HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 08/02/1999 _ Item 2
Public Works/Planning Committee
812199
City of Tukwila = Resolution
Recommended Motion/s:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee
i recommend to the Council adoption of the Resolution
supporting the alignment of light rail consistent with state
and regional growth management policies.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 2, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: City of Tuk�Adla - Resolution
The City of TukNArila has submitted the enclosed letter and attached Resolution and is
asking for our support. A representative will be in attendance to discuss this issue
with the Committee.
MOTION: ???
• �s(f%LA,
. 11,
�J ... ........q�
yG) City Of Tukwila
0; z
6200SouthcenterBoulevard Tukwila, WashingtonJffl O 1999 John W. Rants,Mayor
1908 =N"1114=ERING DEPT
June 21, 1999
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor lJ E
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South JUN 2�P 1999
Kent WA 98032
Dear or White:
Mass transit plays a critical role in relieving transportation congestion in the Puget Sound area. Its
effectiveness will be greatly determined by how well it serves urban centers and the economic and
employment opportunities those centers represent. We believe we will have one, and only one,
opportunity to create a first-class light rail system that will achieve this important objective.
The City of Tukwila is committed to making Sound Transit successful. To be successful it must adhere
to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and County-wide Planning Policies. Connecting
designated urban centers with high-capacity transit is a cornerstone of these adopted state and regional
growth management and transportation policies. The locally preferred alternative announced by Sound
Transit fails to connect light rail with the Tukwila Urban Center. Consequently it fails to effectively link
Commuter Rail, Amtrak and Express Bus stations that will serve Renton, Kent,Auburn, Algona and
Pacific and the vibrant economy of the Kent Valley,making it a monumental mistake. It fails to provide
early staging for extension of these services to the Eastside and thus fails to open these transportation
opportunities to communities served by the I-405 corridor.
I have enclosed a draft resolution for your consideration. Tukwila is not interested in stopping Sound
Transit; we are interested in finding a method to achieve the greatest positive impact for this sizable
public investment. Please feel free to adjust the enclosed resolution to your city's needs. Members of
the Tukwila City Council and I are available for any of your meetings if you should desire a more
comprehensive explanation of our point of view. It is my sincere hope that your City Council can rind
agreement with this position and provide the support critical to ensure that Sound Transit achieves
compliance with County-wide Planning Policies and the Growth Management Act.
Thank you very much for your attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
W
John W. Ran s
Mayor
JWR/so
10 Encl.
Phone: (206) 433.1800 9 City Hall Fax (206) 433-1833
s
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF (KENT, RENTON, AUBURN) SUPPORTING
i THE ALIGNMENT OF LIGHT RAIL CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND
REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES
WHEREAS, the Executive Board of Sound Transit has determined the locally
preferred alternative for the routing of light rail in Phase I of the project shall not
connect Urban Centers and specifically the Tukwila Urban Center; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington requires
that transportation systems be based on regional priorities and coordinated with
County and City comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, Vision 2020, the regional growth management and transportation
plan provides that major investments in high capacity transit support the
development and connection of urban centers; and
WHEREAS, the Countywide Planning policies for King County require that
regional mobility options include a high capacity transit system which links urban
centers; and
WHEREAS, the connection of the Tukwila Urban Center with Light Rail Service
will provide enhanced transportation opportunities for the economically vibrant
and diverse employment populations of the Green River and Kent Valleys; and
WHEREAS, the Locally Preferred Alternative decision by Sound Transit ignores
these opportunities and fails to serve the primary population densities of South
King County and to position itself for service to the Eastside and South Lake
Washington communities;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of finds that the selection of the Locally Preferred
Alternative route that does not include the Tukwila Urban Center to be
inconsistent and in conflict with regional growth management strategies, Vision
2020, Countywide Planning Policies for King County, and the local
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the City of Tukwila.
Section 2. The City of and its officials hereby submit a formal objection
to the Sound Transit Executive Board, the Federal Transportation Administration
and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the February 25, 1999
decision to omit the Tukwila Urban Center from detailed engineering and
economic analyses as a Phase I routing alternative.
• Section 3. The City of urges Sound Transit to reconsider its decision
and determine a solution that will connect urban centers in the first phase of the
s
a
LINK Light Rail project in order to maximize ridership as well as meet the stated
Sobjectives of state and local growth management policies.
Section 4. The City of resolves that it cannot support the proposed
project and schedule for LINK Light Rail unless the February 25, 1999 decision is
reconsidered and unless Sound Transit agrees to carry forward the E-3
alignment as part of the FEIS, and it shall communicate this objection to all
appropriate local, state and federal agencies.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WASHINGTON at a regular meeting thereof this day of 1999.
s t
Item 3
• Public Works/Planning Committee
8/2/99
Engineering Offices Remodel
Recommended Motion:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee
recommend to the Council the establishment of the
Engineering Remodel Fund and Budget along with
authorizing transferring of the funds thereto as described
herein including the expenditures therefrom.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 2, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom*
RE: Engineering Offices Remodel
With adoptions of the 1999 budget 6 new positions were approved for the
Engineering Division. To date we have filled 3 of said positions and with that have
used up our available workstations. To fill the balance plus the 5 more positions
associated with the recent staff approval per the permit process we are out of space.
As you're aware per the recent space studies Engineering is designated to expand to
utilize the entire second floor of the Centennial building. Presently Employee
Services has, on an interim basis, moved into a part of said second floor, however,
• there is still some vacant space remaining. To maximize the usage of said available
space a remodel is in order. We have developed a preliminary plan with the aid of
the space consultant that Mll provide us the necessary workstations. To do so
however we had to utilize not only the vacant space but the existing halls, closets and
lunch room plus remodel and reorganize our existing space. Total estimated cost of
this remodel is $225,000, which includes the development of the construction plans
and specs, permit fees, the remodel, construction management, furniture and etc. We
are proposing to fund same by utilizing the $50,000 presently remaining in the
remodeling fund (note said funds can either be transferred into a newly created
Engineering remodel fund or the project billed against said fund up to the $50,000
amount), plus establish a new Engineering remodel project fund and transfer into
same the following projects funds.
$75,000 from fund R35 ($75,000 was budgeted for the repair of 42"' Ave near the
intersection of Orillia Rd. 42"d Avenue is now being reconstructed and widened in
conjunction with the Kentview Condominium project therefore these funds are no
longer needed. Because these were gas tax funds which are designated for general
road maintenance only said funds need to be transferred into the street fund and
than $50,000 of unencumbered funds of the street fund needs to be transferred to
this project fund.)
$50,000 from fund D37 ($488,467 exists in the fund. The project was to construct a
istonnwater detention facility and channel improvements in the lower reach of
Garrison creek. Because of wetlands it was concluded that securing the necessary
permits to construct the detention facility would be near impossible so it was
compensated for by doubling the size of the upper Garrison creek detention facility
when it was constructed. Constructing the channel improvements still remains to be
completed. It has also become more important in light of ESA and fish passage
issues. The remaining funds, less the $50,000, are adequate to accomplish same
$50,000 from fund W59 ($500,000 was budgeted for the acquisition of property for
the construction of a new reservoir within the east hill service area (590) of the water
system. Based on computer modeling the reservoir needed to be in the vicinity of
S248th Street and 1 16`" Avenue to address pressure and fire floe problems
anticipated upon build out of the area. Acquisition of the property for the new shops
provides the necessary site and since the reservoir only needs one to two acres
thereof, the monies budgeted are more than adequate for its proportionate share of
the acquisition costs.
MOTION: Recommend to Council the establishment of the Engineering Remodel
fund and budget along with authorizing transferring of the funds thereto as described
herein including the expenditures therefrom.
Engineering Remodel
•
Item 4
• Public Works/Planning Committee
8I2/99
H . E.S. Safety Grants
Recommended Action:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee
recommend to the full Council to authorize staff to accept
the grant, establish a budget, and authorize spending the
funds on the appropriate Public Works projects.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
t
August 2, 1999
TO: Public Works/PlanningCommittee
FROM: Don Wickstrom D Q.J11
RE: HES Grants
As reflected in the attached memo, we have received notification of a series of HES (Hazard
Elimination System) grant awards. For the eight projects the grant totals $294,290 which will
require match monies of$41,341. Of said $41,341, however, only $22,44lis not funded as we
will be giving the James Street project between I"Ave and Central Ave project for $135,000 to
Sound Transit to fund its match as it relates to their commuter rail station project.
Of the remaining seven projects, the 101st Ave & SE 256`h St project involves installing a left
turn arrow on the traffic signal, the 88`h Ave & S 2181h St projects involves lane widening, street
• lighting and guardrail installation at the 90 degree corner and the balance involve "C" curbing
the center line of the street to prevent left turn movements. Please be aware that these "C"
curbing projects particularly on 1041h Ave from 253`d St to 2601h St and on Meeker St from WVH
to 64`h Ave will have a significant impact fronting businesses. For these projects our intent is to
meet with the fronting business owners/property owners and go over the issues with them and
enlist their input on possible alternative solutions before proceeding ahead. Further, per the "C"
curbing project on 1041h Ave north of 2561h St the opening this Fall of the 2771h Corridor project
may provide sufficient traffic congestion relief there along that resolves the accident problem.
Similarly on Meeker St., if we are successful in getting the TIB grant to widen the street to 5
lanes, the accident problem there along should also be resolved. With regard to the matching
funds sufficient monies exist in fund R42 (City-wide guardrail & Safety Improvements project
fund) to cover same.
It is the Public Works Department's recommendation to accept the grants, establish a budget for
same, transfer funds as necessary, authorize the Mayor to sign all appropriate grant documents
and authorize the expenditure accordingly.
MOTION: Recommend to Council approval of Public Works Department's recommendation.
MP7299
Washington State Transportation Buiicing MAY 17 1999
Department.of Transportation P.O. Box 47300
Sid Morrison Olympia,WA 98504-MRGI ESE iii G OEPT
. Secretary of Transportation
May 14, 1999
Mr. Don Wickstrom
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
1999 HES Selections
Dear Mr. strom:
ee
We are pleased to inform you that the following projects have been selected to be
funded through the 1998-99 Hazard Elimination Program. This year, a total of 123
projects were selected from the more than 250 applications received. The selected
projects amounted to approximately $14 million compared to total requests equaling
more than $36 million.
Maximum
Project Federal Participation
101 Ave. SE & SE 256te St. $ 729000
104' Ave. SE btwn SE 256 h & SE 253`d St. $ 81100
88 Ave. S. & 218 St. $ 45,000
James Street btwn V Ave & Central $1359000
Kent Kangley Rd btwn 128 h Pl SE & 132ad Ave SE $ 139500
Meeker St. at West Valley Hwy $ 89100
SE 240 St. at Safeway Driveway $ 2,340
SE 256"' St. & SE 260d' $ 11,250
Your projects will be funded in the following sequence:
1. Preliminary Engineering(PE/Design)upon receipt of:
a. Project prospectus (reflecting latest cost estimate) -completed per
Local Agency Guidelines.
b. Local Agency Agreement showing only PE amounts.
_ May 14, 1999
Page 2
2. Rights-of-Way Acquisition (R/W)upon receipt of:
• a. True Cost Estimate.
b. R/W Plan per Local Agency Guidelines.
C. Environmental documentation.
d. Local Agency Agreement, supplemented, if applicable, showing R/W
costs.
3. Construction (CN) after completion of PS&E and receipt of:
a. R/W Certification.
b. Environmental documentation.
C. Local Agency Agreement, supplemented, when applicable, reflecting
the total project cost.
To obligate funding for these projects, please submit the items indicated to your
Regional TransAid Engineer. Project expenditures become eligible for reimbursement
once federal approval is received. Also,please remember your projects need to be
completed within three years of selection and your agency must perform accident
tracking and reporting for the three years following completion of the projects.
• Since these projects are included in the statewide safety bucket in the STIP, a STIP
amendment will not be necessary.
If you need assistance in completing your funding request, please contact your
Regional TransAid Engineer.
Sincerely,
CAn
DENNIS B. INGHAM
Assistant Secretary
TransAid
DBI:ss
DLZ
cc: Terry Paananen,NW Region,NB82/121
r
Item 5
` Public Works/Planning Committee
812199
Surplus Vehicles
•
Recommended Action:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee
recommend authorization to declare these vehicles as
surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next public
auction.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 2, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Surplus Vehicles
Attached is a list of Equipment Rental vehicles which are no longer needed by the
City. As such, we are requesting that they be declared as surplus and sold at the next
public auction.
MOTION: Authorization to declare these vehicles as surplus and authorize the sale
thereof at the next public auction.
surplus
. - 1
CITY 0; KENO
Public Works Operations JUL 2 31999
MEMORANDUM
ENU,;vE_Nuvu DEP7
July 9, 1999
To: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
Thru: Eddy Chu, Operations Manager��
From: Steve Hennesseyeet Superintendent
Subject: Surplus Vehicle Authorization Request
I am requesting authorization to surplus the following vehicles and that have been
replaced with the 99 purchases and are no longer needed by Fleet Services. All of these
vehicles meet Fleet Services replacement point.system except#5302. This vehicle has
had heavy construction use and would require mechanical and body repairs that would
not be cost effective to repair. All of these vehicles will be sold to the highest bidder at
the next public auction.
. SERVICE VEHICLES
Unit# Yr. Serial# Mileage Description
5302 89 512414 70,000 GMC Cargo Van
5365 * 88 C14809 96,000 Ford 1 Ton Utility
8713 * 87 481862 92,400 Dodge %Ton PU
* Meets Fleet Services Replacement Point System of 20
(1 Point Per Year, 1 Point Per IOK)
CC: Dianne Sullivan
Frank Olson
1
Y T
Item 6
Public Works/Planning Committee
8/2/99
Metromedia Fiber Network Services
— Street License
i
Recommended Motion:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to
the Council to approve the Limited Street License between the City
of Kent and Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc. conditioned
upon acceptance of final license terms by the City Attorney's office.
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. SUBJECT: Limited Street License Between the City of Kent and Metromedia
Fiber Network Services, Inc.
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City of Kent has received the attached
application for a franchise to operate a fiber optic communications network within
the City of Kent. The City has, in the past, used the attached Limited Street
License Agreement format when granting rights to communication companies to
use City rights-of-way. Upon receipt of a completed legal description of MFNS's
proposed network, I recommend we grant them a Limited Street License in
substantially the same format as shown in the attached Agreement. To the extent
possible, City staff will attempt to work with MFNS to enhance its own fiber
optic network in conjunction with MFNS's fiber optic project.
3. MOTION. To approve the Limited Street License between the City of Kent
and Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc. conditioned upon acceptance of final
license terms by the City Attorney's office.
•
S.TUBLICIADMMacki e\Li m itedStreetLicense.doc
LIMITED STREET LICENSE BETWEEN
THE CITY OF KENT AND
METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SERVICES, INC.
THIS LIMITED STREET LICENSE ("License") is entered into between the CITY OF
KENT, a Washington Municipal Corporation("City"), and METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK
SERVICES,INC., A Delaware Corporation("MFNS").
RECITALS
WHEREAS,MFNS seeks to extend a fiber optic telecommunications system in the City of
Kent; and
WHEREAS,MFNS has requested that the City grant a franchise to use City right-of-way to
extend these two transmission lines to the connection facility; and
WHEREAS, at this time the City is developing a policy that will establish procedures and
regulations for the franchise and use of its right-of-ways by telephone companies for the extension
and development of wired telephone systems; and
WHEREAS,the City cannot issue a franchise for a wired telephone system until this policy
• has been fully developed and issued; and
WHEREAS, MFNS wishes to proceed with the construction of these two transmission lines
before the City issues either its policy or a franchise to MFNS for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to enter into this License under the terms and conditions set
forth in this License so that MFNS can commence construction of its two planned transmission lines;
NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY AND MFNS AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
LICENSE
1. License Granted. The City grants MFNS this Limited Street License for a period
of five (5) years from the effective date of this License to install, construct, operate, maintain,
remove, repair, reconstruct, replace, use and inspect a fiber optic telecommunications system and
all related equipment("Telecommunications System") across, along, in,upon, and under the City's
right-of-ways described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by this reference. A
general description of the plans and specifications for this Telecommunications System is attached
as Exhibit B. This License is subject to all the terms and conditions established below.
myNs LICENSE--Page 1 of 7 July 28, 1999
2. City Own$d Facilities. MFNS shall provide and install a four inch(4")conduit with
pullboxes for and on beh4lf of the City, at no cost to the City, as set forth more specifically in
Exhibit B, attached and incorporated by this reference ("City Facilities"). The City Facilities shall
be installed alongside and concurrently with the Fiber Optic Line within the borders of the City. The
City intends to run its own innerduct and fiber optic line through the City Facilities at some future
time and the City Facilities shall be adequate for such purpose. The City Facilities shall be owned
by the City and, once installed, MFNS shall not be responsible for it.
3. Revocation and Termination. The intent of this License is to authorize MFNS
to operate its Telecommunications System on the designated City right-of-ways,which right-of-ways
constitute a valuable property interest owned by the City. This License does not grant an estate in
the land described in Exhibit A; it is not an easement; it is not a franchise; it is not exclusive; and,
it does not exclude the City from full possession of the property described in Exhibit A. As a license
upon real property, it is revocable at the will of the City. However,prior to termination or revocation
by the City,the City shall provide MFNS with at least sixty (60)calendar days written notice of that
termination or revocation. Upon the effective date of the City's termination or revocation,the City
may require MFNS to remove the Telecommunications System within thirty (30) calendar days; if
MFNS fails to remove the Telecommunications System within the allotted time, the City may
remove all or part of the'telecommunications System and MFNS waives any right it may have to
any claim for damages of any kind incurred as a result of the City's removal of all or part of the
Telecommunications System.
4. Permits Required. The City's grant of this License does not release MFNS from .
any of its obligations to obtain applicable local, state, and federal permits necessary to install,
construct, operate, maintain, remove, repair, reconstruct, replace, use and inspect the
Telecommunications System. MFNS's failure to comply with this Section 4 shall constitute grounds
for immediate revocation by the City.
5. Relocation. MFNS shall,at its sole cost and expense,protect, support,temporarily
disconnect, relocate or remove, all or a part of its Telecommunications System when required by the
City for reasons of traffic iconditions or public safety, widening or improvement of existing right-of-
ways, change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or
structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity,provided that MFNS shall,
upon receiving approval and obtaining the necessary permits from the City,have the right to bypass
in the authorized portion of the same right-of-way, any section of cable required to be temporarily
disconnected or removed,
n&-,vs LICENSIR--Page 2 of 7 July 28, 1999
5.1. For the purposes of this Section 5, any condition or requirement imposed by
the City upon itself or any person or entity acting on the City's behalf, (including without
limitation, any condition or requirement imposed pursuant to any contract or in conjunction
with approvals for permits for zoning, land use, construction, or development) that
reasonably necessitates the relocation of MFNS's facilities within the right-of-ways described
in Exhibit A shall be a required relocation for purposes of the previous subsection.
5.2. If the City, under its authority, causes a required relocation of all or part of
the Telecommunications System, the City, at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the
commencement of the project requiring relocation, shall provide written notice to MFNS of
the required relocation and shall provide MFNS with copies of pertinent portions of the plans
and specifications for the project. After receipt of the City's notice, MFNS must complete
the required relocation of its affected facilities at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the
commencement of the project requiring relocation. MFNS will complete this required
relocation at no charge or expense to the City. Further, MFNS's relocation shall be
accomplished in a manner that accommodates and does not interfere with the project
requiring relocation.
5.3. MFNS may, after receipt of the City's written notice requesting relocation,
submit written alternatives to the City. The City will evaluate those alternatives to determine
if any of the alternatives can accommodate the work that would otherwise necessitate the
relocation of the Telecommunications System. If requested by the City, MFNS will submit
additional information to assist the City in making its determination. The City will give each
alternative proposed by MFNS full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately
determines that no reasonable or feasible alternative exists, MFNS shall relocate its facilities
as otherwise provided in this Section 5.
5.4. In the event that a relocation of any of the Telecommunications System is
required by any person or entity other than the City, so long as that person or entity is not
acting on the City's behalf in conducting any of the activities described in this Section 5,
MFNS shall make those arrangements, including compensation for MFNS's relocation cost,
that it deems appropriate with that person or entity.
5.5. The provisions of this Section 5 shall survive the expiration or termination
of this License.
5.6 MFNS shall not be responsible for any costs associated with relocation of the
City's four inch(4") conduit Facilities throughout this Section 5.
• wNs LICENSE--Page 3 of 7 July 28, 1999
6. UndergroTonding. MFNS shall, wherever possible, underground its
Telecommunications Systeem. MFNS shall not erect poles, run or suspend wires, cables, or other
facilities, in any area where there are no aerial facilities, or in any area in which telephone, electric
power wires and cables Dave been placed underground. Nevertheless, if at the time of permit
application,the City does trot require the undergrounding of all or part of the Telecommunications
System,the City may, at ahy time while this License is in effect, require the conversion of MFNS's
aerial facilities to underground installation at MFNS's sole cost and expense.
6.1. Whenever the City requires undergrounding of any aerial utilities in the street
right-of-ways, MFNS shall underground its aerial facilities in the manner specified by the
City concurrently;with the other affected utilities. When other utilities are present and
involved in the undergrounding project,MFNS shall pay its fair share of common costs born
by all utilities in addition to the costs specifically attributable to the undergrounding of
MFNS's own facilities. Common costs shall include necessary costs not specifically
attributable to the,undergrounding of any particular facility, such as costs for common
trenching and utility vaults. "Fair share" shall be determined for a project on the basis of the
number and size of MFNS's facilities being undergrounded in comparison to the total number
and size of all oth$r utility facilities being undergrounded.
7. Emergency. In the event of any emergency in which any portion of the
Telecommunications System breaks,becomes damaged,or in any other way becomes an immediate
danger to the property, life, health, or safety of any individual, MFNS shall immediately take the
proper emergency measures to remedy the dangerous condition without first applying for and
obtaining a permit as requl fired by this License. However, this emergency work shall not relieve
MFNS from its obligation to obtain all permits necessary for this purpose, and MFNS shall apply
for those permits within the next two succeeding business days.
8. Indemnifieation. MFNS shall comply with the following indemnification
requirements:
8.1. MVNS shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials,
employees, agents assigns and volunteers harmless from any and all claims,actions,injuries,
damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs, witness fees and attorney fees, arising out
of or in connectiot with the performance of any of MFNS's rights or obligations granted by
this License, but Only to the extent of the negligence or comparative fault of MFNS, its
employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, subconsultants or assigns.
8.2. Thy City's inspection or acceptance of any of MFNS's work when completed
shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
WNs LICENSE--Page 4 of 7 July 28, 1999 •
8.3. These indemnification obligations shall extend to any claim, action or suit
that may be settled by compromise,provided that MFNS shall not be liable to indemnify the
City for any settlement agreed upon without the consent of MFNS; however, if MFNS
consents to the agreed upon settlement, then MFNS shall indemnify and hold the City
harmless as provided for in this Section 8 by reason of that settlement. Moreover,if MFNS
refuses to defend the City against claims by third parties, MFNS shall indemnify the City
regardless of whether the settlement was made with or without MFNS's consent.
8.4. In the event that MFNS refuses to tender defense in any claim, action or suit
by a third party pursuant to this Section 8 and if MFNS's refusal is subsequently determined
by a court having jurisdiction(or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the
matter)to have been a wrongful refusal,then MFNS shall pay all the City's costs for defense
of the action, including all legal costs,witness fees and attorneys' fees and also including the
City's costs, including all legal costs, witness fees and attorneys' fees, for recovery under this
indemnification clause (Section 8).
8.5. The provisions of this Section 8 shall survive the expiration or termination
of this Agreement.
9. Insurance. MFNS shall procure and maintain for the duration of this License,
insurance of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries to persons or
damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work by
MFNS, its agents, representatives, employees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants,
subconsultants or assigns.
9.1. Before beginning work on the project described in this License,MFNS shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
9.1.1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than$1,000,000
combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and
9.1.2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence
basis with limits no less than $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and
general aggregate for personal injury,bodily injury and property damage. Coverage
shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed
operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground
(XCU); and employer's liability.
9.1.3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 per
occurrence and aggregate.
wNs LICENSE--Page 5 of 7 July 28, 1999
9.2. An payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole
responsibility of MFNS.
9.3. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, assigns and volunteers
shall be named as tin additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed
by or on behalf �f the MFNS and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as
additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance.
9.4. M) NS's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply
separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respects to the lin fits of the insurer's liability.
9.5. Ml!NS's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the
City shall be gives thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice by certified mail of any
cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage.
10. Modificat,ion. This License may not be modified, altered, or amended unless first
approved in writing by tho City.
11. Assignment. MFNS may assign all or any portion of its rights, benefits, and
privileges, in and under this License subject to and conditioned upon approval of the City, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. MFNS shall, no later than thirty (30) days
of the date of any proposed assignment, file written notice of intent to assign the License with the
City together with the assignee's written acceptance of all terms and conditions of the License and
promise of compliance. (Notwithstanding the foregoing, MFNS shall have the right, without such
notice or such written acdeptance,to mortgage its rights, benefits, and privileges in and under this
License to the Trustee for!its bondholders and assign to any subsidiary, parent,affiliate or company
having common control With MFNS so long as notice of same is provided to the City and provided
MFNS remains fully liable to the City for compliance with all terms and conditions hereof until such
time as the City shall consent to such assignment as provided above.
11. Dispute Resolution; Venue; Jurisdiction. In the event of any alleged breach or
threatened breach of this License by either party and if the City and MFNS are unable to cure the
breach or otherwise resolve their dispute, then final resolution of this dispute or claim shall occur
solely under the jurisdiction or venue of the King County Superior Court located in Kent,
Washington. Each party shall also be responsible for its own legal costs and attorney fees incurred
in defending or bringing that claim or lawsuit.
12. Notice.All notices,requests,demands, or other communications provided for in this
License shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when sent by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as the case may be,to the addresses listed below
for each party, or to such other person or address as either party shall designate to the other from
wNs LICENSF---Page 6 of 7 July 28, 1999
time to time in writing forwarded in like manner.
CITY OF KENT METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK
Attn: City Clerk SERVICES, INC.
220 Fourth Avenue South Attn:
Kent, WA 98403
Please Copy to:
14. This License contains the entire agreement between the parties and, in executing it,
the City and MFNS do not rely upon any statement, promise, or representation, whether oral or
written, not expressed herein.
IN WITNESS,this Limited Street License is executed and shall become effective as of the
last date signed below.
CITY OF KENT METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK
SERVICES, INC.
By: By:
JIM WHITE, Mayor Its:
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
THOMAS C. BRUBAKER
Deputy City Attorney
P:\Civil\Anomeys\TOM13\MiseellanwmNdF NS-LimitedStreetLiceme.doe
mFNs LICENSE--Page 7 of 7 July 28, 1999
• CROSS COUNTRY LAND SERVICES, INC.
Ron Gustafson,Franchise Administrator ph.(206)985-1258
9019 Bagley Ave.N. fax(206)985-2715
Seattle,WA 98103 cell(206)953-9694
daron2us(c aol.com
COPY RECEIVED
Project: Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc.
JUL 08 1999
July 7, 1999 Kent City Attorney
Tom Brubaker,Asst. City Atty.
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Re: Metromedia Fiber Network Services,Inc.,request for franchise from
the City of Kent.
Dear Tom:
As I mentioned to you in our telephone conversation last week, I am working with
Metromedia Fiber Network Services,Inc. ("MFNS"), to obtain a franchise for MFNS
from the City of Kent. MFNS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at the following address: One North Lexington Ave.,White Plains,New York
10601. MFNS is a direct,wholly-owned subsidiary of Metromedia Fiber Network,Inc.,
a publicly traded Delaware corporation. MFNS is registered with the WUTC as a
Competitive Telecommunications Company and is authorized to provide non-switched.
dedicated and private line high capacity fiber optic transmission services. A copy of the
Order is enclosed.
MFNS intends to create a fiber optic telecommunication network in the greater
Seattle area. It will then utilize that network to provide telecommunications services to
commercial, governmental and educational institutions as well as other
telecommunications carriers with significant communication needs. Specifically,the
network will be a facilities-based non-switched dedicated and private line,high capacity
fiber optic telecommunications network capable of providing transmission services. The
customer will not have access to the fiber within the right-of-way or be responsible for it.
Rather,MFNS (or its contractor)will maintain the fiber network and remain responsible
for it. MFNS may also provide additional telecommunications services depending on the
needs of its customers.
MFNS intends to create this network through several means. A portion of the
duct required for installation of the backbone cable of this network will be acquired by
MFNS from other utilities. The responsibility for and access to those facilities will be
determined by the specific agreements with those companies from whom MFNS acquires
Tom Brubaker,Esq.
July 7, 1999
page 3
facilities and by the various license agreements regulating those facilities. The rest of the
backbone, as well as all of the spurs off of that backbone connecting to MFNS customers,
will be constructed by N[FNS and MFNS will have exclusive access and control over
those facilities. As no*d above,the customer will not have access to the facilities within
the right-of-way. Add litional information about MFNS and all of the services it is capable
of providing is enclosed and can be found on its website at www.mmfn.com.
MFNS is in the process of acquiring two 11/4" ducts from Pacific Fiber Link's
network As you know, a portion of that network passes through the City of Kent along
the West Valley Highivay. In addition, as MFNS signs up customers, it will need the
ability to construct spurs off of its backbone route to connect with those customers.
Accordingly, MFNS will require a franchise allowing it to provide telecommunications
services to customers anywhere in the City and to construct(or acquire), operate and
maintain a telecommunications network potentially anywhere in the City, subject,of
course,to permission from the Public Works Department.
As you suggested,to begin the process I will forward to you under separate cover
a proposed license for!you to review next week. If you have any questions please call me
at(206)985-1258. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ron Gustafson
Franchise Administrat
Encl WVTC Order
MFNS general information
T
Apr-27-99 01:54pe FrarSWIDIER BEr' SIEREFF FRIEDIi61R 202424TO45 T-TST P.02/07 F-627
' $FD1nr�� nA7E
SEP - 91998
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COl�LS-RIM EIVED
in the Matter of the Application and Petition ) JUL 08 1999
Of ) DOCKET UT-980974
Kent City Attorney
Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., )
ORDER AUTHORIZING
REGISTRATION AND GRANTING
For Registration as a Telecommunications ) PETITION FOR COMPETITIVE
Company and Classification as a Competitive ) CLASSIFICATION AND
Telecommunications Company. ) APPROVING PRICE LIST
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
By petition filed July 23, 1998, in Docket UT-980974, Metromedia Fiber
Network Services, Inc., seeks regisuvition as a telecommunications company,
classification as a competitive telecommunications company, and approval of its
Proposed price list pursuant to RCW 80.36.350 and 80.36.320_ Metromedia Fiber
Network Services, Inc., requested extensions for additional time to complete its
application for registration by letter to the Commission dated August 7, 1998.
Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc, proposes to register with the
Commission as a telecommunications company to offer non-switched dedicated and
pe line, high capacity fiber optic transmission services to the public. In support of
fitsnvatit'On. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc, alleges j=AM that its services
compete with other access providers telecommunication services. Metromedia Fiber
Network Services. Inc., states that customers have readily available, equivalent,
alternatives and that there are no captive customers of the company's services.
Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., is a Delaware corporation,
headquartered in White Plains, New York, and is wholly owned by Metromedia Fiber
Network, Inc Rates, terms, and conditions set forth in the proposed price list are
structured similarly to rates filed by other interexchange carriers for calls placer} in the
relevant market.
Metromedia Finer Network Services, Inc., has provided information
showing that it meets the requirements of RCW 80.36.350. Metromedia Fiber Network
Services, Inc., will collect deposits or advance payments from customers in accordance
w)lh WAC 480-121-040 Pursuant to statutes and rules governing registration
applications and deposit or advance payment proposals, Metromedia Fiber Network
Services, Inc.. has proposed a satisfactory bond agreement for protection of those
advance payments. Initially,the bond agreement wilt be far$250,000 and will increase
proportionally as the customer base increases. If Metromedia Fiber Network Services,
Inc , ceases operations, it will provide the insurer and the Commission lists of
outstanding account numbers and balances within 48 hours.
Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., shell maintain adequate levels
in the bond agreement to assure compliance witty WAC 480-121-04D. If Metromedia
Fiber Network Services, Inc., goes out of business, it will provide refund information on
the compatly s'800"phone number for its customers.
,4pr-27-iR Of:35pai FrarSlI DtER DEr I SHERIFF FRIEUM 292424TI49 MOT P.03107 F-67
Docket 11T 980974 Page 2
The conhpany filed written testimony in support of competitive
classification. which ajccompanied its petition. in conjunction with classification, the
company is seeking"mr of the requirements of various provisions of chapter 80.36
RCVV and chapter 48 120 WAC.
The company is also seeking waiver of.
RCW 80.04.300 Budgets to be filed by o�rrpanies—Su}�plementary
budgets
RCW 8D.04.31.0 Commmsrc n's control over expenditures
RCW 80.04.330 Budget rules
RCW 80-04.3 0 Effect of unauthorized expenditure--Emergencies
RCW 80.04.360 Samings in excess of reasonable rate--Consideration
In fixing rates
RCW 80.04.40 Investigation of accidents
RCW 80,04.520 tease of utility facilities
RCW 80.36.1 00 Tariff schedules to be filed and open to public
RCW 80-36.11 D Tariff changes-Statutory notice—Exception
Chapter 80.0$RCW Securities(except RCW 80.08,140)
Chapter 8D.14 RCW Transfer: of Property
Chapter 80.1 RCW Affiwated interests
Chapter 48"0 WAC Tariffs
Chapter 480-140 WAC Budgets
Chapter 480-143 WAC Transfers of Property
Chapter 4BO-146 WAC Securities and affiliated interests
WAC 4M120-026 Tariff
WAC 480-12 31 Accounting
WAC 48D-12"32 Accoumang-Political information and political
education activities
WAC 4M126-036 Finance--SecuriOes, affiliated interest.transfer of
property
WAC 480-120-046 Services offered
WAC 480-120-131 Reports of accidents
Rules invoked include those within chapters 480-09 and 480-120 WAC,
specifically WAC 48.0-W520 and WAC 480-120-022, WAC 48D-120-023,
WAC 480-120-024.Iand WAC 480-120-025. Statutes invoked include RCW 80.30-145,
80.38.320, and RCW 80.38.350, The ultimate issues are whether Metromedia Finer
Network Services, Inc..should be registered as a telemmmunications company,
classi isd as a competitive telecommunications company. its proposed price list should
be approved, and tree extent to which it should be relieved of regulatory requirements to
which h would othehw ise be subject.
A r-27-99 01:55pa Frw$WIDIER SEw-r SHEREFF FRIEDW IDUUT645 T-TST 11.04/0 F-ti9T
Pocket UT-980974 Page 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Metromedia Fiber Netwont Services, Inc.,filed an application for
registration as a telecommunications company and a petition for classification as a
competitive tMecormunications company pursuant to the provisions of RCW 80.36.350
and 80.36-320, to provide non-switched dedicated and private tine. high rapacity fiber
optic transmission services to the public.
2. As to form, the application and petition filed herein, meets the
requirements of RCW 80.36.350 and 80.38.320, and the Commission's roles and
regulations.
3. Tne registration of Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc.. as a
telecommunications company is not inconsistent with the public interest.
4. In this proceeding, the Commission in no way endorses the
financial viablitty of applicant nor the investment quality of any securities it may issue.
6. Alternative providers of service to that of Metromedia Fiber Network
Services, Inc., include, but are not limited to, AT&T Communications. Inc., U S WEST
Communications, Inc., MCI Communications Corporation, and Sprint Communications
Company. All services are fully available from aftemative providers in the relevant
market.
6. The relevant market is the state of Washington,
base. 7. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., has no captive customer
s The services offered are subject to effective competition.
9. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., should be permitted to
provide services under its proposed price list,
10. Metromedia Fiber Network Seances, Inc., requested waivers of
certam laws and rules relating to telecommunications services. The laws and rates for
which waivers should be granted are listed on Appendix A. incorporated by this
reference and made a part of this Order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Washington utilities and Transportation Commission has
jurisdiction over the subject matter Of this classification proceeding and the parties.
2. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., should be registered as a
telecommunications company pursuant to RCW 80,36.350 and classified as a cornpeti.
tine telecommunications company pursuant to RCW 80.36,320(1).
Apr-2r-40 01:56ps Fran-SWIDLER Ur-1 SHEi1FFF FRIEDMAR ZOU247643 - . T-TST PAW? F-611'
Docket OJT-980974 Page 4
3. Metromedia fiber Network Services. Inc., should be permitted to
provide services under price lists pursuant to RCW B0.38.320(2). These services will
not include alternate operator services as defined in WAC 480-120-141.
4- Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., should be granted waiver
of the taws and rules (sled in AppendixA;waiver of laws and rules requested that Are
not included in Appendix A should be denied.
ORDER
THE COMMISSION ORDERS:
1. After the effective date of this Order and subject to any conditions
imposed, the applies n of Metromedia Fiber Newmitc Services, Inc.. regpestin9 an
Order authorizing registration as a telecommunications company to provide service to
the public in this star is approved_
2. The petition of Metromedia fiber Network Services, Inc., for
classification as a competitive telecommunications company is approved; waiver of the
taws and rules listed!in the attached Appendix A is granted.
S. The proposed price list of Metromedia Fiber Network Services. Inc.,
for rates and services, is approved.
4. Registration of Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., as a
telecommunications)company shall not be construed as an endorsement of financial
viability nor of the investment quality of any securities it may issue.
S. As a telecommunications oompany providing serve to the public
in this state, Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., is subject to the jurisdiction of
this Commission under the provisions of Tide 80 RCW and all rules and regulations
adopted by the Cortbmission.
6. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc., is autnonzed to offer
rates and services arsuant to price list in the format prescrbw by the Commission;the
Price fist approved�this proceeding, and subsequent changes to that price list,
become effective only after ten days notice to the Commission and to customers. in the
event of a price list(reduction or of a change in terms and conditions which do not have
rate impact, personal notice to customers wilt not be required. Although the Commis-
sion does not havejauthority to waive the statutory notice requirement, Metromedia
Fiber Network Se ices, Inc., will have the option to publish notice of price reductions.or
phanges in terms and conditions of service which do not have rate impact by a display
advertisement in sick newspaper(s)as are geographically situated to be circutated over
the company's service area.
• Apr72t-49 01:56pe frn-SW14LER BE" SHEREFF FROM 2024UM5 T-TBT P.00/07 F64T
Docket UT 980974 Page 5
7. The services offered by Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc..
are not to mclude attemate operator services as defined in WAC 480-120-141.
S. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc.,filed with the Commis-
sion a satisfactory bond agreement in the amount of$250,000. As part of the Bond
agreement and in the event the company ceases operations, Metromedia Fiber
Network Services. Inc., will within 48 hours provide to the insurer and the Commission
list$ of outstanding account numbers and balances.
9. In the event the company ceases operagons, Metromedia Fiber
Network Services. Inc.. will provide refund information on the company's 0800"phone
number for its customers for a minimum of six months.
10 The Commission retains jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties to effectuate the terrm of this Order.
11. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc_, shall maintain adequate
levels in the bond agreement to assure compliance with WAC 480-121-M for the
protection of customer deposits or advance payments.
DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this th day of
September 1998.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CAROLE J WASHBURN. Secretary
*ZT-99 01:57pn Frog-SNIDLER SEF`A SHEREFF FRIEDW 2024247843 T-TST F.OT/OT HIT ,
DOCKET UT 980974
APPENDIX A
RCW 80.04.300 Budgets to be filed by comps rtie"tippiernentary budgets
RCW 80.04-310 Commission's control over expenditures
RCW 80.04.320 Budget rules
RCW 80.04.330 Effect of unauthorized expenditure-Emergencies
RCW 80.04.360 Earnings In excess of reasonable rate--Consideration in
fixing rates
RCW 80.04.460 Investigation of accidents
RCW 60.04.520 Lease of utility faciiities
RCW 80.36.100 Tariff schedules to be filed and open to public
RCW 80.36.110 Tariff changes--Statutory notice—Exception
Chapter 80.08 RCW Securities (except RCW 80.08.140, State not obligated)
Chapter 80.12 RCW Transfers of Property
Chapter 80.16 RCW Affiliated interests
Chapter 480-80 WAC Tariffs
Chapter 480-140 WAC Budgets
Chapter 480-143 WAC Transfers of Property
Chapter 480-145 WAC Securities and affiliated interests
WAC 480-12D-026 Tariffs
WAC 480-12D-031 Accounting
WAC 4$D-120-032 Accounting-Political information and political education
activities
WAC 480-120-036 Finance--Securities, affiliated interest, transfer of property
WAC 480-120-046 Services offered
WAC 480-120-131 ' Reports of accidents
unleashing COPY RECEIVED
t e optical revoluti JUL 08 1999 nt City Attorney
breaking the boundaries • The maximum in reliability with
of yesterday's network continuous monitoring and maintenance
Bandwidth barriers,cost barriers,barriers to from our Network Operations Center.
implementation of the latest optical • Unparalleled expertise in the
technologies—with Metromedia Fiber engineering,construction and
Network they are a thing of the past. management of fiber networks. %
Suddenly;unlimited bandwidth is becoming
a new reality.A new era in private fiber networks
telecommunications is unfolding.
Metromedia Fiber Network provides fiber �
Metromedia Fiber Network is leading the facilities for all types of commercial
revolution—unleashing the power of fiber customers and communications carriers.
optics in major metropolitan areas by
Banks,brokerage houses and manufacturing
the nest generation of
broadband optical networks to carriers and firms are deploying bIFN's private fiber
corporations in communications centers
networks to seamlessly connect
worldwide. metropolitan area locations including data
centers and corporate headquarters. Our
Finally a network with the flexibility you
secure, high-capacity fiber optic Metromedia Fiber
need to expand reach and capacity. Now infrastructure meets all telecommunications Network is leading
you can control your network— network,Intranet and data center the revolution -
implementing the latest technology,adding requirements. virtually Unlimited
b wtth as required to meet explosive bandwidth at a fixed
d
d. You can realize the benefits of CLECs,ILECs,ISPs, ISCs and wireless cost for the life of
data and video convergence—no service providers gain access to major
vo e,
central and tandem offices and carrier your contract.
more barriers.
hotels as well as Internet NAPS,ilIAEs,and
That power is yours with Metromedia Fiber public and private peering points. Co-
Network. And it can save you money over location space is available in many of these
traditional metered services. key centers of communications.
Put it all together and it's clear: Metromedia
Fiber Network is unleashing a revolution, mission critical applications
enabling the introduction of the latest Our fiber infrastructure supports
optical technologies and facilitating growth mission critical applications including.IP,
while reducing overall costs. Gigabit Etherner,ATM,SONET...Disaster
Recovery...Data Warehousing...broadcast
redefining local bandwidth quality Video Conferencing... Distance
With our advanced fiber optics infrastruc- Learning.The capacity to keep you on the
ture,you will enjoy: cutting edge of communications.
• Rapid network deployment. Metromedia
Fiber Network has built extensive Metromedia Fiber Network.
metropolitan area networks in major Unleashing the Optical Revolution.
business districts,passing key
commercial complexes and vital central
offices.
• Flexibility to easily expand your
network capacity to meet future
ndwidth and applications
quirements.
• Unparalleled security through the M E T R M E D I A
-exclusive use of your fiber.
F I B E R N E T W O R K
t cu•u:ntnt/ir.cont
21999 b1et rnmedia Fiber I,emork Services.Inc.
unleashing the optical revolution
the metropolitan area networks
fostering innovation a new era in telecommunications
Major cities. Big,busy and complex.Dense In short,Metromedia Fiber Network is
and vibrant business markets. These unleashing the optical revolution. A new era
international hubs of telecommunications of unlimited bandwidth that means limitless
are where the optical revolution flourishes. possibilities. Our advanced network
Where leading companies need bandwidth i architecture includes:
to meet their explosive communication's
growth. This is where Metromedia Fiber • Transmission capabilties of up to 2
Network has introduced its new bandwidth terabits per second,OC-3 to OC-192
paradigm. capacity levels.
• Physically diverse ring systems.
MFN is building fiber optic networks in the • ARC fusion to minimize loss and provide
following major metropolitan areas: longer transmission distances.
• New York • San Francisco • Fiber optic properties optimized to
• Philadelphia • Los Angeles handle both 1310 and 1550 nanometer
• Washington,DC • Dallas/Ft Worth :i applications.
• Boston • Houston
• Chicago • Atlanta breaking down the barriers
• Seattle Metromedia Fiber Network is leading the
charge with capacity,reliability and cost-
To meet the unprecedented demand for effective solutions that will not only meet
new and innovative communications your bandwidth needs today,but for years
services,our network provides: to come.
• Extensive networks in major
metropolitan areas. Our completed Metromedia Fiber Network.
networks will cover more than a Unleashing the Optical Revolution.
million fiber miles within the most
vibrant business markets and
government centers around the
country.
• Fiber trunks containing up to 864
,y
strands of fiber which keep our per Bosror
fiber mile construction costs low. %Vitfi
this low cost structure,you can get
0 ow
OC-192 capability for the price of a -
LADELPHIA
few DS-3s. -
• A ring-based topology in our local
networks provides the highest level oA
performance and route diversity.
• The highest quality fiber optic cabling]
capable of supporting not only today's ^NOSCD
cutting edge technologies,but multiply
generations of upgrades.
• High-capacity links from coast to coast '
and across the Atlantic connecting
major metropolitan areas and vital
European business centers.
• Monitoring all day,everyday. Our
Network Operations Center manages;a
comprehensive database of fiber router.
Fibers are tested continually to meet
the highest standards of quality
assurance.
METRO MEDIA
- f l B E R N E T W O R K
www.mmfn.com
01999 Metromedia Fiber Network Services. Inc.
rnleashin, the optical revolution
dark fiber Vmhole new paradigm
meeting explosive demand your own private network
The demand for high-bandwidth Our network connections are customized to
Applications is exploding.And unlimited meet your specific requirements. From
:apaciry is the latest business requirement. single entry,point-to-point connections to
In this new era in telecommunications, dual-entry diverse ring SONET capable
Metromedia Fiber Network is redefining networks,with NIFN you design the private
bandwidth in metropolitan area networks network that you require.
with a unique"dark fiber" service offering
:hat carries not just data,voice and video, the full spectrum of applications
but also a revolutionary idea:virtually Metromedia Fiber Networks dark fiber
unlimited bandwidth at a fixed cost. infrastructure supports the full spectrum of
today's broadband applications and
The result•. the network of the future is transport protocols:
available today—provided with the speed, • Disaster Recovery • IP
rlexibilit•, security and reliability you • Data Nlirroring • SONET
require. %Y'ith Metromedia Fiber Network • Data Warehousing • DW7DM
rou are in control of the growth and • Video Conferencing • Al All
development of your private, facilities- • Distance L.eaming • Gigabit Ethernet
based network.
Metromedia Fiber Network.
virtually unlimited bandwidth Unleashing the Optical Revolution.
at a fixed cost
fiber has the capacity and speed to
all your telecommur cations
requirements. In fact,one pair of dark
fiber strands will transmit up to 2 terabits
of data per second—or the equivalent of
the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, volumes
to Z, from New York to San Francisco in t
1/320" of a second. C tal
OStU
NIFN's dark fiber breaks through yesterday's �OSt mer
limitations.No more barriers. No more
restraints.That means:
• Virtually unlimited bandwidth at a
Fixed cost. Regardless of your network
capacity,your transmission costs won't
change,unlike traditional metered pdn
services
• Unparalleled security.You have the
exclusive use of your fiber.
• Virtually error-free service.Thanks
to our use of the highest grade of fiber
optic cable and continuous monitoring
and maintenance from our Network
Operating Center(NOC).
• Flexibility.We provide the
10infrastructure,you decide what you
send over it and how you send it you
choose the transmission equipment
vendor. METRE MEDIA
• Speed.The ability to transmit up to 2 F 1 g E R N E T W O R K
terabits per second.No more barriers.
• www.mmfn.com
�,ono,+_,..,... d;� P;",vP..,,.rP cP.-;rP< In
mleashing the optical revolution
transforming n the newyorkmwashington
g
corridor into one fiber optic zone
smashing the telecommunications a new era in telecommunications
barriers between — and Within— Metromedia Fiber Network is unleashing the
major cities optical revolution. A new era of unlimited
�1ew York to Washington,D.C.Metromedia bandwidth that means limitless possibilities,
including capacity, reliability and cost-effective
Fiber Network envisions this world- solutions that will not only meet your bandwidth Metromedia Fiber
renowned corridor of business and Network is leading
,yovernment activity as a single zone of needs today,but for years to come.
g the revolution -
high-capacity fiber optic telecommunica-
Metromedia Fiber Network. Virtually unlimited
dons.
Unleashing the Optical Revolution. bandwidth at a fixed
Metromedia Fiber Network is unleashing cost for the life of
the optical revolution between New York your contract.
and Washington,D.C.,with thousands of
miles of fiber optic strand capacity,
encompassing the major hubs of New
York,Philadelphia,Wilmington(DE),
Baltimore(b1D),and Washington,D.C.
pushing past network limitations
The goal: to provide seamless connectivity
along the Eastern Seaboard.
• Private building to building networks
from New York to Washington,D.C.
• No inter-LATA or inter-state distinctions
• No toll charges across the region
WARK
• Access to Internet NAPS,MAEs,and t `
public and private peering points INGTON
• Access to major central offices and
tandems - - WASHINGTOtg,
connecting the corridor s latas
With MFN s long-haul network,you can
gain access*to the following tandems and
latas:
White Plains,NY Lata 132
Garden City,NY Lata 132
Manhattan,NY Lata 132
Manhattan(Sway), NY Lata 132
Brooklvn,NY Lata 132
Newark, NJ Lata 224
New Brunswick,NJ Lata 224
Philadelphia, PA Lata 228
Baltimore, MD Lata 238
Washington,DC Lata 236
Arlington,VA Lata 236
*All tandems require MFN local distribution fiber for
access.
METRE MEDIA
F I B E R N E T W O R K
- r�rvwmmjn.com
Oc 1999 Metromedia Fiber Network Services.Inc.
i
METRN MEDIA. NEWS RELEASE
f 1 B E R E , W O R K
Co orate Headquarters • One North Lexington Ave. • White Plains, NY 10601 • 914.421.6700 • www.mmfn.com
For Immediate Release COPY RECEIVED
Metromedia Fiber Network Leases Dark Fiber JUL 08 1999
Infrastructure To America Online Kent City Attorney
Agreement Allows AOL to Lease High-Speed, High-Capacity
Internet Infrastructure in Additional Tier One Cities
NEW YORK, February 2, 1999—Unleashing the power of fiber optics for delivering high
bandwidth Internet applications, Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. today
announced a$10.8 million, multi-year dark fiber lease agreement with America Online
(NYSE:AOL), the world's leader in branded interactive services. AOL will lease a local fiber
,ton, D.C. metropolitan area. In addition, the companies reached
distribution network in the Washin
a related agreement that allows AOL to acquire additional dark fiber in other Tier One cities where
Metromedia Fiber Network is currently deploying infrastructure.
Metromedia Fiber Network is constructing leading edge fiber-based distribution networks in the
local loop, allowing companies like AOL to provide ultra-high capacity,high-speed communications
pipelines to their subscribers. Utilizing Metromedia Fiber Network's local metropolitan area
network, AOL will benefit from an alternative local loop strategy to continue to offer its members
the best possible online experience as well as the ability to rapidly increase bandwidth in a secure
and reliable environment.
"The demand for data text and image intensive Internet applications is growing at an exponential
rs to heater levels
rate, driving the bandwidth required to move those applications between compute
and straining the industry's traditional copper-based infrastructure," said Howard Finkelstein,
president of Metromedia Fiber Network. "Already there is pent-up demand for increasing bandwidth
capacity and speed in the local loop. AOL has recognized this and we're thrilled that it has chosen
- more—
r
� r
a
Page 2
MFN/AOL Release
chosen Metromedia Fiber Network as a conduit for bringing high-speed, high-capacity, interactive
Internet services to consumers."
"The demand for high-speed Internet access continues to grow at a very rapid pace. AOL Internet
traffic has more than doubled;in the past six months to more than two billion URLs per day," said
Joe Barrett, vice president of Internet operations for America Online. "I am confident that
Metromedia Fiber Network'si dark fiber will contribute to our network as we continually expand our
capacity, enabling us to continue to improve the online experience of our members."
About Metromedia Fiber Network
Metromedia Fiber Network is building fiber optic infrastructure in the local loop in strategic Tier
One markets, enabling technologically sophisticated organizations to implement the latest data,
video, internet and multimedia applications. By offering virtually unlimited, unmetered bandwidth
at a fixed cost, Metromedia Fiber Network is eliminating the bandwidth barrier and redefining the
way broadband capacity is sbld.
Utilizing Metromedia FiberNetwork's infrastructure, customers are able to rapidly deploy state-of-
the-art optical networks. Communications carriers and Internet Service Providers gain local Ioop
connectivity to the most highly populated metropolitan areas. Corporate and government customers
benefit from private building-to-building networks featuring the fastest transmission speeds available
and the highest levels of reliability and security. In addition to its current nationwide expansion in
11 major cities, Metromedi1a Fiber Network is planning to enter the international market with a fiber
optic network build in GeMany, and the provision of transatlantic bandwidth capacity through
International Optical Network (ION), a joint venture with Racal Telecom of the United Kingdom.
For more information abot}t Metromedia Fiber Network, please visit the company's Web site at
www.mmfn.com.
- more—
Page 3
MFN/AOL Release
This news release contains certain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause or
contribute to such risks and uncertainties include,but are not limited to,general economic and business conditions,competition,
changes in technology and methods of marketing,and various other factors beyond the Company's control. This also includes such
factors as describedfrom time to time in the SEC reports filed by Metromedia Fiber Network,including the most recently filed Form
IO-Q.
Contacts: Media Relations
Gary J. Gatyas, Jr.
Gibbs & Soell, Inc.
212-697-2600
ggatvas n abbs-soell.com
F I BS MEDIA NEWS RELEASE
E R N E T W O R K
Corporate Headquarters • One No3 Lexington Ave. • White Plains, NY 10601 • 914.421.6700 • www.mmfn.com
For more information, contact: Viatel: Glenn Davidson @ 212/350-9200
Cindy Glynn(Stern&Co.) @ 212/888-0044
Lee Feldman(Peters&Feldman)@ 203/854-6761
FOR IiMMEDIATE RELEASt
Carrier 1: Penny Atkins (EMC EuroPR) @
011-44-181-879-3033
Metromedia Fiber Network:
Jeffrey Luth,G. A. Kraut. Co.
212/696-5600
METROMEDIA FIOER NETWORK,VIATEL AND CARRIER 1 TO CREATE
A GERMAN NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(NEW YORK, NY -- August P, 1998) Viatel Inc. (NASDAQ: VYTL), Metromedia Fiber Network
(NASDAQ: MFNX) and Carrier 1 Holdings Ltd. jointly announced today an agreement to build a
national fiber optic telecommuilications network in Germany.
The infrastructure expansion wpuld extend the German portion of Viatel's Circe Pan-European Network
ring approximately 1,800 kilometers, covering Dortmund, Bremen, Hamburg, Berlin, Leipzig,
Nuremberg, and Munich in adation to Essen, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Frankfurt and Stuttgart, as previously
announced. This represents a significant expansion of Viatel's original infrastructure plans in Germany
and will bring the total Circe route kilometers to approximately 5,500.
The Circe Pan-European New will link Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and the United
Kingdom. The German portion of the network, consistent with the overall Circe Network, will be a high-
capacity broadband network capable of supporting high-quality voice, video, Internet Protocol and data
services. It will be a self-healing ring employing state-of-the-art technologies, such as Lucent's latest
generation TruWave RS glass and dense-wave division multiplexing.
Initially, Viatel, Carver 1 and Metromedia Fiber Network will jointly develop the German network, with
Viatel owning just over half of the development entity. Upon completion of construction, each of Viatel,
Carrier 1 and Metromedia Fiber Network will own its own separate German broadband network.
Construction will be completed in stages, with the first segment expected to be available by the second or
third quarter of 1999.
"We are excited about our agreement with Carrier 1 and Metromedia Fiber Network," said Michael J.
Mahoney, Viatel's Chief Executive Officer. "With their participation, we will be able to construct a
national network in Germany that will effectively permit a 2,300 kilometer nation-wide build for
approximately the same amount of capital previously committed to the 500 kilometer Western Germany
build."
MORE
Stig Johansson, Carrier 1's President, and Howard Finkelstein, Metromedia Fiber Network's
President, were equally effusive about the opportunities presented. "This network infrastructure,
coupled with our other initiatives, will enable Carrier 1 to provide voice and data customers with
the most advanced, cost-effective telecommunications services in Europe,"Mr.Johansson said.
Mr. Finkelstein added, "This agreement creates a platform for our U.S. customers to expand their
high-bandwidth communications capabilities into the heart of the growing European market. We
view this as an outstanding opportunity to capitalize on the rapidly expanding demand for
bandwidth-intensive applications by high-capacity users on both sides of the Atlantic."
Viatel is a facilities-based, global provider of telecommunications services. It offers high-quality,
competitively-priced, national and international long-distance services -- primarily to small and
medium-sized businesses, carriers and resellers—in over 230 countries and territories worldwide.
Headquartered in New York, Viatel is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ stock
exchange (VYTL). Viatel currently operates one of the largest alternative Pan-European
networks, with international gateway switching centers in New York and London, network points
of presence in over 30 cities, a direct sales force in nine Western European cities, and indirect
sales offices in more than 100 additional locations in Western Europe.
Carrier I is a facilities-based telecommunications carrier serving the wholesale market for long-
distance voice, Internet Protocol, and data services to, from and within Europe. Headquartered in
Zurich, Switzerland, the company has offices in London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and New York.
Carrier I will launch its extensive roll-out of global voice and IP services on September 1, 1998.
Metromedia Fiber Network provides technologically advanced, high-bandwidth, private, fiber
optic communications infrastructure within major U.S. markets. The Company provides its
infrastructure to communications carriers competing in the local, long distance, wireless, and
Internet markets as well as corporate and government customers requiring secure
communications networks for the transmission of large amounts of voice, data, and video.
Metromedia Fiber Network currently operates a fiber optic metropolitan area network in New
York and is developing local fiber optic infrastructure along strategic routes in Chicago,
Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Boston, the San Francisco Bay area and Silicon Valley, and an
inter-city link between New York and Washington D.C. The Company has established a joint
venture, known as IONTM, with Racal Telecom of the United Kingdom and began providing
international bandwidth capacity between the United States and the United Kingdom in 1998.
The transaction is contingent upon both Carrier I and Metromedia Fiber Network meeting certain
financing requirements.
This news release contains certain forward-looking statements that involve risks and
uncertainties. Factors that could cause or contribute to such risks and uncertainties include, but
are not limited to, general economic and business conditions, competition, changes in technology
and methods of marketing, and various other factors beyond the control of the Companies
mentioned in this release. This also includes such factors as described from time to time in the
SEC reports filed by Viatel Inc. and Metromedia Fiber Network.
###
ME F I B S 0 R NEWS RELEASE -
R N E T W K '.
Corporate Head uarters • One Noah Lexington Ave. • White Plains, NY 10601 • 914.421.6700 • www.mmfn.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELE SE 0
METROIMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SIGNS
AGREEMENT WITH WINSTAR IN EXCESS OF $40 MILLION .
WinStar Gains Access!To Metromedia Fiber Network's Intra-City Networks
On Both Coasts, Including The Recently Announced San Francisco Network
(NEW YORK CITY,July $9, 1998) --Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (NASDAQ:MFNX)
today announced the signing of an agreement with WinStar Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ:WCH) under which payments to Metromedia Fiber Network are to exceed $40
million. tinder the 25 year agreement, Metromedia Fiber Network will provide WinStar with
high-capacity fiber optic infrtastructure on its New York network and on the intra-city networks it
is developing in Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco, in addition to fiber
on the New York to Washington D.C. inter-city corridor.
This contract represents an expansion of the existing relationship between the two
companies. WinStar had previously acquired leased fiber rights on Metromedia Fiber Network':
backbone in New York City)to interconnect the hub sites and switch in their New York City
network. Today's announcement makes WinStar the first customer to take advantage of
Metromedia Fiber Network's infrastructure on both Coasts. Winstar is leasing fiber covering
large portions of the Metropolitan Areas in each market, including capacity on all 150 miles of
the currently planned San Francisco Bay Area build.
"WinStar is a new and innovative player in the communications industry, ready to take
advantage of the speed, reliability, and value that our fiber optic infrastructure provides. We are
particularly pleased that it has so quickly seized the opportunity in our newest market,becoming
our first customer in the San Francisco Bay Area,"said Howard Finkelstein, President of
Metromedia Fiber Network. "This contract demonstrates that our strategy of building infra-city
networks within Tier One markets is extremely valuable, especially for the new breed of telecom
carrier, such as WinStar,whose 38 GHz technology quickly and efficiently extends the
broadband capacity of our fiber optic network to end users."
Under the terms of the agreement, WinStar will lease fiber rings connecting vital business
districts and major high-tech centers within the San Francisco,New York,Philadelphia,
Washington,D.C., and Chicago Metropolitan Areas. These rings, provided by Metromedia Fiber
Network, will connect WinStar's switches and hub sites with each other and with key central and
tandem switching offices. Metromedia Fiber Network's inter-city link between New York and
Washington, D.C. will interconnect WinStar's network facilities on the East Coast, including
New York,Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Stamford,Newark and Baltimore.
"Metromedia Fiber Network has given us the ability to cost effectively interconnect our
hub sites and switches in important metropolitan areas on both the East and West, and to rapidly
interconnect all of our markets along the Eastern Corridor," said William J. Rouhana, Jr., CEO of
WinStar Communications. "With this increased backbone capacity, we have ensured our ability
to enhance our service offerings while continually adding new customers to our network."
WinStar Communications, Inc. is a national local communications company, serving
business.customers, long distance carriers, fiber-based competitive access providers, mobile
communications companies, local telephone companies and other customers with broadband
local communications needs. The company provides its Wireless Fibers14 services using its
licenses in the 38 GHz spectrum. The company also provides long distance, data, Internet and
information services. More information on WinStar is available on the World Wide Web at
www.wIristar.com.
Metromedia Fiber Network provides technologically advanced, high-bandwidth, private,
fiber optic communications infrastructure within major U.S. markets. The Company provides its
infrastructure to communications carriers competing in the local, long distance, wireless, and
Internet markets as well as corporate/government customers requiring secure communications
networks for the transmission of large amounts of voice, data and video. Metromedia Fiber
Network currently operates a fiber optic metropolitan area network in New York and is
developing local fiber optic infrastructure along strategic routes in San Francisco, Chicago,
Philadelphia,Washington D.C. and Boston and inter-city links connecting these local markets.
The Company has established a joint venture, known as IONT°I, with Racal Telecom of the
United Kingdom that will begin providing broadband capacity between the United States and the
United Kingdom later this year. For more information about Metromedia Fiber Network,please
visit the company's Web sitelat www.mmfn.com.
# # #
This news release contains certain forward-looking statements.that involve risks and uncertainties.
Factors that could cause or coictribute to such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to,
general economic and businessf conditions, competition, changes in technology and methods of
marketing, and various other.ftcctors beyond the Company's control. This also includes such factors as -
described from time to time in the SEC reports filed by Metromedia Fiber Network, including the most
recently filed Form 10-Q.
Contacts:
Media Relations Investor Relations
Judy Sweeney/David King Jeff Luth
G.S. Schwartz & Co G.A. Kraut Co. Inc.
212-725-4500 212-696-5600
dkinaQschwartz.com
i
METR MEDIA NEWS RELEASE
F I B E R N E T W O R K
C ��j4tEI North Lexington Ave. • White Plains, NY 10601 • 914.421.6700 • www.mmfn.com
qP
METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SIGNS THREE NEW
CONTRACTS TOTALING MORE THAN $11.7 MILLION
Allegiance Telecom And Two Others To Lease Fiber Strands on Metromedia
Fiber Network's New York :Metropolitan Area Network
(NEW YORK CITY,July 9, 1998) — Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (NASDAQ: MFNX)
announced today the signing of three separate agreements with one corporate and two carrier customers
to provide each with dark fiber optic telecommunications networks in the New York Metropolitan
Area. The total value of the three contracts is in excess of 511.7 million.
The first agreement, a 10-year lease with Allegiance Telecom, provides Allegiance with access
to multiple strands of single-mode fiber arranged in various ring configurations along Metromedia
Fiber Network's New York City network.
"This contract with Allegiance Telecom is a perfect example of what our state-of--the-art fiber
optic network can do to foster telecommunications competition in major U.S. cities," said Howard
Finkelstein, President of Metromedia Fiber Network. `By providing carriers with the infrastructure,
we are allowing them to provide service without having to lay their own cable or go through a time-
consuming construction process."
Allegiance Telecom, Inc. is a competitive local exchange carrier headquartered in Dallas,
Texas. It offers businesses a full suite of telecommunications services, including local, long distance,
international calling, high-speed data transmission and Internet services. Allegiance is targeting 24
major metropolitan areas in the U.S. with its "one-stop shopping" approach.
Separately, Metromedia Fiber Network also announced the signing of a five-year contract with
a major carrier, providing the carrier with multiple fibers covering four different routes throughout the
New York Metro Area. A third contract was signed with a major financial institution and will provide
the global, full-service securities firm with building-to-building connectivity from New York City to.
suburban New Jersey. This is the eighth prominent financial institution to become a customer of
Metromedia Fiber Network.
Headquartered in the New York area, Metromedia Fiber Network provides technologically
advanced, high-bandwidth, private, fiber optic communications infrastructure within major U.S.
markets. The Company provides its infrastructure to communications carriers competing in the local, .
long distance, wireless, and Internet markets as well as corporate and government customers requiring
secure communications'networks for the transmission of large amounts of voice, data, and video.
Metromedia Fiber Network currently operates a fiber optic metropolitan area network in New York and
is developing local fiber optic infrastructure along strategic routes in Chicago, Philadelphia,
Washington D.C., and Boston, and an inter-city link between New York and Washington D.C. The
Company has established a joint venture, known as ION, with Racal Telecom of the United Kingdom
which will begin providing broadband capacity between the United States and the United Kingdom in
1998.For more information about Metromedia Fiber Network, please visit the company's Web site at
www.mmfri.com.
# # # •
This news release contains certain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.
Factors that could cause or contribute to such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to,
general economic and busines$ conditions, competition, changes in technology and methods of
marketing, and various other factors beyond the Company's control. This also includes such factors
as described from time to timein the SEC reports f led by Metromedia Fiber Network, including the
most recently filed Form 10-Q
Investor Relations
Contacts: Media Relations Eric Leeds
Gary J. Gatyas�Jr.
Gibbs & Soell,'Jnc. G.A. Kraut Co. Inc.
212-697-2600 212-696-5600
g;arvas(cDaibbs-4ellx
i
MET S MEDIA
F NEWS RELEASE
I R N E T W O R K
orate Headquarters • One North Lexington Ave. • White Plains, NY 10601 • 914.421.6700 • www.mmfn.com
METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SIGNS
SECOND AGREEMENT.WITH INTERtiIEDLA FOR
$10.8 MILLION
(NEW YORK CITY, July 9, 1998) -- Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (NASDAQ:iV r
today announced the signing of a second agreement with Intermedia Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ/NVI: ICILY) to lease additional fiber optic infrastructure on its network to Intermedia
This 15-year. S10.8 million agreement comes on the heels of a May IS ' contract for Sib million.
"Intermedia's decision to do business with us again demonstrates that we have a great
product at a competitive price, and that we are addressing the needs of our carrier customers."
said Howard Finkelstein, President of Metromedia Fiber Network. "As other customers come to
enjoy the advantages of virtually unlimited 'bandwidth at a fixed price. I am confident that we
will be seeing many more repeat customers."
Intermedia Communications is one of the nation's fastest growing telecommunications
companies, providing integrated telecommunications solutions to business and government
customers. These solutions include voice and data, local and long distance, and advanced
network access services in major US markets. Intermedia Communications' enhanced data
portfolio, including frame relay networking.. ATM, and a full range of business Internet
connectivity and web hosting services, offers seamless end-to-end service virtually anvwhere in
the world. Intermedia Communications is headquartered in Tampa, Florida, with sales offices in
81 cities. Intermedia Communications is on the World Wide Web at www.intermedia.com.
Metromedia Fiber Network provides technologically advanced, high-bandwidth, private,
fiber optic communications infrastructure within major U.S. local markets. The Company
provides its infrastructure to communications carriers competing in the local, long distance,
wireless, and Internet markets as well as corporatelgovernment customers requiring secure
communications networks for the transmission of large amounts of voice, data, and video.
Headquartered in the New York area,Metromedia Fiber Network currently operates a fiber optic
metropolitan area network im New York and is developing local fiber optic infrastructure along
strategic routes in Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and Boston and an inter-city link
between New York and Washington D.C. The Company has established a joint venture, known
as ION,with Racal Telecom of the United Kingdom that will besin providing broadband
capacity between the United States and the United Kingdom later this year. For more
information about Metromedia Fiber Network,please visit the company's Web site at
www.mm-fn.com.
This news release contains certain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.
Factors that could cause or dontribute to such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to,
general economic and business conditions, competition, changes in technology and methods of
marketing, and various othet+factors beyond the Company's control. 77tis also includes such factors as
described from time to time i6 the SEC reports filed bly lie!romedia Fiber.Venvork, including the most
recently filed Form 10-0.
Contacts:
Media Relations Investor Relations
Gary J. Gatyas, Jr. Eric Leeds
Gibbs R Soell, Inc. G.A. Kraut Co. Inc.
212-697-2600 212-696-5600
cea_••o=^sc_�^�-soe=1 .Core
John Strickling Chris Brown
Intermedia Communications Intermedia Communications
813-829-2864 813-829-0011
METR MEDiA NEV1/S RELEASE
F I B E R N E T W O R K
*ZC Headquarters • One North Lexington Ave. • White Plains, NY 10601 • 914.421.6700 • www.mmfn.com
omedia Fiber Network Announces Plans to Expand Fiber Optic Infrastructure
to More Than 380,000 Fiber Miles
Network Expansion Driven By Existing and Anticipated Customer Demand
New York—Tune 15, 1998—Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (NASDAQ: : i announced today plans to
expand its fiber optic infrastructure, deepening its penetration into the New York,Philadelphia, Washington,
D.C.,and Chicago metropolitan areas. This expansion will bring Metromedia Fiber Network's total
infrastructure in these four key Tier 1 telecommunications markets to in excess of 380,000 fiber miles and
1,000 route miles, increasing by over 50 percent original network plans.
"Our rapid growth is evidence that our strategy is working in these top tier telecommunications markets," said
Howard M.Finkelstein,President of Metromedia Fiber Network. "This planned network expansion will enable
Metromedia Fiber Network to broaden and deepen existing customer relationships and to address growing
demand from businesses, government agencies, and carriers in a number of additional, densely populated
regions within the Northeast corridor and the Chicago Metropolitan Area.'
The Company believes that the costs of this planned expansion will be met with cash-on-hand and cash flows
from current and future operations.
The Company's expanded network will pass close to more than 120 central and tandem switching offices in
some of the most densely populated parts of the country, providing carriers with easy access to these vital
communications centers. The new network routes will cover additional kev business centers, including the
'Pharmaceutical Corridor' that runs from Princeton,New Jersey to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where many of
the largest pharmaceutical companies are located. In addition, with this planned expansion, the network will
extend to transatlantic cable landing stations in New Jersey and Long Island, giving Metromedia Fiber Network
the capability to provide customers with the inland capacity required to bring transatlantic traffic from the
shoreline into these major metropolitan areas.
"Our expanded network will be able to meet the future bandwidth needs of thousands of organizations in the
Northeast and Chicago,"Finkelstein said. "Whether it's Internet service providers and telecommunications
carriers requiring increased capacity to expand their own service offering or financial and corporate institutions
with complex data networking needs or hospitals requiring increased bandwidth for telemedicine applications,
Metromedia Fiber Network's infrastructure will be readily accessible and available for their use."
Under the expansion, the network in the New York Metropolitan Area will extend through Manhattan, Queens,
Brooklyn,Yonkers, and White Plains,New York to Stamford and New Haven, Connecticut. On Long Island,it
will reach Garden City and as far east as Brookhaven. In New Jersey, the network will pass through Newark,
Paramus,Parsippany,Morristown, Whippany,Piscataway,New Brunswick, and Princeton.
In Philadelphia the network will extend through the city center as well as the surrounding areas of Bala-
Cynwyd,Bryn Mawr,Radnor, Berwyn,Paoli,Malvern, and King of Prussia.
The Washington,D.C.network will serve the District and will extend out to vital government and business
centers including Arlington, Fairfax, Dulles, Herndon,Tyson's Corner and McLean,Virginia. Additionally in
Maryland, the network will pass Bethesda,Rockville, Silver Spring, and Chevy Chase.
a
In Chicago the expanded network,y ill encompass the downtown Loop area and will extend out to Oak Brook,
Downers Grove,Franklin Park,Arlington Heights,Des Plaines, and Rosemont,as well as O'Hare Airport.
In addition to the expansion of the planned intra-city builds,Metromedia Fiber Network is completing its plan •
to build an inter-city network connecting New York to Washington D.C. and passing through Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania,Wilmington,Delaware and Baltimore, Maryland.
Metromedia Fiber Network provides technologically advanced,high-bandwidth,private,fiber optic
communications infrastructure within major U.S.markets. The Company provides its infrastructure to
communications carriers competink in the local, long distance, wireless, and Internet markets as well as
corporate and government customers requiring secure communications networks for the transmission of large
amounts of voice,data,and video.iThe advanced network architecture is capable of supporting cutting edge
technologies including SONET, DMMM(dense wave division multiplexing), ATM, and gigabit ethernet.
Headquartered in the New York area,Metromedia Fiber Network currently operates a fiber optic metropolitan
area network in New York and is developing local fiber optic infrastructure along strategic routes in Chicago,
Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and Boston and an inter-city link between New York and Washington D.C. The
Company has established a joint venture with Racal Telecom of the United Kingdom and will begin providing
service between the United States;and the United Kingdom in 1998. For more information about Metromedia
Fiber Network,please visit the company's Web site at www.mmfn.com.
This news release contains certain,}forward-lookingstatements thatin volve risks and uncerrainaes Facrors that could
cause or contribute to such risks artd uncerrainaesinc/ude, but are notlimited toq general economic and business
conditions, competition, changes at technologyand methods ofmarkenng, and various otherfactors beyond the
Company's control This also mcldrdes such F dais as described from time to time in the SECrepores filed by
Mevome&,?Fiber Network, including the mostrecentlyiVedForm 10-Q.
Media Relations Investor Relations
Gary J. Garyas,Jr. Eric Leeds/Jeff Luth
Gibbs& Soell, Inc. G. A. Kraut Company Inc.
212-697-2600 212-696-5 600
E=,vas cni eibbs-soell.com
Item 7
Public Works/Planning Committee
8/2/99
Level 3 Communications
- Street License
i
Recommended Motion:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to
the Council approval of the Limited Street License between the
City of Kent and Level 3 Communications, L.L.C. conditioned
upon acceptance of final license terms by the City Attorney's office.
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE
S1. SUBJECT: Limited Street License Between the City of Kent and Level 3
Communications, L.L.C.
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City of Kent has received the attached
application for a franchise to operate a fiber optic communications network within
the City of Kent. The City has, in the past, used the attached Limited Street
License Agreement format when granting rights to communication companies to
use City rights-of-way. Upon receipt of a completed legal description of Level
3's proposed network, I recommend we grant them a Limited Street License in
substantially the same format as shown in the attached Agreement. To the extent
possible, City staff will attempt to work with Level 3 to enhance its own fiber
optic network in conjunction with Level 3's fiber optic project.
3. MOTION. To approve the Limited Street License between the City of Kent
and Level 3 Communications, L.L.C. conditioned upon acceptance of final license
terms by the City Attorney's office.
S'.IPUBLIC\4DMNV=kieT. cilComm-MotionSheel.dm
LIMITED STREET LICENSE BETWEEN
• THE CITY OF KENT AND
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.
THIS LIMITED STREET LICENSE ("License") is entered into between the CITY OF
KENT, a Washington Municipal Corporation ("City"), and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS,
L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Level 3").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Level 3 seeks to extend a fiber optic telecommunications system in the City of
Kent; and
WHEREAS, Level 3 has requested that the City grant a franchise to use City right-of-way
to extend these two transmission lines to the connection facility; and
WHEREAS, at this time the City is developing a policy that will establish procedures and
regulations for the franchise and use of its right-of-ways by telephone companies for the extension
and development of wired telephone systems; and
WHEREAS,the City cannot issue a franchise for a wired telephone system until this policy
has been fully developed and issued; and
WHEREAS,Level 3 wishes to proceed with the construction of these two transmission lines
before the City issues either its policy or a franchise to Level 3 for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to enter into this License under the terms and conditions set
forth in this License so that Level 3 can commence construction of its two planned transmission
lines;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY AND LEVEL 3 AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
LICENSE
1. License Granted. The City grants Level 3 this Limited Street License for a
period of five (5)years from the effective date of this License to install, construct, operate,maintain,
remove, repair, reconstruct, replace, use and inspect a fiber optic telecommunications system and
all related equipment("Telecommunications System") across, along, in,upon, and under the City's
right-of-ways described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by this reference. A
general description of the plans and specifications for this Telecommunications System is attached
as Exhibit B. This License is subject to all the terms and conditions established below.
LEVEL3 LICENSE--Page 1 of 7 July 28, 1999
r
2. City Owned Facilities. Level 3 shall provide and install a four inch (4") conduit
with pullboxes for and on' behalf of the City, at no cost to the City, as set forth more specifically in •
Exhibit B, attached and iipcorporated by this reference ("City Facilities"). The City Facilities shall
be installed alongside and,concurrently with the Fiber Optic Line within the borders of the City. The
City intends to run its own innerduct and fiber optic line through the City Facilities at some future
time and the City Facilities shall be adequate for such purpose. The City Facilities shall be owned
by the City and, once installed, Level 3 shall not be responsible for it.
3. Revocation and Termination. The intent of this License is to authorize Level
3 to operate its Telecommunications System on the designated City right-of-ways, which right-of-
ways constitute a valuablq property interest owned by the City. This License does not grant an estate
in the land described in Exhibit A; it is not an easement; it is not a franchise; it is not exclusive; and,
it does not exclude the City from full possession of the property described in Exhibit A. As a license
upon real property, it is revocable at the will of the City. However,prior to termination or revocation
by the City,the City shall]provide Level 3 with at least sixty(60)calendar days written notice of that
termination or revocation. Upon the effective date of the City's termination or revocation, the City
may require Level 3 to remove the Telecommunications System within thirty(30) calendar days; if
Level 3 fails to remove the Telecommunications System within the allotted time, the City may
remove all or part of the Telecommunications System and Level 3 waives any right it may have to
any claim for damages of any kind incurred as a result of the City's removal of all or part of the
Telecommunications System.
4. Permits Required. The City's grant of this License does not release Level 3 from .
any of its obligations to obtain applicable local, state, and federal permits necessary to install,
construct, operate, maintain, remove, repair, reconstruct, replace, use and inspect the
Telecommunications System. Level 3's failure to comply with this Section 4 shall constitute
grounds for immediate revocation by the City.
5. Relocation. Level 3 shall, at its sole cost and expense,protect, support,temporarily
disconnect,relocate or remove,all or a part of its Telecommunications System when required by the
City for reasons of trafq conditions or public safety,widening or improvement of existing right-of-
ways, change or establig,hment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or
structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity,provided that Level 3 shall,
upon receiving approval and obtaining the necessary permits from the City,have the right to bypass
in the authorized portion of the same right-of-way, any section of cable required to be temporarily
disconnected or removed.
LEVEL a LICEN$E--Page 2 of 7 July 28, 19990
5.1. For the purposes of this Section 5, any condition or requirement imposed by
the City upon itself or any person or entity acting on the City's behalf, (including without
limitation, any condition or requirement imposed pursuant to any contract or in conjunction
with approvals for permits for zoning, land use, construction, or development) that
reasonably necessitates the relocation of Level Ts facilities within the right-of-ways
described in Exhibit A shall be a required relocation for purposes of the previous subsection.
5.2. If the City, under its authority, causes a required relocation of all or part of
the Telecommunications System, the City, at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the
commencement of the project requiring relocation, shall provide written notice to Level 3
of the required relocation and shall provide Level 3 with copies of pertinent portions of the
plans and specifications for the project. After receipt of the City's notice, Level 3 must
complete the required relocation of its affected facilities at least ten(10)calendar days prior
to the commencement of the project requiring relocation. Level 3 will complete this required
relocation at no charge or expense to the City. Further, Level Ts relocation shall be
accomplished in a manner that accommodates and does not interfere with the project
requiring relocation.
5.3. Level 3 may, after receipt of the City's written notice requesting relocation,
submit written alternatives to the City. The City will evaluate those alternatives to determine
if any of the alternatives can accommodate the work that would otherwise necessitate the
relocation of the Telecommunications System. If requested by the City, Level 3 will submit
additional information to assist the City in making its determination. The City will give each
alternative proposed by Level 3 full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately
determines that no reasonable or feasible alternative exists,Level 3 shall relocate its facilities
as otherwise provided in this Section 5.
5.4. In the event that a relocation of any of the Telecommunications System is
required by any person or entity other than the City, so long as that person or entity is not
acting on the City's behalf in conducting any of the activities described in this Section 5,
Level 3 shall make those arrangements,including compensation for Level 3's relocation cost,
that it deems appropriate with that person or entity.
5.5. The provisions of this Section 5 shall survive the expiration or termination
of this License.
5.6 Level 3 shall not be responsible for any costs associated with relocation of the
City's four inch(4") conduit Facilities throughout this Section 5.
LEVELS LICENSE--Page 3 of 7 July 28, 1999
6. Undergrolunding. Level 3 shall, wherever possible, underground its •
Telecommunications System. Level 3 shall not erect poles,run or suspend wires, cables, or other
facilities, in any area where there are no aerial facilities, or in any area in which telephone, electric
power wires and cables have been placed underground. Nevertheless, if at the time of permit
application, the City does not require the undergrounding of all or part of the Telecommunications
System, the City may, at any time while this License is in effect, require the conversion of Level 3's
aerial facilities to underground installation at Level 3's sole cost and expense.
6.1. Wbenever the City requires undergrounding of any aerial utilities in the street
right-of-ways, Level 3 shall underground its aerial facilities in the manner specified by the
City concurrently,with the other affected utilities. When other utilities are present and
involved in the undergrounding project,Level 3 shall pay its fair share of common costs born
by all utilities in addition to the costs specifically attributable to the undergrounding of Level
3's own facilities. ;Common costs shall include necessary costs not specifically attributable
to the undergrounding of any particular facility, such as costs for common trenching and
utility vaults. "Fair share" shall be determined for a project on the basis of the number and
size of Level 3's facilities being undergrounded in comparison to the total number and size
of all other utility''facilities being undergrounded.
7. Emergen¢y. In the event of any emergency in which any portion of the
Telecommunications System breaks,becomes damaged, or in any other way becomes an immediate
danger to the property, lire,health, or safety of any individual, Level 3 shall immediately take the
proper emergency measures to remedy the dangerous condition without first applying for and
obtaining a permit as required by this License. However, this emergency work shall not relieve
Level 3 from its obligation to obtain all permits necessary for this purpose, and Level 3 shall apply
for those permits within the next two succeeding business days.
8. Indemnification. Level 3 shall comply with the following indemnification
requirements:
8.1. Level 3 shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials,
employees,agents[,assigns and volunteers harmless from any and all claims,actions,injuries,
damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs,witness fees and attorney fees, arising out
of or in connection with the performance of any of Level Ts rights or obligations granted by
this License, but only to the extent of the negligence or comparative fault of Level 3, its
employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, subconsultants or assigns.
8.2. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Level 3's work when completed
shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
LEVEL a LICENSE--Page 4 of 7 July 28, 1999
8.3. These indemnification obligations shall extend to any claim, action or suit
that may be settled by compromise,provided that Level 3 shall not be liable to indemnify the
City for any settlement agreed upon without the consent of Level 3; however, if Level 3
consents to the agreed upon settlement, then Level 3 shall indemnify and hold the City
harmless as provided for in this Section 8 by reason of that settlement. Moreover, if Level
3 refuses to defend the City against claims by third parties,Level 3 shall indemnify the City
regardless of whether the settlement was made with or without Level Ts consent.
8.4. In the event that Level 3 refuses to tender defense in any claim, action or suit
by a third party pursuant to this Section 8 and if Level 3's refusal is subsequently determined
by a court having jurisdiction(or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the
matter)to have been a wrongful refusal,then Level 3 shall pay all the City's costs for defense
of the action, including all legal costs, witness fees and attorneys' fees and also including the
City's costs, including all legal costs,witness fees and attorneys' fees,for recovery under this
indemnification clause (Section 8).
8.5. The provisions of this Section 8 shall survive the expiration or termination
of this Agreement.
9. Insurance. Level 3 shall procure and maintain for the duration of this License,
insurance of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries to persons or
damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work by
Level 3, its agents, representatives, employees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants,
subconsultants or assigns.
9.1. Before beginning work on the project described in this License, Level 3 shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
9.1.1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than$1,000,000
combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and
9.1.2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence
basis with limits no less than $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and
general aggregate for personal injury,bodily injury and property damage. Coverage
shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed
operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground
(XCU); and employer's liability.
9.1.3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 per
occurrence and aggregate.
Laves 3 LICENSE--Page 5 of 7 July 28, 1999
9.2. And payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole
responsibility of Level 3..
9.3. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, assigns and volunteers
shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed
by or on behalf of the Level 3 and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as
additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance.
9.4. Level 3's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply
separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respects to the limits of the insurer's liability.
9.5. Level Ts insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the
City shall be given thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice by certified mail of any
cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage.
10. Modification. This License may not be modified, altered, or amended unless first
approved in writing by the City.
11. Assignment. Level 3 may assign all or any portion of its rights, benefits, and
privileges, in and under this License subject to and conditioned upon approval of the City, which
approval will not be unre4sonably withheld or delayed. Level 3 shall, no later than thirty(30)days
of the date of any proposed assignment, file written notice of intent to assign the License with the 0
City together with the assignee's written acceptance of all terms and conditions of the License and
promise of compliance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Level 3 shall have the right,without such
notice or such written acceptance, to mortgage its rights, benefits, and privileges in and under this
License to the Trustee for its bondholders and assign to any subsidiary,parent, affiliate or company
having common control with Level 3 so long as notice of same is provided to the City and provided
Level 3 remains fully liable to the City for compliance with all terms and conditions hereof until
such time as the City shall consent to such assignment as provided above.
11. Dispute Resolution; Venue; Jurisdiction. In the event of any alleged breach or
threatened breach of this License by either party and if the City and Level 3 are unable to cure the
breach or otherwise resolve their dispute, then final resolution of this dispute or claim shall occur
solely under the jurisdiction or venue of the King County Superior Court located in Kent,
Washington. Each party shall also be responsible for its own legal costs and attorney fees incurred
in defending or bringing that claim or lawsuit.
12. Notice.All notices, requests,demands, or other communications provided for in this
License shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when sent by registered or
certified mail, return rec6pt requested, addressed as the case may be, to the addresses listed below
for each party, or to such other person or address as either party shall designate to the other from
LEVEL 3 LICENSE--Page 6 of 7 July 28, 1999
time to time in writing forwarded in like manner.
• CITY OF KENT LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.
Attn: City Clerk Attn:
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98403
Please Copy to:
14. This License contains the entire agreement between the parties and, in executing it,
the City and Level 3 do not rely upon any statement, promise, or representation, whether oral or
written, not expressed herein.
IN WITNESS, this Limited Street License is executed and shall become effective as of the
last date signed below.
CITY OF KENT LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.
By: By:
JIM WHITE, Mayor Its:
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
THOMAS C. BRUBAKER
Deputy City Attorney
P\Civil\Ammeys\TO"iscellanw=\Level 7-LimitedSo-eetLicense.dm
LEVELS LICENSE--Page 7 of 7 July 28, 1999
07/14/99 11:34 FAX 3608832490 KIEWIT CONSTRUCTION tm002/006
s Cross Coung3l Land Services, Inc.
July 14, 1999
W.Tom Brubaker
Deputy City Attorney
City of Kent
220 4`'Avenue South
Kent.,WA 99032-5895
Subject: Level 3 Fiber Optic;Line
Dear Tom:
As requested,the accompanying General Description,map and Level 3 Information Sheet are intended to
give you an overview of our bverall project and its characteristics as it passes through the City of Kent.
To facilitate the legal review!of the proposed agreement by Level 3's counsel,would you forward to me
copies of any similar agreemaA that the City of Kent has entered with other telecommunications tamers
of like kind. Also,would yohi forward a copy of the applicable ordinance pertaining to
telecommunications.
Hopefully,this process will pot seriously delay the City's target date for approval of our proposal. The
dates you indicated represent a modest delay,but the City has indicated that it would be willing to have us
proceed with most or all of our planned construction if the license was agreed to and in final approval
process.
Please let me know if you no; further information to formulate the license agreement.
Very truly yours,
Cross Country Land Servicels,Inc.
D.Neal Marlett,Route Supervisor
Enc.
0
Level3 Communications,L.LCProject
3J22"Somemil Driw,SYif074S/V011c»w[l,WA 98U4
Voi".36"83-2477/lac:366883-2490
07/14/99 11:34 FAX 3608832490 %IEWIT CONSTRUCTION IL. V.,,, , ,
General Description
of the
Level 3 Communications Fiber Optic Cable Project
in
The City of Kent,Washington
July 14,19"
The purpose of this document is to generally describe the fiber optic cable project planned by
Level 3 Communications,LLC. This narrative is to provide background for the drafting of a
proposed license agreement between the City of Kent and Level 3. Attached pages provide a
general location map and summary information on the project and its participants.
Level 3 Communications is building a 17,000 mile national long-haul fiber optic network, which
it expects to be hilly operational by the end of the year 2000. This system will be a bulk carrier
of signals generated by large corporate,media and telecommunications generators and distributed
—after long-haul transmission—to appropriate receiving and distribution facilities at destinations
throughout the country(and world). Initially,only the largest commercial and governmental
centers will be served with system gateways. On this line,the only gateway will be in Seattle. At
some undetermined future date,the company hopes to expand service to the suburban business
centers near the gateway cities and to second tier metropolitan areas elsewhere in the region.
Wherever possible,Level 3 is planned to be within major bulk rights-of-ways,such as the two
major railroads in Western Washington. The company's route through the City of Kent will be
entirely within the right-of-way ofthe Union Pacific Railroad's main line(see the attached map
for a route overview)..
The planned route crosses six City of Kent streets:
W Willis Street
W Meeker Street
W Smith Street
W James Street
S 228th Street
S 212th Street
We are separately permitting the SR 167 crossing with the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
Level 3 proposes to bore beneath each of the City of Kent facilities that the railroad crosses on
grade,using accepted industry equipment and methods. No city pavement will be cut in this
process. The CAD drawings for each of these crossings,and a set of Typical Drawings and
Specification,have been submitted to the City of Kent for review.
07/14/99 11:A & 08832490 KIEWIT CONSTRUCTION 10003/006
General Description
1.ev013 Communications-City of Kent
Page 2
Additionally,Level 3 has modified its design to avoid the Upland Playfield area leased by the •
City from UPRR.
Finally,although it is tectnically not a City of Kent issue, we are submitting information to the
City on our plans and approvals in the environmentally sensitive Green River area.
The company's contractor,Kiewit Pacific Co,first will install the structure,which consists of a
bundle of 12 conduits,ea61-1/4 inch in diameter. After the entire structure(from Portland to
Seattle)is complete,the Contractor then will install fiber optic cable in one or more of the
conduits. Additional fiber installation will occur from time-to-timc as demand expands.
Level 3 will have maintgiance and operational staff in the Seattle Area,and will maintain
national emergency and general contact lines.The company will supply as-built drawing to the
City of Kent,and will c6operate with utility locate programs in the area.
_
7
IVQ
ill �� � - '=� i _ � ■
_ � �► M -
-
I-�Mal
P4 pp-
OR`i
r� II m
07/14/99 11:35 FAX 3608832490 KIEWIT CONSTRUCTION 4 006/006
Cross Country Land Services, A
MEMORANDUM •
TO: All interested parties
DATE: September,4998
SUBJECT: Level 3 Cokmmnnications,LLC.(Level 3) fiber optics system
Level 3 is building a 17,000-mile, long haul fiber optics system in the United States and parts of
Canada, including gateways in many major U.S. cities. When the system is operational it will be
available for use by businesses and carriers needing to transmit large volumes of data and voice
traffic. Level 3 has R/W agreements with Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern
Railroad and other railroods. The agreements allow Level 3 to put fiber optic cable in the
railroad right-of-way. These RR routes will be used as much as practical although numerous off-
RR routes will also be required.
Cross Country Land Services is acquiring right-of-way agreements on behalf of Level 3. The
primary design engiineeri4g firm is Parsons Brinkerhoff Network Services. The construction
tion
contractor is Kiewit Construction Company. These companies and various subcontractors,
including David Evans &Associates, share an area office:
Leye13 Project
312 S.E.Stonemill Dr., Ste_145
Vancouver,WA 98684
360/883-2477
Although the route passes through most cities entirely within RR R/W we are contacting each
owner and public agency!about making an agreement that will govern project operations relative
to road and utility crossings. Environmental and archaeological professionals are also contacting
public agencies to discuss operations relative to habitats, vegetation, and any specific local
concerns.
Fiber optic cable installation is normally a low impact, quickly moving operation. Over 90% of
the cable is "plowed" in Plowing is a one-pass operation that digs, replaces and compacts the
soil as the cable is installed. Occasionally it is necessary to trench through rocky areas.
Crossings at streams and paved roadways are usually by horizontal bores conducted beneath the
obstacle. Such computer guided boring methods eliminate virtually all risk associated with
vehicle traffic,utilities and sediment control.
Construction in certain areas of the Oregon, Washington and northern California portion of the
Level 3 project is scheduled to begin in the Spring of 1999. In smaller cities and on most private
tracts construction crews and equipment will be on site for only a few hours to a few days.
Please direct rightkgf n�av questions to the person whose business card is attached or to Bill
Bendan in Vancouver WA (above); environmental and archaeololdcal Questions to the
person named on the Attached business card or to Susan Cunningham in Vancouver, WA
(above). Careful communication will ensure protection of all parties throughout the project.
Lend 3 Cwmw dcotioas,Z.b.0 Project
312 SE SbwwwX Dr.,&O S,Ytaca~,WA .9""
Viioc36G8ti3.2t771Fin 36Add3-2H0
Item S
Public Works/Planning Committee
812/99
Street Use Permit Ordinance
Recommended Motion:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to
the Council adoption of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter
6.07 relating to street use permits.
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. SUBJECT: Street Use Permit Ordinance
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This ordinance amends Chapter 6.07 of the Kent City
Code relating to street use permits by adding new subsections pertaining to street
vendors, sidewalk cafes and sidewalk displays, as well as making other related
amendments. This ordinance is submitted for further review after being introduced
at an earlier Public Works/Planning Committee meeting.
3. MOTION. Move that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend adoption
of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 6.07 relating to street use permits.
•
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
memorandum
to: Public Works/Planning Committee
fMM: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney
re; Changes to Proposed Street Use Ordinance Previously Reviewed By Committee
rd818- JJuly 21, 1999
During an earlier discussion of the proposed ordinance by the Public Works/Planning
Committee, several changes were recommended for incorporation into the ordinance. These changes
have been incorporated as follows:
1. Political Campaign Signs. Sec. 6.07.050(A)(2) on page 6, relating to political campaign
signs has been amended to require removal of the signs within seven days following the
election for which the campaign signs were displayed. There was a desire by the committee
. to limit the time period for posting of signs prior to and after an election. This issue was
addressed in Collier v. Tacoma, 121 Wn.2d 737 (1993). In that case, the ordinance limited
posting of political signs to a period of not more than sixty days prior to and seven days after
the date of an election. The court concluded that Tacoma's duration limitation on the pre-
election posting of campaign signs violated the free speech provisions of both the
Washington and US Constitutions. Tacoma's seven day post election limitation, however,
was not invalidated. Accordingly,the proposed ordinance has no pre-election limitation,but
does contain a seven day post-election requirement to remove the signs consistent with the
ruling in Collier. Subsection 5 on page 6 was added to provide that signs and banners for
temporary events must also be removed within seven(7)days of the event for which the sign
and/or banner was displayed.
2. Right of First Refusal. The committee raised the issue of granting a"right of first refusal"
for a street vending permit to the abutting property owner (store front tenant). Sec.
6.07.060(A)(2) on page 7 provides a"right of first refusal"to the street level retail occupant
of the abutting property subject to the abutting property owner's written approval.
3. Pedestrian Obstruction. The committee discussed the need to require a vending unit not to
obstruct or reduce pedestrian passage on a sidewalk to less than four feet, consistent with
language for sidewalk cafes under Sec. 6.07.070. This language was added to Sec.
6.07.060(B)(2) on page 7 and 8.
4. Signs and Banners. The committee discussed the desire to allow signs, banners, and/or
streamers to be attached to vending units for the purpose of advertising. Sec.
6.07.060(D)(12) on page 11 was added to incorporate this language.
5. Other. Additional recommended changes by staff not discussed by the committee include:
A. The addition of the definition of"applicant" in Sec. 6.07.020(B) on page 2 and
• "sidewalk display"in Sec. 6.07.020(1) on page 3.
B. Amending the definition of"use" in Sec. 6.07.020(M) to clarify that use on public
ways including parades and similar events.
C. The addition of language in Sec. 6.07.180(C)(7) allowing for the immediate
suspension or revocation of a permit based on the applicant's use creating a health
or safety hazard or constituting a public nuisance.
P:1Ci"lTAttomcys\ROGER\MEMOSIpubworks-plan cormruttx.r doc
AFT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 6.07 of the
Kent City Code entitled "Street Use Permits" by adding
subsections relating to street vending, sidewalk cafes and
sidewalk displays upon public places within the City of
Kent and by making other related amendments.
WHEREAS,there has been increased interest in the use of public places
in the City for the purpose of locating and operating street vending units, sidewalk cafes,
and sidewalk displays; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is desirable to allow these
types of uses on public places within the City if appropriately regulated so as not to create
a public nuisance or a public safety hazard; and
WHEREAS, in order to allow these types of uses on public places in a
manner that does not create a public nuisance or public safety hazard, it is appropriate
to amend the Kent City Code provisions relating to street uses;NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1 Street Use Permits
SECTION 1. Chapter 6.07 shall be amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 6.07. STREET USE PERMITS
Sec. 6.07.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum
rules and regulations relating to street use associated with property development and to
other uses of streets, sidewalks, public property,public rights-of-way and other public
places for private purposes and to provide for enforcement.
Sec. 6.07.020. Definitions. The following words and phrases,wherever used in
this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section except where
otherwise defined and unless the context shall clearly indicate to the contrary:
A. Abutting property means and includes propelbordering upon and contiguous to
a public place.
B. Applicant means any person or entity applying for the issuance or renewal or is the
permittee of a street use permit.
C. Banner means any pliable canvas or cloth sign material or holiday or festival decor
such as garland or similar decor stretched over or across any public place.
• D. Director means the director of public works of the city and/or his or her designee
including Kent city code enforcement officials.
E. Driveway means that portion of a public place which provides vehicular access
to abutting roe through a depression in the constructed curb or, when there is no
constructed curb that area in front of such abutting property as is well defined or as is
designated by authorized signs or markings.
F. Portable Ssign means a sign which is not permanently affixed to the ground or to
a building or structure and which may be easily moved.
G. Public place means and includes streets, avenues, ways, boulevards, drives,
places, alleys, sidewalks, planting (parking) strips, squares, triangles and other
rights-of-way open to the use of the public, and the space above or beneath the surface
of same. This definition specifically does not include streets, alleys,ways,planting strips
and sidewalks which have not been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently
appropriated to the public for public use.
2 Street Use Permits
a
H. Sidewalk ca a means a portion of a public sidewalk in which are placed tables and
chairs for the use of patrons while consuming food and/or beverages including alcoholic
beverages served by a cafe restaurant or tavern located on abutting property
I. Sidewalk display means a display of goods and wares on a public sidewalk for
retail sale to the public by the owner or manager of a business upon abutting property,
which products are being offered for sale inside the business
J. Sidewalk vending unit or vending unit means a movable cart or similar device that
is operated from a fixed location on a public way from which food flowers, plants,
merchandise and/or non-alcoholic beverages are provided to the public with or without
charge except however, that the provisions of this chanter shall not apply to mobile
caterers generally defined as follows: a person engaged in the business of transporting,
in motor vehicles food and beverages to residential business and industrial
establishments pursuant to prearranged schedules and dispensing from the vehicles the
items at retail for convenience of the personnel of such establishments.
K. Sign means any medium including its structure and component parts, which is
• used or intended to be used out of doors to attract attention to the subiect matter for
advertising identification or informative purposes.
L. Special events means carnivals fairs festivals parades, and other similar short
term uses of public places.
M. Use means and includes, but is not limited to, the following types of uses: to
conduct a parade or other similar event upon any public place- to operate upon any public
place any sidewalk display, cafe or restaurant or any food cart or other similar vending
unit: to construct, store, erect, place, maintain, or operate in, upon, over or under any
public place, any sidewalk cafe, food cart, or restaurant, staging, scaffold, structure or
material,machinery or tools used or to be used in connection with the erection, alteration,
repair or painting of any building; or to move any building across or along any public
place; or to use or occupy any public place for the storage or placement of any material,
equipment or thing; or to allow any vehicle to be upon that portion of roadway designated
as parking or curb space for purposes of selling or soliciting in addition to merely parking;
3 Street Use Permits
or to open, excavate, or in any manner disturb or break the surface or foundation of any
permanent pavement of a public place, or to alter the established grade of any street, or
to disturb the surface of, dig up, cut, excavate or fill in any public place; or to construct,
reconstruct, maintain or remove any sidewalk or crosswalk, pavement, sewers, water
mains, grading, street lighting, or appurtenances thereto, except when permitted by
ordinance, or to do any work in, or erect any structure under, along or over any public
place and other such uses.
N. Vending means the commercial sale of food flowers plants,merchandise and/or
non-alcoholic beverages only from a sidewalk vending unit upon public ways of the City
of Kent. Vending does not include alcoholic beverages, tobacco firearms or munitions
or any article which a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing; nor any materials
restricted by the fire code from direct access or handling by the public.
Sec. 6.07.030. Permit required. Uses and-permits. It shall be unlawful for
anyone to use any public place for private purposes without having first obtained a street
use permit from the director, as required in this chapter, and without complying with all
the provisions of this chapter.
.
Sec 6 07 040 Construction and property development.
A. Generally. No person shall be issued a project, building, grading or fill permit
without first obtaining a separate street use permit from the department of public works
except as follows:
1. An applicant for a permit to make an addition, alteration or repairs to a
single-family residence;
2. An applicant for a permit to make an alteration,repair or minor addition
(less than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) in value) to any structure other than a
single-family residence.
3. The director determines, in his or her discretion, that the issuance of a
separate street use permit for each project,building, grading or fill permit is not necessary
to regulate the use on the public place.
4 Street Use Permits
B. Sigmas Moving of Structures. Prior to application and issuance of a street use
permit for any building or structure to be moved across along or upon any public place
within the city and sited within the city,the applicant shall first obtain a building permit
for the siting of such building or structure.
Sec. 6.07,050, Signs, The following provisions shall apply to the placement of
signs o�c places:
Aplaae Signs may be
placed on a public place without a permit only as follows:
1.a- Portable signs. Portable signs as defined herein may be placed on a public
place without a permit upon the following conditions:
street,progress of pe lestrians bike riders or handieapped individuals. in additien, no sign-or
hM—;4q—nP'f shall I;P, inqtAllp'd within feur(4) feet of the faee E)f eurb or the edge of a travele
1rivew .7 high
A.- The location of the sign shall not reduce or obstruct pedestrian
assage on the sidewalk to less than four(4) feet to the nearest street trees, utility poles,
traffic control signs and devices parking meters fire hydrants,buildings and other similar
devices and structures Furthermore such placement shall be consistent with any
applicable standards established by the American with Disabilities Act and shall not
obstruct vehicular traffic or parking or the use of any crosswalk wheel chair ramp, bus
or taxi zone.
(2)b. No portable signs shall be installed or placed upon power poles,
telephone poles, street light standards, sign posts, trees, traffic controllers, markers, on
any railing, bridge, overpass, street, crosswalk, public building or lawn or open area
surrounding any public building.
(3)c. No portable sign shall be installed-in,er 1�aced within twexty{20}
ten 10 feet of a driveway, wheelchair ramp, crosswalk or intersection or placed or
5 Street Use Permits
situated on a public place in such a way as to constitute a threat to the health, safety and
welfare of the public or interfere with the use of the public place.
(4)d. Portable signs shall be installed so that the top of the sign does not
exceed an elevation of thirty- six(36)inches higher than the height of the sidewalk,bike
path or walkway. Where these improvements do not exist the thirty-six-inch height
limitation shall be measured from the highest edge of the street, alley or driveway.
{3)e. Portable signs shall be constructed of weather- resistant wood,
metal or plastic. Canvas, cardboard and paper signs are prohibited.
(6)f. Attachment of paper, plastic, balloons, or cardboard to a sign
entranee is not permitted if such attachment extends the approved height or width of the
sign.
(-7)g. Portable signs shall not be weighted down,or otherwise attached
to public property in such a way as to resist impact by a traveling vehicle, bicycle or
pedestrian.
Q. Political campaign signs. Political campaign signs may be placed on a
public place without a permit except, however, no sign shall be placed or situated on a
public place in such a way as to constitute a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the
public or interfere with the use of the public place. Owners of political campaign signs
shall be responsible for their removal within seven (7) days following the date of the
election for which the campaign signs were diMlaved. �eir-�-
e3. Banners. Banners may be placed on a public place only by permit pursuant
to the provisions of this chapter.
d4. Other. All other signs are prohibited on public places for private purposes
and on any equipment, facilities and structures located upon public places, including,but
not limited to,power poles,telephone poles, street light standards, sign posts,trees,traffic
controllers, markers,railings,bridges, overpasses, and public buildings.
L. Removal Owners of signs and banners displayed for temporary events
shall be responsible for their removal within seven(7) days following the last date of the
event or the activity for which the signs were displayed.
6 Street Use Permits
B. Violations. In addition or as an alternative to the remedies provided in this chapter,
the director may remove or relocate signs which are placed on a public place in violation
of the provisions of this subsection, 6.07.030 B 6.07.050., or which the director
determines, in his or her discretion, constitutes a threat to the health, safety and welfare
of the public or interferes with the use of the public place.
E
plaee E)r- priv 4e purposes, m,ithout having first obtained a street use pe.TAit from the
See. 6.07.060. Street Vendors. No person shall sell offer for sale,solicit orders,
rent lease or otherwise peddle from a public place using a mobile cart using a vehicle,
or by any other mobile method without first obtaining a vending permit as follows_
A. Permit Application In addition to the information required by this chapter, the
applicant must provide the following before a vending permit can be issued:
1. Submit the name and home and business addresses of the applicant, and
the name and address of the owner, if other than the applicant of the vending business or
sidewalk vending unit to be used in the operation of the vending business.
2. Submit written approval for the vending by the abutting property owner
and/or street level tenant if the tenant and property owner disagree, the property owner's
decision controls The street level retail occupant of the abutting property shall have the
right of first refusal for a permit subject to the abutting property owner's written approval.
3. Submit an accurate drawing showing the public area to be used, along with
plans detailing the design and size of the vending unit to be used.
4. Procure and maintain liability insurance pursuant to Section 6.07.140(e),
naming the City of Kent and the abutting roe owner as additional insureds in the
amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00).
B. Location review. Upon receipt of an application for a permit or permit renewal,
the director shall review the location to determine if it is suitable for vending. In making
this determination the director shall consider the following criteria:
1. A sidewalk vending unit is limited to one assigned location.
i7 Street Use Permits
• 2. No permit shall be issued for a location within ten(10)feet of a driveway,
• wheel chair ramp bus stop sign or crosswalk at any intersection or any location which
unreasonably interferes with the public's or City s use of the right-of-way The location
of the vending unit shall not reduce or obstruct pedestrian passage on the sidewalk to less
than four(4) feet to the nearest street trees utility poles traffic control signs and devices,
parking meters fire hydrants,buildings and other similar devices and structures.
3. The pemiit operating area must be within a commercial or industrial zone
as such are defined in the Kent Zoning Code.
4. No permit for a vendor shall be issued for a proposed vending site located
within two hundred (200) feet of an existing vendor or retail store in which the permit
a licanfs product is the primary product of the existing vendor's site or retail store
without the written consent of said permitted vendor or retail store. This distance
requirement shall not oply to a lications forspecial events or festivals issued under a
Master Use Permit issued pursuant to Section 6.07.100.
L. I_f a proposed vending site is located within two hundred (200) feet of a
ark or public school the vendor must present written consent of the director of Parks and
Recreation or the School District respectively; if a proposed vending site is located within
two hundred 200 feet of a private school the vendor must present written consent of the
administrator or manager of the private school This distance requirement shall not apply
to applications for s ecial events or festivals issued under a Master Use Permit issued
pursuant to Section 6.07.100.
6. The use of vending devices must be compatible and not unreasonably
interfere with the public interest in use of the public ways as public rights-of-way.
7. The location of the sidewalk vending unit shall not reduce or obstruct
pedestrian passage on the sidewalk to less than four (4) feet to the nearest street trees,
utility poles traffic control signs and devices parking meters fire hydrants buildings and
other similar devices and structures. Furthermore such placement shall be consistent with
any ap licable standards established by the American with Disabilities Act and shall not
8 Street Use Permits
obstruct vehicular traffic or parking or the use of any crosswalk wheel chair ramp, bus
• or taxi zone.
S. No person or corporation shall either pay or accept payment for the written
consent required for issuance or continued operation of a sidewalk vending permit.
9. In the event that two or more applications for the same location are
received the earliest al2lication, if a roved shall be awarded the location.
C. Health and safety standards.
1. Vendors of food and beverages shall comply with all standards established
by the Seattle-King County Health Department.
2. All sidewalk vending units in which food or beverage preparation occurs
shall be inspected and approved by the City Fire Department to assure compliance of any
cooking or heating apparatus with the following provisions:
A-. Deep fat oil or grease cooking processes employing heated liquid
shall be protected by a fire extinguishing system approved by the fire department.
Processes involving heated fat oil grease, or liquids other than water shall be shielded
from the public.
b. Processes requiring flammable gasses liquid or solid fuels shall
not be pennitted, unless approved by the Fire Department. LPG containers shall be
limited to no more than five gallons capacity, and no more than one container per cart or
vendor display.
C. Storage of extra fuel is prohibited in the area of vending, or in any
buildings except as permitted by the Fire Department.
A. Vendors using open flame cooking where steaks, hamburgers,
sausages,hot dos or other products producing grease laden vapors are cooked shall not
be stationed beneath the awning or canopy of a building. Exception may be made when
evidence is presented satisfying the Fire Department that no special threat is imposed to
the building or awning by virtue of vendor location.
e. Pressure cooking appliances shall be prohibited.
9 Street Use Permits
f. A 40B• C fire extinguisher is required in all vending carts using
open flame cooking or cooking products producing grease laden vapors.
D. Conditions Any person with a valid vending license issued pursuant to this
chapter shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. All vendors must displaL in a prominent and visible manner, the license
issued by the director under the provisions of this chapter.
2. Food and beverages sold must be capable of immediate consumption.
3. The height of the vending unit excluding canopies, umbrellas, or
transparent enclosures which must be approved by the director, shall not exceed five(5)
feet and the vending unit must be capable of being pushed by one (1) person.
4. The vending site must be clean and orderly at all times, and the vendor
must provide a refuse container for use by patrons.
5. Soliciting or conducting business with persons in motor vehicles is
prohibited.
6. No merchandise shall be displayed using street furniture (planters, street
liehts trees trash containers etc) or placed upon the sidewalk. In addition, sales of
merchandise shall not be allowed from a vehicle No use of any automatic coin-operated
vending dispenser shall be allowed. Persons conducting a sidewalk business must use a
sidewalk vending unit.
7. Vendors shall not hinder use of any phone booth mailbox parking meter,
fire alarm fire hydrant (including automatic sprinklers or standpipe connections),
newspaper vending machine waste receptacle bench transit stop, or traffic signal
controllers.
a. Vendors shall obey any lawful order from a police officer or Fire
D artment official during an emergency or to avoid congestion or obstruction of the
sidewalk.
9. No vendor shall make loud noises or use mechanical audio or noise-
making devices or hawk to advertise his or her product.
10 Street Use Permits
10. No licensed sidewalk vending unit shall be left unattended on a sidewalk
. nor remain on the sidewalk between midnight and 6:00 a.m.
11. Utility service connections are not permitted except electrical, when
provided by the owner of the abutting property. Electrical lines are not allowed overhead
or lying in the pedestrian portion of the sidewalk.
12. Signs banners and/or streamers may be attached to the vending unit for
the purpose of advertising or identifying the vending unit subject to approval of the
abutting property owner(or representative or agent) and the director. Such signs,banners,
and/or streamers as determined by the director, shall be situated so as to not unreasonably
obstruct views of neighboring property or create a public safety hazard.
Sec 6 07 070 Sidewalk Cafes No person may operate a sidewalk cafe without
a permit to do so from the director as follows:
L. Permit application In addition to the information required by this chapter, an
applicant must provide the following before a sidewalk cafe permit can be issued:
1. The anticipated periods of use during the year, and the proposed hours of
daily use including Saturdays Sundays and holidays;
2. Whether an liquor, as defined in RCW 66.04.010 will be sold or
consumed in the area to be covered by the permit; and
3. Procure and maintain liability insurance pursuant to Section 6.07.140(e),
naming the Ci of Kent as additional insureds in the amount of one million dollars
($1 000 000:00).
B. Terms and conditions.
1. The director may issue a permit for use of a sidewalk for sidewalk cafe
purposes in the event and to the extent that he or she determines that:
A.- The applicant is the owner or occupant of the abutting property and
operates a cafe restaurant, or tavern thereon;
b. The location of the sidewalk cafe shall not reduce or obstruct
pedestrian passage on the sidewalk to less than four (4) feet to the nearest street trees,
utility poles traffic control signs and devices parking meters fire hydrants_ buildings and
11 Street Use Permits
other similar devices and structures. Furthermore such 121acement shall be consistent with
any applicable standards established by the American with Disabilities Act and shall not
obstruct vehicular traffic or parking or the use of any crosswalk wheel chair ramp,bus
or taxi zone; and
L. The proposed sidewalk cafe area is included within a food-service
establishment permit pursuant to the Seattle-King County Director ofPublic Health or his
or her representative,has otherwise authorized such a use of the area.
2. The director may include in the permit such terms and conditions as the
director may deem appropriate including but not limited to:
I Restrictions as to the number and placement of tables and chairs
and as to the hours and dates of use;
b. A requirement that the area be cleared when not in use as a
sidewalk cafe or upon the order of the director or other appropriate city officer such as
the Chief of Police or Fire Chief or their authorized representatives;
C. Provisions that the permittees shall maintain the sidewalk in a
clean and safe condition for pedestrian travel;
d. A requirement that the applicant clear the sidewalk as may be
necessary to accommodate deliveries to abutting or other nearby properties;
e. Regulations upon lighting and illumination of the sidewalk cafe
limitations upon noise and restrictions upon the placement of furniture or equipment used
in connection with the sidewalk cafe;
f. The posting of a surety bond or establishment of an escrow
account in accordance with the provisions of this chapter;
g, If the sidewalk cafe causes a change in pedestrian travel pattems,
appropriate repairs to the sidewalk in the immediate vicinity in order to accommodate the
change or to assure compliance with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act;
h. Restoration of the sidewalk upon completion of the use.
12 Street Use Permits
3. Unless expressly authorized by the director,no pavement shall be broken,
no sidewalk surface disturbed and no permanent fixture of any kind shall be installed in
or on sidewalk area in connection with a sidewalk cafe.
4. The director may suspend or revoke the permission granted if an applicant
violates this chapter, any implementing rules or the terms and conditions of the permit.
D. Liquor. Liquor as defined in RCW 66 04 010 as now existing or hereinafter
amended may be used and sold at a sidewalk cafe when authorized in both the use_permit
and provided for in this chapter and by permit of the Washington State Liquor Control
Board and not otherwise.
E. Sidewalk condition The applicant shall comply with the terms and conditions of
the sidewalk cafe permit issued and shall maintain the sidewalk in a clean and safe
condition for pedestrian travel and shall immediately clear the sidewalk area when
ordered to do so by the director or other appropriate City officer such as the Chief of
Police of Fire Chief or their authorized representatives.
Sec 6.07.080. Sidewalk displays. The owner or manager of a business upon
abutting property making retail sales to the public may, without a permit, display on a
public sidewalk goods or wares that are being offered for sale inside the business.
Sidewalk displays are subject to rules of the director, and the following criteria:
A. The location of the sidewalk display shall not reduce or obstruct pedestrian
passage on the sidewalk to less than four(4) feet to the nearest street trees, utility poles
traffic control signs and devices parking meters, fire hydrants buildings and other similar
devices and structures Furthermore such placement shall be consistent with any
applicable standards established by the American with Disabilities Act and shall not
obstruct vehicular traffic or parking or the use of any crosswalk wheel chair ramp,bus
or taxi zone.
B. The display must be flush against the building of the abutting property,must leave
entrances and driveways clear, and may not extend more than three feet (Y) into the
sidewalk.
13 Street Use Permits
C. The display displgy must be removed during those hours that the business is.closed. If the
display is in place before sunrise or after sunset the display must be lighted and readily
visible to passing pedestrians on the sidewalk.
p. Sales of goods or merchandise displayed must occur on the abutting privately
owned property.
E. The display may not contain alcoholic beverages, tobacco firearms or munitions
or any article which a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing; nor any material
restricted by the Fire Code from direct access or handling by the public.
F. The diMlay must be removed at any time that the director, the Chief of Police or
the Fire Chief determine that a clear sidewalk is needed for use of travel or transportation,
street cleaning or maintenance street utility work a crowd control event or parade, or an
emergency and request removal.
G. The City assumes no responsibility for the items on display, irrespective of
whether the loss occurs through accident collision vandalism, theft or otherwise.
Sec. 6.07.090. Street closures.
Aj� The city may permit the closure of a portion of a street or road within the
boundaries of the city. No closure of any street or road of any duration in time or length
shall occur except in accordance with a permit issued by the director, and such other laws
or regulations which may be applicable.
B.2: The director may issue a permit for closure of such street or road if such closure
is consistent with the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens. The director is
authorized to require that issuance of the permit is dependent upon fulfillment of such
conditions as are necessary to ensure the closure is carried out in a safe, uniform and
reasonable manner, including but not limited to:
l.a. The execution of a written agreement regulating access to the street by
emergency vehicles and local residents during the closure.
2.1 -. Procurement and posting of a bond, cash and/or proof of insurance in an
amount sufficient to ensure payment for damages and/or all cleanup costs associated with
14 Street Use Permits
the closure, and a hold hamiess agreement an indemnity agreement and/or deposit, as set
forth in subsections 6.07.060 6.07.140 and 6.07.150 below.
3.c Use of city-approved signs and barricades for the closure.
Sec 6.07.100. Master Use Permit The director may issue a Master Use Permit
for special events and other instances involving multiple uses and/or users under this
chapter. In such case the director shall have the discretion to determine the amount of
insurance that will be required depending on the risks associated with the level of uses
under the permit The director shall also have the discretion to modify the conditions of
this chapter for the use(s) applied for as deemed appropriate in order to consolidate uses
or accommodate multiple users under a master use permit.
E—Sec. 6.07.110. City development or use; exemptions. The requirements of
this chapter shall not apply to:
A.4- Street, drainage, water or sewer maintenance work performed by the city,
including street, drainage,water or sewer installation and improvement work authorized
by ordinance, or street, drainage, water or sewer improvement projects under contract
with the city shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.
B.2 The city initiated closure of any highway, street or road.
Sec. 6.07.040120. Permit application. To obtain a permit under this chapter,the
person shall file an application on a form furnished by the city for that purpose. Every
application shall, where applicable:
A.4: Identify the property by legal description and address for which a building,grad—in
er-ftll permit is being sought or an accurate description of the public place or portion
thereof desired to be used.
B.-2-. Provide the use desired to be made of such public place by the applicant.
C.-S Identify the owner of the property abutting the public dace for which the permit
is sought. being deve epea
D. For construction and property development to the extent required by the director:
1.3r. Provide the plans and specifications for any utility or structure desired to
be constructed, erected or maintained by the applicant in or on a public place.
15 Street Use Permits
2.4 Identify routes to be utilized to and from the property.
3.6. Identify the contractor and subcontractor responsible for the development
work.
4.-7-. Include the state contractor's number of such contractor or subcontractor.
5.8-. Include the city business license number of such contractor or
subcontractor.
6.1-0- Include a copy of any building permit as required in section 6.07.050 C.
below for any building or structure to be moved across, along or upon any public place,
pursuant to a permit issued herein, and sited within the city.
E. Provide other information as required to the director.
F. Be signed by the owner or the agent of the applicant. fi_m-.__ill be ""'"ally
respensib It-, for-the develepment4*er-k--
Sec. 6.07.0-540-.130. Processing of applications.
A. The director shall examine each application submitted to determine if it complies
with the provisions of this chapter. The director may also submit the application to other
city departments such as the fire police and planning departments for review and
comment. In order to ascertain any facts which may aid in determining whether a permit
shall be granted, the director may inspect the premises which are desired to be used under
the permit.
B. If after review of the application the director finds that the application presented
to him or her for approval conforms to the requirements of this chapter, and also that the
proposed use of such public place will not unduly interfere with the rights of the public
or unduly interfere or compete with adjaeent uses on abutting public or private property
or otherwise constitute a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public,then he or
she may approve such application.
eity, the appheant shall first obtain a building peffnit fer- the siting of SUGh bUildiHg-Of
16 Street Use Permits
Sec. 6.07.$6G.- 40. Indemnity deposit; surety bond; liability insurance.
A if t tar-detemiines that there „L abil:vy f � >, a...neg a �.,ee.•..
, Tthe applicant
shall provide a cash indemnity deposit to the City unless the
director determines that there is not a probability of iniM damage or expense to the city
arising from an applicant's proposed use of any public place. The amount of the cash
indemnity deposit shall be determined by the director, governed by the anticipated amount
and extent of injury, damage or expense to the city, and determined at the time of
application approval. Such indemnity deposit shall be used to pay the cost of plan review,
inspections, surveys, and other administrative services performed by the city, of restoring
the street and removing any earth or other debris from the street, the replacement of any
utility interrupted or damaged, or the completion of any work left unfinished,the cost of
filing of an indemnity agreement with the department, if such an agreement is required
with the permit, and any other expense the city may sustain in conjunction with the
permitted work. The balance of the cash indemnity deposit, if any, after the foregoing
deductions, shall be returned to the applicant. If the indemnity deposit is insufficient,the
applicant will be liable for the deficiency. If the director determines that engineering
studies must be made prior to the approval of any application for permit,the cost of such
study shall be paid for by the applicant, or deducted from his indemnity deposit.
B. The director may require, in lieu of or in addition to the cash indemnity deposit,
the applicant to file with the department a surety bond which has been approved as to
surety and as to form by the city attorney.The surety bond shall meet all the requirements
provided in subsection A. above relative to a cash indemnity deposit, shall run for the full
period of the permit and shall be in an amount to be fixed by the director and conditioned
such that the applicant shall faithfully comply with all the terms of the permit, all the
provisions of this chapter, all other ordinances of the city.
C. If the application is for the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance or
removal of any sidewalk, pavement, sewers, water mains, grading, street lighting or
appurtenances thereto,the applicant shall file with the department a surety bond approved
17 Street Use Permits
as to surety and as to form by the city attorney. The surety bond shall run for the full
period of the permit and may be required by the director for a period of one (1)year after
the acceptance of the permitted work by the city, and shall be in an amount fixed by the
director. The surety shall be conditioned such that the applicant shall faithfully complete
all portions of the work according to the standard plans and specifications of the city, and
the specific plans for the work as approved by the city engineer.
D. The director may require any permit holder to post a surety bond in the calendar
year following the period of a permit when the extent of possible damage to a public place
cannot be completely determined.
E. Subiect to other requirements for insurance set forth in this chapter, the-The
director may require an applicant to procure and maintain in full force and effect public
liability insurance naming the City of Kent, in an amount sufficient to cover potential
claims for bodily injury, death or disability, and property damage, and when
appropriate as determined by the director,products and/or completed operations which
may arise from or in connection with the permit. The director shall establish the amount
• of such insurance, and a certificate of insurance eopy a the pelie5 shall be provided to
the city for review prior to issuance of the permit.
F. The director has the discretion to require one (1)or any combination of the above
requirements prior to issuance of a permit as the director deems appropriate, considering
the use proposed by the applicant, in order to reasonably protect the citys interests and the;
health, safety and welfare of the public.
Sec. 6.07.0740:150. Indemnity agreement. The applicant shall be required to
execute a written agreement supplied by the city attorney to forever hold and save the city
free and harmless from any and all claims, actions or damages of every kind and
description which may accrue to or be suffered by any person by reason of the use of such
public place or of the construction, existence,maintenance use or occupation of any such
structure, services, fixtures, equipment and/or facilities on or in a public place pursuant
to this chapter. In addition such agreement shall contain a provision that the permit is
wholly of a temporary nature that it vests no permanent right whatsoever, and that
18 Street Use Permits
f
pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, that the permit may be revoked without cause
Won thirty(30)days'notice or without such notice in case the permitted use shall become
dangerous or unsafe or is not be operated in accordance with the provisions of this title,
the same may be suspended or revoked.
Sec. 6.07.OW.160. Permit issuance, expiration, and renewal.
A. Every permit issued under this chapter shall be issued conditioned upon and
subject to the right of the city to restrict suspend or revoke the permit as provided in
section 6.07.180 below.
B. Every permit issued by the director under provisions
of this-ehapter Section 6.07.040 shall expire in accordance with the expiration date of the
respective building, grading, or fill permit. In no such case shall the life of the street use
permit extend beyond twelve(12)months from date of issuance.
C. Permits issued forspecial events or occurrences such as for festivals or street
closures shall expire on the date established by the director as the ending date of the event
or occurrence.
D. All other permits issued pursuant to this chapter, except as to those permits for
which a shorter term is herein specified shall be effective as of the first day of the month
of issuance regardless of the actual date of issue and shall expire twelve (12) months
from the effective date thereof, unless sooner revoked in the manner provided in this
chapter.
E. Unless suspended revoked or denied as provided in this chapter, and subject to
a_location review as set forth in this section all permits issued pursuant to the provisions
of this chapter may be renewed upon payment for the ensuing term of the established fee,
minus the application charge on or before the date of expiration of such permit. A vendor
renewing a permit for a business that has changed the size of the vending area, location,
or by adding heating or cooking apparatus since the last a pplication/renewal must follow
requirements for a new application.
F. Street use permits are not transferable.
19 Street Use Permits
Sec. 6.07.E-0a:170. Permit and inspection fees.
• A. The basic fee for a street use permit under: 6.07.030A above ..hall be
fif�,dollars ($50.00)- The basie fee fer a street use pennit under-subsections 6.07.030 .,
C. D. above tt be twenty five dellars ($25 nm
1. Sec 6.07.040, Construction and property development shall be fifty ($50)
dollars.
2. Sec 6 07 060 Street vendors shall be one hundred ($100) dollars per
year. Permits are issued annually.
3. Sec 6.07.070, Sidewalk cafes shall be one hundred ($100) dollars per
year. Permits are issued annually.
4. Sec 6 07 090 Street closures shall be fifty($50) dollars.
5. Sec 6.07.100 Master use permit shall be one hundred ($100) dollars.
B. Where total inspection time exceeds two (2) hours an extra charge shall be
invoiced to the applicant at an hourly rate to be
established annually by the director.
Sec. 6.07.OW. 80.
j3oEkeo npienee, Director's decision to deny, revoke suspend, or restrict.
A. Pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the director shall have the power and
authority to deny the issuance or renewal of any permit applied for or to revoke, suspend,
or otherwise restrict any permit issued under this chapter. The director shall notify such
applicant or permittee in writing by mail or personal delivery, of the denial of a permit
application, or the suspension or revocation of an existing permit and the grounds
therefor.
B. The grant of a permit for use on a public way is subject to the use and needs of the
City and the general public whether such needs are temporary or permanent and for
public, or private purposes(i.e.,ut;rft,construction work in public way by private service
provider) and is a grant of a temporary revocable privilege to use a portion of the public
way to serve and benefit the general public The applicant for the permit shall have the
burden to prove that any proposed use will enhance and further the public interest
.20 Street Use Permits
consistent and not in conflict with the use of the public way by the general public and the
. t
other authorized uses and activities. All ermits anted under the revisions of
ter ma be restricted sus ended or revoked without com ensation b the
u on ' 30 da s' or notice when the use and needs of the Cfty and general
public are paramount to the a licant's use or the a licant's use does not enhance and
further the public interest or is in conflict with the use of the public way. The director
shall have the discretion to determine priorities of conflicting uses of public places or may
den an or all such uses or proposed uses.
The dir-eeter- of , workser- a ,..o
0
C. Anypermit issued under this chapter may be suspended or revoked immediately
ased on one or more of the following ounds:
1. Any other license or permit issued pursuant to this chapter has been
• sus ended revoked or cancelled.
2. The applicant has violated or failed to meet any of the provisions of this
cha ter or is in violation of py other ordinances or regulation of the City relating to the
use by applicant for which the permit is applied for or issued.
3. The applicant does not have currently effective an insurance policy in the
minimum amount as specified in this chapter.
4. The permit was procured by fraud or false presentation of fact or was
issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied to the City.
$. The abutting property owner or legal representative withdraws consent in
writing for a sidewalk vending unit.
6. Health Department authorization for the sidewalk food or beverage
vendingunit nit is cancelled.
7. Applicant's use is creating a health or safety hazard or constitutes a public
nuisance.
21 Street Use Permits
t-D. For permits issued for construction and property development the following shall
also apply:
1. Streets/Storm Drains. The applicant shall continuously keep the streets
and storm drain system free from all debris attributed to the work performed under the
respective building, grading, or fill permit. If this is violated, the director of..., ^er-ks
erdesignate may without advance notice and by posting the work site suspend or revoke
a permit issued.No new permit will be issued or the suspension lifted until the conditions
of this section have been met.Where the director determines
that no immediate action per compliance with the conditions of this section is about to
occur, and the director of publie wofks of designate determines in his judgment that it is
in the best interest of the city that immediate action should be taken, he can order the
work done by city forces or other forces. The cost thereof shall be deducted from the
indemnity fund at the actual cost plus fifteen(15) percent.
2. Permit Not Obtained. Any work which is commenced or performed prior
to obtaining the permit required by this chapter shall be immediately suspended and shall
• not recommence until the requirements of this chapter have been fully satisfied.
3. Stop Work Order. In addition to any remedy provided for in this chapter,
the director may issue a stop work order whenever a continuing violation of this section
will materially impair the director's ability to secure compliance or when a continuing
violation threatens the health or safety of the public.
Sec 6 07190 - Appeals Upon denial of issuance or renewal, or revocation,
suspension or restriction of a permit,notice of such action shall be delivered in writin
to the applicant by personal service or certified mail at the address Specified by the
licensee in the application. Any person aggrieved by the action of the director on a penni
mqy within ten 10 days after notice of said action appeal to the Hearing Examiner b
filing with the Hearing Examiner a written notice of the appeal, clearly stating the wounds
on which the appeal is based. The a eal before the Hearing Examiner will be processed
and heard pursuant to Chapter 2.32 of the Kent City Code. The decision of the Hearin
Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless a ealed to the Su erior Court within
• 22 Street Use Permits
twenty-one (21) days of the date of the Hearing_Examiner's decision. If appeal is taken
. as herein prescribed a suspension or revocation of a permit shall be staved except for a
Health Fire or other public safety violation pending final action by the Hearing
Examiner.
See. 6.07.110. Double fee for-wor-k without r
'+ is p required 1.J this 1, Y+er e e.l ,- F d to obtainingeh
pef -'+, the h t. + ee e e r' F shall h .ieubl .l Th «eJ..n «4 for-s.eh de..hle fee shall«..+
r-elieve any per-son from full Y r-e"ir-efflents of this ehapter in
J penalties
t.e«+e,- ineluding efimina « «.i14ie .
See. .07.t20 Permit not obtained My werk ,.h:eh is eerAmeneed of
perF .l Y to obtaining ♦l. permit q, e.l by this ehapte shall be ediatel.
suspended -
.1 shalle
+ e until the e ..i
ehapter- have been
fully ee+:eF.e.l
wheneverand to enforce all pr-evisions ef this ehapter-.
See. 6.07.140. Stop wor-k order-. The direeter- may isstie a step A,efk er-der
a eentinuing vielation f this h «+er will mate fially impair the di fee+er-'s ab:l:+..
to seour-eeamp1'anee, or h a een+iffuifig violation threatens the health e efe+.,of+he
p
Sec 6.07. 200 Administrative policies. The director may establish
administrative policies deemed appropriate to implement the provisions of this chapter.
See. 6.07.4-50-.210. Violation; penalties.
A. Civil. Any violation of any provision of this chapter constitutes a civil violation
under Kent City Code chapter 1.04 for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and
abatement may be required and/or otherwise enforced as provided therein.
B. Criminal. In addition or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this
chapter or by law, any person violating the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed
• 23 Street Use Permits
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine not to
exceed the sum of one thousand ($1 000) dollars or imprisonment for a period not to
exceed ninety(90) days, or both such fine or imprisonment.
SECTION 2. -Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. -Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty(30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 1999.
APPROVED: day of ' 1999.
PUBLISHED: day of , 1999.
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.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:�LAN'%ORDINANCWENDOR.ORD
24 Street Use Permits
Item 9
Public Works/Planning Committee
8/2/99
ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse
Zoning District (MR-T)
•
Recommended Motion:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to
the Full City Council to consider approval of the Land Use and
Planning Board's recommendation to approve staffs
recommendation of ZCA-99-5 for a new Townhouse Zoning
District (called MR-T) with five (5) additional changes as outlined
on page 15 of the LUPB minutes.
•CITY OF �
N
MEMORANDUM
Jim White, Mayor
IT vlcTN
To: COUNCILMEMBER TIM CLAW CHAIR AND PLANNING &
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
From: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
Re: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT -#ZCA-99-5
At its regular meeting of July 20, 1999, the City Council referred the Land Use &
Planning Board's recommendation to create a townhouse zoning district (MR-T)to the
Planning & Public Works Committee. The Board had held a public hearing on this
matter on June 28, 1999 after several workshops and a tour of existing condominium
developments.
The packet of information which was included in the Council's July 201h meeting agenda
is again included herewith. Staff will be available to discuss this matter and answer
questions from the Committee.
Cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
FSN/mp:P:admin\townhome.rec
220 4th AVE.SO., I KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
CITY OF ;�� JI�,�
J I
ftrvtcrw Jim White, Mavor
rrng Department(253)856-5454/Fax(253) 856-6454
P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
July 20, 1999
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND KENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE (MR-T) ZONING DISTRICT #ZCA-99-5
RECOMMENDATION OF LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
On April 5, 1999, the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee voted to request the
Land Use & Planning Board study and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning
strategies which would encourage home ownership opportunities in Kent. This Committee vote
stemmed from a series of meetings on the topic of"condominium zoning."
On May 10 and June 14, 1999, the Land Use & Planning Board discussed and reviewed the
condominium zoning issue at length. Several alternative strategies were evaluated at these
workshops including the creation of a special zoning district, revisions to the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) ordinance, and other proposals. In addition, a tour of various condominium
developments was conducted with the Planning Board on May 24, 1999, in order to gain a fimt-
hand familiarity with this form of development.
Based on the discussion of options and the tour of condominium projects, the Planning Board
decided to move forward to public hearing on one of the options. This option was the creation of
a special zoning district that would be restricted to townhouse-only condominium development,
subject to specific development regulations which would determine the density and design of
these developments. The Planning Board decided to revisit the PUD amendments at a later date.
Recommendation of the Land Use and Plannino Board:
Following the public hearing on the matter on June 28, 1999, the Land Use & Planning Board
voted to recommend that a new zoning district — called MR-T for Multifamily
Residential/Townhouse — be created with the following definition, use and development
standards:
Add to Section 15.03.010 Establishment of Districts
MR-T Multifamily Residential District- Townhouse
It is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low and medium
densit3• multifamily residential development where home ownership is encouraged
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
— - - --
__ TELEPHONE '_:3) Slo-j2W
1"ZCA-99-: 0-IR-T
Add the following definitibn of"townhouse" to Section 15.02
Multifami v Townhouse. A townhouse dwelling is a residential unit which is attached to
other dwelling units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from
ground level to the roof with no dwelling units located above or below
Add the following as principally permitted uses:
• One single fami4,v dwelling per lot
• One modular ho'rze per lot
• Duplexes
■ Multifamily townhouse units
• Mobile home parks (subject to footnote 113)
• Group homes class I-A
• Group homes class 1-B
• Home day care
■ Day care center:
• Crop and tree farming
Add the following as accessory uses:
• Rooming and boarding of not more than 3 persons
■ Accessory buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use
■ Accessory dwell g units (subject to footnote#10)
■ Home occupations (subject to footnote #11)
■ Storage buildings and storage of recreational vehicles (subject to footnote #16)
■ Offices incidental to a principally permitted use
Add the following as conditional uses:
• Group homes classes I-C, 11-A, 11-B, and 11-C
■ Drive-in churches, welfare facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other
welfare facilities whether public or private, and facilities for rehabilitation or
correction
■ Transportation and transit facilities
• Railway and bus:depots, taxi stands
• Utility and transportation facilities, electrical substations, pumping or regulating
devices for the transmission of water, gas, steam petroleum, etc.
• Public facilities including firehouses, police stations, libraries and administrative
offices ofgovernmental agencies, primary and secondary schools, vocational schools
and colleges
■ Open space uses including cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses and other
recreational facilities, including buildings or structures associated therewith
■ Private clubs,fraternal lodges, etc.
Add the following as specie! uses:
• Churches (subjedt to footnote ;4)
-ZCA-99.5 (-NI R-T Zoning) Memo
July 20, 1999
Page 3
Add the following Development Standards to Section 15.04.170:
Maximum density (units per acre) SF: 8.71 du/ac MF.• 16du/ac
Minimum lot area SF 4000 sq.ft.
Duplex: 8000 sq.ft.
MF 8500 sq.ft.for first 2 units, then 2500
sq.ft.per additional unit
Minimum lot width SF:. 40 ft.
Duplex: 80 ft.
MF.• 80 ft.
Maximum site coverage SF.- 55% (subject to footnote #5)
Duplex: 40% (subject to footnote #5)
MF.• 45% (subject to footnote #5)
Minimum yard requirements SF: same as MR-G zone
Duplex: same as MR-G zone
MF. same as MR-G zone
Height limitation SF.- 2.5 stories/30 feet
Duplex: 3 stories/30 feet
MT 3 stories/30 feet
Maximum impervious surface SF: 75% (subject to footnote #19)
Duplex: 70% (subject to footnote #19)
MF. 70% (subject to footnote #19)
Zero lot line development Provisions of 15.08.300, 310, 330 shall
apply
Signs Same as for MR-G zone
Offstreet parking Same as for MR-G zone
Landscaping Same as for MR-G zone
Multifamily design review Yes. SEE, Section 15.09.047
Additional standards All multifamily townhouse developments in
the MR-T zone shall be condominium only.
A condominium plat shall be filed and
recorded prior to in conjunction with the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
project.
M-ZCA-99-5 (MR-T Zoning) Nlcmo
July 20, 1999
Page 4
Add the following rezoning Criterion to Section 15-09.050:
1. The proposed;reyone site is adjacent to or has convenient access to an arterial
street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development minimizes the
disruption to sjingle family residential neighborhoods.
FNSknw1P AADMMCONDOMEM.DOC
enc: Staff Report Dated 6-28-99
LUPB Minutes Dated 6-28-99
cc: lames P.Hams,Planning Director
CITY OF
V_ C
Jim White, Mayor
lg Department (253)856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454
J P.Harris, Planning Director '
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(253) 856-5454
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 28, 1999
TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR AND LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT (MR-T)
#ZCA-99-5
Background:
On April 5, 1999, the City Council PIanning and Public Works Committee voted to request the
Land Use and Planning Board study and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning
strategies which would encourage home ownership opportunities in Kent. This Committee vote
stemmed from a series of meetings on the topic of"condominium zoning."
On May 10, 1999 and June 14, 1999, the Land Use and Planning Board (LU&PB) discussed and
reviewed the condominium zoning issue at length. Several alternative strategies were discussed
at these workshops including the creation of a special zoning district, revisions to the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, and other proposals. In addition, a tour of various
condominium developments was conducted with the LU&PB on May 24, 1999 in order to gain a
first-hand familiarity with this form of development.
Based on the discussion of options and the tour of condominium projects, the LI&PB decided at
their June 14, 1999 workshop to move forward to public hearing with one of the options. This
option is the creation of a special zoning district that would be restricted to condominium-only
multifamily development, subject to specific development regulations, which would determine
the density, and certain aspects of the design of these developments.
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan:
The issue of encouraging horncownership opportunities is mentioned in the Kent Comprehensive
Plan. In fact, condominium-stvle housing (one of several forms of homeownership) is addressed
in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Goal H-4 states: "Expand home
"u:m ,SvESO /KENT. NAASHINGTOXUHO;..:ga;;TELEPHONE
ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning Distnct(MR-T)
LUPB June 28, 1999
Page 2
ownership opportunities Jon all income groups via land use regulations,financial strategies, and
the removal of barriers to Iending. " Policy H-4.1 specifically addresses condominiums in terms
of zoning when it states: "Devise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sires,
manufactured housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, and other
options which increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities. "
Zoninty Strategies for EncoMraQing Rome Ownership
The City's existing multifamily residential zones do not differentiate between rental or owner
housing. Except for PUD development in the SR (Single Family) zones, there is no requirement
for condominium-type development in the zoning code, nor is there any zoning district which
may be requested by an applicant for rezone which would limit developments to this project
type. In addition, the City ANttomey has advised the Planning Department that it is not lawful to
simply adopt a zoning amendment which would require homeownership (i.e., condominiums) in
all multifamily zoning districts. Nevertheless, under certain conditions, condominiums may be
encouraged as an alternative to apartments through various zoning methods. These methods
were first discussed with the Council Planning and Public Works Committee in March and April
and then the Land Use and Planning Board in May and June. Some of the primary alternatives
included the following:,
■ Contract rezoning. Under this option, approval of a rezone request would be
conditioned upon an agreement between the applicant and the City. Among other
things, the agreement might contain a statement that only condominiums could be
constructed. Therefore, any development permit ultimately issued by the City would
constrict develop lent to condominiums only. Decisions of the City Council would
be made on a case�by-case basis.
• Planned Unit Development ordinance. The existing PUD ordinance restricts
condominium-typo (attached) housing in the SR zones to sites that are more than 100
acres in size. An dption would be to reduce this minimum site size to 10 or 5 or even
a smaller threshold, resulting in more areas which could, given City Council approval
of the PUD, be utilized for attached condominium style housing.
• Townhouse Zoning District. This option would entail the creation of a special
zoning district which would permit only condominium type,developments and would
require the recording of a condominium plat prior to issuance of a development
permit. A maximum density would be specified which could be similar or different
from other multifamily zones. The T-zone would be available for applicants to
request rezoning of suitable sites with criteria for rezoning set by ordinance.
• Overlay (or "Incdntive") Zoning. This option would allow additional density in
existing multifamily zones for condominium developments. Densities for rental
apartments would jemain the same. As an overlay, it would only be available for
existing multifamily zones.
ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-T)
LUPB June 28, 1999
Page 3
Discussion and Evaluation of Alternatives:
The above options were discussed at length by the LU&PB and, with the exception of the T-
zone, were found to be unsuitable. While contract rezoning may be a legal method for rezoning
and conditioning development, it was found not to be a good way to develop policy. In reality, it
is the opposite of consistent and predictable policy since the specific conditions will be different
from one site to another. It is subject to "deal-making" and puts the City Council and LU&PB in
an awkward position. In addition, recent experience with contract rezoning has not been
positive.
The overlay zone option (where additional density is allowed for condominiums but not rental
apartments) offers only limited advantage in terms of inducing homeownership opportunities.
This is because the densities already allowed in the City's MR (multifamily) zones are fairly
high. Townhouse condominiums are generally low-density projects, usually in the range of 10-
14 units per acre. Densities in excess of this generally yield "stacked unit" configurations, where
residential units are built over one another. Therefore, perhaps only the MR-D (Duplex) zone —
where the density limit is 10 units per acre — would attract applications for a condominium
density bonus.
The Planned Unit Development option was considered by the LU&PB and was determined to
need additional study before moving forward to public hearing. As proposed by staff in
preliminary discussions, the PUD revisions would be restricted to only the SR-6 and SR-8 zones,
the minimum site size would be 2 acres and the maximum site size would be 10 acres. Also,
special criteria would be specified for approval of such PUD's, including factors relating to
proximity to transit and services, adjacency to arterial streets, and open space. However,
following discussions with the LU&PB, it was felt this option needed further study before
moving to public hearing.
The creation of a special zoning district which would restrict multifamily development to
condominium-only was felt to be a viable option for increasing the opportunities for
homeownership in Kent, and at their June 14, 1999 workshop, the LU&PB moved this
alternative along to public hearing for June 28, 1999. As proposed by staff, this new zoning
district would require multifamily development to be condominium-only subject to development
standards which would allow a two-story configuration (no stacked units), a density maximum of
:_' units per acre, multifamily design review, and other requirements.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the LU&PB recommend to the City Council to add the following to Kent
Zoning Code, Section 15.03.010 Establishment and designation of districts:
MR-T Multifamily Residential District . Townhouse
It is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium
density multifamily residential development where homeownership is encouraged
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
A
ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-T)
LUPB June 28, 1999
Page 4
The following definition of"townhouse" development is proposed to be added to Section 15.02
of the Kent Zoning Code:
Multifamily Townhouse. IA townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which is
tb
attached to other dwelling; units along one or both sides and which occupies the building
area from ground level to toe roof with no dwelling units located above or below.
The following uses are proposed as principally permitted, accessory, special and conditional uses
in the MR-T zone, Section M04 of the Kent Zoning Code(SEE, Attachment A):
Principally permitted uses:;
■ One single family dwelling per lot
tP
• One modular hone per lot
■ Duplexes
■ Multifamily Tov nnhouse units
■ Mobile home pat ks (subject to footnote 0413)
■ Group homes class 1-A
• Group homes class 1-13
• Home day care
■ Day care center
■ Crop and tree fa#ming
{_ Accessory uses:
■ Rooming and boajrding of not more than 3 persons
■ Accessory buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use
■ Accessory dwelling units (subject to footnote#10)
■ Home occupation] (subject to footnote #11)
• Storage buildings!and storage of recreational vehicles (subject to footnote#16)
• Offices incidental!to a principally permitted use
Conditional uses:
Group homes cla$ses 1-C, 11-A, 11-13, and 11-C
• Drive-in churches, welfare facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes and
other welfare facilities whether public or private, and facilities for rehabilitation
or correction
• Transportation and transit facilities
• Railway and bus depots, taxi stands
• Utility and transportation facilities, electrical substations, pumping or regulating
devices for the trajnsmission of water, gas, steam, petroleum, etc.
• Public facilities. )firehouses, police stations, libraries, and administrative offices
of governmental }agencies, primary and secondary schools, vocational schools
and colleges
• Open space uses j including cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses and
other recreational facilities, including buildings or structures associated
therewith
• Private clubs, fraternal lodges, etc.
". JPB June :a, 1>yy
Page 5
Special uses:
• Churches (subject to footnote 94)
The following Development standards are proposed for the MR-T zone, to be added to Section
15.04.170 of the Kent Zoning Code (SEE, Attachment B):
Maximum density (units per acre) SF: 8.71 dus/ac MF: 12.0 dus/ac
Minimum lot area SF: 4000 sq. ft.
Duplex: 8000 sq. ft.
MF: 8500 for first 2 units, then 3500 sq. FL per
each additional unit
Minimum lot width SF: 40 ft.
Duplex: 80 ft
MF: 80 ft
Maximum site coverage SF: 55% (subject to footnote#5)
Duplex: 40 % (subject to footnote#5)
MF: 45% (subject to footnote#5)
Minimum yard requirements SF: Same as IVIR-G
Duplex: Same as MR-G
MF: Same as MR-G
Height Limitation SF: 2.5 stories/30 feet
Duplex: 2 stories/30 feet
MF: 2 stories/30 feet
Maximum impervious surface SF: 75% (subject to footnote#19)
Duplex: 70% (subject to footnote #19)
MF: 70% (subject to footnote#19)
Zero Lot Line Provisions of 15.08.300, 310, 330 shall
Apply
Signs Same as for MR-G zone
Offstreet parking Same as for MR-G zone
Landscaping Same as for MR-G zone
Multifamily Design Review Yes. See Section 15.09.047.
Additional standards All multifamily townhouse developments in the
MR-T zone shall be condominium only. A
condominium plat shall be filed and recorded
prior to approval of development permit by the
City.
A
ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning Dtstnct(MR-T)
LUPB June 28, 1999
Page 6
.u_
The LU&PB may also wish to consider additional rezone criteria, which would provide guidance
and direction to the decision-making process for rezone applications. Rezone criteria are
specified in Section 15.09.0150 of the Kent Zoning Code (SEE, Attachment Q. These criteria
seek to ensure that rezonesi are consistent with the comprehensive plan, are compatible with
surrounding development, do not unduly burden the street system, and do not cause adverse
impacts to the public. The W&PB could add criteria to ensure that rezones to MR-T achieve the
original intent of creating opportunities for attached homeownership opportunities. Staff suggests
the following criteria based on the discussions with Board and Council members regarding this
option:
1. The proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has direct access to an arterial street to
ensure that the traiffic accessing the MR-T development does not travel through
single family residential neighborhoods.
2. The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial
services.
FS:pm PA4dminitownhome.doc
Enclosures: Attachment A,B &C
cc: James P.Hams,Olanning Director
i
i
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 5
' stated
Mr. O'Neill s d that a section could be added to the view regulations to include the use of a view
pole in a case where a variance is requested. Mr. O'Neill suggested a phrase be added to the view
regulations that say, "that if someone requested a variance part of theprocess would be to erect view
poles on the property."
Mr. Harmon suggested that if a house is constructed in an area with view regulations that a pole be
placed on the property during the permit process. He stated erecting a pole on the property would
allow impacted parties to determine if view from their properties would be obstructed. Mr. Harmon
stated that terminology should be added to the view regulations to address erecting and marking a
view pole when any development takes place on view regulated property.
Mr. O'Neill stated that a developer is complying with the code when he abides by the maximum
height threshold established by Planning staff and if view poles were erected and neighbors objected
to the height, they would not have much recourse. Mr. O'Neill stated that if a builder or property
owner were to request a variance to exceed their height limitations, it would be fair to erect view
poles at that time to allow neighbors to address their concerns.
Mr.Dowell stated that in Section 15.08.060(A)2 he would like`finished grade"be reworded to read
measured from original or natural grade... W. O'Neill advised changing the terminology to
"natural or finished grade, which ever is lowe . He stated that under certain circumstances builders
are sensitive to up slope property views by grading lower or building daylight basements.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staffs recommendation of
ZCA-99-6 View Regulations with the following amendments:
To amend Section 15.08.060(A) of the Zoning Code as recommended by Staff with an
addition to Item 2, Page 5 by changing "finished grade"to read 'from natural or finished
grade which ever is lower".
To add additional languages to the code to allow erecting a marked view pole if a variance
is required.
Motion carried unanimously.
ZCA-99-5 Condominium Zoning Strateeries
W. Sattersuvm stated that a tour of condominium developments in the East HiII area of Kent took
place with the Land Use and Planning Board in May where they looked at a variety of densities and
condominium designs.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that prior to staff s submittal of their recommendations, several alternatives
were looked at by the Board and City Council in encouraging homeownership in multifamily
developments.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 6
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that staff needs to look into the concept
of proposing some regulatory mechanisms for encouraging condominium housing in Kent. Mr.
Satterstrom stated that this concept is traced to Housing Goal HA policy of the Comprehensive Plan
which states "...revise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured
housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering and other options which
increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities."
Mr. Satterstrom referred to Page 2 of his staff report in identifying the following four options that
the Board and City Council evaluated in their search to encourage condominium housing in Kent.
• Contract Rezoning
• Planned Unit Development ordinance
• Townhouse Zoning District
• Overlay(or"Incentive') Zoning.
Mr. Satterstmm stated that even though Contract Rezoning is legal, it is poor policy and considered
the antithesis of zoning. Mr. Satterstr m stated that the PUD ordinance was looked at by the Board
and tabled in order to acquire further information. He stated that the Overlay or Incentive zoning
option was viewed to have limited application and not a viable option.
W. Satterstrom stated that after careful review of the four options, staff is recommending the
creation of a separate zoning district called the MR-T(Multifamily Residential-Townhouse)zoning
district. He stated that staff proposes that the Board recommend to the City Council that the MR-T
district be added to the City's zoning district with a purpose statement that says "that it is the
purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily
residential development where home ownership rs encouraged consistent with the comprehensive
plan."
Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff is proposing the addition of a multifamily townhouse definition that
says "a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which is attached to other dwelling units
along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to the roof with no
dwelling units located above or below"
Mr. Satterstrom spoke at length from Page 4 of the staffreport in stating that the proposed
"Principally permitted Uses"; "Accessory Uses" and "Conditional Uses" for the MR-T zone will
retrain predominately the same as in the MR-G zone.
Mr. Satterstrom referred to Page 5 of the staff report in speaking at length on development standards.
He stated that the maximum density for single family would be 8.71 dwelling units per acre, the
same as MR-G. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the multiple family density would be' 12.0 dwelling units
i
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 7
per acre. He reiterated the proposed development standards as indicated on Page 5 of the staff
report.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that an additional standard is added stating that"All Multifamily townhouse
developments in the MR-T Zone shall be condominium only. A condominium plat shall be filed and
recorded prior to approval Of a development permit by the City."
Mr. Satterstrom pointed out the five criteria relating to property rezoning as indicated on page six
of the report. He stated that to ensure that rezones to the MR-T are consistent with the intent for
which this zone was created; staff is suggesting, for the Board's edification, the addition of the two
following criteria in respect;to MR-T zones.
"The proposed rezone site it adjacent to or has direct access to an arterial street to ensure that the
traffic accessing the MR-T development does not travel through single family residential
neighborhoods" and "Me proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and
commercial services."
Mr. Satterstrom submitted a letter for the record'from Jack Lynch and Associates as Exhibit 1,
suggesting that the density per acre be"a range"rather than a"specific number"of units per acre.
Mr. Satterstrom responded to Terry Zimmerman's request to reiterate the City's approval process
for this recommendation. Ho stated that if the Board recommends approval to implement the MR T
zone,this item would then bq sent on to the Full City Council,with initial review by its Planning and
Public Works Committee. Mr. Satterstrom stated that when this recommendation goes before the
Council, it will be voted on And an ordinance would be generated.
Terry Zimmerman asked W. Satterstrom at what point further comment would be received. Mr.
Satte=om stated that the Council recognizes people who want to speak at the Public
Works/Planning Committee fond at the Full Council meeting. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Land
Use and Planning Board public hearing is where public comment is most likely to influence the
Council in reaching a decisidn.
In response to Ron Harmon, Mr. Satterstrom stated that Green Meadow Townhomes were the first
stop on the workshop tour ofcondominums and that the density on the buildable portion of the site
was 10 units per acre as the preponderance of the site is wetlands.
Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion
carried.
Robert Howe,5446 HyadaBlvd NE, Tacoma, WA stated that he is a member of a couple of
limited liability companies tat are engaged in developing property in the City of Kent. He stated
that if the intent of the City is ko provide a viable program that will result in townhouse development,
staff needs to assure that the restrictions and guidelines enforced are not so restrictive that this
recommendation becomes unworkable.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1599
Page 8
Mr. Howe voiced concern over staffs recommendation that a townhome site needs to be located
adjacent to or have direct access to an arterial street. He stated that developers should be given
opportunity to address viable egress and access alternatives to a proposed site.
Mr. Howe questioned if MR-T zoning was restricted to the current MR-G zone or could this zoning
apply to SR-6 or SR-8. He stated that the development process is time consuming and would like
to see a method implemented to decrease the length of time for the rezoning process, perhaps by
deleting the comprehensive plan amendment process.
Bill Dinsdale, 13700 SE 266", Kent, WA stated that providing affordable housing is crucial. He
stated that the proposed zoning does not provide for more affordable housing for people. Mr.
Dinsdale stated that to decrease cost, densities must increase to more than 12 units per acre.
Mr. Dinsdale stated that by restricting egress and ingress for townhome developments next to an
arterial,property that can take advantage of the MR-T is limited. He stated that there are numerous
developable properties not located directly on arterials.
W. Satterstrom in clarifying an issue stated that staff is not proposing that existing MR-G zoned
property is going to be affected by this proposal at all. He stated that what is proposed is the creation
of another zoning district to give landowners and developers the option of rezoning land to a higher
density. W. Satterstrom cited the example that if property were zoned MR-D, 10 units per acre,the
MR-T zone would represent an increase in density.
MR-T is an option that the Council would be given to encourage homeownership in the situations
that are intended in the purpose statement and in the criteria
Charles Burridge, 27001 114t° Avenue SE, Kent, WA stated that he is involved in several
developments in the City of Kent. He stated that he is considering developing several pieces of
property in Kent with multifamily and a townhouse project. Mr. Buridge stated that some of the
properties have mitigation problems with wetlands where the MR-T would allow townhouse units
to be developed surrounding these wetlands.
Mr. Burridge stated that requiring locating the condominium sites next to arterial roads would be
prohibitive and if allowing for only one entrance would be restrictive. He suggested that staff might
look at the feasibility of two or three entryways for a development.
Hugh Lieper, 815 Reiten Road, Kent, WA stated that he is a commercial real estate consultant.
Mr. Lieper stated that he believes the City has been attempting to accomplish a distinct separation
between the concept of condominium and apartment zoning with the creation of the MR-T zone.
Mr. Lieper read and submitted a proposal for a new condominium-zoning district for the record as
Exhibit 2. Mr. Lieper defined this new category as Condominium Townhouse Type Zoning (CTTZ)
Land Use and Planning Bo�ird Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 9
which included allowing fir one unit of living space in a two or three story configuration on a
maximum of sixteen units per acre.
Mr. Lieper stated that a density of 12 units per acre is not affective when working on developing a
piece of property and that he favored three story units in order to include construction of garages
underneath the townhomes.!He felt the 30-foot height restriction limits the workability to construct
adequate townhomes.
Mr. Lieper stated that the last item in additional standards says that "a condominium plat shall be
filed and recorded prior to the approval of a development permit". He stated that with a
condominium you can not re cord a total plat until construction is complete and the property has been
surveyed. Mr. Lieper furth¢r stated that an actual survey of each unit and each part of that piece of
property has to be recorded Land that becomes part of the total conditions that must be met to satisfy
the statutes of the state.
Paul Morford, Post Office Box 6345,Kent,WA voiced his disappointment in the proposed MR-T
zone as it does not lend it$elf to the creation of affordable housing in Kent He referred to a
development in the City of lies Moines where detached units are currently under construction on 25-
foot lots with 15-foot wide*nits and 5 foot setbacks. Mr. Morford stated that the lots were platted
in the 1920's.
Mr. Morford stated that thq units are expensive but more affordable than a typical single family
residence and encouraged staff to Iook at plans, which he submitted to the Board. Mr. Morford
submitted an architectural version of the Marin Grove Community floor plans for the record as
Exhibit#3. Mr. Morford stated that in the 1920'the City of Kent based development on small lots,
located close to commercial, rail and waters and suggested changing minimum lot widths to 25 feet.
Mr. Morford referenced Section 15.08 of the Kent Zoning Code on Nonconforming Lots of Record
in saying that an ordinance was passed in the 1950's that stipulated if a property owner owned two
lots side by side, the lots had to be combined in order to develop them. He stated that he believes
by removing the nonconforming lot, a home could be built on one lot and a townhouse on the
adjoining lot.
Mr.Morford stated that the original intent of rezoning was to discourage multifamily and encourage
condominiums or home ownership and that he feels that the MR-T zone should allow for a higher
density to decrease the cost per unit.
Mr. Morford suggested redefining the MR-T zone to Townhouse District only so as not to limit
zoning to multifamily but rattier encourage small townhouse developments. He stated that the staff
report refers to the "T district as providing suitable locations for low to medium density
multifamily". Mr. Morford suggested striking that statement out and add "it is purposely marked
T district to provide suitable locations for residential development where home ownership is
encouraged."
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 10
Mr. Morford quoted the staff report's definition of a multifamily townhouse dwelling on page four
of the report and suggested rephrasing the definition from ". a townhouse dwelling is a residential
dwelling unit,which is, attached..."to a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which may
or may not be is-attached..." in order to develop unattached units on small lots.
Mr. Morford spoke at length on his concerns regarding density limitations within the multifamily
residential zoning district.
Mr. Morford stated that he would like staff to receive input from Jerry Snyder of Snyder Homes who
built two planned unit developments in the County which have since been annexed to the City and
although they are close to an arterial, access is not from an arterial. Mr. Morford stated that he feels
it to be nebulous that this zoning require a townhome development to be located near transit stops
and commercial services as well as to require access from an arterial. .
Mr.Jerry Prowdy,27608 114'Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that he believes the new MR-
T zoning does not provide enough concessions to encourage multifamily developers to build
condominitms.
Mr.Prowdy stated that he favors the proposed zoning as it more adequately applies to single family
zones with steep slopes or partial wetlands where townhomes could be clustered on lots.
Mr.Prowdy stated that he did not favor developers going having to go through the comprehensive
plan amendment and rezoning process as it is lengthy and would discourage developers from
constructing townhomes.
Mr. Prowdy questioned if the rezone process could be streamlined and stated that even though the
lot sizes and units per acre were conservative, none the less, he is in favor of moving this
recommendation on for approval.
Mr. Sattetstmm stated if a property owner has existing MR-G zoning which allows 16 units per acre,
condominiums can be developed in that zone at 16 units per acre and in MR-M zoning,
condominiums or apartments can be developed at 23 units per acre. The MR-T zoning does not
propose to change that.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff believes that the MR-T zoning constitutes a form of multifamily
zone because the density of 12 units per acre is more than would be permitted in any of the City's
single family zones. He stated that generally you would not find 12 units per acre in a detached
configuration.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the intent of the MR-T zone is to treat it as a multifamily zoning. He
-stated that the unique feature of the MR-T zone requires that development in that district must
provide affordable owner occupied condominiums.
i
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 11
Mr. Satterstrom stated that he would beseech the Board to not remove the distinction of a
multifamily zoning district from the MR-T zone, even though single family could be constructed
within this zone. Mr. Satterstrom reiterated the criteria for siting of condominium development He
stated that the MR-T zoning would be applied to property through the rezoning process and if the
conditions of the rezone retrain consistent with the comprehensive plan, than there would be no need
to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment.
Mr. Satterstrom stated thatdirect access to arterial streets is a criteria not a requirement He stated
that the crucial factor in evaluating a proposed rezoned site is to allow the Hearing Examiner and
City Council to see that trUMc patterns accessing these sites do not generally run through single
family areas adversely aff&ting these neighborhoods.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion
carried.
Communication ensued at length between Mr. Dowell and Mr. Satterstrom concerning changes to
the PUD ordinance and if ap result,the changes would require a comprehensive plan amendment in
September, which Mr. Sattjerstrom replied in the negative.
Mr. Harmon stated that thii condominium zoning ordinance has been brought about from the last
comprehensive and zoning change requests that were held in October and November of 1998
pertaining to two properties, one on Pacific Highway South and one on East Hill.
Mr. Harmon stated that thej Board looked at the requests and were informed by the applicants that
if a townhouse ordinance w! as implemented, that the applicants voice interest in constructing a
townhome development. Mr. Harmon stated that the rezone requests moved forward to the City
Council, the Council looked at them and decided to table the requests because they did not want to
deny the applicants the opportunity to build.
Mr. Harmon stated that the Board was given direction from the Council Committee members to
proceed with establishing a kownhouse condominium zoning ordinance, in order to allow the Pacific
Highway and East Hill projects to proceed.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that #f a MR-T zoning district is created, the Council has the option to bring
the two amendments that were tabled back for consideration. The Council has the option to approve
them as proposed, deny thejtn or apply a new zoning district like the MR-T.
Board member Terry Zimmlerman stated that she agrees with a number of the speakers that 12 units
per acre are not sufficient densities to provide affordable housing. She stated her concurrence with
several speakers that a density of 16 units per acre would be appropriate.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 12
Ms. Zimmerman stated that she agrees with Mr. Lieper in that staff needs to consider allowing three
story height limitations where garages could be built underneath. She stated that Kent has quite a
bit of sloped property that could accommodate a three story high condominium.
Ms. Zimmerman stated that she disagrees with the stipulation that condominium sites are required
to be located adjacent to or provide direct access to the site from an arterial. She voiced her concern
that this condition is generated by City Council concerns that residential neighborhoods will not
disapprove of multifamily projects being accessed on their residential streets.
Ms.Zimmerman stated that she would recommend that the access issue needs to be addressed further
either by public process or through Mr. Harris's administrative ability. She stated that a lot of
developable property is not directly located on arterial streets.
Ms. Zimmerman voiced her opposition to the rezone criteria 92 regarding locating the proposed
rezone site near transit stops and commercial services. She stated that this theory is not feasible, as
it seems that transit and commercial follow development and not the other way around.
Sharon Woodford stated that the MR-T zoning does not seems to apply to MR-G or above, as there
is no benefit for higher density. Ms.Woodford questioned if implementing an additional MR-T zone
would address incentives for higher density multifamily to encourage them to develop townhouses.
Ms. Woodford stated with an additional zoning,you could have a townhouse ordinance for single
family residents and one for the higher density multifamily with differing regulations.
Ms.Woodford suggested rephrasing the rezone criteria-I"r1 on Page six of the staff report to read"that
the proposed rezoned site is adjacent to or has close access to an arterial street to ensure that the
traffic accessing the MR-T development does not disrupt single family residential neighborhoods."
Ms. Woodford spoke in favor of the concept of allowing for two or three entrances into a
development as long as it was not disruptive.
Mr. Dowell stated that citizens, staff and members of the board provided a lot of good information.
He questioned if the Board was really ready to move forward with a decision. Mr. Dowell voiced
concern that he hoped the Board would not base their decision on the benefit of two pieces of
property close to Des Moines as it would not be a fair or justifiable reason.
Mr. Dowell stated that he would recommend tabling this issue for firrther evaluation with staff based
on testimony given. He stated that he feels more time is needed to refine a plan that would better
address affordable housing.
Ron Harmon stated that he had a couple issues, one of which were the additional standards in
reference to filing of the condominium plats. Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Satterstrom to address this
issue.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 13
Mr. Satterstrom stated that ailing of the condominium plat could be a limitation that may have to be
changed. He stated that the;City wants to make sure that the condominium plat is indeed filed and
that the city is not creating tpwnhouse rental units. Mr. Satterstrom stated that if in conferring with
the City Attorney's office the filing of the condominium plat proves to be a limitation, staff may
propose that filing occur prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, at which point the project
would be built.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff would favor language where the City completes the final sign off
of the condominium plat at';the time the certificate of occupany is issued.
Mr. Satterstrom in addressi#tg the Board's density concerns stated that if 12 units per acre are too
limiting in its application, Oiere is nothing to prevent the Board from recommending a secondary
type of district. He cautioned the Board that staff feels this district is fine the way it is written.
Mr. Harmon voiced concern that a higher density zoning district may be approved by the Board but
be denied by the Council as the public seems opposed to more multifamily apartment complexes and
structures of that size. W. Marmon stated that he supports staff s recommendation for 12 units per
acre in the MR-T zone.
W.Harmon stated that a tralffic mitigation study is currently in progress regarding the issues of who
is going to pay for the new traffic corridors. Mr. Harmon questioned the possibility that if
developers were allowed to provide access to their condominium sites through existing residential
neighborhoods in lieu of b�ing restricted to arterials streets, this could cut cost substantially for
developers in not having toj pay for road way improvements.
Mr. Harmon voiced concern that traffic should not be allowed to travel through single family
neighborhoods and propose wording that would indicate this. Mr. Harmon felt that placing a
development near transit stmps could prove difficult but indicated that locating a development near
commercial services was imperative.
Mr. Satterstrom proposed rephrasing the additional rezone criteria #1 to say "That the proposed
rezone site is adjacent to or has convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic
accessing the MR-T deelopment minimizes the disruption to single family residential
neighborhoods."
Mr. Harmon acknowledged Mr. Dowell's concern in reference to his desire that the Board should
accumulate more information but stated that he felt the Board needs to move on this issue as quickly
as possible.
Steve Dowell MOVED to table this issue which died for lack of a second.
Ron Harmon said that he agrees with the motion as stated with the exception that he would like to
see the density remain at 121 units per acre and changed his view from a two story high limitation to
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 14
three story height limitation to provide for a garage underneath. The cut through limitation is
acceptable. He felt that locating a development close to transit should be stricken from the motion,
and after reconsideration stated that the rezone criteria "...near commercial services' should
additionally be stricken from the motion.
Sharon Woodford stated that she disagrees with retaining"...near commercial services"as that leaves
a lot to interpretation. She stated that "near" could be defined as three blocks or three miles and
would be hard to defend.
Ms. Zimmerman spoke at length about studying this issue further. She stated that the Board has
previously had the option to bring forward revisions for the PUD. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the
Board choice not to address the PUD issues but rather to bring the condominium issue before the
Board in order to revisit the PUD issue and study this issue in more depth. Ms. Zimmerman stated
that she would like to address smaller lot sizes as well as infill into the downtown area with single
family residents developed on smaller lots. _
Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would like the Board to make it their task over the next year to
develop affordable housing concepts. Mr. Dowell stated that if the PUD ordinance were brought
back for further study, he would vote in favor of implementing the MR-T zoning district
Sharon Woodford stated that she favors sixteen units per acre but believes that it would not pass at
City Council at this time, therefore, she will concur with what ever the Board chooses.
Sharon Woodford stated that she supports the option for allowing three story condominiums
development. She stated that with all the hills in Kent, three-story construction could be
accomplished without the development appearing too tall. Ms. Woodford concurred with Mr. Leiper
in noting that the location for such zoning shall be completely compatible and in harmony with the
surrounding areas citing that if you are in a single story, single family residential area, it would not
seem appropriate to build a three story townhouse.
Terry Zimmerman stated that she does not support 12 units per acre, but concurred with three story
heights. She stated that we have an obligation to pass on to Council the response that we have
obtained from the community through the course of the public hearing and she did not hear anyone
speak in favor of 12 units per acre.
Ron Harmon stated that he would like to see a recommendation proposed tonight that could be
passed on to the City Council and approved. He stated that the Board members are appointed and
not elected officials. He stated that Planning staff is the Board's ears and eyes and emphasized that
Planning staff has as much knowledge in reference to moving this recommendation forward as the
developers setting in the audience. Mr. Harmon suggested that the Board look fervently at staff s
recommendation.
4
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 15
Fred Satterstrom asked for the Board to clarify if their motion is in favor of the 12 units per acre
density and includes the new,height limits of three stores restricted solely to townhouse as defined.
Ms. Zimmerman concurred.;
Mr. Sarterstrom stated that irl terms of changing the language change pertaining to the filing of the
Condominium plat and issuapce of the certificate of occupancy; Mr. Satterstrom asked if staff could
have some latitude with cootdinating the timing issue.
Terry Zimmerman MOVED land Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staff s recommendation
of ZCA-99-5 Condominium!Zoning Strategies with the additional changes as noted:
• That the maximum density units per acre be changed from 12 units per acre to 16 units per acre.
• That the height limitations be extended to three stories.
• That the underlined langlIiage be added to the rezone criteria#1 to read as: "the proposed rezone
site is adjacent to or has,dire ef convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic
accessing the A,2-T der elopment o minimises the disruption to single
family residential neighs orhoods."
• That the rezone criteria#2 stating`The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit
stops and commercial services"be struck from the recommendations.
• That for legal purposes!the following addition be made that filing of the condominium plat
should occur prior to or concurrently with the issuance of the occupancy permit.
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9G20 pm.
ectfully Submitted,
J es P. Ham
Secretary
i
/-1 L-i7 i V i
Sec 15.04.020. Residential Land Uses.
a
Zoning Districts
Key
P■Principally Permitted Us"
;e3 V
S a Special Uses
Y yy
cwonaI Usesn s g
AifsoryUses
s
w32
IC I
tt c .''6 '7 ie a r U
. Q 4'Lk
7 o
a' N N M N N
U2 COD
one sngl►fenely dweding per let I P P P P I P I P P I P I ► ( P I P I I I P I P ! I Iw11I Kt)h1)h1)I
one seems w We P I I I I I I I I I
or traodetar home Per We P P P I P P P P P P P ►
IbPlem I I P P I P I I I I I I
Wtftlfaady deleeNg. 1 1 ► P ► I P P I I I I I I Inn
lhdygellly dansmngs ter endor emens I I I I I I I PM P P II I PM I PM I I II I I
Moww hmeo and al/rfadorM heesH I I P I I I I !
rdah0e heir palb I (� (P I(n (r p I i
Grew heaves daes 6A P P P P P P P I P P P P P P I P P P C C C C P I
Grmrp here ease�8 P P P P P P r P C C C C P I
GrMEbonver daaa FC I I I I I c c ► P I P P P P c c c ±Cp
caseM I Icccc c c c c c c cI I
dRWM"dos M1e I I I c cicic IcIcIcic c cIc cIc
Grum Mom CassaC I I I c c c cI IcIcIcIc c cIc c c I !
Group hones dug Is I I I I I I I I I I Icicicic cicic cic
Rebuidjactmery uses for eamm"I I )III I ( I I I (P16)I P(6)I P(q I P(6)I (P(6)1 P(611 p(l)I P(6)I P(6)I Pill I P(s)I P(6)I PI6)I P(61
Translmonal hrsmq I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pm I Pm l I I I I
Guest coeages and houses I A(6)I All)I A(v)( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A(l)I I I
Roanung and hoarding or not more Nan I I I A l A 1 A I A A A I A A I A I I
. time pe sMs
Farm woraar accorerrooallens I(n I M)I I A)
Accessory esH and ouddla6s I A I A IA A l A A I A A I A I A I A I A I I A I A I A I A I A I A A A I A I A A I A I A I A
customm" aPpurunam to a Parasites (11)
use
Accessory.wlteig rra I(A 1 A IAI A A I AIA I I A I IAI I I I " i I i I I i
,e) (t" 1101 (to) (sl I10) (e) (o) (g) f1e) (� (11" (q1
Accessory WWI euamars I I I I I I I IIA I A I A I A A) A I AIA A l A A � I A I A I A
14) (14) Ito) (�) ha 116) (16) (16) 114) ( ) (iQ ( 1 1141 (14) (141
Home ocaros"ne I " I I "1 A Al " f ")I "(tt)I "pt)I "(t)Ipt)" IAI
(tt (nl
Ser,nn Wdinge I "
Storage huudrngs and storage el I A I A I A I A l A I " ( A I A I A I A A I A
recreational eehldes (16) (16) 06) It6) (,6) (1L) (16) (q Itq (16) (16) I I I l
enYR11H: rNlart facames: C C C C C C e e e e C e l e e e I e C e I G C C I C e e C c I,
d1Yle11H. letirem.nI homes. I I I I Its I I I
ieanl homes and Amer rdiary
rhener ;m or ouhucly
000raleo. farditiH rer "naodaation or I 1 ! I I ( I I I I I I I I I ! I 1
Sec. 15.04.060. Transportation.Public and Utilitics Land Uses.
Zoning Olstficts
)nncipagy PermiCad Uses .s
Special Us" 'C ' w
Y
C m Conditional Uses y � �
A a Accessory Uses g�P
o: Cr n V —. .�.•
2 IOU
l
2M :31 '
Cj
C W W 9 W 1V R b w
Qa Y
K a t N N N N
< < w w w w w 3 i V 8 O ?S V O Z v
Ceaenedal 0+109 bb ar memim I I I I I I I C C '
TronaPed2l"ace trance fadwas C C C C C C C C C I C C I C C C C C C C C I C C C C C C ►tt1 C
Ww"sad has de"m tad made I C I C
U>I dclum C C C C j C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Oambl K*sbd r.polo"or
rerAmn drAmo ferum trsasndeslee of
wsw gas.manpoaalma mm
POIC is Mm F Mrsm Pella C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C f C C C C C C C C C C C
ozdw&®Mee and NMW= ace
elllm of 9waawedw semades.p k=
and semadarysdweM.waWnsl -
edwda ad m9e9a
`=eeryearsadM98n9s A A A I A A A A A A A I A A JAIAIAIAIAIAIAI A I A I A I A I A zoo
o mly ea snfaootIn s Persilhd
r �
O
`Sec. 15.04.090. Service Land Uses.
Zoning Districts
K
P a Principaly Permitted Uses
S f Special Uses a v'
C e Conddlonal Uses s 5
cessory Uses
or 32
32
j�j 3 wY
_ 0: _ _
Y
Cc
a � a
2 y S M w Sa 4� 4 '' O 0
_ ^ N e7 e C e9 2' O"O�'' y� ULU
N C S
< < iCC iCC h N Ot ot S'. i 2 U (� 8 •� U v N i
Fetwca,inseeade6Mal estate serseca III I I III ' I�I ' ' I ' I ' ' ' ' I'°°I 'P)
Perseaal seeneos:lamWrr dry laundw salsas: Wsrawq: I I I I I I I P P P P I ► I C 1 Pm
oa Poll !poll
raer, as:sh«MOW,
11onaana I I I I I I I P P C I I►P)
Nerve dey den I P I P I P I P I P I P P I P P I P I. P P P P P P P P P ( P P P ► ► • ► ► P
Day can nntst I C I C I C I C C I C I C I C I P P I P I P P P P P P P P P P I P P P P P P P
lusinas svtica,dsWlatwq and slw 1 P P P P P P P PM r
p m"L trsM apse"and enpMy east"soda
edlm.9 ma;atexawo and pose monad I I I I I P I P P I P P Pm
Oatdow Uses"Omd"gtrsdt.Mosey I• I I P I-P A A A A A /
--- squi►sslt and mstramvtsssayeyaw"
a alaeed by Oenelepatest Stasdands
Sections mom"a tL"O) �
toetdtenaadtaele 11 I 1 1 1 I I. I .I .P P P P P FM
b famila Iilll IIIillll ` I ' I " I Is
Idose, rvtea:rialW.Tv:ekeptat I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' Pn ' I I " I I I ' I ' I'°° I�
tlsG�ttr,upltdstsry
l Pmt andeoorhas t mn,.�ed,.�a IIII I I I I I I I i l l I ' I ' I I ' " I ' I I ' "(�I I'rn
Mee.,eaetpdYet was TrwA Ranaav I I I I I 1 i l l l l l l I I I I PIP I P I I I C I P l
S
and laeosmsatl P>een9 I ( I I I I I I I I I I ( r"I
P I P r7I r7pm pm I P I
l a�Eew dseaury I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I ' ' ' I ' I I ' I ' IFMI I'm
I cNarwas IS101 IS(a)IS(a)IS(+lIS(allS(allsla)ISIpIsp)IS(4)1 I S(d1ISwI IS(4) I S(glSµ)IS(d)1 I
paWro )) )
"miumn"t and eanal effkn I P (S� P I P I C P I P I P I ► P ►(a trn
gena7sl
Munumpdsade and Immildctg' �(„ (131 1 P I P �(, P(1 t IM
Rosearts,deeelopnrrt and lesony I I I I I I I I I I I I I P P • P P RA
Planned owfin e.d Read sales I I I I I I I I I I I I Cm
A=mary uses;&ad buildingsA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
mseommmy appurtenant to a paemded JAMI
I I I
I I ( I I I(tl) (111 (isl Al(is) its)I(11) (11)
use
isonfing trades m"o a and Oteeael I I ` I I I I I I I I ` I I `
Vrtadnary trio and retennary aosodats I I C I I I I I I I I I I I P(s)I I I I P(v1 Pm I P(i) C i I
d Wr ttie ePndo -d sat IndU gls.nlelt I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( P I I I I I P I P ( P I ,
C..� s modtmW end necessary to the I I I I I I I ( A I A I A I I I I I I I I I I
nndu=al a pnnapairy ptm om use
,A
Sec. 15.O4.110. Cultural, Entertainment i<nd Recreation Land Uses.
Zoning Olstncts
P s Principally Permitted U$as _ v
S•Special Uses c S
C•Conditional Uses y 31 3 . `
A a Accessory Uses • y
r C _
I � $P ti
a Y ¢ UA
s 2 n € L33�
C ¢ v _ It
Lj
V7 N to V7 2
Petrmng Ins— wl ea wee.wed I I I I I I P(1) P P I P P I P I P I I Pltl
r an gallenea end sanses
VAIROM and neernen sans I I I I I I I P ISI I I I
Pebss aowlMy pedeer>:eoans faolatee P P P P I m PO Pm Pit)
eenu;sudlesms and whets w lase.
beWesasemdanow"k gpdslW, cm
Mon.aresrsp dale:elderk
dabs:naeMlen aterrs:abler+
IadudWg fdwM ladsseel
PWse wen—I leee•erk Peirpounds P P
and assawkws parks:two"awns:
sowde 11411411: low geKxt
bada:dawie skews:ec
goes yc Cemm�td owls. C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P(I) PM PF) C Pm C C C C C
ptl aseraes ad abler C C C C C
Ivan s swedead Naawft
EegwW r.aeewn weal I i I I I I I I A A I A I A
Pnrab dubs,ftW"(edges.arc ICICICI CI CI CI CI CI CIC CI CI IC IC C CIC C C6- CIt: CIt: t:- t: C
Reasa0enal.own oesa I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l i l I C I I P
aw>bwartM+aosrtm+et to a P I A I I A y1 I A ( A I A I A I A I A A I A I I A I A I A A I A I A I A I A I A I A ( A I A A ( A JAOJ
we
Rocrawane bv"ngs a,W4P I I I I l t l l l l l IAI
�r—
�f
' ZONING i I5.U9 050
and zoning map amendments may be plywood face generic notice board, to
heard by the planning commission and be issued by the city planning depart- -
city council. ment, and as follows: The applicant
shall apply to the city for issuance of
2. Amendments to the text of this title
may be initiated by resolution of inten- the notice board, and shall deposit
lion by the planning commission. with the city planning department the
amount of sixty dollars ($60.00). The
3. Official zoning map amendments (re- applicant shall be responsible for place-
zones),including the application of the ment of the notice boards in one (1)
"C" suffix,may be initiated by applica- conspicuous place on or adjacent to the
tion of one(1) or more owners, or their property which is the subject of the
agents, of the property affected by the application at least fourteen (14) days
proposed amendment, which shall be prior to the date of the public hearing.
made on a form prescribed by the plan- Planning department staff shall post
ning department and filed with the laminated notice sheets and vinyl in-
planning department. The application formation packets on the board no later
shall be submitted at least forty-five than ten(10)days prior to the hearing.
(45) days prior to the next regularly Upon return of the notice board in good
scheduled public hearing date,and shall condition to the planning department
be heard by the hearing examiner by the applicant, forty-five dollars
within one hundred (100) days of the ($45.00) of the initial notice board de-
date of the application; provided, how- posit shall be refunded to the appli-
ever,that this period may be extended cant.
in any case for which an environmen- 7and
and criteria for granting a re- =
tal impact statement is required. rezone. The following standards
B. Public hearing.The hearing examiner shallta shall be used by the hearinghold at least one (1) public hearing on anyand city council to evaluate aproposed amendment, and shall give notice r rezone. Such an amendment
thereof in at least one(1)publication in the shall only be granted if the city council
local newspaper at least ten(10)days prior determines that the request is consistent
to the public hearing. with these standards and criteria-
1. Notice shall be given to all property 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
owners within at least two hundred
(200)feet and,when determined by the 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent
planning director, a greater distance development of the site would be com-
from the exterior boundaries of the patible with development in the vicin-
property which is the subject of the ity'
application- Such notice is t0 be sent The -ImpOsedd rezone will not kindV)y
ten (10) days prior to the public hear- burden the transportation system in
ing. The failure of any property owner the vicinity of the property with signif-
to receive the notice of hearing will not icant adverse impacts which cannot be
invalidate the proceedings. mitigated.
2 Public notices shall be posted in one(1) 4. Circumstances have changed substan-
conspicuous place on or adjacent to the tially since the establishment of the
property which is the subject of the current zoning district to warrant the
application at least ten (10) days prior proposed rezone.
to the date of the public hearing. Pub- 5. The proposed rezone will not adverseiy
lic notice shall be accomplished through affect the health, safety and general
use of a four (4) foot by four (4) foot welfare of the citizens of the city. ,d
Stepp No IS 1288.i
Item 10
Public Works/Planning Committee
912/99
#STV-98-4 32nd Ave. South
Street Vacation
Recommended Motion:
I move that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend
that the request to vacate a portion of 32" Avenue South as
mentioned in Resolution 1542 and shown on the accompanying
map, be denied based on the reviews of Public Works, Planning,
Police, Fire, and Parks Departments as well as Puget Sound
Energy and King County METRO Transit Division.
t .r f,
c,rY of �.�
,xvtct� .Tim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FA\i253) 856-6454
James P. Harris. Planning Director
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
July 6, 1999
MEMO TO: MAYOR JLM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO VACATE
A PORTION OF 3211d AVENUE SOUTH — STV-99-4
RECONINIENDATION: DENIAL
I. Name of Applicant
Highline Water District
P.O. Box 3867
Kent, WA 98032-3867
(206) 824-3867
II. Reason for Requesting Vacation
The applicant states, "This request to vacate the 30 foot wide 32nd Ave. S. will eliminate a
substandard width in an unimproved right-of-way, which is at the present time a refuge
for illegal action. The vacation will reunite properties with common ownership and
provide for future improvements."
III. Back round
The north end of 32nd Avenue South, adjacent to the southbound on-ramp to I-5, was
vacated by the City Council on September 15, 1998.
_20 4ih AVE.SO.. /KENT.k�'.%SHINGTON 9803'_-5595 l TELEPHONE i253t 556-5200
i
MEMO TO: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members
SUBJECT: STV-99-4 !Portion of 32'" Avenue S.
DATE: July 6, 199,9
PAGE:
1V. Staff Recommendation
After reviewing comrttents from the following departments and agencies:
Public Works
Police
Fire
Parks
Puget Sound Energy
King Coutlty METRO Transit Division
and conducting our own review, the Planning Department recommends that the request to
vacate a portion of 3 id Avenue South as mentioned in Resolution 1542 and shown on the
accompanying map, be Denied for the following reasons:
1. The parcels to ithe north of the end of the proposed vacation would lose access to this
public right-of-way even though they have access to 30' Avenue South.
2. If 32"d Avenue South is to be vacated it should be vacated for its entire length since
vacating the south end effectively prevents any future access by properties to the
north and thus is an ad hoc vacation of the entire street.
JPH/mjp:P:\MIS STAFF RPtS\stv994rpt.doc
Enclosures
cc: Fred S. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
r ,
Ismimmosom ■soulsomm■som■som ■ mom ■ OWN■WER■MENdGENGGEMosss■sssegsg■+
PROPOSED STREET VACATION �
115 q- STV 99-4
0 a� SOUTH PART OF 3?ND AVE. S. t
AREA TO BE VACATED
O r--- L
MEMO
aQ �.
O I IJJ� ^01
CIO
r O M a 4
y �ti
O _
C7 O I
1 3 s —
UN
Q z _
�a0--- o00 �•�
-----------------
-------------
-
....
-
c
--- _
C
Io0
— SOUTH 240TH STREET
Ems;' ❑ jo � ( fLn�—
CITY OF "L��
Jim White, Mayor
IN V ICTA
Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454
James P.Harris,Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
July 19, 1999
MEMO TO: TIM CLARK, CHAIR AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING — PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: KATHERIN JOHNSON, HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
(ICA) FOR YEARS 2000—2002
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT JOINT AGREEMENT FOR
YEARS 2000 —2002
ENTITLEMENT
• Background
The U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires cities to sign an Agreement as a
condition of receiving federal funds, which are used to benefit low and moderate income people. The
City's current three year Interlocat Cooperative Agreement with King County expires at the end of
1999. To continue our participation in the King County Consortium and receive federal pass through
dollars for the next three years the City will need to sign a new ICA with King County (attached).
However, the Seattle HUD office has indicated to staff that Kent may be eligible in year 2000 to
receive Entitlement status, which is based on a population of over 50,000, housing conditions and the
percent of low and moderate income people residing in the City. They have indicated that a
determination will be made in July or August. If Kent is invited by HUD to become a Entitlement
City, then there are several more options to consider: 1) Accept the Entitlement with the City being
responsible for administering the Community Development Block Grant Program, or 2) Accept the
Entitlement, but sign a Joint Agreement with King County and they would continue to administer the
program. Kent would remain as part of the Consortium. This is similar to the City of Federal Way's
agreement with King County.
King County has given us two options to consider by August 4, 1999. The first is a continuation of our
current ICA, with only minor changes and the second option is through a Joint Agreement with King
County that states that Kent would receive the higher of a Pass-through amount or a HUD Entitlement
amount.
. Because the deadline for King County does not coincide with HUD's notification process for new
entitlements, staff is presenting all of the options at this time.
2204th AVE.SO., /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
CDBG Interlocal (ICA) and Joint Agreement 2002-2002 & Entitlement
July 19, 1999
Page 2
Recommended Action
1. Recommend approval of the 2000 — 2002 Community Development Block Grant Interlocal
Agreement,
and
2. Recommend approval of the 2000 — 2002 Community Development Block Grant Joint
Agreement,
or
3. Accept the invitation from HUD to become an Entitlement City
4. Forward this consideration to the full City Council for consideration at its August 3Td meeting
authorizing the Mayor to sign the Community Development Interlocal Agreement and the Joint
Agreement or accept HUD invitation to become an Entitlement city.
• KJ\pm\P:\Human Services\CDBGlcdbgica.doc
ena Community Development Block Grant Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
Community Development Block Grant Joint Agreement
Summary of Changes to CDBG and HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreements for 2000-2002
cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director
Katherin Johnson,Human Services Manager
Carolyn Sundvall,Planner
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between King County and the City of
said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government in
the State of Washington.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the federal government through adoption and administration of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (the "Act"),will make Community
Development Block Grant("CDBG"), funds available to King County, for expenditure during the
2000-2002 funding years; and
WHEREAS, the area encompassed by unincorporated King County and any participating
cities, has been designated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
("HUD"), as an urban county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county the annual
appropriation of CDBG funds based on the population characteristics of the urban county; and
WHEREAS, the Act allows joint participation of units of general government within an
urban county, and a distribution of CDBG funds to such governmental units; and
! WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations require the.acceptance of the consolidated housing
and community development plan ("Consolidated H&CD Plan")by participating jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, King County will undertake CDBG-funded activities in participating
incorporated jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated H&CD Plan by granting funds to those
jurisdictions to carry out such activities; and
WHEREAS, King County is responsible to the federal government for all activities
undertaken with CDBG funds and will ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King
County is required to submit to HUD with the annual Action Plan will be met; and
WHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdictions are committed to targeting
CDBG funds to ensure benefit to low- and moderate-income persons as defined by HUD; and
z
aqt oleoolrg ll!m aaluwwoD suo►lupuowwooag luiof ogl 'spunj g9nonl1-ssgd iTagl
jo litd Aluo oleoollg of sasoogo Al!o gSno.nll-ssed mou oglj1 -Gf1H o1 sloalold
• posodold gu111?wgns 1oj pug spun] oql guileoollu 1oj alnpogos s,urnrasosuoD oql
laow ugo Al!o ag11ag1agM uo pug pagiluapt angq Xogl spaau gorgm uo 1luipuodop
`spun] pglideo to saorn.ras oilgnd nagl Aluo aleoolle put 112nonll-ssgd luil and
g axtl 0110 'spun] Magi pt altoopg pug g2norg1-ssgd alrlua aql w1,91 0110010 Auw
41[o oql `A11D gifnonll-ssgd t saw000q 1r.moA umiSoid lslrj oql alojoq lluj oql uI 'b
!kj!o g2non;1-ssgd r uoaq Aagl peq uopr-nsiulu pe
ouu Suniuu*d 10l rlantaoal angq pinom A1lo aql lggem lsual lu aq of lunoum
NOW,THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED THAT:
I. GENERAL AGUEMENT
King County and leach participating jurisdiction agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist
in undertaking, activities which further the development of viable urban communities,
including the provision of decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding
economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income, through
community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban
renewal and publijcly assisted housing,funded from annual CDBG funds from federal
Fiscal Years' 20010, 2001, and 2002 appropriations, from recaptured funds allocated in
those years, and Rom any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds..
II. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
The distribution v�ithin the County of CDBG Funds under Title I of the Act shall be
governed by the fallowing provisions, exclusive of the Cities of Auburn, Bellevue, and
Seattle.
A. The amount deeded for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and other federal
programs which benefit the Consortium shall be reserved by the County. This
amount, hereinafter referred to as the administrative setaside, is contingent upon
review by the Joint Recommendations Committee ("the Committee"), as provided in ,
Section VIII(C)(1), and approval by the Metropolitan King County Council, as
provided by $ections XIII(A) and XIII(B).
B. In addition td the administrative setaside referred to in Section II(A), each year 25% of
the public service funds available,not to exceed $300,000,will be subtracted from the
entitlement and reserved for the Housing Stability Program, a public service activity in
support of the affordable housing requirements under the implementation of the state
Growth Man$gement Act(RCW Chapter 36.70A). This public service setaside will be
administered!by the County with input from a working group of the.participating cities
and county sgaff. This public service setaside will be subject to the same percentage of
decrease as the annual public service funds if there are any reductions during the year.
C. Of the grant amount remaining after the setasides referred to in Sections II(A) and
II(B) ("the Adjusted Grant Amount"), any city which is a participant in this Agreement
may be eligible to receive a direct pass-through share ("the pass-through"),provided
that:
1. The city's share of the Adjusted Grant Amount equals $50,000 or more based
uponthe city's percentage of the Consortium's low- and moderate-income persons,
as defined by HUD, or the city's share is less than$50,000 but the city received a
pass-through in the previous year and wishes to continue receiving a pass- .
through;
2. The city participates in developing the Consortium's Consolidated H&CD Plan
by identifying its non-housing community development needs;
3. The city may apply for planning dollars from the County and Small Cities Fund
(defined�in Section II D below)the near prior to acceotinv a Pass-through, the
remaining funds to one or more regional projects benefiting residents of the city
and surrounding area. In any case, the city will continue to receive its planning
allocation; and
5. The participating city agrees to abide by Consortium requirements to receive a
pass-tftrough of CDBG funds or their ability to receive a pass-through will be
revoked. The responsibilities of these pass-through jurisdictions are defined in
Section X. Participating cities may elect not to receive a direct pass-through but
may compete for County and Small Cities Funds, as defined in Section II(D),
below.
D. The funds remaining in the Adjusted Grant Amount after the distribution of the pass-
through funds referred to in Section H(C) shall be referred to as the County and Small
Cities Fund, and shall be allocated on a competitive basis to projects serving the cities
not qualifying to receive or not electing to receive a pass-through, and/or projects
serving the unincorporated areas of the county.
E. If the monies assigned to a project during the period of this Agreement exceed the
actual cost of the project, or if the project is later reduced or canceled, then the excess
monies or recaptured funds,will be recaptured by the County and will be redistributed
as follows:
1. Administrative setaside funds, as defined in Section II(A) and public service
setaside as defined in Section II(B)which are recaptured shall be returned to the
Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and County and Small
Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low- and moderate-
income persons, as defined by HUD.
2. Funds recaptured from a project funded through a city's pass-through fund, as
defined in Section II (C), shall be returned to the city's pass-through fund, unless
the city no longer qualifies for a pass-through as provided in Section II(C)(1), in
which case the funds shall be returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Funds recaptured from a project funded through the County and Small Cities
Fund, as defined in Section II(D), shall be returned to the County and Small Cities
Fund.
F. Unallocated or recaptured funds from 1987 and prior years (e.g., unallocated or
b
I
dnoio ;IupPoM wntuosuoD 9WOH ag)pue Mld UD!YH Pa3t,PllosuoD ag13o 4
luowdolanap se Bons soss000.td gutuut,ld op!m-umt11osuoO ut o1edioimd33ets A11D '£
put, `.spun3 DgCID 2g13o uot:rquisip agi ioj ss000id OAppadutoo t, suni Alto ags -Z
`.algelt¢A¢ st (auloout utt,i8otd
as provided in Section H(C)(3), in which case the program income shall be
returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Program;income generated from a project (including housing repair) funded
through the County and Small Cities Fund, as defined in Section II(D), shall be
retumed to the County and Small Cities Fund.
4. Programmincome generated from projects funded in 1987 (except for housing
repair) attd prior years shall be returned to the Consortium and be distributed to
the Pass4hrough Cities and the County and Small Cities Funds according to their
share of the Consortium's low- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD.
Housing jrepair program income shall return to the housing repair program.
III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall specify activities and projects
which it will undertake with the funds described in Section II above.
B. The County gnd each of the Pass-through Cities shall ensure that CDBG funds are
targeted to activities which can document predominant(51%)benefit to low- and
moderate-income people and that the overall program meets or exceeds HUD's
requirements'for the percentage of funds spent to benefit low- and moderate-income
persons in King County.
C. Pass-throughCities may exchange their CDBG funds with other Pass-through Cities .
for general to venue funds. The use of general revenue funds obtained by a Pass-
through City un this manner shall be consistent with the general intent of the
community development program,but shall not be considered CDBG program
income.
D. The County gnd each of the Pass-through Cities shall conduct the appropriate citizen
participation activities as required by HUD regulations.
E. Approval of projects must be secured through formal grant applications (proposals) to
King County; approval of activities shall be secured when the annual program is
approved or amended.
F. General administrative costs incurred by Pass-through Cities shall be paid for out of
the pass-through or from local funds. Costs incurred in administering specific projects
may be included in project costs.
IV. USE OF ADMINISTRATION FUNDS
A. A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover
administrative costs of its local CDBG Program or to fund planning projects, however,
this amount roust be reserved by spring of each year and will be based upon the city's ,
proportion of low- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD.
B. In addition to the responsibilities outlined in Section X., Pass-through Cities may use
additional pass-through funds to cover part of their administrative costs if-
1 Planning ceiline (the maximum amount allowed by HUD for olannine and
C. Requests from Pass-through Cities to use the balance of planning ceiling, if available,
to cover additional administrative costs will take priority over requests for planning
projects.
D. Pass-through City staff who are supported with administrative funds would also be
expected to assist in preparing and/or presenting information to the Committee.
V. USE OF PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDS
A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover public service
activities; however, the amount must be reserved by spring of each year and will be based
upon the city's proportion of low- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD.
VI. PROGRAM INCOME
A. The participating jurisdiction must inform King County of any income generated by
the expenditure of CDBG funds received by the participating jurisdiction.
B. Any such program income is subject to requirements set forth in Section II(G) of this
Agreement.
C. Any program income the participating jurisdiction is authorized to retain may only be
used for eligible activities in accordance with all applicable CDBG requirements.
D. King County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of
any such program income and thereby requires appropriate recordkeeping and
reporting by the participating jurisdiction as stated in the signed certification to receive
"Pass-through City" status and in each city's contract to receive CDBG planning and
administration funds.
E. In the event of close-out or change in status of the participating jurisdiction any
program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in
status shall be paid to King County Consortium.
VII. REAL PROPERTY
9
t
•(anoge 9•0•II uorloaS 30) g9nonl1-ssed
legiad 8 Aluo axe) o)sasoogo AI!D g2norg1-ssed mou Imp3T spun3 s,Xijo gSnonll
-ssed Mau AtMJO'apuieu DJ aq) uro.y frt pPU 13.103 sloafo.ld puaullu0oai pue maiAag •9
'63V 2111 I0 Rnl u011o24z III Damone sP.l mrAnid
VIII. JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE
A Joint Recomme4dations Committee shall be established.
A. Composition., The Committee shall be composed of four County representatives and
five Cities representatives. The four County representatives may be representatives of
Department Directors or their designees, and/or citizen representatives of
unincorporated communities. County representatives shall be specified in writing and
should, where possible,be the same person consistently from meeting to meeting. The
five participatf ing city representatives and their alternates will include city planning
directors or comparable level staff, or elected officials. Two city representatives and
their alternate's will be from the northeast region of the County and two city
representatives and their alternates will be from the south region of the County. An
additional revplving position on this Committee shall be rotated between the HOME-
only cities of 4ubum and Bellevue. The revolving position will be non-voting, except
on issues related to the King County HOME Consortium and other federal housing-
related funds (excluding CDBG).
B. Apnoinntm� The King County Executive shall appoint the four County
representatives (no more than one representative per unincorporated community or
Department). The Suburban Cities Association will select eight different jurisdictions,
four to serve as members and four as alternates, which in turn,will assign
representatives to this Committee. Priority for one of the positions will be for a small
city representative. The revolving HOME position will be appointed annually by the
respective jurisdiction. Members of the Committee shall serve for two years, or at the
pleasure of their respective appointing authorities.
The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committee shall be chosen from among
the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the members for a term of one
year beginning the first meeting of the calendar year. Attendance of five members will
constitute a quorum.
C. Powers and Duties. The Committee shall be empowered to:
1. Review and recommend to the King County Executive all policy matters on the
Consortium's CDBG and HOME Program including the amount of administrative
setaside, priorities governing the use of the public services setaside, and projects
or progr*ns to be funded with the program income from community development
interim loans and Section 108 loan guarantees (as allowed in Section 108 of the
Act).
2. Review, recommend, and endorse the Consolidated H&CD Plan required by
HUD.
3. Review plan and program disagreements between the County and participating
jurisdictions and offer recommendations to the King County Executive.
4. Review and recommend sanctions to be imposed on cities for failure to meet
responsibilities as contained in Section X of this Agreement. Any recommended
sanctions will ensure that the city's low- and moderate-income residents continue
to benefit•. from CDBG funds. Sanctions will be imposed to prevent the King
County Consortium from losing a share of its entitlement due to participating
cities' inability to meet federal requirements.
IX. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF THE KING COUNTY HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAFF
Those King County Housing and Community Development Program Staff positions which
are funded through the administrative setaside, hereinafter referred to as the Staff, serve as
staff to all Consortium partners and the Committee and provides liaison between the
Consortium and HUD.
A. Responsibilities to the Joint Recommendations Committee. The Staff shall:
1. Solicit and present to the Committee all applicable federal and County policy
guidelines, special conditions, and formal requirements related to the preparation
of the Consolidated H&CD Plan, and related to administration of the programs
under these plans.
2. Prepare and present written materials required by HUD and the Metropolitan King
County Council as components of the Consolidated H&CD Plan to be prepared
pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to: collection and analysis
of data; identification of problems, needs and their locations; development of long
and short term objectives; consideration of alternative strategies; and preparation
of the administrative budget.
3. Prepare and present to the Committee policy evaluation reports or
recommendations, and any other material deemed necessary by the Committee to
help the Committee fulfill its powers and duties.
4. Collaborate with city staff working groups and present to the Committee specific
sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their responsibilities as
contained in Section X and as contained in specific annual agreements.
B. Responsibilities to Jurisdictions Which are Parties to This Agreement.
The County will develop strategic plans which will identify community development
and housing needs and strategies to address high priority needs in the balance of the
County in accordance with the primary objectives and requirements of the Act. The
Consolidated H&CD Plan, including.the local program strategies will meet the HUD
requirement for a Community Development Plan. The strategies outlined within the
8
•iauuew dlowtl ¢ ut XjunoD oqt of palliwgns si loe.tluoo v oindaid
of,Vessaoau aotlr[utoJut luEAalat Ile Ivgl amsuo pug `A)unoD oql of uoissiwgns
of loud sluatuolinboi IsiapaJ ioglo putt op!m-umpjosuoD pue sluawaitnbai plogsaltll
• Ie10paJ gltn% ,Coualstsuoo joJ slesodo.td loafoid lla n%atnai llEgs,gzls ACID gSnong-ssed -g
•lauuew Alowil z ul fjunoD otll of popluA io3 oq of a.ta suotloz
osagl Jo aoiloN 3lels Aiio gSnonll-ssad Aq pallnugns sla;Ipnq putt `suopzool 'satliAtloe
DgQO 1[E uoilnlosaa to uopow VIA anoiddestp.to ano.tdde Ilzgs saipoq anileist9al XJ!D '(I
*Clf1H
• . provide assistance in interpreting HUD regulations;
• provide technical assistance to cities as necessary to enable them to meet their
responsibilities as partners to the Agreement;
• assist in the development of viable CDBG proposals;
• review all proposals for CDBG funding;
• inform participating jurisdictions in a timely way of the amount of capital
dollars available for distribution regionally and the requirements regarding
eligibility for them.
• develop contracts for funded projects in a timely fashion; public (human)
services programs have a high priority and will receive authorization to
proceed within 15 working days of the beginning of the program year if all
relevant information needed to prepare the contract has been submitted;
• monitor subrecipient and city-funded projects;
• monitor and enforce compliance with the federal wage and relocation require-
mends;
• reimburse all eligible costs;
• prepare and submit required documents and reports to HUD; and
• provide oversight of the CDBG Consortium to ensure compliance with all
federal requirements.
6. Upon request by a Pass-through City, staff will develop, administer, and
implement a city's CDBG-funded contract. Additionally, multi jurisdictional
projects funded by King County and/or one or more cities will be developed and
implemented by Staff.
7. King County shall determine,with the advice of representatives from small cities,
the use of the County and Small Cities Funds in a manner consistent with the
Consolidated H&CD Plan including its local program strategies.
X. RESPONSIBILIXIES AND POWERS OF PASS-THROUGH CITIES
In order to receive a direct share of the entitlement, Pass-through Cities participating in this
Agreement shall have the following responsibilities and powers:
A. Pass-through City Councils may adopt local strategies which will address community
development and housing needs in coordination with the Consortium's timeline for
consolidated"planning effort and which will be consistent with local comprehensive
plans being developed under the Growth Management Act.
B. Notify the County of the citizen participation activities undertaken by local jurisdic-
tions as well as any changes made by the jurisdiction to funded CDBG activities in a
timely manner as referenced under Section III(D).
C. Each Pass-thkough City shall exercise local discretion in determining the use of its
pass-through funds in a manner that (1) is consistent with the Consolidated H&CD
Plan, (2) recognizes the federal requirement at 24 CFR Part 570.2 that a minimum of
70% of the finds be spent on activities benefiting primarily low and moderate income
F. Pass-through City staff shall assist in the development of the Consortium-wide
Consolidated H&CD Plan which includes housing and other community development
needs, resources, strategies, and adopted projects.
G. Pass-through City staff shall implement CDBG-funded projects within the program
year and submit both vouchers and required reports to the County in a complete and
timely manner.
H. Pass-through City staff shall participate in other Consortium-wide planning activities
such as HOME policy development and monitoring the Housing Stability Program.
I. Pass-through City staff shall collaborate with County staff working group and present
to the Committee specific sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their
responsibilities as contained in this section and as contained in specific annual
agreements.
J. Each Pass-through City shall examine its role in recognizing and addressing regional
or Consortium-wide needs and may participate in a coordinated funding approach with
other jurisdictions and the County to serve their residents.
XI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER CONSORTIUM CITIES
Other Consortium cities must apply for funds through the annual County and Small Cities
application process. The Small Cities shall:
A. Coordinate with County Staff in identifying community development needs and
strategies for addressing them.
B. Prepare applications for CDBG funds to address local needs.
C. Obtain city council authorization for proposed projects.
01
Cut, lt,gl amsuo o1,pt[!gtsuodsai put,A1!1og1nz agi ant,q llggS 'lut,oildde luiotujo
aq1 sg 'SlanoD Sur
A •suopo11 uotlt,ogt[t,na r(lunoD ut,gtn luonbosgns ut luamdolanaQ
ut,q.i fl Put,SutsnoH Jo luaurlredaQ solvIS Paltufl oql Xq quo3 los alt,p oql Aq
pouad uot1t,o3tlt,nb mou oql ut olt,dtottrUd of lou sloolo 1!ootlou u211!1M Saptnoid Alto
oql jo Alunoo oql ssolun 'spouod uotlgathlenb mo,(-aanll 0A[ss000ns ui uotivdtotltt,d
10J p0enaua1,Cgt,31l10tu0lnv oq ll!m luotrraaift stU •pololdwoo sa►ltntlot, papunJ
agl pug popuodxo art, pouad uotl1eo3tlenb m2X-aanll otll Suunp lno pat.ut,o Satltntlot, 01
loadsaa tl)!M pantaoai auroout utt,igold put, spun;OgQD oql plun loa33a ut utt,uta.r Igm
pue 's maA urt,iSoid ZOOZ Put, 'I OOZ 'OOOZ oql gsnosgl pualxa llmis luouraaiSV Stq,I, •y
SMR1 IV119N99 *AIX
D. All participaking units of local government understand that they may not apply for
grants under1he federal Small Cities or State CDBG Programs which receive separate
entitlements from HUD during the period of participation in this Agreement.
Consortium cities which do not receive a direct pass-through of CDBG funds may
apply for grants under the County and Small Cities Fund.
E. All units of local government participating in the CDBG urban county through this
interlocal cooperation agreement understand that they are also part of the urban county
for the HOME program and may participate in a HOME program only through the
CDBG urban county.
XIII. RESPONSIBILIXIES AND POWERS OF KING COUNTYON BEHALF OF THE
CONSORT
King County shall have the following responsibilities and powers:
A. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all policy matters,
including tho, Consolidated H&CD Plan, upon review and recommendation by the
Committee.
B. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all fund allo-
cation matters, including the approval of the annual administrative setaside and the
approval and;adoption of the Consortium's annual CDBG Program.
C. The King Co'4nty Executive shall have the authority and responsibility to approve
requested changes to the adopted annual CDBG Program in the following i
circumstances:
1. The requested change is to a Pass-through City's portion of the adopted annual
program,' and the change is requested by the legislative body of the Pass-through
City; or ,
2. The requested change is in the County and Small Cities portion of the adopted
annual program, and it is limited to a change of project scope or change of project
implemeint or in a specific project, and it is requested by the subrecipient, and the
change is made in consultation with the Councilmember in whose district the
project is located.
D. The King County Executive, as administrator of this CDBG Program, shall have
authority and responsibility for all administrative requirements for which the County is
responsible to the federal government.
E. The King County Executive shall have authority and responsibility for all fund control
and disbursements.
F. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement, the County as the
applicant for(CDBG funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligations as the
applicant in the execution of this CDBG Program, including final responsibility for
selecting activities and annually submitting Action Plans with HUD. Nothing
contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an abdication of those responsi-
bilities and obligations.
property acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance
with federal regulations.
B. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570.307(d)(2),during the period of qualification no included
unit of general local government may terminate or withdraw from the cooperation
agreement while it remains in effect.
C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement the jurisdictions shall agree to comply
with the policies and implementation of the Consolidated H&CD Plan.
D. Parties to this Agreement must take all required actions necessary to assure
compliance with King County's certification required by Section 104(b)of Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended,including Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,(Title III of the Civil Rights Act),the Fair Housing
Act as amended,Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974,as amended,the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,and other
applicable laws.
E. No CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in,or in support of any participating
city that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that
impedes the County's actions to comply with its fair housing certification.
F. It is recognized that amendment of the provisions of this Agreement may become
necessary,and such amendment shall take place when all parties have executed a
written addendum to this Agreement. The city and the county agree to adopt any
amendments to the agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the
requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County Qualification
Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification period,and to submit such
amendment to the United State department of Housing and Urban Development.
Failure to adopt such amendment will void the automatic renewal of such qualification
period.
G. Calculations for determining the number of low-and moderate-income persons
residing in the County and cities shall be based upon official HUD approved 1990
Census data,and on the official annual estimates of populations of cities,towns and
communities published by the State of Washington Office of Program Planning and
Fiscal Management.
H. Participating jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions which have
signed this Agreement.
I. Jurisdictions undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under
this Agreement retain full civil and criminal liability as though these funds were
locally generated.
J. King County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,under which King County
may require the local incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data,
information,and assistance for King County's review and assessment in determining
whether King County must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
11
K. Jurisdictions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act under which King County has review responsibility
only.
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON PARTICIPATING CITY OR TOWN
for Ron Sims Signature of Chief Executive Officer
King County Executive
Date Name and Title(Print)
Name of City or Town
Date
12
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
JOINT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between King County and the City of
said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government in
the State of Washington.
WITNESSETIT:
WHEREAS, the federal government through adoption and administration of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended(the "Act"), will make Community
Development Block Grant("CDBG"), funds available to both the county and city in the form of
entitlement grants; and
WHEREAS, the area encompassed by unincorporated King County and any participating
cities is designated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD")
as an urban county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county the annual
appropriation of CDBG funds based on the population characteristics of the urban county; and
WHEREAS, the Act allows joint agreements, whereby entitlement cities may join the
urban county, and allows the urban county to distribute CDBG funds to such cities as participating
jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations require the acceptance of the consolidated housing
and community development plan ("Consolidated H&CD Plan")by participating jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS,King County will undertake CDBG-funded activities in participating
incorporated jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated H&CD Plan by granting funds to those
jurisdictions to carry out such activities; and
WHEREAS, King County is responsible to the federal government for all activities
undertaken with CDBG funds and will ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King
County is required to submit to HUD with the annual Action Plan will be met; and
WHEREAS,King County and the participating jurisdictions are committed to targeting
.iPgnari by HT TD: and
z
IIulmS pur Xjunoo aql sr of pouajoi oq 11Egs b)II u01100S ui of pauoiai spun3 ugno.np
-ssud oul Jo uoilnqulslp aql logt, lunouiV 1ut,lO palsn fpV oql ui.gutuituia.i spun) oq,L •Q
vAolaq °(Q)n uoiloaS ul pau30p
su `spun3 sa1110 ilumS puu 4unoD jo3 oladu= Diem lnq u8non9-ssed looitp u
antaoaz of lou loaia feu*sauio guil8d" Imd .X uoiloaS ui pou3ap we suotloTpsunf
gdnonp-sszd asoip jo sag!lig1suodsoi oql •spun3 99Qo3o gSno q1-sssci
U antaoai 01 sluauiallnbaz pu-c solnpogos umiposuoD Xq opiqu of saa.12u f4!o oqI •£
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IIN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN, It IS AGREED THAT:
I. GENERAL AGREEMENT
King County and eajch participating jurisdiction agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist
in undertaking, activities which further the development of viable urban communities,
including the provision of decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding
economic opportunities,principally for persons of low and moderate income, through
community renewalland lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban
renewal and publicly assisted housing, funded from annual CDBG funds from federal
Fiscal Years' 2000, 2001, and 2002 appropriations, from recaptured funds allocated in
those years, and fro* any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds..
II. GENERAL DISTEMUTION OF FUNDS
The distribution within the County of CDBG Funds under Title I of the Act shall be
governed by the following provisions, exclusive of the Cities of Auburn, Bellevue, and
Seattle.
A. The amount nedded for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and other federal
programs which]benefit the Consortium shall be reserved by the County. This
amount, hereinafter referred to as the administrative setaside, is contingent upon
review by the Joint Recommendations Committee ("the Committee"), as provided in
Section VIH(C)(1), and approval by the Metropolitan King County Council, as
provided by Se�tions XIH(A) and XIH(B).
B. In addition to the administrative setaside referred to in Section H (A), each year 25%
of the public service funds available ,not to exceed $300,000, will be subtracted from
the entitlement qnd reserved for the Housing Stability Program, a public service
activity in support of the affordable housing requirements under the implementation of
the state Growth Management Act(RCW Chapter 36.70A). This public service seta-
side will be administered by the County with input from a working group of the
participating cities and county staff. This public service setaside will be subject to the
same percentagq of decrease as the annual public service funds if there are any reduc-
tions during the lyear.
year. In addition, any city participating in this Joint Agreement will
have the option of withholding their pro rata share of the Housing Stability Program
funds and alloc4ting them to a different eligible public service activity if the city so
chooses.
C. Of the grant amount remaining after the setasides referred to in Sections II(A) and
II(B) ("the Adjusted Grant Amount"), the city participating in this Joint Agreement
will be eligible to receive a direct pass-through share,provided that:
1. The city's pass-through share will be the larger of a share of the Adjusted Grant
Amount based upon the CDBG Consortium's formula(the city's share of the
Consortium's total low- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD), or
the city's HUD-specified entitlement grant amount less the city's pro rata share of
the Consortium's administrative setaside, and at the city's option (see II. B.
above) less the city's pro rata share of the Housing Stability Program;
2. The city participates in developing the Consortium's Consolidated H&CD Plan
Cities Fund, and shall be allocated on a competitive basis to projects serving the cities
not qualifying to receive or not electing to receive a pass-through, and/or projects
serving the unincorporated areas of the county.
E. If the monies assigned to a project during the period of this Agreement exceed the
actual cost of the project, or if the project is later reduced or canceled, then the excess
monies or recaptured funds,will be recaptured by the County and will be redistributed
as follows:
1. Administrative setaside funds, as defined in Section II(A) and public service
setaside as defined in Section II(B) which are recaptured shall be returned to the
Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and County and Small
Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low- and moderate-
income persons, as defined by HUD.
2. Funds recaptured from a project funded through a city's pass-through fund, as
defined in Section II(C), shall be returned to the city's pass-through fund, unless
the city no longer qualifies for a pass-through as provided in Section II(C)(1), in
which case the funds shall be returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Funds recaptured from a project funded through the County and Small Cities
Fund, as defined in Section II(D), shall be returned to the County and Small Cities
Fund.
F. Unallocated or recaptured funds from 1987 and prior years (e.g., unallocated or
recaptured "Population," "Needs," or"Joint" funds) shall be returned to the
Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and the County and Small
Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low- and moderate-income
persons, as defined by HUD.
G. Funds received by a jurisdiction or CDBG subrecipient generated from the use of
CDBG fiords,hereinafter referred to as program income, shall be returned to the fund
which generated the program income as follows, unless an exception is specifically
recommended by the Committee and approved by the Metropolitan King County
Council:
1. That portion of the program income which is interest or fee income generated
through Community Development Interim Loan (CDIL) and Section 108 loan
.......,.PP hY 11P }C (ne„rnv;dPd in Section 108 of the Act),both of which use all
ti
c H Xq pougap ss `suos1od auloou1-a;s1apou1 pus -mol Jo uopiodold s,,(vo aql uodn
passq aq Ilim pus asaA gosa Jo Suuds Xq paAiasaj aq Isnui Iunowu aqI 'JOA;)Moq `satliA1;3s
aolAsos otlgnd ianoo o;QJBgs Iua1ualT!1ua s;T Jo uopiod s oAiasai Xsuz XiID gSnozgl-ssed d
Z QUNI1d HJ1AHHS OI-JEnd dO dSfl 'A
III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall specify activities and projects
which it will undertake with the funds described in Section II above.
B. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall ensure that CDBG funds are
targeted to activlities which can document predominant(51%)benefit to low- and
moderate-income people and that the overall program meets or exceeds HUD's
requirements fof the percentage of funds spent to benefit low- and moderate-income
persons in KingjCounty.
C. Pass-through Cries may exchange their CDBG funds with other Pass-through Cities
for general revetlue funds. The use of general revenue funds obtained by a Pass-
through City in(this manner shall be consistent with the general intent of the
community development program,but shall not be considered CDBG program
income.
D. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall conduct the appropriate citizen
participation activities as required by HUD regulations.
E. Approval of prof jects must be secured through formal grant applications (proposals) to
King County; a0proval of activities shall be secured when the annual program is
approved or amended.
F. General administrative costs incurred by Pass-through Cities shall be paid for out of
the pass-through or from local funds. Costs incurred in administering specific projects
may be included in project costs.
IV. USE OF ADMIhIIS�RATION FUNDS
A. A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover
administrative costs of its local CDBG Program or to fund planning projects,however,
this amount mu$t be reserved by spring of each year and will be based upon the city's
proportion of lows - and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD.
B. In addition tot responsibilities outlined in Section X., Pass-through Cities may use
additional pass-through funds to cover part of their administrative costs if-
1. Planning ceiling (the maximum amount allowed by HUD for planning and
administration activities which cannot exceed 20% of the annual entitlement plus
program income) is available;
2. The city runs a competitive process for the distribution of the CDBG funds; and
3. City staff participate in Consortium-wide planning processes such as development
of the Consolidated H&CD Plan and the HOME Consortium Working Group.
C. Requests from Pass-through Cities to use the balance of planning ceiling, if available,
to cover additional administrative costs will take priority over requests for planning
prof ects.
D Pass-through CiN staff who are sunnorted with administrative funds would also be
VI. PROGRAM INCOME
A. The participating jurisdiction must inform King County of any income generated by
the expenditure of CDBG funds received by the participating jurisdiction.
B. Any such program income is subject to requirements set forth in Section II(G) of this
Agreement.
C. Any program income the participating jurisdiction is authorized to retain may only be
used for eligible activities in accordance with all applicable CDBG requirements.
D. King County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of
any such program income and thereby requires appropriate recordkeeping and
reporting by the participating jurisdiction as stated in the signed certification to receive
"Pass-through City" status and in each city's contract to receive CDBG planning and
administration funds.
E. In the event of close-out or change in status of the participating jurisdiction any
program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in
status shall be paid to King County Consortium.
VII. REAL PROPERTY
A. Participating jurisdictions owning community facilities acquired or improved in whole
or in part with CDBG funds must comply with change of use restrictions as required
by HUD and the policies adopted by the Committee as found in the Consolidated
H&CD Plan.
B. The participating jurisdiction must notify King County prior to any modification or
change in the use of real property acquired or improved in whole or in part with
CDBG funds. This includes any modification or change in use from that planned at
the time of the acquisition or improvement, including disposition.
C. The jurisdiction shall reimburse King County in an amount equal to the current fair
market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG
funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred
for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations.
-- --M�ncfar of nronertv orior to or
9
911013o ;uaurdolanap 'suoi;eaol hail; puz spaau 'surol4oid jo uoi;eo3T1113pr `.c;Ep io
sisileuz puz n011301103 :o; poll'
rrl;ou;nq Sutpnlout `;uauraar$V str1; o;;rrsnsmd
paredazd aq o;unld QD�BH PaicpllosuoD aq;3o s;uouoduroo su IiounoD iunoD
durx us;TlodouaW aq;pus CM Aq pannbas s[zua;eur uauum;uasard puE aredard Z
s=j2o.rd ar1;3o not;pustur u o 'sunld asoq;iopun
mP 1 pa;�lar pug `utld QDWH Pa;Ep1losuoD au;;o
uor;s,redald ota or n ^1 aTVT7T Q1 TMTTT iir T.w..
1
i
B. Appointments. IThe King County Executive shall appoint the four County
representatives Kno more than one representative for each unincorporated community
or Department),I The Suburban Cities Association will select eight different
jurisdictions, fcor to serve as members and four as alternates, who in turn, will assign •
representatives to this Committee. Terms of office shall be for two years. Priority for
one of the positions will be for a small city representative. The revolving HOME
position will be appointed annually by the respective jurisdiction. Members of the
Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing authorities.
The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committee shall be chosen from among
the members ofthe Committee by a majority vote of the members for a term of one
year beginning Ohe first meeting of the calendar year. Attendance of five members will
constitute a quorum.
C. Powers and Duties. The Committee shall be empowered to:
1. Review anq recommend to the King County Executive all policy matters on the
Consortiu 's CDBG and HOME Program including the amount of administrative
setaside,priorities governing the use of the public services setaside, and projects
or programo to be funded with the program income from community development
interim lows and Section 108 loan guarantees (as allowed in Section 108 of the
Act).
2. Review, recommend, and endorse the Consolidated H&CD Plan required by
HUD.
3. Review plan and program disagreements between the County and participating
jurisdictions and offer recommendations to the King County Executive.
4. Review an recommend sanctions to be imposed on cities for failure to meet
responsibilities as contained in Section X of this Agreement. Any recommended
sanctions Will ensure that the city's low- and moderate-income residents continue
to benefit f#om CDBG funds. Sanctions will be imposed to prevent the King
County Consortium from losing a share of its entitlement due to participating
cities' inabOy to meet federal requirements.
5. Review and recommend projects for funding under the Section 108 loan guarantee
program (a$ allowed in Section 108 of the Act).
6. Review and recommend projects for funding from the remainder of any new Pass-
through Oy's funds if that new Pass-through City chooses to take only a partial
pass-through(cf. Section II.C.6 above).
IX. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF THE KING COUNTY HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAFF
Those King County Mousing and Community Development Program Staff positions which
are funded through the administrative setaside, hereinafter referred to as the Staff, serve as
staff to all Consortium partners and the Committee and provides liaison between the
Consortium and HUD.
A. Responsibilities to the Joint Recommendations Committee. The Staff shall:
and short term objectives; consideration of alternative strategies; and preparation
of the administrative budget.
3. Prepare and present to the Committee policy evaluation reports or
recommendations, and any other material deemed necessary by the Committee to
help the Committee fulfill its powers and duties.
4. Collaborate with city staff working groups and present to the Committee specific
sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their responsibilities as
contained in Section X and as contained in specific annual agreements.
B. Responsibilities to Jurisdictions Which are Parties to This AQxeement.
The County will develop strategic plans which will identify community development
and housing needs and strategies to address high priority needs in the balance of the
County in accordance with the primary objectives and requirements of the Act. The
Consolidated H&CD Plan, including the local program strategies will meet the HUD
requirement for a Community Development Plan. The strategies outlined within the
Consolidated H&CD Plan will be consistent with local comprehensive plans being
developed under the Growth Management Act. The Staff shall:
1. Prepare and present to the King County Executive and Council material necessary
for the approval of the County and Small Cities portion of the annual program.
2. Present to the Metropolitan King County Council the Consortium's annual
program for adoption.
3. Distribute to participating jurisdictions,prior to any JRC decision based upon it,
information concerning proposals having implications for Consortium-wide
funding (cf. section II above). The county will incorporate jurisdictions' feedback
in materials forwarded to the JRC or Metropolitan King County Council.
4. Provide regular written reports outlining the outcomes and costs of the
Consortium wide Housing Stability and economic development programs such
that this information is available for participating jurisdictions'review and
e..♦«v4: . +^4}.n Mr10 Avricinnc nn the nrnornmc' hTlllOetR for the following
8
•sluaptsai.rtagl oA.zos of X4unoD oql puu suopoipsunf impo
gIIM gouoiddu Rurpurg polumpmoo u ur owdioli nd Amu pue spoou opt-urml rosuoD.ro
luu01201 surssozppu Pau 2?uiztu3o3ai ul 010.1 sli auiuruxa llugs XIID g3nosgl-ssud goua -f
•sluouraaau
lunuuu ogtoods ui pouiuluoo su put uoiloas sell ul pauiuluoo su sapIligisuodsoz
irogl pour of ItE3 gwgm soillo uo posodun oq of suopouus ogioods oolltururoD oql of
luasozd put, dnoa 5urxrom3Juls AjunoD gjim oluroqulloo Bugs jjuls AI!D q'3noagl-scud -I
• provide)oversight of the CDBG Consortium to ensure compliance with all
federal tequirements.
6. Upon request by a Piss-through City, staff will develop, administer, and implement a city's
CDBG-funded contract. Additionally, multi jurisdictional projects funded by King County and/or
one or more cities will be d@veloped and implemented by Staff.
7. King Coun y shall determine,with the advice of representatives from small cities,
the use of the County and Small Cities Funds in a manner consistent with the
Consolidated H&CD Plan including its local program strategies.
X. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF PASS-THROUGH CITIES
In order to receive a klirect share of the entitlement, Pass-through Cities participating in this
Agreement shall havle the following responsibilities and powers:
A. Pass-through City Councils may adopt local strategies which will address community
development and housing needs in coordination with the Consortium's timeline for
consolidated planning effort and which will be consistent with local comprehensive
plans being developed under the Growth Management Act.
B. Notify the County of the citizen participation activities undertaken by local jurisdic-
tions as well as any changes made by the jurisdiction to funded CDBG activities in a
timely manner 4 referenced under Section III(D).
C. Each Pass-through City shall exercise local discretion in determining the use of its
pass-through fm�ds in a manner that (1) is consistent with the Consolidated H&CD
Plan , (2)recognizes the federal requirement at 24 CFR Part 570.2 that a minimum of
70%of the fund be spent on activities benefiting primarily low and moderate income
persons, and(3)!is in accordance with the Consortium's schedule for submission to
HUD.
D. City legislative$odies shall approve or disapprove via motion or resolution all CDBG
activities, locati�ns, and budgets submitted by Pass-through City staff. Notice of these
actions are to bel forwarded to the County in a timely manner.
E. Pass-through City staff shall review all project proposals for consistency with federal
threshold requirements and Consortium-wide and other federal requirements prior to
submission to the County, and ensure that all relevant information necessary to
prepare a contract is submitted to the County in a timely manner.
F. Pass-through City staff shall assist in the development of the Consortium-wide
Consolidated H$&CD Plan which includes housing and other community development
needs, resources, strategies, and adopted projects.
G. Pass-through City staff shall implement CDBG-funded projects within the program
year and submit!both vouchers and required reports to the County in a complete and
timely manner.
H. Pass-through Ci;y staff shall participate in other Consortium-wide planning activities
such as HOME�olicy development and monitoring the Housing Stability Program.
XI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER CONSORTIUM CITIES
Other Consortium cities must apply for funds through the annual County and Small Cities
application process. The Small Cities shall:
A. Coordinate with County Staff in identifying community development needs and
strategies for addressing them.
B. Prepare applications for CDBG funds to address local needs.
C. Obtain city council authorization for proposed projects.
D. Carry out funded projects in a timely manner.
XII. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
A. Each participating jurisdiction shall fulfill to the County's satisfaction all relevant
requirements of federal laws and regulations which apply to King County as applicant,
including assurances and certifications described in Section XIV(D).
B. Each participating jurisdiction or cooperating unit of general local government has
adopted and is enforcing:
1. a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies
within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights
demonstrations; and
2. a policy enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring
entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of non-violent
civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions.
C. Pursuant.to 24 CFR 570.501(b), all participating units of local government are subject
to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, excluding the County's Minority
and Women Business Enterprises requirements. The applicable requirements include,
but are not limited to, a written agreement with the County which complies with 24
rPD
01
•uotleo!jq=)Suisnotl neJ sli glim Alduioo of suopoe s,XlunoD oql sapaduil
Jugl.io uoiloipsunf umo sli ui 1!m 2?uisnoil ne3 .tagjng X10Ailt?uuiUJn lou saop leul Alio
Builvdtotl ted Xur jo l toddns ut io `ui soiliAtlou io; popuadxo oq llegs spun3 Og(ID ON 'g
•smel olgeolldde
taglo p `066 i 30 lod sailtligesi(I glfm sueouautV aLl) `papuautE sn `VL613o IoV
IuowdolanaQ X11Muta oD pue guisnog aq1 jo I 011?.L3o 601 uotloaS `papuauze se IoV
Suisnog.ne3 aql `(IoV sillfit2I ItniD agl3o III aPi L) `b96 i 3o IoV slq$i2I itA?D aqI Jo IA
- 9--- i«•�••, `-�a-**�**^? an '+,I<T To II, 'W 1TTa A natjOT20rT fiiunuiLuo'1 AuB RuisnoT-T au1
C. The King Coun Executive shall have the authority and responsibility to approve
requested changos to the adopted annual CDBG Program in the following
circumstances:
1. The requested change is to a Pass-through City's portion of the adopted annual
program, an4 the change is requested by the legislative body of the Pass-through
City; or
2. The requested change is in the County and Small Cities portion of the adopted
annual program, and it is.limited to a change of project scope or change of project
implementor in a specific project, and it is requested by the subrecipient, and the
change is made in consultation with the Councilmember in whose district the
project is located.
D. The King Count Executive, as administrator of this CDBG Program, shall have
authority.and responsibility for all administrative requirements for which the County is
responsible to the federal government.
E. The King Count Executive shall have authority and responsibility for all fund control
and disbursements.
F. Notwithstanding!any other provision contained in this Agreement, the County as the
applicant for CDC G funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligations as the
applicant in the execution of this CDBG Program, including final responsibility for •
selecting activities and annually submitting Action Plans with HUD. Nothing
contained in this lAgreement shall be construed as an abdication of those responsi-
bilities and obligations.
XIV. GENERAL TERMS
A. This Agreement shall extend through the 2000, 2001, and 2002 program years, and
will remain in e4ect until the CDBG funds and program income received with respect
to activities carri d out during the three-year period are expended and the funded
activities compldted. This agreement will be automatically renawed for participation
in successive three-year qualification periods,unless the county or the city provides
written notice thit it elects not to participate in the new qualification period by the date
set forth by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in
subsequent Urban County Qualification Notices. King County, as the official
applicant, shall have the authority and responsibility to ensure that any property
acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance with
federal regulatiotis.
B. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570307(d)(2), during the period of qualification no included
unit of general local government may terminate or withdraw from the agreement while
it remains in effect. 10
C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement the jurisdictions shall agree to comply
with the policies land implementation of the Consolidated H&CD Plan.
D. Parties to this Agreement must take all required actions necessary to assure
compliance withKing County's certification required by Section 104(b) of Title I of
F. It is recognized that amendment of the provisions of this Agreement may become
necessary, and such amendment shall take place when all parties have executed a
• written addendum to this Agreement. The city and the county agree to adopt any
amendments to the agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the
requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County Qualification
Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification period, and to submit such
amendment to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Failure to adopt such amendment will void the automatic renewal of such qualification
period.
G. Calculations for determining the number of low- and moderate-income persons
residing in the County and cities shall be based upon official HUD approved 1990
Census data, and on the official annual estimates of populations of cities, towns and
communities published by the State of Washington Office of Program Planning and
Fiscal Management.
H. Participating jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions which have
signed this Agreement.
I. Jurisdictions undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under
this Agreement retain full civil and criminal liability as though these funds were
locally generated.
J. King County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, under which King County
may require the local incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data,
information, and assistance for King County's review and assessment in determining
whether King County must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
K. Jurisdictions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act under which King County has review responsibility
only.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON PARTICIPATING CITY OR TOWN
Summary of Changes to CDBG and HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreements
for 2000-2002
Two Revisions to HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreement:
1. Appointments to JRC: Corrects misleading statement about Suburban Cities
Association,which has always appointed only the eight CDBG+HONIE cities to the
JRC (four regulars and four alternates) and not the two HOME-only cities. These two
cities—Bellevue and Auburn—automatically rotate membership on the JRC, and are
not appointed by the SCA. In addition, gives County Executive the option of
appointing a citizen representative of unincorporated King County as one of the four
County representatives (the number of county representatives does not change).
2. Term of agreement: Provides for automatic renewal of the 3-year agreement, upon
written notice to participating jurisdictions that they have the option to amend or opt
out.
Five Changes to CDBG Interlocal Cooperation Agreement:
• 1. The obligation of county staff to provide timely information to Consortium partners
and allow time for response before making recommendations to the JRC, is clearly
stated. Similarly,the responsibility of county staff to get contracts out in a timely
fashion is clearly stated.
2. There is now a"grandfather"clause, which would allow cities that previously
received a Pass-through to continue receiving one even if they fall below the
threshold in future years.
3. All references to Pass-through cities doing their own local strategic plans or local
program policies are eliminated, since we are making this optional under our new
approach to the Consolidated plan. For consistency, this necessitated some changes
in what the consortium expects of new Pass-through cities.
4. Appointments to JRC—see HOME changes, above.
5. Term of agreement—see HOME changes, above.
i
.. ', .1