kent has developed a comprehensive approach to mitigation by recommending actions from a variety of categories. This section of the City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan lists the goals, objectives and actions that were accepted by the Planning Committee. Kent Emergency Management developed the list of goals. At a Planning Committee meeting held on May 27t', 2004, participants brainstormed ideas for objectives, actions as well as additional goals. Planning Committee members who were not in attendance were given the opportunity to provide input by completing the Mitigation Strategy Development Survey. A copy of this survey is in Appendix E. In order to establish priority for the listed mitigation projects, a cost/benefit review was conducted to establish a cost/benefit factor. This was a subjective process City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.1 undertaken by Emergency Management with input from appropriate agencies. Each mitigation project was rated on estimated cost and estimated benefit using a scale of one to three. Three factors were taken into consideration to define benefit: ■ Does the action protect critical facilities and infrastructure? ■ Does the action mitigate either a high risk hazard or multiple hazards? , ■ Does the action mitigate an affected geographic area? Emergency Management determined the level of benefit for each project: high (3), medium (2) or low (1). Cost was based on total dollar amount necessary to complete the project. Emergency Management estimated the cost of each project. A low cost project was defined as estimated to cost less than $10,000. A medium cost projectwas defined as estimated to cost $10,000-$50,000. A high cost project was defined as estimated to cost greater then $50,000. Figure 4.1 below details the relationship between cost and benefit to determine the cost/benefit factor. Priority is established by the cost/benefit factor. w~ w^ 5� � I o ab a x 1 2 3 High Cost 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 Low Cost 3 3 5 6 , (Figure 4.1) The completion of each of the listed mitigation goals heavily depends on future funding. Funding sources will be researched and pursued as they become available. Whenever possible, mitigation actions will be incorporated into the normal budget process for the City. However, the approval of this Mitigation Plan does not necessarily guarantee that all or any of the mitigation actions will be implemented. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.2 The time frame for each mitigation action was defined as either short term, mid- term or long term. Short term projects are projected to be completed in the next two years. Mid-term projects are projected to be completed in two to five years. Long term projects are expected to take longer than five years to implement. Goal # 1 ' Increase the resilience of the City to the effects of a major earthquake. Objectives: 1 1.1 Assure that City facilities are earthquake resistant. 1.2 Maintain a program to promote citizen preparedness 1.3 Increase the level of business economic recovery 1.4 Determine the level of seismic stability of structures in pre-identified hazard areas Recommended Actions: 1,2,6 & 11 Goal #2 Preserve the continuity of local government Objectives: 2.1 Clearly identify essential City Services. 2.2 Clearly identify positions that are essential for disaster operations and delivering essential services. 2.3 Maintain communications within the City, other agencies and citizens. Recommended Actions: 1,2,3,E & 11 Goal # 3 Minimize loss to structures and infrastructures, particularly pre-identified critical Ifacilities located within hazard areas. Objectives: 3.1 Assure critical facilities will withstand impacts from a disaster. 3.2 Assure that future buildings and development are designed to be resistant to hazards. 3.3 Improve the current data regarding critical facilities/infrastructure list found in Appendix D for this plan. 3.4 Improve current data on geographic area susceptibility and vulnerability to particular hazards. Recommended Actions: 1,2,3, & 6 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.3 Goal #4 Reduce the impacts of wind and snow storms to the community. Objectives: 4.1 Identify the minimum staffing levels for adequate response to events related to storms. 4.2 Educate and inform the public to dangers associated with storms. 4.3 Keep the public informed of current conditions. 4.4 Update information about vulnerable populations. 4.5 Have safe transportation routes and methods. 4.6 Assure continuity of utilities to our citizens. Recommended Actions: 4,5,9,10, & 11 Goal # 5 Minimize damage and loss due to flooding events in known hazard areas. Objectives: 5.1 Provide adequate evacuation routes to safely and effectively evacuate out of immediate flooding area. 5.2 Ensure that current zoning is appropriate in areas of reoccurring flooding. 5.3 Improve current information regarding flood prone areas. 5.4 Educate and inform the public to dangers associated with flood waters. Recommended Actions: 3,4,5, &11 Goal#6 ' Reduce the occurrence and impacts of a hazardous materials incident. Objectives: 6.1 Encourage the reduction of storing and using hazardous materials. 6.2 Prepare and maintain readiness for responding to hazardous materials incidents. 6.3 Communicate the potential risks of hazardous material use and storage with the community. 6.4 Assess current conditions or status of business that use or store hazardous materials. Recommended Actions: 4,5, &11 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.4 j i To successfully complete the mitigation goals and objectives established by the Planning Committee, Emergency Management developed a list of mitigation actions. Action 1: Prioritize seismic retrofit for critical facilities to meet the most current standards for new buildings to the maximum extent possible. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management & Community Development Benefit/Cost Factor: 4 (cost=1 benefit=3) Time Frame: Long Term Resources/Funding: City Capital Improvement Project Grant funds Action 2: Mitigate the non-structural impacts of an earthquake on City owned critical facilities. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management, Community Development Parks Facilities Benefit/Cost Factor: 5 (cost=2 benefit=3) Time Frame: Short Term Resources/Funding: City budget Grant funds Action 3: Use the HAZUS computer modeling program to estimate loss. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management Benefit/Cost Factor: 4 (cost=2 benefit=2) Time Frame: Short Term Resources/Funding: Emergency Management staff Grant funds City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.5 i 1 Action 4: Improve alert and notification methods to the citizens of Kent by implementing a reverse 911 system. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management Benefit/Cost Factor: 4 (cost=2 benefit=2) Time Frame: Long Term Resources/Funding: Grant funds Action 5: Enhance public notification system. Implement a public awareness campaign focused NOAA weather radios. Improve the existing Traffic Information System (TIS) by increasing coverage area and adding alert beacons. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management Public Works Benefit/Cost Factor: 4 (cost=2 benefit=2) Time Frame: Mid-term Resources/Funding: City budget Grant funds Action 6: Identify slope areas that threaten critical facilities due to lack of vegetation and erosion control. Prioritize and implement slope stabilization measures. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management Public Works Benefit/Cost Factor: 3 (cost=2 benefit=1) Time Frame: Mid-term Resources/Funding: City budget Grant funds Action 7: Increase public education efforts toward preventing stove top cooking fires the cause of most residential fires. Coordinating Agency: Kent Fire Department Benefit/Cost Factor: 6 (cost=3 benefit=3) Time Frame: On going Resources/Funding: Fire Department Public Education staff Fire Department budget City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.6 j Action 8: Pre-identify lahar evacuation routes. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management& Public Works Benefit/Cost Factor: 4 (cost--3 benefit=1) Time Frame: Long Term Resources/Funding: City budget Grant funds Action 9: Identify reoccurring utility outage areas and work with utility providers to remove hazards along those areas. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management & Public Works Benefit/Cost Factor: 5 (cost--3 benefit=2) Time Frame: Short Term Resources/Funding: City budget for staff time Action 10: Make available back-up power sources to vulnerable populations. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management Benefit/Cost Factor: 2 (cost=1 benefit=1) Time Frame: Longterm Resources/Funding: Grant funds Action 11: Construct a facility that would house a permanent Emergency Coordination Center. Coordinating Agency: Emergency Management Benefit/Cost Factor: 4 (cost=1 benefit=3) Time Frame: Long Term Resources/Funding: City Capital Improvement Project Grant funds Bond Measure City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.7 Chapter Five Plan Implementation and Maintenance Adoption The Kent City Council will adopt the Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan by resolution. Prior to the adoption, Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) will review the document and make suggestions pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Kent Emergency Management will be responsible for making the necessary corrections before the Plan is formally adopted and delivered to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)for final approval. When completed the resolution will be inserted into Appendix F. Once the plan has been approved by FEMA, the City of Kent will be eligible to apply for both the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre- Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). t Evaluation Kent Emergency Management will be responsible for conducting any necessary reviews and coordinating appropriate revisions. An annual review will be conducted during the anniversary month of Plan approval. The Plan will be reviewed by the Emergency Manager or his/her designee to ensure that information is still current. A record of revisions and updates will be maintained in Appendix G. Continued public involvement will be maintained by publishing the Plan on the Kent City website with instructions to contact Emergency Management with any comments. In addition, each annual review will be announced via the local news media (i.e. City web page, City public access cable television, and newspaper) allowing for individuals to participate. A formal review and adoption will take place at least every five years. The formal review process will include re-establishing the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. The Committee will review all portions of the Mitigation Plan to insure that the information is relevant. Particular attention will be focused on mitigation goals, objectives and actions. Implemented mitigation actions will be reviewed to determine their success. Additional mitigation actions will be researched and added. Additional reviews may be required following a major disaster or event. The Director of Emergency Management will make such determination. Should an unscheduled review be necessary, Kent Emergency Management will conduct City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.1 and coordinate the review to insure that the Hazard Mitigation Plan remains relevant. Implementation Through Existing Programs The City of Kent relies on three basic plans to guide and control development within the City: the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan and the Economic Development Plan. Where appropriate, the City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will be incorporated into these existing planning documents. The City of Kent's Community Development Department will assist with incorporating this plan into the current planning documents. i i City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.2 Chapter Six King County Fire Protection District#37 Annex to the City Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan Introduction To comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Kent Emergency Management has managed the development of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Kent that includes King County Fire Protection District (KCFPD) #37. KCFPD #37 is vulnerable to the same hazards as the City of Kent. Since 1973, the City of Kent Fire Department has provided fire and life safety services to KCFPD #37. The two jurisdictions share many demographic, geographic and hazard characteristics. For this reason, KCFPD #37 has provided this annex to the City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan. Jurisdictional Profile King County Fire Protection District (KCFPD) #37 is in the State of Washington and is centrally located in a region known as the Puget Sound area. KCFPD#37 contains both unincorporated and incorporated areas as described in Figure 6.1. The District is adjacent to the City of Kent and encompasses all of the City of Covington. It serves a total area of approximately 30 square miles with a total population of 74,783. KCFPD #37 is governed by three Commissioners. The District owns one fire station, several apparatus and employs five personnel. Unincorporated City of Covington Total Square Miles 23.5 6.5 30 -- Population 60,000 14,783 74,783 (Figure 6.1) Planning Process KCFPD # 37 followed the planning process established by the City of Kent. In addition to the public review process undertaken by the City of Kent, public review and comment was solicited through open public Fire Commissioner's meetings and an advertised public open house. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.1 I I Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation The City of Kent and KCFPD #37 have similar vulnerabilities and risk to hazards. Therefore, the district accepts the City's Risk Assessment data found in Appendix C. Mitigation Strategy The mitigation strategy for KCFD #37 includes two goals. ■ Educate the public on what they can do to prevent, prepare for, and respond to hazard events. ■ Mitigate structural and non-structural impacts of hazard events to the existing facilities and all future facilities. To successfully complete the mitigation goals, Emergency Management developed two mitigation actions. Action 1: Mitigate the non-structural impacts of an earthquake on District owned critical facilities. Coordinating Agency: Kent Fire Department Benefit/Cost Factor: 5 (cost=2 benefit=3) Time Frame: Short Term Action 2: Improve alert and notification methods to the citizens of Fire District #37 by implementing a reverse 911 system. Coordinating Agency: Kent Fire Department& Valley Communications Center Benefit/Cost Factor: 3 (cost=1 benefit=2) Time Frame: Long Term Plan Implementation and Maintenance The three Commissioners will adopt the Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan, which includes this annex. Prior to the adoption, Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) will review the document and make suggestions pursuant to Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Kent Emergency Management will be responsible for making the necessary corrections before the Plan is formally adopted and delivered to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) for final approval. Once the plan has been approved by FEMA, KCFPD #37 will City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.2 r be eligible to apply for both the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). KCFPD #37 will follow the review schedule set by the City of Kent. Implementation Through Existing Programs The Fire Chief for the City of Kent Fire Department and the Fire Commissioners develop the KCFPD #37 budget. Whenever possible, KCFPD #37 will implement r the suggested mitigation action through the development of the annual budget. The budget is the only existing planning mechanism that the KCFPD #37 maintains. r City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.3 j 1 City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan jIn compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Kent Emergency Management has coordinated the development of a City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan. A Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was formed involving City Departments, Businesses, Utility Districts, and Kent School District representatives. The purpose of the plan is to identify local hazards and methods required to reduce risk to life and property before a disaster occurs. The Plan will serve as a guide for policy decisions directed toward mitigation. King County Fire Protection District #37 will annex to the City's Plan. A requirement of the planning process is to allow for public comment. Kent Emergency Management is holding a public review session to give citizens of Kent and Fire District#37 an opportunity to view the Plan and give comments. Interested parties are invited to stop by on July 27`h anytime between 4:00 and 7:00 pm. For more information contact Kimberly Resor at (253) 856-4343. -------------------------------------------------------- Public Review Session i Tuesday July 27t" 4:00 pm — 7:00 pm Kent Fire Headquarters 24611 116t" Ave SE Kent WA 98030 --------------------------------------------------------- City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A.9 City of Kent Emergency Management Public Notice Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, actions are being planned to eliminate or minimize the consequences of future disasters through the development of a City ofKent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the plan is to reduce risk to life and property before a disaster occurs. The plan will also serve as a guide for policy decisions directed toward mitigation. Once developed, the plan will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan and will assist the City in building a safer community through future code development, and better focused planning and land use. Kent Emergency Management invites interested parties to attend a Mitigation Planning Meeting scheduled for May 27th,2004 at 3:00 p.m. held at Kent Fire Station 77 (20717 132"d Ave South). A draft portion of the plan will be distributed. Members of the community can share their perspective and comments by attending the meeting or by contacting Kent Emergency Management. Mailing Address: Kent Fire Emergency Management 24611 116`h Ave. South Kent, WA 98030 E-mail: KentEcc(a,ci.kent wa us Phone number: (253) 856-4440 Published in the King County Journal Newspaper 5/25/04 and 5/26/04. r City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A.8 j be eligible to apply for both the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). KCFPD #37 will follow the review schedule set by the City of Kent. Implementation Through Existing Programs The Fire Chief for the City of Kent Fire Department and the Fire Commissioners develop the KCFPD #37 budget. Whenever possible, KCFPD #37 will implement the suggested mitigation action through the development of the annual budget. The budget is the only existing planning mechanism that the KCFPD #37 maintains. I City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.3 i City of Kent Emergency Management Public Notice Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, actions are being planned to eliminate or minimize the consequences of future disasters through the development of a City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the plan is to reduce risk to life and property before a disaster occurs. The plan will also serve as a guide for policy decisions directed toward mitigation. Once developed, the plan will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan and will assist the City in building a safer community through future code development, and better focused planning and land use. Kent Emergency Management invites interested parties to attend a Mitigation Planning Meeting scheduled for May 27th, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. held at Kent Fire Station 77 (20717 132nd Ave South). A draft portion of the plan will be distributed. Members of the community can share their perspective and comments by attending the meeting or by contacting Kent Emergency Management. Mailing Address: Kent Fire Emergency Management 24611 116tb Ave. South Kent, WA 98030 E-mail: KentEcc(oDci.kent.Wa us Phone number: (253) 856-4440 , Published in the King County Journal Newspaper 5/25/04 and 5/26104. 1 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A.8 Appendix B Designation of Geographic Areas For planning purposes the City of Kent was broken down into 6 geographic areas. The chart below defines the boundaries of each geographic area. Geographic areas are also designated on the map. Name North East South West Boundary Boundary Boundary Boundary East Hill City Limits City Limits City Limits 104 Ave extending to 108`"Ave East Hill Slope City Limits 104 Ave City Limits Central Ave 1 extending to until 167,then 108n'Ave follows 167 North Valley City Limits Central Ave James Street West shore of 1 until 167, then Green River follows 167 Downtown Core James Street Central Ave City Limits West shore of Green River until the 5900 block then directly South West Hill Slope City Limits West shore of City Limits Military Road Green River until the 5900 block then 1 directl South West Hill City Limits Military Road City Limits City Limits City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B.1 N m 'rL EL W A Coto IL cc gs 5 VSS Co cu cq ca I I City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake Hazard Profile EARTHQUAKE Definition of Hazard tEarthquakes are defined as the sudden release of energy occurring from the collision or shifting of crustal plates on the earth's surface or from the fracture of stressed rock formations in that crust. This release of energy results in the earth shaking, rocking, rolling,jarring and Jolting; having the potential to cause minimal to great damage in the Puget Sound area. Earthquakes are measured by units of magnitude, which is a logarithmic measure of earthquake size. This means that at the same distance from the earthquake, the shaking will be 10 times as large during a magnitude 5 earthquake as it would during a magnitude 4 earthquake. History of Hazard as it Affects the Citv of Kent Western Washington and the Kent area have a long history of documented earthquake activity. Kent is geographically located in an area known as the Pacific Ring of Fire. The same geologic events that result in the creation of volcanoes and volcanic events may also generate notable earthquakes. Western Washington is framed by the Pacific,North 1 American, and Juan de Fuca plates, with a significant amount of active fault lines identified in the Puget Sound area. All of these have been the cause of earthquakes in history, with the most notable recent earthquakes being the 1949 magnitude 7.1 Olympia earthquake, which caused over $100 million in damage and killed 8 people; the 1965 magnitude 6.5 Seattle-Tacoma earthquake which caused over $50 million in damage and killed 7 people; the 1999 magnitude 5.5 Satsop earthquake; and the 2001 magnitude 6.8 Nisqually earthquake. Annually, hundreds of earthquakes occur in Washington, most of which go unnoticed (less than magnitude 2.5). Hazard Identification The earth is divided into three main layers -- a hard outer crust, a soft middle layer and a central core The crust is broken into massive irregular pieces called "plates", which have been moving very slowly over the earth's surface for billions of years, driven by energy deep within the earth. This movement has shaped the physical features of the earth-- its mountains, valleys, plains, and plateaus. As these plates move, stresses are built up and ' periodically release energy in areas where the plates come into contact with each other. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.1 1S'4 CANADA i a� r� UX. % Washington O 2�s Pacific Plat �11 Qq L1 Juan de Fuca re on (oceanic) Plate"'' �. 13 �orth grr,erican (Continental) Plate ❑ deep Eartiqua kes(40 miles below fie Earih's surface)are within the subducting oceanic plate as it bends beneath he continental plate, The Largest deeep Narhwest earthquakes known were In 1949(M 7,f), l965(M 6 5),and 200l (L168) O Shallowearitquakes(less han 16 miles deep)are caused by faults in the Norte Mnerlcan Continent.The Seattle faultproduced a shallow magnitude 7+ earthquake 1,100 years ago Ober magnitude 7+earhquakes occurred In 1872,19t8,and 1946 c4 Subductkxn Earthquakes are huge quakes that result when he boundary between he oceanic and continental plates ruptures. In 1700,the most recent Caseadla Subd uctkxn Zone earhquake sent a tsunami as far as Japan. i Mt St HetensKMer Cascade Volcanos There are three technically distinct types of earthquakes that have the ability to generate powerful damaging motion in the greater Puget Sound area. Benioff Zone/Interplate (Deep) earthquakes These earthquakes occur at depths of 15 to 60 miles from the subductmg Juan de Fuca plate. The Olympia, Seattle-Tacoma, Satsop and Nisqually earthquakes are all examples of Benioff Zone earthquakes. They usually do not exceed magnitudes of 7.5, are 15-40 seconds in duration, have normal faulting with no large aftershocks. These earthquakes are more frequent than subduction zone earthquakes, typically occurring every 30 or so years r i City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C. i Subduction Zone events These earthquakes occur along the interface between tectonic plates, generated from the collision of the Juan de Fuca, Pacific, and North American plates. This area is also known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and it ranges from southern British Columbia to Northern California. These earthquakes are considered great magnitude events and may reach 8.0-9.0 on the Richter scale. Researchers say the stresses they observe off the i coast of Washington could cause an earthquake measuring up to 9.5. The duration of shaking could last up to 3 minutes. A Subduction zone earthquake may also generate tsunamis The last known Subduction earthquake in the Puget Sound area occurred in 1700. Geologic evidence indicates that these great earthquakes may have occurred at least seven times in the last 3,500 years, suggesting a return time of 400-600 years. Shallow Crustal Earthquakes The largest known historic earthquake in Washington or Oregon occurred in 1872 in the North Cascades. This earthquake had an estimated magnitude of 7.4 and was followed by many aftershocks. It was probably at a depth of 10 miles or less within the continental crust. Many other crustal sources in Washington and Oregon could also produce damaging earthquakes. Recent studies have found geologic evidence for large shallow earthquakes 1,100 years ago within the central Puget Basin. Massive block landslides into Lake Washington, marsh subsidence and tsunami deposits at West Point in Seattle, tsunami deposits at Cultus Bay on Whidbey Island, and large rock avalanches on the southeastern Olympic Peninsula have all been dated to approximately 1,100 years ago. Earthquake energy is released on the earth's surface primarily through faults. A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault. Fault rupture almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by, 1 shaking. The following is a map of major earthquake fault zones in the Puget Sound region. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.3 Major Fault Zones In the Puget sound WQ icteria .K a--F . p x n n ML Yernon N. Whidbey Is. Fault ^�+ ' ' { + + o -s 2 1 Port Ange ee + F + + 4e Everett G S. Whidbey Is. Fault + + + + Seattle Fault ll + J + a e i Bremerton Kent � 1 + K + ❑Tic nnia + + + + 01ympis ❑ + + + + + 47 L + + + + + C:eutrtfLa I I I I I I tl 5%0 K Al 123 122 In addition to the different types of earthquakes, geologic factors affect how the Kent area will fare during an earthquake The Kent valley is composed of soft materials such as mud, artificial fill and layers of sand and clay that can amplify ground shaking and make overall damage more intense. Soft soils tend to liquefy during an earthquake creating a condition known as "liquefaction" This condition can result in local areas experiencing severe damage, especially where the ground fails (or liquefies) under buildings, pipelines or bridges. Landslides and rock falls may be triggered on steep ' slopes City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan CA Vulnerability Analvsis ILI Tom Reese/ The Seattle Times ] A worker inspects the damage from an earthquake- triggered mudslide that flowed into Cedar River in Renton's Maple Valley The mudslide caused flooding that moved Paul Patrick's truck and nearly reached his house Any building or structure built on land that slides in an earthquake could be destroyed, creating an extreme hazard for those buildings or structures on the hillsides above the ] valley floor Landslides could also pose a threat to transportation routes, preventing emergency vehicles from responding in an earthquake disaster Additionally disruption of water, sewer, power and communication lines would be likely rl Steve Blcom;The Associated Pass ] South Puget Sound Community College student Jeff Ennett walks along an Olympia sidewalk made buckled by Wednesday's quake ] Transportation and communication would be limited or inaccessible. Major transportation lifchnes are built on liquefaction prone soils and hillsides which could be destroyed as a result of an earthquake Bridges may be dammed or need structural ] assessment resulting in road closures. Assessment of bridges, overpasses and roadways may be delayed, creating a potential continuum of harm Downed utility lines could cause more problems for transportation as well as the loss of communication and power. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.5 Fire as a result of the 1994 Northridge Caliifortua Earthquake Fire, a disaster in itself, frequently accompanies earthquakes Fire usually occurs as a result of damaged electrical equipment, broken gas lines, fuel spills, disrupted heating equipment or any combination thereof. These fires can break out in multiple locations in a short period of time following an earthquake, quickly causing firefighting resources to be overextended. Additional strain on firefighting capabilities could be caused by transportation route interruptions and broken water lines, which would male firefighting impossible yrrrypibi p'IU ' IRIN 74 IR LTC, Masonrj Damage in Seattle alter the 2001 Nisqua/ly earthquake Damage to existing structures in the area could be great, with older brick buildings and tilt-up warehouses potentially being the most susceptible. Because the Kent valley contains the largest concentration of older buildings and lies on soil prone to liquefaction, it is likely that this area would be the most heavily damaged in the event of an earthquake. Another concern is the potential for destruction and damage of tilt-up buildings in the industrial area of Kent As well as being located on the liquefaction soil, many of these strictures have hazardous materials stored on site, which when released City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.6 i have a high potential for being life threatening. High populated facilities, such as schools and community buildings are of concern as well, due to the potential high loss of life. Howard Hanson Dam, and to a lesser degree the Mud Mountain Dam, have more than a significant effect on the flow of the Green and White Rivers, making flooding of the Kent valley an added concern. The Green River flows through the Kent area and the White River flows through south Auburn. An earthquake of significant magnitude could cause enough damage to these dams to create a serious flood hazard. The time that an earthquake occurs significantly determines the impact of the quake. The most significant effect of time relates to the potential for human casualties. Experts 1 believe that casualties would be greatest during hours of heavy vehicular traffic and when large numbers of people are in concentrated areas such as business and government districts, places of commerce and schools. Thus the highest potential for Turman casualties in Kent resulting from an earthquake exists during the 12-hour period from 6 am. to 6 p.ni. Geographic Area Explanation The North Valley and Downtown Core is composed of soft material that is likely to create liquefaction. In a significant earthquake, it is expected that the North Valley and Downtown Core will sustain a significant amount of damage IConclusions 1 The effects of a major earthquake in the Kent area have the potential to be catastrophic. Hundreds of people could be killed and thousands left homeless. Damage to buildings and structures could be in the millions of dollars Transportation and communication could be disrupted from flooding, landslides, structure damage, and downed lines. Building codes continue to be strengthened to address potential effects of earthquakes on structures. However, because of an earthquake's potential for catastrophic human and economic consequences, it is incumbent upon local government to continue to take appropriate actions to mitigate against its severity by conscientious enforcement of codes and improved building standards, and by educating our citizens as best we can to be ready for a great quake. Public awareness programs, school staff and student community "Drop, Cover and Hold" training and drills Community Emergency Response Team (C.E.R.T) education and training, and community outreach on what to do before, during and after an earthquake are just part of the answer. RICHTER MAGNITUDE SCALE The measure of strength of an earthquake is indicated by a number called its magnitude. Magnitude is calculated from a measurement of either the amplitude or the duration of City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.1 specific types of recorded seismic waves. In general, the different magnitude scales (for example, local or Richter magnitude and surface wave magnitude) give similar numerical estimates of the size of an earthquake, and all display a logarithmic relation to recorded ground motion. That means each unit increase in magnitude represents an increase in the size of the recorded signal by a factor of 10. Seismologists sometimes refer to the size of an earthquake as moderate (magnitude 5), large (magnitude 6), major (magnitude 7),or great(magnitude 8). The intensity of an earthquake is a measure of the amount of ground shaking at a t particulate site, and it is determined from reports of human reaction to shaking, damage done to structures, and other effects. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (Table 1) is now the scale most commonly used to rank earthquakes felt in the United States. Table 1. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. From a pamphlet "The severity of an earthquake" prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1986. See Wood and Neuman (1931) for complete details. I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings Delicately suspended objects may swing. III Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of truck Duration estimated. IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. i VI. Felt by all; many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of • fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII. Damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.8 VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial. collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. ' X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed, most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly IXII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level distorted Objects thrown into the air. 1 I i 1 I i 1 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.9 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood Hazard Profile , FLOODING/DAM FAILURE Definition of Hazard ' A flood is an unusually large flow or rise of water, especially over land not usually covered with water. Of all possible natural hazards, Kent is most prone to flooding. There are two types of flooding which could conceivably occur in this area: 1) Riverine flooding: Floods which occur because of prolonged rain, melting snow or both. The first element leading to a potential Riverine flood is a heavy, fresh snow in the mountains. If a weather front with warm winds, usually from the southeast, and heavy rainfall follow the snow before it has a chance to settle and solidify, a flood potential exists 2) Flash flooding and surface flooding: Several factors contribute to flash floodmg. The two key elements are rainfall intensity and duration. Topography, soil conditions, urbanization and ground cover also play important roles Flash flooding occurs within a few minutes to a few hours of excessive rainfall,a dam or levee failure, or a sudden release of water held by an ice or log jam. In addition, localized surface or "urban" flooding occurs as the result of drainage systems that are incapable of carrying exceptional volumes of snownielt and heavy ram runoff. The first flooding type is the most likely to occur, with the second being possible as the result of dam or other flood control system failure, such as the Green River levee system. History of Hazard The Kent Valley was historically inundated by large floods until the construction of the Howard A. Hanson Dam. Since operation commenced in 1962, the dam, in combination with the levee systems also constructed along the Green River, have prevented that degree of flooding and limited flood damages. i City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.10 Historical flooding from the White River would merge with the Stuck River and t A' spill water to the north and south. The ; original path of the White River flowed _ north to the Duwamish valley through Kent, but nature transferred the course to + the Puget Sound into Commencement . - 1 Bay. Mud Mountain Dam was erected in 1948 to prevent massive flooding in South fit, King County and North Pierce County. There have been five Presidential Keni valley flooding in the 1930's declarations for flood disasters in King County since 1970, with the most recent and memorable floods in the vicinity being the ones that occurred in November and December of 1990, and the flood of February 1996, and the flood of 1997. The 1997 flood is most memorable, not only because it is the most recent but also because the 1997 storm produced approximately 20% more total precipitation over a week long 1 period, but significantly less over a 3-day period (25% less). All of these floods caused severe damage to several City parks and roadways. The 1996 storm caused extensive damage resulting landslides and the unfortunate death of one of our citizens. The rainfall 1 was less intense during the recent 2001 New Years storm. The most significant difference between the 1996 and 2001 events was the combination of heavy rainfall and melting of significant snow accumulations at low elevations in the most heavily populated areas of the county during the New Year's storm. This combination produced flooding and large volumes of runoff in the urban and suburban creek basins. iHazard Identification The City of Kent experiences flooding to some degree nearly every year. This event is most likely to occur during "flood season" between the months of October and March when rains are the heaviest. The major problems have been lowland flooding and road closures as a result of standing water. Surface flooding is most likely caused by slow- moving thunderstorms or by heavy rains associated with spring or early summer storm systems or combined with Riverine flooding. ' A flash flood is likely to occur as the result of some form of flood control system failure. System failure at either the Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River or the Mud Mountain Dam on the White River would create disaster potential throughout the Kent Valley. A failure of the levee system that has been built up and guards the banks of the Green River would also produce flash flooding to a lesser degree. Since the banks of the Green River are built up several feet higher than the surrounding area, damage to these banks or 1 levees would quickly inundate the adjacent areas and spread throughout the lower, valley floor. 1 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.1 I l The City of Kent has adopted King County's Flood Management Plan, participates in the Green River Flood Basin Management program, and has adopted Flood Hazard Regulations (KCC 14.09) to address impacts of potential development in flood areas. The pending update to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance will address updated state and federal legislation. Vulnerabilitv Analvsis A very common type of flooding in the lowland areas is due to the frequent two to three t day storm. This flooding normally creates transportation difficulties like slippery roadways and poor visibility, increasing the likelihood of traffic accidents and a slowdown in emergency response Basement flooding and mud slides are also likely occurrences. A storm lasting longer would worsen the effects considerably Possibilities include; serious property damage, disruption of utility systems, inaccessibility of the valley area via normal traffic routes, health and environmental hazards as a result of sewer and septic system back ups and storage of hazardous substances in area businesses, displacement of those living and working m the affected area, and economic disaster for ' businesses and citizens alike. The Howard Hanson Dam is located approximately 32 miles upstream from Kent on the Green River. In the event of dam failure, the river banks in the Kent area would reach their peak (bank level elevation approximately 39 feet) in about 7.75 hours with the entire valley being under 8 - 15 feet of water within r 29 1!2 hours. Howard Hannon Dam The scenario for failure at the Mud Mountain Dam is much the same as that of the Howard Hanson Dann. The Mud Mountain Dam lies 26 miles from Kent on the White River Dam failure at this location would have flood waters going over its banks and reaching Kent in 4.5 hours with the valley reaching flood levels of - 12 feet in 23 1/2 hours The bank level elevation would be the same as in the Howard Hanson Dam scenario because the failure of the Mud Mountain Dam would send the water out of its normal path, rerouting into the Kent Valley .,._ The result of such an occurrence would truly be called a s' t major disaster. With severe property damage caused by the deluge of water throughout the valley floor the recovery period would most certainly be a long and costly , City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C12 Ahid All Dam I one. The most serious consequence of a flash flood however, would be inadequate evacuation warning causing the potential for loss of life and millions of dollars worth of damage. Conclusions Floodmg in the valley area could conceivably result inanything from minor inconvenience to loss of life and economic disaster to the citizens and industry in the community. While the possibility of a dam failure seems remote, the results of such an event cannot be ignored and must be adequately planned for. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.13 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazardous Materials Release Hazard Profile HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Definition of Hazard ■ This type of hazard includes the production, use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous substance and wastes that place the public, property and environment at significant risk. Illegal drug labs and dumping present yet another concern Recent history shows an increased threat from terrorists in connection with hazardous materials. Hazardous substances are any materials that pose a threat to human health and'or the environment, and any substance designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be reported if a designated quantity of the substance is spilled into the waters of , the United States or is otherwise released into the environment. Hazardous wastes are by-products of society that can pose a substantial or potential , hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed, that possess at least one of five characteristics (flammable, explosive, corrosive, toxic, or radioactive), or that appear on the EPA lists. A hazardous chemical is any hazardous material requiring an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard Such substances are capable of producing fires and explosions or adverse health effects such as cancer, bums, or dermatitis. Hazardous materials are subject to regulation by a variety of local, state and federal agencies through an assortment of labor, building, environmental, and transportation laws, and their amount and location are also subject to City of Kent Zoning Code and State of Washington regulations. History of Hazard i On December 4, 1984, a cloud of methyl isocyanate gas, an extremely toxic chemical, escaped from a Union Carbide chemical plant in Bhopal, India. More than 2,500 people lost their lives. Tens of thousands more were injured, some with permanent disabilities. Through the years, concerns over incidents of hazardous materials releases have risen due to the frequency and potential damage these events can cause. This concern has led to the development and formation of teams specially trained and outfitted to handle these situations. Demand for use of mitigation teams and procedures has grown from a few handful of calls in the early 1980's to hundreds of calls today. City of Kent , Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ' C.14 ` As a city in the state of Washington, Kent has the fifth largest quantity of hazardous material sites (188). During the period from 2001 to 2003 Kent has averaged 163 Hazardous Materials related calls per year ranging from flammable liquid spills/leaks to unknown chemicals, to a full Zone 3 HAZMAT team response. Hazard Identification The community experiences the regular use, shipment and storage of a host of hazardous materials and is a main traffic route for those materials enroute to other hazardous materials centers in the Puget Sound Region. Kent's exposure to hazardous materials includes transportation by rail, highway, pipeline, and its storage and use in industry Ithroughout the City. Transportation of hazardous { g Imaterials over the highways poses the greatest potential 1 threat to the community It is dominated by flammable liquids such as gasoline and fuel oil which represent abouti. ' ' 30% of the total. Other a- 3 hazardous materials transported by truck include; V� �T sulfuric acid, anhydrous ammonia, caustic soda, V'SuITt �= liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), tv ry� � hydrochloric acid, nitrogen, nitric acid and sodium chlorate. These materials are heavily transported and move through Aew Ha=aidous Alarer ral Team members Kent daily. Interstate 5 cames the heaviest volume of hazardous materials in the state. State Routes 99, 516, and 167 are also major hazardous materials routes, all running directly through Kent The shipments of hazardous materials by truck is conservatively estimated in excess of 60,000 bulk shipments annually and does not include materials transported between locations within the City. Rail transportation of hazardous materials is also a factor to be considered. Rail transportation of hazardous materials along the corridor between Tacoma and Everett is the heaviest in the state. This corridor runs through the Kent valley. Regular shipments of chlorine, LPG, caustic soda, anhydrous ammonia, methanol, vinyl chloride, and motor fuel have origins or destinations along this corridor. Storage and use of hazardous materials within Kent is currently so widespread that it is impossible to single out one particular area which has the greatest potential for an City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan I C.15 incident. Currently, there are more than 88 facilities in the city of Kent identified by the Community Right to Know Act that store 10,000 pounds or more of any one substance. There are also 54 facilities that have been identified as requiring emergency planning. The area north of South 234th and west of Highway 167 houses the greatest volume and variety of hazardous materials. Other locations outside this area include those businesses located along Central Avenue and south of the central business district. Several facilities within Kent contain radioactive materials and the City is also host to several Federal Superfund sites. Pipelines in the Kent area also pose a hazard, particularly in the event of accidental rupture from excavation or in the event of an earthquake. The Olympic Pipeline runs north and south along the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks and carries gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Numerous other pipelines carrying natural gas are also present in Kent. Vulnerability Analysis ' The potential exposure to hazardous materials is the most complex and probable technological hazard in the City. Kent ranks among the top three focal points for hazardous materials in the Puget Sound Region. Kent houses many chemical producers and storage facilities and is also a major industrial consumer of hazardous materials Since the adoption of SARA (Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act) Title III / EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act), there have been 54 facilities identified within Kent which use and store "Extremely Hazardous Substances" in quantities large enough to require emergency planning for those individual facilities and surrounding area With the ever growing industrial base in the community, this number is increasing on a regular basis. The chemicals included in the EPA list of "Extremely Hazardous Substances" are primarily chemicals which are extremely toxic, and when released are immediately dangerous to the life and health of humans and animals and cause serious damage to the environment. An accident involving hazardous materials can happen anytime and any place. The danger to life and the environment is dependent on the product type and amount of material involved in the accident. A small amount of an extremely hazardous substance can be more dangerous than a large spill of a less hazardous substance. The release of , hazardous materials into the air has the highest potential of being life threatening This type of release can occur as the result of a tank rupture by an accident,pressure release or simply a leaking valve Many life threatening chemicals routinely found in the area are in abundance and include chlonne, anhydrous ammonia, formaldehyde and cyanides. Many other hazardous chemicals stored locally can become airborne as the result of fire or reaction to other chemicals. 1 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.16 Flammable liquids such as gasoline and diesel represent the largest class of hazardous materials in Kent. They are probably the most likely substance to cause a chemical emergency in Kent. ! The average individual is not likely to consider the fuel they put in their car extremely dangerous. Considering the fact that the vapors from one gallon of gasoline provide the same damage potential as fourteen sticks of dynamite, imagine the damage and loss of life that would result from a tank truck that explodes in a traffic accident. Further imagine that the truck is located in a heavily populated area when the accident occurs. Another potential scenario is the tram tank car rupture and explosion of liquified petroleum gas. Many trains moving through Kent carry multiple tanks of this substance. An accident involving an explosion of this material could destroy a large area of the City. The cleanup and recovery from a hazardous materials incident is very time consuming as well as costly. It is possible that a spill in Kent could enter storm drains and waterways before it could be contained. Ecological damage to the area aquifers and wildlife could be substantial. An incident could send dangerous chemicals into the Green River, ! downstream to the Duwamish River and into Puget Sound. Hazardous substances entering sanitary drains could create serious problems at Metro treatment facilities should they mix with incompatible material. Costs associated with a hazardous material spill ' cleanup can run several thousand dollars for a small spill, and into the hundreds of millions for an accident of disastrous proportion. ! Thousands of possibilities exist for hazardous material emergencies. Everything from toxic gas releases which have the potential to kill thousands, to oil spills which can ruin environmentally sensitise areas for generations, can and do happen. Spills along roadways, parking lots and inside facilities occur almost daily to some degree. We must remember that each of us is vulnerable to the dangers of chemicals on the highway, in our work places, our schools, and our homes Geographic Area Explanation The North Valley contains the greatest volume and variety of hazardous materials. Conclusions Any incident in which hazardous materials are involved has the potential for escalation from a minor incident into a full scale disaster. The hazardous properties of chemicals, fuels, radioactive substances and other potentially dangerous materials range from explosive to highly flammable to poisonous. They have the ability to contaminate the air, water and other areas of the environment, and are harmful to human, animal and plant life. The potential for loss of life, extensive property damage, and environmental contamination is always high when hazardous materials are involved in an accident or are improperly handled. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.17 The presence of such a tremendous amount of hazardous materials poses a great threat to ' the entire community. The majority of area citizens are not aware of the potential danger to the community posed by the transportation and storage of hazardous materials. i 1 1 ' 1 t t t 1 City of Kent , Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.18 ' City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan High Winds Hazard Profile 1 High Winds Definition of Hazard This type of hazard is an atmospheric disturbance characterized by a strong wind and usually accompanied by rain, snow, sleet, hail and often thunder and lightning. The National Weather Service classifies wind from 38 to 55 MPH as gale force winds; 56 to 74 MPH as storm force winds and any winds over 75 MPH as hurricane force winds Destructive winds like those described normally occur between October and March. The highest recorded wind speed recorded in the greater Kent area was more than 81 miles per hour. ' A tomado is violently rotating column of air, pendant from a cumuliform cloud or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud. Tornados are the most violent weather phenomena known Their funnel shaped clouds rotating at velocities of up to 300 miles per hour generally affect areas of 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile wide and seldom more than 16 miles long. Tornados are produced by strong ' thunderstorms Such thunderstorms can also produce large damaging hail, heavy amounts of ram, and strong damagmg w inds History of Hazard Winds of a destructive speed bringing ' varying degrees of damage, including _ downed trees and utility lines, `Y transportation interruptions and property damage, occur fairly regularly in this area The most recent wind storm in our area of disastrous proportion was the1`- 1 Inauguration Day Windstorm in January r• all 4J 1993 Calls for assistance to Kent Police/Fire totaled more than 1,400 :=' ^ � during the 24 hour period of the stone • . �1 �; ter, '.;,j` This Presidential declared disaster had winds clocked at approximately 80 miles 2003 Windstoim damage Per hour and caused hundi ed of thousands of dollars in damage Other recent windstorms: December 1995 — California Express Windstorm January— March 1999— La Nina Winter Windstorm December 2003 —December Storm City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 C19 Annual tornado sightings in western Washington average 2 per year. During the past 30 years there have been several tornados recorded in the area. The most recent occurrence was in 2004. Seven sightings have occurred in the first six months of 2004 with touchdowns near Tenino and La Center both causing structural damage. We have been fortunate that none of them have caused heavy damage or loss of life. In ' 1972 a tornado struck in the City of Vancouver, Washington 145 miles to our south. During the course of this disaster, an elementary school full of children was destroyed, as ' was a shopping center, a bowling alley and many homes. Six people were killed and some three hundred were injured; damages were upward of six million dollars. Hazard Identification The effect upon Kent of a strong windstorm or tornado is likely to include impact to power lines, transportation and lifeline routes. Structures are also vulnerable to the effects of wind from falling trees and other debris. If a tornado struck Kent, damage could be widespread. Businesses could be forced to close for an extended period or permanently; fatalities could be high in densely populated areas; many people could be homeless for an extended period; and routine services such as telephone or power could be disrupted. Building codes continue to be strengthened to address potential impacts of windstorms on structures Vulnerabilitv Analvsis ' All areas of Kent are vulnerable to severe windstorms Windstorms can usually be predicted more accurately than other local storms. Kent can expect at least one windstorm each year. , The problems arising from high winds, whether they come in the form of the common wind storm or the destructive forces of a tomado, are many. Principal damage occurs in the form of downed trees, utility lines, signs and traffic lights. Damage to buildings would also be prevalent. Secondary hazards associated with high winds include power and other utility failures, as well as automobile, railroad and air traffic accidents. ' While it is possible to forecast the potential for a tomado formation, it is not possible to forecast that one will in fact occur or where it will strike. They are typically too sudden in onset, to small in scope and too short-lived to forecast. Conclusions Windstorms are a common natural hazard that will affect not just Kent, but will have widespread regional impacts. A windstorm of destructive velocity or a deadly tornado City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ' C.20 t ' could strike this area with little warning. Citizens should be prepared and family plans and contingencies developed. Schools and businesses should also support preparedness campaigns and programs to mitigate the effects of a windstorm. 1 The most effective tool for alerting the public of severe storms is the National Weather 1 Service (NWS) weather warning network. Broadcast over VHF radio, transmitted to county agencies, NOAA weather radios with Emergency Alert System capabilities provide early warning notification needed to prepare for windstorms and tornado watches/warnings The most common effects of these storms is the disruption of electrical and transportation ' routes causing hardship and economical loss to citizens, businesses and public assets. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.21 City of Kent , Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Landslide Hazard Profile , LANDSLIDE ' Definition of Hazard The term landslide refers to the downward movement of masses of rock and soil. , Landslides in this area are for the most part masses of soil ranging in volume from just a , few feet, to many yards. The rate of travel of a slide can range from a few inches per month to many feet per second, depending on slope, material and water content. Landslides can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, erosion, volcanic eruptions and by human modification of the land. History of Hazard The topography of the Kent area has historically made the area prone to minor landslides. For the most part these incidents have been in remote `•, f 1 locations causing little to no � damage. In recent years, however, =Jz v there has been an increase in the number of residential structures located in areas susceptible to this condition. Heavy snowstorms in December • ,-_ �, :��t� ;- 1996 and January 1997 were followed by a warming trend that caused quick melting, runoff, and flooding. This period was then followed by rain. This led to over A-I�.; 100 slides in King County over the subsequent two-month period. Fissures and sand volcanoes were discovered on sand bars along the Green River following the Nisqually Earthquake on F 1 k , = :- k , 28, 2001. _ ''"_ r �� ebruary Most recently, sliding of both the East and West hills has produced incidents that range from the complete destruction of structures, to the loss of hillside view property. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitivatinn Plan Green River Valley ' ' Hazard Identification Conditions which lead to soil instability and sliding include steep slopes, water saturation and deep frost. Building and road construction are also a contributing factor to landslides as they often undermine or steep otherwise stable soil. Landslide hazard areas include areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include any areas ' susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Features that may indicate Landslides include: 1 ■ Ancillary structures such as decks and patios tilting and/or moving relative to the main house. ■ Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations. ■ Broken water lines and other underground utilities. ■ Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences ■ Rapid increase or decrease in creek water level ■ Sticking doors and windows, and �isible open spaces indicating jambs and frames ' out of plumb The folio►-Ong are some measures that can be taken to avoid landslide hazards: ' ■ Reduce surface erosion, keep drains and culverts clear. • Maintain and improve vegetation; trees and shrubs provide root strength to hold the soil in place and help dewater the slope. If such vegetation is removed, root ' strength will be gone within 2 to 12 years and will not be easily restored. ■ Protect bluff from surface erosion, apply erosion mats, plastic sheeting, or other ' erosion control material where vegetation will not take hold The hillsides on the East and West sides of the Kent valley area are particularly vulnerable to landslide activity. Because there are many strictures built along these hillsides more lives are endangered and there is greater potential for damage in the event of a major occurrence. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.23 Vulnerability Analysis Landslides can result in the disruption of roads, water, sewer, gas, electric and phone ! lines, as well as serious damage to public and private property. The loss of life likely to happen in such an occurrence would be a major concern, particularly for those areas , where multi-family construction has taken place. International Building Code and Kent Zoning Code regulations, as well as the pending , update to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, address impacts of potential development in landslide areas. Geographic Area Explanation ' The geographic features of the East Hill Slope and West Hill Slope create an increased risk of landslide. Conclusion , Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or , other geologic events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible commercial, residential, or industrial development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Some geologic hazards can be reduced or mitigated by engineering, ' design, or modified construction or mining practices so that risks to health and safety are acceptable. When technology cannot reduce risks to acceptable levels, building in geologically hazardous areas is best avoided. This distinction should be considered by , counties and cities that do not now classify geologic hazards as they develop their classification scheme. By learning to recognize old landslides and studying the effects of construction and landscaping near and on slide-prone areas, we may be able to plan for the slides to come. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.24 , City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire Hazard Profile ' URBAN FIRE Definition of Hazard ' Urban Fires in cities or towns involve buildings with potential for spread to adjoining structures Although the statistics show a decline in fire casualty rates in recent years, the U S. rate remains much higher than the yearly reported fire death and damage rates for Australia, Japan and most of the Western European countries The urban fire hazard in Kent involves areas where single family homes, multi-family occupancies and/or business facilities are clustered close together, increasing the ' possibility of rapid spread to another structure. Other areas are characterized by adjoining buildings Adjoining buildings are found in the downtown region of the city or include other closely spaced wood frame structures. The cause of fires in urban areas usually includes one of the following• ■ Criminal acts (arson, illegal explosive deices, acts of terrorism) ■ Residential accidents (improper use of electrical appliances, faulty connections, grease fires, smoking, heating appliances or improper disposal of wood ashes) ' ■ Industrial accidents (hazardous material incidents, explosions, transportation accidents) ■ Acts of nature (lightening strikes, earthquake byproduct) History of Hazard On August 6, 1993, a series of fires began in the north Seattle area ' Ultimately, 76 fires occurred, resulting in losses of over $22 million. On February 6, 1994, Paul Keller was arrested and charged with arson He r ' ' ultimately pled guilty to setting 32 of the fires ' Chein Centi al Fn e in 1999 caused over ,SI mdhon (1999) dollars in damage ' City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.25 Major Kent urban tires: ' ■ Adair's Restaurant, January 1983; a 2 alarm fire causing over $500,000 in damages. ■ Department of Transportation, December 1991; a 4 alarm fire causing over $1,000,000 in damages. ' ■ Village Green Apartments, June 1993; a 3 alarm fire including a regional strike team. The fire displaced over 100 residents and caused over 53,000,000 in ' damages. • Chem Central, September 1999; a 2 alarm hazardous material fire causing over ' 51,000,000 in damages. ■ Spnngwood Apartments, July 2003; a 2 alarm fire displacing dozens of families and causing over 51,300,000 in damages. ' Fire in any area is a menace to both life and property. During the two year period from 2002 to 2003 there were more than 1,500 reported fire incidents within the Greater Kent , Area causing significant monetary loss of property. Hazard Identification Fire has many causes which can range from faulty winng to improper storage and handling of flammables, illegal explosive devices, and arson Fires range from small fires which can be easily managed to a conflagration. A conflagration is a fire that expands uncontrollably beyond its original source area to engulf adjoining regions Wind, extremely dry or hazardous weather conditions and explosions are usually the contributing elements behind a conflagration There are certain sectors of the , city and populations which are more vulnerable to fire than others Those areas which have ' a high population density present a high risk for fire simply due to increased , t. exposure and probability. ihY^ Those same areas can also pose the threat of high casualty rates , for the same reasons. Other areas include large residential areas near heavily«'ooded wild ' land, posing a wild land/urban interface situation. Urban fires can ovenrhelin local resources City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C 26 ' A large urban fire puts a tremendous strain on many of the operating departments of the community. The fire service needs all available firefighters to control the blaze and yet must continue to meet normal demands for service; law enforcement provides for ' evacuation activities, traffic and crowd control; public works is tasked with supplying barricades and a continuous supply of critical utilities necessary to manage the incident. Zone resources may be asked for assistance in one form or another, resulting in reduced response capabilities in the supporting jurisdictions. A large part of the city's business district may need to be shut down and major roadways blocked to facilitate the movement of emergency vehicles. Viewers, sightseers and news media personnel can add to the disruption as an indirect effect. ' The mass movement of citizens through evacuation or disaster migration will affect emergency forces. If people are removed from a residential area, emergency shelters may ' be required. The evacuation may have a significant effect on other parts of the community depending on: the size of the fire zone, the materials burning, the population density, and the number of people needing to be housed. 1 Arson fires have been on the increase for the past several years. The arson fire presents a unique and significant risk to everyone in the community because there is no way of tknowing where, when, and how an arsonist may strike. Vulnerabilitv Analvsis ' The housing of low income persons is often in older structures which do not conform to modern building and fire codes and do not contain fire detection devices. These structures are also prone to faulty electrical, heating and other utility systems due to age and lack of proper maintenance Many of these older structures were constructed in very close proximity to one another, enabling fire to spread rapidly from one structure to another. Older apartment buildings and hotels also face increased risk of rapid fire spread due to inadequate firewall protection and the lack of fire detection and sprinkler systems. Some of the newer residential structures and hotels, though still susceptible to high ' population risk, are not as vulnerable to fire as are older structures These structures were designed and built to include fire resistive features which conform to modem fire and building codes. Fire detection and/or extinguishing systems were also installed in these ' buildings at the time of construction Though a major fire could certainly occur in these strictures, the likelihood of its spreading to adjoining structures or units before it can be brought under control is significantly reduced. Commercial, industrial and multi-family fires present their own unique hazards. Some newer structures, like residential occupancies, are built with fire resistive construction ' and fire detection and/or sprinkler systems (in buildings over 10,000 sq ft.) thereby reducing the risk of major fires. Older structures and single family dwellings however, share many of the same problems as older housing and are at greater risk of fire. ' City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.27 Many commercial and industrial occupancies within Kent store and use hazardous materials. Kent houses the second largest quantity of hazardous materials sites in all of , King County. The storage and use of these materials not only increases the risk of fire, but also pose a significant threat to firefighters and the community if the material should become involved in a fire. , A sizable earthquake in Kent could damage any or all of the city's main water supplies, transmission lines, and/or feeder lines. Without adequate water reserves, automatic sprinkler protection would fail, and firefighters would be unable to attack a wide fire front. In such a setting, a small fire could easily spread beyond control. Conclusions The threat of a large scale urban fire is limited in Kent except for the introduction of an ' outside event such as an earthquake or hazardous materials incident. The number of commercial and industrial fires has been controlled in recent years due to the annual fire inspections performed by fire department personnel. These inspections not only identify ' potential problems, they also provide an opportunity for business owners and workers to be more aware of fire prevention through education provided at the time of inspection. Despite the best effort, however, some fires still occur. The science and art-form of Arson Investigation has also been a significant factor in the , reduction of urban fires. Investigators and fire crews are working together to convict and or deter more arsonists than ever before. Despite the efforts of the fire service, aging buildings and acts intentionally or , unintentionally made by people will contribute to incidents of burning buildings in the Kent area. ' City of Kent ' Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.28 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Volcanic Activity Hazard Profile VOLCANIC ACTIVITY Definition of Hazard LA volcano is a vent in the earth's crust through which molten rock (magma), rock fragments, gases, and ashes are ejected from the earth's interior. A volcano is created when magma erupts onto the surface of the earth Volcanoes take many forms according to the chemical composition of their magma and the conditions in which the magma is erupted. When magma is erupted it is referred to as lava. Some lava known as 'basalts' are hot and fluid. Opposite of basalts are 'rhyolites', which are characterized by their inability to flow freely, erupt explosively or form steep domes. Midway in between are 'andesites' which are thick, flow slowly, and are mildly explosive. ' History of Hazard On May 18, 1980, Mt St Helens erupted with explosive force killing 57 people Heavy ash fall blanketed much of Eastern Washmgton into Northern Idaho and Western Montana. Subsequent eruptions on May 25 and June 12, similarly affected Western Washington and Portland, Oregon, although to a lesser degree Mount Rainier -- at 4393 meters (14,410 feet) the highest peak in the Cascade Range -- is a dormant volcano whose load of glacier ice exceeds that of any other mountain in the conterminous United States This tremendous Cascade Eruptions During The Past 4,000 Years mass of rock and ice, in combination with great _ Baker topographic relief, Glacier Pk )r Rainier poses a variety of St.Helens Lap geologic hazards, both t Adams during inevitable future [ Jefferson eruptions and during Z O. Three Sisters the intervening periods Newberry of repose The written Crater Lake p Medicine Lake history of Mount Shasta Lassen Rainier encompasses the period since about <000 Yea so Ago 2000 A D. 1820, duringUSGS Mp.LW54VO.V?0 MNI!hart GV019 VSG50V F&fta W-5 which time one or two small eruptions, several Recent ei uptions in the Cascades (USGS) small debris avalanches, City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.29 i and many small lahars (debris flows originating on a volcano) have occurred. Hazard Identification A volcano is commonly said to be "active" when it is in the process of erupting and "dormant " when it is not. Scientists, however, usually use the term "active" to refer to any volcano that has erupted in historic time or is seismically or geothermally active. By this definition Mounts Rainier, Baker, Hood and St. Helens are active volcanoes. Even Eruption Gloud y�y l ... �; Prevailing Wmd Asti (Toplua? Fail -` ' Eruption Column Landslide nao Rain 10eknis Avalanche) Rombs f .. ygot llyroclas'.ic Flow t ava Dofne Col'apse Lava Dome 3aF; l'yrr-•rinStiC Flow �/ I ah.ir (epic or Debris Flow) L1v:1 Flow � l Ground Water r , `vl --Crack 5s . , n�r•,lr l7J A-i I.,W mom 131GII1L i hAacdrna F f''..r.r A-A •vr du -1 u.lr- v-u,P'y r l udl.rdl l,n_'.r rl.ihd• :n Al l/ir l 7- -1.<• •Pelt .y;1 lr e.t1 TIN u rf•74cJahotiLh th�.t;;.; ILlwl 6 rlc:rJJl VI d'u..G rL'u W li l'd bVwt_r ;�4r.1;,1 StJt..•�jr JR,_isb.i �o'f rii.i ry or lie,- n;.7a'fl.AY.fi i o:P osf- r0 njl Pr✓'1Pdf f1P'+ SIX,l A V It 05P Jr i'A AAd .-(lfr P t A7dr74 40'rl a i Id ch_rl J1dnJsdJ_n Cd'I:SL'7 'lb! 1'ri'r /r vJcx 01S no.Lapin)y' fHdL-d J: -it J!_l Uls d 'fl.S L!C /f yj IQIPCJ!^bC IJ.t hC'J l/CY�IC 9r.:CL LCCJ!r: 7/17 iC/.(uC IJl! Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C30 ' Glacier Peak, long thought to have been without an eruption for over 10,000 years, is now known to have erupted as recently as a thousand years ago and possibly even as late as the 17th century. Mount Adams is also capable of renewed activity. Volcanoes usually exhibit some warning signs before erupting. Most of these can only be detected by instruments; therefore, it is not surprising that stories are told about volcanoes erupting without warning. Explosions caused by heated material coming into contact with ground water, and involving no new magma, do happen without warning. They are less spectacular than magmatic eruptions, but can still be violent and release great mud flows. The basic hazards of a volcanic eruption are: 1. Stearn and gas explosions: Explosions of steam or other gases, containing pulverized rock particles in suspension, fragments of older rocks from pea sized to hundreds of tons, newly erupted hot lava bombs, and a shock wave that may extend for several miles. Steam explosions can occur anytime hot material comes in contact with water, ice, or snow. No eruptive activity is necessary for this to occur. 2. Volcanic gases: Pockets or clouds of toxic gases kill with chemical poisons, internal or external burns, or asphyxiation. As an example, carbon dioxide is heavier than air, and may collect in low areas near active and inactive volcanoes. Gases mixed with ash make up the eruptive cloud, the 'smoke' of the volcano. 3. Tephra and volcanic ash: Ash fall normally accompanies the eruptions of andesitic volcanoes. The lava in these volcanoes is so thick and charged with gases that it explodes into ash rather than flow. Ash is harsh, acidic, gritty, smelly, and thoroughly unpleasant. Ash can cause respiratory problems even to the point of causing death. When ash combines with ram, sulphur dioxide combines with water to form dilute sulfuric acid that may cause bums to skin, eyes and mucous membranes. Hydrochloric acid rains have also been reported. Acid rains may affect water supplies, burn foliage, strip paint, corrode machinery, and dissolve fabric. Heavy ash fall blots out light, which can cause a heavy demand on power supplies, leading to possible power failure. Ash clogs water courses and machinery of all kinds. It causes electrical short circuits, and drifts into all transportation routes. It is slippery and its weight can cause structural collapse. Because it is easily carried by air current, it remains a hazard long after an eruption. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.31 4. Volcanic landslides and glacial outbursts floods: Avalanches of glacial ice or rocks may be set in motion by explosions, earthquakes or heat induced melting of ice and snow. The latter may also create a mud flow. Earthquakes may release meltwater or a glacial outburst flood from behind an ice dam or within a glacier. This is a common event and can occur without apparent cause. Most cascade outburst floods have occurred between August and November, but they may happen at any time of the year. 3Jii• '.Y.^OT� a i i..iu i I w•u 41 I uI dlup .YIII. l - ( 111•rr nl• 4 Ill ill •l• rI"/ 'fr _ JF ' ` ---. MOUNT rr' RAINIER EXPLANATION r- —_� tU.I in I.IIu nlu. llrn Al idol da•.Tl••� n. 1 1 i 1'iA . 1!1\ pJ�j� I I ill., onl i. I .I I b• 14 _ Y` � J9•AI,.m I . l 111 ll IIIII Ip IIY II 1111 lb _ _ lip (IIIF• /l. / IA, --' n ^ ll Ill KL-44TLH' Poleano ha_mds fiom Mount Ratner, Washington Py;oclaslrc floor hazard zone and mundanon zones for Case 1, 11, and Ill lahms 5. Lahars: Mud and debris flows composed of melt water, rain, ash, pumice, rock and anything else in the way, may be released by explosions, heavy rains, or earthquakes. This danger continues for many years after an eruption A volcanic mud flow, whether or not it involves an eruption, is called a 'lahar' it can move at speeds up to 90 miles per hour and may attain depths of hundreds of feet. A large lahar can flow over or destroy a dam. Further downstream lahars simply entomb everything in mud. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.32 6. Lava: Lava flows from Cascade volcanoes tend to be small and slow moving. The heat of the lava may start fires in its path. Flows may also bury roads and other escape routes. 7. VolcanolZenic earthquakes: Volcanic earthquakes are usually centered within or beneath the volcano. Tremors may cause the avalanche of rock and snow, landslides, and building collapse. Vulnerability Analvsis While the entire area is at risk to some form of damage produced by a volcano, the greatest risk would appear to be the valley floor due to the possibility of a dam failure. The topographically low floor of the contiguous lower Green River and Duwamish River valleys, from Auburn north to Elliott Bay, is considered to be at significantly less (but not eliminated) risk of inundation by a Case I lahar, relative to that risk in the lower White River valley. This area will also be at significant risk from Case II lahars or from subsequent redistribution of sediment from new lahar deposits under either of the two following conditions: (1) lahars or post-lahar sedimentation significantly reduces the available storage of Mud Mountain Reservoir; (2) aggradation of the lower White River valley south of Auburn by lahars or post-lahar sedimentation from Puyallup valley causes the White and Puyallup Rivers to dram northward into the Green and Duwamish River valley. The largest lahar originating at Mount Rainier in the last 10,000 years is known as the Osceola Mudflow. This cohesive lahar, which occurred about 5600 years ago, was at least 10 times larger than any other known lahar from Mount Rainier. It was the product of a large debris avalanche composed mostly of hydrothermally-altered material, and may have been triggered as magma forced its way into the volcano. Osceola deposits corer an area of about 550 square kilometers (212 square miles) in the Puget Sound lowland, extending at least as far as Kent, and to Commencement Bay, now the site of the Port of Tacoma. Considering the active Cascade volcanoes, Kent could mostly likely receive significant ash fall from Mt. St Helens, Mt. Rainier, or Mt. Baker. Volcanic ash is highly disruptive to economic activity because it covers just about everything, infiltrates most openings, and is highly abrasive. Ash is slippery, especially when wet; roads, highways, and airport runways may become impassable. Automobile and let engines may stall from ash- clogged air filters and moving parts can be damaged from abrasion, including bearings, brakes, and transmissions Large tephra fragments are capable of causing death or injury by impact, and may be hot enough to start fires where they land. These hazards usually do not extend beyond about 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the vent. Most tephra-related injuries, fatalities, and social disruptions occur at greater distances from the vent, where tephra fragments are less than City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.33 a few centimeters (1 inch) across. Clouds of fine tephra can block sunlight, greatly restrict visibility, and thereby slow or stop vehicle travel. Such clouds are commonly accompanied by frequent lightning. The combination of near or total darkness, lightning, and falling tephra can be terrifying. When inhaled, tephra can create or aggravate respiratory problems. Accumulation of more than about 10 centimeters(4 inches) of tephra on the roof of a building may cause it to collapse. Even thin tephra accumulations ruin crops. Wet tephra can cause power lines to short out. Finally, tephra clouds are extremely hazardous to aircraft, because engines may stop and pilots may not be able to see. After the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980,much attention has been given to the very real possibility of further volcanic activity in Washington State. Mount Rainier, lying to the south of Kent, has erupted three times in the past 150 years. Though we could conceivably experience ash fall from any volcano, Mt. Rainier poses the greatest variety of threats to our area. Other dangers to life and property would depend on the degree of volcanic hazard, and the type and size of the eruption. Conclusions A volcanic event in the Cascade mountains may occur one or twice in a lifetime. The Kent area is close enough to be directly affected by eruptions from any one of five volcanoes. We are susceptible to a variety of hazardous situations during a volcanic eruption; perhaps of greatest concern is the threat of large mud flows causing damage to either the Mud Mountain or the Howard A. Hanson Dam Seismic intensities great enough to damage these dams would be of equal concern. Geologic evidence shows major lahar and debris flows have filled the Green River valley in the past, although recent models put the Kent area at a minor risk The overall effects of a major eruption could possibly produce an incident of disaster that could only be compared to the devastation of a major earthquake. Tephra and ash fall from a volcanic eruption could pose health concerns for residents as well as damage property, interrupt transportation, disrupt industry and the local commerce(see chart below). Experience at Mount St. Helens showed the need to identify specialized protective equipment for both vehicles and people working in the shadow of a volcanic eruption. Essential equipment for personnel would likely include breathing masks or other respiratory protection. Similar air filtration would be required for vehicles operating in heavy ash fall. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.34 Major Losses from the May 18, 1980 Eruption of Mount St. Helens. Sector Federal Pnvate State Local Total %Total Forestry Fs,68.0 $218.1 $63.7�Fs449.8 46.6 Clean-up 307.9 9.7 5 0 841.3 363.0 374 Property 43.6 44 8 2 5 16.0 106 9 11.6 Agriculture 39.1 F 39.1 40 Income F —Fs 9 I- � 8.9 0.9 Transport r �—� 2.1 2 1 0.2 Total F$518.6 J83 0,6,71.2 FS59.4 5969.8 (- Percent of total 53 0 33 1 7.3 6 1 - In Mdhons ofdollms iCity of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.3 5 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Winter Storm Hazard Profile Winter Storm Definition of Hazard This type of hazard in an atmospheric disturbance characterized by a strong wind and usually accompanied by rain, snow, sleet, hail, and often thunder or lightning Also characteristic of this hazard is any heavy fall of snow, rain, or hail. Snow storms or blizzards, which are snow storms accompanied by high wind and/or drifting snow, occur occasionally in the area. Hail storms occur when freezing water in thunderstorm type clouds accumulates in layers around an icy core Wind added to hail can batter crops, strictures and transportation systems. An ice storm occurs when rain falls out of warm moist upper layer of atmosphere �' �L y,.J ti into a below freezing, drier layer near the ground. The t - 7 ,¢.� � r i ram freezes on contact with ' - }„ =� � � � Y,��. the cold ground and } r ;v '3 per $ accumulates on exposed surfaces If this is accompanied by w ind, damage can occur to trees and uti I ity wires. History of Hazard Fi ee_ing ice cat cave sereie inimediate impacts The Kent area, like the rest of the Puget Sound area is known for its moderate climate. Snowfall rarely exceeds ten inches in an entire season. The snow that does fall seldom remains on the ground more than a day or two. Chances for accumulation of snow in the event of one severe weather front following i another is historically minimal. However, since 1985 and most recently in January 2004 the area has experienced major winter storms that have created significant hazards and disastrous results totaling in the millions of dollars of damage. City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.36 iHazard Identification All areas of Kent are subject to the effects of these incidents In particular, people, power lines, transportation routes and structures are vulnerable to the effects of cold, weight of the snow, winds and falling trees. Snow, like other hazards, does not have the same impact on all areas. The depth of the snow as well as the temperature and location of the snowfall are major factors in determining the degree of hazard that is presented to the area. LBuilding codes continue to be strengthened to address potential effects of snow- and ice storms on structural integrity of buildings. Vulnerability Analvsis The Kent area has hills on either side of the valley The hillsides and relatively infrequency of snowstorms make such storms dangerous and difficult to deal with Major - transportation difficulties usually occur as the result of even a minimal / ` '+►� � ; � ..+ t snovx fallWE, r,- t Heap y snowfalls create dangerous - ' - _t' `V�.`t'a4 • r'= t o. inaccessible roads, poor visibility, and resulting traffic accidents Divers in " the area have little opportunity to gain experience driving on snow covered streets, with piobiems amplified by lack of proper tires and chains to mitigate the hazardous driving conditions Snow removal operations are often hampered by lack of manpower and equipment. Emergency response by fire and police personnel is often hampered by ice and snow on roads which are inaccessible under such conditions making emergency response unavailable. Most of the structural damage resulting from heavy snowfalls is roof and stricture collapse, with downed power lines and trees providing major difficulties for repair crews and residents alike Elderly and invalid persons often find themselves isolated in these situations and have difficulty obtaining food, medicines and other necessities Additionally, dangerous situations occur as the result of power outages which result in the lack of heat for many areas Efforts made to create makeshift heating and lighting often lead to fires, explosions and asphyxiation Ice and freezing ram, which we are prone to experience annually, create similar difficulties Ice and freezing ram are not as visible as snow, and therefore intensify the driving and transportation hazards. Freezing conditions are a common occurrence from November to February. These conditions can exist as the result of a simple rain with rCity of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.3 7 temperatures dropping below the freezing level overnight creating an 'unknown' hazard to the community as morning activities begin. Conclusions Snow and ice storms can strike the area with little warning. These incidents occur infrequently and as a result, the effects of them are often enhanced by the publics inexperience dealing with the challenges posed by them. The most significant effect of these storms is structural collapse, interruption of utilities and the disruption of transportation routes, causing life threat, hardship and economic loss I I i t i 1 I City of Kent i Local Hazard Mitigation Plan C.38 Appendix D Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Kent City of Kent Facilities Location by Geographical Facility Area City Administration Kent City Hall Downtown Core City Hall Annex Centennial Center Fire PoliceNire Training Facility East Hill (Emergency Coordination j Center) Fire Station 71 Downtown Core Fire Station 72 East Hill Fire Station 73 West Hill Slope Fire Station 74 East Hill Fire Station 75 East Hill Fire Station 76 North Valle Police Police Headquarters Downtown Core North End Substation North Valle East Hill Substation East Hill West Hill Substation West Hill S rin wood Substation East Hill Co.rections Correctional Facility Downtown Core Corrections Annex DowntmNn Core Public Works Public Works Sho s Downtown Core Public Works Shops Annex East Hill Parks Kent Commons Downtown Core Kent Senior Center Resource Center City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan D.1 City of Kent Critical Infrastructure Infrastructure Location by i Geographical Area Water Armstrong Springs Well East Hill Clark Springs Well Kent Springs Well Soos Creek Well Garrison Creek Well East Hill Slope East Hill Well 212` Well North Valle Water Reservoirs 4 Water Reservoirs East Hill 2 Water Reservoirs East Hill Slope 1 Water Reservoir West Hill , 1 Water Reservoir West Hill Slop Bridge SE 272 Id Street at Lake East Hill Meridian SE 272 Id Street over Soos Creek SE 256h over Soos Creek Transportation Corridors Military Road West Hill 84` Avenue Central Ave. Border of East Hill Sloe 116` Ave. SE East Hill 132" Ave. SE East Hill S. 180` Street Border of North Valle S. 196th Street North Valle S. 212` Street East Hill Slope—North Valle —West Hill Slope S. 240` Street(James Street) Border of Downtown Core — East Hill Slope— East Hill Smith Street Downtown Core Canyon Drive East Hill Sloe S. 277` Corridor East Hill—East Hill Slope —Downtown Core—West Hill Slope—West Hill i City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan D.2 Other Facilities Serving Kent Location by Facility Agency Geographical Area Public Safety Valley Communication East Hill Slope Dispatch Facility Corrections Kent Aukeen District Court King County Downtown Core King County Regional Justice Center Health Care East Hill MultiCare MultiCare East Hill Kent MultiCare State Street MultiCare Downtown Core Kent Valley Medical Center Valley East Hill Medical Schools Kent Jr. High Kent School DowntownCCre Kent Elementary District Neely-O'Brien Elementary Kent Meridian H.S East Hill Slope Scenic Hill Elementary East Hill Elementary Meridian Jr. High East Hill Sequoia Jr. High Daniel Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary Meadow Ridge Elementary Millennium Elementary Horizon Elementary Meridian Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Totem Jr. High Federal Way West Hill Slope Star Lake Elementary School Sunny Crest Elementa District i L 1 1 1 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan D.3 Other Infrastructure Serving Kent Agency/Facility Location by Geographical Area Public Safety Regional 800 radio system 'Vest Hill Slope tower Water and Sewer Water District I I I East Hill Hi hline Water District West Hill Soos Creek Water District East Hill Midway Sewer District West Hill/West Hill Slope Bridges Hwy]67 over Central Ave Downtown Core Hwy 167 over 41 Ave Hwy 167 over Meeker Street Hwy 167 over Willis Street State Route 516 over Green River 2121 o-ver Hwy 167 North Valle I-5 over State Route 516 West Hill I-5 over S 160` I-5 over S 277'h Street Transportation Hwy 99 (Pacific Hwy. S ) West Hill Corridors I-5 West Hill State Route 562 (West Downtown Core Valle Hwy.) Hwy. 167 Border of North Valley— Downtown Core State Route 515 (104` Border of East Hill Ave. SE State Route 516 (Kent East Hill Kangley Road— SE 272 Street State Route 516 (Kent Des West Hill Slope—West Moines Road) Hill City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan DA Appendix D Critical Facilities and Infrastructure King County Fire Protection District #37 King County Fire Protection District #37 Facilities Facility Fire Fire Station 77 Fire Logistics 1 t i I i ' City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan D_5 Other Agencies and Infrastructure Serving King County Fire Protection District#37 Facilit Agency Water and Sewer Water District 105 Covington Water District Soos Creek Water District Public Schools Kentrid e H.S. Kent School District Kentwood H.S. Mattson Jr. Hi ph Cedar Heights Jr. High Cedar Valley Elementa Emerald Park Elementa Covington_Elementary Jenkins Creek Elementa Crestwood Elementary ` Panther Lake ElementaKy S rin brook Elementary Glenridge Elementary Sunrise Elementary Lake Youngs Elementary Soos Creek Elementary .. Park Orchard Elementary Tahoma H S. Tahoma School District j Bridges SE 272" over Hwy 18 Covington Way over Hwy 18 180 Ave S. over Hwy 18 Transportation Corridors State Route 516 State Route 515 H 18 132° Ave SE SE 240` Street SE 208` Street 180` Ave SE City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan D.6 i City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee IHazard Identification and Risk Estimation Assessment Guidelines Purpose The Mitigation Planning approach relies on the judgment and knowledge of local participants to identify and qualitatively rank the hazards that are of concern and i threaten the City of Kent, its citizens, businesses and surrounding agencies. ■ We value your input and expertise. Please support your community by completing the attached Risk Assessment using the following instructions. When completed please fill out the Request for Comments form and return to Kent Emergency Management. Instructions L • Please complete the Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation exercise for the two hazards indicated by a highlighted mark. For reference, the current City of Kent Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment is included. Use this alongwith your knowledge and expertise to complete the exercise. The natural hazard "hail" has been completed as an example. • The hazards threatening the area are identified by either natural or technological hazards You have been assigned to complete one of each. • As each hazard is identified, the risk characteristics of that hazard, as indicated on the form, should be estimated or predicted. The corresponding number is then entered onto the form. The form contains descriptive statements regarding each risk characteristic. As the risk factors for each hazard event are completed, the total for 1 all factors should be entered at the bottom of the column Then, for each of the identified hazards, the participants should estimate the probability or likely frequency of occurrence of the event. • Finally, for each hazard, the participants should calculate an estimated risk rating for the specific hazard. Risk rating = (total score for hazards)X (score for probability of occurrence) It is important to remember that this number is only a relative number, intended to facilitate comparison of Kent's risk for different types of specific hazards to pnontize the mitigation planning efforts i i 1 n plane DI emeryenry ns mspoe plannng&8 management,nc All nghts reserved v f�ingoe Olue0l0% uuoIs JajulM 8JUPIIM anj uegin silos anlsuedxa 'aouaplsgng lweunsl v 'e6ms wiolg N � J uolsa3 z 'apgspuel cv E aseasla i C H Noneisa)ul a W d y spulM g61H °s O � E IIEH d » C and _ f4 E t G OC 6wpooi3 av �C y UN LU—. 9�enbgPe3 u a R w = y jg6naQ R � V — w J BJOoS O N M 7 O N m O N N M E � u N t4 2 u d 0 N N � Em m E E a 0 a3 c v 14 0 = rn E m m m f0 - a a E 0 V m m m E m o m ° v u O a v o v m 0 d i9 N N d V J V 'O N u O. O. . A Q C O T T N O O O 0 . > N > y E 0 T 0 O m E m a>> a> o > 0 m a ° E E i m y a a 01 E D m c C Q) 5 0 = = E -0 n N Y V o 0 0 -0 O .m. N H N N 7 N� 0 0) to O �n C y N � T 'C �` Ql O N In f� O f0 y rn m m m Ln f0 0J n o N E o m o d f0 0. T O N N 4/ > O 0 0) J O 47 O Gl C W N Z J J J 0 Z lL w Z Z U. w w '2 (Q Col CL L O U Z ECD m la > N < iinL) a`o f D /gingOe W N W O!ueO!OA _ U U uuOIs uajugM 4 n Q o OJUPI!AA tt an3 uegjn .J SIIOS a anlsuedxa F- E E 'aauaplsgnS Q m3 z � lweunsl J v Wins wjojS J m Q = 6u1u14611 0 W 0 O uOIsOJ3 m z aPIISPueI z Easeasla Q C y juOlie;sap! rm W X Ah spulM 461H O —I E a I1eH Q f Y = tv p 'Ez o 6wpool3 c e mom m U avenby�e3 g N a f " � V c� cu 7y6na4 r U — m aJOOS O O O l O V N •J _m uE IN E cu cy� (D ° QO O a U ` m ari 2 y W E E a m O y ofm c m of 0/ v u m x 0 o O m U ° u = m O O ` w y L c N U UO V WE m U m U C U O a o u K O c ° u m ° Q a` w J L �,c o v m 0 E 4.. v m a`ci c W pc3 o OU OV mEO m c o alo o E U u o u OLL o m m co ° Q NN U E � N> O X C °H E j z0: 0 .0 a uuuc d c °NOo 3 N y �` h' N y O O O y L L c C �' T U 2 O J Q' X Z J 2 J 2 O Z O N 0 w Z A EU C Q '�-''C ~ U 2m O a Q. m �— c n m C m U N O V h°- w0 W0 a.0 1 Kent Emergency Management Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Mitigation Strategy Development Survey The next phase of the Mitigation Planning process is to define Goals, Objectives and Actions. These terms are defined below. Goals are general guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They i are usually broad policy-type statements, long term, and represent global visions. Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable. Mitigation Actions are specific actions that help you achieve your goals and objectives. Kent Emergency Management has developed a list of possible mitigation goals. These goals are based on the findings of the risk assessment previously completed. A draft copy of the Risk Assessment portion of the plan is available from Kent Emergency Management. This is your opportunity to comment and make recommendations. Attached is a list of proposed goals. As an example, Goal #1 includes objectives and mitigation actions. Please add any additional information to goal #1 that you feel is important. Also, list possible objectives and actions for each of the other goals. Finally, include any additional goals that you feel should be included in the Mitigation Plan. Goal # 1 Increase the resilience of the City to the effects of a major earthquake. Objectives: 1) Assure that City facilities are earthquake resistant 2) Maintain a program to promote citizen preparedness 3) Increase the level of business economic recovery 4) Determine the level of seismic stability of structures in pre- identified hazard areas Actions: a) Develop a program to educate small and medium size businesses through FEMA's Disaster Resistant Jobs program. b) Continue to develop and provide the Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) program to citizens and businesses. c) Asses and retrofit City facilities that are inadequately equipped d) Implement City Ordinances to enact more stringent codes for seismic stability e) Research and gather data, through site visits and surveys, to assess the seismic readiness of structures in hazard prone areas Goal #2 t Preserve the continuity of local government. Objectives: Mitigation Actions. Goal #3 Minimize loss to structures and infrastructures, particularly pre-identified cgical facilities located within hazard areas. Objectives: i 1 t t Mitigation Actions. i 1 1 Goal #4 Reduce the impacts of wind and snow storms to the community. Objectives: Mitigation Actions. i Goal #5 Minimize damage and loss due to flooding events in known hazard areas Objectives: Mitigation Actions. 1 t j Goal #6 Reduce the occurrence and impacts of a hazardous materials incident. Objectives: Mitigation Actions. Addition Goals: i t i 1 i r i i Appendix F Proclamation For future use. i t i 1 1 Appendix G Revisions and Updates iFor future use. 1 1 i i i 1 i t l i City of Kent ' Local Hazard Mitigation Plan References r City of Kent Documents City of Kent, 1995, City of Kent Comprehensive Plan(revised 2004) City of Kent, 2003, Economic Development Strategic Plan City of Kent, 2003, Capital Improvement Program City of Kent, 1999, Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan(revised 2004) City of Kent, 1999, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (revised 2004) r Documents From Other Jurisdictions King County, 2004 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Renton, 2004, Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Salem, 2002,Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Pierce County Fire Protection District#14, 2004, Riverside Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Washington State, 2001,Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment Washington State, 2004,Hazard Mitigation Plan Other Sources FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide: Getting Started, 2002. FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide: Understanding your Risks, 2001. FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide:Developing the Mitigation Plait, 2003. FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide:Bringing the Plan to Life, 2003. City of Kent i Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Ref.1 FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide:Integrating Manmade Hazards Into Mitigation Planning, 2003. Mitigation 20120(CD-ROM), Emergency Response Planning& Management, Inc ,2002. i - I , f i I I I I ' I f 1 � 1 1 City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Ref 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GRANT AWARD—ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Department of Education Grant Award. The Kent Police Department has applied for and has been awarded the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grant in the amount of$80,631 for the first year. The grant will allow the Corrections Division to partner with New Connections and Renton Technical College to bring transitioning services, Adult Basic Education and General Education Development test preparation, and GED testing to offenders in the CKCF. This grant also requires and provides for an outside project evaluator. Budget award period Amount 9/1/04-8/31/05 S809631 9/1/05-8/31/06 75,236 9/1/06-8/31/07 78,227 FIPSE total grant $234,094 over 36 months 3. EXHIBITS: Award letter from U.S. Dept of Education dated 9/8/04 and Procurement Policy Waiver Request dated 10/6/04 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Yes Revenue? Yes Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: IUnbudgeted Expense: Fund N00065 Amount $80,631 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund N00065 Amount $80,631 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6P 91req oUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION • OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION September 8,2004 RE:Application No.PI161304--,� Dear Colleague: After a very competitive process and careful review I am pleased to inform you your application has beat selected to receive an award for the FY 2004 Comprehensive Program. The terns of your award are found In information on the enclosed Grant Award Notification and its attachments. Please note two things that differ this year. • The amount of your fast-year award has been increased by$1200 over the figure onginally recommended by FIPSE. You should adjust your"Travel"line item to reflect this increase. These additional funds have been provided to offset the expected increase in annual meeting fees over the life of your project. • The Grant Award Notification now includes a special conditions clause on project evaluation It addresses and formalizes FIPSE's longstanding emphasis on early evaluation planning linked to clear,measurable, performance objectives. The clause reads: The grantee shall submit a detailed formative and summative evaluation plan no later than 90 days after the start date of the project. The plan must include the overall design,evaluation methods, instruments,schedule of key evaluation events, and detailed resume(s)of the evaluator(s). A copy of the plan formatted as a Word for Windows file is requested,but a print copy of the plan is also acceptable. Within the next few weeks your project will be assigned a program officer with whom you will meet at the annual FIPSE Project Directors'Meeting on November 4-6 in Washington,D.C.at the Renaissance Washington Hotel. As a new grantee,please plan to be at the meeting site on Wednesday.November 3 to attend,along with your evaluator, the orientation for new grantees scheduled from 1:30-4:30 p.m. Finally,the FIPSE Web site(http://www.ed.Rov/FIPSE)is an excellent resource for information on prgect management. The site also includes application materials for FIPSE grant competitions,abstracts of projects funded since 1994, information on evaluation and dissemination,FIPSE staff directory,announcements of technical assistance workshops,and more. Again,congratulations and best wishes. Sincerely, Leonard L Haynes III Director 1 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education t 1990 K STREET,N.W.,WASHINOTON,D.0 20006 w .ed.goe Our miaaian g to ensure aqua[auzea to educatnn and to promote edumhonal e=rUeooa throughout the nation. 1 U.S.Department of Education Washington, D.C. 20202 GRANT AWARD NOTIFICATION RECIPIE'Nf NAME A WARD INFORMATION City of Kent Police Deparhnent PR/AWARD NUMBER PI 1613040291 220 4th Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 ACTION NUMBER 01 ACTION TYPE New AWARD TYPE Discretionary AWARD PERIODS PROJECT TITLE L ' BUDGET PERIOD 09/Ol/2004-08/31IZ005 2 84.116B V COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE PERIOD 09/O1/2004-08/31/2007 FUTURE BUDGET PERIODS BUDGET PERIOD DATE AMOI PROJECT STAFF 02 09101/2005-0&31/2006 S7S,236 00 3 RECIPIENT PROJECT DIRECTOR 03 09/01r006-0813 112007 $78,227 00 Debra LeRoy (253)856-5956 EDUCATION PROGRAM CONTACT AUTHORIZED FUNDING t Frank Frankfort (202)502-7513 7 THIS AC17ON $80,631.0p EDUCATION PAYMENT CONTACT BUDGET PERIOD 580,631.00 GAPS PAYEE HOTLINE (888)336-8930 PERFORMANCE PERIOD $60,631 00 LEVEL OF 4 KEY PERSONNEL 8 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION DUNSISSN 020253613 NAME TITLE FE EORT Debra LeRoy Project Director 15% REGULATIONS CFR PART 630 EDGAR AS APPLICABLE ATTACHMENTS A,C,F,S 9 LEGISLATIVE AND FISCAL DATA AUTHORITY:PL 99.498 HIGHER EDUCATION ACT,AS AMENDED P.L 99498 PROGRAM TITLE:FUND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION CFDA/SUBPROGRAM NO.84 116B FUND FUNDING AWARD ORG. CATEGORY LIMITATION ACTIVITY CFDA OBJECT AMOUNT CODE YEAR YEAR CODE CLASS 0201A 2004 2004 EP000000 B J65 000 116 4101J $ 0,63100 Ver.1 ED-GAPS001(01/98) Page I of 2 U.S. Department of Education Washington,D.C. 20202 GRANT AWARD NOTIFICATION 1 PR/AWARDNUMBER: P116BO40291 lU RECIPIENTNAME: City of Kent Police Departrnent TERMS AND CONDITIONS (1) THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE INCORPORATED IN THE GRANT AGREEMENT-(1) THE RECIPIENTS APPLICATION(BLOCK 2), (2)THE APPLICABLE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS(BLOCKS),AND(3)THE SPECIAL TERMS AND 1 CONDITIONS SHOWN AS ATTACHMENTS(BLOCK 8) THIS AWARD SUPPORTS ONLY THE BUDGET PERIOD SHOWN IN BLOCK 6. IN ACCORDANCE WrfH 34 CFR 75.253,THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WILL CONSIDER CONTINUED FUNDING IF. (I) CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED SUFFICIENT FUNDS UNDER THE PROGRAM, (2) THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT CONTINUING THE PROJECT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT, (3) THE RECIPIENT HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING THE OBJECTIVES IN ITS APPROVED APPLICATION,AND(4) THE RECIPIENT HAS SUBMITTED REPORTS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND BUDGET EXPENDITURES THAT MEET THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOUND AT 34 CFR 75.118 AND ANY OTHER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE SECRETARY. IN ACCORDANCE WTH 34 CFR 74 25(c)(2),OR 34 CFR 80 30(d)(3)CHANGES TO KEY PERSONNEL IDENTIFIED IN BLOC K 4 MUST RECEIVE PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT THE SECRETARY ANTICIPATES FUTURE FUNDING FOR THIS AWARD ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE IDENTIFIED IN BLOCK 6 THESE FIGURES ARE ESTIMATES ONLY AND DO NOT BIND THE SECRETARY TO FUNDING THE AWARD FOR THESE PERIODS OR FOR THE SPECIFIC AMOUNTS SHOWN THE RECIPIENT WILL BE NOTIFIED OF SPECIFIC FUTURE FUNDING ACTIONS THAT THE SECRETARY TAKES FOR THIS AWARD (2) EVALUATION PLAN:The grantee shall submit a detailed formative and summatrve evaluation plan no later than 90 days after the start date of the project The plan must include the overall design,evaluation methods,instruments,schedule of key evaluation events,and detailed resumes)of the evaluator(s). A copy of the plan,formatted as a Word for Windows file,is requested,but a print copy of the plan is also acceptable. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL DATE Ver. I ED-GAPS001(01/98) Page 2 of 2 EXPLANATION OF BLOCKS ON THE GRANT AWARD NOTIFICATION >� For DLxrctionary,Formula,and Block Grants (See Block 5 of the Nollicalam) 1. RECIPIENT NAME-The legal name of the recipient name of the p am agantzativad uni to we underw tie fiuided attndy.and the complete address of the recipient Tha mapient is co m ortly Vmn s Be"grams.• 2. PROJECT'ITTLE AND CFDA NUMBER -Identifies the Catalog or federal Domesk Assistance(CFDA)subprogram idle and the assodided subpWn number. 3. PROJECT STAFF-Thus block contain the nacres and telephone rwmbeis of tie US.D"rimwd of Education and recipient"who are responsible hhrpiopis drec6on and ovei*td. *RECQPI1M PROJECT DIRECTOR -The racipent sat persah responsible for admwustemg tie pgect This person mpeseMs the recplerdlo tie US. Department of Education. EDUCATION PROGRAM CONTACT -The U.S.DepaMieN of Education sail parson responsible for the programmaic,admns6alire and home, nanagement conceme of tie Department. EDUCATION PAYMENT CONTACT -The U S.DepaNnerhl of Educaam stab poison respwdde for payments or Wes6wn mwricernng etekimcdawdow n and fnandal etcpar dfise repoilifl. 4*KEY PERSONNEL -Name,bte and percentage(%)of etort the key personnel idenW devotes to the project. S. AWARD DODRMATION -Unique hams of information that lden*M notfiaton. PRIAWARD NUMBER -A unque.ideMtyuhg number assigned by fie DePAMWt to each application. On funded applications,this is wmrnory kim as the 'gran►rnrinber or'doanherdnumber.' ACTION NUMBER -A numeral that resents the cumulative number of steps taken by the Deparbnent b date to establish or molly to award fwagh fiscal or administrative means.Action number'01'wet strays be'NEW AWARD' ACTION TYPE-The nakrm of the notrfextion(e g,NEW AWARD,CONTINUATION,REVISION,ADMNISTRATIM AWARD TYPE -The partater assistance category in which funding for this awed a My",Le,DISCRETIONARY.FORMULA,or BLOCK 6 AWARD PERIODS -Pmodadnfhes and ksidsg are appoved wits iespeci)D tree diffemM rime periods.desaW below: BUDGET PERIOD-A spelt nlerval of finis for which federal kinds are bang provided from a partsi9arfsai yew to fund a recipients approved achtibes and budget.The sae and end dates of to budget period are sham PERFORMANCE PERIOD -The complete Wo of time to recipient is proposed to be lunded to complete approved aChvdes.A perlomhance ptrod may contain one or mom bidget periods. *FUTURE BUDGET'PERIODS -The eshraled mmavhig budget parrots for mul4earprgecs aril estimated finds the Deparbnern proposes da0 award the reapient provided substRaW progress Is made by to redolent in complefrg approved at;Wibes,the DepaMhent detemunes fiat continuing the protect would be in the best interest of the GovemmaM.Congress appropnaes sufficient funds undo the progam,and the recipient has submied a performance report tat powdes the most wrent performance information and the status of budget expendtures. 7. AUTHORIZED FUNDING -The dotar figures in bus block refer b the Federal funds provided b a rempert dunrhg the award periods *THIS ACTION -The amount of funds obigated(added)or de4lgated(subaacied)by this notification. *BUDGET PERIOD -The total amouid of funds avatable for use by the grantee during the stated budget period to this date. *PERFORMANCE PERIOD -The amount of funds obligated from the star!daa of the first budget period b this date RECIPIENT COST SHARE -The funds,expressed as a peronage,tray the rament s required to c onnbue to the poled,as defaed by tte psgam legalabon or regulations andlor temp and corhdtiorn ofthe award. RECIPIENT NON-FEDERAL AMOUNT-The ammrd of nonaederal kids the recipient must conbhbote to the purled as identified in the reapnts appkabon When non-federal funds are ideirifred by the recipient where a cost share a ear a legslaton requirement,the recipient wo be required to provide the nab-tedeal hinds L ADMINISTRATIVE 1NFORMATiON-This information is phovldeci to assst the roapienl in competrig the approved adivmes and managog the poled n axordance with U S.Departsierl of Edacatorh preoedures and reguiatan DUNSISSN -A uique,dmtfyrg tihmhbet assigned to each reopient for payment purposes.The number is based on either lie regents&% ed number from Din wit Bradstreet or tie mdwiduafs social security number, *REGULATIONS -The pans d the Education Department General Administrative Regulation(EDGAR)and specific pogrom regulabms tat gom to award and administration of the grant. , *AiTACHAIENIS-Additional sedan of the Grant Award NolikaWn that dsaiss payment and reporting rerparerriens,explain Department prooelm,vend add special twins and tbrhdtots in addition to those esabished,and shown as dam,in Block 10 of the award. Any atadvmerits provided with a nodakn continue in effect through the profed period until modified or rescinded by the Aut onang Official. 9. LEGISLATIVE AND FISCAL DATA -The name of the sutlann g legislation for this gral.the CFDA bte of the program trough which fundnig is piorded, and US.Deparlmerd of Education fscat informsbort FUND CODE,FUNDING YEAR,AWARD YEAR,ORG.CODE,PROJECT CODE,OBJECT'CLASS -The fscad information recorded by the U.S Depan ert of Eduabods Grant Admnstration and Payment System to tack obligations by award AMOUNT-The amount of kinds provided from a paromdar appropriation and project code.Some nofdcabo s aWionre mole than one amount from Waal approprieiota andbrpmjed codes.The total of at amoti s In ohs block equals the amount shown on the hie,THIS ACTION'(See'AUTHORVM RKMG' above(Block 4 10. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AWARD -Requirements dine award that as bindrg on the rec>p" •AU'iHORiZiNG OFFICIAL -The U.S DeparureM of Eduabon official authorized to award Federal funds to the recipient esabish a charge the terns and omdirons d tie award,and aWionze rnodficetios b tie award. FOR FORMULA AND BLACK GRANTS ONLY: (Sr sUo Sloths 1,2,S,f,S,9 and 10 above) 3. EDUCATION STAFF -The U.S Department of Edualkin staff persons to be contacted for poWernnaic wd payment qusborhs. 7. AUTHORIZED FUNDING CURRENT AWARD AMOUNT -The amnuMof kids that ace oblgaled(added)or deeblgaled(subtraded)by tail action PREVIOUS CUMULATIVE AMOUNT -The bat amount of hands awarded order the grant before bus adios CUMULATIVE AMOUNT -The tool amo i t offunds awarded wider the grant,tan action nduded. *This item differs or dots not appear on formula and block grants. POLICE DEPARTMENT Ed Crawford I Chief of Police K E N T Phone 253-856-5888 Fax 253-856 6802 02 WASH NGTON Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 1 Memerand= DATE: October 6, 2004 TO: Mayor Jim Whi ` FROM: Cluef Ed Cra ` CC: LRE: Procurement Policy Waiver Request The Department of Education has awarded the Kent Police Department grant funding to support adult basic education, Life Skills and GED instruction for inmates at the City of Kent Corrections Facility. The grant project award period covers September 1, 2004 through August 1 31, 2007 for a total funding amount of$234,094. The Department of Education has awarded the initial one year project funding of$80,631. The grant proposal required the project design to include estimate costs and names for specific project service providers. ' The grant requires an outside project evaluator. Trisha King-Stargel, a former Kent Police officer and current education doctoral student was named as the proposed project evaluator. New Connections currently contracts with the City to provide Life Skills classes at the Kent Jail. This project grant would continue this funding. The project contract amounts for each of these project partners falls between $10,000 and $25,000. Renton Technical College was listed in the grant proposal as the partner to provide adult basic education and GED classes and testing. Renton Technical College also provides these classes at 1 the Kent branch of the King County Jail. The project contract amount for RTC falls between $25,000 and $50,000. The police department requests procurement policy waivers to contract with these partners. The Department of Education awarded the grant based on each of these partners' credentials It would not be practical or in the City's best interest to change any of these partners. A change in any of these partners would require requesting authorization from the Department of Education for that change. This could jeopardize the grant award and would delay the implementation of the project. Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RELEASE OF WATERLINE EASEMENT TO KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT—AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to execute all necessary document(s)required to release any and all City rights in the waterline easement, as reflected in Exhibit A to the document release form from the Kent School District upon the receipt of the respective new waterline easements. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director's memorandum, Relinquishment of easement, Legal description and map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (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: 1 ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6Q i i PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' Don E Wickstrom, P E Public Works Director . Phone 253-856-WO Fax 253-856-6500 KE N T Address 220 Fourth Avenue S w e s H i N o r o N Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: October 18,2004 ' TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorizing the Release of Waterline Easement MOTION Recommend the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the respective document(s) releasing any and all City rights in the waterline easement reflected in Exhibit A upon the respective new waterline easements I SUMMARY: ' Portions of the existing public watermains have been relocated to avoid conflicts with the new building addition The existing watermain easement needs to be removed and a new watermain easement needs to be granted to the City The new easement will fully encompass all the areas where the new watermams.have been located iBUDGET IMPACT No Unbudgeted Fiscal/Personnel Impact ' BACKGROUND: ' Kent School District 415 acquired the Kent 6 Cinema building and property adjacent to the Kent Meridian School The School District constructed a building addition onto the existing Cinema structure The location of the new addition required the existing public watermains(the 24 inch Clark Springs Transmission Main and 8 inch watermain)to be relocated The existing watermains have been relocated and the existing watermain easement as shown in the Exhibit `A'needs to be released Anew Watermain Easement has been prepared by the City but has not be executed(waiting for the School District to sign) Once the School District executes the new watermain easement,then the City can release portions of the existing easement Mayor White and Kent City Council 1 1 i - AFTER RECORDING RETURN DOCUMENT TO ' City of Kent ' 220 4th Avenue South Kent,Washington 98032 Attn Property Management Reference Number of Related Document Pin 8105140343 , Grantor(s) CityofKent Grantee(s) Kent School Distnct No 415 Abbreviated Legal Description Ptn Lot`D'Pacific Coast Realty S P Auditors No 7511250560 Also,Pm Lot 3 Britt Smith Replat,Vol 102,pgs 36-37 Assessor's Tax Parcel No 7820500030 PROJECT NAME Kent Six Cinemas,Kiva#2032750 RELEASE OF DOCUMENT The Grantor of this Instrument does hereby release that certain portion of waterline easement recorded under King County Auditors File#8105140343 For and in the consideration of mutual benefits derived and other valuable consideration,described as follows Refer to Exhibits'A'&'B'attached and made a part hereto Dated this_day of 20_ Grantor Grantor City of Kent City of Kent Mayor Property Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON) )SS COUNTY OF KING ) t On this day of 20_,before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington personally appeared and to me known to be the Mayor and Property Manager respectively of the CITY OF KENT,a Washington municipal corporation,the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therem mentioned in this instrument and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day ' and year first above written I Print Name Notary Public in and for the State Washington,residing at My Commission Expzres Page 1 of 1 ' RELINQUISHMENT OF EASEMENT Portion of Water line Easement Rec. No. 8105140343 THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE EXISTING WATERLINE EASEMENT AS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8105140343 IS HEREBY RELEASED, RELINQUISHED AND TERMINATED IN FAVOR OF NEW EASEMENTS TO BE RECORDED A PORTION OF THE EXISTING WATERLINE EASEMENT AS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8105140343 BEING A FIFTEEN FOOT WATER EASEMENT HAVING SEVEN AND ONE HALF FEET(7 5')OF SUCH WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF THE ' CENTERLINE OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF LOT"D"OF SHORT PLAT NO SPC-75-11,ALSO CALLED PACIFIC COAST REALTY SHORT SUBDIVISION,AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO 7511250560,ALSO A PORTION OF LOT 3 OF BRITT SMITH REPLAT AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 102 OF PLATS, PAGES 36 AND 37, RECORDING NUMBER 7703230500,ALL BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W M , IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, THE CENTERLINE IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT"D", THENCE,SOUTH 89'22'33"EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 7 5 FEET, THENCE,SOUTH 01°16'06"WEST, 15 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE,SOUTH 01"16'06"WEST PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT"D", ' 82 05 FEET, THENCE,NORTH 89°22'33"WEST, 17 81 FEET, THENCE,SOUTH 01"2813"WEST PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 OF BRITT SMITH REPLAT, 207 04 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF THE PORTION OF THE I EASEMENT TO BE RELINQUISHED ALL AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT MAP,WHICH BY THIS REFERENCE IS MADE A PART HEREOF Of VA �R /4, 327 \ Al LAAh'9 ' EXPIRES L.J J-* Penhallegon Assoaates Consuthng Engineers,Inc 75a s"Street south E N T A Kirkland,WA 98M 425-827-2014 August 24,2004 P W02102660100002660.8ind-Mr-Esmt Relinquish doc i EXHIBIT MAP 6 RELINQUISHMENT of EASEMENT ' 1 �1 f JJ u I PACIFIC COAST REALTY SHORT SUBDIVISK)rl r l NYf E)OSTING P0B J WATER ESM LOT'D' 3 F 8105140343 i ALL PARCEL BOUNDARY LINES ARE ------------ -----------------� ' BASED ON RECORD OF SURVEY IN — BDDK 156 AT PAGE 149 OF SURV ---------------- -=------------------ 4 REC NO 2DO211259ODD13 .� PACIFIC COAST REALTY SHORT SUEMASION RELINQUISHED PORTIO 15' WATER ESMT AF 8105140343 1 -�X I 1 E)OSTING I ,�) 1AF 8105140343 I _-� 1 t EKIS"NG — 22- WATER ESNT AF 8105140343 l I 4 33127„�S��J�v I ! I SAL LAN9 1 EXPIRES 12/21/2004 -- - - - - i (KENT 1 KANGLEY RD ) SR_ 516 58923'06"E 77725 _ Engineering - __-Planning --- - Surveying Penhallegon Assocretes Consulting Engineers, Inc '8. 750 Snth Street South K,rklon0 WA 98033 en paceengra cam PH (425) 827-2014 1-800-945-8408 FAX (425) 827-5043 , Kakfan0 soott1i Portlsnd SCALE 1'=100' FILE \2660-8mch-W-ESMT-Relinquish DATE 8/24/2004 BY JRD PROJ NO 0266010 i I MKent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: S. 212TH ST. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION—ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, accept the South 212u' St. Pavement Rehabilitation project as complete and release retainage to Western Asphalt, Inc. upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $338,762.74. The final contract amount was $483,962.26. Adequate funds exist within the project to cover this overage. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director's memo 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: 1 Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' Don E Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone 253-856-5500 K E O T Fax 253-856-6500 1 W A S N I N G T O N Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 ' DATE: October 18,2004 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director 1 SUBJECT: S. 212ih Street Pavement Rehabilitation—Accept as Complete MOTION• Recommend to full Council acceptance of the project as complete upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. SUMMARY: Where construction contracts have exceeded 10% of the original bid amount the Public Works Department has sought committee concurrence therewith prior to seeking full council acceptance of said contract This particular contract is 25%over or approximately $86,200 As such the Public Works Department seeks Council acceptance of the project as complete BUDGET IMPACT No Unbudgeted Fiscal/Personnel Impact BACKGROUND: This project consists of$387,098 of WSDOT Federal Funding with a 13 5%matching funds by the City in the amount of$86,000 for a total dollar amount of $474,828 as budgeted by Public Works. Also additional mitigation funding of$60,650 was provided by Wendy's and Boeing for improvements the City incorporated into the project as attributed to mitigating the traffic impacts of these respective developments The original low bid for the construction of the project came in at $338,762 74 which was $87,413.51 under the Engineer's Estimate The City Street Department was originally scheduled to do all roadway repairs prior to the City's contractor paving S 212`h Street In order to maximize the use of the available federal funds the City opted to have the contractor do all required roadway repairs which freed up Street Crew time and money to do other street maintenance work. The additional repairs to S 212`h Street were more than anticipated due to the heavy traffic use along S 212`h Street. The total revised contract cost for this project is approximately $1,216.38 less then the Engineer's estimate and $49,868.13 less then the budgeted amount for this project Mayor White and Kent City Council S 212`h Street Pavement Rehab—Accept as Complete ' 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS— AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Project Cooperation Agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of the Meridian Valley Creek Ecosystem Restoration project upon concurrence of the language in the Agreement by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. ' 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director's memorandum and Project Cooperation Agreement ' 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? _ Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6S t PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E Wickstrorn, P E Public Works Director Phone 253-856-6500 Fax 253-856.6500 KEN T Address 220 Fourth Avenue S WAsHINoroN Kent,WA 98032-5895 � DATE: October 11, 2004 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Project Cooperation Agreement Between The Department of the Army and The City of Kent for Construction of the Meridian Valley Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project ' MOTION Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Project Cooperation Agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of the Meridian Valley Creek Ecosystem Restoration project SUMMARY: The City of Kent's total cash contribution required is projected to be $231,750 00 for the project The funds will be used by the U S Army Corps of Engineers for construction of the Meridian Valley Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project The City funds therefore presently exist within the projects fund The actual construction will not occur until the 2005 construction season BUDGET IMPACT No Unbudgeted Fiscal/Personnel Impact ' BACKGROUND: The project Cooperation Agreement will allow the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers to construct 1 the project and share 35%of total project costs from the City of Kent Tlus project will create a new stream channel for a section of Meridian Valley Creek which runs through 850 feet of a concrete flume along the south side of SE 256h Street before entering into Big Soos Creek The ' new stream channel will be 1,150 feet in length with new native vegetative plantings and large woody debris installed along the channel An interpretive/maintenance trail with signage and a lookout point will also be constructed The existing concrete flume will be broken up and removed or buried and the area will be backfilled The City of Kent will use property values on the project site as well as disposal costs for excavated material as part of its cash contribution The total project cost, excluding right of way,engineering and disposal is estimated to be $1,065,000 Mayor White and Kent City Council 1 Project Cooperation Agreement r t DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ' U S ARMY CORPS OF ENUNEERS WASWNGTOK D C 20314-1000 REPLY TO ' ATTEPMON OP CECW-NWD 30 September 2004 ' MEMORANDUM THRU COMMANDER,NORTHWESTERN DIVISION 1 FOR COMMANDER, SEATTLE DISTRICT,ATTN CENWS PM-CP(Mr Gilbrough) SUBJECT Meridian Valley Creek, Kent,Washington-Project Cooperation Agreement 1 "lhe subject project cooperation agreement(PCA)was approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army(Civil Works)(ASA(CW))on 30 September,2004 Copies of the approval , memorandum(enclosure l)and the approved PCA(enclosure 2)are enclosed Signature authority is delegated to the Seattle District Commander References to ASA(CW)signing the PCA in the first and last paragraph,and the signature block must be changed to reflect the District Commander signing the PCA These changes have been made to the enclosed PCA , 2 Under delegated signature authority,you must ensure that the PCA is signed by the sponsor as approved by OASA(CW),:without deviation,not later than 21 calendar days after the date of this memorandum The Seattle District should prepare a minimum of four final PCA originals Upon execution,the district should retain two copies of the executed PCA and the remaining executed PCAs should be provided to the sponsor A photocopy of the executed PCA and an electronic ' copy of the PCA should be forwarded to CECW-NWD (Mr Andy Wu)not later than 14 days after execution , 3 If any deviations to the approved PCA are required,prior to signature by the sponsors,the , district shall transmit a memorandum notifying CECW-NWD of the reasons for the deviations and requesting approval of the deviations Only after receipt of written approval from CECW- , NWD,will the deviations be incorporated into the approved PCA 4 If the 21-day suspense'will not be met,prior to signature of the PCA,the district will transmit a ' memorandum notifying CECW-NWD of the reasons for the slip or identifying changed conditions and the recommended course of action Any questions should be directed to Andy Wu,202-761-4616 FOR THE COMMANDER , � 7 2 Encl ^' EDWARD J HEC Chief,NWD Regional Integration Team ' Directorate of Civil Works PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT ' BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND ' THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MERIDIAN VALLEY CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT ' KENT,WASHINGTON THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of ,20_,by and between the Department of the Arty(hereinafter the "Government"),represented by the Seattle District Commander,and the City of Kent (hereinafter the"Non-Federal Sponsor'),represented by the Mayor of the City of Kent WITNESSETH,THAT ' WHEREAS,construction of the DuwamishlGreen Ecosystem Restoration Project at King County,Washington(hereinafter the"Authorized Projocn was authorized by Section ' 101(b)(26)of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000,Public Law 106-541, WHEREAS,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor desire to enter into a Project Cooperation Agreement for construction of a separate element of the Authorized Project at Meridian Valley Creek(hereinafter the"Project",as defined in Article I A of tins Agreement), WHEREAS,Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,Public Law 99-662,as amended,specifies the cost-sharing requirements applicable to the Project, WHEREAS,Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970,Public Law 91-611,as amended,and Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,Public Law 99-662,as amended,provide that the Secretary of the Army shall not commence ' construction of any water resources project,or separable element thereof,until each non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written agreement to famish its required cooperation for the project or separable element, ' WHEREAS,Section 902 of Public Law 99-662 establishes the maximum amount of costs for the Authorized Project and sets forth procedures for adjusting such maxunum amount, WHEREAS, Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944,Public Law 78-534,as amended,the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965,Public Law 89-72, and Section c 103 _( )(4)of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,Public Law 99 662, give authority to include recreation as a project purpose and specify the cost sharing requirements applicable to recreation features, and ' Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 1 WHEREAS,the Government and Non-Federal Sponsor have the full authority and capability to perform as hereinafter set forth and intend to cooperate in cost-sharing and financing of the construction of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement NOW,THEREFORE,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor agree as ' follows ARTICLE I-DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS ' For purposes of this Agreement A The term"Project' shall mean the construction of ecosystem restoration and ' recreation features at Meridian Valley Creek as generally descnbed in the final report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 29,2000,and"Green/Duwamrsh River Basin ' Ecosystem Restoration Study,Final Feasibility Report,"dated October 2000,and approved by the District Engineer,U S Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District on October 30,2000, and forwarded to the Division Commander on November 2, 2000 ' B The term"total project costs"shall mean all costs incurred by the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government in accordance with the terms of this Agreement directly ' related to construction of the Project Subject to the provisions of this Agreement,the term shall include,but is not necessarily limited to continuing planning and engineering costs incurred after October 1, 1985, advanced engmeenng and design costs,preconstructaon engineering and design costs, engineering and design costs during construction, the costs of investigations to identify the existence and extent of hazardous substances in accordance with Article XV A of this Agreement,the costs of monitoring of the Project as defined in ; paragraph O of this Article, the costs of adaptive management as defined in paragraph P of this Article, the costs of historic preservation activities in accordance with Article XVIII A of this Agreement, actual construction costs, including the costs of alteration, lowering,raising,or replacement and attendant removal of existing railroad bridges and approaches thereto,supervision and administration costs,costs of participation in the Project Coordination Team in accordance with Article V of this Agreement, costs of contract ' dispute settlements or awards,the value of lands,easements,rights-of-way,relocations,and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas for which the Government affords credit in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement,and costs of audit in accordance with Article X of this Agreement The term does not include any costs for ' operation,maintenance,repair,replacement,or rehabilitation,any costs due to betterments, or any costs of dispute resolution under Article VII of this Agreement C The term"ecosystem restoration features"shall include fish blockage removals, ' side channel construction and/or enhancement, levee modification, riparian revegetation, stream and river rehabilitation,large woody debris placement, side channel reconnection, , tidal habitat construction, landslide rehabilitation,gravel replenishment, and system-wide plantings,or any combination thereof Final Mendim Valley Creek PCA 2 ' D The term "total project ecosystem restoration costs" shall mean that portion of the total project costs that the Government assigns to the ecosystem restoration features E The term"recreation features"shall mean a trail,outlook, and signage located on project lands F. The term"total project recreation costs"shall mean that portion of the total project costs that the Government assigns to recreation features G The term "financial obligation for construction"shall mean a financial obligation of the Government,other than an obligation pertaining to the provision of lands,easements, rights-of-way,relocations, and borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas, that results or would result in a cost that is or would be included in total project costs jH The term "non-Federal proportionate share"shall mean the ratio of the Non- Federal Sponsor's total cash contribution required in accordance with Articles II D and HE of this Agreement to total financial obligations for construction,as projected by the Government I The term"Period of construction" shall mean the tune from the date the Government first notifies the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing,in accordance with Article VI B of this Agreement,of the scheduled date for issuance of the solicitation for the first construction contract to the date that the U S Army Engineer for the Seattle District (hereinafter the "District Engineer")notifies the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the Government's determination that construction of the Project is complete J. The term"highway"shall mean any public highway, roadway,street,or way, including any bridge thereof K The term "relocation"shall mean providing a fimctionally equivalent facility to the owner of an existing utility,cemetery,highway or other public facility,or railroad (excluding existing railroad bridges and approaches thereto)when such action is authorized in accordance with applicable legal principles of just compensation or as otherwise provided in the authorizing legislation for the Projector any report referenced therein Providing a functionally equivalent facility may take the form of alteration,lowering,raising,or replacement and attendant removal of the affected facility or part thereof L The term"fiscal year"shall mean one fiscal year of the Government The Government fiscal year begins on[October 1 and ends on September 30 M The term"functional portion of the Project" shall mean a portion of the Project that is suitable for tender to the Non-Federal Sponsor to operate and maintain in advance of completion of the entire Project For a portion of the Project to be suitable for tender,the District Engineer must notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the Government's determination that the portion of the Project is complete and can function independently and for a useful purpose,although the balance of the Project is not complete Final Meridian Valley Creek PCA 3 N The tens"betterment"shall mean a change in the design and construction of an element of the Project resulting from the application of standards that the Government detennuies exceed those that the Government would otherwise apply for accomplishing the design and construction of that element O The term"monitoring"shall mean monitoring of the Project during years 2 and 5 of the 5-year period following construction of the Project,in order to assure that the ecosystem restoration features continue to function properly after construction This term shall include,but is not necessarily hunted to- monitoring the success of vegetation/habitat establishment in the Project area, and monitoring the restored aquatic resources associated with the Project,and monitoring fish and wildlife resources associated with the restored habitats Monitoring results shall be compared to success criteria identified for the Project so as to determine if adaptive management measures are necessary As of the effective date of this Agreement,the costs of the monitoring are projected to be$60,000.00 P The term"adaptive management'shall mean changes made to the Project based on monitoring results and deemed necessary to obtain the environmental restoration objectives. Adaptive management may include adjustments for unforeseen circumstances and changes to structures or their operations or management techniques and shall be undertaken if the Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, determines adjustments are necessary to obtain the Project objectives As of the effective date of this Agreement, the costs of adaptive management are projected to be$40,000 00 ARTICLE H- OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR A The Govemment,subject to receiving funds appropriated by the Congress of the United States(hereinafter,the"Congress")and using those funds and funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor,shall expeditiously construct the Project(including alteration, lowering,raising,or replacement and attendant removal of existing railroad bridges and approaches thereto),applying those procedures usually applied to Federal projects,pursuant to Federal laws,regulations,and policies I The Government shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on the solicitations for all contracts,including relevant plans and specifications,prior to the Government's issuance of such solicitations The Government shall not issue the solicitation for the first construction contract until the Non-Federal Sponsor has confirmed in writing its willingness to proceed with the Project To the extent possible,the Government shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on all contract modifications,including change orders,prior to the issuance to the contractor of a Notice to Proceed In any instance where providing the Non-Federal Sponsor with notification of a contract modification or change order is not possible prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed,the Government shall provide such notification in writing at the earliest date possible To the extent possible,the Government also shall afford the Final Menddian Valley Creek PCA 4 Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on all contract claims prior to resolution thereof The Government shall consider in good Earth the comments of the Non- Federal Sponsor,but the contents of solicitations,award of contracts,execution of contract modifications,issuance of change orders,resolution of contract claims,and performance of all work on the Project(whether the work is performed under contract or by Government personnel),shall be exclusively within the control of the Government 2 Throughout the period of construction,the District Engineer shall furnish the Non-Federal Sponsor with a copy of the Government's Written Notice of Acceptance of Completed Work for each contract for the Project 3 Notwithstanding paragraph A 1 of thus Article,if,upon the award of any contract for construction of the Project,cumulative financial obligations for construction would exceed$1,000,000 00,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor agree to defer award of that contract and all subsequent contracts for construction of the Project until such time as the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor agree to proceed with further contract awards for the Project,but in no event shall the award of contracts be deferred for more than three years Notwithstanding this general provision for deferral of contract awards, the Government,after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor,may award a contract or contracts after the Assistant Secretary of the Army(Civil Works)makes a written determmation that the award of such contract or contracts must proceed in order to comply with law or to protect life or property from imminent and substantial harm 4 As of the effective date of this Agreement, $386,000.00 of Federal funds are currently projected to be available for the Project This amount is less than the Federal share of the projected total Project costs and the Government makes no comrmtment to budget for the balance of the Federal share of total Project costs Notwithstanding any other provision of tins Agreement,the Government's financial participation in the Project is limited to this amount together with any additional funds that the Congress may provide for the Project. In the event that the Congress does not i provide additional funds sufficient to complete implementation of the Project, the Government,within the funds available for the Project,shall terminate implementation of the Project in a manner necessary to provide for the safety of the public and the mtegnty of the completed work To provide for this eventuality,the Government may reserve a portion of the total Federal funds available for the Project and an equal portion, in percent,of the total funds contributed by the Non-Federal Sponsor pursuant to Articles II D and 11 E of tins Agreement as a contingency to pay the costs of termination, including any costs of contract claims and contract modifications B The Non-Federal Sponsor may request the Government to accomplish betterments Such requests shall be in writing and shall describe the betterments requested to be accomplished If the Government in its sole discretion elects to accomplish the requested betterments or any portion thereof,it shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in a writing that sets forth any applicable terms and conditions,which must be consistent with this Agreement In the event of conflict between such a wntmg and this Agreement,tlus Agreement shall control The Non-Federal Sponsor shall be solely responsible for all costs Final Meridian Valley Creek PCA 5 due to the requested betterments and shall pay all such costs in accordance with Article VI.0 of this Agreement C When the District Engineer determines that the entire Project is complete or that a portion of the Project has become a functional portion of the Project,the District Engineer shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing and furnish the Non-Federal Sponsor with an Operation,Maintenance,Repair,Replacement,and Rehabilitation Manual (hereinafter the"OMRR&R Manual")and with copies of all of the Government's Written Notices of Acceptance of Completed Work for all contracts for the Project or the functional portion of the Project that have not been provided previously. Upon such notification,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate,maintain,repair,replace, and rehabilitate the entire Project or the functional portion of the Project in accordance with Article VIII of this Agreement D. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall contribute of 35 percent of total project ecosystem restoration costs in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph 1 In accordance with Article III of this Agreement,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide all lands,easements,nghts-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that the Government determines the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide for the construction,operation,and maintenance of the ecosystem restoration features,and shall perform or ensure performance of all relocations that the Government determines to be necessary for the construction,operation, and maintenance of the ecosystem restoration features 2 If the Government projects that the value of the Non-Federal Sponsor's contributions under paragraph D 1 of this Article and Articles V,X, and XV.A of this Agreement,assigned to total ecosystem restoration costs,will be less than 35 percent of total ecosystem restoration costs,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide an additional cash contribution,in accordance with Article VI B. of this Agreement,in the amount necessary to make the Non-Federal Sponsor's total contribution equal to 35 percent of total ecosystem restoration costs 3 If the Government determines that the value of the Non-Federal Sponsors contributions provided under paragraphs D 1. and D 2. of tlus Article and Articles V,X, XV A,XVM A,and XVIII C of this Agreement,assigned to total ecosystem restoration costs,has exceeded 35 percent of total ecosystem restoration costs,the Government, subject to the availability of funds,shall reimburse the Non-Federal Sponsor for any such value in excess of 35 percent of total ecosystem restoration costs After such a determination,the Goverment,in its sole discretion,may provide any remaining ecosystem restoration feature lands,easements,nghts-of-way,and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas and perform any remaining ecosystem restoration feature relocations on behalf of the Non-Federal Sponsor for ecosystem restoration E The Non-Federal Sponsor shall contribute a mimmum of 50 percent of total project recreation costs in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph Fuial Mendian Valley Creek PCA 6 I In accordance with Article III of this Agreement,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide all lands,easements,rights-of-way,and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that the Government determines the Non- Federal Sponsor must provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the recreation features,and shall perform or ensure performance of all relocations that the Government determines to be necessary for the construction operation and maintenance of the recreation features 2 If the Government projects that the value of the Non-Federal Sponsoes contributions under E 1 of this Article and Articles V,X, and XV A of this Agreement, assigned to total project recreation costs,will be less than 50 percent of total recreation costs, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide an additional cash contribution,in accordance with Article VI B of this Agreement, in the amount necessary to make the Non-Federal Sponsoes total contribution equal to 50 percent of total project recreation costs 3. If the Government determines that any cash contributed by the Non- Federal Sponsor under E.2. of this Article,when added to the value of the Non-Federal Sponsor's contributions under E 1 of this Article and Articles V,X and XV A of this Agreement,exceeds 50 percent of total project recreation costs,the Government shall, subject to the availability of funds,refund to the Non-Federal Sponsor the portion of any such cash that,when added to the value of the Non-Federal Sponsor's contributions under E 1 of this Article and Articles V,X and XV A of this Agreement,exceeds 50 percent of total project recreation costs However,the Government shall not reimburse the Non- Federal Sponsor for the value of the Non-Federal Sponsor's contributions under E 1 of i this Article and Articles V,X and XV A of this Agreement that exceed 50 percent of 1 total project recreation costs 4 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this paragraph, the Government's share of total project recreation costs shall not exceed 10 percent of the Government's share of total project ecosystem restoration costs The Non-Federal Sponsor shall be responsible for all total recreation costs above such 10 percent lunit F The Non-Federal Sponsor may request the Government to provide lands, easements,rights-of-way,and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas or perform relocations on behalf of the Non-Federal Sponsor Such requests shall be in writing and shall describe the services requested to be performed If in its sole discretion the Government elects to perform the requested services or any portion thereof,it shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in a writing that sets forth any applicable terms and conditions,wtuch must be consistent with this Agreement In the event of conflict between such a writing and this Agreement,this Agreement shall control The Non-Federal Sponsor shall be solely responsible for all costs of the requested services and shall pay all such costs in accordance with Article VI C of this Agreement Notwithstanding the provision of lands, easements,nghts-of-way,and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas or performance of relocations by the Government,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 7 responsible,as between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor,for the costs of cleanup and response in accordance with Article XV C of this Agreement G The Government,in accordance with Federal laws,regulations, and policies, shall assign all costs included in total project costs to either total project ecosystem restoration costs or total project recreation costs. H The Government shall perform a final accounting in accordance with Article VI D of this Agreement to determine the contributions provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor in accordance with paragraphs B,D,E and F of this Article and Articles V,X, and XV A of this Agreement and to determine whether the Non-Federal Sponsor has met i its obligations under paragraphs B ,D,E and F of this Article i I The Non-Federal Sponsor shall not use Federal funds to meet the Non-Federal Sponsors share of total project costs under this Agreement unless the Federal granting agency venfies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute. J The Non-Federal Sponsor shall prevent future recreation features from sigmficantly impacting or interfering with the intended functions of the Project K The Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide and maintain access roads,parking areas, and other public use facilities in accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, and Department of Defense Directive 550011 issued pursuant thereto,as well as Army Regulation 600-7 entitled, "Nondiscnmrnation on the Basis of handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army." ARTICLE III- LANDS,RELOCATIONS,DISPOSAL AREAS,AND PUBLIC LAW 91-646 COMPLIANCE A The Government,after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor,shall determine the lands, easements, and nghts-of-way required for the construction,operation, and maintenance of the Project,including those required for relocations,borrow materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal The Government in a timely manner shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with general written descriptions,including maps as appropriate,of the lands,easements,and nghts-of-way that the Government determines the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide,in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulfill its obligations under this paragraph,and shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written notice to proceed with acquisition of such lands,easements,and nghts-of-way Prior to the end of the period of construction, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall acquire all lands, easements, and nghts-of-way set forth in such descriptions Furthermore,prior to issuance of the solicitation for each construction contract,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with authorization for entry to all lands, easements,and nghts-of-way the Government determines the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide for that contract For so long as the Project remains authorized,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall ensure that lands, Final Meridian Valley Creek PCA 8 easements,and nghts-of-way that the Government determines to be required for the operation and maintenance of the Project and that were provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor are retained in public ownership for uses compatible with the authorized purposes of the Project B The Government,after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor,shall determine the improvements required on lands,casements,and nghts-of-way to enable the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material associated with the construction,operation, and maintenance of the Project The Government shall delineate which of the improvements are required for the ecosystem restoration features and which are required for the recreation features Such improvements may include,but are not necessarily limited to,retaining dikes,wastewei s,bulkheads,embankments,monitoring features, stilling basins,and de-watering pumps and pipes. The Government in a timely manner shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with general written descnptions of such improvements in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulfill its obligations under this paragraph,and shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written notice to proceed with construction of such improvements Prior to the end of the period of construction,the Non- Federal Sponsor shall provide all mnprovements set forth in such descriptions Furthermore, prior to issuance of the solicitation for each Government construction contract, the Non- Federal Sponsor shall prepare plans and specifications for all improvements the Government determines to be required for the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material under that contract,submit such plans and specifications to the Government for approval,and provide such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications C. The Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall 1 determine the relocations necessary for the construction,operation, and maintenance of the I Project,including those necessary to enable the removal of borrow materials and the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material The Government shall delineate which of the necessary relocations are required for the ecosystem restoration features and which are required for the recreation features The Government in a timely manner shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with general written descriptions,including maps as appropriate,of such relocations in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulfill its obligations under this paragraph,and shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written notice to proceed with such relocations Prior to the end of the period of construction,the Non Federal Sponsor shall perform or ensure the performance of all relocations as set forth I in such descriptions Furthermore,prior to issuance of the solicitation for each Government construction contract,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall prepare or ensure the preparation of plans and specifications for,and perform or ensure the performance of, all relocations the Government determines to be necessary for that contract D The Non-Federal Sponsor in a timely manner shall provide the Government with such documents as are sufficient to enable the Government to determine the value of any contribution provided pursuant to paragraphs A,B ,or C of this Article Upon receipt of such documents the Government,in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement and in a timely manner, shall determine the value of such contribution,include such value in total Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 9 i i project costs,and afford credit for such value toward the Non-Federal Sponsoes share of total project costs E The Non-Federal Sponsor shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,Public Law 91-646,as amended by Title N of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987(Public Law 100-17),and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 C F R Part 24,in acquirmg lands,easements,and rights-of-way required for the construction,operation,and maintenance of the Project,including those necessary for relocations,borrow materials,and dredged or excavated material disposal, and shall inform all affected persons of applicable benefits,policies, and procedures in connection with said Act ARTICLE IV-CREDIT FOR VALUE OF LANDS,RELOCATIONS,AND DISPOSAL AREAS A The Non-Federal Sponsor shall receive credit toward its share of total project ecosystem restoration costs and,if applicable,total project recreation costs for the value of the lands,easements,nglits-of-way,and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide pursuant to Article III of this , Agreement, and for the value of the relocations that the Non-Federal Sponsor must perform or for which it must ensure performance pursuant to Article III of this Agreement for ecosystem restoration features The Non-Federal Sponsor also shall receive credit toward its share of total project recreation costs for the value of lands,easements,rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that the Non- Federal sponsor may be required to provide pursuant to Article II of this Agreement, and for the value of the relocations that the Non-Federal Sponsor may be required to perform or for which it may be required to ensure performance pursuant to Article II of this Agreement for the recreation features However,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall not receive credit for the value of any lands,easements,nghts-of-way,relocations,or borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that have been provided previously as an item of cooperation for another Federal project The Non-Federal Sponsor also shall not receive credit for the value of lands,easements,nghts-of-way,relocations, or borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas to the extent that such items are provided using Federal funds unless the Federal granting agency venfies in writing that such credit is expressly authorized by statute, j B For the sole purpose of affording credit in accordance with this Agreement,the value of lands,easements,and rights-of-way,including those necessary for relocations, borrow materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal,shall be the fair market value of the real property interests,plus certain incidental costs of acquiring those interests,as determined in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph 1 Date of Valuation The fair market value of lands,easements, or rights- of-way owned by the Non-Federal Sponsor on the effective date of this Agreement shall be , the fair market value of such real property interests as of the date the Non-Federal Sponsor Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 10 i provides the Government with authorization for entry thereto The fair market value of lands,easements,or rights-of-way acquired by the Non-Federal Sponsor after the effective date of this Agreement shall be the fair market value of such real property interests at the time the mterests are acquired. 2 General Valuation Procedure. Except as provided in paragraph B 3 of this Article,the fair market value of lands,easements,or nghts-of-way shall be determined in accordance with paragraph B 2 a of this Article,unless thereafter a different amount is determined to represent fair market value in accordance with paragraph B 2 b of this Article a The Non-Federal Sponsor shall obtain,for each real property interest,an appraisal that is prepared by a qualified appraiser who is acceptable to the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government The appraisal must be prepared in accordance with the applicable rules of just compensation,as specified by the Government The fair market value shall be the amount set forth in the Non-Federal Sponsor's appraisal,if such appraisal is approved by the Government In the event the Government does not approve the Non- Federal Sponsor's appraisal,the Non-Federal Sponsor may obtain a second appraisal,and the fair market value shall be the amount set forth in the Non-Federal Sponsor's second appraisal,if such appraisal is approved by the Government In the event the Government does not approve the Non-Federal Sponsor's second appraisal,or the Non-Federal Sponsor chooses not to obtain a second appraisal,the Government shall obtain an appraisal, and the fair market value shall be the amount set forth in the Government's appraisal,if such appraisal is approved by the Non-Federal Sponsor In the event the Non-Federal Sponsor does not approve the Government's appraisal,the Government,after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall consider the Government's and the Non-Federal Sponsor's 1 appraisals and determine an amount based thereon,which shall be deemed to be the fair market value b. Where the amount paid or proposed to be paid by the Non-Federal Sponsor for the real property interest exceeds the amount detemined pursuant to paragraph B 2 a of this Article,the Government,at the request of the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall consider all factors relevant to determining fair market value and,in its sole discretion,after I consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor,may approve in writing an amount greater than the amount determined pursuant to paragraph B 2 a of this Article,but not to exceed the amount actually paid or proposed to be paid If the Government approves such an amount, the fair market value shall be the lesser of the approved amount or the amount paid by the Non-Federal Sponsor,but no less than the amount determined pursuant to paragraph B 2 a of this Article 3 Eminent Domain Valuation Procedure For lands, easements,or rights- of-way acquired by eminent domain proceedings instituted after the effective date of this Agreement,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall,prior to instituting such proceedings,submit to the Government notification in writing of its intent to institute such proceedings and an appraisal of the specific real property interests to be acquired in such proceedings The I Government shall have 60 days after receipt of such a notice and appraisal within which to review the appraisal,if not previously approved by the Government in writing Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 1 I j a If the Government previously has approved the appraisal in wntmg,or if the Government provides written approval of or takes no action on,the appraisal within such 60-day period,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall use the amount set forth in such appraisal as the estimate oflust compensation for the purpose of instituting the eminent domain proceeding b If the Government provides written disapproval of the appraisal, including the reasons for disapproval,within such 60-day period,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall consult in good faith to promptly resolve the issues or areas of disagreement that are identified in the Govemment's written disapproval. 4 after such good faith consultation, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor agree as to an appropriate amount,then the Non-Federal Sponsor shall use that amount as the estimate oflust compensation for the purpose of instituting the eminent domain proceeding If,after such good faith consultation,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor cannot agree as to an appropriate amount,then the Non-Federal Sponsor may use the amount set forth in its appraisal as the estimate oflust compensation for the purpose of mstitutmg the eminent domain proceeding c For lands,easements,or rights-of-way acquired by eminent domain proceedings instituted in accordance with sub-paragraph B 3 of this Article,fair market value shall be either the amount of the court award for the real property interests taken,to the extent the Government determined such interests are required for the construction, operation,and maintenance of the Project,or the amount of any stipulated settlement or portion thereof that the Government approves in writing 4 Incidental Costs. For lands,easements,or rights-of-way acquired by the ' Non-Federal Sponsor within a five-year period preceding the effective date of this Agreement,or at any time after the effective date of this Agreement, the value of the interest shall include the documented incidental costs of acquiring the interest,as determined by the Government,subject to an audit in accordance with Article X C of this Agreement to determine reasonableness,allocabihty,and allowability of costs Such incidental costs shall include,but not necessarily be limited to,closing and title costs,appraisal costs, survey costs, attorneys fees,plat maps, and mapping costs,as well as the actual amounts expended for payment of any Public Law 91-646 relocation assistance benefits provided in accordance with Article III E of this Agreement C After consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor,the Government shall determine the value of relocations in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph l For a relocation other than a highway,the value shall be only that portion of relocation costs that the Government determines is necessary to provide a functionally equivalent facility,reduced by depreciation, as applicable,and by the salvage value of any removed items Final Meridian Valley Creek PCA 12 2 For a relocation of a lughway,the value shall be only that portion of relocation costs that would be necessary to accomplish the relocation in accordance with the design standard that the State of Washington would apply under similar conditions of geography and traffic load,reduced by the salvage value of any removed items 3 Relocation costs shall include,but not necessanly be limited to,actual costs of perfomung the relocation,planning,engineering and design costs, supervision and administration costs, and documented incidental costs associated with performance of the relocation,but shall not include any costs due to betterments,as determined by the Government,nor any additional cost of using new material when suitable used material is available Relocation costs shall be subject to an audit in accordance with Article X C of this Agreement to determine reasonableness,allocabrhty,and allowabihty of costs. 4 Any credit afforded for the value of relocations performed within the Project boundaries is subject to satisfactory compliance with applicable Federal labor laws covering non-Federal construction,mcludmg,but not limited to,40 U S C 3141- 3148 and 40 U S C 3701-3708(revising,codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act(formerly 40 U S C 276a et seq}, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act(formerly 40 U S C 327 et seq) and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U S.0 276c)) Crediting may be withheld, in whole or in part, as a result of the Non-Federal Sponsor's failure to comply with its obligations under these laws D The value of the improvements made to lands, easements,and nghts-of-way for the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material shall be the costs of the improvements, 1 as detemuned by the Government,subject to an audit in accordance with Article X C of this Agreement to detemmme reasonableness,allocabihty,and allowability of costs Such costs shall include,but not necessarily be limted to,actual costs of providing the improvements, planning, engineering and design costs, supervision and administration costs,and documented incidental costs associated with providing the improvements,but shall not include any costs due to betterments,as determined by the Government ■ ARTICLE V-PROJECT COORDINATION TEAM A To provide for consistent and effective communication,the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government,not later than 30 days after the effective date of this Agreement,shall appoint named senior representatives to a Project Coordination Team Thereafter,the j Project Coordination Team shall meet regularly until the end of the period of construction The Government's Project Manager and a counterpart named by the Non-Federal Sponsor shall co-char the Project Coordination Team B The Goverrunent's Project Manager and the Non-Federal Sponsors counterpart shall keep the Project Coordination Team mformed of the progress of construction and of significant pending issues and actions,and shall seek the views of the Project Coordination Team on matters that the Project Coordination Team generally oversees Final Menchan Valley Creek PCA 13 C Until the end of the period of construction,the Project Coordination Team shall generally oversee the Project,including issues related to design,plans and specifications, scheduling,real property and relocation requirements,real property acquisition,contract awards and modifications,contract costs,the application of and compliance with 40 U S C 3141-3148 and 40 U S C 3701-3708(revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act(formerly 40 U S C 276a et seq), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act(formerly 40 U S C 327 et seq)and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act(formerly 40 U S C.276c))for relocations,the Government's cost projections,final inspection of the entire Project or functional portions of the Project,requirements of the monitoring,implementation of any adaptive management changes,preparation of the proposed OMRR&R Manual,anticipated requirements and I� needed capabilities for performance of operation,maintenance,repair,replacement,and i rehabilitation of the Project;and other related matters This oversight shall be consistent with a project management plan developed by the Government after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor D The Project Coordination Team may make recommendations that it deems warranted to the District Engineer on matters that the Project Coordination Team generally oversees,including suggestions to avoid potential sources of dispute The Government in good faith shall consider the recommendations of the Project Coordination Team The Government,having the legal authority and responsibility for construction of the Project, has the discretion to accept,reject,or modify the Project Coordination Team's recommendations E The costs of participation in the Project Coordination Team shall be included ' in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement ARTICLE VI-METHOD OF PAYMENT A The Government shall maintain current records of contributions provided by the I parties and current projections of total project costs and costs due to betterments At least quarterly,the Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a report setting forth all contributions provided to date and the current projections of total project costs,total project ecosystem restoration costs,total project recreation costs,and total costs due to betterments,of the maximum amount of total project costs determined in accordance with Article=of this Agreement,of the components of total project costs,of each party's share of total project costs,of the Non-Federal Sponsor's total cash contributions required in accordance with Articles H 3,II D,HE and II F of this Agreement,and of the non- Federal proportionate share On the effective date of this Agreement,total project costs are projected to be$1,065,000 00,total ecosystem restoration costs are estimated to be $1,055,000 00,total project recreation costs are estimated to be$10,000 00, the Non- Federal Sponsor's cash contribution required under Article II D of this Agreement is projected to be$226,750 00,and the Non-Federal Sponsor's cash contribution required Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 14 under Article II E of this Agreement is projected to be$5,000.00. Such amounts are estimates subject to adjustment by the Government and are not to be construed as the total financial responsibilities of the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor B The Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the cash contribution required under Articles II D ,II E and II F of this Agreement in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.Not less than 30 calendar days prior to the scheduled date for issuance of the solicitation for the first construction contract,the Government shall notify the Non- Federal Sponsor in writing of such scheduled date and the funds the Government determines to be required from the Non-Federal Sponsor to meet its projected cash contribution under Articles II D,II E and II F of this Agreement Not later than such scheduled date,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of the required funds by delivering a check payable to "FAO,USAED,Seattle District"to the District Engineer,or verifying to the satisfaction of the Government that the Non-Federal Sponsor has deposited the required funds in an escrow or other account acceptable to the Government,with interest accruing to the Non-Federal Sponsor, or presenting the Government with an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the Government for the required funds, or providing an Electronic Funds Transfer of the required funds in accordance with procedures established by the Government The Government shall draw from the funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor such sums as the Government deems necessary to cover (a)the non-Federal proportionate share of financial obligations for construction incurred prior to the commencement of the period of construction, and(b) the non-Federal proportionate share of financial obligations for construction as they are incurred I during the period of construction In the event the Government determines that the Non- Federal Sponsor must provide additional funds to meet the Non-Federal Sponsor's cash ' contribution,the Government shall notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the additional funds required Within 60 calendar days thereafter,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of the additional required funds through any of the payment mechanisms specified above i C In advance of the Government incurring any financial obligation associated with j additional work under Article II B or II F of this Agreement,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of the funds required to pay for such additional work through any of the payment mechanisms specified in Article VI B of this Agreement The Government shall draw from the funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor such sums as the Government deems necessary to cover the Government's financial obligations for such additional work as they are incurred In the event the Government determines that the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide additional funds to meet its cash contribution,the Government shall notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the additional funds required and provide an explanation of why additional funds are required Within 30 calendar days thereafter,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of the additional required funds through any of the payment mechanisms specified in Article VI B of this Agreement D Upon completion of the Project or termination of this Agreement,and upon j resolution of all relevant claims and appeals,the Government shall conduct a final 1 Final Mendian Valle Creek PCA Y 15 accounting and famish the Non-Federal Sponsor with the results of the final accounting The final accounting shall determine total project costs,total project ecosystem restoration costs,total project recreation costs,each party's contribution provided thereto,and each party's required share thereof The final accounting also shall deteamme costs due to betterments and the Non-Federal Sponsors cash contribution provided pursuant to Article II B and II F of this Agreement 1 In the event the final accounting shows that the total contribution provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor is less than its required share of total ecosystem restoration costs and total project recreation costs plus costs due to any betterments provided in accordance with Article II B of this Agreement,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall,no later than 90 calendar days after receipt of written notice,make a cash payment to the i Government of whatever sum is required to meet the Non-Federal Sponsors required share of total project costs plus costs due to any betterments provided in accordance with Article II B of this Agreement by delivering a check payable to"FAO,USAED,SEATTLE DISTRICT,"to the District Engineer or providing an Electronic Funds Transfer in accordance with procedures established by the Government 2 In the event the final accounting shows that the total contribution provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor exceeds its required share of total project ecosystem restoration costs and total project recreation costs plus costs due to any betterments provided in accordance with Article II B of this Agreement, the Government shall,subject to the availability of funds,refund the excess to the Non-Federal Sponsor no later than 90 calendar days after the final accounting is complete in accordance with the terms of this Agreement In the event existing funds are not available to refund the excess to the Non- Federal Sponsor,the Government shall seek such appropriations as are necessary to make , the refund. ARTICLE VII-DISPUTE RESOLUTION As a condition precedent to a party bringing any suit for breach of this Agreement,that party must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation,they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non-binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to both parties The parties shall each pay 50 percent of any costs for the services provided by such a third party as such costs are incurred The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the parties from performance pursuant to this Agreement ARTICLE VIE- OPERATION,MAINTENANCE,REPAIR,REPLACEMENT, AND REHABILITATION(OMRR&R) Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 16 ' i A Upon notification in accordance with Article II.C.of this Agreement and for so long as the Project remains authorized,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate,maintain, repair,replace,and rehabilitate the entire Project or the functional portion of the Project,at no cost to the Government,in a manner compatible with the Projects authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws as provided in Article XI of this Agreement and specific directions prescribed by the Government in the OMRR&R Manual and any subsequent amendments thereto B The Non-Federal Sponsor hereby gives the Government a right to enter,at reasonable tunes and in a reasonable manner,upon property that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for the purpose of inspection and,if necessary,for the purpose of completing,operating,maintaining,repairing,replacing,or rehabilitating the Project If an inspection shows that the Non-Federal Sponsor for any reason is failing to perform its obligations under this Agreement,the Government shall send a written notice describing the non-performance to the Non-Federal Sponsor If,after 30 calendar days from receipt of notice,the Non-Federal Sponsor continues to fail to perform,then the Government shall have the right to enter,at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon property that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for the purpose of completing,operating,maintaining,repairing,replacing,or rehabilitating the Project No completion, operation,maintenance,repair,replacement,or rehabilitation by the Government shall operate to relieve the Non-Federal Sponsor of responsibility to meet the Non-Federal Sponsor's obligations as set forth in tlus Agreement,or to preclude the Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful performance pursuant to this Agreement ARTICLE IX-INDEMNIFICATION I Subject to the provisions of Article XX of this Agreement,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall hold and save the Government free from all damages ansing from the construction, operation,maintenance,repair,replacement,and rehabilitation of the Project and any Project-related betterments,except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or its contractors ARTICLE X-MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND AUDIT A Not later than 60 calendar days after the effective date of this Agreement,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall develop procedures for keeping books, records,documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement These procedures shall mcorporate,and apply as appropriate,the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 C F R Section 33 20 The Goverment and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall maintain such books,records,documents,and other evidence in accordance with these procedures and for a minimum of three years after the period of construction and resolution of all relevant clauns ansmg therefrom To the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws 1 Fuial Meridian Valley(leek YCA 17 and regulations,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall each allow the other to inspect such books,documents,records,and other evidence B Pursuant to 32 C F R Section 33 26,the Non-Federal Sponsor is responsible for complying with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996,31 U S C Sections 7501-7507, i as implemented by Office of Management and Budget(OMB)Circular No A-133 and ■ Department of Defense Directive 760010 Upon request of the Non-Federal Sponsor and to the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations,the Government shall provide to the Non-Federal Sponsor and independent auditors any information necessary to enable an audit of the Non-Federal Spons&s activities under this Agreement The costs of any non-Federal audits performed in accordance with this paragraph shall be allocated in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circulars A-87 and A-133,and such costs as are allocated to the Project shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement C In accordance with 31 U S C Section 7503,the Government may conduct audits in addition to any audit that the Non-Federal Sponsor is required to conduct under the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 Any such Government audits shall be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the cost principles in OMB Circular No A-87 and other applicable cost principles and regulations The costs of Government audits performed in accordance with this paragraph shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement ARTICLE XI-FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS In the exercise of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement,the , Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government agree to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations,including,but not limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,Public Law 88-352 (42 U S C 2000d)and Department of Defense Directive 5500 11 issued pursuant thereto,Army Regulation 600-7,entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army", and all applicable Federal labor standards requirements including,but not limited to,40 U.S C 3141-3148 and 40 U S C 3701- 3708(revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act(formerly 40 U.S C 276a et seq),the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act(formerly 40 U S.0 327 et seq)and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U S C 276c)) ARTICLE XII-RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES A In the exercise of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor each act in an independent capacity,and neither is to be considered the officer,agent,or employee of the other. Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 18 B In the exercise of its rights and obligations under this Agreement,neither party shall provide,without the consent of the other party, any contractor with a release that waives or purports to waive any rights such other party may have to seek relief or redress against such contractor either pursuant to any cause of action that such other party may have or for violation of any law ARTICLE XIII-OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT No member of or delegate to the Congress,nor any resident commissioner,shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement,or to any benefit that may anse therefrom ARTICLE XIV-TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION A If at any time the Non-Federal Sponsor fails to fulfill its obligations under Article 11.11,11 D,11 E,H F,VI,or XVM.C.of this Agreement,the Assistant Secretary of the Army(Civil Works)shall terminate tins Agreement or suspend future performance under this Agreement unless he determines that continuation of work on the Project is in the interest of the United States or is necessary in order to satisfy agreements with any other non-Federal interests in connection with the Project B. If the Government fails to receive annual appropriations in amounts sufficient to meet Project expenditures for the then-current or upcoming fiscal year,the Government shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing,and 60 calendar days thereafter either party may elect without penalty to terminate this Agreement or to suspend future performance under this Agreement. In the event that either party elects to suspend future performance under this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph,such suspension shall remain in effect until such time as the Government receives sufficient appropriations or until either the Government or the Non-Federal Sponsor elects to terminate this Agreement C In the event that either party elects to terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Article or Article XV of this Agreement,both parties shall conclude their activities relating to the Project and proceed to a final accounting in accordance with Article VI D. of this Agreement D Any termination of this Agreement or suspension of future performance under this Agreement in accordance with this Article or Article XV of this Agreement shall not relieve the parties of liability for any obligation previously incurred Any delinquent payment shall be charged interest at a rate,to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,equal to ISO per centum of the average bond equivalent rate of the 13-week Treasury bills auctioned immediately prior to the date on which such payment became delinquent,or auctioned unmediately prior to the beginning of each additional 3-month period if the period of delinquency exceeds 3 months 1 Final Mendian Valley Creek PCA 19 ARTICLE XV-HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES A After execution of this Agreement and upon direction by the District Engineer, the Non Federal Sponsor shall perform,or cause to be performed,any investigations for hazardous substances that the Government or the Non-Federal Sponsor determines to be necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act(hereinafter "CERCLA"),42 U S C Sections 9601-9675,that may exist in,on, or under lands, easements,and rights-of-way that the Government determines,pursuant to Article IH of this Agreement,to be required for the construction,operation,and maintenance of the Project However,for lands that the Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude,only the Government shall perform such investigations unless the District Engineer provides the Non-Federal Sponsor with prior specific written direction,in which case the Non-Federal Sponsor shall perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction All actual costs incurred by the Non-Federal Sponsor for such investigations for hazardous substances shall be included in total project costs and cost sheared in accordance with the provisions of thus Agreement,subject to an audit in accordance with Article X C of this Agreement to determine reasonableness,allocability, and allowability of costs B In the event it is discovered through any investigation for hazardous substances or other means that hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA exist in,on,or under any lands, easements,or nghts-of-way that the Government determines,pursuant to Article III of this Agreement,to be required for the construction,operation, and maintenance of the Project,the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government shall provide prompt written notice to each other, and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall not proceed with the acquisition of the real property interests until both parties agree that the Non-Federal Sponsor should proceed C. The Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall determine whether to initiate construction of the Project,or,if already in construction,whether to continue with work on the Project,suspend future performance under this Agreement,or terminate this Agreement for the convenience of the Government,in any case where hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA are found to exist in,on,or under any lands,easements,or rights- of-way that the Government determines,pursuant to Article III of this Agreement,to be required for the construction,operation,and maintenance of the Project Should the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor determine to mttiate or continue with construction after considering any liability that may anse under CERCL.A,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be responsible,as between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor,for the costs of clean-up and response,to include the costs of any studies and investigations necessary to determine an appropriate response to the contamination Such costs shall not be considered apart of total project costs In the event the Non-Federal Sponsor fads to provide any funds necessary to pay for clean up and response costs or to otherwise discharge the Non-Federal Sponsor's responsibilities under this paragraph upon direction by the Government,the Government may,in its sole discretion,either terminate this Agreement for Final Meridian Valley Cheek PCA 20 i the convenience of the Government,suspend future performance under this Agreement,or continue work on the Project D The Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government shall consult with each other in accordance with Article V of this Agreement in an effort to ensure that responsible parties bear any necessary clean up and response costs as defined in CERCLA Any decision made pursuant to paragraph C of this Article shall not relieve any third party from any liability that may anse under CERCLA E As between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be considered the operator of the Project for purposes of CERCLA liability To the maximum extent practicable,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate,maintain, repair,replace,and rehabilitate the Project in a manner that will not cause liability to anse under CERCLA ARTICLE XVI-NOTICES A Any notice,request,demand,or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly given if in writing and either delivered personally or by telegram or mailed by first-class,registered,or certified mail, as follows If to the Non-Federal Sponsor IPublic Works Department City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 If to the Government Chief,Planning Branch,PPMD Seattle District,Corps of Engineers P O Box 3755 i Seattle,WA 98124-3755 ■ B A party may change the address to which such communications are to be directed by giving written notice to the other party in the manner provided in this Article C Any notice,request,demand,or other communication made pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the earlier of such time as it is actually received or seven calendar days after it is mailed Final Mendran Valley Creek PCA 21 ARTICLE XVII-CONFIDENTIALITY To the extent permitted by the laws governing each party,the parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of exchanged information when requested to do so by the proving ply ARTICLE XVIIl-HISTORIC PRESERVATION A The costs of identification,survey and evaluation of historic properties shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement B As specified in Section 7(a)of Public Law 93-291 (16 U S C. Section 469c(a)), the costs of archeological data recovery activities associated with lnstonc preservation shall be bome entirely by the Government and shall not be included in total project costs,up to the statutory limit of one percent of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for the Authorized Project C The Govemment shall not incur costs for mitigation and data recovery that exceed the statutory one percent limit specified in paragraph B of this Article unless and until the Assistant Secretary of the Army(Civil Works)has waived that limit(and the Secretary of the Interior has concurred in the waiver)in accordance with Section 208(3)of Public Law 96-515 (16 U S C Section 469c-2(3)) Any costs of mitigation and data recovery that exceed the one percent limit shall not be included in total project costs,but shall be cost shared between the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government in accordance with the terms of this Agreement ARTICLE XIX-SECTION 902 PROJECT COST LIMITS A The Non-Federal Sponsor understands that Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,Public Law 99-662, as amended(33 U S C 2280)establishes the maximum total project costs for the Authorized Project, of which the Project is a separable element On the effective date of this Agreement,the maximum total project costs for the Authorized Project are estimated to be.$153,715,320,as calculated in accordance with Appendix G of Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100,using October 1,2003 price levels, and including allowances for projected future inflation The Government shall adjust such maximum total project costs for the Authorized Project,in accordance with said Section 902,when necessary B Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,the Government shall not incur a new financial obligation or expenditure for the Project,or include in total project costs for the Project any additional contribution provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor,if Final Mendtaii Valley Creek PCA 22 ` I such obligation,expenditure or additional contribution would cause the sum of total project costs for the Project and the cumulative total project costs for all other separable elements of the Authorized Project,to exceed the maximum total project costs for the Authorized Project,established in accordance with said Section 902, unless otherwise authorized by law ARTICLE XX- OBLIGATIONS OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS A. Nothing herein shall constitute,nor be deemed to constitute, an obligation of future appropriations by the City of Kent of the State of Washington,where creating such an obligation would be inconsistent with R C W 35A 33 120,the Constitution of the State of Washington,or the Kent City Code. B The Non-Federal Sponsor intends to satisfy its obligations under this Agreement The Non-Federal Sponsor shall include in its budget request or otherwise propose, for each fiscal period,appropriations sufficient to cover the Non-Federal Sponsoes obligations under this Agreement for each biennium, and will use all reasonable and lawful means to secure the appropriations for that biennium sufficient to make the payments necessary to fulfill its obligations hereunder The Non-Federal Sponsor reasonably believes that funds in amounts sufficient to discharge these obligations can and will lawfully be appropriated and made available for this purpose In the event the budget or other means of appropriations does not provide funds in sufficient amounts to discharge these obligations,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall use its best efforts to satisfy any requirements for payments under this Agreement from any other source of funds legally available for this purpose. Further,if the Non-Federal Sponsor is unable to satisfy its obligations hereunder,the Government may exercise any legal rights it has to protect the Government's interests related to this Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement,which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the Seattle District Commander DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KENT,WASE NGTON BY BY Colonel Debra M.Lewis Jim White Commander Mayor Seattle District City of Kent DATE DATE Fatal Mendiaa Valley Creek PCA 23 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY I,Arthur Fitzpatrick,Deputy City Attorney,do hereby certify that I am the principal legal officer of the City of Kent;Washington,that the City of Kent, Washington is a legally constituted public body with full authority and legal capability to perform the terms of the Agreement between the Department of the Army and the City of Kent in connection with the Mendian Valley Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project,and to pay damages in accordance with the terms of this Agreement,if necessary,in the event of the failure to perform,as required by Section 221 of Public Law 91-611 (42 U S C Section 1962d-5b), and that the persons who have executed tlus Agreement on behalf of the City of Kent have acted within their statutory authority IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have made and executed this certification tivs day of 20_ Arthur Fitzpatrick Deputy City Attorney Final Mendtan Valley Creek PCA 24 CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING The undersigned certifies,to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that. (1)No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for mfluencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract,the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan,the entering into of any cooperative agreement,and the extension, continuation,renewal,amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement (2)If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions (3)The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all hers(including subcontracts, subgrants,and contracts under grants,loans,and cooperative agreements)and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into tlus transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31,U S Code Any person who fails to file the require certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than$100,000 for each such failure KENT,WASBINGTON Jim White,Mayor DATE Final Mendan Valley Creek PCA 25 j iKent City Council Meeting Date November 2. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: S. 192ND/SPRINGBROOK CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT— ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept as complete the South 192"d/Springbrook Creek Culvert Replacement project and release the retainage to Tri-State Construction upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $131,860.16. The final contract amount was $123,642.12. 3. EXHIBITS• None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT I Expenditure? X Revenue? X 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. 6T Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2. 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT AMENDMENT AND UPDATE TO KENT CITY CODE CHAPTER 12.13 — SET HEARING DATE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set November 16, 2004 as the date for a public hearing to consider amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and amendment of Chapter 12.13 of the Kent City Code to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Auburn,Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and to incorporate changes to adopted school impact fees. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo dated 10/26/04 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: j Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ j Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6U COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director KE S T PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager w A S H I N o T o N Phone-253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 OCTOBER 26, 2004 To: Mayor Jim White, Council President Julie Peterson and City Council Members From: Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Through: Mayor Jim White Subject: Comprehensive Plan/Capital Facilities Element Amendment and Update to Chapter 12.13 Kent City Code—Set Hearing Date MOTION: Set November 16, 2004 as the date for a public hearing to consider amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and amendment of Chapter 12.13 Kent City Code to incorporate updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Auburn, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and changes to adopted school impact fees. SUMMARY: Kent City Code provides for imposition of school impact fees on behalf of any school district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan, the plan is adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The school districts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated capital facilities plans. The City Council holds the public hearing on the school district plans at the same time as the public hearing for the budget, i.e., November 16, 2004. The Auburn, Kent and Federal Way School Districts have submitted updated Capital Facilities Plans for Council review and consideration. The City of Kent 6-year Capital Improvement Program being considered tonight also will update the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: One of the planning goals under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.020) is to ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate and timely to serve the development without decreasing current service levels below minimum standards. The Act (RCW 36.70A.070) also requires the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to inventory existing capital facilities, forecast future needs and provide for financing of those facilities. RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the Growth Management Act to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities needed to serve new growth and I development. As a result, KCC 12.13.080 provides for imposition of school impact fees on behalf of any school district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan; the plan is adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The school districts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated capital facilities plans (KCC 12.13.060&070). The Auburn, Kent and Federal Way School Districts propose amendment of the Kent ■ Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 to reflect changes to impact fees resulting from new student population generated by new single family and multifamily residential development. The updated plans include an inventory of existing facilities, existing facility needs, expected future facility requirements, and expected funding. The Kent School District proposes decreasing their existing school impact fees for single family units from $4,292 to $4,056 (a decrease of$236 or 5.5%) and for multifamily units from $2,643 to$1,762 (a decrease of$881 or 33.3%). The Federal Way School District proposes decreasing their existing school impact fees for single family units from $3,269 to $2,868 (a decrease of$401 or 12.3%) and for multifamily units from $940 to $905 (a decrease of$35 or 3.71/6). The Auburn School District proposes increasing their existing school impact fees for single family units from $4,528 to $5,296.90 (an increase of$768.90 or 17%) and for multifamily units from $1,212 to $1,831.85 (an increase of $619.85 or 51.1%). The only area in Kent where Auburn School District's impact fees would apply is the impoundment reservoir site. CA\pm S\Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2004\capfacihtiessetheanngl 10204 doc cc Fred N Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Parties of Record Project Files t 1 CPA-2004-2 AND 2004-3/KIVA#2042983� 11/2/04 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COPPER RIDGE RESOLUTION—ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. sustaining the Kent Hearing Examiner's May 6, 2004 Decisions on Recommendation. This resolution reflects a 6-0 vote by the Kent City Council on October 19, 2004, sitting as a quasi- judicial body, to sustain the hearing examiner's finding of fact, conclusions of law, and decisions on recommendation (Decisions on Recommendation) issued on May 6, 2004, regarding the Copper Ridge preliminary plat, PUD and SEPA appeal brought by Jack Kastien and Edward Shemeta on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Development. 3. EXHIBITS: Resolution and Exhibit 4. RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (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 S Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount S 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds iDISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6V RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, adopting findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decisions regarding the quasi- judicial, closed record appeal of the Copper Ridge preliminary plat, planned unit development, and State Environmental Policy Act appeal, (SU-2001-9, ENV- 2001-63, AP2003-4) RECITALS A On October 19, 2004, the Kent City Council sitting as a quasi-judicial body heard a closed record appeal brought by Jack Kastien and Ed Shemeta, individually and on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Development regarding the preliminary plat,planned unit development, and State Environmental Policy Act appeal of the Copper Ridge development (SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, AP2003-4). Mayor White and Councilmember Harmon recused themselves from the hearing Council President Julie Peterson presided. B. The Council voted 6-0 to sustain the Kent Hearing Examiner's Decisions on I Recommendation, dated May 6, 2004, which are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS. 1 Copper Ridge Preliminary Plat, PUD and SEPA Appeal Findings, Conclusions,and Decisions RESOLUTION SECTION 1.—Adoption. The Kent City Council hereby adopts the attached Exhibit A as its findings of fact,conclusions of law,and decisions in the closed record appeal of the Copper Ridge preliminary plat,planned unit development, and State Environmental Policy Act appeal (SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, AP2003-4). SECTION2. —Severability. If any section, subsection,paragraph,sentence,clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 3. —Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the r effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 4. — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force ' immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,this day of November, 2004. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of November, 2004. i I JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 Copper Ridge Preliminary Plat, PUD and SEPA Appeal Findings, Conclusions,andDecisions i t APPROVED AS TO FORM: ELIZABETH THOMAS Attorney for the Kent City Council I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,Washington,the day of November, 2004. IBRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK IP\GviFRESOLUTIOMCopperR,dgcFmd ngsConcim,.mDeus�an dm 3 Copper Ridge Preliminary Plat, PUD and SEPA Appeal Findings, Conclusions,and Decisions t i 1 1 1 EXHIBIT A � i I 1 1 1 i i I t 1 1 t RECEIVE MAY 7 2004 KENT LEGAL DEPT. ® OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMI \ Theodore Paul Hunter KEN TT Hearing Examiner W AS H IN G T o N FOR THE CITY OF KENT In Re: j KENT Files: #SU-2001-9 and The Review of the ) #AP-2003-4 (ENV-2001-63) King County Hearing Examiner ) Recommendation of the ) Copper Ridge Preliminary Plat, } PUD and SEPA Appeal. ) DECISIONS ON RECOMMENDATION King County #S91P000413, S9100001B ) And LOOM1091 ) ) 11. Introduction This matter involves an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) and a review of applications for approval of a forty (40)-lot preliminary plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) on property located north of S. 2081h Street and east of 92"d Avenue S. The applications and appeal were first filed in King County in 1991. The City of Kent became involved with the applications and appeal when it annexed the property proposed for development to the City in 1993. The Appellants in the DNS appeal are owners of property adjacent or near to the site of proposed development. They allege that the development will have adverse environmental impacts that will not be mitigated by the conditions of approval recommended by King County. The Appellants urge denial of the plat and PUD applications or additional conditions to address their concerns. ' In the presentation of their appeal, the Appellants allege that the following problems have not been adequately mitigated: 1) traffic problems on S. 2081h Street; 2) destabilization of slopes on the hillside where the development is proposed; 3) surface l City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Heanng Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 1 of 32 1 - i water runoff causing downstream flooding and water quality problems in Springbrook Creek; and 4) inadequate pedestrian walkways.' Because the applications were filed in King County prior to incorporation of the property by the City, processing of the applications and appeal were addressed in a City/County Interlocal Agreement. The Agreement directs that the King County Hearing Examiner t conduct the hearings on the appeal and applications and make a recommendation to the Kent Hearing Examiner. The King County Hearing Examiner held a hearing to review the preliminary plat and PUD applications for compliance with regulations in effect at time of the application and to gather evidence on the issues involved in the SEPA appeal. The hearing record consists of 78 exhibits and 623 pages of transcribed tape-recorded testimony as well as the 36-page Recommendation of the King County Hearing Examiner.2 The Kent Hearing Examiner was instructed by the City to review the hearing record to , determine if the findings are supported by evidence in the record and if the conclusions are supported by the findings 3 If review revealed deficiencies in the Recommendation, the Kent Hearing Examiner was instructed to remand the matter back to the King County Hearing Examiner with specific instructions to correct deficiencies in the Recommendation. The Kent Hearing Examiner, as the final decisionmaker on these ' matters, was also authorized to correct any deficiencies in the recommendation and enter a final decision. This is what the Kent Hearing Examiner chose to do. This Decision on Recommendations details the procedural history of the applications and appeal; articulates the standard and criteria for review of the applications and appeal; describes the methodology used by the Kent Hearing Examiner in his review of the hearing record; and details the results of that review. The bulk of this Decision consists of identification of the exhibit or testimony that supports a finding, where available, and a discussion of substantial evidence in the record. In the appeal statement, the Appellants also alleged that there would damage to onsite wetlands and negative impacts on wildlife. These issues were not pursued during the appeal hearing and thus will not be addressed by the Hearing Examiner. An additional issue related to pedestrian walkways was not raised in the appeal statement but was presented during the appeal hearings. , 2 See Appendix B for a complete copy of the King County Hearing Examiner Recommendation. 3 This task was complicated by the fact that few findings of the King County Hearing Examiner referenced an exhibit in the record; and no conclusions referenced any findings. Thus, it was necessary for the Kent Hearing Examiner to independently review the exhibits and testimony to determine if a finding was supported by the record. This task required a transcription of the record,which was made available to the Kent Hearing Examiner on March 26, 2004. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Heanng Examiner Recommendations in the AUtterofCopperRidge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent Fde Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 2 of 32 1 , 1 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 1991, Schneider Homes filed an application for preliminary plat and planned 1 unit development in an area of unincorporated King County to subdivide 9.64 acres into 40 lots for single-family dwellings consisting of td- and four-plexes. In July 1992, King County issued a Determination of Significance (DS), which the Applicant appealed. The City of Kent annexed the land in question in May 1993, before the DS appeal was resolved and assumed jurisdiction of the DS appeal and underlying development applicationS.4 The Applicant appealed Kent's decision to apply Kent City Code standards to the 1991 plat and PUD applications. The Washington State Court of Appeals subsequently ruled that the applications vested when filed in 1991 and would be decided based on the King County regulations in effect on the land at time of application. In 1996, Kent and King County entered into an Interlocal Agreement establishing a land use review process for lands within the annexation areas. In November 2000, the Interlocal aggreement was amended specifically to address the pending Copper Ridge application. The City of Kent resumed processing the applications, using the King County land use regulations in effect at the time of application, and issued a Determination of Non-Significance on August 11, 2003.E The Appellants Bled an appeal of the SEPA threshold determination on September 5, 2003.' The King County Hearing Examiner heard the SEPA appeal with the plat and PUD applications in a three-day hearing in December 2003 His issued his Recommendation on January 24, 2004, The Kent Hearing Examiner was instructed to review the Recommendation. The complete hearing record was not made available to the Kent 1 Hearing Examiner until March 26, 2004, as it was necessary to transcribe the testimony and forward the exhibits. The Kent Hearing Examiner now issues this Decision on Recommendations. Ill. SUMMARY OF DECISIONS ( SEPA DNS Appeal The King County Hearing Examiner appropriately recommended denial of the SEPA appeal. His recommendation is supported by substantial evidence. The SEPA Appeal is denied. 4 See Exhibit 2, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES)staff report. 5 See Exhibit 22, 1996 Interlocal Agreement, amended November 2000. 6 See Exhibit 6, Determination of Non-Significance. See Exhibit 7, Notice of Appeal of SEPA threshold determination. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 3 of 32 i t In a SEPA appeal, the Appellants have the burden of proving that the decision was i clearly erroneous. The Appellants did not offer credible scientific or engineering evidence to show that the studies, plans, and expert testimony offered by the Applicant and the County were flawed in any way. Although the Appellants presented legitimate concerns about some environmental aspects of the proposed development, the Appellants did not present expert testimony or factual information that amounted to a demonstration of clear error. The determination by the County that the proposed i project, as conditioned, would not have significant adverse environmental impacts is supported by substantial evidence in the record. PUD and Plat Applications , The King County Hearing Examiner appropriately recommended approval of the preliminary plat and PUD applications. Although the King County Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions may not be adequate as written, there is substantial evidence in the record to support approval of the plat and PUD applications, with revised conditions that require additional studies on slope stability and that provide for safe pedestrian walkways. The request for approval of applications is granted. IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW The decision review process detailed in the City/County Interlocal Agreement is a unique process without precedent in any other city. To help ensure a reliable review process, the Kent Hearing Examiner will review the recommendations of the King County Hearing Examiner as an appellate hearing body would review them That is, ' questions of law will be reviewed de novo, while questions of fact will be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Christianson v. Snohomish Health District, 946 P.2d 768, 771 (1997), citing Hilltop Terrace Homeowners'Association v Island County, 126 i Wash.2d 22, 29 (1995). Substantial evidence exists when "there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the finding." Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 903 P.2d 986, citing Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Association v. Island County, 126 Wash.2d 22, 34 (1995), Christianson, citing Sparks v. Douglas, 127 Wash.2d. 901, 910 (1995). Under the substantial evidence standard of review, the weight given to reasonable but competing inferences and questions of credibility is the province of the fact finder. Hilltop Terrace, supra, at 34. Findings of fact supported by substantial evidence are , verities when reviewed by an appellate body. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley 118 Wash.2d 801, 819 (1992). The reviewing body may not substitute its findings for those that were made by the hearing officer. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards Inc., 54 Wash.2d 570, 575 (1959). The burden of proof is on the Appellant to show that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Christianson, citing Nordstrom Credit Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, 120 Wash.2d 935, 939-40, (1993). City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Heanng Examiner Recommendations in the iviatter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 4 of 32 The purpose of the requirement of findings and conclusions is to ensure that the decision maker has dealt fully and properly with all the issues in the case before it is decided, so the parties involved may be fully informed as to the bases of the decision ■ reached. State v. Agee, 89 Wash.2d 416, 421, 573 P.2d 355 (1977). In order to permit meaningful review, findings of fact should at least be sufficient to indicate the factual bases for the ultimate conclusions. Groff v. Department of Labor& Indus., 65 Wash.2d 35, 40, 395 P.2d 633 (1964); State v. Holland, 98 Wash.2d 507, 517, 656 P.2d 1056 (1983). The record need not contain findings of fact on all matters in evidence, but should address those issues that establish the existence or nonexistence of determinative factual matter. Maehren v. Seattle, 92 Wash.2d 480, 487-88, 599 P.2d 1255 (1979), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 938, 101 S.Ct. 3079 (1981). ' Where inadequate, written findings may be supplemented by statements in the record. State v. Holland, supra 98 Wash.2d at 518, 656 P.2d 1056. In cases of inadequate findings, reviewing courts in Washington have looked to the record as a whole, as in review of administrative agency decisions where findings may be supplemented by undisputed evidence from the record. Chmela v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 88 Wash.2d 385, 391, 561 P.2d 1085 (1977). The Washington State Supreme Court has held that the relevant query in cases of inadequate findings is whether substantial evidence exists in the record below, not whether such evidence is disputed. The Kent Hearing Examiner will follow the guidance offered by the Washington Court. If the King County Hearing Examiner references exhibits or testimony in support of a finding, the Kent Hearing Examiner will rely upon the judgment of the King County Hearing Examiner as to the truth of that finding. However, where there is no exhibit or testimony cited in support of a finding, the Kent Hearing Examiner must look to the record to determine if substantial evidence supports a finding. If evidence is found in support of a finding, the Kent Hearing Examiner will cite to that support and accept the finding. If no evidence can be found, then the finding cannot be sustained. V. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW Any decision made by a hearing examiner must be made with reference to criteria for review established by the local legislative body and the courts. A hearing examiner is not a decisionmaker that can "do equity"with reference to a land use appeal or application, but must rely only upon the directives of the local legislative body and the courts for decisionmaking guidance. See Revised Code of Washington (RCWJ Sections 35.63.130, 35A.63.170, 36.70.970; 58.17.330. The criteria for review of the SEPA Appeal are found in Chapter 43.21 C RCW, Chapter 1 197-11 of the Washington Administrative Code and in judicial decisions interpreting SEPA. The criteria for review of the plat and PUD applications are found in Chapter 58.17 RCW and in the ordinances of King County and the City of Kent. City of Kent Heanng Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File!Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 5 of 32 . i State Environmental Policy Act The State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21 C RCW or "SEPA") specifies the environmental review procedures the City must follow for proposals that may have an impact on the environment. One purpose of the act is to "insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations." Every proposal that may impact the environment (unless it is exempt from the act) must undergo some type of environmental review. RCW 43.21 C.030 (b). The SEPA threshold determination is a determination as to whether a proposal is "likely to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact." WAC 197-11-330. If the , responsible official determines that the proposal would not have a probable, significant adverse environmental impact then a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued and an EIS need not be prepared. As stated in WAC 197-11-794, "'[s]ignificant' as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on the environment. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test." As stated in WAC 197-11-782, "'[p]robable' means likely or reasonably likely to occur . . . . Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative." RCW 43.21 C.060 specifies that government action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA only if the conditions or denials are "based upon policies identified by the appropriate governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans or 1 codes which are formally designated by the agency . . . as possible bases for the exercise of authority pursuant to this chapter." The action may be conditioned "only to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the environmental documents prepared under this chapter " RCW 43.21 C.060. Clear error is the standard of review applicable to substantive decisions based on SEPA. Cougar Mt. Assocs. v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 749, 765 P 2d 264 (1988). Under this standard of review, a reviewing body "does not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body and may find the decision 'clearly erroneous' only when it is 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Id. at 747 (quoting Polygon Corp. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 69, 578 P.2d 1309 (1978)). The Appellant has the burden of proving that the County's decision was clearly erroneous. Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711, 718 (2002). "Substantial ' weight" must be given to the County's threshold determination. Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 14 (1997). Planned Unit Development The standards and criteria for review of the pending PUD application are found in King County Code Title 21.56, which states that the purpose of planned unit development is: City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 i Page 6 of 32 1 A. To produce a development which would be as good or better than traditional lot by lot development ... on unsubdivided property; S. To permit flexibility that will encourage a more creative approach in the 1 development of land, and will result in a more efficient, aesthetic and desirable use of open space, while at the same time harmonizing with adjoining development and maintaining population and area coverage which are consistent with the transportation facilities and utilities available, and with the public health and safety standards of the County, and which do not adversely impact neighboring development; C. To permit flexibility in design, placement of buildings, use of open spaces, bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities, off-street parking areas, and street alignment; and to best utilize the potentials of sites characterized by special features of geography, topography, size, or shape.... KCC 21.56.010.B-.D. 1 Prior to approval of an application for planned unit development, the Hearing Examiner must determine that the plans comply with the development policies of the comprehensive plan, community plan policies, area zoning guidelines, applicable provisions of the shoreline master program, the purpose of this title, and the provisions of Chapter 21 of the King County Code. The Applicant is responsible for demonstrating consistency with these requirements. fCCC 21.56.030.A. Preliminary Plat The decision of the Hearings Examiner must be consistent with the standards and criteria for review specified in King County ordinances in effect in January 1991, specifically King County Code Title 19, Subdivisions. Those local ordinances are intended to implement the requirements of RCW 58.17.110, which requires that: 1 Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant factors, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision. VI. METHODOLOGY OF REVIEW ' The purpose of the Kent Hearing Examiner's review is to determine whether evidence in the record supports the findings entered by the King County Hearing Examiner and whether the conclusions entered follow from those findings. If the answer to both questions is yes, then the King County Hearing Examiner's Recommendation is to be 1 City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Heanng Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, EN'✓-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 7 of 32 . i accepted as the final decision.8 If not, then the City of Kent Hearing Examiner may remand the recommendation to the King County Hearing Examiner "with specific instructions to correct deficiencies in the recommendation." By City ordinance, the Kent Hearing Examiner is the final decisionmaker in these matters. As the Kent Hearing Examiner, and acting under that authority, he may choose to make a decision based on his review of the record and correction of any deficiencies therein.9 Initial review of the record revealed that none of the forty-five (45) numbered findings entered by the King County Hearing Examiner cited to exhibits or to testimony.t0 Some findings refer to types of documents, or to dates or authors of documents, which could be searched for on the exhibit list. Examples include: "the application" (Finding No. 4); "[a] 1999 settlement agreement" (Finding No. 5); "a determination of non-significance" (Finding No. 6); and, "preliminary geotechnical engineering study performed by Golder Associates, Inc., dated September 24, 1990" (Finding No.11). Without citations to page , numbers or to specific documents, however, it was not possible to determine whether evidence in exhibits supported the statements in the findings without a complete review of the document referenced in the finding. , In an attempt to avoid both a remand and a de novo review of the record, the Kent Hearing Examiner requested the assistance of the parties in identifying specific citations to exhibits in the record that might support the findings as written. The response from the parties to this request was not sufficient to avoid de novo review." The King County Hearing Examiner also declined the Kent Hearing Examiner's request to annotate his Recommendation with citations to specific exhibits and testimony to facilitate review. The Kent Hearing Examiner was thus compelled to conduct a de novo review of the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence in the record supported the findings and conclusions entered in the Recommendation.12 s In accordance with Kent City Code Chapter 12.01, any appeal of the preliminary plat would be heard by the Kent City Council as a closed record appeal. Any appeal of the PUD or further appeal of the SEPA , threshold determination would be to Superior Court. See Letter dated May 29, 2003 from City Attorney for Kent to the parties. 9 See Exhibit 1, Document 133, May 29, 2003 letter from City Attorney for Kent. , 10 Only Finding No.2 refers to an exhibit by number. " The SEPA Appellants did submit specific citations to exhibits upon which some findings could have , been based. The City of Kent had not presented exhibits at the hearing and declined to submit specific citations to exhibits supporting findings King County did not reply to the Hearing Examiner's request. , The Applicants, through their attorney, declined to submit citations to exhibits and requested remand to the King County Hearing Examiner. 12 The exhibits fill two file boxes. They consist of 78 numbered exhibits ranging from one page to 50 or more pages. The record also includes twelve 2-sided audiocassette recordings of testimony, transcribed into 623 pages of hearing transcript,not including the prehearing conference. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Mlatterof Capp erRidge.Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 8 of 32 VII. RESULTS OF REVIEW The following annotation of citations to the record was created to identify where there is support for the findings and conclusions in the King County Hearing Examiner's Recommendation. The annotation identifies the finding; summarizes the content of that finding; and references exhibits and testimony that support that finding, where available. It is most helpful to the reader to read each annotated finding or conclusion below in conjunction with the corresponding findings and conclusions in the Recommendation. All of the 45 findings in the Recommendation contain more than one factual statement. Where support was not found in the record for all statements in a given finding, the annotation below contains additional information. A discussion of the findings and conclusions, as supplemented by the annotations below, follows this section. The discussion focuses on whether the findings and conclusions, as supplemented below, are sufficient to support the recommendation of the King County Hearing Examiner. The decision of the Kent Hearing Examiner follows the discussion section. Ar,7otated Findings of King County Examiner as Supplemented by Review of the Record by Kent Hearing Examiner Finding 1 relates to the specific details of the project. Exhibit 3, Application; Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 1-2. Finding 2 incorporates the facts of the DDES Staff Report into the King County Hearing Examiner's Recommendation. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, Exhibit 66, Amendment to Staff Report. Note: This finding incorporates the "facts" of the staff report into the Recommendation and finds the "facts" are correct However, as there is no "facts" section in the staff report, the Kent Hearing Examiner is unable to determine which facts are incorporated by this finding. 1 Finding 3 relates to the specific details of the project. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 2 & 6; Exhibit 22, 2001 Amendment and 1996 lnterlocal Agreement. Finding 4 relates to the procedural history of the project. There is no support in the record for Sentences 1, 6, and 7. The balance of Finding 4 is supported by Exhibit 2, page 2;Exhibit 1, document B3, 9125103 Pre-Hearing Order, page 2, Exhibit 22, 1996 lnterlocal Agreement and 2001 Amendment. 1 Finding 5 relates to the procedural history of the project The 1999 Settlement Agreement between the parties is not in the record, and there is no evidentiary support for a statement of its terms. The balance of Finding 5 is supported by Exhibit 1, Document B3, 9125103 Pre-Hearing Order; Exhibit 1, Document 133, 5123103 letter from City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Plumbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 9 of 32 Kent City Attorney's Office to parties, Exhibit 22, 1996 Interlocal Agreement and 2001 Amendment, page 1. Finding 6 relates to the procedural history of the project. Exhibit 6, 8111103 Determination of Non-Significance; Exhibit 7, SEPA Appeal; Exhibit 1, Document B1, Notice of Pre-hearing Conference. Finding 7 relates to Appellants' concerns regarding the steep slopes. There is no support in the record for a finding that Appellants mapped landslide areas totaling 19,000 sq.ft. The remainder of Finding 7 is supported by Exhibit 28, December 1990 King County Sensitive Area Mapfolio; Exhibit 9, Site Plan; Exhibit 14, September 1990 Talisman Land Resource Consultants' Wetlands report; Exhibit 15, October 2002 B- Twelve Wetland Analysis Report, page 5. Finding 8 outlines the SEPA appeal issues. There is no support in the record for a , finding that Appellants limited scope of SEPA appeal at hearing to slope stability alone. Appellant Kastien raised concerns regarding water quality impacts from erosion, from , overflow of the detention pond, and from inadequate water quality protection provided by 1990 pond standards on downstream sensitive areas. Testimony of Mr. Kastien, pg 27, line 25 through page 37, line 5. Appellant Shemeta testified about the Appellants' traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. Testimony of Mr. Shemeta, pg 54, starting at line 2, et seq. Mr. Miller testified, as an expert for the Appellants, that he believes an aquifer lies beneath the site that could be punctured during construction to the detriment of his and other neighboring properties. Testimony of Mr. Miller, pg 14, line 21 through pg 143 line 6. The remainder of Finding 8 is supported by Exhibit 7, SEPA Appeal. Finding 9 is a discussion of regulations concerning steep slope issues. There is no support in the record for this finding. Ordinance 9614 is not in the record. KCC , Ch.21.54, Special Control Areas and Flood Hazard Areas, in the record at Exhibit 50, does not contain the sections cited in this finding pertaining to definitions, soil types, and classifications of steep slopes. ' Finding 10 is a discussion of sensitive areas Ordinance 9614, which is not in the record. The remainder of this finding is supported by Exhibit 50, KCC Ch. 21.54.040.D, Sensitive Areas Special Studies; Exhibit 14, September 1990 Talisman Land Resource Consultants' Wetlands report; Exhibit 17, March 18, 1992 Preliminary Geotechnical Report from Golder&Associates, Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 12-13, §Q.B.2-5; , Testimony of Mr. West, pg. 469-70, lines 20-1. Findinq 11 relates to Appellants' concerns regarding the steep slopes. Exhibit 7, SEPA , Appeal; Exhibit 17, March 18, 1992 Preliminary Geotechnical Report from Golder& Associates, pages 1-6; Exhibit 52, March 4, 1992 Additional Geotechnical Review and Recommendations from Golder& Assoc; Testimony of Mr. West, pg.422-23, lines 24-3, City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on I , King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the ivlatterof Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 10 of 32 1 ' 1 Testimony of Mr. West, pg. 429, lines 9-17, Testimony of Mr. West generally, pg. 422- 4 74. Note: The finding states there were 14 test pits; exhibits and testimony confirm there 1 were 13 test pits. Finding 12 relates to Appellants' concerns regarding the steep slopes. Exhibit 7, SEPA Appeal, Testimony of Mr. Kastien, pg. 18 line 8 through pg. 21 line 21; -19, Exhibits 29, 30, and 31, photographs taken by Appellant; Testimony of Mr. Melby, pg. 218 line 11 through pg. 219 line 22. Finding 13 discusses steep slope stability generally. The first sentence is not supported in the record. The second sentence is generally supported by Exhibit 17, March 18, 1992 Preliminary Geotechnical Report from Golder&Associates; Exhibit 52, March 4, 1992 Additional Geotechnical Review and Recommendations from Golder&Assoc; Testimony of Mr. West, pg.422-23, lines 24-3; Testimony of Mr. West, pg. 429, lines 9- 17; Testimony of Mr. West generally, pg. 422-474, Testimony of Mr. Knitter, pg 281, lines 4-17; Testimony of Mr. Knitter generally, pg. 267-96. The third sentence is not 1 supported in the record. Finding 14 relates to the effect of the drainage pond on steep slope stability. Testimony of Mr. Kastien,pg 25, lines 6-18;pg 30, lines 9-18; Testimony of Mr. Kastien generally; Testimony of Mr. Miller, pg. 122, lines 1-25;pg. 178, lines 1-19; Testimony of Mr. Miller II generally. ` Finding 15 relates to the effect of the drainage pond on steep slope stability. Sentence 1 is generally supported by testimony of Mr. Knitter, pg. 278, lines 4-9; testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 350, lines 8-23;pg. 386, lines 1-11. Sentence 2 is generally supported by testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 380, 9-13; testimony of Mr. Kni'LLer, pg.281, lines 4-9. Sentence 3 is generally supported by testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 401, 9-15; Testimony 1 of Mr. Whittaker, pg. 426, lines 23-25. There is no support in the record for the remainder of Finding 15. 1 Findinq 16 is a discussion of the Appellants' concern that the site may be underlain by an aquifer. Testimony of Mr. Miller, pg. 141, lines 3-7,pg. p142, lines 10-14,pg.146, lines 6-11; pg.149, 9-21; Testimony of Mr. Miller generally;Exhibit 41, well logs. Finding 17 discusses the possible aquifer and dismisses the Appellants' aquifer theory. The King County Hearing Examiner's dismissal of the possible aquifer as a potentially significant environmental issue is supported by testimony of Mr. West, pg 436, line 6 through 437 line16, and Exhibit 17. ' Finding 18 relates to steep slope stability. Exhibit 9, Site plan; Testimony of Mr. Knitter, pg.281, line 18 through 28Z line 14, Exhibit 17, pg 5, Exhibit 52, pg.1-2, Testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 367line 1 through 368 tine 14. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on 1 King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File{`lumbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 11 of 32 r Finding 19 is a discussion of various storm water drainage standards. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 6; Exhibit 22, 2001 Amendment and 19961nterlocal Agreement, r Testimony of Mr. Kastien, pg. 24, line 18 through pg.25 line 5; Tostrmory of Mr. Whittaker, pg. 480 line 17 through 481 line 8. Finding 20 continues the discussion of various storm water drainage standards. There is no support in the record for this finding. Findinq 21 continues the discussion of various storm water drainage standards. Testimony of Mr. Kastien, pg. 34, lines 1-8, Testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 370, lines 3-21; pg. 390, line 4 through 391 line 16. Finding 22 relates to downstream drainage impacts. Sentences 4, 5, and 7 of this r finding are partially supported by Exhibit 16, Nov. 8, 2002 Revised Level 2 Off-Site Analysis prepared by Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc., Task 1, Upstream Drainage Analysis, Task 3, #1, citing undersized culvert,, Task 4, citing second undersized culvert,- Testimony generally of Mr. Daley, starting at pg. 348, Testimony generally of Mr Whittaker, starting at pg. 474. The Kent Hearing Examiner is unable to determine whether the specific statements in sentences 1-3, 6 and 8 are supported in the record. ' Finding 23 relates to downstream drainage impacts. There is no support in the record for sentences 1, 2, and 5 of this finding. Sentences 3, 4 and 6 are supported by r Testimony of Mr. Kastien, pg. 24, line 18 through pg.25 line 5, Testimony of Mr. Daley, pg 389 line 7 through 391 line 16; Testimony of Mr. Whittaker, pg. 480 line 17 through 481 line 8. r Finding 24 relates to downstream drainage impacts. Exhibit 65, Drainage Basin Comparison Data Sheet; Testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 374 line 8 through 376 line 17; r Testimony of Mr. Whittaker, pg. 480, lines 2-8. Finding 25 relates to water quality impacts. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 5-6, r Testimony of Ms. Rhodes, pg. 490, lines 1-20;pg. 492 line 3 through 493 line 3. Finding 26 relates to traffic impacts. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pgs 2 & 5, Exhibit 1, DDES file, unmarked document, May 23, 1991 Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown & Assoc., pg. 3. r Finding 27 relates to traffic impacts. This finding is partially supported by Exhibit 1, DDES file, unmarked document, May 23, 1991 Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher r Brown & Assoc.. Finding 28 relates to the road standard variance granted in this case. Exhibit 24, r March 2, 1992 Road Variance Decision; Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 6, §J(3) Variance. City of Kent Nearing Examiner Decisions on ' King County Nearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 12 of 32 r 1 ' Finding 29 is a discussion of trip distribution. Exhibit 20, October 31, 2003 Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown & Assoc., pg. 8; Exhibit 19, March 19, 2002 Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown &Assoc., pg. 7; Testimony of Mr. Brown, pg. 305, lines 3-5, Testimony of Mr. Shemeta, pg.117, lines 13-25;pg. 339, lines 1-4, Exhibit 77, traffic photos, Testimony of Mr. Kastien, pg. 59Z line 18 through 593, line 1. Finding 30 continues the discussion on trip distribution. Exhibit 1, DDES file, unmarked document, May 23, 1991 Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown & Assoc, pg. 6, Exhibit 20, October 31, 2003 Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown & Assoc., pg. 5, Exhibit 26, February 14, 2002 Kittleson & Assoc. Traffic Impact Analysis on the 212th Street Retail Center, pg. 10, Exhibit 19, March 19, 2002 Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown &Assoc.. Finding 31 discusses the impacts of the new Winco 212th Street Retail Center on required mitigation for development of Copper Ridge. Exhibit 20, October 31, 2003 Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown &Assoc., pg. 8; Testimony of Mr. Brown, pg. 322 line 23 through 323, line 4;pg. 343, lines 13-18;pg. 343, 22-23; Testimony of Ms. Langley, pg. 347, line 22 through 348 line 2,pg. 501, lines 7-19, pg.502, lines 1-13, pg. 520, line 16 through 521, line 7;pg. 522, line 10 through 523, line 1. Finding 32 relates to traffic and pedestrian safety and discusses bus stop safety issues. Exhibit 23, November 15, 2001 letter from Kent School District; Testimony of Mr. ' Thompson, pg. 193, lines 6-11; Testimony of Mr. Woodward, pg.209, lines 1-8, Testimony of Mr. Jencks, pg.214 line 24 through 215 line 21. Finding 33 relates to traffic accident history along S. 208th Street SW. Exhibit 60 Map entitled Accidents by Location, from Christopher Brown &Assoc.; Exhibit 61; Testimony of Mr. Brown, pg. 311, lines 6-19; Testimony of Ms. Langley, pg. 548, 11-15. Finding 34 relates to traffic and pedestrian safety along S. 208th Street. The first two sentences of this finding are supported by Exhibit 2, Staff Report, Attachment 5, Exhibit 23, Nov. 15, 2001 letter from Kent School District; Exhibit 1, Document 131, 317103DDES letter, Exhibit 1, Document 126, 1013102 Kent School District Letter, Testimony of Ms. Langley, pg. 511-17;pg. 526, line 23 through 527, line 22; Exhibit 69, December 12, 2003 Drawing depicting bus stop at plat entrance; Exhibit 9, Site plan (revised entrance). The remainder of the finding is a discussion of traffic safety issues, not supported by the record. ' Finding 35 is further discussion of traffic and pedestrian safety along S. 208th Street, for which there is no support in the record. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Heanng Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Nunnbes SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 13 of 32 Finding 36 relates to emergency vehicle access standards pertaining to the cul-de-sac. ' This finding is partially supported by Exhibit 24, March 2, 1992 Road Variance Decision, Exhibit 9, Site Plan; Testimony of Mr. Kasfien, pg. 262, lines 6-21. Finding 37 relates to plat/PUD zoning standards. Testimony of Ms. Dekordhi, pg. 404 line 22 through 405 line;pg. 405, lines 19-23; Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pg. 1. Finding 38 relates to plat/PUD approval procedures. See King County Code, Ch 21.56, ' in effect at time of application, available as an unmarked exhibit in the record. Finding 39 relates to plat/PUD density calculation. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, Attachment , 3, bonus calculation worksheet; KCC Ch. 21.56, in effect at time of application,available as an unmarked exhibit in the record.. Finding 40 relates to plat/PUD density calculation. KCC Ch. 21.54.080, .110, & .250A., in effect at time of application, available as an unmarked exhibit in the record.. Finding 41 is further discussion of plat/PUC density calculation. KCC Ch. 2154 080, in t effect at time of application, available as an unmarked exhibit in the record. Finding 42 is a discussion of bonus density credit calculation. The third sentence is supported by Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pgs 4-5 and Attachment 3. See KCC Ch.21.56.170, in effect at time of application, available as an unmarked exhibit in the ' record. Findinq 43 continues the discussion of bonus density credit calculation. See Exhibit 2, , Staff Report, page 5; Testimony of Ms. Dekordhi, pg. 418, lines 2-7. Finding 44 relates to the bonus density calculation discussion. This finding is partially supported by testimony of Mr. Peckham, pg. 558, lines 1-3. Finding 45 relates to the bonus density calculation discussion. See KCC , 21.56.1708.4.b. Conclusions Conclusion 1 is a discussion of the standard of review for the SEPA appeal. It does not cite any legal authority and does not follow from any findings. ' Conclusion 2 is a discussion on standard of review and substantive authority for Hearing Examiner SEPA decisions. It does not follow from findings but relates criteria , from KCC 20.24.0708. Conclusion 3 includes the King County Hearing Examiner's conclusion that the"record , discloses actual consideration of environmental impacts." This conclusion follows from City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File NumbersSU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 14 of 32 i . ' Findings numbers 7 through 18 (sensitive areas), 19 through 25 (drainage, downstream water quality), and 26 through 36 (pedestrian safe walking and traffic safety). Conclusion 3 also concludes that the "Appellants have not met their burden of proof' in showing the County's DNS was clearly erroneous. While no findings establish the burden of proof on Appellants, this conclusion follows from Findings numbers 13, 23, and 24, and from substantial evidence in the record. Conclusion 4 concludes that the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development are adequately mitigated. This conclusion follows from Findings numbers 27, 28, 29, 31, and 33. Conclusion 5 is a discussion of the adverse impacts to pedestrian safety caused by road closures due to icy conditions and follows from Findings numbers 32, 34, and 35. Conclusion 6 concludes that the probability of significant adverse environmental impacts to pedestrian safety are adequately mitigated with conditions, and follows from Findings numbers 34 and 35. Conclusion 7 contains a discussion of the procedural history of the case and substantive authority for the SEPA decision of the Hearing Examiner. It does not appear to follow from any findings. Conclusion 8 is a discussion of WAC 197-11-660(1)(a) as one basis for substantive SEPA authority. It does not appear to follow from any findings. Conclusion 9 is a discussion of the 1996 Interlocal Agreement and the 1999 settlement agreement between the City of Kent and the Applicant in relationship to substantive SEPA authority in the instant appeal. It does not follow from any findings. 1 Conclusion 10 contains a discussion of WAC 197-11-660 1 a as one basis for ' substantive SEPA authority. It does not follow from any findings. Conclusion 11 continues the discussion of substantive SEPA authority and does not appear to follow from any findings. Conclusion 12 concludes that the SEPA substantive authority should be the policies and regulations in effect in King County in 1993 immediately prior to annexation. It does not follow from any findings. Conclusion 13 concludes that only the condition of the pedestrian walkway requires the invocation of substantive SEPA authority. However, it also concludes that the Hearing Examiner has the authority to require the pedestrian walkway as a condition of plat/PUD City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent!�Uo Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 ' Page 15 of 32 r approval so that it is not necessary to rely on substantive SEPA authority in the decision at all. It does not follow from any findings. Conclusion 14 concludes that the proposed project meets the criteria for PUD under KCC 21.56. This conclusion follows from Findings numbers 1, 2, and 37 through 45. Note: The King County Hearing Examiner has left the number of dwelling units approved to be determined at a later date after submission of new information. See Conditions numbers 3 and 15. Conclusion 15 relates to the criteria for approval of preliminary plats and cites RCW ' 58.17.110. It does not follow from any findings. Conclusion 16 concludes that the original conditions of approval are related to legitimate public purposes, are necessary to address impacts projected to be caused by the development, and are proportional to impacts projected to be caused by the development. It does not follow from any findings. VIII. DISCUSSION A. Determination of Substantial Evidence in the Record for Findings and Conclusions in the King County Hearing Examiner Recommendation The Kent Hearing Examiner has determined that statements in Findings numbers 1, 3, , 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, and 43 are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Findings numbers 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, and 45 relate to discussion of the criteria that the plat and PUD applications must meet. These findings are based predominantly in the relevant King County Code sections. A number of findings in the King County Hearing Examiner Recommendation lack , support in the record. Of these, Kent Hearing Examiner has determined that Findings numbers 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 20, and 27 are not necessary to the final outcome in the SEPA appeal or the plat and PUD applications. Findings numbers 2, 4, 5, 9, and 27 relate to procedural history that is not essential to the outcome. Findings numbers 10 and 20 discuss various development standards that are applicable to the project but do not contain factual information necessary to the ultimate outcome. The following findings require more detailed discussion. Finding 8 incorrectly characterized the scope of the SEPA issues addressed by Appellants at the hearing, stating that only slope stability was at issue. De novo review , of the record revealed additional issues of concern to Appellants at hearing, including downstream water quality impacts, traffic problems, and pedestrian safety concerns. Despite the mischaracterization of Finding 8, these issues were all sufficiently City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on , King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 ' Page 16 of 32 ' developed in the record to enable Kent Hearing Examiner to reach a final decision in the SEPA appeal. ' In Finding 13, sentence 3, the King County Hearing Examiner found that Appellants offered "no evidence" that the recommendations in the geotechnical report ' recommendations from the Applicant would be insufficient to avoid saturation of soils on steep slopes. However, Appellants' Exhibit 33 is a letter from an engineer named Prochaksa of CTS Engineers, Inc.. Appellant Kastien testified that he believes Exhibit 33 supports the SEPA Appellants' position that the proposed pond will be too small if built according to 1990 SWDM criteria, resulting in saturated soils, at pg. 25, lines 15-18 and pg. 28 lines 1-4. Mr. Miller presented testimony regarding his concern about slope failure due to soil saturation, at pg. 119 - 238. Mr. Miller, the Appellants' only witness who offered evidence based on scientific knowledge, was neither an expert hydrologist (see pg. 151, lines 5-6) nor an engineer. He has an undergraduate degree in geology and works in construction. The Applicant presented testimony from geotechnical engineer Cliff Knitter and engineering testimony from Mel Daley, and Exhibits 17, 52, 58, 59, and 65. The County presented geotechnical testimony from Larry West, stormwater drainage testimony from Bruce Whittaker, water quality engineering testimony from Kate Rhodes, and Exhibit 67. Sentence 3 of finding 13 may be intended to convey that after weighing the credibility of the evidence offered by the Appellants against the credibility of the evidence offered by the Applicant and the County, the Hearing Examiner determined that the Appellants failed to offer sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption in favor of the County's recommendation based on expert witness testimony and scientific study. If this is the ' case, Kent Hearing Examiner finds there is substantial evidence in the record to support such a credibility determination in favor of Applicant. The mischaracterization that Appellants offered "no evidence" is not a critical error. In Finding 17, the King County Hearing Examiner characterizes the alleged aquifer underlying the site as "both highly speculative and quite unlikely based on known information." In this finding, the King County Hearing Examiner does not specifically find that the possibility of an aquifer does not rise to the level of requiring additional study. Rejection of the possible aquifer as a basis for requiring additional study is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See the testimony of Mr. West, pg. 436 line 6 through 437line 16. In Finding number 45, the King County Hearing Examiner finds that the Applicant does not qualify for bonus density credit based on convenient pedestrian access to shopping. ' Sentence 4 appears to base this denial of bonus credit on the fact that S. 2081h Street is not pedestrian accessible. However, Condition 24 requires construction of pedestrian walkway from the internal access road to 92"d Ave, which could lead to pedestrian access to the Winco 2121h Street Retail Center. The Kent Hearing Examiner finds that City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on ' King County Heanng Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent Gde Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 17 of 32 denial of the bonus density credit for convenient pedestrian access to shopping is not based on evidence in the record. Kent Hearing Examiner was charged vrith determining :whether the conclusions in the , King County Hearing Examiner Recommendation follow from the findings. The conclusions do not cite to findings for factual support. De novo review revealed that several of the conclusions were not supported by findings. Conclusions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 do not follow from findings entered and are not supported in the record, but ' rather discuss legal authority controlling the SEPA appeal. Conditions 15 and 16 do not follow from findings and are not supported in the record, but instead address the legal criteria for qualification for bonus density credit. The remainder of the conclusions follow from findings entered. Not all findings and conclusions necessary to reach the final decision in the SEPA ' appeal and plaUPUD applications were made in the King County Hearing Examiner Recommendation. De novo review, however, revealed support for all findings and conclusions in the record necessary to support decisions on the appeal and applications. A discussion of the substantial evidence in the record that supports the final decisions follows. B. SEPA Appeal 13 In order for a SEPA threshold determination to be overturned, an Appellant must show that the SEPA decision is "clearly erroneous." The law gives substantial weight to the SEPA official's decision that there would be no significant adverse environmental impact from the development proposal, if there is compliance with applicable ordinances. In order to prevail in an appeal, the Appellant must provide substantial evidence sufficient to persuade a rational, fair-minded person, that the decision is in error See "Criteria for Decision"section above. ' In the presentation of their appeal, the Appellants alleged that the following adverse ' impacts are likely to be caused by the project and would not be adequately mitigated as proposed: 1) traffic problems on S. 208th Street; 2) destabilization of slopes from size and placement of stormwater drainage facilities; 3) surface water runoff causing ' 13 Citations to evidence in the record supporting the necessary findings not made by the King County Hearing Examiner are included in endnotes. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on ' King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 , Page 18 of 32 downstream flooding and water quality problems; and 4) inadequate pedestrian walkways.14 ' In response to the allegation of steep slope failure due to size and placement of stormwater drainage facilities, the Applicant presented geotechnical reports and expert ' engineering testimony that show the project can be safely built.' King County presented reports and testimony from County engineering staff supporting the safe construction of the project as conditioned, and further showed that the project might even improve steep slope stability. The County also presented testimony from stormwater drainage management staff that found there would not be significant adverse downstream impacts, and that the project could mitigate existing drainage problems in the area." The Appellants provided no contradictory studies or expert testimony. Although the Appellants raised legitimate issues and concerns, they provided no credible evidence to support their allegations of likely slope failure. Potential Impacts to steep slope stability ' can be adequately mitigated by conditions of approval. In response to the allegation of adverse downstream water quality impacts, the Applicant and the County presented evidence that shows there will be no negative downstream water quality impacts."'Although the Appellants raised legitimate issues and concerns, they provided no credible evidence to support their claims of diminished ' water quality as a consequence of the proposed development. The potential adverse impacts on water quality from increased in impervious surface and stormwater drainage can be adequately mitigated by conditions of approval. The Applicant presented expert studies and testimony that shows there will be no significant traffic impacts from the proposed development that rise to the level requiring ' mitigation under the regulations in effect on the date of the application." The County traffic engineer testified that the Applicants' studies were credible."Although the Appellants raised legitimate issues and concerns, they provided no credible evidence to support their claims increased accidents and overloaded intersections as a consequence of the proposed development. The potential adverse impacts from increased traffic can be adequately mitigated by conditions of approval. Finally, the Appellants alleged that the project as proposed will create unsafe walking conditions for school-aged and adult residents in the event of the closure of S. 208`h Street due to inclement weather. School-aged children at all levels will be bussed to 14 In the appeal statement, the Appellants also alleged that there would damage to onsite wetlands and negative impacts on wildlife These issues were not pursued during the appeal hearing and thus will not be addressed by the Kent Hearing Examiner. The issue of safe pedestrian walkways was not raised in the appeal statement but was presented during the hearing The SEPA Appellants alleged the site is in a landslide hazard area as defined by the sensitive area ordinance in effect on the land at time of application, based on the mapfolio found at Exhibit 28. Evidence in the record supports a finding, not made by the King County Hearing Examiner, that the site does not contain landslide hazard areas. See testimony of Mr. West,pg. 431. City of Kent Heanag Examiner Decisions on King County Nearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, EM12001-83, and AP-2003-4 Page 19 of 32 their schools along with children from the surrounding residential area."' The school ' district has accepted the proposed bus stop design. Occasional unsafe walking conditions caused by road closures due to inclement weather are not a significant ' adverse environmental impact.v" Although there occasionally may be unsafe walking conditions, a condition of approval requiring a pedestrian walkway and increased shoulder width on 92"d Avenue would adequately mitigate this concern. ' C. Plat and PUD Applications The proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the criteria for approval adopted , by the Washington Legislature and the King County Council. See, the section on "Criteria"above. The development would be served by Soos Creek Water & Sewer ' District public water and sanitary sewer.°11 Onsite steep slope areas and their buffers would be dedicated to the City of Kent in a Native Growth Protection Easement." The ' internal access roads and site access from S. 2081h Street will meet King County standards in effect at the time of complete application.x As proposed, the traffic impacts from the development do not require mitigation." Even though mitigation is not , required under the applicable regulations, if the City of Kent later determines that traffic calming devices would better serve public safety, a condition of approval ensures that the Applicant would contribute a proportional share to the costs of constructionx" As ' conditioned, downstream stormwater conveyance facilities would have adequate capacity to handle the peak flows from Copper Ridge."" Proposed stormwater detention and conveyance improvements would meet development standards for runoff from new ' impervious surfaces and also would ameliorate any pre-existing soil saturation conditions by collecting and conveying existing uncontrolled runoff into the proposed stormwater drainage system."" A condition of approval has been included to ensure ' that open space and recreational areas would be adequately provided to future residents of the development.x" No school children would walk to school from the proposed development!" A condition of approval ensures pedestrian access to public , transit, nearby shopping, and to 92"d Avenue in the event of the closure of S. 2081h Street due to inclement weather."" IX. DECISION ' Based on a de novo review of the entire record and of the findings and conclusions in ' the King County Hearing Examiner Recommendation, the Kent Hearing Examiner decides as follows. SEPA ' The King County Hearing Examiner appropriately recommended denial of the SEPA , appeal. His recommendation is supported by substantial evidence. The SEPA Appeal is DENIED. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on , King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the .Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 20 of 32 ' Plat and PUD Applications: The King County Hearing Examiner appropriately recommended approval of the ' preliminary plat and PUD applications. Although the King County Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions may not be adequate as written, there is substantial evidence in the record to support approval of the plat and PUD applications, with revised 1 conditions.15 1 Therefore, the request for approval of PUD and Preliminary Plat applications to subdivide 9.64 acres of land into up to 40 single-family residential lots"is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code and provisions of KCC 21.56 regulating PUD approval. 2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication that includes the language set forth in King ' County Council Motion No. 5952. 3. The plat shall comply with the density requirements of KCC 21.56.150 through 21.56.180. All lots shall meet the dimensional and setback requirements of KCC 21.56.130. Those lots with a budding attached on one side shall have a minimum 40-foot width. Those lots with buildings attached on both sides shall have a minimum 30-foot width. For purposes of calculating the net development factor under KCC 21.56.140, the planned unit development proposal shall comply with either KCC 21 56.140B(6) or KCC 21 54.080, whichever is the more restrictive. The calculation for KCC 21 56.140B(6) shall require a determination of the total onsite area having 40 percent or greater slopes; the calculation for KCC 21.54.080 shall require a determination of SAO-regulated 40 percent steep slopes onsite plus the buffers mandated therefore under KCC 21.54.250A, and the total onsite area, if any, occupied by the regulatory buffers mandated for offsite wetlands to the southwest. i 15 See Appendix A contains a discussion of modifications made to the conditions recommended by the King County Hearing Examiner. Appendix B, the King County Hearing Examiner Recommendation, includes the original conditions. ' 1e The final number of approved units will be determined after the net development factor is finally calculated by City of Kent Planning Services and will depend on whether the Applicant presents steep slope special studies, as required by Condition 15 and KCC 21.54.040D, in an effort to have steep slope ' buffers reduced from the required 50-feet. The number of units would be either 39 or 40,depending on net development factor and bonus density calculations,to be completed before final plat approval. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on ' King County Heanng Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, EIVV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 ' Page 21 of 32 If for any reason the pedestrian pathway specified by condition No. 24 below is ' eliminated as a requirement for project development, the bonus density credit awarded for public transit availability shall be deleted from the net development ' factor calculation. 4. Prior to clearing and grading, the Applicant shall obtain the approval of the City of Kent fire protection engineer certifying the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, fire flow and access amenities to meet City standards in accordance with Attachment 4 to Exhibit 2, DDES Staff Report. ' 5. The proposed stormwater detention facilities shall meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for capacity. The stormwater detention facility shall meet the requirements of the 1998 KCSWDM regarding both water quality treatment and downstream conveyance capacity. The detention and water quality facilities shall be placed in a separate tract owned and maintained by the homeowners' association or other workable organization as approved by the City. ' 6. Offsite drainage conveyance improvements are required along the easterly side of 92"d Avenue South and along the north side of S. 2081h Street. These improvements shall be designed in general conformance with the conceptual drainage plan received April 11, 2003, unless otherwise approved by Kent Engineering A capacity analysis of the existing downstream ditch along the north side of the dead end access road (from 92"d Avenue S. to SR 167) shall be submitted at t engineering plan submittal. Improvements to this section of the ditch or its culverts are required if adequate capacity does not exist. 7. An interceptor drainage swale and wall drainage system is proposed along the easterly portion of the developed site. The applicant's geotechnical engineer shall provide recommendations for design and construction of the interceptor drainage system, the stormwater detention/water quality facilities, and westerly conveyance pipes connecting to 92"d Avenue S. The geotechnical recommendations shall be included in the T.I.R. and incorporated into the design at submittal and approved by the reviewing agency with the engineering plans. 8. Special geotechnical construction inspection of the above drainage interceptor and stormwater detention system is required to ensure compliance with the geotechnical recommendations, including installation of an impervious pond liner. ' Inspection reports shall be submitted to the assigned construction inspector during the construction phases of those facilities. A final construction report shall be submitted to the City of Kent Public Works Department prior to clearing and grading, verifying compliance with the geotechnical recommendations. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on , King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the lviaifer of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Pape 22 of 32 1 9. All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet. The final approved plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are designated for individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be constructed at the time of the building permit and shall comply with plans on file. 10. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the 1987 King County Road Standards (KCRS), including the following requirements: ' A. The internal access road shall be improved to the urban sub-access street standard. This standard requires sidewalk on one side. An additional sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the access road, from Lot 40 (at the northwest quadrant of the access road intersection), wrapping around the curb return at the S. 2081h Street intersection, to a point approximately 80feet west of the intersection. A "level" (2% maximum cross-slope, east-west, as measured parallellconcentric to S. 208th Street) concrete pad pedestrian waiting area, 8 feet by 12 feet along this sidewalk ' shall be provided at the intersection for school bus pickup area. Appropriate safety barriers between waiting pedestrians and traffic shall be designed and constructed subject to approval of the City of Kent Planning Department. The curb returns for the intersection shall be set based upon an ultimate 22-foot half-street section for a neighborhood collector street as measured from the new centerline of S. 208th Street. Sufficient width shall be provided at the intersection entry to permit right turns onto S. 208th Street ' when two vehicles are queued to make a left turn. The entire portion of the internal access street improvements lying south and east of the curb returns (i.e. south of a line 52feet north of the realigned S. 2081h Street centerline) shall be dedicated as public right-of-way. The remainder of the internal access street shall be contained within a separate tract. Ownership and maintenance responsibility for the private portion of the internal access shall be by the homeowners' association or other workable organization. A note to this effect shall be placed on all engineering plans Iand the recorded final plat B. The proposed private access road adjoining Lots 17 through 21 shall be improved to the urban minor access street standard, without a sidewalk. Maintenance responsibility for this portion of the road shall be the responsibility of the adjoining lots (17-21) or the homeowner's association. City of Kent Heanng Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 23 of 32 r , A note to this effect shall be placed on all engineering plans and on the recorded plat. C. The proposed joint use driveway adjoining Lots 22 and 23 shall be paved with a minimum of 18-foot wide roadway with controlled drainage. D. FRONTAGE: S. 208'h Street shall be reconstructed and realigned along the frontage (with appropriate transitions) according to the approved road variance granted on March 2, 1992 and the conceptual roadway improvement plan dated January 22, 1992. These improvements shall incorporate a 22-foot wide paved roadway, an 8-foot wide gravel shoulder on the south side of the road along the entire length of the realigned section of S. 208th Street and an 8-foot wide paved shoulder along the entire northerly side of the realigned roadway easterly to a point 490 feet from the centerline of the internal access road intersection, except where urban improvements (as noted in Condition 10A, above) are required. The realignment road variance allows a reduced entering sight distance of 385 feet to the west from the proposed internal access road. The variance also allows a rural type improvement for this realignment. All conditions of the road variance shall be met upon submittal of the engineering plans. Adjacent to the concrete pad pedestrian waiting area, the half-street width (from the centerline of the realigned roadway to the curb line) of S. 208`h Street shall be 22-feet to provide a bus-pullout outside the traveled-way of the westbound travel lane. This bus pull-out shall be at least 60-feet in ' length (from the point of curb return on S. 208`h Street), plus an appropriate length curbed and asphalt paved taper with concrete walkway, to the connection with the proposed shoulder on the realigned S. 208`h ' Street improvements. As required by Kent Engineering, the improvements to S. 2081h Street may also include the installation of guardrail at locations along the south margin of the roadway. Any sections of guardrail that may be required to ' comply with this condition shall be located outside of sight lines required for the intersection of the access road and S. 208th Street (see 12G and 12H, below). Although the KCRS do not require illumination on neighborhood collector streets, these improvements shall include any roadway illumination , required by the City of Kent. Any additional right-of-way along the frontage or off-site easements needed to achieve the realignment and sight distance requirements shall be dedicated to the City of Kent with the ' final plat. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 24 of 32 1 ' ' Traffic control plans for the realignment and regrading of S. 208th Street shall be submitted to the Kent Engineering for review and prior to any clearing and grading of the site. 1 E. 92nd Avenue S. shall be widened across the entire property frontage and south to the intersection at S. 208th Street (per the Road Variance) with a minimum 4-foot wide paved shoulder adjacent to the roadway supplemented by an additional 4-feet of gravel shoulder inside along the easterly side. ' F. The hillside on the northerly margin of S. 208'h Street, east of the plat entrance road, shall be regraded to an elevation at least 6 inches (0.5 feet) below the sight line elevations as required, with the construction of an engineered retaining wall/rockery, to achieve the required (minimum) 490 feet of entering sight distance to the east. The graded area between the toe of the wall and the shoulder improvements required (Condition 10D, above) shall be paved to minimize the potential of regrowth of vegetation into the sight triangle. ' G. Road improvements shall achieve the following sight distance criteria as required by the approved road variance: (1) 385 feet of ESD approved by the Road Variance for the area within the sight triangle on the south side of S. 208th Street, west of the subdivision access road, ' (2) 490 feet of Entering Sight Distance (ESD) for the area within the sight triangle on the north side of S. 208th Street, east of the ' subdivision access road, (3) In addition to the regrading and vegetation removal required to achieve the required ESD, 250 feet of Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is also required at all points along the realigned section of S. ' 208th Street (See Exhibit 2, Attachment 6 ) and will extend outside of the limits of the required ESD sight triangles, ' (4) In addition to the regrading and vegetation removal required to achieve the required ESD and SSD, the 500 feet of visibility to and from the east of the plat access and of the school bus stop west of the access road intersection is also required and may extend outside of the limits of any of the ESD/SSD sight triangles required of conditions above, and City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on 1 King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations w the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File NumberS SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 25 of 32 (5) In addition to the regrading and vegetation removal required by the ' preceding, any additional area required to provide 500 feet of visibility for the proposed school bus stop at the west side of the ' project entrance. The area within each identified sight line corridor shall be re-graded ' and/or cleared of all sight line corridor impairments from a point at least 6 inches (0.5 feet) below the applicable sight line elevations, and in the case of overhanging vegetation (tree limbs), six (6)-feet above the requisite sight line elevations. Preservation of the identified sight lines/corridors from encroachment of re-growth of vegetation (between regularly scheduled City maintenance operations) shall be provided by extending, in the horizontal plane, the required clearing limits by two (2) feet. Additionally, the applicant shall evaluate potential measures to minimize the re-growth of sight-obscuring vegetation into these sight triangles (for example, 'weed block' fabric, gravel [or a , combination of gravel and 'turf block'], and hydroseeding) without the creation of an overall impervious surface, and submit plans for review, approval and construction, to the Kent Engineering prior to clearing and grading of the site. The criteria that shall be used for the measurement of sight distance are as follows: Design Speed: 35 MPH , Driver's Eye Height 3 5 feet Entering Sight Distance Object Height 4.25 feet ' Stopping Sight Distance Object Height 0.5 feet Special construction inspection shall be done by the Applicant t during the regrading and reconstruction of S. 2081h Street and during the clearing and grading of the hillsides and vegetation to achieve the sight distance requirements identified above. To ensure achievement of the sight distance requirements and the school bus stop visibility, these measurements shall be field-verified by a licensed surveyor following the construction of all required improvements. H. The Applicant and the City of Kent will review the accident history for the i portion of S. 208th Street that lies directly east of its intersection with 92nd Avenue S. If the City determines that traffic calming measures (such as a traffic circle) or other road improvements are necessary for traffic safety, City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Heanng Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SERA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 ' Page 26 of 32 the Applicant shall contribute its fair share of the cost of such improvements. I Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered in accordance with the variance procedures in Section 1.08 of the KCRS, or, by the Director of Public Works of the City of Kent. 11. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the Kent City Council prior to final plat recording. 12. This subdivision application was filed prior to the adoption of King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS) Per the City of Kent's 1993 traffic mitigation requirements, the Applicant shall, at the discretion of the City of Kent Public Works Department, either pay the applicable pro-rata share cost towards the cost of the S. 192nd/ 196th/ 2OOth Street Corridor project (East leg) based upon an estimated 33 PM peak hour trips and the capacity of the S. 192nd1 196th/20Oth Street Corridor, or, execute an Environmental Mitigation Agreement (EMA) to financially participate in, and pay a pro-rata share towards, the S. 192nd/ 196th/2OOth Street Corridor project (East leg) based upon 33 PM peak hour trips. 13. The planter islands within the cul-de-sacs shall be planted with native plant materials and be maintained by the homeowners association. This shall be stated on the face of the final plat and PUD. ' 14. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the 1990 Sensitive Areas Code. Temporary marking of sensitive areas and their buffers (e.g., with bright orange construction fencing) shall be placed on the site and shall remain in place until all ' construction activities are completed. 15. The top,toe and sides of onsite 40% slopes shall be determined by field survey. A 50-foot buffer shall be provided for these slopes. Pursuant to KCC 21.54.25OA, this buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet plus a 15-foot Building Setback Line (BSBL)with the submittal of a satisfactory geotechnical 1 report, subject to review and approval by Kent Planning Services prior to engineering plan approval. This geotechnical report shall meet the criteria of KCC 21.54.O4OD, and shall include provisions requiring mitigation, maintenance, ' and monitoring plans and bonding measures. The 40% steep slope areas and their associated buffers shall be placed in a ' Native Growth Protection Easement(s) (NGPE). Final engineering review shall include verification of the conclusions of the 1992 Golder Associates geotechnical report and require implementation of its recommendations, as ' City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-200 f-9, EIVIV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 27 of 32 modified. Any city-required consultant peer review of the geotechnical report shall be paid for by the Applicant. 16. The Applicant shall delineate all on-site erosion hazard areas on the final engineering plans (erosion hazard areas are defined in KCC 21.04.345). The delineation of such areas shall be approved by Kent Planning Services. The requirements found in KCC 21.54.170 concerning erosion hazard areas shall be met, including seasonal restrictions on clearing and grading activities. 17. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat: Building Setback and Native Growth Protection Easements Structures, grading, fill and obstructions (including, but not limited to decks, patios, outbuildings, or overhangs beyond 18 inches) are prohibited within the building setback line (BSBL) and within 251100 year floodplains (if applicable), and within the Native Protection Easement(s). Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) area and buffer conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the easement. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, and protection of plant and animal , habitat. The NGPE imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to the easement, the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by City of Kent, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within ' the tractisensitive area and buffer. The vegetation within the easement may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from the City, unless otherwise provided by law. Before beginning and during the course of any clearing, grading, building construction, or other development activities on the site subject to NGPE, the ' common boundary between the easement and the area of development activities must be fenced or otherwise marked to the satisfaction of the Kent Planning Services. ' No building foundations are allowed beyond the required 15-foot building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 18. A suitable recreation space within the common open space area for active recreation shall be provided. The recreation space shall be a minimum 45 ' square feet per lot with no dimension less than 30 feet. The area must be flat (no greater than 5% slope) centrally located, and with adequate access to the main road. The recreation area shall be developed with play equipment (i e., sport , City of Kent Heating Examiner Decisions on King County Heating Examiner Recommendations in the !!?atterof Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 28 of 32 court[s], children's play equipment, picnic table[s], benches, etc.) and landscaping. A. An overall conceptual recreation space plan shall be submitted for review and approval by City of Kent, with the submittal of the engineering plans. This plan shall include location, area calculations, dimensions, and general improvements including landscaping. The approved engineering plans shall be consistent with the overall conceptual plan. B. A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs, play area, etc.) consistent with the overall conceptual plan, as detailed in ' item A, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Kent Planning Services prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the final plat documents. The landscape plan shall include as much existing significant vegetation as possible. C. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to recording of the plat and PUD. D. The common open space areas, including the sensitive areas, shall be I placed in a separate tract(s) to be maintained by a homeowners' association. All lots shall have an undivided ownership of the Open Space Tract(s). 19. A detailed crime prevention plan shall be submitted to the Kent Police Department for review and approval. The plan shall include a detailed lighting ' plan and other safety measures. The crime prevention plan shall be approved by Kent Planning Services prior to the final engineering plan. No lig hts vvithin the development shall project onto the neighboring properties. ' 20. The proposed project shall generally conform with the building elevation and floor plans submitted April 8, 2002. The proposed building coverage and other dimensions shall comply with KCC 21.56.110 and KCC 21.20. ' 21. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction of City of Kent which will provide for the ownership and continued maintenance of the common open space/sensitive area tract(s), play area, and the private road and access tracts . 22. Street trees shall be provided as follows: A. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along the private road (Tract X) and the north side of S. 208'h Street. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on ' King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 Page 29 of 32 Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for ' driveways and intersections. B. Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in accordance with Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road ' Standards, unless the Kent Engineering determines that trees should not be located in the street right-of-way. C. If it is determined that the required street trees should not be located , within the right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20-feet from the street right-of-way line. ' D. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the homeowners association or other workable organization. Ownership and maintenance shall be noted on the face of the final recorded plat. E. The species of trees shall be approved by the City of Kent if located within ' the right-of-way, and shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any fruit-bearing trees, or any other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to obstruct sanitary or storm sewers, or that is not compatible with overhead utility lines. F. The Applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for ' review and approval by the City of Kent. H. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond ' posted, prior to recording of the plat and PUD. If a performance bond is posted, the street trees must be installed and inspected within one year of recording of the plat and PUD. At the time of inspection, if the trees are found to be installed per the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be submitted or the performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, ' and held for one year. After one year, the maintenance bond may be released upon inspection and determination by that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving. ' 23. Appropriate school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot/residential unit. , 24. A pedestrian pathway shall be constructed connecting 92nd Avenue S. to the internal plat access road, as approved by the Kent Engineering , City of Kent Heanng Examiner Decisions on ' King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the latter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 ' Page 30 of 32 I 1 Decided this 6t" day of May 2004 1 1 THEODORE PAUL HUNTER, Hearing Examiner 1 DISCUSSION SECTION ENDNOTES: 'This statement is supported by Exhibits 17, 52, 58, and 59; testimony of Mr.Daley,pg. 359, lines 11-20; pg. 380-81, lines 13 —6; testimony of Mr. ICnitter,pg.281, lines 2-8. " This statement is supported by testimony of Mr. West, pg. 469, lines 20-24 and pg. 471, lines 7-18; testimony of Mr. Whittaker, pg. 480, lines 2-8. See Exhibit 67. This statement is supported by testimony from Ms. Rhodes, pg.408, Imes 17-20; testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 372, Imes 17-24; pg. 375, lines 2-10; pg. 376, 15-17. Findings 29 and 31 contain necessary findings regarding trip distribution, level of service impacts, and the fact that mitigation at the onramp to 167 is not required from Copper Ridge because of the mitigation being done at that intersection by the Winco 212th Street Retail Center. Additional evidence in the record supporting the necessary findings on traffic impact and accident rates is found at testimony of Mr. Brown, pg. 308, Imes 17-22, pg. 314, lines 10-15, 1 pg. 322-32, lines 23-4; pg. 332, lines 3-21; pg. 343, lines 13-23; see also Exhibits 18-21, 60-64. "This statement is supported by the testimony of Ms. Langley, pg 522-23, Imes 18-1. "' This statement is supported by Exhibit 23. " No finding in the King County Hearing Examiner report explicitly finds that such road closures 1 happen very rarely, but testimony in the record suggests that at time of hearing, S. 208`h Street had not been closed due to ice in five years. This pertains directly to the determination of whether occasional unsafe walking conditions constitute a significant adverse environmental ' impact and bears inclusion in a finding. See testimony of Ms. Langley, pg. 518, lines 18-20 "' Utilities connection and service are required for approval of a preliminary plat application under RCW 58.17.110. Although the King County Hearing Examiner report makes no finding concerning provision of utilities, this statement is supported in the record at testimony of Ms. Dehkordi, pg. 406, line 19; Exhibit 2, pg. 1. ' ".The conditions in the King County Hearing Examiner report require dedication of the steep slope areas and their buffers to the City of Kent in a Native Growth Protection Easement. ' X This statement is supported by Exhibit 2, pg. 5-6. City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 1 Page 31 of 32 X' See Findings numbers 29 and 31. For additional support in the record, see also testimony of Mr. Brown, pg. 308, lines 17-22; pg. 314, lines 10-15, pg. 322-32, lines 23-4; pg. 332, Imes 3- 21; pg 343, lines 13-23; see also Exhibits 18-21, 60-64; testimony of Ms. Langley, pg. 522-23, lines 18-1. Findings 29 and 31 are supported by substantial evidence in the record. , "" King County Hearing Examiner Finding number 23, sentence 6 ' "" This statement is not in the findings of the King County Hearing Examiner, but is supported by testimony of Mr. Knitter, pg. 281, lines 2-8; testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 358, lines 11-20; pg. , 364-65, lines 1-20; pg. 370, Imes 3-21; pg. 376, 15-17; pg. 380, lines 9-13, pg. 390-91, lines 4- 16; testimony of Mr. Whittaker, pg. 480, lines 2-8 ' In order to approve subdivisions under RCW 58.17.110 generally, findings must be made that ' open space and recreational facilities are adequately provided for. The King County Hearing Examiner report does not make this necessary finding, but open space and recreational facilities ' are required by conditions of approval. The Kent Hearing Examiner is able to conclude that, as conditioned, the project makes adequate open space and recreational facilities available to residents of the proposed subdivision. x"' Safe pedestrian access for school aged residents is a required finding for approval of ' preliminary plat. Where children will be bussed, safe pedestrian access is not required The King County Hearing Examiner report makes no finding that the school-aged residents will be ' bussed, but this statement is supported in the record by Exhibit 23. x" Condition 24. ' ch S:lPermit\PlanlSepaAppeals1200312032714-2003-4decision doc City of Kent Hearing Examiner Decisions on King County Hearing Examiner Recommendations in the Matter of Copper Ridge Proposed Plat and PUD and SEPA appeal Kent File Numbers SU-2001-9, ENV-2001-63, and AP-2003-4 ' Page 32 of 32 Appendix A:' Discussion of Modifications to Conditions in the King County Hearing Examiner Recommendation ' The Kent Hearing Examiner finds that the conditions of approval in the King County Hearing Examiner Report and Recommendation require amendment. 1 The majority of conditions have been accepted as written. Some conditions require clarification, such as specifying time for compliance, to facilitate the Applicant's ability to comply with conditions of approval and the City's ability to enforce them. Additional language has been added to some conditions of approval to ensure that all considerations for the public welfare and interest discussed in testimony and supported in the exhibits are incorporated in the final ' decision.' Conditions numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1013, 10C, 10E, and 10F are accepted as written. Condition 10H in the King County Hearing Examiner Report required clearing and grading of property adjacent to the subject property to improve entering site distance on 2081h St. for cars turning right out of the plat. However, the road variance previously approved in this matter already provides entering sight distance that meets the King County Road Standards. There is no basis for requiring the Applicant to provide entering sight distance beyond that required in I the applicable standards and already approved by King County. Therefore, Condition 101-1 is deleted, causing conditions originally numbered 101 and 10J to be renumbered to 10H and 101 in this decision. Condition 4 has been modified to clarify which attached document controls fire department and emergency vehicle access to the plat. Condition 10G3 has been 1 modified for the purpose of clarification of reference to exhibits. Condition 5 has been amended in accordance with testimony at hearing which stipulated that stormwater conveyance facilities would be constructed in compliance with the 1998 KCSWDM standards, rather than 1990 KCSWDM ' standards. See, Testimony of Mr. Daley, pg. 366, lines 11-13 & Summation of Applicant's Attorney, transcript at pg. 612, lines 5-11. Condition 15 has been modified to explicitly state the specific provisions of the geotechnical studies it requires, addressing the concern on the part of the SEPA Appellants that such geotechnical studies had not yet been completed. If the ' Applicant desires to reduce steep slope buffer area as allowed in the applicable code, thereby increasing the project's net development factor, the Applicant must comply with the provisions requiring specific studies in the County code 1 protecting steep slopes sensitive areas. ' The conditions from the King County Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation are attached verbatim in Appendix B. Conditions numbers 4, 10D, 10G5, and 21 in the original report omitted deadlines , for compliance. These conditions have been amended to provide clarity for all parties of the deadlines by which conditions of approval must be met. Condition 10A has been amended to require the design and construction of barriers surrounding the concrete pedestrian waiting pad at the bus stop. Public comment at the hearing identified safety of school-aged children waiting at the ' bus stop as a concern due to speed and volume of traffic and to the attractive nuisance of the ravine across 208°i St. At the hearing, there were testimony and exhibits that related to protection of school-aged children waiting at the bus stop ' from Kris Langley, the DDES traffic engineer, which supports the construction of a physical barrier between the waiting pad where children would stand and the near by lanes of traffic. Exhibit 69 is a conceptual drawing done by Ms. Langley of what such a barrier, constructed of metal railing, could look like. However, no barrier is required in the Report and Recommendation. The Kent Hearing Examiner finds that a barrier would sufficiently mitigate safety concerns for waits! , ng school-aged children at the bus stop. Per amended condition 10A, the design and construction of such barriers shall be approved by the City of Kent Public ' Works Department prior to final plat approval. Condition 24 in the King County Hearing Examiner report cites SEPA substantive policies as authority for requiring construction of a pedestrian walkway from the internal plat road to 92"d Avenue. However, as the King County Hearing Examiner noted in Conclusion No. 13, z the walkway can be required under , RCW 58.17.110. Therefore, reference to SEPA substantive authority is not necessary and language concerning it has been deleted. S.TermiVPlanlSepaAp peal s12003,2031340-2003-3appendixa doc r r 2 Appendix A,pg. 18. ' APPENDIX B tJanuary 23,2004� OFFICE OF TILE HEARING EXAMINER ' KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON �j 400 Yesler Way,Room 404 rp Seattle,Washington 98104 1 Telephone(206)2964660 r OG Facsimile (206)296 1654 + AN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF KENT HEARING EXAMINER SUBJECT: King County Department of Development and Environmental Services file nos. S911`0004B,S91UOOOIB and LOOMI091 and City of Kent file nos.SU-2001-9,ENY-2001-63,AP-2003-4 COPPER RIDGE Preliminary Plat,Planned Unit Development and SEPA Appeal Location- East of 92nd Avenue South and north of South 208th Street 1 Applicant: Schneider Homes,Inc,represented by George Kresovich,Attorney Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson 500 Galland Bldg., 1221 Second Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-2925 ' Telephone: (206)623-1745 Facsimile: (206)623-7799 SEPA Appellants: Coalition for Responsible Development, represented by John Kastien 20609—94th Avenue South ' Kent,WA 98031 Telephone: (253)852-5929 Facsimile: (253) 852-1772 ' City of Kent: Represented by Kim Marousek 220 Fourth Avenue South ' Kent,Washington 98032 Telephone: (253)856-5454 Facsimile: (253)856-6454 IKing County: Department of Development and Environmental Services represented by Fereshteh Dehkordi 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton,Washington 98055-1219 Telephone: (206)296-7173 Facsimile: (206)296-6613 - I S91 P0004B&S91 U0001 B—Copper Ridge Page 2 of 30 , SUMMARY OF DECISION/RECOMMENDATION: Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Approve,subject to conditions Department's Final Recommendation: Approve, subject to revised conditions Examiner's Decision on SEPA Appeal: Deny Examiner's Decision on Preliminary Plat&PUD Applications: Approve, subject to revised conditions EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS: Hearing Opened: December 9,2003 Hearing Closed: December 19,2003 I Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner. , FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION. Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner I now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: ' 1- General Information: Owner/Developer: Schneider Homes Inc. I 6510 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila,WA 98189 ' (206) 248-2471 Engineer: Me]Daley DMP Engineering Inc. 726 Auburn Way North (253)333-2206 STR: SE 6-22-5 Location: Generally east of 92nd Avenue South and North of South 2081'Street in , Kent Zoning: (SR-9600)4.5 du/acre I Acreage: 9.64 Number of Lots: 40 Density: 4.15 du/acre , Proposed Use: Attached single family residences Sewage Disposal: Soos Creek Water&Sewer District Water Supply: Soos Creek Water& Sewer District , Fire District: King County Fire District No. 37 School District: Kent School District Application Date: January 31, 1991 S91 P0004B&5911/0001 B—Copper Ridge Page 3 of 30 ' 2. Except as modified herein,the facts set forth in the King County Land Use Services Division's 1 preliminary report to the King County Hearing Examiner for the December 9,2003,public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by reference. The LUSD staff recommends approval of the application, subject to conditions. Revisions to page 13 of the DDES staff report appear at Exhibit no. 66. Procedural History 3. As presently configured,Schneider Homes Inc. is proposing to develop 40 lots on 9.64 acres for triplex and fourplex townhouse development. The application also seeks planned unit ' development approval for the townhouse development and reduced lot areas. The vesting date for the application is January 31, 1991,which subjects the application to the since-repealed Title 21 King County Zoning Ordinance and other County regulations in effect at that time. The property is located on a hillside on the eastern edge of the Kent valley and in 1993 was annexed 1 to the City of Kent. 4 The Copper Ridge application has a lengthy and contentious procedural history. After the application was filed in 1991,the King County Building and Land Development Division,the predecessor to the Department of Development and Environmental Services(DDES),issued a determination of significance under SEPA on July 14, 1992. The DS was issued primarily on the basis of alleged school impacts and on appeal by the Applicant was reversed by the County hearing examiner within a March 17, 1993, decision. The application was then remanded for further review under SEPA,and before that review was completed the property was annexed to I the City of Kent in May 1993. An interlocal agreement was concluded between Kent and King County in 1996 for the general processing of land use and building permit applications that were pending at the time of various annexations. With specific respect to Copper Ridge,however,the City of Kent declined to process the PUD portion of the application. This led to a lawsuit and a 1997 Court of Appeals decision which held under authority of RCW 5&17.033 that the Copper Ridge application was vested to both the platting and PUD provisions of the 1991 County zoning code and that these vested rights were unaffected by the annexation. 5. A 1999 settlement agreement between Kent and Schneider Homes established the format for completion of review of the Copper Ridge application,with a hearing to be held by the King County hearing examiner using the laws,ordinances and policies in effect on the property in 1991 at the time of application. These principles were also set out in a November 1, 2000, amendment to the interlocal agreement between Kent and the County that dealt specifically with Copper Ridge. Pursuant to this amendment,the hearing report by the County hearing examiner is to take The form of a recommendation to the City. As interpreted by a May 29,2003,letter from the 1 Kent City Attorney's office,the recommendation of the County hearing examiner is to go to the City of Kent hearing examiner for limited review,with any appeal therefrom directed to the Kent City Council. Based on State SEPA regulations,the City Attorney's office determined that any appeal of the Copper Ridge threshold determination should be combined with the hearing on the underlying permit. 6. The City of Kent issued a determination of non-significance under SEPA for the Copper Ridge proposal on August 11,2003. This DNS was appealed by John Kastien,Edward Shemeta and other neighborhood residents organized under the rubric of the Coalition for Responsible Development(CRD). A pre-hearing conference was held by the King County hearing examiner on September 23, 2003,at the Kent City Hall on the consolidated preliminary plat and planned S91P0004B&S91UODOJB—Copper Ridge Page 4of30 ' unit development applications and SEPA threshold determination appeal. The pre-hearing order issued September 25,2003, identified SEPA issues in the areas of traffic safety,site slope ' stability,surface water runoff,wetland and stream delineation and impacts to wildlife. The pre- hearing order also specified disclosure deadlines and set hearing dates. The public hearing on the consolidated applications and SEPA appeal was opened on December 9, 2003,at the Kent City ' Hall,continued to December 12,2003,and concluded on December 19,2003. Sensitive Areas 7. The 1990 King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio shows bands of overlapping landslide and erosion hazard areas lying on the eastern half of the Copper Ridge property. In addition, a steep slope hazard area at gradients in excess of 40 percent lies near the southwest comer of the property,downslope from the proposed site detention and water quality pond facility. As mapped by the Applicant,this steep slope area appears to occupy about 19,000 square feet,although hearing testimony suggested that in actuality it may be smaller. Initial investigations had suggested the possibility that a wetland area and a regulated stream might exist on the site,but later analysis concluded that such was not the case. A Class 3 wetland lies downslope from the ' steep slope area but has been determined to be off-site. 8 The SEPA threshold determination appeal filed by the Coalition for Responsible Development ' raised sensitive areas issues regarding site slope stability,protection of wetlands and streams and impacts on area wildlife. Of these, only the slope stability issues were pursued by the Appellants at the hearing. 9. Some of the Appellants' concerns,and much of their sense of outrage, seems to be fueled by a fundamental misunderstanding as to how the 1990 King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance ' Operates in assessing environmental impacts. Under Ordinance 9614,erosion and steep slope hazard areas are very broadly defined. As applied to this property pursuant to section 36 of the ordinance,the term"erosion hazard"refers to the presence of Alderwood soils on slopes of 15 ' percent or greater. Section 47 defines a"landslide hazard"as an area of 15 percent slopes interbedded with impermeable and granular soils or characterized by springs or groundwater seepage. And under section 68 a"steep slope hazard"is defined as a 40 percent slope with a 10 ' foot vertical elevation change. Based on these broad definitions,indicative classifications were represented on the 1990 map folio using available baseline geologic data. But the map folio is intended to be the beginning of analysis,not its conclusion. The presence of ' a mapped sensitive areas hazard on a property indicates that further site-specific analysis needs to be done. Nor is the presence of a mapped sensitive areas hazard intended in all cases to preclude ' development. The presence of an erosion hazard usually implies a limitation on site clearing during the winter wet season and the need to submit an erosion control plan. Steep slopes with or without landslide hazards are,on the other hand,to be left undeveloped under most circumstances , with a perimeter buffer applied at a presumptive distance of 50 feet,which may be reduced to as little as 10 feet based on appropriate studies. It is not the intention of the ordinance that the generalized folio mapping information should trump site-specific study and analysis. With respect to the regulatory effect of the folio maps,section I LA of the SAO provides that the "actual presence of absence of the features defined in KCC Title 21 as sensitive areas,as determined by King County,shall govern." S91P0004B&S91UN0111—Copper Ridge Page 5 of 30 10. Section 5 of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires an applicant for a development proposal ' containing a sensitive area to"submit such special studies as are required by King County to adequately evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts." For Copper Ridge the County required the Applicant to perform a wetland study and a preliminary geotechnical study of site ' soils conditions focused on evaluation of landslide risks. While not specifically characterized as sensitive areas special studies,the wetland and geotechnical reports meet the requirements of Section 5 and, with appropriate updates,were accepted as satisfactory by DDES. 11. The SEPA Appellants have challenged the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical engineering study performed for the site by Golder Associates,Inc.,dated September 24, 1990. The study was based on a site reconnaissance plus fourteen test pits excavated with a backhoe to a 12 foot maximum depth. The study identified the predominant site soils as glacial tills underlain by advance outwash sands,determined that they were competent for construction purposes and also identified fill areas resulting from previous site usage. With respect to landslide hazards,the ' Golder study characterized the slopes as stable so long as adequate drainage facilities were installed and the proposed detention pond were lined The study also proposes the maintenance of 25 foot setbacks from steep slope areas,major earthwork to be done in the dry season,and a ' geotechnical reevaluation prior to actual construction. The principal conclusions of the Golder study were verified by DDES staff geologist Larry West,who has visited the property a number of times in the last few years,and the geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the Applicant's site plans 12. The SEPA Appellants have expressed skepticism that slope stability issues have been adequately ' addressed by the Applicant and DDES,and have offered a number of hypotheses in support of their position. As pointed out by Appellant John Kastien,slopes below the site along 92nd Avenue South experienced mudslides in 1990 and 1997 Mr.Kastien suggested that the 1990 slide was the result of rapid infiltration on the Copper Ridge site resulting from vegetation removal followed by a major rain storm. The 1997 slide was explained by nearby property owner Ronald Melby as the consequence of the installation across the hillside in the late 1980s of a sewer pipe within a gravel-lined trench. The trench apparently was neither installed with sectional flow bamers nor drainage diversion facilities. As a result,groundwater accumulated in the gravel trench and saturated the lower portions of the hillside,resulting in the blowout. 13. There is simply no question that steep slopes underlain by outwash sands can fall if the soils become saturated. That indeed is the principle insight underlying the Golder geotechnical ' recommendations for drainage control during major earthwork,for dry season excavations,and an impermeable pond liner. The Appellants have offered no evidence that the Golder recommendations will be insufficient to avoid saturation of soils on steep slopes, and the record is ' clear that the importance of avoiding such saturated conditions has been a foundational principle of the geotechnical analysis. 14. The Appellants also contend that placement of a drainage and wetpond facility in the southwest comer of the property,upgradient from the 40 percent slope area,creates a major risk of slope failure. They have suggested that the weight of the water in the pond, as well as the overflow pond condition in major storms,will cause the pond structure to collapse, imposing significant ' damage on downstream locations. 15. Construction of an R/D facility on competent soils lying on a 20 percent slope is not a major engineering challenge and has been successfully accomplished on many occasions throughout the 1 S91P0004B&S91U0001B—Copper Ridge Page 6of30 , Puget Sound Area. The fact is that the pond water weight will be approximately one-half per unit of volume of the soils displaced,and structural pond walls and an impermeable pond liner will ' provide the slope with greater structural stability than it now experiences in the undeveloped state. Moreover, drainage ponds are expected to overflow during major storm events and are designed to accommodate the overflow condition. Section 4.4.4 of the 1990 King County ' Surface Water Design Manual provides detailed instructions for designing overflow mechanisms: "A pond overflow system must provide controlled discharge of the 100-year,24- ' hour design storm event for developed site conditions without overtopping any part of the pond embankment or exceeding the capacity of the emergency spillway. The design must provide controlled discharge directly into the ' downstream conveyance system. This assumes the pond will be full due to plugged control structure inflow pipe and/or plugged restrictor/orifices conditions." , In other words,not only must the overflow mechanism be designed to accommodate the 100-year stone without overtopping the pond sides,but an emergency spillway must also be provided to relieve the primary overflow channel if it becomes blocked. 16 Also within the realm of geotechnical issues,area resident Richard Miller, in support of the SEPA ' Appellants' case, offered a hypothesis that onsite excavation might pierce an aquifer lying beneath the site and thereby perhaps pollute and dewater downgradient wells This hypothesis is primarily based on the examination of two well logs lying north of the site,one at a distance of , approximately 2000 feet and the second at 700 feet. There appears to be approximately 140 feet of difference between the water elevations in the two wells, and Mr.Miller has projected this gradient as a piezometric incline extending onto the Copper Ridge site. If this inferred incline ' were accurate,the upper end of an extensive aquifer would he just beneath the Copper Ridge slopes. Supporting evidence for this hypothesis is presumed to include the existence of hillside seeps north of the Copper Ridge property. 17. While Mr.Miller's hypothesis is not inconceivable, it appears to be both highly speculative and quite unlikely based on known information. A water level drop of 140 feet between two wells , only 1300 feet apart rather strongly suggests that the two wells are not in hydraulic continuity but rather are lapped into different ground water sources. Moreover, the known soils data for the Copper Ridge hillside is typical of glacial outwash formations,and the existence under the till ' layer of compacted outwash sands argues against extensive hydraulic continuity at the gradient suggested. The presence of springs on a steep hillside are more likely the consequence of upslope infiltration emerging as perched seeps,and the supposition of a thick clay layer capping a confined aquifer is unsupported by any known geologic data. A major layer of lacustrine clay would not be expected to occur on a glacial outwash hillside. 18. Mr. Kastien's concern for the stability of cut slopes beneath his house on the eastern edge of the ' Copper Ridge property is certainly understandable. The rockeries shown on the plat map schematic would simply function as erosion control facilities unless structurally engineered. While final design decisions have yet to be made,the geotechnical study clearly indicates that ' rockeries alone cannot serve as structural retaining walls and that any retaining walls installed will need adequate interceptor drains. S91P0004B&S9IU000IB—Copper Ridge Page 7 of 30 Drainage 19. Copper Ridge is vested to the standards contained in the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This document was superseded in 1998 by a new manual that contains a more detailed menu of detention and water quality treatment options. Because DDES staff at one point recommended that Copper Ridge construct a detention pond to provide Level 2 flow control under the 1998 manual and the Applicant declined to volunteer for the upgrade,the SEPA Appellants have surmised that construction of the plat to the lesser 1990 standard will result in adverse environmental impacts. ' 20. In order to evaluate this contention,it is necessary to briefly discuss the difference between the 1990 and 1998 Surface Water Design Manuals. The detention release rate provided in the 1990 manual requires the facility to match existing conditions with its post-development peak runoff rates for the 2 and 10 year, 24-hour duration design storm events. The Level 1 flow control under ' the 1998 manual likewise requires site release to match the existing condition for the 2 and 10 year peak events,while Level 2 control adds to the menu a duration control based on matching 50 percent of the 2 through 50 year storm events. The Level 2 control seeks to control peak durations to a level where they will not increase erosion within damaged or overcapacity stream channels. In addition to adding a duration control requirement,the principal difference between the 1990 and 1998 manuals inheres in their analytical methodologies. The 1990 manual is based ' on the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph,which is a single event model that assumes a drainage facility at the beginning of a storm event will be empty and preceding weather conditions dry. The 1998 manual,on the other hand, is based on the King County Runoff Time Series(KCRTS), ' which is a continuous flow model that analyzes a storm event more realistically as part of a chain of similar events. The fact that 1998 SWM facilities are larger than those required under the 1990 manual is mainly due to the shift to a continuous event modeling analysis. 21. It is undisputed that constructing a storm water drainage facility at Copper Ridge based on the 1990 manual will result in a pond capacity that is approximately one-third of that which would be ' required under the 1998 manual to achieve Level 2 flow control. The question to be answered is: what are the real-world consequences of this change? Clearly,the most obvious consequence is that the 1990 design pond will overflow more frequently than the 1998 Level 2 pond. 22. The question of the hydraulic effects of more frequent pond overflow has two aspects. There is the matter of the consequences for the downstream conveyance ditch and culvert system,then there is the further issue of the effect on the ultimate downstream natural receiving body—in this case the Garrison Creek system. Looking at the downstream conveyance system for Copper Ridge,the following elements stand out. First,Copper Ridge has very little in the way of upstream flows to be conveyed through the site. The drainage system for Valley View Heights on theplateau above the hillside is channeled through a different conveyance system. Second, there is also little in the way of development downstream of Copper Ridge to contribute additional developed runoff flows to the conveyance system;therefore, the conveyance system will not be burdened by other significant developed area surcharged flows. Third,as detailed in the Applicant's downstream analysis,the existing downstream system is constrained both by a t few undersized culverts and by sections of under-capacity channel. The staff recommendation for Level 2 flow control was predicated on the perceived need to not overtax these constraints within the existing downstream conveyance system. S91P0004B&S91U000IB—Copper Ridge Page 9 of30 ' 23. Limitations in the downstream conveyance system can be mitigated in one of two ways. Either the detention pond can be enlarged and the peak flow release attenuated so as not to increase the peak flows to the undersized downstream facilities, or the downstream facilities themselves may be upgraded. DDES staff suggested initially the former approach,but the Applicant has opted for the latter. The Applicant proposes to replace the undersized culverts and regrade the downstream channels where necessary to increase their capacity. But the net result will be the same. The downstream conveyance system will have adequate capacity to handle the peak flows from Copper Ridge. 24. The impact on the Garrison Creek system is a different sort of question. The nine plus acres of Copper Ridge constitute 3.27 percent of the 295 acre Chestnut/Garrison sub-basin that empties ' into Garrison Creek at the SR 167 culvert. Use of the 1990 Surface Water Design Manual standard for design of the detention facilities for Copper Ridge would increase the level of Garrison Creek less than one-quarter inch for the 100 year storm event. In other words,the ' impact of Copper Ridge in this much larger sub-basin will be negligible. The SEPA Appellants have also suggested that regional drainage facilities constructed within the Garrison Creek system may be adversely impacted by increased flows from Copper Ridge. Without knowing precisely where these facilities area located and what the flows are at these locations, it is hard to evaluate this information. It appears probable that at least some of these facilities may be on Garrison Creek upstream of the SR 167 culvert,in which case Copper Ridge runoff would not pass through ' these structures at all. In any event,no evidence has been provided that the minor increase in flows resulting from Copper Ridge will have an adverse impact to either Garrison Creek or its regional drainage facilities. ' 25. Issues of water quality impacts have also been raised. In this respect it is important to note that the Applicant has in fact volunteered to meet the 1998 standard for water quality treatment. The ' 1998 manual's basic water quality menu provides an array of options for water quality treatment, including water quality ponds and vaults, biofiltration swales and sand filters. The Applicant has indicated preliminarily that it will opt for a combined wet pond and detention pond whereby water quality treatment is provided within a permanent pool of dead storage at the bottom of the facility. These facilities are designed to remove 80 percent of total suspended solids within the project surface water flows on an annual basis. While the Appellants have questioned whether ' the 80 percent target can be met in the context of a 1990 R/D facility,as Mr.Shemeta noted most of the pollutants are contained in the first half inch of rainfall after a dry spell. This pollutant- laden first flush will always receive water quality treatment,and that which is bypassed through ' overflow will be limited to the less-polluted later flows. Traffic 26. The truly difficult issues concerning development of Copper Ridge relate to site access and traffic , safety. The property lies northeast of the intersection of 92nd Avenue South and South 208th Street,with frontage on both roads. From the east South 208th Street descends the hillside from the intersection at South 212th Street/96th Avenue South along a winding route that includes grades as steep as 16 percent. The original traffic study performed for the project in 1991 stated that South 208th Street"can be classified as mountainous between 92nd Avenue South and 96th , Avenue South." Due to the road's curvature the portion of South 208th Street adjacent to the site is constrained with entering sight distance limitations on the downhill or west side. Even though a narrow two-lane roadway with limited shoulders,South 208th Street is classified as a ' S91P0004D&S91U0001B—Copper Ridge Page 9 of 30 neighborhood collector and in fact performs at an arterial level transporting vehicles during commuter hours between the South 212th Street and 84th Avenue South corridors. 27. Because of the sight distance problems on South 208th Street,the initial traffic study also considered providing site access on the property's west side on 92nd Avenue South at the base of the slope. Although 92nd Avenue South has a flatter gradient,site access from that location was rejected due to the necessity of traversing onsite slopes in excess of 20%and because of limited entering sight distances to the east at the South 208th Street/92nd Avenue South intersection. The initial recommendation by the traffic study was a preference for development of the South 208th Street access with the roadway to be widened for an uphill left turn lane into the project. 28. The eventual parameters for the entry road design were set by a March 2, 1992,road variance issued by the County Road Engineer. In lieu of a left turn lane,this road variance provided for the widening of the South 208th Street roadway to the south to improve entering sight distances ' to 385 feet to the west, rural standard frontage improvements on both South 208th and 92nd Avenue South,and extension of the internal road cul-de-sac length to 950 feet with fire marshal approval. After considerable internal debate, County staff concluded recently that the 1992 road ' variance remains valid for review of the current application. 29. Everyone seems to agree that approximately 70 percent of Copper Ridge peak hour traffic will travel to and from SR 167 northbound via its South 212th Street ramps,but there has been diversity of opinion as to how such traffic will arrive there. The 1991 traffic study was predicated on 79 percent of Copper Ridge's traffic traveling on South 208th Street uphill to the ' east,while the Applicant's more recent traffic studies have come to an opposite conclusion and only distribute 3 percent of site peak-hour trips to the uphill route. The route up South 208th Street to the 96th Avenue South/212th intersection, then back downhill west to the SR 167 interchange is the shorter alternative. But based on Puget Sound Regional Council studies traffic engineers now believe that the downhill route on South 208th Street west to 84th Avenue South, then left to 212th Street and left again to the SR 167 interchange will be a quicker and more attractive alternative for Copper Ridge traffic. Certainly this rationale is compelling for the AM peak hour. For morning peak hour traffic exiting Copper Ridge to utilize the uphill route,it would be required to turn left across the dominant traffic flow.As Mr. Shemeta has argued,this is probably not an attractive option because the signal uphill at South 212th Street/96th Avenue South fails to effectively platoon traffic down the hill. The 20-second signal phase for southbound 96th Avenue South traffic provides an effective platoon only if there are minimal right turns from 96th Avenue South to South 208th. Accordingly,it is not unreasonable to conclude that AM peak hour traffic from Copper Ridge will prefer to turn right into the dominant traffic flow and take the longer route to the SE 167 intersection via 84th Avenue South. iOn the other hand,trip distribution choices for the PM peak hour are less clearly one-sided, although the initial right-hand turn from the SR 167 ramp onto South 212th Street to the 84th ' Avenue South route may provide an attractive initial option supporting the longer return trip. But the deciding factor here is less likely to be the inconvenience of left turns and more a question of whether eastbound congestion on South 208th Street is expected to be worse than that on South ' 212th. 30. In addition to the conundrum over trip distribution,the Applicant's traffic studies over time appear to apply increasingly less defensible traffic growth rates. Christopher Brown's 1991 study ' for the Applicant employed a growth rate annually of 2,74 percent,which had decreased to 124 S91 P0004B&S91U0001 B—Copper Ridge Page 10 of 30 ' percent in 2001 and a barely discernable 101 percent in the 2003 traffic study update. This last ' figure was apparently based on traffic counts on SR 167 just south of its 43rd Street interchange near the northern Kent city limit. By way of comparison,the February 2002 Kittleson and Associates traffic study for the South 212th Street Retail Center employs an annual growth rate of 3 5 percent based on South 212th Street historical figures. ' Moreover, the Applicant's low traffic growth rates are inconsistent with its own traffic counts for South 208th Street in the immediate vicinity of Copper Ridge. The traffic counts provided by the ' Applicant in its three most recent studies show eastbound PM peak hour traffic on South 208th Street adjacent to the site increasing nearly 50 percent between February 2001 and October 2003. In addition,the PM westbound non-peak direction flows on South 208th Street next to the site ' increased approximately 40 percent between 2002 and 2003 according to the Applicant's traffic counts. In short,regardless of what may be happening on SR 167 near the Renton boundary, South 208th Street itself appears to have undergone significant peak hour traffic increases within ' the last few years. 31. Happily for the Applicant,the conjecture surrounding traffic distribution in the neighborhood of ' Copper Ridge,its evolving patterns and volumes, and the contribution of the plat proposal to existing problems becomes much less critical with the construction of the South 212th Street Retail Center near the SR 167 interchange. The only clearly identified level of service F problem ' on the nearby supporting arterial system occurs at the SR 167/South 212th Street northbound ramp in the PM peak hour Copper Ridge will contribute more than 10 peak direction trips to this intersection in the PM peak hour and thus exceed the 1989 Road Adequacy Standards mitigation ' threshold. However,the new retail center is in the process of providing substantial upgrades to this intersection which will improve it to a LOS D condition for the PM peak hour,thus alleviating any need for Copper Ridge to mitigate traffic impacts. ' The only other intersection of potential importance to Copper Ridge from a level of service standpoint would be 84th Avenue South/South 212th Street,which is predicted by the Applicant ' to operate at a level of service E in the 2006 project year with an average vehicle delay of 60 seconds. if the SR 167 ramp upgrades become a magnet for more traffic,and if the Applicant's traffic growth rates are as understated as they appear to be,the 2006 level of service at this ' intersection could prove to be worse than predicted and edging toward an unacceptable level. Based on current information,however,such a conclusion is at this point purely speculative. Finally,employing the currently accepted trip distribution,the signalized intersection at South ' 212th Street/96th Avenue South will not be impacted by 10 peak hour/peak direction trips from Copper Ridge and overall will operate at an acceptable level of service. 32. The traffic and pedestrian safety issues that affect Copper Ridge are both more localized and , clearly defined than the regional level of service impacts. As suggested above,the combination of road curves, steep gradients, limited entering sight distances and excessive speeds raises a ' number of safety concerns,particularly when combined with inclement weather conditions. Both the Kent School District and area residents have been adamant in their assertions that adverse winter weather conditions have a greater effect on South 208th Street in the hillside section ' adjacent to Copper Ridge than at almost any other nearby location. The section of South 208th Street between 92nd Avenue South and 96th Avenue South is regarded as extremely dangerous in icy conditions and is reported to be the first road to be closed during a winter storm. S91 P0004B&S91 UOOO I B—Copper Ridge Page 1 I of 30 ' 33, These concerns are buttressed by the accident history for South 208th Street at the 92nd Avenue South intersection and uphill to the east. Mr. Brown's analysis of the accident history for the last four years describes an accident rate of 22.6 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel within the 300 foot road section east of 92nd Avenue South on 208th. An accident rate of over 6 mvm exists for the second 300 foot segment east of 92nd Avenue South. For the remainder of South 208th Street between 84th Avenue South and 96th Avenue South the accident rate is below I mvm,with the overall King County average reposing at 2.7 mvm. Mr.Brown concluded correctly that the high accident rate in the 300 foot section directly east of 92nd Avenue South is "not due to chance alone but,rather,... due to the roadway itself." Based on this data,the Applicant has offered to contribute a pro-rata share to a traffic calming device such as a traffic circle at the South 208th Street/92nd Avenue South intersection if the City of Kent were to implement such a mitigation. ' Mr. Brown in his testimony suggested that the high accident rate on South 208th Street east of 92nd Avenue South at the base of the hill was due to the excessive speeds of eastbound traffic accelerating up the grade. This interpretation is not supported by neighborhood testimony,Mr Brown's own data or common sense. Rather, it appears to be the downhill speeding traffic that ' primarily causes the accident problem. This is shown by the City of Kent corridor accident data attached to Mr. Brown's report,where one observes that the vehicle causing the accident is almost always the westbound vehicle going downhill. This is most explicitly demonstrated in the data for the six single-car accidents,where a vehicle hit either a parked car or other stationary object. In each of these incidents,the vehicle causing the accident was traveling downhill toward the west. 34. Much of the information concerning winter weather risks on South 208th Street was developed within the dialogue between the Applicant and the Kent School District concerning bus service to ' Copper Ridge to pick up and deliver school children. The eventual outcome of this discussion was a bus stop design on South 208th Street west of the plat entrance that will be set back 17 feet from the roadway pavement edge and feature protective amenities The bus stop,however,does not address the problem of what will happen when South 208th Street is iced up and school buses cannot travel the roadway,or the roadway is closed entirely to traffic use. In such cases,school children will need to be picked up and delivered near the 92nd Avenue Saudi/South 208th ' intersection at the bottom of the hill,then walk up to Copper Ridge. This is perhaps not an overwhelming problem when South 208th Street between 92nd Avenue South and 96th Avenue South is completely closed to all traffic,and children can simply walk in the middle of the ' roadway without fear of danger. But when school bus delivery is forced to occur at the bottom of the hill yet South 208th Street remains open to traffic generally, the danger would be extreme. The 300 foot section on South 208th Street east of the 92nd Avenue South intersection,which ' features a high accident rate and poor sight distance,only possesses a two-foot gravel shoulder on the north side bordered by a drainage ditch and an equally narrow shoulder at the edge of a steep decline on the south. It is unthinkable that school children should have to walk along such a ' narrow shoulder either uphill or downhill in icy conditions when there is traffic on the roadway. Although steep gradients must be crossed which may require sections of stairway,the only acceptable answer to this dilemma is to provide a pedestrian walkway through Copper Ridge ' down to 92nd Avenue South. 35. Related to the school bus problem is the predicament of adult site residents who return home in their vehicles to find that they either cannot negotiate the South 208th hill due to icy conditions or ' that the roadway section has been completely closed. Under such circumstances,these residents S9IP0004B&S9I000OI B—Copper Ridge Page 12 of 30 t will need to park their cars at the base of the hill and walk to their homes. Again, these residents would be placed at risk if there were no pathway from 92nd Avenue South into the plat. t Moreover,the need to park on 92nd Avenue South during inclement weather requires that the shoulder adjacent to the site be improved to an eight foot width rather than the four foot minimum currently proposed. ' 36. Finally, as Mr.Kastien noted,the 1992 road variance approval for cul-de-sac length of up to 950 feet based on County fire marshal review does not take into account that the fire regulations for ' the City of Kent appear to limit driveways off the turnaround bulb to a total length of 150 feet. The most northerly unit of the proposed Copper Ridge development is approximately 250 feet from the turnaround bulb. Although we are not in a position to anticipate the results of fire safety ' review,clearly approval of the internal road design for Copper Ridge must include appropriate fire safety review, and it is possible that the internal roadway system may need to be redesigned as a consequence of that procedure. ' Plat/Planned Unit Development , 37. In 1991 at the time of the original Copper Ridge application, the 9.64 acre site was zoned SR 9600. The SR zone was created under the Title 21 Zoning Ordinance as a transitional ' classification between rural and urban uses. When proposed for development at urban densities, SR-zoned properties are generally subject to the development requirements established for the RS single-family dwelling district. Both the SR and RS zoning classifications list planned Unit , developments as permitted uses. The planned unit development provisions of KCC Chapter 21.56 are intended to provide design flexibility so that an applicant may efficiently address the special features of the property. ' 38, The procedure for approving a planned unit development proposal is generally set forth in KCC 21 56.030A. The approval process provides that after staff review,"the examiner shall determine ' that the plans comply with the development policies of the comprehensive plan,community plan policies, area zoning guidelines,...the purpose of this title,and provisions of this chapter. The applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating consistency with these requirements at the time , of application and at public hearings." Pursuant to this process,the hearing examiner makes a written recommendation to the County Council,which in turn confers preliminary approval on the planned unit development. KCC 21.56.050 provides for the consolidation of a planned unit ' development proposal with a preliminary plat application. 39. As set forth in KCC 21.56.140,the density of residential development allowed within a PUD ' requires the calculation of a net development factor,which in the case of Copper Ridge mandates the exclusion from the total developable area of 75 percent of those on-site areas having 40 percent slopes. The net development factor expressed in acres is then further multiplied by the ' base units per acre applicable to the zone as well as the bonus units per acre derived from the provision of specified amenities. The worksheet submitted by DDES staff-attributes to Copper Ridge a net development factor of 9.23 acres based on the exclusions described at KCC 21 56.140. ' 40. As pointed out by Mr. Kastien,the base density for the Copper Ridge property is also subject to a competing procedure stated within section 10 of the 1990 Sensitive Areas Ordinance. This ' provision authorizes a density credit equal to 100 percent of the net parcel area only if the t S91 P0004B&S91 UOOOIB—Copper Ridge Page 13 of 30 percentage of the site in designated sensitive areas and buffers is less than 10 percent. Sites possessing between 11 and 20 percent designated sensitive areas and buffers receive a density credit of 90 percent. As applied to Copper Ridge to calculate the appropriate density credit,the gross parcel area would need to be reduced by the area of regulated steep slopes and their buffers and by the extent of any on-site buffers attributable to off-site wetlands. The section 10 density credit calculation does not apply to erosion hazard areas and,folio mapping notwithstanding,no landslide hazard areas have been determined to exist on the property. If Copper Ridge were subject to a 90 percent density credit rather than 100 percent,the acreage qualifying for density calculation would be 8.676 acres,which at a 9600 square foot lot size would support 39.36 dwelling units. In other words,if after reduction of the gross acreage by the regulated steep slope areas and their buffers plus any impinging wetland buffers the acreage excluded in sensitive areas exceeds 10 percent,the Copper Ridge proposal would be subject to losing one dwelling unit under the KCC 21.54.080 calculation. 41. DDES staff initially argued that the KCC 21.54.080 density credit process was preempted by the KCC 21.56.140 calculation,but the regulatory language does not support this position. Section 10 of Ordinance 9614 (KCC 21.54.080)applies without qualification to"development proposals,"and section 3.13 lists planned unit developments as subject to SAO requirements Moreover,section 3.A states that when SAO requirements conflict with other County code requirements, "that which provides more protection to the sensitive areas shall apply." The ' discussion of the actual effect of these density requirements on the application remains conjectural pending a more precise calculation of the portions of the Copper Ridge site subject to the sensitive areas exclusion. Condition no. 4, however,has been revised to provide for the ' density reduction mandated by the SAO if the measurements so require. 42. Returning to the PUD process itself, the second potentially controversial operation required by the ordinance is the determination of bonus units under KCC 21.56.170. Here the 1963 Zoning Code origins of the PUD ordinance become apparent when one sees that an applicant can receive bonus points for such now commonplace amenities as sewer and water availability and the use of a professional design and development team. The categories in which DDES staff has recommended bonus unit credit under less than obvious circumstances are for significant recreation areas to be"developed and equipped with such features as,but not limited to,trails, landscape passive or open areas,pools, tennis courts,children's play areas, etc."; public transit "available within walking distance(approximately one-half mile)"on a twice-hourly basis during morning and evening peak hours;and a crime prevention plan "incorporating locks,dwelling unit lighting, street lighting, doors,windows,and alarms." Although use of a security gate ultimately may not be permitted,compliance with crime prevention plan requirements is certainly feasible, and staff review can assure that such compliance is provided. Similarly,a recreation plan needs to be submitted that offers the facilities mandated by code In this respect, if a pedestrian path is required down slope to 92nd Avenue South, such an amenity also could contribute to the recreation plan. 43. Qualification for the public transit bonus credit is more problematic The twice-hourly service within approximately one-half mile requirement can be met both to the east and west,with transit stops located uphill along the arterial section of South 208th Street at 98th Place South and downhill to the west on 84th Avenue South at South 208th Street. The real question here is,in view of the steep grades,narrow shoulders,high traffic flows and often dangerous walking conditions between the plat entrance and the bus stops, can these public transit facilities reasonably be said to be"available"to Copper Ridge residents? Our view is that without any S91P0004B&S91UODOIB—Copper Ridge Page 14 of 30 route offslte to a safe walking location,the answer is probably no. If,however,a pathway is provided down to 92nd Avenue South,pedestrian travel to public transit locations can be deemed feasible and the credit conferred. 44. Near the end of the public hearing the Applicant's project manager disclosed that the Applicant was contemplating a later request for bonus unit credit for off-site convenience shopping facilities based on the anticipated construction of the retail center at the South 212th Street/SR 167 intersection, approximately seven-tenths of a mile from the site via the easterly uphill route. This statement evinces a misunderstanding as to how the PUD bonus credit approval process works. While detailed review of plans to achieve bonus credits may reasonably be deferred to later staff analysis, the PUD ordinance requires at a minimum that the bonus credit request be disclosed at the public hearing and a determination of feasibility made. This is consistent with the provision of KCC 21.56.030A quoted above requiring at the hearing that the applicant shall demonstrate consistency with PUD requirements, and with the KCC 21.56.120 preclusion of post-hearing staff adjustments to the PUD authorization that increase the number of dwelling units In short,basic review of a request for bonus credit for the proposal's accessibility to convenience shopping facilities must occur at the hearing level. 45. KCC 21.56.170B.4 b confers bonus credit for offsite convenience shopping facilities that are "functionally accessible within reasonable walking distance(approximately one-half mile)." ' Without belaboring the distance requirement,it seems clear that a shopping center more than a half mile away can only be functionally accessible if there are safe and adequate pedestrian walking facilities between the PUD site and the commercial facility This is a higher standard of ' convenience than required for public transit bonus credit,presumably because walking home from shopping is deemed feasible only if one can safely and comfortably carry a modest amount of purchased goods. It 1s our view that the functional accessibility requirement cannot be met along the section of South 208th Street east of the site where a steep road 1s only served by a narrow,unpaved shoulder as a pedestrian walkway. Copper Ridge therefore does not qualify for this bonus density credit. CONCLUSIONS: SEPA Appeal 1. The basic standard to be applied to the review of a threshold determination appeal is that the SEPA record must demonstrate the actual consideration of relevant environmental impacts. With respect to those relevant impacts shown to be actually considered,the decision of the SEPA official is entitled to substantial weight on review and shall not be overturned unless clearly erroneous based on the record as a whole. 2. In conjunction with the SEPA statute and regulations,KCC 20.24.070.B confers upon the hearing examiner broad authority to impose such conditions,modifications and restrictions on the appeal decision as may be required to make it compatible with the environment and carry out applicable statutes,regulations, codes,plans and policies. This authority supplements the SEPA appeal standards and allows specific conditions of mitigation to be imposed or modified to address adverse environmental impacts,independent of whether the determination of non-significance is found overall to be clearly erroneous. E S91 P0004B&S91 U0001 B—Copper Ridge Page 15 of 30 3. The SEPA record discloses actual consideration by the Department of Development and Environmental Services and by the City of Kent of the potential environmental impacts of this proposal. The Appellants have not met their burden of proof to demonstrate that the determination of non-significance is either contrary to law or inadequately supported by the record and, therefore,clearly erroneous with respect to alleged geotechnical hazards,groundwater impacts,drainage impacts to downstream water quality and the capacity or integrity of conveyance systems, traffic levels of service,wetlands and wildlife. 4 Potential adverse impacts are demonstrated by the record with respect to traffic and pedestrian safety on South 208th Street between 96th Avenue South and 92nd Avenue South. Regarding the former,the historic accident rate at the South 208th Street/92nd Avenue South intersection suggests that similar safety problems could occur at the new plat access road entry. Mitigation for these potential impacts will be implemented by the entering sight distance improvements required under the County road variance, which will provide adequate sight distance in the eastern uphill direction and greatly improve sight distance on the downhill,western side. Since left turns,both into and out of the site,depend primarily on the adequacy of the uphill sight distance measurement, and the quantity of traffic generated by Copper Ridge will be a relatively small percentage of the total flow,potential traffic impacts appear to be adequately mitigated Moreover,the Applicant has offered to contribute a pro-rata share to traffic calming devices at the South 208th Street/92nd Avenue South intersection if the City of Kent deems such improvements to be warranted as a further safety mitigation,and a condition to such effect has been recommended. 5. The potential for an adverse impact to pedestrian safety will occur under icy weather conditions that prevent school buses and some vehicles from successfully traversing the steep gradient on South 208th Street adjacent to the site,but which may not be sufficiently severe to warrant total closure of the road section. Under such circumstances,school children will need to meet the school bus at the bottom of the hill at the 92nd Avenue South intersection,walking up or down the steep 208th Street grade to the site entrance along a narrow gravel shoulder under dangerous traffic conditions. A similar situation will confront Copper Hill adult residents who are forced by winter weather to park at the bottom of the hill. 6. These pedestrian safety impacts can be mitigated by providing additional shoulder width along 92nd Avenue South for emergency parking and constructing a pedestrian path from 92nd Avenue South into Copper Ridge. If such mitigations were provided,the adverse impacts to pedestrian safety would be mitigated,the decision of the SEPA official would not be clearly erroneous,and The probability of significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposal would be avoided. 7. In recognition of the fact that more than twelve years have transpired between the initial submission of the Copper Ridge application to King County in 1991 and the issuance of a determination of non-significance by the City of Kent in 1993,the pre-hearing order issued for this proceeding requested the parties to brief the question of what substantive authority should apply to this project under SEPA if the Examiner were to determine that unmitigated adverse environmental impacts exist. Thoughtful and well-researched briefs have been submitted on this issue by the Applicant,King County and the City of Kent. The King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office identified four legally defensible vesting points for SEPA purposes,those being the 1991 application date,the 2003 DNS date, and intervening times based on when the threshold determination ought to have been issued and the date of the first County DS issued in S91 P0004B&S91 00001 B—Copper Ridge Page 16 of 30 1992. In choosing among these,the Prosecutor's Office diplomatically suggests that the Examiner should defer to the City's determination of the appropriate vesting date for the Copper Ridge application. The City's brief, in turn,identifies and argues for a fifth possibility,that Copper Ridge should be vested to the City's SEPA policies in effect in 1993 when the property was annexed to the City. The memorandum for Schneider Homes argues in favor of the 1991 application date for vesting the proposal to the County's SEPA policies. 8. WAC 197-11-660(l)(a)adopted in 1984 states that"mitigation measures or denials shall be based on policies,plans,rules,or regulations formerly designated by the agency...as the basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when the DNS or DEIS was issued:"But in light of appellate court cases interpreting the Washington vested rights doctrine,no one has argued that this WAC provision should be applied unconditionally to a proposal where the time elapsed between the initial application date and the DNS exceeds twelve years. The rationale for declining to apply WAC 197-11-660(1)(a)literally as written was well summarized in the City of Kent's legal brief: "A simple reading of WAC 197-11-660(1)(a)would say that Schneider Homes vested to the City of Kent's substantive SEPA policies in effect on August 11, 2003,when the City issued its DNS. These policies are listed in section 11.03.510 of the Kent City Code. This analysis,while easy,would ignore the complicated history of this case to the effect of violating the applicant's substantive due process rights, and perhaps rending (sic)the decision in Schneider Homes meaningless. "....in the rare case where city officials clearly frustrated a developer's diligent, good faith efforts to complete the permit process,due process considerations of fundamental fairness require a court to look beyond whether a developer technically met the requirements of vesting. [Citation omitted.] When these rare circumstances are present,...the developer vested to the rights it would have vested to in the absence of frustration by city officials. [Citation omitted.] "The City believes that the facts of this case show that Schneider Homes has diligently made good faith efforts to reach the point in the application process where a threshold determination would be made and substantive SEPA policies would vest. Schneider Homes was technically notable to reach this point until August of 2003 because rather than issue its own threshold determination when it obtained jurisdiction over Copper Ridge, the City took the position that the PUD was not vested,which led to lengthy litigation. While the City acted in good faith in arguing that a floating PUD did not vest,it nevertheless frustrated Schneider's efforts to obtain a threshold determination and vest to substantive SEPA policies." 9. There are two variables to be analyzed in determining SEPA vesting for the instant case;first, what the appropriate vesting dated for SEPA policies should be,and second,whether the policies vested to should be those of King County or the City of Kent. Bearing on these issues are not only the applicable statutes,regulations and court interpretations of the vesting rights doctrine, but also the arrangements that have been concluded among the parties for addressing these questions. With respect to this last matter,the 1996 interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Kent treated of annexation properties generally,stating at section 2.1 that"the S9111000413&S9i 00001 B—Copper Ridge Page 17 of 30 County shall continue to process those vested land use related applications filed with the County before the effective date of annexation which involve property within the Annexation Area. Processing shall occur in accordance with those County regulations under which the application is vested...The City will determine whether the land use application is vested." In 1999 after conclusion of the litigation between the City and Schneider Homes,the two parties entered into a settlement agreement that provides in pertinent part as follows: "The laws, ordinances,and policies to be applied to review of these applications will those in effect at the time that the applications vested....The intent of the parties is to process these applications as nearly as possible as if review had been completed by King County in 1993 without annexation." The terms of the settlement agreement were implemented by a 2000 amendment to the 1996 interlocal agreement between the County and Kent that dealt specifically with Copper Ridge. This amendment provided that"County review of these applications shall be based upon County codes in effect at the time such applications were initially submitted to King County prior to annexation." 10. The precise legal effect of WAC 197-11-660(1)(a)has never been judicially determined and its status remains a source of endless speculation and controversy. Nonetheless,we see no basis for according it no legal effect at all as suggested by the Applicant. The regulation has survived unscathed since 1984, and the concept that the SEPA vesting date may be different than the application vesting date has received tacit statutory recognition in RCW 58.17.033(3) dealing with subdivisions and in RCW 19.27.095(6)regarding building permits. Both statutory provisions provide that the application date vesting requirements being specified therein "shall not restrict conditions imposed under chapter 43 21C RCW." I 1 On the other hand,it is clear that the vesting case law does not contemplate a situation where the local agency may defeat SEPA vesting by arbitrarily and endlessly manipulating the environmental review process. Although nowhere specifically articulated,the cases appear to suggest overall that while the SEPA vesting date may occur after submission of a complete application,to be valid such later vesting date must occur within a reasonable time in the ordinary course of processing the proposal application_ Whether or not one considers the administrative appeal and resultant remand of the initial County DS issued for Copper Ridge have been an expedient procedure,surely no argument exists for extending the SEPA vesting date beyond mid- 1993 without risking impairment to Schneider Homes' substantive due process rights. 12. While we believe the City of Kent's rationale for preferring a 1993 vesting date is compelling,we see no basis for concluding that the City's policies rather than the County's policies ought to be applied to Copper Ridge. Although the City's SEPA policies may have been theoretically in effect at the time of annexation, in reality Copper Ridge has not been analyzed pursuant to City regulations and policies at any time during the past 12 years, either before or after annexation. Under such facts,we believe the term"in effect"as used in WAC 197-11-660(1)(a)needs to mean"in actual use." Certainly, this interpretation comports with the arrangements among the parties within the interlocal agreements and the settlement agreement. In particular,with respect to the settlement agreement it actualizes the"intent of the parties...to process these applications as nearly as possible as if review had been completed by King County in 1993 without annexation." Accordingly, it is our recommendation for purposes of SEPA substantive authority that the policies and regulations applicable to Copper Ridge ought to be those in effect in King County in 1993 immediately prior to annexation. S91P0004B&S9IU000I11—Copper Ridge Page 18 of30 13. Mercifully, the issue of the basis for SEPA substantive authority is not a source of major concern under the facts of this case. Only the new condition requiring a pedestrian pathway from the developed portion of Copper Ridge downslope to 92nd Avenue South appears to necessitate invocation of SEPA substantive authority,in this case 1985 Comprehensive Plan policies F-201, 204,206,216F and 234. In addition,the pathway requirement is supported by Soos Creek Community Plan policies R-25 and 27. But in view of the authority conferred on the hearing examiner at KCC 21.56.030A and 20.24.070D, it may also be argued that the pathway requirement may be imposed without recourse to SEPA support. Plat/PUD 14. The Copper Ridge proposal clearly qualifies as a planned unit development under the provisions of KCC Chapter 21.56. The SR 9600 zone specifically authorizes planned unit developments based on the residential uses permitted in the RS zone. Townhouses are permitted uses in the RS 9600 district. The only unknown of any consequence is the verification of the net development factor required under 21.56.140,and condition no.3 within the staff recommendation has been modified to detail that process. Other minor modifications of the proposed conditions have been made either to spell out procedures and requirements that are implicit in the review analysis or which have been elucidated by the hearing record. The potential effect of the net development factor recalculation on the proposal may be to reduce the number of dwelling units from 40 to 39. 15. If approved subject to the conditions imposed below,the proposed planned unit development and subdivision make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and welfare, serve the public use and interest; and meet the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. 16. The conditions of approval imposed herein, including dedications and easements,will provide improvements that promote legitimate public purposes, are necessary to serve the planned unit development and subdivision proposal and are proportional to its impacts; are required to make the proposed planned unit development and plat reasonably compatible with the environment; and will carry out applicable state laws and regulations and the laws,policies and objectives of King County. Recommended Decision The SEPA threshold determination appeal of the Coalition for Responsible Development should be DENIED,provided that the attached condition of mitigation under SEPA authority is appended to the plat and planned unit development approval. The plat and PUD applications should be APPROVED for either 39 or 40 dwelling units,pending verification of the net development factor as required within condition no. 3. Accordingly,the plat and PUD applications, as revised and received on April 11,2003,should be granted preliminary approval subject to the following conditions of final approval: 1. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code and provisions of KCC 21.56 regulating PUD approval. 2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication that includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No.5952. S91 P0004B&S91000OI B—Copper Ridge Page 19 of 30 3. The plat shall comply with the density requirements of KCC 21.56.150 through 21.56.180. All lots shall meet the dimensional and setback requirements of KCC 21.56.130.Those lots with a buildings attached on one side shall have a minimum 40 foot width. Those lots with buildings attached on both sides shall have a minimum 30 foot width. For purposes of calculating the net development factor under KCC 21.56.140,the planned unit development proposal shall comply with either KCC 21.56.140B(6)or KCC 21.54.080, whichever is the more restrictive. The calculation for KCC 21.56.140B(6)shall require a determination of the total onsite area having 40 percent or greater slopes;the calculation for KCC 21.54.080 shall require a determination of SAO-regulated 40 percent steep slopes onsite plus the buffers mandated therefor under KCC 21.54.250A, and the total onsite area,if any,occupied by the regulatory buffers mandated for onsite wetlands to the southwest. If for any reason the pedestrian pathway specified by condition no.24 below is eliminated as a requirement for project development, the 0.15 bonus unit awarded for public transit availability shall be deleted. 4. The Applicant shall obtain the approval of the City of Kent fire protection engineer certifying the adequacy of the fire hydrant,water main, fire flow and access amenities to meet City standards in accordance with Attachment 4. 5. The proposed stormwater detention and conveyance facilities shall meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) The water quality treatment aspects of the stormwater facility shall meet the requirements of the basic water quality menu in the 1998 KCSWDM. The retention and water quality facilities shall be placed 1n a separate tract owned and maintained by the home owners' association or other workable organization as approved by the City. 6 Offslte drainage conveyance improvements are required along the easterly side of 92"d Avenue South and along the north side of South 208t'Street. These improvements shall be designed in general conformance with the conceptual drainage plan received April 11,2003,unless otherwise approved by the reviewing agency. A capacity analysis of the existing downstream ditch along the north side of the dead end access road (from 92"d Avenue South to SR 167)shall be submitted at engineering plan submittal. Improvements to this section of the ditch or its culverts are required if adequate capacity does not exist. 7. An interceptor drainage swale and wall drainage system is proposed along the easterly portion of the developed site. The applicant's geotechnical engineer shall provide recommendations for design and construction of the interceptor drainage system,the stormwater detention/water quality facilities, and westerly conveyance pipes connecting to 92nd Avenue South. The geotechnical recommendations shall be included in the T.l R. and incorporated into the design at submittal and approved by the reviewing agency with the engineering plans. 8. Special geotechnical construction inspection of the above drainage interceptor and stormwater detention system is required to ensure compliance with the geotechnical recommendations, including installation of an impervious pond liner. Inspection reports shall be submitted to the assigned construction inspector during the construction phases of those facilities. A final S91P0004B&S91U0001B—Copper Ridge Page 20of30 construction report shall be submitted to the reviewing agency,verifying compliance with the geotechnical recommendations. 9. "All building downspouts,footing drains,and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings# on file with DDES and/or the King County Department of Transportation. This plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are designated for individual lot infiltration systems,the systems shall be constructed at the time of the building permit and shall comply with plans on file." 10. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the 1987 King County Road Standards(KCRS), including the following requirements: A. The internal access road shall be improved to the urban subaccess street standard This standard requires sidewalk on one side. An additional sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the access road, from Lot 40(at the northwest quadrant of the access road intersection), wrapping around the curb return at South 208`h Street intersection,to a point approximately 80 feet(west of the intersection). A"level"(2%maximum cross- slope,east-west, as measured parallel concentric to South 208'h Street)concrete pad pedestrian waiting area, 8 feet by 12 feet along this sidewalk shall be provided at the intersection for school bus pickup area. The curb returns for the intersection shall be set based upon an ultimate 22 foot half- street section for a neighborhood collector street as measured from the new centerline of South 208`' Street. Sufficient width shall be provided at the intersection entry to permit right turns onto South 208th Street when two vehicles are queued to make a left turn movement. The entire portion of the internal access street improvements lying south and east of the curb returns(i e.south of a line 52 feet north of the realigned South 208`h Street centerline) shall be dedicated as public right-of-way. The remainder of the internal access street shall be contained within a separate tract. Ownership and maintenance responsibility for the private portion of the internal access shall be by the homeowners' association or other workable organization.A note to this effect shall be placed on all engineering plans and the recorded final plat B. The proposed private access road adjoining Lots 17 through 21 shall be improved to the urban minor access street standard,without a sidewalk. Maintenance responsibility for this portion of the road shall be the responsibility of the adjoining lots(17-21)or the home owner's association. A note to this effect shall be placed on all engineering plans and the recorded plat. C. The proposed joint use driveway adjoining Lots 22 and 23 shall be paved with a minimum of 18 feet wide with controlled drainage. D. FRONTAGE: South 208"'Street shall be reconstructed and realigned along the frontage (with appropriate transitions)according to the approved road variance granted on March 2, 1992 and the conceptual roadway improvement plan dated January 22, 1992. These improvements shall incorporate a 22-foot wide paved roadway, an eight(8)-foot wide gravel shoulder on the south side of the road along the entire length of the realigned section of South 2080 Street and an eight(8)-foot wide paved shoulder along the entire S91 P0004B&S9IU000IB—Copper Ridge Page 21 of 30 northerly side of the realigned roadway easterly to a point 490 feet from the centerline of the internal access road intersection,except where urban improvements(as noted in Condition 10A,above)are required. The realignment road variance allows a reduced entering sight distance of 385 feet to the west from the proposed internal access road. The variance also allows a rural type improvement for this realignment. All conditions of the road variance shall be met upon submittal of the engineering plans. Adjacent to the concrete pad pedestrian waiting area,the half-street width(from the centerline of the realigned roadway to the curb line)of South 208'h Street shall be 22 feet to provide a bus-pullout outside the traveled-way of the westbound travel lane. This bus pull-out shall be at least 60-feet in length(from the point of curb return on South 208'h Street),plus an appropriate length curbed and asphalt paved taper with concrete walkway, to the connection with the proposed shoulder on the realigned South 208'h Street improvements. As required by the reviewing agency,the improvements to South 208`h Street may also include the installation of guardrail at locations along the south margin of the roadway. Any sections of guardrail that may be required to comply with this condition shall be located outside of sight lines required for the intersection of the access road and South 208'h Street(see 12G and 12H,below). � Although the KCRS does not require illumination on neighborhood collector streets, these improvements shall include any roadway illumination required by the City of Kent. Any additional R/W along the frontage,or,off-site easements,needed to achieve the realignment and sight distance requirements, shall be dedicated to the City of Kent with the final plat. Traffic control plans for the realignment and regrading of South 208" Street shall be submitted to the reviewing agency for review and approval E. Ninety Second(92"d)Avenue South shall be widened across the entire property frontage, and south to the intersection with South 208" Street(per the Road Variance)with a minimum 4-foot wide paved shoulder adjacent to the roadway supplemented by an additional 4 feet of gravel shoulder inside along the easterly side. F The hillside on the northerly margin of South 2080'Street,east of the plat entrance road, shall be regraded to an elevation at least 6 inches(0.5 feet)below the sight line elevations as required,with the construction of an engineered retaining wall/rockery,to achieve the required (minimum)490 feet of entering sight distance to the east. The graded area between the toe of the wall and the shoulder improvements required (Condition I OD, above) shall be paved to minimize the potential of regrowth of vegetation into the sight triangle. G. Road improvements shall achieve the following sight distance criteria as required by the approved road variance: (I) 385-feet of ESD approved by the Road Variance for the area within the sight triangle on the south side of South 208"Street,west of the subdivision access road, S91 P0004B&S9I U000I B—Copper Ridge Page 22 of 30 (2) 490-feet of ESD for the area within the sight triangle on the north side of South 208'h Street,east of the subdivision access road, (3) In addition to the re-grading and vegetation removal required to achieve the required Entering Sight Distance,250-feet of Stopping Sight Distance(SSD)is also required at all points along the realigned section of South 2081h Street(refer to Staff Attachment 6 within Exhibit no. 2)and will extend outside of the limits of the required ESD sight triangles, (4) In addition to the re-grading and vegetation removal required to achieve the required ESD and SSD,the 500 feet of visibility to and from the east of the plat access and of the school bus stop west of the access road intersection is also required and may extend outside of the limits of any of the ESD/SSD sight triangles required of conditions above, and (5) In addition to the re-grading and vegetation removal required by the preceding, any additional area required to provide 500 feet of visibility for the proposed school bus stop at the west side of the project entrance. The area within each identified sight line corridor shall be re-graded and/or cleared of all sight line corridor impairments from a point at least 6 inches(0.5 feet)below the applicable sight line elevations, and in the case of overhanging vegetation(tree limbs)six (6) feet above the requisite sight lines' elevations. Preservation of the identified sight lines/corridors by encroachment of re-growth of vegetation(between regularly scheduled City maintenance operations) shall be provided by extending, in the horizontal plane,the required clearing limits by two (2)feet. Additionally,the applicant shall evaluate potential measures to minimize the re- growth of sight-obscuring vegetation into these sight triangles (for example,`weed block' fabric, gravel [or a combination of gravel and `turf block'],and hydroseeding)without the creation of an overall impervious surface,and submit plans for review,approval and construction,to the reviewing agency. The criteria that shall be used for the measurement of sight distance are as follows: Design Speed: 35 MPH Driver's Eye Height 3.5 feet Entering Sight Distance Object Height 4.25 feet Stopping Sight Distance Object Height 0.5 feet Special construction inspection shall be done by the applicant during the re-grading and re-construction of South 208'h Street and during the clearing and grading of the hillsides/vegetation to achieve the sight distance requirements identified above. To ensure achievement of the sight distance and the stopping and entering sight distances(SSD, ESD)requirements and the school bus stop visibility,these measurements shall be field-verified by a licensed surveyor following the construction of all required improvements. S91P0004B&S91UIIIIB—CopperPidge Page23 of30 H. If determined to be feasible by the reviewing agency, after a geotechnical evaluation of the area, it is recommended that the hillside at the northeast comer of 92"d Avenue South/ South 2081h Street be re-graded to increase the entering sight distance(looking right, out of the plat entrance) above the 385-foot ESD as approved by the road variance. This may require a gravel surface shoulder be constructed where the hillside is graded. I The Applicant and the City of Kent will review the accident history for the portion of South 208th Street that lies directly east of its intersection with 92nd Avenue South. If the City determines that traffic calming measures(such as a traffic circle)or other road improvements are necessary for traffic safety, the Applicant shall contribute its fair share of the cost of such improvements. I. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered in accordance with the variance procedures in Section 1.08 of the KCRS, or,by the Director of Public Works of the City of Kent H. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the Kent City Council prior to final plat recording. 12. This subdivision application was filed prior to the adoption of King County Code 14 75, Mitigation Payment System(MPS). Per the City of Kent's 1993 traffic mitigation requirements, the applicant shall, at the discretion of the City of Kent Public Works Department,either pay the applicable pro-rata share cost towards the cost of the South 192nd/ 196th/200th Street Corridor project(East leg)based upon an estimated 33 PM peak hour trips and the capacity of the South 192nd/ 196th/200th Street Corridor,or,execute an Environmental Mitigation Agreement(EMA) to financially participate in,and pay a pro-rasa share towards,the South 192nd/ 196th/200th Street Corridor project(East leg)based upon 33 PM peak hour trips. 13 The planter islands within the cul-de-sacs shall be planted with native plant materials and be maintained by the homeowners association. This shall be stated on the face of the final plat and PUD. 14. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the 1990 Sensitive Areas Code. Temporary marking of sensitive areas and their buffers (e.g,with bright orange construction fencing)shall be placed on the site and shall remain in place until all construction activities are completed. 15 The top, toe and sides of onsite 40%slopes shall be determined by field survey. A 50-foot buffer shall be provided for these slopes. This buffer maybe reduced to a minimum of 10 feet plus a 15-foot Building Setback Line (BSBL)with the submittal of a satisfactory geotechnical report, subject to review and approval by the reviewing agency's geologist prior to engineering plan approval. The 40%steep slope areas and their associated buffers shall be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement(s) (NGPE). Final engineering review shall include verification of the conclusions of the 1992 Golder Associates geotechnical report and require implementation of its recommendations,as modified. Any city-required consultant peer review of the geotechnical report shalt be paid for by the Applicant. 16. The Applicant shall delineate all on-site erosion hazard areas on the final engineering plans (erosion hazard areas are defined in KCC 21.04.345). The delineation of such areas shall be approved by the reviewing agency's geologist. The requirements found in KCC 21.56.170 S91 P0004B&S91 UOOOIB—Copper Ridge Page 24 of 30 concerning erosion hazard areas shall be met, including seasonal restrictions on clearing and grading activities. 17. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat: Building Setback and Native Growth Protection Easements ,Structures, grading,fill and obstructions)including, but not limited to decks,patios, outbuildings, or overhangs beyond 18 inches) are prohibited within the building setback line(ML) and within 251100 yearfloodplains (f applicable), and within the Native Protection Easenzent(s). Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement(NGPE) area and buffer conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the easement. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control ofsurface water and erosion, maintenance ofslope stability, and protection ofplant and animal habitat. The NGPE imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to the easement, the obligation, enforceable on behalf ofthe publzc by City of Kent, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. The vegetation within the easement may not be cut,pruned, covered byfzll, removed or damaged x,lthout approval in writing from theCity, unless otherwise provided by law. Before beginning and during the course of any clearing,grading building construction or other development activities on the site subject to NGPE, the common boundary between the easement and the area ofdevelopment activities must be fenced or othenwise marked to the satisfaction of the reviewing agency No building foundations are allowed beyond the required 15-foot building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 18. A suitable recreation space within the common open space area for active recreation shall be provided. The recreation space shall be a minimum 45 square feet per lot with no dimension less than 30 feet. The area must be flat(no greater than 5%slope)centrally located, and with adequate access to the main road. The recreation area shall be developed with play equipment(i.e.,sport ' court[s],children's play equipment,picnic table[s],benches,etc.) and landscaping. A. An overall conceptual recreation space plan shall be submitted for review and approval by City of Kent,with the submittal of the engineering plans. This plan shall include location,area calculations,dimensions, and general improvements including landscaping. The approved engineering plans shall be consistent with the overall conceptual plan. B. A detailed recreation space plan(i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs,play area, etc) consistent with the overall conceptual plan,as detailed in item A,shall be submitted for review and approval by the reviewing agency prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the final plat documents. The landscape plan shall include as many significant existing vegetation as possible. S91 P0004B&S91 U0001 B—Copper Ridge Page 25 of 30 1 C. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to recording of the plat and PUD. D. The common open space areas including the sensitive areas shall be placed in a separate tract(s). All lots shall have an undivided ownership of the Open Space Tract(s)and be responsible for its maintenance. 19. A detailed crime prevention plan shall be submitted to the reviewing agency for review and approval The plan shall include a detailed lighting plan and other safety measures. The crime prevention plan shall be approved by the reviewing agency prior to the final engineering plan. No lights within the development shall project onto the neighboring properties. 20. The proposed project shall generally conform with the building elevation and floor plans submitted April 8, 2002. The proposed building coverage and other dimensions shall comply with KCC 21.56.110 and KCC 21.20. 21. A homeowners'association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction of City of Kent which will provide for the ownership and continued maintenance of the common open space/sensitive area tract(s),play area, and the private road and access tracts. 22. Street trees shall be provided as follows: A. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along the private road(Tract X)and the north side of South 208"'Street. Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for driveways and intersections. B Trees shall be located within the street nght-of-way and planted in accordance with Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road Standards,unless the reviewing agency determines that trees should not be located in the street right-of-way. C If it was determined that the required street trees should not be located within the nght- of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet from the street right-of-way line. D. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the homeowners association or other workable organization. Ownership and maintenance shall be noted on the face of the final recorded plat. jE. The species of trees shall be approved by the City of Kent 1f located within the right-of- way, and shall not include poplar,cottonwood, soft maples,gum, any fruit-bearing trees, or any other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to obstruct sanitary or storm sewers,or that is not compatible with overhead utility lines. F. The Applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for review and approval by the City of Kent. H. The street trees must be installed and inspected,or a performance bond posted prior to recording of the plat and PUD. if a performance bond is posted,the street trees must be installed and inspected within one year of recording of the plat and PUD. At the time of inspection, if the trees are found to be installed per the approved plan,a maintenance bond must be submitted or the performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond,and S91P0004D&SM0001 B—Copper Ridge Page 26 of30 held for one year. After one year,the maintenance bond may be released after the reviewing agency has completed a second inspection and determined that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving. 23. Appropriate school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for each lottresidential unit. The following condition is required under SEPA authority to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposal: 24. A pedestrian pathway shall be constructed connecting 92nd Avenue South to the internal plat access road, as approved by the reviewing agency. Substantive authority: 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan Policies F201,204,206,216F, and 234; 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan Policies R-25 and 27. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 2004. Stafford L. Smith King County Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of January,2004,to the parties and interested persons of record: Kim Adams-Pratt Charlene Anderson Orville Anderson City of Kent City of Kent 9425 S.207th PI. 220 Fourth Ave. S. 220 Fourth Ave.S. Kent WA 98031 Kent WA 98032 Kent WA 98032 Paul&Lisa Bartholomew Chris Brown Tom&Mary Byrne 20437-94th Ave.S. Christopher Brown&Associates 9423 S.204th Pi. Kent WA 98031 9688 Rainier Avenue South Kent WA 98031 Seattle WA 98118 Chestnut Ridge Homeowners Assoc. Steve&Joni Concillado DMP Inc. Attn: Diane Forland 20212-94th Pl.S. Attn: Mel Daley 20524-97th Ave.S. Kent WA 98031 726 Auburn Way N. Kent WA 98031 Auburn WA 98002 Lt.Mike Evans R W. Gathman Gary Gill Kent Fire Dept. 20607-95th Ave.S. City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent WA 98031 220-4th Ave.S. Kent WA 98032 Kent WA 98032 S91P0004B&S9IU000III—CopperRidge Page27 of30 �I Linda Greene Susan Hall Ronald Hannon Chestnut Ridge Homeowners Assoc 20436-94th Ave. S. P.O.Box 1384 20419-96th Way S. Kent WA 98031 Kent WA 98035 Kent WA 98031 David&Karen Harris Chris Holden J.S Jones&Assoc,Inc. 20622 95th Ave.S City of Kent 3408-52nd Pl.NE Kent WA 98031 220 Fourth Ave.S. Tacoma WA 98422 Kent WA 98032 Normandy&Brian Jencks William McLaughlin Jr. Ron Jusenius 9420 S.207th PI. P.O.Box 60106 20205 97th Ave S. Kent WA 98031 Renton WA 98058-3106 Kent WA 98031 John&Norma Kastien Clifford Knitter George Kresovich 20609-94th Ave.S_ Golder Associates Inc Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson Kent WA 98031 4104 148th Ave NE 1221 2nd Ave,#500 Redmond WA 98052 Seattle WA 98101-2925 Richard Lin Kim Marousek Ronald Melby 20509-94th Ave. S. City of Kent 20450 92nd Ave S Kent WA 98031 220 Fourth Av e.S Kent WA 98031 Kent WA 98032 Richard Miller Larry&Elise Moyer Leonard Olive 20204 92nd Ave.S. 9526 S.207th P1. City of Kent Kent WA 98031 Kent WA 98031 220 Fourth Ave.S Kent WA 98032 Kenneth Peckham Paul Peterson Rick Rademacher Schneider Homes,Inc. Kent Police Dept. Hydrometric 65111 Southcenter Blvd. #1 220 Fourth Ave S 5219 N.Shirley St Tukwila WA 98188 Kent WA 98032 Ruston WA 98407-6599 Richard Schnell Edward Shemeta Fred Statterstrom 20609-95th Ave. S 9405 S.205th PI. City of Kent Kent WA 98031 Kent WA 98031 220 Fourth Ave.S Kent WA 98032 Randal Thomson Lori&Gary Westerlund Howard&Diana Woodward 9406 S.205th PI. 9623 S.205th Pl. 9623 S.203rd St Kent WA 98031 Kent WA 98031 Kent WA 98031 Greg Borba Kim Claussen Fereshteh Dehkordi DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD MS OAK-DE-0100 Current Planning Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 Nick Gillen Kristen Langley Carol Rogers DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD LUSD/CPLN Site Development Services Land Use Traffic MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 i S91 P0004B&S91 U000113—Copper Ridge Page 28 of 30 Larry West Bruce Whittaker Kate Rhoads DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD DNR&P Geo Review Prel.Review Engineer MS KSC-NR-0600 MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2003,PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. S9IP000IB, S91UOOOIB& LOOM1091. Stafford L. Smith was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Fereshteh 1� Dehkordi,Larry West, Bruce Whittaker,Kate Rhoads and Kristen Langley,representing King County DDES, George Kresovich, representing the Applicant;John Kastien and Edward Shemeta,representing the Appellants;Kim Marousek,representing the City of Kent;and Richard Miller, Brian Jencks,Randal Thomson,Ronald Melby,Cliff Knitter, Christopher Brown,Mel Daley,Norma Kastien,Diana Woodward and Ken Peckham. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record on December 9,2003: Exhibit No. 1 Department of Development and Environmental Services File No LOOMI091. i Exhibit No. 2 Department of Development and Environmental Services Preliminary report, dated December 9,2003. Exhibit No. 3 Applications for both plat&PUD preliminary approval received January 28, 1991. Exhibit No. 4 Revised Environmental Checklist received May 29,2003. Exhibit No. 5 SEPA recommendation to the City of Kent dated June 23,2003. Exhibit No 6 Determination of Non Significance issued by the City of Kent dated August 11, 2003. Exhibit No 7 Notice of appeal of the SEPA threshold determination dated September 5,2003, Exhibit No 8 Affidavit of Posting received by the Department of Development and Environmental Services on October 23,2001 indicating the posting of the property. Exhibit No. 9 Site Plan dated April 11, 2003 consisting of: a. Preliminary Plat b. Preliminary Planned Unit Development c. Preliminary Conceptual Drainage Plan d. Preliminary Conceptual Clearing&Grading Plan e. Crime Prevention Plan Exhibit No. 10 Conceptual Landscape Plan received February 25,2003. Exhibit No. I I Conceptual Elevation and Unit Floor Plans (3 pages)received 4/08/02 Exhibit No 12 Land Use Map Kroll pages 608 E&W and 613 E&W(attached as one map) Exhibit No. 13 Assessors maps (4),NE&NW 7-22-05 and SE&SW 6-22-05. Exhibit No. 14 East Hill Terrace Wetland Determination and Delineation report by Talisman Land Resource Consultants dated September 1990. Exhibit No. 15 Wetland Analysis Report by B-twelve Associates, Inc.dated October 9,2002. Exhibit No. 16 Level 2 Off-site Analysis by Daley-Morrow-Poblete,Inc.,dated May 17,2001, revised December 2,2001,and revised November 8,2002, Exhibit No. 17 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering study by Golder Associates dated March 18, 1992. Exhibit No. 18 Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown&Associates dated April 25,2001. S91P0I0413&S9100001 B—Copper Ridge Page 29 of 30 Exhibit No. 19 Traffic Impact Analysis-Supplement by Christopher Brown&Associates dated February 18,2002. Exhibit No. 20 Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown&Associates dated October 31,2003. Exhibit No.21 Supplemental TIA, `Analyses of Intersection with less than 10 vph"by Christopher Brown&Associates dated November 12,2003. Exhibit No.22 Interlocal Agreement between King County and the City of Kent and its amendment dated 3/20/96 and U/1/2000 respectively. Exhibit No. 23 Letter from Kent School District dated November 15, 2001 Exhibit No.24 Road Variance Decision dated March 2, 1992 Exhibit No.25 Diagram of project roadway entrance, depicting existing and future site improvement Exhibit No.26 Traffic study by Kittleson &Assoc,dated 2/14/02 Exhibit No. 27 Copy of pg.9 of the King County SEPA Checklist for 97-345 Copper Ridge Exhibit No. 28 Sensitive Areas map folio dated December 1990 Exhibit No. 29 Maps(3)of subject area depicting landslide and erosions areas Exhibit No. 30 Photographs (a&b, dated late summer 1990; c&d,dated 11125/90,and e& f, dated 6/16/97) of subject property and nearby roadway Exhibit No. 31 Photographs(a-c)of subject property,dated 5/6/01, 10/31/03, and 10/31/03 respectively Exhibit No, 32 Excerpt from 1990 sensitive areas ordinance page 956, 21 54.040 Exhibit No. 33 Letter from Paul Prochaska dated ] 1/]3/03 Exhibit No. 34 Documents (2)regarding Garrison Creek improvement award, attached map w/photo inset Exhibit No. 35 Calculations estimates re:detention pond holding capacity Exhibit No. 36 Outline of comments by Edward Shemeta re:safety,traffic and intersections w/attached diagrams &charts Exhibit No. 37 Nu-Metrics Traffic Analyzer Study for S. 208 St between 92 Ave. S/96 Way S., dated 9/23/03 Exhibit No. 38 Entering site distance chart Exhibit No 39 Letter from Fereshteh Dehkordi to Ken Peckham dated 11/19/01, and attached response to Plat Screening Transmittal from drop, inc,dated 1107,102 Exhibit No 40 Canadian Landscape Fact Sheets—Glacial Meltwater Landforms Exhibit No. 41 Cross-section illustration of text pit results and well log Exhibit No.42 Photos by Richard Miller Exhibit No.43 Letter from Ron Jusenius (undated) Exhibit No.44 Letter from Lori Westerlund dated 12/9/03 Exhibit No.45 Memo from Tom and Mary Byrne dated 12/09/03 Exhibit No.46 Letter from Chestnut Ridge block captains dated 12/09/03 The following exhibits were entered into the record at the December 12, 2003, continued hearing. Exhibit No.47 Color drawing entitled"Cap. aquifer/tributary" Exhibit No.48 Email letter from Larry and Elise Moyer to John Kastien, dated 12/08/03 Exhibit No.49 Letter from David and Karen Hams to Kim Marousek dated 11/29/03 Exhibit No.50 Copy of King County Code, Chapter 21.54 dated 9-90 Exhibit No.51 King County Development Assistance Bulletin no.21 Exhibit No. 52 Letter from Clifford Knitter of Golder Associates,Inc.,to Schneider Homes,Inc, dated 3/04/92 S91P0004B&S91 00001 B—Copper Ridge Page 30 of 30 Exhibit No. 53 Crime Prevention Plan for Copper Ridge with highlighting Exhibit No. 54 Conceptual Drainage Plan for Copper Ridge with highlighting Exhibit No. 55 Rcprint of newspaper photo of hill slide date 10/22/03 Exhibit No. 56 Emails between John Kastien&Michael Evans,dated 11/30/03 and 12/01/03 Exhibit No. 57 Photos(2 color)of South 208th Exhibit No. 58 Curriculum vitae of Clifford C.Knitter Exhibit No. 59 Golder Associates brochure entitled"Around the world Under the earth Above& beyond" Exhibit No. 60 Map entitled"Accidents by Location"by Christopher Brown &Associates Exhibit No. 61 Fig. A-] Poisson and x2 Curves for Determining the Statistical Significance of Accident Reductions at the 0.05 Level Exhibit No. 62 Diagrams and text entitled, "Principles of Capacity" Exhibit No. 63 Two-way Stop Control Summary printed 12/12/03 Exhibit No. 64 Resume of Christopher Brown,P.E. Exhibit No 65 Drainage basin comparison data sheet dated 12/11/03 Exhibit No. 66 Revision to Staff Report,page 13, Section R.,paragraphs 2 and 3. i The following exhibits were entered into the record at the December 19,2003,continued hearing Exhibit No. 67 Copy of Conceptual Drainage Plan with red marking indicating the approximate route of Larry West on his most recent site visit Exhibit No. 68 Addition to condition I O.G, to precede last paragraph Exhibit No. 69 Drawing by Kristin Langley depicting potential improvements to the site entrance, dated 12/12/03 Exhibit No. 70 Article from the Journal of the American Water Resources Association,Vol 22,No. 5 (October 1997) entitled"Urbanization of Aquatic Systems..." Exhibit No. 71 Photograph(1, color)of site from north end of property looking up hill Exhibit No. 72 Photograph (1, color)of site looking ESE Exhibit No. 73 Photograph (1,color)Kastien back yard,dated 17 12 13:34 Exhibit No. 74 Copy of newspaper article entitled"Sliding—on a big scale"dated February 28, 1996 Exhibit No. 75 J.Kastien's notes from conversations with Carl Thurman regarding Westridge Condos,dated, I I/10/03 Exhibit No. 76 Letter from Don Walkup,Kent School District; to Mel Daley dated 10/03/02 Exhibit No. 77 Photographs (2,color)of evening traffic on 208th, dated 10/31/03 Exhibit No 78 Proposed additional condition regarding traffic accident history and potential road improvements SLS ms S91P0004B&S91U000IB RPT Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DEAL REZONE ORDINANCE—ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. relating to land use and zoning, rezoning approximately 1.07 acres of property located at 302 Summit Avenue North from Duplex, Multifamily Residential District (MR-D) to Multifamily Residential Townhouse District(MR-T16). 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount$ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6W j ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, specifically the rezoning of approximately 1 07 acres of property located at 302 Summit Avenue North from Duplex, Multifamily Residential District (MR-D) to Multifamily Residential Townhouse District (MR-T16). (Deal Rezone, #RZ-2004-2). RECITALS 7 acres of property located at A. An application to rezone approximately 107 ac p p y I 302 Summit Avenue North from the current zoning of Duplex, Multifamily Residential j District (MR-D) to Multifamily Residential Townhouse District (MR-T16) was filed on June 25, 2004,by Louis and Linda Deal, (Deal Rezone, #R7--2004-2) !I B. The City's SEPA responsible official issued a Determination of I Nonsignificance (DNS) (#ENV-2004-35) for the proposed rezone on August 17, 2004, and a public hearing on the rezone was held before the hearing examiner on September 15, 2004. C. On September 22, 2004, the hearing examiner issued findings and conclusions that the Deal Rezone is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed rezone and subsequent development activity would be compatible with the development in the vicinity, that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated, that circumstances have changed since the establishment of 1 Deal Rezone the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone, and that the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. D. Based on these findings and conclusions, the hearing examiner recommended approval of the Deal Rezone. E. On October 19, 2004, the City Council determined that the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions are consistent with sections 15.09 050(A)(3) and15.09.050(C) of the Kent City Code, accepted the findings of the hearing examiner, and adopted the hearing examiner's recommendation for approval of the Deal Rezone from Duplex, Multifamily Residential District (MR-D) to Multifamily Residential Townhouse District (MR-T16) NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, j WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I i ORDINANCE SECTION 1. — Rezone. The property located at 302 Summit Avenue North, Kent, Washington consisting of approximately 1.07 acres depicted in Exhibit "A" (marked "Deal Property"), attached and incorporated by this reference, and legally described in Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by this reference, is rezoned as follows: King County tax parcel number 192205909208 shall be rezoned from Duplex, Multifamily Residential District (MR-D) to Multifamily Residential Townhouse District (MR-T 16). The city of Kent zoning map shall be amended to reflect the rezone granted above. 2 Deal Rezone r SECTION Z - Severabzhty. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. - ELfective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage as provided by law. i JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK it I APPROVED AS TO FORM: l (' I� TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY li I PASSED: day of November, 2004 APPROVED. day of November, 2004. PUBLISHED: day of November, 2004 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P%CM1\0M1NANCEUteww-Dea1&c 3 Deal Rezone _. �.... .. --wi .r 0, 0 eeAN go o�Dg� z i t,oi �t tvr Dt q •—•— os its1 n y q tttsCL ! s� 5 R prrl r MW i1e�s ( fly ifOP r m �. d00 wrtirsie I! sfA s T 91� Mrfl �e 2iuf V" y sfr is • w feel ,,.si e. [+.vaO rt /42ti �.te ,.y41rira ..slf1 .Z SM(TH _.rlp n6 psi ._ �� � 4� � � fir'' O,�y p� � a• � SITE 0 1p 0 �� � �•t. � � f -� rrr A rule" �'c�° 5 ' 1p S Ord w:It s ' '` •`` ranls�Y' tJ�i 6i� IP ♦fy4 � y goo 4J ssr;- AIX J.J �'e 4e• f+ p4 ` T � �� ,�♦ M � MLb APPLICATION NAME:DEAL REQUEST: ##RZ-2004-2 VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION TAX PARCEL NO. 1922059092 POR OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 & SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 BEG AT NE COR OF SE 114 OF NW 1/4 TH W TO ELY BNDRY OF SUMMIT AVE TH SWLY ALG SD BNDRY TO PT 160 FT S OF N LN OF SUBD TH S 18-28-00 W 43 88 FT TH N 88-21-00 E 54.20 FT TH N 78-02-00 E 43.28 FT TH N 56-54-00 E 32.07 FT TH S 82-44-00 E 44 82 FT TH S 66-22-30 E 85.80 FT TH S 55-03-00 E 50.68 FT TH S 07-50-30 E TO S LN OF N 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH N 326.6 FT M/L TO N LN TH W TO BEG Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION GRANT FOR "DRIVE HAMMERED GET NAILED" CAMPAIGN—AUTHORIZE APPLICATION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to apply for the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for "Drive Hammered Get Nailed" campaign. The amount of the grant request is $3,500. This grant will provide supplemental overtime funding for DUI enforcement in the Kent Police Department. This DUI campaign, "Drive Hammered— Get Nailed", will begin on November 22, 2004 and run through January 3, 2005. The application deadline is November 19, 2004. 3. EXHIBITS: Letter dated 10/13/04 from Washington Traffic Safety Commission and copy of Memorandum of Understanding with WTSC 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 10/21/04 (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. 6X �, ed et+rz 5 O - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION 1000 So. Cherry St.,PO Box 40944, Olympia,WA 98504-0944 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between: (insert your agency name above) Hereinafter referred to as "Contractor" and the WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as"WTSC" IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT to provide overtime funding to law enforcement agencies to conduct "DUl Emphasis Patrols"during the period between November 22, 2004 and January 3, 2005. The goal of this project is to contact as many DUI violators as possible. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED THAT:: 1. Contractor will provide a commissioned police officer(active or paid reserve)with appropriate equipment (vehicle,radar, etc)on an "overtime"basis (not to exceed 1.5 times normal salary)to enforce project activity. No on-duty personnel will be funded. 2. The period of activity will begin on November 22, 2004 and extend through January 3, 2005. Funding is not available for activity before or after this period and funding may not exceed the amount prescnbed by the project coordinator. 3. Performance standards for funded personnel are a minimum of three (3) self-initiated contacts per hour. This is an enforcement activity to find impaired drivers. It is expected that a Citation or Notices of Infraction (NOI's)will be issued at contact unless circumstances dictate otherwise. It is understood that violator contacts may result in related,time-consuming activity. Such activity will be considered for reimbursement. Activity other than that initiated through emphasis patrol contact(investigating collisions, emergency responses, etc)will be the responsibility of the contracting agency and may not be considered for reimbursement 4. Contractor must submit for reimbursement not later than February 9, 2005. Billings will include: ♦ Invoice Voucher, A19-1A Form (attached) Please note that we cannot accept a FAX. We must have your agency identified as the "Claimant", a Federal Tax ID # and an original signature of the agency head, command officer or contracting officer on the A-19 form. ♦ Payroll support documents (overtime slips, payroll documents, etc) ♦ Officer worksheets(showing 3 or more self-initiated contacts per hour) ♦ Summary sheet tallying officer Activity Logs for entire enforcement period. 5. Disputes arising under this agreement shall be resolved by a panel consisting of one representative of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, one representative from your agency and a mutually agreed upon third party.The dispute panel shall thereafter decide the dispute with the majority prevailing. 6. Either party may terminate this agreement upon (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of termination of this agreement, the terminating party shall be liable for the performance rendered prior to the effective date of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT. APPROVEDIDISAPPROVED Agency Washington Traffic Safety Commission Return to: WTSC Contracting Agent(Print/type Name) PO Box 40944 Olympia,WA 98592-0944 Signature i • The amount of funds requested; • The designation of a single"point of contact"for the purposes of the project management, administration and activity reporting; • The designation of a single"point of contact"for media and public education purposes(May be the same as the project manager); and • Information addressing the three qualifying criteria listed above(optional,but this information might increase your chances for funding if we need to prioritize grantees). b. A signed Memorandum of Understanding(MOU-attached). 4) Funding Approval— A copy of the approved MOU will be returned to your agency prior to planned activity. 5)Relmbursement/Reporting- To receive reimbursement, the following must be submitted to WTSC no later than February 9, 2005. • A Completed Invoice Voucher,A19-IA Form(attached). Please note that we cannot accept a FAX. We must have your agency identified as the"Claimant",a Federal Tax ID#and an original signature of the agency head,command officer or contracting officer on the A-19 form. • Payroll support documents such as signed overtime slips or payroll/expense records showing rate of pay or payments made. • Activity logs for each officer and a combined activity log with totals for the entire mobilization. Important Note.If it is not possible to bill the WTSC by February 9, 2005, you most at least send the statistics by that date- You do not need to contact our office if your billing will be late 6) Contact Information/Questions- Please contact me at(360) 664-8426 or email dnuse(oDwtsc.wa.gov if you have any questions. Attachments: Memorandum of Understanding Activity Log Combined Activity Log Sample grant request letter A-19 Invoice Voucher(for use at time of billing) Map of TF locations I) Eligibility— First preference will be given to the 24 DUI/Traffic Safety Task Forces(TF)—see attached map for TF locations and coordinators phone numbers.If you are in a county covered by a TF,please contact that coordinator to participate. All state,county,local and tribal law enforcement agencies are eligible and encouraged to participate in this campaign. The use of commissioned reserve officers is approved as long as a pay structure exists. Funding availability is on a first-come basis based on agency size and the number of full-time commissioned personnel as follows: #of Commissioned Officers May request fundine up to: 1-10 $1,000 11-25 $1,500 26-50 $2,000 51-100 $2,500 101 + $3,500 2) Funding Guidelines- Funding will be on a "reimbursement"basis and requires the submission of a State invoice voucher(Form A-19—attached)upon completion of activity. Support documents for reimbursement must include signed overtime slips or payroll/expense records showing payments made, officer activity logs demonstrating performance, and a combined activity log totaling all officer activity logs for the mobilization. • Performance standards for funded personnel are a minimum of three (3)self- initiated contacts per hour funded with a "desired outcome" of a DUI arrest. It is understood that violator contacts may result in related time-consuming activity. Such activity will be considered for reimbursement. Activity other than that initiated through emphasis patrol contact(investigating collisions, emergency responses, etc) will be the responsibility of the contracting agency and may not be considered for reimbursement. • Allowable use of funds will be for overtime salary(@ 1.5 times normal rate), and wages and benefits of commissioned personnel in direct support of operational activity.No equipment purchases are authorized. 3) Application for Funds— Application for funding must be received by WTSC by November 19. 2004 and must include the following elements: a. A grant letter requesting overtime funding. The letter must contain the following elements(see attached sample letter): • A schedule of planned enforcement dates during the November 22 -January 3 Mobilization(dates may be changed later due to operational requirements)and the number of personnel committed to each date; October 13 ,2004 TO: DUI(Traffic Safety Task Forces Washington State Law Enforcement Agencies FROM: Dick Nuse,Program Manager (360) 664-8426,dnuse@wtsc.wa.gov RE: Overtime Funding for "Drive Hammered-Get Nailed"Holiday Enforcement Campaign The Washington Traffic Safety Commission(WTSC) will be coordinating a November— January Drive Hammered—Get Nailed DUI mobilization. As most of you know by now, the concept is simple. It starts with a statewide public information effort to educate motorists about the upcoming DUI enforcement campaign and is followed up with an intensive period of increased enforcement throughout the holiday period. The WTSC will be spending money on paid media spots, including television and radio public service announcements containing a clear message about the coming enforcement. These spots will air in both the weeks before and throughout the mobilization. As an integral part of this mobilization, the WTSC is pleased to announce the availability of grant funds for"Drive Hammered—Get Nailed Emphasis Patrols." The enforcement activity will begin on November 22, 2004 and run through January 3, 2005. The goal of this federal grant is to save lives and prevent serious injuries on Washington's roadways by removing impaired drivers from our roadways. Funding for this mobilization will be awarded based on the following criteria: • Preference should be given to officers that have the current SFST training (remember, starting in 2006,to be eligible for overtime funding, officers must have the current SFST training); • DUI emphasis patrols must take place during peak hours when impaired drivers are on the road; and • Multi jurisdictional approaches; • Performance on previous WTSC overtime grants. It is our intent to award funding to every agency that applies. Should requests for funding exceed our ability to fund them,the above criteria will be used to prioritize the requests. A multi jurisdictional approach could be something as simple as coordinating the dates for overtime with a neighboring city or county or working with the WSP. Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION GRANT FOR HOLIDAY DUI ENFORCEMENT CAMPAIGN—AUTHORIZE APPLICATION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to apply for the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for holiday DUI enforcement campaign. The amount of the grant request is $3,500. This grant will provide supplemental overtime funding for DUI enforcement in the Kent Police Department. This DUI campaign will begin on October 1, 2004 and run through September 30, 2005. 3. EXHIBITS: Email dated 9/27/04 from King County Traffic Coalition 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 10/21/04 (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. 6Y Message Page 1 of 2 Mathews, Nancy From: Lowery, Patrick Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 11:35 PM To: Mathews, Nancy Subject: FW New funding for DUI overtime patrols Oct. 1, 2004-Sept 30, 200 5 Importance: High 1 Nancy, Let's try for another$5000 for next year. This has been worthwhile, and with our DUI's going up each year, its money well spent. I am out of the office through Thanksgiving, so perhaps Debbie can give you a hand. P] -- - Original Message----- From: Boisvert, Deanne [mailto:Deanne.Boisvert@METROKC.GOV] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 4:59 PM To: Baranzmi, Richard; Barnes, Craig; Baxter, Kent; 'Patrick Lowery (PLowery@ci.kent.wa.us)'; 'Nancy Mathews (nmathews@ci.kent.wa.us)'; 'forrest.conover@a.bothell.wa.us'; 'Bob"Crane (rcrane@desmoineswa,gov)'; 'Jon' 'Harrison (]harnson@ci.tukwda.wa.us)'; 'Ed' 'Fadler(ed.fadler@n.federal-way.wa.us)'; Rayborn, Michael; Tracy Merrill (tmernll@ci.renton.wa.us)'; Malone, Dana; 'Mark Wentworth (mwentworth@ci.auburn.wa.us)' Cc: Boisvert, Deanne; Gomez, Tony Subject: New funding for DUI overtime patrols Oct. 1, 2004 -Sept. 30, 200 5 Importance: High Penny Nerup, WA Traffic Safety Commission,just informed me that funding is available for DUI OT patrols over the next year (Oct 2004 -Sept. 2005). If your agency wants to participate, please let me know how much money(total)your agency needs to do DUI emphasis patrols over the next year. Although this money is flexible, we would like agencies that agree to participate to coordinate and work a few common dates over the next year, such as: Halloween (Surround the Sound), St Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, jand possibly, 4th of July and Labor Day weekends s Note the Commission will have additional money(from other funds)for patrols Thanksgiving - New Years -- Deanne Deanne Boisvert, MNPL, BSPH Program Coordinator Violence and Injury Prevention Public Health- Seattle & King County 400 Yesler Way, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-2628 telephone: 206-205-5866 10/11/2004 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2 2004 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD APPOINTMENT— APPROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Ms. Dana Ralph to serve as a member of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board. Ms. Ralph has been a Kent resident for most of her life, attended Kent Schools, and attended Green River Community College and Everett Community College. She is owner and manager of a medical billing service located in Kent. She is involved with volunteering at her children's school and enjoys camping with the family in her spare time. Ms. Ralph, her husband and two sons live on East Hill. As a long-time resident of the City, she is interested and concerned about the City's growth. She and her family plan to remain in Kent and consequently, she is interested in Kent's future and especially in land management. She is looking forward to serving on the Board. Ms. Ralph will replace Theresa Ferguson and her term will continue until 12/31/04. 3. EXHIBITS• Memo 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (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 S Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6Z OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Jim White, Mayor Phone 253-856-5700 Fax- 253-856-6700 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S KENT Kent,WA 98032-5895 WASHINGTON ' DATE: October 27, 2004 TO: Council President Julie Peterson City Council Members THRU: Mike Martin, CAO FROM- Jim White, Mayor 1� SUBJECT: Appointment to Kent Land Use and Planning Board I have appointed Ms. Dana Ralph to serve as a member of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board. Ms. Ralph has been a Kent resident for most of her life, attended Kent Schools, and attended Green River Community College and Everett Community College. She is owner and manager of a medical billing service located in Kent. She is involved with volunteering at her children's school and enjoys camping with the family in her spare time Ms Ralph, her husband and two sons live on East Hill As a long-time resident of the City, she is interested and concerned about the City's growth. She and her family plan to remain in Kent and consequently, she is interested in Kent's future and especially in land management. She is looking forward to serving on the Board. Ms. Ralph will replace Theresa Ferguson and her term will continue until 12/31/04. I submit this for your confirmation Jb Kent City Council Meeting Date November 2, 2004 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE j 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As required under the Growth Management Act, the City has proposed an update to its Critical Areas regulations. Following a public hearing before the Land Use and Planning Board, the Planning Committee has recommended approval of the proposed code amendment. Staff will make a brief presentation on this matter. S 3. EXHIBITS: 10/13/04 Memorandum, ordinance, and 10/04/04 Planning Committee Minutes 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (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 to approve/deny/modify ZCA-2002-4 as recommended by the Planning Committee and to adopt Ordinance No. establishing Kent City Code section 11.06, repealing section 11.05, and amending portions of chapters 11, 14 and 15. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7A i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KENTT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager WASHINGTON Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 October 13, 2004 TO: COUNCIL PRESIDENT JULIE PETERSON AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT #ZCA-2002-4 CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE SUMMARY: On October 4, 2003, the Planning and Economic Development Committee, moved to forward#ZCA-2002-4 to the City Council for consideration A copy of the proposed code amendment is attached A complete copy of the file is available in the council office for review. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: As a requirement of the five—year GMA update, the City is evaluating its existing critical area regulations Staff has prepared a draft ordinance with recommended changes to the j existing regulations based upon best available science (BAS) review. The critical areas ordinance (CAO) addresses regulations relative to wetlands, geologic hazard areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife habitat. By state law, frequently flooded areas are also considered a critical area Kent's frequently flooded areas are contained in KCC 14.09, proposed revisions to this code section are also included. The draft CAO consolidates all regulations, with the exception of frequently flooded areas, into one code section to be administered by the Public Works Department The adoption of the CAO will repeal existing regulations relative to wetlands, streams and geologic hazard areas and consolidate those into one new code section. PROPOSED CHANGES: Upon review of the Best Available Science (BAS), internal review and public comments, staff has formalized the recommended code revisions for each critical area element The following discussion highlights substantive proposed changes relative to the existing critical area regulations. Administration: The CAO is drafted to be administered as one, consolidated ordinance by the Public Works Department. The exception is that the frequently flooded regulations will remain in KCC 14.09, but will also be administered by the Public Works Department This will provide for a more consistent approach to applying the regulations especially when there are multiple critical areas present on a site, such as wetlands and streams The code will also administratively provide for a limited number of activities which are exempt from the CAO because they would not, by their nature, City Council Workshop 10/19/04 Critical Areas Ordinance Update#ZCA-2002-4 Page 1 of 5 cause significant impacts to critical areas, or because they are exempt by other provisions of state law (e.g., legally vested projects), or because they provide valuable educational or recreational opportunities. Additionally, there is discretion granted to the Director to allow for administrative variations to buffer widths, for example through buffer averaging. Buffer averaging would only be permitted in certain instances and when appropriate mitigation is also provided. The ability to provide buffer averaging was considered within the BAS evaluation. Wetlands: Currently, the wetland regulations are found in KCC 11.05. Staff is proposing a three-tiered wetland category approach which is similar to the existing regulations. The primary change from the existing regulations is relative to the proposed buffer widths,which are reflected in the table below. Category Existing Buffer Draft Proposed Buffer 1 100—feet 125—feet 2 50—feet 75—feet 3 25—feet 50—feet Geologic Hazard Areas: Current hazard area regulations are contained within KCC 15 08.220-224. They are defined as low, moderate and severe hazard areas The existing regulations limit the amount of impervious surface area which can be placed within the defined hazard area The regulations also call out setbacks for "ravines " Under the GMA, geologic hazard areas are defined as. landslide, erosion, seismic and volcanic hazard areas. The BAS analysis supports a minimum buffer for landslide hazard areas equal to the vertical height of the landslide area or fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater Buffer reductions may be permitted if supportable through a site-specific geotechnical evaluation. However, from a policy standpoint, staff has added language that would not allow a reduction of a landslide buffer below 25-feet. The draft regulations would also limit the way in which work could proceed within an erosion area. Frequently Flooded Areas These regulations currently exist in Section 14.09 of the Kent City Code and will remain in this code section. The proposed changes are minor in nature and deal primarily with administrative clarifications. Some minor language was also added with respect to water well locations and recreational vehicles that may be placed in flood areas. Wildlife Conservation Areas• I The existing code does not contain a provision for wildlife conservation areas. This new code section is defined as an area with the documented presence of listed species or habitat by a federal or state agency; unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; category 1 wetlands; and ponds less than 20 acres in size. Appropriate buffers would be established through a site specific wildlife study, except for ponds which would have a prescriptive buffer width of 75— feet. It is important to note that wildlife areas often overlap with other critical areas such as wetlands or streams. All of the regulatory requirements for each critical area on a specific site would apply. City Council Workshop 10/19/04 Critical Areas Ordinance Update#ZCA-2002-4 Page 2 of 5 i Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs): The existing city code does not currently contain a provision for CARAs. Generally, CARAs are defined as wellhead protection areas and are areas that have geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources, or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. Within CARAs, certain types of land uses would either be prohibited or would require additional analysis and may be restricted Types of prohibited land uses include heavy land uses such as: landfills; injection wells; mining operations, wood treatment facilities; storage, processing and handling of radio active waste; and, other activities that could significantly impact potable water sources or stream base flows. Types of uses that would require additional analysis and may result in restrictions include: above ground storage tanks; dry cleaners; pipelines with hazardous liquid transmission; auto repair facilities; underground storage tanks; and gas stations. Streams Current regulations for streams are found in KCC 15.08.220-224. These regulations differentiate between the stream systems in the valley (Major Creeks, Minor Creeks and ditches) and those within the Soos Creek system (stream Types 1 —3 and ditches) The "valley" stream system regulations were created in the early 1980's, whereas the Soos Creek regulations were developed by King County in the early 1990's and were retained by Kent when the East Hill areas were annexed Staff proposes a three-tiered system which closely resembles the existing Soos Creek Overlay standards. The stream-typing system is expressed in the table below. Functionally, the proposed setbacks remain largely unchanged. Proposed Stream Regulations Category Definition Proposed Buffer T e I Shorelines of the State By SNIP Type 2 Salmonid bearing segments of natural waters not classified as 100 feet Type I Water,with documented salmonid use This category also refers to lakes,ponds,or impoundments having a surface area of 1 acre of greater at seasonal low water Salmonid Bearing waters are used by fish forspawning,rearing or migration Type 3 Non-salmonrd segments of natural waters not classified as Type 1 40 feet or 2 Waters These are stream segments within the bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial and intermittent non- salmomd habitat streams These waters begin at a point along the channel where documented Salmonid fish use ends Valley Stream Kent Valley stream system as snapped Generally sections of Mill, 50 feet with Overlay Gamson and S rin brook Creeks ruts ation planting ICity Council Workshop 10/19/04 Critical Areas Ordinance Update#ZCA-2002-4 Page 3 of 5 Soos Creek Basin ast Hill —ExistinZ Regulations Category De ininon Existing Buffer Class 1 ShoreIines of the State By SMP Class 2 Flow year round or are used by salmomds 100 feet w/salmords 50 feet w/out salmomds Class 3 Intemuttent orephemeral streams 25 feet Ditches Imgation ditches,canals,storm or surface water conveyance 10 feet channels,or other entirely artificial watercourses not utilized by salmonids. Valley Streams—Existin Regulations Category Definition Existing Buffer Major Creek Mill, Garrison, Sprmgbrook,Johnson,Midway Star lake, 50 feet Bin aman,Mullen Slough Minor Creek Any naturally flowing defined channel not identified as a Major 25 feet Creek Ditch Manmade channel with a bed,bank or sides which discharge into 10 feet a major or nunor creek The valley stream systems (Mill Creek, Spnngbrook Creek and Garrison Creek) present a unique situation, in that many of the affected parcels are built to the current setbacks and are as small in places as 15-feet. This area is primarily developed with existing buildings, impervious surfaces and other structures. In many cases land uses have altered the area to such a degree that sufficient area is not available, in most cases, to meet a 100-foot buffer (as proposed for salmonid systems) The natural stream condition is also degraded with respect to habitat and water quality. The draft ordinance proposes an `overlay' zone in this area which focuses on enhancing particular stream functions while working within the limited riparian area that is available. The proposed CAO update includes Best Available Science in the buffer recommendations, mitigation ratios as well as other provisions. The Valley Stream Overlay area and other stream regulations, although within the general range of BAS, work to strike a balance between an existing development pattern and the long-term protection of the city's stream resources. Surrounding Jurisdictions Staff has been tracking the process of the CAO updates for surrounding jurisdictions as well as King County. Although not yet adopted, the proposals from surrounding jurisdictions appear to be similar to Kent's proposal. Specifically, staff has focused on stream and wetland buffers since the other critical areas (in Kent) are least impacted by the proposed regulatory changes. Since the classification systems for streams and wetlands differ among different cities and the county, it is difficult to compare them across the board. However, it appears that Kent's recommendations for wetland and stream buffers are within a range of 25 feet, plus or minus. King County's proposal, also not yet adopted, differentiates between the "urban" and "rural" areas. Within the "urban" areas, the range of buffer recommendations for wetlands and streams are similar to Kent's. Although the City Council Workshop 10/19/04 Critical Areas Ordinance Update#ZCA-20024 Page 4 of 5 wetland buffers are slightly smaller than Kent is recommending, the County's proposed stream buffers are slightly higher. ' Buildable Lands: The issue of buildable lands and capacity,relative to residential development, was raised by the Master Builders Association at the public hearing. Staff has looked at this issue against the proposed changes to critical area buffers. Certain assumptions were made regarding critical areas when the buildable lands analysis was completed in 2001. Many of those assumptions are still valid even given the potential for revised buffer widths. Within the proposed regulations, wetland buffers would increase by 25-feet for each category However, other critical area regulations remain largely unchanged, although buffers to steep slopes would likely decrease. The trend in Kent's residential development shows that achieved densities for over the past three years are slightly higher than the previous four years. This suggests that the capacity numbers that Kent utilized previously may be slightly conservative. With the proposed revisions to the critical areas ordinance, some buffers will increase and others will decrease. Additionally, recent regulatory options to achieve densities (i.e. clustering and PUD ordinances) as well as administrative options written into the draft CAO, such as buffer averaging, would allow for more flexibility on sites constrained by sensitive areas to achieve densities that are consistent with the capacities identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff, as well as the city's consultants, will be available to answer questions at the Council Workshop KM/pm S Ternut0anIZONECODEAMEND12002ICA0110-19counctlwrkshp doe Enc Draft Ordinance 9-27-04 KCC 14 09,Flood Hazard Regulations,Reused cc Fred N Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning SeTV1LCJ Managei Don W9ckstrom,PW Director Gary Gill,City Engineer Kim Adams-Pratt,Assistant City Attorney Bill Wolmskt,EnVITUnmental Engineering Manager Kelly Peterson,Environmental Engineering Project File 1 City Council Workshop 10/19/04 Critical Areas Ordinance Update#ZCA-2002-4 IPage 5 of 5 r r ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing chapter 11.05 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Wetlands Management," creating a new chapter 11.06, entitled "Critical Areas;" amending chapter 14 09 of the Kent City Code, regarding flood hazard regulations; amending section 15.08.260 of the Kent City Code entitled "Green River Corridor special interest district regulations," to adjust for the sections established in chapter 11.06; amending chapter 11.03 to add SEPA substantive authority, and making other related amendments. RECITALS A. The City of Kent has undergone extensive study and review to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36 70A) to implement development regulations that identify and protect critical areas as required by RCW 36.70A.215. This analysis has included the best available science, consistent with RCW 36.70A 172 and WAC 365-195-900. B. The City's intent has been to develop and implement a comprehensive, balanced, and fair regulatory program that avoids impacts to critical resources where rpossible, that requires mitigation be performed by those persons or activities affecting 1 critical areas, and that thereby protects the public from injury, loss of life, or loss o property or finances. 1 Critical Areas r C. The City's review process included an open house with the public on July ' 22, 2004, and a focus group meeting with interested parties on September 8, 2004. The Land Use and Planning Board held workshops on May 29, 2004, and August 9, 2004, along with a public hearing on September 13, 2004. The Planning and Economic Development Committee reviewed the issue at its meeting on October 4, 2004, and workshop with the City Council was held on October 19, 2004. D. Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City issued a notice to adopt the Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft (July 1994) and final (January 1995), along with an Addendum on September 3, 2004. , E. On July 1, 2004, the City provided the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36 70A.106 to the state of Washington on the City's proposed critical area ordinance. Comments from the state were received, considered, and entered into the record. F. These regulations will implement goals and policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, including those pertaining to natural features, environmental protection, land use, housing, economic development, transportation, utilities and adequate public facilities G. The regulations adopted shall also serve as a basis for the exercise of the City's substantive SEPA authority, while at the same time reducing the City's reliance on project-level SEPA review to develop standards. H. These standards will provide consistent standards, criteria, and j procedures that will enable the City to effectively manage and protect critical areas while accommodating the rights of property owners to use their property in a t reasonable manner. At the same time, these regulations will provide greater certainty to property owners regarding uses and activities that are permitted, prohibited and/or regulated due to the presence of critical areas. These regulations will also coordinate 2 Crilical Areas renvironmental review and the permitting of proposals involving critical areas with existing development review and approval processes to avoid duplication and delay, consistent with RCW 36.70B. jI. These regulations are intended to establish conservation and protection measures for threatened and endangered species in compliance with the requirements o the Endangered Species Act and WAC 365-195-925, and provide special consideration for anadromous fish. J. These regulations will serve to alert members of the public, including appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers or lessees, to the development limitations of critical areas and their required buffers K This Ordinance is an exercise of the City's police power to protect the public's health, safety and general welfare. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS jORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Amend Section 11 03 510 of the Kent City Code, entitle "Substantive authority," is amended to read as follows. Sec. 11.03.510 Substantive authority. A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. 1 B. The city may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as ' 3 Critical Areas 1. Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable significant r adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to this chapter; r 2. Such conditions are in writing; 3. The mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished; 4. The city has considered whether other local, state, or federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and 5. Such conditions are based on one (1) or more laws or regulations a provided in Ch 11.03 KCC and subsection (D) of this section and identified in writing in the license or other decision document. C. The city may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of State Environmental Policy Act so long as 1. A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are identified in a final environmental impact statement or final supplementary environmental impact statement prepare pursuant to this chapter; 2. A finding is made that there are no reasonable mitigation measure , capable of being accomplished that are sufficient to mitigate the identified impact; and 3. The denial is based on one (1) or more policies identified in subsection (D)below and identified in writing in the license or other decision document. D. The city designates and adopts by reference the following additional policies a , the basis for the city's exercise of authority pursuant to this section. 1. The city shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, program and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: 4 Critical Areas S a. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; b. Assure for all people of the state safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; c. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety or other undesirable and unintended consequences, d. Preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage; e. Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice, £ Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will ' permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and g Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. 2. The city recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable " right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment 3. The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, and resolutions: a. The citywide comprehensive plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act and adopted on April 18, 1995 by the Kent city council by Ordinance 3222 and its specific components and elements, and including al amendments thereto b. Shoreline master program as adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology on June 16, 1992 and as adopted by the Kent city council o July 21, 1992 by Ordinance 3056 and including all amendments thereto. 5 Critical Areas c. The surface water and drainage code, Ch. 7.07 KCC and including , all amendments thereto. d. Underground installation of electrical or communications facilities, Ch. 7.10 KCC and including all amendments thereto. e. Transportation master plan (Resolution 1014 and amended by Resolution 1032) and Green River Valley transportation action plan (Resolution 1127) as may hereafter be amended and including all amendments thereto. £ Wastewater facilities master plan, Ch. 7 09 KCC and including all amendments thereto. ' g. Comprehensive water plan (Ordinances 2829 and 2960) and conservation element Resolution 1361 and including all amendments thereto h. Construction standards for public works, KCC 6.02 010 and 6.02.020 (Ordinance 3117) and including all amendments thereto �I! t i. Street use permit requirements, Ch 6 07 KCC and including all I amendments thereto. 3. Flood hazard protection, Ch. 14 09 KCC and including all amendments thereto. k. Subdivisions, Ch. 12.04 KCC and including all amendments thereto 1 Mobile home parks, Ch 12.05 KCC and including all amendments thereto. in. Valley studies (as adopted in Resolutions 920, 921, 922, 923, and ' 924) n. Noise control, Ch. 8.05 KCC and including all amendments thereto. o. State building code, together with the local implementing ordinances, KCC Title 14 and including all amendments thereto. 6 Critical Areas p. State fire code, together with the local implementing ordinances, KCC Title 13 and including all amendments thereto. q. Zoning, KCC Title 15 and including all amendments thereto. tT. Recreational vehicle park, Ch. 12.06 KCC and including all ' amendments thereto. s. Water shortage emergency regulations, Ch 7.13 KCC and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227 and including all amendments thereto t. Required public improvements, Chs. 6.02 and 6 03 KCC and including all amendments thereto u. Stone and surface water drainage utility, Ch 7.05 KCC and including all amendments thereto. v. Storm drainage policies (Ordinance 2547) and including all amendments thereto. w. Six (6) year transportation improvement plan (Resolution 1444) and including all amendments thereto. 1 x Comprehensive sewerage plan (Resolution 915) and including all amendments thereto. y. Fire master plan (Ordinance 2511) and including all amendments thereto. z. Critical areas (Ordinance land including all amendments thereto •.b..red Speeies Art develepmffit }ry ieays (Resolution-[vp7) ' 7 Critical Areas SECTION 2. — Repeal. Chapter 11.05 of the Kent City Code, entitle ' "Wetlands Management,"is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. — Create. Chapter 11.06 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Critica Areas,"is hereby created and shall read as follows: Chapter 11.06 r CRITICAL AREAS Article I. Procedural & Administrative Provisions Sec. 11.06.010. Title. This code shall be hereinafter known as the city of Kent critical areas code. , Sec. 11.06.020. Purpose and Intent. A. The city of Kent contains numerous areas that can be identified and characterized as critical or environmentally sensitive Such areas within the city include wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas B. The city finds that these critical areas perform a variety of valuable and beneficial biological, physical and economic functions that benefit the city and its residents. Alteration of certain critical areas may pose a threat to public safety, private property and the environment. The city finds, therefore, that identification, regulation and protection of critical areas is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The city further finds that the functions of critical areas, and the purpose of these regulations, include the following_ 1. Wetlands. Wetlands perform a variety of functions that include maintaining water quality; storing and convening stormwater and floodwater; recharging groundwater; providing important fish and wildlife habitat, and providing areas for recreation, education, scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. Wetland buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates, reduce r sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants,provide shading to maintain desirable 8 Critical Areas water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect wetland resources from harmful intrusion The primary goals of wetland regulation are to avoid wetland impacts; to achieve no net loss of wetland function and value acreage may also be considered in achieving the overall goal-, to provide levels of protection that reflect the sensitivity o ' individual wetlands and the intensity of proposed land uses and to restore and/or enhance existing wetlands, where possible. I 2 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. a. Streams and their associated riparian comdors provide important ' fish and wildlife habitat including habitat for threatened and endangered species, help Imaintain water quality' store and convey stormwater and floodwater; recharge groundwater; and serve as areas for recreation, education, scientific study and aesthetic I appreciation Stream buffers serve to moderate stormwater runoff volume and flow rates, reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants, provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures, provide habitat for wildlife, and protect stream resources from harmful intrusion The primary goals of stream regulation are to avoid or otherwise mitigate significant impacts to streams and associated riparian comdors, to protect threatened and endangered species: to protect water quality through appropriate management techniques; and, where possible, to provide for stream enhancement and rehabilitation b. Wildlife habitat provides opportunities for food, cover, nesting, breeding and movement for fish and wildlife within the city, maintains and promotes diversity of species and habitat within the city; integrates habitat protection with elements of the city's open space system, helps maintain air and water quality helps control erosion; serves as areas for recreation, education and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation The primary goals of wildlife habitat regulations are to identify and protect fish and wildlife habitat, to avoid impacts to cntical habitats for fish and wildlife, to implement the goals of the Endangered Species Act; to promote connectivity between habitat areas to allow for wildlife movement to provide multi- 9 Critical Areas purpose open space corridors, and where possible to enhance and rehabilitate wildlife ' habitat. 3. Geologic Hazard Areas. Geologic hazard areas include land characterized by geologic, hydrologic and topogr, aphic conditions that render them susceptible to varying degrees of risk of landslides, erosion, seismic or volcanic activity. ' The primary goals of regulating_geologic hazards are to avoid and minimize potential impacts to life and property, to regulate land uses where necessary; and to conduct appropriate levels of analysis to ensure sound engineering and construction practices to address identified hazards , 4 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas provide a source of potable water and contnbute to stream discharge/flow during penods of low flow. The city finds that certain locations are susceptible to contamination of water supplies by infiltration of pollutants through soil to groundwater aquifers The pnmary goals of aquifer recharge regulations are to protect critical aquifer recharge areas and groundwater duality by avoiding or limiting land use activities that pose potential risk of aquifer contamination-, and to minimize impacts to sigmficant aquifer recharge areas through the application of performance standards 5 Specific Flood Hazard Regulations This section of the Kent Citv Code. and other sections as incorporated by reference contain standards procedures cntena and requirements intended to identify, analyze and mitigate potential impacts to the city's critical areas and to enhance and restore degraded resources where possible The general intent of these regulations is to avoid impacts to critical areas. In appropnate circumstances impacts to specified critical areas resulting from regulated activities may be minimized rectified reduced and/or compensated for, consistent with the requirements of this chapter. , See. 11.06.030. Regulated Activities. A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any regulated activity that ' potentially affects a cntical area or its buffer unless otherwise exempt by these regulations. Applicable activities are as follows , 10 Critical Areas ' 1. Removing excavating, disturbing_or dredging soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter or materials of an kind. ind. 2. Dumping, discharging or filling with any material. 3. Draining, flooding or disturbing the water level or water table, or diverting or impeding water flow. 4. Driving pilings or placing obstructions. 5. Constructing, substantially reconstructing, demolishing or altenng the size of any structure or infrastructure. 6. Destroying or altenng vegetation through cleanng, grading, harvesting, shading or planting vegetation that would negatively affect the character of a critical area. 7 Activities that result in significant changes in water temperature, physical or chemical characteristics of water sources, including quantity and pollutants 8. Any other activity potentially affecting a critical area or buffer not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this chapter as determined b the he department. 9 The construction of new recreation trails within the buffer, which shall be low intensityy, designed and constructed of permeable matenals which protect water ' quality, allow adequate surface water and groundwater movements, do not contribute to erosion, and are located where they.do not disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas, and designed to avoid or reduce the removal of trees Where a regulated activity would be partly within and partly outside a critical ' area or its buffer, the entire activity shall be reviewed pursuant to the requirements o this chapter. tB. To avoid duplication, all permits and approvals identified in KCC 12.01 shall be subiect to, and coordinated with, the requirements of this chapter C. Non-project actions including but not limited to rezones comprehensive plan map amendments, annexations, and the adoption of plans and programs shall be ' subject to the requirements of this chapter. However, the department may at its discretion, permit any studies or evaluations required by this chapter to use methodologies and provide a level of detail appropnate to the action proposed ' 11 Critical Areas i D. Activities within the Green River Natural Resources Area shall be subiect to this chapter with the exception of activities allowed by Resolution 922, adopted by the City of Kent in March 1981. Sec. 11.06.040. Exemptions. A The following activities performed on sites containing critical areas as defined ' by this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of these regulations: 1. Conservation or 12reservation of soil water, vegetation, fish and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the critical area. 2 Existing and ongoing agricultural activities as defined in this chapter 3. Activities involving artificially created wetlands or streams intentional) created from non-wetland sites including but not limited to ass-lined swales irrigation and drainage ditches retention or detention facilities and landsca e features except wetlands or streams created as mitigation or that provide critical habitat fo anadromous fish. j4. Operation, maintenance re air and reconstruction of existing structures roads trails streets utilities and associated structures dikes levees or drama systems, provided that reconstruction of any facilities or structures is not "substantial , reconstruction" may not further encroach on a critical area or its buffer, and shall incorporate Best Management Practices. , 5. Normal maintenance repair and reconstruction of residential o commercial structures facilities and landscging, Provided that reconstruction of an , structures may not increase the previous foot not and further provided that the provisions of this chapter are followed. , 6. The addition of floor area within an existing building which does no increase the building footpnnt. 7. Site investigative work and studies that are prerequisite to preparation o an application for development including soils tests water quality studies wildlife studies and similar tests and investigations, provided that any disturbance of the cntica area shall be the minimum necessary to carry out the work or studies. 12 Critical Areas ' i ' 8 Educational activities scientific research, and outdoor recreational activities including but not limited to interpretive field trips, birdwatching, boating, swimming, fishing and hiking that will not have a significant effect on the critical area. 9 The harvesting of wild crops and seeds to propagate native plants in a manner that is not inlunous to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the ' harvesting does not require tilling of soil planting of crops or alteration of the mocal area by changing existing topography, water conditions or water sources. i 10. Emergency activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety,property, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter as determined by the department 11. Development of lots vested and/or legally created through a subdivision, short subdivision, or other legal means and approved pnor to the effective date of this chanter. 12. Previously legally filled wetlands or wetlands accidentally created by ihuman actions pnor to July 1, 1990. The latter shall be documented through photographs, statements and/or other conclusive evidence and be agreed to by the director. 13 Removal of invasive plants and planting of native vegetation in wetland iand stream buffers for the purpose of enhancing habitat values of these areas pursuant to an approved mitigation plan 14. Stabilization of sites where erosion or landsliding threatens public or private structures, utilities, roadways, drivewayspublicly maintained trails or where erosion or landsliding threatens any lake, stream, wetland or shoreline. Stabilization work shall be performed in a manner which causes the least possible disturbance to the slope and its vegetative cover. This activity shall be performed in accordance with approved site stabilization plans. 15. Minor activities not mentioned above and determined in advance and in wnting by the director to have minimal impacts to a critical area. B. Notwithstanding the exemptions provided by this subsection any otherwise exempt activities occumng in or near a cntical area or its buffer shall comply with the 13 Critical Areas intent of these standards and shall consider on-site alternatives that avoid or minimize , significant adverse impacts. Emergency activities shall mitigate for any impacts caused to critical areas upon abatement of the emergency. C. With the exception of emergency actions, and existing and ongoing agncultural activities no property owner or other entity shall undertake exempt activities pnor to providing fourteen (14) days notice to the director and receiving confirmation in writing that the proposed activity is exempt. In case of any question as to whether a particular activity is exempt from the provisions of this section the director's determination shall prevail and shall be confirmed in wnting. D. Legally established uses developments or structures that are nonconforming solely due to inconsistencies with the provisions of this chapter, shall not be considered nonconforming pursuant to KCC 15.08.100. Reconstruction or additions to existing structures which intrude into cntical areas or their buffers shall not increase the amount of such intrusion except as provided by section 10(A) of this title Once a non- conforming use is discontinued for a penod of one-year, that use cannot be re- established E. The exemptions established by this section shall apply only to activities that are otherwise permitted by federal, state and/or local laws. , Sec. 11.06.050. Critical areas maps. The approximate location and extent of critical areas within the city are shown on the critical areas inventory maps. These maps shall be used for informational ' pur2oses and as a general guide only, for the assistance of property owners and other interested parties the boundaries and locations shown are generalized The actual presence or absence type extent boundaries and classification of cntical areas on a ' specific site shall be identified in the field by a qualified consultant and confinned by the department according to the procedures definitions and criteria established by this , chapter. In the event of any conflict between the critical area location or designation shown on the cityy s maps and the cnteria or standards of this section, the cntena and standards shall prevail. 14 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.060. Relationship to other regulations. A These cntical area regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning land use and other regulations established by the city of Kent. In the event o any conflict between these regulations and any other city regulations, those regulations which provide greater protection to environmentally cntical areas shall apply, as ' detenmmed by the director. B. Areas charactenzed by specific cntical areas may also be subject to other regulations established by this chapter due to the overlapping or multiple functions o some critical areas. Wetlands, for example, may be defined and regulated according to the wetland, wildlife habitat and stream management provisions of this chapter. In the event of any conflict between regulations for particular critical areas in this chapter, the regulations which provide greater protection to environmentally cntical areas shall apply, as detenmmed by the director. Sec. 11.06.070. Critical area review process and application requirements. A. Pre-Application Conference. 1. For those projects subject to Environmental Review pursuant to SEPA, the pre-application requirements of KCC 12 01 shall apply 2 For projects which are subject to this chapter but are exempt from the SEPA requirements, the applicant is encouraged to meet with the city prior to submitting an application. ' 3. The purpose of these meetings shall be to discuss the city's cntical area requirements, processes and procedures, to review any conceptual site plans prepared ' by the a licant to identify potential impacts to cntical areas and a ro nate mitigation measures, and to the extent it can be determined, generally inform the ' Uplicant of any known federal or state regulations or approvals applicable to the subject cntical area. Such conference shall be for the convenience of the applicant, ' shall not constitute legal advice or scientific opinion, and any recommendations shall not be binding on the applicant or the city. It shall be the applicant's sole res onsibilit ' to identify and secure all necessary permits from anv agencies with iunsdiction notwithstanding that the city of Kent may also have the authonty to issue a permit 15 Critical Areas B. Application Requirements. ' 1. Timiniz of Submittals. Concurrent with submittal of a SEPA checklist o concurrent with submittal of an a hcation for projects exempt from SEPA a critical area Mort must be submitted to the city for review. The pulpose of the re ort is to determine the extent characteristics and functions of any critical areas located on o potentially affected by activities on a site where regulated activities are proposed. The , report will also be used by the department to determine the gppropnate critical area rating or classification where a licable and to establish gRpropriate buffe ' requirements. 2. Report Contents. Reports and studies required to be submitted by this ' cha ter shall contain at a minimum the information indicated in the attachments to this chapter gpl2licable to each critical area. The department may tailor the mformatio required to reflect the complexity of the proRosal and the sensitivity of cntical areas that may potentially be present ' C. Critical Area Consultants - Oualifications & City Review All reports an studies required of the applicant by this section shall be prepared by a qualified consultant as defined in these regulations. The department may, at its discretion retain a qualified consultant to review and confirm the a hcant's reports, studies and plans Such review shall be paid for by the applicant. D. Review Process. This section is not intended to create a separate cntical are t review permit process for development proposals To the extent possible, the city shall consolidate and integrate the review and processing of critical area-related aspects o proposals with other land use and environmental considerations reviews an approvals. Any permits required by e arate codes or regulations, such as Shoreline ' Substantial Development Permits shall continue to be required. Sec. 11.06.080. Procedural provisions. , A. Interpretation and Conflicts. The director of the department or his/her designe shall have the authority to administer the provisions of this cha ter to make , determinations with regard to the applicability of the regulations, to interpret the intent of unclear provisions, to require additional information to determine the level of detai 1 16 Critical Areas ' and appropriate methodologies for critical area reports and studies to prepare gpplication and informational materials as required to promulgate procedures and rules for unique circumstances not anticipated by the standards and procedures contained ' within this section. B Penalties and Enforcement Compliance with these regulations and penalties for their violation shall be enforced pursuant to the procedures set forth in KCC 1.04 C. Appeals from Critical Area Review Decisions. Appeals from cntical area review decisions shall be governed by the procedures set forth in KCC 12.01 190 and KCC 2.32. D Burden of Proof The burden of proving that a proposed activity meets the standards established by this chapter shall be on the applicant. ' Sec. 11.06.090. Reasonable use provision. ' A. The standards and requirements of these regulations are not intended, and shall not be construed or applied in a manner, to deny all reasonable use of private property If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the hearing examiner that strict japplication of these standards would deny all reasonable use of a property, ' development may be permitted subject to appropriate conditions B Applications for a reasonable use exception shall be processed as a Process III ' application, pursuant to KCC 12.01. C. An applicant requesting relief from stnct application of these standards shall demonstrate that all of the following cntena are met. 1. No reasonable use with less impact on the cntical area and its buffer is possible. 2. There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the activities ' proposed, considering possible changes in site layout, reductions in density and similar factors, that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts ' 3. The proposed activities, as conditioned, will result in the minimum possible impacts to affected critical areas, considering their functions and values and/or the nsks associated with proposed development. 4. All reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or assured. 17 Critical Areas 5. The inability to denve reasonable economic use is not the result of the r applicant's actions or that of a previous property owner, such as by segregating or dividing the property and creating an undevelopable condition. 6. Any alteration of a critical area approved under this section shall be ' subject to appropriate conditions and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. ' D. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for any other permit or approval otherwise required for a proposal by pplicable city ' regulations. Sec. 11.06.100. Variances. ' A. Applications for variances from the strict application of the terns of this chapter , to a specific property may be submitted to the city. All vanances except administrative variances per subsection B shall be considered by the hearing examiner as a Process III ' application, pursuant to KCC 12 01.040. Approval of vanances from the strict application of the critical area requirements shall be consistent with the following ' criteria. 1. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the , affected property which makes it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access. ' 3. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or the proposal does not create or increase a nsk to the public health, , safety and general welfare, or to public or private property_ 4. The proposed variance would not adversely affect properties surrounding the subject site. , 5. Adverse impacts to cntical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized. ' 6. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owner. , 18 Critical Areas 7. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special pnvilege B. Other minor buffer modifications may be permitted by the director, as outlined ' in the provisions of this chapter. Article II. Definitions See. 11.06.105. Definitions. ' The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meaning ascnbed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning ' Sec. 11.06.110. Applicability. The definitions contained in this cha ter are those that are enerally used throughout this title, except for those definitions specified in KCC 14 09 and 15 02; which are specific to those respective sections and chapters. I See. 11.06.115. Adjacent Wetland. ' Ad acent Wetland means wetlands bordering contiguous or neighboring a river, stream or lake. Sec. 11.06.120. Applicant. Applicant means the person, party, firm, corporation, or other entity that proposes o has performed any activity that affects a critical area. See. 11.06.125. Aquifer. Aquifer is generally, any water bearing soil unit or geologic formation Specifically, body of soil unit or geologic formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to conduct groundwater and yield economically significant quantities o groundwater to wells or spnngs. Sec. 11.06.130. Aquifer susceptibility. ' 19 Critical Areas Aquifer susceptibility is a contnbutory factor of potential contamination of an aquifer that results from soil, rock and groundwater characteristics within a recharge area. Sec. 11.06.135. Aquifer vulnerability. Aquifer vulnerability means the combined effect of aquifer susceptibility and , contaminant loading potential: it includes hydrogeologic, land use and other factors ' that affect the potential for groundwater contamination. Sec. 11.06.140. Artificially created wetland. Artificially created wetland means wetlands created from non-wetland sites through ' purposeful, legally authonzed human action, including but not limited to imgation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, retention or detention facilities, wastewater , treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. Sec. 11.06.145. Best available science (BAS). Best available science (BAS) is the current scientific information used in the nrocess to ' designate, protect or restore critical areas, that is denved from a valid scientific process as defined by WAC 365-195-900 through 925 , Sec. 11.06.150. Best management practices (BMPs). Best mana ement practices BMPs means the conservation practices ors stems o practices and management measures that 1 control soil loss and reduce water qualit degradation caused by nutrients animal waste toxics and sediment; and 2 minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the chemical, physical, and biological charactenstics of critical areas Sec. 11.06.155. Bog. Bojz is apeat-accumulating wetland that has no significant inflows or outflows and ' supports acidophilic mosses, particularly sphagnum. Sec. 11.06.160. Buffer or buffer area. 20 Critical Areas ' Buffer or buffer area is a vegetated zone contiguous to and surrounding a cntical area that protects the critical area from adverse impacts to its integrity and value Buffers are necessary for the continued maintenance function and/or structural stability of a critical area and are an integral part of the resource's ecosystem. Buffers may be enhanced and/or re-vegetated where they are degraded or as part of a mitigation program Buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the edge of the critical area Sec. 11.06.165. Building setback line(BSBL). Budding setback line (BSBL) means an area in which structures, including but not limited to sheds homes (including overhangs) buildings and awnings shall not be permitted within or allowed to protect into a cntical area buffer. Roads parking areas, uncovered at grade decks patios lawns and landscaping are penmtted within the BSBL. .I See. 11.06.170. Clearing. Clearing means the removal of timber, brush grass ground cover or other -vegetative matter from a site which exposes the earth's surface of the site. or any actions which disturb the existing ground surface. I Sec. 11.06.175. Compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation means the replacement of project-related critical area that has been impacted, including, but not limited to, the following- A. Restoration means actions performed to reestablish stream or wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a stream or wetland. B. Creation means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist C. Enhancement means actions performed to improve the condition o existing wetlands or riparian areas so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality t21 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.180. Comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plans means the adopted City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and amendments thereto. Sec. 11.06.185. Compensatory flood storage. Compensatory Mood storage means any new, excavated flood storage volume equivalent to any flood storage capacity which has been or would be eliminated by filling or grading within the flood fringe. The compensatory flood storage must be hydraulically associated with the floodway Sec. 11.06.190. Contaminant loading potential. Contaminant loading potential means the availability within an aquifer rechar e area o any potential physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance that enters the hydrological cycle and may cause a deletenous effect on ground water resources i �I Sec, 11.06.195. Creation of critical areas. Creation of critical areas means the purposeful and legally authorized construction or forming of a wetland or stream from an upland (non-wetland or dry) site through artificial means. Sec. 11.06.200. Critical area, or environmentally sensitive area. Critical area, or environmentally sensitive area means areas that possess important natural functions and embody a variety of important natural and community values. Such areas include wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, geologic hazard areas, critical aquifer recharge areas and flood hazard areas. If not conducted properly, i development or alteration of such areas may cause significant impacts to the valuable functions and values of these areas and/or may enerate nsks to the public health and general welfare, and/or to public and private property. 22 Critical Areas 1 Sec. 11.06.205. Critical area report. Critical area report means a report prepared by a qualified consultant to determine the presence type class size function and/or value of an area subject to these regulations Sec. 11.06.210. Critical aquifer recharge areas. Critical aquifer recharge areas means areas designated Wellhead Protection Areas pursuant to Wellhead Protection plans or via the calculated fixed radius method Susceptible Groundwater Areas pursuant to WAC 173-100 and Special Protection Areas ursuant to WAC 173-200-090. Sec. 11.06.215. Critical facilities. Critical facilities means those facilities necessary to protect the public health safet and general welfare which are defined under the occupancy categones of Essential Facilities and Special Occupancy Structures in the Intemational Building Code o subsequent amendment). I Sec. 11.06.220. Critical habitat or critical wildlife habitat or critical fish and wildlife conservation area. Critical habitat or critical wildlife habitat or critical fish and wildlife conservation area means habitat areas associated with threatened endangered, sensitive monitor o pnonty species of plants or wildlife and which if altered could reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long tern. Such areas are identified herein with reference to lists categories and definitions of species promulgated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Non-Game Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011 or 232-12-014• i the Pnonty Habitat and Species PHS program of the Department of Fish an ' Wildlife,• or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. 23 Critical Areas i See. 11.06.225. Dedication. Dedication means conveyance of land to the city or other not-for-profit entity by deed, easement or other instrument of conveyance. Sec. 11.06.230. Delineation manual, or wetland delineation manual/ methodology. Delineation manual, or wetland delineation manual/methodoloQy means the manual and methodology used to identify wetlands in the field as described in the Washin ton State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, adopted by the Department o Ecology in 1997 (pursuant to RCW 90 58 380/36.70A.175 and which is based on the U.S. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). Use of this manual is required by RCW 90 58.380/36.70A.175. Sec. 11.06.235. Department. De artment means the City of Kent Department of Public Works or successor aizenc unless the context indicates a different City department. Sec. 11.06.240. Director. Director means the Director of the City of Kent Department of Public Works or his/he designee. Sec. 11.06.245. Earth/earth material. Earth/earth material means the naturally occumng rock soil stone sediment o , combination thereof. Sec. 11.06.250. Elevated construction. Elevated construction means a construction technique that employs posts or pilings to , raise a structure so that waters can flow freely beneath the structure. 24 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.255. Emergent wetland. iEmergent wetland means a wetland with at least thirty (30) percent of the surface area covered by erect rooted herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata. Sec. 11.06.260. Enhancement. Enhancement means the improvement of an existing viable wetland, stream or habitat area or the buffers established for such areas through such measures as increasing plant diversity, increasing wildlife habitat installing environmentally-compatible erosion controls increasing structural diversity or removing plant or animal species that are not indigenous to the area Enhancement also includes actions performed to improve the quality of an existing degraded wetland stream or habitat area. See also, "Restoration." Sec. 11.06.265. Erosion. Erosion means a process whereby gravity, wind, ram, water, freeze-thaw and other natural agents mobilize and transport soil particles Sec. 11.06.270. Erosion hazard areas. Erosion hazard areas means areas within the city of Kent underlain by soils which are subject to severe erosion when disturbed Such soils include, but are not limited to those delineated in the "Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington" (USDA, 1973) as having a moderate to severe, severe or very severe erosion hazard potential These soils consist of the following Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD); Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF); Arents, Alderwood Material, 6 to 15 percent slopes (AmC); Beausite gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (BeD); Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes (BeF), Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (EvD), Indianola loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes (InD); Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (KpC); Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (KpD); Ovall gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (OvD), Ovall 25 Critical Areas j gravelly loam 40 to 75 percent slopes (OvF); Pilchuck loamy fine sand (Pc) Ragnar fine sandy loam 15 to 25 percent slopes (RaD); Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep (RdE); and Riverwash (Rh). Sec. 11.06.275. Essential habitat. Essential habitat means habitat necessary for the survival of federally listed threatened, endangered and sensitive species and state listed priont +}_species. Sec. 11.06.280. Excavation. Excavation means the removal or displacement of earth material by human or mechanical means. Sec. 11.06.285. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities. Existinz and ongoing agricultural activities: "Existing and ongoing agricultural activities" includes those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84 34 020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops and livestock Such activity must have been in existence as of the effective date of this chapter The definition, includes but is not limited to operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches irrigation systems changes between agricultural activities or crops, and normal operation maintenance or repair of existing serviceable structures, facilities or improved areas Activities which bnng_an area into agricultural use from a previous non-agricultural use are not considered part of an ongoing activity. An operation , ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it was conducted is proposed for conversion to a non-agricultural use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program. Forest practices are not included in this definition. Sec. 11.06.290. Exotic. Exotic means any species of plant or animal that is foreign and not indigenous to the Kent area. 26 Critical Areas i tSec. 11.06.295. Fen. Fen means a peat-accumulating wetland that receives some drainage from surrounding jmineral soil and usually supports marshlike vegetation. Sec. 11.06.300. Fill/fill material. FilUfill material means a deposit of earth material placed by human or mechanical means. Sec. 11.06.305. Filling. Falling means the act of transporting or placing (by any manner or mechanism) fill matenal from to or on any surface water body or wetland, soil surface, sediment surface, or other fill material Sec, 11.06.310. Forested wetland. Forested wetland means a wetland defined by the Cowardm system with at least thirty I (30) percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than twenty (20) feet in height that is at least partially rooted in the wetland Sec. 11.06.315. Functions, beneficial functions, or functions and values, Functions, beneficial functions, or functions and values means the beneficial roles served by wetlands including, but not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, histoncal and archaeological and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial roles are not listed in order ofpnonty jSec. 11.06.320. Geologic hazard areas. Geologic hazard areas means lands or areas charactenzed by geologic, h d� is and topographic conditions that render them susceptible to varying degrees of potential nsk of landslides, erosion, or seismic or volcanic activity, and areas characterized by 27 Critical Areas i geologic and hydrologic conditions that make them vulnerable to contamination o ' groundwater supplies through infiltration of contaminants to aquifers. i See. 11.06.325. Grading. Grading means any excavating filling clearing leveling, or contouring of the ground surface by human or mechanical means. Sec. 11.06.330. Growing season. Growing season means the average frost-free penod of the year in Kent as recorded in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Frost/Freeze Data from Climatology of the U.S. No 20 supplement No 1 or in equivalent U.S. government agency records Growing season for the purposes of these regulations. may be considered to be the penod from March 1 through October 31 of any calendar year. Sec. 11.06.335. Habitat management. Habitat management means management of land and its associated resources/features to maintain species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distnbution so that isolated subpopulations are not created This does not imply maintaining all habitat or individuals of all species in all cases. Sec. 11.06.340. Hydric soil. Hydr:c soil means soil that is saturated flooded or ponded long enough dunng the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence o hydnc soil shall be detennined following the methods descnbed in the federal manual. Sec. 11.06.345. Hydrologically isolated. Hydrologically isolated means wetlands which: 1) have no surface water connection to a lake aver, or stream dunng any part of the year, 2) are outside of and not contiguous i to any 100-yr floodplain of a lake river, or stream,• and 3) have no contiguous hydric soil between the wetland and any lake river, or stream. May also be a pond excavated from uplands with no surface water connection to a stream, lake, or other wetland. 28 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.350. Hvdrophvtic vegetation. iHvdrophvtic vegetation means macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation shall be detennined following the methods described in the federal manual. Sec. 11.06.355. In-kind compensation or mitigation. In-band compensation or mitigation means replacement of wetlands or other cntical areas with substitute wetlands or resources whose characteristics closely approximate those destroyed or degraded ded by a regulated activity. Sec. 11.06.360. Intentionally created streams. ' Intentionally created streams means man-made streams created through purposeful human action, such as imgation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, and canals. This definition does not include stream modifications performed pursuant to City (� authonzation, such as changes or redirection of stream channels and does not include streams created as mitigation. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation, photographs, statements and/or other evidence Intentionallv created ' streams are excluded from regulation under this chapter, except manmade streams that provide "cntical habitat," as designated by federal or state agencies, for anadromous I fish. Sec. 11.06.365. Lahar. Lahar means mudflows or debris flows associated with volcanic activity, and which jpose a threat to life, property and structures. Sec. 11.06.370. Landslide. Landslide means episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock. 29 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.375. Landslide hazard areas. Landslide hazard areas include: 1 Any existing active or dormant landslide or debris flow that has shown I movement during the Holocene epoch (from ten thousand years ago to the present) or that are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of that epoch. 2 Areas delineated in the "Soil Survey King County Area, Washington" (USDA 1973) as having a "severe" limitation for building site development. These soils consist of the following: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes A D • Alderwood and Kitsqp soils very stee AkF • Beausite gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes (BeD); Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes (BeF)• Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (EvD); Indianola loamy fine sand 15 to 30 percent slopes (InD); KitsW silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (KpQ, K-AsW silt loam 15 to 30 percent slopes K D Ovall gravelly loam 15 to 25 percent slopes OvD • Ovall gravelly loam 40 to 75 percent slopes OvF • Ragnar fine sand loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (RaD), and Ragnar-Indianola association, moderatelti steep (RdE). 3. Areas designated as quaternary slums earth flows mudflows o landslides on maps published by the US Geological Survey, Washington Department o Natural Resources, or geologic consultant reports completed for the City of Kent. 4. Areas with all three of the following charactenstics: slopes steeper than 15percent; slopes intersecting granular material over silts or days, and springs or ground water seepage or evidence of seasonal springs or ground water seepage 5. Slopes that are parallel or sub parallel to planes of weakness such as bedding planes,joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface materials 6 Slopes subject to failure dunng seismic shaking 7 Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream , bank erosion. 8. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fanpresently o potentially subiect to inundation by debns flows or catastrophic flooding_ 30 Critical Areas 9. Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief o 10 or more feet A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by iaveraging the inclination over 10 feet of vertical relief. See. 11.06.380. Mitigation. Mitigation includes: 1 Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts o actions. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation 3. RectifAn the he impact by repainng, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected enviromnent. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action 5 Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 6. The enhancement, restoration or creation of critical areas as compensation for impacts resulting from development activities it While momtonng without additional actions is not considered mitigation for the purposes of these regulations, it may be part of a comprehensive mitigation program. Also see"Compensatory Mitigation " See. 11.06.385. Native Vegetation. Native vegetation means plant species indigenous to the Puget Sound region that could occur or could have occurred naturally on the site, which are or were indigenous to the area in question 31 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.390. Off'-site mitigation. Of'-site mitigation means performance of mitigation actions, pursuant to standards , established in this chapter, on a site or in an area other than that proposed for conduct of a regulated activity. Sec. 11.06.395. Onsite mitigation/compensation. Onsite mitikation/compensation means replacing wetlands or other resources at or adiacent to the site on which a wetland or other resource has been impacted by a regulated activity. Sec. 11.06.400. Out-of-kind mitigation. Out-of-kind mitigation means replacement of wetlands or habitat with substitute wetlands or habitat whose charactenstics do not closely approximate those adversely ' affected, destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. �I i See. 11.06.405. Permanent erosion control. Permanent erosion control means continuous on-site and off-site control measures that are needed to control conveyance or deposition of earth, turbidity or pollutants after development, construction, or restoration. Sec, 11.06.410. Plant association of infrequent occurrence, Plant association of infrequent occurrence means one or more plant species which because of the rarity of the habitat and/or the species involved, or for other botanical o environmental reasons, do not often occur in the City of Kent. Examples include but are not limited to: 1. Wetlands with a coniferous forested class or subclass consisting of trees such as western red cedar, Sitka spruce or lodge pole pine growing on organic soils, 2. Bogs with a predominance of sphagnum moss, or those containing sphagnum moss and typically including one or more species such as Labrador tea sundew, bog laurel or cranberry, 32 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.415. Pond (Deepwater Aquatic Habitat). Pond (Deepwater Aquatic Habitat) means areas of open surface water that are less than 20 acres in size that are either permanently inundated at mean annual water depths greater than 6 6 feet or permanently inundated at less than 6.6 feet in depth that do not support rooted-emergent or woody plant species [Source: Washington State Wetland Delineation Manual DOE 19971 Also see definition of"wetlands" for exclusions o certain types of ponds from regulation. ation. I Sec. 11.06.420. Practicable alternative. Practicable alternative means an alternative that is available and capable of being camed out after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and having less impacts to cntical areas. It may involve using an altemative site in the general region that is available to the applicant and may feasibly be used to accomplish the project. Sec. 11.06.425. Priority habitat/species, or prioritv wildlife habitat/species. Priority habitat/species or prioro wildlife habitat/species means habitats and species of local importance and concem in urban areas, as identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pnority Habitat & Species (PHS) program "Pnonty species" are wildlife species of concern due to their population status and their sensitivity to habitat alteration "Pnority habitats" are areas with one or more of the following attnbutes: comparatively high wildlife density; high wildlife species richness, significant wildlife breeding habitat, significant wildlife seasonal ranges; significant movement comdors for wildlife; limited availability; and/or high vulnerability. General types of pnonty habitat identified in the PHS program-some o which do not occur in the City of Kent -- include Aspen stands, cliffs, meadows, oak woodlands, old-growth/mature forests, nparian areas, shrub-steppe, snag-nch areas and wetlands. 33 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.430. Qualified consultant. Qualified consultant means a person who has attained a degree from an accredited college or university in the subject matter necessary to evaluate the critical area in i question (e.g. biology, ecology or horticulture/arboriculture for wetlands, streams and wildlife habitat and sigmficant vegetation geology and/or civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington for geologic hazards and aquifer recharge areas), and/or who is professionally trained and/or certified or licensed by the State of Washington to practice in the scientific disciplines necessary to identify, evaluate manage and mitigate impacts to the critical area in question For purposes of wetland studies and planning a qualified consultant is one who has obtained certification by the Society o Wetland Scientists as a Professional Wetland Scientist or Wetland Professional in Training For the purpose of Geologic Hazards a qualified consultant shall be a professional geologist, professional engmeenng geologist or licensed engineer with the state of Washing , Sec. 11.06.435. Regulated activity. Regulated actzvzby means activities that have apotential to significantly impact a cntical area that is subject to the provisions of this cbal2ter Regulated activities generall I include but are not limited to any filling, dredging, dumping or stockpiling, drain excavating, flooding, clearing or grading, constructing or reconstructing, dnvor pilings, obstructing, shading, clearing or harvesting Sec. 11.06.440. Repair or maintenance. Repair or maintenance means an activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a structure, or land use to its previously authonzed and undamaged condition Activities that change the character, size or scope of a project beyond the on coal ' design and drain dredge, fill flood or otherwise alter additional critical areas are not included in this definition. t 34 Critical Areas i Sec. 11.06.445. Restoration. Restoration means actions taken to reestablish wetland stream or habitat functional values and characteristics that have been destroyed or degraded by past alterations (e.g filling orwading). See also, "Enhancement'. Sec. 11.06.450. Secondary habitat. Seconder habitat means areas that offer less diversity of animal and plant species than pnonty habitat but that are important for performing the essential functions of habitat. Sec. 11.06.455. Seismic hazard areas. Seismic hazard areas means areas subject to a risk of earthquake damage due to soil liquefaction. These areas generally contain saturated alluvial sediments and poorly compacted fill that either is or can become saturated These areas are mapped as Category I and Category II liquefaction susceptibility areas on maps contained within. Palmer, Walsh, Logan, Gerstel, Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Aubum and Poverty Bay 7 5-Minute Quadrangles, Washington, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, September 1995; Palmer, Shasse and Norman, Liquefaction Suseeptibility jfor the Des Moines and Renton 7 5 minute Quadrangles, Washington, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, December, 1994, and Slopes that could fail during an earthquake. In the City of Kent, these areas generally consist of Vashon ice- contact deposits in areas of 15 percent slope or steeper Vashon Ice-Contact deposits (Qvi) are mapped in Luzier, Water Supply Bulletin No. 28, Geology and Ground- Water Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington, State of Washington Department of Water Resources, 1969. i Sec. 11.06.460. Scrub-shrub wetland. Scrub-shrub wetland means a wetland with at least thirty 30percent of its surface area covered by woody vegetation less than twenty 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata. 35 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.465. Sensitive area tract, r Sensitive area tract means a separate tract that is created to protect the sensitive area and its buffer. Sec. 11.06.470. Site. Site means the location containing a regulated critical area and on which a regulated activity is proposed. The location may be a parcel or portion thereof, or any combination of contiguous parcels where a proposed activity may impact a cntical area. Sec. 11.06.475. Slope. Slope means an inclined earth surface, the inclination of which is expressed as the ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance. Sec. 11.06.480. Slope, top. Slope, top means the uppermost limit of an area where the ground surface drops ten feet or more vertically within a horizontal distance of 25 feet on slopes greater than 40 Percent. Sec. 11.06.485. Streams. Streams means those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed A defined channel or bed is an area which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage o water and includes, but is not limited to, bedrock charmels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds, and defined-channel swales. The channel or bed need not contain water year- round. This definition is not intended to include artificially created irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or created for the purposes of stream mitigation. Sec. 11.06.490. Stream reconnaissance report. Stream reconnaissance report means a type of critical area report prepared by an applicant's qualified consultant to describe a stream and to charactenze its conditions, wildlife,habitat values and water quality. 36 Critical Areas i i Sec. 11.06.495. Structural diversitv,vegetative. Structural diversity, vegetation means the relative degree of diversity or complexity o vegetation in a wildlife habitat area as indicated by the stratification or layenng o different plant communities (e.g. ground cover, shrub laver and tree canopy), the variety of plant species, and the spacing or pattern of vegetation. Sec. 11.06.500. Substantial improvement or reconstruction. Substantial improvement or reconstruction means any repair, reconstruction or improvement the cost of which is more than fifty percent of the market value of the structure either (a) before the improvement is started or (b) before the damage occurred if the structure damaged is being replaced An improvement occurs when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not the alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure Substantial improvement does not include (a) an improvement to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary or safety (Uniform Building Code/Uniform Fire Code) specifications which are necessary to assure safe conditions, or (b) alteration of a jstructure listed on the national Register of Histonc Places or a state inventory o historic places. Sec. 11.06.505. Substrate. Substrate means the soil, sediment, decomposing organic matter or combination o those located on the bottom surface of the wetland, lake, stream or river. Sec. 11.06.510. Temporary erosion control. Temporary erosion control means on-site and off-site control measures that are needed to control conveyance or deposition of earth, turbidity or pollutants dunng development, construction, or restoration 37 Critical Areas 1 Sec. 11.06.515. Unavoidable and necessary impacts. Unavoidable and necessary impacts means impacts to wetlands that remain after an applicant has demonstrated that no practicable alternative exists for the proposed project. Sec. 11.06.520. Utility. Utility means natural gas, electric, telephone and telecommunications, cable communications, water, sewer, or storm drainage and their respective facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment and appurtenances. Sec. 11.06.525. Volcanic hazard area. Volcanic hazard area means areas subiect to a risk of inundation by lahars or other related flooding events resulting from volcanic activity originating from Mount Rainer I j These areas are mapped as Class M Lahars on maps contained within. Hobhtt, R P., Walder, J.S , Driedger, C.L., Scott, K.M., Pnngle, P.T , and Vallance, J.W , Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainer, Washington U S Geologic Survey Open File Report 98- 428, 1998. See. 11.06.530. Wetland. i "Wetland" or "wetlands"means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, boas, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, ' grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities However, wetlands include those artificial wetlands intentionally created to mitigate conversion of wetlands Wetlands determined prior converted cropland (PCCLy Federal agencies may still be considered wetlands by the City of Kent. If these wetlands meet requirements of the Washington State Department 38 Critical Areas iof Ecology Manual the wetlands shall be regulated and the critical area shall be protected like any other wetland pursuant to this code. Sec. 11.06.535. Wetland class. Wetland class means the U S Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classification scheme uses an hierarchy of systems subsystems classes and subclasses to descnbe wetland types (refer to USFWS December 1979, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States for a complete explanation of the wetland classification scheme). Eleven class names are used to descnbe wetland and deepwater habitat types These include, forested wetland, scrub-shrub wetland, emergent wetland, moss-lichen wetland unconsolidated shore aquatic bed unconsolidated bottom rock bottom rock shore, streambed, and reef. Sec. 11.06.540. Wetland edge. Wetland ed e means the boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the definitions in this chapter and the procedures specified in this chapter Sec. 11.06.545. Wildlife habitat. Wildlife habitat means areas that provide food, protective cover, nesting, loafing, breeding or movement for fish and wildlife and with which individual species have a Primary association Wildlife habitat includes naturally occumng ponds under 20 acres in area Article III. General Mitigation and Monitoring jSec. 11.06.550. Mitigation standards. A. Mitigation sequencing shall be avoidance minimization miti ation An proposal to impact a critical area shall demonstrate that it is unavoidable or will provide a greater function and value to the critical area j 39 Critical Areas B. Adverse impacts to critical area functions and values shall be mitigated. Mitigation actions shall be implemented in the preferred sequence identified in this chapter. Proposals which include less preferred and/or compensatory mitigation shall demonstrate that: 1. All feasible and reasonable measures have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations. 2. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will at a minimum be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces 3. In the case of wetlands and streams, no overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological, physical and chemical functions. Sec. 11.06.560. Location and timing of mitigation. A Mitigation shall be provided on-site where possible, unless the director a°rees that a higher function and value can be accomplished off-site within the same drainage basin. Mitigation may be allowed off-site only when it is determined, through the SEPA review process, that on-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible or practical due to physical features of the property. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on-site. B. When mitigation cannot be provided on-site, mitigation shall be provided in the same drainage basin as the permitted activity on property owned, secured or controlled j by the applicant where such mitigation is practical and beneficial to the cntical area and associated resources. Mitigation sites shall be located within the city, unless otherwise approved by the director. C. In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant demonstrates, and the director concurs, that greater function and value can be achieved through out- of-kind mitigation. 40 Critical Areas D. When wetland stream or habitat mitigation is permitted by these regulations on- site or off-site the mitigation project shall occur near an adequate water supply (river, stream groundwater) with a hydrologic connection to the critical area to ensure a successful mitigation or restoration A natural hydrologic connection is preferential as compared to one which relies upon manmade features requinng routine maintenance. E. Any agreed upon mitigation plan shall be completed pnor to issuance of a building or construction permit unless a phased or concurrent schedule that assures completion pnor to occupancy has been approved by the department Sec. 11.06.570. Mitigation Monitoring. A For any actions permitted by this chapter which require a mitigation plan a monitonng program shall be prepared and implemented by the applicant to evaluate the success of the mitigation project and to determine necessary corrective actions This program shall determine if the original goals and objectives of the mitigation plan are being met. The monitonng program shall be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the department as a part of the mitigation plan. B. The monitonng program shall include a contingency plan in the event that implementation of the mitigation plan fails to satisfy the approved goals and objectives A performance and maintenance bond or other acceptable security device is required to ensure the applicant's compliance with the terms of the approved mitigation plan The amount of the performance and maintenance bond shall equal 125 percent of the cost o the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period. C. The following elements shall be incorporated into monitonng programs iprepared to comply with this chapter and shall be a part of the approved mitigation plan: 1. Appropnate, accepted, and unbiased qualitative or precise and accurate quantitative sampling methods to evaluate the success or failure of the project i2 Quantitative sampling methods that include permanent photopoints installed at the completion of construction and maintained throughout the monitoring period, permanent transects, sampling points (e g., quadrants or water quality or quantity monitonng stations), and wildlife monitoring stations 41 Critical Areas 3. Clearly stipulated qualitative and quantitative sampling methods. 4. Appropriate ualitative and/or quantitative performance standards that will be used to measure the success or failure of the mitigation These will include at minimum, standards for plant survival and diversity, including structural diversity, the extent of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and habitat types and requirements as appropriate. 5. Monitonng programs shall be fora penod of at least five years and include at a minimum: prpparation of an as-builtplan; annual monitonng and preparation of annual monitonng reports following implementation; and a maintenance Man. More stringent monitonng requirements may be required on a case-by-case basis for more complex mitigation plans. 6. Monitonng reports shall be submitted to the department at intervals identified in the a roved mitigation plan. A schedule for the submittal of momtonn reports and maintenance periods shall be described in the approved mitigation plan The reports shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and must contain all qualitative and guantitative monitoring data, photogrohs, and an evaluation of each of the applicable performance standards If performance standards are not being met approl2nate corrective or contingency measures must be identified and implemented to ensure that performance standards will be met. 7. The director may extend the monitonng penod beyond the minimum timeframe if performance standards are not being met at the end of the initial five-year period,• and require additional financial secunties or bonding to ensure that an i additional monitonng and contingencies are completed to ensure the success of the mitigation. Article IV. Wetlands See. 11.06.580. Wetlands Rating Svstem. The following rating system i hereby adopted for the pulpose of determining the size of wetland buffers and for the review of permits under this chapter. For the u oses of this section the U.S. Fish an Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Dee water Habitats of the Unite 42 Critical Areas States FWS/OBS-79-31 (Cowardin et al. 1979) contains the descriptions of wetland classes and subclasses. A Cateizory 1 wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following cntena 1 The documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal or state govenunent as endangered threatened or other species identified by the State Department of Natural Resources through its natural hentage data or by the State Department of Wildlife as a priority species or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species. 2 Wetlands equal to or greater than two 2 acres in size having forty 40 percent to sixty(60) percent permanent open water in dispersed patches with two (2) o more classes of vegetation. 3. Wetlands equal to or eater than ten 10 acres in size and having three (3) or more wetland classes, one of which is open water 4. The presence of bogs or fens B Cate ory 2 wetlands Wetlands which meet any of the following cntena, and which are not category 1 wetlands. 1. Wetlands greater than one(1) acre in size 2. Wetlands equal to or less than one 1 acre in size and having three 3 0 I more wetland classes. 3. Wetlands e ual to or less than one 1 acre but eater than 1000 s . ft. that have a forested wetland class 4. Wetlands that contain the documented presence of heron rookenes o raptor nesting sites C. Catezory 3 wetlands Wetlands which meet the following, cntena and which are not category 1 or 2 wetlands 1. Wetlands that are equal to or less than one 1 acre in size and that have two (2) or fewer wetland classes. ' 43 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.590. Determination of wetland boundary by delineation. A Delineations shall be required when a development is proposed on property containing wetlands identified on the city of Kent wetland inventory or when any other credible evidence may suggest that wetlands could be present. Delineations shall also be performed when the evidence suggests that buffers from wetlands on adiacent properties may impact the proposed development B. The exact location of the wetland boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation applying the wetland definition of this chapter. An applicant may request the department to perform the delineation provided the applicant pays the department for all necessary expenses associated with performing the delineation The department shall consult with qualified professional scientists and technical experts or other experts as needed to perform the delineation Where the i applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland boundary, the department shall verify the accuracy of and may render adjustments to the boundary delineation The decision of the department may only be appealed pursuant to procedures outlined in this chapter. C. The delineation shall contain the following information- 1 A written assessment and accompanying maps of wetlands and buffers within 100-feet of the project area including the following information at a minimum. all known wetland inventory maps (including a copy of the city of Kent Wetland Inventory_Map)-, wetland delineations and required buffers existing wetland acreage; wetland category, vegetative faunal and hydrologic characteristics; soil and substrate conditions, and topographic data 2 A discussion of measures including avoidance minimization, and mitigation proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were I degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity. 3 A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions. D. A wetland delineation which has been confirmed b the department pursuant to SEPA review for a proposed project shall be binding upon the city and the applicant. I , 44 Critical Areas a wetland delineation report has not gone through SEPA review as a part of the aqpplication process and the city has approved a wetland delineation report for another purpose the wetland delineation report shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of the approved report. Sec. 11.06.600. Wetland buffers and building setback lines. A. Standard buffer widths. Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to wetlands Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The width of the wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the rating assigned to the wetland Wetland Category Minimum Buffer 1 125 feet 2 75 feet 3 50 feet I — B. Enhanced buffer widths Enhanced wetland buffers may be used to satisfy landscaping requirements where the city determines that the buffer, as enhanced bv the applicant, will provide greater protection of wetland functions, and will serve the same function as landscaping that would otherwise be required pursuant to Ch 15 07 KCC Approved landscaping vegetation must meet wetland buffer vegetation requirements C. Buddinz setback lines A minimum building setback line of fifteen (15) feet shall be required from the edge of a wetland buffer unless otherwise approved by the director. Alterations of the building setback lines shall not be permitted to create Iadditional lots for subdivisions, but only to make reasonable use of existing properties Approval of alterations of the BSBL shall be provided in wntmg by the director, or his/her designee, and may require mitigation such as buffer enhancement 45 Critical Areas D. Increased wetland buffer width. The director may Tmuire increased buffer widths on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on local conditions in accordance with recommendations o a qualified professional biologist and best available science (BAS). This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland. The documentation must demonstrate that: 1 A larger buffer is necessary to protect the function and values of the wetland, 2 A larger buffer is necessary to maintain a viable population of existing species, 3 The wetland is used by pecies listed by the federal government or the state as endangered threatened sensitive or documented priority pecies or habitats, or essential or outstanding,potential habitats for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookenes or raptor nesting trees, 4 The adiacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or 5 The adiacent land has minimal vegetation cover or slopes greater than fifteen(15) percent. E. Standard buffer width averaging. Standard wetland buffers may be modified by averaging buffer widths Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following 1 Averaging will provide the necessary biological, chemical and physical support necessary to protect the wetland in question taking into account the type, intensity, scale landscaping and the location of the proposed land use. 2 The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics which Lstify the averaging_ 3 The proposal minimizes disturbances caused by land uses in areas adiacent to any buffers which are reduced. 4 Width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional values. 46 Critical Areas ' S The total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. In no instance shall the buffers for Category 2 wetlands be reduced to less than 50 feet in width and Category 1 wetlands less than 85 feet in width. Buffer averaging shall not be permitted for Category 3 wetlands. 6 In instances where decreased buffers occur, the director or designee shall have the ability to require an applicant to submit and receive approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan to ensure wetland buffer functions are maintained. 7. The functions and values of the averaged buffer are consistent with BAS; the buffer is planted or will be planted with native vegetation, and no portion of the buffer averaged areas contain slopes that are greater than 10%. F. Buffer condition. Except as otherwise specified, wetland buffers shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbance has occurred dunng construction, re-vegetation with native vegetation shall be required pursuant to an approved mitigation plan consistent with this code. G Permitted uses in a wetland buffer. Activities shall not be allowed in a buffer j except for the following and when properly mitigated: 1. When the improvements are part of an approved enhancement, restoration or mitigation plan 2. For construction of new public roads and utilities, and accessory j structures, when no practicable alternative location exists 3 Construction of foot trails, according to the following criteria a. Constructed of permeable materials. 1 b Designed to minimize impact on the stream system. c. Of a maximum width of eight (8) feet d Located within the outer half of the buffer, i e , the portion of the buffer that is farther away from the stream, except to cross a stream when approved by tthe City and all other applicable agencies 4. Construction of footbndges and boardwalks t5 Construction of educational facilities, such as viewmg_platfonns and informational signs. 47 Critical Areas 6 The construction of outdoor recreation such as fishing piers, boat launches,benches. 7 Maintenance of pre-existing facilities or temporary uses having minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on wetlands. These may include but are not limited to: maintenance of existingdrainage rainage facilities low intensity passive recreational activities such as pervious trails nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds, short term scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing. 8 Stormwater discharge outlets with energy dissipation structures as approved by the city of Kent These shall be located near the outside portion of the buffer. Mitigation shall be required for impacts to the buffer. 9 On-going maintenance activities by the dity of Kent vegetation management division of public works and parks department shall be permitted to continue general maintenance of wetlands and associated buffers Maintenance shall include but not be limited to trash removal removal of non-native vegetation, maintenance of existing vegetation as necessary, restoration enhancement and sign and fence maintenance. � d impacts.� Sec. 11.06.610. Avoiding wetlan Regulated activities shall not be p i authorized in Category 1 wetlands except where it can be demonstrated that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary as described below, or that all reasonable economic uses are denied. A Where water-dependent activities are proposed unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted where no reasonable alternatives exist which would not involve wetland impacts• or which would not have less of an adverse impact on a wetland,• and that would not have other significant adverse environmental consequences B. Where non-water-dependent activities are proposed the applicant must demonstrate that: 1 The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished using an alternative site in the general region that is available to the applicant 48 Critical Areas 2 A reduction in the size scope configuration or density of the proiect as proposed-, and all alternative designs of the project as proposed that would avoid, or result in less adverse impacts on a wetland or its buffer will not accomplish the basic purpose of the project. 3 In cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the project as proposed due to constraints such as zoning deficiencies of infrastructure, or parcel size, the applicant has made reasonable attempt to remove or accommodate such constraints See. 11.06.620. Limits of impacts to wetlands. A. For wetlands where buffers are not connected to npanan comdors, (Category 3 wetlands and Category 2 wetlands which are not Category 3 wetlands only because they exceed one (1) acre in size) the following applies: regulated activities which result in the filling of no more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of a wetland may be permitted if mitigation is provided consistent with the standards. B. In computing the total allowable wetland fill area under this subsection, the director shall include any areas that have been filled since January 1, 1991 For example, if five thousand (5,000) square feet of a wetland were filled in February, 1991, future applicants would only be allowed a maximum of five thousand (5,000) additional square feet under this subsection. Any proposed fill over ten thousand (10,000)square feet must demonstrate unavoidable and necessary impacts 1 See. 11.06.630. Fencing and signage. All development and subdivisions to which this chapter applies shall construct a wildlife passable fence along the entire buffer edge, unless otherwise approved by the director. Wetland Sensitive Area Signs must also be attached to the fence or located lust inside the wildlife passable fence attached to a 4 x 4 cedar post (or other non-pressure treated matenals approved by the city) Signs must be located at a rate of one sign per residential lot and one sign per 100 feet for all public nghts of way, trails, parking areas, playgrounds and all other uses located adjacent to wetlands and associated buffers. I49 Critical Areas Sec. 11.06.640. Sensitive area tracts/easements. A Condition of yoroval As a condition of approval pursuant to this chapter, the director shall require creation of a separate sensitive area tract containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer. Sensitive area tractsleasements are separate tracts containing wetlands and wetland buffers with pemetual deed restrictions requiring that the tract remain undeveloped. Sensitive area tracts are an integral part o the lot in which thgy are created are not intended for sale lease or transfer, and may be included in the area of the parent lot for purposes of subdivision method and minimum lot size. B. Protection of sensitive area tracts. The director shall require that a sensitive area be protected by one (1) of the following methods. 1 The applicant shall dedicate to the city or other public or nonprofit entity specified by the director, an easement or tract for the protection of native vegetation within a wetland and/or its buffer, or 2 The applicant shall record against the property, a permanent and irrevocable deed restriction on all lots containing a sensitive area tract or tracts created as a condition of approval Such deed restriction(s) shall be approved by the director and the city attorney and prohibit in perpetuity the development alteration, or disturbance of vegetation within the sensitive area tract except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has received pnor Written approval from the city and any other agency with lunsdiction over such activity Sec it 06 650 Notice on title The owner of any property with field venfied presence of wetlands or wetland buffers for which a permit application is submitted shall as a condition of permit issuance record a notice of the existence of such wetland or wetland buffer against the prol2erty with the King County Recorder's Office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this I provision The titleholder will have the right to challenge this notice and to have it deleted if the wetland desiwiation no longer applies however the applicant shall be responsible for completing a wetland delineation report which will be subject to 50 Critical Areas approval by the director. Any unapproved alterations of a wetland will result in a code violation and will be enforced to the fullest extent of Kent City Code. i See. 11.06.660. Compensating for wetland impacts. A Condition of approval As a condition of any approval allowing alteration o wetlands and/or wetland buffers or as an enforcement action the director shall require that the applicant engage in the restoration creation or enhancement of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's or -violator's actions The applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land acquisition construction maintenance and monitonng of replacement wetlands that recreate as nearly as practicable or improves the original wetlands in terms of acreage, function geographic location and setting. B Goal. The overall goal of any compensatory mitigation protect shall be to replace the wetland lost with Upropnate functions and values. No net loss of wetland acreage or function shall be approved Compensation shall be completed prior to wetland destruction where practicable. Compensatory mitigation programs shall incorporate the standards and requirements contained in sections 11.06.550 and j11.06 560, above C. Restoration and creation of wetlands and wetland buffers Any person who alters wetlands shall restore or create equivalent areas or greater areas of wetlands than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses Any created or restored wetlands shall be protected by the provisions of this chapter. D. Acreajze replacement and enhancement ratio. Wetland alterations shall be replaced or enhanced usiny the formulas below, however the director may choose to double mitigation ratios in instances where wetlands are filled or impacted as a result o code violations. The first number specifies the acreage of wetlands re uinn replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from illegal alterations. 1. Compensation for alteration of Category 1 wetlands shall be jaccomplished as follows. a By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of three (3) to one(1), I51 Critical Areas b. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1) and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of three (3) to one(1), or c. By a combination of creation of new wetlands and enhancement o f existing wetlands within the range of the ratios set out in subsections (a) and (b) above, so long as a minimum one (1) to one (1) creation ratio is met (for example, creation o new wetlands at a one and one-half (1.5) to one (1) ratio along with enhancement o existing wetlands at a ratio of two and one-half(2.5) to one (1) may be acceptable) 2. Compensation for alteration of Category 2 and 3 wetlands shall be accomplished as follows: a. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one and one-half(1 5) to one 1 b. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1) and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one(1); or c. By a combination of creation of new wetlands and enhancement o existing wetlands within the range of ratios set out in subsections (a) and (b) above, so long as a minimum one(1)to one(1) creation ratio is met. E. Decreased replacement ratio The director may decrease the required replacement ratio where the applicant provides the mitigation prior to altenng the wetland and a minimum acreage replacement ratio of one (1) to one (1) is provided In such a case the mitigation must be in place monitored for three (3) growing seasons j and be deemed a success prior to allowing any alterations. F. Wetlands enhancement. 1 Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance existing Category 2 wetlands and Category 3 wetlands in order to compensate for wetland losses. 2 Not all Category 2 and 3 wetlands are in need of enhancement. If an applicant proposes to complete enhancement of an existing wetland the proposed enhancement shall be consistent with best available science and shall be approved by the department. 52 Critical Areas 3 A wetlands enhancement compensation project shall be considered, provided that enhancement for one function and value will not degrade another function or value. Acreage replacement ratios for enhancement shall be 3:1 4 Category 1 wetlands shall not be enhanced as the only method o mitigation. Category 1 wetlands shall be mitigated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. G. Wetland/Habitat Bank Mitigation may allowed within a Wetland/Habitat Mitigation Bank located within the City of Kent once a bank is formed. Proposed developments must continue to demonstrate avoidance, minimization, mitigation pnor be allowed to mitigate using a wetland bank site. Feasibility of on-site mitigation will be required to be pnor to allowing mitigation credits from a mitigation bank H. Wetland type. In-kind compensation shall be provided except that, out-of-kind compensation may be accepted where: 1 The wetland system to be replaced is already significantly degraded and out-of-kind-replacement will result in a wetland with greater functional value ' 2 Technical problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in watershed hydrology make implementation of in-kind compensation impracticable. 3 Out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals (e g , replacement of histoncally diminished wetland types). I. Location On-site compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can demonstrate that: 1. The hydrology and ecosystem of the onginal wetland and those who benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be substantially damaged by the onsnte loss. 2. On-site compensation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with jhydrology, soils, or other factors. 3 Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impacts from surrounding land uses. 4 Existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values. 53 Critical Areas 5. Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance,habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly Justify location o compensatory measures at another site. J. Off-site compensation. Off-site compensation shall occur within the same drainage basin as the wetland loss occurred, unless the applicant can demonstrate extraordinary hardship. K. O,f'-sate compensation site selection. In selecting compensation sites for creation or enhancement, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: 1. Upland sites which were formerly wetlands and significantly degraded wetlands. Such wetlands are typically small; have only one (1) wetland class; and have one (1) dominant plant species or a predominance of exotic species. 2. Idle inland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primanly of exotic introduced species,weeds, or emergent vegetation. 3. Other disturbed upland. L. Timing_ Where feasible compensatory projects shall be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands or immediately after activities that will temporanly disturb wetlands or prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development which was conditioned upon such compensation Construction of compensation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. M Completion of ming tion construction On completion of construction, any approved mitigation project must be signed off b the applicant's qualified consultant and approved by the department A signed letter from the consultant will indicate that the construction has been completed as approved, and approval of the installed mitigation plan will begin the monitoring penod if appropnate. Article V. Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Sec. 11.06.670. Stream classifications and rating. A. To promote consistent application of the standards and requirements of this chapter, streams within the City of Kent shall be rated or classified accordin to thei charactenstics, function and value, and/or their sensitivity to disturbance 54 Critical Areas B. Classification of streams shall be determined by the department based on consideration of the following factors: 1 Approved technical reports submitted by qualified consultants in connection with applications for activities subject to these regulations 2 Application of the cntena contained in these regulations; and 3. Maps adopted pursuant to this chapter; C. Streams shall be designated Types 1 through 3 as follows: 1 Type 1 Water — means all shorelines identified in the Kent Shoreline Master Pro gram. 2 Type 2 Water— means salmomd bearing segments of natural waters not classified as Type 1 Water, with documented salmomd use. This category also refers to lakes ponds or impoundments having a surface area of 1 acre of greater at seasonal low water. Salmonnd Beanng waters are used by fish for spawning, rearing or ' migration 3. Type 3 Water — means non-salmomd segments of natural waters not ' classified as Type 1 or 2 Waters. These are stream segments within the bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial and intermittent non-salmomd habitat streams These waters begin at a point along the channel where documented salmomd fish use ends. Sec. 11.06.680. Stream buffer areas, setbacks, fencing and signage. A. General provisions 1. The establishment of buffers shall be required for all development proposals and activities in or adjacent to streams. The purpose of the buffer shall be to protect the integnty, function, value and resources of the stream. Buffers shall typically consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation established to achieve the purpose o the buffer. No buildings, structures, impervious surfaces or non-native landscaping ishall be allowed in a buffer unless otherwise permitted by this chapter. If the site has previously been disturbed, the buffer area shall be re-vegetated pursuant to an approved ienhancement plan. Where flexible buffer widths are permitted by this chapter, such enhancement shall be considered in determining Qpropnate buffer widths Buffers 55 Critical Areas shall be protected during construction by placement of a temporary bamcade, notice o the presence of the critical area, and implementation of appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls. Restrictive covenants or conservation easements will be required to provide long-term preservation and protection of buffer areas 2 Required buffer widths shall reflect the functions and values of the j stream the risks associated with development and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted on or near the stream in those circumstances where such activi1y is permitted by these regulations. 3. All stream buffers shall have a minimum building setback line, as defined by this chapter, of 15-feet from the edge of all stream buffers 4. All stream buffers shall have a wildlife passable fence installed at the edge of the buffer. Fencing shall consist of split rail cedar fencing (or other non- pressure treated materials approved by the city). The fencing shall also include sensitive area signage at a rate of one (1) sign per lot or one (1) sign per 100 feet for large parcels and along public right of way whichever is greater. B. Standard buffer widths. The following standard buffers are established for streams as measured from the ordinary high water mark. Stream Standard Buffer Type I,V e 1 Per Kent SMP I,ype 2 100 feet Type 3 1 40 feet C Valley stream buffers. A special stream buffer and mitigation/enhancement program shall apply to the industnalized areas adjacent to portions of Mill Creek Gamson Creek and Sprim brook Creek on the valley floor. These areas are substantially developed for industnal uses and existing histoncal setbacks are typically less than 50 feet Existing buffers are degraded These areas are generally identified by the Valley Stream Overlay Map. The Valley Stream Overlay area is generally ' described as that area beginning at the Kent city limits where the Green River and South 1801h Street intersect following 180`h Street easterly to the eastern right-of-way line to SR 167 then moving south along the SR 167 eastem nght-of-way line to the 56 Critical Areas t intersection of 98`h Avenue South then along the Green River Valley floor to West Smith Street then east alone West Smith Street to East Titus Street, then along East Titus Street to Central Avenue then following the Green River Valley floor to the Green River, then following the eastern edge of Green River to the point of beginning. 1. Stream buffers shall be 50 feet. I 2 The goal of the special program applicable to these streams shall be to enhance existing vegetation and habitat to accomplish sediment removal and erosion control pollutant removal placement of large woody debns and particularly to control water temperature These objectives can be accomplished with the required buffers 3 A buffer management and enhancement plan shall be required consistent with the mitigation performance standards in this section. 1 4 Buffer reductions or averaging shall not bepennrtted except as pennitted through the reasonable use provisions of section 11 06.090 or the vanance provision o section 11.06.100 of these regulations D. Increased buffers. A buffer width greater than the standard may be required by the city based on the findings of site-specific studies prepared consistent with these regulations or to comply with state or federal plans to preserve endangered or Ithreatened species E. Buffer averaging. The department may permit buffer widths to be averaged for Type 2 streams only, in accordance with the stream report, subject to the following cntena• ' 1 Stream functions will not be reduced 2. Salmonid habitat will not be adversely affected. 3. Additional enhancement of habitat is provided in conjunction with the reduced buffer. 4. The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is not less that what would be contained in the standard buffer. ' 5. The buffer width is not reduced by more than 50 percent in any location 6 All reduced buffers shall be mitigated through buffer enhancement ipursuant to the requirements of section 11 06 550. ' 57 Critical Areas I F. Activities within buffer. No structures or improvements shall be oennitted within the stream buffer area, including buildings, decks, docks, except as otherwise permitted by this section, by the citys adopted Shoreline Master Program, or under one of the following circumstances: 1. When the improvements are part of an approved enhancement. I restoration or mitigation plan; or 2. Construction of new public roads and utilities and accessory structures when no feasible altemative location exists; or 3. Construction of foot trails, according to the following criteria: a Constructed of permeable materials. b Designed to minimize impact on the streams stem. c. Of a maximum width of eight (8) feet. d. Located within the outer half of the buffer, i e., the portion of the buffer that is farther away from the stream except to cross a stream when approved b the city and all other applicable agencies. 4. Construction of footbridges and boardwalks. 5 Construction of educational facilities such as viewing platforms and informational signs. 6 Stormwater discharge points and energy dissipation structures, provided mitigation and enhancement is completed and approved by the city. G. Protection of streams/bu ers Long term protection of a regulated stream and its associated buffer shall be provided by placingit in a separate tract on which development isprohibited; executing an easement dedication to a conservation organization or land trust; or similarly reserved through a permanent protectiv mechanism acceptable to the city. The location and limitations associated with the stream and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the f property and shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office H. Bu er width variances Re uired buffers shall not deny all reasonable use o property. A variance from buffer width requirements may be granted by the cit subiect to the vanance cnteria set forth in section 11.06.100 of these re ulations j Vanances to buffers shall require a buffer enhancement plan pursuant to sectio 58 Critical Areas 11 06 550 including bonding pursuant to section 11.06.560. Prior to obtaining a variance the applicant must demonstrate that all other reasonable alternatives including javoidance minimization and buffer-averaging have been explored and would prohibit all reasonable economic use of the property. I Bu.(fer enhancements The applicant may propose to implement one or more enhancement measures listed in order of preference below, which will be considered in establishing buffer requirements: 1 Removal of fish bamers to restore accessibility to anadromous fish. 2 Enhancement of fish habitat using log structures incorporated as part of a fish habitat enhancement plan. 3 Creating or enhancing the surface channel if approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4 Planting native vegetation within the buffer area, especially vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife increase stream bank or slope stability, improve water quality, or provide aesthetic/recreational value. 5 Landscaping outside the buffer area with native vegetation or a reduction in the amount of clearing outside the buffer area 6 Enhancement of wildlife habitat by adding structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including wood duck houses, bat boxes, nesting platforms, snags, rootwads/stumps, birdhouses, and heron nesting areas. 7 Additional mitigating measures may include but are not limited to the following: a Creating a surface channel where a stream was previously culverted or piped. b. Removing or modifying existing stream culverts (such as at road jcrossings) to improve fish passage and flow capabilities which are not detnmental to fish. C. Upgrading retention/detention facilities or other drainage facilities beyond required levels. d. similar measures determined to be appropriate b, t�partment 59 Critical Areas t Sec. 11.06.690. Alteration or development—standards and criteria. Alteration of streams and/or their established buffers may be permitted by the department subject to the criteria of this section. Standards for mitigation of impacts to cntical areas are identified in section 11.06.550 of these regulations. A. Alteration shall not degrade the functions and values of the stream. B. Activities located in water bodies and associated buffers, used by anadromous fish shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of fish habitat, including but not limited to the following: 1 The activity is timed to occur only within the allowable work window for the particular species. 2 The activity is designed so as not to degrade the functions and values o the habitat and any impacts are mitigated. 3. An alternate location or design is not feasible C. Relocation of a Type 2 or 3 stream solely to facilitate general site design shall not be pennjtted Relocation of a stream may be permitted only when it is part of an approved mitigation or enhancement/restoration plan and will result in equal or better , habitat and water quality, and will not diminish the flow capacity of the stream. D. Bndges shall be used to cross Type 1 streams-, bonne/micro-tunneling may be considered for utility crossings if it would result in the same or lower impacts as bndgjng. E. All new culverts shall be designed following guidance provided in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's document: "Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage, 2003" (or most recent version thereof). The applicant shall obtain a HPA from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Culverts are allowed only in Type 2, t and 3. F. The applicant or successors shall at all times, keep any culvert free of debris S and sediment to allow free passage of water and, if applicable, fish. G. The city may require that a culvert be removed from a stream as a condition o S approval unless the culvert is not detnmental to fish habitat or water quality, or removal would be a long term detriment to fish or wildlife habitat or water quality. 60 Critical Areas , Sec. 11.06.700. Mitigation performance standards. The performance standards in this section, and the standards in sections 11.06.550 and 11.06.560 shall be incorporated into mitigation plans submitted to the city for impacts to streams. Mitigation plans are subject to approval by the city of Kent. iA Use plants native to the Puget Lowlands or Pacific Northwest ecoregion; nonnative introduced plants or plants listed by the Washington State Department o ' Apnculture as noxious weeds (WAC 16-750) shall not be used. B. Use plants adapted to and appropnate for the proposed habitats and consider the ecological conditions known or expected to be present on the site. C. Avoid planting significant areas of the site with species that have questionable potential for successful establishment, such as species with a narrow range of habitat tolerances. D. Specify plants that are commercially available from native-plant nurseries or available from local sources; if collecting some or all native plants from donor sites, collect in accordance with ecologically accepted methods, such as those descnbed in the Washington Native Plant Society's Policy on Collection and Sale of Native Plants, that do not jeopardize the survival or integnty of donor plant populations. I E Use perennial plants in preference to annual species; annuals shall be planted following the second or third year after initial installation of plantings to determine the success of initial plantings and maintenance practices. Annual plants shall only be used if mitigation monrtonng determines that native plants are not naturally colonizing the site or if species diversity is unacceptably low compared to approved performance standards. F. Use plant species high in food and cover value for native fish and wildlife species that are known or likely to use the mitigation site (according to reference Iwetlands, published infonnation, and professional judgment) G. Install a temporary imgation system and specify an imgation schedule unless a sufficient naturally-occurring source of water is demonstrated. H Confine temporary stockpiling of soils to upland areas Unless otherwise Iapproved by the department, comply with all applicable best management practices for 1 61 Critical Areas 1 clearing, grading, and erosion control to protect any nearby surface waters from sediment and turbidity. I. Show densities and placement of plants. These should be based on the I ecological tolerances of species proposed for planting J. Provide sufficient specifications and instructions to ensure proper placement ' diversity and spacing of seeds, tubers, bulbs, rhizomes, springs, plugs, and transplanted stock and other habitat features, to provide a huh probability of success; and to reduce the likelihood of prolonged losses of wetland functions from proposed development. Prepare contingency plans as described in section 11.06.550 for all mitigation r proposals. K. Do not rely on fertilizers and herbicides to promote establishment of plantings If fertilizers are used they must be approved in wnting by the department and other applicable agencies and shall be applied per manufacturer specifications to planting holes in organic or time-release forms, such as Osmocote® or comparable formulations and never broadcast on the ground surface; if herbicides are used to control invasive species or noxious weeds and to help achieve performance standards, only those approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by the Washington Department o Ecology shall be used. Herbicides shall only be used in conformance with all qpplicable laws and regulations and be applied per manufacturer specifications by an gplicator licensed in the state of Washington. Sec. 11.06.710. Wildlife habitat classification and rating. Wildlife habitat areas subiect to these regulations include habitat classified as "critical" habitat and "ponds" according to the cntena in this section. A. "Critical Habitat" are those habitat areas which meet any of the following cnteria: 1. The documented presence of species or habitat listed by federal or state agencies as "endangered" "threatened", "candidate", "sensitive" or"prionty" , 2. The presence of unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees. This provision shall be limited to raptors which are included within the listed categories of wildlife noted in paragraph (a), above, and shall apply to 62 Critical Areas active nests To demonstrate that a nesting site is inactive and not subject to these regulations an applicant must monitor the nesting site during construction and submit a report documenting that it is not currently being used by the relevant species. B. "Ponds" (deepwater aquatic habitat) as defined in this chapter, which are iimportant to and support a wide variety of species of fish wildlife or vegetation. ' Sec. 11.06.720. Wildlife habitat buffer areas and setbacks. A. Buffer widths for critical habitat areas shall be determined by the department, based on an cntical area report prepared by the applicant pursuant to this chapter and consideration of the following factors 1. Research and evaluation of best available science sources relevant to ' species and habitat present within the city, as documented in Cztv of Kent Best Available Science Review for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, 2004,or amendments thereto 2 Species-specific management guidelines of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 3. Recommendations contained in the wildlife study submitted by a qualified consultant, following the reporting requirements of these regulations 4. The nature and intensity of land uses and activities occumng on the site I and on ad acent sites. Buffers are encouraged but are not required for secondar habitat B. Buffers for ponds shall be 75 feet plus a 15-foot BSBL. C. Wildlife habitat buffer widtbs may be modified by averaging buffer widths I 1 buffer averaging is approved, it shall include enhancement or restoration of buffer quality. D. Certain uses and activities which are consistent with the purpose and function o the habitat buffer and do not detract from its integrity may be permitted by the department within the buffer depending on the sensitivitV of the habitat area. Examples of uses and activities with minimal impact which may be permitted in appropnate cases include permeable pedestnan trails fishing piers and viewing platforms, and utiht easementsprovided that any impacts to the buffer resulting from pennitted facihties 63 Critical Areas shall be mitigated. When permitted such facilities should be located in the outer ten feet(10')of the buffer, unless otherwise approved by the director. E. Lon tg erm protection of critical habitat areas and their associated buffer(s) shall be provided by placing them in a separate a separate tract on which development is prohibited; protection by execution of an easement,• dedication to a conservation organization or ' land trust or a similar permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the city. The location and limitations associated with the habitat and its buffer shall be shown on the , face of the deed or plat applicable to the property and shall be recorded with the Kmg County Recorder's Office. Sec. 11.06.730. Alteration or development of wildlife habitat. , A Cntical Habitat Alterations of cntical habitat shall be avoided, subject to the variance or reasonable use provisions of this chapter. B. Where permitted by these regulations alteration shall not degrade the functions and values of the habitat. Sec. 11.06.740. Performance standards for mitigation planning. A The performance standards in this section and the general standards in Section 1106.550 of this chapter, shall be incorporated into mitigation plans submitted to the department for impacts to wildlife habitat. The following additional mitigation measures shall be incorporated in mitigation planning: 1 Locate buildings and structures in a manner that minimizes adverse , impacts on critical habitats used by priority, threatened or endangered species and identified by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife National Manne Fishenes Services. and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 2. Integrate retained habitat into open space and landscaping ' 3 Wherever possible consolidate critical habitats into larger, unfragmented, contiguous blocks. 4. Use native plant species for landscaping of disturbed or undeveloped areas and in any habitat enhancement or restoration activities. 64 Critical Areas ' i 5 Create habitat heterogeneity and structural diversity that emulates native plant communities described in Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington (Franklin IF and C T Dymess 1988) or other regionally recognized publications on native landscapes. 6 Remove and/or control any noxious and invasive weeds or exotic animals which are problematic to the cntical habitat area as determined by the ' Department. 7 Preserve significant or existing native trees preferably in stands or groups consistent with achieving the goals and standards of this chapter B. On completion of construction any approved mitigation project must be signed ' off by the applicant's qualified consultant and approved by the department. A signed letter from the consultant will indicate that the construction has been completed as approved and approval of the installed mitigation plan will begin the monitoring penod ' if appropriate. Article VI. Geological Hazard Areas l Sec. 11.06.760. Alterations of geologic hazard areas. A. Criteria Alterations of geological hazard areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that meet the following criteria 1 Will not increase the existing threat of the geological hazard to adjacent ' properties 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre-development conditions. 4. Are certified as safe as designed under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. 1 The department may condition or deny proposals as appropriate to achieve these criteria. Conditions may include limitations of proposed uses, modification of density, alteration of site layout, and other appropnate changes to the proposal. 65 Critical Areas B. Essential public facilities. Public emery, health, and safety facilities and public utilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is no other practicable alternative. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. 1. Alterations to landslide hazard areas may be permitted based on the findings and recommendations of a geologic report prepared consistent with the requirements of this chapter and certifying that the development complies with the criteria in subsection A. above. 2 Unless otherwise provided or as a necessary part of an approved I alteration, removal of any vegetation from a landslide hazard area or buffer shall be prohibited, except for removal of hazard trees as verified b the he department. 3. Vegetation on slopes within a landslide hazard area or buffer which has been damaged by human activity or infested by noxious and invasive weeds may bbe replaced with vegetation native to Kent pursuant to an enhancement plan approved by the department. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in landslide hazard areas and their buffers is prohibited unless otherwise approved by the department in wnting. 4. All alterations shall be undertaken in a manner to minimize disturbance to the landslide hazard area, slope and vegetation unless the alterations are necessary for slope stabilization. D Erosion Hazard Areas 1. Cleanng in an erosion hazard area is not limited to time of year, except , when such restnctions are recommended in the geotechnical report and approved by the department. 2. Alterations to erosion hazard areas may occur for activities for which a hazard analysis has been completed and submitted certif n�ng that the development complies with the criteria in subsection A. The hazard analysis must be completed m general accordance with the requisites described in the geologic report 3 Where the department determines that erosion from a development site in an erosion hazard area poses a significant nsk of damage to downstream receiving waters, based either on the size of the project, the proximity to the receiving water or 66 Critical Areas the sensitivity of the receiving water, the applicant shall be required to provide regular monitoring of surface water discharge from the site. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the department based on provisions in an approved mitigation plan If the project does not meet state water quality standards the department may suspend further development work on the site until such standards are met. 4. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in erosion thazard areas is prohibited unless otherwise approved by the Department. E. Seismic hazard areas. 1. Alterations to seismic hazard areas may be allowed only as follows- a. The evaluation of site-specific subsurface conditions shows that the proposed development site is not located in a seismic hazard area; b. Mitigation based on the best available engineering and geotechnical practices shall be implemented which either eliminates or minimizes the risk o damage, death, or injury resulting from seismically induced settlement or soil liquefaction. Mitigation shall be consistent with the requirements of KCC 14.01 and shall be approved by the Building Official, and c. Mobile homes may placed in seismic hazard areas without performing special studies to address the seismic hazard Such mobile homes may be subject to special support and tie-down requirements. F. Volcanic hazard areas The City shall maintain a map that indicates the location of volcanic hazards. Sites which are located on or within 200 feet of an identified volcanic hazard area shall include a notation on the title to the affected property disclosing the presence of the hazard. Sec. 11.06.750. Buffers and setbacks. A. A buffer shall be established to protect geologic hazard areas. Buffers and setbacks shall be established from the top bottom and sides of critical areas Unless permitted by the director, native vegetation within buffer areas shall not be impacted, and shall remain in their natural state. The width of the buffer shall be established by the department based on consideration of the following factors 67 Critical Areas 1. The recommendations contained in the geologic report required by this chapter and prepared by a qualified consultant. 2. The sensitivity of the geologic hazard in question. 3. The type and intensity of the proposed land use. B. All buffers shall include a minimum fifteen(15) foot BSBL. C. When the geotechnical report demonstrates that, due to application of design and engineering solutions lesser buffer and setback distances will meet the intent of this regulation, sucb reduced buffer and setback distances may permitted. 1. Minimum buffer width for landslide hazard areas shall be equal to the vertical height of the landslide hazard or fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater, for all landslide hazard areas that measure 10 feet or more in vertical elevation change from top to toe of slope as identified in the geotechnical report maps and field-checking. No disturbance may occur within the buffer except as provided within this chapter 2 The buffer may be reduced when a qualified professional demonstrates to the department's satisfaction that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area In no case shall the buffer be less than 25-feet. 3 To increase the functional attributes of the buffer. the department coati require that the buffer be enhanced through planting of indigenous species 4 The edge of the buffer area shall be clearly staked, flagged, and fenced , pnor to any site cleanng or construction The buffer boundary markers shall be clearly visible durable and permanently affixed to the ground Site cleannc shall not , commence until the engineer has submitted written notice to the department that buffer requirements of this regulation are met Field marking shall remain until all , construction and cleanng phases are completed and final approval has been granted by the department. 68 Critical Areas Article VII. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Sec. 11.06.770. Critical aquifer recharge areas designation, rating and mapping. A Critical aguuifer recharge areas designation. Cntical aquifer recharge areas (CARA) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable twater as defined by WAC 365-190-030 (2). CARA have prevailing geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for ' contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. These areas include the following• 1. Wellhead protection areas Wellhead protection areas shall be defined by the boundaries of the ten (10) year time of ground water travel, or boundanes established using alternate cntena approved by the Department of Health in those settings where ground water time of travel is not a reasonable delineation cntenon, m accordance with WAC 246-290-135. 2 Susceptible ground water nianaQenzent areas. Susceptible ground water management areas are areas that have been designated as moderately or highly vulnerable or susceptible in an adopted ground water management program developed pursuant to Chapters 173-100 WAC. 3. Special protection areas. Special protection areas are those areas defined by WAC 173-200-090. ' 4. Private wells. Private wells are not governed by this code, however all provisions of the King County Board of Health Code 12 24.010 shall be applicable 1 B. Mapper of critical aquifer recharge areas. 1. The approximate location and extent of cntical aquifer recharge areas are shown on the Wellhead Protection Area Inventory Map, maintained by the department 2. These maps are to be used as a guide for the city of Kent project applicants and/or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified or when updates to the city of Kent Wellhead Protection Program are completed. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation 69 Critical Areas 3. This mapping does not include private water wells for single family ' residences. Sec. 11.06.780. Critical aquifer recharge area reporting requirements. A. Activities that require a critical area report If located within a CARA, the following land use proposals shall be required to complete a critical aquifer recharge area report. The report shall be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the , department. 1. Above ground storage tanks , 2 Dry cleaners. 3. Pipelines (hazardous liquid transmission). t 4 Auto repair shops (including oil/lube facilities). 5. Underground storage tanks. 6. Gas stations. 7. Other land use types as determined by the director that may have the potential to significantly imRact groundwater resources B. Requirements for critical aquifer recharge area reports 1 An aquifer recharge area critical area report shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a hydrogeologist or engineer, who is licensed in the state of Washington and has experience in preparing hydro-geologic assessments 2 A cntical aquifer recharge area report shall include the following site and proposal related information at a minimum: , a Available information regarding_geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site including the surface location of all critical aquifer recharge areas located on site or immediately adjacent to the site, and permeability of the unsaturated zone based on available information. b Ground water depth flow direction and gradient based on available information. ' c Currently available data on wells and springs within 1,300 feet of the project area. 70 Critical Areas ' d Location of other cntical areas including surface waters, within 1,300 feet of the project area. e Available historic water quality data for the area to be affected by the proposed activity. If. Best management practices proposed to be utilized. g. Historic water quality data for the area to be affected by the ' proposed activity compiled for at least the previous five (5) year penod based on available infonnation h. Ground water monitonng plan provisions. i. Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on the ground water quality and quantity, including; Predictive evaluation of groundwater withdrawal effects. (2) Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on potential releases to ground water. 1. A spill plan that identifies equipment and/or structures that could fail, resulting m an impact for construction periods and for general operating business procedures post construction Spill plans shall include provisions for regular 1 inspection, repair, and replacement of structures and equipment that could fail. li Sec. 11.06.790. Critical aquifer recharge area performance standards. A General requirements 1. Activities may only be permitted in a cntical aquifer recharge area if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer and that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer ' 2. The proposed activity must comply with the water source protection requirements and recommendations of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, 1 state Department of Health, and the Seattle King County Health Department. 3. The proposed stormwater management facilities must be designed and constructed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted b the he city of Kent pursuant to KCC Chapter 7.07. 71 Critical Areas B. Specific uses. 1. Storage Tanks. All storage tanks proposed to be located in a critical aquifer recharge area must comply with all applicable codes including, but not limited to, the Washington State Department of Ecology and local code requirements and must confonn to the following: 1 a. Underground Tanks. All new underground storage facilities proposed for use in the storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes shall be designed and constructed so as to: (1) Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the , operational life of the tank. (2) Be protected against corrosion, constructed of non-corrosive ' material, steel clad with a non-corrosive matenal, or designed to include a secondary ' containment system to 1revent the release or threatened release of any stored substances (3) Use material in the construction or lining of the tank that is compatible with the substance to be stored. b. Aboveground Tanks All new aboveground storage facilities proposed for use in the storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes shall be designed and constructed so as to: (1) Not allow the release of a hazardous substance to the ground, , ground waters, or surface waters (2) Have primary containment areas enclosing or underlying the , tank or part thereof. (3) A secondary containment system either built into the tank ' structure or a dike system built outside the tank for all tanks, (4) All outside above ground storage tanks shall be covered to , prevent rainwater from filling secondary containment areas. 2. Vehicle repair and servicing. Vehicle repair and servicing must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a covered structure capable o withstanding nonnally expected weather conditions. Chemicals used in the process o 72 Critical Areas vehicle repair and servicing must be stored in a manner that protects them from weather and provides containment should leaks occur. 3. Dry wells. No dry wells shall be allowed in critical aquifer recharge areas Dry wells existing on the site prior to facility establishment must be abandoned using techniques approved by the state Department of Ecology pnor to commencement of the proposed activity. 4. Residential use of pesticides and nutrients. Application of household pesticides herbicides, and fertilizers shall not exceed times and rates specified on the Packaging 5. Spreading or m7ection of reclaimed water Water reuse projects for reclaimed water must be in accordance with the adopted water or sewer comprehensive i plans that have been approved by the departments of Ecology and Health a. Surface spreading must meet the ground water recharge crrtena given in Chapter 90 46 080 RCW and Chapter 90 46 010(10) b Direct iniection must be in accordance with the standards developed by authority of Chapter 90.46.042 RCW. See. 11.06.800. Prohibited uses. The following activities and uses are prohibited to critical aquifer recharge areas* ' A. Landfills. Landfills, including hazardous or dangerous waste, municipal solid wastes special waste, woodwaste, and inert and demolition waste landfills B Underground infection wells. Class I, IIL and IV wells and subclasses FOl, 5DO3 5FO4 5WO9 5W10 5W11 5W31 5X13 5X14 5W20 5X28 and 5N24 of ' Class V wells. C. Mining 1. Metals and hard rock mining. 2 Sand and gravel mining is prohibited from critical aquifer recharge areas detennmed to be highlysusceptible or vulnerable. D Wood treatment facihties. Wood treatment facilities that allow any portion of the treatment process to occur over permeable surfaces (both natural and manmade) ' 73 Critical Areas E. Storage, processing, or disposal of radioactive substances. Facilities that store process, or dispose of radioactive substances- F. Private wells. Any property within the City of Kent using a private well for water supply shall abate the well in accordance with Department of Ecology Standards, when development is proposed and can be serviced by a municipal water purveyor. ' Retention of exempt wells shall not be permitted for irrigation purposes to prevent potential cross-contamination issues. t 1. All property currently with a private well, or within 200-feet of a private well, shall follow all conditions of the King County Board of Health Code 12 24.010 in t the design of the development of the property Any proposed development plans shall show all private wells within 200-feet. G. Other uses. Activities that would significantly reduce the recharge to aquifer currently or potentially used as a potable water source or activities that would significantly reduce the recharge to aquifers that are a source of significant baseflow to a regulated stream SECTION S. —Amendment. Chapter 14 09 of the Kent City Code is amende as follows: Chapter 14.09 ' FLOOD HAZARD REGULATIONS* Sec. 14.09.010. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: ' Appeal means a request for review of any final action pursuant to this chapter,or of the interpretation of any provision of this chapter by any city official. 74 Critical Areas Area of shallow flooding means the land within the floodplain where the base flood depths range from one (1) to three (3) feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and, velocity flow may be evident. ' Area of special flood hazard means the land within the floodplain which is subject to a one (1)percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Base flood means the flood having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also referred to as the one hundred (100) year flood. Base flood elevation means the actual elevation (in mean sea level) of the water surface of the base flood determined by the federal flood insurance administration or other ualified person or agency as described in this chapter. Critical facility means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and public and private facilities which produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste as defined by State Department of Ecology I Development means any proposed or actual manmade changes to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations located ' within flood hazard areas and other site preparation activities ' Director means the director of the department of public works of the city ' Flood or flooding means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: ' 1. The overflow of inland or tidal waters; 2. The unusual and rapid accumulation of run-off of surface water from any source. 75 Critical Areas Flood insurance rate map (FIRM) means the official map on which the federal flood ' insurance administration has delineated both the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. ' Flood insurance study means the official report provided by the federal insurance administration that includes flood profiles, the flood boundary and floodway map, flood insurance rate map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. , Flood season means the period from November 1 to March 31 during which, ' historically, the frequency, distribution and volume (inches of rainfall) of storms in the Green River Basin have been the largest and all known major floods have occurred. Flood lain means that portion of a river or stream channel and adjacent lands which are subject to the base flood flooding. Floodway means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one (1) foot. , Floodway fringe means that portion of a floodplain which is not floodway Lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a ' building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable nonelevation design requirements of this chapter. ' Manufactured home means a structure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which ' is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. For floodplain management , purposes the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than one hundred eighty (180) 76 Critical Areas , ' consecutive days. For insurance purposes the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles. Manufactured home park or subdivision means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land ' divided into two (2) or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale ' New construction means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of ttus chapter. Special flood hazard area means those land and water areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for King ' I County Washington and Incorporated Areas" dated September 30, 1989, with accompanying pa es on file with King County or the department of publ c works of the city. Start of construction includes substantial improvement, and means the date a building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within one hundred eighty (180) days of the permit date The actual start means eithei the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation, or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include submission of an application for development, land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or ' walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms, nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. ' Structure means a walled and roofed building including a gas or liquid storage tank that is principally above ground. ' 77 Critical Areas Substantial improvement means any repair, remodeling, reconstruction, or ' improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty(50) percent of the appraised fair market value of the structure either: 1. Before the improvement or repair is started; or 2. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the ' damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition, "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other , structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either: ' a Any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are necessary solely ' to assure safe living conditions; or b. Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register o Historic Places or a recognized state or local inventory of historic places. Sec. 14.09.020. Findings. The city council finds that: ' 1. The flood hazard areas of the city are subject to periodic inundation which endangers life and property, presents health and safety hazards, disrupts commerce and governmental services, and necessitates extraordinary public expenditures for flood ' protection and relief, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare, and ' 2. These flood losses are caused by the natural accumulation and ponding o floodwaters and the cumulative effect of obstructions in flood hazard areas which ' increase flood heights and velocities. Uses inadequately floodproofed, elevated or protected from flood damage or that otherwise encroach on the natural holding capacity , of the floodplain also contribute to the flood loss. I 78 Critical Areas ' See. 14.09.030. Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific ' areas by enacting provisions designed to: 1. Protect life and property by preventing the hazardous use of flood-prone ' lands; 2. Protect downstream or surrounding property from higher velocities or ' higher flood levels which may be caused by loss of holding capacity in the floodplain; 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution from upstream or surrounding development during a flood, 4. Minimize the expenditure of public money for remedial flood control measures; 5 Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding which are generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; I ' 6. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in flood hazard areas, 7 Alert appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers, and lessees to the natural limitations of flood-prone land; i 8. Ensure that those who occupy or seek to develop in flood hazard areas assume responsibility for their actions; 9. Qualify the city and existing homes and businesses for participation in the federal flood insurance program; and 10. Implement local, state and federal flood protection programs. 1 79 Critical Areas Sec. 14.09.040. Policies and standards for reducing flood losses. ' In order to accomplish its purpose, this chapter includes policies and standards to: ' 1. Restrict, condition, or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in ' erosion, flood heights or velocities; 2. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve , such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial development and , construction; 3. Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural , protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters; 4. Control filling, oarading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and 5. Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will t unnaturally divert flood-waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. Sec. 14.09.050. Lands to which this chapter applies. ' This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the ' jurisdiction of the city. Sec. 14.09.060. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard. ' The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency , Management Agency in a scientific and engineering report entitled "Flood Insurance Study for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas," dated June 16, 1995, ' with accompanying flood insurance maps is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter as if stated verbatim. The flood insurance study is on file ' and available for examination at the office of the department of public works. j Sec. 14.09.070. Penalties for noncompliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be developed, constructed, located, ' extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter 80 Critical Areas ' ' and other applicable regulations. Violation of the provisions of this chapter by failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions an safeguards established in connection with conditions) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this chapter or fails to comply with any of its requirements ' shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500) o imprisoned for not more than one hundred eighty (180) days, or both, for each violation, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city from taking such other lawful action as is inecessary to prevent or remedy any violation Sec. 14.09.080. Abrogation and greater restrictions. This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever j imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. I I Sec. 14.09.090. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be• 1. Considered as minimum requirements; 2. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body, and 3. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. Sec. 14.09.100. Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required by this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased b manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the areas o special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the city, its elected officials or any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, 81 Critical Areas for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administration , decision lawfully made hereunder. Sec. 14.09.110. Green River flood control zone number 2. All building and development within the boundaries of the Green River flood , control zone number 2 shall comply with all provisions of chapter 86 16 RCW and chapter 508-60 WAC, the state flood control zone act and permit program regulations. Sec. 14.09.120. Permits and licenses. No permit or license for structures or the development or use of land shall be issued by the city within a special flood hazard area unless approved by the director or other designate. Such approval shall be based on a review of the provisions set forth in this chapter and the technical findings and recommendations of city departments including, but not limited to building, fire and planning departments Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not obviate the need to obtain other permits which may be required pursuant to state or federal law including but not limited to approvals required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the State Departments o Social and Health Services and Ecology relating to water and sewer systems which ensure that water and sewer systems will be designed to avoid infiltration, inflow or impairment. Sec. 14.09.130. Procedural requirements. City permits or licenses which relate to the development and use of land within a flood hazard area or special flood hazard areas shall be referred to the department o , public works by the issuing department for approval. If it can be determined from information at hand that the property does not lie in a special flood hazard area, the issuing department may approve the permit or license directly. If it appears that the property may lie in a special flood hazard area, the department of public works shall require its owner to submit information necessary to determine if in fact the property lies within the floodway or floodway fringe. If it is determined that the property lies within the floodway or floodway fringe, the applicant shall be required by the 82 Critical Areas department of public works to submit such surveys, plans and supporting documents as are necessary to determine the applicability of city regulations to the proposed structure, development or use. The department of public works shall consider not only the individual structure, development or use, but shall also consider it in combination with existing and future similar structures, developments and uses. Whenever technical information is furnished to the city by an applicant, the city shall consider such report in acting upon the requested permit. In performing such review, the department o public works may request additional applicant information, including the preparation and submission of an environmental checklist under the State Environmental Policy Act or a supplement thereto if already submitted to an issuing department. The director or his designate shall, within a reasonable time, indicate approval or disapproval of the requested permit or license; and if approved, the conditions of approval, m a letter to the issuing department, with copies to the applicant, issuing department, commenting departments, other agencies and other known parties of interest Sec. 14.09.140. Use of other base flood data. In order to administer the provisions of this chapter when base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with sections herein, the director shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source detemmned by the director to provide accurate and detailed flood related information. Such information shall supplement special flood hazard area information and maps and shall be retained on file with the department o public works, including information under KCC 14.09.150. See. 14.09.150. information to be obts-ned and ma-ataitted. infefmatieni i Where base fised elevatien data is pr-ovided thfough the flood insurane study or-fequir-ed as in KGC 14.09.140, obtain and r-eeer-d the aetual (as but!", (in r-elatien to mean sea level) of the le%est fleef, ineluding basement, of all new of 83 Critical Areas i. For- all new -' substantially impr-eyed floo pr-oafed F. d meer-d the vetual elevation (i« relatiefi to mean a le..el , and b„ Main4aio the Fl dpr-ee frog ee.+.F.e..tio ns r .,,red of this e 3. Maintain For- .bh inspeetion all eeords pertai.+ toas the of the eha..teY e • 14.09.160. lteration efwatere, urse.V Whenever- It ♦'on or- 1 t on f any x,etereour- e rf ,l se t4 e 1 N t f adjacent ownefs, eemmunities, and the State Pepa.d. of of sue t•C t' t the federal fflsufanee a.lm ..tatte 2. Dequtr-e th t maintenanee Sec 14.09.150. Designation of Local Administrator. The public works director or his/her designee is hereby appointed to administer and implement this ordinance by granting or denyingdevelopment evelopment permit applications jin accordance with its provisions. Duties of the administrator shall include, but not be limited to: A Permit Review. 1 Review all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied. 2 Review all permits to determine that all necessary Den-nits have been obtained from those Federal State or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required. 3 Review all permits to determine if the proposed development is located within a floodway. If proposed development is located within a floodway ensure that that section 14.09.190 is enforced. 84 Critical Areas B. Use of Other Base Flood Data in (A and V Zones) 1 When base flood elevation data has not been provided (A and V Zones) in accordance with KCC 14 09 060 the public works director or his/her designee shall obtain review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, state or other source to administer this title. C. Information to be obtained and maintained. 1 Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood Insurance Study_FIRM or required as in section 14.09.2200) (B) obtain and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures and whether or not the structure contains a basement. ^ 2. For all new or substantially improved flood roofed structures where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood Insurance Study FIRM, or as required in 14.09 220(1) (B): a Obtain and record the elevation ( in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed: and b Maintain floodproofing certifications required pursuant to KCC I 14.09 150 (2) (b) c. Maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this ordinance. D Alteration of Watercourses 1. Notify adacent communities and the Department of Ecology pnor to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration. 2. Require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated * portion of said watercourse so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished i E. Interpretations of FIRM boundaries Make ante retations where needed as to exact location of boundanes of the areas of special flood hazards for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions The person Contesting the 85 Critical Areas 1 location of the actual boundary shall be given reasonable opportunity to a eal the interpretation as provided for in KCC 14.09.230. Sec. 14.09.167-0. General standards. In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required: 1. Anchoring a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be j anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. b. All manufactured homes must likewise be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame fies to ground anchors (reference FEMA's "Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas" Guidebook for additional techniques) 2. Construction materials and methods a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. b. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. c. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 3. Utilities a. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system; b. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters; and c. Onsite waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 86 Critical Areas d Proposed water wells shall be located on high ground that is not located within a special flood hazard area. 4. Subdivision proposals. a. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to jminimize flood damage; b. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities isuch as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage; c. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; Id. Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least fifty (50) lots or five (5) acres (whichever is less), and e. Subdivision approval should depict or state what portions of the development are within special flood hazard areas. 5. Review of building permits Where elevation data is not available either through the flood insurance study or from another authoritative source, applications for budding permits shall be reviewed by both the issuing department and department o i public works to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and engineering practices and 1 includes use of historical data, high-water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc , where available. Failure to elevate at least two (2) feet above grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates. ISee. 14.09.1780. Specific standards. In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in KCC 14 09 060 or KCC 14 09 140, the following provisions are required: 87 Critical Areas 1. Residential construction. a. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one (1) foot or more above base flood elevation. b. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to j flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria. , (1) A mimmum of two (2) openings having a total net area of not less than one (1) square inch for every square foot of enclosed areas subject to flooding shall be provided. (2) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above grade. F (3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit o floodwaters. 2. Nonresidential construction New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one (1) foot or more above the level of the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: a. Be floodproofed so that below one (1) foot above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, b. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic an hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 1 c. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards o practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall b 1 provided to the official as set forth in KCC 14.09.150(2). 88 Critical Areas d. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in subsection t (1)(b) of this section. e. Applicants floodproofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified ithat flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one (1) foot below the floodproofed level (e.g., a building floodproofed to one (1) foot above the base flood level will be rated as at the base flood level). 3. Critical facility. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the iextent possible, located outside the limits of the base floodplain Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the base floodplain if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the base floodplain 1 shall have the lowest floor elevated to three 3 feet or more above the level of the base ; flood elevation at the site. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base floodplain shall be provided to all I critical facilities to the extent possible. 4. Manufactured homes All manufactured homes to be placed o I substantially improved within zones Al-30, AH, and AE on the community's FIRM shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is one (1) foot or more above the base flood elevation, and b securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system in accordance with the provisions of KCC 14.09.16-70 (1)(b). 5. Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites arc re uire Ito meet all a licable provisions of Kent City Code If allowed by code recreational vehicles are required to either: a. Be on-site for fewer than 180 days, b Be fully licensed and ready for highway use on its wheels or 'ackin jsystem, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and secunt devices and have no permanently attached additions, or c. Meet the requirements of 14.09.160 1 above and the elevation an anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. 89 Critical Areas 6. Draznaze around structures. Adequate drainage paths are required around structures on slopes to guide waters around and away from proposed structures. Sec. 14.09.1890. Floodways. Within the floodway of the areas of special flood hazard, the following I provisions apply: 1. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in ! any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. 2. Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodwa s except for: repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure either, before the repair, reconstruction, or repair is started, or if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Work done on structures to comply with existing health, sanitary, or safety codes or to structures identified as historic places shall not be included in the fifty (50) � percent determination. 3. If subsection (1) above is satisfied, all new construction and substantial ! improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions o KCC 14.09 170. Sec. 14.09.1902N. Wetlands management. ' To the extent possible adverse impacts to wetlands should be avoided as such- 1. Proposals for development within base floodplains shall be reviewed by both issuing departments and department of public works for their possible impacts on wetlands located within the floodplam. , 2. Development activities in or around wetlands shall not negatively affect public safety, health, and welfare by disrupting the wetlands' ability to reduce flood , and storm drainage. 90 Critical Areas 3. Assistance from the United States Army Corps of Engineers or State Department of Ecology shall be sought in identifying wetland areas. Sec. 14.09.200�0. Standards for shallow flooding areas (AO zones). jShallow flooding areas appear on FIRM's as AO zones with depth designations. The base flood depths in these zones range from one (1) to three (3) feet above ground where a clearly defined channel does not exist, or where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is usually characterized as sheet flow. In these areas, the following provisions apply: 1 New construction and substantial improvements of residential structures iwithin AO zones shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest grade adjacent to the building. one 1 foot or more above the de th number specified on the FIRM (at least two (2) feet if no depth number is specified) 2. New construction and substantial improvements or nonresidential structures within AO zones shall either: I I a. Have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade of the building site, one(1) foot or more above the depth number specified on the FIRM (at least two (2) feet if no depth number is specified); or b. Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be completely flood- proofed to or above that level so that any space below that level is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. If this method is used, compliance shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as in KCC 14.09.180(2). 3. Require adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide 1 floodwaters around and away from proposed structures. Sec. 14.09.21020. Appeals. The decision of the department of public works to approve condition or i disapprove a permit or license in a flood hazard area may be appealed to the land use ■ hearing examiner. The requested permit or license shall not be issued by a city 91 Critical Areas department during the appeal period. The following procedures apply to appeals for the decision of the department of public works to approve, condition or deny proposals within a flood hazard area: i 1. Written notice of appeal shall be filed with the department of public works within ten (10) days from the date of the decision which aggrieves the appealing i party. A fee of twenty-five dollars ($25) shall be paid at the time of filing the written appeal. The appeal will not be accepted unless accompanied by full payment. j 2. All notices of appeal shall state in full the decision appealed and the reasons why the appealed decision should be reversed or modified. j 3. All appeals so filed shall be heard by the hearing examiner and a determination by the examiner made within thirty(30) days from the closing date of the i hearinLy. 4. At least seven (7) days before the appeal hearing, the department o public works will provide the hearing examiner, the appellant, and any other person ' expressing written interest in the application or appeal a copy of the decision which is being appealed. 5. In passing upon such applications, the hearing examiner shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors and standards and the criteria specified in this chapter and applicable state regulations. 6. The hearing examiner shall prepare a written report and decision containing findings and conclusions which show how its decision implements the purposes of this chapter and is consistent with the criteria, standards, and limitations o this chapter. 7. The decision of the land use hearing examiner shall be final and conclusive unless, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision, an aggrieved party obtains a writ of certiorari from superior court for the purpose of review of the action taken. See. 14.09.220. Variances. Variances shall be completed in accordance with those provisions identified in , the City of Kent Critical Area Regulations found in Kent City Code Title 11. 92 Critical Areas I 1 SECTION 6. - Repeal. Section 15.08.220 of the Kent City Code, entitle "Water quality and hazard area development—Purpose,"is repealed as follows: See. 15.08.220. Water- quality and hazard area developmentFP e ito regulate the leeation and density of development based en known physteal I SECTION 7. - Repeal Section 15.08 222 of the Kent City Code, entitle "Same—Map— Conflicting provisions,",s repealed as follows- See. " I I depaAment. Development limitatteiis within these ai7eas shall be in addition to thes litaftations a-Rd standards set fiqi4h in this title When theFe is a eantliet, th&tFovf5ie*s (I Vl ll�� I srrr� l c.no t.,-,,��n. ,,,.t, 15 no shall tt .. e ..,t 1J SECTION 8. - Repeal Section 15.08 224 of the Kent City Code, entitle "Same—Classifications and restrictions,"is repealed as follows Sec. 15.08.224. Same— Classifications and restrictions. Festrietive, are as fbllews� 1 93 Critical Areas Qassifieatiem 1. Lew hazard-areas.. In iew hated- afeas, the i impenietis o eaeh 'let is 4ii#y (30) per-eent, Low hazard afeas are , defined as lauds-"efe the r lle...:. f14it:ons exists t b. S1.<,.e.. F#ve., !1 G\ ,, er,+ to +.,.er.t<, F<.e /75\ 3 e. Slepes fifteen !1 G\ pe r,t to t.<.e.,t.. F,.,e MG\ 3"9 or..s,,.« hazard af ea; e a. five /'1G1 .lr Ft.. �o �e�ext���-tee-l�re��-{��9} F et fFem the tee e f ., favine in ..1 ieh i fninef stream passes 0 of e. Tl,.rt,. /Z(ll +„ F.#„ /50\ feet F,,,., the ..rd;,,.,r„ 38°�O , high wafef mafk of a lake (See the following ,:11,, ) 2. Moderate-haEaiW In moderate hazard 4-0% 94 Critical Areas hazard areas Lr Y defined a rL lands .he e th fellewing eenditiens ist, zer-e ♦e thit4y (3Q) fee fFOM the d-w: V:at moo€ a fake. Example of development guidelines within 30' and 50'from a Iake I lake— ordinary 5�, high--water line AmouW I iE Fa �ret ■ munrazxui I i taus (2) per-eeR4 High ra are re defined as these lands he1 a the ff llewfag n ndit,n st• 14[14 -Y�I1V • a. Slopes fifteen (1 C) pereent to t, nt y five (25) 2Y0/0 ent together- .,th class 7 slide .,n,t slippage an.l r v.vY11L together- Wass 3seisfaie h d ,l elass 3 efesiaii h .t VS b. Sl s fifteen (1 C\ t to twenty five l7C, eL a �e - �r��rPe3cem—i�rncni�rrc—try nt to ethe with el., 3 slide and sljppage and �v VVl1L LV bYL11Y1-ITJLI Ie. Slepe,, twetity five l75, ..t to F .+ (40) r ereent tegether- with eiass 3 setsmle aim-cuss 3 1 95 Critical Areas i d. Slopes twenty five (25) pefeent to forty (40) k,az vvaa.tegetheFwith elass 3 erosion hazard 4. Sei"�e-hazard areas. In severe hazard areas,the eaeh let is zeroper-eent. Severe hazard are define.l as these lands where the felle...;«., ...l;tie..- existe �o t b. Slopes +...e..+.,F..e MC\ «e e..r +,. F r+.. I40\ slippage, 8. All .. e v0 d. C^.,e„r.. f:.,.. /75\ f;.,.r ..e+l.^..L F...., the re« ..Cany v0 r ane. the tap of here the slope rs generally less than fifteen 1 G/ l p e«+ o.. 75' setback from , the top of a ravine 75' Top Top 75' rorl 1 I � f 1 . i 96 Critical Areas , I ...ter.,•.a fk eF any... err-eek;_er Twenty the .. ..:j high wmefmar-k ef any miner 0 i 25' Setback 50' Setback from a minor from a major creek creek t r , � t l S r 25' 1 �J- 0% i d 'i ■ h. All wetlands as defined ri3 the deeumGaE Classifieatien of Wetlands and Deepwater-Habitats of!he United State. by the U.S. Fish a Wildlife F c F States, v��-cxcc vvrran-arly-�ra�mac�cr�-rcc�x the De....Af e..t f Interier, F 1, 11 filed L ...v �/�.1.I LL1 a111ai11G V1�xCGZ'N�ErcV1T�"�7r'012ISCiiCLT�TIiYCiQ-VrYl7Y 97 Critical Areas the eity elerk. This—elassifieatien—shall exelude—al wetlands a sidere,l in the Valley Fle,.r Studies; e All tmique and F'....:le areas defined in the resssraValley Fleer- � Studies, L' hfuafy 72 198 eapyof wh:eh is filed with the elerk.. B. n te,....., ,.t:e. ,f-p ee,..e Iee..t,em ally.. ,._,7 1 hazard area development limitations map adopted by K 1 c 08 222 is based upon n the most a ..te .,..t., available nt_thn-m offfe-ptaff-ation ' 2 T more aeeur-at 1 .late. Y e the 1.,e t.en of hazard re the eity may .l.l't 1 F ..t; with `1e ele ...l. a ' al to r-ey rm nt r r.r e r.�e sale el „.� but not limited F the afea The hazard area « shall he eerreete.l by planning r and ...,hl.e 1 .1 r A + based upon mere ., .,nt and rte in f r„.,..t.e.. ,. ..te.l by dep�5 ' . majeri All majer .l miner- eeks .., the e.t„ whar they flow on or aero&s undeveloped land, shall be retained in their-natufal state and loeation. 2 l';Th t b major;e .-.eek is .,tuf:al slate mayplan, , , r-egula4ions. 3 A stfeam plan shall be submitted te the eity planning depaftment for AS r r t the e eF any ..e ...t e1A: building, ...1..... ste.�.. I 98 Critical Areas ! pr-epesed developmeRt plan and faake a detenninigien that the plan does pr-oteet the integrity of themajer-er-minor-epME. J$ The ..le ... .le ....t.« at may eau-se a e.7:4:...,4:.. of the 'e..le ...en! tict.�1vY11,",. plan to easufe that the integrity of the majer-ef fniner er-eek is ., F et retained. Fe..-..,,,..Ling in I f er-eek shall F lle... the guidelines and r rr.mcndattens „f the C`t..te De.....-t«..e..t of Fisher.e.. and (`_..me (RCIA' '75 20.100) i Qetb eks ffem a r-elee..te,l majef er-eek shall be fifty (50) feet or- as r-eeafmnended by the State DepaAfneat ef Fisheries and Game, whiehever-is the greater- v Setbacks ffof. ., .el..e..te.l fniftor- eeU shall be t...e»t.. five (25) feet ., i I spee.ul eone...111 to he city Of Kent The-€ell iwi„ssty-ea n buffer=�egulaf s-:ainteaded to pr-oteet these enviremneatally sonsitive features within the eity ef Kent Bj Fegulating develepment and altefatiefis te these sensitive areas, the eity see' a. Pf:eteet unique, fiagile and valuable elements of the etivir-apAnent ....l...ing wildlife and its L...l..t..tb. Mitigate unavoidable impacts to environmentally sensitive areas b5 e ..l..t:., .,lt et:,. and ..A: nt to ...t:..e v�LL µllllb µ1L�/�• � i ayailabilft ..tee ,.alit etl ,] ,1 t ,.j'� ".'LL1V1 ywTr'cr[iaReTima'=�sretvix."r, rj Pr-eteet the pub lie tfust as 1V navigable .,,1 ,. t ! 99 Critical Areas t e. Aler4 members 6x the-piimic-iii , but not lifnited cv-apPrBisei-:r e,Aser-s, potepAial btij,er-s er-lessees to the development limitations ef sensitive areas,, fi .;Ae e;t., eFF.e;els with ..,,F4;e;es ;.,F.- alien to .. ereet se ,.,r,..e areas;an ghmplemeat the-pens3es-of the State En,.,r-enmental Pelf,.,, Aet, Chapter- 43-r2C RGAI, Ch. 11.05 KC-r, KC�Trtle-15, and the City of Vent Comprehensive Plan. 2. 71e/;,.,.r..ns T„ the inter-pret.,r;e., of the Sees (`Feel.Bass , StFeam P„FFeEs everlay zone , , the fellewing werds, ienns, in plaee of thefa, shall take pfeeedenee ever- other- eenflieting definitions existing or-pfofieuns r.-.,,,,;.,.. and...1,,, 1,..s expeii et. . a ptaetie,..eb bielegist Buffer meaiis the zene � b fnatfAenanee> f vai-y depending on the r-elative quality and sensitivity of the I-e-mg --oteeted The efitieal funetions of the ripanan buffef (these associated with an aquatie system) an&ef sinaettiral stabiltiy of the sensitive area Buffer widths events,stabilization of bapAEs, if4ereeptien ef sediffiefits, ever-flow dtifing high water pr-eteetien from Ekstur-banee by humans and dorflestio animals, maintenanee- of-- and pfeieefien of slope stability, a4tenua4ion of suffa-ee wa4ef flows fr-em steml:watef Pane Buikh?f;g set area means a defifted width ef land between a sensitive area buffer an a.evelvraa en4 ,.,1 ieh establishes a definite p „t beyend ,..1„eh ele.,nn.. t.-,,,....,,,g e 100 Critical Areas ' r-emeva1 F vegetation, fill, eg�,erh., ehl.tr, et.e s, •mY ne rF ees, e .1« o foundations shall not extend. ..1.1: iwrks t require mere restr.et:,,e re...,l.,t:e than ..,t. ,,,:.le ..te«.lar.l..mCC r,l ,« SSVa V, lJl order to mitigate water- quality, severe flooding, dra}eage, erosion of sedi a�ex development and ur-banization, 71. .,te means the .l. ete eF the e.t. eC Trent planning .le ertm «t of his/her- authorized > , flews .,.-e«n.l developments er n..hhe ,.,erbs F e.l.t.el., .,hr ,.,h:eh e.4rr.. flows Fe.« established e eel... stream, .etl..n.l or ether sensitive e , llamas, and her-ses. in FI can l,. : L eye., n the F the ,1 h th ref F r th .... � LLb L 4L 4,. 1;eaixS ctre-nzma n--vrZ-ne-aicavcciili}c�vTzne-riurexzvr-erxe ari�er ne.+.en eF e.,eh aver-age .,t this level ., deF.«.tee e«t ,n the se.' . ..11 t., uLVl t/V141V11 VI VG4V11 year-, , I ene :ll„ by traeseat.le. ,.he..e the edge o f et.,t...n exists along the l..,nl, :n the same b- ..> .� . .�.�, � ..�.� ...� 4.bv .'�b�4a.uv.. a a.b uaV vuaal4 aaa uav ouulV leeatien fr-efa Yeaf to year-, the line of mean high water is the same as the line 0 j,..eweel.means , els e f an),land lent e raised fer- «le..,... ., i �.._�LV_.. ...V�.J Le.....4.1useLovVLrLV V1L JI..IL4i LILE, means SVIIYIS R feet in height, d th r 1, °steel. eaftner push :t o ever- ..ste .t _ 11_ n,x .t ri ve teek C "s .,e1Ae eleetr. Cenees with .,tle least t.. (2) allel ele-r..:,...11.. 101 Critical Areas ehafged wires, f6tif (4) str-and bar-bed wir-e fenees, and other- standard stee-l- -ft eoff nea use by the l: steek indtistfy. Alifiganen fneans the use of any or- all of the following aetieris that afe listed i by using appr-opfiate of talc.., nffi.."�,et.,)e st:ens to e ,implementation, ..t.f,n the ' taking d nr by c e sts> (3) . . .rig, rehabilitating or- restoring the affeeted sensitive area-; (4) r-edtleing -Of eliminating the . ..t over time h.,n ,nt:en o maintenanee o pe.nt,.-...s dur-ng the 4i1111111ZQCS1 life of the pfejeet fe-r-the impaet by of , , providing substitute sensitive areas and I , i taking n me s eet...e .n b eelegie elements of sensitive afeas and systems and assessing thee data byvafieus methods for the pttfpE)sesof,.nde standing and doettynenting nhar)r.e m natural a ,stef s and C nt...•es, il n el...les ..nthe frog baseline data. Native gf-ewth 190 eteeken ai'ea means an area whose native gewth is proteeeted froffl. health, safety . .e and elfa fe the Pia get Sound regien and ..h...h .id hn e been e ..ted t., naturally oeetif on the site. ��hve vegetation does net inelude noxious weeds, reed eaflar-Y eattails , .-ple loosestr:C and other highly.n and undesirable plants eempetitt-veX6*ieug weed means any plant whieh when established is highly RGW) The state noxious weed list in Chapter 16 750 WAG ts the effietally adoptedd list of ne.ious weeds by the state n ..ed s ntfel lies.-d 102 Critical Areas n a - x mark means the mafk tl..,t..,.n . ,an.,be fa„ ,l bye ,, tl e refs usual,fe se eemmen and d so 1ong maintained in all r.i: r. yeafs, as to mark upen the sail a ehar-aeter- distinet ffefn that ef the abut4ing upland, with -----Peet vegetatten. In any area ,e , the .,: . 1; ,, water- mark ca:;et be Feti« ., the ,..of mean high water shall subsfitute. In any afeawher-e neither eaH be found, the tep o f ' afly ageney of the state, the United States er- state '.Indiaft♦r. .e e el e by the flefal , yeR11ei4. 1 Sab nonid fneans a member- of the fish . T« v,« re,,,,t„ --alm-e-id spesles-Delude-the OHxeek, Ceha, elm, eele e and «l. salmon, ca>euttlavua aL , «la.. U.r tr ,t n.1 steelbe.,.l Dell. Var-le brook trout,char�cekanee and `•, , «, , , nvacallva.—lallu .rl^•TrTIite fish. Sensitive ai-ea owet meatis a sepafate traet !hat is ofeated to prateet a sensitive area and its buffer- and whese owiiershtp is transfeffed to the eity E)f Kent, E)r- other- approved eTalc J. Sensitive areas means any of these areas in the eity whieh are stA)Jeet to natufa4 -A1"—these—land eatur-es-ti.hieh suppei4r miique,ffagile, valuable « t. fal r-esetifees ineluding fishes, wildlife and other- organisms and thefr- habitat and stieh fese»es whieh, in their- fiatxxal-state sai y, hol .ate Sensitive areas areas, health,landslide hazard areas, seismie hai�afd aFeas, steep slepe ha-zar-d areas, wetlands, floe � safety and welfare. 103 Critical Areas r sheep, r ,1 F .1 1ves. 1r the ptffpeses ..Fmaximum 1:.,esteek densities in th:s se..t...« (6) s.,. E l lives+eel, shell be equivalent to ens (1) large liyeste-I-- r evidenee F the passage and ...l F water- eles, but limitedet limited to l.edreek eh.an,nelc, 'b .7 ,1 he sand n and silt beds defined eh.annel ...,les This definit:edefinition is et intended to ine1 .1 inigatten .l:tehe eanale ste or- .-F ee ..tei7 name FF,lo.....es o A+ efit' 1 .,..t P :el . .eteree.,r-ses unless the,. a used by salffl ",'- .. used to , r inelede ereeks, sleughs, and fivers. The-eh affiel or bed of does not have to eefAain water- 11 le b R C the a eh to he ids .l m,e strea Ct f F...whe« i year- u a. Oass j streams means these streams inventoried as Shefelines of the slate" tindef the City F Kent Ch r-et... Master Pr-a b,-e..,, r Ch. 1104 KGC ..0 nt to Chapter- on e4 RGW b. C-la:gs 2 sti-eams means these stfeams smaller- than elass 1 streams I flow year- re"d dtifing peFieds of nofmal ruinfall, or- those stfeams that are use salmenids.s. r r e. Class 3 streams fneans these streams tha4 ue inteFmittent ar ephefne- Tep of bank means thm peifft along a slope, channel, ef stream, where fhe--e�� slepe F less gian fifteen \ r..e .+e. th _line easily while obsenin (IS) , . usually ihe bank or-slepe, r str-eam buffer- r-eg-alations to a ,�t: ...1 a F .. eft. in a situation ..he the r a .. a . + r stFeafn buffer-r-egula4ions shalll of be used to ey ere el ma,..leaes not enjo �ed_h-T 104 Critical Areas r r ethef py-opefties in the same viemity and zone whieh are subjeet te the same standards and eeav-reStfiEti-Ans. .i vwiannee to siieam uff-er' 'eb'"la4iefis must be ...:::.1 onzed__1 i by the�reete- ..d shall he the mimmurn ed. .,eeessa to fmi i Vegetation all l ♦ life gfowing arbelow, above thes means any and a plantor- et! IsuFfwe. /1\ All h,.FF f., shall he measured F e.,, the erd...ar., h..,bh ,are.- In braided channels, the ordinary 1 . ., A a+e. ,.r. ,, *,, of bank shall be 7 ere., . ,e1 soas to , elude the e.at,fe streafn Car..,-e i '2) T_he_Clle...,.,., h..FCfa h ,le F the diiia. 1....1, ter Txlro xvrm vrzu�r vazzcxa oi�tiac�z sitzcvxzvc�razzzur� rxx�zt�a�cc i marl. afemimmufn a nta I (t) Class streams—ene hundred /1 nm feet buffer- (ii)Mass 3 streams used by salmis enehivai�-ed n90) I I (iii) Cass 2 streams li€tn50)feet buffer (i,.,Elass 3 streams twenty five(25) feet bu€€en (v)Ditehes ten(10) feet buffeF i (yi) When the-er-djnar-y high water mark of an), styeam is within t.,.e„t,. five MCl feet eF the tee e f sle«ea create..to [than] ,_ equalthan ft,_7 C.ca___ (1 5) per-eent, the fellowing minimum buffers shall be providedi I ' 105 Critical Areas (a) Whe-e the h,.f:zent.,l length of the .-lope inel.,d:ne small r (1) The mimmum buffer-for--that streamn e aasa, v. (2) Twenty five (25) feet heyend the ter. ..f the slope (h) A ere the her:-.er.t..l length of the ..lane e„te.,.ls beye13� the minimum btif-fer- for-that str-eafn elass, the buffer- shall e3ftend te a point PevepAy five (25) feet he,..,...1 the fnin:r»um h„ffer for that stre..m elass tive area shall have the h ff h h e e..ppi.e ♦e the etl .l or ether . djaeent sensfve area unl ess le the str f buffer- .,e Y,ts eme e .. tr-eam invelvedd (3) The dtreeter may—aetheraze buffer- averaging, espe�l�ll in instanees whef e it will py-evide additional resettree pr�etelel+fen; provided, that the tota ;I ar-ea An site, eantained in the buff-eF remains the same or lay-ger after aver-aging (4) The detefmination of salmenid use shall be made by the direetef �I I based on the best available, pa4 aii.1 present information gathered by, the e.ty, ite agents, .l other- t'ttes with itifisdietion or- expeftise relating t 1 .l' -te ., r h„e ,l e , ,..1:C eteo� r ng areas .l shall generally remain .l« ...t„rhe.i e e pt for enhan et.. planting e eta 1 1 106 Critical Areas t r aeus wastes, .:tieal fish and wildlife habitat, and the leeatie i 1. rtrailer-utility ee ao fs 1 e C t orea owets. Sensitive area t f shall 1 used to p feteacml,ll tr-eafns cffla 1 rr a pA t pfepesaln r de elm to su a1 l a: 1 a Elevelepment, a bi a site plans o f all kinds, and shall be o riled all tfaet shall depend on the str-eam elassifleation and buffer-r-equifefaefit. doeuments of title ef r-eeefd for- all affeeted lots. Any r-equir-ed seiisitive area ieither-be deeded or- dedwated to the benefit of the eity The wid4h of the sefksitive are d. Buikhifg seMaek ai,eas Sensitive area setback areas shall delmea4e_ bufifer-s in development proposals for-building petfnits, shoA subdivisions, stibdf Nisions, i 1 "finding site plans aid-grading pefmits. The setbaek area shall be--„ eflt._:ea building, (15) feet shall be r-equir-ed &om the edge of the stream buffef Pfohibitiens on the use e setback line ef fiftee appFeved mitigatieft plans, and may be allewed enly if they meet the follewmg I 1 i ifequir-emei4si Iand shall be timed te aveid stfeam distur-baftee during pefieds when use is efitteal to i Lll. VU unless ..a sableatn• other I JV[\r I ' 107 Critical Areas I i t depth f F ,r (A) C e4 below the.« eted depth of eeeur- for-the has--- ffee.las i o' d hf .at 1 1: ea by the state;e e e , pr-o ,. r ; an i Natural l Dese„rees an ffem the DepaFtme«t of C;eh and C_e.«e for- ..11 e eC .. 1\LLIMI(3[ 1\GJV e1.v�uas st.-eam. t (..:)The .. «l:ee«t shell °brain a h.,,lr....l.es « eet approval, w-:44e« e ♦;there .°.« J;om the State De«.,. ..,we«r of Fishand Wildlife l r all(?)Gonstmetie« ec- «.,,.l;e ,,,1 pfivate may he allowed f g (:) Tmil .. ...F eee hell not he impr..,l rhet evietts m te e e e«t «„bite .«»1r.«.,r«e.,e tre:ie hke the Sees Creek Tre.l may he 11)„.ed f they ieas a.—nazirv.ti.u�'-r,rxcJ meet all „the..re.,...reme«ts el..d:«...,...ter quality; an n � (:.) \i Titer° trails .. pfe ..de.l h.,ff rs shell be expanded wheFe i (3) Goast,-..et:en of utilities shall be « .«.tte.l „�streebuffers «1..when no e r..«able eltee4:..e le,..,t,e« available. e (4) Class 1 stfeams .., et be releeate,l but °lets 7 and elass 2 stream ele e4:ens may he ells eA :d: .r: er: pr-ev:de.l for- all eta, ..l efigineer-and a qualified biologist, that/ 108 Critical Areas j t (i) The equivaletA base flood stefage volume and ftffic4ten will be maintained. (i:) There Ail! he .letr:ff,ef.tel ......_...._ ,._ .lee in _treT 1 (...) There....11 he interhasif, trans e f of water, 1 (...)DerFerff,af,ee standards a set out ,., the mitigation plat .......bY...,.. Y.Y.. Y. (.,) The r-e1 a t.ef. e f.0 fms ♦e ether a f.l.eahle laws (.,.)All . e fk will he a eA out under- the .lit-eet supefvisien of., qualified biologist. • b standards apply to all par-eels with streams flowitig th+ough or- adjaeent to them and are Ia. Maximum.,.mum (.. eateea aeY..t,aa ..Y �.. .. .,., (1\ A Hi a,flit...'. eF ix (6) large 1...este'1. per ..rest. aere e the \Li �• b , ,aae„t eF six (6\ large i.t, steek per r defined ,haeet.ef, (D)(7)[=�Y,. .. . L \V� .u..bV VJ4VV'A Yt1 Cu1VJJ LLVL V, YJ 4V1111VU 111 JYVJVV41 VLl lLn . (2) hill Wge l...esteel, hall be permitted ., any let smaller- thn., `4./ V-141bV�ZT GJiWZI�TIIYZZ�J4• twent.,the„saf,.l (20 nnn\ a e feet emeept that the pert.ef, of the l..t used F 4..,,..4� 411.,YJYLL <<.,,.,,,,,� e^, V enfinef ent4 Vr Lrazi1 mayhe le than t. fitl thousand (20 nnn) feet, � UL 10squarenr nv_d"nb }_Yt the Yern`.v, eF the !at used FvT—GviiFTrer eTtor- -�riicGto the re ,.',....:ts f managemen t farm m ..a f„ il,.nt star ar seetten eF these 1 t. V,.lu I I I109 Critical Areas `G j T , steel feneing shall he used as e e to pr-even f livesteek n e s to all streams .etla,.ds and their buff r-s , Oi)T-he ,•efe"ed water:,..., pt.e« shall he a de„.est.e .are.. supp! , , reef Funeff eeileet•e. .ate. or- appr-eved pufnp supply Gefn the str-eafn a ahnt h..esteek a et r ed to enter streams fee-tl,e..-. ate.. (ii \ T . esteek a s to all streams and their h„FF rs shall he length of the streams (:..) T . estesL er-essings of streams shall he limited to a single point no wider-than Pweaty five (25) feet. (..)T : esteek waters,., r „ts shall he des.aned , ,eh a mafme s to minimize adverse . ets to the stream (,w:) Ur.,l..es designed to alle,,, Gee Dow of Fleed waters m ,he used iii lieu of str-ea�n eressings; pr-ovided, that piers and abutments shall not be plaee within the erd.„ar,.lugh water-s,arL or-te„ of ha„L , hiehe,wer,s a ea4er , ,. (..::) Cressings e f wetlands and their h„FF rs , et pe.•,,,.rte.l h C' ( : esteek F neing shall he , sed to establish and maintain all �]7 T (,:1 Existing .,.-1 .,F.,,eme.,t areas shall „ta,., C��7pond; feneed vegetative buffer- yyetla.,.l edge, «the erdmar- water- �.,high ater«.ark eF all strea„ s 110 Critical Areas 1 (:::\ Tr � and f,fine f.t areas x .h.eh ae of f.avet 111L7 D grazing the minipaum width f f a vegetative h fFer-s required by this ha to ..hall he modified as 7 Y .i t . the h,.f fi5fs ar ,i«ee.f;e .,thin-five (5) +.e of the � effeeti.,e ,late of this ..eat:.... 1 l;.:1 L` at .i lands being ale e.i F .. .. .area ...1 e ' shall e 1 with the sensitive area sethaeks for-ehcc 1 elass 7 and alas.. a r � Z strea..,s and wetlands. I (,r) The grazing area buffer-ff F elass 1 and elass 2— a4xca��y 1 .+..is ffiE�y he re,i..ee.i to f:fl.. (Ch) feet where a fif?.. (50) feet width oidiverse, ed,..h forested lands sbeing ee e lsl for- grazing i e es e . oy( Fe«e:,,,. „stalled ..t to King Ce,,.,t..,s—i`e.,s;t_,..�u IAfeas e to the effeetive date of this" e speeifiied above, shall he fie e.i to he in eemplianee to the eEiiii rem fits of this eetion. I (wo Grazing areas may extend to !lie-pfepeFty litre, , that all stfeams of wetlands adjaeent to the pr-epeA), lifie meet the mifliflitifn be established in these..v gulat,os a f. (..:;,)Nlantwe storage areas shall he managed as follewsi (a`��ee water—lows shall be ,i,..eftea F w Imafmre star-age areas. fnamur-e steekpiled wtthin twe hundred (200) feet uphill ffefa any elass 1 OF GlaSS 1 1 Inr other ru ei..t j designed to Yi :e.at xe uehute fxvux xeuehmzb-ai 'utxem[ s-vi wetlands J- I 111 Critical Areas Le\ M a shall he *e eA in a le .,t,w, tha4 avoids_having uphill ffem an), wetland buffer-, the er-dinar-y high water maEk of any str-eam, er- an), diteh to ..wh h the te«egr.a«hy wouldgenerally di ft ma . ee r, « n eFF ffem—the manure, o . within any s,treafn bu ffF r ( ) Nlantff e shall not he spreadF .atn sated fie! .............. .,. .,».».»...» .swiss. (f) Nlanufe shall net be piled witlwt any stfeam buffer, E >tstti3ghb estBElf Bpe€att614S A11 r.« h..es.t—ek oper-aitens sfneeh 11 , t the F fnanagefne«t standards of this. eetion ,.thin five LC\ yeafs of the ff +' date f this etiefi, egiee«t thet .siting buildings re exempt F.em this- turbidity, and nutflents must be me J within five LC\ fe the efF et;. e date of this etio adopting,these e ,l.,r,ens. ' \ / 5 &cemptiens. The planning duvets~ m + xem tens• fli , iuiaa <n�aaay.avaa.. tr-eam h FF regulations Y .1e e e mr.; d that the «t,en s.• tent with the general purposes of these fegula4iens mid the pubbe interest An appheation for a senstifv_e .a hl exemY D ,l tien shall be filed with the Y«l.a«n, a enrr+ment .,nil thplanning dir-eeter shall issue a final deeision pursuant to the provisions ef this Chapter i a. O ateria The planning direetaf, granting exemption r-easenahl use, must determine thsat. (1) Apphe.abon of these sirs buffer D .a lt:ens, would .lens/. will e saht« e use f the pr-eperr„• n' a .a (2) here is net ether reasenable use with less. impaet An tho sensitive area; and 112 Critical Areas (3) The .1 .l ele ,l en4 ee not a an able tbfea4 to the publie health, osed deVelopffielit > an4 /Al A alterations pe itte.l to these .tile afeas shall he the ' (5) A„ authorized alto at of a senstt:.ve area ndef this eetie and/or- ,aha .,t uncle appreved mitiga4ioii plans. 6. Pubhe lber-ks. The pli atte of these str-eam l.,,ff f regulatie shaI4 llviza ullula III dete e that the «l. at.eft wouldpr-eh.h.t a .le ele ..t by a .hl. ageli r Ofpublie utility-Eha4-is-neeessafy ie thepublie- health safety, or wel€are The planning difeete.may gf ant a exeffiptian based on the following enter.a. a. There is ne reasonable altemative to the pfoposed development wit less impaet en the sensitive areas, n i Ib The pr-eposaminifnizes the impaet on sensitive afeas rmd the le 1V LLL1ant p ..,le are at.e„le«ha at of a .l and all .atu fbe.7 Mpp11 this Seas Gfeek Basin Str-eafn Buffer- ever-lay zene togethef wtih other buffer or sethaek Fegula4ionsin the Vent City Gede the Fnere estnetiye regulation shall apply. $. The e.ty's planning ,l...eete_ . ..thenz a andeeted_to enferceill ef'the_p f f a v Vla 11V1�.'V' u(i vz c11G 1JFe�2.^72enij eoi s3tese scFeain buffef Fegu}atiens The plaming dtf:eeier- shall also have the POWer- tO Fender- iiAer-pr-etatiefis afld tE) adopt Pale and Fegelatiens for- these—statidards in erder— to elan€T the—app1Teatten—o'thes provisions. The 1a ..a. A.r-eete.-'^ interpretations, 7 and .,latter he Y a.• planning lb V(1 VV1V1 J 1a1�Vlt/1 Gti 411V11 J,-1RIGJ- ^J J shall he in n-fe with the intent and pufpese of these st..ea«. 1...ff standards and shall be in 113 Critical Areas i1.. Amendment of appendiees. The ettTs planning direeler--is autkenzed 4e ' amend the appeadiees to the str-eam buff-er-s fr-efn time to time as he er- she shall deem neeessafy. However-, any amendments te the appeRdiees shall eanfoFm with the ifiten and the purpose of these str-eam buff-er r-egalations. li. E'xeeptiens- 1. Leis, haEaiW areas. Devei,,...,,ent within seventy five (75) to one w,.«a .oa ' F.A., (1 50) feet of the top of Y e tl.re,,gh wh:el. ., majer- or- l.ee passes planning direetef thatwater-quality and qtimtity will net be impaeted. 2. Severe haZ=aolai,eas. n F.A., (50) feet set1.aek from the .,.-.7mar-., L g watei—mark of II cFcck irequired hnpen,io s surfaees may be allewed u maximufn of twenty (20) per-ee«t eleser to the ordinary high ,titer mark e f a fRajor t 1 Excap ions. Exreptign : r Raenidenvat Industr€aI fi cxa nlple ( example ; ,y a .✓ rimWA,iartlr 7v® *,, 1vt3E�C C�dk r a ,ciewa. 40' j I MAP 3. All haeaFd ai-eaq. The planning dir-eeter-shall have the autherity te waive speeifie r-equifements or- impose additienal requirements in tinique Of special € jSC'34dDR�t # �• 114 Critical Areas , eenditiens sha4l be reviewed L L 1aming d' vete prier- t submittal of the d 1 Y plan. Examplest of speei l ___AqiefIS &i ,.1,. 7e• a. Pr-esenatien of unique wildlife habitat. L tl. D t' f natural o native aFea,. . d. Unique site uses. I 4 v t v a aestr-ian In :tuAie „he eh: ,leer- edestf ieuarr aeeeas aeeess t reasonably Y a h d .. , .d by e ding ,de„ ified rite fee,,,•sve then s ,eh any bridge t d d h d 1' „d ,ideh„e� n r-eeenimend„t,ons o f the St..te rainaa J �+ Department of Fishenes e dr_am 31Z{ . SECTION 9. - Amendment Section 15.08.260 of the Kent City Code, entitle "Green River Corridor special interest district regulations," is amended to read a follows: 1 Sec. 15.08.260. Green River Corridor special interest district regulations. ' A. Purpose The Green River Corridor special interest district is hereby created to protect, conserve, and manage areas generally located on both sides of the Green River, and to ensure that urban development within the district is compatible with the open natural configuration of the Green River and its adjacent lands. ' B. Location 1. The Green River Corridor special interest district is that area of the city ' one thousand (1,000) feet from the ordinary high-water line of the Green River; provided that the shoreline master program shall govem development within the first two hundred (200) feet of the ordinary high-water line of the river. The district is more I particularly described as follows: 115 Critical Areas Two (2) strips of land each eight hundred (800) feet in width which begin at the north city limit line, on March 4, 1985, and end at the south city limit line, which south line ends in Section 30, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Each strip shall be f measured from each side of the Green River and the measurement shall be two hundred (200) feet from the ordinary high-water line of the river, all in King County, , Washington; except any portions thereof lying outside of the city limits This distr-iet shall alse inelude unique and fragile areas beyend the one thetisa (1,000) feet eeffider. The strips of land de",fibed i tl s .ubseetion and the unique and fragile areas afe illustr-ated en !he hazafd area develepment limiIations map, a4aehed to V1Z3 dimZII the nee f-e.n which this seetien is de-iye.] as Exhibit A and by this ref 111V 133 2. Property exemption. Property platted in accordance with the city subdivision code, Ordinance No. 1840, before March 2, 1981 (adoption of the Valley Studies), shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. G. Unique tiafi .r" e�v4qy, , Elevelopment limitations map, referred to in subseetion (B) of this seetton as Exhibit A. . Bites of the Valley Studies U,.e.,,-.,... , areas, a. Unique andfiwgile ar-ea:q, elass.L Uses within the unique and ffagil-e elass , zone, as set out ,n KCG 1 c n3 nt n , elass lie within ., geed ,. nt..el dirt.-iet and ., eifieally designated Flee.i..,.,,.s or ne..Away 11V Y,11113Z e fFinge-areas. There shall be no disruption-or destndetien of areas identified as upique 116 Critical Areas , use. CD. Development standards ' 1. Green River access. No building or lot within the district shall b constructed or created without providing access to the Green River via public sidewalk or a private trail system. Such sidewalks or private trail systems shall connect t riverside public trails or scenic drives at intervals of one thousand (1,000) feet or less i industrial developments, and intervals of five hundred (500) feet or less in residential 1 developments. 2. Pedestrian access in residential development. In residential developments, pedestrian access to the Green River shall be accomplished without crossing streets or roads, except scenic and recreational roads, unless clearly shown to 1 be infeasible 3. Parking facilities. Parking facilities for access to the Green River shall ' be located as near as practicable to riverfront parks or historic sites and shall b clustered in lots not exceeding thirty (30) cars. Every public parking area shall b visible from a street accessible to the public and be situated so that the public can clearly see riverfront open space and gain access to the public portion of that open space. 4. Payment in lieu of parking facilities. The city may accept or require payment in lieu of providing parking facilities which are required as a condition of the issuance of development permits. ' 5. Loading dock location. Loading docks shall not be constructed on river facing sides of buildings unless a minimum fifty (50) foot buffer of native vegetation i provided to screen the loading docks from the shoreline, unless otherwise required b the Kent shoreline master program. Other design and landscaping requirements may b ' 117 Critical Areas imposed by the planning manager to meet the purpose of the Green River corridor special interest district. 6. Building height. Buildings located outside the two hundred (200) foot shoreline management zone but within the district shall not exceed tlurty-five (35) feet in height. 7. Exterior walls of buildings. No building on any riverfront lot shall have , an exterior wall parallel to, or within forty-five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river which exceeds two hundred (200) feet in length, except as follows. buildings on riverfront lots in the MA, Ml, MI-C, M2, and M3 zoning districts may have exterior walls parallel to, or within forty-five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river which exceed two hundred (200) feet in length, provided they are screened by a vegetative buffer per KCC 15.08.260(CB)(9)(c). 8. Lots. ' a. Each riverfront lot within a subdivision shall contain area sufficient to comply with minimum lot size requirements of Ch. 15.04 KCC and provide a public access easement and building setback line as required by this section. , b. No subdivision of professional and office (0), general commercial (GC), industrial agricultural (MA), industrial park (M1), and limited industrial (M2) , zoned land shall be approved unless each lot within the subdivision has an upland boundary at least five hundred(500) feet from the ordinary high-water line of the river 9. Vegetation buffer a. A permanent vegetation buffer, in accordance with KCC 15.07.050(C) pertaining to landscaping type III, shall be maintained or established for each building or use within the district. Any materials storage yard, truck maneuvering area, equipment parking area,junkyard, refuse storage, or similar use within the district shall install such a permanent vegetative buffer between the use and the Green River 118 Critical Areas , within two (2) years of the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived. b. Landscape screening and buffer strips shall be planted in order to be ' harmonious with those already planted on adjacent properties and consistent with the city landscaping requirements as set out in Ch. 15.07 KCC. ' c. Buildings on riverfront lots in industrial zoning districts which have exterior walls exceeding two hundred (200) feet in length parallel to, or within forty- five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river, must be screened by a vegetation buffer. This vegetative buffer shall be located along the length of the property line located parallel to, or within forty-five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river, for a minimum depth o twenty (20) feet in accordance with type III, visual buffer landscape standards pursuant to KCC 15.07.050(C). In addition, an earth berm of a minimum of forty-eight (48) ' inches in height must be provided for. 10. Rail lines No rail lines shall be permitted within five hundred (500) feet of the Green River; provided, however, rail lines shall be permitted to within three hundred (300) feet of the Green River in those locations specified on Exhibit B attached to the ordinance from which this section is derived and by this reference incorporated in this section, such locations having been found to be best suited to rail. 1 11. Road access All new lots and buildings shall be designed with primary street access to streets other than scenic and recreational roads, unless no other access is available. 12. Street connections. Development shall include no street connections to scenic and recreational roads, unless no other access is available. ' 13. Utilities Utilities shall be installed in accordance with Ch 7.10 KCC ' 14. Surface drainage facilities. Surface drainage facilities such as drainage channels and retention areas shall be designed to applicable city standards and shall be 119 Critical Areas integral parts, if possible, of any common trail and open space system connections to t the riverfront. DE. Per standards. 1. Fish and game requirements The applicant shall comply with r applicable requirements of the State Department of Fisheries and State Department o Game for preventing and mitigating adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources and ' enhancing wildlife habitat. ' 2. Flood control works. If city funds are used in the construction of flood control works such as dikes, levees, or floodwalls, public rights of access to such works shall be dedicated prior to construction, where practicable. SECTION 10. - SavtnQs. The existing chapters and sections of the Kent Cit Code, which are repealed and amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force an ' effect until the effective date of this ordinance , I i SECTION 11. - Severability If any one or more section, subsections, o sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shal not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shal remain in full force and effect. SECTION 12. -Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage as provided by law ' JIM WHITE, MAYOR ' 120 Critical Areas ' 1 ATTEST: iBRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY i PASSED: day of 2004 APPROVED. day of 12004. iPUBLISHED. day of 2004 1 ' 1 hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of th iCity of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P 1CIv1MLES1OpmFda10627qkaROrdinmce092904 do i i i ' 121 Critical Areas r t REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT tB. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE t D. PUBLIC WORKS C 5 t t E. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE F. PARKS AND HUMAN SERVICES COMM TEE t G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 1 U �wr t REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES t t t KENT w�ie,r�ro+ OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 5,2004 Committee Members Present: Chair Tim Clark, Julie Peterson, Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Tim Clark, Chair at 4:06 p in. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 21,2004 lJulie Peterson moved to approve the minutes of the September 21, 2004, Operation Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Bruce White seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. ' APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED SEPTEMBER 30,2004 Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the vouchers for September 30, 2004, for approval. Bruce White moved to approve the vouchers dated September 30, 2004. Julie Peterson seconded the motion,which passed 3-0. 1 SHOPPING CART ORDINANCE Attorney Tom Brubaker presented the Shopping Cart Ordinance, that was previously tabled at the August 17, 2004. Mr. Brubaker stated that the ordinance proposes to implement certain controls on abandoned shopping carts within the City because they can be an aesthetic blight on the City, reduce property values, and interfere with pedestrian and vehicular traffic. At that time, the Committee chose to table the matter until Committee members could gather further information from retail store owners and managers who use shopping carts for their business Police Chief Crawford discussed his previous report, who advised he had met with four (4) businesses that use shopping carts. Chief Crawford advised that generally, these owners objected to the imposition of a cart return fee, but at the same time did not offer up any new ideas to control and remedy the abandoned cart problem. Numerous questions and comments were discussed between the Operations Committee meetings and staff. ' The revised ordinance presented declared abandoned shopping carts a public nuisance and proposed a different approach than that offered at the earlier Committee meeting. It allowed City staff or volunteers to retrieve abandoned carts and return them to the appropriate store in exchange for a $5 00 per returned cart fee to cover a portion of the City's administrative costs. If the cart owner failed to pay these administrative costs, the ordinance allowed the City to Operations Committee Minutes October 5, 2004 Page- 2 require the cart owner to develop and implement a specific plan to prevent customers from removing the carts from the owner's property. As part of this plan, the store would need to implement physical measures to prevent carts from being removed from the owner's property. One of the physical measures that could be utilized is the use of disabling devices on all ' shopping carts. Mr Brubaker advised that no budget impact is anticipated though nominal revenue may be generated by the $5.00 per cart administrative fee issued in accordance with this proposed ordinance. Tim Clark moved to recommend tabling the Shopping Cart Ordinance to October 19, I 2004, at which time staff will submit a revised ordinance for the Committee's consideration. The meeting was adjourned at 4:56 p.m ' Renee Cameron Operations Committee Secretary i 1 1 2 1 1 i Parks and Human Services Committee Meeting Minutes September 16, 2004 Committee Members Present- Debbie Raplee, Deborah Ranniger Committee Members Absent Julie Peterson Added Items. 6 Title East Hill Park Agreement- Approve 7. Citizen Comment. Mel Roberts, 9421 So 241st St , Kent, WA. "Safety on the Green River and Interurban Trails in Kent" 1 Approval of Minutes of July 15, 2004 Councilmember Raplee moved to approve the minutes of July 15, 2004 Council member Ranniger seconded Councilmember Peterson concurred by telephone Iand the motion passed 2 Cultural Development Authority of King County Grant for 2004 Program -Accept 1 and Amend Budget The Cultural Development Authority of King County (dba "4Culture") awarded the Kent Arts Commission $10,100 00 in funding to support 2004 programs, that include "Spotlight Series" performances, Kent Kids' Arts Day, Kent Summer Concert Series, two Missoula Children's Theatre residencies and Canterbury Arts Festival Councilmember Raplee moved to recommend Council accept the $10,100 00 "Sustained Support" grant from the Cultural Development Authority of King County and authorize expenditure of funds in the Kent Arts Commission Budget to support 2004 programs Council member Ranniger seconded Councilmember Peterson concurred by telephone and the motion passed 3 Federal Department of Justice Grant for Safe havens Programs - Accept and Amend Budget In January of 2003, the City of Kent received a 3-year, $500,000 00 grant from the Federal Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to 1 establish a supervised visitation and safe exchange program for families impacted by domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, and stalking OVW has recently awarded the City an additional $200,000 00 to assist in further development of the program and site location Director John Hodgson announced that Human Services Planner Tracee Parker has been assigned the position of Supervisor of the Safe Havens Program He Page 1 added that city-owned Gowe Street Station is being re-designed in early November to accommodate the Safe Havens clients and staff. , Councilmember Raplee moved to recommend Council accept the $200,000 00 grant from the Federal Department of Justice and authorize expenditure of funds in the Safe Havens Budget Councilmember Ranniger seconded Councilmember Peterson concurred by telephone and the motion passed 4 2003 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan Amendment - Approve In 2003, the City of Kent did not use all of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds allocated to Planning and Administration. Also in 2003, funds were allocated for the Kent One-Stop Program and those funds need to be reallocated, as the One Stop is leasing space and will reapply for funding when they are ready to purchase a facility Per HUD regulations, the City of Kent needs to amend the 2003 CDBG Annual Action Plan to reallocate the funds The attached amendment was published on August 29, 2004 and available for public comment for 30 days A public hearing was held at the Sept 16, 2004 Human Services Commission meeting Council action is required to approve the amendment reallocating the funding and authorizing the Mayor to execute the required agreements Councilmember Raplee moved to recommend that Council approve amendments to the 2003 CDBG Action Plan, including funding allocations and authorize the Mayor to execute the appropriate agreements Councilmember Ranniger seconded Councilmember Peterson concurred by telephone and the motion , passed 5 Declare Residential Structures Surplus and allow Demolition - Approve Project Manager Shane Gilbertson reported that three properties were purchased with the intent to develop parks Structures located on the property at the time of acquisition were incidental to the purchase and are not needed for park purposes , The Skinner property located at 25520 Hawley Road, was purchased in May of 1995 and included a single family residence, barn and shed The property was in our rental house program until August 2, 2004 The Police and Fire Departments may use the structures for training purposes poor to demolition. The Uhler Property located at 25000 Hawley Road, was purchased on August 6, 2004, and includes a single-family residence and shed These two properties are scheduled to be developed in 2006 or later as Riverview Park The Dow Property was purchased in January of 1996 for a future neighborhood park Our East Hill Park Maintenance crew has been based in this facility since Page 2 ' the acquisition. The crew has moved into new quarters on SE 248"' St This property will be developed in 2007 or later as 132nd St. Neighborhood Park Councilmember Raplee moved to recommend that Council declare the structures at 25520 Hawley Road, 25000 Hawley Road, and 26621 132nd Ave SE as surplus and allow demolition Councilmember Ranniger seconded. Councilmember Peterson concurred by telephone and the motion passed 1 6 WALK ON, East Hill Skate Park Agreement-Approve. Superintendent Lon Flemm noted that Parks researched options for design and 1 fabrication of similar climbing features and found that Entre Prises, USA, Inc will provide the safest and most cost effective design and final product. This company is recognized as the industry standard in design and fabrication of climbing structures No other company in the United States provides these services, similar companies are located in Europe The two climbing features are part of the multi-generational design of the East Hill Skate Park to be constructed 1 on the east hill of Kent in 2005 Approval of the consultant agreement is dependent upon approval of the sole source Waiver of Procurement Requirements After the next public meeting, staff will ask Council to decide on a I name for the park based on citizen's recommendations Supt Flemm added that the design and fabrication is grant funded Councilmember Raplee moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement for $129,835 00 with Entre Prises, USA, Inc for design and fabrication of two climbing features at the East Hill Skate Park Councilmember Ranniger seconded Councilmember Peterson concurred by telephone and the motion passed 7 WALK ON Citizen Comment Bicycle Safety on Trails Mr Mel Roberts of 9421 So. 241st St , Kent, WA suggested two improvements to the Interurban and Green River Trails to help the bicycle riders and pedestrians use the trails in a safe manner (see attached letter for specific locations) a Paint centerline strips in certain areas along the Green River Trail and Interurban Trail to encourage single file riding, thus preventing congestion and potential accidents (see attached Memo for locations) b Paint bollards and posts white and attach light reflective tape on bollards to 1 make them for visible by day and night to ensure safer riding conditions Superintendent of Parks Planning and Open Space responded that she will address Mr Roberts proposal within the current bollard replacement program Councilmember Ranniger thanked Mr Roberts for bringing the issue to the committee's attention The meeting adjourned at 4 40 p m Page 3 PLANNING& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2004 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark, Ron Harmon, Bruce White The special meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4.00 P.M. Approval of Minutes ' Member White Moved and Member Harmon seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2004 meeting Motion Carried 3 to 0. ' #ZCA-2002-4 Critical Areas Ordinance Update Planner Kim Marousek described the proposed updates to the Critical Areas regulations. She stated that the Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that Kent along with other jurisdictions update their Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations. Ms Marousek stated that the Critical Areas Regulations govern and protect the functions and values of wetlands, fish and wildlife conservation areas, geologic hazard areas, critical aquifer recharge areas and frequently flooded areas; and preserve and enhance our natural resources. She stated that staff has developed Critical Areas policies and regulations based on (BAS) Best Available Science as mandated by the passage of a State law around 1995 Ms. Marousek stated that this update is to ' be completed by December 1, 2004. Ms. Marousek stated that Kent has hired consultants: Adolphson and Associates to analysis wetlands, Geo-Engineers to analysis Kent's geologic hazard areas; Huckle, Weinman and Associates along with MCS Environmental to evaluate Kent's fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas She stated that City staff completed a BAS analysis for critical aquifer recharge areas and frequently flooded areas Ms Marousek referred to the draft ordinance to describe the buffers staff has recommended along with the mitigation and protection measures that have been incorporated Ms Marousek defined the 3-tiered wetland categorization system that staff proposes retaining and described critical areas for the Committee's benefit She stated that staff proposes increasing existing buffer widths by 25 feet for each category based on recommendations from the BAS study Ms Marousek described the new code section concerning "wildlife habitat areas" and how regulations would be applied Ms Marousek defined Hazard Area Regulations stating that they exist in the Kent City Code She stated that the City's proposed regulations are based on the State's definition of geologic hazard , areas,which are landslide, erosion, seismic and volcanic hazard areas Ms. Marousek stated that the proposed standard buffer area for landslide hazard areas is equal to the vertical height of the slope or fifty feet whichever would be greater; although, there is a provision within the code to reduce the buffer to a minimum of 25 feet based on an approved Geotechnical Report Ms. Marousek described the new Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas code section generally defined as wellhead protection areas and defined by a ten-year travel time. She defined specific uses that would be restricted or prohibited in these areas due to the potential to contaminate groundwater resources and that would require further analysis to determine if Best Management Practices were followed to protect groundwater resources. Ms Marousek stated that KCC Section 14.09 pertains to frequently flooded areas. She stated that administrative clarifications have been made to this code section based on FEMA requirements. Ms Marousek discussed the proposed streams regulations with the committee describing those areas as the East Hill or the Soos Creek area and the Valley Floor area consisting of Garrison, Mill and Spnngbrook Creeks. i Ms. Marousek stated that the city adopted the Soos Creek standards as the east hill area was at the 1 time that area was annexed from King County. She stated that the valley creek areas were established in the 1980s and defined as major and minor creeks with much of the valley built out under those regulations with existing developments of 50 feet or less Ms. M arousek described t he three-type stream s ystem proposed and d efined s etbacks associated with each stream type. She defined the Valley Stream Overlay depicting for the Committee where existing fifty foot setbacks have been applied in the Valley and indicating how the area would look by applying 100 foot setbacks. Ms Marousek stated that staff created a Valley Stream Overlay as part of the draft code,requiring a minimum fifty-foot vegetated setback to provide a higher function in a smaller area. Ms Marousek stated that there are options to reduce buffers based on buffer averaging within the Stream,Wetland and Geologic Hazard sections of the code Ms. Marousek stated that the Wetland and Frequently Flooded areas are in KCC Chapters 11 05 and 14 09 and administered by Public Works. She stated that the Streams and Geologic Hazard Areas are located in K ent's Zoning Code and administered by Planning Services S he stated that this proposal consolidates these code sections into one section with the exception of the Frequently Flooded areas section, which would remain in KCC 14 09 all to be administered by Public Works. Ms. Marousek described the various criteria and reasonable use exception options added to the code and defined the new nonconforming use section Ms Marousek responded to questions raised by the Committee concerning buffering associated with nonconforming uses, grandfathenng and 1 setback standards related to new development and rebuilding of existing structures City Attorney Tom Brubaker in concurrence with Kim Marousek clarified that under new provisions,property owners t enrimate their rights to retain a nonconforming status for damaged property if a one-year timeframe has expired, therefore would be required to remodel under any new setback standards Ms Marousek responded to questions raised by Member Clark concerning the application of specific buffering standards, indicating that staff considered BAS along with balancing GMA goals She stated that over the long term, for the city to implement environmental mitigation measures, plantings and habitat restoration, 100-foot buffers would be preferred Ms Marousek responded to q uestions from Member White in regards t o w hat areas o f t he c ity would be affected by these new regulations and how they would relate to existing development ' Environmental Engineering Manager Bill Wolinski stated that City staff has characterized existing King County streams regulations and has worked with Council and other agencies to retain King County's protective standards of 100-foot buffers for salmonid streams at the time of annexation i He stated that the citizenry and development community are accustomed to working with those ■ requirements. Public Works Wellhead Engineer Kelly Peterson addressed questions raised by Member Harmon in reference to wellhead protection. He described two types of wellhead protection areas defining the standards by which these areas are identified as, either "modeling" or a process defined as "(CFR) I or Calculated Fixed Radius Method" In response to Member Harmon's concerns, Mr Wohnski stated that staff believes the provisions in the ordinance are adequate for regulating appropriate uses within the wellhead protection areas and that the City works closely with other jurisdictions to ensure these wellhead areas are protected Ms. Marousek responded to Member White's questions regarding the definition of ditches, stating that they are not regulated. She addressed Member White's concerns as to who would be required ' Planning&Economic Committee Meeting 10/4/04 Page 2 of 3 to pay for studies to determine whether salmomd exists within the new wildlife conservation areas and defined ponds and how those ponds might be regulated for Member White's benefit. , Member White voiced concerns that buildable land areas would be reduced by increasing wetland buffers and negates the purpose of the GMA in terms of creating denser development within the Urban Growth Boundary He stated that he is sensitive to property rights issues regarding continued encroachment and taking of property questioning at what point the city runs afoul of the constitutional prohibition against Kent regulating properties without Just compensation. Ms. Marousek stated that it is her understanding if the city denies all reasonable use of property , through a regulatory action, it is considered a "taking" and Kent City Code provides a number of administrative means where someone could be flexible with this code. She stated that staff has included a reasonable u se p rovrsion in this code to avoid any"Takings"i ssues M s Marousek addressed Buildable Lands capacity issues as raised by Member White. Wetland Biologist Ms. Teresa Vanderburg, Adolphson & Associates stated that wetlands inherently provide certain functions such as wildlife habitat and water quality improvement and values in flood storage and flood management. She stated that increasing Category 1 buffers from 100 to 125 feet might provide additional flood storage benefits and water quality preservation for down stream waters, specifically waters connected to streams or ultimately flow to streams , Ms. Vanderburg stated that the purpose of buffers is to protect functions and values according to the requirement of GMA while balancing the ability to develop lands She stated that if full protection , were provided for wetlands than the science alone would indicate that we need larger buffers which are why the State's guidelines say that that buffers in excess of 200 to 300 feet should be provided for wetlands Ms Vanderburg stated that it is not particularly practical in an urban area or necessary when you have roads or infrastructure that already lies within that buffer Ms Vanderburg responded to questions raised by Member White concerning setbacks and flood issues by stating that research derived from King County and the Puget Sound Storm Water Program indicated that wetlands receive a lot of storm water and storm water management is important in urban areas. She stated that part of the reason for a greater buffer is to protect this storm water capacity and water quality functions of wetlands which are degraded in Puget Sound because of urban development. Member White stated that various levels of mitigation are employed to different development projects questioning if alternatives were available to increase setbacks in terms of how the city , currently mitigates such development cases. Ms. Marousek stated that it is her believe that the city has adopted additional programs so that buffers do not need to be increased beyond the 25 feet. Bill Wolinski addressed Member Whites concerns with regard to the importance of adequate wetland buffers and storm water control issues Member Harmon MOVED to approve ZCA-2002-4 as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board and forward the draft ordinance to City Council for consideration. Chair Clark seconded the Motion with Member White opposed Motion Carried 2 to 1 Member Harmon encouraged staff to take a look at wetland banking as an option. Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 5.05 p in. Pamela Mottram, Admm Secretary, Planning Services S\?cmaTIM\?1d ,ng Commuee\2004N1mutm\100404pc.mtndm Planning&Economic Committee Meeting 10/4/04 Page 3 of 3 i i PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES September 16, 2004 i COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Debbie Raplee,Les Thomas,Deborah Ranniger,Chair • The meeting was called to order by Deborah Ranniger at 5:00 M. • Chair Ranniger asked for additions or changes to the agenda. Chief Ed Crawford requested that one item,a vehicle surplus,be added to the agenda 1. Approval of Minutes of August 19,2004 Les Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the August 19,2004 meeting. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. 2. Prostitution Loitering—Ordinance Amendmg KCC 9.02.300-ADOPT Deputy City Attorney Patrick Fitzpatrick ieviewed the proposed changes and explained the language updates. Debbie Raplee moved to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending KCC 9.02.300 regarding the crime of prostitution loitering. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. ' 3. Violation of Seattle-Kimla Count% Dent of Public Health Order-Ordinance— ADOPT Deputy City Attorney Patrick Fitzpatrick reviewed the proposed oidmance This ordinance will allow the arrest of someone who enters or uses contaminated property ill violation of a Health Department order.as in a methamphetamine manufacturing case Les Thomas moved to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance i amending the Kent City Code to make it a crime in the City to violate an order issued by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. i4. Police Department's Hiring Process—INFO ONLY Chief Ed Crawford explained the process to hire entry level police officers and gave an 1 update on the current hiring status 5. K-9 Vest—INFO ONLY Chief Ed Crawford introduced Officer Tin Ford and K-9 Officer Jedi Officer Ford explained the events that took place in order for K-9 Jedi to be awarded a vest by Zach Adam Added Agenda Item: 1. Vehicle Surplus-AUTHORIZE Chief Ed Crawford explained that due to extensive damage, it would not be cost effective to repair the vehicle which had been used by the Valley Special Response Team This vehicle is outside the City's typical fleet inventory Debbie Raplee moved to recommend the Council authorize the Kent Police ' Department to surplus the 1987 Chevrolet Suburban and placing this on the Consent Calendar for the October 5,2004 Council Meeting. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM Jo Thompson ' t Public Safety Committee Minutes 2 May 20,2004 I PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES October 4, 2004 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair Bruce White, Committee Member Debbie Raplee and Committee Member Ron Harmon The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Bruce White at 5:05 P.M. Approval of Minutes Dated September 20,2004 Committee Member Ron Harmon moved to approve the minutes of September 20, 2004. The motion was seconded by Debbie Raplee and passed 3-0. Interlocal Agreement with City of Des Moines for Pac Hwy S/Kent Des Moines Road Intersection -Authorize Don Wickstrom said this agreement between the City of Kent and the City of Des Moines authorizes the City of Des Moines to construct certain improvements to the Pacific Highway South/Kent-Des Moines Road intersection and authorizes reimbursing the City of Des Moines for the cost of half of the intersection improvements which is $479,370 Debbie Raplee moved to recommend the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Des Moines for construction of improvements to the Pacific Highway South/Kent Des Moines Road Intersection subject to the concurrence of the language therein by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Ron Harmon and passed 3-0. Local Agencv Agreement for Kent TOD Project with WSDOT-Authorize Don Wickstrom said in order not to forfeit the Federal Grant money,this agreement had to be executed and received by the State by October 1, 2004. The agreement was executed and we are seeking Council concurrence and approval of that action. Ron Harmon moved to recommend concurrence of the execution of the Local Agency Agreement and Local Agency Federal Aid Prospectus for the South Kent ' Transit Oriented Development(TOD)Access Project and authorize the establishment of the budget for same along with directing staff to spend the money accordingly. The motion was seconded by Debbie Raplee and passed 3-0 King Conservation District Number 9 Grant-Authorize Don Wickstrom said this grant in the amount of$88,500 will a used to finish design work and assistance of obtaining federal and local permits for the Meridian Valley Creek Realignment project. Because the monies will be available in mid October we are proposing to add this item to the October 5 h Council agenda Debbie Raplee moved to recommend the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the King Conservation District Number 9 Grant for years 2001-2002, in the amount of $88,500 directing staff to accept the grant and establish a budget fro the funds to be spent within said project. The motion was seconded by Ron Harmon and passed 3- 0. 2 2 Washington Conservation Corps Sponsor Contract-Authorize Bill Wolinski, Environmental Engineering Manager said this is a great program that will provide approximately half of the salary, benefits, tools and transportation costs for a 5- person crew and supervisor to participate in the landscaping and maintenance of various capital projects. Ron Harmon moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Washington Conservation Corps Sponsor Agreement, in the amount of$85,000,and direct the staff to utilize these funds to purchase landscaping and maintenance labor for various capital improvement projects. The motion was seconded by Debbie Raplee and passed 3-0. Hazard Mitigation Grant for Reservoir Seismic Strengthening-Authorize j Don Wickstrom said this grant program is the result of the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake Disaster Brad Lake and his staff went after this grant and kept pursuing it, they applied for the grant in July 2002 and recently received notice of award. With the grant funds seismic retrofit of Cambridge tank, 6 million gallon Reservoir #1 and the Reith Road Reservoir can be completed. Debbie Raplee moved to recommend the Council authorize the Mayor execute the Washington State Military Department Mitigation Grant Agreement to accept Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds for the Kent Reservoirs Seismic Strengthening project and to establish a budget fro the same along with directing staff to spend money accordingly. The motion was seconded by Ron Harmon and passed 3-0. Meeker Street Law Building LLC Real Estate Trade Agreement- Authorize Don Wickstrom said the City will be widening 4` Avenue from Harrison Street to Smith Street in conjunction with the Smith Street and 4t' Avenue intersection improvements associated with the Kent Station development The City will need to acquire a portion of property owned the Meeker Street Law Building LLC. In lieu of selling the property to the City the Meeker St. Law Building LLC wants to trade it for the equivalent square footage of property off the City's easterly abutting parking lot. There will be no cost to the City to do this. Ron Harmon moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Real Estate Trade Agreement between Meeker Street Law Building LLC and the City of Kent upon the concurrence of the language therein by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Debbie Raplee and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 P.M Janet Perschek Administrative Assistant t CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. i 1 i 1 I 1 i I 1 i 1 J EXECUTIVE SESSION 1 A. PENDING LITIGATION 1 ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION