HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 08/02/2011 CITY OF KENT
City Council Meeting
Agenda
August 2, 2011
Mayor Suzette Cooke
Jamie Perry, Council President
r 4,
C®uncilmembers
Elizabeth Albertson
Ron Harmon
Dennis Higgins
Deborah Ranniger
by h%U�
Debbie Raplee
N'¢
Les Thomas
homas C,-ry CLERK
KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
KENT August 2, 2011
W>_HI. �N Council Chambers
MAYOR: Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBERS: Jamie Perry, President
Elizabeth Albertson Ron Harmon Dennis Higgins
Deborah Ranniger Debbie Raplee Les Thomas
**********************************************************************
COUNCIL WORKSHOP CANCELLED
**********************************************************************
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
5.00 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. Yangzhou Sister City Students
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Previous Meeting and Workshop - Approve
B. Payment of Bills - Approve
C. Excused Absence for Councilmember Raplee - Approve
D. August 16 Council Meeting Time Change - Approve
E. Administration of Claims Ordinance - Adopt
F. General Business License Ordinance - Adopt
G. Clark Springs Water Supply System/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
Implementing Agreement - Authorize
H. Interlocal Agreement for 2011 Citywide Large Culvert & Storm Pipe
Cleaning - Authorize
I. Consultant Services Agreement for Green River Levee Certification,
SR 516 to S. 231st Way Levee Projects - Authorize
(Continued)
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED
S. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Kentara Rezone Ordinance (Quasi-Judicial) — Adopt
9. BIDS
A. Central Avenue South Sidewalk Replacement and Storm Water
Forcemain — Award and Authorize
B. 132nd Avenue SE Asphalt Grinding — Award and Authorize
10. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
12. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's
Office and the Kent Regional Library. The Agenda Summary page and
complete packet are on the City of Kent web site at www.choosekent.com
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.
N L m ro S D.O 0--o
ma`s c3 ¢uv EE a� vw-% cow °-au
2 tw CVG _ ro3 � V -O> C a `4.'lEG1�O � CUroTU T
o °c_°eov o � 5 ° oEmcm '= s> EasN � av
.�. `2 J o u E av" °' u v v E
• •-"�-6� A m�-o�c`v omo ?. eon uo �' � `oo o.� O i� C>
a'u �a LFE-o oroO«, `m
o n
ociU ro�.E c� �� m `a Eca E ua000coti�Y E� JNyO3m _
• -° m'a °i L v� a J J-o :E roY N o E 3 o E'm E u ,m�o E _c
¢ b �QC 2iroo.� P� >o.Vro aom'cE 5 .2— UE
v
.gym W o ",y5 WWA
EO
EE A Z� Zro= v= � coroy o� co o n m U o
a m o 0
ow�� uJ nd� sL.KEa'u�« `�' yEv mEU m v
m Y a > >.�_L E E o m y o-a
s o pc 0 , m" c E omu a - I c o o` er L `° y Ups so O Ep ro T
mU OY UuN3M J coo ua-y, o � �= aU Nx o � UEro oa �� Eoo cc Coro
a v >-.. o � u O 0Ec ON E a -- �E o N `-�a E�ii-- �n mLin aE-o
o� µ� aLroLU �° roovL�'EE do'cc v m`F- v vurj mJ S � °
N N 2 0 a N U L«J, O p C N ul O L _ N L CO
O U _ 2 C O W L C E U�+ J'J Y C U a H C i C T C U >` -� >. a~G
aay. 0 �i. Y T° .TiVN x• Gma OS Cp v-6 IQJb E_JE N00O-6 U CmTiK C'O M TE
3 y > C F a y c=L= a 0 O,B N a H N m E
c v m o-E oZ-0 3 U Es u v m m N E+' � v-o = L 3v- c °
• ._. o L Fo E I-«._ -D E E r -o > v-o E N y r o-c = m-L c a m:2 y d F p c
� vE�Sn(pEGtroa> 0M �v-_�=acav=aao: > Occ Lva ..scpU amv° o
o E o EroNoc._
EO O OE« `V E 'W F c�uE m�o
L � roSYpOv
Ha2 U t2UUUm LjiFU a N"a' b.•�°�nyE=NU L3y 2E`mo ya.m.
U O.��
l�'o
m
L = •Zu
d O W z
Z J J ii
i ro
a rJ > 3 3
a
Uoa by o `c, v �^i ® unite
N '�Nn U
V J b NO -O JO ro U O cD J V cC (�
c
L U Od C E -D _TQ 1 LL F J ry• .+T' O •N'
f J m E
W SyU
m E
m u'a
a D a rJ
E
°. °c° 3 � -ac o Lrov` ,uo' ' rovro�
o� c y ro oa ; u -ro EN ro« a Eci
• .c m>,m= y J -69 Jo ` E 'tlro«:a
• o f o o > e o ro c y m ro c m p v v m
p'
(')L._ N > •_ v No L� Nmuy
s veeom roL � 3o c v¢ e._ vv ao�`-"' eo
cw� 3 ovA oYNs m _
mp`-'vp
aLv- Cv a Y L•B p .. a y._ ya „ U >c CVYNt °
roC
I
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
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) Yangzhou Sister City Students
PUBLIC COMMENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar 7A - 7B
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through I.
Discussion
Action
7A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the workshop and regular Council meeting of July 19,
2011.
7B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through June 30 and paid on June 30
after auditing by the Operations Committee on July 19, 2011.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/30/11 Wire Transfers 4662-4681 $1,730,221.99
6/30/11 Regular Checks 654480-654612 5,813,760.86
Void Checks 65449, 654597, 654608
654618, 654647 (18,712.79)
6/30/11 Use Tax Payable 5,160.32
$7,530,430.38
Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 16 through June 30 and paid on
July 5, 2011:
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/5/11 Checks 323727-323945 $ 157,583.23
7/5/11 Advices 285018-285678 1,262,549.37
$1,420,132.60
y RCN i Kent City Council Meeting
July 19, 2011
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by
Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Harmon, Higgins, Perry, Ranniger,
and Raplee. Councilmember Thomas was excused from the meeting. (CFN-198)
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
A. From Council, Administration, Staff. (CFN-198) At the request of the Council
President, it was agreed to hear Public Comments before the Public Hearing.
B. From the Public. (CFN-198) The Veterans and Human Services Levy was added
to the agenda at the request of members of the audience.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recognition. (CFN-198) No recognition was given.
B. Community Events. (CFN-198) Raplee announced upcoming events at ShoWare.
C. National Night Out. (CFN-122) Mayor Cooke declared August 2, 2011, National
Night Out in the City of Kent, and Public Education Specialist Sara Wood explained the
program and encouraged residents to participate.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Medical Marijuana Moratorium. (CFN-1320) City Attorney Tom Brubaker
explained the history of the issue, and pointed out that city staff has been given clear
direction to develop new regulations and to end the moratorium as soon as possible.
He explained the process for moving forward after this hearing as follows:
• City staff will develop options for regulating collective gardens and other statutorily
allowed medical marijuana facilities
• Staff will prepare a motion for Council rather than the Land Use & Planning Board
to hold the public hearing, and to develop regulations directly through the Council's
Economic & Community Development Committee
• Staff will bring to the committee a range of regulatory options including both
restrictive and non-restrictive approaches for Council to consider
• The committee will indicate where it would like Kent's regulations to fall within the
range of more restrictive to less restrictive options
• After receiving direction from the committee, staff will develop specific regulations
based on that policy decision
• Staff will bring a final set of regulations back to the committee for recommendation
to the full Council for passage
Brubaker emphasized that the only subject for discussion during tonight's hearing is
the implementation of the moratorium ordinance, and outlined the rules for speaking.
Upon Albertson's request, Mayor Cooke began the hearing by calling on speakers from
Kent before calling on speakers from other cities.
1
Kent City Council Minutes July 19, 2011
The following people spoke about the need for safe and convenient access to medical
marijuana, the reluctance to have a criminal record because they need medical
marijuana, and the benefits of medical marijuana in easing severe pain. Some stated
that it is not necessary to look at other cities and states, as the dispensaries in Kent
are located in convenient places away from residences and schools, and are profes-
sional and safe. All agreed that it is important to end the moratorium quickly and that
dispensaries should be on bus lines. Mr. Lambert and others invited the Mayor and
Councilmembers to visit their businesses and to provide information. Mr. Martinelli
said individuals should be held accountable and that these tactics by the City are
wrong. Mr. Hiatt urged the City to re-examine its position on the moratorium and said
he will take Kent to court if they persist in passing this moratorium. He added that he
has advised his clients that they can re-open on Monday, July 25, as long as they are
in compliance with Section 4.03 of 50.73, which is the Community Garden provision.
Desiree Boshart 21803 108 Avenue SE, Kent
Robby Shaver 25032 Lake Fenwick Drive, Kent
Dawn Nelson 10046 SE 248, Kent
Pam Larsen 20607 140th Avenue SE, Kent
Charlotte Peery 12315 SE 270, Kent
Jennifer LaDoux 9721 S 248, Kent
Koli P. Bolden 27400 132 Avenue SE, Kent
Charles Lambert, Evergreen Holistic Center 925 E. Maple Street, Kent
John Lukasavage 1256 Weiland Street, Kent
Jessica King, Suzy Q's 6624 S. 196 Street, Kent
Tina Over 734 Alvord Avenue N, Kent
Scott Goggin 329 21st Avenue N, Kent
Lydia Ensley 14200 73rd Avenue, Bothell
Vivian Welch 26402 187th Avenue SE, Covington
Anthony Martinelli, Sensible Washington 21841 12 Avenue South, Des Moines
Douglas Hiatt, Attorney 3161 Elliott Avenue, Suite 340, Seattle
Philip Dawdy, Wa. Cannabis Association 1608 E. Republic, Seattle
Heather Houghton 604 S. 208, Des Moines
Jared Allaway 35810 16th Avenue S., Federal Way
Chris Pyse 23553 109th Ct SE, Kent
Columba Tsang, Herbal Choice Caregivers 21628 43rd Place South, Kent
Perry moved to make a letter from Jared Allaway part of the public record. Raplee
seconded and the motion carried. Perry expressed appreciation for the input and
invited anyone who is interested in working on this issue to contact her. She then
moved to close the public hearing. Harmon seconded and the motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Veterans and Human Services Lew. (CFN-118) Mike Heinisch, Executive
Director of Kent Youth & Family Services, 232 S. 2"d, Kent, explained the levy and
thanked the city for its support. Delia Prado, Health Point Community Health Center,
403 E. Meeker, Kent, requested that the levy be extended. Dwight Jackson, Catholic
Community Services, 1229 W. Smith Street, Kent, thanked the city for its support of
the initiative and explained their services. Leslie Hamada, 28026 189th Avenue SE,
Kent, pointed out some of the services which would go away if the levy is not
2
Kent City Council Minutes July 19, 2011
extended. James Talbert, Catholic Community Services Emergency Assistance
Program, 1229 W. Smith Street, Kent, said these funds are desperately needed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Perry moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through H. Ranniger seconded and
the motion carried.
A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Minutes of the workshop and regular Council
meeting of July 5, 2011, were approved.
B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Bills were not available for approval.
C. Excused Absence for Councilmember Thomas. (CFN-198) An excused
absence from the July 19, 2011, meeting for Councilmember Thomas was approved.
D. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant, Elementary Schools.
(CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign three Washington Traffic Safety
Commission Grant Agreements in the amount of $22,500 to purchase three flashing
beacon assemblies for elementary school zones in the Kent School District, amend the
budget and expend the funds in accordance with the grant terms was authorized.
E. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant, Target Zero Task Force.
(CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Washington Traffic Safety
Commission Grant Agreement in the amount of $93,840 for the Kent/South King
County Target Zero Task Force, amend the budget, and expend the funds in
accordance with the grant terms was authorized.
F. King County Sheriff's Office Cost Reimbursement Agreement, Registered
Sex Offender. (CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign the King County
Sheriff's Office Grant Agreement in the amount of $49,667.90, amend the budget, and
expend the funds in accordance with the grant terms was authorized.
G. Consultant Services Contract for Landsburg Mine. (CFN-1038) The Mayor
was authorized to sign Amendment No. 3 to the Consultant Services Agreement with
Aspect Consulting for Environmental Services related to the Landsburg Mine site in the
amount of $18,516, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City
Attorney and Public Works Director.
H. King County Veterans & Human Services Renewal Resolution. (CFN-118)
Resolution No. 1846 stating the City Council's support for King County Proposition
No. 1, the Veterans and Human Services Levy, was adopted.
BIDS
A. 2011 Water Improvements. (CFN-1186) The bid opening was held on July 12,
2011, with four bids received. Public Works Director LaPorte described the project and
noted that the low bid was submitted by Rodarte, Inc., and recommended award to
them. Raplee moved to award the 2011 Water Improvements project contract to
Rodarte Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,627,071.45 and to authorize the
Mayor to sign all necessary documents, subject to final terms and conditions accept-
3
Kent City Council Minutes July 19, 2011
able to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Harmon seconded and the motion
carried.
B. Horseshoe Bend Secondary Levee. (CFN-1318) Public Works Director LaPorte
explained the project and noted that nine bids were received on July 12, 2011. He
recommended award to the low bidder, Scarsella Brothers, Inc. Raplee moved to
authorize the Mayor to award and sign the contract with Scarsella Brothers, Inc. for
the Horseshoe Bend Levee Improvements, East and West River Bend Secondary
Levees, in the amount of $796,821.10, subject to final terms and conditions accept-
able to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Higgins seconded and the motion
carried.
REPORTS
A. Council President. (CFN-198) No report was given.
B. Mayor. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke introduced student intern Alton Lu, and reported
on the South County Area Transportation Board meeting she attended this morning.
C. Administration. (CFN-198) CAO Hodgson noted that, due to National Night Out
on August 2nd, the Council meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m. It was clarified that the
August 16th meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m. as well, due to the primary election.
D. Economic & Community Development Committee. (CFN-198) No report was
given.
E. Operations Committee. (CFN-198) Raplee reported that the time of the
Operations Committee meetings will be changed from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
beginning in September. She also noted that the meeting of August 2nd has been
cancelled and that there will be a special meeting on August 9th
F. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) Ranniger reported that the
committee will not meet in July.
G. Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given.
H. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) Raplee announced that the meeting of
August lst has been cancelled and that there will be a special meeting on August 8th
I. Reaional Fire Authority. (CFN-198) No report was given.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. (CFN-198)
Brenda Jacober, CMC
City Clerk
4
O T
Kent City Council
Workshop
July 19, 2011
Councilmembers Present: Harmon, Higgins, Ranniger, and Raplee. Albertson
arrived at 5:50 p.m. and Perry arrived at 5:55 p.m.
The meeting was called to order at 5:38 p.m. by Councilmember Ranniger.
King County Agriculture Commission. Representatives from the Agriculture
Commission explained that they would like to create a better understanding of
how cities and agricultural interests can work together to preserve agriculture
and benefit one another. A powerpoint presentation was shown outlining the
benefits of agriculture and explaining what City support is needed and why. It
was noted that a roundtable is being planned to discuss urban/rural linkages in
detail, and both Ranniger and Raplee expressed interest in attending.
Kina County Solid Waste. The City's Environmental Conservation Supervisor,
Kelly Peterson, explained that King County is in the process of implementing
capital improvements such as transfer stations to the solid waste infrastructure,
and noted that this will result in an increase in fees. King County Solid Waste
Division Director Kevin Kiernan explained the history and current status of the
solid waste system, and other services they provide. He noted that the current
interlocal agreements between cities and the county will expire in 2028, and
that discussions about modifying and extending the contracts are now under
way with city representatives. He then answered questions from Council-
members.
Intergovernmental Issues. Higgins reported on actions taken at the most
recent PIC meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Brenda Jacober, CMC
City Clerk
w," Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7C
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: Excused Absence for Councilmember Raplee - Approve
MOTION: Approve an excused absence from the August 2, 2011, meeting
for Councilmember Raplee.
SUMMARY:
EXHIBITS: Memo
RECOMMENDED BY:
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
City Council
Jamie Perry, Council President
-Z ® Phone: 253-856-5712
K IF a . Fax: 253-856-6712
WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA. 98032-5895
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzette Cooke, Mayor
City Councilmembers
FROM: Debbie Raplee, Councilmember
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: City Council Excused Absence
I would like to request an excused absence from the August 2, 2011 City
Council meeting. I will be unable to attend.
Thank you for your consideration.
Debbie Raplee
Councilmember
nc
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7D
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: August 16 Council Meeting Time Change - Approve
MOTION: Approve the August 16, 2011, City Council meeting time change
from its regular meeting time of 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
SUMMARY: Due to the primary election on August 16, and as directed by the
City Council at its July 19 meeting, change the time of the Council meeting from
7:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
EXHIBITS: None
RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7E
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: Administration of Claims Ordinance — Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. , revising Section 2.97.020 of the
Kent City Code entitled, "Administration of Claims."
SUMMARY: Since 1980, the City has been insured by Washington Cities
Insurance Authority (WCIA). On January 1, 2011, the City's liability insurance
program changed to a program combining self-insurance and reinsurance. The new
program is technically different from our prior liability insurance program from the
perspective of indemnification and settlement authority.
Previously, WCIA indemnified the City for all claims and lawsuits. Claims and lawsuits
were settled at WCIA's discretion with input from and the cooperation of the City. The
City had a $100,000 deductible that covered all claim expenses to that level. Above
$100,000, WCIA bore all claims costs. Settlement authority was contractually in the
hands of WCIA for all costs related to claims and lawsuits.
Our new program differs from WCIA in that the City has complete control of settle-
ment authority up to $100,000. Above that amount, the City has substantial
discretion, in cooperation with our reinsurers, to determine whether a claim or lawsuit
should either settle or proceed to trial.
Accordingly, we have revised the code to require that we report details of settlements
over $100,000 to council, but not require council pre-approval, so long as the
settlement is within the limits of established budgets.
The purpose of the proposed code revision is to account for this procedural change in
our program. With a similar structure to the WCIA claims administration process,
authority to settle a claim or lawsuit up to $100,000 would reside with the Risk
Manager. Above $100,000, settlement authority would reside with the Mayor, in
conjunction with the City Attorney and Risk Manager. All settlements must be made
within the limits of established insurance and risk management budgets. Details
concerning claims settled above the $100,000 level would be reported to City Council.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance
RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending section
2.97.020 of the Kent City Code entitled,
"Administration of Claims," to revise procedures
for settling claims and lawsuits covered by the
city's insurers under the city's new insurance
program.
RECITALS
A. In 1980, the city joined the Washington Cities Insurance
Agency (WCIA) as a founding member. The WCIA is an insurance pool,
formed by a consortium of member Washington State cities. The city
continued its membership for 30 years, leaving the WCIA at the end of
2010. On January 1, 2011, the city essentially became a stand-alone self-
insured municipal entity when it changed its insurance program to a
combined self-insurance/reinsurance program.
B. When part of the WCIA, the city had a $100,000 deductible,
but settlement authority remained with the WCIA's decision makers, in
consultation with the city. Because of the WCIA's settlement authority and
control, provisions in the existing city code allocating council authority for
settlement decisions over $15,000 never came into play. Under the city's
new program, the city has unqualified settlement authority for settlement
1 Administration of Claims
Amend KCC 2.97.020
amounts up to $100,000, and above that amount, cooperates with its
reinsurer to determine whether a claim should or should not be settled.
C. Because of the nature of settlement mediation and
negotiation, it is extremely important for the parties to the dispute to
know, with certainty, that they can rely on the terms of the settlement. As
a result, it is not practical to agree to a settlement subject to subsequent
council approval because the uncertainty and delay would have a distinct
chilling effect, potentially making the city's settlement posture ineffective.
Accordingly, with this new insurance structure and consistent with past
practice through WCIA, it is necessary to amend city code to reflect
changes to claims and administration and settlement.
D. Based on the changes to the city's new insurance program, it
is appropriate to change Chapter 2.97 of the Kent City Code. With a
structure similar to the WCIA claims administration process, the city's risk
manager would have authority to settle claims or lawsuits in amounts up
to $100,000. Above that amount, settlement authority would reside with
the mayor, in conjunction with the risk manager and the city attorney,
after consultations with the city's reinsurers. All settlements must remain
within established budgets, and staff must report details of all settlement
over $100,000 to the city council.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1, — Amendment. Section 2.97.020 of the Kent City Code
is amended as follows:
2 Administration of Claims
Amend KCC 2.97.020
Sec. 2.97.020. Administration of claims. The city attorney shall
be responsible for representing the city on all claims made against the city
except to the extent claims are administered and/or defended by the city's
insurers, unless the
claim is administered or defended through an indemnity agreement by
another insurer, in which case those claims shall be administered and
defended pursuant to the terms of those contracts. The mayercity's risk
manager shall have the authority to settle any claim against the city for an
amount not to exceed €i€teenone hundred thousand dollars
($15,9GG100,000) per occurrence subject to the availability of funds
budgeted for settlement purposes. The mayor, in conjunction with the risk
manager and city attorney, shall have the authority to enter intoAR
settlements over $100 000. All settlements over $100 000 shall be
reported to the city council. as diFeEted by the =__ _il All __ttl_ngent_ eye
SECTION 2, - Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is 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, - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and
section/subsection numbering.
3 Administration of Claims
Amend KCC 2.97.020
SECTION 4, - 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
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 2011.
APPROVED: day of 2011.
PUBLISHED: day of 2011.
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\Administration of Claims Amend 2.97.020.docx
4 Administration of Claims
Amend KCC 2.97.020
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7F
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: General Business License Ordinance — Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. , repealing Chapter 5.01 of the
Kent City Code, and enacting a new Chapter 5.01 entitled, "General Business
Licenses."
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCW 35A.82.020, the City of Kent has maintained a
system of licensing businesses since 1955.
The City's business licensing chapter has not been substantially updated for over 19
years. As a result, some of the sections are outdated and no longer applicable to the
manner in which the City performs its licensing functions.
This ordinance clarifies the business licensing functions, provides that the Finance
Department is the department within the City to perform the licensing functions,
clarifies the basis and procedures for issuing, denying and revoking a license, and
streamlines the hearing process in the event a license is denied or revoked.
The City Attorney sent the proposed revisions to the City of Kent's Chamber of
Commerce for review and comments on June 24, 2011. The Executive Director
responded on June 30, 2011, indicating that no changes were needed.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance and email to/from Kent Chamber of Commerce Executive
Director, Andrea Keikkala
RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, repealing Chapter 5.01
of the Kent City Code, and enacting a new Chapter
5.01 entitled "General Business Licenses," to
assign administrative responsibility of the business
licensing function to the Finance Director; to clarify
the basis and procedures for issuing, denying, and
revoking a license; and to streamline the hearing
process in the event a license is denied or
revoked.
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to RCW 35A.82.020, the city of Kent has maintained a
system of licensing businesses since 1955.
B. The city's business licensing chapter has not been substantially
updated for over 19 years. As a result, some of the sections of the
chapter are outdated and no longer applicable to the manner in which the
city performs its licensing function.
C. This ordinance clarifies the business licensing function, provides
that the Finance Department is the department within the city to perform
the licensing function, clarifies the basis and procedures for issuing,
denying and revoking a license, and streamlines the hearing process in
the event a license is denied or revoked.
1 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Repealer. Chapter 5.01 of the Kent City Code,
entitled, "General Business Licenses," is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. - Amendment. Title 5 of the Kent City Code is
amended to adopt a new Chapter 5.01, entitled "General Business
Licenses," as follows:
Sec. 5.01.010 Title. This chapter shall constitute the general
business license code of the city and may be cited as such.
Sec. 5.01.020. Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires
otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
A. Business means all activities, occupations, trades, pursuits,
professions and matters located within the city, whether operated with the
object of gain, benefit, advantage, or profit, or operated not-for-profit, to
the business or to another person, directly or indirectly. The term business
shall also mean apartment and residential rental properties of three or
more units, but shall not mean governmental agencies.
B. Business enterprise means each location at which business is
conducted within the city. A business may have more than one business
enterprise within the city.
C. Director means the finance director of the city or his or her
designee.
2 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
D. Department means the finance department of the city.
E. Licensee means any business or business enterprise that applies for
or is granted a business license. The term licensee shall also mean the
person who submits a business license for approval, the owner or operator
of a business or business enterprise, and any corporation, partnership,
non-profit or organization which owns or operates the business or business
enterprise.
Sec. 5.01.030. Administration and enforcement.
A. The director shall have general charge of, and supervision over, the
administration and enforcement of this chapter.
B. The director may call upon other city departments to aid in the
enforcement of this chapter.
C. The licensee shall, upon reasonable request, provide or allow the
director to inspect relevant documentation for verification of the
information provided by the licensee on the business license application.
Sec. 5.01.040. General business license required. It is
unlawful for any business to operate in the city without having first
obtained a general business license for the current calendar year or
unexpired portion thereof, and paid the fees prescribed in this chapter;
provided, that a business solely owned and operated by a person under
the age of 18 years shall not be required to have a business license. A
business with premises, primary places of business, or main offices outside
the city limits must be licensed before conducting business within the city
limits.
3 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
Sec. 5.01.050. Separate business license required. A separate
license shall be obtained for each business enterprise within the city and
each license shall authorize the licensee to carry on, pursue, or conduct
business only at that business enterprise. A separate license shall not be
required for a facility determined by the director to be an accessory facility
to a business for which a license is issued. When the location of a business
changes, the licensee shall return the license to the department and a new
license shall be issued for the new place of business free of charge so long
as no grounds exist for denial or revocation of the license as set forth in
KCC 5.01.130.
Sec. 5.01.060. License not transferable. No license issued
under the provisions of this chapter shall be transferable or assignable. In
the event that ownership of a business changes, the license shall be
returned to the department and a new license shall be applied for.
Sec. 5.01.070. License to be posted. All licenses issued
pursuant to this chapter shall be posted in a conspicuous place at each
business enterprise.
Sec. 5.01.080. Disclaimer of city liability. Issuance of a license
pursuant to this chapter does not constitute the creation of a duty by the
city to indemnify the licensee for any wrongful acts against the public or
any individual, or to guarantee the quality of goods, services, or expertise
of a licensee. The issuance of a license does not shift responsibility from
the licensee to the city for proper training, conduct or equipment of the
licensee or his agents, employees, or representatives.
4 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
Sec. 5.01. 090. Application procedure, license fee.
A. The director is authorized to prepare a schedule of fees for the
issuance of a license, and when approved by the city council, that schedule
shall govern the amount of the license fee.
B. All businesses operated not-for-profit shall be required to be
licensed but shall be exempt from paying a business license fee upon
satisfactory proof to the director of their not-for-profit status.
C. The licensee shall make application for any business license required
under this chapter to the director on a form prepared by the department,
which application shall be accompanied by a receipt from the department
showing payment of the required fee. A new business license shall be
required annually. If the application for a new license is made within six
months of the date fixed for expiration, the fee shall be one-half the
annual fee; provided, there shall be no reduction in the fee for a license
renewal.
Sec. 5.01.100. License does not indicate legality of business.
The issuance of a license pursuant to this chapter shall not be evidence of
the legality of a business or that such business is conducted in conformity
with any laws or regulations of the city of Kent, the state of Washington,
or the United States. The issuance of a business license shall not prevent
the city, the state of Washington or the United States from taking any
action relating to the conduct of the business or the licensee, including but
not limited to, action to revoke the license or deny an application for a
future license, an action to cause the cessation of the business, or any
action set forth in KCC 5.01.190.
5 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
Sec. 5.01.110. Renewal.
A. The director shall mail the forms for application of business license
renewals to business enterprises in the city to the last address provided to
the director by the licensee. Failure of the business to receive any such
form shall not excuse the business from securing the required license or
renewal, or for payment of the license fee when due.
B. Failure to pay the license fee within 90 days of the required renewal
date shall subject the licensee to a monetary penalty in the amount of fifty
dollars ($50) to reinstate the license, in addition to the required license
fee.
Sec. 5.01.120. Overpayment or refund of license fee.
Whenever a business makes an overpayment, and within two years after
the date of such overpayment, makes an application for a refund or credit
for the overpayment, the claim shall be considered by the director, and if
approved, shall be repaid by the city.
Sec. 5.01.130. Grounds for denial or revocation of license.
A. In addition to other actions or penalties provided by law, the city
may deny or revoke any license applied for or issued pursuant to this
chapter for any of the following reasons:
1. The license application contains an omission or
misrepresentation of material fact;
2. The license was procured by fraud;
3. The license is used, or is intended to be used, for a business
materially different from that applied for;
6 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
4. The licensee or business fails to pay the licensing fee
applicable to such license;
5. The licensee or business violates any of the requirements of
this chapter;
6. The business engages in, or the licensee seeks a license to
engage in, an unlawful business or activity;
7. The business operates in a manner that constitutes a
nuisance pursuant to common law or the ordinances, codes, and statutes
of the city of Kent or the state of Washington;
S. The licensee is not eighteen years of age or older at the time
the license is applied for;
9. The licensee or the business is delinquent in the payment of
any fees, taxes, assessments, or fines owed to the city, including but not
limited to permit fees, utility fees, gambling taxes, local improvement
district assessments, and civil fines; or
10. The licensee or business has had a similar license denied or
revoked and has not corrected the basis for the denial or revocation.
B. The issuance of a license that could have been denied pursuant to
subsection A of this section shall not prohibit the city from taking action to
revoke the license at a later date, and it shall at all times remain the
exclusive responsibility of the licensee to ensure that the business
complies with the requirements of this chapter.
Sec. 5.01.140. Denial or revocation of license — Notice and
opportunity to be heard. A licensee shall have the right to notice and
an opportunity to be heard subsequent to the denial of a business license,
or, in the case of a revocation of an existing license or refusal to renew a
license following its annual expiration, prior to the revocation of such
business license.
7 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
Sec. 5.01.150. Notice of license denial or revocation and
scheduling of hearing.
A. Denial of License. Any action to deny a license applied for or issued
shall be commenced by notice of the denial. A notice issued under this
subsection shall substantially comply with the following:
1. The notice shall be delivered, by first class mail, or by
personal service, to the business license applicant or the holder of the
business license as set forth in the most recent business license
application.
2. The notice shall describe the basis for the denial.
3. The notice shall describe corrective action, if any, that may
be taken to eliminate the basis for denial.
4. The notice shall specify a date for which a hearing to contest
the denial has been scheduled before the hearing examiner in order for
the licensee to appeal the denial. Such date shall occur not less than 14
but not more than 60 days after the date the notice is delivered in
accordance with KCC 5.01.150(A).
5. The notice shall provide that if the licensee fails to appear on
the date specified in the notice, that the appeal of the denial is waived.
B. Revocation of License. Any action to revoke a license issued shall be
commenced by a notice of the revocation. A notice issued under this
subsection shall substantially comply with the following:
8 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
1. The notice shall be delivered, by first class mail, or personal
service, to the holder of the business license as set forth in the most
recent business license application or business license issued.
2. The notice shall describe the basis for the revocation.
3. The notice shall describe corrective action, if any, that may
be taken to eliminate the basis for revocation.
4. The notice shall specify a date for which a hearing to contest
the revocation has been scheduled before the hearing examiner. Such
date shall be schedule to occur not less than 14 but not more than 60
days after the date the notice is delivered in accordance with KCC
5.01.150(B).
5. The notice shall provide that if the holder of the business
license fails to appear on the date specified in the notice, default judgment
shall be entered, and the license shall be revoked upon the failure to
appear.
6. The business may continue to operate until such time as the
hearing examiner issues an order regarding the revocation unless the city
obtains an order enjoining the operation of the business pending the
hearing examiner's order.
Sec. 5.01.160. Hearing to deny or revoke business license.
A. Parties to Hearing. The parties to a hearing provided pursuant to
this chapter shall be the city and the licensee. Either party may be
represented by legal counsel properly licensed in the state of Washington.
9 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
B. Date for Hearing. Hearings shall be scheduled to occur no less than
14, but not more than 60 days after the date the notice is delivered in
accordance with KCC 5.01.150; provided, additional hearings may be held
after 60 days as determined by the hearing examiner. The hearing
examiner shall have discretion to grant continuances and reschedule
hearings in the interest of the parties and justice.
C. Prehearing Conferences. The hearing examiner may, at his or her
discretion, or at the request of either of the parties, hold a prehearing
conference to schedule additional hearings, order discovery, and to make
other appropriate pretrial determinations. A prehearing conference may
be held by telephone.
D. Hearing Process. The parties to the hearing, or legal counsel for the
parties, may call witnesses and present evidence and rebuttal evidence
subject to the following:
1. The city shall have the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that there are sufficient grounds for the
denial or revocation of the license pursuant to KCC 5.01.130.
2. The parties shall be responsible for securing the appearance
of any witnesses they may call. Neither the city nor the hearing examiner
shall have the burden of securing any witnesses on behalf of the licensee.
3. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply. The hearing
examiner may allow hearsay evidence and may permit the admission of
evidence without proof of the chain of custody of evidence. Notes,
reports, summaries, notices, photographs, or other materials prepared by
the parties may be admitted into evidence if requested without satisfaction
of formal rules of evidence. Notwithstanding the admission of evidence,
10 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
the hearing examiner shall determine the proper weight to be assigned to
any evidence admitted.
E. Default Judgment. If the licensee fails to appear on the hearing date
specified in the notice, or at any other hearing set by the hearing
examiner, the right to a hearing shall be forfeited, default judgment shall
be entered, and the license shall be denied or revoked.
Sec. 5.01.170. Authority of hearing examiner — Order —
Appeal.
A. Authority of Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner shall have
the authority to determine whether or not there are sufficient grounds for
the denial or revocation of the business license pursuant to KCC 5.01.130.
E. Order of Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner shall issue a
written order that sets forth a procedural summary of the hearing, his or
her findings of fact and conclusions of law, and his or her determination.
In the event of a default judgment, the written order shall set forth
whether notice was properly issued, the facts regarding the failure of the
licensee to appear, and a determination of default in the event notice was
proper. The written order shall be delivered to the parties by first class
mail, deposited in the mail no more than 21 days following the conclusion
of the hearing. The order of the hearing examiner shall become effective
on the third day following placement of the order in the mail.
C. Appeal. An appeal of the order of the hearing examiner must be
filed with the King County superior court within 21 calendar days of the
effective date of the order.
Sec. 5.01.180. Corrective action prior to hearing. In the event
a licensee takes corrective action and the grounds for the denial or
revocation are abated, and such corrective action and abatement occurs
11 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
prior to the date set for hearing, the hearing shall be cancelled, and the
license shall be issued or reissued.
Sec. 5.01.190. Penalties.
A. Civil Violation.
1. The violation of any provision of this chapter is a civil violation
as provided for in Chapter 1.04 KCC, for which a monetary penalty may be
assessed and abatement may be required as provided therein.
2. Any license fee or penalty due and unpaid and delinquent
under this chapter shall constitute a debt of the city. The city may,
pursuant to Chapter 19.16 RCW, use a collection agency to collect unpaid
license fees, or it may seek collection by court proceedings, which
remedies shall be in addition to all other remedies.
B. Criminal violation. In addition to or as an alternative to any penalty
provided in this chapter, the violation of any provision of this chapter shall
constitute a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in jail for a
maximum term fixed by the court of not more than 90 days, or by a fine in
an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine.
SECTION 3. — Savings. The existing chapter 5.01 of the Kent City
Code, which is repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain in full
force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. — Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
12 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION S. - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and
section/subsection numbering.
SECTION 6, - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law,
and shall apply to businesses operating on or after the effective date, and
to any license submitted prior to or after the effective date.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
13 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
PASSED: day of 2011.
APPROVED: day of 2011.
PUBLISHED: day of 2011.
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\Business License Amend 5-01 Final for Council.docx
14 Business Licenses
Amendment to KCC 5.01
Brubaker, Tom
From: Andrea Keikkala [Andreak@kentchamber.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:05 PM
To: Brubaker, Tom
Subject: RE: Revisions to Kent Business Licensing Code
Tom -
Thank you for sending this to me. I don't see any need to forward it onto Government Affairs-seems all very straight
forward.
Andrea
Andrea Keikkala
Executive Director
Kent Chamber of Commerce
524 W. Meeker Street, Suite 1
Kent,Washington 98035
(253) 854-1770 ext. 140
ro. KE?TfUIJA BE
From: Brubaker,Tom.fmailto:TBrubakerColci.kent.wa.usl
Sent: Friday,June 24, 2011 9:05 AM
To: Andrea Keikkala
Cc: Cooke, Suzette; Briggs, Patrick; Hodgson, John; Fitzpatrick, Pat; Komoto, Kim
Subject: Revisions to Kent Business Licensing Code
Andrea—Attached are proposed revisions to the city's business license code for your review. I
understand that, based on previous conversations between you (or other Chamber members)
and the Mayor, the Chamber would like to be apprised of any changes to this code and to have
an opportunity to review and comment. Accordingly, I offer it to you now, as a working
document, for your review.
t
The main reason my office has amended this code is to provide a set procedure for appeals of
termination or rejection of a license. The city's current code has not been substantially amended
for at least twenty years, as far as my review of city records shows, and in its current form it
does not clearly provide an avenue for relief if a licensee wishes to appeal termination or
rejection of a license. Without a clear right of appeal, revoking a license, particularly as an
enforcement tool for businesses that are not complying with other city laws, is potentially more
precarious.
We intend to take these amendments to the Operations Committee at its second meeting in July,
at 4:00 on Tuesday, July 19. If it passes successfully out of committee, it would then go to
council for final passage on the first meeting in August, Tuesday, August 2. The ordinance, once
passed, will not take effect until 30 days after passage.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to reply or call. Regards, --Tom
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney
Civil Division I Law Department
220 Fourth Avenue South,Kent,WA 98032
v y' Direct 253-856-5782 1 Fax 253-856-6770
Ilv9„ aaTai www.choosekentxom
PLEASE CONSIDER TIIE ENVIRONNI ENT BEFORE PRINTING TII IS E-MAIL
2
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7G
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: Clark Springs Water Supply System/Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) Implementing Agreement — Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Implementing Agreement for the
Clark Springs Water Supply System Habitat Conservation Plan with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, subject to
final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works
Director.
SUMMARY: In January 2001, through a vote of the City Council, staff was
directed to negotiate a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and associated National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for the Clark Springs Water Supply
System. The HCP will provide long term certainty and protection of the City's
municipal water supply and continued stewardship of salmonid resources, including
endangered species in the region.
An HCP is an agreement between a landowner or utility and the federal government to
allow incidental taking of threatened or endangered species identified on the federal
Endangered Species Act list, provided the taking will be adequately minimized and
mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
The HCP will provide Kent with 50-years of certainty and protection from lawsuits
under the auspices of the federal Endangered Species Act. The City will be required to
complete specific habitat conservation measures (projects) at a cost of approximately
$2.5-million over the next 10 years. In addition, specific monitoring by the City will
be required during the life of the HCP.
EXHIBITS: Contract
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: Funding the implementation of the HCP has been included in the
Council adopted water rate schedule.
IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
for the
CITY OF KENT
for
CLARK SPRINGS WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
CONTENTS
1.0 PARTIES............................................................................................................................1
2.0 RECITALS AND PURPOSES.........................................................................................1
2.1 Recitals..................................................................................................................1
2.2 Purposes............................................................................:...................................2
3.0 DEFINITIONS...................................................................................................................2
3.1 Terms defined in Endangered Species Act.........................................................2
3.2 "Changed Circumstances"..................................................................................2
3.3 "Covered activities".............................................................................................2
3.4 "Covered lands"...................................................................................................2
3.5 "Covered species".................................................................................................2
3.6 "HCP"...................................................................................................................2
3.7 "Listed species"....................................................................................................3
3.8 "Permit"................................................................................................................3
3.9 "Permittee"...........................................................................................................3
3.10 "Take"...................................................................................................................3
3.11 "Unforeseen Circumstances"..............................................................................3
3.12 "Unlisted species".................................................................................................3
4.0 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES..............................................................................3
4.1 Obligations of Permittee......................................................................................3
4.2 Obligations of the Services...................................................................................3
0-iii
4.2.1 Permit coverage..........................................................................................3
4.2.2 "No surprises"assurances.........................................................................3
4.3 Interim obligations upon a finding of unforeseen circumstances....................4
5.0 INCORPORATION OF HCP..........................................................................................4
6.0 TERM.................................................................................................................................4
6.1 Initial term............................................................................................................4
6.2 Permit suspension or revocation.........................................................................4
6.3 Relinquishment of the permit..............................................................................4
6.3.1 Generally.....................................................................................................4
6.3.2 Procedure for relinquishment...................................................................5
6.4 Treatment of unlisted species..............................................................................5
6.5 Extension of the permit........................................................................................5
7.0 FUNDING..........................................................................................................................5
8.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING...............................................................................5
8.1 Planned periodic reports......................................................................................5
8.2 Other reports........................................................................................................6
8.3 Certification of reports........................................................................................6
8.4 Monitoring by Services....:...................................................................................6
9.0 CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES....................................................................................6
9.1 Permittee-initiated response to changed circumstances...................................6
9.2 Service-initiated response to changed circumstances.......................................6
04V
9.3 Listing of species that are not covered species...................................................6
10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................7
10.1 Permittee-initiated adaptive management.........................................................7
10.2 Service-initiated adaptive management.............................................................7
10.3 Reductions in mitigation......................................................................................7
10.4 No increase in take...............................................................................................7
11.0 LAND TRANSACTIONS.................................................................................................7
11.1 Acquisition of land by Permittee.........................................................................7
11.2 Disposal of land by Permittee..............................................................................8
12.0 MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS....................................................................8
12.1 Minor modifications.............................................................................................8
12.2 Amendment of the permit....................................................................................9
13.0 REMEDIES,ENFORCEMENT,AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION..............................9
13.1 In general..............................................................................................................9
13.2 No monetary damages..........................................................................................9
13.3 Injunctive and temporary relief..........................................................................9
13.4 Enforcement authority of the United States......................................................9
13.5 Dispute resolution.................................................................................................9
14.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS..............................................................................10
14.1 No partnership....................................................................................................10
14.2 Notices.................................................................................................................10
0-V
14.3 Entire agreement................................................................................................11
14.4 Elected officials not to benefit...........................................................................11
14.5 Availability of funds...........................................................................................11
14.6 Duplicate originals..............................................................................................11
14.7 No third-party beneficiaries..............................................................................12
14.8 Relationship to the ESA and other authorities................................................12
14.9 References to regulations...................................................................................12
14.10 Applicable laws...................................................................................................12
14.11 Successors and assigns.......................................................................................12
0-Vi
1.0 PARTIES
The parties to this Implementing Agreement are the City of Kent, Washington, a municipal
corporation ("Permittee"); the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In this agreement, FWS and NMFS are collectively referred
to as the"Services."
