Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/05/2008
1 AGENDA 1 � City of Kent � City Council Meeting � Agenda'- February 5, 2008 Mayor Suzette Cooke Debbie Raplee, Council President Councilmembers Elizabeth Albertson Bob O'Brien Tim Clark Deborah Ranniger Ron Harmon Les Thomas KENT WASHINGTON 1 City Clerk's Office 1 KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS ��KVT February 5, 2008 DNA 5 H IN_G_TO N Council Chambers MAYOR: Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBERS: Debbie Raplee, President Elizabeth Albertson Tim Clark Ron Harmon Bob O'Brien Deborah Ranniger Les Thomas ********************************************************************** COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA 5:30 p.m. Item Description Speaker Time 1. Connected Community Mike Carrington 60 minutes COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC - Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor. 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition B. Community Events C. Kent Arts Commission Funding Recipients D. Employee of the Month 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting - Approve B. Payment of Bills - Approve C. Arts Commission Youth Representative Ordinance - Adopt D. 2008 WESTAF TourWest Grant - Accept and Amend Budget E. 2008 King County Developmental Disabilities Division Grant - Accept and Amend Budget F. Regional Affordable Housing Program Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Authorize G. 2007 Fourth Quarter Fee-in-Lieu Funds - Accept and Amend Budget (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED H. King County Youth Sports Facility Grant for Wilson Playfields - Accept and Amend Budgets I. Amendment to Aquatic Management Group Agreement - Authorize J. Willis Street Grade Separations Funding - Accept K. LID 360, S.E. 2,4,7th Place Sanitary Sewers - Resolution Setting Public Hearing - , L. Olympic Environmental Consultant Contract - Authorize M. Geomatrix Feasibility Study Consultant Contract - Authorize N. Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant Program Interlocal Agreement with King County Solid Waste Division - Authorize O. Amendment to Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County for Open Space Acquisition Projects - Authorize P. Sprint Limited Street License Agreement - Authorize Q. Corrections Control Panel Replacement Project - Accept as Complete 1 R. Kent City Hall Campus Project - Accept as Complete S. 2007 Asphalt Slurry Seal - Accept as Complete T. East Valley Highway Improvement Project Condemnation Ordinance - Adopt 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Verdana Planned Unit Development (Quasi-Judicial Proceeding) 8. BIDS A. West Fenwick Park Improvements 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 10. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Property Acquisition B. 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 and complete packet are 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. _ U �C L 7 O - L L -p L p Q p`-6 T O Q L ` O 0 0 v ovn 'ao0 ° o.v E ro^ E c v c°> aE o � u > C O u ro 10 r 0 O m rd a1 aci "s Q u v E v v v N1 o aci 0.uLa_L C 7-O c <0 C a L -% N -6 N--O - - �V.` � p C V _ ro 3 v 6i �O� C N i C'O y C U ro �U T v °c°v o �� � pOEccM = s E ° ° � vv mm � � a uL Q N � 61 °- >' L v7i 0 L O�C ° OC Z3 L -V C N Q ° c O s > ° > ° ° ° a ^ ° a ro a° L v 3 aro • 7 R b0- C v _6 E bA U T ° O s O Q 07 m Q > a s ac a V o� ° o �__ v u� N7� v y T v- T� N 7 L,� ro v m ro 3 y v �. Q N N Ti N E C ro � L bQ�n C L1 c p T C y ro E� a- c 2 ro v v� c v cO c e0 v vV�� c c� ° � vvEc ° ua� oaco� E� E� v 3E Ev • amad � Q a Q m sacv a vos > >-o :E 0E oE7, � E Urom , c °a UM u o c E aj LIJ UJ L o 05: -0-0 E e s E V p E ac c v v a °1 V o � c > O N ro U- O O O O L bA cu> vo � E ° avuLa.� Evu-oy EEv EU E c v =3 O sv > �- aE E o �¢ � - C: H � Qv Qc 0-C: O u C b L C E O v ° v� Q7 v 0 O v U ro T U =O O ° O K vT�Y V v " >UO ° u O 2Ec , u � EYV - `pE Q �sp •i ° o ^ �Lc � � E� ro�-o E °N v L 7 L..U C N V ro L0 a)J L-6 E O O v o C t6 4J R�-- N N U N o V v ra =L p 1 O oU p = c 3 N o v s c u CC U C N' N 7 0 L N 3 OA v E Q ro j V H O v O N O O m rp O H T 41 L G Y yuro ovcvpa 'o EJ� a N� u �O Nro � v� 3 Y j C N C OL °- CV C ajM E b i W 4 DM • E ys (-- °EH �� 3� V � -0 v °c°-6 v 3 y v� C: n o o c� E >- o E y Qc S ro- a-m c u u Cv cv > z ovv - ro-2 � croEyv croro c<< - aQ a? v� eOro oo V Y EL vv � 3E -O Q ro O O N N ro fl- 3 a E ro O L M C L ro N Vf m N b.- auL _^ c� E v o ao c c v c v E E v vV E E �� y p� �'e�V .�O y .YS L ro L v m L O E L v v O 0 O-p ° p o o >t v 0 O a v v ro w N aJ tC N E v 7 0 7 0 Q �U a _ V V V ro V v R - U U O o� d 0 w a w H a m aQ:� �_ r i E c = > W= p v z > > a v > 3 � c QCD c � Voo �E o E v u v t/1 u Ua N N C �n VM n O u j m N —0 j 0 ro V O c0 O vV- 00 ZLai V '� V N =01 =ul� V MLr) u° MLr, T r - O O M� aT+Q 'n O aL N E T n R Y V c�-- V C O U Lijp= rc� c c 0 0 O �_ ° E ° E r U�LZ -iN YY m00� V U W d uw v C � a N O O C ? L N N�O o' E 2 �0 - a O L. O v MU CC) Y ULIJ 'n T-O u`� `^ N v Q- N >- � • � v R N > La Y ° -E E - a - aE T c cc - v RU p u_ c 0 o ro 2 u o 0 3 0 ro E c fl v a ro • - `o c� o E w a v roL b u >� co 'u >. c c � >cn c � � a�� E o E � ro .TR vcJ ro� ro� o� • u Q s T o v > E o u 3 00- bpp c vM u > O R c a ro c V v ro T O t'°p u v s C - j v b y Fv °' o c ao ro _c n. 3 a a0. Y Y = c U o L 3 E o -c `v a C) �n c E s 9 - ° cvou v °Lv �Q � to uj �L a 3 o c Ra n °c°- aoN v uj e _ eiy aoo = � 00w ° vro �e acov �� o 0) 0 E ovov 0U o. N c c o 3 n� v QEum� v U iLA LLI vai 2O A a ao°Jt �u QU > a E � E a = Q �O Q u n CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) PUBLIC RECOGNITION B) COMMUNITY EVENTS C) KENT ARTS COMMISSION FUNDING RECIPIENTS D) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH CONSENT CALENDAR 6. City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Con ent Calendar Items A through T. c t) ' c� Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 15, 2008. 6B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through December 15 and paid on December 15, 2007 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 15, 2008. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/15/07 Wire Transfers 3082-3100 $2,133,317.34 12/15/07 Regular 615082-615651 3,126,671.40 Use Tax Payable 3,076.49 $5,263,065.23 Approval of payment of the bills received through December 31 and paid on December 31, 2007 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 15, 2008. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/31/07 Wire Transfers 3101-3118 $1,428,925.48 12/31/07 Regular 615652-616040 3,318,208.41 Use Tax Payable 1,047.85 $4,748,181.74 Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 16, 2007 and paid on December 5, 2007: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/5/07 Checks 301683-301932 $ 235,588.94 12/5/07 Advices 222523-223245 1808,043.07 $2,043,632.01 (Continued on back) 6B. Approval of Bills. Approval of checks issued for payroll for December 1, 2007 and paid on December 20, 2007: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/20/07 Checks 301933-302205 $ 208,129.82 12/20/07 Advices 223246-223970 1,410,149.09 $1,618,278.91 Approval of checks issued for payroll for December 16, 2007 and paid on January 4, 2008: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/4/08 Checks 302206-302469 $ 196,450.70 1/4/08 Advices 223971-224700 1,361,193.29 $1,557,643.99 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent City Council Meeting KENT H_______WAS N T O N_ January 15, 2008 S I G The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Clark, Harmon, O'Brien, Ranniger, Raplee and Thomas. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA A. From Council, Administration, Staff. (CFN-198) No changes were made. B. From the Public. (CFN-198) No changes were made by the public. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition. (CFN-198) Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Watling announced that as part of the City employees giving campaign, $3,322 was collected online, and a check in that amount was presented to Pat Pawlak of the Kent Food Bank. B. Community Events. (CFN-198) There were no community events to announce. C. Neighborhood Council Recognition. (CFN-1304) Toni Azzola, Neighborhood Programs Coordinator, announced that the Scenic Hill and Seven Oaks East ' neighborhoods have completed the process to establish Neighborhood Councils, and introduced representatives from each neighborhood. Mayor Cooke presented each with a certificate. D. Introduction of Appointees. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke noted that confirmation of the reappointment of Vickie Molzer and Greg Haffner to the Lodging Tax Advisory Board is on the Consent Calendar. Neither were in attendance at the meeting. E. Permit Process Review and Appointment of Panel Members. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke introduced Paul Collins, Chair of the Permit Process Review Panel, who explained that their purpose is to provide community input to staff, to review the information, and to make recommendations. Mayor Cooke announced the members of the panel, and noted that Kurt Hanson will serve as liaison. Hanson explained that there are over 200 types of permits, and that each will be mapped. F. Public Safety Report. (CFN-122) Police Chief Strachan updated statistics for December and January, and also compared the 2007 statistics to 2006. He gave an update on the Weed and Seed program and described the automated license plate reader which was recently acquired. CONSENT CALENDAR Raplee moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through J. Clark seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) The minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 2, 2008, were approved. 1 Kent City Council Minutes January 15, 2008 B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Numbers were not available for approval. C. Neighborhood Council Resolutions. (CFN-1304) Resolution Nos. 1776 and 1777 recognizing Seven Oaks East and Scenic Hill as Neighborhood Councils were adopted. Residents of these neighborhoods have completed the process to establish Neighborhood Councils. D. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Appointments. (CFN-1170) The re-appointments of Greg Haffner and Vickie Molzer to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee were confirmed. Both have agreed to be re-appointed to their existing positions for another term which will expire 12/31/10. E. Kent Events Center Proiect Construction Agreements with Puget Sound Energy, Qwest, and Comcast. (CFN-1305) The Mayor was authorized to sign Construction Agreements with Puget Sound Energy, Qwest and Comcast for the conversion of overhead facilities to underground for the W. James St. and 41h Ave. N. Improvements upon approval of the language by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. It is necessary to underground the power, telephone and cable facilities and install a new gas main to the Events Center. F. Right-Of-Way Dedication for West James Improvements. (CFN-1305) The Mayor was authorized to sign the deed dedicating right-of-way for the W. James Street Improvements, upon approval of the language by the City Attorney and Public Works Director, as necessary in order to install franchise utilities across the Events Center frontage along James Street. G. Sewer Master Plan Consultant Agreement. (CFN-598) The Mayor was authorized to sign a contract with URS Corporation for engineering consultant services for the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan in the amount of $13,117.28, upon approval of the language by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The agreement is for flow analysis, future flow requirements, conveyance system capacity requirements, wastewater discharge reduction, disposal options, reclaimed water usage and cost estimating. H. Upper Meridian Creek Culvert. (CFN-1038) The Upper Meridian Creek Culvert project was accepted as complete and release of retainage to Pivetta Brothers, upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens, was authorized. The original contract amount was $332,811.47. The final contract amount was $286,787.63. I. DSHS Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse $500 Stipend. (CFN-122) , The DSHS Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse $500 stipend was accepted. The Kent Police Department will use the funds to host a town hall meeting on reducing underage drinking. J. King County Public Entity Services Contract. (CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign the King County Public Entity Services contract for 2008, which provides a means for reimbursement of up to a seven-day supply of prescribed medications to defendants at the City of Kent Corrections Facility and to make 2 Kent City Council Minutes January 15, 2008 appropriate referral for mental health evaluation and other mental health services. The City of Kent Corrections Facility will be reimbursed on a cost basis. OTHER BUSINESS A. Interlocal Agreement with Seattle Southside Visitors Services. (CFN-1170) Economic Development Director Ben Wolters explained that this agreement will provide support in various marketing tourism activities. He noted that this partnership has been going on for three years, that it has been a tremendous success, and that this agreement would continue the relationship on an annual basis. Wolters agreed to provide Council with a copy of the quarterly report which goes to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Clark moved to approve the Interlocal Agreement for Tourism and Marketing Services between Seattle Southside Visitor Services and the City of Kent. Raplee seconded and the motion carried. 1 B. W. James Street, 4th Avenue N. and W. Cloudy Streets Condemnation Ordinance. (CFN-1312) Public Works Director Blanchard noted that in order to construct the West James Street and 4th Avenue North/West Cloudy Street Improvements projects, it will be necessary to acquire private property from fourteen property owners. The proposed ordinance provides the mechanism to proceed, if necessary, to condemnation on those properties for which typical methods of negotiation have failed. City Attorney Brubaker explained the eminent domain process, and emphasized that negotiations will continue. Ranniger moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3871 obtaining needed right-of-way for the West James Street, 4th Avenue North and West Cloudy Street Improvement Projects. Clark seconded. Councilmembers Harmon and Thomas asked to be recused from the vote due to personal relationships with some of the property owners. The motion then carried 5-2 with Harmon and Thomas abstaining. C. Department of Ecology Local Government Stormwater Grant Agreement. (CFN-1038) The Washington State Department of Ecology is offering local jurisdictions $75,000 in grant funds to implement the mandated municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II (NPDES) programs. Environmental Engineering Manager Mike Mactutis explained the permit process and requirements, as well as uses for the funds. Ranniger moved to create an account and accept grant funds from the Department of Ecology Local Government Stormwater Grants Program, Grant Agreement No. G0800261, in the amount of $75,000. Clark seconded and the motion carried. REPORTS A. Council President. (CFN-198) Raplee noted that the time and date for all Council Committee meetings remains the same as last year. B. Mayor. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke announced that an Executive Director has been hired for Valley Communications Center, that S.E. 116th Avenue between Kent-Kangley and S.E. 256th has been opened, that the City will be closed on Monday, January 21, for the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, and that Council President Raplee is the alternate to the Suburban Cities Association Policy Issues Committee. 3 Kent City Council Minutes January 15, 2008 C. Operations Committee. (CFN-198) Clark gave an update on the Town Square Plaza project, noting that the opening has been delayed until June due to problems with the fountain and restroom/maintenance area. D. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) Ranniger noted that the next meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 17. E. Planning and Economic Development Committee. (CFN-198) Albertson noted that the committee will meet in February with the Des Moines City Council at 5:00 p.m. at Highline Community College, to discuss areas along Highway 99 which the cities share in common. F. Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) Harmon noted that the next meeting will be on February 12 at 5:00 p.m. and that the committee will discuss the 2008 fireworks plan and the crisis intervention contract. G. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) Ranniger noted that the committee will meet on Tuesday, January 22, due to the holiday on Monday, January 21. H. Administration. (CFN-198) Hodgson noted that the Council Retreat will be held on Friday, February 1, and Saturday, February 2, at Green River Community College. Hodgson noted that there will be an executive session of approximately twenty minutes regarding property negotiations, pending litigation, and labor negotiations. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 10 p.m. No action was taken after the Executive Session. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE ORDINANCE - ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. amending Chapter 4.02 of the Kent City Code to expand the membership of the Kent Arts Commission to include a youth representative and authorize other housekeeping amendments, clarifying term lengths and the appointment process. 1 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and 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. 6C i i ORDINANCE NO. 1 i AN ORDINANCE of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending chapter 4.02 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Arts Commission," to expand the size of the commission to include a youth position and to make other housekeeping revisions. RECITALS A. On October 20, 1975, the Arts Commission was created by council's adoption of Ordinance No. 1944. The current code provisions concerning the commission are codified in chapter 4.02 of the Kent City Code. B. The Arts Commission has expressed an interest in expanding its membership to include a youth representative. This ordinance amends the Kent City Code in order to officially create a youth representative position, to clarify ' that the size of the commission includes a council representative, and to make other housekeeping revisions. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Amendment. Chapter 4.02 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Arts Commission," is amended as follows: 1 Amend Ch. 4.02 KCC— Kent Arts Commission CHAPTER 4.02 ARTS COMMISSION Sec. 4.02.010. Created. There is hereby created the Kent Arts Commission. Sec. 4.02.020. Purpose. The city arts commission and staff may, t alone or in cooperation with any other private, civic or public body of any city, county or the state, initiate, sponsor or conduct programs calculated to further public awareness of and interest in the visual and performing arts. Sec. 4.02.030. Membership — Term. The membership of the city , arts commission shall be twelvefourteen (41114) members to be appointed by the mayor and confirmed with the appFeval ef by the city council, with the exception of the council representative who shall be appointed to the commission by the Council President. Each member of the commission shall have an equal vote in decisions of the commission, except for the appointed council representative, who shall serve in a non-voting capacity. Sec. 4.02.035. Terms of Appointment. With respect to the members appointed and confirmed to serve on the commission, the following provisions shall apply: ' 1. Te be qualified moo-serve—ars aEach member en the eity aFts rss+e+r, exclusive of the youth representative, must reside or own property within the city or one (1) of its utility or parks department service areas or, alternatively, work or own a business within the city's municipal boundaries. j 2. The commission shall include among its members one (1) council representative and one (1) youth representative of high school age who attends a Kent school or lives within the city's municipal boundaries. 3. All members appointed App^its--shall serve be f8F a per ef—four (4) year terms or #e-r—the unexpired balance of the term for which appointed, whichever is the lesser period.., with the following exceptions: 2 Amend Ch. 4.02 KCC— Kent Arts Commission ' a. The youth representative shall be appointed to a one- year term; and b. The council representative shall be appointed to a one- year term. of the eity council shall be designated by the presideRt ef the eity eeune'! to Sec. 4.02.040. Officers - Meetings. The city arts commission shall elect its officers, including a chairperson, vice-chairperson, and such officers as it may deem necessary. Such persons shall occupy their respective offices for a period of one (1) year. The arts commission shall hold regular public meetings at least monthly. Sec. 4.02.050. Rules - Minutes. The city arts commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep written minutes of its proceedings which minutes shall be a public record. Sec. 4.02.060. Budget. The arts commission shall each year submit to the mayor and city council for approval a proposed budget for the following year in the manner provided by law for preparation and submission of budgets by appointive officials. SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR 3 Amend Ch. 4.02 KCC— Kent Arts Commission ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 2008. APPROVED: day of , 2008. PUBLISHED: day of , 2008. 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\ArtsCommission-AmendKCC4 02 doc 4 Amend Ch. 4.02 KCC— Kent Arts Commission ' Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2008 WESTAF TOURWEST GRANT - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $2,500 grant from Western States Arts Federation and approve the expenditure of funds in the Kent Arts Commission's budget. Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF) has awarded the Kent Arts Commission a "TourWest" grant to fund the presentation a touring performance and educa- tional activities in the 2007-2008 Spotlight Series season. The maximum amount of $2,500.00 has been awarded to present Debashish Bhattacharya, considered to be one of Indian's greatest slide guitarists on April 19, 2008. 3. EXHIBITS: Agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and Human Services Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) S. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund 10006222.64190.4310 Amount $2,500.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund 10006222.53315.4310 Amount $2,500.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D June 27, 2007 i2007-2008 TourWest Contract Presenter. City of Kent Arts Commission Artist/Company: Debashish Bhattacharya Engagement Dates: 4/18/2008 -4/19/2008 Number of Outreach Activities: 1 Number of Public Performances: 1 TourWest Award Amount: $2500 Artistic Fees: $5000 TourWest Grant Number: TWP080163 The Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF) shall assign the grant award amount for the presenter listed above following the return of a signed copy of this contract within 30 days of the date on this contract. Failure to return a signed copy of this contract in accordance with the 1 schedule shall result in the forfeiture of the grant award_ WESTAF shall pay the presenter 100% of the award amount listed above upon the submission of the following items within 60 days following the engagement: a copy of the performance program, a current season brochure, published press releases, feature stories, and/or reviews Presenters will access the TourWest Final Report online at: http://westaf.cgweb_org. Further information regarding the process of submitting TourWest Final Report information online will be emailed to you before September 1, 2007. If any dates, fees, and/or activities change at any time from those listed above, the presenter must notify WESTAF within 30 days of the change. NOTE: Changes in plans may affect award amounts and must meet the goals and review criteria of the TourWest program_ The above artistic fees shall be paid directly to the artist/company (or designated representative) by the presenter as per the artist-presenter contract. All TourWest supported engagements must include at least (1) public performance. A public performance is defined as a full-length performance for which promotion and marketing to the general public have been provided and the audience for which is a cross-section of the community (e.g. not primarily school-aged children during regular school hours). All TourWest supported engagements must also include at least (1) outreach activity, for example: lecture- demonstrations, master classes, in-school educational activities involving students with the artist, etc_ All information and conditions contained in the 2006-2007 TourWest guidelines are incorporated herein. By signing this contract, the presenter agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") (42 U.S.C. 12101- 12213); the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); and The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U_S.C. 701 et seq. And 45 C.F_R. pt. 1154); as well as all regulations of the National Endowment for the Arts issued pursuant to these statutes; and the applicant thereby gives assurance to immediately take any measures necessary to comply. Grantees must clearly acknowledge support from the National Endowment for the Arts and WESTAF in their programs and related promotional materials. Acknowledgement should be given in text and graphically by using the NEA and WESTAF logos_ Copies of both the WESTAF and NEA logos may be found on the WESTAF website_ Please point your browser to http://www.westaf org. Alternately, you may request copies of these logos via regular or electronic mail by calling 303-629-1166. Acknowledgement of the Endowment and WESTAF's support can be phrased in a variety of ways—for example: Funding for the Commission and its programs is provided by the Western States Arts Federation and the National Endowment for the Arts. This project received support from the[your State Arts Agency]; WESTAF, the Western States Arts Federation; and the National Endowment for the Arts. Compliance is mandatory with all requirements, paperwork, and related timelines as described herein; failure to comply may jeopardize current and/or future funding from WESTAF. TourWest is made possible through support from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF), and its participating state arts agencies. Support through T urWest is contingent on available funds. We the u, dersigned understand and will comply with the terms of this contract. n June 27 2007 for W/EISTAF Date ���Ilxr fdf Presenter --bateT Ronda Billerbeck, Cultural rragrams Manager Name and title (typed) 220 4th Avenue South Address Kent, WA 98032 City, State Zip 253-856-5050 253-856-6050 rbillerbeck i k @c ent.wa.us Phone/Fax/E-mail Please return both pages within 30 days to: WESTAF 1743 Wazee St, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303/629-1166 Fax: 303/629-9717 E-mail: matthew.saunders@westaf.org Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2008 KING COUNTY DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES DIVISION GRANT - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the 2008 King County Developmental Disabilities Division grant of $8,000 and approve expenditures in the Adaptive Recreation budget. King County and Human Services/Developmental Disabilities Division has granted the Kent Parks Adaptive Recreation Division $8,000 for calendar year 2008. The Funds will be used to support the inclusive day camp known as "WALKAPALA Too." The money will be provided in two $4,000 installments in July and December. 3. EXHIBITS: King County Grant Contract 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and 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 10006230 Amount $8,000.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund 1006230.53407 Amount $8,000.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E King County Contract No. D37736D Federal Taxpayer ID No. 91-1085999 Department/Division Community and Human Services/ Developmental Disabilities Division Agency City of Kent Project Title Developmental Disabilities Contract Amount $ 8,000 Fund Code 0107 Contract Period From: January 1, 2008 To December 31, 2008 KING COUNTY PUBLIC ENTITY SERVICES CONTRACT- 2008 THIS CONTRACT is entered into by KING COUNTY (the "County"), and City of Kent (the "Agency"), whose address is 315 E Meeker Street, Kent, WA 98030. WHEREAS, the County has been advised that the following are the current funding sources, funding levels and effective dates: I FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING LEVELS EFFECTIVE DATES ! STATE $8,000 01101/2008 - 12131/2008 TOTAL $8,000 01/01/2008 - 12/31/2008 1 and WHEREAS, the County desires to have certain services performed by the Agency as described in this Contract, and as authorized by Ordinance No. 15975; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the parties hereto, the parties covenant and do mutually agree as follows: This form is available in alternate formats upon request for persons with disabilities. City of Kent Page 1 of 17 2008 Contract ATTACHMENT A Community Services Grant 2008 Contract Project Data Sheet January— December 2008 1. Project Name: Camp W.A.L.K.A.P.A.L.A. 2. Name of Agency/Organization, City of Kent, Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services 3. Date project(services)will begin: June 2008 (Cannot be earlier than January 1, 2008) 4. Date project(services) will end: August 2008 (Cannot be later than December 31, 2008) 5. Project goals: Provide inclusive day camp experience for children with developmental delays ages 6— 12. Project will serve a minimum of 10 campers per session, or a total of 60 campers during six week-long sessions. 6. Billing Method: (For example: Per event, per program, per participant) Per session. There are six weeks of day camp and participants sign up for one or more weeks. 7. Population Served: ❑ Adults Only ® Children Only ❑ Both Adults and Children 8. What area(s) of the County will the project serve? City of Kent, South King County 9. Use of Funds: Funds will be used for salaries for day camp staff and training for all day camp staff prior to the start of camp. 10. Project Description (Limit your response to one page or less): The City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services will offer six week-long day camps for children ages 6 — 12. Camp W.A.L.K.A.P.A.L.A. provides a summer of fun for 120 campers with a full range of activities from games, outings, visiting clowns, sports, arts and crafts and more. The Adaptive Recreation program provides children with developmental disabilities an opportunity to participate at Camp W.A.L.K.A.P.A.L.A. alongside their typically developing peers. The Project provides a high ratio of staff to campers to make full inclusion possible. With approximately three campers to one staff the children are able to join in on every activity provided. It is costly to offer this high ratio of staff to camper and grant funding enables the City of Kent Parks to accomplish this while keeping camp fees at an affordable level. Training for all day camp staff on issues related to various disabilities will also be provided in order to make full inclusion and safety possible. City of Kent Page 1 of 1 2008 Contract-Exh III Aft A ' ' Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP) Interlocal Agreement which is the county- wide affordable housing program that was created by the State Legislature in 2002. The Legislature authorized a surcharge on document recording fees to support affordable housing projects. Revenue is administered by the King County Department of Community and Human Services and allocations are made by a Joint Recommendations Committee. The RAHP has a sub-regional allocation target of 32.7% for South King County. The RAHP will provide new affordable housing for many years to come. I3. EXHIBITS: Executive letter; RAHP Interlocal Cooperation agreement; and RAHP Allocations ' 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and 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. 6F June 25, 2007 Dear Mayors, City Managers, CDBG and HOME Consortium Coordinators: I ant very pleased to present for your city's review and approval, the updated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the Regional Affordable Housing Program(RAHP), and the RAMP Administrative Guidelines, attached thereto as Exhibit 1. This regional partnership wilt continue to benefit our communities through the provision of new affordable housing for many years to collie. As you may recall, there was an initial planning process In 2002 to establish an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement and Administrative Guidelines for Substitute Housing Bill 2060 revenues. The Agreement was in place for four years and called for a planning process to begin before its expiration in December 2006. Accordingly, King County staff convened participants front local jurisdictions and from the housing community during 2006 to plan for updates to the Agreement and administrative guidelines. The planning group updated the administrative guidelines to snake the program more responsive to the Teri-Year-Plan to End Honielessrress in King County,while preserving the flexibility of the program to address a variety of affordable housing needs throughout the region. I encourage all cities in King County to sign on to the RAHP Agreement in order to adhere to the language of the SHB 2060 legislation, which states that the funds are to be administered `...according to an interlocal agreement between the county and the cities within the county... The Ordinance adopting the new Agreement and Administrative Guidelines was passed by the Metropolitan King County Council earlier this year and was enacted March 7, 2007. Cities have until February 1, 2005, to take action through an ordinance or resolution by each Jurisdiction's council. The RAHP guidelines allow a city to participate as much or as little as desired in the program. • Staff level: All cities are invited to appoint a staff person to participate in the Interjurisdictional Advisory Group (IAG). On the IAG, staff will review projects from their sub-region and work with the Ki lg County Housing and Community Development staff to make funding recommendations to the interjurisdictionat Joint Recommendations Committee, currently chaired by Mayor Ava Frrsinger of Issaquah. If staff members from your city have not participated in the IAG, but would now like to participate,please contact John deChadenedes with the King County Housing and Community Development Program at 206-296-8669. Mayors, City Managers, CDBG and HOME Consortium Coordinators June 25, 2007 Page 2 of 2 • Elected Official/Department Director level: Your city may also have the opportunity to have a representative on the Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC). If you would like more inforination on the JRC and how cities' representatives are appointed, please contact Mayor Ava Frisinger at 425-837-3021, or Jackie MacLean, King County Department of Community and Human Services Director, at 206-296-7689. The RAHP Administrative Guidelines continue to include allocation targets for projects to be located throughout the region based on three large sub-regional areas: the City of Seattle, East/North King County, and South King County. Project location is not necessarily tied to whether a particular jurisdiction has signed the Interlocal Agreement. If you have any questions regarding the RAHP Agreement or the Administrative Guidelines, please feel free to contact Cheryl Markham, Acting Program Manager of King County's Housing and Community Development Program, at 206-205-1417. Please return your signed Agreement to the attention of Cheryl Markham, King County Housnlg and Community Development Program, 821 2"`r Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104. Thank you for your assistance in making this regional program a success. Sincerely, Ron Sins King County Executive cc: Jackie MacLean, Director, Department of Community and Human Services ATTN: Linda Peterson, Division Director, Community Services Division Cheryl Markham, Acting Program Manager, Housing and Community Development Program REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT An Agreement for the use of SHB 2060 Local Low Income Housing Funds in King County THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between King County, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the"county", and the 1 g > City of hereinafter referred to as the "city", said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government of the State of Washington. RECITALS WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planjung Policies, hereinafter referred to as the "CPPs", developed pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, have established standards for cities to plan for their share of regional g1*rowth and affordable housing; and WHEREAS, to implement the CPPs, the King County Growth Management Plaiming Council appointed a public-private Housing Finance Task Force in 1994, hereinafter referred to as the "HFTF", to recommend potential fund sources for affordable housing for existing low income residents and for meeting the affordable housing targets for future growth; and RA14P interlocal Agreement 1 of 11 2007-2011 WHEREAS the HFTF recommended a document recording fee as a source of regional dollars for low-income housing development and support, and recommended that representatives of the county, cities and the housing community work together to make decisions about the use , and administration of such a fund; and WHEREAS in March 2002, Substitute House Bill 2060, hereinafter referred to as SHB ' 2060, was passed by the Washington State Legislature and was signed into law by the Governor as Chapter 294, 2002 Washington Laws in April 2002, was effective on June 13, 2002, and was amended by Chapter 484, 2005 Washington Laws on August 1, 2005. SHB 2060, as amended, , is codified in part as RCW 36.22.178 and provides that: [A] surcharge of ten dollars per instr a ient shall be charged by the county auditor for each real property document recorded, which will be in addition to any other charge authorized by law. The county may retail up to five percent of these funds collected solely for the collection, administration and local distribution of the funds. Of the remaining funds, forty percent of the revenue generated through this surcharge will be transmitted monthly to the state treasurer .... All of the remaining funds generated by this surcharge ' will be retained by the county and deposited into a fund that must be used by the county and its cities and towns for housing projects or units within housing projects that are affordable to very low-income households at or below fifty percent of the area median income. The portion of the surcharge retained by a county shall be allocated pursuant to very low income housing RAW interlocal Agreement 2 of 11 2007-201 1 , projects or units within such housing projects in the county and cities within the county, according to an interlocal agreement between the county and the cities within the county, consistent with countywide and local housing needs and policies ... [and in accordance with the eligible activities listed in the RCW 36.22.178]. and WHEREAS, existing Interlocal Cooperation Agreements or Joint Agreements between King County and cities in the king County Connnunity Development Block Grant Consortium, hereinafter referred to as the "CDBG Consortium Agreements", and/or existing Interlocal Cooperation Agreements between King County and cities in the King County HOME Investment Partnerships Program Consortium, hereinafter referred to as the `'HOME Consortium Agreements", are not modified by this Regional Affordable Housing Program Agreement; and WHEREAS the cityand coup agree that affordable housing is a regional issue that h I g g - cooperation between the cities and the county is beneficial to the region, and that a regional approach to utilizing the RCW 36.22.178 fields will allow those finds to be used in the most productive manner; and WHEREAS, it is mutuall-v beneficial and desirable to enter into a cooperative agreement in order to administer the RCW 36.22.178 revenue as a regional fund, as authorized by the Intergoverninental Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34, and, as required by RCW 36.22.178 ; RAHP Interlocal Agreement 3 of 11 2007-2011 NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Definitions and Interpretation. ' Capitalized terms used herein shall have the following meanings unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise. , "Joint Recommendations Committee" or "JRC" means the interjurisdictional body developed pursuant to and the CDBG and HOME Consortia Agreements as described in Section III of this , Agreement. "Interjurisdictional Advisory Committee" or "Advisory Committee" means the work group , consisting of representatives from cities eligible to participate in the Regional Affordable Housing Program, and from the county. This group is advisory to the JRC. 4'RAHPI2060 Planning Group" means the planning group consisting of representatives from the cities, from the county, and from housing and human services agencies serving King County, , that will convene during the year the Regional Affordable Housing Program Guidelines expire to review the program and the guidelines and to recommend any changes or updates to the , guidelines to the JRC. RAHF Interlocal Agreement 4 of 11 2007-2011 II. General Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the "Regional Affordable Housing Program" (hereinafter referred to as the "RAHP"), to be administered by King County in cooperation with cities and towns within the county that are eligible to participate in the program. The local portion of RCW 36.22.178 revenue shall be administered as a regional field by the King County Housing and Community Development Program in a manner that is consistent with countyW de and local housing needs and policies. The city and the county agree to cooperate in undertaking RAHP activities as set forth herein. III. Administration, Distribution and Use of the RAHP. A. Joint Recommendations Committee An interiurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC) has been established through the CDBG and HOME Consortia Interlocal Cooperation Agreements and is hereby adopted as part of this Agreement. Changes to the JRC that occur in the CDBG and HOME Consortia Interlocal Agreements are incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 1. Composition of the JRC. For RAHP purposes, the JRC shall be composed of cities' representatives and county representatives as specified in the CDBG and HOME Consortia Agreements, with the addition of an appointment from the City of Seattle. The Seattle JRC representative will only attend JRC meetings that RAHP Interlocal Agreement 5 of 11 2007-201 1 concern the RAHP funds and will be entitled to vote solely on RAHP issues and not on other King County Consortium matters coming before the JRC. The Seattle representative shall be an elected official, department director or comparable level staff. , 2. Powers and Duties of the JRC. The JRC shall be empowered to: , a. Review and adopt annual RAHP fund allocations. b. Review and adopt RAHP allocation policies. c. Review and adopt any subsequent updates to the RAHP Administrative Guidelines, as appropriate, and when they expire in 2010 (the RAHP Admininstrative Guidelines are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 1). A jurisdiction that is party to this Agreement may dispute a JRC decision concerning the RAHP Guidelines by informing the JRC Chair of the dispute, and the JRC Chair will schedule time on the JRC agenda to discuss and resolve the disputed issue. , In carrying out its duties, the JRC shall make decisions that are consistent with the RCW 36.22.178, the Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan of the King County Consortium and the City of Seattle, the Ten Year , Plan to End Homelessness in King County and other local housing plans, as , applicable. 3. Interiurisdictional Advisory Committee to the JRC. In fulfilling its duties under this Agreement,the JRC shall consider the advice of an Advisory Committee, made up of representatives from those jurisdictions eligible to participate in the RAHP Interlocal Agreement 6 of 11 2007-2011 RAHP that choose to send representation. The Advisory Committee will meet at least once per year with King County staff to recommend projects for RAHP funding to the JRC and may monitor the distribution of RAHP funds to the sub- regions and make recommendations to the JRC concerning actions to achieve geographic equity. If the Advisory Committee considers issues other than the RAHP, the staff`from the City of Seattle shall only participate for the purpose of making RAHP recommendations. B. Administration of RAHP Programs, The King County Housing and Community Development Program ("HCD") staff shall distribute RAHP funds pursuant to the allocations adopted annually by the JRC, and shall administer the program pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the RAHP Administrative Guidelines. King County HCD staff shall provide the JRC and the Advisory Committee with an annual report that provides information about the capital housing projects that were awarded RAHP funds in that year, as well as the status of capital housing projects that were awarded RAHP funds in a prior year(s). King County BCD staff shall invite the representatives of cities that are a party to this Agreement to be involved in any work groups convened to update the RAHP Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") Fund policies, and to be on the review panel that will recommend O&M funding awards to the JRC. RA}1P interloeal Agreement 7 of 11 2007-2.011 C. Administrative Costs. The county agrees to pay the costs of administering the Regional Affordable Housing Program out of the five percent (5%) of the funds collected by the county for expenses related to collection, administration and local distribution of the funds, pursuant to RCW 36.22.178. No portion of the sixty percent (60%) of the RCW 36.22.178 revenue retained by the county in a fund for the RAHP shall be utilized for RAHP administration. , D. Interest on the RAHP Fund. Interest accrued on the sixty percent (60%) of the RCW 36.22.178 revenue retained by the county in a fund for the RAHP shall remain with the RAHP fund and will be distributed to projects according to the subregional allocation target formula found in the RAHP Administrative Guidelines. ' 1 E. Sub-Regional Geographic Equity. The parties intend that the RAHP funds shall be awarded to projects throughout King County in a fair and equitable manner over the duration of this Agreement. Equity is to be achieved through sub-regional allocation targets, as follows: A fixed percentage of RAHP local funds will be allocated to each , sub-region of the county identified in the RAHP Administrative Guidelines by the expiration of this Agreement. The percentage goals for each sub-region set by the formula in the RAHP Administrative Guidelines shall by updated by the JRC when new data is available. RA14P Interlocal Agreement 8 of 11 2007-2011 F. General Use of Funds. The local portion of the RCW 36.22.178 revenue shall be 1 utilized to meet regional housing priorities for households at or below fifty percent (50%) of area median income, as established in the RAHP Administrative Guidelines. G. Compliance with Fair Housing Laws. Parties to this Agreement must take actions necessary to ensure compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, as amended. the Americus with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other applicable state and local fair housing laws. IV. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective on January 1, 2007. V. Agreement Duration This Agreement shall remain in effect through December 31, 2011. VI. General Matters and Recording A. No separate legal or administrative entity is created by this Agreement. Neither the JRC, the Advisory Committee, nor the RAHP12060 Planning Group are anticipated to acquire or to hold any real or personal property pursuant to this Agreement. Any personal property utilized in the normal course of the work of such bodies shall remain the property of the person, entity or city initially offering such personal property for the use of any such body. RAW Interlocal Agreement 9 of 11 2007 201 1 1 B. The county may terminate this Agreement if at least forty percent (40%) of the jurisdictions in King County representing seventy-five percent (75%) of the population of King County have not signed this Agreement by February 1, 2008. C. Recording - Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040, this Agreement shall be filed with King County Records. ' KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CITY OF For King County Executive By: Signature Jackie MacLean, Director Printed Name Printed Name Department of Community and Human Services Title Date Date Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: , OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY CITY OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY Michael Sinsky, King County Senior Deputy City Attorney ' Prosecuting Attorney ATTEST: CITY OF City Clerk RAHP lnterlocal Agreement 10 of 11 2007-2011 1 EXHIBIT 1 King County Regional Affordable Housing Program Administrative Guidelines for 2007-2011 I. Introduction The provisions of Substitute House Bill (SHB) 2060 became effective in Washington State on June 13, 2002. SHB 2060 created a document recording fee on certain documents to be utilized for low income housing. Administration of the fund is shared between local governments and the State. The local portion of SHB 2060 funds is to be administered pursuant to a cooperative agreement between the county and the cities and towns within Ding County. The work of the Housing Finance Task Force (HFTF), appointed by the Ping County Growth Management Planning Council in 1994, led to the passage of SHB 2060. hi recognition of the recommendations made by the HFTF, a Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAMP)/2060 Planning Group convenes to plan for the use of King County SHB 2060 funds. The King County RAHP/2060 Planning Group' is made up of city representatives, county representatives, and representatives from a variety of private housing and services organizations in King County. ' City representatives have included staff fi-om the cities of- Burien,Tuk-rvila,Dent,Federal Way,Redmond, Kukland, Issaquah. Shoielme, Covington, Seatac,Auburn, Seattle, Bellevue and ARCH Housim and services organization representatives included staff ftoni the following: Seattle-King County Housing Development Consortium,Impact Capital,South King County Multi-Service Center,Hopel ink,Fremont Public Association,Seattle Habitat for Humanity,South Kuig County Hab>tat for Humanity,Friends of Youth, the Salvation Army, Conurnnnty Psychiatric Cline, Lifelong Aids Alliance, St. Andrews Housing Group,Housing Resource Group, EDVP,YWCA,Mental Health Housing Foundation,Rental Housing Association,Highline-west Mental Health,Valley Cities Counseling,Seattle Emergency Housing Service,Common Ground,and Vietnam Veterans Exhibit I RAHP Guidelines 1 of 12 2007 2011 i 1 The King County RAHP/2060 PIa-mung Group has designed a regional low income housin, fund source, to be administered by the King County Housing and Community Development Program (HCD) in the Department of Community and Human Services. II. Duration of the Guidelines The RAHP Guidelines shall take effect on January 1, 2007, and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2010. 11I. Review and Update of the Guidelines Beginning in 2010, the Guidelines will be updated through the inteJurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC)pursuant to the RAHP Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, hereinafter"RAHP Agreement." The RAHP/2060 Plalnniug Group will convene in the first half of 2010 to review the program and the RAHP Guidelines and to recommend any proposed changes to the JRC for adoption prior to the expiration date. IV. Decision-Making Structure and Regional Allocation Method A. Approving Body—Joint Recommendations Committee. The interjJurisdictional JRC, as defined in the RAHP Agreement, shall be the body that reviews and updates the RAMP Guidelines beginning in 2010, and reviews and adopts annual RAHP funding allocations and related allocation policies. The JRC will be expanded.pursuant to the RAHP Agreement, to include representation from the City of Seattle on RAHP matters. Allocations and related policies adopted by the JRC must be consistent with these RAHP Guidelines, the Consolidated Plans of the King County Consortium and the City of Seattle, other local housing plans, as applicable, and the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County. Leadership Program,Compass Center,Catholic Conunuuity Services,the Korb County Housmb Authority, Seattle I Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 2 of 12 2007-2011 1. Appeal Process for JRC Decisions a. Cities— Adoption of Guidelines Pursuant to the RAHP Interlocal Agreement, a participating jurisdiction may appeal a JRC decision concerning,the update of RAHP Guidelines. The jurisdiction must inform the Chair of the JRC, and the JRC chair will schedule time on the JRC agenda to discuss the appeal issue. b. Applicants—Annual Fund Allocations Applicants for RAHP funds may appeal a JRC allocation decision if they have grounds based on substantial violation of a fair allocation process, such as bias, discrimination, conl7iet of interest, or failure to follow the RAHP Guidelines. Appeals by applicants will receive initial review for adequate grounds by the Director of the King County DOHS. If adequate grounds for an appeal are found, the DOHS director will put the appeal on the JRC agenda for review. B. Aiunal Fund Allocation Recommendations An interjurisdictional advisory committee to the JRC,made up representatives from participating jurisdictions in the RAHP Consortium, will work with the King County Housing Finance Program (HFP) staff of King County HCD to make RAHP allocation recommendations Iand related program policy recommendations to the JRC. While the advisory coiminittee may make recommendations concerning several find sources for affordable housing in the King 1 County Consortitun, the City of Seattle staff will on the committee solely for the participate Y purpose of making RAHP recommendations. The review process for RAHP allocations will proceed as follows: Mental Health.and the Coin uttee to End Homelessness Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 3 of 12 2007-201 1 • King County HCD staff will review all RAHP applications and make preliminary funding recommendations. • Cities' staff will review applications for projects in their jurisdiction and make preliminary reeomnnendations on those applications. • Cities' staff will receive information on all RAHP applications to review prior to the advisory committee meeting at which final fielding recommendations are formulated for transmittal to the JRC. • Advisory committee participants will meet together at least amivally to decide upon RAHP funding recommendations to the JRC, and may sleet at other times during the year, as necessary, to discuss RAHP issues and make recommendations to the JRC. , C Subregional Allocation Targets The RAHP Fund will be a flexible fund that can address re-final and subre-final housinc I needs. The fund will use subremonal allocation targets as a means to achieve geographic equity in the distribution of SHB 2060 funds by December 31, 2010, the date that these guidelines expire. I. Subregional Areas: a. City of Seattle Subregion b. North/East Subregion —north and east urban and rural areas, including 34 percent of unincorporated King County, C. South Subregion—south urban and rural areas, including 66 percent of unincorporated King County Percent of unincorporated King County attributed to the North/East and South Subregions is based on the 2000 census data for households in the unincorporated portions of the King County Community Planning Areas,as listed in the 2002 Ainnual Growth Report. Exhibit 1 RAHP Guidelines 4 of 12 2007-2011 2. Formula for Subregional Allocation Targets Each subregion will have a targeted percentage of the RAHP funds, Including the interest on the RAHP funds, allocated to projects within the subregion over the period of time that the RAHP Guidelines are in effect. Each subregion will receive allocations to projects within the subregion that are equal to or greater than 95 percent, of the subregions' allocation target by December 31, 2010. The formula for allocating RAHP funds to the subregions is as follows: • One half of the RAHP funds shall be targeted for allocation among the three subregions based on each subregion's relative share of total existing need for affordable housing. Existing need shall be determined by the percentage of low- income households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing in the subregion, according to the 2000 U.S. Census data. • One half of the RAHP funds shall be targeted for allocation amongst the three subregions based on the subregions' growth targets for future need, as established through the Growth Management Planning Council. Future need shall be determined by the subregions'relative share of total future need for affordable housing in the County. A subregion's relative share of future need is the percentage of the subregion's affordable housing target for low-income households relative to the cumulative affordable housing target for low-income households of all jurisdictions in the county, including uniircorporated King Connty3. Based upon the RAHP formula, the sub-regional allocation targets are as follows: The percentage of a subregion's target relative to the cumulative target is derived by averaging the target 1 percentages of the jurisdictions within that subregtou. For each jurisdiction,the target percentage is calculated m the following inatmer: the number of households that a jurisdiction must anticipate,per the 2002-2022 Countywide Exhibit 112AHP Guidelines 5 of 12 2007-201 t City of Seattle: 37.9 percent South: 32.7 percent North/East: 29.4 percent 3. Interiurisdictional Advisory Committee to Monitor Subregional Allocation Targets The advisory committee will monitor the subregional distribution of RAHP fields every year, determining if any subregion(s)received allocations below 95 percent of the subreo-ion's allocation target. If an subregion received allocations under 95 percent of the target allocation after Y g several funding cycles, the HCD staff will work with the advisory committee to adjust the allocation targets of such subregion(s) in the subsequent funding cycles, as needed. In addition, the advisory committee nzay propose strategies and actions, for review by the JRC, that are designed to increase the percentage of RAHP funds spent in those subregron(s). Staff of the jurisdictions that are parties to the RAHP Agreement will assist in rinplementing actions that will aid in achieving geographic equity in RAHP allocations by December 31, 2010. , Planning Policy(CPP)Growth Target,is multiplied by.24 or.20(depending on the iatto of low wage jobs to tow cost housing for the jurisdiction in Appendix 3 of the CPPs);that number is divided by the curnmulative affordable housing target for low income households of all King County jurisdictions,including unincorporated King County. Exbibit 1 RAW Guidelines 6 of 12 2007-201 1 V. Use of the RAHP Funds in Kind County A. RAHP Priorities 1. Top Priority: • Capital funds for the acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of 1 units of eligible housing types. New constil>ction is not eligible if the low- income housing vacancy rate for all of Ding County exceeds 10 pereent4. 2. Second Priority: • Operations & Maintenance ("O&M") find program for existing homeless housing. This program provides O&M funding for existing6 transitional housing and transition in place' units. The housing units must be eligibte l for the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, and roust show that they require RAHP O&M fiords in order to cover ongoing building operating expenses. r3. Third Priority: • O&M funds for existing emergency shelters and licensed overnight youth shelters. 1 4. Last priority: • Rental assistance vouchers to be administered by a local housing authority 1 in confornuty with the Section S program. "The low income housing vacancy rate for each county will be established by the state,pursuant to the SHB 2060 legislation `The O&M fund for the 2007-2010 guidelines is set at appioxnnately22 percent of$$3,222,000(the average of the RAHP collections in 2004 and 2005),which is$700,000 per year for the four year period of the guidelines Existing housing is defined as housing that exists as of the date of an application for RAHP funds Ti ansition in place units are permanent rental units where supportive services are provided for a period of time,as needed by a household Households do not need to move when the supportive services are phased out EvNbit 1 RAHP Guidelines 7 of 12 2007-201 l B. RAHP Eligibility 1. Eligible Housing Types a. Capital Funds • Permanent rental housing units • Transition in lace and transitional housing units; units that are not p g , tune-limited are encouraged. • Emergency shelter and licensed overnight youth shelters • Ownership housing b. O&M Funds: • Existing transitional and transition in place housing units • Existing emergency shelters and licensed overnight youth shelters 2. Eligible Populations Served by Housing Units • All units funded with RAHP funds must serve households at or below 50 percent of area median income. Projects that include units for households at or below 30 percent of area median income are encouraged. • Homeless households`, including youth. • Households at risk of homelessness.10 • Disabled households or households with a disabled member. RAHP funds ai e Iinuted to 50 percent of the development cost of any project;consequently,if a shelter project cannot secure ' adequate funding for the entire cost of development,the RAHP cannot prioritize the project. 9 Homeless households include.households that lack a fixed,regular and adequate residence;households that reside in a publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations;households that reside in time-hnuted housing,and households that currently reside in an institution and will be exiting the institution without a fixed,regular and adequate residence 10 Households at risk of homelessness include_households paying 50 percent or more of their Income for rent,households that have a history of homelessness and are currently unstable,households living in overcrowded or substandard housing,households that are substantially behind on then monthly housing payment or have a pending eviction,households with a disability whose housing is at risk due to aging relatives or other factors Exhibit 1 RAtTP Guidelmes 4 of 12 2007 2011 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2007 FOURTH QUARTER FEE-IN-LIEU FUNDS - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $117,750 fee-in-lieu funds for the fourth quarter and approve the expenditure of funds in the Arbor Heights 360, Turnkey Park, Eagle Creek Park, Wilson Playfields, and Garrison Creek Park budgets. Between October and December 2007, the City of Kent received a total of $117,750 from six developers who voluntarily paid fees in lieu of dedicating park land to mitigate the development of single family homes in six subdivisions: • Arbor Heights 360 Park Budget: $15,150.00 for Krueger Rodney • Turnkey Park Budget: $53,325.00 from TLT Development Lic. • Eagle Creek Park Budget: $6,975.00 from 2R Development Group Lic. • Wilson Playfields Park Budget: $6,750.00 from Pitzer Homes Inc. • Wilson Playfields Budget: $15,675.00 from JP Holdings Lic • Garrison Creek Park Budget: $19,875.00 from Grison Reach Lic. 3. EXHIBITS: Revenue Report 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and 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: Funds P20045 ($15,150.00), P20013, P20037 ($53,325.00), P20056 ($6,975.00), P20076 ($6,750.00 & $15,675.00), P20074 ($19,875.00) Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund P20013 Amount $117,750.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G U � dl C V �2 JIQ Q Q Q Q Q a-m a m o- m n OD o 0 N m O� ti a. O, N UI O, al c J a I � U � U O N 1, t T N > O C V Q1 > 0 a) CL cc Q Y - CAa n C7 O'J m cv aJ � co mo Z r D 07 r A C O j rn o o rp C7 N h 4 rn co co lIJ LO � O O O O O O p L a l0 0 0 0 0 0 o o oo � 000Ja III o � o � � o j' N r- rn r— i— Lo lnl; O n M r cp cc t` r- L r_ O G7 O N rn I c0 N n N V m O Oi 0)O) O] Q7 C7i # r'- 10 N N O) N U T O cD V' O O O N N N N LO LO Y Y Y Y Y Y n r rD o N r` r` 0 0 0 o H o Y o 0 0 0 0 0 ... f- QO O N N r C I N N -0 c0 c0 Q O O r Q [r 0 N CA m cl): (D O O N � O O o O O O E co O rD cD cO cD (0 = LJ � LO147 � An LO 'r N Z N r 2 N (2 O O O O O O O l 0 O O O O O N N N N cV N � U a. 0. 2 2 �.. a LO c-j a i Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY YOUTH SPORTS FACILITY GRANT FOR WILSON PLAYFIELDS - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGETS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the King County Youth Sports Facility Grant agreement for batting cages at Wilson Playfields, accept the $30,000 in funds, and approve the expenditure of funds in the Wilson Playfields budget. Staff submitted a Youth Sports Facility Grant (YSFG) request to King County on June 29, 2007. The grant request was approved by the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks on October 17, 2007. The funds will be used to construct the City's first two public batting cages at Wilson Playfields. The Kent Lions Club is our community partner and will provide $4,000.00 for materials, as well as volunteer labor to assemble site amenities. The work will be completed by Park staff and volunteers during summer, 2008. 3. EXHIBITS: King County Youth Sports Facility letter and agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and 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 P20076.53701 Amount $30,000.00 jUnbudgeted Revenue: Fund P20076 Amount $30,000.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda 1 Item No. 6H King County Parks and Recreation Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center, KSC-NR-0700 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-38SS 206.296.8687 Fax 206.296 8686 M Relay, 711 December 14,2007 Kent Parks &Recreation 220 4th Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Dear NIr��: Congratulations again on your recent Youth Sports Facility Grant award for Wilson Ballfields batting cages in the amount of$30,000. King County Parks is pleased to be partnering with you to increase recreational and athletic opportunities for the youth of King County. Enclosed are two contracts for your signature. The required exhibits are being sent electronically. If you have not already received them please contact me at 206.263.6267. Please return the signed contracts with required exhibits to the address below. Once we execute the contract on our end I will mail you a"letter to proceed" along with a signed contract.Please do not incur any costs toward this grant until you receive this authorization. Please call me if you have any questions about the contract, exhibits, or the program in general All the best Butch Lovelace Program Manager K;,Jg CO A" Al pp\4s L9 King County 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 i�� CDC 1n1�� PA�2 5 King County 1 YOUTH SPORTS FACILITY GRANT CONTRACT—2008 Department/Division Natural Resources and Parks / Parks Division Agency: Kent Parks& Recreation Project Title: Wilson Ballfields batting cages Contract Amount: $30,000 Fund Code: 1638 Contract Period From: January 1,2008 To December 31, 2009 Contract Number: D38038D THIS CONTRACT is entered into by KING COUNTY (the "County"), and Kent Parks & Recreation (the "Agency"), whose address is 220 4th Avenue S, Kent, WA, 98032, WHEREAS, King County is the manager of the Youth Sports Facility Giant(YSFG) Program; WHEREAS, the Agency is either a public agency or a non-profit organization whose land or facility will provide recreational or athletic opportunities primarily to youth under 21 years ofage, WHEREAS King County has selected the identified ay�cncy to be awarded a Youth Sports Facility Grant to assist in capital improvements for increased recreational opportunities; WHEREAS, the Agency and/or landowner whose property will receive these improvements will develop,program, operate, and maintain the facility to address a recreation need in King County; WI IEREAS, King County has the authority under KC Ordinance 10454 to enter into agreements for the use ol'King County funds by public agencies and/or non-profit organizations to provide a service to the public, 1 1 1 This form is available in alternate formats for people with disabilities upon request. NOW "I-I IEREEORE, in consideration of payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mcntioncd, to be made and performed by the panics hereto, the pa►tics covenant and do mutually agree as bollows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Agency shall provide services and comply with the requirements set forth hereinafter and in the following attached exhibits, which are incorporated herein by re[crence: ® Scope of Services Attached hereto as Exhibit I ® Budget Attached hereto as Exhibit II ® Invoice Voucher Attached hereto as Exhibit III ® Reporting Attached hereto as Exhibit IV ® Design Documents Attached hereto as Exhibit V ® Insurance Certificate Attached hereto as Exhibit VI- M W-9 Attached hereto as Exhibit VII ❑ Equal Benefits Attached hereto as Exhibit VIII ❑ Personnel Inventory Report(K.C.C. 12.16) Attached hereto as Exhibit lK ❑ Affidavit of Compliance(K.CC. 12.16) Attached hereto as Exhibit X ❑ Assurance of Compliance/Section 504 Attached hereto as Exhibit XI 2. TERM OF CONTRACT This Contract shall commence on the 1st day of.ianuar , 2008, and shall expire on the 31 st day of December, 2009, unless extended or terminated earlier, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract. 3. PREMISES This grant project is located at: Wilson Ballfields, Kent Commonly known as {Wilson Balliiclds batting cages;,and referred to herein as "the Premises." 4. PARC I ES All communication, notices, coordination, and other tenets of this Contract shall be managed by: On behalf of Kin,,County: Butch Lovelace, XSPG Program Manager Ding County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Email: butch.lovclaceLt kin<gcounty_� Phone: 200.263.6267 1 On behall'of: Shane Gilbertson Kent Parks& Recreation► 220 4th Avenue S Kent,WA 98032 Ema►l: sgilbeitson(u)ci.kent.wa.us Phone: 253,856.5115 5_ COMPENSA'CION ANll NIETHOU Oh PAYMENT A. The County shall reimburse the Agency for satisfactory completion of the services and requirements specified in this Contract alter the agency submits an invoice and all accompanying reports as specified in the attached exhibits. The County will initiate authorization for payment after approval of corrected invoices and reports. The County shall make payment to the Agency not more than 30 days after a complete and accurate invoice is received. 13. The Agency shall submit its final invoice and all outstanding reports within 15 days of the date this Contract expires or is terminated. If the Agency's final invoice and reports are not submitted by the day specified in this subsection, the County will be relieved of all liability for payment to the Agency of the amounts set forth in said invoice or any subsequent ►nvoice. 6_ OPERATING BUDGET When a buclget is attached hereto as exhibit II, the Agency shall apply the funds received from the County under this Contract in accordance wit11 said budget. If, at any tine during, the Term of this Contract,the Agency expects that the cumulative amount ol't►<ans[ers among the buclget categories, i.e. Project Tasks, may exceed 10% of the Contract amount, then the Agency shall request a❑ amendment to this Contract. Supporting documents necessary to explain fully the nature and purpose of the amendment must accompany each request for an amendment. County approval of any such anicndnnent shall not be unreasonably w►thlield. 7_ COMMUNICATION The Agency shall rccognize King County Parks as a fiscal sponsor for the grant protect in the following manner. A. Plaque: At the time of project completion or dedication, whichever comes first, the Agency shall install on or near(lie Iacility a plaque provided by file County that notes King County as a fiscal sponsor- B. Events: The Agency shall invite and rccognize King County Parks at all events promoting the project dw-mg construction, and at the final project dedication. C. Written material: The Agency shall recognize King County Parks as a fiscal sponsor in all bro(,Iri.►rCs, banners, posters,and other promotional mate►ial related to the Project. 8. PUI3LICACCESS; PRIORITY O USE; SCHEDULING The Agency shall to the grcatest extent reasonably possible make the project available for use by the general public without imposing unreasonable requirements for public use. The Agency shall to the greatest extent icasonably possible give priority of use to persons under the age of twenty- one. Pees for use of the project sliall be no greater than those generally charged by public operators of similar facilities in King County. The period of time that the Agency must provide public access and priority of use is based oil the level of County funding as set forth below. If the facility is removed from public recreational use before the end of the specified period, then the Agency shall reimburse the County's funding on a pro rata basis, determined by dividing the number of years of lost public use by the total years of required dedication, multiplied by the total County grant amount. By way of example only, if the County makes a $10,000 grant to Agency X, then the agency's project must be dedicated to public use and priority of use by youth for 5 years. If Agency X eliminates public access to the project after 3 years, such that 2 years of public access and youth priority are lost, then Agency X must repay the County$4,000 (2/5 * 10,000 = $4,000) , Range of County Grant Required Period of Dedicated Public Use/Youth Priority 0-$14,999 5 $15,000-$29,999 S $30,000-$49,999 12 $50,000-$75,000 15 If the completed project is subject to scheduling or reservation for use, then the Agency shall post the use schedule and the Agency's scheduling or reservation policies, practices, and information in a highly visible location near the project and/or on their webslte; and the Agcncy shall permit the public to schedule or reserve use of the completed project consistent with (lie requircmcrnts of this section S. Agency's duties under this section S will survive the expiration or earlier termination of this contract_ 9. GREEN BUILDING King County is committed to promoting and using green building practices in construction projects.Though not required, King County strongly encourages practices that conserve resources, use recycled content anaterials, maximize energy efficiency, and otherwise consider environmental, econornic and social benefits in the design and construction of a building project. I(1. INTERNAL CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM The Agency shall establish and maintain a system of accounting and internal controls which complies with applicable, generally accepted accounting principles, and governmental accounting and financial reporting standards in accordance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 40.14. Page 4 of 12 11. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS A_ The Agency shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial, and programmatic records and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the County to ensure proper accounting for all Contract funds and compliance with this Contract. 13. These records shall be maintained for a period of six (6) years alter the expiration or earlier termination of this Contract unless permission to destroy Ihcm is granted by the Oft-ice of the Archivist in accordance with Revised Code of Washington(RCW) Chapter 40.14. C. The Agency shall inform the County in writing of the location, if drffe►ent Iiom the Agency address listed oil page one of tills Contract, of the aforesaid books, records, documents, and other evidence and shall notify the County in writing of any changes in location within ten _ (10)working days of any such relocation. 12. RIGHT TO INSPECT King County reserves the right to review and approve the performance of Agency with regard to this Contract, and, at its sole discretion, to inspect or audit the Agency's records regarding this Contract and the Project upon reasonable notice during normal business hours. 13. COMPLIANCE WITII ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS The Agency, in cooperation and agreement with the owners of the Premises, shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations in using funds provided by the County, inelud►ng, without limitation, those relating to providing a safe working environment to employees and, spccilieal]}, the requirements of the Washington Industrial Safety and health Act (WISHA); and, 10 the extent applicable, those related to "public works," payment of prevailing wagcs, and competitive bidding of contracts The Agency specifically agrees to comply and pay all costs associated with achieving such compliance without notice from King County; and further agrees that King County, does not waive this section by giving notice of demand for compliance in any instance. The Agency shall indemnify and defend the County should it be sued or made the subject of an administrative investigation or hearing for a violation of such laws related to [his Contract. 1 14. CORIZECI'IVE ACTION A_ If the County detenntnes that a breach of contract has Occured or does not approve of the Agency's performance, it will give the Agency written notification of unacceptable performance. The Agency will then take corrective action within a reasonable period of time, as may be defined by King County rn its sole discretion in its written notification to the Agency. B_ The County may withhold any payment owed the Agency until the County is satisfied that corrective action has been taken or cormpleted_ 15. 'rERM[NATION Page 5 of 12 A. The County may ternunate this Contract in whole or in part, with or without case, at any tin1e; during the Terns of this Contract, by providing the Agency 1cn (10) days advance written notice of the termination. R If the termination results 1Fom acts or omissions of the Agency, including but not limited to misappropriation, notnperformance of required services, or fiscal mismanagement, the Agency shall return to the County immediately any funds, misappropriated or unexpended, which have becn paid to the Agency by the County. C. Any King County obligations under this Contract beyond the current appropriation year are conditioned upon the County Council's appropriation of sufficient funds to support such obligations. If the Council does not approve such appropriation, then this Contract will terminate automatically at the close of the current appropriation year. 16. FUTURESUITORT; UTILITIES AND SERVICE The County makes no commitment to support the services contracted for herein and assumes no obligation for future support of the activity contracted for herein except as expressly set forth in this Contract. The Agency understands, acknowledges, and agrees that the County shall not be liable to pay for or to provide any utilities or services in connection with the construction, operation,maintenance, or use of the project contemplated herein. 17. IIOLD IIARMLI;SS AND INDEMNIFICATION The Agency agrees for itself, its successors, and assigns, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless King County, its appointed and elected officials, and employees (i-om and against liability for all claims, demands, suits, and judgments, including costs of defense thereof, for injury to persons, death, or property damage which is caused by, arises out oI; or is incidental to any use of or occurrence on the Project that is the subject of this Contract, or the Agency's exercise of rights and privileges granted by this Contract, except to the extent of' the County's sole negligence. The Agency's obligations under this section shall include: A. The duty to promptly accept tender of defense and provide defense to the County at the Agency's own expense; B. Indemnification of claims made by the Agency's employees or agents; and C. Waiver of the Agency's immunity under the industrial insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. but only to the extent necessary to indemnify King County, which waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. In the event it is necessary for the County to incur attorney's fees, legal expenses or other costs to enforce the provisions of this section, all such fees, expenses and costs shall be recoverable fronn the Agency. In the event it is determined that RCW 4.24.115 applies to this Contract, the Agency agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and save the County, its officers, officials, employees and agents from any and all claims, demands, suits, penalties, losses damages judgments, or costs of any kind whatsoever for bodily injury to persons or damage to property(hereinafter"claims"),arising out of or in any way resulting from the Agency's officers, employees, agents and/or subcontractors of all tiers, acts or omissions, performance of failure to perform the rights and privileges granted under this Contract, to the maximum extent permitted by law or as defined by RCW 4.24.115, as now enacted or hereafter amended. Page 6 of 12 r� A bold harmless provision to protect King County similar to this provision shall be inch(led Mall Contractor or Subcontractor Agreements entered into by Agency in conjunction with this Contract. Agency's duties under ]his section 17 will survive the expiration or earlier termination of this contract. l8_ INSURANCE A. Liability Insurance R Juircments. Notwithstanding any other provision within this Contract, the Agency shall procure and maintain the following Minimum Limits of Insurance and sliall require their contractors to procure and maintain: I. Commercial General Liability_ (to include Products-Completed Operations) insurance against clamps for in juries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with activities under this Contract. General liability insurance shall be as broad as that provided by Commercial General Liability "occurrence" form C00001 (1 d. 11/85)- The insurance limas shall be no less than One Million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence and Two rmillion dollars (S 2,000,000) in the aggregate for bodily injury and property damage 2- Automobile 111abili1y. Insurance Services form number CA 00 01 (Ed. 1/80) any auto. If the grant includes the use of automobiles, the Limit of Liability shall be no less than One Million dollars(S 1,000,000)per occurrence. 3- Workers Compensation/Stop Gap. If the recipient or its contractors has employees, parties sliall provide Statutory Workers Compensation coverage and Stop Cap Liability for a limit no less than One Million dollars($1,000,000) 4. Professional Liability_ If the grant includes the use of Professional Services, a Per Claim/Angrcgate Limit of S 1,000,000. shall be provided- B. If the grant involves the construction of a capital project or involves the purchase of equipment greater than $ 5,000.00 in value, the Agency shall provide "All Risk" Builders Risk or Property' coverage for the full replacement value of the project/property built/purchascd King County shall be listed as a Loss payee as our interests may appear. C. King County and its officers, officials, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insured with respect to liability arising out of activities performed by the Agency and its contractors. Additional Insuied status shall include Products-Completed Operations. D. To the extent of the Agency's or its contractor's negligence, their insurance respectively shall be primary insurance with respect to file County, its officers, employees and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the County, and its officers, officials, employees or agents shall not be subjected to contribution in favor of the Agency or its contiactois insurance and shall not benefit their in any way_ The Agency's and its contractors' insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or a lawsuit is brought,sut)leet to the limits of the insurer's liability. ' Page 7 of 12 I 1�. Cove►age shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits ex--)i by the reduction of the applicable aggregate limit by claims paid, until after thirty(30) c s prior written notice has been given to and change in coverage acccptcd by King County. F. The insurance provider must be licensed to do business in the State of Washington x maintain a Best's rating of no less than A Vlll. The Agency must provide a Certi[icat of Insurance and Additional Insured Endorsement to the(Exhibit VII), and upon written toques! of the County, provide a duplicate of the policy as evidence of insurance protection. 1t Agency shall be responsible for the maintenance of their contractors' insure t documentation. G. If the Agency is a Municipal Corporation or an agency of the State of Washington att self-insured for any of the above insurance requirements, a certification of self insuranc( shall be attached hereto and be incorporated by reference and shall constitute complit with this section_ I-I. The Agency's duties under this section 18 shall survive the expiration or earlier tenninnWr oft his Agreement. "fhe Agency understands, acknowledges and agrees that for the role period of public use set forth in section 8, the Agency shall maintain insurance and name the County as an additional insured, all of which shall be consistent with the requirements of i� section IS. I�. NONDISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL EMPLOYNTENT OPPORTUNITY A. Nondiscrimination in Employment Provision of Services Kind County Code Chapter 12.16 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth lierein � such requirements apply to this Contract_ During the performance of this Contract, nc the Agency nor any party subcontracting under [lie authority of this Contract steal discriminate or tolerate harassment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national orlI marital status, sexual orientation, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or phy_ 1 disability In the employment or application for employment or in the administration o delivery of services or any other benefits under this Contract_ 13_ Nondiscrimination in Subcontracting Practices King County Code Chaptcr 12.17 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein sucli requirements apply to this Contract. During the solicitation, award and term of li Contract, the Agency shall not create barriers to open and fair opportunities to participate i County contracts or to obtain or compete for contracts and subcontracts as sourced supplies, equipment, construction and services. in considering offers from and d business with subcontractors and suppliers, the Agency shall not discriminate against an person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, se, orientation or the presence of any mental or physical disability in an othenvise quali disabled person. C. lair) mployment Practices King County Code Chapter 12.18 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein such requirements apply to this Contract_ During the performance of this Contract, nei the Agency nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Contract shall engag unfair employment practices. Page 8 of 12 D. C"oni)laance with Laws and Re-ulations Tfic Agency shall comply fully wilh all applicable federal, state and local laws, oidinances, executive oilers and regulalions that prohibit discrimination. These laws include, but arc not limited to, RCW Chapter 49.60, 'Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act,and the Restoration Act of 1987_ E. Nondiscrimination in Em yec Benefits King County Code Chapter 12.19 is incorporated by reference as if frilly set forth herein. II' this Contract entails a legally binding obligation of$25,000 or more, and if the Agency is not a public entity, then during the performance of this Contract the Agency shall not discriminate in the provision of employee benefits between an employee with a spouse and an employee with a domestic partner or an employee who resides with a legally domiciled member of household. Agency hereby agrees not to discriminate in the provision of employee benefits as provxlcd for in K.C.C. chapter 12.19_ )~. Sanctions for Violations Any violation of the mandatory requirements of the provisions of this Section shall be a material breach of contract for which the Agency may be subject to damages, wrtliholding payment and any other sanctions provided for by the Contract and by applicable law G. Reporting l. The Agency entering into a contract or agreement with King County valued at $25,000 or more shall submit with this Contract a total Personnel Inventory Report piovidin" ennployimcnl data for minorities, females, and persons with disabilities_ Subject to the provisions of KCC Chapter 12.16.060, the Agency's Personnel Inventory Report shall be effective fir two years after the(late on which the report was submitted. 2. The Agency entering into a contract with King County valued at more than S25,000, or contracts which in the aggregate have a value to the Agency of more than $25,000 should submit in Affidavit of Compliance in the, form provided by the County, demonstrating commitment to comply with the provisions of KCC Chapter 12.16 in accordance with paragraph A of this Section 19_ I20. SECTION 504 AN11A.AlF.RICANS NVITH DISABILITIES ACT The Agency shall complete a 504/ADA Self-Evaluation Questionnaire for all piograms and services offered by the Agency (including any services not subject to this Contract) and shall evaluate its services, programs and employment practices for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended ("504") and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). The Agency shall complete a 504/ADA Assurance of Compliance, and corrective action plan as needed for structural, programmatic, and/or service changes necessary at each of its premises within the State of Washington to comply with 504 and the ADA., and it is attached as an exhibit to this Contract and incorporated herein by reference. 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Page 9 of 12 KCC Chapter 3.04 (Employee Code of Ethics) is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth hence, and (lre Agency agrees to abide by all conditions of said chapter. Failure by the Agency to comply with any requirement of said KCC Chapter shall be a material breach of contract. 22. POLITICAL ACTIVITY PR(?tltl3l`l'ED None of the funds, materials, property, or services provided directly or indirectly under this Contract shall be used for any partisan political activity or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office. 23. PROJECT MAINTENANCE; EQUIPMENT PURCIIASE, MAWTENANCE. ANI) ONVNI:RSIIIP A. As Between the County and the Agency, the Agency shall be responsible to operate and rnainlain the completed project at its own sole expense and risk. The Agency shall maintain the completed project in good working condition consistent with applicable standards and guidelines_ The Agency understands, acknowledges, and agrees that the County is not responsible to operate or to maintain tree project in any way. B. The Agency shall be responsible for all property purchased pursuant to this Contract, including the proper care and maintenance of any equipment- C. The Agency shall establish and maintain inventory records and transaction documents (purchase requisitions, pricking slips, invoices, receipts) of equipment and materials purchased with Contract funds. A The Agency's duties under this section 23 shall survive the expiration of this Agreement. 24. NOTICES Whenever this Contract provides for notice to be provided by one party to another, such notice shall be, A. In writing; and B. Directed to the person specified in Section 4 of this Contract. C. Any such notice shall be decnned to have been given on the date of delivery, if mailed, on the third (3rd) business day following the date of mailing; or, if sent by fax, on the first(I st) business day following the clay of delivery thereof by fax. Notice sent solely by e-mail shall not be a sufficient form of notice under this Contract. D Either party may change its address, fax number or the name of the person indicated as the recipient by notice to the other in the manner aforesaid. In the event of interruption or threatened interruption in postal service, such notice shall be delivered addressed as aforesaid or sent by fax. 25. ASSIGNMENT The Agency shall not assign an), portion of rights and obligations under this Contract or transfer or assign any claim arising pursuant to this Contract without the written consent of tine County. The Page 10 of 12 Agency must seek such consent in writing not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. 26. CONTRACTANIENDMENTS U,11her party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes that are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Contract_ 27_ AVAIVEROV DEFAULT Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default_ Waiver or breach of any provision of the Contract shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification oh the terms of the Contract unless stated to be such through written approval by the County, which shall be attached to the original Contract_ 28. TAXES "-lie Agency agrees to pay on a culTent basis all taxes or assessments levied on its activities and property, including, without limitation, any leasehold excise tax due under RCW Chapter 52.29A, PROVIDED, however, that nothing contained herein will modify the right of the Agency to couiest any such lax, and the Agency will not be deemed to be in default as long as it Nvill, in good faith, be con(es(ing the validity or amount of any such taxes. 29. NVASIIINGTON LANV CON'rROLLING• WIiERE ACTIONS BROUGIIT This Contract is made in and will be in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, which will be controlling in any dispute that arises hereunder. Actions pertaining to this Contract will be brought -in King County Superior Court, Kin,County, Washington. 30. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS The paragraph headings contained herein are only for couvcnience and reference and are not intended to be a part of this Contract or many manner to define, limit, or descube the scolie or intent of this Contract or the particular paragraphs to which they refer. 34. PUBLIC DOCUMENT 'I'll-is Contract will be considered a public document and will be available for inspection and copying by the public. 32. LEGAL RELATIONS Nothing contained herein will make, or be deemed to make, the County and the Agency a partner of one another, and this Contract will not be construed as creating a partnership or joint venture. Page I I of 12 Nothing in this Contract will create, or be deemed to create, any right, duty or obligation in any person or entity not a party to il. 33. SINGULAR ANU PLURAL Wherever the context will so require, the singular will include the plural and plural will include [lie sirrgu tar. 34. PERMITS AND LICENSES The Agency will obtain and maintain, at its own and sole costs and expense, till necessary permits, licenses and approvals required for the Project. 35. INTERPRETATION OF COUNTY RULES AND REGULATIONS If there is any question regarding the interpretation of ally CoLuzly rule or regulation, the County decision will govern and will be binding upon the Agency. 30. POLICE PO«'ERS Of THE COUNTY Nothing contained in this Contract will diminish, or be deemed to diminish, the governmental or police powers of the County. 37. 1?N'I'IRI,' ACRE I:MEN'f This Contract, including its attachments, constitutes the entire Contract between the County and the Agcricy- It supersedes all other agreements and understandings between them, whether written, oral or otherwise. KING COUNTY AGENCY FOR Ku1g County Executive Signature Date: NAME(Please type or-print), Title Date Page 12 of 12 I'�hihit I King County Youth Sports Facility Grant Scope oi'Services Please detail the scope of work to be performed under this contract as described in the YSFG application. You may use and expand upon the application text. Please be thorough in your description of both the entire project and how the YSFG grant will be spent on your project. The project site is a .3 1-acre parcel of land adjacent to the I l-acre athletic fields. The lighted synthetic turf fields are used by baseball and fastpitch teams for practice and games. After the property was acquired by the City in 2005, an existing single family house was demolished, while the garaue was retained to store field equipment and a portable stage. The S30.000 grant award will underwrite: • surfacing: rubber interlocking tiles, concrete, asphalt • gates: (2) 3 -wide single swing, (1) 5 -wide double swing • fencing: perimeter 12' x 5' vinyl-coated chain link fencing, top fence, netting-, net protector • a portion of the lighting fixture and pole Construction will be completed in two phases, using a combination of City and external fund111<,0. Phase I includes construction of the cages and fencing. Phase II includes installation of lighting plus, using volunteer labor from our community partiaer organization, site furniture and plant material. With the exception of the perimeter fencing and lighting, construction will be done in- house using Parks Department maintenance workers. i i 1 Le 0 C) rr U- C-t: illu- A U- CD z t- m m IT O 0 m m "AM 0 > 0 0 L'i cO lc� C,� -It _7 7 co LL Z) fA < E 0 0 0 0 0 a O I? I? a) m 61 6 6 10 I'D 14, c C 2 0 E 12 E 0 -0 c cc m R z > si F— 6 c — 0 s 0 CL .1; (D 0 • 0 l? E (D (D M 0- (D w a- E 0 Y W, o s 45 o > 76 to Z5 �2 w a, o 8 % a 0 > 5 LL a -cc 19 E w 0 E w cn 0_ .0 l I i � r?ubbers (tip) � i � 12'tall Cha%w Liwl2 Roxe ` i 1 o 4,5' a �� ✓, 0 43' 1 40' µ S o s5 Z 35 9 I i i ' Iwtertoeh��.� Rubber , suw face j CDwcrete P-OrGlei ' a � Hogue FLate (' sates I 1,VA Insurance Authority 11fkwil'], k1JA 91fl ,)") I -Dec-07 19: 5330 9 100 W -O(H(i King County Parks, Youth Sports Facility Grant Attn: Butch Lovelace NOX. 20()-5'5 7,120 201 S. Jackson St., Ste. 700 Seattle,WA 98104 RE: City of Kent King County Youth Sports Facility grant of$30,000 for constructions of batting cages at Wilson Playfields. Evidence of Coverage The above captioned entity is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA), wliicli is a self insured pool of over 123 municipal corporations in the State of Washington. WCIA has at least $1 million per occurrence combined single limit of liability coverage in its self insured layer tbat may be applicable in the event an incident occurs that is deemed to be attributed to the negligence of the member. WCIA is an Interlocal Agreement among municipalities and liability is completely self funded by the inernbcrsb1p. As there is no insurance policy involved and WC1A is not an iDSUraDCC company, your organization cannot be named as an "additional insured'. Sincerely, Eric B. Larson Del)Llty Director cc- CIAri'stoplier III Us Victoria L. Andrews (original) Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO AQUATIC MANAGEMENT GROUP AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE ' 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the amendment to the agreement with Aquatic Management Group (AMG) for operation of the Kent Pool, subject to final approval by City Attorney. The original five-year agreement with AMG expires March 6, 2008. The proposed contract amendment extends the operating agreement to a year-to-year basis and increases the operating contribution to reflect the city's actual support over the past five years. 3. EXHIBITS: Draft contract amendment and original agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and Human Services Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) S. 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. 6I • KENT ADDENDUM ONE TO THE KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT THIS ADDENDUM ONE is made between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"), and AQUATIC MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a Washington corporation (`Lessee"), and amends that certain Kent Pool Sublease Agreement ("Sublease") entered into between the parties on or about March 6, 2003. I. RECITALS 1.1 On March 6, 2003, the parties entered into the Kent Pool Sublease Agreement whereby the Lessee would occupy, manage, and operate the premises as a public pool in accord with the Sublease and the conditions and restrictions set forth in King County Resolution No. 34571. 1.2 The purpose of this Addendum One is to extend the term of the Sublease and to reflect negotiated revisions the parties made to the compensation due Lessee beginning March 6, 2008. II. ADDENDUM The City and Lessee agree and covenant as follows: 1. Term. Upon the effective date of this Addendum One, the parties agree that the term of the Sublease provided for in Section 3 shall run through May 25, 2011. The remaining provisions set forth in Section 3 of the Sublease, specifically the extension and termination options, are retracted and shall no longer apply. 2. City Consideration and Payment - Annual Fee. The annual fee provisions set forth in Section 5(13) of the Sublease are amended to increase the not to exceed amount from Twenty Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($20,000) per year to Eighty Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($80,000) per year. 3. City Consideration and Payment - Capital Fee. The capital payment fee provisions set forth in Section 5(C) of the Sublease are replaced with the following: C. Capital Fee. Payment to Lessee of an amount not to exceed $25,000 annually for capital repairs and hfecycle improvements to the Pool. Lessee shall make a written request to the City for funds to be released, and shall provide ADDENDUM ONE TO THE KENT (January 10, 2008) POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT - 1 documentation demonstrating the need for the amount requested. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt of Lessee's request, the City shall determine, in its sole discretion, the amount of funds to be distributed and distribute the same by January 31" of the next fiscal year. Lessee shall submit financial documentation to the City showing the profit or loss incurred the previous year 4. Certification. Lessee hereby certifies to City that the Sublease is in full force and effect, and that there are no uncured defaults on the part of the City under the Sublease. 5. Entire Agreement. Except as amended by this Addendum One, all provisions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified by this Addendum One. 6. Effective Date. The terms of this Addendum One shall take effect on the last date signed below and shall apply from March 6, 2008, through May 25, 2011, unless later amended. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Addendum One. CITY: LESSEE: CITY OF KENT AQUATIC MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. By: By: Print Name: Print Name: Its: Its: Date: Date: i - Notary Acknowledgements Appear on Following Page - ADDENDUM ONE TO THE KENT (January 10, 2008) POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT - 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of 2008, I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the CITY OF KENT as its , and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of 2008, I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of AQUATIC MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. as its and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seat the day and year first above written. I NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires �I F'�iVII FPC\Or^rFle:\C1 CS'.CC9\PociuGkase AddendumOne dvc ADDENDUM ONE TO THE KENT (January 10, 2008) POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT - 3 i KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made by and between the CITY OF KENT, hereinafter referred to as "City," and AQUATIC MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., hereinafter referred to as"Lessee." SECT10ibr 1. LEASE PREMISES, The City has received an assiginnent of the lease between King County and the Rent School District, attached as Exhibit "A", for the Kent Pool (the "Pool"), located at 25316 101" Avenue SE, Kent, Washington For and upon the conditions and provisions herein, the City subleases to the Lessee the Pool The areas subleased are described in the floor plan, which is depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Said leased areas are herein referred to as the "Premises" In addition to the tens of this Agreement, Lessee agrees to abide by the tends of the Lease in Exhibit"A" 5ECT10N2. USE OFPRENUSES. The Lessee shall occupy, manage and operate the Premises as a public pool in accord with the conditions and restrictions in King County Resolution No 34571 This leasehold interest includes the right to charge fees for the public pool services rendered by Lessee on the Premises The City further grants the Lessee the right to operate vending machines and sell aquatic related merchandise on the Premises The Lessee shall not conduct any other business or social activity at the Pool, or use the Pool for any other purpose without first having obtained the City's written consent SECTION 3. TERM. The term of thus Agreement shall be for five (5) years commencing on March & , 2003. At the end of that five (5) year period of time, if Lessee has made all payments due to the City in full, and is not in breach of this lease, then the Lessee shall have the option of extending the term of this lease for an additional five (5) year period of time, subject to the City's review of financial records in order to confirm Lessee's ability to meet obligations under this Agreement The Lessee shall give the City at least one hundred and eighty (180) days prior written notice of its intention to exercise this option At the end of the third year of the first term of this Agreement either party may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other party within ninety (90) days of the expiration of the third year The effective date of termination of the Agreement under this Section shall be sixty (60) days after the required notice is received by the party to whom it is directed. KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (4quattc Management Group Inc —Afarch 5,2003) Page t of 12 SECTION 4. LESSEE CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT. The Lessee shall provide to the City the follownig consideration A Public Sennices Provide public pool services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement These public pool services had previously been provided by King County, but in April 2002 King County detennmed that the Pool would have to be closed unless the City or another entity took over operation and managernent of the Pool The Pool was closed in December 2002 when no agreement had been reached between King County and the City regarding the Pool In March 2003, the City received a deed for the Pool from King County and received an assignment of the lease between King County and the Kent School District. This sublease Agreement will assure that public pool services are again provided to the citizens of the City of Kent B .4nnual Rent Pay to the City One Dollars ($1 00) annually on the anniversary date of this Agreement C. Leasehold Tax Pursuant to Chapter 82 29A RCW, Lessee shall pay quarterly to the City, on the 15`h day of the month following the end of each quarter, the amount of state �` leasehold tax owing The state leasehold tax, currently 12 84 %, will be based on the fair market value of the rent for the premises SECT10j 5. CITY CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT. The City shall have the following obligations under this Agreement A Initial Fee Payment to Lessee of an initial sum of Seventy Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($70,000 00) for start up funds to be paid within five (5) days of the execution of this Agreement The City shall receive from Lessee rent relief for use of the Pool at mutually agreed upon tern-is equal to the initial fee B Annual Fee Payment to Lessee once a year of an amount not to exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars and no/l00 ($20,000 00) for maintenance, operation, and improvements to the Pool The City acknowledges that operating the Pool is not a profitable endeavor as seen by King County's experience with the Pool, and by the responses received when offers to take over the pool were solicited. Payment of the annual fee shall be made under the following terms: Lessee shall make a written request to the City for funds to be released and shall provide documentation demonstrating the need for the amount requested. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the request, the City shall determine, in its sole discretion, the amount of funds to be distributed and distribute the same By January 31" of the next fiscal year, Lessee shall submit financial documentation to the City showing the profit or loss incurred the previous year Lessee shall reimburse the City for any profit it made, up to the amount of annual fee paid by the City the previous year KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic Management Group, Inc —March 5,1003) Page 2 of 12 C Capital Fee Payment to Lessee of a portion of the capital improvement funds the City receives from King County in 2003 and 2004 under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement conveying the Pool from King County to the City The amounts will be mutually agreed upon for capital improvements to the Pool The City may retain some of the funds for unanticipated capital repairs. D Computer•S> Iem Provide to Lessee the computers that were transferred with the Pool by King County Lessee shall be responsible for the set up and maintenance of the computer system SECTION h. LESSEE'S OPERATIONAL OBLIGATIONS. Lessee shall perforni the following(asI:s. A Public Use Promote and manage the use of the Pool for use as a public pool Lessee shall establish for City approval a quarterly schedule of aquatic programs B. Janitorial Service. Provide janitorial service for the interior and exterior 1 boundaries of the Pool grounds i C Personnel Provide competent person iel in numbers to adequately serve the Pool patrons. Train and supervise personnel in their work and provide the City with any training manuals used All staff must have the necessary aquatic training and certification as required by the State of Washington, and the Red Cross or Ellis & Asociates All training and certification records shall be easily accessible for review by governing agencies and the City D Utilities Pay for all utilities associated with the Premises. E Vaintenance Maintain the Pool, counter/kiosk area, patios, including garbage containers around buildings and entryways in a clean, welt kept, orderly manner to the satisfaction of the City Conduct maintenance and repairs to interior facilities and fixtures, including all pool equipment, lights, plumbing, furniture, locks associated with the Premises, Lessee's tools and equipment, and Lessee's leased equipment 10 F Hours of Seiltrce Provide hours of service that meet the public demand for use of the Pool. Lessee shall keep the Pool open Monday through Saturday, except Thanksgiving Day and December 251h of each year, except as provided in Section 7 below Sundays will be reserved for special events. The City's Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services (the "Director") must approve any other days that Lessee proposes to close the Pool prior to any closure KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic Management Group, Inc —March s 2003) Page 3 of 12 G Advertisin iz Provide necessary advertising to publicize the Pool. Lessees hall establish an advertising program and obtain the approval of the Director for the program. The Director shall not unreasonably withhold his approval. H Alarin System Install and maintain a burglar alarm system if it is mutually agreed , that a system is needed I. Fee Schedule Propose to the City a schedule of fees for use by the Pool These fees shall include, but not be limited to, lessons and public swim times The list of fees must be approved by the Director, but the Director may not unreasonably w ithbold his approval. Any subsequent changes to the schedule of fees must be agreed upon by Lessee and the Director. J. Policies and Procedures Abide by the following operating policies and procedures i Operate the Pool pursuant to the rules and regulations established by the City and any aquatic facility governing agency 11 Expel from the Pool unruly persons or those under the influence of Intoxicants � III Prohibit illegal activity on the Premises IV Respond in a timely and reasonable mariner to members of the public with complaints regarding the Pool Lessee shall supervise a public relations program for the Pool Lessee shall refrain from derogatory comments regarding the City's Pool policies or decisions Lessee shall explain to Pool staff and Pool users the City's Pool policies or decisions. v Prohibit use of the premises for ancillary, revenue-producing activities, unless expressly authorized by the City prior to any such activities and subject to any conditions imposed by the City vt Regulate the conduct of all persons at the Pool, including preventing trespassing and other behavior that may cause harm or damage to the Pool ' vii Perform a daily physical inspection of the Pool on all days of operation, and immediately report any unusual or unsafe conditions to the Department of Parks, Recreations, and Community Services (the "Department") Such reports shall be followed by written correspondence to the Department vial Communicate with the Director, or his or her designated staff,on a regular basis regarding the Pool's operations and conditions KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic iWanagement Group, Inc-Afarch 3,2003) Page 4 of 12 ' ix Obtain prior written City approval for all advertisement for commercial vendors K Ftnanczal Reports Provide monthly financial reports to the Department L Documentation of Solvencv Submit to the City by March 31" of each year after i2003, either a copy of the previous year's annual report or a Certificate of Solvency by a certified i public accountant to demonstrate Lessee's financial solvency and ability to maintain operations under this Agreement M New Aquatic Faczlzhr Assist the City in planiung, feasibility studies, and promotion of the construction of a new aquatic facility in the City of Kent as directed by the Kent City Council N Audits All revenue and fees collected at the Pool are subject to audit by the State Auditor, City Internal Auditor, or City hired Certified Public Accountants The Lessee shall permit the City, at any time during business hours, through its designated representatives, to inspect and verify such accounts and all other business records concerning operations at the Pool Detail backing up the subsidiary records is subject to audit and records are to be retained per RCW 40 14 record retention laws. The Contractor shall take immediate corrective action on all prior,current, or future internal contract weaknesses as directed by the City SECTION 7 POOL CLOSURE. ' A. Closure clue to Catastrophe The Pool shall remain open unless it is closed as a result of causes beyond the control, fault, or negligence of the parties Such causes may include, without limitation, act of God or public enemy, acts of the federal, state, or local governments, fires, floods, earthquakes, epidemics, volcanic eruptions, quarantine restrictions, strikes; freight embargoes, c ourt o rders, and u nusually s evere w eather o r o ther c ondnti on t hat c auses all or a portion of the Pool to be closed for extended periods of time. S hould e iher the C ity o r the ' Lessee fail to perform because of a cause described in this subsection, the City and the Lessee shall make a mutually acceptable revision to Sections 4, 5 and fi of this Agreement Additionally, this Agreement may be terminated if the Pool is deemed unusable by the City as a ' result of major damage or destruction and the City elects not to rebuild the unusable portions Closure of the fool under the above conditions shall not be a breach of this Agreement. B. Closure for,11aintenance In the event that Lessee determmes that it is necessary to close all or a portion of the Pool due to regular maintenance, repair, capital improvements, inclement weather, or similar conditions that result in a situation where the Pool's condition is unsatisfactory for use, or if damage to the Pool is likely if it remained open, the Lessee shall coordinate such closure with the City prior to the closure Closure of the Pool under the above conditions shall not be a breach of the Agreement KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT' (Aquatic Management Group, Inc —bfarch S,2003) Page 5 of 12 C Permanent Closure by OtV Should the City determine that the Pool must be permanently closed for any reason, including but not limited to, structural damage, cost of repair, , or expense of operation, Lessee shall comply with the City's decision and close all or part of the Pool, depending on the City's decision, at no cost to the City Closure of the Pool under the conditions shall not be a breach of the Agreement SECTION 8. SIGNAGE. All graphics placed upon or affixed to any part of the Premises shall be subject to the p prior written approval of the City or its representative, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld The Lessee will follow all City sign codes The Lessee shall submit detailed plans and secure any needed permits/approvals for all exterior and interior signs SECTION 9. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS/REMODELING. A Generally I Lessee shall, prior to commencing any alteration, improvement, or construction, submit to the City in writing, plans for alterations, improvements, and construction along with a breakdown of the cost of such improvements. 2. All plans submitted are subject to the approval of the Director or his representative prior to commencement of any alteration, improvement or construction The City agrees to promptly review said plans, and if the alteration, improvement, and construction is acceptable, to promptly approve the same The plans as approved shall be attached to an , executed copy of this Agreement and be incorporated herein This approval by the Director is in addition to any plan review or issuance of permits by the City in its capacity as a governing body rather than a landlord , 3. All work performed shall be done to the satisfaction of the Department and shall be earned out in a manner that minimizes impact upon the use of the Pool by the public Lessee shall be responsible for obtaining all governmental permits, for meeting all code requirements, and shall submit copies of the same to the Department or its representative prior to commencing any construction on the Premises 4 The Department may conduct inspections of any capital improvement work at any time to assure itself that such work is in accordance with the plans approved by the Department. In the event any such work is not performed according to plans as then approved by the Director,the Director or his representative shall send a Notice of Nan-Compliance to the Lessee. In the event the Lessee fads to make corrections within twenty (20) days after the Lessee's receipt of such Notice of Non-Compliance, the Department may make whatever corrections are necessary to bring such work into compliance with the plans as approved and shall charge the Lessee for all costs of such corrective work KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic Management Group, Inc—March 5,2003) Page 6 of 12 5 The City may require Lessee, prior to commencement of any construction ' work, to provide payment and performance bond(s) in a forni(s) approved by the City Attorney, payable to the City in the full and just value of such capital improvements, conditioned that all provisions of this Agreement relating to capital improvements shall be faithfully performed by the Lessee, or the surety, if required 6 Lessee shall furnish the City with a complete set of reproducible"24 x 36" ' mylar drawings reflecting the final "as-built" condition of all capital improvements within thirty (30) days after completion of the construction Lessee shall furnush t o t he C ity e opies o f a 11 operating manuals, equipment brochures, paint schedules and material brochures for such improvements 7 Lessee will use recycled products whenever possible. 8 All alterations, capital improvements, and construction shall be constructed and installed solely at the Lessee's expense, unless the City expressly agrees in writing to contribute toward the costs thereof. All alterations and capital improvements by Lessee shall become and remain the property of the City All equipment, fixtures, and furnishings installed by Lessee will be maintained and repaired by Lessee. B Initial Capital bnprovements Lessee shall pay for and construct, subject to this Section 9,the capital improvements to the Pool as mutually agreed to by the parties. SECTION 70. TAXES/FEES. ' The Lessee shall promptly pay all taxes and fees for its operations to the appropriate collecting agencies ' SECTION J 1. NON-DISCRIMINATION. Lessee shall conduct its business in a manner which assures fair, equal and non-discnminatory treatment at all trines in all respects to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin No person shall be refused service, be given discriminatory treatment or be denied any privilege, use of facilities, or participation m activities on the Premises on account of race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this provision shall be a material breach of this Agreement Lessee shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, County, and City laws, ordinances, rules and regulations regarding non-discnmmatton in employment, the provision of services to the public in a non-discriminatory manner ' The Lessee shall be responsible for complying with the ADA with respect to any improvements installed by the Lessee, the placement of furniture and furnishings, and the E ' Lessee's operations. KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic Management Group, Inc -March 5.2003) ' Page 7 of 12 SECTION 12. INSURANCE. Dunn the term of this Agreement and an extension thereof, the City shall maintain an ' g � Y insurance policy on the Premises in the amount of the replacement cost for damage from fire; earthquake, and other penis Said insurance policy shall also insure the replacement value of the equipment provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement The Lessee shall be responsible for maintaining its own fire and hazard insurance on , Lessee owned personal property and leasehold improvements placed within the Premises by the Lessee. The Lessee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the A nent, insurance P �een against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may anse from or in , connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Lessee, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors The Lessee shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing ' 1 Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage, and 2 Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis , with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage Coverage shall include but not be limited to blanket contractual, products/completed operations; broad form property damage, ' premise operations, employer's liability; and personal injury. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Lessee The City shall be pained as an additional insured on the insurance policy, with respect to ' work performed by, or on behalf of, the Lessee, and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate oflnsurance The Lessee's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability The Lessee's insurance shall be the primary insurance with respect to the City, and. the City shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice of airy cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage KENT POOL SUBLEASF.AGREEMENT (Aquatic Managenent Group, Inc—March 5,2o05) , Page 8 of 12 SECTION 13. INDETNINIFICATIONIHOLD HARMLESS. The Lessee shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, and v olunteers h armless from any and a 11 c laims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees, ansing out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for injures and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24 115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Lessee and ' the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Lessee's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Lessee's negligence It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Lessee's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCTV, solely for the purposes of this indemnification This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement ' SECTION 14. MUTUAL RELEASE AND WAIVER. ' The Lessee and City shall not assign to any insurance company any right or cause of action for damages which the parties now have or may subsequently acquire against the other party during the term of this Agreement and shall waive all rights or subrogation for such damage I SECTION 15. STANDARDS. Lessee recognizes that although it is operating its facilities as an independent operator for profit, the City is organized and exists for the purpose of maintaining park and recreation facilities for the use and enjoyment of the general public. The Lessee, its agents and employees, will devote their efforts toward rendering courteous service to the public with a view of adding to the enjoyment of the patrons of this recreational facility SECTION 16. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. Lessee shall comply with all applicable Federal or State laws and City ordinances and with applicable Federal, State, City and local directions,rules and regulations SECTION 17. SURRENDER OF PREMISES AND REMOVAL OF LESSEE'S PROPERTY. ' A Surrender Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, the Lessee shall surrender the Pool to the City and promptly surrender and deliver to the City all keys that it may have to any and all parts of the Pool KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic Management Group Inc —March 5,2003) Page 9 of 12 B Condition The Pool shall be surrendered to the City in as good a condition as at the date of execution of this Agreement, except for the effects of reasonable wear and tear, alterations, and repairs made with concurrence of the City C Removal by,Lessee Prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement, Lessee ' shall remove from the Pool, at its sole expense, all equipment, furnishings, and other personal property owned and placed in or on the Pool by the Lessee. D. CityfropgCty All Citypurchased and owned equipment and furnishings, and any such equipment and furnishings situated within the Premises subsequently purchased and owned by the City shalt remain City property and be left on the Premises ' SECTION 18. LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES. Lessee shall keepthe Premises free and clear of an hens and encumbrances. arising or ' Y g growing out of its use and occupancy of the Premises At the City's request,Lessee shall furnish ' the City written proof of payment of any item which would or might constitute the basis for such a lien on the Pool if not paid SECTION 19. ENTRY. The City's representative may enter the Pool during normal operating hours for the purpose of inspecting the Pool, except in the case of emergency when the City may enter at any ' time, but this right shall impose no obligation upon the City to make inspections to ascertain the condition of the Pool. SECTMV20. BREACH A. Notice of Breach In the event that either party claims that the other is in a breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement, notice of the breach shall be submitted to the party alleged to be in breach and the party in breach shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice within which to correct any activity or conduct claimed by the other to have constituted a breach of this Agreement B. Remedies In the event that the party in breach shall fail to correct the activity i claimed to constitute a breach of this Agreement within thirty(30)days of receipt of the notice of breach,the party claiming breach may: ' 1 Issue a notice of termmation in writing by certified mail (return receipt requested), or by personal delivery setting the reason for termination, and/or 2 Seek judicial remedy, including specific performance; and/or ' • Y S P 3 Pursue any other remedy available at law or equity , KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic Management Group, Inc—March S,2003) Page 10 of 12 C. Pool Closure In the event that the City determines in its sole discretion, to close the Pool for reasons in accord with Section 7, the City may terminate tlus Agreement upon issuance of a Notice of Termination giving the Lessee sixty(60) days from receipt to vacate the Pool per Section IT A notice of breach is not required tinder these circumstances D. Alotace o{ Termination Under circumstances other than Section 20.0 above, upon receipt of written notice of termination by the City, Lessee will have twenty (20) days to vacate the Pool, unless Lessee has abandoned the Pool, in which case the City may take immediate possession of the Pool SECTIQIV 21. ASSIGNMENT. Lessee shall not voluntarily, by operation of taw, or by process or proceeding in any court, assign, transfer, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate, or encumber this Agreement, or any interest therein, and shall not subcontract the obligations under this Agreement, or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of the City Any such assignment, subcontracting or use without compliance with the terms of this paragraph shall be void and shall constitute a default under the terms of this Agreement If Lessee is a corporation, any transfer of this Agreement from Lessee by merger, consolidation, or liquidation, or any change in the ownership or power to vote in a majority of the outstanding voting stock of Lessee shall constitute an assigiunent for purposes of this paragraph Any consent to one assignment, subcontracting, or use by any other person shall not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment, subcontracting, or use by another person Consent to any such assignment, subcontracting or use shall in no way relieve Lessee of any liability under this Agreement. Assignment by Lessee to a financial institution holding a security interest in this Agreement shall not be considered a violation of the consent requirements of this Agreement Consent for any subsequent assignment by said financial institution to another Lessee will not be unreasonably withheld; however, any assignee must have experience and be knowledgeable in public pool management SECTION 2?. ;MODIFICATION. The parties hereto reserve the right to amend this Agreement from time to time as niay be mutually agreed. No aniendinent hereto shall be effective unless written and signed by authorized representatives of the parties SECTION 23. PAYMENTS TO VENDORS. The Lessee shall pay timely all suppliers and contractors providing services, materials or equipment for carrying out its obligations under this Agreement. The Lessee shall not take or fail to take any action in a manner that causes the City or any materials that the Lessee hereunder to ' be subject to any claim or lien of any person without the City's prior written consent KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic Management Groy, Inc —March S 2003 Page 11 0£12 SECTION24. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. The City will, to the extent allowed by law, keep all of Lessee's financial cost information ' confidential, unless required to disclose the information as a result o f the W ashtngton P ublic Records Disclosure law, Ch 42.17 RCW or by court order ' SECTION25. SEVERABILITY. 1 In the event any one or more of these sections are held invalid by a court of competent Jurisdiction, they shall be severed and this Agreement shall not be voided in its entirety. This Agreement shall then be interpreted as if such invalid agreements and covenants were not contained herein SECTION M WASHINGTON LAWS. A This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the state of Washington. B. Any litigation ansing under this Agreement shall occur, if in state court in the King County court having Jurisdiction thereof, and if in federal courts, in the United States 1 District Court for the Western District of Washington SECTION 27. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between parties 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the City' aused tliis Agreement to be executed by its proper officers duly authorized this day of ,2003, and the Lessee has hereunto set its hand LESSEE: CITY: , AQUATIC MANAGEMENT,INC. CITY OF KENT f � 1 By: C - By: Name Sea, C tAu?t HISBrJ N Title C60 Title. 4� ,C'; , Date 3 S 2 O'S3 Date KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (Aquatic Management Group Inc —March 5 2003) Page 12 of 12 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By KIM ADAb2S PRATT ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY P+C aI�ILLS+OpcnAks`AlUS.SubC.racrAgrtrnx u-AGualtcManagtrxntll�k: ' KENT POOL SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (4quauc Afanagement Group, Inc —hfarch 6 2003) Page 13 of 12 FE3- ;-2003 TUE 03,00 Phi FAX NO. P. 04 5`25-71 n \ L1+AS,E AGIIT;£k1F,N'£ , } � 1 THIS LLnSL made in quadruplicate this _day of , 1971, by and between KING COUNITY, WASUNCTON, a legal subdivision , of the State of Washington, Leasea, and SCENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 415, King County, Washington, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, Lessorc ' W I TU55 SLTH: ' In consideration of the covenants and ogreemonts of the Lassen hereinafter set forth, the School. 'District does by thene greaent3 lease and demitic unto King County that cartain real estate described as follows; , That portion of W. 1/2 of S.W. 1/4 of S.N. 1/4 of Section 20, T.22 N., R.S.E. , W.M. described ae followh: Beginning at a bronze nonumant , marking tho intersection of the center lino of secondary State Highway No. 5-.L with the center lino of secondary State Highway No. 5-C i and being the S.E. corner of the S.W. 1/4 of f S,W. 1/4 of said Section 20; thence, N. 0"10'33" W. along the canter line of said Secondary State MLghway No. 5^C 828.1l'i thence N. 89'43'19" W. 623.51' to the L. line of the Y;. 1/2 of 5.14. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of said Section 20 and the true point ' of beginning; thence continue N. 99643119" W. 313.83'; thence S. 0°23'03" W, 133.33'1 thence S. 89.55'38" L'. 74.10'; thence S. 0*04*22" W. 41.00'1 thence S. 09655136" E. 236.60' to the E. line of the N. 112 of S.W. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of said Section 2D1 thence N. 0022126" W. along said line 173.21' to the true point of beginning; subject to an easement over the C. 35' thereof. In addition to the property leased, the school District will provide all convenient and necessary easements over its adjoining land for utilities, ingress and egress. The tern of such lease shall be for a period of £arty ' W) years franc the date above written. Upon expiration of r f 1 ' G H AX NU. P. U� FEB-11-cC���3 TUE 03:DQ I hi eaid lea3a term, Lessee shall have an option to renew sucl, lease upon torms to be negotiated betwaan the parties, it being the intent at this date that the lease continue for at least ' tha useful life of the building and structures to be located on the promises, ' King County accepts the premises in the present condition and for the purpose of immediately constructing thereon a major indoor swimming pool. Xinq County shall be responsible for complianca with all laws affecting use of the property for all charges for utilities or governmental charger or taxes that should be levied against the property or this lease, for all mAintenance, repairs and insurance thereon and shall keep the property in good repair and znsured against all damage and liability resulting 1 frog, the use thorcof. Such insurance shall namo lessor as an aCd"tional insured. l King County shall at tim.�s when facilities on the loased pramisea are not to be used by King County permit the School District to u.e such facilities sub)ect to a Use Agreement betWoan the two agencies. King County agrees to hold the School District harmlc--ss and to indemnify And defend the School District against any claim or liability for damago to any person or property and costs incident thereto arising with respect to the leased premises, except when such damage is a result of School District , sponsored or controlled activities on the leased premises or there such damage is at g tributab]e to semi act or ornisEion of the School District. 1 1 FES-11-2003 TUc 03:01 PM HM HU. The School District agreca to hold King county harmlevo and to indemnili and dofend Ming County against any claims or liability for damage to any person oc property on the loaeed promiges ana costs incident thereto caused by the , negligence of the School District or as a result of School Distriet sponsored or controlled activitiea on the leased , prominas, and whero such damage is not attributable to some act or omission of King County. IN WITNESS WHZREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto ' act their hands and seals the ddto first abova written. 7 J Hid D �ELLt-ikN COUn EXCCUTIVE -.71 PENT SC OOL DISTRICT NO. 415 J hppzov)e3 as to form and Legality GhRY E. JN, Ossoir Zaputy Rrosncvting Attorney Lz Date i -3- r ME U3M rn SAX NO. t , t 1 STATE OF` WASHINGTON ) - Cout{TY OF K z L{ G ) Oa this ��, 1571, before me day of perr.onally appeared j r , lr2j,I2j- to moe known to be tha (president, vice preAdont,/secreLazy, treasurer, or ' other nuthori:ecl officer or agent, us the case may be) of tha munLcipaZ corporation that executed die within and foregoing instr=cnt, and acknowledged acid instrument to be the frog ,and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses ' and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was auC.horized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corpo,ata acal of said corporation. Irk witnecs Miereof I have hereunto set nAy hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above wrrtten. , tiu7'ARI PUZLIC Ja and ` r tha State of Washington, residing at L I 7 -4- 1 rib-11-20���3 ;U�. G3:G1 Ph] EAX 110' t tt � I 1 Qr�J 1.tr1a•,ril. Jiya 1 c�••v ys8�,7.: �I � Y 4 r �ayc�+sa.u�rrha>wuerty a ' �( ..�....- } � _ -tom �€• `��`z`�� � ���#`t J11- CA ID Ln I j g � f I f k, EXHIBIT "B" Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WILLIS STREET GRADE SEPARATIONS FUNDING - ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Federal Grant for the Design Phase of the Willis Street Grade Separations Project in the amount of $684,380 and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within that road improvement project, upon concurrence of the language by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The City was successful in obtaining $342,190 in federal funds through SAFETEA- LU, for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad crossings for a total of $684,380. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum, Willis Street-BNSF and UP Railroad Grade Separation Local Agency agreements 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ ' Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J 3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director 400 Z • Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 INASHI NGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: December 28, 2007 To: Chair Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members Public Works Committee Meeting Date: January 22, 2008 ' From: Mark Howlett, Design Engineering Manager Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director 1-k Z3 0/— ' Subject: Fund Authorization/Willis Street Grade Separations ' Motion: Move to recommend that Council accept the Federal Grant for the Design Phase of the Willis Street Grade Separations Project in the amount of $684,380 and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said road improvement project upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Background/Summary: The City's Willis Street Grade Separations Project will grade separate the roadway from the railroad tracks at both the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad tracks. 1 The City was successful in obtaining $342,190 in federal funds through SAFETEA-LU, for each of the railroad crossings, for a total of $684,380. The agreements, each in the amount of $342,190, authorize for the design phase of the City's Willis Street Grade Separations Project. In order to be reimbursed for project expenses, the City must accept the grant and authorize the establishment of the budget for the same and ' direct staff to spend the money accordingly and authorize the mayor to sign all necessary documents. Exhibits: Willis Street BNSF Railroad Grade Separation AC-HPP-0615(006) Fund Authorization Willis Street UP Railroad Grade Separation AC-HPP-0615(007) Fund Authorization i 1 1 U IP({CommitteeUcttotiPogel2OO8101 22 08 doc 4 4A 414 December 5, 2007 Mr. Larry Blanchard "' Public Works Director City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Kent 1 Willis Street BNSF Railroad Grade Separation AC-HPP-0615(006) Dear FUND AUTHORIZATION M>11�ard: We have received FHWA fund authorization,effective December 3,2007, for this project as follows: PHASE TOTAL FEDERAL SHARE AC Preliminary Engineering $3142,190 $211,078 $131,112 Enclosed for your information and file is a fully executed copy of Local Agency Agreement LA-6534 between the state and your agency. All costs exceeding those shown on this agreement are the sole responsibility of your agency. WSDOT authorization to proceed with night of way and/or construction is contingent 1 upon receipt and approval of your environmental documents. WSDOT authorization to proceed with construction is contingent upon receipt of your R10-it of Wav Certification. You may proceed with the administration of this project in accordance with your WSDOT approved Certification Acceptance agreement. Sincerely, Stephanie ax Manager, Program Management 1 Highways & Local Programs Division STJg:ac Enclosure cc: Ed Conyers,Northwest Region Local Programs Engineer, MS NB82-121 .111111111111► �` Washington State Locai Agency Agreement Department of Transportation Agency City of Kent CFDA No. 20.205 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) Address 220 4th Ave.S. Project No. V tW—0 '(�i tiC1ta Kent, WA. 98059 Lk 3 4 Agreement No. _ For OSC WSDOT Use Only The Local Agency having complied,or hereby agreeing to comply,with the terms and conditions set forth in(1)Title 23,U S Code Highways,(2)the regulations issued pursuant thereto, (3) Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-102, A-87 and A-133, (4) the policies and procedures promulgated by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and (5) the federal aid project agreement entered into between the State and Federal Government,relative to the above project,the Washington State Department of Transportation will authorize the Local Agency to proceed on the project by a separate notification.Federal funds which are to be obligated for the project may not exceed the amount shown herein on line r,column 3,without written authority by the State,subject to the approval of the Federal Highway Administration.All project costs not reimbursed by the Federal Government shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency. Project Description Name Willis Street BNSF Railroad Grade Separation Length 1200 feet Termini 600 feet west of the BNSF tracks to 600 east of the BNSF tracks I Description of Work The project will consist of grade separating the roadway from the BNSF railroad tracks to eliminate the at grade crossing. The project will include the construction of a bridge,retaining walls,curb, gutter,sidewalk, and street lighting. Estimate of Funding Type of Work (>> (2) (3) Estimated Total Estimated Agency Estimated Project Funds Funds Federal Funds ' PE a.Agency 239,833.00 239,833.00 % b.Other Consultant 101,357.00 101,357.00 c. Other Federal Aid d. State 1,000.00 1,000.00 Participation Ratio for PE e.Total PE Cost Estimate a+b+c+d 342,190.00 342,190.00 Right of Way f.Agency % g.Other h.Other Federal Aid i_State Participation Ratio for RW j.Total R/W Cost Estimate f+ +h+i — Construction k. Contract 1_Other _ m. Other n. Other % o.Agency ' Federal Aid L State Participation Ratio for CN q.Total CN Cost Estimate k+i+m+n+o+ r.Total Project Cost Estimate(e+j+q) 1 342,190.001 1 342,190.00 Agency Official Washington State Depa ent of Transportation By By - Title Director of Public Works Assistant Secretary for Highways and Local Programs Data Executed 1� i1f f x� DOT Form 140-039 EF 1 Revised 01/2004 Construction Method of Financing (Check Method Selected) 6 State Ad and Award ❑Method A-Advance Payment-Agency Share of total construction cost(based on contract award) Method B-ill1hold from gas tax the Agency's share of total construction c,st(line 4,column 2)in the amount of $"' at$ _ per month for months. Local Force or Local Ad and Award ®Method C-Agency cost incurred with partial reimbursement The Local Agency further stipulates that pursuant to said Title 23,regulations and policies and procedures, and as a condition to payment of the federal funds obligated,it accepts and will comply with the applicable provisions set forth below.Adopted by official action on Resolution/Ordinance No. Provisions I. Scope of Work 1.Preliminary engineering. The Agency shall provide all the work,labor,materials,and services necessary 2.Right of way acquisition. to perform the project which is described and set forth in detail in the"Project 3.Project construction. Description"and"Type of Work." In When the State acts for and on behalf of the Agency, the State shall be the event that right of way acquisition,or actual construction of the road, for which preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the closing of deemed an agent of the Agency and shall perform the services described and the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the agreement is indicated in"Type of Work'on the face of this agreement,in accordance with executed,the Agency will repay to the State the sum or sums of federal funds plans and specifications as proposed by the Agency and approved by the State paid to the Agency under the terms of this agreement(see Section IX) and the Federal Highway Administration When the State acts for the Agency but is not subject to the right of control by The Agency agrees that all stages of construction necessary to provide the the Agency,the State shall have the right to perform the work subject to the initially planned complete facility within the limits of this project will conform ordinary procedures of the State and Federal Highway Administration. to at least the minimum values set by approved statewide design standards ll. Delegation of Authority applicable to this class of highways, even though such additional work is 9 y financed without federal aid participation. The State is willing to fulfill the responsibilities to the Federal Government by The Agency agrees that on federal aid highway construction projects, the the administration of this project The Agency agrees that the State shall have the current federal aid regulations which apply to liquidated damages relative to the full authority to carry out this administration. The State shall review, process, basis of federal participation in the project cost shall be applicable in the event and approve documents required for federal aid reimbursement in accordance the contractor fails to complete the contract within the contract time with federal requirements. If the State advertises and awards the contract,the State will further act for the Agency in all matters concerning the project as VI. Payment and Partial Reimbursement requested by the Agency If the Local Agency advertises and awards the project, The total cost of the project including all review and engineering costs and the State shall review the work to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. other expenses of the State, is to be paid by the Agency and by the Federal Goverment Federal funding shall be in accordance with the Transportation Ill. Project Administration Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), as amended, and Office of Certain types of work and services shall be provided by the State on this Management and Budget circulars A-102,A-87 and A-133 The State shall not project as requested by the Agency and described in the Type of Work above.In be ultimately responsible for any of the costs of the project.The Agency shall be addition, the State will fumish qualified personnel for the supervision and ultimately responsible for all costs associated with the project which are not inspection of the work in progress. On Local Agency advertised and awarded reimbursed by the Federal Government Nothing in this agreement shall be projects,the supervision and inspection shall be limited to ensuring all work is in construed as a promise by the State as to the amount or nature of federal conformance with approved plans,specifications,and federal aid requirements. participation in this project. The salary of such engineer or other supervisor and all other salaries and costs The Agency shall bill the state for federal aid project costs incurred in incurred by State forces upon the project will be considered a cost thereof All conformity with applicable federal and state laws. The agency shall mimimize costs related to this project incurred by employees of the State in the customary the time elapsed between receipt of federal aid funds and subsequent payment of manner on highway payrolls and vouchers shall be charged as costs of the incurred costs. Expenditures by the Local Agency for maintenance, general project. administration,supervision,and other overhead shall not be eligible for federal IV. Availability of Records participation unless an indirect cost plan has been approved by WSDOT All project records in support of all costs incurred and actual expenditures kept The.State will pay for State incurred costs on the project Following payment, by the Agency are to be maintained in accordance with local government the State shall bill the Federal Government for reimbursement of those costs accounting procedures prescribed by the Washington State Auditor's Office,the eligible for federal participation to the extent that such costs are attributable and U.S. Department of Transportation,and the Washington State Department of properly allocable to this project.The State shall bill the Agency for that portion Transportation.The records shall be open to inspection by the State and Federal of State costs which were not reimbursed by the Federal Government (see Government at all reasonable times and shall be retained and made available for Section IX). such inspection for a period of not less than three years from the final payment of any federal aid funds to the Agency.Copies of said records shall be fumished to t. Project Construction Costs the State and/or Federal Government upon request. Project construction financing will be accomplished by one of the three V. Compliance with Provisions methods as indicated in this agreement. The Agency shall not incur any federal aid participation costs on any classification of work on this project until authorized in writing by the State for each classification-The classifications of work for projects are: DOT Form 140-039 EF 2 Revised 01l2004 Method A—The Agency will place with the Slat., within(20)days after the X. Traffic Control,Styning, Marking,and Roadway execution of the construction contract,an advance in the amount of the Agency's Maintenance 7 share of the total construction cost based on the contract award.The State will notify the Agency of the exact amount to be deposited with the State.The State The Agency will not permit any changes to be made in the provisions for will pay all costs mcurred under the contract upon presentation of progress parking regulations and traffic control on this project without prior approval of billings from the contractor. Following such payments, the State will submit a the State and Federal Highway Administration. The Agency will not install or billing to the Federal Government for the federal aid participation share of the permit to be installed any signs,signals,or mariangs not in confonnan.�,i+nth cost. When the project is substantially completed and final actual costs of the the standards approved by the Federal Highway Administration and MUTCD project can be determined,the State will present the Agency with a final billing The Agency will,at its own expense,maintain the improvement covered by this showing the amount due the State or the amount due the Agency This billing agreement. will be cleared by either a payment from the Agency to the State or by a refund from the State to the Agency. XI. Indemnity The Agency shall hold the Federal Government and the State harmless from Method B— The Agency's share of the total construction cost as shown on and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims,demands,or suits, the face of this agreement shall be withheld from its monthly fuel tax allotments. whether at law or equity brought against the Agency, State, or Federal The face of this agreement establishes the months in which the withholding shall Govemment,ansing from the Agency's execution,performance, or failure to take place and the exact amount to he withheld each month The extent of perform any of the provisions of this agreement,or of any other agreement or ' withholding will be confirmed by letter from the State at the time of contract contract connected with this agreement,or ansing by reason of the participation award. Upon receipt of progress billings from the contractor, the State will of the State or Federal Government in the project,PROVIDED,nothing herein submit such billings to the Federal Government for payment of its participating shall require the Agency to reimburse the State or the Federal Government for portion of such billings damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or result ing from the sole negligence of the Federal Government or the State Method C—The Agency may submit vouchers to the State in the formal prescribed by the State, in duplicate,not more than once per month for those XII. Nondiscrimination Provision costs eligible for Federal participation to the extent that such costs are directly attributable and properly allocable to this p expressly project. Expenditures by the Local No sly prroovided herein. shall attach to the State or Federal Government except as Agency for maintenance,general administration,supervision,and other overhead shall not be eligible for Federal participation unless claimed under a previously The Agency shall not discriminate on the basis of race,color,national origin, approved indirect cost plan. or sex in the award and performance of any USDOT-assisted contract and/or The State shall reimburse the Agency for the Federal share of eligible project agreement or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of costs up to the amount shown on the face of this agreement At the time of audit, 49 CFR Part 26. The Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under the Agency will provide documentation of all costs incurred on the project 49 CFR,Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of USDOT-assisted contracts and agreements. The WSDOT's DBE program,as The State shall bill the Agency for all costs incurred by the State relative to the required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by USDOT,is incorporated by project. The State shall also bill the Agency for the federal funds paid by the refigatioererix m this agreement Implementation shall of this program is a legal State to the Agency for project costs which are subsequently determined to be obligation and failure ti carry out its feints shall of treated as a violation u this ineligible for federal participation(see Section IX). agreement Upon notification to the Agency of its failure to carry out its approved program,the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under VII. Audit of Federal Consultant Contracts Part 26 and may,in appropriate cases,refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986(31 U S C The Agency,if services of a consultant are required,shall be responsible-for 3801 et seq.). audit of the consultant's records to determine eligible federal aid costs on the The Agency hereby agrees that it will incorporate or cause to be incorporated project. The report of said audit shall be in the Agency's files and made available to the State and the Federal Government. into arty contract for construction work,or modification thereof,as defined in the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor in 41 CFR Chapter 60.which An audit shall be conducted by the WSDOT Internal Audit Office in is paid for in whole or in part with funds obtained from the Federal Government accordance with generally accepted govemmental auditing standards as issued by or borrowed on the credit of the Federal Government pursuant to a grant, the United States General Accounting Office by the Comptroller General of the contract,loan,insurance,or guarantee or understanding pursuant to any federal United States;WSDOT Manual M 27-50,Consultant Authorization,Selection, program involving such grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, the and Agreement Administration;memoranda of understanding between WSDOT required contract provisions for Federal-Aid Contracts(FHWA 1273),located in and FHWA,and Office of Management and Budget Circular AA 33. Chapter 44 of the Local Agency Guidelines. If upon audit rt is found that overpayment or participation of federal money in The Agency further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal ineligible items of cost has occurred,the Agency shall reimburse the State for the opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it amount of such overpayment or excess participation(see Section iX). participates in federally assisted construction work. Provided, that if the applicant so participating is a State or Local Govemment, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality, or Vill. Single Audit Act subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under The Agency, as a subrecipient of federal funds, shall adhere to the federal the contract Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 as well as all The Agency also agrees. applicable federal and state statutes and regulations. A subrecipient who (1) To assist and cooperate actively with the State in obtaining the expends $500,001 or more in federal awards from all sources during a given coniphance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause fiscal year shall have a single or program-specific audit performed for that year and rules,regulations,and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. Upon conclusion of the A-133 audit,the Agency shall be responsible for ensuring that a copy of the (2) To fumish the State such information as it may require for the report is transmitted promptly to the State. supervision of such compliance and that it will otherwise assist the State in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance IX. Payment of Billing The Agency agrees that if payment or arrangement for payment of any of the (3) to refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a contractor State's billing relative to the project(e g.,State force work,project cancellation, debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, government overpayment, cost ineligible for federal participation, etc) is not made to the contracts and federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive State within 45 days after the Agency has been billed, the State shall effect Order. reimbursement of the total sum due from the regular monthly fuel tax allotments (4) To carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal to the Agency from the Motor Vehicle Fund. No additional Federal project opportunity clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by funding will be approved until full payment is received unless otherwise directed the Assistant Secretary for Highways and Local Programs. the State,Federal Highway Administration,or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Fart I1,subpart D of the Executive Order DOT Form 140-039 EF Revised 01/2004 3 In addition,the Agency agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these XV. Venue for Claims and/or Causes of Action undertakings,the State may ake any or a)1 of the following actions: For the convenience of the parties to this contract,it is agreed that an$claims (a) Can,;el,terminate,or suspend this agreement in whole or in part; and/or causes of action which the Local Agency has against the State of Washington, growing out of this contract or the project with which it is (b) Refrain from extending any further assistance to the Agency under the concerned,shall be brought only in the Superior Court for Thurston County program with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from the Agency;and XVI. Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying (c) Refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal The approving authority certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and proceedings. belief,that: X111. Liquidated Damages (1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to The Agency hereby agrees that the liquidated damages provisions of 23 CFR influence an officer or employee of any federal agency,a member of Congress, Part 635, Subpart 127, as supplemented, relative to the amount of Federal an officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a member of Congress in participation in the project cost,shall be applicable in the event the contractor connection with the awarding of any federal contract,the making of any federal fails to complete the contract within the contract time. Failure to include grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative liquidated damages provision will not relieve the Agency from reduction of agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or federal participation in accordance with this paragraph modification of any federal contract,grant,loan,or cooperative agreement. XIV. Termination for Public Convenience (2) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will j The Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation may be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or terminate the contract in whole,or from time to time in part,whenever: employee of any federal agency,a member of Congress,an officer or employee (1) The requisite federal funding becomes unavailable through failure of of Congress,or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this appropriation or otherwise. federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit the Standard Form-LLL,"Disclosure Form to Report (2) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work as a direct Lobby„rig,"in accordance with its instructions. result of an Executive Order of the President with respect to the prosecution of war or in the interest of national defense,or an Executive Order of the President (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be or Governor of the State with respect to the preservation of energy resources included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans,and (3) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work by reason of a cooperative agreements)which exceed$100,000,and that all such subrecipients preliminary, special, or permanent restraining order of a court of competent shall certify and disclose accordingly. jurisdiction where the issuance of such order is primarily caused by the acts or This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was omissions of persons or agencies other than the contractor. placed when this transaction was made or entered into Submission of this (4) The Secretary determines that such termination is in the best interests of certification as a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction the State. 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. Additional Provisions DOT Form 140-039 EF 4 Revised 01/2004 9 r. 1 December 5,2007,,,,-�,, Mr. Larry Blanchard Public Works Director City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Kent Willis Sireet UP 'Ptailroad Grade Separation AC-HPP-0615(007) FUND AUTHORIZATION Dear Mr. ard: We have received FHWA fund authorization,effective December 3, 2007, for this project as follows: PHASE TOTAL FEDERAL SHARE AC Preliminary Engineering $342,190 $211,078 $13 1,112 Enclosed for your information and file is a fully executed copy of Local Agency Agreement LA-6535 between the state and your agency. All costs exceeding those shown on this agreement are the sole responsibility of your agency. WSDOT authorization to proceed with right of way and/or construction is contingent upon receipt and approval of your environmental documents. You may proceed With the administration oi-tiiis project in accordance with your WSDOT approved Certification Acceptance agreement. Sincerely, Stephanie Tax Manager,Program Management Highways& Local Programs Division ST:j*g:ac Enclosure cc: Ed Conyers,Northwest Region Local Programs Engineer, MS NB82-121 � Washington State Local Agency Agree ent V// Department of Transportation ,111: " Agency City of Kent �J CFDA No. 20.205 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) f Address 220 4th Ave. S. Project No. `AA L- { (:%'try f" Kent, WA. 98059 Agreement No. �` 5? l For OSC WSDOT Use Only The Local Agency having complied,or hereby agreeing to comply,with the terms a:ad conditions set forth in(1)Title 23,U-S.Code Highways, (2)the regulations issued pursuant thereto, (3) Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-102, A-87 and A-133, (4) the policies and procedures promulgated by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and (5) the federal aid project agreement entered into between the State and Federal Government, relative to the above project,the Washington State Department of Transportation will authorize the Local Agency to proceed on the project by a separate notification.Federal funds which are to be obligated for the project may not exceed the amount shown herein on line r,column 3,mthout written authority by the State,subject to the approval of the Federal Highway Administration_All project costs not reimbursed by the Federal Government shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency. Project Description Name Willis Street UP Railroad Grade Separation Length 1200 feet ' Termini 600 feet west of the UPRR tracks to 600 east of the UPRR tracks Description of Work The project will consist of grade separating the roadway from the Union Pacific railroad tracks to eliminate the at grade crossing. The project will include the construction of a bridge,retraining walls, curb, gutter, sidewalk,and street lighting. Estimate of Funding - - - - -Type-of_Wor-k---------- (1) (2) (3) Estimated-T-otal —Estimated-Agency--Estimated— Project Funds Funds Federal Funds PE a.A enc 239,833.00 1 239,833 00 % b. Other 101,357.00 101,357.00 C.Other Federal Aid Participation d. State 1,000.00 1,000.00 Ratio for PE e.Total PE Cost Estimate a+b+c+d 342,190.00 342,190.00 Right of Way f.Agency . Other h. Other Federal Aid i.State Participation Ratio for RW j.Total RAW Cost Estimate f+ +h+i Construction k. Contract I.Other in.Other n. Other o.Agency Federal Aid . State Participation Ratio for CN q.Total CN Cost Estimate k+l+m+n+o+ r.Total Project Cost Estimate(e+j+q) 342,190.00 342,190.00 Agency Official Washington State ep rtment of Tran portation ' By By i Title Public Works Director Assistant Secretary for Highways and Local Programs Date Executed a7 DOT Form 140-039 EF l Revised 01/2004 Construction Method of Financing (Check Method Selected) 11 Stdte Ad and Award ❑Method A-Advance Payment-Agency Share of total construction cost(based on contract award) ❑Method B-Withhold from gas tax the Agency's share of total construction cost(line 4,column 2)in the amount of $ at$ _ per month for months. Local Force or Local Ad and Award ®Method C-Agency cost incurred with partial reimbursement The Local Agency further stipulates that pursuant to said Title 23,regulations and policies and procedures,and as a condition to payment of the federal funds obligated,it accepts and will comply with the applicable provisions set forth below.Adopted by official action on Resolution/Ordinance No. Provisions I. Scope of Work 1.Preliminary engineering The Agency shall provide all the work,labor,materials,and services necessary 2.Right of way acquisition. to perfonn the project which is described and set forth in detail in the"Project 3.Proje,:rt construction. Description"and"Type of Work. In theevent that right of way acquisition,or actual construction of the road, When the State acts for and on behalf of the Agency, the State shall be deemed an agent of the Agency and shall perform the services described and for tomb fiscalprelim nary following is undertaken is not staged by the closing of the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the agreement is indicated in"Type of Work"on the face of this agreement,in accordance with executed,the Agency will repay to the State the sum or sums of federal funds plans and specifications as proposed by the Agency and approved by the State paid to the Agency under the terms of this agreement(see Section IX) and the Federal Highway Administration. When the State acts for the Agency but is not subject to the right of control by The Agency agrees that all stages of construction necessary to provide the the Agency, the State shall have the right to perform the work subject to the initially planned complete facility within the limits of this project will conform ordinary procedures of the State and Federal Highway Administration. to at least the minimum values set by approved statewide design standards !I. Delegation of Authority applicable to this class of highways, even though such additional work is 9 y financed without federal aid participation The State is wilting to 1 ulfiTtt-ie response i items to the l erleial Agency-agr�s thst Uri d .mil-�,d highway censirucbon_prcyects the administration of this project The Agency agrees that the State shall have the current federal aid regulations which apply to liquidated damages relative to the full authority to carry out this administration The State shall review,process, basis of federal participation in the project cost shall be applicable in the event and approve documents required for federal aid reimbursement in accordance the contractor fails to complete the contract within the contract time with federal requirements. If the State advertises and awards the contract, the State will further act for the Agency in all matters concerning the project as VI. Payment and Partial Reimbursement requested by the Agency If the Local Agency advertises and awards the project the State shall review the work to ensure conformity with the approved plans and The total cost of the project, including all review and engineering costs and specifications other expenses of the State, is to be paid by the Agency and by the Federal Government Federal funding shall be in accordance with the Transportation III. Project Administration Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), as amended, and Office of Certain types of work and services shall be provided by the State on this Management and Budget circulars A-102,A-87 and A-133_The State shall not project as requested by the Agency and described in the Type of Work above.In be ultimately responsible for any of the costs of the project The Agency shall be addition, the State will famish qualified personnel for the supervision and ultimately responsible for all costs associated with the project which are not inspection of the work in progress.On Local Agency advertised and awarded reimbursed by the Federal Government Nothing in this agreement shall be projects,the supervision and inspection shall be limited to ensuring all work is in construed as a promise by the State as to the amount or nature of federal conformance with approved plans,specifications,and federal aid requirements. participation in this project. The salary of such engineer or other supervisor and all other salaries and costs The; Agency shall bill the state for federal aid project costs incurred in incurred by State forces upon the project will be considered a cost thereof.All conformity with applicable federal and state laws The agency shall minimize costs related to this project incurred by employees of the State in the customary the time elapsed between receipt of federal aid funds and subsequent payment of manner on highway payrolls and vouchers shall be charged as costs of the intoned costs Expenditures by the Local Agency for maintenance, general project administration,supervision,and other overhead shall not be eligible for federal IV. Availability of Records participation unless an indirect cost plan has been approved by WSDOT. All project records in support of all costs incurred and actual expenditures kept The State will pay for State incurred costs on the project Following payment by the Agency are to be maintained in accordance with local government the State shall bill the Federal Government for reimbursement of those costs accounting procedures prescribed by the Washington State Auditor's Office,the eligible for federal participation to the extent that such costs are attributable and U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Washington State Department of properly allocable to this project.The State shall bill the Agency for that portion Transportation.The records shall be open to inspection by the State and Federal of State costs which were not reimbursed by the Federal Government (see Government at all reasonable times and shall be retained and made available for Section IX) such inspection for a period of not less than three years from the final payment of 1. Project Construction Costs any federal aid funds to the Agency Copies of said records shall be furnished to the State and/or Federal Government upon request Project construction financing will be accomplished by one of the three methods as indicated in this agreement V. Compliance with Provisions The Agency shall not incur any federal aid participation costs on any classification of work on this project until authorized in wnting by the State for each classification.Time classifications of work for projects are. DOT Form 14M39 EF 2 Revised 0112004 Method A— The Agency will place with the State,within(20)days after the X. Traffic Control, Signing,Marking,and Roadway 12 execution of the construction contract,an advance in the amount of the Agency's Maintenance stare of the total construction cost based on the contract award The State will notify the Agency of the exact amount to be deposited with the Stale.The State The Agency will not permit any changes to be made in the provisions for will pay all costs incurred under the contract upon presentation of progress parking regulations and traffic control on this project without prior approval of billings from the contractor Following such payments, the State will submit a the State and Federal Highway Administration. The Agency will not install or billing to the Federal Government for the federal aid participation share of the permit to be installed any signs,signals,or markings not in conformance with cost. When the project is substantially completed and final actual costs of the the standards approved by the Federal Highway Administration and MUTCD Project can be determined,the State will present the Agency with a final billing The Agency will,at its own expense,maintain the Improvement covered by this showing the amount due the State or the amount due the Agency.This billing agreement_ will be cleared by either a payment from the Agency to the State or by a refund from the State to the Agency. XI. Indemnity The Agency shall bold the Federal Government and the State harmless from Method B— The Agency's share of the total construction cost as shown on and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands,or suits, the face of this agreement shall be withheld from its monthly fuel tax allotments whether at law or equity brought against the Agency, State, or Federal The face of this agreement establishes the months in which the withholding shall Government, arising from the Agency's execution, performance, or failure to take place and the exact amount to be withheld each month_ The extent of perforrm any of the provisions of this agreement,or of any other agreement or withholding will be confirmed by letter from the State at the time of contract contract connected with this agreement,or arising by reason of the participation award. Upon receipt of progress billings from the contractor, the State will of the state or Federal Government in the project,PROVIDED,nothing herein submit such billings to the Federal Government for payment of its participating shall require the Agency to reimburse the State or the Federal Government for portion of such billings damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the Federal Government or the State Method C— The Agency may submit vouchers to the State in the format , presenbed by the State, in duplicate,not more than once per month for those XII. Nondiscrimination Provision costs eligible for Federal participation to the extent that such costs are directly No liability shall attach to the State or Federal Government except as attributable and properly allocable to this project Expenditures by the Local Agency for maintenance,general administration,supervision,and other overhead expressly provided herein shall not be eligible for Federal participation unless claimed under a previously The Agency shall not discriminate on the basis of race,color,national origin, approved indirect cost plan. or sex in the award and performance of any USDOT-assisted contract and/or agreement or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of The State shall reimburse the Agency for the Federal share of eligible project 49 CFR Part 26 The Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under costs up to The amount shown on the face of this agreement.At the time of audit, 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondisenmination in the award and administration of the Agency will provide documentation of all costs incurred on the project USDOT-assisted contracts and agreements. The WSDOT's DBE program,as required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by USDOT, is incorporated by The State shall bill the Agency for all costs incurred by the State relative to the reference- in this-agreement-_--Implementation of-this program_is_a legal_____ project The State shall also bill the Agency for the federal funds paid by the obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this er i r ii, po_Denc� f�.nrt2jrst costs which a,r ubseouently_determmcd_lobe, o,.pp,.Qan t- "iincxi=DotiLicadon..to-the Agency of,its.fatlure.to carry_._�out„13.s ineligible for federal participation(see Section IX) approved program,the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under VIL Audit of Federal Consultant Contracts Part 26 and may,in appropriate cases,refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S C_1001 andfor the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986(31 U.S.C. The Agency, if services of a consultant are required,shall be responsible for 3801 et seq) audit of the consultant's records to determine eligible federal aid costs on the The Agency hereby agrees that it will incorporate or cause to be incorporated project. The report of said audit shall be in the Agency's files and made available to the State and the Federal Government into any contract for construction work,or modification thereof, as defined in the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor in 41 CFR Chapter 60,which An audit shall be conducted by the WSDOT Internal Audit Office in is paid for in whole or in part with funds obtained from the Federal Government accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing standards as issued by or borrowed on the credit of the Federal Government pursuant to a grant, the United States General Accounting Office by the Comptroller General of the contract,loan,insurance,or guarantee or understanding pursuant to any federal United States; WSDOT Manual M 27-50,Consultant Authorization, Selection, program involving such grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, the and Agreement Administration,memoranda of understanding between WSDOT required contract provisions for Federal-Aid Contracts(FHWA 1273),located in and FHWA,and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. Chapter 44 of the Local Agency Guidelines If upon audit it is found that overpayment or participation of federal money in The Agency further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal ineligible items of cost has occurred,the Agency shall reimburse the State for the opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it amount of such overpayment or excess participation(see Section IX) participates in federally assisted construction work- Provided, that if the applicant so participating is a State or Local Government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality, or VIII. Single Audit Act subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under The Agency, as a subrecipient of federal funds, shall adhere to the federal the contract Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 as well as all The Agency also agrees: applicable federal and state statutes and regulations A subrecipient who (1) To assist and cooperate actively with the State in obtaining the expends $500,000 or more in federal awards from all sources during a given compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause fiscal year shall have a single or program-specific audit performed for that year and rules,regulations,and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. Upon conclusion of the A-133 audit,the Agency shall be responsible for ensuring that a copy of the (2) To furnish the State such information as it may require for the report is transmitted promptly to the State, supervision of such compliance and that it will otherwise assist the State in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance. IX. Payment of Billing (3) To refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification The Agency agrees that if payment or arrangement for payment of any of the subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965,with a contractor State's billing relative to the project(e.g.,State force work,project cancellation, debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, government overpayment, cost ineligible for federal participation, etc.) is not made to the contracts and federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive State within 45 days after the Agency has been billed, the State shall effect Order. reimbursement of the total sum due from the regular monthly fuel tax allotments (4) To carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal to the Agency from the Motor Vehicle Fund. No additional Federal project by funding will be approved until full payment is received unless otherwise directed the State, clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors tit the Assistant Secretary for Highways and Local Programs. the State,Federal Highway Exec Administration,trde or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to fart II,subpart D of the Executive Order DOT Form 140-039 EF Revised 01/2004 3 1 In addition,the Agency,agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these XV. Venue for Claims and/or Causes of Action 13 un Aertakmgs,the State may take any or all of the following actions. For the convenience of the parties to this contract,it is agreed that any claims (a) Cancel,terminate,or suspend this agreement in whole or in part, andior causes of action which the Local Agency has against the State of Washington, growing out of this contract or the project with which it is ( Refrain from extending any further assistance to the Agency under the concerned,shall be brought only in the Superior Court for Thurston County program with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from the Agency;and XVI,. Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying (c) Refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal Inc approving authority certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and proceedings. belief,that-. X111. Liquidated Damages (1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to The Agency hereby agrees that the liquidated damages provisions of 23 CFR influence an officer or employee of any federal agency,a member of Congress, ?art 635, Subpart 127, as supplen--nted, relative to the amount of Federal an officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a member of Congress in participation in the project cost,shall be applicable in the event the contractor connection with the awarding of any federal contract,the making of any federal fails to complete the contract within the contract time Failure to include grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative liquidated damages provision will not relieve the Agency from reduction of agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or federal participation in accordance with this paragraph. modification ofany federal contract,grant,loan,or cooperative agreement XIV. Termination for Public Convenience (2) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will The Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation may be aaid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or temlinate the contract in whole,or from time to time in part,whenever* employee of any federal agency,a member of Congress,an officer or employee (1) The requisite federal funding becomes unavailable through failure of of Congress,or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this appropriation or otherwise federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement' the undersigned shall complete and submit the Standard Form - LLI., "Disclosure Form to Report (2) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work as a direct Lobbying,"in accordance with its instructions. result of an Executive Order of the President with respect to the prosecution of war or in the interest of national defense,or an Executive Order of the President (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be or Governor of the State with respect to the preservation of energy resources included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans, and (3) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work by reason of a cooperative agreements)which exceed$100,000,and that all such subrecipients prelrmrnary, special, or permanent restraining order of a court of competent shalt certify and disclose accordingly. jurisdiction where the issuance of such order is primarily caused by the acts or This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was omrssion.�of-persons-or oencies-otherthan-the-contractor - -- -placed-when-this--transaction was4=de-0r�--entered-into- Submisston_of-this_ certification as a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction = -{ --ThrLSecraLarjL ir-�that suQ te{minaiwn_is in_the-best_mterests QL�._ m,-,oscdbq_r on=I z 2--- t1 _=_---- the State. required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than$100,0100 for each such failure Additional Provisions DOT Form 140-039 EF 4 Revised 0112004 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 360, STH PLACE SANITARY SEWERS - RESOLUTION SETTING PC RING 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, adopt Resolution No. , which sets March 4, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. as the hearing date and time for confirmation of assessment roll for LID 360, and directs the City Clerk to provide notice of the hearing as provided by law. 3. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Memo to Public Works Committee dated 12/20/07; Project Summary; and Vicinity map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Yes Revenue? Yes (funded entirely by LID funds) 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. 6K 15 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director • Phone: 253-856-5500 KE N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: December 20, 2007 To: Chair, Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members Public Works Committee Meeting Date: January 22, 2008 From: Mark Howlett, Design Engineering Manager Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director L.4�6 0 Subject: LID 360: SE 227th Place Sanitary ]Sewer Project Motion: Move to recommend the City Council set a public hearing date on the confirmation of the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District (LID) 360. rBackground/Summary: The City of Kent received a petition for the installation of sanitary sewers on 2271h Place SE east of 1161h Ave SE in the residential plat of Sunny Hill (platted in 1962). See the attached project location maps. The septic systems in this plat were nearing or had exceeded their life expectancy. Subsequently, all property owners within the project area were contacted and there was adequate support to proceed with the L.I.D. formation. The project area is outside the Kent City limits but is within Kent's sewer service area and the City's Potential Annexation Area. Resolution of Intent #1716 was passed by City Council on March 7, 2006 which set the L.I.D. formation hearing for April 4, 2006. Only one property owner protested the L.I.D. formation and various others spoke in favor. The City Council passed Ordinance No. 3793 on April 4, 2006 forming the L.I.D. and ordering the construction of the sewer system. The construction has been completed and accepted by City Council on October 10, 2007. We are now ready to finalize the L.I.D. The final assessment per property is $25,168.86. For additional information and details about this project and L.I.D., see Attachment A. Exhibits: Attachment "A" and Area Map U:\PWCommittee\ActionPage/2008/01 22 08 LID 360 SE 227 Place San Swr Proj doc RESOLUTION NO. SA RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, fixing a time and place for hearing on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 360, and directing that notice thereof be given in the manner required by law. RECITALS A. The final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. _ 360, which was created and established by Ordinance No. 3793 passed by the City Council on April 4, 2006, has been prepared as provided by law _ and is on file with the City Clerk. It is therefore necessary to fix the date for a hearing thereon before the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1. - Hearing Date and Time. The public hearing on the final Iassessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 360 will be held before the City Council at 7:00 p.m., local time, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, located at 220 - 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington on March 4, 2008. 1 LID 360 - Set Public Hearing on Final Assessment Roll f SECTION 2. - Hearing Notice. The City Clerk is instructed to cause notice to be given both by mailing and publication as required by law. SECTION 3. - 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 February, 2008. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of February, 2008. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Special Counsel and Bond Counsel 2 LID 360 - Set Public Hearing on Final Assessment Roll r CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Kent, Washington (the "City"), hereby certify as follows: 1 1. The attached copy of Resolution No. (the "Resolution") is a full, true, and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on February 5, 2008, as that Resolution appears on the minute book of the City; and the Resolution will be in full force and effect immediately following its adoption; and 2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of those members present voted in the proper manner for the adoption of the Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day 1 of February, 2008. - CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON r 1 Brenda Jacober, City Clerk r I_ 3 LID 360 - Set Public Hearing on Final Assessment Roll 1 r ATTACHMENT "A" 16 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS The project constructed an 8" sanitary sewer system with 6" side sewer stubs to the right of way line for each of the 12 properties included in the L.I.D. boundary. The sewer is located on SE 2271h PI from approximately 95 feet west to approximately 531 feet east of 116th Ave SE. 1 NEED AND BENEFIT The project area is an older residential area developed with septic systems. All twelve lots have homes. Due to the age of the septic systems (40 years old estimated) and the potential for problems, the petitioners wanted to upgrade now to sanitary sewer rather than waiting for problems to develop. Usually it is difficult to repair septic problems, especially on small single family lots such as these with limited space (11,340 sq. ft.). Using current Health Department criteria for septic systems approximately '/z acre (21,780 sq. ft.) is the minimum amount of space required assuming good soils. Sanitary sewers are usually the only feasible, economical and long term method for addressing these potential problems, especially when numerous property owners in a neighborhood support sewer installation as was the case with this proposal. The Department of Public health has told us that the life expectancy of a septic system is twenty to thirty years depending on use and maintenance and that they are a short term disposal method until public sewers become available. These homes were built in the mid 1960's, therefore the project area exceeded this time frame. These systems were at or are near the end of their useful life. The cost of septic repairs could be as high as converting to public sewers. The latest state codes make septic repairs more difficult and expensive. The soil type within the project area is rated poor for septic system use. According to the Soil Conservation Service (US Dept. of Agriculture) soil survey for King County, the soil type as mapped is rated "severe limitation" (worst case) for septic drain fields. The soil series is designated as AgC (Alderwood gravelly sandy loam). This soil exhibits very low permeability below a depth of 24-40 inches and has a seasonal high water table less than 4 foot depth. Effluent and drainage move laterally over the shallow imperious layers. Effluent may come to the surface. 1 In addition to the need for sewers in this area to replace the old septic systems, there were environmental concerns. Septic systems are a threat to water quality, fish and wildlife and public health within the drainage basin (Garrison Creek) for this area. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, septic systems are used in approximately 25 percent of U.S, homes. An estimated 10-20 percent of those systems malfunction each year causing pollution problems and public health threats. A Washington State Department of Ecology publication states that a major source of water pollution all I across Washington State is malfunctioning on-site septic tank systems. Approximately 25 percent of Washington's population is currently served by on-site septic systems. It is estimate that up to 15 percent of those systems are inadequately treating sewage that is being discharged to surface and ground water in our watersheds. King County Department of Natural Resources lists septic systems as a major local threat to ' groundwater. According to the Storm Water Center, improperly functioning septic systems are recognized as a significant contributor of pollutants especially nitrogen and microbiological pathogens. Septic systems can have numerous impacts on the quality of ground and surface water supplies. Improperly located or failing systems can discharge inadequately treated sewage which may pond on the ground and runoff into surface waters, and inappropriate vertical distances from groundwater can result in contamination P 1Puhb.-14,h nSuplReUrIPHCorrun(1e 1A,tr ,Pag,dx of water supply wells. The wastewater and sewage that may be discharged from failing on siteisystems will contain bacteria, and viruses that present problems for the health of both humans and aquatic organisms. In addition, excess nitrogen and phosphorus can cause algal blooms that reduce the level of available oxygen in the water and prevent sunlight from reaching desirable submerged aquatic vegetation. PROJECT FUNDING This project is funded 100% by L.I.D. funds. The total final project cost is estimated at $302,026.32. There are 12 parcels in the L.I.D. so the assessment per parcel is $25,168.86. There are no City owned properties within the L.I.D. boundary. All lots within the L.I.D. are single-family residential lots. These parcels can't sub-divide, are essentially the same size, and are limited to one residence. Each of these parcels are benefited equally with one residential side sewer connection. Therefore, each property receives an equal assessment. FINAL ASSESSMENTS Following the construction of the project and determination of actual total project costs, a final assessment is calculated and a final assessment hearing is held. The final assessment may be more or less than the preliminary assessment determined at the L.I.D. formation stage provided that the assessment does not exceed the special benefit to the property. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT After a 30-day prepayment period during which time a portion or all of the assessment can be paid without interest, L.I.D. bonds are sold for the balance of uncollected funds. The remainder of the assessment balance is paid over a ten or fifteen year period. The first yearly payment is due one year from that time. The property owner will receive a billing notice from the City each year. ANNEXATION COVENANT These properties were not required to annex to the City prior to the L.I.D. formation. However, each person applying for a side sewer permit to connect to the sewer is required to execute an "Annexation No Protest Covenant". Having done so provides that in the case of an annexation attempt, the property will be counted as a "yes" vote and once enough covenants have been signed, an annexation could proceed. MANDATORY SEWER CONNECTION The City Code states that all residences, whether within or outside the City limits, located within 200 feet of a City of Kent sanitary sewer shall be required to connect to the sewer and shall be billed for the service. The Code provides that compliance with this provision be within 90 days after the date of official notice to do so. In the case of a public health or safety hazard compliance shall be within 20 days of official notification. Following construction of the project, the City will send each property owner an official notice that the sanitary sewer service is available to the parcel. Following the compliance period, all properties, which have not yet applied for a side sewer permit, will automatically be added to the sewer-billing list. In the case of L.I.D. 360, this notification was given by letter dated April 9, 2007, therefore the 90 day period has expired. Either a contractor or the property owner can make the side sewer installation from the right of way line or easement line to the house. Prior to starting construction, the owner or his agent must obtain a side sewer permit and execute an agreement/covenant to annex. At the time of hook up, the property owner will be required to pump their septic tank and backfill it with material such as gravel or crushed rock. P IPuhlslAdmmSuplUe!/APN'Caumacel,-IrronPage Aor 18 L.I.D. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE The state offers a program that allows qualifying persons to defer payment of L.I.D. assessments (special assessments). The process is essentially the same as the deferral of property taxes and the same application form is used. Some of the factors used to determined if the applicant qualifies include age, income and if retired and or disabled. The applicant must also be the owner and occupant of the residence. Application for the deferral is made through King County. P 1P+rLLc4ldnunS+rplBrdrlt'7VConurrrncelArlronPogc drN 19--G. _ S.E. 208TH ST c , - F'4- —� f zJ tD UUU fn � r S.E. ��c JLVJI_ 227TH L PRO CT LOCATION - Ui to Au W SIE. 240TH S r' 1 CITY OF KENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 400 W. GOWE 5T KENT, WA. 98032 LID 360 VICINITY MAP S.E. 227TH PLACE SANITARY SEWER (116TH AVE. S.E. TO 535 FT. EAST) OCTOBER, 2007 KENT SE E SOOS CREEK 20 SERVICE A E WATER AND Cf) BOUND_ R SEWER DISTRICT SEWER SERVICE w w BOUNDARY � w w L.I.D. �J 9 BOUNDARY 11604 11612 11622 11630 .11636 11644 S.E.-227TH PL - EXISTING 1105 11611 11623 1Q169 27 11635 11674 5 SANITARY SEWER LL NEW 8" l I" SANITARY SEWER r I LEGEND OASSESSMENT NUMBER LID PARCEL -� --- SAN ITARY SEWER • MANHOLE CITY OF KENT _ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 400 W. GOWE 5T KENT, WA. 98032 LID 360 BOUNDARY MAP `✓ 1�E-T S.E. 227TH PLACE SANITARY SEWER (116TH AVE. S.E. TO 535 FT. EAST) OCTOBER, 2007 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: OLYMPIC ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANT CONTRACT - AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Consultant Contract Agreement with Olympic Environmental Resources for Waste Reduction and Recycling Activities and Programs for 2008, in the amount of $63,400.00, upon concurrence of the language by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. r 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum and consultant 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. 6L 21 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director • Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH IN G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 9, 2008 To: Chair, Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members Public Works Committee Meeting Date: January 22, 2008 From: Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director LM Ot-- f&-0 31 Subject: Consultant Contract Agreement — Olympic Environmental Resources Motion: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Olympic Environmental Resources Contract Agreement for Waste Reduction and Recycling Activities and Programs for 2008 in the amount of $63,400, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Background/Summary: Olympic Environmental Resources organizes, implements and provides management over the City of Kent's Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs for 2008, including Special Recycling and Collection events, Business and Multi-family recycling programs, compost bin sales and outreach and educations. The consultant contract agreement is funded entirely through the following grants: Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant, Seattle-King County Health Department Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant, and King County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant. The consultant contract agreement for Olympic Environmental Resources in the amount of $63,400 is for implementing special programs, education and outreach for the City's waste reduction and recycling program, benefiting the citizens and businesses of Kent. Exhibits: Consultant Services Agreement i 1 ' UIPHCnrrnnrllnclActronPrtpe,J003101 oo Od101ymprcErrrmnmtenln7 Heernvices dnr ' 4^ 22 • KENT K�� i1 N lTO N CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT between the City of Dent and Olympic Environmental Resources (OER) THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington ntnnicipal coiporatiou (hereinafter the "City"), and Olympic Environmental Resources (OER) organized under the laws of the State of NVashuigton, located and doing business at 4715 SW Walker Street, Seattle, WA 98116, Phone: (106) 935- 9262aFax: (206)935-9973,Contact: Paul Devine(hereinafter the "Consultant"). I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK Consultant shall perform the following services For the City_ in accordance with the following described plans andfor specifications: f The Consultant shall oc(-Yanize t,�vo (Spring and Tall) citywide collection and recycling events, 1 promote business and residential recycling, organize a Spring compost bill sale, and provide grant administration. Fora detailed description, see the Scope of Work which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time those services arc perfaal�ed_ II. TINfE OF COMPLETION. The parties agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Section I above immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement_ Upon the effective date of this Agreement, Consultant shall complete the work described in Section.I by December 31, 2008. III. COMPENSATION. A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based oil lime and materials, an amount not to exceed Sixty Three Thousand, Four Hundred Dollars ($63,400.00) for the services described in this 1 Agreement. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement for the work described in Section I above, and shall riot be exceeded without the prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed amendment to this agreement_ The Consultant agrees that the hourly or flat rate charged by it for its services contracted for herein shall remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) for a period of one (1) year Crom the effective date of this Agreement. The Consultant's Trilling rates shall be as delineated in Exhibit A. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City for work performed, and a final bill upon completion of all services described in this Agreement. The City shall provide CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT- 1 ((h•er Wo 000) 23 payment within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice. If the City objects to all or auy portion of an invoice, it shall notify the Consultant and reserves the option to only pay drat portion of the invoice not in dispute. In that event, the patties wilt iuunediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend tbal an Independent Contractor- Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreerrnent and that the Consultant has the ability to control and direct the performance and details of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. V. TERNTINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice at its address set forth on the signature block of this Agreement. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project, which may be used by the City without restriction. If the City's use of � Consultant's records or data is not related to this project, it shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any subcontract, the Consultant, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of the Consultant or subcontractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person wlio is qualified and available to perform the work to which the ernplopuent relates. Consultant shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply will] Cii_y Administrative Policy L`', and upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement. VII. INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall defend, indenuaify and hold the City, its officers, c�ffrcials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Consultant's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence_ The City's inspection or acceptance of art of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to � P p y avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is stihject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or ternrination of this Agreement. VITL INSURANCE. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of ttre Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit B attached and incorporated by this reference. CONSULTANT SERNUCES AGREEMENT-2 (Oren S10.000) 24 IX. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. The City will provide its best efforts to provide reasonable accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work- under this Agreement. X. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Original documents, draw in-s, designs, reports, or any other records developed or created under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City. All records submitted by the City to the Consultant will be safeguarded by the Consultant. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon the City's request. The city's use or reuse of any of the documents, data and tiles created by Consultant for this project by anyone other than Consultant on any other protect shall he without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. ZI. CITY'S RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Even though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's, general right of inspection to secure satisfactory completion. SII. WORK PERFORMED AT CONSULTANT'S RISK. Consultant shall take all necessary precautions and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the contract work and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. N1II. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A. price preference may be available for any designated recycled product. B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict perforritance of any of the covenants and agreements contained m this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by this Agreement III one or more instances shalt not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and constmed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' perfomiance of this Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the Tang County Superior Court, King County, Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties` performance ofthis Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs andattorney's fees incurred in defendin(� or bringing such claim or lawsuit, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing irn this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section VII of this Agreement. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-3 t0ver-.W 10 000) 25 D. Written Notice- All com municatious regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three(3)business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shalt be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written consent of the non-assigning party shall be void. If the non-assigning party gives its consent to any assignment,the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without additional written consent. F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless an writitng and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant- G. Entire A�,,reement. The written provisions and terinrs of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be contaived as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any nnanuer this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of' this Agreement. However, should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement,the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. H. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and rnrunicipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the Future become applicable to Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those operations. IN WITNESS, the parties below exectite this Agreement,wljiclt shall become effective on the last date entered below. — CONSULTANT:�''�.�;4�.{?,� �-' f4�t "-' t' � CITY OF DENT: By: 1' E u t By: -- _� (crgrrarru (siquanrra) Print Name: t 1{ Print Nan Suzette Cooke .its Its Mavor (Tul�t i (Talc) DAATE: DATE: CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-4 r(�i•er.61(1.(inn) 26 NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: CONSULTANT: CITY OF]GENT: Paul Devine Larry R.Blanchard Olympic Environmental Resources City of Kent 4715 SW Walker Street 220 Fourth Avenue South � Seattle, WA 98116 Kent, WA 95032 (206) 93S-9262 (telephone) (253) 856-5500(telephone) (206) 938-9873 (facsimile) (253) 556-6500(facsimile) APPROVED AS TO F0101: Bent Law Department OER-DOS RccycLn���atcll CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-5 i(hel SM000) 27 DECLARATION � CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work With relation to this Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal enrployraient opp()rtunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deers necessary for any contr4ictor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination, for all or part of the Agreenie►at; The questions are as follows: l. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2. 2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin,age,or the presence of all sensory,mental or pbysical disability. 3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating coninwineot as an equal opportunity employer. 4. During the time of the Agreement i, the prime contractor,will actively consider hiring and promotion,of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by nee, the Prime Contractor,that the Prime Contractor coniplied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. Dated this _7 day of � 200— , ' For: i L�/b ;,f, �- - �l Title: U Date: r ��• EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS- I 28 CITY OF DENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTTVE DATE: T a v 1, 1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDIIS: April 1, 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim While,Mayor POLICY: Equal employment opl)ortunit_y 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 oruauization and, if holding A-reements with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps: l_ Provide a written siatement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal Opportunity employer. 2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and womcn. Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement. Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public Forks Departments to ass►une the following duties for their respective departments. 1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity policy. 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws,policies and guidelines. EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS- 29 CITY OF IaNT EQUAL EMPLOY-RENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the ALu-eement. 1,the undersigned, a duly represented agent of ConrpanN, hereby acknowledae and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contractor for the Agreement Lmown-as dial was entered into on the__ (date) between the firm I represent and the City of Kent_ I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement. Dated this day of ,200_ By: For: Title: Date: EEO COMPLTANCE DOCUMENTS- EXHIBIT A 30 CITY OF KENT 2008 RECYCLING COLLECTION EVENTS,BUSINESS RECYCLING PROG10,A7, RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM AND GRANT ADMINISTRATION PROJECT CONTRACTOR Olympic Environmental Resources(OER) 4715 SW Walker Street Seattle,WA 98116 Phone: (206)938-8262 Fax: (206)938-9873 Email: pauldevine("a�msn.com 2008 SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET TASK 1: Recyclin,Collection Events OER will organize two(Spring and Fall) Citywide collection and recycling events in the City of Kent. A)Materials to be collected and recycled: • Appliances+ • Refrigerators and Freezers+ ' . Ferrous Metals Non-ferrous Metals • Scrap Wood* ' . Bulky Yard Debris* Concrete,Asphalt,Rock,and Brick** • Tires+ ' Lead Acid Batteries Household Batteries • Porcelain Toilets and Sinks+ ' - Propane Tanks+ • Cardboard • Reusable Household Goods • Textiles • Motor Oil • Motor Oil Filters ' Antifreeze • Petroleum Based Products • Paper Shredding** = Computer Equipment+ Electronic Equipment/Cel Phones+ • TV Sets+ +User fees apply *Collected in the spring ** Collected in the fall 2008 OER Scope of Wort 31 CiN of Kent December 10, 2007 B)The following educational materials will be distributed: ' 1)Information on City of Kent waste reduction and recycling programs. 2)Information from on Local Hazardous Waste Management Programs. Event Particitaants ' These events are intended for the residents of Kent but will be open to King County residents and will be coordinated with county sponsored events to avoid overlap of service. No flatbeds or large dump trucks allowed. OER reserves the right to refuse oversized, commercial, or contaminated loads. Event Promotion Event promotion will be accomplished in the following ways: A)Distribution of a promotional flyer through direct mailings. B)articles in the City newsletter publicizing events. C) Publicizing the events through the King County Solid Waste Division. D)Publicizing the events on the City's cable channel and web site. Proiect Evaluation t The following measures will be used to evaluate the completion and success of the events: ' A)The number of vehicles attending. B)The volume of each material collected. , C) Event cost by budget category. D)Comparison of 2008 volumes and vehicles with prior year's events. Timeline Tentative Event Dates—MarchlOctober, 2008 January/August 2008 t Event planning Work with City on finalizing event date , Schedule vendor services February/September 2008 Schedule vendor services Work with City on event flyer Arrange for the printing,sorting, and mailing of flyer Mareh/October 2008 Finalize planning Prepare site map 2 2008 OER Scope of JVork 32 City of Bent December 10,2007 Arrange event staff and volunteers Work with City on available City services Arrange event equipment Arrange event deliveries Hold event April/November 2008 Prepare project reports Assist City in reimbursement process TASK 2: Business Recycling Program OER will promote participation in waste reduction, recycling, and recycled product procurement programs and increase the knowledge of recycling allematives in the Kent commercial sector. Program Activities: 1) Kent Business Recycling Newsletter Prepare and coordinate distribution of a Kent Business Recycling Newsletter to all Kent Businesses. The newsletter will be sent to Dent businesses three times in 2008_ ' 2) Dent Business Collection Event OER will implement one Business Recycling Event in 2008. The event will be held on a summer Wednesday or Thursday at a central location in Kent(Russell Road Park). Materials to be collected: • Clean Scrap Wood/Pallets ' • Refrigerators and Freezers+ • Scrap Metal • Electronic Equipment • Computer monitors+ • Fluorescent Lights • Office Recyclables/Cardboard ' 0 Toner Cartridges • Cellular phones Plastics ' * Paper Shredding • Other materials if feasible +User fees apply The following educational materials will be distributed: Information on City Recycling Programs_ • Educational Materials produced by King County Department of Natural Resources and Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 3 2008 OER Scope of Jfork 33 City of Bent Deceitiber 10,2007 • Other educational materials as appropriate. Event promotional methods: ' • By distributing a promotional flyer through direct mailings. • By notices in City/community newsletters(and local newspapers(whenever possible). • By posting a notice at City Fall, on the City cable channel,and web site(if available). • By publicizing the event through the King County Solid Waste Division Promotional Activities. Event Participants This event is intended for the businesses in Kent. Some restrictions on the amount of material may apply. We reserve the right to refuse contaminated loads. Event Evaluation , • Number of vehicles attending • Volume of each material collected • Event cost by budget category • Graphic or tabular comparison of 2008 volumes and vehicles with prior year's events , 3)Dent Business Assistance To provide business recycling assistance to Kent businesses, OER staff will send a City Tool Kit to all ' new Kent businesses with an introduction letter and offer of on-site visit. OER will provide assistance to City businesses on an on-call basis. OER will track assistance to City businesses as required by King ' County. OER staff will promote the web site www.kentrecycles.com as a means to communicate with businesses and property managers regarding waste reduction and recycling. 4)Kent Business Recognition ' To provide Kent businesses with motivation to recycle,OER will implement the Kent Green Business of the Year Award. OER will work with the Kent Chamber of Commerce and past program information to seek out businesses that have put in place outstanding recycling programs and award up to four City businesses with awards. The purpose of the award/recognition program will be to acknowledge City businesses with strong commitments to waste reduction, recycling, using recycled , products and use their programs as examples for other Kent businesses to follow. 5) Business Web Site Assistance In 2008, OER will respond to inquires from City businesses from visits to the City's recycling website. In addition,the site will be updated with recycling information as necessary. 4 ' 2005 OER Scope of►Vork 34 City qf h:eut December 10,2007 TASK 3: Multifaruiiy Recycling Program OER will promote waste reduction, participation in multifamily residential collection progranis for recyclables, and the purchase of recycled products through the following program efforts with multifamily residents and property owners/managers: • Distribute multifamily educational brochures through direct mailings,special City events, and door-to-door delivery. Distribute multifamily signs for use at multifamily complexes for proper recycling of materials. • Providing on-site waste consultations and follow-up assistance. • Distribute multifamily recycling bags for use at multifamily complexes for proper recycling of materials. 0 Respond to inquires from City residents from visits to the City's recycling website. In addition,the site will be updated with recycling information as necessary. Project Goals and Obiectives ■ Promote multifamily participation to Rent recycling services. ■ Promote cost-effective handling of the multifamily waste stream. • Promote the purchase of recycled products to the multifamily sector. • Promote use of City Web site ' Project Evaluation OER will monitor the program by reporting the following: ■ The number of educational materials printedidistributed. ■ The number of signs distributed. ■ The number of on-site consultationsitechnical assistance provided. * The increase in the number of multifamily buildings participating in waste reduction, recycling, and recycled product procurement activities. TASK 4: Spring Compost Bin Sale OER will organize a Spring Compost Bin Sale in conjunction with the Kent Spring Recycling Collection Event. OER will make all arrangements and enter into subcontracts with a backyard ' compost distribution vendor. OER will implement one backyard compost bin sale accompanied by educational outreach/technical assistance on backyard composting. The sale will be advertised in the Kent Spring Recycling Collection Event flyer sent to all Kent households. At the event, OER will sell ' the compost bins for $15 each and bill the remaining cost to the City. Each compost bin will include the educational manual, "Home Composting Made Easy" on grasscycling and backyard composting. 5 2008 OER Scope of Work 35 City qfKent December 10,2007 TASK 5: Grant Administration ' OER will work with the City to provide grant administration and project reports for this Scope of ' Work. OER will: • Track project expenses. • Provide ongoing grant administration through the completion of the tasks,as outlined in this Scope of Work. • Prepare reports for the grant program. • Prepare final report. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 36 8 8 G o Op G o a o r, o � yY cpp vri� ✓> 4N^ y�j N h N Vi t`1 N H K K K Yi N H K H ✓� K N K N %1 Y yN, K 1 r.r � ' � G C C O ^V O O ^ G G G Q G O S O ^ 00 O C O ^ O F^ - � +A 'fi `� 4M15 H K N 4M1Ii K vi y K K h Vi N K ✓. � W O 2 c O` G co N O :{ v! yr ?f 'n rj G .�i_ a VT n .n ]per op nn ry v� v, S G 4 O y�j v1 Vi � K � K fA Vi V1 ry K � � y� � V~i Vi K K H H 'y� K K � iq M• K {n V' y� � � �4 of J� sF N V9 n 0.4' o —'• E r ° e cn E � c n m U R e -_ — v_ E c a � � E fi ryyi� M � Epaw w .c O ` cc ? esecG o o YL > 0 �'W O 37 EXHIBIT 13 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ' CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement,insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors,products-completed operations,personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall be endorsed to provide the Aggregate Per Project Endorsement ISO form CG 25 03 11 85. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the Commercial General Liabillty insurance for liability arising ti"om explosion, collapse or underground property damage.The City shall be nailed as an insured under the Contractor's Coninlereial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO additional insured endorsement CG 20 10 1 1 85 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits. L Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than S1,000,000 each occurrence, $1,000,000 general agoi-egate and a $1,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate limit. C. Other Lnsurance Provisions The insurance}policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain,the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance_ l. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance,or Insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty(30)days prior written notice by certified rail,return receipt requested,has been given to the City. 38 EXHIBIT B (Continued) 3. The Cite of Dent shall be named as an additional insured on all policies (except Professional Liability)as respects wort:perfona-vied by or on behalf of the contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against Avinom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the knits of the insurer's liability. D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. E. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the Cttv witin original certificates and a copy of the arnendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencin,the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be suhject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for the Contractor. i t MKent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: GEOMATRIX FEASIBILITY STUDY CONSULTANT CONTRACT - AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Consultant Contract Agreement with Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. for biologic assessment, geotechnical, hydraulic and soil analysis and studies, as required for the feasibility study for the Confluence of Mill Creek and Green River Restoration project, as required by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), in the amount of $99,940.00, upon concurrence of the language by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. i 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum and consultant 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. 6M 39 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director • Phone: 253-856-5500 KENT Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH IN G T 11 N ' Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 15, 2007 ' To: Chair, Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members Public Works Committee Meeting Date: January 22, 2008 1 From: Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director L-i?6 Subject: Consultant Services Agreement/Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. - Feasibility Study Motion: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Consultant Agreement with Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $99,940, and establish a ' budget for funds to be spent within the Mill Creek/Green River Restoration Project, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Background/Summary: The City of Kent received a grant from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) in the amount of $100,000 in March 2006. The grant agreement was accepted by Council and signed by the Mayor in April 2006 and the project budget established. The grant is to fund a feasibility study and 300/0 design for the creation of side channels and an overwintenng pond to increase access to floodplain habitat for Chinook salmon and other salmonids and to restore floodplain function on an 8.6 acre site owned by the City of Kent. The property is located at the confluence of Mill Creek Auburn and the Green River. The objective of the study is to determine feasibility of creating or reconnecting off- channel habitat. The consultant contract agreement for Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., in the amount of $99,940 is for biologic assessment, geotechnical, hydraulic and soil analysis/studies, as required for the feasibility study for the Confluence of Mill Creek and Green River Restoration project, as required by the SRFB grant agreement. Work is being funded mostly through the SRFB grant. Exhibits: Consultant Services Agreement ' U IPWConnurllcclAc7rouPagel_'00RI01 2?OBlC-1,a 4grrrruhFensrb1lrhShrdr doc 40 Recommendations: i k,ecommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the consultant contract agreement and establish a budget for funds to be spent within the Mill Creek Confluence/Green River Restoration Study Project. ' P IPub1:cL4rLnurSuplPff CommrfleelActronPnge doc 41 KENT WASHIN�r< N CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT between the City of Kent and Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. THIS AGRF,E,M> NT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and Geomatrix Consultants, tile. organized under the laws of the State of Washing(on, located and doing business at 3500 188th Street SW, Suite 600, Lynnwood, WA 98017-4763, Phone: (425) 921-4000/Fax: (425) 921-4040,Contact_ K. Michael McDowell (hereinafter the "Consultant"). T. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. Consultant shall perform the following services for the City in accordance with the following described plans and/or specifications- FThe Consultant shall provide services for the Confluence of Mill Creels and Green River Restoration Project_ The restoration .will take place at S_ 262nd Street, east of West Valley Highway and adjacent to State Route 167_ For a detailed description, see the Scope of Work which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time those services are performed. It. TIME OF CO1bIPLETION. The parties agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Section l above immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement. Upon the effi:ctive date of this Agn-eement,Consultant shall complete the work described in Section T by December 31, 2008_ IlI. COMPENSATION. A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed Ninety Nine Thousand. Nine Hundred Forty Dollars ($99,940.00) for this services described in this Agree►neat. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement for the work- described in Section I above, and shall not be exceeded without the prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed amendment to this agreement. The Consultant agrees that the hourly or flat rate charged by it for its services contracted for herein shall remain locked at the nec-otiated rate(s) for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this Agreement. The Consultant's billing rates shall be as delineated in Exhibit B. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City for work perfornied, and a final bill upon completion of all services described in this Agreement. The City shall provide ` CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT- t (Orel S10.000) 42 payment within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice. If the City objects to all or any portion of an invoice, it shall notify the Consultant and reserves the option to only hay that portion of the invoice not in dispute. In that event, the parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that a 1 at n Independent Contractor- Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement and that the Consultant has the ability to control and direct the performance and details of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this L A greenpent_ V. TERMINAT>ION. Either party may terminate dtis Agreement, with or without cause, upon providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice at its address set forth on the signature block of this Agreement After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data Nvitltin the Connsultant"s possession pertaining to this }project, which may be used by the City without restriction. If the City's use of Consultant's records or data is not related to this project, it shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of Nvork under this Agreement or any subcontract, the Consultant, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of the Consultant or subcontractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, nattornal orrgin, or the presence of any sensory, nnental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. Consultant shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Connpliance Statement_ VIL INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, dannages, losses or stilts, including ail legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Consultant's per[omnarrce of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification_ Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the Concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. V111_ INSURANCE_ The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit C attached and incorporated by this reference_ CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-2 Inver 51(1_000) 43 1 IN. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. The Cityi wall provide ovrde its best efforts to provide reasonable accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work- under this Agreement. Z. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Original documents, drawings, designs, reports, or any other records developed or created under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City. All records submitted by the City 10 the Consultant will be safeguarded by the Cornsultaul. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon the City's request. The city's use or reuse of any of the documents, data and files created by Consultant for this project by anyone other than Consultant on any other project small be without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. Xt. CITY'S RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Even though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work authorized lender this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's, general right of inspection,to secure satisfactory completion. XII. WORK PERFORMED AT CONSULTANT'S RISK. Consultant shall take all necessary precautions and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in, the performance mane of the contract work and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in,confection with the work. XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Recvclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.R0 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable_ A price preference. ' may be available for any designated recycled product. B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and file same shall be and remain in firll force and effect. C. Resolution of Disputes and Governum Law. This Agreement shalt be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington_ if the parties are urtable to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, the exclusive means of resolvilig that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court, King County, Rrashington, unless the parties agree in writino, to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' per f>rnnance of this A-rcentent, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorne_y's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law-; provide(, however, nothing un this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section VII of this Agreement_ CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-3 t0ver S/0 000) 44 , D. Witten Notice. All comtnunicaltons regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed ou the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three(3)business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified nail, and shall be deemed sufCcientty given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as nnay be hereafter specified in writing. E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written consent of the non-assigning party shall be void. if the non-assigning party gives its consent to aroy assi i rrent, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in fitlt force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without additional written consent. F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant. G. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as enlering into or forming a part of or alterimly in any manner this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a hart of this Ageement_ However, should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement,the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. H. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and municipal Jaws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Consultant's lousiness, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those operations. IN WITNESS,the parties below execute this Agreement,which shall become effective on the last date entered below. CONSULT.INT: CITY OF DENT: By: By: — (vganlrrre) (_ciLrtoliit e) Print Name: Print Name: Suzette Cooke Its Its Mayor (Title) (7ilfe) DATE: DATE: i 1 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-4 45 r NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: CONSULTANT: CITY OF KENT: K. Michael McDowell Lamy R.Blanchard Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. City of Kent 3500 188th Street S«, Suite 600 220 Fourth Avenue South Lyianwood, WA 98037-4763 Kent, 'AA 98032 (425) 921-4000 (telephone) (253) 856-5500(telephone) (425) 921-4040 (Lacsimile) (253) 856-6500(facsimile) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kent Law Department 1 Gconwuia-Mil(Ok k GR ft�stoiatinnlfiaiielt 1 1 1 r 1 1 r r 1 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT-5 to)el-;ti 10(700) r 46 DEC>LARAT tC►N r CITY OF TENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity- As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this Agreement shall comply witli the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. Ail affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement.- The questions are as follows: 1. 1 have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2. 2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex,race, color, national origin,age, or the presence of all sensory,mental or physical disability- 3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. d. During the time of the Agreement I,the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime ' Contractor, that the Prune 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 .200 . Bv: ' For: _ Title: _ Date: r EEO COMPLrANCE DOCUMENTS- t r 47 CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: Januanr 1, 1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jirn White, Mayor POLICY: Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conronn to federal and state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City amounting to $10,000 or r-nore within any given year. must take the following affirmative steps: I Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating cornmaineut as an equal oppottunity employer_ 2_ Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women. Anv contractor_ subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's nondiscrunination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement. Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning. Parks, and Public WOJ_ks Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments. 1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity policy. 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws,policies and guidelines. EE0 COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS-2 48 CITY OF KE NT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out +'o AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Conh•actor awarded the Agreement. I,the undersigned,a duly represented agent of Company, hereby ackziowled-e and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contractor for the Agreement known as _ that was entered into on the Wate) between the fura I represent and the City of Kent. I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement. Dated this dayo f 200� t s By: For: Title: Date: EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS-3 49 ' EXHIBIT A Ge©matrix January 2,2008 Project No. 01381 LPRO Mr.Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department 400 West Gowe Kent,Washington 98032 Subject: Scope of Work and Cost Estimate Confluence of Mill Creek and Green River Restoration Project ' Kent, Washington Dear Mike: On behalf of Geomatrix Consultants,Inc.(Geomatrix),I am pleased to provide our proposed Scope of Work and Cost Estimate for consultant services for the Confluence of Mill Creek and Green River Restoration Project. This Scope of Work and Cost Estimate have been prepared to address the objectives outlined in the City of Kent's letter and"Request for Scope of Work and Budget"(Request),dated September 20,2007. The restoration will take place at S 262nd Street, east of West Valley Highway and adjacent to State Route(SR) 167,on parcel numbers 2522049023 and 0200000127, The objectives of this project are to create side charnels and an ' overwintering pond to increase access to floodplain habitat for Chinook and other salmorrids and to restore floodplain fimctions. Geomatrix also brings extensive expertise and can offer services for future phases of restoration if desired,including removal of invasive plants,native riparian revegetation, and installation of woody debris structures. SCOPE OF WORK In this section we describe our approach to accomplish the Scope of Work outlined in the City's request,along with a cost estimate for each task. A more detailed project budget is attached. The project will consist of five main tasks: • Task 1 —Soil Assessment: Soil Chemistry, Slope Stability,and Site Soil Conditions • Task 2—Hydraulic Study • Task 3—Hydraulic and Geoteehnical Analysis • Task 4—Biological Analysis • Task 5—30%Design of Project Proposal ' Task 1 Soil Assessment Task 1 will involve field and laboratory studies to assess the chemical and physical properties of site soils and evaluation of how these properties will affect the feasibility and design of the ' project. -Isco i8sth screer SW.surM 600 Tel 42S 421 4C00 L/w,w c4v✓A MG37-470 fz 425 921 4V40 ^ ' omatrix eem ' 50 Mr.Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 2 Task].] SoilChemr vtry In light of the historic presence of an orchard on site,Geomatrix will conduct soil chemistry analyses to detect the possible presence of insecticides or herbicides, including DDT. The results of this analysis will determine whether or not soil maybe reused on site. To evaluate the impacts from possible past uses of herbicides or pesticides in the proposed excavation area and the proposed mound area,we propose to employ a multi-incremental sampling approach. Multi-incremental sampling is an effective and economical approach to identify and characterize potential contaminants within a sample area. Multi-ineremental sampling minimizes the number of laboratory analyses,thereby reducing cost white effectively characterizing the sample area. This approach involves analysis of multi-mcretnental samples composed from at least 30 subsamples for each investigation area. A total of 30 subsamples will be collected from across the site. The 30 subsamples will be composited into a single multi- incremental sample for analysis. Aliquots of the individual subsamples will be retained to allow for further analyses should the multi-incremental sample identify the presence of herbicides or pesticides. The multi-incremental sampling approach was developed using statistical analysis to assess the representativeness of sampling. The number of samples required for the characterization of a surface is based on statistical analysis and is independent of the area of the surface. Because any potential pesticides would probably be concentrated within the surface soils,two subsamples will be collected at each location_ one from depth ranges of 0 to 1 foot and a second at a depth range of I to 20 feet(or up to the total depth of the excavation). The 30 subsamples from each depth interval will be composited into one sample with the other subsamples from the same depth interval,and the composited samples will be analyzed by Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. Samples will be prepared by grinding the entire composited sample to a medium sand size, followed by thorough mixing. An aliquot of the sample will be analyzed for the following analytes using the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)Method indicated: Chemical of Concern Analvsis Method Organochlorine Pesticides EPA Method 8081A Organophosphorus Pesticides EPA Method 8141 A Chlorinated Acid Herbicides EPA Method 8I51 A Organosulfur compounds EPA Method 8085 Dibronioethene(EDB),dichloroetbene(EDC) EPA Method 8260B Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA)five metals(As,Cd,Cr,Ph,Hg) Each of the composite samples will be analyzed for the full suite of pesticides and herbicides. Detected results will be compared to: • MTCA Method B cleanup levels for terrestrial ecological exposure,direct human contact, and protection of groundwater as surface water,or • Method A nonrestricted land-use cleanup levels,if Method B levels are not available. i�nukeein1ctinahives�2Mr?wiketmg a e xkuhmu�k-Wciraa�•'cwY of ken�la+ill creek xenarmoa�ni4 a row mi-d fi.W 0-2-08j d— = 51 - Mr. Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 3 Task 1.2 Sail aizd Slope Stability Geomatrix will assess soils and slope stability on both Mill Creek and the Green River to evaluate the effect of site soils on project design and/or feasibility. Prior to any digging, we will contact the 1-800 utility locale service,and we will conduct a private utility locate at the proposed boring locations. We propose to dig up to four test pits using a track hoe supplied and operated by the City of Kent. A similar approach to that used on the Riverview Park.property (north and across the Green River from the current study site)will be used for this study- Test pits may be up to 21 feet below the ground surface,which is based on the reach of the track hoe arm- Soil samples will be collected every S feet from the soil test pits to determine the subsurface lithology and for physical testing to determine their engineering properties. All test pit samples will be performed in accordance with applicable State of Washington and American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM)guidelines for geotechnical investigations. The location and depth of test pits and sampling may be modified during the field activities,based on the subsurface conditions encountered. The soil test pits will be logged and soil descriptions provided following ASTM guidelines. Selected samples will be tested to determine the physical and engineering properties, such as gradation,moisture content,Atterberg limits,and strength. The field logs and results of laboratory testing will be reviewed and evaluated to assess the effects of soil properties on the proposed project. The engineering evaluation will include slope stability under static and seismic loading in the short term and long tenn. A report will be provided detailing soil conditions and engineering recommendations for excavation and new slope construction. If additional geotechnical studies,particularly borings,are deemed necessary to support detailed design work,these will be done under a future scope of work. They are not included in this scope and budget- It is anticipated that this work would be done under a future phase of the project if needed. Our cost estimate is based on the following assumptions. • Test pit locations will be rig accessible. We have not budgeted for any clearing or grading that might be required to access test pit locations. Estimated cost of this task: $16,380 Task 2 Hydranhe Stay Geomatrx will develop a baseline hydraulic and associated sediment transport model of Mill Creek and the Green River at their confluence. The hydraulic model will be developed in the HEC-RAS(hydraulics and sediment transport)platform developed by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE). The sediment transport model will be developed in the sediment transport i �Mwtetmg4chirA211tl7 m+rkar�a Jan e'�ub�umk-prcgemk4vY�kemloull veeA rcstrKarw1mMcr pow tevcdf 10-2-ORl d— 52 Ali Mr.Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 4 module of HEC-RAS and/or EPA's Flowsed/Powersed sediment transport model for natural channel design. It is assumed that hydrologic and hydraulic models have already been developed for the Green River by others,but that no such models exist for Mill Creek. The hydraulics analysis can be broken down into two main subtasks. (1)Data acquisition and(2)data analysis and modeling. Task 2.I Data Acquisition Available data will be collected from relevant sources to serve as input to hydraulic modeling and analysis. Green River Pertinent Iocal,state,and federal agencies(e.g.,King County Water and Land Resources Division [KCWLRD],Washington State Department of Transportation[WSDOT], USAGE,etc_) will be contacted to obtain existing hydrologic and/or hydraulic models of the Green River in the vicinity of the project area. As noted previously,it is assumed that such models exist and are available and that it will not be necessary to develop a new model for the Green River. Preliminary research indicates that it is likely that sediment transport data exist for the Green River below the Howard Hanson Darn_ We will attempt to acquire these data,if available, for use in the analysis of how sediment transport associated with the Green River might affect the proposed side channeUpond on Mill Creek. Representative samples of chamiel bed material will be collected from the Green River in the vicinity of the project in conjunction with the fluvial geomorpliological survey(described in Task 3.1)if necessary to fully assess sediment transport effects. Any bed material samples collected would be analyzed by standard sieve analysis for size fractions for use in sediment transport analysis. Mill Creek and Proposed Side Channel/Pond The KCWLRD has maintained and monitored a stream gauge immediately upstream of the ' project reach of Mill Creek at SR 181 (70th Avenue S)since 1989. Over 12 years of stream discharge data are available for this gauge. This time series discharge data will be obtained and analyzed to develop a hydrologic model for the project reach of Mill Creek_ The Puget Sound Light Distance and Ranging(LIDAR)Consortium(PSLC)and the King County Geographical Information System(GIS)Center have both developed digital elevation models(DEMs)of the project area derived in whole or in part from LIDAR surveys. DEMs of the project area will be obtained from one or both of these groups for incorporation into the hydraulic model for the project reach of Mill Creek and the proposed side channel. Additional data for the channel geometry in the project reach will be collected via a fluvial geomorphological survey to supplement the site DEM. This survey,described further in Task 3.1,will include both a longitudinal profile of the entire reach as well as a series of channel cross sections. r'mrkninglsrchiru`2007 n®.icunp atcMve¢uhmptalc-propnnldcity of kmi)mW1 deck mwnai n` H cr sow�kzd Gwl(1-2-M)doc 53 Mr.Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 5 Pertinent topographic features will also be surveyed for nlcorporation into the site DE NI. These surveys will be conducted for the areas proposed for side channel excavation,construction of a flood inlet channel from the Green River to the side channel,and berm and mound filling. Channel bed material samples will be collected from Mill Creek in the project reach in conjunction with the fluvial geomorphological survey(Task 3.1)and analyzed by standard sieve analysis for size fractions for use in sediment transport analysis_ 1 Task 2.2 Data Analysis and Alodeling Data collected during Task 2.1 will be incorporated into hydraulic analyses of the Green River and Mill Creek. Design Flow Development Hydraulic and sediment transport modeling will be based on a suite of design discharge scenarios through the project reach of Mill Creek These discharge scenarios will include base-flow conditions,channel-forming discharge levels, and discharges associated with standard regulatory design storms related to statistical recurrence intervals(e.g., 10-,25-,50-, 100-,and/or 500-year events)_ These design flows will be obtained from existing models for the Green River. Design flows for Mill Creek will be developed through regression analysis of the 12 years of gauge data to be obtained from the KCWLRD,as described in Task 2.1 above. The 15-minute and hourly flow data avai table for the gauge will be processed via exceedance analysis to approximate both base- flow and channel-forming discharge. Standard regulatory design storm discharges will be estimated based on regression analysis of the Annual Maximum Flows at the gauge using a Log Pearson Type III distribution. 1 An accurate prediction of channel-farming discharge is critical to the ultimate stabilization of the project design. As such, the channel-forming discharge developed will be further refined based on a series of additional and correlated methodologies to derive the bankfull and effective discharge,which are surrogates of the channel-forming discharge. These methodologies will include: • Review of the existing Hydraulic Geometry Regional Curve developed for the West Cascades and Puget Lowlands,Washington,which predicts bankfull discharge based on the area of the drainage basin and the bydrophysiographic province; • Correlation of the elevation of bankfull indicators in the project reach observed during the geomorphological survey with the discharge associated with the same elevation at the KCWLRD gauge;then comparison of the derived bankfull discharge to the 1-to 2-year 1 a%madceungamhj VW7 m rkeag wchrvekulmunab-pn7xwkknrnf"e -Wl e k slnrnwn null a Mw—d 0-2-09) 54 Mr.Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 6 recurrence interval discharge predicted in the Annual Maximum blows regression analysis described above; • Computation of bank-full mean velocity and associated bankfull discharge via various empirical flow resistance equations;and ' * Estimation of the effective discharge based on review of existing empirical relationships between drainage area and exceedance,as discussed above. A final step will involve calibration of the design discharges for the Green River and Mil l Creek, since the hydraulic model of the system will involve both channels. Calibration will be accomplished via an iterative series of cross-checks and data interpretation between the water surface elevations predicted in the Green River HEC-RAS model during design stonn flours and corresponding water surface elevations documented at the KCWLRD gauge station on Mill Creek at SR 181. Hydraulic Model Development A hydraulic model of the project reach of Mill Creek will be developed in HEC-RAS using the DEM and channel survev data collected during Task 2.1. In addition,the proposed side channel will be developed as a three-dimensional structure in CADD for incorporation into the Mill Creek HEC-RAS model. The hydraulic models of the Green.River,Mill Creek,and the side channel will then be combined into a single hydraulic model to accurately predict the hydraulic response of both the existing channels and the proposed side channel during various hydrologic conditions. HEC- RAS is capable of modeling such junctions,but such model configurations are far more complex than single-thread models. The model will include a flood inlet channel from the Green River to the side channel,as proposed, for analysis. The addition of this third side channel that is hydraulically connected to both channels further complicates the modeling process. Finally,the necessity to model sediment transport within this connected,three-channel system even further complicates the situation. As such,setup of the project's hydraulic model is expected to be far more complex than is typically seen for a stream restoration or channel improvement project. With this in mind,Geomatrix anticipates the need to incorporate supportive and/or alternative, more sophisticated numerical models to meet the project requirements. This contingency is accounted for in the project budget Sediment Transport Model Development HEC-RAS 4.0(Beta)includes robust,improved sediment transport and sediment impact analysis tools based on seven sediment transport functions. Sediment transport models are developed on top of the hydraulic model. Development of the sediment modeling tools in HEC-RAS requires site-specific information and the identification of the most appropriate sediment transport �r i Mnwkecing�mcbva.W7D7 mwkeung nn:lwvcle.bmmate-Pfq,—k1 ny ofkrn U.Bla tfec+nr+�um4nid ascrw rermlfimt(!'.-0R)dnc !"' 55 Mr- Michael Mactutis rCity of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 7 function(or functions)for the project being analyzed. Geomatrix will identify the appropriate 1 sediment transport function(s)for the project based on the results of the fluvial geomorphological survey and bed material sampling and analysis efforts described for Task 2.1 and Task 3.1. Flowsed/Powersed,recently promulgated by the EPA,is a sediment transport model developed specifically for assessment of stage/sediment discharge relationships for the purposes of stream restoration design. This model will also be used for the project assessment and prelirunary design activities dependent on the nature of data that can be collected/obtained for the study reach. _ Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Analysis of Side Channel/Pond Geomatrix will evaluate the feasibility of constructing the proposed side channel and pond on Mill Creek at the previously proposed location to provide off-channel rearing and refuge habitat _ for salmonid fry during high spring flows prior to their outmigration to Puget Sound. Hydraulic design objectives for the proposed off-channel habitat are to provide: (1)suitable hydraulic conditions through the necessary salmonid maturation cycle,and(2)habitat stability in the over-wintering pond relative to excessive sedimentation. Specific design parameters wilt be determined for the lateral overflow weir of the side channel and the channel and pond geornelries. These parameters will be developed in conjunction with the restoration and enhancement design (Task 3.3)and the biological analysis(Task 4). The hydraulic and sediment transport analysis will also examine methods to connect the side channel to the Green River to minimize sediment deposition and to prevent the channel froze becoming a wane backwater channel with potential for stranding. Geon-)atrix will document the methods and findings of the hydraulics study as part of the 30% Design Report to be submitted to the City of Kent(Task 5). Estimated cost of this task: $21,6S0 Task 3 Hydraulic and Geotechnical Analysis Geomatrix will conduct a fluvial geomorphological study of the project reach of Mill Creek and that section of the Green River between SR 167 and the outfall of Mill Creek to assess the feasibility of reshaping and restoring the banks to provide stability for restoration and enhancement_ Alternatives analysis of the proposed project by the City of Kent is documented ill the"Mill Creek Confluence/Green River Restoration Study,"which states: "the lower 1,000 feet[of Mill Creek]has a defined linear channel that is incised 6-feet deep at the southern end and over 15-feet at its outfall to the Green River,below the i elevation of the adjoining ioodplain. Downcutting at the mouth of Mill Creek has advanced upstream by headcutting along the Mill Creek channel. This process proceeds during release of Mill Creek floodplain storage to the Green River,following rapid drawdown in mainstem river stage following flood releases from Howard Hanson Dam. h.rlpmgas.hncal20o7 mwkamp rchwdauFmmab-p-p U�--y-k-W-Mcry l: (1-2-08)ldn i 1 56 Mr. Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 8 At low flow,the Mill Creek channel contains a poollriff7e/glide complex with some gravel bed. The stream lacks structure and complexity. LWD is nearly absent front the channel and streambanks are eroding. The riparian corridor's vegetative cover ranges from extensive stands of blackberries,to a narrow corridor of trees. All riparian areas lack downed wood and a native shrub layer"- The study rejected restoration or enhancement options for the project reach of Mill Creek that would involve relocation and redevelopment of meanders in the lower 2,000 linear feet of Mill Creek's existing channel,removal of the existing riparian forest east of Mill Creek;and excavation of the historic floodplain to create a depositional delta. These decisions were based on cost/ecological benefit ratio analysis,environmental impacts,and landowner issues. It is imperative to the long-tern stability of the project reach of Mill Creek,as well as the habitat associated with the proposed side channel/pond,that: • Vertical stabilization is achieved in the project reach of Mill Creek,and • The headcutting process is mitigated within the project reach. • This task includes investigation or evaluation of slope stabi lity for proposed riverbank modifications. The geomorphological study will address these primary stability issues. In addition,the geomorphological study will address the fundamental habitat restoration/enhancement issues of improving the structure and complexity within the project reach,with an emphasis on the incorporation of large woody debris(LWD)and appropriate riparian floodplain and vegetation. The conditions on project design noted above preclude both the relocation/reconstruction (re-meandering)of the project reach of Mill Creek and the excavation of the historic floodplain in the existing riparian forest east of the channel near the outfall to the Green River. As such,the restoration design for Mill Creek must accommodate the lateral and vertical constraints of the current channel location. It is anticipated that his will be accomplished by incorporating robust in-stream grade control and channel energy manipulation structures(e.g.,j-hook vanes, rootwads,etc.)within the limits of the existing channel to create both channel stability and habitat enhancement and complexity. The following steps will be completed toward this project objective. Task 3.1 Fluvial Geonrorphological Survey and Data Analysis A detailed geomorphological survey will be conducted along the entire project reach of Mill Creek. All geomorphological assessment fieldwork will be performed in accordance with EPA's Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply(WARSSS)protocols by a stream restoration designer formally trained in stream restoration assessment and design techniques. The survey will be conducted to achieve the following results: 1-r , i 4nukningls¢h�ruV.Q(i7 aurkgmF uckivcMuNmmde-proreu+kMay of krntLnil!creek esinronro�mn cr xow mued fiwl(I-2-08j.doe 57 Mr_ Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 9 • Valley type identification; • Streatn classification; • Detailed morphological description;and • Streatnbank stability assessment. The survey will include all field measurements necessary to completely describe the critical channel dmension,pattern,profile,and materials necessary for assessment and restoration design purposes_ A cursory geomorphological survey will be conducted along the section of the Green River between SR 167 and the outfall of Mill Creek. The intent of this survey will be to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement along the west bank of the river in conjunction with the proposed project. All collected field data will be compiled and analyzed to develop a complete geomorphological description of the project reaches of Mill Creek and the Green River as described above. The data will be compiled in the standard forms of the WARSSS protocol. ` Task 3.2 Acquisition of Reference Reach and Empirical Geomorphological Data Analog application of geomorphological data from a reference reach of a stable stream of the same stream and valley type,where available,can be quite valuable in channel restoration projects. In laterally constrained,highly hydromodified project settings,such as the project reach of Mill Creek,however, such analog templates are rarely available, nor can they provide complete design solutions. Nonetheless, the range of values for design parameters they provide can augment the design of channel restoration and enhancement features on such compromised systems. Efforts will be made therefore to identify and obtain any such suitable reference reach data for the West Cascades and Puget Lowlands hydrophysiographic province once the valley type and stream classification of the project reach are identified. Available empirically derived dimensionless ratios of channel dimension,pattern,and profile will also be identified and obtained for chaimel restoration/enhancement design purposes. Task 3.3 Preliminary Channel RestnrationlErrlrancement Design _ The data compiled during Tasks 3.1 and 3.2,in conjunction with the lateral and vertical boundary conditions stated above,will be used to identify the optimal,stable stream type for the project design for the project reach of Mill Creek. Documented scenarios of channel evolution involving stream type succession similar to the project conditions will be applied in this process. The channel restoration/enhancement design will be based on the charmel-forming discharge t, i mrketwgVnchna12o07 mxkrn�acAFveM:bmmah-rrq.-h`—y.f k—\.iH deck mnmtwn�mll cr•ow rvwrd fwt(1-IJIR).doe 58 Mr.Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 10 identified in Task 2.2 and the dimensionless morphological relationship ratios for stable channels similar to the project reach design as described for Task 3.2. The channel design will likely incorporate structural features to mitigate the advancing headcut in the project reach of Mill Creek. The preliminary design of channel restoration/enhancernent for the remainder of the project reach will be developed to provide: • Lateral (meanders,where possible)and vertical(riffle,run,pool,glide sequences) sinusoidal energy transition features to minimize the stream power and near-bank stresses through the system; Threshold(immobile)grade-control structures designed to accommodate fish passage of all target species-, • Layback of the channel sidewalls to provide a minimal bank-full floodplain bench and a stable slope to the historic floodplain terrace(to optimize stability and revegetation by riparian plantings);and ! In-stream habitat and channel complexity. Designs for all in-stream structures will incorporate LWD to the maximum extent practicable. The preliminary design of the channel restoration/enhancement features will be incorporated into the hydraulic and sediment transport models described for Task 2.2 to assess bankfull channel dimensions,channel stability,and no-rise verification of regulatory floodplains. Design alterations will be made during the hydraulic and sediment transport analysis to achieve the project objectives. Estimated cost of this task: $17,230 Task 4 Biological Analysis We will evaluate fish habitat following the methods outlined in the Washington Forest Practices Board(WFPB)Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis(WFPB, 1997). At least one member of the field team will be knowledgeable in the life histories and habitat requirements of steelhead trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss),coho salmon(O. kisutch),Chinook salmon (Q tsha),iytscha),coastal cutthroat trout(O_ clar ki clarki),and bull trout(Salrehrrus con fluentus). We propose to use the Habitat Equivalency Analysis(HEA)model to evaluate increased values in habitat resulting from implementation of the restoration plan. The HEA model can be used to assess current conditions of the site,compare various restoration options,and document the increase in habitat functions and values from implementing the restoration plan. The HEA. model will also allow us to assess alternative configurations of the restoration design in an effort to optimize the design of the site for off-channel fish habitat. The HEA model has been used to ..4vrkoo+��vrch+vsl2p07++wkn++.s.xd+{ve�abmm�lr-�c+poulslcRrnikcm1m+11—km -k-Wlj rrvry rc.+ud f.W 0-2-M)d- j 59 Mr. Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 11 assess other habitat projects in the Green/Duwan-ush River system with anadromous salmonids as one of the target species_ Some examples of the types of habitat elements we could include in the model to assess both the existing conditions of the site and future restored configurations include_ • Pasture; • Riparian buffer-, • Marsh; • Marsh w/riparian buffer; • Upland greenbelt;and • Open channel The model can evaluate these features as distinct habitat units or as a modified value. For example,the marsh may have a model value of 0.75 without a riparian buffer but a value of 1.0 (the maximum value)with a functioning riparian buffer. Thus,by manipulating elements of the habitat design we can use the model to assess the resulting ecological functions,and thereby optimize the design to achieve the greatest level of properly functioning conditions possible graven the site constraints. The HEA model contains not only a habitat assessment function but also a time function such that the increase in habitat is evaluated over an extended period, typically 300 years. The time function is discounted over the period modeled,but this allows comparison between existing conditions and future conditions,after restoration,over this extended time period. In addition to the HEA modeling and in conjunction with the hydraulic modeling under Task 3, we will also assess the proposed habitat use during the typical freshwater life history of the juvenile salmonids that are most likely to use this off-channel habitat area. Primary uses are likely as off-channel refuge habitat during high-flow conditions in the Green River and as rearing — habitat during other times of the year. Restoration to create appropriate hydrologic conditions could enable juvenile salmonids to use the area virtually all year. Coho salmon (O_ kisufdr)are present in both Mill Creek and the Green River,and juveniles are present in portions of these systems throughout the year_ Juvenile Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)may also use this habitat area for rearing during their spring outmigration from the Green River. Use throughout the year will depend on appropriate hydrologic and water quality conditions being present to support these uses. Water quality is a known issue in Mill Creek,especially during the summer months when water temperatures are often elevated and dissolved oxygen levels become depressed. Estimated cost of this task. $12,060 4T is [lawrkCnglxchira12A07 muketn6.rcMxlntmnt.k-Ixn[nxalskey ofkrnt\.Mt1 c�eet natonano4w11 as mired 4®1(1-2-Wdoe 60 Mr. Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2008 Page 12 Task 5 Feasibility Study and 30% Design Report Geomatrix will integrate all of the information developed in the preceding tasks into a Feasibility Study and 30ONe Design Report. This report will include the results of all the individual tasks as well as an integrated discussion of the feasibility,constraints,and opportunities that influence the proposed project design. Key issues will be identification of potential design alternatives that will be evaluated using the HEA model and potential creative design solutions to optimize the restoration potential of the site. A key element of the design options involves the potential to reuse material excavated from the proposed side channel. On-site reuse would constrain the configuration of the channel due to the large volume of soil placed,but would help lower construction costs by avoiding transportation and potential off-site disposal costs. However,if the excavated material is suitable for reuse,it n-way be possible to develop creative solutions to reuse or dispose of the excavated soils off site at low cost,thus increasing the potential size and/or complexity of the proposed habitat restoration without substantially increasing the cost. These alternatives will be explored in the 30%Design Report. Conceptual drawings,including topography and selected cross-sections of the proposed design and considered alternatives,will be included in the 30%Design Report. In addition,we will develop appropriate cost estimates for construction of the proposed restoration design and any considered alternatives. These costs will include engineer's estimates of additional design,enviromnaental review,pennitting,and construction phases of the project. Estimated cost of this task: $28,240 Task 6 Meetings and Project Management This task will include meetings with City Staff and Project Management activities during the course of the project. Estimated cost of this task:$4,350 DELIVERABLES Geotmatrix will produce four copies of the Feasibility Study and 30%Design Report and the design drawings for use and review by the project team. The document will be produced following Geomatrix's standard formatting and quality assurance/quality control procedures. Figures and/or tables will be black and white and will he a maximum size of 1 I by 17 inches. Design drawings will be color,24 x 36 inch(Arch D size). All deliverables will be provided in hardeopy and electronic format.AutoCAD files will be provided in an electronic format compatible with City of Kent AutoCAD version. Subsequent revisions to the draft reports and 30%Design are not included in the present budget. i.�narkttmB�are4+xa120o7 marketing mLrce�ukmmvrk.pmpnnlc`eaX of krnt�uull ece`Jc ieuoratnm�m:B cr.ov nvrned final{I-2-OB].doc 61 Mr. Michael Mactutis City of Kent Public Works Department January 2,2003 Page 13 PERIOD OF SERVICE 1 The period of service for this phase of the design will be from Project Authorization to December 31, 2008. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST The project will be billed on a time-and-materials basis;using Geomatrix's 2007 standard rates (see attached Rate Sheet). The total estimated cost to provide the services as described above is S99,940_ We will not exceed this cost estimate without your prior agreement and written authorization. If changes to the scope of work,deliverables,or completion date are required to complete this project,we will negotiate a contract modification. We look forward to working with the City of Kent on this exciting project. If you have any comments or questions,please feel free to call me at(425)921-4021 or email me at mmedowell @,geomatrix.com_ Sincerely yours, GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS,INC. K. Michael McDowell,FRC Senior Aquatic Scientist Enclosure. 2007 Standard Rate Sheet cc: Kelly Peterson,City of Kent Robyn Bartelt,City of Kent REFERENCE WFPB(Washington Forest Practices Board), 1997,Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis,Version 4.0: Washington Department of Natural Resources,WFPB, Olympia,http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/watershedanalysis/manuaU(accessed February 2007). ra i Mitke�mgbmhrvea�2M7 mrrkasg uchirclu,bmmab-propoLk`ary ofkaalmdl creek restoraiu.u4nd1 cr•or awned fiml(1-ZLB}.doe " 62 Gaeornatrix EXHIBIT B GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS,INC. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES For City of Dent (Pr(ject No.013811.PRO) Effective January 1,2007 The Schedule of Charges applies to all services provided by and(or through Geomatrix Consultants. Charges for our services are divided into three categories: Personnel,Outside Services,and Equipment Rental(Reimbursables_ The schedule of charges may he revised periodically,as conditions require. PERSONNEL: Personnel charges are for technical work, including technical typing, editing,and graphics involved in the preparation of reports and correspondence and for the time associated with production of such documents. Personnel category charge rates for Geomatdx Consultants, Inc_are listed below. PERSONNFi.CATEGORY HOURLY RATE Principal Engineer/Scientist $165 to$250 Senior Engineer/Scientist Ii $150 to$165 Senior Engmeer(Scientist 1 $140 Project Engineer(Scientist It $130 Project Engmeer/Scientist 1 $115 Staff Engineer/Scientist II $100 Staff Engineer(Scientist I $q0 Senior Technician $85 CAD/Graphic Designer $85 Project Assistant $65 Technical Editor $85 Support Staff $60 Time spent in travel in the interest of the client will be charged at hourly rates,except that no more than 8 hours of travel time will be charged in any day, When it is necessary for an employee to be away from the office overnight,actual costs,or a negotiated rate,will be charged for living expenses_ A multiplier of I.15 will be applied to all personnel expenses. Charges for expert-witness services will be at the hourly rates shown. However,for depositions and for court appearances,the rate is twice the amount shown. There will be a 4-hour minimum per-day charge for depositions and an$-hour minimum per-day charge for court appearances. Special accounting services will he billed at the Support Staff rate. OUTSIDE SERVICES: Outside services will be charged at cost plus 12%. Common outside items to which this 1.15 multiplier applies include.drilling Services,outside laboratory testing,equipment rental,printing and photographic work,special insurance,outside consultants,travel and transportation,vehicle usage,and long-distance communications. COMMUNICATIONS FEE: Four(4)per cent of labor fees. This covers routine copying,faxes,telephones and cell phones. INVOICES: Invoices will be rendered at least monthly,either as a final or partial billing,and will be payable upon receipt. An additional late payment charge of 1 12%per month or the maximum charge allowed by law,whichever is less,will be payable on accounts not paid within 30 days from billing date. r\m�rkNmg�cutmgnk-rropnnhkwy oftenUmll c krnoarru *oa mmdwd kne6ednk 2007 dx 63 EXHIBIT C INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance - The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from oi-in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, their agents, representatives,employees or subcontractors. A. Miniumin Scope of Insurance Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below. 1. Automobile Liabilitv insurance covering all owned,non-owned,hired and Ieased vehicles. Coverage shall be written oil Insurance Services Orrice(ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute fonts providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, opera lions, independent contractors,products-completed operations, personal ir�tury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall be endorsed to provide the Aggregate Per Project Endorsement ISO form CG 25 03 1185. The City shall be nailed as an insured under-the Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO additional insured endorsement CG 20 10 11 85 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage_ 3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. B. Minimum Amounts of insurance Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Automobile Liabilitv insurance with a nunimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of S 1,000,000 per accident. 2. Commercial General Liability,insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and a $1,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate limit. r �r t 64 EXHIBIT C (Continued) C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Conunercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance,self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage mai►ntai►ned by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Consultant's insurance shalt be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty(30)days prior written notice by certified snail,return receipt requested,has been given to the City. 3. The City of Kent shall be uanned as an additional insured on all poticies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of the endorsement naining the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Consultant's Convliercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought,except with respects to the lunits of the insurer's liability. D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of not less than ANII. E. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory i endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for the Consultant. r r Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING GRANT PROGRAM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION - AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Waste Reduction and Recycling (WRR) Grant for funding implementation of the City's 2008/2009 WRR tasks, in the amount of $168,329, direct staff to establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said project, upon concurrence of the language by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum and interlocal agreement for 2008- 2009 contract #D36975D 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Revenue? X Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6N 65 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director • Phone: 253-856-5500 KENT Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINOTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 9, 2008 To: Chair, Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members Public Works Committee Meeting Date: January 22, 2008 From: Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director Subject: King County Solid Waste Division/Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant Program Motion: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Waste Reduction and Recycling (WRR) Grant Contract in the amount of $168,329 for 2008-2009, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said project upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Background/Summary: The King County WRR grant is used to fund Special Recycling and Collection events for residents and businesses for the collection of hard-to-recycle materials, to fund activities and events associated with the Business Recycling Program, the Multi-Family Recycling Program, the purchase, distribution and promotion of products made from recycled materials, including compost bins, rain barrels, lumber and benches, and the Christmas Tree Collection and Recycling program co-sponsored by Parks and the Boy Scouts. The King County WRR Grant Contract in the amount of $168,329 is for funding implementation of the City's 2008/2009 WRR tasks as described in Exhibit 1, Scope of Work, benefiting the citizens and businesses of Kent. Exhibits: Interlocal Agreement for 2008-2009 Contract #D36975D I U•`PWCommittee}ActronPag�2008\01 22 081WRR Grant doc r 66 CONTRACT A D36975D 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR 2008-2009 Bchveen KING COUNTY and the CITY OF KENT This two-year InterIocal Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement)is executed between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,and the City of Kent,a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,hereinafter referred to as "County" and"City" respectively. This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each party as designated below: King County Ordinance No. 2003-0462 City 1 PREAMBLE King County and the City of Kent adopted the 2001 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan,which includes waste reduction and recycling goals. In order to help meet these goals,the King County Solid Waste Division has established a waste reduction and recycling grant ��r tl-,�. +.�..+1+..+..op -�.t� -7.�.-Fl-. Tr _� !'� t-._ L_�-___ c� 7_J T1 T__._ t� _ f,rvbruii; AM u1�. Ci��w u�u4 vt�clalc iiiiuci u1211.ittg COiiuty Cu7n�ir211G11J1VZ Su11U VYdJIC LY1dllaaefllGilt Plan. This program provides funding to further the development and/or enhancement of local waste reduction and recycling projects and for broader resource conservation projects that integrate with waste reduction and recycling programs and direction_ This grant program does not fund househo[d hazardous waste collection activities. Program eligibility and grant administration terms are discussed in the Grant Guidelines,attached to this agreement as Exhibit B. Grant funding for this program is subject to the yearly budget approval process of the King County Council. Grant funding approved by the King County Council is available to all King County cities that operate under the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.The City will spend its grant funds to fulfill the terms and conditions set forth in the scope of work which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The County expects that any information and/or experience gained through the grant program by the City will be generously shared with the County and other King County cities. L PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to define the terms and conditions for funding to be provided to the City of Kent by the County for waste reduction and recycling programs and/or services as outlined in the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A _ t 67 II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES The responsibilities of the parties to this Agreement shall be as follows: A. The City 1. Funds provided to the City by the County pursuant to this Agreement shall be used to provide waste reduction and recycling programs and/or services as outlined in Exhibit A. I`he total amount of funds available from this grant in 2008 shall not exceed$84,164. The City understands that even though this agreement is two years in duration,funding for this program is subject to the yearly budget approval process of the King County Council. 2. This agreement provides for distribution of 2008 and 2009 grant funds to the City. However, 2009 funds are not available until January 1,2009, and 2009 funding is contingent upon King County Council approval of the 2009 King County budget, 3. During the two year grant program,the City will submit a minimum of two,but no more than l eight,progress reports to the County in a form approved by the County. Reports must be signed by a city official. These reports will include: a) a description of each activity accomplished pertaining to the scope of work; and b) reimbursement requests with either copies of invoices for each expenditure for which reimbursement is requested or a financial statement,prepared by the cit_y's finance department,that includes vendor name, description of service,date of service, date paid and check number. If the City chooses to submit up to the maximum of eight(8)progress reports and requests for reimbursement during the two year grant program, they shall be due to the County on the last day of the month following the end of each quarter-April 30,July 30,October 31,January 31 - except for the final progress report and request for reimbursement which shall be due by March 31,2010. If the City chooses to submit the minimum of two progress reports and requests for reimbursement during the two year grant program,they shall be due to the County on January 31. 2009 and March 31,2010. Regardless of the number of progress reports the City chooses to submit, in order to secure reimbursement,the City must provide in writing to the County by the 5'h working day of January 2009 and January 2010,the dollar amount of outstanding expenditures for which the City has not yet submitted a reimbursement request. 3. The City shall submit a final report to the County which summarizes the work completed under the grant program and evaluates the effectiveness of the projects for which grant funds were utilized,according to the evaluation methods specified in the scope of work. The final report is due within six months of completion of the project(s)outlined in the scope of work, but no later than June 30,2010. 2 68 4. If the City accepts funding through this grant program for the provision of Waste Reduction and Recycling programs and projects for other incorporated areas of King County,the City shall explain the relationship with the affected adjacent city or cities that allows for acceptance of this funding and the specifics of the proposed programs and projects within the scope of work document related thereto. 5. The City shall be responsible for following all applicable Federal, State and local laws, ordinances,rules and regulations in the performance of work described herein. The City assures that its procedures are consistent with laws relating to public contract bidding procedures, and the County neither incurs nor assumes any responsibility for the City's bid,award or contracting process. 6. During the performance of this Agreement, neither the City nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall discriminate on the basis of race,color,sett, religion, nationality,creed,marital status, sexual orientation,age,or presence of any sensory,mental, or physical handicap in the employment or application for employment or in the administration or delivery of or access to services or any other benefits under this Agreement as defined by Ding County Code, Chapter I2.16. 7. During the performance of this Agreement, neither the City nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall engage in unfair employment practices as defined by King County Code. Chapter 12.18. The City shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws,ordinances,executive orders and regulations that prohibit such discrimination. These laws include, but are not limited to, RCW Chapter 49.60 and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. S. The City shall use recycled paper for the production of all printed and photocopied documents related to the T he -Ity sha'ei use boot sides of paper sheets for copying and printing and shall use recycled/recyclable products wherever practical. 9. The City shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, financial,and programmatic records, and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the County, to ensure proper accounting for all project funds and compliance with this Agreement. All such records shall sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended andd service provided in the performance of this Agreement_ These records shall be maintained for a period of six(6)years after termination hereof unless permission to destroy them is granted by the Office of the State Archivist in accordance with RCW Chapter 40.14. These accounts shall be subject to inspection,review oraudit by the County and/or by federal or state officials as so authorized by Iaw. 10.The City shall maintain a record of the use of any equipment that costs more than$1,000 and is purchased with grant funds from King County for a total period of three(3)years. The records shall be compiled into a yearly evaluation report, a copy of which shall be submitted to King ' County by March 31 of each year through the year 20I2 3 i 69 11.The City agrees to credit King County on all printed materials provided by the County,which the City is duplicating,for distribution. Either King County's name and logo must appear on King County materials(including fact sheets,case studies,etc.), or, at a minimum,the City will credit King County for artwork or text provided by the County as follows: "artwork provided courtesy of King County Solid Waste Division'and/or"text provided courtesy of King County Solid Waste Division." 12.The City agrees to submit to the County copies of all written materials which it produces and/or duplicates for local waste reduction and recycling projects which have been funded through the waste reduction and recycling grant program. Upon request,the City agrees to provide the County with a reproducible copy of any such written materials and authorizes the County to ' duplicate and distribute any written materials so produced,provided that the County credits the City for the piece. 13.If the City accepts funding through this grant program for the provision of recycling collection events for adjacent areas of unincorporated King County,the City shall send announcements of the events to all residences listed in the carrier routes provided by King County. The announcements and all other printed materials related to these events shall acknowledge King County as the funding source. 14.The City understands that funding for recycling collection events for adjacent areas of unincorporated King County will be allocated on a yearly basis subject to the King County Council's yearly budget approval process and that provision of funds for these events is not guaranteed for the second year of the grant program. 15.This project shall be administered by Ms.Gina Hungerford, Conservation Specialist. City of Kent,220 4th Ave.South; Kent, WA 98032-5895; (253) 856-5549; ghungerford(t)ci.kent.wa.us, or designee. B. The County: 1. The County shall administer funding for the waste reduction and recycling grant program. Funding is designated by city and is subject to the King County Council's yearly budget approval process. Provided that the funds are allocated through the King County Council's yearly budget approval process, grant funding to the City will include a base allocation of$5,000 per year with the balance of funds to be allocated according to the city's percentage of King County's residential and employment population. However,if this population based allocation formula calculation would result in a city receiving less than $10,000 per year,that city shall receive an additional allocation that would raise their total grant funding to$10,000 per year_ The City of Kent`s budgeted grant funds for 2008 are$84,164. Unspent 2008 funds may be carried over to 2009,but 2009 funds will not carry over to 2010. 4 70 The City of Kent`s estimated grant funds for 2009 are$84,164. 2009 funds are not available until January 1,2009, and 2009 funding is contingent upon Kling County Council approval of the 2009 King County budget. Following approval of the 2009 King County budget,the County's grant program administrator will notify the city of the final 2009 grant funding. 2. Within forty-five (45)days of receiving a request for reimbursement from the City,the County shall either notify the City of any exceptions to the request which have been identified or shall process the request for payment. If any exceptions to the request are made,this shall be done by written notification to the City providing the reason for such exception_ The County will not authorize payment for activities andlor expenditures which are not included in the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A,unless the scope has been amended according to Section V of this Agreement. King County retains the right to withhold all or partial payment if the City's report(s)and reimbursement request(s)are incomplete (i.e., do not include proper documentation of expenditures andlor adequate description of each activity described in the scope of work for which reimbursement is being requested),and/or are not consistent with the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A. ' 3. The County agrees to credit the City on all printed materials provided by the City to the County, which the County duplicates, for distribution. Either the City's name and logo will appear on such materials(including fact sheets, case studies, etc.), or, at a minimum, the County will credit the City for artwork or text provided by the City as follows: "artwork provided courtesy of the City of Kent" and/or"text provided courtesy of the City of Kent". 4. The County retains the right to share the written material(s)produced by the City which have been funded through this program with other King County cities for them to duplicate and distribute. In so doing,the County will encourage other cities to credit the City on any pieces that were produced by the City- S. The waste reduction and recycling grant program shalt be administered by Morgan John,a Project Manager,or designee,to be specified by the King County Solid Waste Division. 11I. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective on either January I,2008 or the date of execution of the Agreement by both the County and the City, if executed after January 1,2008 and shall terminate on December 31,2009. However,if execution by either party does not occur until after January 1,2008, this Agreement allows for disbursement of grant funds to the City for County-approved programs initiated between January 1, 2008 and the later execution of the Agreement provided that the City complies with the reporting requirements of Section 1I. A of the Agreement. IV. TERMINATION A. This Agreement may be terminated by King County, in whole or in part,for convenience without cause prior to the termination date specified in Section III,upon thirty(30)days advance written notice B. This Agreement may be terminated by either party, in whole or in part, for cause prior to the termination date specified in Section III, upon thirty(30)days advance written notice. Reasons for 5 71 termination for cause may include but not be limited to: nonperformance; misuse of funds;and/or failure to provide grant related reports/invoices/statements as specified in Section II.A.3. and Section II.A.4. C. If the Agreement is terminated as provided in this section: (1)the County will be Iiable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for services rendered prior to the effective date of termination; and(2)the City shall be released from any obligation to provide further services pursuant to this Agreement. D. Nothing herein shall Iimit, waive,or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Agreement or law that either party may have in the event that the obligations,terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are breached by the other party. V. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of both parties. Amendments to scopes of work will only be approved if the proposed amendment is consistent with the most recently adopted King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Funds may be moved between tasks in the scope of work,attached as Exhibit A,only upon written or verbal request by the City and written or verbal approval by King County. Such requests will only be approved if the proposed change(s)is(are) consistent with and/or achieves the goals stated in the scope and falls within the activities described in the scope VI. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMMFICATION The City shall protect,indemnify,and hold harmless the County,its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims,costs,and/or issues whatsoever occurring from actions by the City and/or its subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement.The City shall defend at its own expense arty and all claims,demands, suits,penalties, losses,damages,or costs of any kind whatsoever(hereinafter"claims") brought against the County arising out of or incident to the City's execution of,performance of or failure to perform this Agreement. Claims shall include but not be limited to assertions that the use or transfer of any software,book,document,report,film,tape,or sound reproduction or material of any kind, delivered hereunder,constitutes an infringement of any copyright,patent,trademark, trade name,and/or otherwise results in unfair trade practice. 6 72 VI[. INSURANCE A. The City,at its own cost, shall procure by the date of execution of this Agreement and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with performance of work pursuant to this Agreement by the City, its agents,representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors. The minimum limits of this insurance shall be $1,000,000 general liability insurance combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury, and property damage. Any deductible or self-insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of the City. Such insurance shall cover the County its officers,officials,employees,and agents as additional insureds against liability arising out of ' activities performed by or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Agreement_ A valid Certificate of Insurance is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C,unless Section VII.B. applies. B. If the Agency is a Municipal Corporation or an agency of the State of Washington and is self-insured for any of the above insurance requirements,a written acknowledgement of self-insurance is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C. VIII. ENTIRE CONTRACTA'VAIVER OF DEFAULT This Agreement is the complete expression of the agreement of the County and City hereto, and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the teens of this Agreement unless stated to be such through written approval by the County, which shall be attached to the original Agreement. ' IX. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE The County and City recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. X. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is,for any reason, found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. 7 S 73 XI. NOTICE Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given or served if sent to the King County Solid Waste Division and the City at the addresses provided below: Morgan John,Project Manager,or a provided designee, King County Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 If to the City: Ms. Gina Hungerford, Conservation Specialist City of Kent 220 4th Ave. South Kent, WA 98032-5895 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below: Ci , Kinp-County Accepted for King County Executive BY (Title) Theresa Jennings, Director ' Department of Natural Resources and Parks For Ron Sims,King County Executive Date Date Pursuant to Pursuant to Ordinance No_2003-0462 Approved as to form: Approved as to form: City Attorney King County Prosecuting Attorney Date Date 8 74 Exhibit A King County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Program City of Kent 2008/09 Scope of Work- A. Basic Information � 1. City of Kent 2. Grant project manager: Ms.Gina Hungerford Conservation Specialist City of Kent 220 4th Ave. South Kent, WA 98032-5895 TEL-(253) 856-5549 FAX-(253) 856-6500 Email—ghungerford(q-)ci.kent.wa.us 3_ Consultant name: Paul Devine Olympic Environmental Resources 4715 SW Walker Street Seattle,WA 98116 TEL-(206) 938-8262 FAX- (206) 938-9873 Email—pauldevinet2mmn.com 4. Budget: 2008 $84,164.00 2009 $84,165.00 2008/2009 total: $168,329.00 B. Scope of Work Task One: Recycling Collection Events A. Schedule- Spring and Fall,2008/09 B.Task Activities • Number of Recycling Collection Event—Four • Appliances - Refrigerators and Freezers 1 75 • Ferrous Metals • Non-ferrous Metals • Concrete,Asphalt,Rock,and Brick** • Tires • Lead Acid Batteries • Household Batteries • Porcelain Toilets and Sinks+ i • Propane Tanks+ • Cardboard • Reusable Household Goods • Textiles • Used Motor Oil • Used Motor Oil Filters • Used Antifreeze • Used Petroleum Based Products • Paper Shredding** • Electronic Equipment • Computer Monitors+ - TV Sets+ • Bulky Yard Debris* • Scrap Wood* *Collected in the spring ** Collected in the fall +User fees apply • ., C' it .1 t;.-....�i o+o.;mil drill }ese�trihlNte�{- 1 tic" "lowing�.d-0--.ional —.ale..0 I n • Information on City Recycling Programs. • Educational Materials produced by King County Department of Natural Resources and Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan. • Other educational materials as appropriate. • Event promotional methods • This event will be coordinated with King County and flyers will be sent to King County Solid Waste Division,and Kent households. • By distributing a promotional flyer through direct mailings. • By notices in City newsletters(whenever possible). • By posting a notice at City Hall and on the City cable channel and City web site (if available). • By publicizing the event through the King County Solid Waste Division Promotional Activities. C)Task evaluation.Event reports will include. • Number of vehicles attending Volume of each material collected • Event cost by budget category 2 76 • Event comments • Graphic or tabular comparison of 2008/09 volumes and vehicles with prior year's events D)Task Budget: S10,000.00 Budget Catagory 2008109 2008 2008 2008 2009 TOTAL WRR LHWMP CPG WRR WRR City Staff Costs $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 Contractor/Staffing Costs $4,000.00 $4,032.18 $8,873.50 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $16,905-68 Event Staff Costs $0.00 $4,000.00 $3,080.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,080-00 Collection/Hauling Costs $0.00 Woad Waste $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 Scrap Metal,Appliances,etc. $0.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 Concrete $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 Paper Shredding $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00 1 $0.00 $500.00 Tires $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Used Oil/Antifreeze/etc. $0-00 $3,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,200.00 Batteries $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 Printing/Mailing $3,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $20,000.00 Event Supplies $0.00 1 $900.00 $1,555.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,455.00 Other Expenses-rentals,etc SO.00 S1,610.03 $5,0S8.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,668.03 TOTALS $10,000.00 1 $24,242.21 $41,066.50 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $75,308.71 NOTE: Hourly rates for consultants areas follows:Project Manager-$70.00 and Event Staff-$55.00_ E)Task Performance Objectives The City plans to send out approximately 42,000 promotional flyers to Kent households per Pi/Pnt wnf( niNiri7P the events throujoh King C,oTtnty prot?-tc�ttonal activitiPC lncllldincr County websites and telephone assistance. The City anticipates collecting 200-225 tons of material from the local waste stream per year. The benefits expected by the collection of these materials will be to divert them from the waste stream and process them for recycling. The event will also provide an opportunity to recycle moderate risk waste. The King County Health Department and Washington State Department of Ecology may pay for event expenses as well_ F)Task Impact Objectives. By hosting Recycling Collection Events, Kent can reduce the amount of recyclable material finding their way to the local landfill. The City of Kent has a population of roughly 87,000_ The City expects, based on past events, that 2,000-2,200 households will actively participate each year by bringing recyclable materials to the event for proper disposal and recycling. This will result in 200-225 tons of material diverted from the local waste stream for recycling each year_ In addition to diverting materials from the City waste stream, attracting residents to events provides an opportunity to distribute educational material on City and King County rccycling programs_ The educational materials can enhance the knowledge of residents and 3 i 1 77 improve behavior in purchase,handling, and disposal of recyclable materials. Task Two:Business Recycling Program A)Task Schedule:2008/09 B)Task Activities: Through continued recycling assistance to businesses, the City will promote participation in waste reduction, recycling, and recycled product procurement programs ' and increase the knowledge of recycling alternatives in the commercial sector. Program Activities: 1)Kent Business Information Prepare, print, and coordinate distribution of a Kent Business Recycling Newsletter to all Kent businesses.The newsletter will be sent to Kent businesses three tines a year. 2)Kent Business Collection Events •Number of Business Recycling Events—Two • Task Description - The City will implement two Business Recycling Events. The events will be held on a summer weekday at a central location in Kent. • Materials to be collected. • Clean Scrap Wood/Pallets • Electronic Equipment • Computer monitors+ • Fluorescent Lights • Office Recyclables/Cardboard • Toner Cartridges • Cellular phones • Plastics • Other materials if feasible +User fees apply • The following educational materials will be distributed: • Information on City Recycling Programs. • Educational Materials produced by King County Department of Natural Resources and Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan. • Other educational materials as appropriate. • Event promotional methods: • By distributing a promotional flyer through direct mailings. 4 78 • By notices in City/community newsletters/and local newspapers (whenever possible). • By posting a notice at City Hall and on the City cable channel (if available). • By publicizing the event through the King County Solid Waste Division Promotional Activities. 1 • Task evaluation. Event reports will include: • Number of vehicles attending 1 • Volume of each material collected • Event cost by budget category • Event comments • Graphic or tabular comparison of 2008/09 volumes and vehicles with prior year's events 3) Kent Business Assistance To provide business recycling assistance to City businesses,the City will customize � the King County Tool Kit with City information and send a City Tool Kit to all new Kent businesses each year with intro letter and offer of on-site visit_ In the Tool Kit, the City hopes to work with the City recycler to include a coupon for free desk-side recycling containers from the hauler. In addition, the City will provide assistance to City businesses on an on-call basis. 4) Kent Business Recognition *; ,t: *l v (l Ill p1VYltle 11YA11 VUJ1l1YJJYJ YY llll IIIVLA..ation LV recycle L11Y LLy YY1A1 1111�11Y111Y11L LllG^ Kent Green Business of the Year Award_ The City will work with the Kent Chamber of Commerce and past progra►n information to seek out businesses that have put in place outstanding recycling programs and award up to three City businesses with awards. The purpose of the award/recognition program will be to acknowledge City businesses with strong conunitments to recycling and use their programs as examples for other Kent businesses to follow. 5 79 C)Task Budget: $64,880.00 Business Budget Category 2008 2009 2008109 Cost Cost Total Promotional inserts/flyers Production and Graphics $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 Printing costs $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 Sorting/Mailing costs $1,600,00 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 Business Collection Event Consultant staff $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 Project Vendors $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 Event Promotion $600.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 Other Costs $150.00 $150.00 $300.00 Business Assistance To include: Educational material distribution $10,500.00 $10,500.00 $21,000.00 Business consultations reports $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000,00 Follow-up calls to businesses $4,340.00 $4,340.00 $8,680.00 Program Promotion $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 Business Recognition Program Planninglimplemention $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 Program Promotion $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 Other Costs $350.00 $350.00 $700.00 Business Web Site Web Site Assistance 2,200.00 2,200.00 $4,400.00 TOTALS $32,440.00 1 $32,440.00 $64,880.00 The business program will be funded primarily with use of King County WRR grant fi�nrk hilt -h- B��sinQss Recvcling Collection Event will be funded with Kind County WRR grant funds and WA State DOE CPG fiends. Hourly rates For consultants are as follows: Project Manager-S70.00 and Event Staff-$55.00. ;■ D)Task Performance Objectives: 1)The Kent Business Recycling Newsletter will be sent to all Kent businesses three times a year. With regular information on recycling, City businesses will be able to take advantage of mew recycling services and divert more materials from the Kent waste stream. 2) The City plans to send out approximately 3,300 promotional flyers to Kent businesses per event and publicize the event through King County promotional activities, including County websites and telephone assistance. The City anticipates collecting 50-75 tons of material from the Kent businesses waste stream over a two-year period. The benefits expected by the collection of these materials will be to divert them from the waste stream and process them for recycling. 3) Kent Business Assistance will provide new and existing City businesses with information and technical assistance on recycling and waste prevention. Consultant staff will include the information as requested in the King County business database. Summary program evaluation will include: the number of contacts made to businesses and their response rates to the offer of recycling technical assistance; the number of businesses 6 8Q receiving information; and the number of businesses beginning or expanding recycling activities. 4)Dent Green Business of the Year Award will provide Kent businesses with motivation to recycle by recognizing a Kent business(s) that have put in place outstanding recycling programs. The purpose of the awards program will be to acknowledge City businesses with strong commitments to recycling and use their programs as examples for other Kent businesses to follow. E)Task Impact Objectives: By providing information, web site assistance, technical assistance, and hosting Business Collection Events, Kent can reduce the amount of recyclable material finding their way to the local landfill.The City of Kent has an employee population of roughly 64,000, The City expects that 125-175 businesses will actively participate in the Business Collection Event each year by bringing recyclable materials to the event for proper disposal and recycling. This will result in 50-75 tons of material from the Kent businesses waste stream over a two- year period_ In addition to diverting materials from the City waste stream,providing information to Kent business at events provides an opportunity to distribute educational material on City and King County recycling programs. The technical assistance, web site assistance, recognition, educational materials can enhance the knowledge of business and improve behavior in the purchase, handling, set-up,and disposal of recyclable materials. Task Three: Dent Multifamily Recycling Program A)Task Schedule: 2008/09 B)Task Activities The task will include promoting waste reduction, participation in Kent multifamily residential collection programs for recyclables, distributing multifamily signs and bags,and promoting the purchase of recycled products by working with multifamily residents and property owners/managers.The City will.- 0 Distribute multifamily educational brochures through direct mailings, City events, and door-to-door delivery. • Distribute multifamily signs for use at multifamily complexes for proper recycling of materials. Providing on-site waste consultations and follow-up assistance. • Distribute multifamily educational brochures in Spanish and Russian through direct mailings,Recycling City events,and door-to-door delivery. 1 7 81 C)Task Budget:$16,600.00 Multifamily Budget Category 2008 Cost 2009 Cost 2008109 Total Provide Assistance and Follow-up $7,000.00 7,000.00 $14,000.00 Web Site Assistance 800.00 800.00 $1,600.00 Program Promotion s00.00 755535 $1,000.OD TOTAL 8,300.00 8,300.00 $16,600.00 The business program will be funded with use of King County WRR grant funds.Hourly rates for consultants are as follows. Project Manager-$70,00 and Event Staff-$55.00. D)Task Performance Objectives: t The goal of this program is to achieve greater resource efficiency in the City of Kent by collection of more recyclable material in the City's multifamily sector. The City will continue to promote recycling in the Kent multifamily community by distributing educational brochures, signs, and recycling totes to multifamily managers and tenants. As City residents better manage their waste and recycle more, less recyclable material will end up in local landfills. This program will help the City of Kent reach its recycling goals. Kent multifamily web site enhancements and service will provide Kent multifamily owners and managers with tools to recycle by making the information easy to access and convenient to use. The program will also help reduce paper, as more recycling information will be in an electronic format. E)Task Impact Objectives: With program promotion and technical assistance and web site assistance, Kent multifamily residents will have better knowledge of recycling_ Recycling service to Kent muitifarriiiy properties is provided with garbage service and assistance will be provided on how to better use the service. By recycling more, City multifamily properties can reduce the amount of material ending up in the local landfill. Task Four: Compost Bin Distribution A)Task Schedule: Spring,2008/09 B)Task Activities: • Number of Compost Bin Sales—Two • Task Description -The City will implement two backyard compost bin distribution events in conjunction with the Kent Recycling Collection Events.The City will: • Distribute subsidized backyard compost bins and educational materials on grasscycling and backyard composting to Kent.Residents will be charged a user fee for bins of$15.00. • Promote the program through the City of Kent website and event flyers. Purchase and distribute approximately 300 backyard compost bins. • Purchase and distribute up to 300 educational booklets on backyard composting. 8 82 C}Task Budget: $14,600.00 ESTIMATED COSTS 2008 Cost 2009 Cost 2008109 Total Staff Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Admnistration and Supplies $250.00 $250.00 $500.00 Consultant and Contractor Services $1,800.00 $1,800-00 $3,600.00 Compost Bins $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 Estimated Bin Income-150 bins @$15 eac -$2,250.00 -$2,250.00 -$4,50o.00 Total 1 $7,300.00 $7,300.00 $14,600.00 Hourly rates for consultants are as follows: Project Manager - $70 00 and Event Staff- S55.00_ D) Task Perfonnance Objectives: The goal of this program is to achieve greater resource efficiency in the City of Kent. Backyard composting extends the life of landfills and reduces stress on local composting facilities. This program should result in greater resource efficiency, as it will encourage City residents to manage their yard debris on their own properties and to reuse the composted materials in their gardens. E)Task Impact Objectives: As a result of the Compost lain Sale, the City of Kent will: • Reduce the residential waste stream by up an estimated 79 tons of yard debris annually or 790 tons in the next ten years. The City will monitor the program by reporting the following: -Number of backyard compost bins distributed- -The estimated amount of yard debris diverted. In addition to diverting compostable materials from the City waste stream, attracting residents to events provides an opportunity to distribute educational material on City recycling programs and yard debris reduction programs in King County. The educational materials can enhance the knowledge of residents and improve behavior in purchasing products,practices,and disposal of yard debris. Task Five; Purchase Products Made From Recycled Materials 1 A)Task Schedule:2008109 B)Task Activities: In order to support the recycling industry and close the recycling loop,the City would like to purchase products made from recycled materials. Doing so will support recycling collection programs and help ensure the success of the recycling industry. The City will support recycling programs by purchasing recycle content rain barrels for distribution. The rain barrels weight approximately 40-50 pounds each and divert roughly twice that amount of plastic material from the waste stream when produced. The City will sell the rain barrels �� 9 83 at City Recycling Collection Events in 2008 and 2009. It is expected that the City will purchase and distribute 500 recycled content rain barrels over the two-year period_ C)Task Budget:$49,709.00 Recycled Product Purchase 2008 Cost 2009 Cost 2008109 Total - Distribute Rain Barrels $34,864.50 $34,854.50 $69,709.00 Estimated Bin Income-250 bins $40 eac -$10,000.00 -$10,000.00 -$20,000.00 TOTAL 1 $24,854.50 $24,854.50 $49,709.00 D)Task Performance and Impact Objectives. The goal of this program is to help ensure the success of the recycling industry by adding to the demand for products made from recycled materials. By purchasing products made from recycled content, the City will divert recyclable material from the waste stream. The City will distribute the rain barrels to City residents to help promote recycled products. The City will promote the rain barrel sale the City Recycling Collection Event flyer. The additional beneEts of the rain barrels are that they will help reduce household water consumption and reuse natural rainwater. It is expected that after installation the rain barrels will continue to conserve water resources for many years. Task Six: Cbristntas Tree Collection and Recycling A)Task Schedule: Winter,2008f09 B)Task Activities: • Task Description The City will provide collection of Christmas trees in the City for residents just after the Christmas holiday. The City plans to provide City residents with four to six tree collection days. The City will: • Provide collection of Christmas trees from. Kent residents. • Promote the program through City of Kent newsletters, flyer to all residents and local papers. • Recycle collected trees C)Task Budget:$8,000.00 ESTIMATED COSTS 2008 Cost 2009 Cost 2003109 Total I Supplies/equipment $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 Project Staffing $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 Total $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 D) Task performance Objectives: The goal of this program is to achieve greater resource efficiency in the City of Kent. By providing Christmas tree collection and recycling. the City can divert this material from the waste stream.This activity will extend the life of the Local landfill.This program should result in greater resource efficiency, as it will encourage 10 ' 84 City residents to recycle their Christmas trees rather than disposing of them in their garbage or at the local transfer station. E7 Task Impact Objectives: As a result of the Christmas Tree Collection and Recycling Program, the City of Kent will reduce the residential waste stream. The City will monitor the program by reporting the following: -Number of Christmas trees collected. -The estimated amount of material diverted from the waste stream. Task Seven: Grant Administration The City will work with OER to administrate this Scope of Work. OER will • Track project expenses; • Provide ongoing grant administration through the completion of the tasks, as outlined in this Scope of Work; • Prepare reports for the grant program;and • Prepare final report. Task Budget:$4,540.00 King County WRR Grant 2008 2009 2008/09 Total 1.Program Management $1,520.00 $1,520.00 $3,040.00 2.Project Expenses a.Mileage $250.00 $250.00 $500.00 b.Supplies $590.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 TOTAL $2,270.00 $2,270.00 $4,540.00 � 11 �i Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 ' Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONSERVATION FUTURES INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY FOR OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROJECTS - AUTHORIZE ' 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Amendment to the Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between King County and the City of Kent in the amount of $115,000.00. Direct staff to accept the agreement and establish a budget for funds to be spent within the Mill Creek Confluence/Green River Restoration Project, upon concurrence of the language by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The Interlocal agreement provides Kent with $115,000 to acquire 8.6 acres at the confluence of Mill Creek, Auburn and the Green River, providing an opportunity for creation of a channel that will enhance salmonid winter flooding refuge and provide summer rearing habitat for salmon in the Green River and Mill Creek. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum and Amendment to Interlocal Agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Revenue? X ' Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds ' DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda ' Item No. 60 85 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director 1400 • Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 ' WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 9, 2007 To: Chair, Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members Public Works Committee Meeting Date: January 22, 2008 From: Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director ) -P-A o t-�ja-0-9 Subject: Amendment to the Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between King County and the City of Kent for Open Space Acquisition ' Projects. ' Motion: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Amendment to the Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between King County and the City of Kent in the amount of $115,000, direct staff to accept the agreement and establish a budget for funds to be spent within the Mill Creek Confluence/Green River Restoration Project upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Background/Summary: The Mill Creek Confluence/Green River Restoration project is a comprehensive riparian and aquatic restoration project for fish and wildlife habitat at the confluence of Mill Creek (Auburn) and the Green River, including the creation of side channels and an overwintering pond to increase access to floodplain habitat for Chinook salmon and other salmonids and to restore floodplain function on an 8.6 acre site owned by the City of Kent. The funding will be directed to the acquisition cost for the 8.6 acre site at the confluence of Mill Creek (Auburn) and the Green River. ' The Amendment to the Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between King County and the City of Kent provides Kent with $115,000 to acquire 8.6 acres at the confluence of Mill Creek Auburn and the Green River, providing an opportunity for creation of a channel that will enhance salmonid winter flooding refuge for the Green River and Mill Creek as well as providing summer rearing habitat. Exhibits: Amendment to the Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement U 1PR'ComnntleelAchonPnge12009iOf 22 MA—dmcm to Cnee w—,Futures Inledxn]w TC r(oC 86 ' AMENDMENT TO THE CONSERVATION FUTURES INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF KENT FOR OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROJECTS ' Preamble The King County Council, through Ordinance 9128,has established a Conservation Futures Levy Fund and appropriated proceeds to King County, the City of Seattle and certain suburban cities. This amendment is entered into to provide for the allocation of additional funds made available for open space acquisition. THIS AMENDMENT is entered into between the CITY OF KENT and KING COUNTY, and amends and attaches to and is part thereof of the existing Interlocal Cooperation Agreement entered into between the parties on the 29th day of January, 1991, as previously amended. The parties agree to the following amendments: Amendment 1: Article 1. Recitals Two paragraphs are hereby added to the Recitals Section to provide for a Conservation Futures Levy Fund allocation for the Confluence of Mill Creek/Green River Acquisition Project, and ' hereafter reads: • On November 22, 2004, the King County Council passed Ordinance 15083, which appropriated a total of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) in Conservation Futures Levy proceeds to the City of Kent for the Confluence of Mill Creek/Green River Acquisition Project. On March 14, 2005 the King County Council passed Ordinance 15139, authorizing the King County Executive to enter into interlocal agreements with the City of Seattle and the suburban cities for the disbursement of Conservation Futures Funds in Ordinance 15083. • On September 10, 2007 the King County Council passed Ordinance 15898, which appropriated a total of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) in Conservation Futures Levy proceeds to the City of Kent for the Confluence of Mill Creek/Green River Acquisition Project. On December 10, 2007 the King County Council passed Ordinance 15989, authorizing the King County Executive to enter into interlocal agreements with the City of Seattle and the suburban cities for the disbursement of Conservation Futures Funds in Ordinance 15898. Amendment 2: Article V. Conditions of Agreement Section 5.1 is amended to include Attachment G,which lists 2005 and 2007 Conservation Futures Levy Allocations for the Confluence of Mill Creek/Green River Acquisition Project. Amendment G Annual CFT Interlocal Kent-King County 2005 and 2007 CFT proceeds -1- 87 Amendment 3: Article VII. Responsibilities of County The first two sentences of this article are amended to include Attaclnnent G,which lists 2005 and 2007 Conservation Futures Levy proceeds allocations for the Confluence of Mill Creek Green River Acquisition Project: Subject to the terms of this agreement, the County will provide Conservation , Futures Levy Funds in the amounts shown in Attachments A through G to be used for the Projects listed in Attachments A through G. The City may request additional funds; however, the County has no obligation to provide funds to the City for the Projects in excess of the total amounts shown in Attachments A through G. The County assumes no obligation for the future support of the Projects described herein except as expressly set forth in this agreement. AMENDMENT 4: Attachment G ' The attachments to the Interlocal agreement are hereby amended by adding Attaclnnent G, which is hereby attached to the interlocal agreement, incorporated therein and made a part thereof ' In all other respects, the tenns, conditions, duties and obligations of both parties shall remain the same as agreed to in the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement as previously amended. ' This document shall be attached to the existing hiterlocal Cooperation Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, authorized representatives of the parties hereto have signed their ' names in the spaces set forth below: KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT ' Ron Sims King County Executive Mayor ' Date Date Acting under the authority of Acting under the authority of , Ordinance 15139 and Ordinance 15989 Ordinance: Dated: ' Approved as to form: Approved as to form: DAN SATTERBERG , King County Prosecuting Attorney City Attorney Amendment G Annual CFT Interlocal Kent-King County 2005 and 2007 CFT proceeds -2- 88 ' ATTACHMENT G 2005 and 2007 CONSERVATION FUTURES LEVY ALLOCATION CITY OF DENT Juri sdiction Project Allocation Kent Confluence of Mill Creek/Green River $100,000 (2005, Ordinance 15083) Confluence of Mill Creek/Green River $15,000 (2007, Ordinance 15898) ' TOTAL $115,000 Project Description: This is a 14-acre, five-parcel project at the confluence of the Green River and Mill Creek, located at south 262"d Street and State Route 167 in Kent. Mill Creek is one of the two or three most important salmonid winter flooding refine areas on lower Green River and the project will provide an Opportunity for restoration of an historic channel that will enhance this function. City of Kent—Confluence of Mill Creek Green River $115,000 ' Amendment G Annual CFT Interlocal Kent-King County 2005 and 2007 C FT proceeds -1- ' Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 ' Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SPRINT LIMITED STREET LICENSE AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Limited Street License with Sprint Communications Company, which renews the previous license with some amended provisions. Pay to the City a one time amount in the sum of $5,000 prior to the commencement of this license agreement. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum and Limited Street License 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 1 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? 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. 6P 119 ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director • Phone: 253-856-5500 KENT Fax: 253-856-6500 W A S H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 9, 2007 To: Chair, Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members PW Committee Meeting Date: January 22, 2008 From: Tim Laporte, Deputy Public Works Director Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director ,€...k6 0t-f$- Subject: Limited Street License Agreement with Sprint Motion: Move to authorize the Mayor to sign the Limited Street License Agreement with Sprint Communications Company. 1 ` Background/Summary: Sprint Communications Company is a private company whose service area includes the City of Kent. Sprint has requested that the City of Kent grant them a permit to use City right-of-way to operate its system. In accordance with state law, C{ty's may require telecommunications companies to obtain a use permit to operate within the City in lieu of granting a franchise. The Limited Street License, under state law, constitutes a use permit and grants Sprint the right to operate within Kent's right-of-way, for five years. This action is the renewal of the previous 1 license with some amended provisions. The fee is $5,000.00. ' Exhibits: Limited Street License U iF{i'CommnterlAchonPngc120a510{22 OM-ifad Sfreef Lmcoc Agrmnf w Gmn1 doe ' 120 LIMITED STREET LICENSE BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. THIS LIMITED STREET LICENSE ("License") is entered into between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"), and SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY ' L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Licensee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Licensee seeks to operate its telecommunications system in the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, Licensee has requested that the City grant a permit to use City right-of-way to operate its telecommunications system within the City; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to issue this License, which constitutes a use permit under chapter 35.99 of the Revised Code of Washington, for a telecommunications system, as described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to enter into this License under the terms and conditions set forth in this License so that Licensee can continue to operate, and maintain its existing facilities; NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY AND LICENSEE AGREE AS FOLLOWS: LICENSE 1. License Granted. The City grants Licensee this Limited Street License for a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this License to install, construct, operate, maintain, remove, repair, reconstruct, replace, use and inspect a telecommunications system ' and all related equipment ("telecommunications system") across, along, in, upon, and under the City's right-of-ways described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by this reference. A general description of the plans and specifications for this telecommunications system is attached as Exhibit B, public disclosure of which is subject to applicable provisions of the Revised Code of Washington. This License is subject to all the terms and conditions established below. 2. Consideration. In consideration of the City's issuance of this License, Licensee shall, at the time of execution of this License, pay to the City a one-time amount in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,000.00) prior to the commencement of this License. 3. Revocation and Termination. The intent of this License is to authorize Licensee to operate its telecommunications system on the designated City right-of-ways,which ' LIMITED STREET LICENSE--Page 1 of 8 (December 13, 2007) (between City of Kent and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.) ARN 78998 PRN 2331333130 121 1 right-of-ways constitute a valuable property interest owned by the City. This License does not grant an estate in the land described in Exhibit A; it is not an easement; it is not a franchise; it ' i 1 1 1 1 1 LIMITED STREET LICENSE--Page 7 of 8 (December 13, 2007) (between City of Kent and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.) ARM 78998 RRN 233130 122 is not exclusive; and it does not exclude the Cityfrom full possession of the property described P P P Y in Exhibit A. As a license upon real property, it is revocable at the will of the City. However, prior to termination or revocation by the City,the City shall provide Licensee with at least sixty (60) calendar days written notice of that termination or revocation. Upon the effective date of the City's termination or revocation, the City may require Licensee to remove the telecommunications system within thirty (30) calendar days; if Licensee fails to remove the telecommunications system within the allotted time, the City may remove all or part of the telecommunications system and Licensee waives any right it may have to any claim for damages of any kind incurred as a result of the City's removal of all or part of the telecommunications system. 4. Permits Required. The City's grant of this License does not release Licensee from any of its obligations to obtain applicable local, state, and federal permits necessary to install, construct, operate, maintain, remove, repair, reconstruct, replace, use and inspect the telecommunications system, Licensee's failure to comply with this section 4 shall constitute grounds for immediate revocation by the City. S. Relocation. The term 'relocate" shall refer to protecting, supporting, temporarily disconnecting, moving to a new location, removing, or converting from aerial facilities to underground facilities. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, relocate all or a part of its telecommunications system when required by the City for reasons of traffic conditions or public safety,widening or improvement of existing right-of-ways,change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity, provided that Licensee shall, upon receiving approval and obtaining the necessary permits from the City, have the right to bypass in the authorized portion of the same right-of-way, any section of cable required to be temporarily disconnected ' or removed. 5.1. For the purposes of this section 5, any condition or requirement imposed by the City upon itself or any person or entity acting on the City's behalf, (including without limitation, any condition or requirement imposed pursuant to any contract or in conjunction with approvals for permits for zoning, land use, construction, or development) that reasonably necessitates the relocation of Licensee's facilities within the right-of-ways described in Exhibit shall be a required relocation for purposes of this section. 5.2. If the City, under its authority,causes a required relocation of all or part of the telecommunications system, the City, at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the commencement of the project requiring relocation, shall provide written notice to Licensee of the required relocation and shall provide Licensee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for the project. After receipt of the City's notice, Licensee must complete the required relocation of its affected facilities at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the commencement of the project requiring relocation. Licensee will complete this required relocation at no charge or expense to the City. Further, Licensee's relocation shall be accomplished in a manner that accommodates and does not interfere with the project requiring relocation. When other utilities are present and involved in relocation, the City will attempt to coordinate the relocation of the utilities. ' LIMITED STREET LICENSE--Page 3 of 8 (December 13, 2007) (between City of Dent and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.) ARN 7399a PRN 2331333130 123 , i 5.3. Licensee may, after receipt of the City's written notice requesting relocation, submit written alternatives to the City. The City will evaluate those alternatives to determine if any of the alternatives can accommodate the work that would otherwise necessitate the relocation of the telecommunications system. If requested by the City, Licensee will submit additional information to assist the City in making its determination. The City will give each alternative proposed by Licensee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that no reasonable or feasible alternative exists, Licensee shall relocate its facilities as otherwise provided in this section 5. 5.4. Notwithstanding the above provisions in this section 5,the Licensee may , seek reimbursement from the City for its actual relocation expenses under any one of the following conditions: 5.4.1. If the City has required the Licensee to relocate these facilities at Licensee's cost within five (5) years of the date of a request for relocation; 5.4.2. If the Licensee holds an ownership share in the aerial supporting structures (defined as poles or pole-like structures) for its facilities, and if the City requires an aerial to underground relocation of Licensee's facilities, the City will pay the additional incremental costs of undergrounding these facilities compared to an aerial relocation of the facilities, or will pay those costs required in any approved tariff, if less than the additional incremental costs; or 5.4.3. If the City requests relocation solely for aesthetic purposes. 5.5. Facilities should be relocated within right of way whenever physically possible. City shall not be responsible for the cost of easement rights for relocation of facilities unless the facilities to be relocated are upon private property and responsibility for new easement rights is assigned to the City by an approved tariff. In such event, the cost of replacement easement rights shall be an offset in City's favor against just compensation for easement rights taken. 5.6. In the event that a relocation of any of the telecommunications system is required by any person or entity other than the City, so long as that person or entity is not acting on the City's behalf in conducting any of the activities described in this section 5, Licensee shall make those arrangements, including compensation for Licensee's relocation cost, that it deems appropriate with that person or entity. , 5.7. Notwithstanding all of the above, the City may require the relocation of the telecommunications system at Licensee's expense in the event of an unforeseen emergency that creates an immediate threat to the public safety, health or welfare, but still subject to reimbursement under 5.4. S.S. The provisions of this section 5 shall survive the expiration or termination of this License. , 5.9. Licensee shall not be responsible for any costs associated with relocation LIMITED STREET LICENSE--Page 4 of 8 (December 13, 2007) (between City of Kent and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.) ARN 78998 PRN 233130 124 of the City's four inch (4') conduit facilities. 5.10. Licensee shall not erect poles, run or suspend wires, cables, or other facilities, in any area without prior written approval from the City. ' 6. Emergency. In the event of any emergency in which any portion of the telecommunications system breaks, becomes damaged, or in any other way becomes an immediate danger to the property, life, health, or safety of any individual, Licensee shall ' immediately take the proper emergency measures to remedy the dangerous condition without first applying for and obtaining a permit as required by this License. However, this emergency work shall not relieve Licensee from its obligation to obtain all permits necessary for this purpose, and Licensee shall apply for those permits within the next two succeeding business days. 7. Indemnification. Licensee shall comply with the following indemnification requirements: 7.1. Licensee shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, assigns and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, actions, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs, witness fees and reasonable attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of any of Licensee's rights or obligations granted by this License, but only to the extent of the negligence or comparative fault of Licensee, its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, subconsultants or assigns. 7.2. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Licensee's work when ' completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. 7.3. These indemnification obligations shall extend to any claim,action or suit that may be settled by compromise, provided that Licensee shall not be liable to indernify the City for any settlement agreed upon without the consent of Licensee; however, if Licensee consents to the agreed upon settlement, then Licensee shall indemnify and hold the City harmless as provided for in this section 7 by reason of that settlement. Moreover, if Licensee refuses to defend the City against claims by third parties, Licensee shall indemnify the City regardless of whether the settlement was made with or without Licensee's consent. 7.4. In the event that Licensee refuses to tender defense in any claim, action or suit by a third party pursuant to this section 7 and if Licensee's refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter) to have been a wrongful refusal, then Licensee shall pay all the City's costs for defense of the action, including all legal costs, witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees and also including the City's costs, including all legal costs, witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees, for recovery under this indemnification clause (section 7). t 7.5. The provisions of this section 7 shall survive the expiration or termination of this License. LIMITED STREET LICENSE--Page 5 of 8 (December 13, 2007) (between City of Kent and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.) ARN 78998 PRN 2331333130 125 S. Insurance. Licensee shall procure and maintain for the duration of this License, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work by Licensee. Licensee also agrees to require the same coverage of its agents, representatives, employees,contractors,subcontractors,consultants,subconsultants or assigns performing work under the scope of this License and to assure that such coverage is maintained 8.1. Before beginning work on the project described in this License, Licensee shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: , 8.1.1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than$1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and8.1.2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and employer's liability. 8.1.3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than$2,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate. 8.2. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of Licensee. 8.3. The City, its officers,officials,employees, agents, assigns and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy,as respects work performed by ' or on behalf of the Licensee and shall make an endorsement that includes the City as additional insured available to Licensor for inspection. Licensor waives no rights and Licensee is not excused from performance if Licensee does not provide Licensor with a paper copy of the endorsement naming the City as an additional insured. 8.4. Licensee's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. 8.5. Licensee's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City,and the City shall be given thirty(30) calendar days prior written notice electronically and by United States mail of any cancellation or if the City is deleted as an additional insured. , 9. Modification. This License may not be modified, altered, or amended unless first approved in writing by the City and the Licensee. 10. Assignment. Licensee may assign all or any portion of its rights, benefits, and i privileges, in and under this License subject to and conditioned upon approval of the City,which approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Licensee shall, no later than thirty(30) days of the date of any proposed assignment,file written notice of intent to assign the License with the City together with the assignee's written acceptance of all terms and conditions of the License and promise of compliance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Licensee shall have the LIMITED STREET LICENSE--Page 6 of 8 (December 13, 2007) (between City of Kent and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.) ARN 78998 PRN 233130 126 right, without such notice or such written acceptance, to mortgage its rights, benefits and 9 f privileges in and under this License to the Trustee for its bondholders and assign to any subsidiary, parent, affiliate or company having common control with Licensee so long as notice of same is provided to the City and provided Licensee remains fully liable to the City for compliance with all terms and conditions hereof until such time as the City shall consent to such assignment as provided above. li. Dispute Resolution; Venue,Jurisdiction. In the event of any alleged breach or threatened breach of this License by either party and if the City and Licensee are unable to ' cure the breach or otherwise resolve their dispute,then final resolution of this dispute or claim shall occur exclusively under the venue,jurisdiction and rules of the King County Superior Court located in Kent, Washington. Each party shall also be responsible for its own legal costs and attorney fees incurred in defending or bringing that claim or lawsuit. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIMITED STREET LICENSE--Page 7 of 8 (December 13, 2007) (between City of Kent and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.) 1 ARN 78998 VRN 2331333130 127 12. Notice. All notices, requests, demands, or other communications provided for in this License shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when received and having been sent by registered or certified mail,return receipt requested,addressed as the case may be, to the addresses listed below for each party, or to such other person or address as either party shall designate to the other from time to time in writing forwarded in like manner. CITY OF KENT LICENSEE: Attn: City Clerk Sprint Communications Company L.P. ' 220 Fourth Avenue South KSOPHT0101-Z2040 Kent, WA 98403 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, Kansas 66251-2040 Attention: Manager, Right of Way With a copy of Notices of Default to: Sprint Legal Department KSOPHT0101-Z2020 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, Kansas 66251-2020 Attention: Real Estate Attorney 13. This License contains the entire agreement between the parties and, in executing it,the City and Licensee do not rely upon any statement, promise, or representation, whether oral or written, not expressed herein. , IN WITNESS,this Limited Street License is executed and shall become effective as of the last date signed below. CITY: LICENSEE: City of Kent SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. y: ,. y, l SUZETTE COOKE, Mayor , I � lk. EL_t EY Its:; PrMhnager, Right of Way , Date: Date: a' � rf APPROVED AS TO FORM: By. Kent Law Department P\Civil\Files\OpenFdes\0421\Sprint\Spnntlicense-2007-2012.dx LIMITED STREET LICENSE--Page 8 of 8 (December 13, 2007) (between City of Kent and Sprint Communications Company, L.P.) ARN 78998 PRN 233130 128 EXMBIT A I 1 The following is a list of street crossings, located within the Kent city limits, which Sprint Communications will cross in renewing their telecommunications Limited Street License. The streets listed below run from North to South 1. South 212th Street 2. South 228th Street 3_ West James Street 4. West Smith Street 5. West Meeker Street 6_ West Willis Street t t t 129 � I EXHIBIT B 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ' i , 1 1 130 ono 3H34J(13 CIi 2SC*49 Y1S£D j07A HS JPO-LgR 93S -j U3W J 1 (S17a't(I((4tlNY4 Y,} WL•pa '{ � j�; d4 I""• Ij ❑ awo-lovMzarvvaxoaeLs'u1+c�a.lA{ Ke,t� Grj 4 a �'�` )fltl n39liYM I O F I 2ltaY3�pa9 {Ba•C9 m I fy�� 1I I +4 SI 1 It � zi t 1 r lds"rW ro]olgoAt ott•if '� S M 1 # {Iwr33rnaa wrr•v � F of S � M ` I1 r HStf[gN•Zf S~ ;I ; ;I �( CA1RloYM a+IIl YJ1 11i fdI1YC AJ3 A3Ld(AtS1 09e00AS•.r GC90 a�3!I€I"LLw c] ,� J xneiu azs•4a i � �` WIgIVAS ZtFp L� � � i f ; ltlxua{naa aet•ca I � daremt3nnmaa oastca i "IdS^HH I�•f 9Ac•i9�A � t I. � � � K� Ty TI & P l H^Ni3ALLNg1rFi3 Cxt oss+xa ; � 1 � IsdlLattAwanY� o¢P•ca � � I 1 1 t I bl 1 }3 �I AWpk1MMa41'1 r.1 AIL•f9 I �• 1 �, , 1t9RLMM1Mf v� ew.zf � 2 a¢ 1 � oAauus.t orra acl•za `� i4 � �< 3M1�LYM tLf+' �� - - ---- —I Ana y�eszn3a o<e•si i wznoea�zvM I� _ —A d 710J.it L�Wa1� oasu CT� 1 ttarlamtaxtva'tts zo3aAl lfl'saatlzor� Sea+� a � gGE[¢a tY38TYM f� � *�,1 , �`} Oal>lMb1 LdM41:1'G3NI1N0'JMZMJI H7tLM11MlOf 936'3tl0e 1NR M9 dMrag `Q ; �j L 1 1 Fr ul4n aal.lf ��8 D, stwLtt�rAaxtr� Haze _ 31fiSYJ M'e•49 .� -- BAfn Ally"190tltt AiS l(J C0.4f n l� soul A1C111{3M --- ------L_4SmfcrMsl am a3At3s ata.La - _ �_i-�_--13NWf•39 SIhll,ltU[g4N3Y _ _ ____� 31iL�O3fY1e tae•1f / - + AYIlt 3{Yn'Ja�kM4 tl3ItlLN Oa6.11 Ltl.L 1(elAn3tl tlllrtf 1 1 11i14fOtN eYa•t9 IS qq , {'IaOLONYf Afq [19n49 I $ 1> fe I a+atmiMtMv-1 WOO, a$ 1 1 R 1 1ffI1 h r I r � -8 1 1V�w144f aosC.m'eul� alw.lf � � $ $h Mr I X N�Y '� �__ MCldt A3Aa(1$ Zl1.19 I aN���t 3311V3S QL ZlS+l3 ViS ZO j0 ZO HS 9p0-{S8 33S a q 4 $ l 131 z tjjno ' o � $ 3d3J{'130l ZBL+ggV1S 8D0.488335 � CEdO x� aesisv�anNis zet.w �— E C7�"� ,'� n W 1 arc; z IL s b� �' x stVPIaYM NMVYJ MF.oP Q o I I Of LLt iI u I 1 t IV u \£. 1 ¢a�an Auws9 i � w3 I � � % 1 li3!��]FM3 CIL•9V g vuvtavwur.r� cw.sv E + DI u - I � LrwY�]aNa uv.n g I fi R � l 1 � 1 1}jfL 1 l 1 1 F .v�v}_O l7'1 I t91lItU.'M NN v`] L04.M �Qpr Oi] 0 0 i I r��K I 1 l }-y I mnul an coww �ve�ss�a ncs•ro - 1 1 '/� . I EF9MOYM N�IY� act-w i 1 1 a fY 1 31i1,Y3S OL L54*69'd1S f0 a0 l0 H3110-498 33S 132 \ � �\ \ \ )� a @ # # ■ # _ 3 i � § � _ § � § } , ~ — 7 #6 — �/ 4 e � � ® »a &�§§ m§&G \\}\ ^ «/ # ! a ! ■ & � � � � 133 CE r N w" �Iu o I ` M u ��,•t U 4 ��I F `h snr t5-W anfn 15 33; v t' F❑ �I2 s T .. ars�sa 11-cZ 17 a_.4xr Y01r1' ea�o- . 3� I = m< o 4 y x ZN LI�+I S/lIp_((InYM oaf.H? � `/ M I � -- '�7a�F• '�I - � - s cc>a-.rs rt 5 A C�)U 0 U t. -✓9-_-dY- YL�J-fe-vM L'TZtt•1 1 � '4 � r \Y/ 8.>!DiY 24LY�%��� tl�bi�� )Y X4iJl1 H:IC t14 rc� I SOI-iaB-L>O.'4NIM 16 33i - 'y• N G �4 j • ,v ffi �1t 134 i w r i cat:-s<rs n�.�••07—S F m n�• .,Y.re.rc:1_ r - _ _�'i a'ti a"— N c°u �'„ �F- :,�v 21 4.Z 1111 S� � Q� 1 1111 4 � SOF�IBII-fiSu}!rY(N'rs 3K �6�-. 1 $ r'Y 5 V aI-A v- l _ N f - I 1 1 C I I �u :� 1 - II 4 1 N� 2 SOh-IBB-8r0 J�AIN"!5 �3 135 f � Lu i 4\ 1 CO Us M=.•, ,� f � ! ua� s 5 M 0 � ri �. iQ� s.rxBLZnt I � —��r���_ nr.,'.-.] ems..-�^. �i�J "+�„��;..a.�✓ 4`�0 �.4iX � � I C i I' s=ani��.• e ��N d.r I s SM-Iw-Lsa}LL1tM.5 tIL .nc.w,'tS lrtM.,veto corm i w� �g N� 1= n a �� 136 o � -ZSMIWIM'HS 33S ^!'>Ft58 YIC IiYr J3177><`-•LN7 Mgt„ '.arK`rl` ' p Q (rr oal "'-----+.'�r>w 1•y,.a i r.i"al-s�a �� LL L a R v �s.�` ! •j[t� (n �•"y� to s` �L'+�-'b—.rcT I � 't l\�'L''C-t-i• �..a..n �f i Rei��4iV r'� i_ ' i-�m uac "'•'G�):"�i.Lr � 1, T .f ,; goo z�nt 3a i�t yHHHVVV -Z—LJ { i �S�P-r Fa-l494tln.M 3]S �kl J �i'_ Gum-^ Jr• t ^'••a-f 1>1',"+��D-� �1 - 4 nu.'tp'r1g yl.-l9P-OGO rg1(M HS 33Sy �ti/ � �Fr�V�r 1HIa,Y"3a.11 N13YM Y�- %n m T 4-1 v,R �3 137 F Lli x Q S Qz .0 0 2 a� i 2Et m elT i �wl q�} e Fl�xn>� lit 'F 41 !Harr,�//// �x•=' R �S A -1 1 ts 138 CO $= I a P I ' iax '� � rj1W x 00 S Sor^!Ba•ESo�lylLM NS 33S ° 0.z: yi 2 +-Wlk ca - Q 4 ( t II 6 Y 5 1 •I +T�P NF a Sniar i I �Ix ~« S _ to y I,- xV�yX Gfd� 1 I 1� fl � 1--F�, '1,'.- mar = ry> ! ` I � C17CCv �_ �/-fb->YLN i1,gf b AIS•Cs �_--v_i i-ira.-a .� � -r ID•il 1J3dt+nN `�P i 1[{ ti-'ter✓r,-�"�..w° 1 '1 a6F r;lx 41:- AF a1A2"; Ill llf+e ik °� A7b7 dW a�•sa v<s; .._'r ��E I vic. tr'fra .N,.4 sa-eaR-Isalr+n/n xs a l\ nci e'""✓�'[^' 4 139 CL z M= C) 41 1 . x q � 4 � � AI - - � al 1 � J ,%I � ILL al 140 LLIs , -6� —7—7 rru•t^. iN la4-rN}�Nn.;'�6 3?5 2, � 1'-' -. 8•r>H-l�Y -.�.n mil.=l'nr-_--, ��1��••� �� Wl fall T,-iuvrc�'�� s j I!cl'2 � � `--:car-.-c./•+.F.Tzc- � ra .n'� �= n fs C1 er-•?`•'07 -'i4,i'revn'—�+c—i'•� q ;t 2: _ � .rx terror �F� •.� :1 � its ij �•rtA •fix 1 V J --rail's'.-c•r.-as- �+I t --= ', r«� v ( cs-raFc-- a✓-�. l� - e!°t I zi �S.- r�� - ' � c•�1 -[rf�ram"-L..T•,Ll':`I' ax'x-•'�' -, 4 ;-;'7:-3vw�s-rc tl ` I f�k rt 51 u '-Sr-1l .r•J Wr-+f4 � f t v 1 J ^-ra.':•n n-z-.-a=-:,i _f �I 1 � ��'{ it �rx ` wi ^ , r".•'.'�•' ..rJTW� 1 tn11 i'w�<,i_" �'vl f� /„i.P�'/ N.-0Y,fC' a��,�..---�— ./ I�G •Ia VNt a>otoays -f `-• < / ' oco.,."M-xar�''.'��V �� ` 3,�.:� -.`•+. i�4 11 -1 :.r.va^yc.kcr.r _f ! r.a",•^ '�� I•I Lfi vas eec v^er• 3� EE���.a",°ot�rr.s.—,, 1 �^-�::,.a � w� - . ��vm zc r�,. f;C Lr6 eSY C:"../r�l-I i+F^rs�-4L�a�.�1=_l�•• Lr�4.. tl �tonran-,-tL>�-I,!•� w � .=iT-'ram+, _-.'ai't -�'^�—�_ z %PS•6o Rs .Ar'-[P9-ZSO Tafllu 15 3X � I{r '�rd r_4 .N:a U3-w',rA»a , n - yn! na: Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CORRECTIONS CONTROL PANEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Kent Corrections Control Panel Replacement Project as complete. Renovation services for the Kent Corrections Control Panel Replacement Project were provided by Engineered Control Systems The project was inspected and approved by the project manager Mike Hattrup on Aug. 29, 2007. 3. EXHIBITS: Letter of acceptance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: jCouncilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6Q FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Charles Lindsey Superintendent 220 4'h Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Fax: 253-856-6080 PHONE: 253-856-5080 ' August 29, 2007 Bob Ellis, President Engineered Control Systems 2702 North Perry Spokane, Wa. 99207 RE: Corrections Control Panel Replacement De ar Bob Ellis. I have made a final inspection of the Kent Correction Control Panel Project and found that the project is completed to my satisfaction. This letter serves as final acceptance of the Goods and Services project effective as of August 29, 2007. The one-year warranty period will remain in effect through August 29, 2008. Please make sure that all necessary State documents have been completed and filed. If you have any questions, please call me at (253)856-5082. Sincerely, Mike Hattrup, Project Coordinator C: Jeff Watling, Parks Director Recreation & Community Services Chauntelle Kristek, Project Accountant MH/rg City of Kent Parks, Recreation &Community Services Jeff Watling, Director Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT CITY HALL CAMPUS PROJECT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Kent City Hall Campus Project as complete. Renovation services for the Kent City Hall Campus Project were provided by L.W. Sundstrom Const. The project was inspected and approved by the project manager Mike Hattrup on Sept. 29, 2007. 3. EXHIBITS: Letter of acceptance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 1 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. 6R FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Charles Lindsey Superintendent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Fax: 253-856-6080 PHONE: 253-856-5080 September 28, 2007 Len Sundstrom LW Sundstrom 1 PO Box 893 Ravensdale, Wa. 98051-0893 RE: City Hall Campus Project Dear Len Sundstrom: I have made a final inspection of the Kent City Hall Campus Project and found that the project is completed to my satisfaction. This letter serves as final acceptance of the public works project effective as of September 28, 2007. The one-year warranty period will remain in effect through September 28, 2008. Please make sure that all necessary State documents have been completed and filed. If you have any questions, please call me at (253)856-5082. Sincerely, ' Mike Hattrup, Project Coordinator C: Jeff Watling, Parks Director Recreation & Community Services ' Chauntelle Kristek, Project Accountant MH/rg City of Kent Parks, Recreation &Community Services Jeff Watling, Director Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2007 ASPHALT SLURRY SEAL - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the 2007 Asphalt Slurry Seal project as complete and release retainage to Doolittle Construction, upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $103,499.60. The final contract amount was $ 90,906.38. 3. EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (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 Kent City Council Meeting Date_ February 5, 2008 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CONDEMNATION ORDINANCE - ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. providing for the acquisition of real property and/or property rights located along 84th Avenue South (East Valley Highway) from South 224th Street to South 212th Street for the East Valley Highway Improvement Project. This action is being taken in order to construct the improvements to widen and improve the roadways, together with all necessary appurtenances and related work. This Ordinance provides for the condemnation rights necessary for that purpose; provides for payment out of the East Valley Highway Improvement Project fund; and authorizes the city attorney to prosecute appropriate legal proceedings. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance; Public Works memorandum; letter to property owners; and notice published 1/9/08 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Yes Revenue? No 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. 6T ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for the acquisition of real property and/or property rights located along 84th Avenue South (East Valley Highway) from South 224th Street to South 212th Street. This action is being taken in order to construct the improvements to widen and improve the roadways. This Ordinance provides for the condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of real property and/or rights as are necessary for that purpose and provides for the payment thereof out of the East Valley Highway Improvement Project fund (Fund No. R90056). This Ordinance directs the city attorney to ' prosecute the appropriate legal proceedings, together with the authority to enter into settlements, stipulations or other agreements; and acknowledges that all of the real property affected is located within the corporate limits of the City of Kent in King County, Washington. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT jWASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE - I SECTION 1, After hearing the report of City staff, and after reviewing the planned improvements for the East Valley Highway Improvement Project (the "Project"), the City Council finds and declares that the public convenience, use, health, safety and necessity, demand that the City of Kent condemn, appropriate, take and damage portions of certain real properties located within the corporate limits of the City of Kent in King County, Washington, in order to acquire the necessary real property and/or property rights for the construction of the Project, including all necessary appurtenances. The properties and owners of record 1 East Valley Highway Improvement Project Condemnation Ordinance affected by this ordinance are described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference (collectively the "Property"). The purposes for which this condemnation is authorized shall include, without limitation, all acts necessary to complete the construction, extension, improvement, widening, alteration, maintenance, reconstruction and restoration of the Project, and any other j municipal purpose lawfully permitted within rights of way. SECTION 2. The City authorizes the acquisition by condemnation of all or a portion of the Property and/ or rights in the Property for the construction, extension, improvement, widening, alteration, maintenance and reconstruction of the Projects, together with all necessary appurtenances and related work to make a complete roadway improvement according to applicable design, construction and traffic standards and to accommodate other municipal purposes lawfully permitted within rights of way. SECTION 3. The City shall condemn the Property and/or rights in the l Property only upon completion of all steps and procedures required by applicable federal, state, and/or local laws and regulations. The City's possession and use of the Property and/or rights shall commence only after a firm offer has been made and that amount has first been paid to the owner(s) and encumbrancers or paid into the registry of the court for the owner(s) and encumbrancers - in the manner prescribed by law. Title shall not pass to the City until the time just compensation has been either agreed upon or has been finally adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction and that amount along with any interest accrued has been either distributed to the owner(s) and encumbrancers or paid in full into the registry of the court. SECTION 4. The City shall pay for the entire cost of the acquisition by condemnation provided for in this ordinance through the City's "East Valley Highway Improvement Project" fund (Fund No. R90056), or from any of the City's general funds, if necessary, as may be permitted by law. 2 East Valley Highway Improvement Project Condemnation Ordinance SECTION 5. The City authorizes and directs the city attorney to commence those proceedings provided by law that are necessary to condemn the ' Property and/or interests therein. The City Council authorizes the city attorney to enter into settlements, stipulations, or agreements in order to mitigate damages Land/ or to minimize costs. The bases for such settlements, stipulations, or agreements may include, but are not limited to, the amount of just compensation to be paid; the size and dimensions of the property condemned; the acquisition of temporary construction easements and other limited property interests; and costs and attorneys fees SECTION 6. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed. SECTION 7. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, ' section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ' ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. i SECTION S. This ordinance, being the exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its publication as provided by law. 1 SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 East Valley Highway Improvement Project Condemnation Ordinance APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY t PASSED: day of , 200_. APPROVED: day of 200_. PUBLISHED: day of , 200_. j 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 IACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Civil\Ordinance\Condemn-EastValleyHwyImprovement doc , i 4 East Valley Highway Improvement Project Condemnation Ordinance a � EXHIBIT A 1 J t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Order No. 634523 OWNER' -RSD KNIGHT, LLC TAX PARCEL NO.-: 122204-9082 Lot 4, City of Kent Short Plat Number SPC-76-10, recorded under Recording Number 7611180568, being a portion of the following: The east 256.72 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast ' quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North; Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the south 30 feet; AND EXCEPT the north 19B feet; AND ALSO EXCEPT the east 42 feet thereof. EXHIBIT"A" PAGE 1 OF 20 TI Order No. 634524 OWNER: CBGPK PARTNERSHIP TAX PARCEL NO.: 122204-9095 Lot 3, City of rent Short Plat Number SPC 76-10, recorded under Recording Number 7611180568, being a portion of the following: ' The east 256.72 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the south 30 feet; AND EXCEPT the north 198 feet; AND ALSO EXCEPT the east 42 feet thereof as conveyed to the City of Kent by instruments recorded under Recording Numbers 7207210155 and 7207210156. EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 OF 20 Order ko. 634525 OWNER: , JACKSON, GARY L. & CHERYL S. TAX PARCEL NO.: 122204-9094 Lot 2, 'city of Kent• Short Plat SPC 75-10 Number 7611180568, beinga , recorded under Recording property: Portion of the following described The east 256.72 feet 'of the north e, of the northeast ast quarter of southeast 'quarter, quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the south 30 feet; EXCEPT the north 198 feet; * EXCEPT the east 42 feet for road. EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 3 OF 20 Order No. 634526 OWNER: ROBERTS, GORDON L. & MARY K. TAX PARCEL NO.: 122204-9040 Lot 1, City of Kent Short Flat N6. SPC-76-10, recorded under Recording Number 7611180568, being a potion of the following: The east 256.72 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. EXCEPT the south 30 feet: AND EXCEPT.the north 198 feet; , AND, ALSO EXCEPT the east 42 feet thereof TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities over the south 30 feet of the west'214.75 feet of the east 256.75 feet of the north half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 4 OF 20 Order No. 634557 TAX PARCEL NO.: 122204-9107 OWNER: UPS Lot 2, City of Kent Short Plat No. SPC-77-36, recorded under Recording Number 7811080733, being a portion of the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the south 15 feet of the north half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 30 feet thereof. EXHIBIT"A" PAGE 5 OF 20 Order No. 634527 OWNER: TERRY L. HOLM TAX PARCEL NO., 12204-9048, -9052,-9065&9071 Parcel A: The east 104 feet of the north 70 feet of the north half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12 Township 22 North Range 4 East, W. M. in King County, Washington; EXCEPT those portions deeded for road purposes by instruments recorded under Recording Numbers 749613 and 7309040007. Parcel B: The south 114 feet of the north 184 feet of the east 156 feet of the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12 Township 22 North Range 4 East, W. M. in King County, Washington; EXCEPT those portions deeded for road purposes by instruments recorded under Recording Numbers 749613 and 7309040007. �I Parcel C: The south 31 feet of the north 215 feet of the east 156 feet of the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12 Township 22 North Range 4 East, W. M. in King County, Washington; EXCEPT those portions deeded for road purposes by instruments recorded under Recording Numbers 749613 and 7309040007. Parcel D: The south 60 feet of the north 275 feet of the east 156 feet of the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12 Township 22 North Range 4 East., W. M. in King County, Washington; EXCEPT those portions deeded for road purposes by instruments recorded under Recording Numbers 749613 and 7309040007. EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 6 OF 20 Order No. 634528 OWNER: DAVID'S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLP TAX PARCEL NO.: 383000-0022 Lot 2 of City of Kent Short Plat Number SP-90-2 (Andover Short Plat) , recorded under Recording Number 9007310700, being a portion of Tract 4, Kent Five-Acre Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 19, in King County, Washington. EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 7 OF 20 CrJet Tract .� Kere 1Q o� � ' ?calf of xded in vO�u r CAL A' he I reco F— 2�4.0o feedereof e PiaG thVa hingCon; deeds recorded The mast dir9 to CourtY► by n County, ` actor King of way ICi 5 'Tracts#page a th 30 feet; eeded fO a 7,,2040d�0 r in ; B CEpT the east 12 fee. 72120 Da rpved BRCS r R cording Nu ��s; - I;ine Napst e�rdi S under Mae ngton; of Kent �'°t n CpuntY ' t p City under Ki ` th 30 t�SO �toWN A °as recorded Tess over ct 4 t° Pr4v�ae st 30` d e�3 �za g30g1208g1) ; fpr 1nrgS 110 rtl� half of ove desCrlbed . an easemen f u °� the nt - to the ; R vll 234.00 e ,rOGR'I' the ear anY an unilm ed aGCeS� to _2 �prd°Ver Sho at rty- . _90 being Pr°pe ort plat 230- 5FVas . for the Plat CBL'B; r of KeT�t Sh KinJ Countaccordi�g COuntYr ; t a r City 00,j31p700 r e ,bracts r ill z{inq ?Ortrogecordinc N o f Kent �0 of platsr Pale ti9 re' p"at) of bract Voiun'a ows: t Five' `C the e Xecor odr bed as foil cornet Tract , Ker t3T of of WaShir9t°n' rn the 5putheast c° feet to the TgUB FQ Cp�eln,cin'3 at N west 1g.50 ` ts; , 00 .Trac tort $� 26 �� feet- erGe'nar east 1.65 0 feet; x OF gSGx � ortli p1 o15'r 54. west 1.60,70 feet; to the TRH i'O nc Thenc south 0a'26 p0" east. West 165-�0 fe Thence $oath g0 - p�Ea 4F 2fl Order NOS , LEGAL I)_T S (ALSO PTION, continued. SOWN recorded undAS Lot g - r Reco 9 Nu of Kenn rdin tuber 940607043i tOt c� Adjustment No, LLf 94-13, EXHIBIT«A„ PAGE 9 OF 20 Order No. 634530 ' OWNER: CHEROKEE ACQUISITION CORP. TAX PARCEL NO.: 122204-9028 That portion of the south half of the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said south half of the southeast quarter; Thence west along the north line of said south half of the southeast quarter 30 feet to an intersection with a line 30 feet west of and parallel with the east line of said south half of the southeast quarter; Thence south along said parallel line, a distance of 30 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ' Thence west along a line 30 feet south of and parallel with the north line of said south half of the southeast quarter a distance of 320 feet; ' Thence south to a point on the north line of Tract 4, Shinn's Valley Home Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 7 of Plats, page 22, in King County, Washington, which point is 320 feet west of a line 30 feet west of and parallel with the east line of said south half of the southeast quarter; Thence east 320 feet to said last described parallel line; Thence north along said parallel line to a point 30 feet south of the north line of said south half of the southeast quarter and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT the east 12 feet thereof, conveyed to the City of Kent for street purposes, by deeds recorded under Recording Numbers ' 7206210073 and 7206210074. EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 10 OF 20 Order No. 634531 OWNER: MV MOTELS, INC TAX PARCEL NO.: 775980-0020 Lot 2, city of Kent Short Plat No. 75-1, recorded under Recording " Number 7503310529, in King County, Washington, said short plat being " a portion of Tract 2, Shinn's valley Home Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 7 of Plats, page 22, in King County, Washington. ; EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 11 OF 20 Order No. 634532 OWNER; BUI, LLC TAX PARCEL NO.: 775980-003U lot 3, City of Kent • Recording Number 770509083616inLvKin��C_76_31, recorded under ' plat being a portion of -Tract 3 g County, Washington, said short ' Kent shinn s Valley Home Addition to • according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 7 of Plats, page 22, in King County, Washington. g , XI-IIBIT A PAGE 12 OF 20 Order No. 634537 OWNER: ROBBINS & CO. HOUSE MOVING TAX PARCEL NO.: 775780-0091 That portion of Tract 9, Shinn's Cloverdale Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page `52, in King County, Washington, described as follows- Beginning at the southwest.corner of Tract 9 of Shinn's Cloverdale Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 Of Plats, page 52, in King County, Washington; Thence north along the West line of said Tract 9, 90 feet; Thence east parallel to the south line of said Tract 9, 244 feet; Thence south parallel to the west line of said tract, 90 feet to the south line of said tract; Thence west along the south line of said tract, 244 feet to the point of beginning; ; EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to the'City of Kent by deed recorded under Recording Number 7212180040; AND EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to the City of Kent by deed recorded under Recording Number 9008061003. ' EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 13 OF 20 Order No. 634539 OWNER: ROGER TAN AND NAREN TAN TAX PARCEL NO.: 775780-0070 The west 252 feet of the north 117.24 feet of Tract 7,' Shinns Cloverdale Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats,. page 52, in King County, Washington; * ' EXCEPT the west 12 feet, as deeded to the City of Kent for street . purposes under King County Recording Number 7207240020. r r EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 14 OF 20 1 . order ITO- 634541 . OWNER: KENT GARDEN, LLC C ovnorth 20o fQet. TAX PARCEL NO.: 7557$p_ erdale Addi ° the w 0060 1n Volume 6 tiora to Kent a cco 0 Peet of Tract of gt pa 2 9 to , shinrnp EXCEPT the we plats rdin 6 street by dee 12 fded thereof in Kin the Plat thereof re ` recur conve g count YYed to , Washin corded under Recording Numbere�city pz Y of 41 Kent for EXHIBIT«A„ PAGE 15 OF 20 Order No. 634542 OWNER: WILLO VISTA ESTATES, LLC 'FAX PARCEL NO.: 775780-0050 ' Tract 6, Shinns Cloverdale Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 52, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the north 209 feet of the west 300 feet of said Tract 6. 1 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 16 OF 20 1 Order No. 634543 OWNER: ERNEST A. REINHARD TAX PARCEL NO.: 755780-0055 • . The west 350 feet of Tract 5 according to the plat thereof recorded in Cloverdale Volume A 6 d of i Platto s Kent, 52, in King County, Washington; , page t EXCEPT the west 12 feet thereof conveyed to the city o recorded under Recording Number 7209150084 Y f Kent b Avenue south;, Y deed • for the widening of 84°h • TOGETHER WITH an easement for feet of the ingress and egress over the s ' west 350 feet �of Lot 6 of said outh 15 Recording Number 4898571. Plat, as set forth under EXHIBIT"A" PAGE 17 OF 20 Order No. 634544 OWNER. JOHN L. SMITH TAX PARCEL NO,: 775780-0032, -0041, -0043&44 PARCEL A: That portion of Tract 4, Shinns Cloverdale Addition to Kent, , according to the'plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 52, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said' Tract 4; Thence east along -the north line of said Tract.4, a distance of 485 feet; ; Thence southerly 90 feet along a line which, extended southerly, would intersect the south line of said tract, distant 488 feet from the southwest corner of said Tract 4; Thence west along a line parallel with the north line of said ' Tract 4, a distance of 184 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING this description; Thence north parallel with the west line of said Tract 4, a distance of 90 feet, more or less, to the north line of said Tract 4; Thence west along said north line 301 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Tract 4; Thence south along said west line to the north line of the south 187 feet of Tract 4; Thence east along said north line 250 feet to the east line of the • west 250 feet of said Tract 4; Thence south along said east line to a point that bears west, as i measured parallel with the north line of said Tract 4, from the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence east to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT the west 12 feet thereof, conveyed to the City of ,Kent• for :street purposes by deed recorded under Recording Number 7305230121; " " ALSO that portion of Tract 4, Shinns Cloverdale Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 52, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Tract 4; Thence east along the north line of said Tract 4 to a point 184 feet west of the easterly line of west 485 feet of said Tract 4 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence east along the north line of said Tract 4, a distance of 184 feet to the east line of the west 485 feet of said Tract 4; Thence southerly 90 feet along a line which, if extended southerly, ' would intersect the south.line of said tract, distant 488 feet from the southwest corner of said Tract 4; - I • EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 18 OF 20 r Order No. 634544 LEGAL DESCRIPTION, continued: Thence west along a line parallel with the .north line of ,said ' Tract 4, a distance of 184 feet; Thence north parallel with the west line of Tract 4, a distance of 90 feet, more or less,• to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: - ; ; The north 100 feet of the south 187 feet of the west 250 feet of , Tract 4, Shinns Cloverdale Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 6 of Plats, page 52, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the west 12 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Kent for street purposes by deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 7207240025 : .and 7207240026. PARCEL C.- The south 87 feet of the west 250 feet of Tract 4, Shinns Cloverdale Addition to the City of Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 52, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the west 12 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Kent for street purposes by deeds under Recording Numbers 7210240047 and 7210240048. PARCEL D: The north 100 feet of the west 250 feet of Tract 3, 'Shinns Cloverdale Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 52, in King County, Washington;' EXCEPT the west 12 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Kent for street purposes by deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 7405090080 and 74050900081. ' EXHIBIT PAGE 19 OF 20 Order No. 634545 OWNER, TERESA STELLA CARACCIOLI TAX PARCEL NO.; 755780-0030 . ., "• The west 402 feet of Tract 3, shine's Cloverdale Addition to Kent, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 6 of Plats, page 42, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the north Io0 feet of the west 250 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT the east 125 feet thereof; I AND EXCEPT that port ion-thereof conveyed to the cityof recorded under Recording Number 72092.80087. Kent by deed EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 20 OF 20 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: VERDANA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING) 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Council is considering the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation relating to a proposed modification of the Verdana Planned Unit Development. The applicant, Kent 25, LLC, has pro- posed construction of a Neighborhood Convenience Commercial development within a Future Development Tract of the approved PUD. The Future Development Tract is 13.3 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 124th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 304th Street in Kent. The site is zoned Single Family Residential one unit per acre. The Kent Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on November 7, 2007, and issued Findings, I Conclusions and a Recommendation of denial of the modification on January 17, 2008. 3. EXHIBITS: Hearin Examiner Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation; 9 Applicant Request for Reconsideration; Hearing Examiner Decision Following Reconsideration; Staff Report with Maps; Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance; Public comment letters 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 to accept/reject/modify the Finding , Conclusions and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to deny the Ver ana Major PUD Modification, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance consistent with this motion and bring that ordinance back to this Council. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda ' Item No. 7A ' LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER Theodore Paul Hunter • CITY OF KENT Hearing Examiner KENT W A S H IN G T O N FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION REVISED JANUARY 17, 2008 FILE NO: VERDANA PUD PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 1 MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Kent 25 LLC 825 Fifth Avenue, Suite 202 Kirkland, WA 98033 tREQUEST: The Applicant proposes construction of a Neighborhood Convenience Commercial development within the Future Development Tract of existing PUD- 2004-4. The proposal is a major modification of a previous Planned Unit Development proposal, PUD-2004-4, approved by the Hearing Examiner with conditions on February 15, 2006. LOCATION: The PUD is located at 12200 SE 304th Street, Kent, Washington. The Future Development Tract is located within the PUD at the northwest corner of 1241h Avenue SE and SE 304th Street, in Kent, Washington. APPLICATION FILED: September 12, 2006 REVISED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: October 16, 2007 ' HEARING DATE: November 7, 2007 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: November 27, 2007 1 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 1 of 36 RECOMMENDATION REVISED: January 18 2008 Following issuance of a recommendation on November 27, 2007, the Hearing Examiner received a Request for Reconsideration from the Applicant. The Hearing Examiner issued a Response to the Request for Reconsideration on December 11, 2007, and requested that Parties of Record submit replies to the reconsideration request by December 19, 2007. Following review of the Request of Reconsideration and the replies to it, the Hearing Examiner issued a Decision Following Reconsideration on January 17, 2008. This Revised Recommendation incorporates the changes to the initial Recommendation that are detailed in the Decision Following Reconsideration. Changes are made only to Finding 12 and Conclusion A (new language is shown in italics, deleted language is shown by strikethrough). All other findings and conclusions are the same as those in the initial Recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: DENIED, without prejudice STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Lydia Moorehead, City Planner TESTIMONY: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: Lydia Moorehead, City Planner Katherine Orni, Applicant Representative Corey Forsberg Tina Tenner Ron Novak Michael Pratum Vonda Marsland Kevin Jones, PE, Applicant Representative Michael Huey, Project Manager, Yarrow Bay Group, Applicant Representative Richard Wilson, Attorney at Law, represented the Applicant at the open record hearing. EXHIBITS:' ' City Staff submitted exhibits for both the PUD application and a related conditional use ' permit application. The exhibits for the PUD application are identified by "A-'yin this recommendation; the exhibits for the CUP application are identified by "B-" in the CUP decision; the exhibits admitted for both the PUD and CUP are identified by "C in both the recommendation and decision. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation ' Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 2 of 36 1 A-1. PUD Major Modification Application, received September 12, 2006, including modification description, code compliance data, storm water drainage information, site distance and vehicle maneuvering drawings, variance request for use of underground detention facility, and site drawings A-2. Email message from Dan Repp, P.E. City of Auburn Public Works Utilities Engineer, to Michael Huey, dated September 17, 2007, with City of Auburn Certificate for Local Public and Private Sewerage Facility Connection/Extension, dated May 25, 2007, Verdana Lift Station Pump Specifications, dated March 12, 2007, and Memorandum of Utility Extension Agreement for Verdana Property, executed June 6, 2005 A-3. Community Meeting materials: Roster; Frequently Asked Questions list; Notice of Community Meeting, dated June 16, 2007; Affidavit of Publication, dated June 28, 2007; Mailing list A-4. Project Correspondence: i. Letter from Beth Tan, City of Kent Environmental Engineer III, to William Stevens, Otak Inc. dated July 16, 2007 ii. Letter from Lydia Moorehead, City of Kent Planner, to Chad Weiser, Otak Inc., dated June 22, 2007 iii. Letter from Lydia Moorehead, City of Kent Planner, to City of Auburn Planning Director and Joe Welsh, City of Auburn Transportation Planner, dated June 21, 2007 iv. Letter from Beth Tan, City of Kent Environmental Engineer III, to William Stevens, Otak Inc. dated May 24, 2007 V. Letter from Lydia Moorehead, City of Kent Planner, to Yarrow Bay Group, C/o Katherine Orni, dated March 1, 2007 vi. Letter from Lydia Moorehead, City of Kent Planner, to Michael Davolio, City of Auburn Planning Director, dated February 6, 2007 vii. Letter from Lydia Moorehead, City of Kent Planner, to Yarrow Bay Group, C/o Katherine Orni, dated January 16, 2007 viii. Letter from Lydia Moorehead, City of Kent Planner, to Yarrow Bay Group, C/o Katherine Orni, dated November 8, 2006 ix. Letter from Beth Tan, City of Kent Environmental Engineer III, to William Stevens, Otak Inc. dated November 1, 2006 A-5. City Department Comments A-6. Agency Comments: i. City of Auburn Planning, Building and Community Department, with Utility Extension Agreement approving the extension between the City of Auburn and Kent 160 LLC, signed by the Peter B. Lewis, City of Auburn Mayor, dated May 16, 2005 ii. Letter from Michael Davolio, Director, City of Auburn Planning, Building ' and Community Department, to Lydia Moorehead, City of Kent Planner, dated February 2, 2007 iii. Letter from Dave Osaki, City of Auburn Interim Community Development Director, to Mary Roberts, dated July 16, 2007, with letter from Mary Roberts to Dave Osaki, received July 10, 2007 ' Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification 1 PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 3 of 36 A-7. Public Comment i. Letter from Mary Roberts to Lydia Moorehead, dated July 20, 2007 ii. Letter to City of Kent Planning Services, dated July 23, 2007, unsigned iii. Letter from Michael J. Pratum to the City of Kent Planner, C/o Lydia Moorehead, dated July 20, 2007 iv. Letter from Michael J. Pratum to City of Kent Planning Manager, C/o Charlene Anderson, dated February 12, 2007 V. Email message from Ron Novak to City of Kent Planning Services, Attn: Lydia Moorehead, dated February 12, 2007 vi. Letter from Anthony Courtney to City of Kent, Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager, dated February 7, 2007 1 vii. Letter from LeRoy and Carol Bayer to Kent Planning Services, C/o Lydia Moorehead, Planner, dated January 30, 2007 A-8. Public Notice documents, including Revised Notice of Application, dated July 7, 2007; Affidavit of Posting, dated June 6, 2007; Notice of Publication, dated June 28, 2007; Mailing List; Notice of Application, dated January 27, 2007; Affidavit of Posting, dated January 27, 2007; Declaration of Service, dated October 19, 2007; Notice of Publication, dated October 24, 2007; Notice of Public Hearing, dated October 13, 2007; Proof of publication, dated October 18, 2007; Declaration of Service, dated October 19, 2007; Affidavit , of Posting, dated October 24,2007; Affidavit of Mailing, dated October 23, 2007; Additions/Changes to Mailing List, dated October 23, 2007 A-9. Notice of Completeness, dated October 9, 2006 a. Letter from the City of Auburn to Lydia Moorehead, City of Kent, dated November 6, 2007 b. Email message from Ron Novak to the Kent City Council, dated November 2, 2007 C. Letter from residents of Crystal Meadows Homeowners Association to City of Kent Planning Services, dated November 1, 2007 A-10. Department Routing Sheet A-11. Revised MDNS, ENV-2006-70, dated October 16, 2007; MDNS, ENV-2006-70, dated September 19, 2007 A-12. SEPA Checklist for PUD Modification, ENV-2006-70, received May 7, 2007, including legal description of project A-13. City of Kent Mixed Use Design Review Decision Document, dated October 9, , 2007 A-14. Notice of Public Hearing, dated October 24, 2007; Mailing List; Affidavit of Mailing, dated October 23, 2007; Notice of Publication, dated October 18, 2007; Affidavit of Posting, dated October 12, 2007; Notice of Publication, ■ dated October 9, 2007; Affidavit of Mailing, dated October 15, 2007; Mailing List A-15. Site Plans: Trail Plan, Sheet L1.05; Preliminary Site Plan, Sheet S1.01A; Preliminary Landscape Plan, Sheet L1.02A; Preliminary Landscape Plant Legend, Sheet L1.01; Building Character Examples, Sheets A1.01 and A1.02 A-16. Transportation Impact Analysis, dated May 2007 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Ma]or Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 4 of 36 A-17. Amendment to Verdana Technical Information Report, dated May 3, 2007 A-18. Wetland Assessment, dated September 20, 2004 A-19. Letter from Erin Fehringer, City of Kent Environmental Engineer, to Kathy Orni, Yarrow Bay Group, with Wetland Buffer Averaging Plan, Sheet W1.01 A-20. City of Kent Staff Report, dated October 17, 2007 C-1. Hearing Examiner Decision, PUD-2004-4, dated February 15, 2006 C-2. Proposed Revisions to Conditions A. & B.1, Page 22 of Staff Report C-3. City Staff Recommendation, Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit C-4. Letter to Mayor and Council Members, with 38 signatures and a photograph C-5. Letter to City of Kent Planning Services from Ron Novak, dated November 7, 2007 C-6. Resume for Kevin L. Jones, P.E. PTOE , the Transpo Group C-7. Figure 5, Required Mitigation Measures for Verdana Residential Development, the Transpo Group I C-8. Verdana Landscape Plan, depicting Tract W Future Development, dated January 11, 2007 C-9. Lea Hill Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposed and Existing Land Use, City of Auburn, dated November 7, 2007 C-10. Proposed Revised Condition A.5, submitted by Applicant, dated November 7, 2007 The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: ' FINDINGS 1. Kent 25 LLC (Applicant) requests approval of a major modification to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), PUD-2004-4, which was approved with conditions by the Hearing Examiner on February 15, 2006.2 The proposed major modification (PUD-2004-4(R)) differs from the previously approved application as the Applicant proposes development of the 13.3 acre Future Development Tract of PUD-2004-43 with a senior care facility and retail, commercial, and office uses. The PUD consists of 155 acres located at 12200 ' SE 304th Street, Kent, Washington, on the west side of 124th Avenue SE, south of SE 288th Street, north of SE 304th street, and east of 118th Avenue z The PUD-2004-4 application proposed development of a PUD containing 386 detached single-family lots, four sensitive area tracts, 11 recreation tracts, 22 landscape tracts, three stormwater tracts, one utility tract, one sewer lift station tract, nine access tracts, and a ' future development tract. The Hearing Examiner approved PUD-2004-4 with conditions on February 15, 2006. Conditions of approval limited the proposed development to 379 single- family residential lots and one future development tract. Exhlblt C-1. ' 3 At the time of application for PUD-2004-4, the Applicant did not propose a specific use of the Future Development Tract as part of PUD-2004-4. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 2. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 5 of 36 r SE. The Future Development Tract is located within the PUD at the northwest corner of 124th Avenue SE and SE 304th Street in Kent, , Washington.4 Exhibit A-1; Exhibit A-15; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit C-1. Notice 2. The City of Kent (City) routed the PUD-2004-4(R) application to City departments on September 13, 2006. The City determined that the PUD- ' 2004-4(R) application was complete on October 9, 2006. The City gave notice of the application for major modification on January 27, 2007, and then gave a revised notice of application on July 7, 2007, based on a revised 1 application.5 The City posted the revised notice of application on the subject property on July 6, 2007, and published notice on July 7, 2007 in the Kent Reporter. The City also mailed notice to nearby property owners and interested agencies. Lydia Moorehead, City Planner, testified that the City gave notice of the application in accord with City ordinances by posting, publication, and mailing. Exhibit A-8; Exhibit A-9; Exhibit A-10; Testimony of Ms. Moorehead. 3. The City held a community meeting on the application on June 26, 2007, and held a public hearing on the application on November 7, 2007. The City posted notice of the hearing on the subject property on October 12, 2007 and October 24, 2007. The City mailed notice of the hearing to owners of property within 300 feet of the property, parties of record, City agencies, and City departments on October 19, 2007. The City mailed notice to two additional parties of record on October 23, 2007. The City published notice of the hearing in the Kent Reporter on October 24, 2007. Ms. Moorehead testified that the City gave notice of the hearing in accordance with City ordinances by posting, publishing, and mailing notice. Exhibit A-3; Exhibit 4 The property that would contain the modified PUD is identified by King County Parcel Numbers 0421059016 and 7867000046. Exhibit A-1; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 2. The legal description of the property that would contain the modified PUD is attached as Exhibit A to a Memorandum of Utility Extension Agreement for the Verdana Property, executed June 6, 2005. Exhibit A-2. 5 The first notice of application for PUD-2004-4(R) included 66,899 square feet of retail space within several one-story buildings and a 74,298 square foot two-story senior care building, with landscaping, parking, and associated utility improvements. The revised notice of application for PUD-2004-4(R) includes 80,800 square feet in the proposed senior care ' building and also includes a request for up to two retail drive-throughs associated with a retail use. The Applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CE-2007-1) for the senior care facility and two drive-through lanes in conjunction with the PUD-2004- 4(R) application. Kent City Code (KCC) 15.08.400.B.4 allows uses permitted in the , neighborhood convenience commercial district in residential PUDs of 100 acres or more. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 1. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modlficatlon PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 6 of 36 1 r A-8; Exhibit A-14; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 8; Testimony of Ms. Moorehead. SEPA Determination 4. The City acted as lead agency to analyze the environmental impacts of the PUD modification proposal as required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City determined that with conditions, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) with four conditions on September 19, 2007. The four conditions addressed payment of an environmental mitigation fee for the City's South 272nd Street - South 2771h Street Corridor Project; payment of a pro-rata share of the cost of resolving 1 the High Accident Location (HAL) at the State Route (SR) 18 - SE 304th Street (west ramps) interchange; modification of the 124th Avenue SE frontage improvements to provide a southbound right-turn pocket at the Isouth entrance to the proposed commercial development; and minimization of site grading. The MDNS condition related to payment of an environmental mitigation fee stated that the fee shall be equivalent to 63 percent of actual trip generation, based upon the expectation that 63 percent of site-generated traffic would pass through the Kent city limits and that the project would generate 176 or 240 vehicle trips. Exhibit A-11. 5. The City issued a revised MDNS with four conditions on October 16, 2007. The City revised the MDNS to change the MDNS condition related to environmental mitigation fee payment. The revised MDNS states that the environmental mitigation fee shall be equivalent to 30 percent of actual trip generation, based upon the expectation that 30 percent of site-generated traffic would pass through the Kent city limits and the project would generate 242 vehicle trips.6 Exhibit A-11. City Comprehensive Plan Designation 6. The proposed PUD is located within an area designated an Urban Growth Area under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). Exhibit A- 20, Staff Report, page 3. Urban growth areas are designated as areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding 20-year period. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.110(2). Each urban growth area must 6 The Applicant's traffic engineer completed the original TIA for the proposed PUD modification in September 2006. Based upon an updated site plan and comments from King County, City of Auburn, and City of Kent, the Applicant's traffic engineer revised the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed PUD modification in May 2007. The traffic engineer stated in the revised TIA that as much as 30 percent of site-generated traffic, or approximately 79 PM peak hour trips, would travel through the Kent city limits. Exhibit A- 16. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 7 of 36 r accommodate urban densities and must include greenbelt and open space areas. RCW 36.70A.110(2). The GMA requires that growth be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development; second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources; and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. RCW 36.70A.110(3). 7. The City Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates the northern 63.22 acres of the proposed PUD site as SF-3 Single Family Residential, and the southern 92.26 acres of the site as Urban Separator. Land adjacent to the north of the PUD is designated Single-Family 3 units per acre by the City Land Use Map. The Land Use Map depicts the PUD site and adjacent property to the north as annexed into the City of Kent through City Ordinance No. 2743. The PUD Future Development Tract is located entirely on property designated Urban Separator. The SF-3 comprehensive plan designation is equivalent to an SR-3 zoning classification. The Urban Separator designation is equivalent to the SR-1 zoning classification. City Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element (revised May 4, 2006), page 4-9; City Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map, Figure 4.7, page 4-53 (revised May 4, 2006); Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, pages 3-4. 8. The City Comprehensive Plan contains Land Use Element goals and policies relevant to the PUD major modification application. Policy LU-9.4 calls for locating housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near human and community services. Policy LU-10.6 allows cluster housing in all multi- family and single-family land use areas to protect environmentally-sensitive areas, and when open space retention is desirable. Goal LU-14 addresses the size, function, and mix of uses in the City's commercial districts based on regional, community, and neighborhood needs. Policy LU-14.2 provides opportunities for residential development within existing business districts. Policy LU-14.7 promotes redevelopment of existing commercial properties by limiting conversion of residential land uses to commercial land uses. Policy LU-14.8 ensures that commercial and mixed-use developments adjacent to single-family residential areas are compatible in height and scale. Goal LU- 24 and Policy LU-24.1 encourage land use that reduces automobile ■ dependency, including mixed use developments incorporating bike, pedestrian, and transit amenities. Goal LU-31 establishes Urban Separator designations to protect environmentally sensitive areas and to create open space corridors. Policy LU-31.3 and Policy LU-31.7 require subdivisions within or adjacent to Urban Separators to provide open space linkages within or to the Urban Separator and to encourage well-designed land use patterns Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 8 of 36 to protect and enhance urban separators. City Comprehensive Plan, Land Use (revised May 4, 2006), pages 4-32 - 4-33, 4-35 - 4-36, 4-47, 4-51 - 4-52; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, pages 9 - 10. 9. The City Comprehensive Plan also contains community design, housing, transportation, and economic development goals and policies relevant to the PUD modification application. Goals CD-4, CD-5, and CD-6 encourage designing new commercial projects to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and automobiles; development of mixed use areas that are vital and attractive focal points of community activity; and ensuring that the scale, layout, and character of commercial and mixed use development is complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood. Housing Policy H-2.2 supports housing with appropriate amenities for individuals, families, and children. Transportation Policies TR-5.4, TR-7.2, and TR-7.3 encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections and trails to connect neighborhoods when roads are not practical. Economic Development Policy ED-2.4 encourages a connective land use pattern that integrates housing with natural amenities, employment, shopping, and recreation. Policy ED-3.4 promotes alternative transit opportunities between commercial and residential areas. Policy ED- 3.6 promotes walking opportunities. Policy ED-3.1 allows for small-scale commercial establishments in neighborhood areas to provide services for residents. City Comprehensive Plan, Community Design Element, pages 11, 13 - 14; City Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, page 11; City Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, pages 35 - 36; City Comprehensive Plan, Economic Development Element, pages 5 - 6; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, pages 10 - 12. Zone Classification and Land Use 10. The PUD Future Development Tract is located within the City's SR-1 Residential Agricultural zoning district. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 3. The purpose of the Residential Agricultural zoning district is to provide for areas allowing low density single-family residential development. According to the City zoning code, SR-1 zoning shall be applied to those areas identified in the comprehensive plan for low density development, because of environmental constraints or lack of urban services. KCC 15.03.010. The SR-1 zoning district permits one dwelling unit per acre, with a 34,700 square foot minimum lot area. KCC 15.04.170. Overall, 92.26 acres in the southern portion of the proposed PUD are located within the City's SR-1 zoning district, and 63.22 acres in the southern portion of the proposed PUD are located within the City's SR-3 Single-Family Residential zoning district. The purpose of the Single-Family Residential District is to stabilize and preserve single-family residential neighborhoods, as designated in the comprehensive plan, and to provide a range of densities and minimum lot sizes to promote ' diversity and recognize a variety of residential environments. KCC 15.03,010. ' Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the Gty of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification on KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 9 of 36 11. The PUD future development tract is located in the southeast corner of the PUD. The future development tract is currently vacant and used for material stockpiling related to construction of the residential portion of the PUD.' Surrounding land uses are primarily residential, with lower-density residential development and large unplatted parcels zoned SR-1 to the north and northwest of the PUD, and higher-density subdivisions zoned SR-4 to the east and southwest of the PUD. Property to the south contains large undeveloped lots zoned SR-6. A new Auburn School District high school is east of the subject property on 124th Avenue SE. A future public park site is west of the subject property on 118th Avenue SE. Hazelwood Elementary School is south of the subject property on SE 304th Street. Exhibit A-20, page 3; Exhibit C-1, page 6. 12. The PUD site is within the City limits but fully surrounded by unincorporated King County.$ aRnexa ieR aFea.- On August 21, 2007, voters within the Lea Hill area surrounding the PUD site approved a resolution to become part of the City of Auburn through annexation. On January 17, 2007, the City of Auburn filed a Notice of Intent to Annex with the King County Boundary Review Board for Washington State for the annexation of the City of Auburn's Lea Hill Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The annexation will be is expected to be effective on January 1, 2008. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use Plan (printed July 24, 2007) designates adjacent land to the north, south, east, and west of the PUD as Single-Family Residential. City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use Map 14.1 (printed July 24, 2007); Exhibit A-6; Exhibit A-20, page 2. According to the Staff Report, the future development tract was originally to be used as a stock pile for top soil and mineral dirt from the Verdana residential development. The site currently contains approximately 40,000 cubic yards of dirt, which would be used for the balance of fill needed to construct the proposed commercial development. The Applicant is currently spreading the topsoil present in the dirt over the lots, tracts, and parks within PUD residential development. Approximately 95 percent of the PUD's residential development area has been graded to final grade. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 5. 8 According to the Staff Report, the City purchased several parcels near 124th Avenue SE and SE 3041h Street in 1983 for a municipal water impoundment reservoir. On September 16, 1985, the City Council voted to annex these parcels for municipal purposes (Ordinance No. 2743, effective September 9, 1987). On October 21, 2005, the Council declared the property surplus (Resolution No. 1657). The Council subsequently sold the property. The Council reaffirmed Comprehensive Land Use Map designations and zoning classifications for the property through Ordinance No. 3769, adopted November 15, 2005. According to the Staff Report, the purchase of additional water rights from the Tacoma P5 pipeline project resolved supply concerns underlying the reservoir project. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 4. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Heanng Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Mod1ficatlon PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 10 of 36 PUD Standards 13. The intent of planned unit development is to promote diversity and creativity in site design, protect and enhance natural and community features, and encourage unique developments which may combine a mixture of residential, 1 commercial, and industrial uses. The PUD process permits departures from the conventional siting, setback, and density requirements of a particular zoning district to achieve superior site development, create open space, and encourage imaginative design by permitting design flexibility. KCC 15.08.400. PUDs are permitted in all zoning districts except the A-10 Agricultural zone, provided that PUDs in SR zones are only allowed if the site is at least 100 acres in size, with some exceptions. KCC 15.08.400.A; KCC 15.08.400,C. 14. The uses principally permitted within the PUD are those that are permitted in the underlying zoning classification for the property, except for uses permitted by KCC 15.08.400.B.4. KCC 15.08.400.A. Commercial uses may be permitted in residential PUDs of 100 acres or more, but "shall be limited to those uses permitted in the neighborhood convenience commercial (NCC) zoning district." KCC 15.08.400.8.4. The uses permitted in the NCC district are Class I-A, I-B, and I-C Group Homes; rebuild/accessory uses for existing dwellings; food and convenience stores (retail); eating and drinking establishments (but not a drive-through); miscellaneous retail stores; liquor stores; finance, insurance, and real estate services; personal services; home day-care; day care centers; professional services; and municipal uses and buildings. KCC 15.04.020; KCC 15.04.070; KCC 15.04.090.9 Drive- through/drive-up commercial/retail businesses other than eating or drinking establishments are permitted within the NCC zone with a conditional use permit. KCC 15.04.070, Michael Huey, Yarrow Bay Group Project Manager, testified that City approval of commercial uses within residential PUDs of 100 acres or more is discretionary. Testimony of Mr. Huey. I Preliminary Site Plan 15. The PUD major modification proposal includes 66,889 square feet of retail and office space within several one-story buildings and an 80,800 square- foot two-story senior care building, landscaping, parking, and associated utility improvements within the 13.3 acre future development tract. The preliminary site plan submitted with the modification application depicts two 12,000 square-foot one-story office buildings adjacent to the east of the residential development. A pedestrian path would extend north from SE 304th Street along the west edge of the proposed office buildings, connecting 9 The purpose of the NCC zoning district is to "provide small nodal areas for retail and personal service activities convenient to residential areas and to provide ready access to everyday convenience goods for the residents of such neighborhoods. NCC districts shall be located in areas designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan." KCC 15.03.010. IFindings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the Gty of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 - Page 11 of 36 to a residential neighborhood to the northwest. A parking lot with 86 stalls would surround the east side of the office buildings, with an entrance/exit onto SE 304th Street. The residential development and office buildings would lie adjacent to the north of SE 304th Street. A 17,000 square foot retail space would be located at the corner of SE 304th Street and 124th Avenue SE, east of the proposed office buildings. A wetland corridor with a stream, 50- foot wide wetland buffer, and 40-foot wide stream buffer would be located between the office buildings and retail space. Development with 4 retail spaces, ranging in size from 5,000 to 15,000 square feet, and 276 parking stalls would be located adjacent to the north of the 17,000 square foot retail space. A double driveway along 124th Avenue SE would provide access to the retail and parking. An 80,800 square-foot two-story senior care facility with 84 parking stalls would be located adjacent to the north of the retail and parking development. A detention pond would lie between the retail development and the senior care facility development. An access road extending north between the retail development and care facility would bisect the pond, forming a bridge over the pond. The senior care facility main entrance would be located north across the parking lot from the bridge over the pond. Acquisition of a 30-foot wide ingress/egress easement extending west from 124th Avenue SE to the senior care facility parking and entrance would provide for access to the senior care facility and parking. Exhibit A-15. Commercial PUD Criteria 16. KCC 15.08.400.I states "the criteria for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those criteria covering original approval of the permit which is the subject of the proposed modification." 17. At the public hearing on the PUD modification, Applicant Attorney Richard Wilson argued that both sets of PUD review criteria found in the Kent City Code - KCC 15.08.400.G.1 (Residential planned unit development criteria) and KCC 15.08.400.G.2 (Nonresidential planned unit development criteria) - are appropriate for reviewing the Applicant's PUD modification proposal, but that review should utilize KCC 15.08.400.G.2 criteria due to the proposed commercial use.10 Attorney Wilson stated that the proposed senior care io KCC 15.08.400.G.1 differs from KCC 15.08.400.G.2 by including the following criterion: "The proposed PUD project shall be compatible with the existing land use or property that abuts or is directly across the street from the subject property. The term compatibility includes but is not limited to apparent size, scale, mass, and architectural design." KCC 15.08.400.G.1. KCC 15.08.400.G.2 differs from KCC 15.08.400.G.1 by stating the "proposed project shall have a beneficial effect which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development", as opposed to "proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect upon the community and users of the development which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development." KCC 15.08.400.G.1.; KCC 15.08.400.G.2. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation ' Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 12 of 36 r facility is a commercial use. Attorney Wilson argued that if a proposal meets KCC 15.08.400.G.2 criteria, then the proposal should be approved. The Staff Report accompanying the PUD major modification request recommended that the request be reviewed under KCC 15.08.400.G.2 criteria. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 13; Statement and Argument of Attorney Wilson. 18. The Staff Report accompanying the PUD modification proposal includes a proposed condition of modification approval that "Drive through lanes shall include type II landscaping in order to buffer visual and auditory impacts to surrounding areas." However, Kathy Orni, Applicant Representative, testified that the proposed commercial development would include no drive-through eating or drinking establishments. Ms. Orni proposed a condition of PUD modification approval that the proposed commercial development would not contain any drive-through facilities for eating or drinking establishments. - The Staff Report states that gasoline stations would also be prohibited within the proposed commercial development. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, pages 19 and 21 - 22; Testimony of Ms. Orni. Wetlands 19. A pedestrian path would extend to the south through a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) adjacent to the future development tract, skirt the east, north, and west border of the proposed senior care facility, and then extend south, where it would cross the wetland/stream corridor at the site of the proposed office buildings. The path would then extend west, through the proposed office building parking lot, to connect with a pedestrian path extending north from SE 304th Street. Exhibit A-15. 20. The NGPA adjacent to the north and west of the future development tract contains wetlands. Raedeke Associates, Inc. delineated six wetlands upon the PUD property covering approximately 50 acres and reported their results in a September 20, 2004 Wetland Assessment. Raedeke determined that two of the wetlands (Wetlands 1 and 2) satisfy the City criteria for a Category 2 wetland, and that four of the wetlands (Wetlands 3, 4, 5, and 6) satisfy the City's criteria for a Category 3 wetland.il Wetland 1, the largest wetland, is located adjacent to the future development tract. Exhibit A-15; Exhibit A-18; Exhibit C-1, page 14. 21. The City's wetland consultant reviewed the Raedeke delineation as part of the initial review of the PUD application. The City's consultant requested that Raedeke perform additional hydrologic monitoring. Based on hydrologic monitoring results, Raedeke revised the wetland delineation to incorporate additional area into Wetland 1. The City approved the revised delineation on 11 Raedeke delineated wetlands according to the City of Kent (1993) code. The City's critical areas code was amended in 2006, following the City's receipt of a complete PUD application on October 13, 2004. Exhibit A-18; Exhibit C-1, page 6. ' Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 13 of 36 July 7, 2005. After reviewing the record, the Hearing Examiner concluded that "the wetland boundaries were determined after a stringent review process that involved the expertise of multiple wetland professionals," and that "environmentally sensitive areas would be protected in accordance with the regulations in place at the time of complete application." Exhibit C-1, pages 15, 22, and 24. 22. The western arm of Wetland 1 contains Olson Creek, which flows north through a culvert beneath SE 304th Street into the western portion of the wetland. Olson Creek then flows off-site to the northwest into the Green River. According to the Raedeke Wetland Assessment, Olson Creek is classified as a Class 2 stream without salmonids under the City critical areas code.12 The Staff Report characterizes the on-site portion of the stream as non-salmonid. Exhibit A-18; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 5; Exhibit C-1, page 14. 23. The proposed senior care facility within the future development tract would lie adjacent to Wetland 1, but would be separated from the wetland by buffers set forth in the Applicant's May 4, 2007 conceptual wetland buffer averaging plan, approved by the City on July 11, 2007.13 A wetland buffer would also separate the wetland and Olson Creek from adjacent retail and office building development. According to the preliminary Wetland Buffer Averaging Plan map, all enlarged buffer areas under the conceptual averaging plan (buffer give' areas) will be enhanced with native wetland transitional plantings in the plant list on the preliminary landscape plant legend, Sheet L1.01. According to the City's approval of the conceptual averaging plan, no permits will be issued until the final wetland buffer averaging plan has been approved by the City and a three-year bond equal to 125% of the estimated cost of construction and maintenance of the wetland buffer areas has been received by the City. Exhibit A-15, Exhibit A- 19. Stormwater Facilities 24. There is a hydrologic connection between Wetland 1 and Wetland 2. A previous Verdana MDNS determination related to the initial application requires the Applicant to design stormwater control facilities to maintain the 12 Raedeke delineated streams according to the City of Kent (1996) code. The City's critical areas code was amended in 2006, following the City's receipt of a complete PUD application on October 13, 2004. Exhibit A-18; Exhibit C-1, page 6. 13 The proposed commercial development would impact 0.44 acre of wetland buffer, requiring buffer averaging according to KCC Chapter 11.06. In addition, the Applicant is responsible for obtaining all other applicable permits from state and federal agencies, including but not limited to the Washington State Department of Ecology and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. ExhibitA-20, Staff Report, page 6. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearnng Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 14 of 36 hydrologic connection. In its Amendment to the Technical Information Report (TIR) for the Verdana Commercial Site, dated May 3, 2007, Otak Inc. - reported that stormwater would be managed at Level 2 Flow Control throughout the proposed commercial development. Level 2 Flow Control would be achieved in the area of the commercial development west of Olson Creek (Basin A) through an underground vault and treatment train prior to discharge in Olson Creek. A wet pond at the bottom of the detention vault would trap sediment, then a leaf compost filter would remove metals prior to discharge, in accordance with the 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual and 2002 City of Kent Storm Water Drainage Manual. The remainder of the commercial development (Basin B) would achieve Level 2 Flow Control through a detention pond. A wet pond at the bottom of the detention pond would trap sediment, then a leaf compost filter would remove metals prior to discharge into Olson Creek. According to the TIR, the wetlands would be recharged with controlled release flows from all storm water facilities. The City would require final detailed drainage plans prior to civil construction permit issuance. Exhibit A-17; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, pages 6 - 7. 25. The City approved the Applicant's request for use of an underground detention vault in lieu of an open pond for Basin A, with one condition. The City stated it would approve the request contingent on installation and use of a water quality best management practice (BMP), similar to a Stormceptor, upstream of the proposed detention / water quality vault. The underground detention vault is depicted in the May 2007 Amendment to the TIR. Exhibit A-4.i. Topography 26. The Staff Report cites a Golder Associates, Inc. geotechnical report issued December 24, 2003 to describe topographical conditions on the proposed commercial development site. According to the report, the southwest portion of the site contains a 30 to 55 foot-high slope ranging from 13 to 33 percent grade, with the toe of the slope located in Wetland 1. The east-central portion of the site contains a slope as high as 44 feet, ranging from 20 to 33 percent grade. The top of the slope lies along 124th Avenue SE; the toe of the slope lies in Wetland 1. The north portion of the site slopes to Wetland 1 at approximately 12 percent grade. The report noted erosion potential on the east and west sides of the site and recommended further investigation if development is planned on an area with a risk of liquefaction generally adjacent to Wetland 1. According to the staff report, the City and Applicant will address liquefaction and erosion issues during development review. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, pages 4 - 5. Urban Separator Development 27. Residential development within the PUD would be located to the northwest and north of the PUD future development tract. Pedestrian trails would Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 15 of 36 extend between the areas of the PUD to connect residential neighborhoods. In addition to the future development tract, the proposed site design for the portion of the PUD designated Urban Separator would contain eight eight-lot clusters, one seven-lot cluster, and one four-lot cluster of residential development. Exhibit 15; Exhibit C-1, page 9. 28. For areas within urban separators, 50 percent of the unconstrained area must be retained in perpetuity as common open space. KCC 12.04.778.C.8. The Hearing Examiner's February 15, 2006 decision stated that of the 30.6 acres of unconstrained area within the urban separator, 16.14 acres would be set aside as common open space. According to the Staff Report submitted with the commercial development proposal, the PUD still satisfies the open space requirement for areas designated Urban Separator, even with the addition of the proposed commercial development. Approximately 16.21 acres or 50 percent of unconstrained urban separator area would be set aside as common open space. The proposed commercial development itself would contain no open space. Exhibit A-4.ii; Exhibit A-15; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, pages 7 - 8; Exhibit C-1, page 9. Access and Traffic 29. The driveway to access the proposed office buildings and parking within the future development tract would be located approximately 415 feet west of the SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE intersection. The driveway to access the retail development and parking would be located approximately 535 feet north of the SE 3041h Street/124th Avenue SE intersection, aligned with a public street to be constructed as part of the Alicia Glenn residential subdivision. The ingress/egress easement to access the senior care facility would be located approximately 390 north of the retail and parking driveway. The commercial development would be open seven days a week, with hours of operation varying from tenant to tenant. The senior care facility would be a 24-hour care facility with permanent in-house living units. Specific tenants for the proposed commercial development have not been identified. Exhibit A-15, Exhibit A-16; Exhibit A-17; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 13. 30. On February 12, 2007, the City of Auburn submitted a letter containing comments on the traffic impact of the proposed commercial development. According to the City of Auburn, the SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE intersection is heavily influenced by the traffic of one middle school, two grade schools, a high school, and a regional community college. The City of Auburn expressed concern that the Applicant's traffic study did not identify the AM peak hour impacts of the project, in spite of the heavy influence of AM peak hour trips at the location due to school traffic, and that the report underestimated the traffic volume likely to occur on the project frontage by conducting analysis during August, the lowest month of the year for school traffic. Exhibit A-6. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 16 of 36 1 i31. The City of Auburn also commented that the traffic study's use of "Specialty Retail" as a basis for Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual analysis underestimated traffic impacts of the retail development because ITE statistics on the Specialty Retail are limited and the land use type does not fully encompass the proposed commercial use. According to the City of Auburn, typical suburban shopping areas such as the proposed commercial development often feature a Starbucks-type business, a fast food restaurant, and a bank. The City of Auburn commissioned studies that concluded a typical Starbucks can generate up to 200 AM peak hour tips and over 70 PM peak hour trips. A drive through bank generates approximately 46 PM peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. A high-turnover restaurant generates up to 11 PM peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. Exhibit A-6. 32. The Applicant submitted a Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by the Transpo Group in May 2007, to reflect an updated site plan and to respond to comments by King County, the City of Auburn, and the City of Kent. The study analyzed existing traffic volumes for the following intersections: SE 284th Street/1241h Avenue SE; SE 293rd Way/124th Avenue SE; SE 296th Way/124th Avenue SE; and SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE. According to the Transpo Group, King County will replace the existing traffic signal at the SE 3041h/124th Avenue SE intersection with a roundabout, with construction scheduled for 2007.14 Due to ongoing construction, the Transpo Group did not collect existing traffic volumes at the SE 304th/1241h Avenue SE and SE 284th/124th Avenue SE intersections. Instead, the Transpo Group estimated peak hour traffic volumes at the SE 304th/124th Avenue SE intersection by increasing May 2004 volumes by five percent per year for three years. The Transpo Group estimated existing AM peak hour traffic volumes at the SE 284th/124th Avenue SE intersection by increasing August 2004 volumes by five percent per year for three years, then increasing August 2004 volumes by a factor of 20 percent to reflect non-summer conditions. The Transpo Group estimated existing PM peak hour traffic volume at the SE 304th/124th Avenue SE intersection by increasing August 2006 volumes by 10 percent, because schools generally generate fewer trips during the weekday PM peak hour than the AM peak hour. Exhibit A-16. 33. The Transpo Group estimated potential traffic impacts of the proposed commercial development based on the average trip rates for the "Shopping Center," "Assisted Living," and "Medical/Dental Office" ITE Land Use Codes.ls 14 The Transpo Group did not report whether 2007 roundabout construction had been completed. ExhibitA-16. 15 The Transpo Group used average trip rates published in the ITE Tnp Generation manual, 71h Edition (2003). The Transpo Group estimated the traffic impact of the proposed Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation -- Heanng Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 17 of 36 However, the Transpo Group stated that actual project trips generated would be less than the trips associated with the ITE Land Use Codes, as the Transpo Group assumed lesser linked trips between the different uses within the commercial development than assumed under the ITE Codes. The Transpo Group concluded that the proposed commercial development would generate approximately 122 new weekday AM peak hour trips and 262 new weekday PM peak hour trips.16 The Transpo Group also divided total trips per intersection. In the AM peak hour, the Transpo Group concluded the proposed development would contribute 36 vehicle trips to the SE 284th/124th Avenue SE intersection, 36 trips to the SE 293rd/124th Avenue SE intersection, 42 trips to the SE 296th/124th Avenue SE intersection, and 64 ' trips to the SE 304th/124th Avenue SE intersection. In the PM peak hour, the Transpo Group concluded the proposed development would contribute 80 vehicle trips to the SE 284th/124th Avenue SE, 80 trips to the SE 293rd/124th Avenue SE intersection, 93 trips to the SE 296th/124th Avenue SE intersection, and 127 trips to the SE 304th/1241h Avenue SE intersection. Exhibit A-16. 34. The Transpo Group determined that existing traffic at the SE 304th/1241h Avenue SE intersection currently experience Level of Service (LOS) B in the AM peak hour and LOS A in the PM peak hour. Traffic at the SE 284th/124th Avenue SE intersection currently experiences LOS B in the AM and PM peak hour. Without the proposed commercial development, the Transpo Group estimated that traffic at the SE 304th/124th Avenue SE intersection in 2009 would experience LOS A in the AM and PM peak hour. Traffic at the SE 284th/124th Avenue SE intersection in 2009 would experience a LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. With the proposed development, the Transpo Group estimated that traffic at the SE 304th/124th Avenue SE intersection in 2009 would experience LOS A in the AM and PM peak hour. With the proposed development, traffic at the SE 284th/124th Avenue SE intersection in 2009 would experience a LOS B in the AM peak hour and a LOS D in the PM peak hour. Traffic at the SE 293rd/1241h Avenue SE and SE 296th/124th Avenue SE intersections in 2009 would experience LOS commercial development based on the following project description: commercial retail space totaling up to 55,000 square feet gross leasable area, medical/dental office space totaling up to 25,000 square feet gross floor area, and a 150-bed assisted living facility. The TIA states that the project would be completed and generate traffic by 2009. Exhibit A-16. 16 The Transpo Group assumed that the retail portion of the proposed commercial development would attract some "by-pass trips", or trips already en route to another destination. Based on the average by-pass rate for a shopping center published in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (2 d Edition, 2001), the Transpo Group approximately 34 percent of all retail trips would be by-passing the proposed commercial development. Thus, of 57 total new trips generated by the Shopping Center land use code, Transpo Group concluded only 39 new trips would actually be generated by the proposed commercial development. Exhibit A-16. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation j Heanng Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modrticabon PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 18 of 36 D with or without the proposed development. Based on King County intersection standards, LOS E or better is considered acceptable intersection operation. Exhibit A-16. 35. The Transpo Group determined that traffic at the proposed northern driveway to access the proposed development along 124th Avenue SE would experience a LOS "C" in the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic at the proposed southern driveway to access the proposed development along 124th Avenue SE would experience a LOS "D" in the AM peak hour and a LOS "E" in the PM peak hour. Traffic at the proposed driveway to access the proposed development along SE 304th Street would experience a LOS "C" in the AM and PM peak hour. Exhibit A-16. 36. The City of Auburn commented in a letter to the City that a LOS "E" at the proposed southern driveway along 124th Avenue SE "is generally not considered acceptable and potentially leads to driver impatience and poor decisions which can create collisions." The City commented that significant traffic would use the northern proposed driveway along 124th Avenue SE to attempt to avoid the traffic volume at the southern proposed driveway. The City determined that this traffic would travel past the front of the proposed senior care facility, based on the City's review of the development site plan. The City proposed rearranging the connection to the northern driveway within the proposed development to better separate traffic flows and better protect the senior care facility. The City recommended connecting the commercial parking lot to the driveway at a point further east. Kevin Jones, Applicant Transportation Engineer, testified that in his opinion, motorists would not prefer to access the proposed development by the proposed north driveway along 124th Avenue SE, near the senior care facility. Exhibit A-9.a; Testimony of Mr. Jones. 37. The Transpo Group reported that there was one reported vehicle accident at the SE 284th/124th Avenue SE intersection between 2000 and 2004, and 15 reported accidents at the SE 304th/124th Avenue SE intersection between 2000 and 2004, including one fatality in 2000. According to the Transpo Group, an intersection is classified as a high accident location (HAL) if the intersection experiences an average of 1.5 or more accidents per one million entering vehicles (MEV). The Transpo Group reported that the SR-18 Westbound Ramps/SE 304th Street intersection located just east of the proposed commercial development is classified as a HAL. Based on accidents reported between 2000 and 2004, the Transpo Group determined that the SE I 284th/124th Avenue SE intersection experiences 0.10 accidents per MEV, and the SE 304th/124th Avenue SE intersection experiences 0.92 accidents per MEV. Michael Pratum, an owner of property across the street from the proposed commercial development on 122nd PI SE, stated in a letter to the City dated February 12, 2007 that there have been "at least three very Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 I Page 19 of 36 serious multiple car accidents in the last 90 days" at the SE 304tn/124th Avenue SE intersection. Mr. Pratum estimated that some vehicles travel 50- 60 mph approaching the intersection. Exhibit A-16. Traffic Impact Mitigation 38. The Transpo Group recommended measures to mitigate impacts of the proposed commercial development. Recommended mitigation measures include payment of approximately $158,100 in environmental mitigation fees (EMFs) to the City of Kent and payment of $29,250 to WSDOT as a pro-rata share for the proposed development's impact on the SR-18 westbound ramps/SE 304th Street intersection. The Transpo Group also recommended construction of a northbound left-turn lane and southbound right-turn lane at the south entrance to the proposed development. The Transpo Group did not recommend dedicated turn lanes at the proposed development's north entrance along 124th Avenue SE or at the proposed development's SE 304th Street entrance. Exhibit A-16. 39. City Staff also recommended measures to mitigate impacts of the proposed PUD modification. The Staff Report accompanying the PUD major modification proposal states that MDNS conditions require road improvements and corridor mitigation fees, and that the Hearing Examiner's February 15, 2006 decision contains conditions of PUD approval that would mitigate traffic impacts. The MDNS conditions require payment of an EMF to the City of Kent for the City's South 272nd Street/ South 277th Street corridor project, payment of a pro-rata share of the cost of WSDOT's SR-18/SE 304th Street project, and require construction of a southbound right-turn pocket along 1241h Avenue SE at the south entrance to the proposed development. The Staff Report accompanying the proposal also contains a proposed condition of approval to mitigate traffic impact of the proposed development. Proposed Condition B.1 within the Staff Report states "Construct the improvements as required by the Hearing Examiner conditions and SEPA determination for the original PUD approval, and the Revised MDNS issued October 16, 2007, and/or pay the respective fees-in-lieu-of construction including any mitigation (EMA or EMF) charges." Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, pages 6 and 22. 40. City Staff proposed a revision to proposed condition B.1 within the Staff Report. The City would revise condition B.1 to read (added language highlighted in bold; removed language indicated by 19") B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE APPLICANT SHALL: 1. Construct road and utility improvements adjacent to or serving the commercial development within the future development tract as required through the aS Fequ!Fed by the Hearing Examiner eenditiens and Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 20 of 36 the February 15, 2006 Verdana PUD approval and the Revised MDNS issued October 16, 2007, including any mitigation (EMA or EMF) charges. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 22; Exhibit C-2; Exhibit C-3. ' 41. Kevin Jones testified that there will be an increase in traffic resulting from construction of the proposed commercial development, but not significant enough to warrant mitigation measures beyond those already proposed. Testimony of Mr. Jones. SE 304th Street 42. Michael Pratum, a landowner who lives on 122"d PI SE across the street from the proposed development, testified that a left-turn lane should also be required for the entrance to the proposed development along SE 304th Street, so that he can access his driveway when traffic backs up. Mr. Pratum stated that traffic backs up from the SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE intersection to the point of the proposed driveway along SE 304th about 3 or 1 4 times each week during the PM peak hour. Mr. Jones responded that construction of the proposed roundabout at the SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE intersection would cure existing traffic backups to the west along SE 304th Street. Mr. Jones added that traffic along SE 304th Street would not reach the threshold for requiring a left turn lane. Mr. Jones proposed a condition of PUD modification approval that the King County roundabout must be completed and in operation prior to occupancy permit issuance for the proposed commercial development. Exhibit A-7.iii; Exhibit A-7.iv; Testimony of Mr. Pratum; Testimony of Mr. Jones. 43. Mr. Pratum submitted a letter to the City, in which he stated that the proposed driveway on SE 304th Street would violate engineering standards for sight distance and would endanger pedestrians. Mr. Pratum cited the four to five percent grade of SE 304th Street, an assumed speed of 35 mph for vehicles traveling on the road, and the vertical curve in the roadway to the west of the proposed driveway to propose a minimum 275-foot sight distance corridor for a vehicle located within the proposed driveway. Mr. Pratum noted that a six foot-high cedar fence to the west of the driveway would limit views from the proposed driveway to approximately 100 feet. Mr. Pratum stated that school buses drive along SE 304th Street and pedestrians walk within the shoulders of SE 304th Street. Mr. Pratum also expressed concern that there would be insufficient sight distance between the planned roundabout at the SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE intersection and the proposed driveway along SE 304th Street, given the changing directions of traffic negotiating the roundabout, vegetation in the center and borders of the roundabout, and median separators on each street entering the roundabout. Exhibit A-7.iii; Exhibit A-7.iv; Testimony of Mr. Pratum. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation - Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 21 of 36 44. Mr. Jones testified that the points of access for the proposed commercial development were chosen based on sight distance, options for left-turn lanes, and options for acceleration lanes. Sight distance diagrams submitted with the major modification application depict sight distance triangles 440 I feet long to the west and 342 feet long to the east of the proposed driveway along SE 304th Street. They also depict sight distance triangles 440 feet long to the south and 530 feet long to the north of the proposed south driveway along 124th Avenue SE. Sight distance triangles depicted for the proposed north driveway along 124th Avenue SE are 440 feet long to the south and 530 feet long to the north. Exhibit A-1; Testimony of Mr. Jones. Street Improvements 45. Mr. Pratum testified that there are currently no sidewalks in the area of the proposed development, making the proposed development inaccessible to pedestrians. Mr. Jones responded that the TIA for the proposed commercial development assumed no pedestrian or bicycle traffic to access the development, so the TIA would generate the most conservative vehicle numbers for traffic mitigation. Testimony of Mr. Pratum; Testimony of Mr. Jones. 46. Condition B.3.g of the Hearing Examiner's February 15, 2006 decision requires street improvements for all off-site public streets abutting the PUD, including five foot-wide concrete sidewalks along the west side of 124th Avenue SE and along the north side of SE 304th Street. The improvements shall meet the full street requirements of the 1993 King County Road Standards except for the pavement sections, which shall meet City of Kent standards.17 All new and improved intersections shall meet entering sight distance requirements per King County, Auburn and Kent Road Standards. !� The 124th Avenue SE improvements shall also accommodate necessary sight ■ lines around METRO bus stops.18 Conditions B.3.g(1) and B.3.g(2)(a) of the Hearing Examiner's decision permit the Owner/Subdivider to pay King County a fee in lieu of the SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE intersection improvements, if approved by King County and the Cities of Auburn and Kent, which shall be applied to the capital project solely for the intended intersection improvements. Associated right-of-way and slope easement 17 King County classifies 124th Avenue SE as an Urban Minor Arterial Street with bike lanes, and classifies SE 304th Street as an Urban Collector Arterial with bike lanes. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 6. 18 Attorney Wilson stated for the Applicant that the conditions of PUD approval set forth in the Hearing Examiner's February 15, 2006 decision were supported by the record accompanying the Hearing Examiner's decision, and that the Applicant does not request reopening of the record. Statement of Attorney Wilson. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 22 of 36 dedications shall be granted to King County to accommodate the planned intersection improvements. According to Condition B.3.g(1), the 1241h Avenue SE improvements shall accommodate entry turn lanes as required by King County and as indicated as mitigation measures in the March 2005 Revised Transportation Impact Analysis submitted for the PUD.19 Unless otherwise determined by King County with consensus from the Kent and Auburn Public Works Departments, the improvements along SE 304th Street improvements must provide for pavement widening for an eastbound left- turn lane. Pavement widening must include at least 36 feet of pavement at the intersection of SE 304th Street and 124th Avenue SE for a minimum eastbound left-turn pocket length of at least 200 feet, plus opening and transition areas for the left turn pocket and pavement tapers. Exhibit C-1, pages 29 - 30. Public Comment 47. Corey Forsberg, a property owner in the area near the proposed commercial development, testified to his concern about an increase in crime and noise in the area upon completion of the proposed development. Tina Tenner, a resident whose backyard opens onto 124th Avenue SE, testified that proposed commercial development would be an eyesore, noisy, subject to heavy truck traffic, subject to crime, and subject to loitering. Ms. Tenner testified that she did not believe the proposed commercial development site would be developed upon purchasing her home in 2003. Ms. Moorehead responded for the City that commercial uses are permitted within a PUD greater than 100 acres in size even when the underlying zoning is residential. Testimony of Mr. Forsberg; Testimony of Ms. Tenner; Testimony of Ms. Moorehead. 48. Ms. Tenner testified that the Lea Hill neighborhood is located on slopes surrounding the proposed development site, such that the Lea Hill neighborhood is located above the proposed development site. For that reason, Ms. Tenner testified, landscaping would not provide a buffer between the Lea Hill area and noise or views generated by the proposed development. Ms. Tenner testified that there are other locations within the Lea Hill neighborhood more suitable for commercial development than the proposed site. Mr. Pratum noted in a letter to the City that a more logical location for commercial development within the City would be along SE 272nd Street. Exhibit A-7.iv; Testimony of Ms. Tenner. 49. Ms. Tenner testified that the government and residents of the City of Auburn should decide the future disposition of the proposed commercial development site, as the property will eventually be annexed into the City of Auburn. 19 The Hearing Examiner's February 15, 2006 decision approving the Verdana 1 PUD/preliminary plat application with conditions predates the Transpo Group's Revised Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed Verdana Commercial development, dated May 2007. Exhibit A-16; Exhibit C-1. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 23 of 36 Anthony Courtney submitted a letter to the City that proposed a committee of City of Auburn, City of Kent, King County, and general public representatives to study the effects of the proposed development on the Lea Hill neighborhood. Ms. Moorehead testified for the City that the City will eventually de-annex area including the PUD development site and the City of Auburn will annex the property. Attorney Wilson argued that approval of the PUD modification proposal could not wait until after annexation because annexation is still uncertain. Exhibit A-7.vi; Testimony of Ms. Tenner; Testimony of Ms. Moorehead; Argument of Attorney Wilson. 50. Ms. Tenner submitted a letter at the hearing signed by 37 individuals I expressing concerns about the proposed development. Those signing the letter favor traveling to Kent-Kangley, Covington, or Auburn for conveniences rather than the proposed commercial development and are opposed to the potential additional traffic, noise, crime, and loitering in the area. A letter submitted by Ron Novak states that there is ongoing commercial development approximately one-half mile south of the proposed commercial development site. Mr. Pratum testified that there is a development with a Safeway grocery store and a Walgreens drug store at 132"d and Kent- Kangley Road, and a commercial area at the SE 312th/124th Avenue SE intersection. Exhibit C-4; Exhibit C-5; Testimony of Mr. Pratum. 51. Ron Novak, a resident of land adjacent to the proposed development site, testified that the provisions of the City Comprehensive Plan should govern the PUD modification application, such that proposed commercial use should be denied. Letters submitted by Mr. Novak (Exhibit A-9.b and Exhibit C-5) detailed his concerns. According to the letters, the Urban Separator designation of the property under the City Comprehensive Plan is not compatible with development permitted within the NCC zoning district. Mr. Novak cited KCC 15.03.010 in support of his argument, which contains the phrase "NCC districts shall be located in areas designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan." Mr. Novak's letter states: "When the Verdana Proposed PUD was vested (September 2004) no part of the Impoundment Reservoir Site was designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan." According to Mr. Novak, the City of Auburn's pre- annexation agreement with King County for the Lea Hill area includes a provision requiring the City of Auburn to maintain established Urban Separator areas within the Lea Hill Annexation area, which will encompass the proposed commercial development site when the area is de-annexed by the City of Kent. Exhibit A-9.b; Exhibit C-5; Testimony of Mr. Novak. 52. Attorney Wilson argued for the Applicant that the more detailed and specific SR zoning classification of the proposed commercial development site and the City PUD ordinance govern rather than the more general City comprehensive plan designations. Argument of Attorney Wilson. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 24 of 36 53. Mr. Novak's letters also comments that the proposed commercial development should be denied based on the text of City of Kent Ordinance No. 3685. According to the letter, the ordinance reads, in relevant part: During the April 6, 2004 City Council meeting Council adopted comprehensive plan designations of Urban Separator (US) for approximately the south 91 acres and Single Family Residential, three units per acre (SF-3), for approximately the north 65 acres of the Annexation Area. At the same time, Council adopted the zoning designations of Single Family Residential, one unit per acre (SR-1), for approximately the south 91 acres and Single Family Residential, three units per acre (SR-3), for approximately the north 65 acres of the Annexation Area. Council... adopted the above comprehensive plan and zoning designations due to the environmentally sensitive systems that exist within the Annexed Area. There is a large highly classed wetland that drains into salmonid habitat and forms the headwaters of Olson Creek. The Urban Separator designation creates open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Exhibit A-9.b; Exhibit C-5. 54. Vonda Marsland testified for Crested Meadows neighborhood homeowners in opposition to the proposed commercial development. Ms. Marsland questioned why the initial PUD/preliminary plat application made no mention of commercial development. In a letter submitted to the City, Le Roy and Carol Bayer, property owners along 1241h Avenue SE, also questioned why a PUD major modification was proposed so soon after approval of the initial PUD/preliminary plat application. Mr. Pratum testified that one would need to know the type of tenants that would lease space in the proposed commercial development in order to determine the specific impacts of the proposed development on the neighborhood. Exhibit A-7.vii; Testimony of Ms. Mars/and; Testimony of Mr. Pratum. 55. Mr. Novak commented in letters to the City that the Applicant's development density bonus within the residential portion of the PUD should be retracted, if area dedicated to open space under the initial PUD/preliminary plat application would now be dedicated to commercial development. The Hearing Examiner's decision conditioned approval of 379 single-family residential lots and one future development tract on the Applicant's provision of 15.55 acres of active recreation space within the PUD, to qualify for a 4 percent density bonus from the baseline allowable density of 321 dwelling units.20 The decision stated 'The future development tract may be used for 20 The Applicant agreed to reduce the number of lots to 379 during the pre-hearing review process. Exhibit C-1, page 5, footnote 2. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 25 of 36 open space at a minimum or for other allowable uses that are not density based. Approval of uses other than open space on the tract is neither guaranteed nor implied by approval of the subdivision and PUD." Exhibit A- 9.b; Exhibit C-1, pages 7 and 25; Exhibit C-5. 56. Residents of the Crystal Meadows residential neighborhood located adjacent 9 J to the northwest corner of SE 304th Street and 124th Avenue SE in Auburn, Washington, submitted a letter to City Planning Services stating that the proposed retail, commercial, and office development would be placed too close to Crystal Meadows homes. Should the development go forward, residents requested addition of a 'landscaping barrier" between proposed office buildings within the development and Crystal Meadows homes. According to residents, the barrier would buffer visual and noise impacts of the proposed development. The residents included a sketch of a proposed barrier with the letter. The sketch depicts closely-spaced trees along the west side of the office building development, adjacent to the west side of the proposed pedestrian path. ExhibitA-9.c. Design Review 57. City Planning Services reviewed the PUD modification proposal under the City's mixed use design review process for mixed use development with a residential component. The Applicant has not yet developed specific building plans for the commercial development. A photo collage submitted with the application depicts specific design concepts for the proposed retail, office, and senior care buildings. The senior care facility would incorporate an obvious front door with a trellis or canopy, a circular driveway, two interior courtyards, residential-scale architectural elements, and a variety of exterior building materials and colors. Design concepts for retail buildings include windows and architectural elements of interest fronting streets, common colors and materials among buildings, and buildings incorporating a neighborhood scale. City Planning Services determined that the parking areas serving the office and senior care facility would not dominate the site, as site development would include landscaping within the parking areas, views to adjacent natural areas, landscape planters adjacent to the buildings, an inner courtyard between the two proposed office buildings, and additional landscaping to the north of the office buildings. Exhibit A-13. 58. City Planning Services determined that the Applicant has identified no specific strategy to create an integrated development pattern for each type of use, whether office, retail, or senior care. The proposal does not currently provide for lighting of pedestrian paths and outdoor areas. City Planning Services determined that the main commercial parking lot dominates the retail portion of the site, such that the PUD criteria calling for development with a beneficial effect not achieved by traditional development and PUD standards calling for clustering of buildings, well-designed landscaping, and Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 26 of 36 open space to break up building and pavement may not be met. The Planning Manager for the City Community Development Department issued a Mixed Use Design Review Decision on October 9, 2007, approving the mixed design review for the PUD modification with 16 conditions of approval. Conditions call for creating strong pedestrian connections between buildings within the development, separating the retail parking area into smaller sections, expressing common design elements throughout the proposed development, complying with specific design review criteria for proposed retail and office buildings, complying with specific design review criteria for the proposed senior care facility, complying with sign standards, screening utility, mechanical, and sanitation equipment from view, submitting a detailed lighting plan, submitting a detailed landscape plan, including pedestrian and bicyclist amenities in pedestrian plazas, outdoor gathering areas, and constructing pedestrian paths to specific design review standards. Exhibit A-13; Exhibit A-15; Exhibit A-20, page 7. 59. At the hearing, City Staff submitted a proposed revision to proposed condition A.5 within the Staff Report. City staff proposed that condition A.5 be revised to read (language added highlighted in bold): Prior to final grading, civil or building permit issuance the applicant shall provide to the City for administrative review and approval an overall development plan showing a unified design concept with significant pedestrian connections and specific building designs that comply with the conditions of the Mixed Use Design Decision, dated October 9, 2007. At the hearing, the Applicant submitted a proposed revision to the City's revised condition A.S. The Applicant proposed that condition A.5 be revised to read (language added underlined): Prior to final grading, civil or building permit issuance, the City must administratively review and approve an overall development plan submitted by the Applicant showing a unified 1 design concept with significant pedestrian connections and specific building designs that comply with the conditions of the Mixed Use Design Decision, dated October 9, 2007. If the Applicant's overall development plan complies with those conditions, the City shall approve it. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 22; Exhibit C-2; Exhibit C-3; Exhibit C-10. 60. Mr. Huey testified that Exhibit C-8 depicts a portion of the Verdana residential development landscape plan approved by the City. Mr. Huey testified that landscaping depicted in the plan along the west border of the ' Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 27 of 36 proposed commercial development will screen the development from the Crystal Meadows development. The plan depicts landscaping with mixed deciduous trees and conifers surrounding both sides of a pedestrian trail along the proposed commercial development's western border. Exhibit C-8; Testimony of Mr. Huey. Utilities 61. The City of Kent will provide public water service to the proposed commercial development. Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 7. 62. The City of Auburn will provide sewer service to the proposed commercial development. The proposed commercial development is located within the City of Auburn Sanitary Sewer service area. In May 2005, the Auburn City Council approved a utility extension agreement between the City of Auburn and Kent 160 LLC that governs the proposed commercial development site. The City of Auburn and Kent 160 LLC executed the agreement on June 6, 2005. According to comments submitted February 12, 2007, the City of Auburn had not determined whether the proposed commercial development is consistent with the agreement and whether further analysis or changes in design are required. The Staff Report accompanying the PUD modification proposal states that the design point of the new sewer lift station required as a condition of PUD approval has been updated to reflect additional flows from the proposed commercial development. New lift station design has also been modified to incorporate additional capacity needed to serve the proposed development. Exhibit A-2; Exhibit A-6; Exhibit A-20, Staff Report, page 7. 63. Mr. Huey testified that the Applicant agreed not to contest annexation by the City of Auburn under the utility extension agreement. The agreement states "[i]n consideration and as a condition of the provision of City sewer service, the Owner shall fully cooperate with and agree to the annexation (which shall include all types and manner of annexation) of the property to the City... It is further agreed and understood that in the event of any breach of this Agreement to annex, the City may terminate the provision of sewer service to the Property." Ms. Moorehead testified that City of Kent and City of Auburn representatives have not thoroughly identified the impact of ' annexation on the proposed commercial development as it is not certain when annexation by Auburn would actually occur. Exhibit A-2; Testimony of Mr. Huey; Testimony of Ms. Moorehead. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a hearing on an application for major modification to Planned Unit Development (PUD) plans. Kent City Code (KCC) Ch. 2.32; KCC 15.08.400.F.7; KCC 15.08.400.1.2. For PUDs that propose a use not Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 28 of 36 typically permitted in the underlying zoning district as provided in KCC 15.08.400.B.4,21 the Hearing Examiner shall forward a recommendation to the City Council, which shall have the final authority to approve or deny the proposed PUD. KCC 15.08.400.F.7. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation shall contain findings of fact and conclusions based on those facts drawn from the record of the hearing prepared by the Hearing Examiner. KCC 2.32.090.C. Criteria for Review Kent City Code (KCC) 15.08.400.G.2 sets forth the criteria the Hearing Examiner must use to evaluate an application for a non-residential planned unit development (PUD). The PUD request shall only be granted if: a. The proposed project shall have a beneficial effect which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and not be detrimental to present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan. b. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained, and incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community. c. The proposed project shall provide areas of openness by the clustering of buildings, and by the use of well-designed landscaping and open spaces. Landscaping shall promote a coordinated appearance and break up continuous expanses of building and pavement. d. The proposed project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building design. It shall encourage the incorporation of special design features such as visitor entrances, plazas, outdoor employee lunch and recreation areas, architectural focal points, and accent lighting. e. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases. KCC 15.08.400.G.2. Conclusions Based on Findings A. Although the proposed senior care facility may have a beneficial effect which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development, the proposed commercial development as a whole zi KCC 15.08.400.13.4 permits commercial uses in residential PUDs of one hundred acres or more located in SR zoning districts, as long as such commercial uses are limited to those uses permitted in the Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) zoning district. KCC 15.08.400.8.4. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 29 of 36 would be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan. The planned senior care facility within the proposed commercial development may offer elderly or disabled members of the Kent community an option for residential living and medical care. Depending on what tenants are identified to lease space within the proposed commercial development, the commercial development may provide personal services and retail opportunities desired by members of the Kent community. Uses permitted within the NCC zoning district that may be allowed within residential PUDs of 100 acres or more include retail food and convenience stores; eating and drinking establishments, though not drive-throughs; miscellaneous retail stores; liquor stores; finance, insurance, and real estate services; personal services; home day-care; day care centers; and professional services. Provision of such services within the PUD reflects City comprehensive plan policies for provision of services to neighborhood residents, locating housing within close proximity to shopping and services, and encouraging mixed use developments incorporating bike, pedestrian, and transit amenities. With conditions of mixed use design review, PUD criteria calling for development with a beneficial effect not achieved by traditional development and PUD standards calling for clustering of buildings, well-designed landscaping, and open space to break up building and pavement would be met. With conditions of mixed use design review and proposed conditions of PUD major modification approval, the proposed commercial development would incorporate bike, pedestrian, and transit amenities. Although KCC 15.03.010 limits location of NCC districts to areas designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan, the City Council had an opportunity to address whether commercial development may be permitted within residential PUDs when it modified PUD provisions by ordinance on August 15, 2006. At the time it modified PUD provisions, KCC 15.03.010 provisions were also before the Council; the Council most recently addressed KCC 15.03.010 by ordinance on November 11, 2005. However, to date the Council has not chosen to address PUD provisions that permit commercial development within residential PUDs in light of KCC 15.03.010. Thus, the Hearing Examiner must give full effect to both ordinances where possible, and where ordinances conflict, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation must be governed by the ordinance that is last in time. To resolve the apparent conflict between KCC 15.08.400.8.4 and KCC 15.03.010, the Hearing Examiner decides that the provisions of KCC 15.08 govern to permit commercial uses in residential PUDs of one hundred (100) acres or more located in SR zones. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 30 of 36 Facts in the record support a determination that the proposed commercial development would be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan. The City of Kent and City of Auburn comprehensive plans designate areas surrounding the proposed commercial development as single-family residential land use. The Urban Separator designation of the proposed commercial development site was meant to protect environmentally sensitive areas and to create open space corridors. With proposed commercial development, the site would be detrimental to the purpose of the Urban Separator designation and the intent of the City Council in placing the designation on the site. Proposed commercial development would defeat the purpose of the Council to provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits in designating the area Urban Separator. Although buffers alongside the on-site wetland and stream proposed and approved under the Applicant's conceptual mitigation plan would protect the wetland and stream, the proposed commercial development would create additional urban development on the site that would detract from the site's ability to serve as an open space separation between already developed urban areas. The proposed commercial development would be visible from residential development on surrounding slopes as well as at ground level. Residential development within the PUD future development tract would likely also detract from the site's ability to serve as an open space separation between already developed urban areas, but not to the same extent as commercial development. The site's SR-1 underlying zoning classification provides for low density single-family residential development at one dwelling unit per acre. Such low-density residential development would not be as intense as the proposed commercial development, which includes two-story buildings, building footprints dwarfing the size of a typical single-family residence, parking lots, artificial lighting schemes, and complicated traffic mitigation requirements. PUDs at greater density may be developed within the SR-1 zoning district; however, in this case, a portion of the proposed commercial development site has been dedicated as open space to provide for a development density bonus in another portion of the PUD already undergoing construction. Development of the proposed commercial development would be detrimental to surrounding residential and other land use as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Owners of property surrounding the proposed development testified and submitted written comments that a commercial development is not needed at the proposed development site, and that impacts of commercial development are not compatible with surrounding residential development. Existing commercial development already serves the existing residential area. Landscaping would not serve as a buffer Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the Clty of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 31 of 36 between the proposed development and surrounding development, due to the location of surrounding development above the proposed development. The City of Auburn's pre-annexation agreement with King County for the Lea Hill area includes a provision requiring the City of Auburn to maintain established Urban Separator areas within the Lea Hill Annexation area, which would encompass the proposed commercial development site when it is de- annexed by the City of Kent. Ms. Moorehead testified for the City that de- annexation will eventually occur; the utility extension agreement for providing sewer service to the site requires the Applicant to support City of Auburn annexation of property including the proposed development site, lest , sewer service be terminated. The exact impacts of the proposed development on surrounding land uses are not known as specific tenants for the proposed commercial development have not been identified. Tenants secured in the future may not reflect the assumptions of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the project estimating the proposed development's traffic impact on the surrounding road system. Even if the Traffic Impact Analysis proves to have accurately forecasted proposed development tenants, the City of Auburn supplied additional evidence for the record that the Traffic Impact Analysis may have underestimated the traffic impact of the proposed commercial development, particularly in the AM peak period. For example, the City of Auburn determined that a coffee shop business typical of developments like the proposed development can, by itself, generate up to 200 AM peak hour trips and over 70 PM peak hour trips. The TIA for the proposed development concluded that the entire proposed development would only generate a total of approximately 122 weekday AM peak hour trips and 262 new weekday PM peak hour trips. A greater number of vehicle trips entering and exiting the proposed commercial development than otherwise estimated would exacerbate the LOS "E" experienced by traffic at the proposed southern driveway along 124th Avenue SE. According to King County intersection standards, a LOS "E" is the least acceptable LOS at an intersection. A congested intersection, especially in the AM peak period, may impede school bus traffic along 1241h Avenue SE. There is also testimony in the record that City of Auburn and the City of Kent representatives have not discussed the impact of annexation on the proposed commercial development. The PUD site is located within the City of Auburn potential annexation area; a City of Kent representative testified that the City of Kent would eventually de-annex the proposed development site and the City of Auburn would annex the site. The Lea Hill area surrounding the PUD site will be is expected to be annexed by the City of Auburn, effective January 1, 2008. Sewer service will be withdrawn from the proposed development site unless the Applicant supports annexation of the site by the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 32 of 36 City of Auburn. 7 iidr , The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Kent City Council deny the PUD major modification application, without prejudice. Should the Kent City Council elect to decide the PUD major modification application, the Council should consider whether the residential PUD criteria found in KCC 15.08.400.G.1 are more applicable to evaluating the application, given the residential development surrounding and located within the PUD. Findings 1, 4, 5, 7 - 17, 19 - 23, 27 - 55, 62, 63. B. With conditions, unusual environmental features of the site would be preserved, maintained, and incorporated into the PUD design. According to the conceptual buffer averaging plan submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City, wetlands and stream on the proposed commercial development site would be protected through establishment of adequate buffers. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant installs and operates a water quality best management practice (BMP) similar to a Stormceptor upstream of the proposed detention / water quality vault within Basin A. Findings 20 - 25. C. With conditions, the PUD would provide areas of openness through use of well-designed open space and landscaping. The proposed commercial development would lie adjacent to a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA), proposed as part of the initial PUD that would contain the proposed development. The Applicant has submitted preliminary landscape plans for the proposed commercial development. However, the proposed commercial development would not provide for any areas of open space within the commercial development area; the retail portion of the proposed development would be dominated by a parking lot. Conditions are necessary to ensure that PUD standards calling for clustering of buildings, well-designed landscaping, and open space to break up building and pavement are met, and would require the Applicant to submit a detailed landscape plan for the proposed development. An additional condition is necessary to ensure a sufficient landscape buffer between the proposed development and the Crystal Meadows neighborhood. Findings 1, 19, 20, 28, 56 - 60. D. With conditions, the PUD would promote variety and innovation in site and building design, and would contain features that promote community interaction. A photo collage submitted with the application depicts specific design concepts for the proposed retail, office, and senior 1 care buildings. Pedestrian trails would run through and surround the proposed commercial development. However, building schematics or Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 33 of 36 building elevations showing building design have not been submitted. The Applicant's proposal for commercial development does not currently provide for lighting of pedestrian paths and outdoor areas. The main commercial parking lot dominates the retail portion of the site, such that the PUD criteria calling for development with a beneficial effect not achieved by traditional development and PUD standards calling for clustering of buildings, well- designed landscaping, and open space to break up building and pavement would not be met. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant creates strong pedestrian connections between buildings within the development; separates the retail parking area into smaller sections; complies with specific design review criteria for proposed retail and office buildings; complies with specific design review criteria for the proposed senior care facility; complies with sign standards, screening utility, mechanical, and sanitation equipment from view; submits a detailed lighting plan; submits a detailed landscape plan, including pedestrian and bicyclist amenities in pedestrian plazas, outdoor gathering areas; and constructs pedestrian paths to specific design review standards. Findings 57, 58. E. With conditions, the PUD would provide a unified design concept. The Applicant has identified no specific strategy to create an integrated development pattern for each type of use, whether office, retail, or senior care. Conditions of mixed use design review for the proposed commercial development require common design elements throughout the proposed development. Findings 57 - 59. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the City Council deny the request for approval of a major modification to construct a Neighborhood Convenience Commercial development within the Future Development Tract of PUD-2004-4, without prejudice.ZZ, 23 If the City Council determines it is appropriate to approve the request according to KCC 1508.400.G.2 review criteria, the Hearing Examiner recommends approval with the following conditions:24, 25 22 The words "without prejudice" are intended to convey the Hearing Examiner's opinion that the land use application may be re-submitted to the City of Auburn without a bar based on an argument that the application had already been decided. 23 If the PUD is denied by the City Council, the associated application for approval of a CUP for a Senior Care Facility would also be denied based on conditions placed on approval of that application. 24 This recommendation includes conditions required to meet City Code standards as well as conditions required to reduce unique project impacts. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Mod1fication PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 34 of 36 jA. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The terms and conditions of Mixed Use Design Review MUDR-2007-3, which was approved on October 9, 2007, shall apply to this proposal. 2. Where determined feasible by the Kent Public Works Department, the applicant shall utilize Low Impact Development Techniques in construction of the project, including but not limited to rainwater collection systems, porous paving on sidewalks and trails, and bioretention areas with curb cuts in planting strips along roadways. 3. Drive through lanes shall include type II landscaping in order to buffer visual and auditory impacts to surrounding areas. The development shall not include any drive through lanes for eating or drinking establishments or any gasoline stations. 4. There shall be a landscaping barrier along the west side of the pedestrian path adjacent to the west side of office buildings, to provide a noise and visual barrier between the Crystal Meadows residential development and the office buildings. 5. Uses allowed within the PUD shall be limited to those uses that are principally permitted in the NCC zone and shall not include conditionally permitted uses or special permit uses other than the proposed senior care facility and two drive-through lanes that are accessory to principally permitted uses and public uses such as schools and parks. 6. Prior to final grading, civil or building permit issuance the applicant shall provide to the City for administrative review and approval an overall development plan showing a unified design concept with significant pedestrian connections and specific building designs that comply with the conditions of the Mixed Use Design Decision, dated October 9, 2007. B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THE APPLICANT SHALL: 1. Construct road and utility improvements adjacent to or serving the commercial development within the future development tract as required through the February 15, 2006 Verdana PUD approval and the Revised 25 If the City Council approves the PUD without amendments to the recommended conditions, the application for CUP approval for a Senior Care Facility would also be ' approved, with conditions. If the conditions of approval are amended by the City Council, the CUP approval for the Senior Care Facility would be returned to the Hearing Examiner for re-opening of the hearing to determine if additional conditions are appropriate. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Ma]or Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 35 of 36 MDNS issued October 16, 2007, including any mitigation (EMA or EMF) charges. The King County roundabout at the 124th Avenue SE - SE 304tb Street intersection shall be completed and in operation prior to occupancy permit issuance for the development. When the majority of retail tenants have been identified, the Applicant shall evaluate the accuracy of trip generation estimates for the proposed development, and shall consider options for routing the majority of vehicle trips away from the residential senior care facility. 2. Construct all wetland, stream and buffer mitigation and install all required wildlife passable fences unless otherwise approved by the Environmental Engineering Section of the Kent Public Works Department. 3. Receive approval of the required As-Built Drawings for Street, Street Lighting, Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Management Facilities as deemed appropriate by the Kent Department of Public Works. The As- Built Drawings for Storm Water Management Facilities shall Include plans for installation and use of a water quality best management practice (BMP) similar to a Stormceptor upstream of the proposed Basin A detention / water quality vault. DATED this 27th day of November 2007. THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner bjb\S \Perm it\Pla n\PU D\200 6\VERDANA\Verd a na Revised Recommendationl 111708 doc l Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Verdana PUD - Major Modification PUD-2004-4(R), KIVA RPP4-2064281 Page 36 of 36 1 2 D v a 3 OFC ?7 ' S CITY pF KCNT CITY CL 6 BEFORE THE CITY OF KENT EFR 7 HEARING EXAMINER 8 9 In the Matter of the Application of PUD-2004-4(R) 10 KENT 25 LLC KIVA#RPP4-2064281 I for a Major Modification to a KENT ZS LLC'S REQUEST 12 Planned Unit Development FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Pursuant to KMC §§ 2.32.140 and 12.01.160(F), Kent 25 LLC ("the Applicant") 16 hereby requests that the Examiner reconsider his November 271h recommendation of denial 17 issued for the Applicant's proposed Major Modification to the Verdana Planned Unit 18 Development(the"Modification"). 19 20 Under those code sections, a party of record may request reconsideration if the party 21 has identified a specific error of fact or law, or new evidence is available that was not 22 reasonably available at the time of the hearing. Because the Examiner's recommendation 23 contains several specific errors of fact and misapplies applicable law,the Applicant seeks 24 reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation. 25 The Modification, which received a recommendation of approval from the City of 26 Kent staff, meets Kent's planning policies by retaining characteristics that support the Urban 27 Separator land use designation, furthers the purpose of planned unit developments ("PUDs") 28 LAW Offices Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration- HILLIS C L A R K MARTIN & P E T E R S O N Page 1 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 i by incorporating commercial components into a solely residential development, and 2 complements the proposed uses of the surrounding vacant land. Furthermore, the 3 Modification is clearly within the jurisdiction of the City of Kent,not the City of Auburn. The application is a proposed modification to an existing approved planned unit development 5 and, as such, should be considered not in isolation but as a part of the larger Verdana PUD 6 project. ' 7 II. THE MODIFICATION MEETS THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. s 9 KMC § 15.08.400(B)(4)provides that commercial uses may be allowed in Residential 10 PUDs located in SR-1 zones if the proposed use meets the criteria set forth in 11 KMC 15.08.400(G)(2). The Examiner appears to have overlooked KMC § 15.08.400 as he 12 painstakingly considered whether it is appropriate to allow commercial use in an Urban 13 Separator. The question before the Examiner was not whether commercial use should be 14 allowed in the Urban Separator,it was simply whether the Modification met the criteria set 15 forth in KMC § 15.08.400(G)(2). Even If the Examiner believed that the Modification was 16 not appropriate in the Urban Separator,he was still required to analyze the Modification in 17 light of the more specific requirements of KMC 15.08.400(G)(2). Moreover, a land use 18 planning designation in the comprehensive plan is a guide only. It should not be used to make 19 specific land use decisions. It is instead the applicable zoning designation that takes 20 precedence over a comprehensive plan designation.' In this instance,the provisions of Kent's 21 SR-1 zoning regulations, as well as KMC § 15.08.400(C)(2) specifically permitting PUDs that 22 are "not comprised entirely of detached single-family dwellings"in SR-1 zones,prevail over 23 the land use map designation in Kent's comprehensive plan. 24 25 26 27 E.g., Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 874,947 P.2d 1208, 1215 (1997). 28 Law Offices Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration- . HILLIS c L A R K MARTIN & P E T E R S O N Page 2 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimik(206)623-7789 A. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE I PURPOSE OF THE URBAN SEPARATOR. 2 The Examiner misstates the City of Kent's position on the purpose of Urban 3 Separators by stating that"with proposed commercial development, the site would be ' 4 detrimental to the purpose of the Urban Separator designation and the intent of the City ' 5 Council in placing the designation on the site."2 The Verdana property may be designated as 6 an Urban Separator in the city's comprehensive plan,but such a designation does not prohibit 7 commercial development here because Kent has also clearly determined that limited 8 commercial uses are acceptable in an Urban Separator when the implementing zone is SR-I 9 and the PUD site is greater than 100 acres.3 The Kent City Council necessarily determined 10 that commercial uses could be appropriate on the Verdana property when the city zoned the ' I 1 property SR-1. Had the council believed that commercial development would be detrimental 12 to the purpose of an Urban Separator,it would not have imposed SR-1 zoning which allows 13 PUDs with commercial components. 14 Further, the Examiner's decision in this matter equates the proposed Modification to 15 the Verdana PUD to a rezone. This is technically incorrect because the Kent Zoning Code ' 16 already permits Neighborhood Convenience Commercial ("NCC")commercial uses on the 17 Verdana site, subject to the PUD major modification process! The entire Verdana site 18 proposal would still be bound to the development standards of the SR-1 zoning designation, 19 as outlined in KMC § 15.04.170, not those of the NCC zone. The requirement that the ' 20 proposed commercial uses comply with the height, setback, impervious surface coverage, and 21 22 23 z Examiner's 11/27/07 Findings,Conclusions and Recommendation re Verdana PUD Major Modification 24 Proposal("Examiner's Decision")at 30,Conclusion A. 3 A PUDs need not be"comprised entirely of detached single-family dwellings"in PUDs like Verdana that ' 25 are more than 100 acres KMC§ 15.08.400(C)(2). 26 4 "1n residential PUDs of one hundred(100)acres or more located in SR zones,and in residential PUDs of ten (10)acres or more located in other zoning districts,commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses ' 27 shall be limited to those uses permitted in the neighborhood convenience commercial district." KMC § 15.08.400(B)(4). 28 Law Offices Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration— H I L L l s C L A R K M R T 1 N & P E T E R S O N Page 3 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 I other bulk regulations of the SR-1 zone negates the Examiner's conclusion that"low-density ' 2 residential development would not be as intense as the proposed commercial development."5 ' 3 When reviewing multiple land use regulations and planning designations,the 4 Examiner must if possible interpret them so as to harmonize them,rather than creating a , 5 conflict. It is clearly appropriate here to determine that limited commercial development,such 6 as that proposed by the Applicant, is acceptable in this Urban Separator because such a , 7 finding allows the SR-1 zoning and the Urban Separator designation to complement rather s than conflict with one another. 9 The question of whether commercial uses are compatible with an Urban Separator 10 zone has already been answered by the city's zoning regulations 6 The Examiner should have 11 limited his decision to whether the proposed Modification meets the criteria of 12 KMC 15.08.400(G)(2)and should not have revisited the Council's policy decision to permit 13 NCC uses in a PUD of more than 100 acres. 14 B. EVEN WITH THE MODIFICATION,THE VERDANA PUD EXCEEDS 15 URBAN SEPARATOR REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE. 16 To further the purposes of the Urban Separator,7 Kent has established not only a 17 planning policy but also a code requirement that development within Urban Separators must ' 18 retain 50% of the unconstrained area as open space in perpetuity.9 The Examiner took notice 19 of the fact that the proposed Modification and the Verdana PUD as a whole meet the urban 20 separator open space requirement.10 The required Urban Separator open space for the 21 22 5 Examiner's Decision at 31,Conclusion A. 23 6 See KMC§ 15.08.400(B)(4). Kent defines Urban Separators are defined as follows: "Urban separators are low-density lands that ' 24 define community or municipal identities and boundaries,protect adjacent resource lands,rural areas,and environmentally sensitive areas,and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide 25 environmental,visual, recreational,and wildlife benefits." KMC§ 15.02.531. , 26 s Kent Planning Policy LU-31.3. 27 9 KMC § 12.04.778.C.8. 10 Examiner's Decision at 15,Finding 28. 28 Law Offices I Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration- • H 1 L L I s C L A R K M R T 1 N & P E T E R S O N Page 4 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 99101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 I Verdana PUD,of which the Modification is inextricably a part, is 16.14 acres. The Verdana ' 2 PUD, even with the Modification, sets aside approximately 16.21 acres as open space. 3 Although the Examiner took notice of these facts,he still determined that"the proposed 4 commercial development would create additional urban development on the site that would 5 detract from the site's ability to serve as an open space separation between already developed 6 urban areas."11 Such a conclusion does not comport with the facts. The Verdana PUD has 7 always complied with the 50% open space requirement, and the Modification does not change that fact. 8 ' 9 The only way the Applicant can account for the Examiner's conclusion is that either 10 the Examiner does not believe that the Kent's 50% open space requirement is sufficient, or the ' 11 Examiner considered the Modification as a stand-alone project rather than as part of the larger 12 Verdana PUD. If the latter is the case, then the Applicant submits that the Examiner has 13 misapplied the applicable law. As noted, Kent requires an applicant seeking to develop within 14 an Urban Separator to set aside 50% of the unconstrained area as open space. The Examiner 15 does not have the authority to expand the City's open space requirement. If the Examiner 16 considered the Modification as a stand-alone project, he misconstrued his task. 17 The Modification must be analyzed within the context of the entire Verdana project site, and ' 18 the Verdana PUD has clearly met the Urban Separator open space requirement by setting aside 19 16.21 acres of its unconstrained area as open space. ' 20 C. THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. THE ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPACTS HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY 21 MITIGATED. 22 The Hearing Examiner's reliance on the City of Auburn's February 12, 2007, letter to ' 23 Kent regarding the traffic impacts of the proposed Modification is inappropriate for two 24 reasons.12 25 26 27 Examiner's Decision at 30-31,Conclusion A. 12 See Examiner's Decision at 16,Finding 30;at 32,Conclusion A. 28 Law Offices Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration - HILLIS C L A R K M ARTIN & P E T E R S O N Page 5 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seanle,Washington 98 10 1-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 I First and foremost, Auburn's concerns regarding any significant traffic impacts—and 2 the Examiner's concerns for that matter—are now moot. The Modification was subject to , 3 SEPA review which resulted in Kent's issuance of a Revised MDNS. During the SEPA 4 process, the adverse traffic impacts of the proposed Modification were analyzed and 5 addressed. The Applicant is required, as a result of the SEPA process,to complete certain 6 traffic mitigation conditions.13 The conditions imposed as a result of the Revised MDNS ' 7 adequately address any concerns Auburn had, and indeed, all of the concerns raised by the 8 Examiner. As a matter of law, with the conditions imposed in the Revised MDNS, the ' 9 Modification will not result in any probable significant adverse impacts on the environment 14, 10 since neither Auburn nor anyone else appealed the Revised MDNS. If the traffic concerns the I Examiner raises on page 32 of his decision had any merit,the appropriate forum to have ' 12 raised and addressed such would have been a SEPA appeal of the Revised MDNS. In the 13 absence of such an appeal,the Examiner's raising of issues related to adverse traffic impacts 14 exceeds the scope of his authority in the Modification proceeding. 15 Second,the Applicant submitted a Revised Traffic Impact Analysis("TIA") which ' 16 explicitly addressed the concerns expressed in Auburn's February 2007 letter. Specifically, 17 Auburn requested that the report"conservatively analyze the likely retail trip generation , 18 impacts." In response to Auburn's comments, the May 2007 Revised TIA based the trip 19 generation rates on the ITE land use data for a"shopping center,"which has an average trip 20 rate nearly 40 percent greater than the average trip rate for a specialty retail center, the rate ' 21 that was used in the initial TIA. Additionally, the May 2007 Revised TIA does not use 22 summer traffic counts as the basis for existing and future traffic volumes. Traffic volumes 23 24 13 Three of the four SEPA conditions imposed in the City's Revised MDNS dated October 16,2007,relate ' to the mitigation of traffic impacts. The MDNS requires the Applicant to pay the City's Environmental 25 Mitigation Fee for the City's South 272nd/277u'Street Corridor Project;to pay WSDOT a pro-rata share of the cost of resolving the High Accident Location at the SR 18/SE 304t'Street interchange;and to modify its frontage 26 improvements along 124s Avenue SE under review by King County to provide a southbound right-turn pocket 27 along 124`h Avenue SE at the southerly entrance to the proposed commercial development. 14 See SEPA Rules,WAC 197-11-340. 28 Law Offices ' Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration- ■ H 1 L L I S C L A R K MARTIN & P E T E R S O N Page 6 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 ' I were instead based on an approximation of non-summer traffic counts to reflect the influence 2 of the many schools in the area. Finally, the May 2007 Revised TIA evaluates potential traffic 3 impacts during the weekday AM peak hour. ' 4 The Examiner's adoption of Auburn's 10-month-old suggestion that projected trip 5 generation is artificially low because the forecasts don't consider the effect of drive-through 6 lanes is fundamentally flawed [Findings, Pg. 32].15 First, most of Auburn's examples are 7 food-oriented,including Starbucks, McDonald's, etc., and include drive-through lanes,which ' 8 are not permitted in the underlying zoning requirements. Second, the trip rate cited by the ' 9 Auburn for a drive-in bank is outdated, as most of the studies supporting this rate were 10 completed before 2000 and didn't reflect many of the current banking trends that have I reduced bank trips (including on-line banking, direct deposit, remote ATMs,etc.). Finally, it 12 is unlikely that the trip generation for Starbucks, as offered by Auburn, reflects new vehicular ' 13 trips. (Nearly all of the trips are not new but rather internally-captured or pass-by trips.) 14 Moreover, while Auburn's statement is not clear, it is very possible that the cited trip 15 generation for a Starbucks includes adrive-through lane. 16 Finally, Auburn submitted a new comment letter on November 6,2007. ' 17 The November 6, 2007 letter, incorporated herein by reference, is attached hereto as ' 18 Exhibit C. In its updated November 2007 letter,Auburn does not take issue with the revised 19 trip generation estimates. Apparently the Examiner has taken the City's earlier comment ' 20 regarding trip generation and combined it with the City's later comments regarding traffic 21 operations, concluding that taken in concert, "a congested intersection . . .may impede school i22 bus traffic along 124th Avenue SE." Any potential "congestion" would be limited to delays ' 23 of vehicles on-site, not traffic traveling north and south on 124th Avenue SE. The only way in 24 which driveway delays could affect school bus traffic would be if buses were to enter the site during the AM peak hour, travel through the Starbuck's drive-through lane (which wouldn't ' 25 26 27 15 See Examiner's Decision at 32,Conclusion A. 28 Law Offices Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration- HI LLIS C L A R K M R T I N & P E T E R S O N Page 7 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 I exist), and experience some delay while exiting onto 124th Avenue SE. This is an 2 impossibility. 3 D. LANDSCAPING WILL SERVE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE RESIDENTIAL 4 DEVELOPMENT ABOVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 5 , The Examiner determined that landscaping would not serve as a buffer between the 6 proposed commercial development and the surrounding residential development because of the location of the surrounding residences, which are above the proposed development.16 8 The Examiner overlooks the fact that the Applicant discussed the landscaping buffer with a 9 'resident of Crystal Meadows(the surrounding development located above the proposed 10 Verdana commercial development), and came to a mutually acceptable landscaping plan. II 'The Applicant agreed to revise its landscaping plan in order to accommodate the concerns of 12 the residents of Crystals Meadows. ' 13 III. THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN KMC § 15.03.010 14 AND KMC § 15.08.400. 15 The Hearing Examiner's references to KMC § 15.03.010 are both confusing and 16 unnecessary.17 In his recommendation,the Examiner attempts to resolve a conflict where 17 none exists. The provisions of KMC § 15.03.010 are nowhere incorporated in I s KMC 15.08.400(B)(4). That latter section simply limits commercial uses in PUDs over 100 , 19 acres to those permitted in the NCC zone. The Applicant has not applied to rezone the 20 property to Neighborhood Convenience Commercial ("NCC"). An analysis of whether the ' 21 Verdana site may be designated or zoned NCC is thus a red herring. A review of the Kent 22 Municipal Code reveals that there is no conflict between the provisions relating to NCC and 23 those relating to PUDs. The two code provisions do not need to be read together,and there is , 24 25 ' 26 27 16 Examiner's Decision at 31,Conclusion A. 1' See id. at 30,Conclusion A. 28 Law Offices Kent 25 LLC s Request for Reconsideration - HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON Page 8 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 I no reason for the Examiner's recommendation to "be governed by the ordinance that is last in 2 time,"as the Examiner proposes.Is. 3 IV. THE CITY OF AUBURN'S POTENTIAL FUTURE ANNEXATION OF THE ' VERDANA PROPERTY IS HYPOTHETICAL AND CANNOT ENTER INTO THE 4 EXAMINER'S DECISION-MAKING. 5 Although the Verdana PUD is unquestionably within Kent's jurisdiction, and the 6 Applicant is vested under Kent's land use regulations, the Examiner has determined that it is 7 appropriate to let the Auburn decide whether the Modification should be approved.19 8 The Examiner's conclusion is not only completely beyond any realm of fairness to the 9 Applicant; it is also contrary to established law and based on hypothetical reasoning. 10 The Verdana PUD property is indisputably part of the City of Kent. Kent has 1 1 jurisdiction over this proceeding, and even if Auburn were to annex the property before the 12 Kent reaches a decision on the Modification, the land use regulations in effect at the time the 13 Applicant originally filed its Modification application with Kent should apply20. Further,even 14 if Auburn were given jurisdiction through annexation, Auburn would have to base its decision 15 on the same criteria presently before the City of Kent. Auburn is in no better position to 16 decide whether the Applicant has met Kent's criteria than is Kent. 17 A. THE PUD IS NOT WITHIN THE AUBURN PAA. 18 The Examiner incorrectly states that the Verdana PUD site is located within Auburn's 19 potential annexation area and that when the city of Kent de-annexes the site, Auburn will ' 20 annex it.21 A copy of the land use map showing Auburn's potential annexation area is 21 attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Much of the property 22 surrounding the Verdana PUD site is within Auburn's potential annexation area, but the 23 156 acres of the Verdana property is not within Auburn's potential annexation area. 24 25 18 See id 26 19 See id.at 32,Conclusion A. 27 20 See Schneider Homes, Inc. v. City of Kent, 87 Wn.App.774, 942 P.2d 1096(1997). 21 See Examiner's Decision at 32,Conclusion A. 28 ' Law Offices Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration- HILLIS C L A R K M A R T l N & P£1'£R S O N Page 9 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 Additionally,the Verdana site would not be automatically annexed into Auburn upon i Kent's de-annexation. The Examiner erred when he stated that Auburn's annexation of the 2 Lea Hill area will become effective on January 1, 2008.22 The Staff Report submitted by Kent 3 4 Planning Services recognizes that the annexation of the Lea Hill area is expected to become , 5 effective January 1,2008,not that it is effective on that date.23 6 Annexation of the Lea Hill area is not automatic on January 1, 2008. Auburn instead 7 hopes to complete annexation by that date, in order to realize an incentive offered by King 8 County. It cannot be known today whether Auburn will complete its annexation process on or 9 before January 1, 2008. Auburn must at a minimum have a state-mandated census completed 10 and the requisite population density achieved before the Lea Hill annexation is effective. t 1 To say that annexation of the Verdana PUD site is likely in the near future is therefore ' 12 unsubstantiated. Auburn has neither commenced any annexation process for the Verdana 13 PUD site. nor has the city of Kent begun any de-annexation. The process for de-annexation ' 14 and annexation is complicated and is not something that happens quickly. Moreover, is although the Examiner took notice of the fact that the Kent and Auburn have not identified the 16 impact of annexation on the Modification, and that it is uncertain when annexation would 17 actually occur,the Examiner apparently disregarded such facts.24 Furthermore,while the , 18 Applicant signed an agreement stating that it will not oppose annexation if it occurs in the ' 19 future, this provision alone cannot be interpreted to signify Auburn's intention to annex the 20 Verdana property. Such language is standard in every Utility Development Agreement 21 granted by the Aubum25 and cannot support a finding that Auburn intends to annex the 22 , 23 22 See id. at 10,Finding 12. 24 23 Kent Planning Services Staff Report on Modification at 2. 24 Examiner's Decision at 28, Finding 63; testimony of Michael Huey;testimony of Lydia Moorehead. 25 ' 25 Pursuant to the Auburn Municipal Code,"`Development agreement' means an agreement between the 26 city of Auburn and the property owner(s)/developer(s)of land located outside the incorporated boundaries of the city of Auburn. The development agreement shall be in a form as prepared by the city attorney and shall contain 27 provisions requiring the property owner(s)/developer(s)to conform to all applicable city development standards. ' The development agreement shall also provide to the city of Auburn a nonrevocable power of attorney that 28 Law Offices ' Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration - • HILLIS C L A R K MARTIN & P E T E R S O N Page 10 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 I Verdana property. To state, as the Examiner did,that annexation of the Verdana property is 1 2 likely in the near future is purely hypothetical and is unsupported by fact.26 3 To require the Applicant to wait while two cities try to work through the complicated de-annexation and annexation process, as proposed by the Examiner, is unreasonable and 5 contrary to the Applicant's vested rights to have its application decided under now-applicable 6 law. Whether Auburn ever can or will annex the Verdana property is not a factor that should 7 be considered when determining if the Modification should be approved. The factors to be 8 considered in this decision are clearly set forth in KMC § 15.08.400(G)(2), and the potential 9 for annexation is not one of them. The Applicant has a vested right to have the Modification 10 considered under KMC 15.08.400(G)(2), and a decision that takes annexation—a hypothetical 11 factor—into consideration is arbitrary and capricious. 12 B. THE USES PROPOSED IN THE MODIFICATION COMPLEMENT 13 AUBURN'S PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE PAA. The Examiner erred when he analyzed whether the Modification will be detrimental to 14 present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan. 15 The Examiner states "The City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use Plan(Printed July 24, 16 2007) designates adjacent land to the north,south, east and west of the PUD as Single-Family 17 Residential."27 Based on a misunderstanding of Auburn's potential surrounding land uses, 18 the Examiner determined that the Modification would have a detrimental effect. 19 The Examiner's finding that the Modification will be detrimental to the surrounding area is 20 directly contradictory to the proposed land use maps published by the city of Auburn and 21 attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. These maps (printed 22 September 18, 2007)depict Auburn's proposed land use designations for the Lea Hill PAA. 23 The maps indicate that the potential land use designation for the area directly to the east and to 24 ' 25 authorizes the city of Auburn to include the subject property in an annexation at any time." Auburn Municipal 26 Code§ 14.18.006(B),available online at: http://www codepublishing.com/wa/auburn/. 27 26 See Examiner's Decision at 32,Conclusion A. 27 Id. at 10,Finding 12. 28 Law Offices ' Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration - HILLIS C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N Page 11 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue ' Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7799 I the southeast of the PUD is Light Commercial. According to these maps,the Modification ' 2 would therefore complement Auburn's plans for the area surrounding the Verdana PUD. 3 The Applicant accordingly requests that the Examiner reconsider his decision in light of this information. 4 V. CONCLUSION 5 6 For the reasons set forth above, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner 7 grant the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, reverse his November 27th decision and 8 recommend approval of the Modification pursuant to the conditions set forth at pages 34 to 36 of his November 27th decision. 9 DATED this day of December,2007 at Seattle, Washington. 10 11 1 12 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN& 13 PETERSON,P.S. 14 15 , By 16 Ri hard R. VAlson, WSBA# 6952 17 Attorneys for Applicant Kent 25 LLC 18 19 20 , 21 22 23 24 25 '25 ND 19349.002 4822-6082-0226vl 27 28 Law Offices Kent 25 LLC's Request for Reconsideration - • HILL 1 S C L A R K M ARTIN & P E T E R S O N Page 12 of 12 A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 c ;.'�'•-.tee�. r VI Av KE�T'.'.>'.r ' awe -.� [e�J .._- _ .._ .�._� _� _�... �.. ,. -�- .� � C - -• ) - 4 L..... .�... �.°. r 11 i 1 u i , ill •• 1 1 � � AU,BURN �•� 1 ;,. ••ZONING ��/IL11—. tt� 111i�uu/"-�Ili1'1i w�-■�����:C�:.! � �FINAL \�r•� \ate............. >. 1 �s�■ I�1rf,�:o:i1'��t'inl`: [ir;of�•. j,i..• .. _. ,.:,�., .v / � �7-�`!� � •■..Ilrw ?;°�:, `t 1�is111.(;;�!!�1 ■I ,`13 ���Ir l�fh r Ilw*� i•�'jl'il !I �;:�' i:er,! lsr 1■�1'jf�l�;ra`-`j"F\ _ 7. w��■w��� III II 1 � �: fc17;I��,..,.�_w_■. �:::�-■I�ru� fill 111 11 1!!•■` I�I ����cr�+t r- +� �, �I�u��lt����>Irnr il�il�il�■��■ �� :i .�� ?i I,Illli�:,��Il�Igl1 tAU1!:�11E■:I��� ��� A��__■11:�j w ;1:1 ���IIIi�.R!!�!! sae:;: 1Ift►� 1+„!'� - -- �:`■►/� �•f, u■r711U1 leunnrw:rl°�■tt■ �V 1♦1�■Ir■� ��ra= •■//11 ' -tdo • _ ill• ��� '. / or . 111 ■�� ■I■: ri - ,1� ,,,,.,,,.1,,,.I;"yfi:'l �1��� �ti1111 � :`�'=F7:: �,i�'•i�J� -, ��.... �il �;. ;�;c e 1 I�� :..1 • 'rs�l1!!!: J: !■Lc: - :ni..l� 111■ �_I.'tttt■'ittt�:�. �1 �.1:.�■.�'1��I'i�,�••111�3 �_'���a•.ni,. 11 I,.i i%.:.u.A�:1.1 iu ,rlra• w■�� {'��'.•f�uo..,,�,.�.� rr■, mn:. ��� Ili ` .�,u lr�••,., llll'1 1 S'3 �_ '��� - .!•[,Rill III-�•-; ■aar 1 Io Elit ism y„. 1„nN�' w. ■�Isi11L7'"'"""`v.+_li :1�:, ` �I. ,��,,`r► awl � �t�/ 1• tea■?::,•(Ir��a�� ,C�' �,�". 1?s:•i, ,� ' •'� �� �. rir■r■r1''�,.moo-..-. �=..: •;l,ni:.� � ■1� ,.. .ra► I ' rIgAsil MI LqR1 SINGLE-FAMLY RESIDENTIAL OISTRICT WOOD SO FT,MIN LOT SIZE) LHR2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(13,000 So FT,MIN LOT SIZE) LHR3 TWO-FAMILY(M)PLEX)RESIDENTIAL :i,�C!•,•�ti7e>,` 11�1a11�+ I'1r.66►�-r:!Slrlll:`:,.:'�.� - ,�: t't-'2lri1,.�■il— �:1.:.. r Yr■.•:.j.T:....�`,. ?..: ...a"II• � A.`. �� ■ 1\■ DISTRICTi■� �� RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT_SJI MANUFACTURED HOME PARK DISTRICT i■�ii►C/r� � r� l �_r.l■ ii LHC1 LIGHT COMMUMS&DISTRICT LHPI PLIOLIC USE DISTRICT I INSTITUTIONAL USE DISTRICT , r .i • ■ tt�.... _::���� ,,e.a_E:::-�""i� �, • �� *!� �� is Y■ ' � t.r, �t�•rt•� �'�; lit 10 �2_�r��',�■■ Ilw r',AI i.�.i Ti.:a ti�1���•�r'" t 7u�'� � 111:' rL!•�Llil ---■•aiiil. lll/IIGII�Ii�_ II`��1 Liu t J � ••uriii i�lll.11llll ��� \ 11!�!!+�l���, Inin1 IIL�illl�■� ■ r ��:i it. Eel Nil � =III�IIIIZ-,��.��■��IIA.1A111t'.11�—•�.� ��Irl!1�_♦r� ' '■■�11 �1� 1�11 _ - 1 r��I■1 � _ won MIN Sol _. i. I IS suffa !::'►, ..?1• --�..i; ��:;r•� �,'.;' 2:;;tt;� ;i-• ;'■.J� � "AM. wa n��L■III ' _:.: :�� 7 -�J� I ..1 1 tt�t�l���ll..,'unr , ::_�rr Sa4:;,un.n.i�•".. .=..� �. i �t:�l... ��•�II��� 'i= "�����;Into_,-..- � --■ > ,r.,,•,1,..,.,. ,�: 1� �i1J �•:; 1 yin-• 1 . " '?' � ■ ��;j • FJ ROME long d i L..1•'......:::..:::::::: r liii;aUK':;,c5 {�••;:1l1►lam as iorf; -�1111'° r►'�� '+�::•`� 1 a Sty:. •� - Ll LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT �� Ali•� •�� f ■ 11/06/2007 TUN 9e33 PAR 2538043114 City of Auburn.Planning „ ®00z/003 EXHIBIT C ' :ov City of Auburn Comment Letter :yy��i _ Yr C.� V J ��:•i•-4t�•:• .r j" f�::.�:e `°+• t'4' .:;�v y��Y !.J�'�F�c�lw.:ill���•��• ( ��''.,�:'K-�% ,,,.���,�J;{��aJ`�• .*,J"•i'SY•P��� '�:=;:i Wes'�t,4W7� }",_,.�.�••,�_,,� 1 • ,Ln. Novembet 8,2007 -- — — EQUYED Ms.Lydia Moorehead,Planner NOV 6 2D07 City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South CITY OF KENT' Kent,WA 98032 rLPNrn1:G.,Er;V10Ez ' RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VERDANA PUD MODIFICATION (PUD-2004-4WKIVAIRPP4-2064281)&(CUP-2007-1/KIVAXRPP3.2071896) Dear Ms. Moorehead: Thank you for the opportunity to comment op the proposed Verdana PUD modification. Our understanding,Is that the proposal Is for a major modification to the approved PUD to allow for a commercial development and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for a senior care facility and two drive through lanes. The proposal includes approximately 56,899 sq.iL of retail and office space within several one-story buildings,'and an 60,800 , sq. It two-story' senior care building,fardscap'rng,parking,and associated utility Improvements. The project site Is situated on 13.3 acres located at the northwest comer of SE 304%Street,and 120 Avenue SE. As you are aware,on August 21,2007 voters In the Lea Hill area of Auburn voted to be , annexed to the City. This annexatlon is anUcipated to become effective on January 1, 2008. The Lea Hill annexation area surrounds the Verdana PUD and the City of Auburn therefore takes great interest in how this PUD develops and Its potential impacts to surrounding public fac8ities and the residents of Lea Hill. With this in mind,we have reviewed the report and site plan associated with this application and offer the following comments. These oomments are In addition to the letter submitted on February 12,2007 under the Notice of Application for this same proposal. 1. The May 2007 traffic study for this site concluded that the site would have two ' driveways onto 120 Ave SE and that the southemrriost of those would function at LOS E in year of opening. This LOS Is generally not oonsidered acceptable and potentially leads to driver Impatience and poor declakxw which can create collisions. Because there was a second driveway from the same commercial site onto the same mad 124 h Ave SE further north which was estimated to function at LOS C,city staff estimated that Internal traffic volumes within the site would normalize(drivers would use the most comfortable and easiest exft)•and that safe exiting and entering would be available. As a result fhe city did not comment about the LOS of the southernmost driveway. With the knowledge that,as a result of the LOS E situation at the southernmost driveway,significant commercial traiflc will likely use the northernmost driveway, a review of the current site plan reveals that all that traffic will be tunneled right'past the from of the senior care facility. It also appears•that there is a way to rearrange the In"coruiection to the. ' ul Nuourn rlenning $f003/003 proposed northernmost driveway to better separate the traffic flows and prated the senior care facility,by connecting the commercial parking lot to the driveway at a 1 point further east Please contact Joe Welsh,Transportation Planner,at(253) 804-5050 should you have any specific questions regarding these comments. Any other-questions can be directed to me at(253)804-5031 or e•mall chanklns®auburnwa.aov. Once again,thank you for the opportunity to comm ton proposal. Sincere , Chris Han 's Senior Plainer Planning, Building,and Community Department . Cc cindiftker,D"dar of Pb w*S B AAV 6 toaUMM .be Wdsk TM"PQUaGon Planner Theodor*Finder,dtr of Kern HwIrn Ewmnr Mike SMople,My of Kent Ergkw"g DevalDp �erq Manager Page 2of2 1 r i t BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER ' Theodore Paul Hunter CITY OF KENT Hearing Examiner KENT WASH IN G T O N ' In the Matter of the Application of: ) No. PUD 2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 I ) Kent 25 LLC ) DECISION FOLLOWING RECONSIDERATION For Approval of a Major Modification ) To a Planned Unit Development ) SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on November 7, 2007, on an application for a major modification to the Verdana Planned Unit Development (PUD) submitted by Kent 25 LLC (Applicant). On November 27, 2007, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation that the City Council deny the request.' On December 3, 2007, Richard R. Wilson, Applicant Attorney, requested that the Hearing Examiner reconsider the recommendation. Mr. Wilson represented the ' Applicant at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner issued a response to the Request for Reconsideration on 1 December 11, 2007, summarizing the issues presented and accepting the request for reconsideration of the recommendation. To give all parties of record adequate notice of the request and an opportunity to respond, the Hearing Examiner L requested that parties of record submit replies to the request by December 19, 2007.2 Following consideration of the request for reconsideration, and the replies 1 For PUDs which propose a use which is not typically permitted in the underlying zoning district as provided in KCC Section 15.08.400.13.4, the hearing examiner shall forward a recommendation to the city council, which shall have the final authority to approve or deny the proposed PUD. Kent City Code (KCC) 15 08.400.F.7, see also KCC 2.32.090.F.2 ("In regard to applications for rezones, planned unit development applications which require a change in use and special use combining districts, the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions shall be submitted to the city council, which shall have the final authority to act on such applications. The hearing by the hearing examiner shall constitute an ' open record pre-decision hearing before the final decision is made by the city council."). z KCC 12.01.020 states "parties of record means (1) the applicant; (2) the property tax payer as identified by the records available from the King County assessor's office; (3) any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application; and/or (4) any person who submitted written comments during administrative review or has submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing (excluding persons who have only signed petitions or form letters)." KCC 2.32.120.E provides "the Hearing Examiner shall have the power to prescribe rules and ' regulations for the conduct of hearings under this chapter and also to administer oaths, and preserve Decision Following Reconsideration City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 1 of 13 to that reque St,3 the Hearing Examiner now issues this decision following , reconsideration. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner reverse his initial recommendation and recommend approval of the PUD major modification with conditions, for the following reasons: 1. Zoning References. The Applicant asserts that the Hearing Examiner recommendation inappropriately references KCC 15.03.010 (Establishment and Designation of Districts) and unnecessarily considers Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District (NCC) zoning code provisions. The Applicant argues that the Hearing Examiner incorrectly equates the PUD modification request to a rezone request. 2. Land Uses. The Applicant asserts that the Hearing Examiner erred in Identifying land uses surrounding the PUD site as single family residential. The Applicant also asserts that the Hearing Examiner erred in concluding that commercial development would be detrimental to the Urban Separator designation of the site of proposed commercial development within the PUD. The Applicant argues that by adopting KCC 15.08.400.13.4 and KCC , 15.08.400.G.2, the City Council has already determined that uses permitted within the NCC District are not detrimental in areas designated Urban Separator when the development is part of a PUD greater than 100 acres and is located within the SR-1 zone. The Applicant also asserts that with the requested major modification, the Verdana PUD would provide 16.21 acres of open space and thus exceed the required minimum 16.14 acres of open space for areas within Urban Separators. 3. Traffic Impacts. The Applicant asserts that the proposed PUD major modification would not result In unmitigated significant adverse traffic Impacts. The Applicant asserts that traffic concerns expressed by the City of Auburn are moot as they were addressed in the revised SEPA determination issued by the City of Kent and in a revised traffic Impact analysis submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant states that the Revised Traffic Impact order." 3 The Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on December 3, 2007. Replies to the Request for Reconsideration were received from: - Roger Gillette, dated December 18, 2007 - Anthony Courtney, dated December 18, 2007 - Michael Pratum, dated December 18, 2007 - Chris Hankins, City of Auburn, dated December 18, 2007 Decision Following Reconsideration ' City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 2 of 13 Analysis of May 2007 specifically addressed the concerns raised by the City of Auburn in a February 2007 letter. The Applicant asserts that the Hearing Examiner should not have relied on the projected trip generation of the City of Auburn because Auburn's examples are primarily food-driven with drive- throughs, which are not permitted uses for the proposed PUD; the drive-in bank trip rates are outdated and do not consider recent trip reduction measures, including ATMs and online banking; and it is unlikely that trips generated by this type of business would be new vehicular trips. 4. Landscaping. The Applicant argues that proposed landscaping would adequately buffer surrounding residential development located at a higher elevation than the Verdana PUD site. The Applicant asserts that the Hearing Examiner failed to recognize that the Applicant has accommodated the concerns of residents of the Crystal Meadows development, as the Applicant ' discussed landscape plans with a resident of the Crystal Meadows development and agreed upon a mutually acceptable landscape plan. 5. Auburn Potential Annexation Area. The Applicant asserts that the Hearing Examiner improperly relied on the City of Auburn's potential annexation of the Verdana PUD site. The Applicant argues that the Verdana PUD site is not 1 located within the City of Auburn Potential Annexation Area; that the Lea Hill Annexation may or may not be effective on January 1, 2008; that there is insufficient evidence that the City of Auburn intends to annex the Verdana site; and that the proposed PUD major modification would be consistent with the City of Auburn's proposed zoning for the Lea Hill area. 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner may grant a request for reconsideration only if that request is consistent with the authority granted by the Kent City Council. Kent City Code (KCC) Sections 12.01.160.F and 2.32.140 authorize the filing of a request for reconsideration by any party of record. KCC 2.32.140 provides that: rA party of record believing that a decision or recommendation of the hearing examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner within five (5) working days of the date the decision or recommendation is rendered. This request shall set forth the specific errors or new information relied upon by such appellant, and the hearing examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he or she deems proper. Under KCC 12.01.160.F, reconsideration may be granted only if either 1) a specific error of fact or law can be identified; or 2) new evidence is available which was not Decision Following Reconsideration City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 3 of 13 available at the time of the hearing. A decision is not final until there is a ruling on the request for reconsideration. KCC 2.32,140; KCC 12.01.160.F. Response to Issues Raised by Applicant Zoning References The Hearing Examiner made appropriate references to the zoning code in his initial ' recommendation. KCC 15.08.400.13.4 states that "In residential PUDs of one hundred (100) acres or more located in SR zones ... commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted in the neighborhood convenience commercial district." SR-1 zone development regulations apply to the PUD, which is located within the SR-1 zone. According to KCC 2.32.020, the Hearing Examiner "shall interpret, review, and implement land use regulations... as provided for in this code and other ordinances." The Hearing Examiner reviewed the uses permitted in the NCC District and compared the permitted uses to the proposed use to determine whether the proposed use would comply with KCC 15.08.400.B.4. See Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, Finding 14, Finding 15, Finding 29, and Conclusion A. The Hearing Examiner considered relevant provisions of the Zoning Code as required by the Kent City Code. For PUDs that propose a use not typically permitted in the underlying zoning ' district,4 Section 15.08.400.F.7 of the KCC states that the Hearing Examiner shall forward a recommendation to the City Council which shall have the final authority to approve or deny the proposed modification of the PUD. KCC 2.32.090.C.2 requires that the Hearing Examiner "receive and examine available information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record thereof and enter findings of fact and conclusions based upon those facts, together with a recommendation to the City ' Council, for... planned unit developments with a change of use." The Hearing Examiner also references KCC 15.03.010 within Finding 51 and Conclusion A of his initial recommendation. These references are appropriate. The references are made in response to arguments made by Ron Novak in testimony at the open record hearing and written comments. Mr. Novak argued that the proposed NCC-type use would not comply with KCC 15.03.010 because this provision allows NCC districts only within areas designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plans Mr. Novak cited the Urban Separator designation of the site of proposed commercial development in support of his argument. See Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, Finding 51 and Conclusion A. 4Per KCC 15.08.400.B 4 5 KCC 15.03.010 states: "It is the purpose of the NCC district to provide small nodal areas for retail and personal service activities convenient to residential areas and to provide ready access to everyday convenience goods for the residents of such neighborhoods. NCC districts shall be located in areas designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan." Decision Following Reconsideration City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 4 of 13 ' The Hearing Examiner referenced KCC 15.08.400.13.4 in his initial decision because this section appears to permit NCC District-type uses in residential PUDs located in ' SR zones regardless of comprehensive plan designation. However, KCC 15.03.010 appears to restrict NCC-type uses to only those areas designated for neighborhood services. Thus, there appears to be a conflict between the provisions of KCC 15.08.400.B.4 and KCC 15.03.010 when applied to the PUD modification application. The Hearing Examiner used basic rules of statutory construction to conclude that in the event of a conflict between KCC 15.08.400.13.4 and KCC 15.03.010, KCC 15.08.400.13.4 controls as it is the code provision more recently enacted by the City Council. To clarify the Hearing Examiner's conclusion on this issue, the Hearing Examiner adds a sentence to Conclusion A, page 30, top paragraph as follows: "To resolve the apparent conflict between KCC 15.08.400.13.4 and KCC 15.03.010, the Hearing Examiner decides that the provisions of KCC 15.08 govern to permit commercial uses in residential PUDs of one hundred (100) acres or more located in SR zones." Land Uses The Hearing Examiner relied on the evidence admitted into the record at the open record hearing to determine the land use designations of the PUD site and of the ' property surrounding the PUD site. At the time of the open record hearing, the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designated the northern 63.22 acres of the proposed PUD site as SF-3 Single Family Residential and the southern 92.26 acres of the site as Urban Separator. See Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, Finding 7, citing the City Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map, Figure 4.7, page 4-53 (revised May 4, 2006). The site of proposed commercial development is located entirely on property designated Urban Separator, while land adjacent to the north of the PUD is designated Single Family 3 units per acre. See Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, Finding 7. The property is completely surrounded by the City of Auburn. At the time of the open record hearing, the effective land use designation for City of Auburn property to the north, south, east, and west of the property was Single Family Residential. See Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, Finding 12, citing City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use Map 14.1 (printed July 24, 2007). Residents of property surrounding the PUD site testified and submitted comments concerning the residential use of that property. See Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, Finding 48 and Finding 56. The Applicant now provides a City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Map with his request for reconsideration that depicts areas directly to the east and southeast of the PUD as "light commercial". Unfortunately, this information was not available to the Hearing Examiner and other participants at the open record hearing at the time of hearing even though the information apparently did exist and could have been made available to him. The Hearing Examiner cannot now consider evidence that could have been submitted during the open record hearing. It would be unfair to rely upon evidence submitted by one party when other participants do not have an Decision Following Reconslderatlon Gty of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Mod1fication PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 5 of 13 opportunity to review the submittal and comment upon it or object to it. KCC , 2.32.090.C.2 requires the Hearing Examiner to prepare a record and then enter findings of fact and conclusions based upon that record. The Hearing Examiner can not now revise his findings and conclusions based on information submitted following the close of the record when it is unclear whether the information now submitted should control over the information relied upon by the Hearing Examiner that is part of the hearing record. Contrary to the allegation of the Applicant, it was appropriate for the Hearing Examiner to consider the impact of the proposed modification on surrounding land use and comprehensive plan designations. The City Staff Report accompanying the PUD major modification request recommended that the request be reviewed under KCC 15.08.400.G.2 criteria. The Applicant did not disagree with that position. See Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, Finding 17. KCC 15.08.400.G.2 states that the PUD request shall only be granted if the request complies with each of five criteria, including that "the proposed project shall ... not be detrimental to present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan." KCC 15.08.400.G.2.a. In order to draw conclusions and make a recommendation to the Council regarding compliance with applicable criteria, it was appropriate for the Hearing Examiner to consider the Comprehensive Plan designation of the PUD site and surrounding property in addition to the property's zoning classification. ' The Hearing Examiner considered the goals of the Urban Separator designation to protect environmentally sensitive areas and to create open space corridors, as ' provided in Goal LU-31 of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Hearing Examiner Recommendation, Finding B. The Hearing Examiner found that the City Council adopted the Urban Separator designation to protect the environmentally sensitive systems found within the PUD site; to create open space corridors within and between urban areas; and to provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Hearing Examiner Recommendation, Finding 53, citing City Ordinance No. 3685. In order to make a recommendation to the Council whether the proposal would be detrimental "to present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan," the Hearing Examiner compared the intent of the Urban Separator designation to the potential impact of the proposed PUD modification. The record contains facts and testimony regarding the potential impact of the proposed modification, including surrounding land use designations, the design of the proposed commercial development, the types of uses principally permitted or permitted with a conditions use permit, strong neighborhood opposition to the proposed commercial use in an Urban Separator and residential area, including residents' concern about a lack of buffer for visual impacts of the proposed Decision Following Reconsideration ' City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification ' PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 6 of 13 commercial use,6 increased traffic and associated impacts, and the fact that tenants of the commercial development had not been identified, leaving the degree of impact uncertain. See Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, Findings 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27 - 41, and 47 - 56; see also sections on traffic and landscaping, below. These facts and testimony support the Hearing Examiner's conclusion that the 1 proposed commercial development would be detrimental to surrounding residential development and detrimental to the ability of the proposed commercial development site to serve as an Urban Separator that protects environmentally sensitive areas, creates open space corridors within and between urban areas, and provides environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Hearing Examiner Recommendation, Conclusion A. The Hearing Examiner does not disagree with the Applicant regarding facts that show the PUD will meet certain open space requirements. Indeed, the Hearing Examiner found that the proposed project would comply with open space requirements found within KCC 12.04.778.C.8 and that a portion of unconstrained urban separator area would be set aside as open space. Hearing Examiner Recommendation, Finding 28. However, the Applicant suggests that merely meeting these open space requirements is enough to determine that the proposed modification is not detrimental and thus should be approved. This is not what the ordinances say. KCC 15.08.400.B.4 provides that commercial uses "may be" permitted, and KCC 15.08.400.G.2 requires that the proposed project "shall not be detrimental to present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan." The Hearing Examiner reads the two code provisions in harmony, to give voice to all language of the code. Interpreting KCC 15.08.400.B.4 and .400.G.2 to reserve some discretion in the hands of the final decision maker - in this case, the City Council - in implementing the City Comprehensive Plan does more to harmonize the provisions than an interpretation that removes all discretion.' The Hearing Examiner is of the opinion that the Council did not intend automatic' approval of the proposed commercial use if the proposed use complies with design elements of the Kent City Code. The City Council intends to retain some discretion. Thus, the Hearing Examiner interprets "detrimental" to encompass more than mere compliance with specific development standards applicable to the project. Rather, "detrimental" also allows for consideration of the impact of the proposed use upon surrounding land uses, including neighboring residents' testimony on the usefulness 6 In their response to the Request for Reconsideration, Michael Pratum reiterated the concern of surrounding residents about the detrimental impact of the proposed commercial development to surrounding residential developments. Letter from Michael Pratum, dated December 18, 2007. RCW 36.70A.040(4) requires that cities planning under the Growth Management Act "shall adopt a comprehensive plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan." ' Declslon Following Reconsideration Gty of Kent Heanng Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 1 Page 7 of 13 and desirability of commercial development within the residential neighborhood, t impacts of the proposed development on the ability of the property to serve as an Urban Separator, and traffic impacts of the proposed development. The Applicant cites the Washington Supreme Court decision in Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861 (1997), to assert that the applicable zoning classification trumps the comprehensive plan designation and therefore a code interpretation allowing the Council some discretion in this matter is inconsistent with Washington law. See Motion for Reconsideration, page 2 (asserting "a land use planning designation in the comprehensive plan is a guide only... instead the applicable zoning designation takes precedence over a comprehensive plan designation *,).8 However, this interpretation is contrary to the express language of the PUD criteria adopted by the Council, which requires that "the proposed project... shall not be detrimental to present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan" (emphasis added). Citizens for Mount Vernon does not govern in this case because it contains facts very different from the facts of this case. Citizens for Mount Vernon concerned City Council approval of a commercial planned unit development (PUD) in a residential area where the commercial PUD was explicitly prohibited by a city zoning code that had been adopted before the passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW Chapter 36.70A.9 See, Citizens for Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, at 872 ("By its own terms the zoning code explicitly prohibits the commercial planned unit development proposed... on a site zoned R-2A"). In that case, the comprehensive plan adopted by the city designated the area proposed for the commercial PUD for future commercial development. See, Citizens for Mount Vernon, at 864 ("comprehensive plan suggests the area in which this property is located may need some type of commercial development in the future"). In contrast, this case involves a zoning code adopted after passage of the GMA, stating that commercial development "may be permitted" on the subject property within the SR-1 zone. This case also involves a comprehensive plan Urban Separator designation for the proposed PUD modification site that says nothing about allowing commercial development. The Urban Separator designation was established to protect 8 See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873 (1997) ("Since a comprehensive plan is a guide and not a document designed for making specific land use decisions, conflicts surrounding the appropriate use are resolved in favor of the more specific regulations, usually zoning regulations"), and at 874 ("These rules require that conflicts between a general comprehensive plan and a specific zoning code be resolved in the zoning code's favor"). 9 See, Citizens for Mount Vernon, at 863-864 ("In January 1995, before the Haggen development request, the Mount Vernon City Council adopted a new comprehensive plan for the city under the Growth Management Act(GMA),(RCW 36.70)A. At this time the Mount Vernon City Council had not yet adopted specific development regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.040. Mount Vernon did have an existing zoning code"). The Growth Management Act was enacted by the Washington State Legislature on April 1, 1990. Decision Following Reconsideration City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 8 of 13 1 ' environmentally sensitive areas, create open space corridors within and between urban areas, and provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Here, the zoning code specifically requires consideration of comprehensive plan designations as a criterion for commercial PUD approval. Thus, an interpretation allowing the Council some discretion in this matter is consistent with Washington law.lo Traffic Impacts The Applicant alleges that the Hearing Examiner's reliance on certain facts related to traffic impacts is "inappropriate". The Hearing Examiner relied upon comments presented by the City of Auburn. The November 7, 2007 letter states that the southernmost of the two proposed driveways would operate at LOS E, an unacceptable level of service for the City of Auburn. The City of Auburn states that traffic using the northern driveway would pass in front of the senior facility. The City of Auburn requests that the northern driveway be reconfigured to protect the senior facility and ensure safe and efficient traffic flow. Exhibit A-9(a). The November 7, 2007 letter states "These comments are in addition to the letter submitted on February 12, 2007" (emphasis added). Exhibit A-9(a). The Applicant submitted a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated May 2007. A re-reading of the revised TIA indicates some suggestions made by the City of Auburn in its February 12, 2007 letter were addressed, including consideration of school traffic and use of a Specialty Retail classification to generate trip assumptions. However, the Hearing Examiner reasonably interpreted the City of Auburn's statement in its November 7, 2007 letter to mean that not all concerns expressed by the City of Auburn on February 12, 2007 were addressed by the revised TIA. Although the November 7, 2007 letter was presented at the hearing and City of Auburn representatives were present at the hearing, City of Auburn representatives did not clarify at that time whether the revised Traffic Impact Analysis adequately addressed its concerns. Thus, the Hearing Examiner relied on the record created at the hearing and reasonably interpreted the record where it was unclear. The Hearing Examiner does not now consider the conclusions drawn by the City of ' 10 The Washington Supreme Court has more recently limited its holding in Citizens for Mount Vernon. See Pinecrest Homeowners Assn v. Glen A. Cloninger&Assocaates, 151 Wn.2d 279, 291-292 (2004) ("Pinecrest argued that this court has 'rejected the argument that a Comprehensive Plan can be used to make specific land use decisions.' But Pinecrest has extracted an overly broad holding from Mount Vernon Mount Vernon is distinguishable from the present case because there is no prior Spokane zoning ordinance that explicitly prohibits a medium density mixed use project on Cloninger's site. Rather, as the Spokane planning director and City Council determined, SMC 11.19 320 allowed processing of the rezone application Moreover, in the present case, the circumstance is not a conflict between an existing explicit zoning restriction and the city's comprehensive plan ."). Although the Washington Supreme Court stated in a more recent decision that"neither the GMA nor the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant thereto directly regulate site-specific land use activities," Viking Properties Inc. v. Holm, 155 Wn.2d 112, 126 (2005), in this case the express language of the zoning code adopted by the City Council regulates site-specific land use activities by giving effect to land use designations within the city comprehensive plan. Decision Following Reconsideration Crty of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 9 of 13 Auburn regarding traffic impacts within its December 18, 2007 response to the request for reconsideration, because these conclusions constitute new evidence that was available at the time of the hearing. The Hearing Examiner cannot accept this new evidence from the City of Auburn without providing other parties an opportunity to respond, because to do so would infringe on the due process rights of other parties of record. For similar reasons, the Hearing Examiner cannot accept assertions made by the Applicant in his request for reconsideration concerning the applicability and validity of the City of Auburn's comments. The Hearing Examiner cannot change his findings and conclusions based upon available evidence not provided at the time of hearing. It is his conclusion, based upon the record, that there will be unmitigated adverse traffic impacts. Although all probable and significant adverse impacts are mitigated through conditions placed on the project as a result of SEPA review, adverse impacts that do not rise to the level of'significant' may still reasonably contribute to a conclusion that proposed commercial development would be detrimental to surrounding residential and Urban Separator land uses. Landscaping The Applicant argues that the Hearing Examiner failed to consider that the Applicant has accommodated the concerns of residents of the Crystal Meadows development, as the Applicant discussed landscape plans with a resident of the Crystal Meadows development and agreed upon a mutually acceptable landscape plan. However, the Applicant does not cite to or provide any evidence or testimony to support this argument. Residents of Crystal Meadows submitted a letter to the City dated November 1, 2007, detailing a proposal for landscaping adjacent to the northwest corner of SE 304th Street and 124th Avenue SE to buffer proposed office buildings from Crystal Meadows homes. See Hearing Examiner Recommendation, Finding 56. However, the most recent Verdana Landscape Plan depicting proposed development was dated January 11, 2007 (Exhibit C-8). Other site plans, including preliminary landscape plan Sheet L1.02A, were dated received August 31, 2007 (Exhibit A-15). Moreover, residents of Crystal Meadows and the Lea Hill neighborhood submitted comments and testimony that the proposed landscaping would be insufficient to buffer surrounding residential areas from the proposed commercial use. Hearing Examiner Recommendation, Findings 47, 48, and 54. Because the Applicant has not identified an error of fact or law, nor provided new evidence which was unavailable at the time of the hearing, the Hearing Examiner will not revise his conclusion that "landscaping would not serve as a buffer between the proposed development and surrounding development, due to the location of surrounding development above the proposed development." Hearing Examiner 1 Recommendation, Conclusion A, page 31. Auburn Potential Annexation Area ' Finding 12 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation states that "The PUD site is located within the City of Auburn potential annexation area." This statement is Decision FollowIn9 Reconsideration City of Kent Heanng Examiner Verdana PUD Major Mod1fication PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 10 of 13 iincorrect, as noted by the Applicant in the request for reconsideration." The City of Auburn submitted a response to the Applicant's request, concurring with the Applicant that the Verdana site is not located within the City of Auburn PAA. Although the Verdana site is entirely surrounded by property that is within the Auburn Potential Annexation Area (PAA), the Verdana PUD site is located entirely within the City of Kent. The City of Auburn cannot include property in the Auburn PAA that is located within the City of Kent city limits. Thus, Finding 12 of the Hearing Examiner Recommendation should be revised upon reconsideration to delete the sentence "The PUD site is located within the City of Auburn potential annexation area." Conclusion A, page 32, second paragraph, second sentence, should likewise revised. iFinding 12 also states that "the [Lea Hill] annexation will be effective on January 1, 2008." The Applicant notes that the City of Kent staff report described the annexation of the Lea Hill area as "expected to become effective on January 1, 2008. ,12 Finding 12 should be thus revised upon reconsideration to state that "the annexation is expected to be effective on January 1, 2008." Conclusion A, page 32, second paragraph, third sentence, should likewise be revised. Finding 49 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation contains testimony regarding the potential annexation of the Verdana site. At the open record hearing, representatives of both the City of Kent and the City of Auburn testified that the Verdana site would eventually be de-annexed from the City of Kent and annexed by the City of Auburn. In addition, Finding 63 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation contains testimony and evidence regarding the City of Auburn's utility extension agreement with the Applicant to provide service to the proposed commercial development, including the Applicant's agreement not to contest annexation of the site into the City of Auburn. No evidence was presented at the hearing concerning the process or potential time frame in which de-annexation and annexation occurs, nor was detailed evidence presented on the impact of the utility extension agreement on the timing of de-annexation or annexation of the site. However, upon reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner recognizes the prejudice to 11 Exhibit A of the Request for Reconsideration contains a map titled "City of Auburn Potential Annexation Area." Although available at the time of the open record hearing, this exhibit was not provided at the hearing. Because Exhibit A of the Request for Reconsideration is not new information that was previously unavailable, this exhibit cannot now be admitted as evidence. 12 In the response to the Request for Reconsideration, the City of Auburn explained that on November 13, 2007, the City of Auburn adopted Ordinance 6121, approving the Lea Hill annexation. Annexation was contingent upon acceptance of census data by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). OFM accepted the census data pursuant to a letter dated December 17, 2007, and therefore the Lea Hill annexation will be effective January 1, 2008, as stated by the Hearing Examiner. This new information relates events that occurred after the record was closed. Thus, the information presented by the City of Auburn does not qualify as "discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." Decision Following Reconsideration City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 11 of 13 the Applicant that could arise from a recommendation to condition PUD modification request approval upon an unpredictable time frame. Thus, Conclusion A, page 32, second paragraph, fifth sentence, should be deleted. Conclusion A should also be revised to clarify that the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial is not based solely on the potential annexation of the Verdana site by the City Auburn. The final two sentences of Conclusion A are set off in a separate paragraph. The "Thus" at the beginning of the second to last sentence of Conclusion A should be deleted. DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION Upon reconsideration of the arguments made by the Applicant and other parties of record, upon reconsideration of the applicable law, and upon reconsideration of the evidence admitted into the record, the Hearing Examiner again recommends that the City Council deny the Verdana PUD major modification 2004-4(R). The Council may accept or reject the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny the proposed PUD modification, as the Council has final authority to approve or deny the proposed PUD. KCC 15.08.400.F.7. Should the Council reject the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and determine it is appropriate to approve the request according to KCC 1508.400.G.2 review criteria, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Council require compliance with the conditions of approval listed on pages 34 - 36 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation. The following revisions shall be made to the November 27, 2007 Recommendation, prior to forwarding it to the City Council": • Finding 12. Thesentence "The PUD site is located within the City of Auburn potential annexation area" is deleted. The sentence "the annexation will be effective on January 1, 2008" is revised to read "the annexation is expected to be effective on January 1, 2008." Conclusion A, page 32, second paragraph, is likewise revised. • Conclusion A. To clarify that the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial is not based solely on the potential annexation of the Verdana site by the City Auburn, the final two sentences of Conclusion A are set off in a separate paragraph and the "Thus" at the beginning of the second to last sentence of Conclusion A is deleted. The Hearing Examiner adds a new sentence to Conclusion A, page 30, second full paragraph as follows: "To resolve the apparent conflict between KCC 15.08.400.B.4 and KCC 15.03.010, the Hearing Examiner decides that the provisions of KCC 13 To assist in understanding the Hearing Examiner recommendation, the Council should receive a copy of the initial recommendation, a copy of this decision upon reconsideration, and a copy of the recommendation as revised upon reconsideration. The City Council need only consider the recommendation as revised upon reconsideration, but the additional documents may assist in the understanding of the reasoning in support of the recommendation. Decision Following Reconsideration City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 12 of 13 i15.08 govern to permit commercial uses in residential PUDs of one hundred (100) acres or more located in SR zones." Conclusion A, page 32, second paragraph, fifth sentence, is deleted. DECIDED this 17th day of January 2008. THEODORE PAUL HUNTER City of Kent Hearing Examiner b]b\C\Documents and Settings\bbiteman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10B\Verdana Decision Following Reconsideration4 doc r 1 I. Decision Following Reconsideration City of Kent Hearing Examiner Verdana PUD Major Modification PUD 2004-4(R), KIVA #RPP4-2064281 Page 13 of 13 t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES KENTCharlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 KENT PLANNING SERVICES (253) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF (letebeF 21, 29 Rescheduled to November 7, 2007 FILE NO: VERDANA PUD - MAJOR MODIFICATION PUD-2004-4(R) (KIVA#RPP4-2064281) CE-2007-1 (KIVA#RPP3-2071896) APPLICANT: Kathy Orni Kent 25 LLC 825 Fifth Avenue, Suite 202 Kirkland, WA. 98033 1 AGENT: Chad Weiser OTAK, Inc. 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, WA. 98101 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a major modification to _ the approved Verdana PUD in order to construct a commercial development within the future development tract of the original PUD. The applicant also requests _ approval of a Conditional Use Permit in order to construct a Senior Care Facility and two drive through lanes in conjunction with the commercial development. The site is zoned SR-1, which allows commercial uses within residential PUDs that are 100 acres or more in size. _ The Verdana PUD site is 155 acres in size. The site contains a wetland and stream. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Lydia Moorehead, Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PUD Modification - Approval with conditions Conditional Use —Approved with conditions I Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 , #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant requests approval of a PUD Modification in order to construct a commercial development within the future development tract of the original PUD. Specific uses of the future development tract were not identified in the original Verdana PUD. The application proposes a senior care facility and a variety of retail, commercial and office uses within the 13.3 acre tract located at the northwest corner of SE 304th Street and 124th Avenue SE. The proposal includes 66,899 square feet of retail and office space within several one-story buildings and an 80,800 square foot two-story senior care building, landscaping, parking, and associated utility improvements. The application also includes a request for a conditional use permit for two retail drive-through lanes and the proposed senior care facility. Access to the proposed commercial development is provided via two driveways onto 124th Avenue SE and a driveway onto SE 304th Street. The site contains a type 3 stream and a portion of a large category 2 wetland. The wetland and stream are located in the north and west portions of the property. B. Property Description/Location The Verdana PUD site is located on the west side of 124th Avenue SE, south of SE 288th Street, north of SE 304th Street and east of 118th Avenue SE. The future , development tract is located at the northwest corner of 124th Avenue SE and SE 304th Street. The site is identified by King County tax parcel numbers 0421059016 and 7867000046. Although the property is within the City of Kent limits, it is not contiguous to the City boundary. The property is fully surrounded by unincorporated King County and is located within the City of Auburn potential annexation area. On August 21, 2007 voters in the Lea Hill area surrounding the Verdana site approved a resolution to become annexed into the city limits of Auburn. The annexation of Lea Hill which completely surrounds the site is expected to become effective on January 1, 2008. C. Zoning The site is split-zoned SR-1 and SR-3, Single Family Residential. Within residential PUDs of 100 acres or more, commercial development is allowed. Page 2 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 Commercial uses are limited to those uses allowed within the Neighborhood Convenience Commercial district (KCC 15.08.400.B.4). The zoning for this property was established with an Initial Zoning District designation on April 20, 2004 via Ordinance No. 3685. The designation was reaffirmed by the City's Urban Density Study designations adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005 via Ordinance No. 3769. Approximately 92 acres (92.26) in the southern portion of the site are within the SR-1 zone and approximately 63 (63.22) acres in the northern portion are within the SR-3 zone. The future development tract is entirely within the SR-1 portion of the site. The intent of the PUD option (KCC 15.08.400) is to create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design, and to protect and enhance natural and community features. The process is provided to encourage unique developments. The PUD process permits departures from the conventional siting, setback and density requirements of a particular zoning district in the interest of achieving superior site design by permitting design flexibility. In residential PUDs of 100 acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. 1 The future development tract is vacant and is currently being used for material stockpiling in connection with ongoing civil construction work related to the residential portion of the PUD. Properties to the north and northwest are zoned R1, with development primarily characterized by large lot, low-density single family residential and larger unplatted parcels, particularly south of SE 282nd Street. Adjacent to the northwest corner of the site is the plat of White Mountain Trails which is a 31-lot clustered subdivision with lot sizes ranging between 1/4 and 1/2 acre in size. To the southwest and east are properties zoned R4, with residential subdivisions of varying densities and stages of development and including lots of 6,600 square feet in size (roughly between the City's SR-4.5 and SR-6 designations). Property to the south is zoned R6 and is characterized by larger underdeveloped lots immediately south, with varying densities in the nearby area. A new high school within the Auburn School District is across 124th Avenue SE directly east of the site, and Hazelwood Elementary School is located across SE 304th Street to the south of the site. No new zoning or comprehensive plan designations have been adopted in relation to the City of Auburn's Lea Hill Annexation. D. Land Use The property lies within an Urban Growth Area designated under the State Growth Management Act. Development is encouraged in the Urban Growth Area 1 where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations for the property were established via Ordinance 3685 adopted by the Kent City Council on April 20, 2004. The designations were reaffirmed by the Page 3 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 , #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 City's recent Urban Density Study designations adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005 via Ordinance No. 3769. The Land Use Map designates the northern approximately 63 acres of the site as SF-3 Single Family Residential. The southern approximately 92 acres of the site are designated Urban Separator. The future development tract is entirely within the Urban Separator area. E. History In 1983, the City purchased several parcels located in the vicinity of 1241h Avenue SE and SE 304th Street for a municipal water impoundment reservoir with 2,500 acre-feet of storage capacity. These parcels and the surrounding area were under King County jurisdiction at the time of purchase. On September 16, 1985, the Kent City Council voted to annex these parcels into the City for municipal purposes. The annexation was adopted by the Council via Ordinance No. 2743, effective September 9, 1987. Among other considerations, the purchase of additional water rights from the Tacoma P5 Pipeline project resolved supply concerns that previously justified the impoundment reservoir project, via Resolution No. 1657 on October 21, 2005 the City Council declared the property surplus, and the property subsequently was sold. As stated previously, Ordinance No. 3685 adopted April 20, 2004 established Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Initial Zoning designations, which were reaffirmed via Ordinance No. 3769 adopted November 15, 2005. The Verdana PUD/Plat received preliminary approval for a 386-lot single family residential development on February 16, 2006. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on September 19, 2007. A revised MDNS was issued on October 16, 2007, in order to correct two errors regarding the number of traffic trips associated with the proposal. A copy of the MDNS is part of the record for the PUD Modification. B. Significant Physical Features TopograpU According to the geotechnical report submitted by Golder Associates Inc. and dated December 24, 2003: 'The site lies within a localized depression that is drained to the northwest by a small creek (Olsen Creek). The slope that forms the southwest boundary of the property is about 30 to 55 feet high and ranges in steepness from about 13% to 33%. The toe of the slope terminates in the central wetland. The overall slope on the east-central portion of the site is about 44 feet high at its maximum and ranges in steepness from about 20% to 33%. The steeper slopes tend to be near the toe of the slope. The top of this slope is along 1241h Ave. SE and the toe terminates in the central wetland. The north Page 4 of 22 iStaff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 portion on the site slopes down to the central wetland more gently at about 12%." Golder Associates Inc. observed no signs of slope instability during their site reconnaissance and field investigation. Furthermore, their report stated the site soils generally have a low risk of liquefaction, with the exception of the area generally adjacent to the central valley wetland. The report proposed further investigation if those areas are planned for development. According to the report, erosion potential exists on the east and west sides of the site. Both the liquefaction and erosion issues will be addressed during development review. Currently the civil construction work for residential portion of the project is underway. Approximately 95% of the residential site has been graded to the final grade as approved by the City of Kent in June of 2006. This includes the detention ponds, roadways, and lots. Areas not fully graded at this time are the lots and road subgrades associated with SE 299th Way and 123rd Place SE. Total cut and fill volumes equal approximately 350,000 cubic yards. Areas at final grade have been hydroseeded. The future development tract was originally approved as a stock pile site for top soil and mineral dirt from the Verdana residential development. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of mineral dirt has been stock piled on the site. The stock pile material will be used for the balance of fill necessary to construct the commercial development. The topsoil is in the process of being removed and spread over the lots, tracts, and parks within the residential subdivision. Water Most of the proposed project (approximately 90%) is located within the Olsen Creek drainage basin. However, a small portion of the site (approximately 10%) at the northeast corner is located within the Soos Creek drainage basin. Both basins ultimately flow into the Green River. There are 6 wetlands delineated on the site -- two Category 2 wetlands and four Category 3 wetlands. Also on site is one Class 2 stream known locally as the headwaters of Olsen Creek, and one un-named Class 3 seasonal stream. The on-site portion of Olsen Creek is non-salmonid. One of the Category 2 wetlands is over 40 acres in size and dominates the southern portion of the property which includes the future development tract. The western arm of this wetland contains Olsen Creek which flows into the wetland through a culvert beneath SE 3041h Street, then northerly through the western portion of the wetland where it flows off-site to the northwest. The second Category 2 wetland is located in the northeastern portion of the property and extends off-site to the north. It is approximately 3 acres in size (2.7 acres in size on-site). This wetland forms the headwaters of both drainage basins, and the previous Verdana SEPA Page 5 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 determination requires the applicant to maintain the hydrologic connection between the two Category 2 wetlands. All wetlands shall be protected in accordance with Kent City Code Chapter 11.05 as it existed upon vesting of the applications, including recording a sensitive area easement or deeding the property to the City for preservation of wetland function and values. The proposed commercial development will impact 0.44 acre of wetland buffer, which requires buffer averaging in accordance with Kent City Code 11.06. A conceptual wetland buffer averaging plan has been approved. The plan is located in the Public Works Department, Environmental Engineering Division, in Wetland File No. 06-51. A final wetland buffer averaging & restoration plan must be approved pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 11.06 prior to issuance of any development permits. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all other applicable permits from state and federal agencies, including but not limited to Washington State Department of Ecology and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Transportation System Transportation impacts associated with this development were identified and evaluated during the environmental review process and analysis of this project. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (revised May 2007) that identified the number of trips generated by the proposal and studied four key intersections that will be affected by the proposal. The proposed development proposes direct access to 124th Avenue SE with two entrances and direct access to SE 304th Street with one entrance. King County classifies 1241h Avenue SE as an Urban Minor Arterial with bike lanes. The development also has frontage along SE 304th Street which is classified an Urban Collector Arterial with bike lanes. It is anticipated the development will add an estimated 262 PM peak hour trips to the local street system. The City received public comments regarding the impacts of the development on the transportation system. Road improvements and corridor mitigation fees are required through the SEPA determination, and through conditions of the PUD modification in addition to the original SEPA and PUD/Plat conditions for the project. As a result of the original Verdana PUD, both street frontages on 124th Avenue SE and SE 3041h Street will be improved. As a result of the proposed commercial , development, additional improvements will be made to 1241h Avenue SE and additional traffic mitigation fees will be required. Page 6 of 22 1 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 Public Utility Systems The City of Kent will provide public water to the development. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Auburn pursuant to an executed sewer extension agreement. As part of the original PUD application a new sewer lift station was required. The design point of the lift station has been updated to reflect additional flows from the proposed commercial/senior care development and additional capacity has been incorporated into the design of the lift station. Other private utility services will be coordinated by the applicant. Storm water System The applicant submitted an amendment to the original Technical Information Report (dated May 3, 2007). Stormwater generated from the proposed commercial development will be collected in catch basins within the roadways and parking lots and conveyed to two proposed detention and water quality facilities, a detention vault on the western side of the site located in "Drainage Basin A", and an open pond located on the northeastern portion of the site Iwithin "Drainage Basin B" as described within the technical information report (TIR). All runoff will be conveyed into the stormwater systems, detained, treated for water quality and discharged to Olson Creek. The storm water facilities shall meet the City of Kent Construction standards, 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual and the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Final detailed drainage plans will be required prior to issuance of a civil construction permit. C. SIGNIFICANT SOCIAL FEATURES Design Review\Aesthetics As a commercial development with a residential component, the buildings, site _ design and landscaping are subject to the City of Kent's Mixed Use Design Review. The intent of this design review is to improve the design, siting and construction of mixed use development so as to be compatible with the topography, open space and urban/suburban characteristics of the land and adjacent properties. Mixed use design review for the proposed development was completed on October 9, 2007 and the development was found to be in conformance with the design criteria of KCC 15.09.045.F with conditions (MUDR- 2007-3). The residential component underwent multifamily design review which was completed on November 29, 2005 (MFDR-2004-13). Open Space Pursuant to Section 15.08.400(5)(a), a minimum of 35 percent of the total PUD site area (or in mixed use PUDs, 35% of the area containing residential uses) is required to be provided as common open space. The applicant proposes ' approximately 56.36 acres or 36.25 percent of the total site area to be retained Page 7 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 as open space. For areas within urban separators, 50 percent of the non- constrained area must be retained as common open space. As proposed, the PUD satisfies this requirement even with the addition of the commercial development within the future development tract. Approximately 16.21 acres or 50 percent of the unconstrained urban separator area is set aside for common open space. While no additional open space is required for the commercial development, the site design will incorporate pedestrian trail connections to the overall open space network as provided with the residential portion of the project. III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Public Works Director Police Department Parks and Comm. Svcs. Director Fire Department City Attorney City Clerk Qwest Communications King Co. Dept of Transportation Muckleshoot Tribe City of Tacoma Water Auburn Planning Department Auburn Parks & Recreation Puget Sound Energy Seattle-King Co. Env. Health Washington Dept of Ecology King Co. DDES/Land Use Div. King County Transit Division Wa. Dept of Natural Resources King Co. Wastewater Treatment Division Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Duwamish Tribal Services In addition to the above, a Notice of Application was published in the Kent Reporter and was posted on the site on January 27, 2007. A revised Notice of Application that identified the addition of two drive through lanes was published in the Kent Reporter, sent to all parties of record, and was posted on the site on July 7, 2007. Notice for this public hearing was published in the Kent Reporter, sent to all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet of the site and to parties of record and posted on the site on October 13, 2007. Pursuant to KCC 15.08.400(F)(4), a community meeting was held on June 26, 2007 to discuss this proposal. Public notice for this public meeting was published in the Kent Reporter and mailed to all persons owning property within 200 feet of the site. There were several public comment letters submitted regarding these applications. Comments concerned traffic impacts, site lines along SE 304th Street, speed of traffic, traffic accidents at 1241h & 304", pedestrian safety, consistency with existing land uses, impacts to critical areas, loss of rural status and natural settings, and the appropriateness of a PUD within urban separator areas. i Page 8 of 22 iStaff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification ' #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 1 Comments from departments, agencies, and the public have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable; some comments were addressed in the SEPA decision issued for the project. IV. PLANNING SERVICES REVIEW A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In 2004 the Kent City Council adopted an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan which represented revisions to demographics, housing and employment forecasts, and relevant goals and policies affected by the referenced inclusion of pertinent local and regional policy documents. As with the 1995 plan, the 2004 update was prepared under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act. The Comprehensive Plan, through its goals and policies, presents a clear expression of the City's vision of growth for citizens, the development community, and other public agencies. The plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, Land Use and Planning Board, Hearing Examiner, and City departments to guide decisions on amendments to the City's Zoning Code and other development regulations, which must be consistent with the plan, and also to guide decisions regarding the funding and location of capital improvement projects. The Land Use Element of the plan contains a Land Use Plan Map, which designates the type and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as in the entire potential annexation area. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates approximately 92 acres (92.26) in the southern portion of the site as Urban Separator and approximately 63 (63.22) acres in the northern portion as SF3 Single Family Residential. The following Goals and Policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan support this proposal: LAND USE ELEMENT The land use element outlines the proposed general distribution and location of various land uses within the planning area. The Land Use Element is designed to guide where and when development happens. In addition, it guides the character of the development pattern on the Kent area. Policy 14.8: Ensure that commercial and mixed-use developments adjacent to existing single-family residential areas are compatible in height and scale. Establish guidelines for design of edges where commercial and mixed uses abut single family use and medium and low density residential. Goal LU-24: Encourage well designed, compact land use patterns to reduce dependency on the automobile, and thereby improve air and water quality and conserve energy Page 9 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 resources. Establish mixed use commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient opportunities for travel by transit, foot and bicycle. Policy LU-24.1: Incorporate bike lanes in designated roadway designs, j ensure that sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities are provided in conjunction with private and public development, and incorporate convenient transit stations in the design for mixed use development. Goal LU-31: Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide environmental, visual, j recreational and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual landscape features such as cliffs or bluffs and environmentally unique areas. Policy LU-31.3 Require subdivisions within or adjacent to Urban Separators to provide open space linkages within or to the Urban Separator. Policy LU-31.7 Encourage well-designed land use patterns, including clustering of housing units, transfer of development rights, zero lot lines and other techniques to protect and enhance urban separators. ■ COMMUNITY DESIGN The community design element outlines several goals and policies related to the form, function, and appearance of Kent's built environment. The goals and policies seek to build on Kent's unique character and to create distinctive and attractive neighborhoods using the community's vision of the built environment and the resources developers bring to the land development process. Goal CD-4: Design new commercial projects to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motor vehicles. Goal CD-5: Develop mixed use areas which are vital and attractive focal points of community activity. Goal CD-6: Provide scale, layout, and character of commercial and mixed use development which is complimentary to the Page 10 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 1 surrounding neighborhood and accommodating to pedestrians. HOUSING ELEMENT The primary goal of the housing element is to meet the current and future need for housing in the Kent area. The ability to obtain affordable housing is essential to a stable, healthy, and thriving community. Policy H-2.2: Support housing with appropriate amenities for individuals, families and children. TRANSPORTATION The primary goal of the transportation element is to guide the development of the transportation system in the City of Kent. Policy TR-5.4: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential developments, neighborhood commercial centers, recreation areas and to serve as an alternate to automobile use. Policy TR-7.2: Use incentives or regulations to encourage new construction to promote pedestrian and bicycle connections to schools, parks, community enters, public transit services and facilities, and neighborhoods and other services. Policy TR-7.3: Whenever practical, using incentives or regulatory means, establish trails to connect neighborhoods when roads cannot practically be constructed due to environmental concerns. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This section includes key objectives for the development of a local healthy economy and the advancement of community goals. Policy ED-2.4: Encourage a connective land use pattern that integrates housing with natural amenities, employment and shopping opportunities, and recreational facilities. Policy ED-3.1: Allow for small scale commercial establishments in neighborhood areas to provide services for residents. Policy ED-3.4: Promote alternative transit opportunities between commercial and residential areas. Page 11 of 22 j Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 Policy ED-3.6: Increase opportunities for walking between commercial j development and residential neighborhoods. Planning Services Comment: This proposal implements several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A portion of the overall PUD site is located within an Urban Separator which are designated to protect environmentally sensitive areas, to create open space corridors that provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits and to take advantage of unusual landscape features. The Verdana project as a whole utilizes the PUD process in order to cluster areas of residential and commercial development outside of sensitive areas, maintain critical corridors for Olson Creek, and to take advantage of the unusual landscape and environmental features. In addition to preserving on site wetlands and streams, the site plan ensures that the Olson Creek corridor running from SE 304th Street to the Northwest portion of the site is preserved and a Category two wetland located on the Northeast portion of the site, which forms the headwaters of both drainage basins, maintains a hydrologic connection between the onsite wetlands. The proposed development will also maintain the wetland's natural storm water detention and water quality enhancement for the upper Olsen Creek basin. The PUD site plan maintains opens space linkages to the Urban Separator. The Comprehensive Plan supports a connective land use pattern that integrates housing with natural amenities, employment and shopping opportunities and recreation facilities. The PUD, as proposed, will provide residential, shopping and service opportunities to surrounding residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan also supports small scale commercial establishments in neighborhood areas so that services are provided for surrounding residents. The proposal is subject to design review in order to ensure that the scale, design and height of structures are compatible with surrounding residential uses. The proposal will include specific design aspects such as strong pedestrian elements and amenities, a unified development concept, and buildings that are designed in scale with the surrounding area so that the commercial component will be complimentary to adjacent residential uses. The proposal includes a pedestrian trail connecting commercial services to surrounding residential areas thus providing an alternative to the automobile. Two pedestrian pathway connections are provided north to the residential component of the project around the large wetland complex that otherwise separates the residential and commercial uses. The development's proximity to residential uses and the provision for a multiuse pedestrian trail connecting to residential areas and surrounding sidewalks will provide alternative transit opportunities to and from the commercial area. Page 12 of 22 iStaff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 B. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1. Zoning Code Review Criteria for Planned Unit Developments The City has reviewed the proposal under Mixed Use Design review which was approved with conditions. As conditioned in the PUD and through the design review decision, the individual building designs will be reviewed in detail prior to construction permit issuance in order to ensure that the final designs comply with the City's design review conditions. The City has reviewed the proposed PUD site plan and the proposed uses in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, City of Kent Zoning Code, the consistency requirements of KCC 12.01.150 (B). Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15.08.400.I.2 major modifications that change the basic design of a PUD shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Pursuant to Sections 15.08.400.F.7 & 15.08.400.G.2, the Hearing Examiner shall forward a recommendation to the City Council for PUDs which propose a use that is not typically permitted in the underlying zoning district as provided in subsection 15.08.400(B)(4). The City Council shall have the final authority to approve or deny the proposed PUD. Upon receipt of an application for a major modification to a PUD, the Planning Services Office shall review the application and make its recommendation to the City of Kent Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall make a recommendation to the City Council based upon the following review criteria: a. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect upon the community and users of the development which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and shall not be detrimental to present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Services Comment The proposed modification will provide a variety of neighborhood commercial services to the surrounding community. While specific tenants have not been identified, uses are restricted to those allowed within the neighborhood convenience commercial (NCC) zone. Uses allowed in the NCC zone are intended to provide retail ' and personal services to surrounding neighborhoods rather than regional services. The opportunity for a commercial component is not normally allowed through traditional residential development. The PUD process, which encourages innovation and creativity, allows commercial uses within PUDs of 100 acres or more in size. The additional 379 residential units built under the original Verdana PUD in addition to surrounding residential uses will be Page 13 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 served by the proposed commercial uses. The senior care component of the project will provide a continuum of living options for the entire Verdana community thus creating a mix of housing options and styles within the same community. The proposal was reviewed for compliance under design review and as conditioned, will be designed to fit in with the surrounding area. The office buildings closest to existing residential development to the west will be one story in height and will include substantial landscaping to treat the perimeter of the site, next to residential uses. The buildings are oriented outside of stream and wetland areas and where possible, the site layout takes advantage of the views and natural vegetative buffers to separate different types of uses. Parking areas are located on the interior of the site and do not abut property lines adjacent to residential areas. In addition, pedestrian connections are provided throughout the site and to surrounding pedestrian facilities promoting non vehicular connectivity, thus providing an alternative to vehicular use. A unified design concept will be expressed through common elements such as lighting, signage, pedestrian facilities, landscaping, architectural elements, and building materials in order to create a strong common identity for the entire development that integrates into the surrounding area. As proposed and conditioned through design review and the PUD process, the development will mitigate for potential impacts to the surrounding area and will not be detrimental to existing or future land uses. b. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained, and incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community. Planning Services Comment The larger Verdana site includes six delineated wetlands and two streams. Within the future development tract a portion of a large 40-acre Category 2 wetland is located on the north and west boundaries of the tract. The western arm of this wetland contains Olsen Creek which flows into the wetland through a culvert beneath SE 304th Street, then northerly through the western portion of the wetland where it flows off-site to the northwest. For the most part, the on-site wetland, stream and associated buffers will be maintained as permanent open space and will remain undeveloped. The proposed commercial development will Page 14 of 22 iStaff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 impact 0.44 acre of wetland buffer, which requires buffer averaging in accordance with Kent City Code 11.06. A conceptual wetland buffer averaging plan has been approved. The plan is located in the Public Works Department, Environmental Engineering Division, in Wetland File No. 06-51. A final wetland buffer averaging & restoration plan must be approved pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 11.06 prior to issuance of any development permits. Incorporating Low Impact Development techniques into the project would strengthen the integration of environmental features. Staff is proposing conditions of approval for Low Impact Development. The buildings are oriented outside of stream and wetland areas 1 and where possible, the site layout takes advantage of the views and natural vegetative buffers to separate the uses into different groups on the site. A pedestrian bridge provides a connection over Olson Creek to the proposed office uses. Trails are proposed along the stream and wetland buffers connecting to the proposed internal sidewalk system, to surrounding public streets and to the r larger Verdana trial network connecting residential uses and open spaces. C. The proposed project shall provide areas of openness by clustering the buildings, and by the use of well-designed landscaping and open spaces. Landscaping shall promote a coordinated appearance and break up continuous expanses of building and pavement. Planning Services Comment The commercial component is divided into three areas, with office uses located west of Olson Creek, commercial and retail uses located at the corner of 1241h Avenue SE and SE 304th Street and a senior care facility located to the north near the large wetland complex. The site layout, in addition to the presence of Olson 1 Creek and wetland areas, separates the site into three distinct areas. Pedestrian trails connect the three areas as well as surrounding pedestrian facilities, residential uses and open spaces within the Verdana site. The large wetland complex to the north and west of the tract provide openness, separation between uses and view opportunities for the senior care facility. As conditioned through design review, significant landscaping and pedestrian connections will break up parking areas, enhance building forms and create additional interest. Landscaped areas will include a variety of plant material that exhibits a combination of Page 15 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 characteristics that benefit the project year round. Appropriate soil amendments and an irrigation system will be provided to ensure that the proposed landscaping continues to function as intended. d. The proposed project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building design. It shall encourage the incorporation of special design features such as visitor entrances, plazas, outdoor employee lunch and recreation areas, architectural focal points, and accent lighting. As conditioned through design review and the PUD modification, the proposal will promote variety and innovation in site and building design through the use of significant pedestrian corridors and gathering areas, architectural elements, strong storefront design, and a unified signage and lighting plan. Buildings will comply with specific design elements as conditioned through design review. The retail buildings will be connected with significant pedestrian connections and a pedestrian plaza will be provided in order to create a neighborhood gathering place. The office buildings provide a central courtyard area that will contain landscaping and a pedestrian plaza area. e. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases. Planning Services Comment Specific building plans have not been developed, but staff is recommending a condition of approval regarding this criterion. The applicant has provided a photo collage which identifies , specific design concepts for the proposed office, retail and senior care buildings and additional building design criteria were developed through the design review process. C. PROPOSED PUD FINDINGS The City has reviewed the proposal under Mixed Use Design review which was approved with conditions. As conditioned in the PUD, the individual building designs will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the City's design review decision. The City has reviewed the proposed PUD modification site plan and ' proposed uses in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, City of Kent Zoning Code, the consistency requirements of KCC 12.01.150 (B), and comments from other Page 16 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 departments, agencies, and the public and hereby makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. The applicant requests approval of a Major Modification to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for 155.47 acres of property to be developed with a commercial development in addition to 386 single family detached units. 2. The site is zoned SR-1 and SR-3, Single Family Residential. In residential PUDs of 100 acres or more in SR zones, commercial uses may be permitted. 3. The site contains a portion of a Category 2 wetland and Olson Creek. 4. The site is located south of S. 288th Street, west of 124th Avenue SE, north of S. 304th Street and east of 118th Avenue SE. The property is further identified by King County tax parcel numbers 7867000046 and 0421059016, The property is surrounded by unincorporated area and is located within the City of Auburn's Potential Annexation Area. 5. With conditions, the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. 6. Surrounding uses are single family residential with several schools in the vicinity. 7. With conditions, the proposed PUD is consistent with the PUD development standards of KCC 15.08.400(C) and the PUD review criteria of KCC 15.08.400(G)(2). 8. A Revised Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for the project on October 16, 2007. A copy of this MDNS is part of the record. 9. Mixed use design review for the proposed development was completed on October 9, 2007 and the development was found to be in compliance with the design criteria of Kent City Code 15.09.045.F with conditions. A copy of the Decision Document for Mixed Use Design Review is part of the record for this PUD. 10. Adequate utilities and other infrastructure are available to serve the site. The City of Kent will provide water service and the City of Auburn will provide sewer service. Page 17 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 D. Criteria for Evaluating a Conditional Use Application The Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.09.030(D), enumerates eight criteria or standards which must be met in order for a conditional use permit to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. The following is a listing of those criteria and a discussion of how these criteria relate to the proposed application. 1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to P P P P other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. Planning Services Comment: Uses surrounding the future development tract include a large Category 2 wetland and the residential component of the Verdana PUD to the north and existing residential development to the east, south and west. The proposed senior care facility is located to the north of the future development tract on the interior of the site away from surrounding residential uses and will provide a continuum of living options for the community. The proposed drive through window and vehicle stacking areas are also located toward the interior of the site. One drive through is located at the retail building located at the corner of 1241h Avenue SE and SE 3041h Street and the other is located within a retail building east of the proposed office use on the interior of the retail site. In addition, drive through lanes are only allowed within the NCC zone if they are accessory to a permitted use, which will limit the type of drive through service that is provided at the site. Typical eating and drinking establishments with drive though lanes are not allowed in the NCC zone. Adequate stacking and maneuvering space will be provided on site to reduce impacts to adjacent right-of-way and driveways. Restricting the allowed uses to only those that are principally permitted, other than public uses and those uses currently proposed, ensures that the proposed commercial development will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The size of the site is more than adequate for the proposed use. Planning Services Comment: The size of the property is sufficient to allow the proposed uses to operate effectively. Adequate landscaping, parking, maneuvering and stacking space has been provided for the proposed senior care facility, ' drive through lanes and other proposed uses on the 13.3 acre site. Page 18 of 22 ' Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 3. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. Planning Services Comment: The senior care facility and drive though lanes are part of a larger development proposal which is expected to generate approximately 262 new PM peak hour trips. Traffic will enter and exit the site via two commercial driveways on 124th Avenue SE and one driveway on SE 304thStreet. Through the review of this Conditional Use Permit application, the SEPA checklist and the overall development proposal for the site, the Public Works Department will require that the applicant pay a traffic mitigation fee for new PM peak hour traffic trips, provide a southbound right turn pocket on 124th Avenue SE and pay a pro-rata share of the cost of resolving the High Accident Location at the SR18/SE 304th Street interchange. The addition of drive through lanes may change the number of vehicle trips that the overall project generates and the associated traffic mitigation fees will be adjusted to reflect any change in vehicle trips once specific tenants are known. The original PUD approval requires improvements to the project's frontage on 124th Avenue SE and SE 304th Street to meet applicable King County road standards. As conditioned, auto-oriented uses such as gas stations and drive through restaurants will be prohibited. With the above measures, the traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. 4. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. Planning Services Comment: The area surrounding the future development tract is residential in nature. The proposed senior care facility will operate as a residential facility for seniors and will provide services such as medical assistance, food preparation, common lounges and dining areas. The senior care facility is distinctly different from senior apartments which are not allowed in the NCC zone. The facility will have direct vehicle access from 124th Avenue SE, located away from the surrounding residential uses and will provide a continuum of living options for the community. Generally, the performance characteristics of the senior care facility are low in intensity and compatible with the surrounding uses. Page 19 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 The proposed vehicle drive though lanes are allowed as an accessory to a permitted use, which limits the type of drive through services that will be provided at the site. Typical eating and drinking establishments with drive though lanes are not allowed in the NCC zone. Drive though lanes will function as an incidental use of the larger commercial development and will use the proposed interior roadways and access points proposed for the larger commercial development. Vehicle stacking areas may create visual impacts; therefore the vehicle stacking areas are located toward the interior of the site and the drive though lanes will be required to be screened with type II landscaping to buffer visual impacts to surrounding areas. The second drive through located west of the office buildings and adjacent to Olson Creek and the wetland area shall be treated with landscape in order to provide a visual buffer from residential uses to the west which are higher in elevation. Auto oriented uses such as gas stations and drive through restaurants would be prohibited. Pursuant to the MDNS issued for the proposal, the applicant will be required to make commercial improvements to the site, pay traffic mitigation fees, and provide additional capacity on 124th Avenue SE. 5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. Planning Services Comment: Perimeter landscaping will be provided along the property lines of the site and type II landscaping will be installed around the proposed drive through lanes in order to reduce visual and auditory effects. The proposed drive though lanes will located toward the interior of the site and will be separated from adjacent uses by critical areas. 6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. Planning Services Comment: With the conditions of the associated design review, PUD modification and SEPA review, the proposed senior care facility and drive through lanes should function effectively without interference from adjacent and surrounding uses. Page 20 of 22 Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 7. The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements, and other applicable provisions of the code. Planning Services Comment: As proposed, the senior care facility and drive through lanes comply with the development standards for the NCC zone. Adequate landscape buffers, parking, maneuvering and stacking space have been provided. Compliance with applicable building, mechanical, fire and performance standards will be reviewed during the development application process. 8. Any other similar considerations may be applied that may be appropriate to a particular use. ' Planning Services Comment: Building designs for the senior care facility will incorporate residential architectural details such as window trim, balconies, and bay windows. The building design will also incorporate a variety of building materials and colors, wall and roof modulations, and specific treatments to limit blank walls. Buildings that include drive through windows will also comply with specific design criteria. V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of the merits of this request and the criteria for granting a Modification to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Condition Use Permit, Staff recommends Approval of Conditional Use (CE-2007-1) and the Modification to the Verdana PUD (PUD-2004- 4(R)), subject to the following conditions, in addition to the conditions imposed under the previous Verdana PUD approval: A. GENERAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL ' 1. The terms and conditions of Mixed Use Design Review MUDR-2007-3, which was approved on October 9, 2007, shall apply to this proposal. 2. Where determined feasible by the Kent Public Works Department, the applicant shall utilize Low Impact Development Techniques in construction of the project, including but not limited to rainwater collection systems, porous paving on sidewalks and trails, and bioretention areas with curb cuts in planting strips along roadways. 3. Drive through lanes shall include type II landscaping in order to buffer Page 21 of 22 'I Staff Report Verdana PUD — Major Modification #PUD-2004-4(R) KIVA #RPP4-2064281 #CE-2007-1 KIVA #RPP3-2071896 visual and auditory impacts to surrounding areas. 4. Uses allowed within the PUD shall be limited to those uses that are principally permitted in the NCC zone and shall not include conditionally permitted uses or special permit uses other than the proposed senior care facility and two drive though lanes that are accessory to principally permitted uses and public uses such as schools and parks. 5. Prior to grading, civil or building permit issuance the applicant shall provide to the City for review and approval an overall development plan showing a unified design concept with significant pedestrian connections and specific building designs that comply with the conditions of the Mixed Use Design Decision, dated October 9, 2007. B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT THE APPLICANT SHALL: � 1. Construct the improvements as required by the Hearing Examiner conditions and SEPA determination for the original PUD approval, and the Revised MDNS issued October 16, 2007, and/or pay the respective fees- in-lieu-of construction including any mitigation (EMA or EMF) charges. 2. Construct all wetland, stream and buffer mitigation and install all required wildlife passable fences unless otherwise approved by the Environmental Engineering Section of the Kent Public Works Department. 3. Receive approval of the required As-Built Drawings for Street, Street Lighting, Water, Sewer, and Storm water Management Facilities as deemed appropriate by the Kent Department of Public Works. KENT PLANNING SERVICES October 17, 2007 S:\Perm it\Plan\PU D\2004\2064281-2004-4(R).doc Page 22 of 22 �Ok r DIM IK[I y ry, VERDANA PUD KIVA #2064281 PUD 2004-4 T`l ��,1� >,%'ii3!IQJ� y�.�•?rsW;Xsy:�i"='�.1{�(}...>R' n I �! t i/ -Y���Y LLrr Y�'llr« {•. 11 1? i�wlI, �V VERDANA PUD • - KIVA #2064281 Jam- . . . . . . . • . •. • . + . , . - . • PUD2004-4 1p 10 NOW 31*WI35amV ca \ w 1 r oa'r O 1 " \• 4 s \ \\ \ r 000•. Lo •� f,bit Q b# C� Z. con • KENT CITY OF KENT REVISED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2006-70 Project VERDANA PUD MODIFICATION #RPSA-2064284 Description This application proposes a major modification to the approved Verdana Planned Unit Development(PUD)in order to construct a commercial development in conjunction with the previously approved residential Plat/PUD. The proposal involves a future development tract located in the southeast corner of the approved Verdana PUD, Specific, environmental site information was considered under the original Verdana PUD and SEPA applications; however the original PUD application did not identify uses for the development tract and therefore did not assess environmental impacts associated with future uses. The PUD modification application proposes an 80,800 square foot two-story senior care facility,51,800 square feet of retail space within several one-story buildings, 24,000 square feet of office space, landscaping, parking, and associated utility improvements on the 13.3 acre site. Direct vehicular access to the commercial development is proposed via two driveways connecting to 124'h Avenue SE and one driveway connecting to SE 304'h Street. Both public streets are under the jurisdiction of King County. The site is zoned SR-1, Single Family Residential/Urban Separator which allows one dwelling unit an acre and commercial uses within residential PUD's of 100 acres t or more in size. The entire PUD is 153.91 acres in size and the future development tract measures 13.3 acres. The northern 63.22 acres of the PUD is zoned SR-3 while the southern 92.26 acres are zoned SR-1. Location The PUD site is located west of 124"Avenue Southeast,east of 118"'Avenue Southeast, north of South 304t1 Street and South of South 288'"Street in Kent, Washington. The future development tract is located on the northwest corner of 1241'Avenue SE&South 304'"Street. Although the property is within the City of Kent limits, it is not contiguous to the City boundary. The property is fully surrounded by unincorporated King County and is located within the City of Auburn potential annexation area. On August 21,2007 voters in the Lea Hill area surrounding the Verdana site approved a resolution to become annexed Into the city limits of Auburn. The annexation of Lea Hill which completely surrounds the site is expected to become effective on January 1,2008. Applicant Chad Weiser Otak,Inc. 1218 Third Avenue,Suite 300 Seattle,WA. 98101 Lead Agency CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement(EIS)is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.This information is available to the public on request. X There is no comment period for this DNS. This MDNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the date of this derision;this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period as provided by WAC 197 11680. Responsible Official Charlene Anderson,AICP Position/Title Plannino Manaaer/SEPA OFFICIAL Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue.Kent WA 9BQ32 Telephone: Dated October 16.2007 Signatur PER KENT CITY CODE 03 62n rcrt-nc�rrn 1 CVCIC-SrvTJCV. Revised Mitigated DNS Verdana PUD Modification #ENV-2006-70 KIVA#2064284 CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: 1. The Owner/Subdivider has provided a Traffic Impact Analysts(TIA) to identify the existing and future level-of-service (LOS) for the adjacent intersections identified in the Staff Report for this development and the existing and future V/C ratios for the adjacent City streets in the roadway network. The Owner/Subdivider shall pay an Environmental Mitigation Fee for the City's South 272n0 Street/ South 277`"Street Corridor Project,based upon the site's expected trip generation.The amount of said fee shall be equivalent to 63%31M of the actual trip generation,according to the calculation methodology described below,based upon the fact that 63% 3Q°/s of the site-generated traffic would be expected to pass through Kent City Limits.The amount of said trip generation shall be based upon a city-approved version of this project's TIA.(At this time,the Owner/Subdivider has proposed two options,which would be expected to generate 176 er 240 N2 trips.These numbers may be altered based upon wetland impacts to the property,storm drainage requirements,or any other changes that are made to this development proposal, either at the direction of the Owner/ Subdivider or City of Kent staff,) The benefit to the Applicant is calculated at$1068 per peak hour trip(1986 dollars to be adjusted for rezones;and for Inflation based upon the Consumer Price Index,United States City Average for all Urban Consumers,or the substituted index as prepared by the United States Department of Labor) based upon the number of new PM Peak Hour Trips established in the City-approved TIA and the capacity of the South 272nd Street/South 277 h Street Corridor. a. The Applicant/ Owner shall pay the financial obligation specified herein in full prior to issuance of a Construction Permit. b. The payment of said Environmental Mitigation Fee,and the other traffic-related conditions f given below,will serve to mitigate traffic impacts of the proposed development to the above mentioned intersections and road system. 2. The Applicant shall pay a pro-rata share of the cost of resolving the High Accident Location(HAL)at the SR 18/SE 304`" Street (west ramps) interchange, to WSDOT project PIN#1018112G WIN#A01812G. Documentation that payment of the pro-rata share to WSDOT has been made,or that an alternative financial agreement satisfactory to WSDOT has been executed by the applicant shall be provided to King County DDES prior to building permit Issuance. The final percentage and pro-rata share assigned to the applicant shall be determined by King County. 3. The Applicant shall modify the frontage improvements along 124`"Avenue SE currently under review with King County DDES to provide a southbound right turn pocket along 124d'Avenue SE at the southerly entrance to the proposed commercial development(WSDOT Design Manual Page 910-931). The precise length of the pocket, exclusive of the widening taper, should be 100 feet unless otherwise approved by the reviewing agency during plan review. 4. The Applicant shall minimize grading of the site and where done the grading shall follow the natural contours as much as possible,minimizing the need for retaining walls. Any retaining walls shall be no more than 4 feet high at perimeter property lines and no more than 6 feet high around the detention/retention pond. Walls around such detention ponds shalt not exceed 50 percent of the perimeter of the pond and ponds shall be landscaped per City standards. The walls shall be constructed of rockery,other natural material,or with Planning Services and Public Works approvals may be constructed of patterned concrete that simulates natural materials. Where structural walls are required to support access roads and as such cannot be constructed of rockery or natural material,the walls shall be faced with such materials. Site conditions may warrant slight adjustments to wall height during construction. Height adjustments up to 10%of the overall height may be permissible and are subject to review and approval by Planning Services and Public Works. Retaining walls associated with construction of the public streets along the frontage of the property are exempt from the height limits described herein. S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2006\2064284mdnsrevised.doc 2of2 CITY OF Peter B. Lewis, Mayor WAS H I NGTON 25 Wed Main Sweet*Aubum WA 98001-4998*www.aub=wa g0v*253-931-3000 December 18, 2007 Ms. Lydia Moorehead, Planner ' City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 ' RE: COMMENTS REGARDING VERDANA PUD RECONSIDERATION REQUEST (PUD-2004-4R/KIVA#RPP4-2064281) &(CUP-2007-1/KIVA#RPP3- 2071896) Dear Ms. Moorehead: ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the reconsideration request on the Verdana PUD modification decision. We have reviewed the request and offer the ' following comments in relevance; Applicant's Comment ' 1. The Applicant asserts that the requested PUD major modification complies with the relevant criteria, and alleges the following errors with reference to the criteria: a. That the Hearing Examiner erred in concluding that the proposal would result in unmitigated traffic impacts. The Applicant asserts that the traffic concerns expressed during the hearing are moot as they should have been raised during the SEPA process. He asserts that the Hearing Examiner should not have relied on the projected trip generation suggested by the City of Auburn because Auburn's examples are primarily food-driven with drive-throughs, which are not a permitted use for the proposed PUD; the drive-in bank trip rates are outdated and do not consider recent trip reduction measures, including ATMs and online banking; and it is unlikely that the trips generated by Starbucks, as an example, would be new vehicular trips. The Applicant states that the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis of May 2007 specifically addressed the concerns raised by the City of Auburn February 2007 letter. City ofAubum Comment The City of Auburn traffic section would like to provide additional clarification to assist with evaluating the applicant's request for reconsideration in the above referenced matter. Regarding item 1 D in the Summary of Request, the City initially received a traffic study for this action dated-September 2006 which, in the City of Auburn's opinion, significantly understated the potential traffic impacts of the site because it used summertime traffic counts which did not include school traffic (there were five school and a college using the road around the site). Also because the study assumed a land use, specialty retail, for trip generation which would likely have significantly understated the potential impacts of the land uses which could be constructed under the approval. Taking this under consideration, the applicant resubmitted a traffic study dated May 2007 using revised traffic counts and a more realistic and inclusive land use which, in the City of Auburn's opinion, more accurately reflected the likely(or even worst case) ' potential trip generation of the site. As a result, the City of Auburn concluded that the revised traffic study submitted in May 2007 adequately addressed its concems on trip generation and level of service roadway impacts. The city did not comment on that , revised traffic study. At this time the City of Auburn's only current transportation related comment on this application focuses on the site design.The presence of exiting traffic delay associated with the southernmost driveway from this site to 124t' Ave SE (LOS E) could result in a shift in heavier commercial use to the northernmost driveway on 124 h Ave SE which has a better Level of Service (LOS C) and is easier to exit. But that northernmost driveway is currently designed in a way that would direct any commercial traffic using it past the front door of an Assisted Living facility. Assisted Living Facilities receive a much higher , level of emergency service calls and would host other loading and unloading such as wheelchair equipped public (and private) transit vehicles; likewise senior citizens with reduced acuity could be walking in the immediate vicinity. While both driveways onto ' 124"'Ave SE are probably necessary to allow the site to meet overall driveway Level of Service on that road frontage, the City of Auburn is asking that the northernmost driveway be redesigned to reroute it away from the front of the Assisted Living Facility. Please contact Joe Welsh, Transportation Planner, at(253) 804-5050 should you have any specific questions regarding these traffic comments. 2. The Applicant asserts that the Hearing Examiner improperly relied on the potential annexation of the Verdana PUD site by the City of Auburn, including making the following errors: Applicant's Comment a. That the Hearing Examiner erred in fact in determining that the Verdana PUD site is located within the City of Auburn Potential Annexation Area. City ofAtzburn Comment The applicant is correct; the Verdana property is not within the City of Auburn's PAA. Applicant's Comment Page 2 of 4 ' b. That the Hearing Examiner erred in fact in determining that the Lea Hill Annexation would be effective on January 1, 2008. ' City ofAuburn Comment On November 13, 2007, the City of Auburn adopted Ordinance #6121, approving the annexation as passed by the voters in the Lea Hill area on August 21, 2007. This approval was contingent upon the Washington State Office of Financial Management ' (OFM) accepting population numbers of the annexation area pending the outcome of an annexation census. The City received a letter dated December 17, 2007 from OFM accepting the census data therefore the annexation will become effective January 1, ' 2008 as indicated in the Hearing Examiner decision. However, it should be noted that the Verdana property is not part of the Lea Hill Annexation area and will remain part of the City of Kent. Applicant's Comment ' c. That the Hearing Examiner erred in concluding that the City of Auburn intends to annex the Verdana site. City ofAuburn Comment ' At this time, the City of Auburn does not have a specific agreement in place with the City of Kent regarding future annexation of the Verdana property. There have been discussions about the Verdana site being de-annexed in the future to Auburn; however a 1 formal agreement or process has yet to be consummated. Applicant's Comment d. That the Hearing Examiner erred in considering the City of Auburn's future plans to determine the Applicant's compliance with current City ordinances. City of Auburn Comment ' Currently, the City of Auburn does not have jurisdictional authority over land use or zoning for the Verdana project site. Auburn does however designate the surrounding properties under its own Comprehensive Land Use Plan and has recently completed the pre-annexation zoning for the Lea Hill area. The designated land use and zoning of properties surrounding the Verdana site are predominately Single Family Residential with some areas designated Public &Quasi Public. For clarification, the areas surrounding the Verdana site to the north and west from about SE 296"' Street to the northern boundary of the PUD is designated as Urban Separator. Also, the Urban Separator boundary is generally located in the NE corner of the property at approximately the intersection of SE 288"' Place and 124"' Avenue SE. Per mapping resources available at the City of Auburn, the Urban Separator designation ' does not appear to encompass the proposed commercial development of the Verdana Page 3 of 4 PUD. Applicant's Comment e. That the Hearing Examiner erred in fact in determining that the proposed commercial use would be inconsistent with the City of Auburn's proposed zoning for the Lea Hill area. City OAubum Comment As part of the annexation process, the City of Auburn has conducted hearings over the past several months to determine zoning designations for the Lea Hill annexation area. As indicated above, the designated land use and zoning of properties surrounding the site are predominately Single Family Residential with some areas designated Public & Quasi Public. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this reconsideration request. If you have any questions please contact me at(253) 804-5031 or e-mail , chanldnsC&aubumwa.Qov/ Sincerely, J , � C Chris Hankins Senior Planner Planning, Building, and Community Department Cc: Cindy Baker, City of Auburn Director of Planning, Building &Community Elizabeth Chamberlain, City of Auburn Senior Planner Joe Welsh, City of Auburn Transportation Planner Barbara Biteman, City of Kent Theodore Hunter, City of Kent Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 4 RECEIVE. Michael 5 Debbie Pratum 30510 122"d PL. SE. DEC 1 9 2001 Auburn, WA 98092 �t-A fN MG SERVICES City of Kent Hearing Examiner City of Kent 220 4't'Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5838 December 18, 2007 Re: Kent 25 LLC request for reconsideration; PUD-2004-4R; KIVA# RPP4-2064281 Hello, Mr. Hearing Examiner: am a party of record in this matter. I live across the street from the project on 122rd Place South East. I have previously stated my concerns about this project's impact on traffic safety and increased traffic cues on SE 304' St. Below is my response to the applicant's motion for reconsideration. Since Mr. Wilson has asked the Hearing Examiner to consider whether he made a mistake in his ruling, I ask the Hearing Examiner to also consider whether he made a mistake in allowing the construction of the senior facility. I think nothing should be allowed, and this project should wait until the area is annexed to Auburn and then they can try to get it approved by Auburn. I would like to remind the Hearing Examiner that this developer held a neighborhood ' meeting where they not only failed to properly mail to all the residents on the list(my home was one such residence), but they knew at that time that they were going to develop the property on the southeast corner into a commercial project but they Intentionally concealed ' this fact from the residents of Lea Hill. I think proper weight needs to be given to this behavior and to any evidence they produced thereafter. What else did they conceal? It certainly makes the Traffic Impact Analysis look more biased in terms of their conclusions (most of which were based on extrapolations from tables in one or more books and on an intersection roundabout which has not been constructed). ' Mr. Wilson, in his brief, argues opposite and illogical points in different parts of his brief. He says that he thinks that the area around the proposed commercial project will not become annexed into the city of Auburn, or at least that is the end result of his statements that he is not sure it is a done deal. Therefore, he urges the Hearing Examiner to ignore the interests or efforts of Auburn or the wishes of the residents of Lea Hill. He also argues that the Hearing Examiner should assume that the city of Auburn WILL annex the ' surrounding area by arguing that Auburn has already zoned the easterly corners of the intersection in question to commercial (which is a false statement), and therefore it is fine ' E.Vocuments and SettingsNikeWy DocumentslReal Estate1157 acres\Commercial projecWesp.Mot.Reconsid 12-18-07.wpd Response, Mot Reconsid. 12/18/07, page 2 of 4 that the Applicant be allowed to build their commercial project. By arguing both sides I think the Applicant has cancelled out both arguments completely. This is simply someone being paid to write a brief, regardless of what it takes, to try to change the Hearing ' Examiner's mind. I know it is his job to do this, but he should not be putting out arguments he knows are not based on true facts or contradict something else he says. The reason Mr. Wilson, on behalf of the Applicant, is putting forth such a big effort now to get this project approved by Kent is because he knows that the Lea Hill residents will show up in force at City of Auburn meetings (as they have been doing already) and oppose the project. He also must be aware that Auburn's proposed comprehensive plan is intended to preserve the single family residence status of the area. The other reason he is trying so hard to get the Hearing Examiner to change his mind is because this property (the commercial, not the residential) has been sold, and there is currently a purchase and sale agreement in place to sell it. I am sure the sale is conditioned on Kent 25 LLC obtaining all the permits for the project. This is a financial motivation, not one that would have the ' interests of the residents in mind. Of course, as is their usual behavior, the developer has intentionally not disclosed this fact to anyone. A primary criteria for approving or denying such a project is whether the project will benefit the surrounding neighborhoods. 100% of the residents who wrote to the City of Kent ' stated they opposed this project, and the Applicant did not provide any factual information from residents of Lea Hill to tell the Hearing Examiner how this project would bestow any benefit whatsoever to the neighborhoods surrounding the project. Furthermore, at the three hearings in Auburn on proposed land use for the 304th/124th intersection, all the residents who testified were opposed to the re-zone to commercial. In my opinion, the main factor the Hearing Examiner must consider is the interests of those who live in the Lea Hill area, who will continue to live here, and who have to deal with the effects of this project. This should not be considered merely on the basis of whether the developer met statutory requirements and paid fees or assessments. After completion, the City of Kent will have no obligation to provide public safety, utility or other public services for this 157 acre project; this commercial property is just a subsidiary of it. How many other commercial properties do you see around this proposed development? None. This project is nothing but money in the pocket of the developer and/or the City of Kent. That is not a good reason to approve the project. Does this ' developer have any motivation to use this land in a way that will benefit the community? No, and they have failed to produce one shred of evidence to controvert this conclusion_ Have they produced even one resident who wants this commercial development? The traffic impact analysis was helpful, since it concluded on page 18 that no pedestrian or public transit traffic would use the businesses in this project. This flies in the face of the intention of the King County Comprehensive Plan. It also contradicts the comprehensive plans of both Kent and Auburn. EADocuments and SettingsUNikeWy DocumentslReal Estate1157 acreslCommercial project\Resp.Mot.Reconsid.12-18-07.wpd ' Response, Mot Reconsid. 12/18/07, page 3 of 4 One thing they failed to point out is that when residential property is changed to commercial use,there is usually a three fold increase in noise in the neighborhood'. This ' is not noise compatible land use planning for Lea Hill. At the last public hearing Mr. Wilson elicited testimony from one of the traffic study ' professionals hired by the developer that said there were sidewalks around this project. Yes, there would be on the land owned by the parent company, Yarrow Bay Development, but NONE exist once you set foot off their property. No pedestrian or transit traffic would use these businesses because there is no safe way to walk to it. I would also point out that only one transit route (Metro #164) services this area and it does not run into the neighborhoods but simply runs south on 124`h, and circles at Green River Community ' College, then goes back to downtown Kent. It does not service Lea Hill residents and it does not go down into downtown Auburn or to the Auburn Park and Ride lot. I did not see that anywhere in the Traffic Impact Analysis. There is no Park and Ride lot within the Lea Hill area. ' The governmental entity that will have an interest in the land use planning for the entire Lea Hill area is Auburn. Not Kent. King County intends that this area WILL be annexed by a certain date to Auburn even if Auburn were to do nothing to annex the area. There ' is ample evidence within the Kent Planning files to show that Auburn will be taking responsibility foreverything from road maintenance to fire and EMT for this area. Auburn is not providing sewer to this area just so it can remain part of unincorporated King County. The residents of Lea Hill have voted, and they want to be governed by ONE entity:Auburn. The annexation is in the works right now. This includes not less than three public hearings to obtain Lea Hill resident input on land use regulations for a comprehensive plan for Lea ' Hill. The attendance at those meetings was standing room only, and the citizens who were there testified overwhelmingly that they opposed any zoning change around the intersection of 1241h and 3041h that would allow commercial development. ' My wife and I will not use services located at the above-referenced area. There is a Safeway on Kent Kangley and 132"d that my wife uses. I shop at the Fred Meyer in downtown Auburn. My boat is serviced in Auburn. Our automotive services are in Auburn, Federal Way or Fife. I have had the same primary care physician for over 20 years, and he is at Virginia Mason in Federal Way, as are most of my other doctors, or they are in ' Seattle. Same thing for my wife. We are not going to switch dentists to someone closer. 1 shop for Hardware at McLendon's in Kent or Lowe's in Auburn. Our plumber is in downtown Auburn. I could go on, but you get the point. There are currently two convenience stores at 1241h and 3121h. I understand a store is being built in the new construction to the east of the Shell convenience store on 312`h. Any new commercial development should be at that location, and that is what I, my wife and other residents of 'Table,Federal Highway Administration.httpllwww tthrc gov/pubrds/03jul/06 htm EVocuments and Settings\MikeWy Documents\Real Estate\157 scres\Commercial proiect\Resp Mot.Reconsid.12-18-07 wpd Response, Mot Reconsid. 12/18107, page 4 of 4 Lea Hill told the Auburn City Council and the Planning Commission when they held hearings on the Lea Hill Comprehensive Plan. Contrary to Mr.Wilson's representation,the City of Auburn Currently has not made any decision of re-zoning property on the other ' corners of 304" and 1241" streets and has recently removed one of the corners from any consideration of re-zone to commercial. Based on public input I suspect they will not re- zone any of these corners to commercial. ' Mr. Wilson's comments at the last administrative hearing are illustrative of his and his client's attitude: the residents of Lea Hill want this area to stay rural, as it now is, but if Mr. Wilson has anything to say about it, it will no longer be rural"...and they better get used to it". No, we don't have to get used to it. The rural atmosphere of Lea Hill will be preserved. ' Based on all of the foregoing, I feel it is abundantly clear that any proposed commercial use of the property in question should be denied. If the buyer of this property wants to , develop it into commercial, they should wait until the City of Auburn has completed annexation of this area and the City of Auburn has completed a comprehensive land use plan for Lea Hill. From a practical standpoint, this property is part of Lea Hill, not Kent. , The roundabout should also be finished and traffic should be running through it at least for several months to stabilize so that a new and more accurate traffic impact study could be done. This may cause the sale price of this property to decrease, causing a few less , dollars in the pockets of the shareholders of Kent 25 LLC (which is just a spinoff of the parent company which is developing the residential project on the larger parcel), but I think that is a small cost compared to the damage this project would impose on all the neighborhoods, and the residents of, Lea Hill. Your s trul M ch _ 1 EMocuments and SettingsWikeWy Documents\Real Estate1157 acreslCommercial projecMesp.Mot_Reconsid.12-18-07 wpd City of Kent,Washington Hearing Examiner RECEIVED ' 220 Fourth Ave.S. Kent,WA 98032 1 2t Ref Verdana PUD Modification DEC ��a1 #PUD 2044R#RPP4-2064284 CITY OF KENT ' #ENV 2006-70#RPSA-2064284 'PLANNING SERVICES December 18,2007 ' I am writing too put into the public record my comments about the proposed PUD modification appeal that was sent to my home on or about November 27"2007. ' My name is Anthony H.Courtney. My home address is 30420 122id PL.SE,Auburn,WA.98092. My telephone number is 253-804-2534. I reside directly across the street on the South side of the proposed change. This proposed change is unique in that the property was owned by the City of Kent,all external roads and zoning is done by the King County and is soon to annexed into the City of Auburn.When the PUD application was first made the South end of property(0421059016)was zoned as urban separator(US),now it seems to be SRI.The proposed change would also necessitate more changes to SE 124i6 Ave.and SE 304d'St.. The current Design of the sixty foot diameter traffic roundabout,front access,traffic studies and creek relocation would be a major change from sr to commercial. This basic idea that it would not benefit the local community is correct. A developer conceived plan with a automobile based commercial development is not a benefit to anyone except the developer. I suggest that the development be put on hold until the City of Auburn and the annexation issue is resolved and the citizens of the neighborhood can at least deal with one government agency at least. Not many local people have the skill,time and persistence to deal with three governments. King County and The City of Kent has no vested interest in what happens after the property is disposed of. What better choice than The City of Auburn and its processes. Since this plat(0421059016)is in the proposed Auburn PAA,I propose a delay and reapplication with the Auburn. ' This action should not be slnrply a City of Kent decision. 1 Regards; Anthony Courtney December 18, 2007 t. E C E I V E j DEC 18 2001 , CITY OF KENT Ms Barbara Biteman In ,•��,nc F Planning Department City of Kent 220 4°i Ave S Kent, WA 98432-5838 Reference: Kent 25 LLC Dear Ms Biteman , I live on Lea Hill about one block south of reference development and am very pleased , that the Light Commercial zoning in the development has been denied. You may be aware that Auburn has proposed to do light commercial southeast of the 124'h Ave SE/SE 304`h intersection. This has been vigorously opposed by the , neighborhood in all the Auburn hearings and the outcome is still to be determined. A wide variety of reasons have been given by residents at hearings and these include: • A light commercial development is already being built one half mile south b the , g P Y 8 Y SE 312d'intersection on 120 Ave SE. It doesn't make sense to have two separated light commercial developments in the same area. • Sufficient shopping access is already available at east hill Kent, at 132"�Ave SE and the Kent-Kangley Road, and in Covington. • The proposed light commercial is being dropped into a residential neighborhood without adequate buffer. • Roads and intersections in the area will not handle the commercial traffic(trucks, cars, buses, etc). Ingress and egress so near the SE 304u'intersection with 124`h Ave SE is unacceptable. College and local school traffic is already highly congested in the area. ' Thanks for your consideration. Feel free to call me if you have any questions or want any additional input. Cellular 253-740-9360. , Sin 7rely cj Roger dalette 30527 124 h Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Persia:towisi mayor ' *`; .'W l ) H„°; ?1 i f@�1; •�uDi1 ;t 8 ;�GriMM►.oubflmwtl4i�y*,263,"(43dOD ' November 6, 2007 C it" - Ms. Lydia Moorehead, Planner NOV G 2007 City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South CITY OF (CENT Kent,WA 98032 i''l.hlP'.EtIG r-7TV CE.. RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VERDANA PUD MODIFICATION (PUD-2004-4R/KIVA#RPP4-2064281) &(CUP-2007-1/KIVA#RPP3-2071896) Dear Ms. Moorehead: Thank you for the opportunity to comment op the proposed Verdana PUD modification. Our understanding is that the proposal is for a major modification to the approved PUD to allow for a commercial development and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for a senior care facility and two drive through lanes. The proposal includes approximately 66,899 sq.ft of retail and office space within several one-story buildings, and an 80,800 sq. It.two-story senior care building, landscaping, parking, and associated utility improvements. The project site Is situated on 13.3 acres located at the northwest comer of SE 304'"Street. and 124 h Avenue SE. As you are aware, on August 21, 2007 voters in the Lea Hill area of Auburn voted to be annexed to the City. This annexation is anticipated to become effective on January 1, 2008. The Lea Hill annexation area surrounds the Verdana PUD and the City of Auburn therefore takes great Interest in how this PUD develops and its potential impacts to surrounding public facilities and the residents of Lea Hill. With this in mind,we have reviewed the report and site plan associated with this application and offer the following comments. These comments are in addition to the letter submitted on February 12, 2007 under the Notice of Application for this same proposal. 1. The May 2007 traffic study for this site concluded that the site would have two driveways onto 124"Ave SE and that the southernmost of those would function at LOS E in year of opening. This LOS is generally not considered acceptable and potentially leads to driver impatience and poor decisions which can create collisions. Because there was a second driveway from the same commercial site onto the same road 124 h Ave SE further north which was estimated to function at LOS C,city staff estimated that internal traffic volumes within the site would normalize (drivers would use the most comfortable and easiest exit)and that safe exiting and entering would be available. As a result, the city did not comment about the LOS of the southernmost driveway. With the knowledge that, as a result of the LOS E situation at the southernmost driveway, significant commercial traffic will likely use the northernmost driveway, a review of the current site plan reveals that all that traffic will be funneled right past the front of the senior care facility. It also appears that there is a way to rearrange the internal connection to the northernmost driveway to better separate the traffic flows and protect the proposed Y Pa senior care facility,by connecting the commercial parking lot to the driveway at a point further east Please contact Joe Welsh, Transportation Planner, at(253) 804-5050 should you have any specific questions regarding these comments. Any other questions can be directed ' to me at(253) 804-5031 or e-mail chankinsQaubumwa.aoy. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to corn t on is proposal. Sincere Chris Han Senior Planner Planning, Building,and Community Department cc Cindy Baker,Director of P{er rft Brdldkg&hom m rdty Joe Welsh,Tra nzpwtadon Planner , Theodore Harlan,City of Kent Hearing E mrniner Mike Giiesple,City of Kerd Engineering Development Manager 1 . 1 • 1 1 Pape 2 of 2 CITY OF liBURN Peter B. Lew is Mayor WAS H IN GTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwA.qP - 31-3000 vm February 12, 2007 Ms. Lydia Moorehead, Planner SENT VIA FAX AND US MAIL 1 City of Kent Planning Services 220 Fourth Avenue South 1 Kent, Washington 98032 SUBJECT: Notice of Application -Verdana PUD Modification Dear Ms. Moorehead: Thank you for your responsiveness to our request for studies related to the above referenced proposal. Our understanding is that the proposal is for a major modification to the approved Verdana PUD to allow for a "Neighborhood Convenience Commercial" development. More specifically, we understand that the application proposes a 74,298 square foot two story senior care facility and 66,899 square feet of retail space within a 13.3 acre tract located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 124th Avenue SE and SE 304th Street. The site contains a wetland and stream. As you may be aware, on January 17, 2007 the City of Auburn filed a Notice of Intent to Annex with the King County Boundary Review Board for Washington State. The Notice was filed for the annexation of the City of Auburn's Lea Hill Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The Lea Hill PAA entirely surrounds the Verdana PUD and we therefore take great interest in how the Verdana PUD develops and its impacts to surrounding public facilities and to Lea Hill residents. In addition, the proposed commercial development is located within the City of Auburn Sanitary Sewer service area and is therefore subject to the utility extension agreement between the City of Auburn and Kent 160 LLC approved by the Auburn City Council in May 2005. A copy of that utility extension agreement is enclosed with this letter as that agreement establishes certain commitments on the "Owners" part for certain public facilities including streets and parks. Our expectation is that these obligations and icommitments shall be met. At this time, we have reviewed the traffic studies associated with the proposal and offer the following comments. 1. The key intersection serving the site (124th Avenue SE and SE 304 Street) is heavily influenced by the traffic of one middle school, two grade schools, a high school and a regional community college. Yet the traffic study uses August traffic ' volumes — a time when these schools are not in session. AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 1 The report also provides no analysis of the AM peak hour between 7:15 AM and , 9:00 AM when private vehicle and bus trips for Rainier Middle School, Lea Hill Elementary, Hazelwood Elementary and Green River Community College all ' significantly impact both roads bordering the project. 2. Trip generation Option A and B. The selection of"Specialty Retail' as a land use will likely underestimate the actual traffic impacts. Specifically, Specialty Retail is described by ITE as, "...generally small strip shopping centers that contain a variety of retail shops ' and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods, and services, such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists and small restaurants." ' ITE statistics on Specialty Retail are limited. The relatively low trip generation rate for this land use category are based on a total of no more than five studies conducted over a 30 year period. Further, this rate description makes no mention of recent land use types such as high turnover espresso/coffee businesses or high turnover fast food restaurants (i.e. Subway, McDonalds), , which are frequently found at developments such as this. And, no mention is made of drive through uses in the Specialty Retail rate. 3. The site layout is not a small strip shopping center but rather a series of , Y P PP 9 unconnected, retail buildings, which will encourage different land uses with greater traffic impacts than a Specialty Retail site. Typical suburban shopping , areas such as this often feature a Starbucks type business, a fast food restaurant and a bank. Based on studies submitted to the City of Auburn, for example, a typical Starbucks alone can generate up to 200 AM peak hour trips and over 70 PM peak hour trips. A drive through bank generates approximately 46 trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour. A high turnover restaurant generates up to 11 trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour. Compared to this, the Specialty Retail PM rate assumes impacts of the development at 2.71 trips per 1,000 square feet. , In summary, then, we find that: • The report does not conservatively analyze the likely retail trip generation , impacts inherent in the site design. • The report does not identify the AM peak hour impacts of this project in a location heavily influenced by AM peak hour trips, and, • By selecting the lowest month of the year for its base of analysis -- when no school traffic is using adjacent roads in an area heavily influenced by school traffic --the report underestimates the traffic volumes likely to occur on its frontage. i ' These concerns needs to be addressed as review of the proposal continues. As noted in our prior correspondence, please include the City of Auburn as a party of record for the proposal including receipt of future notices. 1 Finally, the City is still reviewing the proposal as it relates to impacts upon the City's sanitary sewer system and will be providing you with comments on that as this process continues. As part of this, we will a require additional information regarding the proposed change in use and density, and the corresponding impact to sanitary sewage flows. This information will be required before Auburn can determine whether the proposal is consistent with the current sanitary sewer service agreement, and whether further analysis and/or changes in design are required. ' Please contact Joe Welsh, Transportation Planner, at 253 804-5050 should you have questions regarding the traffic comments in this letter. Other questions may be directed to me at (253) 931-3090. Si rely Mi hael Da olio, AICP Director, PI nning Building and Community Department Enc: Utility Extension Agreement cc: Joe Welsh, Transportation Planner i i i 1 CITY OF tiBURN Peter B. Lewis, Mayor . A WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000 February 2, 2007 ' Ms. Lydia Moorehead Planning Services City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue S. ' Kent, WA 98032-5895 Re: Application Number— PUD 2004-4 R # RPP4-2064281 , ENV 2006-70 # RPSA 2064284 Dear Ms. Moorehead: Thank you for notifying the City of Auburn about the Verdana PUD Modification, Date of Application January 27, 2007. The City of Auburn wishes to receive notice of and participate in any hearings on these applications and requests to receive a copy of decisions made about these applications. In order to appropriately evaluate these actions, the City of Auburn is also requesting to receive a copy of all studies submitted with the application. These include the traffic impact analysis dated September 2006, the Wetland Assessment dated September 2004 and the Technical Information Report ■ Addendum dated September 2006. In order to have enough time to evaluate these reports the City of Auburn is requesting that we receive a copy of these by February 6t', 2007. If it would expedite the process, Auburn could send a staff person to Kent to pick up the documents. incerely, Michael Davolio RECEIVE, t Planning Director City of Auburn Fr-3 ;) :, 200 7 253-931-3091 OF KENT ` 'RVlcEs MD/tl ' AUBURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED` ' C1i.fOF AtiBURN Peter B. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.oubumwo.gov * 253-931-3000 RECEIVED July 16, 2007 JUL 19 2001 1 Ms. Mary Roberts Eighth Street NE#24 Cl 502 Ei OF KENT g PLANN ING SERVICES Auburn, Washington 98002 RE Verdana PUD 1 Dear Ms. Roberts: Thank you very much for your letter of July 9, 2007. For your information, the City of Auburn received the Revised Notice of Application for the Verdana PUD project from the City of Kent. The City of Auburn is using the public process set forth by the City of Kent to provide comment on this project to City of Kent. As with any citizen that may be interested in a development proposal, you may provide comment to the City of Kent Planning Department as well. The City of Kent planner who is handling this application is Lydia Moorehead. She may be reached at (253) 856-5433. Please be aware that this project will not be presented before the Auburn City Council as it is physically located within the City of Kent. Again, thank you for your comments on this project. ly, r Dave saki, AICP Interim Community Development Director cc: Lydia Moorehead,City of Kent Planning Correspondence File 1 1 AI JRI TR N * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Rl .ENED iin. I n ZOO/ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'Pik 59014.-, 1 1 257-o'A� `0'0� I 1 'A' 72) � . 74 vcv y 1 Jam' I � 87TI 2W,4ZYI �� � u �� �fN�✓' 2�6 - �o ���� -Zak 4z�4 #NyD� zw0 l l RECEIVED ' JUL 4 2097 CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES July 23, 2007 4:00 PM E � ,IVED Dear City of Kent Planning Services, JUL 2 3 200 CIT SG SERVICES This is to request that I become a party of record for Verdana PUD?N ication and/or other developments on ' the City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir property located at 5E 3041h Street and 1241h Ave 5E, and that I wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings and request a copy of decisions once made be sent to me by mail or ema i I. ' This is also to comment in writing regarding the Revised Notice of Application to the Verdana PUD development at SE 304th Street and 124th Avenue SE (#PUD 2004-40 #RPP4-2064281, #ENV 2006-70 #RPSA-2064284, #MUDR 2007-3 #PPDR-1071897, #CE 2007-1 #RPP3-2071896). I protest this revision to the Verdana PUD development in its entirety. The City of Kent's Impoundment Reservoir property originally was undeveloped, un-zoned, and designated for municipal purposes - this property is unique. 49 of the 157 acres were Category 2 and 3 wetlands. Sometime in 2005 the City of Kent sold this property to Yarrowbay Group and, with much protest from the surrounding neighborhood, is building a 379 single-family residential development. I quote the City of Kent Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (#ENV 93- 51).Kent Impoundment Reservoir Site(*ENV-2003-26� Existing Conditions The property is currently vacant but was historically used as a managed livestock pasture and hay crop production pasture. A few cleared home-site areas are present along the eastern boundary along 124"'Ave SE. The site is located within an upland area bordered on the west and south by the Green River Valley and to the southeast by the Soos Creek Valley. Soos Creek is a tributary to the Green River. ..The site is largely comprised of open pasture grasses, a large wetland complex In the central and southern portion of the site, and a smaller forested area along the west-central property line. ... ... Wetlands — In 1995, a wetland evaluation and delineation was completed for the City of Kent. This report, based upon the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, found 16 separate wetlands for a combined 48.9 acres Those wetlands range form 0.007 to 4364 acres in size. Wetland A (43.64 acres)and Wetland O(373 acres) are Identified as Category 2 while the remainder are identified as Category 3 wetlands as defined by the City of Kent wetland regulations .. .. The area within the general vicinity of the subject site can be characterized as land that is transitioning from a rural , to suburban development pattern. ... Yarrowbay Group has already cut down all the mature forest area and has terraced this property by moving dirt from the central wetlands to the east and south of the property via tandem-trucks on 118th Avenue SE in preparation of this single-family residential development. Now Yarrowbay Group wants to further develop this land. As the revision states: "This application proposes a PP major modification to the approved Verdana PUD... in order to construct a Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Development." Yarrowbay Group wants to change the zoning designation from SR-1, Single Family Residential, to a 156,600 SF commercial development that would include office and retail space in seven one-story buildings and a two-story senior care facility. And they'd like include up to two retail drive-throughs. Page 1of2 t i Mike& Debbie Vratum JUL 2 0 1007 253-735�052 3051C 122nd pE. SE clnr of KEN-f Auburn, WA 9SC92 PLANNING SERVICES email: mpratumt'a�comcast.net To: City of Kent Planner Attn: Lydia Moorehead 220 4`"Ave. So. Kent, WA 98032 Re: Verdana Commercial; tax parcel 042105-9016; Application numbers: #PUD 2004-40) #RPP4-2064281 #ENV 2006-70 # RPSA-2064284 1 #MUDR 2007-3#PPDR2071897 #CE 2007-1 #RPP3-2071896 Hello Ms. Moorehead/Planning Department: I live close to this project and I object to the proposed modification of this parcel for the reasons stated below. Please note 1 have a continuing request for notice of any activity on this project, including decisions made by the City of Kent. I. Notice for the neighborhood meeting held in June, 2007 The applicant failed to provide notice to homeowners in the vicinity of this project when they ' scheduled the neighborhood meeting held at Lea Hill elementary school in June. My understanding from talking to the City representatives is that this is a requirement for the application process to continue further. I asked a representative of the applicant why we and many others did not receive notice, they replied in a cavalier manner: "well, we thought the notices went out. We hired a third party to do it " That does not excuse this omission and I object to the hearing being conducted without the applicant providing proof that they substantially complied with this notification requirement (which they will be unable to provide). It appears that many homeowners will be illegally excluded from the application process by virtue of the fact that the applicant has failed to fulfill a primary duty in the application process, and essentially violated the rights of many property owners. I request that this issue be addressed at the first hearing for this application, and that the applicant provide proof of why the hearing should not be postponed until they can comply with the notification process and re-schedule a neighborhood meeting wherein they have provided actual notice to the property owners adjacent to this project I can tell you that out of five homes around us, only one homeowner received any notification of this hearing, and the only reason my wife and I attended the neighborhood meeting was that particular neighbor told us about it. II. The proposed driveway on 300 violates engineering standards for sight distance and cannot be placed on 304'" without endangering pedestrians and vehicle occupants (including children on school buses) and violating state and county codes/laws. The driveway proposed on 304"St.will cause serious injury to children and adults. Based on road engineering standards required in King County and in the State of Washington, this driveway fails to meet standards for safety and if left in place will result in wrongful death and serious bodily harm law suits against both the City of Kent and the developer. July 20, 2007 page 2 of 4 I City of Kent-Verdana Commercial 4'h creates danger for approaching vehicles and for pedestrians on the side of The driveway on 30 tes g pp g the road (there are no sidewalks here, but if there were, it would not affect this conclusion). Average weekday vehicle trip ends(AWDVTE)for this driveway will certainly exceed 100 vehicles. The driveway provides access not only to the buildings close to it, but also to all the commercial structures in this proposed use of this land. Based on the square feet of space, the proposed number of parking stalls(or that which was observed on the drawings the developer made available to citizens during their meeting with the neighborhood in June), the proposed use and intended tenants, as well as the daily traffic counts fro the Washington Department of Transportation for 304'h at this location (EB + WB = over 8,000�vehicles/day in 2005), and a trend toward more volume as development of the area continues, an estimate of more than 100 vehicles entering/exiting this driveway is reasonable. Based on the above information, the requirements for a limited sight distance for a driver located in this driveway would be (a minimum of) 250 feet. That is the linear distance down the road, not , the distance between the driver and the object on the road. This distance would be reduced by obstructions such as fences and vegetation (see discussion below). However, this number is based on an assumption that the grade of the road is 0 or level. If there ' is a grade,this number increases correspondingly to the grade and the distance of a vertical curve from the point in question. This road at this location not only has a grade (in my estimate, about 4-5%), but it has a vertical curvature to the west of this driveway. These two factors affect the limited sight distance and would result in the 250 foot figure being increased even further, to at least 275 feet. I do not believe the current information provided by the developer has explained this problem and I do not believe any driveway can be placed on 304'h for this project. This also presupposes the speed of the vehicle on 3041h is 35 mph, which may not be a high enough value (see below). School buses. School buses require more feet of road to stop than an automobile(which the latter is the basis for road engineering standards of limited sight distance rules). Especially if they are traveling downhill, as would be the case at this location. Within a mile radius of this development, , there exist four primary schools:one high school, one middle school, and two elementary school. They all are public schools, and they all have buses full of students traveling on the roads which border this project, including the road in question, 3041h street. How will this driveway affect the safety of our children? In the buses, they are vulnerable to not only a collision at this driveway, but also to entanglement with utility wires which run above ground directly across the street from the proposed driveway, on a utility pole that is close to the driveway. Obstructions will lessen the sight distance a driver will have from this driveway when looking to the west. Obstructions that are not within the control of the developer because they are on other land. If one looks to the west from the proposed point of entry for this driveway on 304", one will have their vision obstructed by a 6+foot cedar fence surrounding the playground area of a neighborhood located due west of this proposed development. The limited sight distance would be measured when the driver's head is approximately 10 feet from the edge of the sidewalk, and the height(for the vision of the driver) is usually taken as 3.5 feet This fence would block a view toward the crest of the hill. Using the applicants drawings, I estimate that the aforementioned fence will effectively July 20, 2007 page 3 of 4 City of Kent -Verdana Commercial rreduce the sight distance to approximately 100 feet. That is not even close to legal. The above information is complicated by the fact that out of the line of sight to the west of this point in question,there is an upward change in speed on the road to 35 mph from a 20 mph school zone for east bound traffic(Hazelwood Elementary School is about 1.5 blocks from this project). During times when this school zone speed limit is enforced, drivers going eastbound on 304'h will be accelerating before they crest the hill and begin their descent. So, many of the cars will be traveling over the 35 mph speed limit, and in my experience many are traveling over 40 mph. This makes the limited sight distance issue for this driveway even more important for safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians. Pedestrian traffic on 304'h during the day is common. It peaks in the mid to late afternoon, the same time that traffic on the road is peaking. It is not uncommon to find parents walking or jogging with their young children in strollers. Kids walk along the shoulder to get from one place to another or to go to or come home from school. How fast can they get out of the way of a car turning or crashing? Are you willing to have this on your conscience? Any negligent road design lawsuit will go through the City of Kent, not Auburn. What about the age of drivers using this entrance? How many will be older drivers? The proposed project includes a senior care facility. One would presume that at least visitors to this facility will be partly composed of older drivers. For these drivers,the limited sight distance mentioned above would not be sufficient, and this conclusion is supported by road engineering research. The limited sight distances would have to be further elongated to accommodate an older driver. There would probably be enough of them traveling into this proposed site to make this assumption valid and to justify increasing limited sight distances for the driveways. The county is constructing a roundabout at the intersection of 124h and 304'h. This creates another piece of data for engineering considerations of locating a driveway on the proposed project on either 124"' or 304". Vehicles must complete several steering inputs and the drivers must have their eyes fixed ahead of the curve that they are traversing as they negotiate the roundabout. This means their eyes are focused to their right,then to their left, then to their right, before they can look straight ahead as they enter west bound 304" street from the roundabout. Therefore, it will be necessary to determine the point of entry of the vehicles exiting the roundabout onto west bound 304'h street from this intersection Why? Those vehicles must have sufficient sight distance from the driveway, as specified above, in order to avoid a collision with vehicles entering the roadway or entering the proposed development at the driveway on 304'h. The distance maybe shorter than one might assume by looking at drawings of the intersection (which at this point does not include the roundabout). The roundabout will be quite large and will encroach on the adjoining properties at all four corners of this intersection, which is further support for the conclusion that the required sight distance cannot be achieved by placing a driveway on 304' street to service this proposed development. Based on my review of the drawings from King County, I estimate that the vehicles entering east bound 304'h from the roundabout will have traveled 60 feet from the west border of 124" Ave. before they are visible and traveling straight ahead on west bound 304'h. Therefore, any distance measured from the proposed driveway to the east on 304'h,for sight distance, must be reduced by 60 feet. The photos provided to me by the county for the roundabout design show vegetation in July 20, 2007 page 4 of 4 City of Kent -Verdana Commercial the center as well as the borders of this roundabout. There will be median separators on each ' street entering the roundabout. This will certainly reduce the sight distance, from the proposed driveway to the east, to a value less than the minimum required for a level grade. III. There have been no applications for permission to add either of the proposed driveways to the county roads. Lastly, I see no applications for permits to place this driveway onto the county road, either from the state or the county departments of transportation. Therefore, all of the foregoing would be notice to both the city of Kent and the applicant that they must make the proper application to the county to modify the county road with the driveways, and I request written notice of such application to preserve my rights to object to the application. IV. Request for written notice. l further renew my request for written notice of all hearings and action taken on this project. The City of Kent has previously FAILED to provide me with notice,despite my appearing at the prior hearings and writing my name and address on the city's sign in sheets at those hearings, Yours truly Michael J. Pratum F 1157 acre project\EngineeNngUuly 23 cutoff document.wpd t ' I u I Lr -31 ' Sri 8 _ ------------------ - - -- ------ - 1 t ' 1 j t ral I)c �_ount xeport - Ming l,ounty Page I of 1 King County 1995-2005 Historical Counts by Location Average Daily Traffic Volumes ADT File Street Leg 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Number 8014 SE 304 ST E 4196 4101 3809 4281 3129 3775 2935 1050* 1030* 1010* 990* 8014 SE 304 ST E-EB 2052 2034 1879 2221 1593 1883 1528 520* 510* 500* 490* 8014 SE 304 ST E-WB 2144 2067 1930 2060 1536 1892 1407 530* 520* 510* 500* 8014 124 AVE SE N 6064 6304 5910 4368 5132 5299 6716 6750* 6620* 6480* 6340* 8014 124 AVE SE N-NB 3075 3228 3015 2146 2586 2684 3553 3370* 3310* 3240* 3170* 8014 124 AVE SE N-SB 2989 3076 2895 2222 2546 2615 3163 3370* 3310* 3240* 3170* 8014 124 AVE SE S 6776 7097 7080 4773 6015 6187 6190 8270* 8120* 7950* 7780* 8014 124 AVE SE S-NB 3519 3608 3538 2383 3041 3152 3168 4040* 3960* 3880* 3800* 8014 124 AVE SE S-SB 3257 3489 3542 2390 2974 3035 3022 4240* 4160* 4070* 3980* 8014 SE 304 ST W 4319 4422 4304 4597 3214 3898 2406 3120* 3060* 3010* 2940* � 8014 SE 304 ST W-EB 2155 2142 2149 2342 1609 1942 1159 1600* 1570* 1540* 1510* 8014 SE 304 ST W-WB 2164 2280 2155 2255 1605 1956 1247 1520* 1490* 1460* 1430* Projected Count The leg code indicates the direction and location of the traffic count relative to the intersection; for example: N-NB is the leg north of the intersection and the flow is in the north-bound direction. For questions regarding this information please call (206)296-6596 htt ://www.metrokc. ov/kcdot/roads/traffic/count/result2005.as ?ilst=8014&button=Go 2/22/2007 P g P Michael J. pratllm 253-735-5052 30510 122"d PI. S.E. mpratum@comcast.net 1 Auburn, WA 98092 February 12, 2007 RECEIVED Attn: Charlene Anderson FEB 12 2001 Planning Manager, City of Kent CITY OF KENT 220 Fourth Avenue South PLANNING SERVICES Kent, WA 98032 { 3 � Hello: I live across the street from this project. I oppose changing the use of any of the property in question from residential to commercial and/or retail. I am writing about the project referenced above. Although I put my name on the mailing list for notice of any action regarding development of this property,the City of Kent has sent me nothing. I have attended public hearings on this matter in the past. Since I do not get mailed notice of proposed action or actual action, I had to rely on a neighbor for information regarding the above-referenced application for zoning/use modification. My understanding is that the developer has asked the City of Kent to rezone a ' portion of this 157 acre parcel (located in the SE corner of it) to commercial. The developer proposes to place retail/commercial space there. I am against it. My wife is against it. All my neighbors oppose this change. ' First, why? This is a residential area. Why change what has existed for decades? This is home and farm land, not land for storefronts or other commercial activity. There is no pre-existing use which would imply this change is rational or needed. Retail commercial space as close as 3.5 miles has thousands of square feet vacant! There is absolutely no need for commercial activity here. The zoning is currently not allowing commercial/retail use, and unless there is a compelling reason (not merely that the developer makes more money off the use of the property), the application for the rezone should be denied. 304th Street,which borders the south end of the property in question, is considered legally to be a limited sight distance area between the intersection of 124�h and the crest r of the hill just east of Hazelwood Elementary School. Placing retail space in the proposed location would dramatically change the traffic activity on both 124'"Street and 304'"street. The change will result in more accidents and probably result in fatalities. The intersection of 3041" and 124t" has had at least three very serious multiple car accidents in the last 90 days. One required closing the intersection all day while DOT accident reconstruction people completed their work. I suspect there was a fatality in that accident. Have you people considered the likelihood of more people being dramatically injured or killed if you allow zoning for commercial activity here? The wrongful death and negligent road design lawsuits will name the City of Kent as a defendant. And since I can see that intersection from my home there is the possibility that I will be a witness in these lawsuits. Probably at least two of my neighbors will as well. A boy died at this intersection already. A white cross at the northeast corner commemorates his death. Will this change make that more likely to occur in the future? I believe the answer is"yes". Especially with anew high school less than '/z mile away and three other schools within a mile radius. It is not unusual for traffic to greatly exceed the posted speed limit on 1241" Street. I estimate cars traveling 50-60 mph at times, especially those driven by young men. I have had drivers actually pass me and other cars on this street because we were driving 35-40 mph. This undoubtedly contributes to the number of traffic accidents at the intersection of 124'" and 304t". 1 have seen the same problem on 304'" street, especially the westbound traffic. This entire project is going to be annexed not by the City of Kent, but rather by the City of Auburn. This fact has been conceded by City of Kent Council members and other employees and agents of the City of Kent at previous public hearings on this property and is therefore not subject to dispute. The City of Auburn will want to consolidate commercial and retail land use in a manner that is consistent with their own planning and the rules set forth by them, King County and the State of Washington for new development. As such, it would be logical and reasonable and prudent for the City of Kent to conclude that any non-residential or non-agricultural land use that is proposed for the Lea Hill area (which includes the land referenced herein) would need to be consolidated at or near the intersection of 1241"and 3121"streets,where such use has already been established. An impact analysis of that area would be concluded before the City of Auburn would consider widening the scope of land use at that location to more commercial and/or retail use This is perhaps the most compelling reason for denial of the above-referenced application. The logical location for the City of Kent to authorize such activity would be along SE 272"d Street, where there already exists this type of land use and the street has been modified to safely support this type of traffic. Has this developer or the City conducted traffic studies to accurately forecast how a change to commercial zoning on the land in question would affect the traffic speeds, pedestrian safety or flow of traffic through the intersection of 124'" and 304'", or how it will increase the number of vehicles making left turns across oncoming traffic? Can a driver accurately forecast the time it will take for oncoming traffic to intersect with them as they try to make their left turn? Have you studied the demographics of the drivers getting in accidents at the intersection of 124`h and 3041h streets? I wonder if the mean or median age of the drivers might affect the analysis of safety if retail or commercial activity is added to this area? Certainly any commercial space will involve more frequent and transitory traffic, which means more turns whether they be left turns or right turns. Has this been studied? Why bother? Leave the zoning as it is, RESIDENTIAL. Yours uly, Mic ael J. Pratum i 1 l t Moore head,ead, Lydia From: Ron Novak[rpncsn@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:55 PM To: Moorehead, Lydia Subject: Public Comment Verdana PUD Modification February 12, 2007 TO: City of Kent, Planning services Attention: Lydia, Moorehead RE: verdana PUD Modification Application Number: #PUD 2004-4(R) #RPP4-2064281 #ENV 2006-70 #RPSA-2064284 My name is Ron Novak, I reside at 29226 118th Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092; and I wish to continue as a party of record for the proposed verdana PUD (development) Modification. I wish to be informed of all actions throughout the city of Kent's processing of the verdana Development including any SEPA reviews/determinations and any community information meetings. I also wish to be considered a party of record as a member of a local association of concerned citizens known as Save our separators (SOS) . Because of the relatively short period provided for public comment on the proposed PUD , Modification, I have not had the opportunity to review the documents necessary for a comprehensive list of questions and/or concerns pertaining to the PUD Modification. I wish to have additional input in the future, but for now I provide the following comments and concerns: it is my understanding and belief that the specific location of the proposed senior care facility and the (retail) commercial buildings is zoned R-1. Based on prior actions of the city's zoning authority (including specific statements made by the city staff in public forums) local citizens (including myself) understand the only approved use of that property under the R-1 zoning to be for single family residences at a maximum density of one house per acre. How can the City even accept, let alone consider approval of, an application for commercial development on that property? As I discussed with you on 2/2/2007, the fact that the applicant continues to provide additional information and clarifications regarding the proposed commercial development obviates the need for additional opportunities for the public to provide comment. And, as stated above, I plan to provide additional comments during the city's processing of the application for the PUD Modification. Thank you for your consideration of my input. sincerely, Ron Novak Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://vi eogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 1 City of Kent,Washington RECEIVED Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager 220 Fourth Ave. S. FEB v 8 Zap Kent, WA 98032 Ref: Verdana PUD Modification CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES #PUD 204-4R#RPP4-2064284 #ENV 2006-70#RPSA-2064284 February 7,2007 I am writing too put into the public record my comments about the proposed PUD modification that was sent to my home on or about September 27t'2007. My name is Anthony H. Courtney. My home address is 30420 122"d PL. SE, Auburn, WA. 98092. My telephone number is 253-804-2534. I reside directly across the street on the South side of the proposed change. — This proposed change is unique in that the property was owned by the City of Kent,all external roads and zoning is done by the King County and is soon to annexed into the City of Auburn. When the PUD application was first made the South end of property(0421059016)was zoned as urban separator(US), now it seems to be SR1.The proposed change would also necessitate more changes to SE 124`s Ave.and SE 304'h St.. The current Design of the sixty foot diameter traffic roundabout,front access,traffic studies and creek relocation would be a major change from srl to commercial. This is the first mention of a change since the developer took his building allotment and placed it in one section of the 187 acres. The developer now wants to place further changes to a residential neighborhood that is unsuited for commercial activity. Since this plat(0421059016)is in the proposed Auburn PAA,I propose a three way committee be _ established between all three government agencies(Auburn,Kent,and King County+one local citizen)to study the effects of the proposal on the Lea Hill neighborhood. jThis action should not be simply a City of gent decision. Regards, Anthony Courtney RpecQt No41C.— q-'W)4- art-<.c 3p, Ooc�c,u .2 9, S RECEIVED 1 c�' FEB 0 7 1001 p3� CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES .tea cP -oa,,e, ENV 006 --�o 40 fie.. vQ Ada eoore Ve�P �,t Pc,1 D -- src-,� vo �� y z%'��N'��.P/I S •min a���!t�-!.L � - Aall .2�. alit cP .� G'�u � �►-� �l cry. � � A Olt 3/.;? la" /may%�v�. s E j (�As� rX) r-'e'ease- i .ru s S y 1,?q . &� �� s WA ( (2,,�3J 31 P/O Moorehead, Lydia Subject: FW. Commercial Development on Kent Reservoir Site FYI -----original message----- From: city Council sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:51 PM To: Clark, Tim; Harmon, Ron; Raplee, Debbie; Ranniger, Deborah; Thomas, Les; Pulliam, Julie; OBrien, Bob; Watson, Elizabeth subject: FW: commercial Development on Kent Reservoir site ------------------------------------------- From: Ron Novak[SMTP:RPNCSN@YAHOO.COM] sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12: 50:31 PM To: City Council subject: Commercial Development on Kent Reservoir Site Auto forwarded by a Rule Honorable Members of the Kent City council , I know that the upcoming elections have some of you occupied with various important matters, but I have a matter of urgency and local importance to explain/discuss. A Public Hearing dscheduled for November 7, 2007 may result in a Land Use Action that I hope the majority of you will find to be inappropriate. I am concerned about a recent recommendation by the City of Kent Planning Staff to permit commercial development on the City's "Former Reservoir Site". The City had already (February 2006) approved the maximum number of residential units for that 156 acre site based on the residential zoning districts on the site plus allowable PUD bonus units. several of you council members were involved to a significant degree in the city's zoning decision for the Former Impoundment Reservoir site located as an island of annexed City area not contiguous to the city of Kent boundaries. That zoning was adopted via Ordinance No. 3685, on April 20, 2004. In February of 2006 the city and its Hearing Examiner approved an application for the verdana Residential PUD development on that property. That approval pertained to developing the property to accommodate 379 single family residential units. on January 27, 2007 (less than 6 months after breaking ground for the 379 unit PUD) the developer submitted an application for a major modification to the original PUD. That major modification is for the construction of a Neighborhood convenience commercial development within a 13.3 acre tract located within the approximately 91 acres of the Impoundment Reservoir site (156 acres total) which was designated as SR-1/Urban separator. To support its PUD modification, the developer is invoking a provision of the city's PUD regulations which may allow commercial development within PUD's which exceed 100 acres. The City Planning staff issued its "Staff Report" for the Hearing Examiner on October 17, 2007. As I would have predicted (based on past history pertaining to the Impoundment Reservoir Site) the City staff approved the application. The staff did not bother to send out copies to parties of record despite early requests to be provided such (recommendation) results when they are available. Otherwise my concerns would have been conveyed to you much earlier. A Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner is scheduled for November 7, 2007. I am extremely disappointed with the city's conclusions regarding the proposed commercial development on that site because: 1. The commercial development is being place in the urban separator. Based on the city's (and King county's) definition of "urban separator", commercial development should not be allowed in the urban separator area. commercial development simply does not fit the "low density" requirement for urban separators. 2. The February 2006 approval of the 379 units included the transfer of approximately 33 units from the urban separator (southern) part of the PUD site to the i extremely dense SR-3 (northe, o) part of the PUD site. The Ci y's staff report (dated January 11, 2006) prior to the approval of the transferred residential units stated "within the urban Separator Area, the development meets the grouping and separation requirements of Kent City Code; remaining allowable density which could not be accomodated within the SR-1 zone has been transferred to the SR-3 zone." The "remaining allowable density", in fact, could have been accomodated within the 13.3 acre part of the site now being proposed to accommodate the commercial development. At the Public Hearing in January 11, 2006, arguments against such transfer were made because the city's PUD reggulations do not specifically provide for such transfer. The developer argued that the "flexibilty" provisions of the PUD regulations actually encourage such innovative practices and the transfers within the verdana PUD would enhance the PUD by providing additional "open space". 3. Permitting of the NCC district on the site would effectively provide an additional "bonus" to the developer, especially since the area to accommodate the NCC would not even be available had the transfer of development units (described in 2. above) not been approved. If such a commercial development was deemed appropriate on the site, then it would also be appropriate to retract the approval of the equivalent residential units associated with 13.3 acres of urban Separator area. 4. The proposed NCc district does not blend with the character and zoning of either adjoining properties or properties located across the street from the proposed commercial development area. The surrounding property is zoned for residential development and the nearest commercial zoning within the Auburn PAA, surrounding the proposed NCC district (on the Kent property) , is approximately one half mile from the verdana PUD; a convenient enough location for the area. The Kent City Council adoption of ordinance No. 3685 was done with particular concern for the environmentally sensitive character of the Impoundment Reservoir site. As stated in the text of ordinance No. 3685 "During the April 6, 2004, City Council meeting council adopted comprehensive plan designations of urban separator (US) for approximately the south 91 acres and single Family Residential , three units per acre (SF-3) , for approximately the north 65 acres of the Annexation Area..At the same time, Council adopted zoning designations of single Family Residential , one unit per acre (SR-1) , for approximately the south 91 acres and single Family Residential , 3.63 units per acre (SR- 3) , for approximately the north 65 acres of the Annexation Area...council acknowledged during the April 6, 2004, meeting that the Annexation Area is within the urban Growth Area, but adopted the above comprehensive plan and zoning designations due to the environmentally sensitive systems that exist within the Annexed Area. There is a large highly classed wetland that drains into salmonid habitat and forms the headwaters of Olson Creek. The Urban Separator designation creates open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental , visual , recreational and wildlife benefits." I believe it is illogical to conclude that the City Council ever intended the inclusion of such additional (non-residential) development as a Neighborhood Convenience Commercial _ District (NCC) on any part of the Impoundment Reservoir Property. KCC 15,03.010 states "NCC districts shall be located in areas designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan." when the verdana Proposed PUD was vested (September 2004) no part of the Impoundment Reservoir Property was designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan. Establishment of a NCC within the verdana PUD area is unnecessary because the city's comprehensive Plan has provided for NCC's in other areas of the City. Furthermore, creating a NCC on the south 91 acres of the verdana PUD area would undermine the fundamental purpose of why that area was designated as urban separator by ordinance No. 3685 in the first place. This whole matter of the major modification to the verdana PUD raises the concept of "bait and switch" to a level I would never have imagined except from the most unscrupulous of characters. You folks on the Council should be offended that much of the effort expended to reach the difficult decision of zoning the property as provided in ordinance No. 3685 is now being trampled. The City of Kent PUD regulations do not guarantee a developer the right to include a NCC within a PUD. KCC 15.08.400 B. 4. states "In residential PUDs of one hundred (100) acres or more located in SR zones, ...commercial uses MAY be permitted." (emphasis added) In this instance, granting such permission is a gross error for the reasons explained above, and such action violates the purpose and intent of the urban separator designation as brought about through the deliberation and adoption of Kent ordinance No. 3685. The problem is that the Hearing Examiner pretty much always agrees with the staff Report. II urge you to take the action necessary to withdraw and amend the Planning staff recommendations of its October 17, 2007 report prior to the November 7, 2007 Public 1 2 Hearing. If you have any q6-,tions for me or would like to U.scuss my concerns personally, I can be reached at (phone) 253-939-5191. Sincerely, Ron Novak 29226 118th Ave. SE Auburn, WA 98092 p.s. The city references for the verdana PUD Modification are: #PUD 2004-4 (R) (KIVA #RPP4-2064281) #CE 2007-1 (KIVA #RPP3-2071896) Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail .yahoo.com I T r 3 COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN Float: V. Lynn Design, LI-C RECEIVED Vonc1.-r Marsland - 0%rywr, hawriur Desiper 12129 SE,303xx1 Q. Aubum, NVA 98092 Nov o 7 2007 CcU 506.769.0925 _ 1'ax 253.288.0677 `i.yttnllesigliLL(,'@coincasLiieL CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES To: Name: Lydia Moorehead Fax#: 253&564i ih November 7,2007 Dear Lydia-- Good morning. I just left you a voice mail and thought I'd follow it with a fax of the referenced letter on behalf of Crystal Meadows in regard to the Verdana Village at Bridges Landscaping Plan. If you have a moment, if you could please give me a quick call to confirm the 1:30pm meeting at Kent City Hall in Chambers West is still on the schedule for today, I would appreciate it. I'll look forward to meeting you. Thank you, -Vonda L. Marsland Fax Ca wr 1-1W +2Pg-m I-d 1/Qn007cr7 .......... --- _ RECEIVED ��� 2Q01 November 1,2007 f City of Kent bearing Examiner NOV c/o Lydia Moorehead, Planner CITY OF KENT Kent Planning Services PLANNING SERVICES Q \ 1 AL T 220 Fourth Avenue South � " " u Kent, WA 98032 "am"bAtbot P.O. Box 7351 Reference: V erdana PUD Modification—Village at Bridges Covington,WA 98042 Request for Improvement to Landscaping Plan Crystal Meadows is a residential neighborhood located immediately adjacent to the northwest comer of SE 304`b Street and 120 Avenue SE in Auburn,which is the location for the proposed Village at Bridges. The homeowners of Crystal Meadows were dismayed to learn that a proposal for"a variety of retail,commercial and office uses"has been approved in such close proximity to our homes. While we truly feel development of this type is inappropriate so close to our homes, we realize that we are basically powerless to prevent it from occurring. Therefore,we are hereby submitting a request for an improvement to the project's landscape plan. Upon reviewing the preliminary landscape plan for the Village at Bridges, it appears that no form ' of landscaping has been planned for the area between the proposed office buildings and our neighborhood. We are requesting that a"landscaping barrier"be added to the plan. (See attached sketch.) It would serve as a visual and noise barrier and would help offset the obvious negative impact on our neighborhood. We ask that you give this request for a landscaping barrier serious consideration. Thank you. Respectfully submitted by the following residents of Crystal Meadows: nq ,a ,....� _.._._._... __.. --• •-- -- •- --.. df �. c " tea[ � 'V •�.." �` � :7. "�h�' � •���. Am Arm I Y ii' tj jo J i a_ c DOI ILL 1 _ ' ti �� . � �• raw 1{�I ��. \ ♦pper // ,` �• � `�a Kent City Council Meeting Date February 5, 2008 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: WEST FENWICK PARK IMPROVEMENTS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening was held on January 29, 2008, with nine bids received. The apparent low bid was submitted by Rodarte Construction, Inc. for the amount of $635,100, excluding Washington State Sales Tax (WSST). The Engineer's estimate is $645,000, excluding WSST. Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to enter into an agreement with Rodarte Construction Inc, in the amount of $64S-,QQ&to complete the West Fenwick Park Improvements Project. (,3�j� /o e i 3. EXHIBITS: Bid tab 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund P20061 Amount $645,000.00 Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember % 'V moves, Councilmember A,, seconds to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Rodarte Construction Inc. for the amount of $641-,'70`0', plus Washington State Sales Tax to complete the West Fenwick Park Improvements Project. DISCUSSION:— ACTION: -�nx-, ( Council Agenda Item No. 8A • � KENT W A S H I N G T O N BID TABULATION FORM KENT PARKS, RECREATION &COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON PROJECT: PR 2008 01 NAME: West Fenwick Park Improvements DATE: January 29, 2008 DUE: 10:00 a.m. OPENED: 10:15 a.m. Bidder: Total Lump Sum Bid: Addendum #1 : in dollars 1. Rodarte Construction, Inc. $635,100.00 Yes 2. Mayer Construction Company, Inc. $639,942.00 Yes 3. Precision Earthworks, Inc. $672,750.00 Yes 4. Serpanok Construction, Inc. $676,000.00 Yes 5. A-1 Landscaping & Construction, Inc. $687,786.00 Yes 6. Marine Vacuum Service $723,848.00 Yes 7. Wade Perrow Construction, LLC $728,000.00 Yes 8. JV Constructors, Inc. $737,000.00 Yes 9. Construct Co. $837,000.00 Yes CONSULTANT ESTIMATE: $645,000.00 ,I 1 KEVN7 W A S H I N O T O N OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 2007 Committee Members Present. Debbie Raplee, Deborah Ranniger and Tim Clark The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 4:03 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2007 Debbie Raplee moved to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2007, Operation Committee meeting. Deborah Ranniger seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. ' 2. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2007 Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the vouchers for November 30, 2007, for approval. Deborah Ranniger moved to approve the vouchers dated November 30, 2007. Debbie Raplee seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 3. WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION GRANT Police Chief Steve Strachan presented the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant. Chief Strachan advised that The Kent Police Department received notice from Washington Traffic Safety Commission of reimbursable grant funds for Night Time Seat Belt Enforcement for the period of October 22 through November 5, 2007. The funds are designated for overtime salary, wages and benefits of commissioned personnel who participated in the enforcement. Debbie Raplee moved to recommend that Council accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant in the amount of $2,860.00 and place this on the Consent Calendar of the December 11, 2007, City Council Meeting. Deborah Ranninger seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 4. PC REPLACEMENT PLAN, 2007/2008 Information Technology Technical Services Manager Paul Dunn presented the PC Replacement Plan, 2007/2008. Mr. Dunn advised that the City has approximately 715 desktop computers on a 4 - year replacement cycle. In 2006, the IT department replaced 196 desktop systems as part of our annual refreshment cycle. This year, the City is ready to replace approximately 210 computers. When this project is completed, the City's desktop computer fleet will be running at a minimum (CPU) speed of 2 gHz. Additionally, this replacement cycle will install computers that are Windows® Vista ready. When this project is completed, just over one half of the City's PC Fleet will be ready to operate on Windows® Vista Operating System. 2 Operations Committee Minutes December 4, 2007 Page: 2 This replacement includes monitors. Monitors have not been replaced on a standard rotation, and many are up to 10 years old. New replacement PC's will come with monitors this year. The budget impact is from the CIP Computer Life Cycle Replacement Plan which is already allocated and is estimated at $295,000. The Committee raised questions and Mr. Dunn addressed those questions. Deborah Ranninger moved to that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign purchase orders for replacement computers and monitors and vendor services not to exceed $295,000. Debbie Raplee seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 5. VOICE OVER IP TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR COURT AND IT Information Technology Technical Services Manager Paul Dunn presented the Voice Over IP Telephone System for Court and IT. Mr. Dunn advised that the Kent Municipal Court leases space and Telecommunications Services from King County at the Aukeen Court Facility. The City's telephone system is connected to the leased telephone system at courts, and often experiences problems due to the aging hardware from the County and limitations of the system. In anticipation of a possible acquisition of this building from the County, and in light of the existing limitations of the present system, the City IT Department desires to implement a VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) telephone system at the Kent Municipal Courts Facility. This implementation will provide a full featured telephone system that is completely compatible with the City's existing Nortel telephone system. In the event that the City opts to move away from this facility, this VoIP telephone system can be relocated with ease to any new facility the City occupies. The overall cost of this project is planned to be approximately $65,000. Funding for the project is from a conversion of Telecommunications Operating Budget Surplus and a portion from IT Tech Plan II - 2007. The IT department has continued over the past 2 years to apply upgrades and improvements to the City's telephone system in order to keep it compatible with improvements in telecommunications technology, such as VoIP. The Information Technology Department will install VoIP telephones as part of this project in order to cross train and best prepare to support further VoIP implementations for the City of Kent. This proposed extension of services is in alignment with the IT Department's Telecommunications Strategy. Mr. Dunn addressed the Committee's questions. Debbie Raplee moved that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign purchase orders to implement the Voice over IP Telephone System for the Kent Municipal Court and Information Technology Department, for an amount not to exceed $66,000. Deborah Ranniger seconded, which passed 3-0. 6. NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE SALARY ADJUSTMENT PROCESS - RESOLUTION City Attorney Tom Brubaker presented the Non-Represented Employee Salary Adjustment Process - Resolution. Mr. Brubaker advised that the Committee Chair and Council Member Raplee have requested the Law Department prepare a resolution for Council consideration which outlines the process for conducting group comparative salary surveys and implementing the results of those surveys. The proposed resolution would provide such a process. the Operations Committee recommended Council adopt the resolution, with one change to provide that the Mayor has authority to conduct and implement salary surveys for single job classifications so long as there are 5 or less non-represented employees in that classification. ' 3 Operations Committee Minutes December 4, 2007 Page: 3 Debbie Raplee moved to amend section 3 of the proposed resolution from 7 or less ' non represented employees to 5 or less non-represented employees. Deborah Ranninger second, which passed 3-0. Deborah Ranniger moved to recommend Council adopt the proposed resolution which relates to group comparative salary surveys for non-represented employees. Debbie Raplee seconded, which passed 3-0. i7. WRITE-OFFS FOR 2007 Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the Write-Offs for 2007. Mr. Nachlinger advised that The Washington State Auditor's Office has recommended that the City write-off uncollectible accounts receivables that are over one year old. The write-off request is for $22,815.95 on uncollectible accounts from 2006. There is no budget impact resulting from these write-offs as the amount has been fully reserved as a bad debt in previous years. The breakdown of the write offs is $3,466.76 for accounts receivable and $19,349.19 for permits. The Committee raised questions regarding the storm connection permits and Public Works Director Larry Blanchard addressed those questions. Debbie Raplee moved to recommend that the Operations Committee authorize the write-offs of miscellaneous accounts receivable, utility billing and permit charges totaling $22,815.95 for accounts from 2006. Deborah Ranniger seconded, which passed 3-0. ' S. FINANCIAL ADVISORY SELECTION-APPROVAL ' Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the Financial Advisory Selection-Approval. Mr. Nachlinger advised that with the upcoming bond issue for the Events Center as well as other potential issues, the City will be best served by a financial advisor the help coordinate the ' issuance of debt, assist in negotiations on the sale of bonds and the purchase of bond insurance, assist in dealings with the rating agencies, and to verify the pricing of the bonds to be issued. An RFQ was sent to six firms for the position of financial advisor and responses were received from four of them. An analysis was done on capabilities and price. The final analysis was that PFM could clearly do the work at the highest price and my concern was that the City might get lost in a firm that size. DM could do most of the work contemplated in the RFQ but without a trading desk my concern was the ability to accurately track market conditions on the day of sale to insure ' the best rates on the bonds. SNW could do the work, had the trading desk, and had expertise in the local area and was cheaper than other firms Mr. Nachlinger advised that there is no budget impact resulting from this engagement as the payment will only accrue upon the issuance of the bonds and will be charged as a cost of issuance of the debt. Deborah Ranniger moved to recommend that the Operations Committee authorize the selection of Seattle Northwest Securities as Financial Advisor for the City for a period of five years. Debbie Raplee seconded, which passed 3-0. 4 Operations Committee Minutes ' December 4, 2007 Page: 4 9. UNDERWRITING TEAM SELECTION-APPROVAL Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the Underwriting Team Selection-Approval. Mr. Nachlinger advised that with the upcoming bond issue for the Events Center as well as other potential issues, the City will be best served by a team of bond underwriters to provide the widest distribution of the issued bonds to the marketplace. The team of three will provide two national firms and a regional firm to access both the local and national markets. A RFQ was sent to eight firms for the position of underwriter of the City's bonds (see attached). Upon reviewing the responses to the RFQ, Lehman Bros. was selected for its access to the institutional New York markets; Wachovia, who recently merged with A. G. Edwards, has a nationwide retail distribution network through its banking arm; and Piper-Jaffrey has expertise in the sale and marketing of Washington debt as well as a local cadre of clients. Together, these firms give the City access to ' all facets of the market and the City will be well served by the team. These is no budget impact resulting from this engagement as the payment will only accrue upon the issuance of the bonds and will be charged as a cost of issuance of the debt. , Debbie Raplee moved to recommend that the Operations Committee authorize the selection of Lehman Brothers, Wachovia Securities and Piper-Jaffrey as the underwriting team for the City for a period of five years. Deborah Ranniger seconded, which passed 3 0. 10. CPA 2008-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ORDINANCE Planning Manage Charlene Anderson presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Ordinance. Ms. Anderson advised that Kent City Code allows update of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan concurrent with the adoption of the City budget. The Capital Facilities Element includes the City's 6-year financing plan, which is ' updated annually. The City Council held the required public hearing on this proposed update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan on October 16, 2007, at the same time as the second public hearings for the budget and the City's 6-year Capital Improvement Plan. 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 GMA 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 needed in the future. There is not budget impact in this regard Deborah Ranniger moved to recommend updating the Capital Facilities Element of the , Kent Comprehensive Plan to include the 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Plan, as recommended by staff. Debbie Raplee seconded, which passed 3-0. 11. 2007 PROPERTY TAX LEVY ESTABLISHED-ORDINANCES Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the 2007 Property Tax Levy Established-Ordinances. Mr. Nachlinger advised that the proposed ordinances establish the actual 2007 property tax levy for the 2008 budget. The levy includes the 1% increase over last year's levy and increases resulting from new construction, increases in state assessed property, other adjustments and annexed properties. State law requires a separate ordinance to authorize any increase in property tax. The first ordinance authorizes an increase in the regular property tax to 1% over 5 Operations Committee Minutes December 4, 2007 Page: 5 ' the previous maximum allowed tax levy. The second ordinance levies the tax for 2008 collection. The current estimates for the 2008 budget are 26,564.936 for the regular levy and $600,000 for the voted debt levy, for a total levy estimate of $27,164,936. Final numbers are pending receipt of the assessed valuation from King County. Debbie Raplee moved to recommend council adopt the proposed ordinances which authorize and establish an increase in the 2007 property tax levy for collection in 2008, final numbers subject to minor adjustment upon receipt of the assessed valuation from King County. Deborah Ranniger seconded, which passed 3-0. 12. 2008 BUDGET ADOPTION ORDINANCE Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the 2008 Budget Adoption Ordinance. Mr. Nachlinger advised that this ordinance adopts the 2008 budget. The budget to be adopted is summary in Exhibit A of the ordinance. It includes the Preliminary Budget document as amended by Exhibit B, which in includes all adjustments made to the Preliminary Budget since its original publication. Chair Tim Clark provided an update on the Lodging Tax Advisory Board. Deborah Ranniger moved to recommend adoption of an ordinance adopting the 2008 budget. Debbie Raplee seconded, which passed 3-0. ' 13. WATER AND DRAINAGE RATES AND FEES - ORDINANCE ' Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the Water and Drainage Rates and Fees - Ordinance. Mr. Nachlinger advised that at its November 20, 2007, meeting, the Operations Committee considered a number of proposed amendments to existing fees established in the Kent City Code. After discussing the matter, the Operations Committee made recommendations and requested staff prepare a draft ordinance incorporating those recommendations. A draft ordinance is attached for the Committee's consideration, and if acceptable, staff requests that the Committee recommend adoption of the ordinance to the full City Council at its December 11, 2007, meeting. The proposed ordinance budget impact would be additional revenue of approximately $41,000 due to an increase in water service turn off and delinquent utility fees, Additional revenue of approximately $240,000 due to establishment of inspection fees for the Cross-Connection Control ' Program, and additional revenue of approximately $207,894 due to an increase in the drainage basin fees. The Committee raised questions regarding the importance of the notification process to the citizens and customers and Public Works Director Larry Blanchard addressed those questions and concerns. Debbie Raplee moved to recommend Council adopt the proposed ordinance which ' amends various water and drainage fees and rates, which shall be assessed and collected beginning in the 2008 fiscal year budget. Deborah Ranniger seconded, which passed 3-0. 6 Operations Committee Minutes December 4, 2007 Page: 6 14. EVENTS CENTER - CONTINGENT LOAN AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT-ORDINANCE Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the Events Center - Contingent Loan and Support Agreement-Ordinance. Mr. Nachlinger advised that with its adoption of Ordinance No. 2852 on August 7, 2007, the City Council created the City of Kent Special Events Center Public Facilities District ("District"). Subsequently, the City and the District entered into an interlocal agreement concerning the financing, design, construction, ownership, and operation of the Special Events Center. In accordance with state law, the District has agreed to issue sales tax and revenue bonds to pay for a portion of the capital costs of the Special Events Center. The Contingent Loan ' and Support Agreement, which the proposed ordinance would authorize the Mayor to sign, provides that in consideration for the District dedicating all its sales tax revenue toward repayment of the bonds, the City will make gross revenue from the Special Events Center available to the District for the payment of remaining debt service on the District's revenue bonds. In return for the District's revenue commitment to make bond payments, the agreement also provides that the City will pay for the operation and maintenance expenses of the Special Events Center and will provide credit support for the bonds in order to allow the District to obtain financing at the lowest interest rates available. Mr. Nachlinger further advised that there is no budget impact anticipated with this ordinance. Deborah Ranniger moved to recommend Council adopt the proposed ordinance which ' approves issuance of special events center sales tax and revenue bonds by the Kent Special Events Center Public Facilities District, and authorize the Mayor to sign a , Contingent Loan and Support Agreement and related documents and to take necessary action. Debbie Raplee seconded, which passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Renee Cameron Operations Committee Secretary 1 ' KEN T Wes„ wora„ City of Kent Parks and Human ServicesCommittee Meeting Minutes of November 15, 2007 Council Present: Chair Debbie Ranniger, Debbie Raplee, Bob O'Brien Call to Order: Debbie Ranniger called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ' Item 1: Approve Minutes of October 18, 2007 Debbie Raplee moved to approve the minutes of October 18, 2007. Bob O'Brien seconded and the motion passed 3-0. Item 2: 4Culture 2007 King County Performance Network Grant — Accept and A►nend Budget Lori Hogan explained that two new works of art were presented as a part of the celebration of the 25"' anniversary of Herbert Bayer's Earthworks at Mill Creek. She ' noted that 4Culture awarded the Arts Commission and the City Art Program $8,000 in a reimbursement grant to present those works as a part of their 2007 Site Specific King County Performance Network. She requested that those funds be accepted and the 2007 budget be amended as appropriate. O'Brien moved to recommend Council accept the 4Culture grant for $8,000 to support 2007 King County Performance Network projects and approve the expenditure of funds in the City Art budget. Raplee seconded and the motion carried. Item 3: Lease Agreement Between Communities in Schools and Kent Commons - Authorize ' Lori Hogan explained that the Communities in Schools program was previously housed in Covington City Hall in a space which is no longer available to them. She ' said they have asked for 107 sq. ft. of office space in Kent Commons, and requested approval for the Mayor to sign an agreement with them to lease the space at no charge. Raplee moved to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Communities in Schools-Kent to lease office space at Kent Commons. O'Brien seconded and the motion carried. Item 4: King Conservation District Grant for Arbor Heights 360 Park ' - Authorize Jeff Watling explained that this is a reimbursement grant for over $13,000 to help plant berms and rockery within the park. He requested that the Mayor be authorized to sign and approve the expenditure of these funds, and noted that 10% of the grant will be held until completion of the project. O'Brien moved to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the King Conservation Grant Agreement for $13,373.69 to fund the Arbor Heights 360 Park Planting Project, and to approve the expenditure of funds in the Arbor Heights 360 budget. Raplee seconded and the motion carried. 2 Item•5: Resolution for Grant Application to Fund West Fenwick Park Irnprovements Project - Adopt ' Jeff Watling explained that the project includes parking lot improvements, restroom replacement, development of a basketball court, and play area improvements, and ' that the $75,000 grant would assist in funding basketball court improvements. He requested authorization to proceed with the application. Raplee moved to recommend Council adopt a resolution authorizing a grant application to the , Recreation and Conservation Office, Youth Athletic Facility Program, to pursue funding for the West Fenwick Park Improvements Project, upon review by the City Attorney. O'Brien seconded and the motion carried. , Item 6: What's Happening in Parks Jeff Watling explained the following: The Parks Committee does not usually meet in December, due to the holiday. Kent is a finalist to receive funding from The Kellogg Foundation for it's 10-year Food ' and Fitness Initiative to support healthy choices, access to healthy food, and access to safe places for physical activity. ' The holiday carousel will be set up on November 26 and will be open from December 8"' through the 31't at Towne Square Plaza, and will be run by Kent Youth and Family Services and SKCAC Industries. ' Concrete has been poured at Towne Square Plaza and the water feature is taking shape. The permit should be issued soon, the Rotary ball is due in December, and ' the project should be complete in February or March. A sampling of holiday events include the Christmas Run/Walk, Art Fete, and Boy , Scout Tree Recycling. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 1 r ' 1 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES ' January 7, 2008 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair, Deborah Ranniger and Committee Member ' Ron Harmon were present. Councilmember Tim Clark sat in for Debbie Raplee who was absent due to illness. The meeting was called to order at 5:08 p.m. ITEM 1- Approval of Minutes Dated December 3, 2007 Committee Member Clark moved to approve the minutes of December 3, 2007. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 2— Condemnation Ordinance for W James, 41h Av. & Cloudy St. Improvement Projects: Deputy Public Works Director, Tim LaPorte summarized that in order to construct the West James Street and 4th Avenue North/West Cloudy Street improvement projects it will be necessary to acquire private property from fourteen (14) property owners. He also stated that this ordinance provides the mechanism to proceed, if necessary, to condemnation on those properties for which typical methods of negotiation have failed. He further explained that this item went to committee in November where photos where shown of the area. In order to keep the project on schedule it is necessary to get approval for this ordinance. ' Clark moved to recommend adoption of a Condemnation Ordinance obtaining needed right- of-way for the West James Street and 4th Avenue North/West Cloudy Street Improvements Projects. Harmon abstained from the vote as he had contact with one of the property owners. The motion was seconded by Ranniger and passed 2-0. Item will be sent to the ' full Council under Other Business ITEM 3 — Project Construction Agreements with Puget Sound Energy, Qwest and Comcast ' for the West James Street and 41h Avenue North Improvements: Deputy Public Works Director, Tim LaPorte summarized that in order to construct the West James Street and 4th Avenue North improvements it will be necessary to underground the power, telephone and cable facilities and install a new gas main to the Events Center. Harmon moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Construction Agreements with Puget Sound Energy, Qwest and Comcast for the conversion of overhead facilities to underground for the West James Street and 4th Avenue North Improvements upon concurrence of the language there in by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Clark and passed 3-0. ITEM 4 — Right-of-Way for the West James Street Improvements: Deputy Public Works Director, Tim LaPorte stated that the City of Kent owns the Events Center property (Kent Commons, Park Property). Right-of-way dedication of a portion of this property is necessary in order to install franchise utilities across the Events Center frontage along James Street. The street widening is part of the Events Center project, which is scheduled to be constructed in the spring/summer of 2008. ' Clark moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the deed dedicating right-of-way for the West James Street Improvements. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed ' 3-0. ITEM 5 — Sewer Master Plan Consultant Services Contract: ' Design Engineering Manager, Mark Howlett, summarized that the consultant contract agreement with URS is for flow analysis, future flow requirements, conveyance system capacity requirements, wastewater discharge reduction, disposal options, reclaimed water usage and cost estimating. He further explained that the Sanitary/Sewer Master Plan is a comprehensive review of the City's sanitary sewer system and is currently being updated. Page 1 of 2 U\PWCommittee\Minutes\PWMinutes 0 07 08 doc 2 ' PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES January 7, 2008 Harmon moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract with URS for ' engineering consultant services for the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan in the amount of $139,117.28, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Clark and passed 3-0. ITEM 6-Transportation Master Plan (TMP)/Adoption: Larry Blanchard; Public Works Director thanked Cathy Mooney, Senior Transportation Planner and Steve Mullen, Transportation Engineering Manager among others for their hard work on the TMP. Senior Transportation Planner, Cathy Mooney gave a very brief introduction of the TMP and turned the , podium over to Don Samdahl, of Mirai Associates who gave an informational PowerPoint presentation and summarized that the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is a culmination of a two-year effort to set a vision for transportation in the City of Kent over the next twenty five years. The Plan attempts to ' accomplish this vision by examining the multi-model transportation needs-starting with the street system, which is the backbone for moving people and goods throughout the City. For more details go to the City's website at http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/transportation/TMP/index. Committee members congratulated those that worked so hard on the TMP for all their hard work and for putting together , an easy to read document. Harmon moved to recommend that the Public Works Committee approve the Draft ' Transportation Master Plan and forward it to the full City Council for final adoption. The motion was seconded by Clark and passed 3-0. ITEM 7— TMP Funding/Discussion Only: Randy Young of Henderson Young and Company, went over all of the options for the funding of the TMP in a PowerPoint presentation. ' Information Only No Motion Required ITEM 8-Set Next Public Works Committee Meeting: The next Public Works Committee was set for Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., due to the ' observance of the Martin Luther King holiday. Adiourned: The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Cheryl Viseth, , Public Works Committee Secretary Page 2of2 U\PWCommittee\Minutes\PWMinutes 01 07 08 doc ' CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. 1 i EXECUTIVE SESSION 1 ! ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION 1 ! 1 i 1 ! ! 1 1 1 !