2.0 RECITALS AND PURPOSES
2.1 Recitals. The parties have entered into this agreement in consideration of the
following facts:
(a) The Clark Springs Water Supply System("Clark Springs System")has
been determined to provide, or potentially provide,habitat for the
following listed species:
THREATENED SPECIES
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
(b) The Clark Springs System has also been determined to provide, or
potentially provide,habitat for the following unlisted species:
SPECIES OF CONCERN
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)
Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)
River lamprey(Lampetra ayrest)
(c) Permittee has developed a series of measures, described in the habitat
conservation plan (HCP), to minimize and mitigate to the maximum
extent practicable the effects of take of covered species incidental to
Permittee's covered activities.
Page 0-1
2.2 Purposes. The purposes of this agreement are:
(a) To ensure implementation of each of the terms of the HCP;
(b) To describe remedies and recourse should any party fail to perform its
obligations as set forth in this agreement; and,
(c) To provide assurances to Permittee that as long as the terms of the HCP, the
permit, and this agreement are performed, no additional mitigation will be required of Permittee,
with respect to covered species,except as provided for in this agreement or required by law.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
The following terms as used in this agreement will have the meanings set forth below:
3.1 Terms defined in Endangered Species Act. Terms used in this agreement and
specifically defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or in regulations adopted by the
Services under the ESA have the same meaning as in the ESA and those implementing
regulations,unless this agreement expressly provides otherwise.
3.2 "Changed circumstances" means changes in circumstances affecting a Covered
Species or the geographic area covered by the HCP that can reasonably be anticipated by the
permittee and that can reasonably be planned for in the HCP(e.g.the listing of a new species,or a
fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such event.) Changed circumstances and
the planned responses to those circumstances are described in Section 2.1.2.3 of the HCP.
Changed circumstances are not Unforeseen Circumstances.
3.3 "Covered activities" means certain activities carried out by Permittee on
covered lands that may result in incidental take of covered species described in Section 1.6 of the
HCP.
3.4 "Covered lands" means the lands upon which the permit authorizes incidental
take of covered species and the lands to which the HCFs conservation and mitigation measures
apply . These lands are described in Section 1.5 of the HCP.
3.5 "Covered species" means the following species, each of which the HCP
addresses in a manner sufficient to meet all of the criteria for issuing an incidental take permit
under ESA § 10(a)(1)(B)All covered species are listed in Section 2.1 of this agreement.
3.6 "HCP" means the habitat conservation plan prepared by Permittee for the Clark
Springs Water Supply System,related property,and activities identified in the HCP.
Page 0-2
3.7 "Listed species" means a species (including a subspecies, or a distinct
population segment of a vertebrate species) that is listed as endangered or threatened under the
ESA.
3.8 "Permit" means the incidental take permit issued by the Services to Permittee
pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for take incidental to covered activities on Lproject
name/site], as it may be amended from time to time.
3.9 "Permittee"means the City of Kent, Washington, a municipal corporation of the
State of Washington.
3.10 "Unforeseen circumstances" means changes in circumstances affecting a
species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could not reasonably have been
anticipated by plan developers and the Services on the effective date of this agreement, and that
result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species.
3.11 "Unlisted species" means a species (including a subspecies, or a distinct
population segment of a vertebrate species) that is not listed as endangered or threatened under
the ESA.
4.0 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES
4.1 Obligations of Permittee. Permittee will fully and faithfully perform all
obligations assigned to it under this agreement,the permit, and the HCP.
4.2 Obligations of the Services. Upon execution of this agreement by all parties,
and satisfaction of all other applicable legal requirements, the Services will issue Permittee a
permit under Section 10(a)(1)(11) of the ESA, authorizing incidental take by Permittee of each
listed covered species resulting from covered activities on covered lands.
4.2.1 Permit coverage. The permit will identify all covered species. The
permit will take effect for fisted covered species at the time the permit is issued. Subject to
compliance with all other terms of this agreement, the permit will take effect for an unlisted
covered species upon the listing of such species.
4.2.2 "No surprises"assurances. Provided that Permittee has complied with its
obligations under the HCP, this agreement, and the permit, the Services can require Permittee to
provide mitigation beyond that provided for in the HCP only under unforeseen circumstances,
and only in accordance with the "no surprises" regulations at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(5),
17.32(b)(5),222.22(g).
Page 0-3
4.3 Interim obligations upon a finding of unforeseen circumstances. If the
Services make a finding of unforeseen circumstances, during the period necessary to determine
the nature and location of additional or modified mitigation, Permittee will avoid contributing to
appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species.
5.0 INCORPORATION OF HCP
The HCP and each of its provisions are intended to be, and by this reference are, incorporated
herein. In the event of any direct contradiction between the terms of this agreement and the HCP,
the terms of this agreement will control. In all other cases, the terms of this agreement and the
terms of the HCP will be interpreted to be supplementary to each other.
6.0 TERM
6.1 Initial Term. This agreement and the HCP will become effective on the date
that the Services issue the permit. This agreement, the HCP, and the permit will remain in effect
for a period of 50 years from issuance of the original permit,except as provided below.
6.2 Permit suspension or revocation. The Services may suspend or revoke the
permit for cause in accordance with the laws and regulations in force at the time of such
suspension or revocation. (See 5 U.S.C. § 558; 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.27 - 13.29, 222.27; 15 C.F.R.
Part 904.) Such suspension or revocation may apply to the entire permit, or only to specified
covered species, covered lands, or covered activities. In the event of suspension or revocation,
Permittee's obligations under this agreement and the HCP will continue until the Services
determine that all take of covered species that occurred under the permit has been fully mitigated
in accordance with the HCP.
6.3 Relinquishment of the permit.
6.3.1 Generally. Permittee may relinquish the permit in accordance with the
regulations of the Services in force on the date of such relinquishment. (These regulations are
currently codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.26,220.31.) Notwithstanding relinquishment of the permit,
Permittee will be required to provide post-relinquishment mitigation for any take of covered
species that the Services determine will not have been fully mitigated under the HCP by the time
of relinquishment. Permittee's obligations under the HCP and this agreement will continue until
the Services notify Permittee that no post-relinquishment mitigation is required, or that all post-
relinquishment mitigation required by the Services is completed. Unless the parties agree
otherwise, the Services may not require more mitigation than would have been provided if
Permittee had carried out the full term of the HCP.
Page 0-4
6.3.2 Procedure for relinquishment. If Permittee elects to relinquish the
permit before expiration of the full term of the HCP,Permittee will provide notice to the Services
at least 120 days prior to the planned relinquishment. Such notice will include a status report
detailing the nature and amount of take of all covered species, the mitigation provided for those
species prior to relinquishment, and the status of Permittee's compliance with all other terms of
the HCP. Within 120 days after receiving a notice and status report meeting the requirements of
this paragraph, the Services will give notice to Permittee stating whether any post-relinquishment
mitigation is required and, if so, the amount and terms of such mitigation, and the basis for the
Services' conclusions. If the Services determine that no post-relinquishment mitigation is
required, all obligations assumed by the parties under this agreement will terminate upon the
Services' issuance of such notice. If Permittee disagrees with the Services' determination, the
parties may choose to use the dispute resolution procedures described in Section 13 of this
agreement. Permittee will continue to carry out its obligations under the HCP until any such
dispute is resolved. If the parties are unable to agree,the Services will have the final authority to
determine whether Permittee is required to provide post-relinquishment mitigation.
6.4 Treatment of unlisted species. For purposes of paragraph 6.2 and 6.3, unlisted
covered species will be treated as though they were listed species in determining the amount of
take and the mitigation required.
6.5 Extension of the permit. Upon agreement of the parties and compliance with all
applicable laws, the permit may be extended beyond its initial term under regulations of the
Services in force on the date of such extension. If Permittee desires to extend the permit, it will
so notify the Services at least 180 days before the then-current term is scheduled to expire.
Extension of the permit constitutes extension of the HCP and this agreement for the same amount
of time, subject to any modifications that the Services may require at the time of extension.
7.0 FUNDING
Permittee warrants that it has, or shall obtain and shall expend such funds as may be necessary to
fulfill its obligations under the HCP. Permittee will promptly notify the Services of any material
change in Permittee's financial ability to fulfill its obligations. In addition to providing any such
notice,Permittee will provide the Services with a copy of its annual budget for implementation of
the HCP each year of the permit, or with such other reasonably available financial information
that the parties agree will provide adequate evidence of Permittee's ability to fulfill its
obligations.
8.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING
8.1 Planned periodic reports. As described in Chapter 5 of the HCP, Permittee
will submit periodic reports describing its activities and results of the monitoring program
provided for in the HCP.
Page 0-5
8.2 Other reports. Permittee will provide, within 30 days of being requested by the
Services, any additional information in its possession or control related to implementation of the
HCP that is requested by the Services for the purpose of assessing whether the terns and
conditions of the permit and the HCP, including the HCP's adaptive management plan, are being
fully implemented.
8.3 Certification of reports. All reports will include the following certification
from a responsible company official who supervised or directed preparation of the report:
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, after appropriate inquiries of all
relevant persons involved in the preparation of this report, the information
submitted is true,accurate,and complete.
8.4 Monitoring by Services. The Services may conduct inspections and monitoring
in connection with the permit in accordance with their regulations. (See 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.47,
220.47.)
9.0 CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
9.1 Permittee-initiated response to changed circumstances. Permittee will give
notice to the Services within seven days after learning that any of the changed circumstances
listed in Section 2.1.2.3 of the HCP has occurred. As soon as practicable thereafter, but no later
than 30 days after learning of the changed circumstances, Permittee will modify its activities in
the manner described in Section 2.1.2.3 of the HCP,to the extent necessary to mitigate the effects
of the changed circumstances on covered species, and will report to the Services on its actions.
Permittee will make such modifications without awaiting notice from the Services.
9.2 Service-initiated response to changed circumstances.; If the Services
determine that changed circumstances have occurred and that Permittee has not responded in
accordance with Section 2.1.2.3 of the HCP, the Services will so notify Permittee and will direct
Permittee to make the requited changes. Within 30 days after receiving such notice, Permittee
will make the required changes and report to the Services on its actions. Such changes are
provided' for in the HCP, and hence do not constitute unforeseen circumstances or require
amendment of the permit or HCP.
9.3 Listing of species that are not covered species. In the event that a non-covered
species that may be affected by covered activities becomes listed under the ESA,the Services will
work with Permittee to identify measures necessary to avoid take of, jeopardy to, or adverse
modification of the critical habitat of, the species as a result of covered activities. Permittee will
implement these measures until the permit is amended to include such species, or until the
Page 0-6
Services notify Permittee that such measures are no longer needed to avoid jeopardy to, take of,
or adverse modification of the critical habitat of,the non-covered species.
10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
10.1 Permittee-initiated adaptive management. Permittee will implement the
adaptive management provisions in Chapter 5 of the HCP, when changes in management
practices are necessary to achieve the RCP's biological objectives, or to respond to monitoring
results or new scientific information. Permittee will make such changes without awaiting notice
from the Services,and will report to the Services on any actions taken pursuant to this section.
10.2 Service-initiated adaptive management. If the Services determine that one or
more of the adaptive management provisions in the HCP have been triggered and that Permittee
has not changed its management practices in accordance with Chapter 5 of the HCP,the Services
will so notify Pennittee and will direct Permittee to make the required changes. Within 30 days
after receiving such notice, Permittee will make the required changes and report to,the Services
on its actions. Such changes are provided for in the HCP,and hence do not constitute unforeseen
circumstances or require amendment of the permit or HCP, except as provided in this section.
10.3 Reductions in mitigation. Permittee will not implement adaptive management
changes that may result in less mitigation than provided for covered species under the original
terms of the HCP, unless the Services first provide written approval. Permittee may propose any
such adaptive management changes by notice to the Services, specifying the adaptive
management modifications proposed, the basis for them, including supporting data, and the
anticipated effects on covered species, and other environmental impacts. Within 120 days of
receiving such a notice, the Services will either approve the proposed adaptive management
changes, approve them as modified by the Services, or notify Permittee that the proposed changes
constitute permit amendments that must be reviewed under Section 12.2 of this agreement.
10.4 No increase in take. This section does not authorize any modifications that
would result in an increase in the amount and nature of take, or increase the impacts of take, of
covered species beyond that analyzed under the original HCP and any amendments thereto. Any
such modification must be reviewed as a permit amendment under Section 12.2 of this agreement.
11.0 LAND TRANSACTIONS
11.1 Acquisition of land by Permittee. Nothing in this agreement, the HCP, or the
permit limits Permittee's right to acquire additional lands. Any lands that may be acquired will
not be covered by the permit except upon amendment of the permit as provided in section 12.2 of
this agreement.
Page 0-7
11.2 Disposal of land by Permittee. Permittee's transfer of ownership or control of
covered land will require prior approval by the Services and an amendment of the permit in
accordance with section 12.2 of this agreement, except that transfers of covered lands may be
processed as minor modifications in accordance with section 12.1 of this agreement if.
(a) The land will be transferred to an agency of the federal government and,
prior to transfer,the Services have determined that transfer will not compromise the effectiveness
of the HCP based on adequate commitments by that agency regarding management of such land;
(b) The land will be transferred to a non-federal entity that has entered into an
agreement acceptable to the Services (e.g.,an easement held by the state fish and wildlife agency
with the Services as third-party beneficiaries) to ensure that the lands will be managed in such a
manner and for such duration so as not to compromise the effectiveness of the HCP;or
(c) The Services determine that the amount of land to be transferred will not
have a material impact on the ability of the Permittee to comply with the requirements of the HCP
and the terms and conditions of the Permit.
12.0 MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS
12.1 Minor modifications.
(a) Any party may propose minor modifications to the HCP or this
agreement by providing notice to all other parties. Such notice shall include a statement of the
reason for the proposed modification and an analysis of its environmental effects, including its
effects on operations under the HCP and on covered species. The parties will use best efforts to
respond to proposed modifications within 60 days of receipt of such notice. Proposed
modifications will become effective upon all other parties' written approval. If, for any reason, a
receiving party objects to a proposed modification, it must be processed as an amendment of the
permit in accordance with subsection 12.2 of this section. The Services will not propose or
approve minor modifications to the HCP or this agreement if the Services determine that such
modifications would result in operations under the HCP that are significantly different from those
analyzed in connection with the original HCP, adverse effects on the environment that are new or
significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the original HCP,or additional take
not analyzed in connection with the original HCP.
(b) Minor modifications to the HCP and IA processed pursuant to this
subsection may include but are not limited to the following:
(1) corrections of typographic, grammatical, and similar editing
errors that do not change the intended meaning;
Page 0-8
(2) correction of any maps or exhibits to correct errors in mapping
or to reflect previously approved changes in the permit or HCP;
(3) minor changes to survey,monitoring or reporting protocols; and
(4) Other types of modifications that are minor in relation to the
HCP,that the Services have analyzed and agreed to.
(c) Any other modifications to the HCP or IA will be processed as
amendments of the permit in accordance with subsection 12.2 of this section.
12.2 Amendment of the Permit. The permit may be amended in accordance with all
applicable legal requirements, including but not limited to the ESA, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and the Services' permit regulations. The party proposing the amendment shall
provide a statement of the reasons for the amendment and an analysis of its environmental effects,
including its effects on operations under the HCP and on covered species.
13.0 REMEDIES,ENFORCEMENT,AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
13.1 In general. Except as set forth below, each party shall have all remedies
otherwise available to enforce the terms of this agreement,the permit, and the HCP.
13.2 No monetary damages. No party shall be liable in damages to any other party
or other person for any breach of this agreement, any performance or failure to perform a
mandatory or discretionary obligation imposed by this agreement or any other cause of action
arising from this agreement.
13.3 Injunctive and temporary relief. The parties acknowledge that the covered
species are unique and that their loss as species would result in irreparable damage to the
environment, mid that therefore injunctive and temporary relief may be appropriate to ensure
compliance with the terms of this agreement.
13.4 Enforcement authority of the United States. Nothing contained in this
agreement is intended to limit the authority of the United States government to seek civil or
criminal penalties or otherwise fulfill its enforcement responsibilities under the ESA or other
applicable law.
13.5 Dispute resolution. The parties recognize that disputes concerning
implementation of, compliance with, or termination of this agreement, the HCP, and the permit
may arise from time to time. The parties agree to work together in good faith to resolve such
disputes, using the informal dispute resolution procedures set forth in this section, or such other
procedures upon which the parties may later agree. However, if at any time any party determines
Page 0-9
that circumstances so warrant, it may seek any available remedy without waiting to complete
informal dispute resolution.
13.5.1 Informal dispute resolution process. Unless the parties agree upon
another dispute resolution process, or unless an aggrieved party has initiated administrative
proceedings or suit in federal court as provided in this section, the parties may use the following
process to attempt to resolve disputes:
(a) The aggrieved party will notify the other parties of the provision that
may have been violated,the basis for contending that a violation has occurred, and the remedies it
proposes to correct the alleged violation.
(b) The party alleged to be in violation will have 30 days, or such other time
as may be agreed, to respond. During this time it may seek clarification of the information
provided in the initial notice. The aggrieved party will use its best efforts to provide any
information then available to it that may be responsive to such inquiries.
(c) Within 30 days after such response was provided or was due,
representatives of the parties having authority to resolve the dispute will meet and negotiate in
good faith toward a solution satisfactory to all parties, or will establish a specific process and
timetable to seek such a solution.
(d) If any issues cannot be resolved through such negotiations, the parties
will consider non-binding mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes and, if a
dispute resolution process is agreed upon, will make good faith efforts to resolve all remaining
issues through that process.
14.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
14.1 No partnership. Neither this agreement nor the HCP shall make or be deemed
to make any party to this agreement the agent for or the partner of any other party.
14.2 Notices. Any notice permitted or required by this agreement shall be in writing,
delivered personally to the persons listed below, or shall be deemed given five (5) days after
deposit in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, return receipt requested and
addressed as follows, or at such other address as any party may from time to time specify to the
other parties in writing. Notices may be delivered by facsimile or other electronic means,
provided that they are also delivered personally or by certified mail. Notices shall be transmitted
so that they are received within the specified deadlines.
Assistant Regional Director
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Page 0-10
911 N.E. I Ith Ave.
Portland,Oregon 97232-4181
Telephone: 503-231-6159
Telefax: 503-231-2019
Regional Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
7600 Sand Point Way N.E.
Seattle, Washington 98115-0070
Telephone: 206-526-6150
Telefax: 206-526-6426
Public Works Director
City of Kent
400 West Gowe Street
Kent, WA 98032
Telephone: 253-856-5500
Telefax: 253-856-6500
14.3 Entire agreement. This agreement, together with the HCP and the permit,
constitutes the entire agreement among the parties. It supersedes any and all other agreements,
either oral or in writing, among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and contains
all of the covenants and agreements among them with respect to said matters, and each party
acknowledges that no representation, inducement, promise or agreement, oral or otherwise, has
been made by any other party or anyone acting on behalf of any other party that is not embodied
herein.
14.4 Elected officials not to benefit. No member of or delegate to Congress shall be
entitled to any share or part of this agreement,or to any benefit that may arise from it.
14.5 Availability of funds. Implementation of this agreement and the HCP by the
Services is subject to the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act and the availability of
appropriated funds. Nothing in this agreement will be construed by the parties to require the
obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of any money from the U.S. Treasury. The parties
acknowledge that the Services will not be required under this agreement to expend any federal
agency's appropriated funds unless and until an authorized official of that agency affirmatively
acts to commit to such expenditures as evidenced in writing.
14.6 Duplicate originals. This agreement may be executed in any number of
duplicate originals. A complete original of this agreement shall be maintained in the official
records of each of the parties hereto.
Page 0-11
14.7 No third-party beneficiaries. Without limiting the applicability of rights
granted to the public pursuant to the ESA or other federal law,this agreement shall not create any
right or interest in the public,or any member thereof, as a third-party beneficiary hereof,nor shall
it authorize anyone not a party to this agreement to maintain a suit for personal injuries or
damages pursuant to the provisions of this agreement. The duties, obligations, and
responsibilities of the parties to this agreement with respect to third parties shall remain as
imposed under existing law.
14.8 Relationship to the ESA and other authorities. The terms of this agreement
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the ESA and applicable federal law. In
particular, nothing in this agreement is intended to limit the authority of the Services to seek
penalties or otherwise fulfill their responsibilities under the ESA. Moreover, nothing in this
agreement is intended to limit or diminish the legal obligations and responsibilities of the
Services as agencies of the federal government. Nothing in this agreement will limit the right or
obligation of any federal agency to engage in consultation required under Section 7 of the ESA or
other federal law; however, it is intended that the rights and obligations of Permittee under the
HCP and this agreement will be considered in any consultation affecting Permittee's use of the
covered lands.
14.9 References to regulations. Any reference in this agreement, the HCP, or the
permit to any regulation or rule of the Services shall be deemed to be a reference to such
regulation or rule in existence at the time an action is taken.
14.10 Applicable laws. All activities undertaken pursuant to this agreement,the HCP,
or the permit must be in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
14.11 Successors and assigns. This agreement and each of its covenants and
conditions shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
successors and assigns. Assignment or other transfer of the permit shall be governed by the
Services'regulations.
Page 0-12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO have executed this Implementing
Agreement to be in effect as of the date that the Services issue the permit.
BY Date
Regional Director
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Portland, Oregon
BY Date
Regional Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
Seattle,Washington
BY Date
Mayor
City of Kent, Washington
Page 0-13
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7H
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement for 2011 Citywide Large Culvert &
Storm Pipe Cleaning - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the
City of Kent and Drainage District No. 1 of King County for the City to receive a
$100,000 contribution to the 2011 Citywide Large Culvert and Storm Pipe Cleaning
project, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and
Public Works Director.
SUMMARY: The above referenced project includes removing sediment, invasive
vegetation and refuse from culverts, channels and storm pipes at 10 sites in the Kent
valley. On July 5, 2011 the contract was awarded to Ventilation Power Cleaning, Inc.
in the amount of $986,847.95. Drainage District No. 1 of King County agreed at their
board meeting on June 30, 2011, to contribute $100,000 to this project since there is
a mutual benefit to the District. This benefit includes better drainage and flow of
storm water through their property in the valley.
Apart from this contribution, the Drainage District has contributed $150,000 in the
past year towards two projects; the 2010 Citywide Large Culvert Pipe Cleaning Project
and the South 228th Street Improvements. Both projects also improve storm water
conveyance in the Kent Valley.
EXHIBITS: Interlocal Agreement
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: The $100,000 contribution to the storm drainage utility will be
applied to the above-referenced project.
Interlocal Agreement Regarding
Kent 2011 Citywide Large Culvert and Storm Pipe Cleaning
(between the City of Kent and Drainage District No. 1 of King County)
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into between the
CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation ("Kent") and DRAINAGE
DISTRICT NO. 1 OF KING COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation, located
and doing business at 19414 84th Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032 ("District").
Recitals
A. Kent and District are public agencies as defined by Ch. 39.34 of the
Revised Code of Washington, and are authorized to enter into interlocal agreements
on the basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in
the manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord
best with geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs
and development of local communities.
B. Kent is undertaking a project known as 2011 Citywide Large Culvert
and Storm Pipe Cleaning (hereafter "Project"), which is expected to occur in 2011
with an estimated construction cost of approximately $987,000 to Kent.
C. The District's purpose is to ensure the flows of drainage waters in its
jurisdiction. Kent's Project includes removal of sediment, invasive vegetation and
refuse from 10 sites in the Kent Valley. The project sites include areas in and
around culverts, in drainage and creek channels, and in storm pipes and catch
basins. The District expects to benefit due to an increase in water conveyance
ability. Accordingly, because of the benefits to be received by the District, the
District desires to contribute toward Kent's costs to complete the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provisions contained
herein, it is agreed between Kent and District as follows:
Agreement
1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Agreement to outline the terms
under which the District will contribute the sum of ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($100,000) toward the cost of Kent's Project.
2. Duration. This Agreement shall become effective on the last date it is
executed. Unless terminated by either party in accordance with section 7 below,
this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until the completion of the
Improvement Project, which is anticipated to be no later than December 31, 2011
3. Administration of Agreement. Kent and the District shall each appoint
a representative who shall be authorized to administer this Agreement on their
behalf.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING
2011 CITYV✓IDE LARGE CULVERT AND STORM PIPE CLEANING- Page I of 4
(Between.Kent and Drainage DistrietNo. 1 ofKing County)
4. Contribution to Kent. In consideration of this Agreement, the Project
undertaken by Kent, and the benefits that the Project will confer upon the District,
the District agrees to contribute the sum of ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($100,000) to Kent. This sum shall be remitted by the District to Kent by August
31, 2011, or by such other date as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties'
appointed administrators.
5. Failure to Perform the Project - Return of Contribution. As a condition
of the District's contribution toward the cost of the Project, in the event Kent does
not execute the portions of the Project in the District's right of way, the District
reserves the right to demand repayment of the full contribution. If such demand is
made upon City, then City shall promptly return the full sum previously contributed
by the District.
6. Entry upon Land. Kent's contractor for the Project has been provided
sufficient access to District property by previous negotiation. That access and the
terms of those negotiations do not form a part of this Agreement.
7. Termination by Mutual Written Agreement. This Agreement may be
terminated at any time by mutual written agreement of the parties.
8. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Kent shall defend, indemnify and
hold District, its officers, officials, 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 Kent's performance of this
Agreement and its Project, except for that portion of the injuries and damages
caused by District's negligence, if any.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
9. Miscellaneous.
9.1 Amendments. This Agreement may only be amended by mutual
written agreement of Kent and District.
9.2 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 the same shall be and remain in full force
and effect.
9.3 Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement
shall be governed by and construed 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' performance of this Agreement, the exclusive means of
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING
2011 CITYV✓IDE LARGE CULVERT AND STORM PIPE CLEANING- Page 2 of 4
(Between.Kent and Drainage DistrietNo. 1 ofKing County)
resolving 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, 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 of this Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and
attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, in addition
to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to limit the District's right to indemnification under
section 8 of this Agreement.
9.4 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.
9.5 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 District.
9.6 Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this
Agreement shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other
representative of the City or the District, and such statements shall not be effective
or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this
Agreement.
9.7 Compliance with Laws. The parties agree to comply with all
federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the
future become applicable to the operations covered by this Agreement or accruing
out of the performance of those operations.
9.8 Severability. If any section of this Agreement is adjudicated to
be invalid, such action shall not affect the validity of any section not so adjudicated.
9.9 Notice. All communications 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
upon personal service or three (3) business days after the date of mailing by
registered or certified mail, and shall 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.
IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall
become effective on the last date entered below.
DISTRICT: KENT:
DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF KING CITY OF KENT:
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING
2011 CITYV✓IDE LARGE CULVERT AND STORM PIPE CLEANING- Page 3 of 4
(Between.Kent and Drainage DistrietNo. 1 o(King County)
COUNTY
By: By:
(signature)
Print Name: Morgan Llewellyn Print Name: Suzette Cooke
Its: Chair, Board of Commissioners Its Mayor
(Title)
DATE: DATE:
NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO:
J. David Huhs Timothy LaPorte, Director
Curran Law Firm, P.S. City of Kent Public Works Department
555 W. Smith St. 220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032
(253) 852-2345 (telephone)
(253) 852-2030 (facsimile) (253) 856-5500 (telephone)
(253) 856-6500 (facsimile)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. David Huhs, Tom Brubaker, City Attorney
of Curran Law Firm, P.S.
Attorney for Drainage District No. 1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING
2011 CITYV✓IDE LARGE CULVERT AND STORM PIPE CLEANING- Page 4 of 4
(Between.Kent and Drainage DistrietNo. 1 offing County)
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7I
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: Consultant Services Agreement for Green River Levee
Certification, SR 516 to S 2315t Way Levee Projects -
Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with
Rittenhouse Consulting in the amount of $20,000 for the Green River Levee
Certification of State Route 516 to S. 231st Way Levee project, subject to final
terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director.
SUMMARY: The State Route 516 to S. 231st Way Levee is a 2.8-mile levee
segment along the north and east banks of the Green River, adjacent to the Riverbend
Golf Course, the Lakes Community, and Russell Woods Park. As part of the levee
certification process, the engineering consultant has identified areas that need
improvements in order to meet certification standards. Some of the proposed levee
improvements are outside of City-owned property and will require purchasing
additional property to complete.
This contract with Rittenhouse Consulting will provide the City a real estate specialist
and negotiator to work with the public in areas where private property must be
obtained by the City to complete the levee improvements. The consultant has
expertise in state and federal property acquisition processes, which are complex and
must be closely followed and documented.
EXHIBITS: Contract
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts.
KENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
between the City of Kent and
Rittenhouse Consulting
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation
(hereinafter the "City"), and Rittenhouse Consulting organized under the laws of the State of Washington,
located and doing business at 6229 121" Ave. SE, Bellevue, WA 98006-4422, Phone: (206) 714-
0826/Fax: (425) 641-4091, Contact: Anne Rittenhouse (hereinafter the "Contractor").
I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
Contractor shall perform the following services for the City:
The Contractor shall provide professional negotiation services for the
acquisition of right-of-way for the SR 516 to 231st Way Levee project. For a
description, see the Contractor's June 7, 2011 Scope of Work which is
attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
Contractor further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in
accordance with generally accepted professional practices within the Puget Sound region in effect at the
time those services are performed.
II. TIME 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, and Contractor shall complete the
work by December 31, 2012.
III. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay Contractor a total amount not to exceed Twenty
Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) for the services described in this Agreement. The Contractor shall invoice
the City monthly based on time and materials incurred during the preceding month. The hourly rates
charged for Contractor's services shall be as delineated in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A. All
hourly rates charged shall remain locked at the negotiated rates throughout the term of this Agreement.
IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an Independent Contractor-
Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement. By their execution of this Agreement, and in
accordance with Ch. 51.08 RCW, the parties make the following representations:
A. The Contractor has the ability to control and direct the performance and details of its
work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement.
B. The Contractor maintains and pays for its own place of business from which
Contractor's services under this Agreement will be performed.
C. The Contractor has an established and independent business that is eligible for a
business deduction for federal income tax purposes that existed before the City
retained Contractor's services, or the Contractor is engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that
involved under this Agreement.
D. The Contractor is responsible for filing as they become due all necessary tax
documents with appropriate federal and state agencies, including the Internal
Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 1
(Over$Z 0,000)
i
E. The Contractor has registered its business and established an account with the state
Department of Revenue and other state agencies as may be required by Contractor's
business, and has obtained a Unified Business Identifier (UBI) number from the
State of Washington.
F. The Contractor maintains a set of books dedicated to the expenses and earnings of
its business.
V. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon
providing the other party seven (7) calendar days written notice at its address set forth on the signature
block of this Agreement.
VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this
Agreement or any subcontract, the Contractor, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of the
Contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to
perform the work to which the employment relates as provided for by the City of Kent's Equal
Employment Opportunity Policy. Contractor shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment
Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the
contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement.
VII. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or
suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Contractor'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 any of Contractor's work when completed shall not be
grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. The provisions of this section shall survive
the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
In the event Contractor refuses tender of defense in any suit or any claim, if that tender was made
pursuant to this indemnification clause, and if that refusal is subsequently determined by a court having
jurisdiction (or other agreed tribunal) to have been a wrongful refusal on the Contractor's part, then
Contractor shall pay all the City's costs for defense, including all reasonable expert witness fees and
reasonable attorneys' fees, plus the City's legal costs and fees incurred because there was a wrongful
refusal on the Contractor's part.
VIII. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit B attached and incorporated by
this reference.
XII. CONTRACTOR'S WORK AND RISK. The Contractor agrees to comply with all federal,
state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable
to Contractor's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or
accruing out of the performance of those services. All work shall be done at Contractor's own risk, and
Contractor 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.
XIII. 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 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 the same shall be and remain in full force and effect.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 2
(Over$10,000) ',.
i
C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed 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' performance 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 King 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 of this Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred
in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or
award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's
right to indemnification under Section VII of this Agreement.
D. Written Notice. All communications 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 shall 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.
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 Contractor.
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 entering into or forming a part
of or altering in any manner this Agreement, 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.
IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall become effective on
the last date entered below.
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF KENT:
By:
(signature) By
(signature)
Print Name:
Print Name: Suzette Cooke
Its: (title) Its Mayor
DATE:
DATE:
NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO:
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF KENT:
Anne Rittenhouse Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E.
Rittenhouse Consulting City of Kent
6229 121" Ave. SE 220 Fourth Avenue South
Bellevue, WA 98006-4422 Kent, WA 98032
(206) 714-0826 (telephone) (253) 856-5500 (telephone)
(425) 641-4091 (facsimile) (253) 856-6500 (facsimile)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 3
(Over$10,000)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kent Law Department
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 4
(Over$10,000) ,,
i
i
DECLARATION
CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY
i
The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity.
As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this
Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity
policies.
The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any
contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative
response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding.
If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the
directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole
determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement;
The questions are as follows:
1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2.
2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of
sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical
disability.
3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to
all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity
employer.
4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and
promotion of women and minorities.
5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the
Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth
above.
By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above.
Dated this day of 20 .
By:
For:
Title:
Date:
I
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 1
CITY OF KENT
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998
SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996
CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor
POLICY:
Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and
state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee
equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City
amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps:
1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating
commitment as an equal opportunity employer.
2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women.
Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract
and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement.
Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public
Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments.
1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these
regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity
policy.
2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and guidelines.
i
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 2
CITY OF KENT
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the
Agreement.
I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of
Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime
contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered into on
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 20 .
By:
For:
Title:
Date:
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 3
Rittenhouse , Consulting
Right-of-May,Relocation and Real Estate Services
d �
EXHIBIT A
i
i
June 7, 2011
Beth Tan,P.E., Engineer 3
Environmental Engineering
400 W Gowe St.
Kent, WA 98032
RE: SR 516 to 231"Way Levee Project, #09-3006
Dear Ms. Tan:
Thank you for allowing me to submit a proposal on the above-referenced project, as outlined in
our meeting on June 3rd. Please accept this letter as a Consulting Proposal/Scope of Work as
follows:
PROPOSAL/SCOPE OF WORK
This Proposal/Scope of Work is for Profession Negotiation for the acquisition of right-of-way
needed for the following four parcels:
1. Private roadway in Signature Point @ SR516 - Title Report# 1137539
2. Three parcels adjoining easterly right-of-way of Russell Road between James St. and
53`d Ave. S. - Title Reports# 1114182, 1114183 and 1114184.
It is estimated that this work will take approximately $5,000 per parcel, for a total of$20,000,
and will be billed at$85 per hour.
Preparation of the necessary packets needed for the negotiation and acquisition work will be
performed under the direction of your consultant Jerry McCaughan, of GB McCaughan &Assoc.
The City will provide, where applicable, the most recent engineering/utility/design plans, title
reports and appraisals at the beginning of the project, and will provide any changes to plans,
supplemental title reports, etc., throughout the project. The City will also provide approved
documents (i.c. deeds,utility/easements, etc.) for negotiator packets. Excise Tax Affidavits,
where applicable, and vendor forms will be completed by Rittenhouse Consulting. The City will
arrange appraisal schedules so that the negotiator agent can be present.
I
Additional standard charges such as mileage and customary reimbursements (copies, long
distance phone calls, etc.), if any, will be billed at actual cost.
6229121"Avenue SE 0 Bellevue, WA s 98006-4422
Office 206-714-0826 o Fax 425-641-4091 s Rlas@carncastnet
i
The potential remaining 14 properties, if needed, will be addressed at a later date when more
detailed information is available.
NOTE: This proposal does not include the preparation of legal documents until said documents
have been approved by the appropriate agencies.
MISSION STATEMENT
Rittenhouse Consulting will represent the City of Kent professionally and ethically at all times,
and treat property owners with respect.
If you require anything further from me, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Anne Rittenhouse, SR/WA, R/W-RAC, R/W-NAC
Owner, Rittenhouse Consulting
I'
6229121"Avenue SE P Bellevue, WA P 98006-4422
Office 206-714-0826 P Fax 425-641-4091 P Ititis@camcust net
KENT Agenda Item: Other Business — 8A
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: Kentara Rezone Ordinance (Quasi-Judicial) — Adopt
MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. accepting the findings of
the Hearing Examiner, rezoning the property, located at 10329 SE 273rd PI., and
amending the zoning map.
SUMMARY: Council is considering adoption of an ordinance relating to land use
and zoning, specifically the rezoning of the eastern 0.45 acre of a 0.75 acre site from
Single Family Residential (one unit per acre), to Single Family Residential (six units
per acre). The property is located at 10329 SE 273rd Place. The Kent Hearing
Examiner held a Public Hearing on June 1, 2011, and issued Findings, Conclusions,
and a Recommendation for approval on June 14, 2011.
Before taking action, the City Attorney will make a brief presentation on the quasi-
judicial nature of this issue.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions and Recommenda-
tion, Staff report with map, Staff memo dated 5/19/2011 and SEPA Addendum &
Adoption dated 3/21/2011
RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, Economic and Community Development
Committee, and Staff
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and
zoning, specifically the rezoning of the eastern
portion of an approximately .79 acre site consisting
of .45 of an acre of property located at 10329 SE
273rd Place from Single Family Residential 1 unit
per acre (SR-1) to Single Family Residential 6 units
per acre (SR-6). (Kentara Lot 21 Rezone, #RZ-
2010-1, KIVA #2102422).
RECITALS
A. An application to rezone the eastern portion of an
approximately .79 acre site, consisting of .45 of an acre of property located
at 10329 SE 273rd Place, Kent, Washington, from the current zoning of
Single Family Residential 1 unit per acre (SR-1) to Single Family
Residential 6 units per acre (SR-6), was filed on September 1, 2010, by
Harry Schneider, Schneider Homes (Kentara Lot 21 Rezone, #CPZ-2010-1,
KIVA #2102422).
B. On May 19, 2011, the SEPA Responsible Official determined
that additional SEPA review was not required for the current rezone
proposal, based on her finding that the current rezone request is
substantially similar to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment
approved by the City Council on April 19, 2011, and does not contain new
information related to probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
1 Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
C. A public hearing on the rezone was held before the hearing
examiner on June 1, 2011. On June 14, 2011, the hearing examiner
issued findings and conclusions that the Kentara Lot 21 Rezone is
consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed rezone
and subsequent development activity would be compatible with the
development in the vicinity, that the proposed rezone will not unduly
burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated, that circumstances
have changed since the establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone, and that the proposed rezone will not
adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
D. Based on these findings and conclusions, the hearing
examiner recommended approval of the Kentara Lot 21 Rezone.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SEMON 1, — Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions
Adopted. The hearing examiner's findings and conclusions pertaining to the
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone issued on June 14, 2011, are consistent with
sections 15.09.050(A)(3) and 15.09.050(C) of the Kent City Code. The
findings of the hearing examiner are accepted, and the Kent City Council
adopts the hearing examiner's recommendation for approval of the Kentara
Lot 21 Rezone from Single Family Residential 1 unit per acre (SR-1) to
Single Family Residential 6 units per acre (SR-6).
2 Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
SECTION 2. - Rezone. The property located at 10329 SE 273rd
Place, Kent, Washington consisting of approximately .45 of an acre
depicted in Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated by this reference, and
legally described in Exhibit "B," attached and incorporated by this
reference, is rezoned as follows:
King County tax parcel number 383125-0210, located in Kent,
Washington, shall be rezoned from Single Family Residential
1.0 unit per acre (SR-1) to Single Family Residential 6 units per
acre (SR-6).
The city of Kent zoning map shall be amended to reflect the rezone granted
above.
SECTION 3. - Severability. If any one or more section, sub-section,
or sentence of this ordinance is 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 4. - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and
section/subsection numbering.
SECTION 5. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force five (5) days from and after its passage as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
3 Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of August, 2011.
APPROVED: day of August, 2011.
PUBLISHED: day of August, 2011.
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:\Clvll\Ordinance\Rezone-Kentara Lot2l.doc,
4 Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
EXHIBIT A
a OM a
IL
IL
LC3 �z oZ maZz- �z
w o (WQ
LU LLU
OMM.l Z a
m „ m N z z W Lis Q43m W
a W
a a 1�!�I 4 mN
y
z o
Q o 0
Q d n
co
® o
0
c
z
L11 zn Z�
DA
Q)
1 2 to
0
00 Y
Fn q3 N Z
�_ N LL N } 35 3Atl Htbgl N U
= J O f z s-as
x Q z = .54'LE4 3 ZS,GZ.ZON
LLI 4-E!S
W Q L / U go,M 3
aaI- \J a.-C6 d a
WOz Na
f-- CL Co Z d *- N o q� "d� n
N "
W Warms W � LLI
o,
- Q ,N W w I1J''NN C`Lb \f'f+.
O' d`W
T O did
J
z U YAW 3 am
J moo. m4 h
oiomvi"o�o"� ^m
ryM-Nrn
N yN-1�. Y Ol �N QKJ
COvI no � M z ,Zl'£ll F,
d N^ m 3„OS,bO.Zt>N $
F- W i z OZ
dW
} Ln WN41
FUN Qa
0
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT
AFFECTED PARCEL
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL No.383125-0210
LOT 21,KENTARA,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,RECORDED IN VOLUME 238
OF PLATS,PAGES 36 THROUGH 39,INCLUSIVE,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON.
}RE C gV
KEl' T
PE,R tirS CENTER
LAND USE NEARING EXAMINER
Kimberly A. Allen
® Hearing Examiner
j" CITY OF KENT
W.SHINGTON
In the Matter of the Application of ) No. CPZ-2010-1
} KIVA #RPP4 - 2102422
Harry Schneider, )
On behalf of Schneider Homes )
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
}
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
For a Rezone ) AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Applicant's zoning map amendment to
rezone the eastern 0.45 acre of a 0.75 acre site from SR-1, Single Family
Residential to SR-6, Single Family Residential at 10329 SE 273rd Place, in Kent,
Washington, be APPROVED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Harry Schneider, for Schneider Homes, requests a zoning map amendment to
rezone the eastern 0.45 acre of a 0.75 acre site from SR-1, Single Family
Residential to SR-6, Single Family Residential. The property related to the request
is located at 10329 SE 273rd Place, in Kent, Washington.
Hearing Date:
The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on June 1, 2011.
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record
hearing:
Matt Gilbert, City Principal Planner
Hans Korve, for Applicant
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Public Hearing Agenda, June 1, 2011
2. Staff Report, dated May 25, 2011
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
No. CPZ-2010-1, KIVA #RPP4-2102422
Page 1 of 8
3. Zoning Map Amendment (Rezone) Application Materials, received Sept. 1,
2010
4. Notice of Application - Kentara Lot 21 Rezone CPZ-2010-1 #2102422, ENV-
2010-26 #210242; Affidavit of Posting; with Distribution and Kent Reporter
Public Notice Affidavit, dated April 22, 2011
5. Ordinance 3995, passed April 19, 2011
6. Memo from Charlene Anderson to Matt Gilbert, Environmental Review for the
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone, dated May 19, 2011
7. Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents, dated March 21, 2011
8. City of Kent Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental
Impact Statement, dated March 21, 2011
9. Distribution of the Adoption and Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Statement and Declaration of Delivery, dated March
22, 2011
10. SEPA Environmental Checklist, dated September 1, 2010
11. King County Recorded Final Plat Map #20061204001362 (4 sheets), received
Sept. 1, 2010
12. Agenda and Staff Report Distribution and Declaration of Service, dated May
25, 2011
13. Notice of Public Hearing with Distribution, dated May 20, 2011, and
statement of posting on May 23, 2011
14. Notice of Public Hearing, Kent Reporter, dated May 20, 2011
15. Routing Slip, dated September 20, 2010
16. Aerial photos of Kentara subdivision
A. Aerial photo of Kentara Subdivision, undated
B. Aerial photo close-up of Kentara Lot 21, undated
FINDINGS
1. Harry Schneider, for Schneider Homes (Applicant),' requests a zoning map
amendment to rezone the eastern 0,45 acre of a 0.79 acre site from SR-1,
Single Family Residential to SR-6, Single Family Residential. The property
related to the request is the eastern portion of Lot 21 of the Kentara
Subdivision and located at 10329 SE 273rd Place, in Kent, Washington?
Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 11.
2. The City of Kent (City) determined the rezone application to be complete on
September 1, 2010. On April 22, 2011, the City posted notice of the rezone
application, sent notice to public agencies and parties of record, and
published notice in the Kent Reporter, Exhibit 4. The City mailed notice of
1 The Notice of Application (Exhibit 4) and Notice of Public Hearing (Exhibit 13) list the Applicant's
name as Hans Korve, DMP Engineering. Hans Korve testified that Harry Schneider, on behalf of
Schneider Homes, is the Applicant. Testimony of Mr. Korve.
z -
x parcel number 383125
The property subject to the rezone request is identified by King County to pa c
0210. Exhibit 3. A legal description of the property is included with the rezone application. Exhibit 3.
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
No. CPZ-2010-1, KIVA #RPP4-2102422
Page 2 of 8
the open record hearing associated with the rezone request to public
agencies. and all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property;
and published notice in the Kent Reporter on May 20, 2011. The City posted
notice on the subject property on May 23, 2011. Matt Gilbert, City Principal
Planner, testified that public notice was given according to City Code. Exhibit
13; Exhibit 14; Testimony of Mr. Gilbert.
3. The City acted as lead agency and analyzed the environmental impact of the
proposed rezone as required by the State Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA), Ch. 43.21C RCW. The City issued a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) on January 30, 1995, for its Comprehensive Plan. On
March 21, 2011, Charlene Anderson, the City's Responsible SEPA Official,
prepared an Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental
Impact Statement and issued an Adoption of Existing Environmental
Documents for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. This
amendment changed Kentara Lot 21 in the City's Comprehensive Plan from a
split US (Urban Separator) and SF-6 (Single-Family, 6 units/acre)
designation to SF-6. On May 19, 2011, Ms. Anderson determined that the
proposed rezone and zoning map amendment from SR-1 to SR-6 is
substantially the same as the earlier Comprehensive Plan amendment for the
site. Ms. Anderson determined that the March 21, 2011 addendum and
adoption of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan fulfill the City's SEPA
responsibilities.3 Exhibit 6; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9.
4. The subject parcel was annexed to the City in 1994 (Ordinance No. 3171) as
part of the Ramstead Annexation. The Applicant's parcel is part of the 41 lot
Kentara subdivision. The subdivision was recorded in September 2006. The
eastern portion of the Applicant's parcel subject to the rezone was cleared
and graded. It was used for construction staging for residential development
within the subdivision. The western portion of the parcel contains steep
slopes that are protected by a sensitive area easement recorded as part of
the Kentara subdivision. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 3 and 4; Exhibit 5;
Exhibit 11.
5. The City's Comprehensive Plan describes the Land Use Element as having
"the central role of defining the direction of the Comprehensive Plan, and
thereby defining the vision of the community." City Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use Element, page 4-2. The Land Use Element contains goals and
policies, including requiring a minimum density of four units per net
developable acre; locating housing opportunities with a variety of densities
within close proximity to employment, shopping and transit; and providing
opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities
s The Applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist dated September 1, 2010, to subdivide a 0.8
acre parcel into three single-family residential lots. Exhibit 10.
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
No. CPZ-2010-1, KIVA #RPP4-2102422
Page 3 of 8
throughout the City.4 Housing Element goals and policies relevant to the
rezone request include increasing housing opportunities through a diversity
of housing types, expanding the range of affordable housing choices;
encouraging flexibility and innovative site and building design for a variety of
housing developments; and revising zoning and development standards to
increase the supply of affordable housing options such as small lot sizes.5
Transportation Element goals and policies relevant to the rezone request
include coordinating new residential development with transportation
projects and ensuring consistency between land use and transportation
plans.6 Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 6 to 9.
6. On April 19, 2011, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan change
for the Applicant's parcel from a split Single-Family 6 units/acre (SF-6) and
Urban Separator (US) to SF-6. Exhibit 5. Properties to the west, north and
east are designated SF-6, while property to the south is designated US.
Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 2. The purpose of the Single-family Residential
designation is to allow single-family residential development at varying
densities and housing forms (e.g., cottage and cluster). In the city limits,
there are four single-family designations: SF-3, SF-4.5, SF-6, and SF-8.
These designations allow development of up to 3, 4.5, 6, and 8 dwelling units
per acre, respectively. City Comprehensive Plan, page 4-52. The Urban
Separator designation is for low-density lands that define community or
municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent resource lands, rural
areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space corridors
within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual,
recreational and wildlife benefits. City Comprehensive Plan, pages 4-56 to 4-
57.
7. The subject parcel is split zoned between Single-Family Residential (SR-6) on
the western portion and SR-17 on the eastern portion. Exhibit 2, Staff
Report, page 2; Exhibit 16.A. The purpose of the SR-1 zone is to provide for
areas allowing low density single-family residential development. SR-1
zoning is applied to those areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low
density development, because of environmental constraints or the lack of
4 See Land Use Element Goals LU-9 and LU-10, and Policies LU-9.1; LU-9.4; LU-10.4. City
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element(last revised May 4, 2006), pages 4-26, 4-32 and 4-33;
Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 6-7.
5 See Housing Element Goals H-2; H-5; and H-7, and Policies H-2.2 and H-5.1; H-5.2; H-5.3; and H-
7.5. City Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element(2004), pages 6-11 to 6-14; Exhibit 2, Staff Report,
page B.
6 See Transportation Element Goal TR-1 and Policies TR-1.2 and TR-1.5. City Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation Element(2004),page 9-40; Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 9.
The SR-1 zone is called the Residential Agricultural District in the City Code. KCC 15.03.010.
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
No. CPZ-2010-1, KIVA #RPP4-2102422
Page 4 of 8
urban services. Kent City Code (KCC) 15.03.010. The purpose of the Single-
Family Residential Districts 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 in order to promote
diversity and recognize a variety of residential environments. KCC
15.03.010. The SR-6 zoning district would permit a maximum density of
6.05 dwelling units/acre, with a minimum lot size of 5,700 square feet.8 KCC
15,04,170,
8. Properties to the west, north and east are within the Kentara subdivision and
zoned SR-6. Property to the south is zoned SR-1 and includes steep slopes
and open space to the north of SE 277th Street. Exhibit 2, Staff Report,
pages 2 and 4; Exhibit 16.A.
9. The Applicant has proposed development of a three lot short subdivision on
the proposed rezone site. The western portion of the parcel would remain in
a recorded sensitive area easement. The parcel is fronted on its north side
by SE 273rd Place, a private street. The rezone request itself would not
generate increased traffic on the surrounding transportation system or
neighborhood streets. Traffic impacts from future development of the site
would be addressed through the short-plat process. The Kentara subdivision
and the adjacent Autumn Glen subdivision to the east have provided
improvements to roadway and utility infrastructure in the immediate area.
City water and sanitary services are available. The existing Kentara
subdivision stormwater management system is available to serve the rezone
site. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 3, 5, 10 and 11; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 16.A.
10. Hans Korve, DMP Engineering, testified for the Applicant that the City
recently amended the Comprehensive Plan for the site to SF-6. The intent of
the proposed rezone from SR-1 to SR-6 is to bring the site into conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan. Testimony of Mr. Korve.
11. Matt Gilbert, City Planner, testified that any future development on the
rezone site would be reviewed by the City separately and that any future
short plat of the rezone site would not be considered part of the Kentara
subdivision, but rather would be considered a separate short plat. He
testified that the City had carried out SEPA review as part of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. The City determined that there were no
additional impacts from the proposed rezone and chose to adopt existing
SEPA documentation. He testified that the City received no public comments
on the rezone application. Regarding future transportation impacts from
development of the rezone site, he testified that the Applicant would mitigate
e Within the SR-6 zone, for subdivisions and short subdivisions created after March 22, 2007, or
altered to comply with zoning and subdivision code amendments effective after March 22, 2007, the
minimum lot size shall be three thousand (3,000) square feet. KCC 15.04.180.37.
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
No. CPZ-2010-1, KIVA #RPP4-2102422
Page 5 of 8
any such impacts through payment of a Transportation Impact Fee and
conformance with the City's roadway construction standards. He testified
that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan including
the land use, housing, and transportation goals and policies and
recommended that the rezone be approved without conditions. Testimony of
Mr. Gilbert.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold an open record hearing on quasi-
judicial actions, including this rezone, and to issue a written recommendation for
final action to the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Kent City Code
Chapters 2.32, 12.01 and 15.09.
Criteria for Review
KCC 15.09.050.0 sets forth the standards and criteria the Hearing Examiner must
use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a rezone shall only be granted
if:
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site
would be compatible with development in the vicinity;
3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation
system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse
impacts which cannot be mitigated;
4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment
of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; and
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
In addition, RCW 36.706.040 requires consistency with City development
regulations or the appropriate elements of the comprehensive plan, considering:
a. The type of land use;
b. The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures
of density;
c. Infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to
serve the development; and
d. The characteristics of the development, such as development
standards.
RCW 36.708.040.
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
No. CPZ-2010-1, KIVA #RPP4-2102422
Page 6 of 8
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed rezone to the SR-6 zoning classification would permit
development at a ratio of up to 6 single-family residences per acre on the
subject parcel, consistent with the subject parcel's SF-6 Comprehensive Plan
designation. Development on the subject parcel supported by the proposed
rezone would not exceed a density of six units per acre. The proposed
rezone would support development of higher single family residence density
within the City limits near existing streets and services, consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goals LU-9 and LU-10 and Policies LU-9.1, LU-
9.4, and LU-10.4. The proposed rezone would support provision of single-
family housing within the City, on smaller lot sizes than in the SR-1 zone,
with access to urban services, consistent with Housing Element Goals H-2, H-
5, and H-7, and Policies H-2.2, H-5.1, H-5.2, and H-5.3, and H-7.5. Future
short plat development would pay a Transportation Impact Fee to ensure
coordination and consistency between land use and transportation plans
under Transportation Element Goal TR-1 and Policies TR-1.2 and TR-1.5.
Findings 1-11.
2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development would be
compatible with the existing neighborhood. Within the subject parcel,
the proposed rezone would allow the Applicant to apply for a short plat for
three single-family residences and necessary infrastructure to support the
dwelling units. A short plat for three single-family residences is consistent
with the subject parcel's SF-6 Comprehensive Plan designation, which the
subject parcel shares with the Kentara Subdivision to the west, north, and
east. The SR-6 zoning classification imposes minimum lot width, minimum
yard, and maximum building height limitations that are compatible with
those imposed on properties located in the SR-6 zoning district in the vicinity
of the subject parcel. Findings 3-11.
3. The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation
system. The proposed rezone itself would not generate increased traffic.
The Applicant would address any future traffic impacts resulting from a
proposed short plat by paying a traffic mitigation fee. The Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan has identified local system needs to meet
future demands on the local transportation system based on the City's
adopted land use designations. The City would identify any needed road
improvements as part of any future short plat application. Findings 3, 5-11.
4. Circumstances have changed substantially to warrant the proposed
rezone. Washington state courts have held that proof of changed
circumstances are not required for a rezone if the proposed rezone and
associated development implement policies contained in the comprehensive
plan. Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn, App. 840 (Div. I, 1995); Henderson
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
City of Kent Nearing Examiner
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
No. CPZ-2010-1, KIVA #RPP4-2102422
Page 7 of 8
v. Kittitas County, 124 Wn. App. 747 (Div. III, 2004). On April 19, 2011, the
City Council passed Ordinance No. 3995, which amended the City
Comprehensive Plan by designating the property SF-6. The rezone request
and any subsequent short plat development would implement City
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies to promote home ownership and
reduce urban sprawl through flexibility in housing and site design. The
rezone would bring the property into line with the SF-6 Comprehensive Plan
designation. Findings 1-11,
S. The proposed rezone would not adversely affect public health, safety
and general welfare. The City gave adequate notice of the rezone
application and the associated open record hearing. As part of the 2011
City's Comprehensive Plan amendment for the site, the City adopted the
1995 Comprehensive Plan EIS. The City determined that no additional SEPA
review was required for the rezone request. The proposed rezone to SR-6
Single Family Residential would preserve the single-family residential
neighborhood present in the area of the proposed rezone, consistent with the
subject parcel's SF-6 Comprehensive Plan designation and the purpose of the
SR-6 zoning district. The reduced lot size permitted under the proposed
rezone would be compatible with surrounding properties also zoned SR-6.
Physical conditions on the parcel subject to the rezone application are
suitable for development. The remaining portion of the parcel to the west
containing steep slopes would continue to be protected under a recorded
sensitive area easement. City water and sanitary sewer services are
available to the subject parcel and the Kentara subdivision stormwater
management system is available to serve the rezone site. The proposed
rezone is consistent with City Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies.
Findings 1-11,
6. Based on the above conclusions, the requirements of RCW
36.70B.040 are satisfied. Findings 1-11,
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner
recommends that the Applicant's zoning map amendment to rezone the eastern
0.45 acre of a 0.75 acre site from SR-1, Single Family Residential to SR-6, Single
Family Residential at 10329 SE 273ro Place, in Kent, Washington, be APPROVED.
DATED this , day of June 2011.
--- KIMBERLY A. ALLEN
Hearing Examiner
Sound Law Center
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
No. CPZ-2010-1, KIVA #RPP4-2102422
Page 8 of 8
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
WASHINGTON
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
(253) 856-5454
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF
June 1, 2011
FILE: Kentara Lot 21 Rezone
#CPZ-2010-1 KIVA# 2102422
APPLICANT: Harry Schneider
Schneider Homes
6510 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
REQUEST: A request to rezone the eastern portion of a .79 acre
site from SR-1, Single Family Residential to SR-6,
Single Family Residential.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Matt Gilbert, Principal Planner
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant proposes to rezone the eastern .45 acres of a .79 acre site from
SR-1, Single Family Residential to SR-6, Single Family Residential. The larger
parcel is currently split zoned: SR-1 on the eastern portion and SR-6 on the
western portion. The current proposal would establish the SR-6 zone on the
entire parcel.
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
B. Location
The subject property is located within the Kentara subdivision, at 10329 SE 273 rd
Place. It is immediately north of the SE 272"d/277`h Street Corridor.
C. Size of Property
The subject parcel is approximately 0.79 acres, however, the applicant proposes
to rezone only the eastern 0.45 acres.
D. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is currently split zoned between SR-6, Single Family
Residential on the western portion and SR-1 on the eastern portion. Zoning
immediately adjacent to the site includes SR-6 to the north, east and west and
SR-1 to the south.
On April 19, 2011, the Kent City Council approved an amendment to the City of
Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that redesignated the SR-1 portion of
the lot from US, Urban Separator to SF-6, Single Family. The current proposal
seeks to implement a zoning designation consistent with the new Comprehensive
Plan designation. Properties to the north, east and west are designated SF-6,
while property to the south remains US, Urban Separator.
The proposed SR-6 zoning designation would allow for the development of up to
three detached dwelling units, as opposed to one dwelling unit under the existing
split designation. The applicant has indicated plans to submit for a three lot
short subdivision if the current rezone is approved. This application would be
evaluated separately by the City's Short-Subdivision committee.
Page 2 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
i
i° ��U111U1111111111�� i 3 � � i r r
i
b i f i
N
W+E
SS
E. Land Use
The subject parcel is part of the 41 lot Kentara subdivision, which was recorded
in December of 2006. Construction of single family homes has been ongoing
since that time, and is nearly complete. The area of the proposed rezone was
cleared and graded flat during construction of the subdivision, but remains
vacant. Since 2007 the site has been used for construction staging.
The western portion of the parcel is encumbered with a sensitive area easement
to protect steep slopes; the easement was recorded as part of the Kentara
subdivision. Utility connections are available to serve future development, and
are located within the private street that serves the site.
Page 3 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
The Kentara subdivision is the predominant surrounding land use, and is
adjacent to the subject site on the north and east sides. Steep slope open space
associated with the SE 272"1 / 277`h Street corridor borders the site to the south
and west. Also, the twenty lot Autumn Glen subdivision is located immediately
east of Kentara.
The recently updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designation of SF-6
allows for single-family zoning designations with associated development density
of up to 6 units per acre.
F. History
The property was annexed to the City of Kent in 1994 as part of the Ramstead
Annexation (Ordinance No. 3171).
While most of Kentara was zoned SR-6 when it was subdivided, adjacent
property zoned SR-1, Urban Separator was added to Lot 21. During development
of the Kentara subdivision, the applicant discussed future plans to pursue
necessary zoning and Comprehensive plan changes to support SR-6 development
of the proposed rezone area.
On April 19`h 2011 the Kent City Council approved a proposal by the applicant to
amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, changing the designation of the
proposed rezone area from US, Urban Separator to SF6 Single-Family (ref.
Ordinance 3995). The new Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designation
became effective on May 19, 2011.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
As part of the analysis of the applicant's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
amendment, the City's SEPA Responsible official issued an addendum to the
1995 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Comp. Plan EIS).
This addendum analyzed options for land use plan map designations that the
City Council considered for the subject site. This addendum was completed on
March 21, 2011 and determined that the proposal to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Map was consistent with the range, types and magnitude of impacts and
corresponding mitigation outlined in the Comprehensive Plan EIS.
Also on March 21, 2011 the City's SEPA Responsible Official adopted the 1995
Comprehensive Plan EIS for the Kentara lot 21 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map Amendment.
On May 19, 2011 the SEPA Responsible Official determined that additional SEPA
review was not required for the current rezone proposal. This determination was
Page 4 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
based on her finding that the current rezone request is substantially similar to
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and does not contain new
information related to probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
B. Significant Physical Features
Topography, Wetlands and Vegetation
The area of the proposed rezone was cleared and graded as part of the original
Kentara subdivision and slopes gently to the south and southwest at about a five
percent grade. Steep slopes located west of the rezone area, are protected
within a sensitive area easement recorded with the Kentara subdivision. Steep
slopes to the south are part of the City maintained SE 272nd/277th cooridor. A
variety of coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs are located on the western
portion of the site. Plants within the rezone area consist primarily of insignificant
shrubs and grasses that have begun to grow since the site was graded in 2006.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
SE 273rd Place, a private street, serves the proposed rezone site. This
road will also serve any future development within the rezone area.
2. Water System
The site receives water service from the City of Kent.
3. Sanitary Sewer System
The site receives sanitary sewer service from the City of Kent.
4. Stormwater System
The stormwater management system constructed for the Kentara
subdivision is available to serve the rezone site. At the time of any future
short-platting, the developer will be required to complete a drainage
analysis and develop and submit drainage plans which demonstrate
compliance with the City's current drainage standards.
D. CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The proposed rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 5 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this application:
Police Department Economic Development
Public Works Fire Prevention
Parks & Recreation City Clerk
City Attorney Kent School District
WA Dept. of Ecology Qwest
K. C. Wastewater Treatment King County Transit Division
King Co. Environmental Health Puget Sound Energy
U.S. Post Office King County Public Health
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet of the
site were notified of the public hearing. A Notice of Application was posted on the site
and published in the Kent Reporter on April 22, 2011. No comments regarding the
rezone request were received.
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 provision 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 the
city departments to guide decisions on amendments to the City's zoning code
and other development regulations, which must be consistent with the plan, as
well as guide decision-making about the funding and location of the capital
improvement projects.
The following goals and policies pertain to the proposed rezone:
LAND USE ELEMENT
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 Land Use Plan Map designates the
subject property as SF-6, Single Family Residential which allows up to six units
per acre. The land use element also contains goals and policies relating to the
Page 6 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
location, density, and design of future development in the City and in the
Potential Annexation Area.
Overall Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which
implements the community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas,
and enhances the quality of life of all of Kent's residents.
Goal LU-9: Provide adequate land and densities to accommodate the adopted 20
year housing target of 4,284 new dwelling units within the existing city limits,
and through an interlocal agreement with King County, adopt the housing target
of 619 new dwelling units within Kent's Potential Annexation Area.
Policy LU-9.1: Where appropriate, establish urban residential densities of at least
four (4) units per net developable acre in order to adequately support urban
densities.
Policy LU-9.4: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within
close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near
human and community services.
Goal LU-10: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and
densities throughout the City and the Potential Annexation Area to meet the
housing needs of the region's changing demographics.
Policy LU-10.4: Allow single family housing on a variety of lot sizes. Locate
smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the Urban Center or Activity Centers
wherever possible.
Planning Services Comment:
The goals and policies of the Land Use Element support the proposed rezone.
The proposed location is near existing urban services and infrastructure. The
City supports the development of close-in vacant or underdeveloped properties
which limits further urban sprawl on the edges of the planning area. In addition,
infill development provides a more efficient means of providing services and
enhancing pedestrian mobility. Also, one of the objectives of the comprehensive
plan is to provide a wide variety of housing types and opportunities to
accommodate projected population growth without converting single family lands
to multifamily residential. Development of single family subdivisions on
underdeveloped, single family zoned land is consistent with this objective.
Page 7 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
HOUSING ELEMENT
Goal: Meet the current and future need for housing in the Kent area. Ensure
opportunities and an appropriate living environment for Kent citizens.
Goal H-2: Promote the organization and enhancement of neighborhoods, and
provide the opportunity for comfortable and well maintained housing for all
citizens.
Policy H-2.2: Support housing with appropriate amenities for individuals, families
and children.
Goal H-5: Increase housing opportunities through a diversity of housing types
and the innovative use of residential and commercial land.
Policy H-5.1: Expand the range of affordable housing choice available to meet
the needs of both current Kent residents and residents projected in growth
estimates.
Policy H-5.2: Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected
residential needs including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low
income households, single family housing, and small lot sizes.
Policy H-5.3: Promote diversity of housing types affordable to a range of income
levels and cultural/ethnic diversity.
Goal H-7: Encourage flexibility and innovative site and building design for a
variety of housing developments to expand home ownership.
Policy H-7.5: Revise zoning and development standards to provide options that
increase the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities, such as small
lot sizes, zero lot lines, manufactured housing, townhouses, condominiums,
clustering, cottage and attached single family housing.
Planning Services Comment
The proposed rezone is supported by relevant goals and policies of the Housing
Element. Appropriate services, including, but not limited to fire, police, medical
services, neighborhood shopping and child care are easily accessible to
neighborhood residents upon development of the subject property. The
proposed rezone increases the amount of land zoned for current and projected
residential needs including single family housing and smaller lot sizes.
Page 8 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Goal TR-1: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet the
needs of the City and the requirements of the Growth Management Act.
Policy TR-1.2: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent
with transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is
sufficient to accommodate the new development, or a financial commitment is in
place to meet the adopted standard within six years, before allowing it to
proceed.
Policy TR-1.5: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so
that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible.
Planning Services Comment:
The proposed rezone is supported by relevant goals and policies of the
Transportation Element. The Growth Management Act requires consistency
between land use and transportation planning. As noted, the Land Use Plan
identifies the area of the rezone as SF-6 Single Family Residential. When
developed in the future, a new development will utilize existing roadways and
pedestrian facilities. Future residences will be required to pay a Transportation
Impact Fee to help fund transportation infrastructure projects that accommodate
new development in Kent.
B. Standards and Criteria for Granting a Request for Rezone
The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.09.050) are
used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for a
rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines
that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
Planning Services Comment
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property as SF-6,
Single Family Residential which allows up to six units per acre. A rezone of the
site from SR-1 Single Family Residential to SR-6 Single Family Residential will
allow residential development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
As previously discussed, the proposed rezone is also consistent with the
applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would
be compatible with development in the vicinity.
Page 9 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
Planning Services Comment
The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be
compatible with the existing development in the vicinity. The subject property is
part of a neighborhood of single-family homes consisting of lots developed by
the applicant, to meet SR-6 standards. Future subdivision of the rezoned area
will likewise be required to meet SR-6 standards and will include single family,
detached residential homes constructed on individual lots.
3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation
system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse
impacts which cannot be mitigated,
Planning Services Comment
Rezoning the subject site to SR-6, Single Family Residential will not create new
lots and thus will not allow for additional trips onto the existing transportation
system. Under the current SR-1 zoning designation, the subject lot could
accommodate one single-family residence and could not be further subdivided. If
the proposed rezone is approved, a short-plat to create three single family lots is
feasible.
Transportation impacts generated by future development of the proposed rezone
area are expected to be mitigated through payment of a Transportation Impact
Fee (TIF) and conformance to the City's roadway construction standards.
The adequacy of existing road and street frontage improvements to meet the
current City of Kent roadway standards will be determined through the short-plat
process. These improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter,
sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary street improvements,
and stormwater conveyance.
4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the
proposed rezone,
Planning Services Comment
The designation of the site as SF-1 in the City Comprehensive Plan dates back to
1994 when the property was annexed into the City. Since that time, significant
changes have occurred that warrant the proposed rezone. These changes include
improvements to public infrastructure, subdivision of other properties in the area
and updates to City land use policies.
Effective May 19, 2011, the Kent City Council adopted an update to the Kent
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map which designates this area as SF-6, Single
Page 10 of 11
Staff Report
Kentara Lot 21 rezone
#RZ-2010-1 KIVA #2102422
Family Residential. Additionally, in 2004 the Kent Comprehensive Plan was
updated to include a target for the number of new households the City must
accommodate for the 20-year time horizon of the plan. The GMA also states that
the City's development regulations must implement, and be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Higher density single family development with smaller lot
sizes while recognizing significant environmental features is consistent with the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Kentara and adjacent Autumn Glen subdivisions have provided significant
improvements to roadway and utility infrastructure in the immediate area. In
addition, the South 272na/277th Street Corridor located to the south of the site
has been completed. This corridor provides roadway connectivity from the East
Hill area of Kent to the valley floor and provides direct freeway access for
residents coming off the Kent East Hill.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent,
Planning Services Comment
The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Subsequent development on the site will be required to meet applicable codes
and regulations, including mitigation of anticipated environmental impacts.
Therefore, the rezone proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a rezone,
the City staff recommends APPROVAL without conditions of the Kentara Lot 21 rezone.
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
May 25, 2011
MG\mb\S:\Permit\Plan\rezone\2010\20102422-2010-1report.doc
Page 11 of 11
OT
WFSHIHGTON
Memo
To: Matt Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner
From: Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
CC: File ENV-2010-26
Date: 5/1 912 0 1 1
Re: Environmental review for the Kentara Lot 21 rezone.
On March 21,2011,the City of Kent issued an addendum to its 1995 Comp. Plan EIS. This addendum
evaluated a proposed amendment to the City's Comp. Plan map for less than '/2 acre of property from
an Urban Separator designation to SF6. The proposal was known as the Kentara Lot 21 amendment.
In the addendum, as the City's Responsible Official, I concluded that the proposal to amend the Comp.
Plan map was consistent with the range, types and magnitude of impacts and corresponding mitigation
outlined in the Comp. Plan EIS. No new significant impacts associated with the proposed amendment
were identified.
Also on March 21, 2011, as the City's SEPA Responsible Official I adopted the 1995 Comp. Plan EIS
for the Kentara Lot 21 Comp- Plan amendment proposal.
As identified in the addendum, a rezone proposal has also been submitted for the City's consideration.
This rezone seeks to amend the City's Zoning map for the Kentara lot 21 site from SR-1 to SR-6. Like
the Comp. Plan map amendment, the Zoning map amendment is considered a non-project action. As
the Zoning map amendment request is a quasi-judicial action by the City Council, it is being processed
separately from the Comp. Plan map amendment.
On April 19. 2011 the City Council approved the Kentara Lot 21 Comp Plan map amendment.The key
change affected by the Comp. Plan map amendment was to allow for higher density development on
the acre Kentara Lot 21 site. This current proposal to amend the Zoning map from SR-1 to SR-6 is
substantially the same as the earlier Comp. Plan map amendment. The Zoning map amendment
application does not represent a substantial change to the proposal and further does not contain new
information related to probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
Accordingly, I have determined that the March 21, 2011 addendum and adoption of the 1995 Comp.
Plan EIS are sufficient to fulfill the City's responsibilities under SEPA for the Kentara Lot 21 Zoning map
amendment. No change to these documents or further action is required.
S:/Permit/Plan/ENV/2011/kentara memo.doc
1
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
® Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
ENT Phone: 253-856-5454
W ASHINOTON
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
CITY OF KENT
ADDENDUM TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson
SCOPE
The City of Kent has completed environmental analysis, pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for a 2010 Docket item to amend the City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the 0.45 acre
eastern portion of a 0.796 acre parcel from Urban Separator (US) to SF-6,
Single Family Residential, 6 Dwelling Units Per Acre. The applicant has
submitted a separate application to rezone the same portion of the parcel
from Residential Agricultural (SR-1) to SR-6, Single Family Residential.
Furthermore, the applicant intends to apply for permits to construct a total of
three dwelling units on the currently US-designated portion of Lot 21 if the
proposed applications are approved. Lot 21 is part of the Kentara
Subdivision (FSU-2002-7), recorded on December 4, 2006. The parcel is
located at 10329 SE 273rd Place in Kent.
Alternatives under consideration include:
Option 1 (Schneider Proposal - Amend Eastern Portion Lot 21 to SF-6):
The .045 acre Urban Separator portion of the 0.796 acre subject parcel
would be amended to Single Family Residential, 6 Dwelling Units per Acre
(SF-6).
Option 2A (No Net Loss - Internal Transfer of Urban Separator):
Option 2A would effectively swap the designations within Lot 21 so that the
0.34 acre western portion would carry an Urban Separator designation, while
the eastern 0.45 acre portion would be designated SF-6.
Option 2B (No Net Loss - Internal Transfer and Addition of Adjacent Kentara
`Tract A'):
This is similar to Option 2A, with the addition to the Urban Separator of the
2.774 acre City-owned parcel to the west (PIN 3831250420). This parcel is
also known as Kentara `Tract A' and is currently designated SF-6.
Option 2C (No Net Loss - External Transfer with Adjacent Kentara 'Tract A' ):
Comprehensive Plan EIS - A ,endum
Kentara Lot 21 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment [CPA-2010-3/KIVA #2102424]
2010 Docket Item
This option amends the eastern portion of Lot 21 to Single Family
Residential, 6 Dwelling Units per Acre (SF-6), and designates the 2.774 acre
City-owned parcel to the west (PIN 3831250420), also known as Kentara
Tract A' as Urban Separator, similar to Option 2B.
The Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final, evaluated the growth potential
as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would amend
the land use plan map for less than 1/2 acre of property, although options are
proposed for review that would change already protected sensitive areas to
an Urban Separator designation on the land use plan map.
SEPA COMPLIANCE
In October 1993, the City of Kent issued a Determination of Significance (DS)
and Notice of Scoping for the Comprehensive Plan (ENV-93-51). After a
series of public meetings, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
was issued on July 18, 1994 for the Draft Comprehensive Plan, issued on the
same date. The DEIS was distributed to City Council and Planning
Commission members, adjacent jurisdictions, affected agencies and other
parties of interest. After comments on the DEIS were solicited and reviewed,
a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued and distributed
on January 30, 1995.
This Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS evaluates the
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for less than 1/2 acre of
property from an Urban Separator designation to SF6, Single Family
Residential, 6 Dwelling Units per acre. No additional impacts are identified
from the land use plan map that was evaluated in the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS and subsequent addenda.
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
Future projects associated with the land use plan map amendment will be
subject to and shall be consistent with the following: City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan, the Kent City Code, International Fire Code,
International Building Code, Public Works Standards and all other applicable
laws and ordinances in effect at the time a complete project permit
application is filed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - BACKGROUND
The City of Kent has followed the process of phased environmental review as
it undertakes actions to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and rules established for the act, WAC 197-
11, outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and
preparing addenda to environmental decisions.
Nonproject Documents - An EIS prepared for a comprehensive plan,
development regulation, or other broad based policy documents are
considered "non-project," or programmatic in nature (see WAC 197-11-704).
These are distinguished from EISs or environmental documents prepared for
Page 2 of 5
Comprehensive Plan EIS - A. .andum
Kentara Lot 21 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment [CPA-2010-3/KIVA #2102424]
2010 Docket Item
specific project actions, such as a building permit or a road construction
project. The purpose of a non-project EIS is to analyze proposed alternatives
and to provide environmental consideration and mitigation prior to adoption
of an alternative. It is also a document that discloses the process used in
evaluating alternatives to decision-makers and citizens.
Phased Review - SEPA rules allow environmental review to be phased so that
review coincides with meaningful points in the planning and decision making
process, (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Broader environmental documents may be
followed by narrower documents that incorporate general discussion by
reference and concentrate solely on issues specific to that proposal. SEPA
rules also clearly state that agencies shall use a variety of mechanisms,
including addenda, adoption and incorporation by reference, to avoid
duplication and excess paperwork. Future projects identified and associated
with the implementation of the Capital Improvement Program may require
individual and separate environmental review, pursuant to SEPA. Such
review will occur when a specific project is identified.
Prior Environmental Documents - The City of Kent issued a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Comprehensive Plan on July
18, 1994 (#ENV-93-51). The DEIS analyzed three comprehensive plan land
use alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures, which were used in
preparing comprehensive plan policies. The preferred land use alternative
which was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan was most closely
related to Alternative 2 of the DEIS, (the mixed-use alternative). A Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on January 30, 1995,
and the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 18,
1995.
Scope of Addendum - As outlined in the SEPA rules, the purpose of an
addendum is to provide environmental analysis with respect to the described
actions. This analysis builds upon the Comprehensive Plan EIS but does not
substantially change the identified impacts and analysis; therefore it is
prudent to utilize the addendum process as outlined in WAC-197-11-
600(4)(c).
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
All environmental elements were adequately addressed within the
parameters of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final.
Further, subsequent "project" actions would require the submittal of separate
environmental checklists, pursuant to SEPA, which will be analyzed for
consistency with the original mitigating conditions and may require new
mitigation based upon site-specific conditions.
The Countywide Planning Policies, which guides the development of the Kent
Comprehensive Plan, provide policies and an associated map of Urban
Separators within King County. Not all locally-designated Urban Separators
are included in the map of Urban Separators (US) in the King Countywide
Page 3 of 5
Comprehensive Plan EIS - A .endum
Kentara Lot 21 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment [CPA-2010-3/KIVA #2102424]
2010 Docket Item
Planning Policies (CPPs). Subsequent to the regional ratification of the CPPs
related to Urban Separators, the City recognized county-designated US lands
and added locally-designated US lands, most recently with the Panther Lake
Annexation land use plan map and zoning designations. These locally-
designated US lands are available for consideration of legislative
amendments by the City. However, when considering changes to the Urban
Separator designation, the City should consider consistency with local Urban
Separators policy language found in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. At the
project review level, all Urban Separator lands within the City are regulated
the same.
The proposed land use plan map amendment does not alter and is consistent
with the goals and policies identified in the City's Land Use and Park & Open
Space Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, as described in the
staff report, the proposal maintains the nature of the Urban Separator land
use plan map designation under the following goals and policies:
Goal LU-31 Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally sensitive
area, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas
such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide
environmental, visual, 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-31.1 Establish Urban Separators as low-density areas of no greater
than one dwelling unit per acre.
Policy LU-31.2: Only allow amendments to the Urban Separator policy at the
time coinciding with King County's twenty (20) year review of its 1994 Policy
Update of the Comprehensive Plan or by Kent City Council initiation because
of pending danger or public safety.
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-31.4 Establish Urban Separators as links between, and for
protection of, sensitive areas, public parks, open spaces or trails, critical
aquifer recharge areas, floodplains, high value wetlands, unstable slopes,
regionally or locally significant resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat and
other unique environmental features.
Policy LU-31.5 Coordinate with appropriate South King County agencies,
adjacent cities, and unincorporated King County to create a regional
approach to Urban Separators.
Policy LU-31.6 Link Urban Separators within the City of Kent to those of
adjacent cities and unincorporated King County.
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.
Policy LU-31.8 Consider funding options, land trusts, purchase of
development rights, and other methods for public acquisition of Urban
Separators.
Page 4 of 5
Comprehensive Plan EIS — /-, ,.ndum
Kentara Lot 21 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment [CPA-2010-3/KIVA #2102424]
2010 Docket Item
Goal P&OS-3 Establish an open space pattern that will provide definition of
and separation between developed areas, and provide open space linkages
among park and recreational resources.
Policy P&OS-3.1 Define and conserve a system of open space corridors as
urban separators to provide definition between natural areas and urban land
uses within the Kent area.
Policy P&OS-3.2 Increase linkages of trails, in-street bike lanes, or other
existing or planned connections with natural areas and open space within
developed areas, particularly along the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison
Creek, and Soos Creek corridors; around Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake
Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake Young; and around significant wetland and
floodways such as the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-3.3 Preserve through acquisition as necessary, environmentally
sensitive areas as natural area linkages and urban separators, particularly
along the steep hillsides that define both sides of the Green River Valley and
the SE 277th/272nd Street corridor.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY
Kent City Code section 11.03.510 identifies plans and policies from which the
City may draw substantive mitigation under the State Environmental Policy
Act. This nonproject action has been evaluated in light of those substantive
plans and policies as well as within the overall analysis completed for the
City's Comprehensive Plan EIS.
DECISION
The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final, provided analysis
with regard to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan elements,
goals and policies. This includes the implementation of the Land Use and Park
& Open Space Elements. The City has reviewed the 2010 Docket Item to
amend the land use plan map under the Kentara Short Plat Lot #21 proposal
and has found it to be consistent with the range, types and magnitude of
impacts and corresponding mitigation outlined in the Comprehensive Plan
EIS. The proposed amendment does not substantially change any identified
related impacts in the Comprehensive Plan EIS.
This analysis and subsequent addendum did not identify any new significant
impacts associated with the proposed amendment. Therefore, this
addendum, combined with the Comprehensive Plan EIS adequately evaluates
potential adverse environmental impacts and provides appropriate mitigation
for this nonproject action. Based upon this analysis, a separate threshold
determination is not required.
Dated: March 21, 2011 Signature: i�GJ '% � L�" '�
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Responsible Official
CA:Jm\\S:\Permlt\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM END M ENTS\2010\CPA�2010-3 Kentaro SP Lot 21\ENV\Kentara_Lot 21 addendum.da<
Page 5 of 5
KENT
WnsXINOTON
ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
Adoption Document(s): EIS
Description of current proposal: The proposal is a 2010 Docket item to
amend the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for
the 0.45 acre eastern portion of a 0.796 acre parcel from Urban Separator
(US) to SF-6, Single Family Residential, 6 Dwelling Units Per Acre. The
applicant has submitted a separate application to rezone the same portion of
the parcel from Residential Agricultural (SR-1) to SR-6, Single Family
Residential. Furthermore, the applicant intends to apply for permits to
construct a total of three dwelling units on the currently US-designated
portion of Lot 21 if the proposed applications are approved. Lot 21 is part of
the Kentara Subdivision (FSU-2002-7), recorded on December 4, 2006.
Alternatives under consideration include:
Option 1 (Schneider Proposal - Amend Eastern Portion Lot 21 to SF-6):
The .045 acre Urban Separator portion of the 0.796 acre subject parcel
would be amended to Single Family Residential, 6 Dwelling Units per Acre
(SF-6).
Option 2A (No Net Loss - Internal Transfer of Urban Separator):
Option 2A would effectively swap the designations within Lot 21 so that the
0.34 acre western portion would carry an Urban Separator designation, while
the eastern 0.45 acre portion would be designated SF-6.
Option 2B (No Net Loss - Internal Transfer and Addition of Adjacent Kentara
'Tract A'):
This is similar to Option 2A, with the addition to the Urban Separator of the
2.774 acre City-owned parcel to the west (PIN 3831250420). This parcel is
also known as Kentara 'Tract A' and is currently designated SF-6.
Option 2C (No Net Loss - External Transfer with Adjacent Kentara Tract A' ):
This option amends the eastern portion of Lot 21 to Single Family
Residential, 6 Dwelling Units per Acre (SF-6), and designates the 2.774 acre
City-owned parcel to the west (PIN 3831250420), also known as Kentara
'Tract A' as Urban Separator, similar to Option 2B.
Proponent: Schneider Homes, Inc., c/o Hans Korve, DMP Inc., 726 Auburn
Way North, Auburn, WA 98002
Location of proposal: As a 2010 Docket item, the proposal is a city-wide
action. However, the property is located at 10329 SE 273rd Place in Kent.
Title of document(s) being adopted: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Statement Draft (July 1994) and Final (January 1995) -
Prepared by the City of Kent.
Description of document (or portion) being adopted: The City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan EIS is being adopted in total. This document evaluated three
different land use alternatives for the city. The analysis evaluated the type and
range of impacts to the environment associated with each land use alternative and
associated development regulations.
If the document has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630) please describe: The
document was not challenged.
Document availability: This document is available for review at the City of Kent
Planning Services office, 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 from 8:00 am to 5:00
pm.
We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this
proposal after independent review. Along with the addendum, this document meets
our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the
proposal to the decision maker(s).
Name of agency adopting the document: City of Kent
Contact person/Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP (253) 856-5431
Planning Manager
City of Kent Community Development Dept.
220 Fourth Ave South
Kent, WA 980032
Date: March 21, 2011 Signature: CAA4&lye
5:\Pemlt\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENOMENTS\2010\CPA-2010-3 Kentara SP Lot 21\ENV\Kenta ra Lot_21 ad opt.doc
Planning Services
Location:400 W.Gowe^Mail to:220 4th Avenue South ^ Kent,WA 98032-5895
® Permit Center(253) 856-5302 FAX:(253) 856-6412
K��.l• www.ci.kent.wa.us/permitcenter
w. Environmental ec last
PLANNING SERVICES
Application ®r
Public Notice Board and
Application Fee...See Fee Schedule
Please print In black Ink only.
To be completed y Staff:
Application # V— 6c�:'-2 & KIVA # /e)PS'W J/d,)'A-LLz
Received by: Date: Processing Fee:
A. Staff review determined that project:
_ Meets the categorically exempt criteria.
— Has no probable significant adverse environmental impacts) and application should be
processed without further consideration of environmental effects.
Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions.
EIS not necessary.
Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact
Statement will be prepared.
An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared.
Signature of Responsible Official Date
B. Comments:
C. Type of Permit or Action Requested:
D. Zoning District:
Gill- (P IIIYI 'UP') KENT
7eRMIT CENTER
To be completed by Applicant:
SEPA CONTACTSAND PROFESSIONALS
Please fill out applicable boxes for all different professionals:
1 ,��r'�, �-.� 5=� r „ sl3ll`SII,l6S5 O�Alitie�r''(fflllffEFellfrf(Offl prO�B7l}rdWrl@J € r:
kppltan
i .,..['IK_v.—c '?=�it..._u' .� ,ed.IN21L
Name: 1 r SLL 0 l��zi Name — ---. —
Company Name: 5 Gln ✓fie r6� Ow e3 Company Name:
Contact Person: In r- c — Contact Person:
Address: So, in :e---� u Address:
City: 11w State: Zip: q lyd" City: State: Zip:
Phone(s): 7 06 zy 6 24 l
Fax: Phone(s): Fax:
Email: Email:
" � 7d �� �� i'a � � 1^—P'li'�.;uti t�v,l 't AYO OCt� U� t�Gt� 'rso �'Yecea'109 a�1(/'plaleateorpn7dnrcatrPns
Owner Name:
---.. --- Name: �-v�S �'t t`v�
Company Name: SCl�vec�e� \ ur^r}
Company Name:
Contact Person: Q,�, �;✓c - �...
Contact Person: I.ts V-�p 1`
Address: Sore cA-\ K
Address: '4"L(., wrn L�J
City: State: Zip:
City: State: Zip: ?0er)Z
Phone(s): Fax:
Phone(s):2,5''> "33'S Zzoo Fax: _ 220G
Email: Email: . C
,vise�qv .�€I,.c l 21 1Y7 ki, 94.ti l l ^r1w ;L ,i
77
BUI�c(�rtigLLOtt�trter {itdi{ferentfrorr+pfapertywownerJlt._ ���` ,.. .
Owner Name:
-- — Name:
Company Name:
Company Name:
Contact Person:
Contact Person:
Address:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
City: State: Zip:
Phone(s): Fax:
Phone(s): Fax:
Email:
Email:
Prape�itK�Wtl@P�3'(ltmorethan 8 pCoPerGY owners use,�11 f , �, a ,r �,��,cr�'n +� f � � z
}i J
ti �1 f dkla a 511eEIBJ� e1 �' ex [EI InS.'P.,r t e
_ >cL w� _ � S..-4.it „L
Owner Name: Company Name: b''y��r-sti
� _
Company Name: Engineer Name: e K 16)81 -f�
Contact Person: ID#: Exp.Date:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
i' Phone(s): Fax: Phone(s): Fax:
Email: Email
I
WHI-1 psd4003 6110/10 p.2 of 21
i
To be completed by Applicant:
SEPA CONTACTS AND PROFESSIONALS
Please fill out applicable boxes for all different professionals:
Company Name: Company Name:
Engineer Name: Engineer Name:
ID#: Exp.Date: Contact Person:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
Phone(s): Fax: Phone(s): Fax:
Email: Email:
h��
hrtecf *r, ,T tither Pwa esstonal
Company Name: Name:
Engineer Name: Company Name:
ID#: Exp.Date: Contact Person:
Address: ID#: Exp.Date:
City: State: Zip: Address:
Phone(s): Fax: City: State: Zip:
Email: Phone(s): Fax:
Email:
(zoRltratol/r_ :..'_" .E._" .4€..� '�
Company Name: _
Engineer Name:
ID#: Exp.Date:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone(s): Fax:
Email:
y i �
1IYYejIGr�1-+� �< i4
u v.ar
Company Name:
.Eagitieer Name: Q r,,J
Contact Person:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone(s): Fax:
Email:
WHI-I psd4003 6/10/10 p.3 of 21
City of Kent Planning Department
Environmental Checklist— Page 2
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT:
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
1. Name of Project Kentara Short Plat 2010— 02.070
2. Name of Applicant: Schneider Homes, Inc
Mailing Address: 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila WA 98188
Contact Person: Harry Schneider Telephone: 206-248-2471
(Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.)
3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Owner
4. Name of Legal Owner: Schneider Homes, Inc Telephone:206-248-2471
Mailing Address:6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila WA 98188
5. Location. Give general location of proposed project(street address, nearest intersection of
streets and section, township and range).
104P Ave. SE & SE 272nd Street . NW'/4 Section 32, T22N, R4E, WM
6. Legal description and tax identification number
a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet):
See attached sheets
b. Tax identification number: 383125-0210
7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements,
size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a
separate sheet).
This is lot 21 of the Kentara Plat. The property is currently undeveloped and is being used as
a staging area for the construction of the remaining lots of the plat. The developable portion
of the lot has been cleared and the property currently supports several construction shacks
and a dirt stock-pile. A natural groundcover can be found on the steep slopes to the south
and west. The westerly portion of the site sheet flows southwesterly with slopes along the
extreme westerly portion being in excess of 40 percent. The easterly portion of the site sheet
flows northeasterly with slopes of approximately 5 percent. The west portion of the property
is currently zoned SR-6 (332205-9049),with a Comp Plan designation of SF 6. The east half
of the property is currently zoned SR-1 with a corresponding "Urban Separator" Comp plan
designation. This situation was noted in the original Kentara subdivision and rezone butwas
never addressed because of the time involved with the associated Comprehensive Plan
Update. An MDNS was issues on April 16, 2004 for the original rezone and subdivision.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department
Environmental Checklist— Page 3
8. Site Area: 0.8-acres Site Dimensions: 113' x'313'
9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or
project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project
and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions):
The project proposes to subdivide 1 parcels, totaling 0.8-acres, into 3 single-family
residential lots. The property is currently splitzoned SR-1 and SR-6. The Applicants
proposal is to update the comprehensive plan designation to provide a consistent SF-
6 designation and then rezone from SR-1 to a SR 6 Zone. Applicant has already
construct roads, storm waterfacilities and utilities as required to serve this plat. The
short plat was original contemplated as part of the larger Kentara subdivision.
See Applicants Proposal for a more complete description of the project.
10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if
possible).
Application Submittal............................September 2010
Public Hearing .......................................March 2011
Council Action .......................................April 2011
Engineering Submittal .........................May 2011
Site Grading...........................................June 2011
Final Plat.................................................December 2011
11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Not at this time.
12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or
other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal.
DATE
AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED` NUMBE STATUS**
R
Kent SEPAThreshold _
Kent Re-Zone
Kent Preliminary
Short. Plat
Kent Final Plat
Kent Clearing/Grading
Kent Building Permit
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department
Environmental Checklist— Page 4
*Leave blank if not submitted
**Approved, denied or pending
13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has
been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
The following information will be prepared and submitted under separate cover:
• Level 1 Downstream Analysis (Copy of original Kentara Infromation)
• Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with Eng. Submittal.
• Recreation fee-in-lieu calculation.
14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist—Page 5 AGENCY USE ONLY
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep
slopes, mountainous, other:
The project has areas of steep slopes on the westerly side of the
project in excess of 40 percent. No development is proposed in this
area. The remainder of the site has a gentile slope in the northeast
direction of 5 percent. The portion of Lot 21 that is proposed for
development was cleared and graded as part of the original Kentara
subdivision.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
40%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,
sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural
soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
The seep westerly portion of the site is underlain with Alderwood
and Kitsap soils (AkF), while the easterly portion of the site is
underlain with Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgB) and a 5 to 6
percent slope.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
NO
e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
No grading is required to support this re-zone,comp plan or short
plat application. Any future earth work will be associated with
building permit issuance for the resulting residential units.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.
The Alderwood soil is resistant to erosion. Some erosion could
occur on-site as a result of construction activities; however,
temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures to be
approved by the City of Kent will be employed to reduce erosion
impacts. All construction during the wet season will comply with
the adopted Surface Water Design provisions concerning site
coverage techniques. (Section 1.2.5.2). Little or no construction
will occur in the steep slope areas. As previously indicated. The
developable portions of lot 21 have already been cleared and
graded as part of the original Kentara subdivision.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 6 AGENCY USE ONLY
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces
after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Impervious surfaces(roof)will cover approximately 30%of the site.
Construction of the access road was completed as part of the
original Kentara Subdivision. Construction of the single-family
homes will be the only associated increase in impervious surface.
The original storm water system was designed to accommodate
the additional lots.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any.
During construction, the contractor will follow an approved
temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan meeting City of
Kent standards, Typical measures, which may be employed,
include the use of silt fences, straw bales, and temporary storm
drainage features. Hydroseeding exposed soils and cleared areas
after construction will also reduce the potential for erosion. . All
construction during the wet season will comply with the City of
Kent Construction Standards and the most recent version of the
Kent Surface Water Design Manual concerning site coverage
techniques
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,
dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and
when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if known.
Construction:
Emissions and dust particulates generated primarily by
construction equipment will be produced during the construction
phase of this project. The amount of emissions to the air will be
minimal and will occur during the actual construction of the
development.
Long Term Air Quality:
Long-term air impacts would be those typically associated with
residential land uses. Sources of long-term emissions and odor
could include vehicle emissions from increased vehicle use
generated by the new residential units and emissions.from wood
burning fireplaces(if permitted). The additional vehicular emissions
j in these areas are not anticipated to concentrate and therefore are
not anticipated to create a health hazard to the residents or
surrounding areas.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 7 AGENCY USE ONLY
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
NO
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to
air, if any.
If particulates become suspended during home construction,
frequent watering of the site during the construction phase of the
project would be used to help control dust and other particulates
generated on the site. This will be accomplished in accord with
City of Kent Construction Standards and the most recent version
of the Kent Surface Water Design Manual.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water,
lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide
names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
The City of Kent has identified a wetland feature several
hundred feet to the north of this proposed subdivision, on
the opposite side of SE 272nd Street. It has no relationship
with the proposed re-zone or home construction.
2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to(within 200
feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
NO
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from surface water orwetlands and indicate
the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of
fill material.
NA
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose,and approximate quantities, if
known.
NO
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note
location on the site plan.
NO
Kent@ra Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 8 AGENCY USE ONLY
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
NO
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
Each house will have a downspout infiltration system.
Surface water runoff will be handled in accordance with
acceptable City of Kent design Standards prior to discharge
from the approved storm water system. No groundwater
extraction is planned at this time.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground
from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: domestic
sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...;
agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems,the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)
are expected to serve.
NA
c. Water Runoff(including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method
of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known).
Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters?
If so, describe.
On-site storm water runoff will primarily be generated from
residential structures and associated driveways. Storm
water will be collected in existing catch basins within the
roadways and/or tight-lined from residential roof tops and
conveyed to the existing detention facility located in the
northeast corner of the project site, adjacent to SE 272nd
Street. All run-off will be conveyed into the existing Kentara
storm water system or allowed to infiltrate. The existing
Stormwater facility was designed to accommodate the
proposal as part of the original Kentara Subdivision..
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 9 AGENCY USE ONLY
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
Some pollutants normally associated with residential
development could enter the surface water; however, the
amount would be minimal since the on-site drainage will
be conveyed to a water quality and detention facility in
conformance with City of Kent Construction Standards
and the most recent version of the Kent Surface Water
Design Manual.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff
water impacts, if any:
The storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed to the
existing detention facility(s) that was designed and constructed in
conformance with City of Kent Construction Standards.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_X_Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other
_X_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
_X_Shrubs
X Grass
X_Pasture
Crop or grain
Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
Other types of vegetation
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 10 AGENCY USE ONLY
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None. Lot 21 was cleared as part of the original Kentara subdivision.
The undeveloped portions of the lot are within a sensitive area
easement and will not be disturbed.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
NA
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
The new single-family residences will provide new landscaping
including lawns, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Native vegetation
will be utilized, where appropriate.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the
site or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
NA
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
NA
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
NA
III Kentaro Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
I
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist—Page 11 AGENCY USE ONLY
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be
used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it
will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electrical energy will be the primary source of power serving the
needs of the project and natural gas will be made available for the
purpose of heating and other needs associated with residential
living
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
NO
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of
this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
The residential buildings thaf will be constructed as a result of this
project will meet or exceed the applicable single-family residential
energy conservation/consumption requirements in the City of Kent
and the Uniform Building Codes.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
It is unlikely under normal working conditions that environmental
health hazards would be encountered. All project-related
construction will meet or exceed current, local, city, state and
federal laws.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
In the event that environmental health hazards are
encountered or occur during construction, all appropriate
precautionary measures will be employed. Any emergency
situation would be addressed by the existing resources of
the Kent Fire Department.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 12 AGENCY USE ONLY
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
State regulations regarding safety and the handling of
hazardous materials will be followed during the construction
process. Equipment refueling areas would be located in
areas where a spill could be quickly contained and where the
risk of hazardous materials entering surface water is
minimized. On-site management will be equipped with
mobile communications equipment at all times to contact
emergency services in the event of an incident.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)?
NA
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated
with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example:
traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise
would come from the site.
Short-term impacts would result from the use of
construction equipment during site development.
Construction would occur during permitted construction
hours and in compliance with the City of Kent noise
standards.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Construction activity will be limited to permitted construction
hours and construction equipmentwill not be allowed to idle
for continuous periods of time, which will help to mitigate
the impacts of potential construction noise. Hours of
operation will be posted on-site
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The majority of the site is currently cleared and being used as a
staging area for construction of homes in the original Kentara
subdivision.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 13 AGENCY USE ONLY
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The site contains temporary job shacks.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
They will be re-located as construction of he future homes begins.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The westerly portion of the property is currently zoned as SR-6 and
east half is SR-1.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
SF 6 and US
g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
Unknown
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify.
Yes, the west edge of the project consist of 40% or greater
slopes. This portion of the lot is currently within a sensitive area
easement.
I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
Assuming 2 new single-family residences at 2.5 persons per house,
5 new residents will be housed.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 14 AGENCY USE ONLY
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Construction of 2 new residential homes.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing
and projected land uses and plans, if any.
The project will be developed in accordance with applicable City of
Kent development and land use codes to ensure the project is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low income housing.
Approximately 3.(2 new) middle-income housing units will be provided
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low income housing.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
Adherence to the comprehensive plan and growth management
planning goals of the City would ensure that housing development
is consistent with those policies stated in the applicable land use
plan.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
No specific building plans are included with this project; however,it
is anticipated that houses built on the site would conform to the City
of Kent development regulations.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Development of the site would result in a change to the visual
character of the site for the nearest existing residences and
roadways to that of a single-family neighborhood area. No
significant views would be obstructed.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 15 AGENCY USE ONLY
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any.
The site plan has been developed to provide a site design layout
consistent with the development regulations in place for the SR-6
zone. This short plat was anticipated as part of the original Kentara
subdivision.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
Light and glare from the completed project is anticipated to be that
typically generated by single-family residences, mainly occurring
during the evening hours, and be associated with vehicle
headlights, streetlights and residential unit lighting
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
Not under normal circumstances.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
None
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
There are currently no public recreation facilities in the immediate
vicinity of the site. Applicant will pay a fee-in-lieu
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If
so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any.
Applicant will pay a fee-in-lieu of this required space to offset any
probable impact on recreational facilities.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist—Page 16 AGENCY USE ONLY
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state
or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe.
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
To the best of our knowledge,there are no landmarks orevidence of
any significant historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural
resources known to be on or next to the site.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.
If any such historic or cultural evidence is encountered during
construction or installation of improvements,work would be halted
in the area and a state-approved archaeologistlhistorian would be
engaged to investigate, evaluate and/or move or curate such
resources, as appropriate.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The site takes primary access from SE 272nd Street,which connects
to 108th Ave. SE. SE 273`d Street was extended to the east to
connect with the adjoining plat of Autumn Glen. Direct access to
the proposed homes is available through the existing access tract.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
The site is currently not served by transit service. The nearest bus
stop is at 104th Ave. SE and SE 267th Street which is approximately
.33 miles from the project site. The route serving that stop is Route
#914.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How
many would the project eliminate?
None. The proposed project will provide parking in private
driveways and garages. On-street parking is not available within
the private access tract but may be available along any of the
nearby public streets.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 17 AGENCY USE ONLY
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
Yes, the proposed project will require minor improvement of the
existing private access tract. The existing paved walkway will be
replaced with a grade separated sidewalk. The applicant will also
provide a 1' access easement behind the sidewalk for future
maintenance. No additional dedication is required.
e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Assuming 10 trips per household per day, the completed project
will generate 20 vehicular trips per day.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any.
Applicant will construct upgraded pedestrian facilities in
accordance with the approved constructions standards variance.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example:fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,other)?If
so, generally describe.
The completed project would result in an increased need for
police and fire protection as well as emergency medical service.
Based on the Kent School Districts "Housing Generation
Factor" the following number of new students is expected from
the proposed subdivision at build-out:
SCHOOL STUDENTS
• Elementary 1
• Junior High 0
• High School 0
Additional recreational facilities or fee-in-lieu of, will also be
required to address the increase in demand for recreational
opportunities
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02.079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 18 AGENCY USE ONLY
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any.
The project will provide adequate water pressure, existing fire
hydrants and roadways constructed to allow adequate access for
fire, medic and police protection vehicles. Increased property
valuation will generate increased taxes to support public services.
The proponent will pay necessary school mitigation fees to offset
the potential impacts to the school system. These fees are
consistent with the adopted Kent School District Capital Facilities
Plan.
Recreational facilities will be constructed on site in accordance
with City requirements or fees will be paid in-lieu-of those required
improvements to offset the potential impacts on the existing
recreational system.
16. Utilities
a. Electricity, Natural Gas, Water, Telephone, Sanitary Sewer, Septic System,
Refuse Service, Other
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities
providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or
in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed.
Water System— City of Kent
Sanitary Sewer System— City of Kent
Storm Water— City of Kent
Electrici : Puget Sound Energy .
Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy
Telephone: Qwest
Refuse Service: Robanco
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the ead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: -
Date: y /O
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 AMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 19 AGENCY USE ONLY
DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS
Rezone Request from SR4.5 to SR6
Parcel # 383125-0210
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in
conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the
types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a
greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented.
Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emission
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances;
or production of noise?
This proposal is to rezone approximately half of .8 acres of SR-1
land into SR-6. The approved rezone would not result in an increase
in the amount of water or air discharge from the project. The
current proposal is only intended correct a historic oversight and
not increase the number of proposed units. Under current zoning,
the property can support 3-residential units. However, the current
SR-1 designation requires the creation of a cluster development and
the provision of 60% open space. This open space must be
comprised of only the flat and unencumbered portion of the
property. To meet such a standard would eliminate the purpose of
the proposal. Since the proposed short plat has already been
provided with all the required urban improvements, no increase in
emissions or discharges is expected.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
None.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine
life?
The proposed rezone will have no significant impact on the existing
plant or animal populations.The proposed rezone will only allowfor
smaller lot sizes and will not affect the total amount of developed
area. All sensitive areas(steep Slopes)will maintain the same level
of integrity with or without the approval of the proposed rezone.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist— Page 20 AGENCY USE ONLY
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or
marine life?
NA.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposed rezone allows for a decrease in the allowed lot size
and not an increase in the actual density of the project. With the
current mixed SR-1 /SR-6 zoning,the applicant is allowed 3 units on
this portion of the property. The current proposal is for the same 3.
The proposed rezone would have no adverse effect on energy or
natural resource supplies. All urban services have already been
provided to the site.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources
are:
NA
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally
sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for
governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic
rivers,threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The sloped portions of the subject property were placed in a
sensitive area easement as part of the original Kentara subdivision.
The current rezone and short plat proposal do not anticipate any
disturbance of these areas. The 2 new(3 total)proposed homes will
be constructed on the portion of the site which has already been
disturbed as part of the original Kentara construction. Therefore,
there will be no increased impact to sensitive areas.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce
impacts are:
All development will be in accord with Kent development standards.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,
including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses
incompatible with existing plans?
NA
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts :
None
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
City of Kent Planning Department EVALUATION FOR
Environmental Checklist—Page 21 AGENCY USE ONLY
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation
or public services and utilities?
The proposed rezone allows for a decrease in the allowed lot size
and not an increase in the actual density of the project. There will
be no increase in the demand for public services beyond that
allowed under current zoning. It must also be noted that this
proposal was original contemplated as part of the Kentara
subdivision and all urban services have been provided to the site to
support this proposal.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
None
7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
None
m The proposed rezone is consistent with the recently revised
Comprehensive plan.
• The proposed rezone and subsequent development will be
consistent with development in the vicinity.
• The proposed rezone will have no additional unmitigated impact
on the transportation system beyond what would be allowed
under current density limits.
® The proposed rezone will not have an adverse affect on the
general health, safety or welfare of the citizens of Kent
® All urban improvements have been provided to the site to support
the proposed development.
Kentara Short Plat and Rezone 2010 02-079 DMP Inc.
�Y f (Y .0-+ fy�.`t!'.$if}�'
�4( 77 s- i , h
, ,,a �sE�k..n�r
t
t
c i
9�
P f ! t
S&
-2T2N17ST � '
_ S
Lot Z _w 5E2Y�A133V
v 1r 2mR5GT
r.�
! py �� 4 �5 •1 I
' {c}2otaaw$conmty
(a� � eH le�Rr`C6 pgdyn,�fs"-eph83"d�R iJ d IIW�QfC' h �Sfa Fni Oem E' 5 1�� o ub p a e 4Gtica ISfD3s 1'4yrrrM'�,-f n5•+� L{ rk0,�
f� ,
Tblsee$m fsnat mtggd fo, ti; gp a s}Iryky PCe�uPl na'GPU tys�><patpehe4La'u�� ¢¢a pPaga�}i4d ap f segtlautlal A v
a ; � �-+x'?^ an r
7lsmages,nc�tllnB'.S1kRo1ItRJtar}i� fped�nPesgf lcsk�i�ts,fes�lgng�ig}nWa�Une;ot s elRr7ngRnepo4 ,y�i j-tl, {UaP,�n7c�STaot3�� �q ®®pg
tfits maP oN21'o zigon1N(sma. Pleh blkesf e>S ptby flan nNsso aE nfle only , { . }tfjt.-§'ia-fL If-�. rr ,fir �'"t '�; '•'• ��"4e��-
v 'S n y
'_k+i5{sy v et55>''-x y, a lg ,iP F4 ' !aw.�r�i'at.3- � �. d• 'i d , 1 k k r sx
4p1a2912,,�?�U.,;::�.rt4'`5}oili��gP�Co����M9t'w.,�!!�i ?RRP:+ �d " pP.n 5 F4�d&tirls�+ �#1 i o...•s {" IG a l l i 7 d -2�J ' 'y' x�i�sS spa�`'7
�' a._�a
REZONE IT
LOT 217 KENTARA, VOL. 233/36-39
A PORTION OF:
N.W. 1/4, N.W. 1/47 SEC. 32, T-22N, -5 , W,
CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY WASHINGT(
4 KE38 ��6� 39IDENTIAL I� 35
VOL. AMII Y RES 12
SINGE 1 -7 e „ D„
A" 1 8
:ENT 13 0
AREA
33
19 1 4-
16
20 32
15
NO2°27'52"E 3
11.01'
N89°41'24"E TRACT " E"
39.66'
N87'32'08"W 142.20' SE 2�3R� 87
w N87'32'08"W `� /334*233'20� _U
UU
A=16*26.33' j L=69. 2'
y 16°43'21" ` 21 L 69.62'� �-
er R=25.00' /%///����� /LWLJ'
L=7.30' Y PROPOSED REZONE AREA/=
o N70`48'47"W SR-1 TO SR-6
z 31.08' ///rl
N 2 3
2�
p 59 121.96'/0
N791
N87`55'10"W 154.51'
rKENT it: �
200
Z KENT
HA r Agenda Item: Bids - 9A
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: Central Avenue South Sidewalk Replacement and Storm
Water Forcemain - Award and Authorize
MOTION: Move to award the Central Avenue South Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Water Forcemain Project contract to Road Construction NW, Inc. in the
amount of $2,085,274.20 and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents,
subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public
Works Director.
SUMMARY: The bid opening for this project was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011,
with seven (7) bids received. The low bid was submitted by Road Construction NW,
Inc. in the amount of $2,085,274.20. The Engineer's estimate for the project was
$2,177,336.33.
In order to help alleviate localized flooding along James Street at Mill Creek the City
will install a new pump station and pipes to divert water from James Street to the
Green River. This project is Phase I of the overall project and will install pipe along
Central Avenue between Gowe Street and the Horseshoe Bend pump station.
EXHIBITS: Public Works Memo dated 7/26/2011
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is funded out of the City's Storm Drainage utility.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E.,
Public Works Director
KENT Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
W A S H I N c 7 o N Kent, WA. 98032-5895
Phone: 253-856-5500
Fax: 253-856-6500
DATE: July 26, 2011
TO: Mayor Cooke and Kent City Council
FROM: Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E. Public Works Director
RE: Central Avenue S. Sidewalk Replacement &
Storm Water Forcemain
Bid opening for this project was held on July 26, 2011 with seven (7) bids received.
The low bid was submitted by Road Construction NW, Inc. in the amount of
$2,085,274.20. The Engineer's estimate was $2,177,336.33. The Public Works
Director recommends awarding this contract to Road Construction NW, Inc.
Bid Summary
01. Road Construction NW, Inc. $2,085,274.20
02. MidMountain Contractors, Inc. $2,104,683.08
03. Ceccanti, Inc. $2,167,224.00
04. DPK, Inc. $2,319,199.05
05. RW Scott Construction $2,339,297.78
06. New West Development $2,762,745.23
07. Rodarte Construction, Inc. $3,033,204.75
Engineer's Estimate $2,177,336.33
Z KENT
HA r Agenda Item: Bids — 913
TO: City Council
DATE: August 2, 2011
SUBJECT: 132"d Avenue SE Asphalt Grinding
MOTION: Move to award the 132nd Avenue SE Asphalt Grinding Project
contract to Pyramid Grinding, LLC, in the amount of $17,250 and authorize the
Mayor to sign all necessary documents, subject to final terms and conditions
acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director.
SUMMARY: The bid opening for this project was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011
with two (2) bids received. The low bid was submitted by Pyramid Grinding, LLC in
the amount of $17,250. The Engineer's estimate for the project was $86,000.
As part of the City's ongoing road maintenance program, the Public Works Department
annually repairs failing sections of roadway. This is most-effectively accomplished by
grinding out the failing asphalt sections and replacing them with new asphalt. This
contract is for the services of a grinding machine and operators.
EXHIBITS: Public Works Memo dated 7/26/2011 and area map
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is funded out of the City's Asphalt Overlay fund.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E.,
Public Works Director
KENT Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
W A S H I N c 7 o N Kent, WA. 98032-5895
Phone: 253-856-5500
Fax: 253-856-6500
DATE: July 26, 2011
TO: Mayor Cooke and Kent City Council
FROM: Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E. Public Works Director
RE: 132"" Avenue SE Asphalt Grinding
Bid opening for this project was held on July 26, 2011 with two (2) bids received.
The low bid was submitted by Pyramid Grinding, LLC, in the amount of $17,250.00.
The Engineer's estimate was $86,000.00. The Public Works Director recommends
awarding this contract to Pyramid Grinding, LLC.
Bid Summary
01. Pyramid Grinding, LLC $17,250.00
02. Statewide Parking Lot Service $38,750.00
Engineer's Estimate $86,000.00
J
r
_T_ E 208TH ST
(n
_j
SE 212TH 'ST
<
------TF,
j
<
F
SE 223RD STr-,
'-SE \2241H S-r'
7-
<
2
_S E 240TH ST
--j
t
CLARK
F_
jf
NOTE:
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES AND WATER
VALVE BOX LIDS TO BE ADJUSTED TO
1� ®
T
FINISHED GRADE BY THEIR RESPECTIVE t3
UTILITY COMPANIES.
CITY OF KENT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - 220 4TH AVE- S. - KENT. WA. 98032
132 ND AVE.S.E.
ASPHALT GRINDING VICINITY MAP 8.01
REPORTS FROM STAFF, COUNCIL COMMITTEES, AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
A. Council President
B. Mayor
C. Administration
D. Economic & Community Development
E. Operations
F. Parks & Human Services
G. Public Safety
H. Public Works
I. Regional Fire Authority
J. Other
K. Other
KENT
WASHINGTON
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
June 21, 2011
Committee Members Present: Debbie Raplee, Jamie Perry, Les Thomas (Chair)
The meeting was called to order by L Thomas at 4:05 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED JUNE 7, 2011
D Raplee moved to approve the Operations Committee minutes dated
June 7, 2011. J Perry seconded the motion, which passed 3-0.
2. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED JUNE 15, 2011.
J Perry moved to approve the vouchers dated June 15, 2011. D Raplee seconded
the motion, which passed 3-0.
3. BUDGET UPDATE DISCUSSION (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)
The budget update was requested by Councilmember and Public Safety Chair, Ron Harmon.
Finance Director R Nachlinger and Chief Administrative Officer, John Hodgson provided an
update by first summarizing the different special funds, addressing those that there are
concerns about then answering any questions.
Nachlinger started by noting there are 26 different funds in the city as follows.
General Fund
General Fund - Used to account for the general operations of the city
Annexation Fund - Used to account for the general operations related to the Panther Lake annexation.
This fund is a subset of the General Fund, having to keep it separate for ten years to keep the
funding.
Special Revenue Funds. Restricted by state or federal law or city ordinance.
Street Fund- Funding from Gasoline Tax and one-sixth of Utility Tax
Public Safety Retiree's Fund - Used to account for the medical cost of PERS 1 retirees
Lodging Tax Fund -Accounts for the 1% bed tax that goes to the City
Youth/Teen Fund - Used for youth and teen activities from 5%of Utility Tax
Criminal Justice Fund - Used to account for the State Shared revenues that go to public safety activities
Environmental Fund - Used to account for environmental activities related to sanitation
Housing and Community Development Fund - Used to account for federal Community Development Block
Grant activities
Operating Grants & Projects Fund- Used to account for funds set aside for special projects
Kent Events Center Fund - Used to account for the operations of the event center
Debt Service Funds
Voted Debt Service Fund- Used to account for voter approved bond issues
Non-Voted Debt Service Fund - used to account for LTGO bonds issued by the City
Special Assessment Debt Service Fund - Used to account for LID bonds issued by the City
Operations Committee Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page: 2
Capital Projects Funds
Street Capital Projects Fund - Funded from transfers from the street fund
Parks Capital Projects Fund- Funding from transfers from other capital and second .25%of REET
Facilities Capital Projects Fund - Used to account for projects related to city buildings
Technology Capital Projects Fund - Used to account for technology related capital projects
Other Capital Projects Fund - Funding from 25%of sales tax and .25% REET.
Major funding source for other capital funds
Enterprise Funds
Water Fund- Used to account for the operations of water service
Sewerage Fund - Used to account for the operations of sewer and drainage service
Golf Fund- Used to account for the operations of the golf complex
Internal Service Funds
Equipment Rental Fund- Used to account for the fleet operations of the city
Central Services Fund- Used to account for the technical information, office supplies,and copiers
operations
Facilities Fund - Used to account for operations of city buildings
Insurance Funds- Used to account for the insurance activities of the city. Six or seven separate funds
Hodgson discussed the areas there are concerns about. The one that came up at the Public
Safety Committee was Criminal Justice. It is funded through state shared revenues and a
percentage of sales tax that is returned to the city. It funds some police officers, all
prosecutors and a domestic violence advocate. Eleven percent is required to fund domestic
violence services and the city applies it toward our coordinator position. State revenue is
down so there is less money coming to the city. Some loss includes the High Crime City Funds
in the amount of $230k. Because of our effective police service, we are no longer eligible.
Going forward, the fund has $700k less than anticipated and unless state revenues pick up we
will need to make adjustments going into the 2012-budget.
The Street Fund is a partially funded by a gas tax, which is a percentage returned from the
state to the city. It is also funded from 16% of our Utility tax. It funds the Transportation
Engineering and Street Maintenance division out of Public Works. This fund will continue to be
affected if utility or gas tax don't improve and have to be addressed in the 2012 budget.
Annexation is a sub set of General Fund. Last spring we were given a revenue forecast from
the county, which we built our budget on. The county forecast was grossly overstated. As a
result, we have requested $4.7million from the state and will start receiving funds in July
2011.
The Youth Fund is affected by the Utility Tax. We made an adjustment with the decline in
utility tax and we expect a change by end of year and this fund returning to the black.
The Capital Fund is experiencing a downturn as a result of the loss of 800/0 of the real estate
excise tax due to a decline in the housing market. Also, 25% of the city's sales tax goes to the
Capital Fund and is affected by a decline.
Operations Committee Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page: 3
The staff is working to return these funds to zero is by supplementing the Special Program
Funds through the General Fund. This includes not filling and/or freezing 37.5 positions.
Positions that are being filled are those that are considered critical. Another cost savings
measure taken was to ask each department to identify 2.5% savings in their Maintenance and
Operating budget. This will save the city $1.3 million. Between these options, we will save $3
million dollars, which will improve the Special Funds that are in trouble through the end of this
yea r.
Public Safety is being staffed. Currently, there are more officers in field training than there are
full time staff to train them. By using interim field training officers the department will be able
to staff more quickly.
As we begin to build the 2012 budget we will discuss ways to create new revenue or make
reductions within budgets to accommodate state budgeting shortfalls.
Nachlinger spoke briefly about the bonding issue that occurred with the formation of the RFA.
Raplee requested a report that breaks down within each department each program in that
department and the cost to operate it and what percentage of special fund it comes from and a
2010 to 2011 comparison. Hodgson and Nachlinger will provide a draft for review.
Hodgson clarified for Perry that to accommodate the current shortfalls, the city will either have
to fund these special funds out of the General Fund or make significant cuts in other areas.
Thomas asked for a five minute recess. Following the recess there was no further discussion
and the meeting was adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:39 p.m. by L Thomas.
Pamela Clark
Operations Committee Secretary
SPECIAL
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, July 11, 2011
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Committee Chair Debbie Raplee and committee members Ron Harmon and Dennis Higgins
were present. The meeting was called to order at 4:06 p.m.
ITEM 1 - Approval of Minutes Dated June 20, 2011:
Committee Member Harmon MOVED to approve the minutes of June 20, 2011. The
motion was SECONDED by Higgins and PASSED 3-0.
Item -2 3 - Information Only/Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Citizens Committee:
Mike Miller, Chair of the TMP Citizen's Committee went over the highlights of what the
committee has done to date.
• Met three times to date
• Next meeting is Tuesday, July 12, 2011
• Good group of people on the committee
• Is' meeting went over the plan
2"' meeting talked about money for the Transportation Impact Fee and talked about
planning numbers and Economic Development impact on the TIF and other things that
affect the plan.
Will rank all remaining projects on a scale of 1 - 10 (not just those on the 6 year TMP).
Those numbers will be discussed at the next meeting 7/12/11.
3r' meeting only committee members attended
- Built a matrix removing projects that are either complete or are currently in
process which will give the committee a better idea of what remaining projects are
on the list for them to consider.
At the next meeting on Tuesday, July 12, 2011 committee members will:
- Discuss planning population trends
- Work on the matrix ranking projects 1-10 and from there will take to next step
which may go to funding aspects to see what will be affordable and maybe identify
a dollar figure around that.
Miller noted that he has had a number of discussions with Bob Nachlinger, (Finance
Director for the City) regarding potential funding options and how much money is
collected in federal and state dollars. He noted that out of $28 million that the City
collects on an annual basis only $2.1 million stays in the City.
The Committee meets every Tuesday. Miller thinks in the next three meetings they
will be able to come back with some information for the Public Works Committee.
Miller feels that the timeline given of early September is enough time for their
committee to come up with a plan, barring vacation conflicts.
Higgins asked Miller if the group had a sense of how to structure the funding. Miller said the
committee discussed going to the public to pass a bond issue to finance the 6 year projects as
a potential option.
Councilmembers thanked Mr. Miller for serving on the TMP Citizen Committee and stated they
know there is a tremendous amount of material for the committee to consider.
• The next update from the TMP Citizens Committee to the Public Works Committee will
be August 15, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
Information Only/No Motion Required
Page 1 of 2
SPECIAL
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, July 11, 2011
Item 3 2 — Contract/Aspect Consulting — Landsbura Mine:
Environmental Conservation Supervisor, Kelly Peterson, showed a locator map of Landsburg
Mine in comparison to Clark Springs. Peterson noted that Clark Springs is where the City gets
60 to 65 % of its water supply, depending on the time of year. Landsburg Mine site is
currently being addressed by the Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program. Because of
the City's concern about potential environmental impacts of the Landsburg Mine on the Clark
Springs water source, we are requesting to extend the services of Aspect Consulting to provide
overall guidance to the City during the development of the Clean-up Action Plan. This
amendment would bring the total contract with Aspect Consulting to $99,112.
Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 3
3 to the Consultant Services Agreement with Aspect Consulting for Environmental
Legal Services related to the Landsburg Mine site in the amount of $18,516 for a
total of $99,112 subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney
and Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Harmon and PASSED 3-0,
with a friendly amendment to change the wording from Amendment No. 2 to
Amendment No. 3.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:24 p.m.
Cheryl Viseth,
Public Works Secretary
Page 2 of 2
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION