The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/18/1989 ................ CRY of Kent CRY Council Meeting Agenda Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Jim White, President Berne Biteman Steve Dowell Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Judy Woods Office of the City Clerk ` CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 18 , 1989 Summary Agenda City of Kent Council Chambers Office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m. NOTE: Items on the Consent Calendar are either routine or have been previously discussed. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember. The Council may add and act upon other items not listed on this agenda. F TO ORDER L CALL LIC COMMUNICATIONS Presentation to Kathleen Groshong Presentation to Don Wickstrom 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hehr Annexation Zoning B. Vacation of 3rd Ave C. Hearing Examiner Appeal - Emerald City Chemical D. Hearing Examiner Appeal - Electro Finishing 40* E. Preliminary Input - 1990 Budget F. Transportation Improvement Plan - 1990-1995 - Resolution d 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. Workers Compensation Service Agreement D. Hearing Date for Street Vacation 00:), E. Mortenson Annexation - ordinance F. EDC Agreement G. James St. Signal Modifications H. Highland Creste I. LID 330 Condemnation Ordinance ?S(pl \ .- J. Lavender Hills 55 0 K. LID 327 Bond Purchase Contract and Ordinance 2 g 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Riverbend Golf Course Support Structures Project B. Zoning Code Amendment - Public Notice Boards 5. BIDS A. Kiwanis Tot Lot 6 . REPORTS CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A. Presentation to Kathleen Groshong B. Presentation to Don Wickstrom Kent City Council Meeting (\ Date July 18 . 1989 Category Public Hearing 1. SUBJECT: HEHR ANNEXATION ZONING NO._AZ-89-1 ; This is the second of two public hearings to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of initial zoning of R1-7. 21 Single Family Residential, for the Hehr Annexation area. The property is approximately 4 .6 acres in size and is located on the west side of 116th Ave. S.E. approximately 150 feet south of S.E. 227th P1. The first hearing was held on June 6, 1989 . j 3 . EXHILTS: staff rep t, minu s, find'ingand recommendat4 . RECOD BY. Hear n E aminer ril 19 1989 (C mmittee, Staff, Exa iner, copmission, etc. ) 5. UNB DGETE FISCAL P ONNEL ACT: NO YES FIS AL P ONNEL NO E: Reco ended om ended J_ 6. EXPAND RE U N sOUAC OF. FUNDS t✓ puio he pearl l ofet IIA�O{ 0� � e`Q[� �recle OPEN HEARING: 2 J Urv� t f1 � udtFncc `rne fe Were 00 vN e nt� �a bi .c i1 ear n4q PUBLIC INPUT: { n� �qj PLJE � e� Cis nab �i'hC rnoh�r� [atr ecl . J� hr\Son _i CLOSE HEARING: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTI,O}N,^:' Councilmember �� ^ moved, - seconds to acjop s the findings of the Hearing Examiner, to con th:16GA-sac war the Hearing Examiner's recommended �oi13]g-of R1-7 . 2 , and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance. J-elti nscn SNce,,�a c� 9 C � �+'Ov1 DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: HEHR ANNEXATION #AZ-89-1 APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT, PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST: A request to attach initial zoning to approximately 4 . 6 acres annexed into the City in January 1989 . LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of 116th Avneue SE approximately 150 feet south of SE 227th Place. APPLICATION FILED: 1/6/89 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 2/24/89 MEETING DATE• 4/5/89 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 4/19/89 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Lauri Anderson, Planning Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Greg Nelson WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property was annexed to the City in January 1989 . It is located on the west side of 116th Avenue SE approximately 150 feet south of SE 227th Place. The property consists of two parcels (the Hehr lot and the Fullner lot) totalling 4 . 6 acres. Seven people live on the acreage. 1 Findings and Recommendation HEHR #AZ-89-1 2 . Under the provisions - of section 15. 03 . 020 E (1) of the Kent Zoning Code, all property not otherwise classified on the official zoning map is placed in an interim zoning designation equivalent to the R1-20, Single-Family Residential, district. 3 . Prior to annexation, the property was zoned under King County jurisdiction as Suburban Residential with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet (SR 7200) . 4 . The property to the north and east is zoned SR 7200 under King County jurisdiction. The property to the south and west is zoned R1-7 . 2 under City of Kent jurisdiction. 5. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan designates the area as SF, Single-Family Residential as does the East Hill Comprehensive Plan map. 6 . Current and future residential development would have access to 116th Avenue SE. 7 . City services including water, sewer, storm drainage and streets are available and adequate to serve the area should it be developed as Single Family Residential with 7, 200 square foot lots. City services may not be adequate if greater density were allowed. CONCLUSIONS 1. Single-Family Residential zoning with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet is compatible with the surrounding environment, the comprehensive plans, and other zoning designations in the area of the subject property. 2 . A zoning designation of Single--:Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet will help ensure that city services will be available for future development which may occur on the annexed property. 3 . A R1-7 . 2 zoning designation is appropriate for the subject property. 2 _. Findings and Recommendation HEHR #AZ-89-1 DECISION It is the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner that the proposed zoning designation of R1-7 .2 , Single-Family Residential, with a minimum lot size of 7, 200 square feet, be approved as appropriate for the annexed area. DECIDED THIS 19th DAY OF April, 1989. THEODORE PAUL HUNTER HEARING EXAMINER Rectuest of Reconsideration Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98032 . Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors, omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and Resolution #896 for specific information. Section 15. 09 . 030 G: Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional use permit granted by the Hearing Examiner shall remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid. 3 CITY or RENT (�?+ (�� 7-1 �('' planning '' 126 52 �7 sa r o. IP1 If/R tl 3 1— _ ,2T '. e' ♦1191,, 1i11�11 109 y'" '° .s -Y rt 12: to TV ur -�``n a. —� =1 IOfn' Y aD l:c•W —Al II PL. (-D .=�i. 211 13f >¢ ' c �. y I [: • e —= - Qu Hl I •a 17 ❑4 ; '++N ZL y,y J_ •,u .6 'pl an % � 1~„o ,1 ar l)i; ^° 1_,c 7111_ 111 •Y'yh \��•• ltl FI• E,� T tl2f 72tl: PN \ • • I -J.E .� { 0 +. �¢. V7tc TR�C. Cor.'Ina,.° 1 f • ffl.A Z> ta }}Q 7/ 75 •jf » /P {I••IE 47 14 /] If_ N_ If_ 19..20 21 Al TO. e .✓uJ \Av a.. w 4+ - Al 4 �0 IS s I/ 13 ' '2 i_•11 10 9 L 1 6 f• EJ 4 y-�T Anna L. � `• . 1 �;�t •+,,r,„ y.",," IAc Peterson � _ °1 2281ViA PL. i rat >t, I SITE 09 �. p 1" `6 TR. A' =af9 ;' m R 1 + 5 6'; I 49- 46 45 a n B � TRACT.A a' M; 0 IV1 r L /�4 �>, (7 a501 AI40 T. .. V Lt cif s0 C�•`�` P�1 u dil '� CL61�' TT? ° •)10 a. .: ,f111(n.. SD 41 t.°�., �J 40 [ �~ � o ■s '9L_ ' ,• /�. .: {Ir? It 12°i 13 _IsD E16 1T% 6n7 A m:52 d ,. 59•f Q� ho' .•S-v u.\° s � � � S )9 � I, ,b •� nrl l a n 57 =$67 r'` 6M1 'o 230TH A PL. 51;,_-1 54 �■ d1 65 _ _st w Ito n It ISS ' :b..1 '+ 25 26 21 °28 29 30: a]\• 82 91 F TO Cj 4 21 S'LI 22 s21I' 'P 1 70 tP y 71 R 6 so_ :P ;�� s�ry�72 Il Q•-. ? zoy-li lilno ] I ■■ N EB 73 ° ,\ 5711_ Cn l yI fll . t\p as F I) s,) 1 IM1 0 e• 19 c °I •)— 1; YII W ■ e ;Ifl _ .. R —� u. ' s9 1m ,J G u r x 90 p 91f, 9. 6 —19 ei TT = iv s ._�; 1 bC nl u J� .P n° •y K �� 9 ep / 6 t 'Y �'A 0 1 + ° 160 A 00 - io 891+ �9 b. y1+• t.S�a �\ 10 ' tl 1 1 a n ,. I 96 0, — 20 li ' � hs G47 nu ,1PPLIC�TION PlamC HEHR Annexation LEGEND PlulnDcr #AZ-89-1 OatC April 8, 1989 ® applicati011 Silt atgUCSI to attach initial Zoning to 4.6 acres i0111U(J IlOUIll10('J annexed to the City in January, 1989. mmm■ cily limits SITE MAP and ZONING SChIE = I° = 200' CITY OF KENT planning Si f <1L E i 1 T S STd sT b ST SE n 23STN O O n ST - in ¢ r„1 ST z_n n m m SE 237TH STSE IBTI SE 2 161 H ti ST F _� n SE 218TH _ > �n o ST s > n ^T SE 219TH < ST > S SC 21BTH It < ~ S Z o SE 2zO'H o e ST W N E 222NO o ST 515 SC 22JR0 ST ST VL , o a _ 9 _ _ �d SE E TN m O 323RH_d PI 6 SE -� _6 Ft 16 � 1 --_ 4 SE 2�yTN n �224TH Q�. SE 225TH ST E 2151 I SE 226iN ST H �� -i SE . p"' W.a - j v. 226 H 227THEST�i Z' - SE 227TH PL 6•T2jTM SE 228TH < ST SE 7287H f � SE 229T To SE ST i N SITE v1 W PL N `S �f l4 29THo �•J` W TQ S�J ST 1_ < 5 V OSA Q�% .« SE 230 H ?• �.�' ST Z SE �t rQ SE 23I SE 271ST PARK NCHA Sl 7Q OTH� 01A ST ZN �ELE `TARY „N SCHC2 N 3'f 232HU 5T oW _ i ST E 232NO ST -� -> SE -< E 232H < S1 232H0 ti ST n ; 4 2 .. .. PL ' G y S } ��f?L SE 313 RO of !N 1^ 4 i C� N STlRO < SE 2 SEA, 234TH ST MERI OIAN SC 33 RN > STHZ Sl'S4•r - 3H.HI. < SC OS oDq'S Q`• r -234TH Pt. Ste;OO Si L z 236iH ST eAVC ilrc•...I.1. \ AII.Hlco ¢ vv SE �2351 SC w SE 236TJ6TH ST <o. zN SE 236rH PL W SE 237TH ST > C 218TN � ST T SC OTH ST 16 \ 2C 21 J H N T SE o L 244TM = a ST i r: ..T kT z /..1,'/ w - o � - a w APPLICATION Naflla HEHR Annexation LEGEND : Plum6ar Az-e9 1 Gala April s, 19_ ® algdidiall silo Oagnasl to attach initial zoning to 4.6 acres Zolling boundary annexed to the City in January, 1989. wE Clly illnlls VICIfIITY MAP SCALE - 1" = 1000' Hearing Examiner Minutes April 5, 1989 HEHR ANNEXATION #RZ-89-1 The last item on the agenda was a request by the City of Kent Planning Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 , to attach initial zoning to approximately 4 .6 acres annexed into the City in January 1989 . The Comprehensive Plan designation is SF, Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. Currently three single-family residences exist on the site. The subject property is located on the west side of 116th Avenue SE approximately 150 feet south of SE 227th Place. (1-434) Lauri Anderson, Kent Planning Department, reiterated the request. Ms. Anderson displayed some transparencies indicating 1) the location of the subject property, and 2) current zoning of the site and surrounding zoning. Ms. Anderson commented that property to the north of the subject property is in King County. A video of the site was shown. Ms. Anderson commented on the goals, objectives and policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan. Ms. Anderson commented that under the single-family zoning approximately 20 single-family residences could be established on this site. An application has been received from Mr. Hehr requesting a subdivision for 12 lots. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential, zoning. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. (1-822) Gregg Nelson, 11317 SE 228th Place, Kent, WA 98031, owner of Lot 6 of Parkmar, was concerned about the storm retention/detention on this site. Currently, there is a great deal of water run-off from this property. There was no further testimony. Mr. Hunter asked for City rebuttal. (1-944) Ms. Anderson commented that as part of the preliminary plat process, drainage concerns will be addressed. The public hearing was closed at 4 : 10 p.m. 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes April 5 , 1989 Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. The applicant, Shupe Holmberg, 1505 Northwest Gilman Boulevard #7 , Issaquah, WA 98027 , indicated he was available for questions but did not intend to comment. Mr. Hunter asked if anyone would like to comment. (1-1268) (1-000) Dale Hartman, 8949 S. 245th Place, asked if the comment about the barricades could be explained. He inquired that if Canterbury subdivision were not developed, would access from this subdivision be from S . 244th? Mr. Hartman assumed there would be half-street improvements with sidewalks. He wanted to know the approximate value of the homes to be constructed. Mr. Hartman asked if the pond shown on the plans would be used for storm drainage and retention. Mr. Hartman commented he had his property surveyed and he would be willing to show where the corner was located. There was no further testimony. Mr. Hunter asked for rebuttal from the City. (1-181) Gary Gill , Kent City Engineer, responded to the questions asked by Mr. Hartman. In regard to the barricade, if the Canterbury subdivision is not developed prior to the construction of this subdivision, then 100th Avenue will not provide a link between 248th and the subject site; a condition for barricades at the northwest corner of this property would not be required. The Public Works Department requested that this condition be flexible so at the time of development the traffic situation can be studied and the best use of barricades and signing could be made. Mr. Gill stated there will be sidewalks required along the entire frontage of the property on the eastern side of 100th Avenue. The Public Works Department will be working with the developer to determine the size and design of the pond to prevent off-site flows from being any greater than what existed prior to development. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide some water quality enhancement to the pond as well as storm detention/retention. There were conditions of SEPA in regard to the impacts of water retention/detention and off-site flows. There was no further testimony. The public hearing was closed at 3 : 55 p.m. 5 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF APRIL 51 1989 FILE NO: HEHR ANNEXATION ZONING 4AZ-89-1 APPLICANT: City of Kent REST: Staff request to attach initial zoning to 4 . 6 acres annexed into the City in January 1989 . Proposed zoning for the site is R1-7 .2 , Single-Family Residential, with minimum lot size of 7, 200 square feet. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Lauri Anderson STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The proposal is to apply R1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet) , zoning to 4 . 6 acres annexed into the City of Kent in January 1989 . Upon annexation to the City, all land is automatically zoned R1-20 , Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet) . This designation is an interim zoning which remains with the property until the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish appropriate zoning for the newly annexed area. B. Location The subject property is located on the west side of 116th Avenue SE, approximately 150 feet south of SE 227th Place. C. Size of Property The subject property contains two parcels, totalling 4 .6 acres in size. The Hehr lot (Parcel 41722059056) includes 3 . 6 acres . The Fullner lot (Parcel #1722059136) comprises one acre. A census conducted in January 1989 indicates that there are seven (7) persons living on the acreage. _. 1 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 D. Zonincr The site is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential (20, 000 square feet minimum lot size) , under the interim zoning designation. Prior to annexation, the property was zoned SR 7200 (Suburban Residential, minimum lot size 7, 200 square feet) under the jurisdiction of King County. Surrounding property to the north and east which is in unincorporated King County is zoned SR 7200. The property to the south and west, which is inside the City of Kent, is zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential. The two existing lots exceed the minimum lot size as specified in the development standards for the proposed R1-7 .2 zoning. E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This area is served by the East Hill subarea plan. The following is a review of these plans as they relate to the subject property and proposed zoning. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single-Family Residential . 2 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning AZ-89-1 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME• AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING To LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities are available, and in a manner which is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods. Planning Department Comment This goal supports objectives and policies which encourage development of new single-family housing and protect existing single-family neighborhoods from adverse impacts of new development. In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid pace. King County' s Soos Creek Planning Area, which is located immediately to the east of the City of Kent and includes the Hehr annexation property, is the second fastest growing area in King County. - In 1988 , the City issued $152 million in building permits-- one of the busiest years on record. Yet even in this peak year of construction, the number of single-family residential permits was minimal (28) . The City of Kent, as of December 1988 , had 9 , 357 apartment units. These units made up nearly 60 percent of the housing stock. Single-family homes made up 34 percent, and the balance were mobile homes. The City has placed a renewed emphasis on single-family housing in an effort to address the perceived imbalance between single-family and multifamily housing types. This effort was initiated by the adoption of Resolution #1123 in 1986 which called for a 20 percent reduction in multifamily densities . The City is in the process of a comprehensive housing study, and the policies formulated in the completed Phase I report of that study articulate support for the single-family residential living environment. Zoning the Hehr annexation property for single-family residential uses would work to redress the perceived imbalance between single-family and multifamily housing types in Kent. Under the R1-7 . 2 zoning, approximately 20 single-family homes could be developed. A tentative plat has already been submitted for the Hehr parcel, under the proposed R1-7 . 2 3 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 zoning, which would create 12 residential lots on approximately 3 . 5 acres. As land uses to the north, south, east and west are single-family residential, the R1-7 .2 zoning of this site would minimize the potential for future land use conflicts with existing development. GOAL 3 : ASSURE AN ADEQUATE AND BALANCED SUPPLY OF HOUSING UNITS OFFERING A DIVERSITY OF SIZE, DENSITIES, AGE, STYLE AND COST. Plannincg Department Comment This goal supports the objective which works to increase the supply and affordability of housing for moderate-income households. Policies under this objective include providing for increased single-family residential densities in appropriate areas as a means of controlling costs and providing opportunities for single-family home ownership. R1-7 . 2 is the City of Kent' s most dense single-family zoning district--providing for the smallest residential lot size. Small lot sizes reduce housing costs and provide enhanced opportunities for moderate-income households to enter the housing market. Zoning the Hehr annexation property to the 7 , 200 square feet minimum lot size would increase the potential for achievement of the City' s housing affordability goals. EAST HILL PLAN The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single-family Residential , 4-6 dwelling units per acre. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHICH RECOGNIZE AND RESPOND TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE FUNCTIONING OF NATURAL SYSTEMS. GOAL 1: Preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities which make the east hill area an attractive place in which to live. 4 Staff Report Nehr Annexation Zoning AZ-89-1 Planning Department Comment This goal supports the policy which considers natural and physical assets and liabilities, including but not limited to topography, natural drainage, vegetation, views, amenities and and access, when making decisions concerning the type intensity of land use. Application of single-family zoning to the Hehr annexation site would be appropriate as the site is not constrained by natural hazards or liabilities. The Hehr annexation property slopes gently to the southwest and drainage currently passes into the Park Mar subdivision system. 116th Avenue S.E. , which is classified as a collector arterial, provides access to the site. Concerns regarding drainage requirements, retention of existing vegetation, and preservation of views and/or other environmental amenities would be addressed at the time of future residential development. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective 1: When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, policy and fire protection, public transportation, schools and parks. Policy 1: Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development at proposed densities. Policy 2 : Locate new single-family detached residential development in areas and at densities which permit roads, utilities, public transit, schools and other public facilities and services to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 5 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 Planning Department Comment . Zoning of the Hehr annexation site to R1-7.2 , Single-family Residential, would provide for in-fill development in an area already covered by City services. Fire and police protection are available. Water and sewer service are present, as are storm drainage and street facilities. The property lies within the Kent School District and within a mile and a half radius of a Kent high school, a junior high school and an elementary school . Parks in the vicinity include Kent Park, Kent Memorial Park, Garrison Creek Park, Mill Creek Park and Park Orchard Park. The Hehr Annexation site is located near existing Metro bus service. Single-family development would have a lesser immediate impact on service provision than would multifamily, commercial , or office uses. Assuming 2 . 9 persons per household, adequate community facilities and services will be available to serve the additional 58 persons projected for complete development of this site under R1-7 . 2 zoning. GOAL 2 : DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT PROMOTE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY AND PROVIDE DIVERSE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY. Planning Department Comment This goal supports the objective which states that decisions concerning land use designations shall consider surrounding residential land uses to minimize potential conflicts. Surrounding uses to the Hehr annexation property are all single-family residential , primarily on 7 , 200 square feet minimum lot sizes. Zoning of this site for multifamily, office or commercial uses would not protect the existing neighborhood from future incompatible development. Zoning of the site to R1-7 . 2 would provide for new development of similarly-sized single-family housing units. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LINKING THE EAST HILL WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, SERVICE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES . THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED 6 Staff Report Rehr Annexation Zoning AZ-89-1 AS BOTH A MULTI-MODAL AND A MULTI-PURPOSE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTEDECONOMICALLY I JURISSDICTIONS , THE STATE AND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS. LOCAL GOAL 4 : Develop a transportation management program that incorporates all modes of transportation. Planning Department Comment This goal establishes the policies which encourage use and expansion of public transit. Development density is critical to the economic provision of mass transportation. By providing in-fill development at the city' s highest single-family density, justification for mass transit increases. The potential future residential development of this site under R1-7 .2 zoning would increase the service development might re result in improved local Metro tion for local transit. lbus dservice. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A PLANNED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL SHOULD BE COST EFFECTIVE TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN AND SHOULD PROMOTE IN-FILL AND PHASED DEVELOPMENT FROM EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS. Planning Department Comment In-fill development allows for efficient expansion of public facilities and services through prevention of urban sprawl. With in-fill development, the need for far-ranging service extension is slowed, thereby conserving energy resources lost over travel and transmission distances. Natural resources in the as-yet undeveloped outlying areas can also be preserved when sites closer to the service provider are built out. Zoning the Hehr annexation property R1-7 .2 , Single-family Residential , would allow for in-fill development in an area surrounded by residential uses. city services are currently provided to neighboring properties and, as has been described earlier, could be extended to serve the Hehr annexation site. 7 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning ttAZ-89-1 II. HISTORY A. Site History The subject site was annexed into the City of Kent in January 1989 . Prior to that time, the site fell under the jurisdiction of King County. The annexation occurred as a result of a petition from local property owners. B. Area History Considerable annexation activity has occurred in the immediate vicinity. The Eastridge Annexation, which included 65 acres immediately to the south of the subject site, was approved in 1975 . The Park Mar Annexation (4 .84 acres directly to the west of the Hehr annexation property) occurred in 1977 . Several plats have also been approved (with resultant single-family development) in the area. The Kenton Firs mobile home park to the north of the site was developed as a PUD in King County in 1968 . The Park Mar subdivision to the west of the site was platted for 19 lots on 4 . 83 acres in 1978 . To the south of the site is the Maple Wylde plat, approved in 1981 for 18 lots on 4 . 6 acres. Farther south and to the southwest is Eastridge Subdivision No. 2 consisting of 91 lots on 24 acres recorded in 1978. The Emery Ridge Preliminary Plat is located to the east of the site across 116th Avenue SE. This preliminary plat was approved in 1987 for 44 lots on 9 . 75 acres. III . LAND USE Land use in the area is exclusively residential . 1 . The site itself includes three single-family residences (two on one lot) and numerous outbuildings. 2 . To the north is the Kenton Firs mobile home park--a single-family residential development. 3 . Properties to the east, west and south are developed with single-family homes . 8 _.. Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning AZ-89-1 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment An environmental checklist was prepared on the proposed zoning action. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on February 24 , 1989 with no conditions. B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topography and Vegetation The subject site slopes downward in a southwesterly direction with grades ranging from approximately 2 to 10 percent. The site is wooded with evergreen (including cedar) and deciduous trees except in the vicinity of the existing residences. C. Significant Wildlife Habitat Currently songbirds use the subject site and small mammals (mice, etc. ) may be living in the vicinity. Domestic goats are kept on the Fullner property. No significant wildlife habitat has been identified. D. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to 116th Avenue SE, which is classified as a collector arterial. This street has a public right-of-way width of 60 foot while the actual width of paving is 24 foot. The average daily traffic count on 116th Avenue SE is 7000 vehicle trips per day. This street is not inside the City of Kent boundaries. However, at the time of any future subdivision of the annexation property, the west half of 116th Avenue SE would be improved. Southeast 240th Street and SE 208th Street also are used by residents in the vicinity. The site is within one mile of the nearest transit stop. 9 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 2 . Water System An existing six-inch water line is available in SE 228th Place of the Park Mar subdivision. An eight-inch waterline, terminating at the south property line of the Hehr annexation site, is available in 116th Avenue SE. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System Sewer service is available through a City of Kent eight-inch sanitary sewer line in SE 228th Place of the Park Mar subdivision. This sewer line ends at the west property line of the annexation area. 4 . Storm Water System This area has been studied under the City of Kent Drainage Master Plan. Currently less than five percent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces. No soil tests have been conducted, however the Department of Agriculture Soils Map shows Alderwood C soils for the entire site with poor drainage characteristics. Surface run-off drains naturally into the Park Mar subdivision system. Run-off in this drainage basin drains into Garrison Creek which is collected by Springbrook Creek in the valley floor which flows northerly into the Green River. 5 . LID' s No LIDS are on record at this time. V. MEETINGS CORRESPONDENCE , AND LEGAL NOTICES At the time of the annexation hearings for this property, R1-7 . 2 , Single-family Residential, zoning was proposed for the site. A tentative plat meeting for the Hehr parcel (Cedar Meadows Tentative Plat) was held on January 19 , 1989 . All appropriate comments and concerns from these proceedings have been included in this report. VI . CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: 10 Staff Report Kehr Annexation Zoning AZ-89-1 City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Works Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Building Official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the April 5, 1989 public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. VII. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, current land use, the street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The site is presently zoned R1-20, Single-family Residential, 20, 000 square feet minimum lot size, under the interim annexation zoning designation. B. -The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single-family Residential. C. The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map also designates the site as SF, Single-family Residential, with a density of 4-6 units per acre. D. All lots would meet or exceed the minimum lot size as specified in the development standards for the R1-7 . 2 , Single-family Residential, zoning district. E. Land use in the area is predominantly single-family residential with 7 , 200 square feet minimum lot sizes. F. Current and future residential development would have access to 116th Avenue SE. G. City services are available to serve the subject property should 7 , 200 square feet lot residential zoning be applied. 11 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 VII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Comprehensive Plan criteria for applying initial zoning, the City staff recommends approval of the R1-7 . 2 , Single-family Residential, zoning designation. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 13 , 1989 12 "" CITY or, KENz planning CIO 7,e n_..Kee 661\1 t •�1 1 1 o-Rr i— ' {{ VV 12, V IN 1159 y St ^i N 1]� �y =Y 179 ` �*7.+J �/T 125 . ell9�+.• a n��I�Ir 107 Y�� .S St 110 to CV _1l_ I06n' - c 1017_,�. 107_ 216111 PL. _ ('9 i 11 136 • • . v Y �,o •.. • < As A 171 ?I `N � ' C46 4I 41 is 1542I•1V _ »r» �L "P 714 5 9 71 ''••S som,r 2 „ SP.O - 15 ieZ nw 1 ` J7 9 it_ ' �W IV ..� •+......r } I : LUZ -S.E a 79 ip�tt e., 1 r - •s 7:` 23 . 27;E 37�f •. S` 1 �'. Lj +9 C ' (P• j.-. ^, IP. 1 .r747 3! ,S6 4 40�'4t- 42�43 44�47 6 I ,16_ IT- to- 19..20 21_ awn Is S, I/ 13 12 II 0 9 1 4j T LLI Anna IAC Peterson n -J'f%'1 z09 16 _ E. 228TI1� PL. 1I SITE J6 46 1 45 .n B + �-= 1 �' 6 'DJ 4 9 JL E. z 12 I R M TRACT o M 49 40 °'�) •b 'Sfl��li �Y.E01 A2 64M ,,n� $/ e s ^,f � ' s} SST. 4.,e(�. 1i Q 2: - (t 1-N An \Y 37 50 �ISTu �ii y '� tv4Z�'� ° •.10 r1,` kV _�°�yfi,14 •r�1 -c~i ; 2 ,a Y1 J,51 022 59 [frr'61 - ! _ 41u y r4■ '7' b c 05- a 12 IJ .IS D/,- L16 17 6 0 sz i se�� F 40' o > [ri 14 . I �=9t•• ' x [SL S 62 , c 31 14 ]J ]2�, ° 2 �, c J P 1, 1,.. .. Y YSS.-�'•9xr_I ■ sT �1 5�, aJ`I 'G 6] r'` 61 'e 1 ''' _ 230T H •R P L. W e4a n.t Is or _ �2 54 y/ ss S6 25" 26 ZI ]7]t( t I �i s 66 6 a„ 24 u I ze 29 p CD S 2 0s:% ez ••,�' n1 a DLO— a 4 ' S Zz z1 11 uo 2, j n, 16 15 --1 p 67 ;e'D To, -° �' 112J 7 14; �y e N [ ✓ + r L ' , e\ I� 04 it Z1A 00: _ 67 i� yn •. .�;�. 7 20 g. - :I 6 \`/ .L F.. P 31 - 17 L2.Ja0 s u', �:>— N 1 -' `° T] �. 7z � Tn = III vn_ r es - 79 F �,_c_v 7 Pt11 n s1 74 p^ 7G� 75 * dh �- 19 L LiJ S s c >EIG i07_ �m .I 90s p 91 6 ❑ S x a A 9 0I $0 77, nti . " ,0 ,t� L' ..T ',,. I ♦, ' 4— 4 I 19 n ,e nl.t 6 ,. ..r_ ��10 9'. I -,r, r�o - r� a 4 Y tttyyy Ito 'A�110 fi7 (qq�2J. .T 4` V�,u ` °'i�7 10 SI 1 +J 11 C x 46 I LAJ a 21 L - y 2 P II Ip mAm . Q ^ 12 _ 47 ..-""48 .. L ��uct�Tiori ri�111� HEHR Annexation �ECErio Pluln�er IAZ-89-1 Cade apr;1 6, 1989 ® applicaliall silC �Cf�IICSI to attach initial zoniny to 4.6 acres 1011111(] �CCIIl1�fy annexed to the City in January, 1989. msm■ City 111111tS SITE MAP and ZONING SOLE = 111 = 200 CITY OF KENT planning �I f e m n SE 2I7TH ST N SE 2161H V. SE fz z N I:e•u•.wr 1871 F ST F $ a SE 218TH _ > ^i O N O ST A ; SE 219TH < ST SE 218TH PL I Z Z ~ SE n � 220TN b ST W N E 222ND ' a sr SIS W N W ' Z ._. '+ GCSE 223RD sT � G � D ZN F.1N H N Nr N ST— 9 SE 7P24TH W O T SE 2S VL0_ t �6 05'r N T <224TH = SE 225TH 3£22STM W ST < a E wdv ;=STH W n N N 225T H I N _ i SE < W < Z 2 �j Fi SE 226TH ST it "< JA 226 H ,{F SE 2PTH Pt `TT). !T• o _ x22THST ST< SC 228TH ST SE 228TH "r SITE ST SE 229" yr" 70B Sl9TH- v >. fSti o i 5 f $T PL Q Y, y4 ST 1- < j y{t 4� 4. SE 3]0 II 2}1 < lO r y SE ST 13 I SE 'L 9` SE 23 IST PARR RCHA zW 4 > E 2 E 230TH' 1<r ST zH , EL NTAAY „N +•al < ST E2 SCH L PL �� 'xf 232HO ST o� _> SI E 232ND ST "r SE -< E717N < r r •�` '� 232HO W k 1 a.. ' A? yW ST N SFZ W Sr JRD SC 2 PL _O 237R0< N.. 7 + 6 SEA. 234TH ST MERIDIAN SE 234M i !Po y r r in.HI. ST fT h k = T. SE ` SCHOOL Z y Oy1 9 G ,e' SE 2]6rH ST AVE r23aTN IPI• \ ,.1.<0 x SE -2751 SE -W O W Anita SE 236TH ST = �N IND SE 236TH PL ,N•, < a y�n� SE 231T11 ST D I 7 E 2]arH m ST O L 1\ SE OiH Sr 1 17116 20421 x 5 SE 214T11 ST z (Y_I NT z .7 _ P O 6 AppLICAT&I Planle HEHR Annexation LEGEND NUIU(Cf IAI-89-1 Dale April 5, 1989 � appliealian silt {I RC UCSI to attach initial zoning to 4.6 acres i0111 9 boundary annexed to the City in January, 1989. �� CIIY limi1S VICINITY 00. SOLE = 1" = 1000' Kent City Council Meeting v Date July 18 , 1989 -Category Public Hearinc7 1. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION NO. STV-89- ,-3 . „ �DRT�WN7{�'�THIRD AVENUE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This hearing was continued from July 5, 1989 and will consider an application filed by the City of Kent to vacate a portion of Third Avenue between Gowe and West Titus Streets. -►1-. ec c+a' r.°C "h � PuioliL herxCI'rJ _ Cye0. 0PC, � �Psh ��;, f ror�, Cc� 1 . 1 (7 eriba.uit' f 5uttyl f Ve.0 bAVes� f 0e /0c t� :5 PPol •�'�tu�F r_ �• � � cv «_trd -fY-tltM � �l b!(C Ll)Cam' rx Di yec-K�t �,l) c. r +'-"= Ul'� J 3 . EXHIBITS: staff report and map r t the 11I ru MooIE fu Cicsr 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Sta f conditional approval (Committee, Staf , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) i 5. UNBUDGETED FIS PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSONNE NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE RE UIRED: N/A SOURCE OF FUN S• OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: �✓ � /l f 5u� le5 [>r� C)� TYIL' L1� .'`f I IDy-/l , 7 Cotxt� teer �� move i m -sons` toppro� Street Vacation No. STV-89-3 with con i moons as outlined in the staff report dated June 29, 1989 aatitsns) and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance upon / pp DISCUSSION: )nJAinSe✓1 Sec.e-)rICuct ACTION: nl U�) cn c. ref{ ;e d , Council Agenda Item No. 2B DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS July 14, 1989 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Vacation of Third Avenue Between Gowe Street and Titus Street - STV-89-3 The hearing on this vacation was continued from the July 5 meeting to allow time for the applicant to review the conditions placed upon the requested vacation. After reviewing these conditions with Doug Klappenbach, the following modifications are recommended. Condition #3 . Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a development permit over, upon or under the vacated street right of way, the developer shall construct/reconstruct a drainage system at the developer' s sole expense and cost and to the City's satisfaction. Said drainage system is to provide service to the southerly half of the vacated street right of way which presently is serviced from the easterly parking lot system. The developer shall grant to the City any necessary easements. This condition may be waived by the Public Works Director if he determines it is appropriate to do so Condition #4 . The City shall retain easement rights for vehicular and pedestrian access purposes and also utility purposes over, upon and under the southerly half of the street vacation. Said easement rights may be adjusted, altered, modified and transferred to adjacent properties or deleted in part or whole as determined appropriate by the Public Works Director in order to conform to City needs and the development of the site. Condition #6. The existing mid-block driveway, lying on the west side of Third Avenue and currently being used for vehicular and pedestrian access to the City Hall site, shall be maintained unless determined otherwise by the Public Works Director. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 29 , 1989 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO VACATE A PORTION OF THIRD AVENUE LYING BETWEEN GOWE STREET AND TITUS STREET - #STV-89-3 I . Name of Applicant City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 II . Reason for Requesting Vacation Third Avenue needs to be vacated so that the Centennial Building can be built as planned; it will expand across Third Ave. III. Staff Recommendation APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS After reviewing comments from the following departments and agencies: Public Works Department, Don Wickstrom and Tim Heydon Fire Department, Chief Norm Angelo and conducting our own review, the Planning Department recommends that the request to vacate a portion of Third Avenue Resolution 1206 and shown on the accompanying map, be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. Third Avenue is classified as a Class B street under Ordinance 2333 and as such the City shall receive one-half the full appraised value for that portion to be vacated. 2 . Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a development permit upon, under or over the vacated street right of way, the developer shall relocate/reconstruct the existing water main at the developer' s sole expense and cost, and to the City' s satisfaction such that it shall not lie under a building and/or structure and shall be readily accessible for City maintenance and operation. The developer shall grant to the City any necessary easements. 3 . Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a development permit over, upon or under the vacated street right of way, the developer shall construct/reconstruct a drainage system at the developer' s sole expense and cost and to the City' s satisfaction. Said drainage system is to provide service to the southerly half of the vacated street right of way which STREET VACATION #STV-89-3 JUNE 29, 1989 presently is serviced from the easterly parking lot system. The developer shall grant to the City any necessary easements. 4 . The City shall retain easement rights for vehicular and pedestrian access purposes and also utility purposes over, upon and under the southerly half of the street vacation. 5 . The City shall retain easement rights for utility purposes over, upon and under the northerly one-half of the street vacation. Said easement rights may be adjusted, modified and/or transferred to adjacent properties as determined appropriate by the Public Works Director, in order to conform with the final alignment of the City utilities. 6. The existing mid-block driveway, lying on the west side of Third Avenue and currently being used for vehicular and pedestrian access to the City Hall site, shall be maintained. 7 . The City shall retain full use of the vacated street right of way and it shall be open for public use until the date a development permit is issued thereon. 8 . The storm drain system for Third Avenue is serviced via the drainage system within the parking lot on the northeasterly corner of Third Avenue and Gowe Street. Because of this, the City shall retain full rights to use said parking lot drainage system for release of storm water collected on Third Avenue until and upon either a development permit is issued upon the vacated street right of way or the developer reconstructs a drainage system to service Third Avenue. 9 . The City shall retain the right to transfer utility rights over, upon and under the vacated street right of way to the private utilities which may be located therein, such as telephone, gas and cable TV. Said utility rights shall only be transferred to said private utility company upon their relocating or adjusting their facilities to conform to the redevelopment of the vacated street right of way. 10 . This street vacation shall be contingent on the completion of the sale of City property lying adjacent to Third Avenue, for the purposes of developing the Centennial Building. Should the City not sell the property for the purposes intended, then this street vacation shall become null and void. JH:ca Attachment 2 AT- 0 --F f� 10 -7 't ti D-1 rl AA !j 14 ' C) I fl tti 1 "Tri ------- IV, GOWE STREET FlP�U�155-1--7� t:1 r; f I LLI )l C' ITY 14A-LL X 9z 'jo ell It. < ck RARY Cr 12 12 01 IT V4 TITUS STRG E T r U ............. .. ... ...... p41�, r 7r� POSED Reso 5 M E E T- tv W,c A-1 I D K) THA\ f-j IZ06 Ares Ob feet Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18, 1989 CCategory Public Hearing 1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - EMERALD CITY CHEMICAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CE-89-7 2 . SUMIARY STATEMENT: This hearing will consider an appeal filed by Emerald City Chemical of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of a conditional use permit to allow the use of an existing 3, 224 square foot building, a new 8, 358 square foot addition for corporate offices, and the mixing, packaging, warehousing, and distribution of organic and inorganic chemicals. 3 . EXHIBITS: letter of appeal, staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner June 21, 1989 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to(!on t�* odif� reject the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and tooncur_ /disagree with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of Emerald City Chemical conditional use permit No. CE-89-7. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2C EMERALD CITY CHEMICAL INC, JUN 2 9 lJ 1989 CITY pF KEIV7- ,June 27 . 1989 CI}y CLERK City Clerk City of Kent 220 4th Ave So. Kent WA 98032-5895 Dear Sirs , Please be advised we are appealing the decision of the hearing examiner on file no. CE-89-7 Emerald City Chemical with regards to Our request for a conditional use permit. The decision of "Denied" was issued on Tune 21 , 1989 and so we are making this filing within the fourteen day rule. The nature of our appeal deals with the inconsistency in the record of the hearing examiner , which will be more fully set forth in subsequent documents and or testimony. Respectfully , G en A. Dodg- GAD/trs cc Kathy McClung Lauri Anderson 1409 East Madison • Seattle, Washington 98122 206-328-2040 • Wash. Toll Free 1-800-562-6794 Office of the City Clerk D 220 S . 4 th JUN 2 9 1989 859-3370 C/ City of Kent C Y OF ENT Order for Transcript for �� Appeal from Decision of Hearing Examiner Resolution 896 Ordinance 2233 Date -LL"LY 2 ITP-j Appeal filed to -a`1- Appellant ' s Name L( IlL7Kl�� Address Phone Hearing Examiner ' s File No . C e � - 7 Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Date of Hearing Examiner ' s Decision ( uti1` 2.1 lc7P,4�Y Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of the action taken by the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied by a $ 25 filing fee. Treasurer ' s Receipt # 0 3.5 7 9 Within 30 days of the Hearinq Examiner ' s decision, the appellant shall order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held before the Hearing Examiner and must post at the time of the order, security in the amount of $100 for each tape to be transcribed. If the actual cost incurred by the City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant shall be required to reimburse the City for the excess amount. If the cost is less tham the amount posted, any credit due will be returned to the appellant. Order for Transcript received '7I15 9 Treasurer ' s Receipt # 3 7 5� (100 . 00) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: EMERALD CITY CHEMICAL #CE-89-7 APPLICANT: Thomas A. Sconzo, Architect REQUEST: A request for a conditional use permit to allow the use of an existing 3 ,224 square foot building, a new 8, 358 square foot addition for corporate offices and the mixing, packaging, warehousing and distribution of organic and inorganic chemicals. LOCATION: The subject property is located between 77th Avenue S. and the Burlington Northern right of way, just to the north of vacated Harrison Street. The site includes vacated S. 208th Street. APPLICATION FILED: 3/6/89 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 4/14/89 HEARING DATE: 6/7/89 DECISION ISSUED: 6/21/89 DECISION: DENIED STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Lauri Anderson, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: John Hallstrom, applicant Other Gary Volchok Glenn Dodge WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Mike Chimenti INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and decision are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application. 1 Hearing Examiner Decision Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located between 77th Avenue S. and the Burlington Northern right-of-way, to the north of vacated Harrison Street. The property is approximately 52, 080 square feet. Surrounding land uses include the Central Pre-Mix Concrete Plant, a vacant lot, and the Metro Hauling facilities. 2 . The applicant intends to develop the property for the business purpose of mixing, packaging, warehousing and distributing organic and inorganic chemicals. The proposed facility is classified as a hazardous substance land use facility under Section 15 . 02 . 178 of the Kent Zoning Code. More than 20, 000 pounds of hazardous materials will accumulate on the site from time to time. 3 . The property is zoned M31 General Industrial. Section 15. 04 . 190 (C) (12) of the Kent Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit for a hazardous substance facility in a M3 zone. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Map designate the site as I, Industrial . 4 . The proposed facility is less than 1/4 mile from the Interurban Trail - a King County public recreational bicycle and pedestrian trail. 5. The eastern perimeter of the building proposed on the site plan as part of Exhibit 1 is set back from the eastern property line by five feet. The railroad right-of-way abuts the eastern property line and is approximately 100 feet wide. 6. The building site contains several independent lots. 7 . The proposed facility is more than 200 feet away from any stream that is delineated on the Hazard Area Limitations Map. 8 . The proposed facility is dependent on 77th Avenue S. for access. This road has no curbs, sidewalks, street lighting, storm water drains or lane stripping. The paving width is approximately 24 feet. The street deadends at Seattle Auto Auction. The daily average traffic flow is about 2 , 500 vehicles per day. Use of the proposed facility will add additional traffic to the intersections of S 212th Street and the East and West Valley Highways. 2 Hearing Examiner Decision Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 9 . A final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued on April 14 , 1989 with conditions regarding emergency response plans, surface water run-off and increased traffic. 10. The City Planning Department testified that the facility as proposed did not meet certain development requirements including sideyard landscaping on the northern perimeter; landscape islands on the eastern side of the lot; front yard landscaping along the 77th Avenue S frontage; location of waste dumpsters with associated landscaping; and landscape berming in the vicinity of the truck loading door. The City Planning Department also testified that two standards applicable only to hazardous substance land use proposals were not met by the proposed facility: (1) the requirement of a 50 foot setback from all property lines and (2) the requirement of at least a 1/4 mile between a hazardous substance facility and a public recreation area. The City Planning Department recommended approval with conditions. This testimony was not rebutted except as to the need for some of the conditions. 11. Mr. John Hallstrom testified for the applicant. He expressed concerns with several of the recommended conditions including the 50 foot setback requirement along the eastern property line. He testified that this requirement appeared to conflict with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements. He submitted a letter addressed to him from Mr. Jack Fingold which states that "there is a difference" between how the Building Department and the Planning Department view right-of-ways and easements. The letter was admitted as Exhibit 2 . 12 . Mr. Gary Volchok testified for the applicant. He argued that a lot line adjustment was not necessary. He also presented diagrammatic evidence that showed Mill Creek was more than 200 feet away from the proposed facility. This was admitted as Exhibit 4 . 13 . Mr. Glenn Dodge also testified for the applicant. He stated that a 50 foot setback along the eastern property line would unreasonably restrict future development and was not necessary from a safety point of view. He requested a waiver of the 50 foot setback requirement for the entire length of the eastern property line bordering the railroad right-of-way. He also stated that hazardous waste products are produced in the business proposed to be conducted at the site but that they are all shipped off-site for disposal. 3 Hearing Examiner Decision Emerald City Chemical #(CE-89-7 CONCLUSIONS 1. An applicant for a conditional use permit must demonstrate that the following criteria will be met by the proposed use in accordance with Section 15. 09 . 030 (D) of the Kent Zoning Code: a. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. b•. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. C. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. d. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. e. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. f. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. g. The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions of this code. h. Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate to a particular case. Based on the Findings of Fact detailed above, it appears the proposed use complies with criteria a, b, c, d, f and h of Section 15. 09 . 030 (D) . 2 . A hazardous substance facility must, in addition, comply with the development standards detailed in Section 15. 08 . 050 (D) (9) of the Kent Zoning Code. Those development standards require, in part, that: 4 Hearing Examiner Decision Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 "Hazardous substance land use facilities shall be located at least: 3. one-quarter mile from public parks, public recreation areas or natural preserves (and) 4. Fifty (50) feet from any property line to serve as an on-site hazardous substance land use facility buffer zone;" The proposed facility does not and cannot meet these requirements without the grant of exceptions. Section 15. 08. 050 (D) further provides that: "In case of conflict between any of these site development standards and the development standards of specific zoning districts or other code requirements, the more restrictive requirement shall apply. " 3 . A hazardous substance land use facility must also comply with performance standards specified in Section 15.08. 050 of the Kent Zoning Code. These performance standards deal with the operational aspects of land uses. The performance standards for hazardous substance land use facilities address primarily the release of a hazardous substance into public or private sewers, watercourses or the ground. See, 15. 08. 050 (D) (9) . However, the performance standards also address where hazardous substances might be located upon the land. Section 15. 08 . 050 (A) identifies hazardous substances as a potential "dangerous or objectionable element" subject to the performance standards. Section 15. 08 . 050 (C) specifies how the measurement shall be made for determining whether a "dangerous or objectionable element" exists. For elements such as noise, vibration, glare, smoke, dust and odor the point of measurement is the location of the use creating the problem. For hazardous substances or wastes, however, the point of measurement "shall be . . . at the buffer zone setback line for any hazardous substance land use facility which must be at least 50 feet from any property line" . Section 15. 08 . 050 (A) requires continued compliance with performance standards. Thus, the 50 foot setback requirement for a hazardous substance facility is both a development standard (how a facility might be constructed) and a performance standard (how a facility might be operated) . The Code requires that a hazardous substance land use facility be constructed no closer than 50 feet to any property line and that no hazardous substances be located closer than 50 feet to any property line. The proposed facility would store hazardous substances closer than 50 feet to the eastern property line and, therefore, would not comply with the performance standards without the granting of an exception. 5 Hearing Examiner Decision Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 4 . The authority of the Hearing Examiner to approve exceptions to code requirements is limited only to exceptions to development standards at the time a conditional use application is considered. See, Section 15. 09.030 (E) of Kent Zoning Code. Furthermore, under Section 15. 09 .030 (D) , the Hearing Examiner must find that the proposed conditional use complies with performance standards. That finding cannot be made on this application. The Hearing Examiner has authority to approve or deny exceptions to development standards under Section 15. 09. 030 (E) of the Zoning Code. The Hearing Examiner has no similar authority to approve or deny exceptions to performance standards. The 50 foot setback requirement appears to be both a development standard and a performance standard that is expressed in mandatory fashion ("shall" and "must") . The Hearing Examiner cannot grant an exception to the 50 foot setback requirement. The development standards applied to a hazardous substance land use facility are found in a code section which is intended to preempt other code requirements. In case of conflict, the "more restrictive requirement shall apply" . Section 15. 08 . 050 (D) (9) . It does not appear it would be consistent with City Council intent to grant an exception to a development standard detailed in that section of the Zoning Code. The request for an exception to the requirement to locate a -h rdous substance facility at least one-quarter mile from a pubic .recreation area should not be granted by the Hearing Examin thout additional assurances that the public recreation area would be protected. DECISION The application for a conditional use permit to locate a hazardous substance facility in M3 , General Industrial, zoning district is DENIED because of the application's noncompliance with the standards for a hazardous substance facility in Section 15. 08 .050 of the Zoning Code and the criteria for a conditional use permit in Section 15. 09. 030 (d) of the Zoning Code. A grant of a conditional use permit would require the simultaneous granting of two exceptions to the standards specified in Section 15. 08 . 050 of the Kent Zoning Code: (1) an exception from the 6 Hearing Examiner Decision Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 requirement to locate a hazardous substance land use at least one- quarter mile from a public recreation area and (2) an exception to the performance standard of at least a 50 foot buffer zone from the property line to the facility. The Hearing Examiner has limited authority to grant exceptions to development standards listed in Section 15. 08 .050 (D) (9) of the Zoning Code and no authority to grant exceptions to performance standards. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner must deny the application as presented. The primary duty of the Hearing Examiner is to interpret, review and implement land use regulations in a fashion which separates land use policy formulation from land use administration. See, Chapter 2 .54 of Kent City Ordinances. Deviations from the development and performance criteria applicable to a hazardous substance facility should not be granted by the Hearing Examiner without clear signals from City land use policy makers that it would be appropriate to do so. �hile this may appear to present a hardship for the applicant, it should be noted that the standards are clearly and objectively set forth in the zoning code and that other uses can still be made of the property. The proposed containment building could be redesigned to .meet the 50 foot setback requirement. The preparation and approval of an emergency response plan (as required in the DNS conditions) which takes into account the proximity of the Interurban Trail may allow an exception to the one-quarter mile requirement. With those changes and the application of conditions 1, 41 51 61 7 , and 8 as specified in Section VIII of the Planning Department Staff Report, a conditional use permit may be appropriate for the proposed facility. That determination, however, can only be made after due consideration of an application which addresses those concerns. The present application for a conditional use permit fails to meet the criteria required for approval. Dated this 21st day of June, 1989 . THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner Section 15. 09 . 030 G: Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional use permit granted by the Examiner shall remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid. 7 Hearing Examiner Decision Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS. Request of Reconsideration Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 . Reconsiderations are answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council. A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is filed. 8 CITY.. OF_KENT planning P S} 11 ' 1 4poo it I p III 1 rl II 'il 1 00 " li t� i' 14 Oil ME it II - „I:� � - I r I iI t I du II IP o c� y l It0.-- •ij iP v .ns1 u iu \ 1 It d o II� 1 a.a _1 it it Ill It V IPI0d n t`.�1+'�_l� APPLICATION Name Emerald City Chemical LEGEND: Number NCE-89-7 Date June 7 I98g = - zonapping boundary site Conditional Use Permit minghundary Request city limits TOPOGRAPHY/ZONING MAP SCALE = 1" = 400' '' CITY.. OF. KENT planning . P rt FEg� � P I I I I I , I i 0 t 0 0 Ci I I � I I €� I : t � � I i6i �i tti t t t ,� I I i I 1 j If. I I Is •.� °'I I C, lU E I _ e s - Q I I I 8 I JH sI � •o' �� Y y I = I _ I I I 1 s I I I I I _ _ I I it:c " 1 V i g I is I I 04 x APPLICATION Name Emerald City Chemical LEGEND Number #CE-89-7 Date June 7, 1989 application site Request Cnnditional Use Permit toning boundary city limits SITE PLAN Alk- SCALE — No scale CITY.. OT-KENT planning . C 5 196TH ST W �? I � i INUll�l kltil `� I s �9e ry• _ < ARE A Q. m S 200TH 5T m zozno sT m i s �.a) — P•, 1 C \ > I D I ~ I > > I S 206TH 5T S 206TH $T A _ N p 1 z z ` I Il m ' ` S 208TH ST ( 6 5 208T11 $T 1 �Y 4 ~i SITE I i N 1' � 1/ti � • J/y l r , _ 1 � � --- - S 212TH ST i•�rT *I' O'BRIEN a . 1 1 > W 1 ~ ` I�CO lib TH 51 NN� `l 1 \ I 5 216TN ' - 1\ 5T • , •ice-_�-• � i ; I F I /ST S 222NUV I ��II � 1 '? •IR ) I APPLICATION Name Emerald City Chemical LEGEND Number #CE-89-7 Dale June 7, 1989 application site ' flegneSt Conditional Use Permit zoning boundary city limits VICINITY 14AP SCALE = r' i000' PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are prepared only for the convenience of those interested in the proceedings of the ' Land Use Hearing Examiner. These minutes are not part of the official record of decision and are not viewed, referred to, or relied upon by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision. These minutes also are not part of the record of .review in the event a decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealed. Copies of the tape recordings of the Hearing Examiner proceedings, or a complete written transcript of these recordings, are available at a charge from the City of Kent. Please contact Chris Holden at the Kent Planning Department (859-3390) if you are interested in obtaining an official transcript. HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES June 7 , 1989 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, June 7 , 1989 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony. EMERALD CITY CHEMICAL Conditional Use Permit #CE-89-7 A request by Thomas A. Sconzo, Architect, 919-124th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98005, for a conditional use permit for the use of an existing 3 , 224 square foot building and a new 8, 358 square foot addition for corporate offices and the mixing, packaging, warehousing and distribution of organic and inorganic chemicals. The property is zoned M3 , General Industrial. The subject property is located between 77th Avenue S. and the Burlington Northern right of way, just north of vacated Harrison Street; it contains approximately 52 , 080 square feet. 1 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 VERBATIM MINUTES Hunter: Let me see again who we have to testify in that. O.k. Fine. And, Lauri Anderson for the City. Lauri Anderson: Thank you. My name is Lauri Anderson. Hunter: I would like to swear you in first. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, and the whole truth in testimony you are about to give. Anderson: Yes, I do. Lauri Anderson with the City of Kent Planning Department. The Emerald City Chemical use is the first conditional use permit for a hazardous substance facility land use that has come before this Department since our new regulations were put into effective. It's a request for a permit to use an existing 3 , 224 square foot building and a new addition to that building for the corporate offices, mixing, packaging, warehouse and distribution of organic and inorganic chemicals. It's defined as a hazardous substance land use under the Code and, therefore, falls under these requirements as it involves more than 20, 000 pounds of hazardous substances on site. The site is located on the east side of 77th Avenue which is a dead end road coming off of S . 212th Street. The site is located here. I might point out that the site actually extends. . up to approximately the vicinity of S. 206th Street. So there's an extra little triangle here that is included. The bulk of the existing facilities are on this portion that is shaded. As I mentioned the site currently houses Central Pre-Mix offices. There is an associated metal tilt-up building, parking and a gravel lot. Further north and to the west is the main Pre- Mix Concrete plant--Crosby & Overton which is a hazardous materials facility and then farther to the north at the end of the dead end road is the South Seattle Auto Auction. To the west of the site is a large vacant, paved lot which is currently up for lease. To the south are the METRO truck hauling facilities. On the east side of the site is the Burlington Northern right of way and tracks which are about a ten foot higher elevation than the site and beyond that there ' s a large drainage ditch and then some warehousing operations. The site is approximately 52 , 000 square feet in size. The zoning of the site is M3, General Industrial. Surrounding zoning, as you can see, from the north, west and south is also M3 . Across the Burlington Northern right of way, the zoning is M2 , Limited Industrial . I 'd now like to show you a video of the site (video ran from 1558 - 1620) . O.k. I would now like to put up a site plan of the proposal . Again, 77th runs along here to the north. The lot exceeds the 2 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 minimum lot size as required in this zone. The site coverage is going to be less than the maximum requirement and the building is proposed to be less than the maximum height. There is some minor points that I wanted to bring up. This is based on a preliminary review of the site plan. We are missing some side yard landscaping along the northern perimeter of the site required by Code. There are some landscape islands on the eastern end of this lot which are not shown. The front yard landscaping does not extend all the way up the frontage of 77th Avenue S. and there would need to be some berming of the landscaping in the vicinity of the dock-high door. The building as shown is setback five feet from the railroad right of way and there's some mandoors along that side which exit into some landscaping. Under this plan we would need to see some sort of a pedestrian circulation system so those people wouldn't end up in the middle of a landscaping strip. Waste disposal methods are not shown, dumpsters, that kind of thing and there's no mention of hazardous waste which might be generated from this site. We would need additional information about that to guarantee that appropriate handling and disposal techniques are employed. In addition there would be some lot lines that would have to be removed prior to development. Getting to the meat of the matter, the hazardous substance land use regulation. The applicant has indeed indicated that the facility will be constructed with appropriate containment controls and will meet the Fire Department' s requirements. The Zoning Code requirements include that this. . .that a site like this not be located closer than 200 feet. . .within 200 feet of a stream delineated on the Hazardous Area Map. The site looks to be more than 200 feet to the east of Mill Creek which runs up in that area but we would need more information and that was a condition that we had suggested to determine the exact distance to the creek. In addition, the facility is prohibited within one-quarter mile of a public recreation area. As I showed on the videotape the Interurban Trail which is a City/County bicycle trail and pedestrian path is about 1, 000 feet from the proposed use. The building does not meet the required 50 foot setback from the property lines for a hazardous substance land use as I mentioned is shown within five. . .or at five feet from the eastern property line. It does meet that requirement from the north, south and west. The other thing that I might mention is that the requirements say that vehicles which utilize this kind of a site should not pass through residential area. It' s possible that this would. . .that vehicles traveling to I-5 or to the West Valley Highway would travel through an agricultural zone but we felt that based on. . .that the density in this kind of a residential situation was 3 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 so low that this might be a requirement that could be waived particularly in light of the fact that this is only one of several alternative routes, they don't have to go through that area. It does meet several other criteria for siting this kind of a facility. It's 200 feet from unstable soils or soils delineated on the Hazard Area Map. It's an adequate distance from residential zones. It's at least 500 feet from a public meeting place and it' s not located in a flood plain. We analyzed this proposal in light of the Comprehensive Plan and the subarea plans. This falls under the Valley Floor Plan. Both of those plans designate the site as I. Industrial, and I would just like to make a few comments about the proposed relative to the goals, objectives and policies of these plans. The Comp Plan has a series of policies which worked to prevent pollution of those surface and subsurface water resources. There are several drainage ditches in this area, one that looks to be a seasonal drainage ditch which runs along the east side of the site. There' s a roadway ditch. There' s a major ditch across the railroad right of way which isn't such a concern because of the elevation difference. But we are concerned about storm water drainage and hazardous substances. A suggestion that we have made is that the. . .that no outdoor storage of hazardous materials be allowed to prevent a possible flow into neighboring waters. We also suggested that the existing natural vegetation along the drainage ditch to the east be retained to preserve some sort of habitat for the life that' s there and also to provide some biofiltration of any overflows. . .uncontained runoff from the parking area. The plans also discuss the need for a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system. I think the transportation system is probably our main concern on this site. It' s dependant. . .the development is dependant on 77th Avenue S. which is an inadequate roadway; dead end road, lacks curbs, gutters, storm water drain, sidewalks, line striping and street lighting and receives quite a bit of heavy truck and automobile traffic. The average daily traffic flows is approximately 2 , 500 vehicle trips per day. Because of the dangerous nature of the materials which will be shipped to and from the development, the inadequacy of the street is of concern. The development is proposed as a single dock-high door to the northend of the site and then a future truck loading area which is designated to be hydroseeded. To prevent vehicle maneuvering and truck maneuvering on 77th Avenue S. which is a highly traveled street, we had suggested that that area be paved and put into immediate usage. In addition, this development would add traffic at the intersection of 212th and West Valley Highway and 212th and East Valley Highway. 4 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 These intersections are already at capacity and although mitigating .conditions have been applied, again, transfer of dangerous materials through these heavily traffic areas is of concern. One of the City' s policy is also to site heavy industrial uses between the railroad traffic and this site certainly falls into that category. It's located between the Burlington Northern and Union Pacific rights of way in an area that already has several heavy industrial uses including, as I mentioned earlier, a hazardous materials facility. As Scott mentioned in an earlier report, there are eight conditions for siting a conditional use and, with your permission, I will go through those and respond to them from the Planning Department.• O.k. ? O.k. The first criteria is that the proposed use will not be detrimental to other uses legal existing or permitted outright in the district. The M3 is our heaviest and most intense zoning district in the City. As I mentioned, this is in an area of M3 development. The less intense M2 uses to the east are screened by the higher elevation railroad right of way. The use will meet federal, state and local criteria for hazardous substances land use facility and shouldn't proposed a threat to surrounding uses. The second criteria is that the size of the site be adequate. The proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot size. However, because of the width of the lot, only 120 feet, the proposal can't meet the 50 foot setback as designed. As I suggested earlier, this setback could be met along the north, south and west property lines. With some reconfiguration we feel that a 40 foot setback could be met along the east property line. The third criteria is that the traffic generated will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system. As I mentioned, traffic mitigation conditions were applied under SEPA. However, staff still has a concern about the traffic impact in this area. Fourth criteria. That the other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other land uses in the vicinity. Noise, vibration, glare, smoke and dust are not anticipated from this and a hazardous waste storage facility is already located in the area. The fifth criteria. That adequate buffering devices protect adjacent properties. We don't anticipate any adverse visual or auditory affects from the development. The landscaping will be provided along the north, west and south property lines to screen adjacent uses and we feel that the eastern boundary of the site is screened by the railroad embankment. Again, we are suggesting that 5 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 the hazardous materials portion of the development which are four. . .rooms located along the eastern perimeter be moved to the interior of the site to provide a buffer. The sixth criteria. The other uses in the vicinity are such as permit the proposed use to function effectively. Other uses are of the heavy industrial nature. The complex would arise over the inadequacy of 77th Avenue S. The seventh criteria. The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions. The site plan does not meet all the performance standards and Zoning Code requirements. But, with modification, it can meet the bulk of these requirements. Two conditional exceptions to the siting standards would be required. That would be a waiver of the one-quarter mile setback from public recreation areas and the waiver of the 50 foot setback for hazardous substances land uses facilities from the east property line. We would reduce that and make it. . . and suggest that it be made a 40 foot setback. The eighth criteria. Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate to a particular case. I think the Planning Department feels that although several concerns remain over some aspects of this development, it appears to meet the majority of criteria--of the criteria for siting a hazardous substance land use. Locating this type of facility anywhere in the City is going to be a difficult task and we feel that the bulk of the requirements are met by the site. So, in sum, the City staff recommends approval with the conditions, including the conditional exceptions noted in the staff report. Questions? Hunter: Yes, a couple of questions. Anderson• O.k. Hunter: You mentioned that there were conditions applied and I think they were referenced in the report on traffic concerns. . . Anderson: Right. The SEPA mitigating. . . Hunter: Applied by the DNS . But, I think, I heard you mentioned you also continue to have some concerns. Is that if the conditions are met, you' ll still have additional concerns? 6 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Anderson: I think the concern is that the improvements to 77th that are currently proposed and I will have to pull out my SEPA document deal with the roadway in the immediate vicinity of the site providing improvements to the road in the area. Improvements to 77th Avenue S. itself would come through the LID process and that may take some period of time before those improvements are actually put on the ground so for at least the interim period there would be some concern. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Secondly, there' s a Code requirement of location 500 feet away from agricultural zone, I heard something in your testimony at agricultural? Anderson: Right. The agricultural zone is down beyond West Valley Highway, it' s more than 500 feet from the development. The concern we raised over the agricultural zone was a minor concern relating to traffic. . .traffic from the site going through a residential zone and the question is how far you would extend that. I mean, eventually, almost all traffic at some time or other would go through a residential zone but because that was only one of several alternate routes we felt that was not. . . . Hunter: O.k. Anderson: A real problem. Hunter: And finally, regarding, I think, Mill Creek, is that the name of the water path? Anderson: Right. Hunter: You mentioned that it is likely greater than 200 feet? Anderson: Right. Hunter: Where. . .was it located. . .could we see it on the video? Was it located on there? Anderson: No, we could not see it on the video. It's. . .the Union Pacific Railroad embankment, it's on the side of that area, near the trail, I believe. And on the. . .scaling distance that we took was off our hazardous area map and it's. . . it looks that on the map of a very large scale, it appears that it's beyond the 200 foot buffer but we just wanted to confirm that at the time of review. Hunter: Did I understand your testimony, did you say that it is shown on the Hazard Area. . . 7 Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Anderson: Right. Mill Creek is indeed shown on the map and from the outline. . .the Hazard Area Map is a 1 to 1, 000 scale map, so variations within a matter of feet are very difficult to pinpoint. I don't think there' s an issue, it may be it' s 195 feet put I don't think there's an issue. We wanted to bring that up, however, at the hearing. Hunter: Did you ask for additional information on that? Anderson: No, we did not. Hunter: So the location is, if we're going west to east, Interurban Trail, Middle Creek and then the Union Pacific Railroad embankment, is that. . . Anderson: Right. The ditch, Mill Creek is ditched at that point, it's not a free flowing creek and I would have to defer to which side of the embankments it' s on, I frankly can't remember at this point where it runs along there. Hunter: I 'm trying to get some (unclear) on it, because you raised it as a concern. I guess, I heard testimony that the trail was 1, 000 feet away and Mill Creek is adjacent to the trail area and certainly one would conclude its. . . . Anderson: Yeah, it' s more than 200. Yeah, I don't. . .do we have a map? Hunter: We ' ll give you an opportunity to address the same question. The applicant has a chance to testify. Anderson: All right. I think I can clear this up. I saw the creek from 212th Street. The creek near 212th Street is on the east side of the railroad embankment. It then meanders apparently back to. . .I ' ll show you. Hunter: You're referring to which document. A vicinity map which is in the file dated June 7 . O.k. Anderson: A vicinity map. . . .right. . .right. So. . inside the railroad embankment and then meanders back towards the. . . . (unclear) here. (Unclear) . Any additional. . . Hunter: Thank you very much. Anderson• O.k. 8 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Hunter: O.k. Additional testimony on Emerald City Chemical. Yes, sir. Step forward. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you are about to give? John Hallstrom: Yes, I do. My name is John Hallstrom. H-a-1-1- s-t-r-o-m, I 'm architect for Sconozo and Associates, our address is 919 124th Avenue NE in Bellevue. And I would like to comment Lauri Anderson in the Planning Department on a very thorough report; however, there are several of the City staff's recommended conditions of approval which merit further discussion and consideration. The conditions which I neglect to discuss will be discussed at a later time by Gary Volchok and Glenn Dodge. Condition #3 of approval reads, "The applicant shall relocate the hazardous substances portion of the development to the interior portion of the site providing a minimum 50 foot setback from the property lines to the north, south and west and a minimum 40 foot setback along the eastern property line. Future expansion of the hazardous substance portion of this development will also be subject to the 50 foot setback requirement. " The staff recommendations do not recognize the Uniform Building Code or Uniform Fire Code requirements which will also be imposed upon this project. Hazardous substances must be located on an exterior wall of a building. If they were to be relocated as suggested by the Planning Department, it would prohibit future expansion as dictated on the plan. We recognized early on that this project and site on unusual conditions and needed careful consideration. We met at an early point on with both Building Department and Fire Department to discuss the implications of placing the hazardous substances abutting this railroad right of way on a long, shallow site. Both Codes recognize the public rights of way in determining the appropriate building setback requirements and the construction requirements for building in that location. The public right of way is a. . . .a railroad right of way which is used for short durations, it' s elevated about ten above the project site. The railroad right of way is 100 foot in width which would provide 105 foot minimum distance from our property line to the abutting property immediately to the east. The exterior wall of the building would be constructed as a four-hour wall which would be the most fire resistive construction recognized by Code. I would like to submit a letter drafted this morning by a Mr. Jack Fingold of the Building Department which more or less reiterates what I 've just discussed. Hunter: O.k. We can accept that as an exhibit. So, mark that Exhibit 2 , I guess, we have files Exhibit 1, so this would be Exhibit 2 . 9 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Hallstrom: Item number. . . Hunter: Let me make sure I understand this exhibit. It's a letter to you from Jack Fingold, Assistant Building Official, City of Kent. I just want to understand, you're submitting this in support of the testimony you just gave? This letter will serve as confirmation as to the intent of the Building/Fire Departments to apply the provision of the 1988 Uniform Codes. We concur there is a difference between the Building and Planning Department's setback or yard requirements. Of course the Planning Department does not recognize the rights of way and easements as satisfying zoning requirements. O.k. , that' s the letter. . . Hallstrom: Essentially the Building Department and Fire Department recognize the right of way as. . . .determination in determining setbacks required for the building construction and the limitations on the type of construction to be built. Hunter: O.k. , I think that I will have some specific questions on that but we' ll let you complete your testimony. Hallstrom: I would like to say on Item #6, maintaining existing, natural vegetation along the eastern property line. We have no objection to that. We have a photo which we could submit as evidence which depicts the existing conditions out there at that location. Hunter: Would you like to submit that as an exhibit. O.k. We' ll mark this as Exhibit 3 and it' s a photo of existing site. Hallstrom: South property line. . . . (unclear) . Hunter: You're on the north property line, looking south. Hallstrom: We are on the east property line. Hunter: East property line. O.k. Hallstrom: Item #7 referenced the need for sidewalk along the east boundary of the building line. Those x's along that side are going to be required for exiting from the hazardous areas. We have no objections to, you know, creating an exit passage. . .pathway out that side of the building; would suggest possibly might want to use a gravel surface opposed to a concrete surface the entire lane. Item #8 refers to the future truck loading area and associated driveway shall be paved and provided for immediate usage. The site 10 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 is presently a gravel surface area and should not be hydroseeded as the plans indicated but should remain in it's existing condition. The staff report recommends paving this area to avoid car parking on the hydroseeded areas. The Zoning Code will require 17 parking stalls for this use. We propose on our plan to provide 24 stalls. There' s a surplus of 7 parking stalls, there should not be an additional requirement for parking on the area. The second comment had been that. . .to facilitate the use of the proposed site by delivery vehicles and to prevent truck maneuvering on 77th Avenue, essentially the site plan indicates a clear distance in front of our trucking doors of 155 feet. That' s 55 feet in excess of what the Code would require at a 100 foot distance. ' The site plan also proposes two access driveways which are proposed to promote one-way access which provide a maximum on site maneuvering of delivery vehicles. I felt that the paved area, if it were to be imposed on the north side of the building, would just confuted more surface water to the open drainage ditches already being used. And in comment to the last item in regards to the conditional exception requiring the waiver of the 50 foot setback, we would request that it be waived to grant a five foot setback from the east property line in light of 100 foot railroad right of way immediately adjoining the property to the east in light that the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code establish the standards and methods of construction necessary to be able to build in that type of location. Any questions? Hunter: O.k. Your testimony about Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. . . I 'm trying to get. . .trying to get a fix on that. . . it' s the first that I 've seen it raised regarding the file. Those codes weren't mentioned. Is your testimony that there' s a conflict. . . it does not allow the setback. . . Hallstrom: What I 'm trying to point out. . . . Hunter: Or that it would cost more, I 'm just not quite sure. Hallstrom: No, the Zoning Code is the codes upon which they are used to make the determination of salvaging(?) this report and the conditions imposed upon a project. Hunter: Correct. . . setback. . . . Hallstrom: And before we have those conditions imposed upon us, I want to make the point that there are provisions within the Building Codes that will enable us to protect the public safety and welfare by constructing the building with certain means and methods to be able to ensure that happens. If this requirement were to be 11 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 imposed upon a project at this point in time, we would not have the opportunity at that point in time to come back and make any deviations to the plan. Hunter: O.k. , so your testimony is, correct me if I 'm misparaphrasing, but I want to understand it. . . Hallstrom: Sure. Hunter: Is that the protections provided in UBC and Uniform Fire. . . Hallstrom: Code. Hunter: are, Code, would exceed protections provided by 50 foot setback or would be inappropriate. Hallstrom: I don't know. . . Hunter• O.k. Hallstrom: If in fact the building were to be constructed as proposed by the Planning Department, the setback requirement for the hazardous occupancy, as a result, the exterior wall protection enclosing those occupancies would be of a less fire resistive standard than what we would propose by the location where positioned. Obviously, there would be an additional 35 foot buffering distance on our site that would not be a part of our application. Hunter: Then could you explain briefly to me what some of those Code requirements might be? Hallstrom: As the regs. . . Hunter: In the UBC and the Uniform Fire Code? Hallstrom: O.k. They dictate the fire resistive standards required to enclose these occupancies. Hunter: O.k. Specifically, as to the type of use you are proposing? Hallstrom: That is correct. Yes, and in a location that we proposed the requirement for that exterior wall and coded for that occupancy, five feet from the property line, would require a four- hour fire resistive wall, which is the most fire resistive wall 12 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 recognized by the Uniform Building Code and I guess the ultimate -point that we are trying to make is that pubic safety and welfare can still be maintained in that location in light of the 100 foot railroad right of way which would provide an essentially 105 foot buffer distance between the exterior wall of the building and the property immediately east of this site. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Further testimony of this application? Yes, sir. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you are about to give? Gary Volchok: Yes I do. My name is Gary Volchok, V as in Victor, o-1-c-h-o-k, 1600 Park Place. I 'm with Coldwell Banker, a real estate company and I 'm here not only talking for the applicant but also for three of the four surrounding property owners that are adjacent to this property. First of all, I might mention that prior to the adoption of the hazardous ordinances, the City of Kent adopted, we had come in, I say we, Emerald City had come in previous and were looking at another site. We came in. . .we applied for a permit that time and were told to get a conditional use permit. This is now about a year ago and we were told. . . a conditional use. . .the Planning Director. . .we in turn did not think that we would be. . .we had to do that because of the fact the name of the company was Emerald City Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , it was automatically, outrightly allowed to be into an M3 which is the heaviest zoning that Kent has. We then. . .the Planning Director suggested that well, go to the Hearing Examiner. . .not Hearing Examiner, excuse me, the Board of Adjustment and see what they say. We said o.k. so went to the Board of Adjustment. The Board there and we made our case there as did the City make their case and they agreed with us at that time that the Emerald City Chemical, Inc. , because of the size of the products that they carry and so forth did not require a conditional use permit. Subsequently from that the site that we had tied up got too large for what we wanted to do and economics didn't work and the site that we were looking at previously was zoned M3 , was in Kent, located about three-quarters of a mile south between the railroad tracks, zoned M3 and even adjacent to another chemical user, I think its Chempro or Fiberchem. . . .Fiberchem. So, we in turn, passed on that site subsequently in looking at this site here. . . in that period of time the hazardous material ordinance was adopted and the City stated, 'loops, sorry, we've got this ordinance now, you have to know go get a conditional use permit. Yet now has changed, the exact same scenario is being done on this site as was being on the other site. Actually, this building is a little bit smaller than the other building. Previously, on the other site we were also located next to the railroad right of way. . . . (unclear) now located next to a 13 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 railroad right of way but we are also located next to the railroad right of way and Puget Sound Power and Light right of way. The City of Kent Engineering Department and Building Department does look at and does include when they start talking about setbacks, for the numbers game as opposed to the Planning Department who looks at more of a philosophical type game if you want to use. . . .as railroad setbacks as Puget Power Light right of way setbacks as being able to be used just as street rights of way are being able to be used for these required setbacks. I just want kind of comment and let me clarify that a little bit more with relation to that aspect of it. Hunter: Well, yeah, I appreciate that Mr. Volchok. I guess I 'll take notice that we have a deliberative process of government and. . . Volchok: Unfortunately. Hunter: And what we want to do is focus on the application. . . Volchok: That' s what I 'm going to do right now. On the first item, by the way, that I would like to talk on, is the fact that the lot. . . it talks right here about lot line adjustments to eliminate the internal lot lines to be required prior to development and unless the applicant wishes to meet Code requirements for each individual lot. This property is in what the call the Town of Van and was annexed to the City umpteen years ago that used to be residential lot. When it was, I don't know, because I 've been done here working on lands for 20 years and, as a matter of fact, this was my first sale I made in 1971. I sold it originally to Central Pre-Mix to concrete the property and at that time it was just a farm and the Kato's lived on it. The City Engineering Department, the King County Board of Adjustment, the King County Assessor' s Office, all recognize this property as being one ownership. It may have a legal description of being lots 1 through 8 or whatever it is, the Town of Van. But in reality it is under one taxing statement (unclear) and the Engineering Department for the City of Kent recognizes this also thus not having to go in and in realty waste the time and money to eliminate the lot lines between each of these lots. It just happens to be the legal description of this property. It is not a unplatted piece of property, one tax lot number, it is a platted piece of property but still has one tax lot number. So, I just want to comment on that that it' s something that is superfluous and is not necessary to do and, like I say, the Engineering Department for the City of Kent as well as the County recognizes it as one legal lot or one legal ownership, pardon me. And besides, would be rather, 14 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 each individual lot could not be developed on because they are less than the required lot size per the M3 zoning. By the way, in answer to question #2 , about the 200 foot setback from Mill Creek, at the closest point this property is to Mill Creek, which is to the west of this property, across 77th and across the property across the street is 260 feet. They asked for a 200 foot right of way, the closest this property comes is 260 feet to the west. To the south it is 690 feet, I believe, where it crosses under 77th and then goes back under the railroad tracks. So that kind of clarifies that point as to the. . . Hunter: Can you describe how you measured that; did you pace it off, did you tape it or is it on the map? Volchok: It ' s on a map. You can go to the King County Assessor' s map and just. . . Hunter: And that' s what you did, that's your testimony is that you went to a map. Volchok: Yeah, we have the map right here if you would like to enter it, I can do so. Hunter: It would be appropriate. This is a map. . .a copy of a map from. . .where? Assessor' s map from King County, you obtained this from King County and it shows the site and, can you indicate, where it shows Mill Creek. Volchok: This is Mill Creek right here. Drainage District #1 is what is called Mill Creek. The property under discussion is this property right here. So this would be the closest point, I guess, right along in here. Hunter: O.k. , let have this marked as an exhibit. Exhibit 4 , I guess, is that where we are? Do you want to refer to it further in testimony? Volchok• No. Hunter: Ordinarily, it becomes part of the file. o.k. Volchok: The only other item, I guess, that I would like to comment is speaking for. . .there should be a letter in the file. . . I know it was sent by Mike Chimenti. I don't know if that' s been entered into the file or not or passed on. O.k. that was for the. . . 15 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Hunter: I 'm looking for a letter. . . Volchok: There was a letter that was sent into the file from Mike Chimenti from the Chimenti and Jewett Trust. They own the property adjacent to this property on the south. And they made the comment and have instructed me. . .allowed me to say the same thing, that they have no problem with the project as it is designed on the subject site. Just a short, one page letter. Hunter: Oh, here it is. Volchok: I 've also been instructed. . . Hunter: I will note that. . .we' ll place that in the file. It has been received. . .the letter you testified to. Volchok: I have also been instructed to say that the property owner of the west side of 77th, starting at the North Central Pre- Mix Concrete that have their batch plant at the north, they obviously have no problem with this type of facility being built across the street from their exiting facility. Also, Tri-State Construction Company which owns the four acres directly across the street from this property. . . I can point out on that map if you would like me too. . .they have gotten a conditional use permit for a concrete crushing plant. They also have no objection with this operation being built across the street and the reminder of the property, south of that four acres, down to the creek, owned by Bruce McCann and subsequently Zep a manufacturing, who are also putting in a similar facility but not quite, did not have go for a conditional use permit, not sure why we did and they didn't. But anyway, they didn't have too, they also stated to us that they have no problem with this facility being built here. So in essence on three sides, other than the railroad, everybody is in favor of this facility. Hunter: Can I ask you exactly, you mentioned, I guess, at the beginning of your testimony that you are speaking for the applicant as well as several other, three others I think you said, property owners. And, who are the three other property owners? From the testimony that you just gave, some of which is, what we call hearsay, but others which you are speaking as an agent for. . . Volchok• Yes. Hunter: What three property owners? 16 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Volchok: Central Pre-Mix Concrete, the Tri-State Construction Company, McCann Construction Company. Hunter: O.k. Volchok: And, well, you have the letter from the Chimenti and Jewett trust. Hunter: Right. O.k. Volchok: If you would like me to show on the map where each of these people are I can just point if you would like. me to. Hunter: I would understand that they are surrounding property owners, is that appropriate. Volchok: Yes, yes, o.k. Might also. . .well, that' s all. Thank you. Hunter: Further testimony in this application. Yes, sir? Raise your hand, do you swear affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you' re about to give. Glenn Dodge: Yes, I do. Hunter: State your name. Dodge: My name is Glenn Dodge. I 'm the owner of Emerald City Chemical. I. . .current office address is 1403 East Madison in Seattle. I ' ll run through the proposed conditions to this. Some of which are of concern to our project. And I ' ll probably duplicate some that' s already been said but I ' ll go ahead and do that anyway. Item 1 with relation to the zoning, changing the property or lot lines. I, unfortunately, don't understand what the purpose behind the City asking for that is. But, I can find no necessary reason as it has been stated. The fact that the property is one contiguous lot on the City' s LID proposal for this area, they indicated in their eyes as one lot and the County, according to the County, which I had a personal conversation with two days ago, their records indicate it as one parcel and one tax lot. So, I don't see any gain to the City or our project requiring the time and expense with eliminating these five internal lot lines from the County records. On 3 , which is relation to the setback requirements. One of the greatest concerns. . .we've been in the chemical business for some years and very conscious of keeping track of where our materials 17 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 are and how they are handled. This requirement by the Fire Codes and Building Codes for external exits from hazardous sources locations is one of the main concerns. . .main happenings you have to follow when building these units. To change the building and move the hazardous materials storage areas internal to the building to allow the 40 foot as suggested by the City, would eliminate totally the possibility of the additions that we would require in the future to add to the building. It would make the building a long, narrow width unit that would not be as serviceable and would make have of the property unusable. Again, that fact that the Building Department. . .the Building Codes and Fire Codes specifically allow for the use of the railroad and other such right of ways to be used in conjunction with setback requirements, I feel it should be. . .make it allowable in this situation. Other than that, our waiver of that might read, excuse me, "the 50 foot setback required for hazardous substances land use facility shall be waived for the entire length of the east property line bordering the railroad right of way of the proposed site" . This is what I. . .we feel would be. . . follow the guidelines of the Building and Fire Codes and the City has already said that yes, a waiver of some sorts was in their mind also. Taking these together, the five foot space between the building and the property line should be acceptable. Item 5. Relates to the storage of materials outdoors. I would like to submit a number of photographs showing neighboring. . .showing neighboring businesses and businesses within from a few 1, 000 feet to a mile or two miles. Hunter: Do you want these introduced as an exhibit for the file. Dodge: Please. Hunter: Is it all right if we take them together, through A to number 6. Let' s see there are, 1, 2 , 3 ,4, 5, 6,7, 8 photos. Dodge: That' s correct. Hunter: O.k. Mark all eight as Exhibit #5. Dodge: You will notice, when you look at them, the first section, the first three pictures are labeled 2A, 2B and 2C; these are pictures taken yesterday of the existing facilities at Crosby & Overton which is a hazardous waste handling and disposal site approximately 1, 000 feet north of this area. You will notice in these pictures all around the building are stored outdoors material . . .drums of materials. Although it is. . .we found 18 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 exceptionally hard to blow these pictures up to a size that you could read the drums, it you were to visit this site you would notice that in the front of these stacks. . .these drums are labeling there hazardous conditions. . .oxidizers, flammables, corrosives and the like. So it's a common practice in businesses that have to use hazardous materials that these materials be stored outside. Hunter: Let me. . . I ' ll note for the record that the Hearing Examiner has visited the site. It is customary for us to do that prior to hearing so I have visited. Dodge: o.k. The. . . another. . .picture #3 is a site previously mentioned as Fiberchem. It is again an area that stores hazardous materials and they also have materials stored outside. Picture 4 is a picture of the yard, Van Waters & Rogers Industrial which is on 212th. This picture again shows drums stored outside. Again, showing the common place of this and picture 5A and 5B are pictures of Chem Central which is north of us here and again showing outside storage of these products and picture 6 is a picture up in the City of Tukwila showing the outdoor storage of potential hazardous products just to show you that neighboring cities do this also. In addition, the Fire Code specifically allows and regulates this storage in Sections of 88 Uniform Fire Code 79 Division 4 80. 305.B, 80. 306 . B, 80 . 310 . B, 80. 314 .B, 80. 315.B all relate to the outdoor storage of hazardous materials and how they will be handled and so. . .outside of the fact I don't see any provisions in the ordinance to give the allowance to not allow outdoor storage, the containment and the use of these products are specifically outlined and set up for in the. . . specifically in the Fire Code. Hunter: With all that storage going on then I would imagine that you looked at the site you are interested in as to any leakage from that storage. Has there been any contamination of the soil on that site. The property that you are proposing? Dodge: The property that I 'm proposing to work with has had no apparent storage of these types of materials in the past and I have no concern which is of great concern these days with pollution and the like especially as related to who's responsible to clean it up such as the person buying the property gets put on the tab. I have no concerns at this time that this property has been affected and I believe that was the statement of the City also that they have no information that this has been a problem in the past. We would certainly continue to strive to make this not a problem. We have been on our present site for five years and have not had the problem to date there either. We are very aware of the requirements and how to conduct ourselves with these products. The 19 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 _ other thing that maybe should be mentioned too in relation to these types of products that this is only a portion of our business. We aren't solely a hazardous materials handling company. Approximately maybe 30 to 35 percent of the products are these and the rest are not, of course, not listed here and weren't the reason for us coming here. But, we are a well rounded company. Hunter: Are you proposing those other activities for this site as well or is this predominately. . . Dodge: No this site is used as stated by the City, is used for the storage and handling of organic and inorganic materials, chemicals and the like. That is an all encompassing figure. The specific reason that we are here today is because some of those items that we propose to handle fall under .the hazardous category and so that is why we are here but the entire. . .the focus of the project is as stated that we will handle an encompassing amount of materials. O.k. , the, let's see, one other comment, it was brought up earlier that this ordinance is a new ordinance, this is the first time it has been put to task. I had talked to Kathy some weeks ago and the comment was made that they. . . it had been an interesting process in working with this that there were some perimeters that were found a little bit harder to work with than others and that they would be looking to although it could not happen within this time frame to possibly changing some of these as they are reviewed the process both with our project and, I 'm sure, future projects. Hunter: How is that relevant to today' s proceeding? Dodge: It' s relevant from the aspect that we are asking for a variance from these codes and this code was written or introduced, I believe, in September of last year so it is a new process and, therefore, I feel, especially should allow for the possibility of variances as we learn how the writings. I 'm familiar how writings go and we write lots of things and we try and we do our darnedest and I think they done an excellent job with putting this on paper but there are things that we have to work out as with every ordinance and ruling. The. . .also in that context I would like to bring up that the quarter mile limitation to a public thoroughfare and the 50 foot setback arrived with this September ordinance. They were not a. . .also including the 200 foot limit to a creekbed such as Mill Creek were arrived with this new ordinance. So these are new tests items that are coming into play. The. . .we participated in the LID conference for this project. One of the concerns is the traffic mitigations and this type of sort. It is our understanding at this time that the City has on their table 20 "' Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 enough affirmative plans, affirmations to building plans and the like that allows immediate introduction of this LID when they are sufficiently ready. This was from this meeting. One of the concerns at that time were the traffic light for most of the people, they didn't care about the road, they thought the road was sufficient for immediate neighboring needs but it was the fact that we didn't have a traffic light at the corner and there was some talk and I proposed and wrote a letter talking about that. The hauling of hazardous materials with Crosby & Overton being on four plus acres and covering that entire piece, Van Waters & Rogers in the other direction and covering probably in the neighborhood eight to ten acres, they are much larger companies that we are-. They haul much more material of this kind than we. . .well, not that we hope to dream, but then we will ever on this site certainly. The amount of traffic that we will put on the road is going to be minimal compared to what's already on the road in this area. Our main focus of our business is to package large quantities to small quantities so a majority of our. . .significant. . .well, let' s make it a significant amount of our stock is packaged in one-gallon, five-gallon, one-pint containers although we do bring in drums to package these down with. Again, meeting the appropriate codes to do so. These are individually containered materials. The chance of spills arising from them; therefore, significantly less. You punch a one-pint bottle you get a lot less spill than if you punch a drum or a tanker truck. We don't have tanker facilities and so we don 't have threat. The, I believe, that outlines what I came to say. Hunter: O.k. I have some questions. Dodge: Sure. Hunter: The waste disposal methods, the processing that is involved and whether there are waste products produced from some of the. . . Dodge: In our current operation, we do not have waste products produced as outline in the appropriate SARA III 's and the outlines that way. We don't fall into that category. There is one term of waste which becomes in our process maybe an unlabeled bottle. That isn't really generated waste, that is a waste by some other means I guess. Those products all go to approved, at this time point we use Northwest Envirol, but have used Crosby also. But, those go to the approved sites. But in terms of waste generator we don't. . . 21 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Hunter: What types of products are you referring to then that would approved. . . Dodcre Some where we have packaged a number of containers and maybe a label has fallen off where we are sufficiently satisfied that we can determine the exact item in the container then we certainly don't want it on the market and so it has to go and be disposed of appropriately as opposed to. . .you cannot afford to test items, for those type of quantities. . Hunter: And the larger containers that you received that you then repackage. . . Dodge: Yes. Hunter: A discarded container is that hazardous? Dod e: The. . .most containers are received as a deposit container thereby being returns when emptied to the original sender. This plan pretty much encompasses all of the flammable products and hazard products because they are usually packaged in much sturdier containers that are not economically thrown away. Hunter: So, this operation does not. . .do you have a federal permit for this type of operation then? Dod e: There is. . .there are no permits. We do work with the EPA in as far as pesticides. Some of their regulations, the FDA gets into the picture on certain products. Not that you can't sell the products but if you sell it to be used on a horse then you have to follow different guidelines but specifically, as a business, there are no requirements. Hunter: I guess what I 'm thinking of is in the staff report and on the DNS conditions, this reference to Title III requirements for contingency plans in the event of some emergency. Dodge: Correct. . .correct. The contingency plan is based on your own, well it' s in SARA III but it directs it to your own area's Planning Commission and we participate and file those currently with the City of Seattle. At the last filing we had seven products that had to be filed under their regulations out of whatever it might be three to five thousand that we might handle. The reasons for that is the fact of our small quantities. A lot of these materials you don't report until you get over x hundred gallons and we just don't have that large of quantities in most of the products. As I say, the last reporting was seven products. 22 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Hunter: The last reporting of the types of products you handle? Dodge: Of the types of products that we have to file pertaining to the SARA III, we turned in a list of seven products. Hunter: O.k. Is there also a release report that's filed then? Dodge: We don't have the requirement in our business to file a release report. We don't have the use of product to do that. The only by-product but we've never had that problem is from a spill if we go overr -a certain quantity then the spill enforces that but as a general business requirement we don't fall into that. Hunter: O.k. Is your intent to restrict business operations then to these, I guess, the seven that had been specified or would there be possible expansion. . . Dodcre: No, well, I can't control how the government is going to add and subtract chemicals from the list and change their volumes. I just submitted a letter the other day with respect to some proposed changes that they are looking at in determining these quantities . I don't have any control over what that might happen. We certainly will supply those documents when needed pertaining to any other rules. I think. . . Hunter: Are you familiar with the consolidated chemical list then that EPA prepares? Dodge: Certainly. Hunter: And the seven you referred to the ones on the list? Dodge: Off that list, right. The other thing that, I think, you referred to, the LIPC whatever the reporting requirements, we currently have for our current facility an operating and safety structure manual and, I think, it asks for that within 60 days or so and there ' s certainly no problem with that. We have a consulting company that worked on that one and they would just take it and turn it around and match it to our current facility so that's probably a one week process because we have this in hand. Hunter: O.k. Do you export out of the U.S. any products? Dodge: Canada. Pretty much the only place we go. 23 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Hunter: Your testimony is there's one facility presently operating in Seattle is that. . .do I understand you right and you are relocating? Dodcte: We are relocating, yes. Hunter: And you've had no releases of any hazardous substances at Dodge: That is correct. Hunter: And you generated waste at that site, hazardous waste but in what quantities? Dodge: The, I guess, I would put an average of 55 gallons because we try to consolidate, you know, as these things go in a four to six month period. We had to change our systems around significantly. Years ago we used, somebody would walk up to our door with a container that they didn't know what to do with such as happens on these community things and we'd say sure we would take it off your hands. We ended up with a significant quantity of these and the Fire Department here last fall decided those shouldn't be on our site any more so our community effort costs us about $25, 000 to dispose of these products but you live and learn, I guess, and as we change we all grow with it. Unfortunately, we don't take products from people any more. We just can't afford to. Hunter: Fifty-five gallons once every four to six months. So you are well below thresholds for any reporting then. Dome: Right. Hunter: O.k. Thank you very much. Dod e: Thank you. Hunter: Does anyone else wish to testify in this application. I see a couple of people from the City. Did you want to go first. McClung: I just wanted to address the reasoning behind the lot line adjustment requirement or request. Obviously, the City wouldn't require this if we had not been burned by it before on other situations. We, I found it somewhat humorous to hear the argument since that exact argument has been used in reverse where lots have been platted and now they have been consolidated to one tax lot. The County will do exactly the opposite and tell us that although it has been consolidated for tax purposes they are still 24 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 separate lots and we have to view them as separate lots for zoning purposes and we have in the past. And, so a few years ago we had a couple of situations where there were more than one lot on a development and then portions of those lots were sold off even, in one instance, portions of a lot where the building have been built over the property line. So, we came up with a written policy that says that lot lines have to be eliminated if. . .unless they can stand on their own so that if they do get sold off in the future they all meet the Zoning Code. There was an objection to the time and money that this would cost. I think I should clarify that what we require is three copies of nothing more than the assessor' s map that they have provided you with lines pointing to what will be eliminated. There is no fee from the City's standpoint, we process it in a couple of days, it does have to be recorded with King County and there is a recording charge but it' s nominal. And if they record it with. . . if they submit it within the next few days before our ordinance that was passed last night becomes effective they don't even have to provide a title report or verification of who the owners are. That' s all I have on that. Oh, I guess I could add one thing, if they can get verification from the County that those were never considered separate lots we would require them to be eliminated. Hunter: O.k. And what would serve as verification from the County, a written statement. McClung: Um-hum. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Yes, Lauri. Anderson: I wanted to clarify just a couple of points about some of the conditions. The first thing that I wanted to bring up was the 40 foot setback requirement that seemed to have generated quite a bit of controversy. The suggestion that we were making was that these rooms which are the hazardous substance rooms be reversed with this which is a nonhazardous substance area so that their' s would still be a wall access out here and that this loading door could potentially come down at this end and service this portion of the site in the back. So, in other words, we are not asking that the whole building be relocated we are asking that the rooms be flipped. They would both still maintain an outdoor wall. In terms of expansion, I 'm not sure how that would effect expansion assuming they continue the hazardous materials expansion could continue this way just as a nonhazardous materials expansion. We checked with the Fire Department about their requirements and discussed with them the possibility of reversing the room pattern and they felt that was all right. As this is the first hazardous 25 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 substance land use facility hearing, again, we want to set a precedent and the requirement of a 50 foot setback from a property line was not for aesthetic reasons or other reasons, it was for safety reasons. If the railroad right of way, just a street right of way, could be considered in the setback as perhaps the Planning or the Building and Fire Departments do. We do not think the public safety would be adequately protected particularly in reference to a street right of way although the railroad right of way and the possibility of, however, unlikely a train derailment is also an issue. The second thing I wanted to bring up was the use of this area which we are recommending be paved for immediate usage. From going to the site, I think you saw that people frequently use that for parking and large trucks for maneuvering because 77th is inadequate. There aren't very many driveways off the street and people need a place to turn around since it's a dead end. For that reason and presuming also that there might be more than one truck on site at a time we had suggested that that area be paved. Regardless of that issue, if the area is to be used for any sort of parking and maneuvering, it must be paved it cannot remain as a gravel pad per Zoning Code requirement. If it is not going to be paved, then it should be landscaped also per Zoning Code requirements and not remain in it' s graveled state. Finally, with regard to the outdoor storage, we're focusing on a specific site here, not at a variety of other sites throughout the City which were in place before our new requirements went into effect. I think we are concerned about the proximity of this to a very major drainage ditch on the other side of the railroad right of way. We don't know what the groundwater situation is in that area. There' s a drainage ditch, seasonal though it may be, to the east of the property and one which runs along the road. The requirement about outdoor storage of hazardous materials went into place because of a concern over the possibility of leaking barrels, possibility of some sort of gaseous escape, I don't know whether that' s a possibility but settling onto open water, that kind of thing. We did not put restrictions on other kinds of storage, we did request that it be fenced which again is a requirement of the Zoning Code and which is not complied with by many of the property owners in that area. And, that was all I wanted to add. Hunter: Let me ask for clarification on the storage within an enclosed building. Is that. . .the source for that is in the ordinance, the hazardous substance ordinance? Anderson: The source for. . . 26 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Hunter: For that condition, I 'm trying to. . . Anderson: About the outdoor storage? Hunter: Yes, I 'm trying to determine which. . . Anderson: Right. Outdoor storage is permitted in the M3 zone as long as it' s fenced for public safety and security reasons and that refers to hazardous materials as well. However, we felt that an additional condition was necessary because of this particular site and it's proximity to the waterways. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Any further testimony. Yes sir, Mr. Dodge. Dodcte: A comment I would like to make is on this building flip. Understand that if we were to flip these rooms to this side, that makes this whole area which is designated as a proposed addition to the building at some future time infeasible. Because we would have to have these doors along that wall and thereby was my statement previously of eliminating half the property as being able to be built on because we could not build to the west then because these doors would be stopping that. We would not have the exterior wall that we are trying to build there so because of that is way we don't see a way around having thee rooms on that east boundary. Again, the. . .we do have this ten foot wall. . .ten foot berm that the railroad is built on. I 'm not sure how we perceive some kind of material is going to make it 100. . .a minimum of 105 feet away over this ten foot berm. Now I realize, yes, things flow through the ground but it' s a long ways on compacted material, it' s highly unlikely, I would think. I 'm not an engineer though. Let see. . .I think that was my statement. Hunter: O.k. Any further testimony, concerns? Yes, sir? Mr. Volchok, please the microphone. . . it' s all recorded. Volchok: Again, on the lot line situation. Even though, you say, it takes a letter, this building is going to be built on all tax lots. We could not in any way sell off the tax lots, i.e. because it would not be a legal size lot in the City of Kent and as happens numerous times, the City' s own Engineering Department is in disagreement with the Planning Department on this issue. They, in turn, look at a number of tax lots or lots 1, 2 , 3 so forth, as under one ownership as being one lot and it really is. . .I don't know what the word is, the adjective, but it' s something that in the industrial properties, even in Olympia, they have adopted a 27 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 situation where you can go up to nine lots and not have to "plat" just go into a short plat into nine lots. O.k. the City of Kent does have a short plat requirement which all industrial parks adhere to. The Kent Valley Industrial Park with relation to properties there, they have joint setbacks for example from one lot to another lot. But here, because we are building and Mr. Dodge is building on. . .there will be a building across all of the tax lots including a vacated street that' s in there which was just vacated by the City. Hunter: O.k. So you object to it, is it silly or is it too cumbersome or what? Volchok: I think it' s work. Silly, to cumbersome, I just think it' s something that' s not necessary in this situation. Hunter: Why is it to cumbersome, we had testimony that it was a simple process? Are you disagreeing that it' s simple to do or. . . Volchok: Oh, I 'm not disagreeing that it' s not simple to do. I 'm just saying that I think it' s silly to do from the standpoint that there own Engineering and Building Department look at it as not being something that is required or not being something that is. . .date. . .they require when you go in for the building permit. You know when you' re working with numbers an exact dimensions when you go into an Engineering Department, unfortunately, Planning sometimes things are drawn (unclear) they want to have for the public safety, and it ' s good, but I guess my opinion is and I 've always thought this issue is not something that needs to be brought up that Mr. Dodge even spend the money or the time to have to do. Hunter: O.k. , your opinion' s been recorded and we' ll take it into account. Thank you very much, any further testimony. Seeing none we will then close the record on Emerald City Chemical. 28 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JUNE 71 1989 FILE NO: EMERALD CITY CHEMICAL #CE-89-7 APPLICANT: Thomas A. Sconzo REOUEST: A conditional use permit for the use of an existing 3 , 224 square foot building and a new 8 , 358 square foot addition for corporate offices and the mixing, packaging, warehousing and distribution of organic and inorganic chemicals. This request is provided for in Section 15. 04 . 190 (C) (12) of the Kent Zoning Code which regulates hazardous substance land uses. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Lauri Anderson STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL M I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to locate corporate offices and an organic/inorganic chemical packaging, mixing and storage operation in the M3 , General Industrial, zone. The proposal would utilize an existing 3 , 224 square foot building (presently occupied by Central Pre-Mix offices) , along with an 8 , 358 square foot addition. Section 15. 04 . 190 (C) (12) of the Kent Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit for this type of use, which involves more than 20, 000 pounds of hazardous substances on site. The proposed use is classified as a hazardous substance land use facility. The applicant has indicated that the handling and storage of all hazardous chemicals will be contained within rooms designed for the specific product. 1 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 B. Location The subject property is located between 77th Avenue S. and the Burlington Northern right-of-way, just to the north of vacated Harrison Street. The site includes vacated S. 208th Street. C. Size of Property The property is approximately 52 , 080 square feet in size. D. Zoning The property is zoned M3 , General Industrial . Surrounding property to the north, south and west is also zoned M3 , General Industrial . Property to the east is zoned M2 , Limited Industrial . The lot exceeds the minimum lot size as specified in the development standards for the M3 , General Industrial, zone. Site coverage will be less than the 75 percent maximum requirement. The building height meets the two- story or 35 feet limitation. Other development standards, however, are not met under the proposed site plan. Side yard landscaping is not shown along the northern perimeter of the site. This landscaping (a minimum of 5 feet in width) is required by the Zoning Code. Landscape islands (minimum of 100 square feet) are not provided at the eastern ends of the parking rows. Eliminating the two easternmost stalls and replacing them with the required landscape islands would provide a 5 foot hammerhead maneuvering area, necessary for traffic safety as users back out of adjoining stalls. Such a parking modification would not reduce the number of stalls below the required amount for the use as currently envisioned. At the time of future expansion, additional parking may be required. The 10 foot-wide required front yard landscaping is not shown along the entire 77th Avenue S . frontage. Such landscaping should be extended along the future truck loading area. Dock high doors must be screened from adjacent streets by a minimum 20-foot berm and landscaping. Berming of the 2 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 front yard landscaping in the vicinity of the proposed dock high door will be required. Man doors to the rear of the site open out into proposed plantings. A sidewalk to facilitate pedestrian circulation should be provided in this area. The building site appears to contain several independent lots. Lot line adjustments to eliminate internal lot lines will be required prior to development, unless the applicant wishes to meet code requirements for each lot individually. Waste disposal methods (including dumpsters for nonhazardous waste) are not shown or described. Dumpsters must be screened from view from surrounding properties and the street, and must be surrounded by landscaping. If hazardous waste is generated by this proposal, additional regulatory measures may be required. The requirements for siting a hazardous substance land use facility require that it must be 200 feet from streams delineated on the Hazard Area Limitations Map. While Mill Creek appears to be located more than 200 feet to the west of this development, the applicant should provide information on the exact distance to the creek from the proposed site to determine whether or not this condition has been met. Hazardous substance land use facilities are also prohibited within one-quarter mile (13201 ) of public recreation areas. The proposed development is approximately 1, 000 feet from the Interurban Trail--a King County bicycle and pedestrian trail. A conditional exception from this condition would be necessary to allow the proposed Emerald City Chemical siting. As trail users typically pass through the area and do not congregate in the vicinity, and as the trail could be closed if necessary, such a conditional exception could be supported. The building does not meet the required 50 foot setback from all property lines. Although this setback is met along the northern, western and southern perimeters (including the 77th Avenue S. frontage) , the eastern perimeter of the structure has only a 5 foot setback from the property line. The eastern perimeter of the site runs 3 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 along the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, which is at a 10 foot higher elevation than the subject property. Nevertheless, passenger trains and possible future commuter rail services use the tracks. The applicant should relocate the hazardous substances portion of the development to the interior portion of the site, providing the 50 foot buffer along the property lines to the north, south and west, and a minimum 40 foot buffer along the eastern property line. A conditional exception from the 50 foot setback requirement would still be required under this scenario along the eastern property line. Because of the isolation of the 77th Avenue S. area between the railroad tracks, and the narrow depth of the lot itself (120 feet) , such a conditional exception would be supported. Future expansion of the hazardous substance portion of this development would be subject to the 50 foot setback requirement. At the time of the State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Checklist submission, the traffic routes proposed for vehicles using the site involved S. 212th Street to SR-167 (the Valley Freeway) or to Interstate-5. Vehicles carrying hazardous substances to Interstate-5 would potentially pass through the A-1, Agricultural Zone. Hazardous substance land use facility traffic routes are not to travel through residential zones. The low residential density of this district (one dwelling unit per acre maximum) , and the fact that this is not a required route but one of several alternatives, may mitigate strict compliance with this requirement. The proposed development does meet other criteria for siting a hazardous substance land use facility: it is at least 200 feet from unstable soils or soils delineated on the Hazard Area Limitations Map; it is an adequate distance from residential zones and units; it is at least 500 feet from a public gathering place and agricultural land/zone; and it is not located in a 100-year floodplain. The applicant has indicated that the facility will be constructed with containment controls and shall meet federal, state, and local design and construction requirements. The proposal shall comply with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code and shall provide for review and approval by the Kent Fire Department a hazardous substance spill contingency plan for immediate implementation in the event of a release of hazardous substances. 4 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 These commeAts are based on a preliminary review of the site plan. Additional conditions required for compliance with applicable City codes and standards may be implemented at the time of development/plan review. E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea _. plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This area is served by the Valley Floor subarea plan. The following is a review of these plans as they relate to the subject property and proposed zoning. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industrial . NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT WATERWAYS OVERALL GOAL: PROVIDE OPTIMUM USAGE AND PRESERVATION OF THE CITY'S WATERWAYS . GOAL 1: To permit optimal usage of the City' s waterways for fish, wildlife habitat, general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. 5 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 objective 1: Preserve and enhance water quality. . Planning Department Comment: This objective supports the policy which works to prevent pollution of both surface and subsurface water resources. The proposed development is within an area of two drainage ditches and Mill Creek. Impervious surface on the site will be increased with additional building and paving. Storm water drainage from the site should be carefully monitored to prevent contamination of the nearby drainage ditches. The potential for hazardous substance spills should be minimized and no outdoor storage (which might allow environmental contamination) should be allowed. Objective 2 : Preserve and enhance and restore biotic habitats in waterways, channels and adjacent lands. Planning Department Comment: This objective supports the policy to encourage natural vegetative cover to be left along waterways by property owners. Although the drainage ditch immediately to the east of the subject property is seasonal, existing natural vegetation should be retained to provide cover and biotic habitat. This vegetation will also contribute to biofiltration for any uncontained runoff from the parking lot and other impervious surfaces. CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Objective 1: Provide adequate trafficways for both local and through traffic, separating the systems when possible. Objective 2 : Insure adequate facilities for both truck and vehicular traffic. 6 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Planning Department Comment: The proposed development is dependent on 77th Avenue S.- -a currently inadequate roadway--for access. This road lacks curbs, sidewalks and lane striping and receives much heavy truck and automobile traffic. Because of the dangerous nature of the materials which will be shipped to and from the proposed development, the inadequacy of 77th Avenue S . is of concern. In addition, the proposed development will add additional traffic at the intersections of S. 212th Street and the East and West Valley Highways. These intersections are currently at capacity Level of Service F. Although mitigating conditions have been applied through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the potential dangers associated with hazardous substance transfers through a heavily trafficked area must be considered. ECONOMIC ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION. GOAL 1: Promote diverse industrial development in industrially developed areas. Planning Department Comment: This goal supports the policy which promotes the location of heavy industry between the two major rail lines on the Valley Floor. Emerald City Chemical proposed to locate in the targeted area between the Burlington Northern and Union Pacific railroad tracks. The proposal is therefore in compliance with this City-wide goal. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE KENT RESIDENTS AN AESTHETIC AND HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT. __ 7 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 GOAL 2 : Assure Kent residents a healthful environment. Objective 1: Support and enforce programs which minimize or eliminate pollution of the environment. Planning Department Comment: As a hazardous substance land use facility, Emerald City Chemical 's operation is of concern from the standpoint of public safety. As the operation is described as meeting federal, state and local standards for hazardous substance storage and handling, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Careful monitoring of this site to ensure that safety measures are enforced should protect Kent citizens into the future. Information on any hazardous waste generated from this project should be provided by the applicant to guarantee that appropriate handling and disposal techniques are employed. If hazardous waste is generated by this proposal, additional regulatory measures may be required. The proposed site is currently used for outdoor storage of pallets, equipment and old tires. No outdoor storage should be allowed on the Emerald City Chemical site unless fencing is provided as required by the Zoning Code, and no outdoor storage of hazardous substances/wastes should be permitted. Yards and open areas will be required to be maintained as described in the Zoning Code. VALLEY FLOOR PLAN The Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industry. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION. GOAL 1: Promote fill-in development of the industrially developed area. 8 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Objective 1: Minimize unnecessary public improvements and provide efficient municipal services. Planning Department Comment: This goal and objective of the Valley Floor Plan supports policies which work to provide efficient public services to businesses locating in Kent. Utilization of an existing structure (which already has water, sewer and power service) will conserve the natural resources which would be necessary to construct and provide service line extensions to a brand new facility. Development of the Emerald City Chemical operation at the proposed location would provide for in-fill development in an area already served by City of Kent services. This would provide for orderly physical development and prevent expansion into the as yet undeveloped areas of the City. CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 2 : Insure safe and efficient terminal facilities for both truck and other vehicular traffic. Objective 1: Provide safe egress and ingress and adequate on - site traffic maneuverability. Planning Department Comment: This objective supports the policy which works to provide adequate truck loading and unloading zones. The proposed development has a single dock-high door targeted for loading and unloading of materials. A "future" truck loading area is also designated, which is currently planned for hydroseeding. Provision of a loading area for a storage use is critical to avoid conflicts between vehicular and truck traffic and to prevent truck maneuvering on the public street. To avoid use of the hydroseeded area for parking, to facilitate use of the proposed site by delivery vehicles, and to prevent truck maneuvering on 77th Avenue S. (a 9 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 highly-travelled, dead-end, unimproved street) , the "future" truck loading area (and associated driveway) should be paved and provided for usage immediately. II. HISTORY A. Site History The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent in 1959 as part of a 2 , 990 acre annexation. The initial zoning of the site was M-2 , Heavy Industrial. The property was reclassified in 1973 to M-3 , General Industrial, with the adoption of the present zoning code. Central Pre-Mix Company was first issued a business license in the City of Kent in June of 1971 for its plant site located at the southwest corner of S. 206th and 77th Avenue S. The existing office building on the applicant's site (now occupied by Central Pre-Mix facilities) was constructed in 1979 . B. Area History This area is unique in that it is bordered by railroad tracks to the east and west, physically separating the land from adjacent properties. The only street access to the area is via 77th Avenue S. which is a two lane, dead- end road. There are a number of industrial developments in the vicinity of the subject property. These include: the Central Pre-Mix concrete plant (business license issued in 1971) ; Crosby and Overton--a facility which processes waste materials from heavy industrial operations (business license issued in 1983) ; the South Seattle Auto Auction (developed in 1979) ; the Sawdust Supply Company (business license issued in 1983) ; the Metro Hauling truck operation (business license issued in 1983) ; and a Weyerhaueser Company facility. III. LAND USE The proposed site currently houses the Central Pre-Mix offices, with an associated prefabricated metal tilt-up building, paved parking, a gravel lot and outdoor storage. Further north and 10 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 west, is the Central Pre-Mix Concrete Plant. Directly to the west is a large, vacant, paved lot. To the south are the Metro Hauling facilities. On the east side of the site is the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and just beyond that are several large concrete warehouse buildings. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A final mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for Emerald City Chemical on April 14, 1989 . (#ENV-89-22) with the following mitigation measures: 1. The proposed project will comply with the Uniform Fire Code 1988 Edition. 2 . Submittal of a Tier II report on the chemical inventory of the site as per SARA Title III and the City of Kent Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) within 60 days of occupancy. 3 . Cooperate with the Fire Department in the preparation of a facility plan as required by the LEPC and SARA Title III. Completion of the Plan shall occur before issuance of a business license. 4 . The proponent shall keep current inventory records, and label and date the containers that may be readily accessed by the Fire Department during an emergency. 5 . Provide storm drainage detention and biofiltration of runoff prior to it entering the City system. 6. Improve the east half of 77th Avenue South to collector standards for the entire frontage thereon. Said improvements shall include asphalt pavement 18 feet in width with curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, street lighting and related appurtenances or execute no protest LID for same. 7 . Execute an agreement to participate in the cost of overlaying 77th Avenue S. with asphalt pavement a minimum of two inches in depth. The costs shall be distributed based on property frontage. This agreement would be negated upon formation of the LID 11 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical WCE-89-7 for the 77th Avenue S. improvement, or improvement of 77th Avenue S.* by the property owner (as outlined in Condition #6) . 8 . Execute a signal participation agreement the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 77th Avenue S. and S. 212th Street. Included in the traffic signal installation project shall be the coordination thereof with the rail road crossing (Burlington Northern tracks) signal and the City' s computerized traffic signal control system. 9 . The developer shall conduct a traffic study to identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic signal system. The study shall identify all intersections at level-of-service "E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes from the development. These intersections are at a threshold level for traffic mitigation. The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the study and the mitigation measures outlined in the study, implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be the conditional requirement of the issuance of the issuance of the respective development permits. In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed addition. A. The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to financially participate and pay a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the South 192nd/196th/200th Street corridor project. The financial obligation to the above development is estimated at $15, 470 based on 11 PM peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of both the South 192nd/196th/200th Street corridor. 12 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersection and road system by committing for the 192nd/196th/200th Street corridor, which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topociraphy and Hydrology The subject property is basically flat and level . To the east, the railroad right-of-way is at an approximately 10 foot higher elevation than the surrounding area. There is a significant drainage ditch between the railroad right-of-way and the site on the east, and another smaller ditch on the west side of the site. Across the railroad right-of-way to the east is a very large drainage ditch. 2 . Vegetation The drainage ditch to the east and the slope up the railroad right-of-way are covered with natural vegetation--primarily small shrubs, grass and a few deciduous trees. The existing parking lot is landscaped and buffered from the adjacent truck operation to the south and from 77th Avenue S . on the west by coniferous and deciduous trees and small shrubs. Other portions of the site are graveled, with a few additional patches of natural vegetation to the north. C. Sicrnificant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to 77th Avenue S. which is classified as a local arterial. The street has a public right-of-way width of 60 feet while the actual width of paving is 24 feet. The street is improved with lanes of asphalt paving only and dead- ends to the north at the South Seattle Auto Auction facility. There are no curbs or gutters, storm water drains, sidewalks or street lighting along the 13 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 street. The average daily traffic flow is approximately 2 , 500 vehicle trips per day. 2 . Water System An existing 10-inch water main line, located in 77th Avenue S . , is available to serve the subject property. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System An existing 72-inch sanitary sewer, located in 77th Avenue S . is available to serve the subject property. 4 . LID' s The subject property is presently covered by Utility Local Improvement District #1. A street improvement L. I .D. is proposed for 77th Avenue S. V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Work Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Building Official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive and Valley Floor Plans, present zoning, land use, street system, environmental concerns and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industrial. 14 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 B. The Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industry. C. The site is presently zoned M3 , General Industrial. D. A portion of the site is currently developed with a 3 , 224 square feet building and associated parking. The balance of the site is a graveled maneuvering area, along with a prefabricated metal tilt-up building. E. The property is landscaped in the vicinity of the existing structure. The drainage ditch to the east and some portions of the site to the north are naturally vegetated with deciduous trees, grass and some small shrubs. F. Land use in the area is industrial. The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks run along the eastern perimeter of the subject property. G. The lot exceeds the minimum lot size as specified in the development standards for the M-3 , General Industrial, zoning district. However, the proposed site plan does not conform to present M-3 zoning requirements for industrial uses and hazardous substance land use facilities. Development standards as discussed in this report must be met prior to issuance of a building or zoning permit and/or business license. H. The proposed development would have access to 77th Avenue S . VII. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION Standards and criteria for evaluating conditional use applications are described in the Kent Zoning Code, Chapter 15. 09 . 030 , Conditional Uses , D. Standards and Criteria for Granting a Conditional Use Permit. This Chapter states that, "A conditional use permit shall only be granted after the Hearing Examiner has reviewed the proposed use to determine if it complies with the standards and criteria listed below. A conditional use permit shall only be granted if such finding is made. " The eight criteria are presented below, followed by the Planning Department' s evaluation of the Emerald City 15 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 Chemical conditional use application with respept to these criteria. 1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. Planning Department Comment: The M3 , General Industrial, zone is the most intense zoning district within the City of Kent. This district is designed to accommodate "those industrial activities having unusual or potentially deleterious operational characteristics. " Surrounding uses are also of an M3 nature. The Crosby and Overton hazardous waste storage facility is already located on 77th Avenue S . , just to the north of S . 206th Street. The less intense M2 , Limited Industrial, uses to the east of the proposed site are located on the other side of the railroad embankment which is at a higher elevation and provides a screen. The proposed use will meet federal, state and local criteria for hazardous substance land use facilities and should not pose a threat to surrounding uses if properly maintained. 2 . The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. Planning Department Comment: The proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot size required under the M3 , General Industrial , development standards. The proposed site does not allow for the 50 foot property line setback for hazardous substance land use facilities. With some modification of the site plan, this 50 foot setback could be provided between the hazardous substance uses and the north, west and south property lines and a 40 foot setback could be provided along the east property line which abuts the railroad right of way A. Waiver of the one-quarter mile (1, 320 foot) setback from public recreation areas (specifically, the Interurban Trail) . B. Waiver of the 50 foot setback for hazardous substance land use facilities from any property line. (Under condition A3 above, the setbacks would become 50 feet to the north, west and south and 40 feet to the east. ) 16 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 3 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. Planning Department Comment: Traffic mitigation conditions were applied under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review to reduce adverse impacts of additional traffic along 77th Avenue S. Although this road is currently substandard, the developer of the site will provide road improvements and increase the quality of the street in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The mitigation measures as proposed will not completely satisfy concerns over immediate additional congestion at the intersections of S . 212th Street and the East and West Valley Highways. These intersections are already at capacity. In addition, the transfer of hazardous substances over highly- travelled public roads (including unimproved portions of 77th Avenue S . ) is of concern. 4 . The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. Planning Department Comment: Noise, vibration, glare, smoke, and dust are not anticipated from this site and will not impact surrounding uses. A hazardous waste storage facility is already located in the immediate vicinity (on 77th Avenue S. , north of S. 206th Street) . 5 . Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. Planning Department Comment: No adverse visual or auditory effects are anticipated from this development. Landscape buffering will be provided along the northern, western and southern perimeters of the site. The eastern boundary of the site is separated from adjoining uses by the approximately 10 foot high railroad embankment. 17 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. Planning Department Comment: Other uses in the vicinity are of a heavy industrial nature. Conflicts which may arise would be as a result of the current inadequacy of 77th Avenue S. for the large volume of truck and vehicular traffic it carries. 7 . The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions of this code. Planning Department Comment: The site plan as proposed does not meet all of the performance standards and Zoning Code requirements for the hazardous substance land use facility. With modification, the site plan can meet the bulk of these requirements. Exceptions to development standards may be granted during the Conditional Use application process per Zoning Code Section 15. 09 . 030 (E) . The Code states: "If the proposal also involves the requirement to obtain exceptions to development standards, the Hearing Examiner may approve, modify or deny conditional exceptions to these development standards, including height, unique structures, signage, and setbacks when considering a conditional use permit application for that same proposal. " Two exceptions to hazardous substance land use facility development standards would be required to permit the proposed siting of Emerald City Chemical. Those conditional exceptions would be (1) waiver of the one-quarter mile (1, 320 foot) setback from public recreation areas, and (2) waiver of the 50 foot setback for hazardous substance land use facilities from any property line. As has been discussed earlier, the Emerald City Chemical hazardous substance land use facility is approximately 1, 000 feet from the Interurban Trail. Support for waiver of the one- quarter mile setback arises from the intermittent nature of Trail use and the relative ease of Trail closure. With site plan modification, the required 50 foot setback from the property lines could be met along the northern, western and 18 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical #CE-89-7 southern borders, with a 40 ' setback to the east. Support for waiver of the 50 ' setback along the eastern perimeter arises from the isolation of the 77th Avenue S. area between the railroad tracks, the approximate 10 foot grade difference between the railroad to the east and the site, and the narrow depth of the lot itself (approximately 120 feet) . The Planning Department staff does not believe a conditional exception is necessary relative to the Emerald City Chemical traffic route, as the path through the A-1, Agricultural, zone is only one of several alternatives. 8 . Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate to a particular case. Planninc{ Department Comment: Although concerns remain over some aspects of this development, the site appears to meet the majority of criteria for a hazardous substance land use facility. With application of proposed mitigating conditions, concerns can be minimized. Locating this type of facility anywhere in the City would be a difficult task. This site offers fewer potential adverse impacts than do many others. VIII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a conditional use permit, the City staff recommends APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Lot line adjustments to eliminate internal lot lines shall be required prior to development, unless the applicant wishes to meet code requirements for each lot individually. 2 . The applicant shall provide information on the exact distance to Mill Creek from the proposed site. The hazardous substance land use facility shall not be located within 200 feet of Mill Creek. 3 . The applicant shall relocate the hazardous substances portion of the development to the interior portion of the site, providing a minimum 50 foot setback from the property lines to the north, south and west and a minimum 40 ' setback along the eastern property 19 Staff Report Emerald City Chemical _. #CE-89-7 line. Future expansion of the hazardous substance portion of this development will also be subject to the 50 foot setback requirement. 4 . Information on hazardous waste generated from this project shall be provided by the applicant to guarantee that appropriate handling and disposal techniques are employed. If hazardous waste is generated by this proposal, additional regulatory measures may be required. 5 . No outdoor storage of hazardous substances/wastes shall be allowed on site. 6. Existing natural vegetation and should be retained along the eastern property line to provide cover and biotic habitat in the vicinity of the existing drainage ditch. 7 . A sidewalk shall be provided along the eastern edge of the building to serve the man doors along that perimeter. 8 . The "future" truck loading area (and associated driveway) shall be paved and provided for immediate usage. 9 . The one-quarter mile setback requirement from the Interurban Trail shall be waived to allow development on this site. B. As provided for in Section 15. 09. 030 (E) , City staff recommends the following conditional exceptions be granted: 1. Waiver of the one-quarter mile (1, 320 foot) setback from public recreation areas (specifically, the Interurban Trail) . 2 . Waiver of the 50 foot setback for hazardous substance land use facilities from any property line (Under condition A3 above, the setbacks would become 50 feet to the north, west and south and 40 feet to the east) . KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 30, 1989 20 CITY. OF. KENT planning . 0.. it I o II aa " O II : Iv •:1 1 I �! II n I LI — I _ 0 •'.I it 111 t iIt 1 --_- -- �`; — r Ip.. e.II�11 II II .1 I It• r II � I II 1 11 1 .It ] I S / a•.. 0 0 Y 11 1 , .].%f � L) or.x I/ II l I II 1 0 4 I I \ 1 it I yr oa o \ II CT APPLICATION Name Emerald City Chemical LEGEND .Number IICE-89-7 Dale June 7. I989 < < application site ' Request Conditional Use Permit — zoning boundary city limits TOPOGRAPHY/ZONING MAP SCALE = I" = 400' -�� CITY. OP. KCNT planning a. b n F C'D --r Fr E¢s¢ F I I I I 1 I t �O� 000O000 G�i i I ' I pr I i4ili e �i t a s �I I . - I 1 I II � I 1 _ i I _u �,'o' •c, lo_ I � 2SI 1 F°I I i ERi on �0 o S f 3 ' I L I 1 I _ I I 1 Tom' I? i F I I yl I I I F � 1 T APPLICATION NamB Emerald City Chemical LEGEND : Number LCE-89-7 Date dune 7, 1989 application site Request toning boundary Conditional Use Permit city limits SITE PLAN SCALE = No scale CITY.. OF. DENT planni ng . a. tx 5 196TH ST ` t 1 V � 1 i If•lp Ujl klf.l `\ I`S \g�6 (D� 2 < • AREA a,W n 1 • G r •a y i"--- m r I S 200TH ST -L J 1 S 202HO 51 \\1 m S 1 1 I w = m 1 S 206TH ST 1: S 206TH ST 1 I = n 1 208TH STO 1 S 208TH ST 1 tY v•`' SITE J Tt, I i I 1 J I 211T11 ST i O'BRIEN i I 1 W 1 F m N < t Aso, 2 6 TH 51. N 1 x l e S 218T11 _ ST ' I � 1 ' 1 1 4 / 11 I'4I'1 i�tl.!.tL fJtf r I ` I i / 5T S 222NUV f I �I? I. 7 ` 1 A — APPLICATION Name Emerald City Chemical LEGEND Number #CE-89-7 Dale June 7, 1989 application site ' Request Conditional Use Permit toning boundary city limits VICINITY MAP SCALE = I11 l000l '� p�P-,. Kent city Council Meeting Date July 18 , 1989 Category Public Hearincr 1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - ELECTRO FINISHING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CE-89-10 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This hearing will consider an appeal filed by Electro Finishing, Inc. of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of a conditional use permit for the use of an existing building for a metal plating shop with hazardous substances on site which exceed the allowable 10, 000 lb. limit in a CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district. The property is located at 22630 88th Ave. S. 3 . EXHIBITS: letter of appeal, staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner June 30 1989 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt/modify/reject the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and to concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of Electro Finishing conditional use permit No. CE-89-10. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2D D ( � SUN 30 1989 Di Jv h 3 O i 9 C/Ty OF KE CITY C�FRK T VA • rAl -- D u JUN 3 0989� �' 3p19�g Office 220theS . City Clerk CITY Of KENT �vN pF of k� 859-3370 TREASURY � City of Kent C1 Order for Transcript for Appeal from Decision of Hearing Examiner Resolution 896 Ordinance 2233 Appeal filed Date \ Appellant ' s Name �r) �'7 Sl7 ll y, �J''.C'/ r/ Address - 70 A 2- Phone Hearing Examiner ' s File No . Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing 14U Date of Hearing Examiner ' s Decision cLWcif- Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of the action taken by the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied �bx n� a $25 filing fee . Treasurer ' s Receipt # '7U09 Within 30 days of the Hearing Examiner ' s decision, the appellant shall order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held before the Hearing Examiner and must post at the time of the order, security in the amount of $100 for each tape to be transcribed. If the actual cost incurred by the City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant shall be required to reimburse the City for the excess amount. If the cost is less thaw the amount posted, any credit due will be returned to the appellant. Order for Transcript received c (100 . 00) Treasurer' s Receipt # FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: ELECTROFINISHING #CE-89-10 APPLICANT: Electrofinishing REQUEST: A request for a conditional use permit for the use of an existing building for a metal plating shop with hazardous substances on site which exceed thte allowable 10, 000 pound limit in a CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district. LOCATION: The site is located at 22630 88th Avenue S. APPLICATION FILED: 4/14/89 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 5/12/89 MEETING DATE: 6/28/89 DECISION ISSUED: 6/30/89 DECISION: DENIED STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy McClung, Planning Department Mary Duty, Planning Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Heinz Neumeier Greg Allan Richard Raymond WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, the following findings, conclusions and decision are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application. FINDINGS 1. The property is zoned CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing. Property surrounding the site is also zoned CM-1. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industrial . The Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I , Industry. The Comprehensive Plans contain within them several policies applicable to this application. These are 1 Findings and Decision Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 detailed in Section I (E) of the Kent Planning Agency Staff Report dated June 21, 1989 . 2 . The size of the property on which the building is located is 42 , 900 square feet. The size of the leased space for the proposed use is 2 , 880 square feet. 3 . Section 15. 04. 120 (B) (2) of the Kent Zoning Code requires the applicant to obtain a conditional use permit if more than 10, 000 pounds of hazardous substances are involved in the proposed use. More than 10, 000 pounds of hazardous substances will be on site at any one time during the proposed operation of the metal plating facility. This is primarily in a liquid state in tanks of approximately 450 gallons. The hazardous waste that is generated will be primarily waste water treatment sludge which is potentially recyclable. 4 . The western and southern perimeter of the structure proposed for use have a 15 foot and 13 foot setback from the property lines. The northern and eastern perimeters are setback from adjacent property lines by more than 50 feet. The western property line abuts 88th Avenue South. The southern property line abuts an outdoor storage area which is separated from the subject property by a fence. 5 . Land use in the area includes a number of multi-tenant buildings. Occupants include welding shops, metal grinding, heating contracting, steel distributing, and machine shops. Commercial uses are located along 228th Street and include an auto body shop, glass shop, restaurant and tavern. 6. A Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the project proposal on May 12 , 1989 with mitigating conditions related to street improvements and discharge of industrial waste water. The conditions related to street improvements were subsequently waived by the City so that the only condition remaining on the DNS relates to a waste discharge permit. 7 . Information and findings of the Kent Planning Department detailed in Sections I through IV of the Kent Planning Agency Staff Report are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 8 . Mr. Hank Neumeier, the owner of the building leased to the applicant testified in opposition to the DNS conditions on street improvements. Mr. Greg Allan, an engineer with expertise in hazardous substance handling, testified that the applicant 2 Findings and Decision Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 intended to comply with all conditions. Mr. •Allan also testified that it is possible to measure the amount of hazardous substances on site in different ways depending on what set of regulations one is referencing to do the measuring. He testified that there would likely be greater than 500 gallons of liquid hazardous substances on the site at any one time but that the amount of hazardous substances delivered to the site would be minimal - perhaps even less than 220 pounds per month. Mr. Richard Raymond, president of Electrofinishing Company, testified that his company was willing to comply with all conditions recommended by the City. He testified further that his business was making efforts to reduce the amount of hazardous substances used. Finally, he testified that it would not be possible to meet the 50 foot setback requirement as the building his company intended to use has already been built and leased. CONCLUSIONS 1. An applicant for a conditional use permit must demonstrate that the following criteria will be met by the proposed use in accordance with Section 15 . 09 . 030 (D) of the Kent Zoning Code: a. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. b. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. C. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. d. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. e. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. f. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. 3 Findings and Decision Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 g. The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions of this code. h. Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate to a particular case. Based on the Findings of Fact detailed above, it appears the proposed use complies with criteria a, b, c, d, f and h of Section 15. 09 . 030 (D) . 2 . A hazardous substance facility must, in addition, comply with the development standards detailed in Section 15. 08 . 050 (D) (9) of the Kent Zoning Code. Those development standards require, in part, that: "Hazardous substance land use facilities shall be located at least: 4. 50 ft. from any property line to serve as an on-site hazardous substance land use facility buffer zone;..." The proposed facility does not and cannot meet this requirement without the grant of an exception. Section 15.08 . 050 (D) (9) , which addresses hazardous substances, further provides that: "In case of conflict between any of these site development standards and the development standards of specific zoning districts or other code requirements, the more restrictive requirement shall apply. " 3 . A hazardous substance land use facility must also comply with performance standards specified in Section 15. 08. 050 of the Kent Zoning Code. These performance standards deal with the operational aspects of land uses. The performance standards for hazardous substance land use facilities address primarily the release of a hazardous substance into public or private sewers, watercourses or the ground. See, 15. 08 . 050 (D) (9) . However, the performance standards also address where hazardous substances might be located upon the land. Section 15. 08 . 050 (A) identifies hazardous substances as a potential "dangerous or objectionable element" subject to the performance standards. Section 15.08 . 050 (C) specifies how the measurement shall be made for determining whether a "dangerous or objectionable element" exists. For elements such as noise, vibration, glare, smoke, dust and odor the point of measurement is the location of the use creating the problem. For hazardous substances or wastes, however, the point of measurement "shall be . . . at the buffer zone setback line for any hazardous substance land use 4 Findings and Decision Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 facility which must be at least 50 feet from any property line" . Section 15. 08. 050 (A) requires continued compliance with performance standards. Thus, the 50 foot setback requirement for a hazardous substance facility is both a development standard (how a facility might be constructed) and a performance standard (how a facility might be operated) . The Code requires that a hazardous substance land use facility be constructed no closer than 50 feet to any property line and that no hazardous substances be located closer than 50 feet to any property line. The proposed facility would store hazardous substances closer than 50 feet to the western and southern property lines and, therefore, would not comply with the performance or development standards without the granting of an exception. 4 . The authority of the Hearing Examiner to approve exceptions to code requirements is limited only to exceptions to development standards at the time a conditional use application is considered. See, Section 15 . 09 . 030 (E) of Kent Zoning Code. Furthermore, under Section 15. 09 . 030 (D) , the Hearing Examiner must find that the proposed conditional use complies with performance standards. That finding cannot be made on this application. The Hearing Examiner has authority to approve or deny exceptions to development standards under Section 15. 09. 030 (E) of the Zoning Code. The Hearing Examiner has no similar authority to approve or deny exceptions to performance standards. The 50 foot setback requirement appears to be both a development standard and a performance standard that is expressed in mandatory fashion ("shall" and "must") . The Hearing Examiner cannot grant an exception to the 50 foot setback requirement. Even if the Hearing Examiner were to consider the setback requirement as solely as a development standard, the development standards applied to a hazardous substance land use facility are found in a code section which is intended to preempt other code requirements. In case of conflict, Section 15. 08 . 050 (D) (9) states the "more restrictive requirement shall apply" . It does not appear it would be consistent with City Council intent to grant an exception to a development standard detailed in that section of the Zoning Code even if the Hearing Examiner has authority to do so. The request for an exception to the requirement to locate a hazardous substance facility at least 50 feet away from adjacent property lines should not be granted 5 Findings and Decision Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 by the Hearing Examiner without clearer authority from the City Council •that it is appropriate to do so. 5. If the facility as proposed does operate in the future because of a change in code requirements for hazardous substance land use facilities or other developments, the conditions recommended by the Kent Planning Department related to no outdoor storage of hazardous substances, landscape maintenance, and parking should be part of approval. The recommended conditions related to information on hazardous waste and deliveries of hazardous substances do not appear to be necessary given the separate code requirement for a hazardous substance spill contingency plan, SARA Title III requirements, and the small amount of deliveries anticipated. DECISION The application for a conditional use permit to operate a metal plating shop with hazardous substances in excess of the 10, 000 pound limit allowed in a CM-1 zone is DENIED. The current zoning code requirements for the establishment and operation of a hazardous substance land use facility are clearly set forth in Section 15. 08 . 050 of the Kent Zoning Code. Those requirements include a 50 foot setback from all property lines for a hazardous waste land use facility. While the Hearing Examiner may have authority to allow exceptions to other development standards specified in that section, the Hearing Examiner has no authority to deviate from the 50 foot setback requirement. See, 15. 08 . 050 (D) (9) (last sentence) and 15. 08 . 050 (C) (2) . Thus, the application, which requires an exception to the setback requirement, must be denied. The role of the Hearing Examiner is to interpret, review, and implement land use regulations . Land use policy is developed through the legislative process of the City Council . That body has set forth specific requirements for the siting and operation of a hazardous substance land use facility. Exceptions to the requirement of a 50 foot setback requirement for hazardous substance land use facilities can only be made after authorization of the Council. Dated this 30TH day of June, 1989 . THEODORE P UL HUNTER Hearing Examiner 6 Findings and Decision Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Section 15. 09 . 030 G: Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional use permit granted by the Examiner shall remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid. APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS. Recruest of Reconsideration Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 . Reconsiderations are answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council. A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is filed. CITY OF BENT planning.. Cl / H V C11M I r I I I IlLlrl II u — - C'm Ir APPLICATION Name Electrofinishing LEGEND .Number #CE-89-10 Dale June 28, 1989 application site —zouinp boundary Request fnnditinnal Use PermitUse Permit -•—�- city limits TOPOGRAPHY/ZONING MAP SCALE = 1° = 400' �' CITY.. OT-.K ENT planning.. L _> ICD Q. ■• J. . P ST 22; 222HU— s � 1 \ •�• 1217 0 1318 ' W 1 > N N ` z r ;NORT > KEN INTC G ST °0 228T ST••. I S 228TH 4 5 1 ST � N N f ■ YI b cl W 0 > _ TEMP ` z � 1 H2332NO NOVAK L. > 167 N O ■ � Z ■ W 1 ` cr ■ W i > > W < < 1 I C, S v OLE ST Z _ ULDROH �f W '1 f 111111 n a y ..-- ><�.I WAY v,11C(Y > I CLOU Y ST ~ < W O W FC �� ■a ■vl > L U E OE ORGE O < n M1 p2)PTM 1•L 1 0 OF i i ST O ` � < < J ti Z 1_ Z Z F > g l Z i >Is .239t PL d-- m AMES ST Z ` Z l � S 240 1 ST J J W y lu A��.1 � •. I KLr1 T 24 W > N W O < JR.H1. > 1Atnlen[ 110 CED > - W a < /�` w ` � C J4�• i PIONFFC c{ Z APPLICATION Name Electrofinishing LEGEND Number aCE-89-10 Dale June 28, 1989 application site ' Request Conditional Use Permit zoulngboundary ...-..-city limits VICINITY MAP SCALE = i = 10001 '�' .CITY.. OT-KENT planning.. n • r-t . ]T.Oti. Ofrr.H ��'�i.,I ddb •v • I .330 O I I Y ( ul I �LRACG OR TILL MV I � . I f i CATCH P!Jnt (� T.00I LMG-- tl1.Gh turf—fI<G OP CMV \vaLl—\� r` YG OO• I]'-O: [CGC Ur GO•uCJ\tT� JUPT: .. G _ _ 4I ! ! I' 11Nif —J; Un, - I W II d G%IOTInG ELtl OF plrL lLGI6�L OnSM+nl" ,vroeo ne a �2�00• �• '- _1__L—� _ w�TV� hF0 �cw. I O i u APPLICATION Name Electrofinishing _ LEGEND ;fCE-89-10 Data June Zs i98g application site ' • Number zoning boundary Request Conditional UcP Farmit City limits SITE PLAN SUL[ = No scal e HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES June 28 , 1989 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, June 28, 1989 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony. ELECTROFINISHING Conditional Use Permit #CE-89-10 A request by Electrofinishing, Inc. , 22630 88th Avenue S. , #A, Kent, WA 98031, for a conditional use permit for the use of an existing building for a metal plating shop with hazardous substances on site which exceeds the allowable 10, 000 pound limit in a CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district. The site is located at 22630 88th Avenue S . The leased space for this tenant is 2 , 880 square feet. VERBATIM MINUTES Theodore Paul Hunter: I ' ll swear you in. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, and the whole truth, in the testimony you're about to give. Mary Duty: I do. Hunter: Please proceed. Duty: O.k. This is an application from Electrofinishing. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to operate a metal plating shop with hazardous substances on site that exceed the allowable 10, 000 pound limit in the CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zone. The operation itself would be an outright permitted use in that zoning district; but, because of an accessory use they have--the. . .they exceed the allowable 10, 000 pound limit. Then they come under the conditional use requirements of Section 15. 04 . 120 B2 of the Kent Zoning Code which requires a conditional use for this type of use involving more than 10, 000 pounds of 1 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 hazardous substances on site. The use is classified as a hazardous substance land .use facility. The subject property is located at 22630 88th Avenue S. , sits here, east of SR167 . The size of the space the tenant will be using is a leased space consisting of 2 , 880 square feet. The property that the existing building is sitting on is 42 , 900 square feet. As I mentioned the site is zoned CM-I, Commercial Manufacturing, and essentially all uses around it are zoned the same. Because the development was built in the 1970 ' s, some aspects of the site do not meet our current Zoning Code's development standards. The parking stalls for the site will have to be striped per current Code requirements to prevent random parking in front of any loading doors and wheelstops are needed between the parking stalls and the building. This tenant will need three parking stalls. Here' s a site plan. The existing building is here and the parking will be located along the north end of the building. I have a video of the site if the Hearing Examiner would like to see that at this time. Hunter: Please, I would. Duty: (Showed the video: counter 133 to 170) Waste disposal methods, including dumpsters for nonhazardous waste, are not shown or described and they need to be addressed; they need to be screened from abutting properties and the street and they need to be buffered with landscaping and any hazardous waste that is generated by this proposal will be disposed of off site at a Department of Ecology certified facility. The subject property meets all of the site development standards that are required for hazardous substance land use facility except that the existing building is not 50 feet from all of the property lines as required by the Zoning Code. The setback is met along the northern and eastern perimeters although the western and southern perimeters of the structure have 15 and 13 foot setback respectively. The western perimeters runs along 88th and the southern perimeter abuts an outdoor storage area which is fenced as you probably saw in the video. Eighty-eighth Avenue does provide, on the west side, an additional 60 feet between this property and the adjacent property to the west. Conditional exception from the 50 foot setback is required in order to approve this conditional use permit application. The proposal will comply with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code and they will provide for review and approval by the Fire Department a hazardous substance spill contingency plan for immediate implementation in the event of a release of hazardous substances. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan designates the site as industrial and also lists a goal which is important to this particular proposal which is to establish a balanced, safe and 2 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 efficient transportation system for all modes of travel. A goal being to assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Our comment to this is that the proposed development is dependant on 88th Avenue S. which is currently inadequate roadway, it has not curbs, gutters or sidewalks and during peak hours this street is used by residential traffic by East Hill residences as a by-pass to avoid James Street traffic and because of the dangerous nature of materials which will be shipped to and from this site we feel that it is appropriate to not. . .to limit the deliveries of hazardous materials to and from the site during peak hours which will be 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. Another relevant goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to assure Kent residents an aesthetic and helpful environment. The major concern with this proposal is that of public safety. As described, this operation will meet all federal, state and local standards for hazardous substances storage and handling and we don't anticipate that there would be any adverse impacts. The Fire Department does have a program in place that includes filling. . . filing specific information with the Department prior to starting up business and regular inspections thereafter. Any hazardous waste that is generated by the project will be provided by the applicant to the Fire Department. For storage. . . .not outdoor storage will be allowed unless it is provided as required by the Zoning Code and no outdoor storage of hazardous substances or waste will be permitted. As I mentioned earlier, the area is developed with a mixture of small light manufacturing and heavier commercial uses with a number of multi-tenant industrial buildings along 85th Place S. and S. 228th Street. And, not a lot of new development in the recent years other. . . .you saw another building going up to the west. Most of the uses include welding, shops, metal grinding and stamping, heating contracting, steel distributing and machine shops. . . all of similar nature of this proposal . A final mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on May 12 , 1989 . Your staff report may not be amended to show the most recent conditions. The first two were eliminated, leaving only number 3 which is. . .that the applicant shall obtain an industrial waste discharge permit from METRO and all treated waste water shall be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. Hunter: What was eliminated--that the. . . . Duty: The traffic mitigation. Hunter: What was the reason for that? 3 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Duty: This was done because it was felt that because this. . .the tenant is not in fact the property owner, it was not fair to burden a tenant of a multi-tenant building with the financial participation of these without spreading it equally to all other tenants. Hunter: So those were initially conditions to the DNS and have been removed as conditions. Duty: Right, the Council agreed that it was not their intent to have tenants participating but rather the property owner who was developing the whole building and not just one tenant. The Planning Department reviewed this permit application with respect to the eight criteria set forth in the Zoning Code for granting a conditional use permit. I ' ll just comment on two of them. One is that the proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. We felt that because CM, Commercial Manufacturing, zone is the most intense commercial zoning district in the City and that surrounding uses are also of the same nature that this will unduly affect anything in the surrounding area and that it will meet federal, state and local criteria for hazardous substance land uses. And secondly, the proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other provisions of this Code, I felt that this needed clarification. We mentioned earlier that it did not meet zoning development standards for parking and landscaping which will be brought up to code. But. . .that the site development standards for the 50 foot setback were not met but because of 88th being on the west providing additional 60 feet and because of the north property line abutting an outdoor storage facility that we didn't feel that would be an issue as far as having any adverse impacts by not meeting the setbacks. Hunter: Let me understand your testimony. You testified that it will meet all local , state and federal. . . Duty: Right. Hunter: Requirements for siting of the hazardous substances facility. But then you indicated it does not. . . 4 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Duty: All of them except the site development standards as listed under the Performance Standards for the 50 foot setback from property lines. Hunter: O.k. So it meets all with the exception of one. Duty: Exception of that---right. The other ones will be brought up to code. Hunter: O.k. , so, it will meet assuming certain compliance with certain requirements and assuming certain exceptions are granted. Duty: Right. The staff recommends that approval for the application with six conditions listed in the staff report. . .the first being information on hazardous waste generated from this project shall be provided by the applicant to the City to guarantee the appropriate handling and disposal techniques are employed. Hazard waste generated by this proposal may require additional regulatory measures . No outside storage of hazardous substances and waste shall be allowed on site. Existing landscaping shall be maintained along 88th Avenue S. Required parking for this tenant shall be restriped to Zoning Code standards and, as provided in Section 15. 09 . 030 E, City staff recommends that a conditional exception be granted to the 50 foot setback requirement from the west and south property lines and finally, that deliveries of hazardous substances coming to and from the site shall not be permitted during the peak hours of 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. Hunter: Let me ask you about those conditions. Condition #1, information on hazardous waste generated--isn't that typically part of the spill contingency plan, would that be included in that report. Duty: Yes. Lynn Hoffman-Gross from our Fire Department is here to speak on those issues. Hunter: O.k. No storage of hazardous substances waste allowed on site. Duty: Right. Hunter: Is that already in the Zoning Code or is this a condition that would go beyond the Code restriction. Duty: Well, it would be classified as a on-site hazardous waste treatment storage facility which is another type of facility. If it' s stored, various amounts, there are thresholds before it is 5 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 considered an on site hazardous waste treatment storage facility. If it was under certain threshold amounts it could be kept on site. This is saying there can't be any on site storage. Hunter: No outdoor on site storage is what you're recommending. Duty: Right. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter? Kathy? Do you swear to tell the truth in the testimony you're about to give. Kathy McClung: I do. Hunter: Please proceed. McClung: Just for the record, I wanted to clarify Mary' s testimony said that the outside storage facility was on the north, it' s on the south and that is where the setback. . .one of the setback discrepancies is. . . from the south property line, not the north. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Someone here representing the applicant or the applicant wishes to speak. Voice: You said about the garbage container. . . it' s already enclosed on the east of the property. Hunter: You can present that testimony actually if you want to step to the podium and offer any clarifications or additional material you think I should consider now is. . . Voice: O.k. It's about. . . Hunter: O.k. Let. . let me swear you in first, sir. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you are about to give. Heinz Neumeier: The truth. Hunter: Please state your name, then. Neumeier: Heinz Neumeier, I 'm the owner of the building back there and about the enclosure for the dumpster that's already built back there at the east end of the building of the property. . .that' s already done. 6 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Hunter• O.k. Neumeier: That was done when we have built a new building, was already required. Hunter: Are those dumpsters for waste. . . Neumeier: For both buildings. There's a new building back there and the older one that' s for older buildings, just one dumpster and that's already enclosed. . .enclosed area. Hunter: So there are dumpsters that are enclosed to the east of the building. Neumeier: Both the property. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Sir, could you please spell your last name? Neumeier: Neumeier. It' s N-e-u-m-e-i-e-r. Hunter: Thank you. Neumeier: I have another question, here. It says here that the developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to financially participate and pay a fair share of the cost associated with construction of S. 224th/228th Street Corridor Project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $2 , 152 . . . Hunter: Sir, I hate to interrupt you, but, I think, it was pointed out in the City' s testimony that that condition as well as the other condition regarding traffic improvements have been eliminated as conditions. They were attached, they were made a part of the first declaration of nonsignificance. It's the first process. They were eliminated. Neumeier: So, does not apply any more now. Hunter: Does not apply any more. There's only that one condition that currently applies to the property and that deals with a waste discharge permit from METRO. Neumeier: Well, o.k. , all right. . .that's all I wanted to know. Thank you. Hunter: Yes sir. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony that you are about to give. 7 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Greg Allan: I do. The name is Greg Allan. . .A-1-1-a-n. And, I 'm a professional engineer for the applicant. Area of expertise is processed facility design, hazardous waste and waste water treatment systems and a couple of clarifications. The facility though it exceeds the 10, 000 pound limit, I think it's important to note that that' s how much on site and the actual deliveries and use and shipments of waste chemical is actually very small. The shop is a custom metal finisher, does very small parts. . .limited quantities and it' s a considerably smaller than three other facilities that are located within a mile radius so it's more than compatible with the area. The. . . I personally feel that the limitations on chemical deliveries aren't necessary but the applicant has conceded to live up to that. The other one is. . .as far as shipments. . .getting waste where it's supposed to go. . .I find this applicant as being in the upper quartile of responsible metal finishers and as far as proper disposal of materials I don't believe there would be any problem. The METRO permit. . .well there's not only the METRO permit but some of the State Department of Ecology requirements exceed a lot of the conditions that have been placed in this findings. . .or in this report and as an example the METRO permit which also submits to the Department of Ecology. . .that permit application for discharge includes certain construction methods as far as containment of liquids, segregation of incompatible chemicals, getting an EPA generators number for proper documentation of hazardous waste disposal, also requires contingency plans over and above what's required by the Kent Fire Department, emergency procedures, spill containment materials. . .there' s a lot of. . . lot of extra things that are in. . .going to be required by State and METRO requirements that I think will more than satisfy the City of Kent. As far as the outdoor storage clarification there. The Department of Ecology regulation (WAC 173-303) is the State Program for the RECA. . .Federal RECA regulations and that requires room to burn segregated chemical storage, so, again, far exceeds what this. . .the outdoor. . .there's no outdoor storage. That' s already a requirement that METRO and the State will except for part of the facility discharge permit and I believe that' s about it. Hunter: Can you give me some indication on what type of chemical. . .what type of hazardous waste might be generated? I guess we are looking at two things: RECA permits and applications for hazardous substances but then also some handling of the hazardous waste. And I 'm interested in just a synopsis of what type of material , what type of waste. . . 8 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Allan: Sure, you can break it down to three areas. There's the chemicals deliveries to the site; the chemicals used on the site and then the waste chemicals shipped out. The chemicals on site would be various strengths of acids, such as sulfphic hydric- chloric; maybe very small amounts of nitric caustics such as sodium hydroxide, various strength. Plating solutions would be copper, copper sulphates. There' s also some copper cyanide. There' s chrome plating tanks, chrome sulphates. I believe a listing, you can find a full listing in the METRO application. Again, there's an extensive list there. And, it's also required as part of the contingency plans. That' s how much is on. . .on site and that as it solutions does exceed. . .you know as. . . . .a water solution does exceed the 10, 000 pounds. As the 100 percent chemical, it is probably considerably less than that, so we are including that 10, 000 pound a lot of water that hits this threshold, the threshold limit. The materials coming in are basically the concentrate that are used to replenish the baths and in a facility this size I would doubt that if their chemical deliveries are any more significant than an industrial janitorial service is an example which can locate in a lot of different places. . .probably takes in more chemicals than what this company would do. The material that is shipped off site is going to be primarily that is as hazardous waste is water treatment sludges and there may very rarely be a spent process solution that would go to a licensed treatment storage and disposal facility. But, by far and away I would say what 95 plus percent is going to be a solid water treatment sludges and that will probably qualify as a recyclable material which then becomes exempt from the hazardous waste regulations. So, it' s quite likely that it' s not even going to be considered as a hazardous waste when it probably qualified as a recycle material thought it will be handled as any other hazardous chemical or hazardous waste. Any waste that is shipped off site is considerably less toxic, less hazardous than the raw chemical that are brought on site and that are used on site. Hunter: Are you in the process of obtaining that process of obtaining that exemption for recyclability is that what's going on. Are you in the process of obtaining that exemption for recyclability, is that what 's going on. Allan: No, no permits are required or exemption from the State are required for that. It is just simply sending the samples to the company that recycles the sludge and then they have there own process controls and then when you make your annual report out to the Department of Ecology you still report it as a generated waste recyclable and then it doesn't count to the facility poundage limits that. . .the facility' s hazardous waste poundage limits. It' s 9 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 quite likely this company can become a small quantity. . .can be considered a small quantity generator and be exempt from the State' s hazard waste regulations. Though, the companies that I work with are small quantity generators because of their own feeling of liability live up to those regulations anyway. Hunter: What is that 2 , 200 pounds a month? Allan: Two hundred twenty. . .220 pounds of what's classified as dangerous waste, DW waste and less than 2 . 2 pounds of what' s classified as EHW waste. There' s also. . .there's actually three zones or three• thresholds. . .there's 220 and 2.2 pound and then there' s a 220 to 2 , 200 pound, which they definitely would fall in and that has a limited scope of the application. Hunter: Let me ask you how we got over 1o, 000 pounds. You mentioned that the water solution was included in that calculation of 10, 000 pounds at any one time on site. Is there a different way to measure that? Did you look at alternative ways? Allan: Yeah, what happens in a lot of these. . .a lot of the federal and state regulations, there's the threshold limit and then' s there a reporting limit. Threshold limits are usually determined on the total solution that' s there. As an example you have say a 100 pounds of water but you take a cup of solid chemical and you put it in to make your solution, you've got to consider the whole 100 pounds of solution as a threshold to the regulations. Under the reporting to the. . .a lot of regulations you only report that one cup, the poundage of 100 percent chemical, you don't report all the water that' s diluted. . .diluted into. And that's what happened in this case and it was appropriate. You have to consider the total. . .the total poundage of water and chemical that's in the tanks that are used in processing the parts. Hunter: You've looked at the Kent Zoning Code to determine if this thing came over that threshold or not. Allan: No, I did not. Hunter: Did not, o.k. Well, I 'm wondering if we do. . .there is what the threshold requirement applies to 10, 000 pounds of hazardous substances on site. I guess there is a definition of hazardous substance. Now, the reason that I 'm pursuing this a little bit because it gets you into a whole different area of requirements if you are over that threshold. And you mentioned, your testimony, there may be another way to measure that leaves you below the 10, 000 pounds threshold. 10 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Allan: Yes, as the 100 percent chemical, it is likely below the 10, 000 pound limit. I have not. . .my scope of work on this project has been the METRO and Department of Ecology reports and the facility design. So, so what you' re looking for is if it's under the 10, 000 pound limit then the condition that conditional use permit is not required. Hunter: Well, there's a separate section of the Zoning Code that applies if it's over 10, 000 pounds and that relates to siting of a hazardous substance land use facility and that's the section we are looking at because of the requirement for a 50 foot setback and I believe that if we are below that threshold. . . I don't mean to resolve this today. But, I 'm curious and perhaps Mary has a comment to make from the City. Yes, Mary. Duty: Hopefully, I can shed some light on this. In order for the Planning Department to make a determination as to whether or not this operation would need to go through a conditional use permit process, we require submittal of information to our Fire Department listing the chemicals that would be on site and we decided that since the SARA Title III breaks down the chemicals by, as he mentioned, just the percentage that is actually hazardous we decided that to be consistent we would do the same but doing so they exceed the amount. And, of course, for waste its 100 percent of the waste and for the substance it' s the percentage of that substance that is hazardous and they did exceed the 10, 000 pound limits. Hunter: And how did you determine that 10, 000 pounds? Duty: By adding the up. . .they listed the chemical, how much they had and what percent of that chemical was hazardous and then how much poundage that was. We went through and did it just like SARA Title III would have done it and if it was a waste we used the 100 percent as hazardous. Hunter: O.k. , and this leads to a determination of how much would be on the site at one time. Duty: Right. And they were over the 10, 000 pounds. Hunter: Over the 10, 000 pounds by looking at the types of chemicals used in a particular month? Duty: Right. They provided us with their inventory sheets. 11 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Hunter: I see. And inventory would be for annual inventory, monthly inventory? Duty: And it has all of that information. Voice: Average daily amount. Hunter: Average daily amount, is that your testimony, average daily amount. Duty: Yeah, that' s my testimony. Hunter: O.k. Thank you, Mary. Allan: Add one more. . .the SARA Title III is a good example of where the triggering mechanism is based on the total solution but when you turn in those reports, it's based on the 100 percent chemical and SARA Title III is extremely confusing regulation so don't want to go to much further than that. Hunter: Would there be more than 500 gallons of the liquid solution on site at one time, do you know? Allan: I believe there' s a couple of tanks there--over 500 gallons, that' s right. Hunter: O.k. Allan: Yeah, there' s any one. . .one tank is no bigger than 450 gallons but there' s a multiple of tanks. Now normally. . .mention the SARA Title III that's. . . .that' s based on a single type of. . .a single chemical where it appears like. . . .appears like what is done in this case is all the chemicals. . .hazardous chemicals have been added up to see if it exceeds 10, 000 pounds. O.k. , I understand. . . I believe that' s the way they prefer the City Code to work is all hazardous chemicals added together whereas under SARA Title III you consider each one individually meeting that 10, 000 pound limit so don't want to confuse those to. Hunter: O.k. What about the status of the spill contingency plan, is that something that' s now being prepared or. . . Allan: O.k. what happens is in the. . . in the professional engineering report that I turn in to METRO who is the coordinator for the State Department of Ecology. . . it's coordinated through METRO--there is an operation section in that report that includes minimum contingency requirements and that's also reviewed by the 12 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Department of Ecology. You can't fully fix it until after construction is complete because you don't know what .your layout is or where things are and what the emergency equipment is going to be located such as eyewashes, showers, spill control. . .you can't really fix it and normally what happens you turn that information in within 30 days after construction is complete or operation commence. . .whichever occurs. Now may I add that if. . . if you are indifferent. . .the State requirements vary depending on how much hazardous waste is generated but the minimum requirement will exceed. . .minimum State requirement will exceed the City of Kent' s. . .what I understand the City of Kent's requirements. Hunter: O.k. Now, this business operation is currently operating in another location. Allan: It' s operating in Auburn. The current zoning. . .the Zoning Code for that building changed and rather than substantial upgrades in the building it was more economic plus the customer base for this company is here in Kent. Hunter: So I take it some of these issues like the disposition of the hazardous waste has already been addressed because of current operation. Allan: Correct. And they have a very good compliance record which can be verified through METRO and the State and also the records. . .records on hazardous waste, chemical deliveries and all that. As I mentioned, in the 30 or 40 companies that I 've dealt with in the last five years, I feel they are in the upper quartile of compliance and methods of operation and such. Hunter: Thank you very much. Further testimony from applicant. Yes, sir. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you' re about to give. Richard Raymond: Yes, I do. Richard Raymond, President of the Company and just wanted to say that the conditions that are here are no problem to us at all and that in the future our plan for our business is going to be. . .we are going to expand in work that would more eliminate more of the hazardous chemicals, you know, we are going to try and expand it to areas that are less polluting, things like that. So, less trouble for us and everybody else involved. Hunter: Good. What is the status. . .do you have now a lease on the building or is it contingent on your conditional use application? 13 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #SCE-89-10 Raymond: No, we've been paying rent for three months now. . .going on four months. Hunter: What' s the access to that, I guess, on the south of the building. There's an outdoor storage area, is there. . . Raymond: Yeah, there's one. O.k. , it would be in the back of the building, the south wall, there' s just one door and it' s more or less a fire escape door or just the back door. . . it's just one small door and then there' s a. . . like they said 15 feet away there' s a fenced off storage area back behind there. We don't plan on even opening the door in normal day' s work. Hunter: O.k. The one thing that I 'm struggling with as Hearing Examiner. . .have you looked at the Kent Zoning Code in terms of the compliance requirements, you've heard the testimony about the 50 foot setback. Raymond• Yes. Hunter: O.k. Is there. . .do you have any ideas about how you might comply with that is there any possibility of building configuration or different location on the site. Have you thought about how that might be complied with or do you see it as an impossibility? Raymond: Well, there wouldn't be anything we could do, you know, to get 50 feet away in this location. But, we don't, like I said, we don't really see it as a problem because it's just the back of our building and nothing going to be going on back there other than just that one doorway is there. So, we didn't really see any problem with it. Hunter: I have a problem with it and it's because it's in the Code and it' s real difficult for me to find authority to give exceptions to that. We had a similar case, the Hearing Examiner heard a few weeks ago, and we are struggling with how to do that. I want to give you all opportunity to find a way to comply with the Code, granting of exceptions is something that should be done rarely and with clear authority to do so and that' s part of what we' re struggling with here today. The way I see the situation in front of us now is that there is a noncompliance with one part of the Code, you are here to ask for an exception from that and I 'm suggesting ways and looking for ways that we might find compliance with the Code. So I wanted to make you aware of that key issue I think that we have in front of us today. Mary, do you have some response? 14 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #kCE-89-10 Duty: Yeah, I think it's important to shed some light on the development standards that were put in the. Code ,under the Performance Section. I was involved as lead planner for the zoning. . .hazardous substance ordinance. I worked with the consultants developing it. When we adopted the siting criteria that are listed in the Code we based those on the Department of Ecology siting criteria for hazardous substance land use facility which have been repealed. We went ahead and adopted them so we would have some means of regulating new industry coming into the City that exceeded thresholds for hazardous substance land use facility rather than not adopting anything and, you know, waiting for DOE to get new regulations. So, we adopted these realizing they were, you know, may not match DOE but they were better than nothing. We also felt, in our minds, that. . .and partly because Boeing was very vocal about this initially with their missile plant that they were going to have problems expanding and being able to meet these standards. It made us look a little harder at them and realized that putting them under the Performance Standards section of the Zoning Code was not appropriate and, in fact, they should not be under Performance Standards. Performance Standards deal with operational aspects when in fact these are dealing with actual development standards and siting and not operational aspects. So, when they added hazardous substances and waste spills and releases as a potential hazard and that should be a performance standards the actual siting criteria listed here should not be part of the performance standards. Performance Standards should be separate from siting criteria. And so, it has been our intent to relocate this into a separate section such as multifamily development standards have their section and these will be relocated rather than being put as a performance standard. They are new and so this isn't really. . .the one two weeks ago is really the first test of these regulations and so it brought it to light once again that they do need to be moved. Hunter: O.k. Thank you for your testimony. The way I hear it is that and the struggle we have with this case is that it is now in a section of the Code that termed Performance Standards and there is some limitation on the discretion of the Hearing Examiner has. Now, what you're indicating is that you intent to propose a change. Duty: Well, they are listed as site development standards and, right, they are under the Performance Standards section of the Code because the hazardous substances and waste performance standards and they just are listed under it. Hunter: I understand, thank you. Further testimony? Kathy? 15 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 McClung: I guess I 'd just like to reinforce what Mary has already said and that is that we listed these development standards under the Performance Section of the Code and it was probably a mistake on our part. However, it more a convenience for convenience sake and the last application we heard was the first application of this type. We realized in writing the staff report that if we were to take everyone of those literally and not ask for a variance we would not be able to site any of these types of facilities within the City limits. It would be almost impossible and so, I would ask you to take that into consideration that if we need to change the Code in order to give the Hearing Examiner the authority specifically then we will do that; however, we hope we don't have to hold up an applicant' s project while we are doing that and it is certainly our intent that the Hearing Examiner have the authority to do it. I guess that's all I have to say. Hunter: O.k. , thank you. Any further testimony. Yes, sir? Allan: The reference to Performance Standards being taken from the Department of Ecology regulations. If they are the performance standards that I now of those were intended to be licensed treatment storage and disposal facilities were the applicant is a generator of hazardous waste that sends waste to the TSD facilities. So, again, the application is. . .the application of those performance standards sound like they originated from the incorrect spot and applied incorrectly to this case. The outside storage. . .storage area is not much more than a lean-to off the side of the building and it' s intent is for nonhazardous chemicals. The finished and raw product not the chemicals or the hazardous waste. Just inside the building wall which is, I believe, 15 feet from the fence there are separate berms for the process tanks so there' s like a double containment so outside storage again shouldn't be confused with what' s being used inside. . .the hazardous chemicals inside the building. So, its there for clarification. Hunter: Thanks for the clarification. Any further testimony? Concerns? Questions? O.k. as you can see these kinds of cases sometimes point to ambiguities in the Zoning Code. We had some legislative history presented that may help the Hearing Examiner determine this issue. It look like we have all the evidence on the record that we need to have, the decision is now in front of us and I intend to issue one but it looks like we have all the evidence on the record that we need to have. The decision is now in front of us and I intend to issue one within the day. So, you will all be notified when that decision is available. Thank you very much for attending and I guess the hearing is adjourned. 16 KENT PLANNING AGENCY STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1989 FILE NO: ELECTROFINISHING #CE-89-10 APPLICANT: Richard Raymond REQUEST: A conditional use permit for the use of an existing building for a metal plating shop with hazardous substances on site which exceeds the allowable 10, 000 pound limit in a CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zone. This request is provided for in Section 15. 04 . 120 (B) (2) of the Kent Zoning Code which regulates hazardous substance land uses. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Mary Duty STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions H I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to operate a metal plating shop with hazardous substances on site that exceed the allowable 10, 000 pound limit in the CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zone. The proposal would utilize 2 , 880 square feet within an existing multi-tenant building. Section 15. 04 . 120 (B) (2) of the Kent Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit for this type of use, which involves more than 10, 000 pounds of hazardous substances on site. The proposed use is classified as a hazardous substance land use facility. B. Location The subject property is located at 22630 88th Avenue S . 1 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 C. Size of Property The size of the leased space for this tenant is 2,880 square feet. The size of the property on which the building is located is 42 ,900 square feet. D. Zoning The property is zoned CM-11 Commercial Manufacturing. Surrounding property to the north, south, east and west is also zoned CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing. The applicant' s proposed business site is located within an existing development built in the 19701s. Although the development may have been built to the standards of that time, it does not meet current development standards. Designated parking stalls need to be restriped to current Zoning Code requirements in order to prevent random parking from interfering with truck maneuvering in front of the loading areas. Wheelstops will also be required between the end of the parking stalls and the building. This potential tenant is required to provide three parking stalls. Landscaping was installed as part of the initial development but is in need of maintenance, especially adjacent to 88th Avenue S . Waste disposal methods (including dumpsters for nonhazardous waste) are not shown or described. Dumpsters must be screened from view from surrounding properties and the street, and must be surrounded by landscaping. Hazardous waste generated by this proposal will be disposed of off site at a Department of Ecology certified facility. Section 15. 08 . 050 3 (D) (9) (b) of the Kent Zoning Code lists the following criteria for siting hazardous substance land use facilities: 1. 200 feet from unstable soils or slopes which are delineated on the "Hazard Area Development Limitations" map or as may be more precisely determined per Section 15.08.224.B; 2. 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark of major or minor streams or lakes which are delineated on the "Hazard Area Development Limitation" map or as may be more precisely determined per Section 15.08.224.8, shorelines of state-wide significance, or shorelines of the state; 2 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 3. 1/4 mile from public parks, public recreation areas or natural preserves, or state or federal wildlife refuges; 4. 50 feet from any property line to serve as an on-site hazardous substance land use facility buffer zone; 5. 500 feet and 100 feet from a residential zone and a residential unit respectively; and 6. 500 feet from a public gathering place or agricultural land/zone, in the case of a non- agricultural hazardous substance land use facility; The subject property meets all of these criteria except that the existing building is not 50 feet from all property lines. Although this setback is met along the northern and eastern perimeters, the western and southern perimeter of the structure have a 15 foot and 13 foot setback respectively, from the property lines. The western perimeter of the site runs along 88th Avenue S. which provides an additional 60 foot setback to properties to the west. All of the mandoors and loading doors open to the north of the building so that comingling with uses to the south is unlikely. A conditional exception from the 50 foot setback will be required in order to approve this conditional use permit application. At the time of the State Environmental Policy Act environmental checklist submission, the traffic routes proposed for vehicles using the site involved S. 226th Street, East Valley Highway (84th Avenue S. ) , 88th Avenue S . and SR167 (the Valley Freeway) . Hazardous substance land use facility traffic routes should not travel through residential zones. Residential areas exist to the north and east of the site; however, traffic from this facility would not likely travel on these routes. The subject property is also outside the 100 year flood plain areas which is also a condition of siting a hazardous substance land use facility. The proposal shall comply with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code and shall provide for review and approval by the Kent Fire Department a hazardous substance spill contingency plan for immediate implementation n the event of a release of hazardous substances. E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future 3 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, city-Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development, and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This area is served by the Valley Floor subarea plan. The following is a review of these plans as they relate to the subject property. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industrial . CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Objective l: Provide adequate trafficways for both local and through traffic, separating the system when possible. Objective 2 : Insure adequate facilities for both truck and vehicular traffic. Planning Department Comment The proposed development is dependent on 88th Avenue S. a currently inadequate roadway for access. This road lacks curbs, sidewalks and lane striping. During peak hours this street is used by residential traffic on the East Hill as a by-pass route. Because of the dangerous nature of the materials which will be shipped to and from the proposed 4 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 project, the inadequacy of 88th Avenue S. is of concern. The risk of a potential problem occurring would be reduced by limiting deliveries of hazardous materials to and from the site during peak hours (7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. ) . HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE KENT RESIDENTS AN AESTHETIC AND HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT. GOAL 2 : Assure Kent residents a healthful environment. Objective 1: Support and enforce programs which minimize or eliminate pollution of the environment. Planning Department Comment As a hazardous substance land use facility, Electrofinishing' s operation is of concern from the standpoint of public safety. As the operation is described as meeting federal, state and local standards for hazardous substance storage and handling, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Careful monitoring of this site to ensure that safety measures are enforced should protect Kent citizen into the future. The Kent Fire Department has a program in place that includes filing specific information with the Department prior to starting business and regular inspections thereafter. Information on any hazardous waste generated from this project will be provided by the applicant to the Fire Department to help ensure that appropriate handling and disposal techniques are employed. Hazardous waste is generated by this proposal, and, thus, is subject to additional regulatory measures as may be required. No outdoor storage will be allowed on the Electrofinishing site unless fencing is provided as required by the Zoning Code, and no outdoor storage of hazardous substances/wastes will be permitted. Yards and open areas will be required to be maintained as described in the Zoning Code. VALLEY FLOOR PLAN The Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industry. 5 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 2 : Insure safe and efficient terminal facilities for both truck and other vehicular traffic. Objective 1: Provide safe egress and ingress and adequate on - site traffic maneuverability. Planning Department Comment This objective supports the policy which works to provide adequate truck loading and unloading zones. The proposed development has a single roll-up door targeted for loading and unloading of materials. Adequate provision of a loading area for a storage use is critical to avoid conflicts between vehicular and truck traffic and to prevent truck maneuvering on the public street. II. HISTORY A. Site History The subject property was annexed to the City in 1958 as part of a 66-acre annexation (Ordinance #967) . Initial zoning on the site was M1, Light Industrial . The property was rezoned to CM, Commercial Manufacturing, with the adoption of the current Zoning Code in 1973 . The site was improved with the existing multi-tenant building in 1976. B. Area History The majority of development in this area of the City occurred in the late 1960's and 19701s. The area is developed with a mixture of small light manufacturing and heavy commercial uses. There are a number of small multi- tenant industrial buildings along 85th Place S. Commercial uses lie along S. 228th Street. There has been little new development in this area in recent years. 6 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 III. LAND USE Land use in the vicinity of the project is a mixture of small light industrial uses and heavy commercial uses. A number of small multi-tenant buildings are located in the area. Uses include welding shops, metal grinding and stamping, heating contracting, steel distributing and machine shops. Commercial uses are located along 228th Street and include: an auto body shop, glass shop, lighting fixtures, a restaurant and tavern. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A final mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for Electrofinishing on May 12 , 1989 (#ENV-89-31) with the following mitigation measures: 1. The developer shall conduct a traffic study to identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic signal system. The study shall identify all intersections at level-of-service "E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes from the development. The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the study and the mitigation measures outlined in the study, implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be the conditional requirement of the issuance of the respective development permits. In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed addition. A. The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to financially participate and pay a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the South 224th/228th Street 7 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 corridor project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $2, 152 based on 2 PM peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of the South 224th/228th Street corridor. The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersection and road system by committing funding for the South 224th/228th Street corridors, which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. 2 . The developer shall agree to participate in the installation of a traffic signal interconnect at the intersection of South 224th Street and 84th Avenue South, extending south to include the intersections of the SR-167 northbound off ramp at 84th Avenue South, and South 228th Street and Central Avenue. Traffic signal controllers and controller cabinet conversions are also required at the SR-167 on/off ramps and South 228th Street and Central Avenue. The minimum assessment to this development is estimated to be $150 based upon 2 PM peak hour trips entering and leaving the site. 3 . The applicant shall obtain a industrial waste discharge permit from Metro. All treated waste water shall be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topography and Hydrology The subject property is basically flat. 2 . Vegetation Existing landscaping is the only vegetation on the subject property. 8 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to 88th Avenue S. which is classified as a collector arterial. The street has a public right-of-way width of 60 feet while the actual width of paving is 24 feet. There are no curbs or gutters, storm water drains, sidewalks or street lighting along the street. The average daily traffic flow is approximately 5, 000 vehicle trips per day. 2 . Water System An existing ten-inch water main line, located in 88th Avenue S . , is available to serve the subject property. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System An existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main, located in 88th Avenue S . , is available to serve the subject property. 4 . LID' s The subject property is presently covered by ULID #1 for utility improvements and LID #273 for street improvements. V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Works Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Building official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. 9 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industrial. B. The Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I, Industry. C. The site is presently zoned CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing. D. The site is currently developed with a multi-tenant building and associated parking. E. The property is landscaped in the vicinity of the existing structure. F. Land use in the area is heavy commercial/light industrial . VII . STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION. Standards and criteria for evaluating conditional use application are described in the Kent Zoning Code, Chapter 15. 09 . 030 Conditional Uses D. Standards and Criteria for Granting A Conditional Use Permit. This Chapter states that, "A conditional use permit shall only be granted after the Hearing Examiner has reviewed and proposed use to determine if it complies with the standards and criteria listed below. A conditional use permit shall only be granted if such finding is made. " The eight criteria are presented below, followed by the Planning Department' s evaluation of the conditional use permit application with respect to these criteria. 1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. 10 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 Planning Department Finding The CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zone is the most intense commercial zoning district within the City of Kent. Surrounding uses are also of a CM-1 nature. The proposed use will meet federal, state and local criteria for hazardous substance land use facilities and should not pose a threat to surrounding uses if properly maintained. 2 . The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. Planning Department Finding The proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot size required under the CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, development standards. The leased space proposed for this project was originally occupied by a machine shop. The proposed site does not allow for the 50 foot property line setback for hazardous substance land use facilities from the west and south property lines. For the reasons stated earlier in this report, it is the staff recommendation to approve this application with a conditional exception to this requirement. The Hearing Examiner has this authority under Section 15 . 09 . 030 E of the Kent Zoning Code. 3 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. Planning Department Finding The traffic generated by this proposal will be minimal. There is a concern because of the types of materials being transported to the site mixing with the residential traffic using 88th Avenue S . as a bypass. Limiting the deliveries of hazardous materials to and from the site during peak hours will help reduce risk of a potentially dangerous situation occurring. 4 . The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. Planning Department Finding Noise, vibration, glare, smoke and dust are not anticipated from this site and will not impact surrounding uses. 11 Staff Report Electrofinishing 4CE-89-10 5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics'protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. Planning Department Finding No adverse visual or auditory effects are anticipated from this development. Landscape buffering is provided along the western perimeter of the site, but must be maintained in order to be effective. 6 . The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. Planning Department Finding Other uses in the vicinity are of a heavy commercial nature. This proposal should not be impacted by other developments in the area. 7 . The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions of this Code. Planning Department Finding The site does not meet all of the performance standards and Zoning Code requirements for the hazardous substance land use facility. As stated earlier in this report, the landscaping must be maintained, parking restriped and a conditional exception from setbacks would be required in order to bring about Code compliance. 8 . Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate to a particular case. Planning Department Finding None. IX. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request, and the code criteria for granting a conditional use permit, the City staff recommends APPROVAL with the following conditions: 12 Staff Report Electrofinishing #CE-89-10 1. • Information on hazardous waste generated from this project shall be provided by the applicant to the City to guarantee that appropriate handling and disposal techniques are employed. Hazardous waste generated by this proposal may require additional regulatory measures. 2 . No outdoor storage of hazardous substances/wastes shall be allowed on site. 3 . Existing landscaping shall be maintained along 88th Avenue S. 4 . Required parking for this tenant shall be restriped to Zoning Code standards. 5. As provided for in Section 15. 09 . 030 (E) , City staff recommends that a conditional exception be granted to the 50 foot setback requirement from the west and south property lines. 6 . Deliveries of hazardous substances coming to and from the site shall not be permitted during peak hours (7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. ) . KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 21, 1989 13 CITY OF DENT planning.. C=. H - - ) Af- r Do -1 Qr II II I � i iI � I + L�• � ICI nn ' I * L „ I IUi �� \� ! 0o a 1) \ r ----------- A PPLICATION Name Electrofinishing LEGEND application site .Number #CE-89-10 Date June 28, 1989 zoning boundary Request Conditional 1IGP Permit -- city limits TOPOGRAPHY/ZONING MAP SCALE = 1° = 400'. CITY.. QT_ KENT planning.. lN --� A ST P _ ■ 22: r-F 222NLv 1 12 ^ 7 y 0.10 13 18 ■ 1 W h y > VI 1 �I KEN ` m I INTC G 1 ;, I - I y h ■ h ST „ 228T ST 1 .s S 228TH m a S ST � - y W 1 N Q \ < 16 7 ` . . W t _ I TEtJP. • h I m 1 .- P ■ NOYAK L. S 232N0 I ST 167 ■ i P � ■ 1 y W W COLE ST I ST 1 a W Al�hl \I :�� fry 4.5��r 1 (PYt) Nil. \1-1.1 a hGp Q z l ULDRON Y L�, W hI. ■ et Z -- Y-.. wAv Attf >lZ 9 h t Z Z ?'Z Z z < W gl ` o < r 5.239t PL AM ES ST z ` 240 ST y 3 JST< K"TJR.HI. 24 > i O 7 rc S ST W SCHOOL. < E 0 W > t �Al hlehC iIJ CED a ST � > < W < < i � PIDNif■ ci I � _ � C ��" APPLICATION Name Electr°finishing LEGEND Number ;#CE-89-10 Dale June 28, 1989 application site } Request Conditional Use Permit zoning boundary WE"amcity limits VICINITY MAP SCALE = ill l000l '�' . CITY. OT-KENT _ planning.. 'JT.OR. OIY2N I .�.FyLH. �O.IL•J= Z i d��ls_o'I n 33I O I I } p • I M 1 PCA.kc� vP nee i Yy _Ni LIIG� SLOB=� d Ir /OoewN _..4_j CATCH BtiYN , OULoI LIr¢.-Fete OF [OCL ur OOnKA2TL =NPT:T.00F LI•+G-- �-}�:0 I UH;f R -J' Un;f B 11 �I I OF W�arvo OTE Y C%IJTING EL-•1 �.ITE- LEVCL. AS MAI: r4 L>: I' 1_J � M N. ]j.00 -L• 3P/.GCO A9 �.� ao=o- SCALE. �/64j1=II v..wrua Ago Jcw. N / • LEGEND : APPLICATION Name Electrofinishing application site .Number ;iCE-89-10 Date June 28 198g zoning boundary Request Conditional city limits _ SITE PLAN SCALE = No scale Kent City Council Meeting i� Date July 18, 1989 Category Public Hearing 1. SUBJECT: 1990 BUDGET : 2. Tonights meeting has been set to receive public input for the 1990 budget. The timing of th meeting is prior to the July 28, 1989 Council work session whet the Council will be establishing budget priorities for 1990. Future public input dates for the budget are scheduled for August 15 and November 7, prior to the adoption of the 1990 Budget at the Decer 5 Council meeting. -asrhe intent of thl6meeting is to receive input from the public, sot their items can be considered in the Council prioritization setting session. 3 . EXHIBI S: 4 . RECOMME DED BY: (Comm ttee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGET D FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL P ONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDIT REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OFFUNDS: OPEN HEARING: i i PUBLIC INPUT: 1 CLOSE HEARING: I 7 . CITY COUNCiiiL ACTION: Councilme r moves, Councilmember seconds i DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2E 3/30/89 City of Kent, Washington C2g COUNCIL BUDGET/CIP CALENDAR COUNCIL WORKSHOP March 21, 1989 4th Quarter Financial Report Review 1990 Budget/CIP, calendar/process CIP questionnaire and process, input and direction COUNCIL WORKSHOP May 2 , 1989 1st Quarter Financial Report 1990 - 1993 Preliminary Financial Forecast Review CIP questionnaire results CIP project input and direction COUNCIL COMMITTEES May 15, 1989 - Review Departmental programs, goals and budget July 14 , 1989 priorities COUNCIL REGULAR June 6, 1989 Public Hearing on Proposed CIP COUNCIL REGULAR CIP Adopted June 20, 1989 / COUNCIL REGULAR July 18 , 1989 C Proposed Use Public Hearing on 1990 Budget priorities COUNCIL WORK SESSION (ALL DAY) July 28 , 1989 2nd Quarter Financial Report 1990 - 1993 Updated Financial Forecast 1990 base line budget presentation Departmental presentations on 1990 budget proposals Council committee chairs report on committee priorities Development of budget direction with alternatives COUNCIL WORKSHOP (REGULAR) Reality check on budget preparation direction August 15, 1989 Proposed Use Public Hearing on Budget COUNCIL WORKSHOP Summary Budget update September 19 , 1989 COUNCIL WORKSHOP October 17 , 1989 Review 3rd Quarter Financial Report Overview of Preliminary 1990 Budget COUNCIL COMMITTEES October 18 , 1989- Review Departmental Budgets November 15, 1989 COUNCIL REGULAR _. Regular Public Hearing on 1990 budget November 7 , 1989 COUNCIL REGULAR December 5, 1989 Adoption of Budget and Tax Levy Ordinance COUNCIL REGULAR December 19, 1989 Adoption of the Final Adjustments for 1989 1 U { �7 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18 , 1989 Category Public Hearing 1. SUBJECT: SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1990-1995 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public hearing on the update of the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. e 3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Resolution 12-1 be adopted, approving the 1990-1995 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. 1ISCUSSION• ACTION• _ �I Council Agenda Item No. 2F -Z F CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1990-1995 = 1 wASHINGTON Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Director of Public Works SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMRPOVEMENT PROGRAM 1990 TO 1995 PROJECT LISTING ANNUAL ELEMENT 1990 (First Year) Priority 1989 1990 ANNUAL ELEMENT 1989 13 1 Military Road - Bolger Road to SR 516 X 2 Central Avenue Traffic Signal Interconnect X 3 72nd Avenue South - S. 194th Street to S. 196th Street 22 4 S. 228th Street and Military Rd Improvements X 5 City-wide Traffic Signal Installation & Improvements X 6 Railroad Grade Crossing Replacement (City-wide) X 7 Canyon Drive Guardrail Replacement 19 8 S. 196th St./200th St. Corridor Improvements (West Leg) 6 9 West Valley Highway (SR-181) -S. 189th St. to S. 212th St. 14 10 Crow Road Bypass (SR-516 Bypass) 6 it West Valley Highway (SR-181) -S. 180th St. to S. 192nd St. X 12 64th Ave. South - S. 212th St. to Meeker Street 9 13 Canyon Dr. (SR-516) Left Turn Lanes - Hazel Ave. to Weiland 2 14 West Valley Highway (SR-181) and S. 212th Street 3 15 West Valley Highway (SR-181) and S. 190th Street 5 16 S.E. 277th St. - SR-167 to Auburn Way North 5 17 S. 272nd St/S. 277th St - Auburn Way North to K-K Rd. 10 18 S.E. 256th Street and 104th Avenue S.E. 8 19 S.E. 260th Street and 104th Avenue S.E. 11 20 Central Ave. (SR-516) - Willis Street to Smith Street SECOND YEAR 1991 X 21 James Street and 104th Avenue S.E. 12 22 East Valley Highway - S. 180th St. to S. 189th St. X 23 S. 196th St./200th St. Corridor Improvements (Middle Leg) THIRD YEAR 1992 20 24 Central Avenue and S. 259th Street 15 25 East Valley Highway and S. 196th Street 18 26 North Central Avenue and Smith Street 17 27 James Street and Central Avenue 4TH, STH, 6TH YEARS 1993 , 1994 , 1995 1 21 28 94th Ave. S./SE 248th St - Canyon Dr. BE to 116th Ave. BE 16 29 Rent-Kangley Rd (SR-516) & filth Avenue S.E. X 30 S.E. 256th St - Kent-Kangley Rd. (SR-516) to 116th Ave. BE SIX %?JECT SPO ATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1990 TO 1995 Ry ! City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date I City No 0615 Adoption Date _____________ y Count No. 17 Resolution No. =_----------------------------------- p PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ! PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ! r ! ! ! ! i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION ! FUNDING SOURCE !TOTAL ! o SCHEDULE !------------------------------I r (Street name or number, ! Y E A R !FEDERAL ! ! !FUNDS ! i Co. road name or number, ! 89 90 91 92-94 ! ! ! ! t termini beginning & end. !1st 2nd 3rd 4,5 ! Pro-!AMT TIB Local ! ! y Describe work to be done.) !Annl 6th !AMT gram! ! ! No !Elmt ! ! ! ! ! ----------=---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- i !Military Rd. - Bolger Rd. to SR-516 ! 60 ! 622 ! ! ! 568 FAUS! ! 114 ! 682 ! !Widen roadway to 5 lanes with curb, gutter & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !sidewalk. Provide drainage, paving, ! ! ! ! !channelization, street lighting & landscaping ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 !Central Avenue Traffic Signal Interconnect 75 ! ! ! 62 FAUS! ! 13 ! 75 ! !Traffic signal modifications @ S. 244th St. & 84th! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Ave. S., replacement of existing WSDOT traffic ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !signal controllers with City equipment & install ! ! ! !traffic signal interconnect to the City's Master. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I I I I I 3 !72nd Ave. S. - S. 194th St. to S.195th St. ! 540 ! ! ! ! ! 432 TIB! 108 ! 540 ! !Construction of a new two lane roadway with ! ! ! ! ! ! - !curb & gutter, sidewalk, grading, paving, ! ! ! ! !channelization and landscaping. ! ! 4 !S. 228th St. and Military Rd. Improvements ! 100 ! ! ! 7934 ! ! 6347 TIB! 1587 ! 7934 ! !Construct new roadway for S. 228th St., from ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 154th Ave. S. to Military Rd. & improve Military Rd! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !from S. 228th St. to SR-516. ! ! ! 5 !City-Wide Traffic Signal Installation & Imp. ! 150 ! 100 ! 60 ! 260 ! ! ! 570 ! 570 ! !Add new traffic signals & improve existing ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !signalized interxection locations throughout ! ! !the city. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I I I I I 6 !Railroad Grade Crossing Replacement (City-Wide) ! 40 ! 40 ! 40 ! 160 ! ! ! 280 ! 280 ! !City wide railroad crossing replacement ! ! ! ! ! !program. ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 !Canyon Drive Guardrail Replacement ! 150 ! 150 ! ! ! 270 SFTY! 30 ! 300 ! !Replace existing cable wire guardrail system !on the southwesterly side of Canyon Drive S.E. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8 !S 196/200th Corridor Improvement (West Leg) ! 1000 ! 2040 ! 1000 ! ! 3232 TIB! 808 ! 4040 ! !Major widening of S. 200th St. from Orillia Rd. ! ! ! ! ! ! !to the Green River. The project shall include ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !curb & gutter, sidewalks, lighting, grading, ! ! ! ! ! !paying, bridge over Green River, a new signal at ! ! ! ! ! I !Orillia Rd., signing, and landscaping. This is ! ! ! ! ! SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1990 TO 1995 PROJECT SUMMARY ! I I City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date--------------- ' City No 0615 Adoption Date-------------- County No. 17 Resolution No.------ ! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ! PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ! r ! i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION ! FUNDING SOURCE !TOTAL ! o SCHEDULE '------------------------------I 1 r (Street name or number, ! Y E A R !FEDERAL ! ! !FUNDS ! i Co. road name or number, ! 89 90 91 92-94 ! ! ! i t termini beginning & end. !1st 2nd 3rd 4,5 ! Pro-!AMT TIB!Local ! ! y Describe work to be done.) !Annl 6th !AMT gram! ! ! ! No !Elmt ! ! ! ---------------------------------------------------- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------' !(Pending annexation). ! ! ! ! ! '• 9 !West Valley Highway (S 189th-S 212th) ! 6121 ! ! ! ! ! 900 TIB! 5221 ! 6121 ! !Major widening of West Valley Highway to ! ! ! ! ! ! !include curb & gutter, sidewalks, lighting i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !grading, paving, channelization, signalization, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !signing, and landscaping. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 I I I I I I I I I 10 !Crow Road By-Pass (SR-516 By-Pass) ! 700 ! ! ! ! ! ! 700 ! 700 ! !Minor widening to improve turning radius at ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !SE 260th St, and 108th Ave SE with signalization ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !at Kent-Kangley Road (SR-516) & 108th Ave SE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !to include curb & gutter, sidewalks, lighting ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !grading, paving, channelization and signing. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 !East Valley Highway (S 180th St.-S 192nd St.) ! 2900 ! ! ! ! ! 900 TIB! 2000 ! 2900 ! !Complete five lane section with drainage, paving, i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !sidewalks, curb & gutter, lighting, landscaping, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !underground utilities, bridge, and signing. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 12 !64th Ave. S. - S. 212th St. to Meeker St. ! 4200 ! ! ! ! ! ! 4200 ! 4200 ! !Construction of new roadway on 64th Ave. S. from ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !S. 212th St. to James St., roadway widening from ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !James St. to Smith St. and signals @ 5.212th St., ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !S. 228th St., James St. & Meeker St. ! i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13 !Canyon Drive (SR-516) Hazel Ave - Weiland St ! ! ! ! ! 370 FAUS! ! ! 370 ! !Addition of left turn lanes at Hazel, Smith, ! ! ! ! ! SFTY! ! ! ! !and Weiland Streets to include curb & gutter, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !sidewalks, channelization and drainage. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 14 !West Valley Highway (SR-181) and S. 212th St. ! 350 ! ! ! ! 292 FAUS! ! 58 ! 350 ! !Add turn lanes, channelization, signing, signal ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !improvements, grading, widening. ! i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 15 !West Valley Highway (SR-181) and S. 190th St. ! 130 ! ! ! 1 108 FAUS! ! 22 ! 130 ! !Installation of a full eight phase signal system ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !with channelization and lighting. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 !S.E. 277th St. - SR-167 to Auburn Way ! 1200 ! 1000 ! 900 ! ! ! 1000 TIB! 2100 ! 3100 ! !Roadway improvements to include: Major widening of! i ! ! ! ! ! ! SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1990 TO '995 PROJECT SUMMARY ! I City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date--------------- ! City No 0615 Adoption Date-------------- ! County No. 17 Resolution No._----- ! ------------------------------------------------ P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ! PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ! r I ! ! i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION ! FUNDING SOURCE !TOTAL ! o SCHEDULE !------------------------------! ! r (Street name or number, ! Y E A R !FEDERAL ! ! !FUNDS ! i Co. road name or number, ! 89 90 91 92-94 ! ! ! ! ! t termini beginning & end. !1st 2nd 3rd 4,5 ! Pro-!AMT TIB!Local ! ! y Describe work to be done.) !Ann.l 6th !AMT gram! ! ! ! No !Elmt ! ! ! ! ! I I 1 I I I I I I _______________________________________1 !roadway to four/five lanes with curb& gutter, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !sidewalk, lighting, grading, paving, signing, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !channelization & railroad crossing safety devices.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 17 !S. 272nd/S. 277th St. - Aubrun Way to Kent-Kangley! 2400 ! 2400 ! 3600 ! ! ! 1000 TIE! 7400 ! 8400 ! !Construct new four/five lane roadway including ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !channelization, new bridge construction & signal &! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Kent-Kangley Rd. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I I I I 1 I 18 !SE 256th St. and 104th Ave SE ! 450 ! ! ! ! ! 200 TIE! 250 ! 450 ! !Addition of a double southbound left turn lane ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !and traffic signal revisions. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 19 *SE 260th St. and 104th Ave SE ! 135 ! ! ! ! 135 ! 135 ! !New traffic signal ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20 !Central Ave. (SR-516) Willis St. - Smith St. ! 465 ! 1051 ! ! ! ! 1000 TIE! 516 ! 1516 ! !Minor widening to include northbound left turn ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !lane, storm drainage & channelization. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 21 !James St. and 104th Ave. S.E. ! ! 150 ! ! ! 125 FAUS! ! 25 ! 150 ! !Construct additional eastbound acceleration ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !lane on James St. approximately 500 feet east of ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !the intersection. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I I I I I ! 22 !West Valley Highway (S 180th-S 212th) ! ! 2609 ! ! ! ! ! 2609 ! 2609 ! !Major widening of West Valley Highway to ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !include curb & gutter, sidewalks, lighting ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !grading, paving, channelization, signalization, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !signing, and landscaping. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 23 !S. 196th/200th St. Corridor Imp. (Middle Leg) ! ! 350 ! ! ! ! 280 TIB! 70 ! 350 ! !construct new four/five lane roadway from the ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Green River to 80th Ave. S., & widening from 80th ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Ave. to East Valley Highway. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 24 !Central Ave. and S. 259th St. ! ! ! 130 ! ! 108 FAUS! ! 22 ! 130 ! !Install two phase traffic signal, street lighting ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! _ !& channelization. ! ! ! ! 25 !East Valley and S. 196th St. ! ! ! 130 ! ! 108 FAUS! ! 22 ! 130 ! !Install two phase traffic signal, street lighting ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !& channelization. ! ! ! ! ! SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1990 TO 1995 PROJECT SUMMARY I City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date--------------- City No 0615 Adoption Date______________ ! County No. 17 Resolution No.-----_ P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ! PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ! ! r ! ! i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION ! FUNDING SOURCE !TOTAL ! 0 SCHEDULE !------------------------------! ! r (Street name or number, ! Y E A R !FEDERAL ! ! !FUNDS ! i Co. road name 0r number, ! 89 90 91 92-94 ! ! ! ! t termini beginning & end. !1st 2nd 3rd 4,5 ! Pro-!AMT TIB!Local ! ! y Describe work to be done.) !Annl 6th !AMT gram! ! ! ! No !Elmt ! ! ! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------' 26 !N. Central Ave. and Smith St. ! ! ! 590 ! ! 492 FAUS! ! 98 ! 590 ! !Add a new double left turn lane, channelization, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !street lighting, signal upgrade & signing. ! ! ! ! ! ! I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 27 !James St. and Central Ave. ! ! ! 150 ! ! 125 FAUS! ! 25 ! 150 ! !Minor widening of intersection to accomodate ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !a westbound right turn lane. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28 !94th Ave S.E./S.E. 248th St. - Canyon Dr. to 116th! ! ! ! 1450 ! ! 1160 TIB! 290 ! 1450 ! !Widen to 3 lanes with curb, gutter & sidewalk. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Provide drainage, paving, channelization, ! ! ! ! ! !signing, street lighting & landscaping. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I I I I I I 29 !Kent-Kangley (SR-516) and 111th Ave SE ! ! ! ! 25 ! 21 FAUS! ! 4 ! 25 ! !Traffic signal revisions and traffic signal ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !interconnect. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 30 !S.E. 256th St. - Kent-Kangley Rd. to 116th Ave SE ! ! ! ! 900 ! ! 720 TIB! 180 ! 900 ! !Improvements to include roadway widening, drainage! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !curb, gutter & sidewalk, lighting, paving, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !channelization, signing & landscaping ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I I I I I I ___________________________I GRAND TOTALS 21166 10512 6600 10729 2649 FAUS 17171 TIB 29457 49277 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 180th 11 N 9 5 g CD cn o 3 14 12 2 116th "' 4 l�l 13 7 2 18 256th P 10 19 N'fo 17 •s' S. 272n I AN -- FIRST YEAR 1990 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: Military Rd. - Bolger Rd. to SR-516 ~ DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .28 Mi. ) Roadway improvements to include: Widen roadway to five lanes with curb & gutter, sidewalk. Provide drainage, paving, channelization, street lighting, channelization & landscaping improvements. This project will provide a future connection for the S. 228th St. corridor project. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 60,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 622,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 682,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID,FAUS, Prop. 1991 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr I I 4 , 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 60,000 622,000 682,000 L m N S 228T11 Si S Iv RICH f' W IT MAN ..�.- 228M � S'HOOI PL N < 3` I PL _ I PROJECT -1 S 23LS 9 0.0 1 ST p'` ST I Kei -' Ili,nl.,Hill (ln,lhll P MIDWAY ST _ Il` r INTERCHANGE i Sre tation\ 516 y \ .... _ ♦ 4 .t�r•tH ST l SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 507,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 507,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: SignalSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 15,000 SUB TOTAL $ 45,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 70,000 WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SanitarySewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 70,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 622,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: Central Avenue Traffic Signal Interconnect DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length . 11 Mi. ) Traffic signal modifications at S. 224th St. and 84th Avenue S. , replacement of existing WSDOT traffic signal controllers with City of Kent standard equipment, and install traffic signal interconnect to the City of Kent Master Signal Computer. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 5,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 70,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 75,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP, DEV, FAUS 1990 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 75,000 75,000 0 I � Y ro S a ST S 222NUV 1 PROJECT 12 ~ 7 / � � N 0 13 18 I W N y � r � ` NORT N r KEN I = IINTC G = a = H F ST S m 228T ST 4 F b 0 \ W O W a a < 167 2 -- 2 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 TRAFFIC IMPROVIIMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 70,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 70,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- StormDrainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SanitarySewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 70,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: 72nd Avenue S. - S. 194th Street to S. 196th Street DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .11 Mi. ) Construction of new two lane roadway with curb & gutter, sidewalk, grading, paving, channelization, landscaping. SAY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 81,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 459,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 540,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP, TIB 1990 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total --------------------------------------------------------------- 540,000 540,000 AHL _ - < S 190TH ST 4 \ 1 z i Z o i i1 S. 1901h. ST. a Z 23 N 35 36 y > 22 N 2 m u a J� S. 194Ih. ST. Q � 4 � 1 S 196TH ST q O 2 ` 3 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 444,000 ,Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 444,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT'S: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 15,000 SUB TOTAL $ 15,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 459,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: S. 228th St. and Military Rd. Improvements DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length 1.15 Mi. ) Construct new roadway for S. 228th St. , from 54th Avenue S. to Military and improve Military Rd, from S. 228th St. to SR-516. The project shall include a bridge crossing over the Green River and constructing a 4 to 5 lane roadway, curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, signalization at Military Rd. , channelization & strom drainage. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 847,698 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 691,692 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 6,394,610 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 7,934,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP,LID,TIB, Prop.90 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100,000 7,834,000 7,934,000 - PROJECT T. K NT • �L E t �- • n a 1979 TION.19,400 iw _ I sL u J+ l ,. .16 I3 ' 1121 . • �� r e C) i ,l�.��.. t . •G MU41tLL 1 I 11ll.fl 7j 4 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$6,149,610 Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $6,149,610 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 80,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 25,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000 SUB TOTAL $ 135,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------ Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .c 110,000 Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 110,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $6,394,610 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: City-Wide Traffic Signal Installatiion & Improvements DESCRIPTION: Add new traffic signals and improve existing signalized intersection locations throughout the city in order to accomodate increased traffic volumes due to growth. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 57,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 513,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 570,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP PROJECT COST: 1st Yr ( 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ---------------------------------------------------------- 150,000 100,000 60,000 260,000 570,000 NO MAP 5 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 513,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 513,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SanitarySewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 513,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: Railroad Grade Crossing Replacement (City-Wide) DESCRIPTION: City wide railroad crossing replacement program. SUMMARY. (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 280,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 280,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP PROJECT COST: Ist Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr---- --&-6th-Yr-- ----Total- -------------------------------------- - 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 280,000 NO MAP 6 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ ,Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ 280,000 Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 280,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: SignalSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SanitarySewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 280,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: Canyon Drive Guardrail Replacement DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .50 Mi. ) Replace existing cable wire guardrail system on the southwesterly side of Canyon Drive S.E. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 300,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 300,000 FUNDING SOURCE: SAFETY, Prop. 1990 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr ( 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 150,000 150,000 . 300,000 A. + r A. r�oo� yY yY�� PROJECT 41 t,0 y �Pr J CANYON SE . I�Gi.,.•,.�, } br� � r O OLYMPIC WAo-Qy �,� �� q J!, X QO ref N W U r dO�'A. �i� �i! `�� W wOOOL-4Nb%II A. r o 0 OJ`0�o- 5` o 41 zk 7 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: . New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ 300,000 Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Clatter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 300,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 300,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: S. 196th St./200th St. Corridor Improvements (West Leg) » DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .62 Mi. ) Roadway improvements to include: Major widening of S. 200th St. , from Orillia Rd. to the Green River. Included also are curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, grading, paving, construction of a bridge over the Green River, a new traffic signal at Orillia Rd. , signing & landscaping. This is a joint project with the City of Tukwila (Pending Annexation) & King County. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 448,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 267,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 3,325,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,040,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID,TIB,Prop. 1991 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,000,000 2,040,000 1,000,000 4,040,000 Q � 0 W J h a � PROJECT o \\'1 0 1~O W LL a AKE 1 NGE --- s 204TH ST 8 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$3,075,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $3,075,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 200,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 40,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000 SUB TOTAL $ 250,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $3,325,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTT PROGRAM PROJECT: West Valley Highway (SR-181) - S. 189th St. to S. 212th St. ~ DESCRIPTION: (Proj. Length 1.45 Mi. ) Roadway improvements to include: Major widening of West Valley Highway. Also included are curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting; grading, paving, channelization, signalization, signing & landscaping. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 620,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,200,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,301,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 6, 121,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID,TIB,Funded 1989 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, 1 Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr I Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6,121,000 6,121,000 « PROJECT D I �0 z z 3 Ilc~n 1 i fs(Il ..hoar r b . Clll.11:7/'ll.l}VFI(tl I•.V{Ai•}(.Ill(N11(PI']J CIO ICPA"PU}UA. ,Ilulullq.✓fi,"IIII1U --- (1 • i I [ 1:� - I 9 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ ,Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$3,929,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $3,929,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 300,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 60,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 12,000 SUB TOTAL $ 372,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $4,301,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT. Crow Rd. By-Pass (SR-516 By-Pass) DESCRIPTION: (Proj. Length .35 Mi. ) Minor widening to improve turning radius at S.E. 260th St. & 108th Ave. S.E. , also at Canyon Dr. S.E. and Crow Rd. , signalization at Kent-Kangley Rd. (SR-516) & 108th Ave. S.E. curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, grading, paving, channelization & signing. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 70,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 530,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 700,000 FUNDING SOURCE: Dev. PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 700,000 700,000 ✓� ��~`� EAST HILL do . ;rc, O CENTER '� ' '�v��• ' " f .•^[h SE 252ND xi'+l Kln Field ST $ W Court S15 W > A�. Police < 7A �� •;�iY, �0 1 KENT—MERIDIAN t^ '• !y SR. HI. SCHOOL T I�1 SE 256TH ST m. � 30 W 4 C� PRROJECT `r UI K_ I kf •^' SCENIC HILL�� ST y E 6 hr� ELEMENTARY O 91 k1 SCHOOL 00 10 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- STREET IMPROVIIENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ ,Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 297,150 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 297,150 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 120,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 40,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 12,000 SUB TOTAL $ 172,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 60,850 Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 60,850 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 530,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: East Valley Highway (SR-181) - S. 180th St. to S. 192nd St. DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .85 Mi. ) Roadway improvements to include: The completion of five lane section with drainage, paving, curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, landscaping, underground utilities, construct/reconstruct box culvert, traffic & railroad signing. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 290,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 350,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,260,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,900,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID,TIB,Funded 1989 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2,900,000 2,900,000 32► pl D i z IPROJECT ..,.. �" O l z e� s T.7; r W z 7 I Y, w s 11 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CUNT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ .Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2,160,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $2, 160,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 80,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000 SUB TOTAL $ 100,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------ StormDrainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $2,260,000 SIX YEAR 'TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: 64th Avenue S. - S. 212th Street to Meeker Street DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length 1.74 Mi. ) Construction of new roadway on 64th Ave. S. from James St. to S. 228th St. & from S. 226th St. to S. 212th St. , widening of 64th Ave. S. from James St. to Smith St. . New -traffic signals at S. 212th St. , S.228th St. , W. James St. , W. Meeker St. , Improvements to include: new roadway, curb & gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, lighting, sanitary sewer, watermain & landscapin SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 690,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,863,900 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,349,100 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 6,903,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4,200,000 2,703,000 6,903,000 PROJECT .vf, ...._._.� ! � 6 s r L I... vYl .`�C.`•f . _ .•ter- - - �_ 12 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$3,569,100 Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $3,569,100 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 650,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000 SUB TOTAL $ 780,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $4,349,100 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: Canyon Dr. (SR-516) Left Turn Lanes - Hazel Avenue to Weiland St. DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .50 Mi. ) Roadway improvenents to include: The addition of left turn lanes at Hazel St. , Smith St. & Weiland St. , installing curb & gutter, sidewalk, channelization & drainage. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 28,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 74,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 268,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 370,000 FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS,SFTY,FtH1ded 89 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 370,000 370,000 PIONEER SIC K = 'O S 242NDir 3 = x ST in Mc ILLAN O E TEMIERAII E ST PROJECT W S 243RD SMIT $ST x = ; H 5T 4 .1 ENT i 'l�, SMITH ST S 44TH N ► 1 IW T MEDICAL � H WARD ;KCENTE m ST S7 i 4) 'rj_REIT ••'.. .C1 i x E ME KERZ ST mm Jy r0 EN ' ST. < m E 00N i 1 r \r O�ST A�c O,�'?4 ' '� • ,J r'8 n EILAND S W S 246TH 516 d 6 �fN�\c TACOMA S7 ti Y OLRO' ST 2a 7ST _ =PL Yf H W CHERRY P �C• _'„�OQ r W t67 y, DEANQ E DEAN a HILL ST L S 246 T P ii ST 1 w ST x E MACLYN ST E 7 4 7 w / SAAR 0 < - V\"J a i $T ALPIN A O E OUIDERSON ST • J ,_ t WAY O _ t Z E SEATTLE C w i w W I... Z ST \,�.,J~-t.i� 13 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 230,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 230,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 38,000 SUB TOTAL $ 38,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- StormDrainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ . Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 268,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: West Valley Highway (SR-181) and S. 212th St. V DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Intersection improvements to include: The addition of turn lanes, channelization, signing, signal improvements, grading & roadway widening. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 45,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 305,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 350,000 FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS,Funded, 1989 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr ( 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 350,000 350,000 f 1 2 k\ I � .. J PROJECT OBRIEN r ELEMENTARY S 212IH SCHOOL I W ` / Fire Station o W s, zlem. sT. � < Z 14 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ NL'nor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 220,000 Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 220,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 75,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000 SUB TOTAL $ 85,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 305,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: West Valley Highway (SR-181) and S. 190th St. DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Intersection improvements to include: The installation of a five phase signal system with channelization and street lighting. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 12,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 118,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 130,000 FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, Funded, 1989 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 130,000 130,000 a o _J ^S O � Y S lee T11 S7 1 , 1 w ry S LlULU- CITY 1rv111 k 1 j 190T11 ST 1 O S. 180th. . W N ST `V1 Z PROJECT , J - 23 N 35 36 N m 10 Q S. 19411h. ST 15 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS- New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 108,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 8,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,000 SUB TOTAL $ 118,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 118,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: S.E. 277th St. - SR-167 to Auburn Way N. DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .72 Mi. ) Roadway improvements to include: Major widening of roadway to four and five lanes with curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, grading, paving, signing channelization, signalization & railroad crossing safety devices. This is a joint project with the City of Auburn. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 186,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,085,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,829,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 3,100,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID,CIP,TIB,Prop. 90 PROJECT COST. 1st Yr 4, 5, 1 Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr ( & 6th Yr I Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,200,000 1,000,000 900,000 3,100,000 LL ' N } J t V A Q — N 25 '30 1 > _ -- - - N 167 36 31 TEMP. THOMAS STREET I _ �OJECT m )' 0p w w INTERCHANGE ( '�t Ln C N � G .p 8T AAA W F0 j �0co THOMAS W-K 8 278TH AVE SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------ STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1,769,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $1,769,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000 SUB TOTAL $ 60,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,829,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: S. 272nd St./S. 277th St. - Auburn Way N to Kent-Kangley Rd. DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length 2.27 Mi. ) Constuct new four to five lane roadway section including street lighting, grading, paving, signing, channelization, new bridge construction & a new traffic signal at Kent-Kangley Rd. . This is a joint project with King County. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 495,600 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,939,999 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,964,401 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 8,400,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP,LID,TIB,Prop. 90 PROJECT COST: J 1st Yr J 4, 5 J J Annual Element J 2nd Yr 3rd Yr J & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2,400,000 2,400,000 3,600,000 8,400,000 a _ r z a e f./TYL/M!T IT `L 'I._ 25 30 ' 1, 29 2B __ 36 31 IT m.. ww 32 w m „ PROJECT ti _ lV_ LIMITS IT U U U H H 17 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$4,799,401 Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $4,799,401 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 15,000 SUB TOTAL $ 165,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------ Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $4,964,401 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: S.E. 256th St. and 104th Avenue S.E. DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Intersection improvements to include: Addition of a double southbound left turn lane, westbound right turn lane & traffic signal revisions. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 45,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 385,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 450,000 FUNDING SOURCE: Dev. ,TIB,Funded 1989 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total --- _---------------------------------------------- 450,000 450,000 252N0 T SE NO 5T W EAST HILL < CENTER y ',1 F• • .0 11 SE 252N0 $ W w F held ST - " j JO KlnRty 515 i < w s Police * < < N . �••��t A07 KENT-MERIDIAN = S 1= h iSR. HI. SCHOOL I- y J� 1�l,— _ SE 256TH 5T W 30 k.;.. ('yeti PROJECT . t:.Nit 4 t' .. k r11�N_ `fir r w se �k \ E 2e,07+-h Sr " 260TH 1N0 HILLTR ST EfF• TARV OL R01 18 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVIINNTS ------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ ! Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 347,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 347,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 8,000 SUB TOTAL $ 36,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------ StormDrainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SanitarySewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 385,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: S.E. 260th St. and 104th Avenue S.E. DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Roadway improvements to include: Minor widening of 104th Ave. S.E. including curb & gutter, sidewalk. Install double left turn lane and northbound right turn lane, new signal & signal interconnect. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 13,500 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 121,500 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 135,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP, Dev. , PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- 135,000 135,000 O.1 VENT-MERIDIAN I x I O 'i SR.HI. SCHOOL / 1M SE 256TH ST ,. 30 g 04 ir PROJECT �ril<K I r a ' E 260T1 s* 26 260TH R hp Ic HILLro ST �Ey ENTARY OOL $ RO 'r I SEQUOIA I JR.HI. S 242N0 SCHOOL j \ Athletic field SE' E 264Tti ST 19 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVIIMENT PROGRAM (CUNT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ , Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 36,500 Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 36,500 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 80,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,000 SUB TOTAL $ 85,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- StormDrainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SanitarySewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 121,500 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVIIMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: Central Avenue (SR-516) - Willis St. to Smith St. DESCRIPTION: (Proj. Length .38 Mi. ) Minor widening of roadway to include curb & gutter, sidewalk, grading, paving, channelization & signing. Also included is a northbound right turn lane at Central Ave. & Gowe St. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 90,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 375,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,051,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,516,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID,TIB,Prop, 1990 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, 1 Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr I Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 465,000 1,051,000 1,516,000 0 1 = PROJECT a Mc ILLAN U E q TEM ERAI E 7T AVK1-1 F n i ST Z X SMIT ST Z z W SMI7H ST 4 W .L ENT4 !� SMITH Sr 'I F' T ME61 CAL WARD pcCENTE ,`, 7 W HARRISON ST N i Z < MEEKER S7 E ER Z ST m N 6 m Jy �r r 4� �'•( Oh 1 4> GO WE ST Sid = CENT 'M POI a st, T < ENOg�t TACOMA ST > LE M Wo Hal Po t 51 °A •�Y — CHERRY OL h < SCH WL » St ary Offic . E W HILL ST, PL IC TITU ST DEANO E DEAN O W I W 1- T6 y ST Z W ST< <E MACLYN ST ' SAAR pp8 < SAA ST LPIN ; r2 O E GUIRERSON ST WILLIS 4 ..• ST W WAY =W W O...` a E SEA W > = 516 H ST < w �' Olt..s,.. l < W SEATTLE ST < < E n T W RO ST LRU- ELL < W Z Ll�� w rvla 20 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ , Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 630,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 171,000 Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 801,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000 SUB TOTAL $ 90,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 160,000 Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 160,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,051,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 180th N 3 � V) CD cn o movie Rollo mini I I nn Ln 116th H 256th P P S. 272n SECOND YEAR 1991 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: James Street and 104th Avenue S.E. DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .11 Mi. ) Construct additional eastbound acceleration lane on James Street (S.E. 240th St. ) approximately 600 feet east of intersection. Relocate existing curb & gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 15,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 135,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 150,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP,FAUS,Prop. 1991 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, 1 Annual Element ( 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr I Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 150,000 150,000 ` ST _I`� - — - �-- - w u7 F=- w N SE 236TH PL w �� m < � SE 237TH ST < W h a a i E 238T11 — (PN) C1: m w = (Pvt) SE 239TH ST _ _= N „ �..14 < W ST �. Q N Z = _ - 1 1 J t SE 40TIi ST - w ST ¢ 11 ,111 EAST HILL 41Si_ TU ELEMENTARY SCHOOL m SCHOOL 3 CS 242HD< PROJECT ST v S 243RD w ST O m SE 244TH .. a v ST Q W W N w < IK L IK P 21 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 135,000 Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 135,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 135,000 r SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: West Valley Highway (SR-181 ) - S. 180th St. to S. 189th St. DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .66 Mi . ) Roadway improvements to include: Major widening of West Valley Highway. Also included are curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, grading, paving, channelization, signalization, signing & landscaping. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 60,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 505,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,044,000 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,609,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,609,000 2,609,000 N AVE, s, PROJECT ^� Ln I W I 1 1 /} 0 72NO AVE S N� Z 1 O 10 S 3AV ONELI Al) UNION PACIFIC RAILROD A iYA Or F r 22 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ` (CONT.) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1 ,974,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . $ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $1 ,974,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ . 60,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000 SUB TOTAL $ 70,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $2,044,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: S. 196th/200th St. Corridor Improvements (Middle Leg) DESCRIPTICN: (Prof. Length 1 .46 Mi . ) Construction of new four to five lane roadway from the Green River to 80th Avenue S. & major widening from 80th Avenue S. to East Valley Highway. Roadway improvements to include: Curb & gutter, sidewalk street lighting, grading, paving, channelization & landscaping. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 350,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 350,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP, TIB, Prop. 1991 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 350,000 350,000 .• y f iiF . r ( { 1 i li � i I i�i . � •F z t• �.- \ I I r l 1<III t •�Il !�_� PROJECT 23 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ti (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 0 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 180th ' N 25 t" L (n p Ln 116th i 6 4 256th P P U S. 272n THIRD YEAR 1992 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: Central Avenue and S. 259th St. DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Intersection improvements to include: The installation of a full eight phase signal system with channelization and street lighting. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 13,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 117,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 130,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP,FAUS, Prop. 1992 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 130,000 130,000 MARION �z' O E FILBERT ST W a W S7 E• W z Z W % .I K 24 19 `1 E a W 5i WAL UT x W 25 30 W ° W n ^ O O Cl< MAPLE II PROJECT S 259TH ST S 259TH ST N CIM N ' Sg A LDER LN I• �p 261ST , ST 262ND ? ST ` S iL i I ST ti fy 11 i YI I N � > A 24 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVE21EMTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ , Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 117,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 117,000 UTILITY IMPROVIIMENTS ------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 117,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: East Valley Highway and S. 196th St. DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Intersection improvements to include: The installation of a full eight phase signal system with channelization and street lighting. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 13,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 117,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 130,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID,CIP,FAUS,Prop.92 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 130,000 130,000 e S 194TH ST I PROJECT S 196TH ST 1 N l/\ I 1 I x I s < m AIN'f A i D m 11 , . ` i m m iv S S 2UOTH ST -< � '1 \ 1 y w I M 5 -— 202NO ST M ' S 2 25 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMEVTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ , Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 117,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 117,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 117,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: North Central Avenue and Smith St. DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .25 Mi. ) Intersection improvements to include: Adding a new double left turn lane, channelization, street lighting, signal upgrade, and signing. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 413,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 167,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 590,000 FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, Prop. 1992 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr I Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 590,000 590,000 o z s 5z Z Z < 8 t ` W > � 7 Z AMES ST = Z I /- J KENT W K W 24 ( rI \\luil � JR.HI. "' > N - '-` I SCHOOLcc . < E 0 _ t tAthletic FIJ CED L ST W z < PIONEER S s z PROJECT -- ° S Z MI LW AI'K 1-.V F - 0 Mc ILLAN O E '' TEM ERA E ST FT x li ST z z W SMITH Z ST W �yy ENT4 r SM17N p '•. ` Z O Z IIZ < T MEDICAL V.�> N STI%' Z f WARD W HARRISON ST a W v q mCENTE � Z > ST I W MEEKER ST Z < E ME KERZ ST W •-• Z ' S W < < ~ <W Om ` 0 ST Su0 -c s W OOWE - ST E 00 E- la .. ENT �rPd e S > 11 -m r Aic o p :b > LEM �Ci Hal PO I I 516 n t f'�'OS\r TACOMA ST �-T} = h 8� �U ary 01t�C - 1�f ¢ CHERRY 0L m W f TITU STF 1 167 rp DEANGI E DEAN 0 W HILL ST P O C /� SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CUNT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: . New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 140,000 Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 140,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,000 SUB TOTAL $ 27,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 167,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: James Street and Central Avenue DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .10 Mi. ) Roadway improvements to include: Minor widening of of intersection to accomidate a westbound right turn lane. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 140,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 150,000 FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, PROP. 1992 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr I Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 150,000 150,000 i w r fr 5{ < ,II ,L,LI I— -- PROJECT UILDRON ' �� WAY V-4 t W Y ST V. W / o< / W fY U K I > ryry _ 4 1 E O IRGE 01 < v Z S!Z Z = �i WST 8 < < z 1 > 3 AMES ST Z < Z I F Vl `,Pis il`� N.H1. 24 W > 0 W 0 -• —_ SCHOOL < E < = O < < 1_Athlelic FIJ CE00 R is, ST > W ■ . ` < PIONEER S� >< Z o S1 < MILWwI'I.F.t: f K Mc ILLAN U E 7EM ERA E ST 1•I \\f I l.I I I .� •� _� W W < < ST = _ .L W. SMITH SMlrl ST 27 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 135,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 135,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,000 SUB TOTAL $ 5,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SanitarySewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 140,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 180 h ' N of o 116th Lo 2 0 256th P 29 �dp P c� S. 272n 1 4TH, 5TH, 6TH YEARS 1993, 1994, 1995 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: 94th Ave. S. - Canyon Dr. S.E. to S.E. 248th St./S.E. 248th St. 94th Ave. S.E. to 116th Ave. S.E. DESCRIPTION: (Proj. Length 1.46 Mi. ) Roadway improvements to include: Major widening to three lanes with curb & gutter, sidewalk. Provide drainage, paving, channelization, signing, street lighting & landscaping. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 145,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,305,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,450,000 FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, Prop. 1993-1996 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,450,000 1,450,000 M t � Et E K+ [ le 17 �5 a om� E .E ri 7o xl .. �� 4• PROJECT ` ir i E E T s �. E 5 i q. - !E t91 tT 24 29 ]E - • ' •� �� ; h'� VENT 3CI 0I3TNICT •y ..Ti I .- NKOMIO SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1,195,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $1,195,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000 SUB TOTAL $ 110,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,305,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: Kent-Kangley Rd. (SR-516) & 111th Avenue S.E. DESCRIPTION: (Prof. Length .42 Mi. ) Intersection improvements to include traffic signal revisions and traffic signal interconnect. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 5,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 25,000 FUNDING SOURCE: CIP,FAUS, Prop. 1991 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, 1 Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr I Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25,000 25,000 NT-MERIDIAN F F F j SE .H1. SCHOOL = .. <70 21 SE 256TH ST 29 29 SE 257 r o a $ i S.E. 571thi 8TH Sr S1 � N \ PROJECT A r_ u / a 5E 59TH E 2E0T11 �T N 260TH \M7NQ STST a� f �/ 90.10 n q S � 4. SEQUOIA I `� q a SCHOOL .15 >< SE Ll 9(1 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMEENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --------------------- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ ' 0 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 20,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ WaterSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 20,000 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT: S.E. 256th Street - Kent-Kangley Rd. (SR-516) to 116th Avenue S.E. DESCRIPTION: (Proj. Length .64 Mi. ) Project consists of major widening of roadway to include drainage curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, paving channelization, signalization, signing and landscaping. SUMMARY: (Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars) Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 90,000 Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 288,000 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 522,000 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 900,000 FUNDING SOURCE: LID,TIB,Prop. 1990 PROJECT COST: 1st Yr 4, 5, Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 900,000 900,000 EAST HILL H CENTER F SE fp. v p SE 252N0 ST W (1 515 w < SE 254TH PL it RENT—MERIDIAN $R. HI. SCHOOL " > S 21 N W N 21 SE 257 L"M F N 1pp IL i S.E PROJECT . 571h�� STH = s� S t � a �f N SE MTV^-� sE 59TH E 2tA n+ ST 260TH N0 ST ST00 �fY 'a 30 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONT. ) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ------------------- STREET 114MOVEMENTS: New Roadway Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Major Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 332,000 Minor Roadway Widening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . .$ Resurfacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Paths/Trails/Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 332,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: Signal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100,000 Street Light System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 80,000 Channelization/Signing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000 SUB TOTAL $ 190,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS -------------------- Storm Drainage System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Water System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ Sanitary Sewer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ SUB TOTAL $ 0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 522,000 CONSENT CALENDAR 4t ) 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember_ A�-h moves, Coun lmember 4-tw seconds that Consent Calendar Items A th ough K be approved Wr4h t-Hk etc eP� i�n n+� I� S uAlcv' ow? ev�oued Discussion Action % c n� 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of J111 July 5, 1989 . dyAr 3B. Approval of Bills. N Approval of payment of the bills received through July 24, 1989 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at C * 3 : 00 P.M. on August 1, 1989. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 60 3, 284.46 80956 - 809 6/29/89 6/29 - 7/11 81403 - 81426 252 ,518. 32 7/12/89 81427 - 81692 1, 282 ,793 .70 1,538, 596.48 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 7/05/89 121406 - 122136 717,797. 06 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B 14L) Kent, Washington July 5, 1989 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann and White, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Biteman and Woods were absent. Also present: Fire Chief Angelo, Information Services Director Spang, Finance Director McCarthy and Parks Director Wilson. Approximately 20 people were in attendance. PRESENTATIONS (ITEM 1A) National Parks and Recreation Month. Mayor Kelleher read a proclamation declaring July, 1989 as National Recreation and Parks Month. Parks Director Wilson accepted the award. (ITEM 1B) Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced that Tom Shepard has been selected as Employee of the Month for July. Shepard is a Fire Inspector and works in the Code Enforcement Division of the Fire Department. The Mayor commended him on his professionalism, strong commitment to those less fortunate and praised him for his active participation in arson investigations. Fire Chief Angelo accepted the award on Shepard's behalf. (ITEM 1C) Five-Year Award. Ron Spang, Director of Information Services, received his five year plaque from Mayor Kelleher. Spang has been active in developing a Geographic Information System, known as the Mapping System, which will be used by other jurisdictions as part of a regional information system. He is also responsible for coordinating the purchase and installation of a Hewlett-Packard 3000 computer system. (ITEM 1D) Twenty-Year Award. Mayor Kelleher presented Jim Harris a plaque for his 20 years of service as 1 July 5, 1989 PRESENTATIONS Kent' s Planning Director. Beginning in July, 1969, with a secretary and shared desk, he has built the Planning Department to a staff of 20 highly qualified personnel while the city grew from 15,500 to just under 35, 000. Some of Harris ' accomplishments include a massive zoning project in 1972-73 , Water Quality Planning in 1980, the Shoreline Master Program and the Valley Studies Program. Harris also served as City Administrator for several months in 1989, in addition to his regular duties as Planning Director. CONSENT MANN MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through Q CALENDAR be approved, with the exception of Item E, which was removed by Dowell, Item H, which was removed by Houser, and Item N which was removed by White. White seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of June 20, 1989 . HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L) SANITATION Hill Raaum Investment Company. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 488 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 80th P1. S. south of S. 180th and release of cash bond. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M) Tracey Watermain Extension. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer manhole #MM65 constructed in the vicinity of 80th P1. S. south S. 180th St. DRAINAGE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 30) Upper Mill Creek Detention Facility. AUTHORIZATION to adjust the budget and transfer $325, 000 from the Miscellaneous Drainage Construction Fund to the 2 July 5, 1989 DRAINAGE Upper Mill Creek Detention Facility to provide for construction of detention facility improvements, as recommended by the Internal Budget Committee and approved by the Public Works Committee. (BIDS - ITEM 5A) Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin. Bid opening was held on June 29 with two bids received. The Public Works Director noted that the low bid was submitted by R.W. Scott Construction in the amount of $568, 529.25, and recommended that it be accepted. JOHNSON SO MOVED. Houser seconded and the motion carried. STREETS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) LID 330 Time Schedule. At their meeting on June 20, Council directed the Public Works Committee to review a schedule for construction for this project and to report back to Council on July 5. At the Public Works Committee meeting of June 27, it was reported that the required studies associated with conversion in the lagoon and design of the buffer to provide mitigation for 64th would be completed by nine January 1990. Once these studies are completed, the City could proceed with formation of the second LID. Construction of the buffer would be scheduled for the summer of 1990. The City would would attempt to construct the road improvements at the same time. WHITE MOVED to accept the tentative schedule as presented recognizing there may be adjustments due to unforseen events and that a typographical error regarding the completion date be corrected from June to January of 1990 . Johnson seconded. Motion carried. STREET VACATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) Street Vacation No. STV-89-3 . Portion of 3rd Avenue. This hearing will consider an application filed by the City of Kent to vacate a portion of 3rd Ave. between Gowe and West Titus Streets. 3 July 5, 1989 STREET VACATION Doug Klappenbach, Sound Ventures Development Company, 2201 3rd Ave. , Seattle, indicated he had just received the notice and has not had an opportunity to discuss with the department heads the full impact the vacation will have on construction of the Centennial Building. He requested that this hearing be continued until the next council meeting. WHITE SO MOVED, Johnson seconded. Motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3Q) Street Vacation - 63rd Avenue. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2858 amending Ordinance 2851, removing conditions of retaining the easement rights for utility purposes. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3N) CONTROL REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE Traffic Signal System Needs Assessment. AUTHORIZATION to reallocate $15, 000 approved in the 1989 Operating Funds for update of the transportation plan to: (1) provide for aerial video taping of peak hour traffic operation and (2) consultant review of the operational and design practices associated with the signal system and computer, as approved by the Public Works Committee. Upon White' s question, Wickstrom reported that $3 , 000 would be spent for the taping, with the remainder to be spent on consultant services to study the time sequence phasing on key intersections. He noted that studies have indicated that a duration shorter than the present 120 seconds would increase the capacity of the intersection. Wickstrom indicated that the City does not have staff time or manpower to study this program to see whether it would work on the present system. He indicated for White that the time phasing on the signal system is interconnected with the computerized system, which is predicated on volume. Marty Nizlek, Traffic Engineer, noted that traffic on East Hill has increased dramatically and that phasing the cycle lengths is one of the components of the study. Nizlek indicated that the consultant would be asked to look at the computer hardware, it's adequacy and how it is being maintained, the 4 July 5, 1989 TRAFFIC efficient use of the system, and the staff's CONTROL capabilities and training needs. WHITE MOVED for authorization to reallocate $15,000 approved in the 1989 Operating Funds for update of the transportation plan to provide for aerial video taping of peak hour traffic operation and consultant review of the operational and design practices associated with the signal system and computer, as approved by the Public Works Committee. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3P) Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) 1990- 1995. AUTHORIZATION to set July 18 as the date for a public hearing for review of the City' s Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) PLAN Gateway Commercial Zone. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2855 amending the city' s Comprehensive Zoning Map by adding the Gateway Commercial Zone to an area along the East Valley Highway between SR 167 overpass to S. 212th St. and by amending the Mobile Home Park zoning to Office zone in an area of approximately 13 .2 acres at the northeast corner of SR 167 and S. 212th St. interchange. SUBDIVISION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) CODE Lot Line Adjustment Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2856 amending Ordinance 2849 in accordance with City Council action on June 20, 1989 . EAST HILL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) DEVELOPER Bondincr for Construction Contracts. Maureen COMPLAINTS MacNamara, 23839 94th S. , inquired as to the program outlined at the January 3 , 1989 Council meeting with regard to damage caused to private citizens by developers. Upon the Mayor' s suggestion, the City Attorney agreed to look into the types of requirements which cities could put on private contractors and report to the Public Works Committee. The Mayor asked that Ms. MacNamara be invited to attend that meeting. 5 July 5, 1989 HUMAN SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) Human Services Roundtable. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign a revised interlocal agreement for Kent's continued participation as a member of the Human Services Roundtable and to forward $6, 300 to the Human Services Roundtable as the City' s share of support for the remainder of 1989 . POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) Court/corrections Facility Parking. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2857 authorizing issuance of parking permits for employees of the City Corrections Facility and the Aukeen Court, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) SOAP Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2854 adding Section 9 . 34 "Stay out of areas of prostitution" (SOAP) to the Kent City Code. Place and area restrictions are necessary to ensure compliance with probation conditions in prostitution cases where persons engaging in such conduct seek to return to the original crime area. The regulation set forth in this ordinance will help stop the cyclical nature of courthouse to street corner migration and frustrate those involved in the illegal businesses associated with prostitution. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through July 6, 1989 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on July 14 , 1989. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 6/15 - 6/27 80928 - 80955 $ 301,915.78 6/29/89 80961 - 81402 917,102.61 $1,219,018.39 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 6/20/89 120724 - 121405 $ 730,383.53 6 July 5, 1989 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL Printing Graphics Ecruivment for Central Services. AUTHORIZATION to use $46,005 of Central Services fund balance of $107, 479 to acquire a new press and graphics workstation. These pieces of equipment will save City expenditures in the long run by making printing and graphics operations more efficient. It would allow the City to do some printing that is now done outside and will allow each graphic artist her own machine, eliminating unproductive time. Dowell noted that the Operations Committee had approved the expenditure of funds for this equipment, and that he alone had voted against it since it could be done competitively by private industry. HE MOVED to disallow the appropriation of funds, and the motion died for lack of a second. City Administrator Chow noted for White that by owning their own printing press, the City could provide printing services at a more competitive rate. Finance Director McCarthy stated that it is more efficient to print smaller items in house then to send them out, but that larger items such as the 25, 000 copies of Cityline would probably always be sent out. He noted that the press needs to be upgraded just to handle the smaller items done in house. McCarthy clarified for Dowell that the press requested tonight is in addition to the press already being used, and indicated that the volume of printing requests has increased greatly. Dowell inquired whether there would be a request for part- time employees, and McCarthy stated that hopefully with use of two presses there would be no need for additional staff, since both presses could be used at the same time, making the staff more efficient. McCarthy noted for White that total printing costs for the City were $253 , 000, 55% of which was done outside. HOUSER MOVED for authorization to use $46, 005 of Central Services fund balance of $107 , 479 to acquire a new press and graphics workstation. Johnson seconded and stated 7 July 5, 1989 FINANCE that doing the printing in house prevents timing conflicts with outside printers and saves pick up and delivery time. Dowell pointed out that the City already has a press, and that to vote for this is to vote to take away business and employment from the private sector. The motion then carried with Dowell opposing. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER HOUSER LID 327 Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract. The City Attorney advised that this item, adoption of the bond ordinance and authorization for the Mayor to sign a purchase contract in the amount of $2 , 296, 074 .47 for LID 327 bonds as recommended by the Operations Committee at their June 30 meeting, should be held over to the Council meeting of July 18 , 1989 . Driscoll also explained that a separate ordinance proposed by Councilmember Houser would amend the final assessment roll for LID 327 . This amending ordinance would correct an error which states that payments may be paid in (ten) 10 equal installments, but which should say (20) twenty installments. HOUSER MOVED to hold the bond ordinance and purchase contract over to the Council meeting of July 18 and to adopt Ordinance 2853 amending the final assessment roll on LID 327 . Johnson seconded and the motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I) 1990 Budget. AUTHORIZATION to establish July 18 , 1989 as the date to receive public input for the 1990 budget. The meeting date is established to obtain input before Council prioritization of 1990 budget objectives, at their July 28 work session. Future public input dates for the budget are scheduled for August 15 and November 7 prior to adoption of the budget at the December 5 Council meeting. 8 July 5, 1989 COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) Council Absence. APPROVAL bf an excused vacation absence for Councilman Biteman for the meetings of July 5 and July 18 , 1989 . REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 6C) Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the next meeting will be Tuesday, July 11, 1989 . (REPORTS - ITEM 6E) Public Safety Committee. Houser reported that the fire station at 504 W. Crow St. will be closed for six months for renovation and that the headquarters station is now at the station at 20676 72nd Ave. S . (REPORTS - ITEM 6G) Mayor Kelleher displayed a poster signed by members of the Third Grade Class at Covington Elementary School , showing their support for fireworks. Mayor Kelleher requested that this poster be made a part of the public record. JOHNSON SO MOVED. White seconded and the motion carried. EXECUTIVE At 7 :45 p.m. City Attorney Driscoll requested an SESSION executive session of approximately one-half hour to discuss pending litigation. ADJOURNMENT The Council reconvened at 8: 20 p.m. and then adjourned. � ✓ -z;. Gzr-�PhJ Brenda Jacober, CMC Deputy City Clerk 9 0 Ole Kent City Council Meeting ` Date July 18 , 1989 Cate or Consent Calendar g Y 1. SUBJECT: WORKERS COMPENSATION SERVICE AGREEMENT. -+ 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Workers Compensation Service Agreement with Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. for 1989/90. The City has contracted with S.W.S. since we became self-funded for workers compensation in July 1979 . This is a renewal of our existing workers compensation claims administration agreement. Funding for this agreement has been authorized within the 1989 budget. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memorandum, co sultant letter and proposed agreement. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff. O e tions Committee 7 13 89 (Committee, Staff, Exami er, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERS EL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED approx. $10.750 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIO Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds r f y DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C 3 C; MEMORANDUM DATE: July 5, 1989 TO: Mayer Kelleher and Council Members e FROM: Mi ebby, Personnel Director SUBJECT: Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Claims Administration The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the renewal of our workers' compensation claims administration service agreement. We have managed our self-funded program since July 1979, and Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. has provided claim services during that period. We wish to continue our relationship with Scott Wetzel Services at this time and recommend the Mayor be authorized to sign the renewal agreement for 1989 . The renewal recommendation is scheduled for review by the Council Operations Committee at its meeting of July 13 , 1989 . The cost of claim services will be approximately $10,750. Funding for - services is contained within the 1989 budget. You will note in the letter I have attached that we have had another very successful year. I believe our department managers and staff should be congratulated for that success. We have saved about $875, 000 since we moved to self-insurance. If for any reason the Operations Committee wishes to delay action on this item, I will request it be pulled from the Consent Calendar. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this request, please contact me prior to Tuesday evening's Council meeting. SERVICES , INC. Risk Management Planning and Support June 7 , 1989 RE � EfV � � 1 Mr. Michael Webby SUN 3 1989 Director of Personnel and PERSONNEL DEPT. Risk Manager City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Dear Mike: ' Thank you for taking the time to make a good review of your self- insured workers ' compensation program which Scott Wetzel Services, Inc . has had the privilege to administer for the past 10 years. Clearly, your program has demonstrated the consistent success that epitomizes the principles of providing the best services for your injured employees in the most cost effective manner . As a recap of the numbers we discussed, I would first stress the consistent improvement in your claim numbers . Actual claim count for the current year is projected to be 63 claims , down from 68 in 1988 . More impressive is the ratio of medical only claims to indemnity. The yardstick SWS uses to evaluate a balanced program looks for 75% to 25% medical only to indemnity claims . In 1988 your ratio was 74% to 26% . Most acceptable . However, in 1989 you reduced that ratio to 93% medical only to 7% indemnity. The severe ac- cidents have declined. This is certainly to your diligent ef- forts at focusing on a safe and healthy work environment . The financial returns to your program are equally significant. Your current year ' s losses equal 16 . 44% of the state fund premium. Over the life time of your program the losses experienced by the City of Kent have equalled 36 . 33% of state fund premium. Also to be considered would be the cash flow advantages of self-in- surance and the investment earnings of those dollars. Where there are administrative costs to add to any program, the fin- ancial gains are sizable . One additional savings , which no other service company can docu- ment, is the automated medical payments system which guarantees to you the minimum allowable fee is being paid to medical providers. 500 Pacific Avenue, 71h Floor . P.O. Box 418 . Bremerton, Washington 98310-0102 Phone: (206) 479-0200 Mr. Michael Webby Director of Personnel and Risk Manager City of Kent June 7 , 1989 Page Two As demonstrated in the printout enclosed, during a 12 month period SWS was able to reduce the medical bills submitted for your in- jured workers by 18 . 33% . An actual savings of $6 ,636 . 97 . Should you ever desire a detailed printout of this report, one can be provided. Mike , I would like to believe the expertise and diligent pro- fessionalism of Scott Wetzel Services, Inc . has contributed to the success of your program for Kent. We are proud to work to support your efforts. After reviewing the Agreements enclosed, please return one signed copy to my attention at the Bremerton address . If there is anything additional I can provide, please call . Sincerely , ast�'�� Anne Conner Account Executive AC:dg Enclosures cc : Bob Bishop - SWS/Federal Way 4/24/89 REPORT SYSTEM ANNE 16 : 27 : 51 MEDICAL PAYMENTS BY CLIENT SEA 4/01/88 - 4/01/89 CLIENT NAME: CITY OF KENT TOTAL AMOUNT BILLED 36 , 207 .91 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID 29 , 570 . 94 TOTAL SAVINGS 6 , 636 . 97 PERCENT OF TOTAL 18 . 33 % A G R E E M E N T AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1989, by and between Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. , a Washington Corporation with its princi- pal place of business at 500 Pacific Avenue, Bremerton, Washington 98310 (hereinafter referred to as "SWS") and City of Kent, with its principal place of business at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98031 (hereinafter referred to as "City") : W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, City maintains a self-insured plan to cover its workers' compensation liabilities in the State of Washington; and SWS has agreed to perform certain services in connection therewith, as herein set forth: NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year com- mencing July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990. The Agreement may be terminated by either party giving not less than sixty (60) days written notice to the other party except for non-payment of fees. 2. During the period of this Agreement, SWS shall represent and act for City in matters pertaining to the liability of City for claims based on events -• which occur during the term of this Agreement under the Workers' Compen- sation Act of the State of Washington. During the term hereof, SWS shall devote its best efforts in the conduct of its duties hereunder. Such duties shall be the following: (a) Receive notice of and create files on each claim reported and maintain these files for City. (b) Investigate all claims as required to determine their validity and compensability. (c) Determine proper benefits due on compensable cases. (d) Request timely payment of benefits due, in accord with payment procedures as established from funds provided by City. City will be wholly responsible for providing such funds as may be required for these payments. (e) Prepare documentation and defenses of cases considered noncompensa- ble and assist selected legal counsel in preparation of cases for hearings, appeals, and/or trial. (f) Maintain and provide City pertinent data on all claim payments. (g) Provide monthly and/or quarterly computerized loss reports in a tailored format, as mutually agreed at inception of the program, showing descriptive data, details of each month's payments, total - 2 - payments, reserves and total experience for each claim. Data reporting services, in accordance with this Agreement, are limited to the reporting format, content and number of copies specified in Addendum One. Subsequent expansion and/or modification of services including changes in report distribution, at the option of SWS, may be subject to additional charges. (h) Provide excess insurers such reports as they may reasonably require within specific excess coverage reporting requirements. (i) Provide information and assistance as may be reasonably required for preparation and filing of all reports required by any state agency in connection with City`s approved self-insured status. (j) File with the appropriate State Administrative Departments such information as is required on each claim. (k) Provide loss prevention services, consultations, and surveys as mutually agreed. 3. In consideration of the services to be performed by SWS hereunder, City shall pay to SWS: (a) A minimum basic annual fee of ten thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($10,750) for up to sixty (60) claims per year, payable quarterly in advance. The first payment will be due within twenty (20) days of commencement of this Agreement, and subsequent payments will be due within twenty (20) days of the beginning of each quarter thereafter. (b) An adjusted fee of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125) per claim for each claim over sixty (60) annually, payable twenty (20) days after receipt of an audit statement based on the computer loss report showing cumulative number of claims. (c) SWS has agreed to make available up to fifty (50) hours of loss prevention services annually, payment for which is included in the fee stated in Section three (3) article (a) . Additional loss control will be available at the rate of sixty-five dollars ($65) per hour. Additional industrial hygiene will be available at the rate of eighty dollars ($80) per hour. (d) Additional services requested by City will be compensated at such fee and payment terms as mutually agreed by both parties. (e) Invoices not paid on a timely basis will be surcharged a finance fee of 12% annual interest rate. In the event City fees are not paid within sixty (60) days of the date of invoice, SWS may terminate this Agreement, at its option, after ten (10) days written notice to City. - 3 - 4. Billing for excess claims will be submitted at the end of the annual term and quarterly thereafter based upon the cumulative claim count as con- tained in the computer reports required by section 2 (g) of the Agree- ment. A final adjustment of fee will be made as of eighteen (18) months following the end of the contract term. Any claims occurring during the term of this Agreement which are reported more than eighteen (18) months following the end of the contract term will be subject to additional fees for administration to be agreed upon by the parties. 5. SWS will Indemnify and Hold Harmless City from any and all loss, cost or expense to which City may be subjected solely as a consequence of the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of SWS and/or its employees in connection with fulfilling its obligation under this Agree- ment. 6. City will Indemnify and Hold Harmless SWS from any and all loss, cost or expense incurred by SWS and/or its employees as a result of the perform- ance of this Agreement by SWS and/or its employees unless caused solely by the negligent act or omission of SWS and/or its employees. 7. City agrees: (a) To pay to SWS the fees provided for hereunder. (b) To pay all allocated loss expense, as hereinafter defined, in addition to the fees to be paid to SWS. Allocated loss expense is defined as all attorney's fees, court and/or hearing costs, costs of depositions, documents and exhibits, witness and expert fees, medical and engineering appraisal, surveillance, independent adjust- ing, photography and other incidental and special costs incurred to evaluate compensability of claims. (c) To pay all loss control expense, as hereinafter defined, in addition to the fees to be paid to SWS. Loss control expense is defined as industrial hygiene supplies, laboratory fees, requested training materials, safety promotional materials, associated shipping and handling, and other incidental and special costs incurred in the provision of loss control services. (d) To be wholly responsible for providing funds to pay claims and expenses, as requested by SWS. (e) To advise SWS on a timely basis of all pertinent excess insurance reporting requirements and/or reporting modifications for all annual periods for which claim administration services are provided. 8. All claims and related files generated by SWS as a result of its activity under this Agreement shall remain at all times the property of City with the exception of any supporting data required by SWS to make such ac- countings to City or excess insurers as are required in this Agreement. - 4 - SWS will retain claim files for one year following date of closure. Thereafter, files will be returned to City or forwarded to such location as may be designated for continued storage. Upon SWS' request, closed claim files will be returned for additional administration as may be required. In the event of termination or non-renewal of SWS services, and assump- tion of continuing administration of claims by City, SWS will transfer all open and retained closed claim files to City, or its designee, as of the effective date of termination. 9. SWS is retained by City only for the purposes and to the extent set forth in this Agreement, and its relationship to City shall be that of an independent contractor. 10. City agrees during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year following its termination it will not employ any person employed by SWS during the term of this Agreement without the prior written consent of SWS. 11. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if given in writing and by registered or certified mail to City or to SWS at the addresses first set forth above or to any other address of which written notice of change is given. 12. The waiver by SWS or City of the breach of any provision of this Agree- ment by the other party shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by either party or prevent either party thereafter enforcing any such provision. 13. This Agreement is for the period provided for in Section 1. Any continu- ation or renewal of this Agreement shall be the subject of further negotiation between the parties. Upon termination of this Agreement in accordance with Section 1, and/or non-renewal, City shall have the option to: (a) Assume all open claims pending as of the effective date of termi- nation provided, however, that SWS shall be entitled to receive its full fee for all claims entered into its data files prior to the effective date of termination; or (b) Upon agreement by both parties, of a rate of compensation, require SWS to continue administration, to conclusion, all open claims. Such rate of compensation shall thereafter be reviewed by the parties on an annual basis and shall be the subject of mutual agreement between the parties. Adequate funds shall continue to be made available by City for the payment of claims and allocated loss expense until all claims are liquidated. 14. The obligation of SWS to perform its duties hereunder is conditioned upon City's cooperation with SWS with respect to the activities of SWS - 5 - r including, but not limited to, responding to SWS' requests for informa- tion promptly; providing excess carrier reporting requirements; meeting with SWS and/or third parties, as may be needed; making decisions on matters which, in the professional opinion of SWS, should be made by City; the provision of funds referred to in Section 7; and performance by City of all other obligations of this Agreement. 15. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. This provision shall not prohibit SWS from subcontracting for any of the activities to be performed by SWS without any requirement of obtaining the approval of City provided, however, that any such subcontracting shall not relieve SWS of its obligations to City under this Agreement. 16. Any unresolved dispute between City and SWS which may arise from the obligations of either party as set forth herein, will be resolved by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be binding upon City and SWS. Each party will select an arbitrator. The two arbitrators will select a third. If they cannot agree within thirty (30) days, either may request that selection be made by a judge of a court having jurisdiction. Each party will pay the expenses it incurs and bear the expenses of the third arbitrator equally. The laws of the State of Washington will apply. 17. This Agreement sets forth all of the terms, conditions, and agreements of the parties relative to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all such former agreements which are hereby declared terminated and of no further force and effect upon the execution and delivery hereof. There are no terms, conditions, or agreements with respect thereto, except as herein provided and no amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless reduced to writing and executed by the parties. All terms, conditions, definitions as set forth in the Agreement will be interpreted under the laws of the State of Washington. - 6 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate counterparts as of the date first above written. CITY OF KENT ATTEST: By Date Signed Title SCOTT WETZEL SERVICES, INC. ATTEST: Date Signed June 9, 1989 Title Executive Vice President 7 - ADDENDUM ONE TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF KENT ("City") AND SCOTT WETZEL SERVICES, INC. ("SWS") EFFECTIVE: JULY 1, 1989 Report Frequency Distribution Loss Experience Summary Monthly 2 - City Per Department 1 - Broker Current Month Payments Monthly 2 - City 1 - Broker Comparative Statistical Analysis Quarterly 2 - City 1 - Broker - End - blk/Kent/d ry Vv G Kent City Council Meeting Q✓ Date July 18. 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION - + rcQ /+ven u " 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Reesolution No. setting the hearing date for street vacation of a-portion of 3rd Ave. between Titus and Saar Streets for August 15, 1989 . r i 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolut*on i e' 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED F SCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSO L NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURES REOUI .RED: $ SOURCE OF }+'UNDS: 7 . CITY COUN6IL ACTION: Councilm6mber moves, Councilmember seconds z' DISCUSSI(*: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding vacation of certain property generally located on Third Avenue South between Titus and Saar Streets, and more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A, setting a public hearing for August 15, 1989 on the application of St. Anthony's Catholic Church. WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed requesting vacation of certain property on Third Avenue South between Titus and Saar Streets, in the City of Kent, as described in the title of this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A public hearing on the aforesaid vacation petition shall be at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council to be held at 7 o'clock p.m. , August 15, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, Kent, Washington. Section 2. The Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law. Section 3. The Planning Director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection of or other information from the Public Works or other appropriate department and shall transmit information to the Council so that the matter can be considered by the City Council at the regular meeting on August 15, 1989. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1989. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _ day of , 1989. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1989. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK Exhibit A - LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of 3rd Avenue South lying south of West Titus north of West Saar and between Blocks 9 and 12 of Yesler's First Addition to the Town of Kent, Volume 4, Page 64, Records of King County, Washington. 7480-260 2 - r G/ Kent City Council Meeting Y`� Date July 18 . 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MORTENSON ANNEXATION t��E oil 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt! Ordinance No__c _ annexing the --- - property described on the Mortenson annexation petition, for which a public hearing was held on June 20, 1989., �-'!This is approximately 9 acres located in the vicinity of 98th Ave. S. and S. 218th. 1 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinan e r 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, St ff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 1 5. UNBUDGETED FIS L PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSO L NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE UIRED: $ RCE SOU OF FUN S• (fi 7. CITY COUNCILt1ACTION: Councilmembef moves, Councilmember seconds i i r I DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3E 3 � I I, I! ORDINANCE NO. • III li i I AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, annexing to the City certain lands li contiguous thereto, in the vicinity of 98th Ave. So. and So. 218th, and more particularly described as set out in the attached Exhibit A, commonly known as the Mortenson Annexation. lid WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 35A.14 RCW, the I owners of not less than 75 percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of certain lands situated ! in King County, Washington, and more particularly described li hereinafter in this ordinance, filed with the City Council of the IICity of Kent, Washington, their petitions to have annexed to this City the said described land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 35A.14 RCW various proceedings were had; and I WHEREAS, notice of intention to annex was filed with the King County Boundary Review Board; and I WHEREAS, the Boundary Review Board has received no i request for jurisdiction and has not itself chosen to invoke jurisdiction and a forty five (45) day period subsequent to filing Iihaving elapsed, and the annexation being deemed approved as a matter of law; and I WHEREAS, public hearings were held on said annexation pursuant to proper notice before the Kent City Council; and WHEREAS, it appears that the City of Kent, that said II annexation meets the requirements specified by law; the procedures, for the filing with the City of Kent by the requisite number of property owners of their notice of intention to commence annexation proceedings, to and including consideration of the s passage of this ordinance also meet the requirements specified by law; in the land such be annexed are contiguous to the City of j, t j I it I I I, I I' ;i Kent and have not heretofore been incorporated in or as a city or town; NOW, THEREFORE, I ' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I Section 1. That there shall be annexed to the City of Kent, Washington the land situated in the County of King, State of, Washington; as set forth in attached Exhibit A. i' Section 2. That the property hereby annexed shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as other, property within the City of Kent is assessed and taxed to pay for , i any outstanding general indebtedness of the City to which the area was annexed and which was contracted prior to or in existence at i the effective date of this annexation. Section 3. That the annexation of said property will ii( become effective upon the effective date of this Ordinance, and said property shall become a part of the City of Kent, subject to all the laws and ordinances of the City then and thereafter in effect except as otherwise provided by law. Section 4. Notice is hereby given that as of the effective date of this annexation all franchises or permits heretofore granted to any person, firm or corporation by the State of Washington, or by the governing body of the annexed territory, i lauthorizing or otherwise permitting the operation of any public transportation, garbage collection and/or disposal or other similar public service business or facility within the limits of I' the annexed territory are cancelled; but the holder of any such ! I I franchise or permits herewith cancelled are hereby granted by the City of Kent the franchise to continue such business within the annexed territory for a period of five (5) years from the ileffective date of the annexation. I I Section 5. Within thirty (30) days from the passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the lCity Clerk of the City of Kent shall under the direction of the Mayor of the City of Kent determine the resident population of the - 2 - I ' I iil II I i li annexed territory which population determination shall consist of ! i I it an actual enumeration of the population which shall be made in !i accordance with the practices and policies and subject to approval i of the .Planning and Community Affairs Agency of the State of Washington and which population shall be determined as of the effective date of annexation as specified in this Ordinance. Section 6. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of the annexation referred to in this Ordinance, the City Clerk of the City of Kent shall prepare a certificate signed by 11 the mayor and attested by the City Clerk in such form and containing such information as shall be prescribed by the Office j of Financial Management of the State of Washington and said the City Clerk shall thereafter submit said certificate in triplicated to the Office of Financial Management of the State of Washington, ' along with the population determination of the annexed territory. I Section 7. Within ten (10) days after the effective date of the annexation referred to in this ordinance, the City Clerk of j the City of Kent shall send to the Office of the Clerk of the i County Council seven (7) certified copies of this ordinance together with a copy of a letter from the Executive Secretary of the King County Boundary Review Board which letter contains a copy of the decision of the Boundary Review Board relating to this annexation. �j Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its !I passage, approval and publication as provided by law. I� I I i� DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 'i f� ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK I;I li I 3 - it APPROVED AS TO FORM: i �I �I 1I SANDRA-DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY II I, i PASSED the day of , 1989. APPROVED the day of , 1989. i I �I PUBLISHED the day of 1989. I i 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. li (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTON The Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 7, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH that portion of S. 218th St. lying adjacent thereto; EXCEPT any portion of said property in 98th Ave. s. and except portion in S. 218th St. annexed by Ordinance #2611. . . I - 4 - I Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ( AGREEMENT SEATTLE/KING CO. EDC 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign a service agreement with Seattle/King Co. EDC. Seattle/King Co. EDC has asked the City to sign a service agreement authorizing the expenditure of $3 , 235 in 1989 for various services as detailed in the service agreement. The service agreement covers calendar year 1989 and quarterly payments have already been made to the Seattle/King Co. EDC. Funds are included in the City's EDC budget for this purpose. This item has been presented to the Operations Committee for recommendation to the full Council for the Mayor to sign the service agreement. At a future time, the City staff will analyze the contract benefits and propose a 1990 budget recommendation that may include alternative budget recommendations. Council Committee has been asked for input on potential EDC expenditures. The item t3" reviewed with the Operations Committee at their July 13 meeting. I-& th c- 3 . EXHIBITS• ' 1 I r 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examine , Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNE IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Re mmended Not Recommended i i 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $3 (235 SOURCE OF FUNDS: EDC Bu et i 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds r! DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 1st day of January, 1989 by and between the city of Kent (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Sector entity") and the Seattle-King County Economic Development Council (hereinafter re- ferred to as the "EDC") . WHEREAS, the public sector entity desires to have certair services performed by the EDC as described in this agreement anc the EDC has the ability to provide such services as set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants herein con- tained, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows : ARTICLE I . ACTIVITIES Section 1 . Scope of Services Overall Economic Development Program The EDC will provide a comprehensive economic development program for the benefit of all of the towns and cities, Port of Seattle, Metro and the unincorporated areas of King County . Pri- mary emphasis will be directed toward retention and expansion of the businesses which are located here and on the formation of nev -- businesses by local entrepreneurs . Assistance will also be pro- vided to desirable firms from outside King County that wish to lo- cate here . The 1989 work program for the Seattle-King County Economic Development Council will continue to be directed toward involvinc the EDC' s coalition of local business, government, education anc labor in developing and implementing strategies for accomplishment of the following objectives : A. Encouraging the retention and expansion of existing King County businesses, including the identifica- tion of potential new business opportunities . B . Facilitating the creation of new jobs in the Seattle-King County area . C . Stimulating diversification of the county' s eco- nomic base . D. Assisting local governments in enhancing the busi- ness climate . E . Building a continuing perception of Seattle-King County as a good place to do business . .... 1 F. Assisting the formation of innovative strategies that will improve upon education programs throughout King County . Section 2 . Primary Program Components 1 . Business Development Services Business Help Center The Center operated by the EDC will continue to assist busi nesses throughout King County. It will serve as a one-sto; source for all the information and assistance that is availabl, to local business from a "providers" network of cities, Port other government agencies, chambers of commerce, colleges and uni versities and other nonprofit service provider' s . The Center' staff will provide quick confidential help for business including - Consultation regarding financing, licensing, permits, zoning, labor costs, availability and training and retraining programs, incentives, energy, transportation, siting and other factors . Business Help Hotline The EDC as part of its Business Help Center maintains a telc phone "Hotline" (206-447-HELP) whereby businesses can call i; seeking assistance . The EDC is committed to providing at least ai initial response within 24 hours . Staff work closely with it. providers network additionally referring businesses to other agen cies and resource groups having specialized expertise. For compa nies needing help with startup, expansion or staying in business the consulting services of the Business Help Center may also b( made available . Business Retention and Expansion Throughout the year, the EDC will be targeting and respondin( to referrals, those companies in King County needing assistant, with growth plans or simply trying to stay in business . Comple menting the services of the Business Help Center, the EDC will b( surveying local companies periodically to identify those in nee( of help. Two special resources will also be made available : A. Business Assistance Task Force Business Assistance Task Forces will be offered t( entrepreneurs . These are composed of lawyers, accountants, bankers, venture capitalists and others who volunteer their special problem-solving expertise to local existing a-, start-up businesses . 2 B. Labor Training: Seattle-King County Private Indus- try Council EDC staff will exert a special focus on the recruitment and labor training needs of local business. This will include introductions to local employment and educational organizations and in particular the Seattle-King County Private Industry Council (PIC) . Services available to local businesses through the PIC include employee screening and recruitment, customized training programs and qualifying employees for targeted jobs tax credits and "on the job" training funds . Local Business and Job Retention Program In 1989, the Seattle-King County Economic Development Council will be conducting a new pilot program designed to provide direct technical assistance to companies specifically at risk of closure . Funded by the Washington State Department of Trade, it will also be carried out in cooperation with the Seattle Worker Center and other local interests including labor and government units . The goals of this cooperative initiative focus on: * Strengthening local economic development capacity through a broad base, countywide business assis- tance and job retention program. * Utilizing combined public-private resources includ- ing all levels of government, labor, education and industry in advancing business recovery initia- tives . * Rendering hands on technical assistanc to busi- nesses that can make a meaningful difference in creating or saving jobs . Key elements of the project include: - Needs Analysis . Identifying companies at risk through surveys and follow-up contacts . - Assembling "Local Business Retention Teams" of re- source people representing business, labor, educa- tion and government to suggest and then assist re- medial actions . Offer "technical assistance" to companies at risk including for example: financing, labor training/ recruiting, new markets (through Marketplace) , per- mitting assistance, calculating business costs, joint venture or acquisition searches . 3 EDC public sector members that are aware of at risk companies -1 their community are encouraged to refer them to the EDC as well a participate in preparing remedial actions by being members of th Local Business Retention Teams . Business Recruitment The EDC has a dual role in marketing responsibility: (1 providing local liaison for the Washington State Department o Trade and Economic Development and the Economic Development Part nership For Washington in our state' s external marketing ac tivities; and (2) acting as a marketing resource center for th( local economic development efforts of the EDC' s constituent cit ies, chambers of commerce and other community groups . In this ca pacity it will provide Seattle-King County' s leadership in th. state' s Team Washington activities and act as the leader and re source center for Team Seattle-King County. This involves th( following specific services : a . External Market Support--The EDC will assist pros- pects from outside King County who are interested in locating in cities, the Port of Seattle and com- munities within King County and ask for help with their evaluation process . The EDC will coordinate with the Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development and the Economic Development Partnership For Washington both of which will be responsible for external marketing, including ad- vertising, promotion and orchestration of traveling marketing missions . It will also closely coordi- nate with the communities when a prospect becomes area specific . b . Promotion--A high quality marketing brochure con- taining pertinent information on the area and pre- senting Seattle-King County and its communities as a good place to do business will be distributed to potential investors . The brochure will accommodate special location-specific marketing materials of the EDC' s constituent cities, chambers, port, King County and other appropriate private and public sector entities . C . Market Resource Center and Data Base--A data base of pertinent information essential for business planning is assembled and maintained on sub- jects such as taxes, labor, energy, transportation, utilities, permit requirements, incentives, real estate sites and facilities . The data base is available to the Council' s public and private sector constituents as well as serving as a re- source for the Council' s business assistance counseling and hot-line referral service . " 4 Referrals by chambers, utilities, cities, Port of Seattle King County and Metro of businesses located within their jurisdic tions or located beyond King County but looking to expand here o being served by these or other public and private sector entitie are welcomed and will be given full and prompt assistance. King County Marketplace In 1988, the EDC, at the direction of its Board, adopted Mar ketplace as a new high priority initiative to be conducted withil its Business Assistance program. Now operational since September `88, it is designed to stimulate new production and service capac ity in King County by encouraging area businesses to produce an( supply those goods and services now being obtained outside th, state of Washington. In meeting this purpose, EDC' s King Count, Marketplace program assists business and local units of governmen' to find in-county suppliers to provide competitive products an( services . The program objective is to retain more dollars in ex- panding their market potential . Benefits to "purchasers" include savings on freight charges, faster delivery, improved service an( no charge for use of EDC' s Marketplace service. Benefits to sup pliers include : Identity of new customers, and development of ne� long-term business relationships . Marketplace works by initially conferring with business o local government units having purchasing requirements with the in- tent to identify those products or services now being procured out of state and where a local source may be desired. Thereafter Mar- ketplace conducts a confidential search for King County based sup pliers able to meet the specifications of the purchaser. Submit- ted bids are then turned over to the purchaser for review Purchasers' are not obligated to use suppliers identified througl a Marketplace search, but the object of the search is to find sup- pliers able to meet all price, quality and delivery criteria Suppliers are charged a fee equal to 50 of first year' s contract: (gross purchase price) with any purchases matched throug; Marketplace. Eligible purchases are those valued at over $5, 001 and originating out of state . EDC' s Marketplace also associates with a statewide prograi under the Washington State Department of Trade. The state assist: local county EDC' s to set up their programs by providing training They also encourage the EDC' s to refer marketplace product searches to other counties when it cannot be secured in their owi local area . EDC' s public sector members are encouraged to use EDC' s Mar- ketplace program for their own purchasing needs . 5 2 . Community Development Services _.. During 1989, the EDC in cooperation with other area sponsors and suburban cities, developed a program for helping communities with their own economic development priorities . The program, through the EDC and the participating sponsors, makes available "outside" economic development experts that can help cities and communities within King County to plan and initiate economic de- velopment strategies . The intent of this process includes : -Helping the community assess its assets, liabilities and opportunities . -Making available the ideas and suggestions of economic development professionals . -Suggesting ways that the community can organize itself to then carry out development strategies, and -Identifying and assisting in making available the re- sources of local, state, federal and private entities on a continuing basis as the community undertakes development programs . Community development summits were conducted in four cities during 1988 . Typically they are a one day event . The EDC bring economic development experts to the community to meet with local.- representatives . Together they assess the community' s situation and make recommendations on how the community can organize and initiate strategies . This provides an opportunity for the people in the community to become acquainted with the expertise and re- sources of these economic development professionals . With com- munity input, the EDC and the participating sponsors then prepare the forum plan and agenda. To date these forums have typically included a video identifying issues and choices before communities as they plan their future, a bus tour of the area to gain perspec- tive and break-out sessions in which work groups examine area strengths, weaknesses and opportunities . Citizen input from a cross section of community interests is essential to establishing an open dialogue on the "possibilities" for the communities' fu- ture and ways to achieve those alternatives . Economic experts brought to the forum are present to help stimulate ideas and sug- gest strategies . Following the forum, the EDC and other resource professionals remain available to advise the community as it be- gins to organize and plan for its future. This program will be available in 1989 to interested communi- ties and cities in King County that seek to examine their economic potential and the options available to them. 6 N 3 . Economic Policy and Analytical Services Standing Committees of the Board The standing committee system represents centers of action for developing specific strategies and priorities as well as for identifying and committing both financial and human resources to carry them out . Each of the four committees set up for 1989 are typically composed of six to ten board members . Their major func- tions include the following: A. Administration and Membership -Fund-raising/Membership: Major priority is adequate funding -Budget/financial planning and oversight -Public sector funding relationships B. Business Development -Business development program direction/guidance -Participation in major investment projects/events -Community education on business development issues -Build coalition relationships among economic develop- ment community C. Education and Employment -Matching employment/training needs of local businesses for community colleges and training institutions -Recognize excellence in education related to economic development -Strengthen partnership between business and education. D. Public Policy and Facilities -Financing public costs of development -Monitor King County permit processes -Legislative action: education, taxes and transporta- tion -Act on organizing strategies to deal with land use/ wetlands issues 4 . Investment in Education A. The Seattle Youth Investment. The Seattle-King County economy is increasingly dependent upon a highly educated and skilled work force . Businesses require employees who have solid basic skills, are capable of learning new ones and adaptable to emerging technologies . Against this need we find that many of our youth are leaving school without the 7 skills, attitudes and education needed to fill these jobs . We also lack basic information on the numbers of students leaving school, why they leave and where they go, making it difficult to put together a unified strategy to solve the problem. The Seattle Youth Investment is a process to find the real reasons behind why students are leaving the educational system unprepared, develop a plan to resolve these problems and focus efforts within the community to do so. When fully implemented, the Seattle Youth Investment will be a signed agreement between the schools, government, Private Industry Council and business leaders to target activities to ensure that our community' s youth are employable . The first step will be to develop a framework to catalogue, assess and evaluate the many public, private and nonprofit programs focused on school age youth in Seattle and King County . Next, information will be established on the numbers of students leaving high school before graduating, where they go after they leave and the reasons behind why they drop out . At the same time, Seattle school district data will be reviewed to establish a measurement of current student performance. Additionally, the performance of Seattle high school graduates will be analyzed. An action plan will be developed that focuses public and private resources on the problems highlighted by the studies . Existing programs serving youth will be linked together as components of a comprehensive series . Where gaps exist, programs will be developed to fill them. Results will be measured against the baseline data previously established. B. Twenty First Century Awards . The Twenty First Century Awards are designed to both recognize innovation in K-12 education and to underscore to the public how quality education and economic development are inexorably linked. Winning programs are documented on video to allow others in the community to benefit from them. The awards and the video will be presented at the 17th Annual Economic Forecast Luncheon, Washington's largest one day economic development event on January 5, 1989 . Last year' s Twenty First Century Awards video became an instant hit and was viewed by hundreds of educators, elected officials, students, and business and labor leaders throughout Washington State . The teachers, 8 students, and programs that were recognized by the Twenty First Century Awards have since been the subject of numerous feature stories in both print and broadcast media. 5 . Land Use : Wetlands Working Group Between 1987 and 1988, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers began to exercise its jurisdiction over an increasing proportion of in- dustrial lands in King County that could be designated as Wetlands . The consequences of a more stringent interpretation of wetlands by the Corps would have the effect of further and sig- nificantly reducing the number of acres zoned for industrial de- velopment . An ultimate outcome would be to restrict economic and job creating growth, particularly in communities within the Green River Valley. The economic impacts are significant . For example, a private property owner in the Green River Valley controls 700 acres of land zoned for commercial and/or industrial use with a fair market value of $2 . 50 per square foot . Should 50 percent fall under the Corps wetlands criteria, the loss to the private property owner is estimated at $38 million. If one assumes an after development value of $50 . 00 p . s . f. , taxed at $14 . 00 per thousand of assessed valuation, local jurisdictions stand to lose $10 .7 million in gross revenues annually. In early 1988, EDC set about to address this issue and to suggest alternative solutions whereby local developers, jurisdic- tions and the Corps may consider participating in approaches with less economic consequences and that still preserve wetlands as a vital part of the land ecosystem. Through its Public Policy and Facilities Committee, a Wetlands Working Group was formed to as- sess the economic impacts and develop recommendations . It is in- tended that the Group will carry these recommendations forward into 1989 with the purpose of building an effective coalition of public and private interests for action at local, state and fed- eral levels of government . Local Policy Task Forces EDC will be conducting three Local Policy Task Forces during the year representing East, South and West King County (including Seattle) . They will serve as advisory bodies to the EDC' s Board of Di- rectors . In this capacity, they will propose overall policies and activities to both the EDC' s board and standing committees . As the grass roots base of the EDC, the groups are composed of all members and coalition representatives in each area and also charged with articulating and implementing economic strategies for their particular region. 9 Representation of the three groups' interests on the Board is provided in two ways . First they are chaired by members of the EDC Board of Directors . Second, as members of the organization, these participants may seek election to the Board of Directors . Utilizing these bodies, the EDC is able to achieve a more ac- tive and broader based participation in its programs . They also allow community interests to identify what local level economic development needs and strategies are of priority. Those of most concern may then be offered the resources of EDC' s leadership and coalition to help achieve them. Project Reviews The EDC will be available to the public sector entities as an advisor or advocate regarding local economic development projects, planned or proposed. The EDC will, upon request, review and com- ment on plans of the public sector entities for growth and devel- opment . Technical Assistance The primary coordinating role for the EDC and its staff is to become a "conduit" for the exchange of information and opportuni- ties between the public and private sector. As the staff gair experience and its data base and network of relationships become` more and more established, this role will continue to take on added importance . Currently, a number of services will be avail- able in 1989 under the primary work program as important conduits for technical assistance, ie : the Business Help Center, the news- letter, the hotline referral services, the guide for service pro- viders and the marketing resource center, the special community development program, Marketplace and the work of the Wetlands Working Group. As appropriate, the EDC when requested will offer suggestions or its library of technical data to assist the public sector entities in their development of strategies for commercial and industrial growth. The EDC will work with elected officials and members of the public sector entities staffs designated by them in the attraction of business and industry, including warehousing, local and re- gional offices, and firms that export services . 4 . Support Services Newsletters, brochures, videos, etc. An effective network of communications will continue to be established among the EDC' s various constituents and with the cli- ent business community, the media and the public. This will r accomplished through information and promotional materials . Fo__... example, a small concise brochure describing the purposes and pro- 10 grams of the EDC will be distributed to promote the agency and in fund raising. In addition, the monthly newsletter, The Providers Guide, Annual Report, marketing brochures, hotline referral ser- vice promotions and community business surveys will continue to provide information about the EDC as well as its support programs to businesses and communities . Data Base The EDC will continue to develop and maintain an extensive data base describing economic, market and other business climate factors pertaining to Seattle-King County and the State of Wash- ington. Such topics covered that have a bearing on economic de- velopment include: Local business growth characteristics, eco- nomic trends and forecasts, transportation, labor incentives, financing, education, taxes, markets and demographics, permits and licensing and livability and utilities. This information is available to the public sector members of the EDC. ARTICLE II . TERM OF AGREEMENT Section 1 . Initial Agreement The term of this agreement between the public sector entity and the EDC shall be from January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1989 unless amended by mutual written agreement of both parties . This term recognizes that regardless of the date (s) on which the contract is signed by the parties, that the EDC under this agree- ment will be delivering services from the beginning of the first quarter for 1989 (January 1) and that payment for such services will be rendered by the public sector entity consistent with this date from which such services will begin. 11 Section 2 . Extension This Agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of both the public sector entity and the EDC, under terms and condi- tions to be determined at the time of extension. ARTICLE III . REIMBURSEMENT Section 1 . Amount and Billing The public sector entity shall grant to the EDC an..amount of $ ;tT3;235 for the calendar year of 1969 ` 'for the services identified in this Agreement, payments to be made quar- terly in equal installments and based upon quarterly billings sub- mitted by the EDC . Section 2 . Documentation The EDC maintains an accounting system which shall be readily available to the public sector entity. The contracting entity has the right to examine these records as they relate to services pro- vided to such entity upon reasonable notice. Section 3 . Payment The public sector entity shall initiate authorization for payment of the service agreement invoices after receipt and ap- proval of the invoices from the EDC. Such invoices will be sub- mitted on a quarterly basis unless otherwise agreed between par- ties . ARTICLE IV. NONDISCRIMINATION Section 1 . General (1) During the performance of this Agreement, neither the EDC nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, na- tional origin, creed, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in employment or application for employment in the administration or delivery of services or any other benefits under this Agreement . (2) The EDC will comply fully with all applicable federal and state executive orders and regulations which prohibit such discrimination. These include but are not limited to Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Law of 1964, RCW 49, 60, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Executive Order 11246 aG amended by Executive Order 11375 issued by the President of t. United States . 12 (3) The EDC shall provide to the public sector entity, with it' s Fourth Quarter report each year, an annual personnel inventory em- ployment profile which provides minority, female and handicap em- ployment data . ARTICLE V. GENERAL CONDITIONS Section 1 . Liability to Third Parties The EDC shall hold the public entities and its officers, Agents and employees, acting in the official capacity or course of employment, harmless from all suits, claims or liabilities of any nature, including costs, expenses and attorneys fees for and on account of injuries or damages sustained by any person or property resulting in whole or in part from activities or omissions of the EDC, its Agents or employees pursuant to this Agreement . The EDC specifically waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees acting in official capacity or course of employment, and agrees that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harm- less the public sector entity its officers, its agents and employ- ees extends to any claim, demand, or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any employee of the EDC, and includes any judgment, award, and cost arising therefrom, including attorney' s fees . The EDC is expected to be in compliance with all applicable State, Federal and City Laws and regulations . Section 2 . Confidentiality Any reports, information, data, etc . given to or prepared or assembled by the EDC under this Agreement which the public sector entity requests to be kept as confidential shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the EDC without the prior written approval of the contracting public sector entity. Section 3 . Conflict of Interest a. Public Sector Entity No officer or employee of the public sector entity or its designee or agents, members of any such governing Councils or Boards or any other public official of the public sector entity, any of whom exercises any function or responsibilities with respect to this program and un- der this Agreement, shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in con- nection with such program or programs . This prohibition extends for one year beyond completion of the Agreement . b. EDC No officer or employee of the EDC or its designee or agents, shall have any financial interest, direct or in- 13 direct, other than their wages and direct benefits as an employee of the EDC, in any contract or subcontract or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with such program or programs . This prohibi- tion extends f(Yr one year beyond completion of the Agreement . Section 4 . Citizen Participation The EDC will implement the provisions of this Agreement in such a manner as not to impede the attainment of citizen par- ticipation in planning and carrying out projects that relate to the public sector entity. Section 5 . Subcontracting This Agreement is personal to each of the parties hereto and neither party may assign or delegate any of its rights or obliga- tions here under without first obtaining the written consent of the other party . It is understood, however, that in carrying out many of the programs hereunder, the EDC will be employing con- tracts and subcontracts and the same is hereby approved, in ad- vance, by the public sector entity . Section 6 . EDC Membership It is understood that pursuant to a bylaw change, effecti January 1, 1986, the EDC is a membership organization, and that membership in the EDC is afforded to public sector entities as part of their contract with the EDC. Therefore, the contracting public sector entity is hereby granted a membership in the EDC, and such membership shall be on the terms of and pursuant to the bylaws of the EDC and any membership rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, all as now exist or may here and after be amended by the EDC. Section 7 . Future Support The contracting public sector entity makes no commitment of future support and assumes no obligations for future support of the activities contracted herein except as set forth in this Agreement . Section 8 . Reservation of Rights Neither payment by the public sector entity nor performance by the EDC shall be construed as a waiver of either party' s right or remedies against the other. Failure to require full and timely performance of any provision at any time shall not waive or reduce the right to insist upon complete and timely performance of such provision thereafter. 14 M Section 9 . Termination of Agreement for Cause If the EDC shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if the EDC shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agree- ment, the public sector entity shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice and specifying the effec- tive date of termination, with the requirement that at least thirty (30) days notice be given. Section 10 . Termination for Convenience of the Public Sector Entity The public sector entity may terminate this Agreement at any time by a notice in writing from such entity to the EDC. Pro rata payment shall be made by the public sector entity to the EDC for services rendered up to the date of termination. Notice of termi- nation should be made at least thirty (30) days before becoming effective . Section 11 . Termination of Agreement by the EDC This Agreement may be terminated by the EDC upon thirty (30) days written notice should the public sector entity fail substan- tially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the EDC. In the event of termination due to the fault of others than the EDC, the EDC shall be paid for services performed to the termination date . Section 12 . Changes Either party may request changes in the scope of services, performance or reporting standards to be performed or provided un- der this Agreement . Such changes, including any increase or de- crease in the amount of compensation paid to the EDC, _ which are mutually agreed upon by and between the public sector entity and the EDC, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement . 15 Section 13 . Addresses -• Written notices, requests, grievances or adjustments to the contracting public sector entity shall be made to: Written notices, requests, grievances or adjustments to the EDC shall be made to: Penelope A Peabody, President Seattle-King County Economic Development Council 2510 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Section 14 . Integrated Document This Agreement embodies the Agreement, terms and condi- tions between the public sector entity, City of Kent r� of Kent I and the Seattle-King County Economic De- velopment Council . No verbal agreements or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of the public sector entity prior to the execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Agreement . Any such verbal agree- ment shall be considered as unofficial information and is in no way binding upon either party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AND THE SEATTLE-KING COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT AS OF THE DATE WRITTEN ON PAGE ONE . EDC" 1 CITY OF By �d By Penelope A. eabody, Pres' de t Seattle-King County Econo is Development Council 2510 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 ATTEST: ARIDA aFORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Keegan, General Counsel Seattle-King County Economic Development Council 16 ,. Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: JAMES ST. SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS 2 . S As recommended . �-.Public Works Committe�e� a thorization to establish a budget and transfer j $8;-Gao-"from the 1989 Street Operating Budget (asphalt overlay funds) to this project. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $8,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1989 Street Operating Budget (Asphalt Overlays) 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmemb6r moves, Councilmember seconds r DISCUSSIOI : r ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G ? E PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE _. JULY 11, 1989 PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTY NIZLEK STEVE DOWELL JERRY MCCAUGHAN GARY GILL DAVID HADAWAY JIM HANSEN GREG WINGARD DON WICKSTROM LYLE PRICE SANDRA DRISCOLL CANYON PARK PLAZA (TARGET STORE) ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY Wickstrom explained that one of the SEPA mitigation conditions of the project is to construct the 256th Street bypass. As such,.. right of way acquisition may be required. This same project is also included in the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program; thus it will benefit the City's transportation system as well as the development. The developer is asking whether the City would be willing to pursue condemnation for the right of way should they be unable to acquire same. Dowell asked who would pay the costs of condemnation. Wickstrom clarified that while there may be some City funds involved, the developer would be primarily responsible therefor. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the request. It was clarified this would not go before full council unless it is necessary to pursue condemnation after the developer has demonstrated every effort to obtain the right of way. )r• JAMES STREET SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS Wickstrom stated the funds for this signal modification could be taken from the overlay budget of the 1989 Street Operating fund. Due to the good bids we received on the overlays there is some surplus in that fund. Wickstrom explained the modification would entail putting the signal at 94th and James in a rest-on-red mode east and west during the off-peak hours. This is being done in response to Ms. MacNamara 's concerns about speeders. During the peak hours, the signal would remain on green in the east-west direction. It was clarified this expenditure would not be wasted as this type of work will be required when the signal is interconnected to the Master Signal Control computer. The Committee unanimously ; recommended approval of transfer of the $8, 000 from the 1989 Street Operation fund (asphalt overlay budget) for this project. L.I.D. 330 - 64TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS Wickstrom explained the City has acquired all the necessary rights of way except for that on the parcel owned by the LDS Church. He requested authorization to proceed with condemnation in order to .............. 4f (' � Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HIGHLAND CRESTE APARTMENTS 2. SUMMARY STAT - _ � Acceptance for continuous eration and --- - maintenance the bill of sale and warranty agreemen„ f m A4 approximately 2, 341 feet of water main extension, 2 ,904 feet o 'Itsanitary sewer extension, 640 feet of street improvements and 811 feet of storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of 108th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 240th for the Highland Creste Apartments and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity ma� 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staf , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) d 5. UNBUDGETED FIS PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSONNE NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPEND ITURE � UIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUN S: r 7 . CITY COUNCIj ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds r DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H ,; rt :lL ilNs, y 4 M ' d►CwAO40 44 ie SITE' IP Dud 1 1 prw�w•w r w rr•lwrnr•r M1 ' C/O t w :sITI 2 , ' ` r ',, HIGHLAND CRESTE ti Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar a 1. SUBJECT: LID 330 - 64TH AVE. IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY ST NT: _As recommended by the Public Works f # ae option of Ordinance , authorizing staff to proceed with condemnation for right-of-way for which negotiations have been unsuccessful 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map, Jbrdinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff,/Examiner, Commission, etc. ) r r 5. UNBUDGETED FISCA PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSONNE NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE UIRED: $ SOURCE OF S• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilme�ber moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I o - —136.80 - 2o.a 60.00 ( MORTON ST.) � S 89°00125'IE o t i 90.61 S. 238TH ST. \1- 71.97 - s� EXIST. R/W, ko S� \ . I Z rSZOJ oa �.r•G \ N i O J O S ° w = s s Z p w. C �\ I � q • � -HE LAKE AT KEN a > > DIV + O f + rN �7 d zw ° r o = 4 � LOT 6 = r r w �N 7 N p O O w O w m LOT 8 o w tq0 R m o ° o 60.00 W as ° (D N I�a N w r _ o PARCEL # 155734 4z uj o J ° w w ala�„ w } � I}1 o a � Z 40.00 w n w Lu 3 3 mN w to re) o: M co Z a •, LOT 7 InE-1 U O L• N W N fl= 38.00 w 10 IA L= 29.09 a ° 1001 6-4504'02' Wr OIO � O z a NN DRAINAGE E-2 33.00 L-ESMT ps 4'500402 II^� ! N� h OJ EE��29 L M I i , ' 1 N O I 1 L=29.8989 L--I}I} cliN 1 6-450 04'02" _6- I I I Es-T I� �=36 27'06" m 0•M°SI°6 v R/W I `O ilym R=38.00 I i R/W L-26°23 L=59.78 111 / ° R=38.00 m o:53 40 s9 p=900 08104° �� \ L=59.60 j P' �L,=89°51 561 _ 100.00 ILI - 144.44 _ _ •� \ O I EXIST. R/W 156.00 Z5 ,. roo W. ✓AMES ST r1 _ S 880 59' 1211 E _ _ 1087.13 SEC. ( S. 240TH ST) 230.03 - (WINNER ST. ) SOUTH 1/16TH COR. OF MATCH LINE I SE 14-22-4 SEE THIS SHEET w LID 330 64TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS i l i l 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, II Washington, providing for the construction and j improvements of certain roadways, sanitary sewer water mains, drainage channels, storm water detention facilities, and related purposes; for the purpose of providing for condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of land and other properties therefore; all located approximately near 64th Avenue and James Street and South 228th Street in Kent, Washington. THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: � Section 1. The public convenience, use and necessity demand the condemnation of certain real property for the construction and Iimprovements of certain roadways, sanitary sewers, water mains, I, ldrainage channels, storm water detention facilities and related �Ipurposes for such property described in Exhibit A attached hereto land incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. All land, rights, privileges and other property lying within the limits of the lot, blocks and tracts of land ( described in Section 1 hereof are hereby condemned, appropriated, j j� taken and damaged for the purposes set forth above and other j 1Ipublic use; and lands, rights, privileges and other properties , necessary to be taken, used or damaged in the development and i ( construction of such are hereby condemned, appropriated, taken and I ! damaged for the public use of such purpose, and all lands, rights,ll i privileges and other properties are to be taken, damaged and appropriated only after just compensation has been made or paid into the court for the owners thereof in the manner provided by law. Section 3. The entire cost of the improvement and I acquisitions provided for by this ordinance shall be paid from the drainage funds, or the general funds or such other funds of the City Kent as may be provided by law. i Section 4. The City Attorney be and she is hereby authorized !land directed to begin and prosecute the actions and proceeding in a manner provided by law to condemn, take, damage and appropriate ' I l I land and other property necessary to carry out the provisions of this ordinance. In conducting said condemnation proceedings, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to enter into stipulations for the purpose of minimizing damages; such stipulations to include, but not limited to size and dimensions of the taking, construction easements and property interests. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: IMARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK I APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1989. APPROVED the day of 1989. PUBLISHED the day of 1989. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7500-260 - 2 - EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE - LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT 8, SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF MEEKER'S FIRST ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF KENT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 96, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF KENT, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 5286L-3L (� � 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: \� LAVENDER HILLS l l 2 . SUMMARY STAT NT: Acceptance for continuo s operation and maintenance the bill of sale and warranty agr ement for the utility and str t improvements constructed n the vicinity of 94th Avenue Sout and S.E. 240th Street fo the Lavendar Hills project and relea a of cash bond after ex iration of the one year maintenance p riod. 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALbERSONNEL IMPACT:', NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL, OTE: Recommended_ Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE RkQUIRED: $ \ , SOURCE OF FUG DS 7. CITY COU//NAIL ACTION: Councilxlember moves, Councilmember',, seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3J AVM' V � 4 y m HL •. . ...,rr,k„ 1 r . n x N STAT t 9 jr z OIN303 S S TE N STATE AVEo y =IZ AVE 7o ==Zr,1 q -SCENIC WAY 1 p 4 1 z A N WOODFORD AV .C(tFRT AVE 0383NN3S " C .�C ?toy: N CLARK AVE AVE'AVE mN ? Q IN TON AVE Mµ3 O S �1�h Sr'"j A N JASON O AVE LJ —VAND ANTER' AVE O RV 9 N PROS CT .AVE IA p y F i��. t w LENORA AVE >C C C •4 z > Ao m '-. [ �� a mA �` m;� N HAZE AVE O AVE z , . . m LEXA DER A �t ',� m z mF m m = � <F �• -1 _ m '+ z . �,c. { ' y ALVORD AVE 1 � ^e O~? y PR QJECT VI:GIPILTY O VIEW ,cf�,�� N SUMMlT HILLTOP AVE I Pl AVE ro . RD .y w4Ltt�,1�� dt 1 Z �1 � '.92NC,Pi ,s <-• om .J� '}t✓ �rA't�l'f '�i 1 = lru) _ -.iv I. .94TH AVE S 94TH AVE S y g177N F. s `y = 9�.. H 96TH AVE S 6TH "IAV ` AVE S H S �Jt• CZ7 7,z1 N � • AVE S r' � '•I w C I'r F+ _y y = 96TH' AVE S O S RAWB RRY IN tt -' %7 96TH AVE S ..�.i.—. W 1 a 99TH AVE S i m (Pvt) � CO 100TH � AVE SE x ~ rz 8arrfcade C ,�,,• , 102ND : • JL' Y m 103RD <r AVE SE N � AVE SE 104TH AVE SE i 104TH 103 h rm ro �y . / S" �a 06 O x. m m N µiot 44 AVE SE m LAVENDER HILLS 2 . •/.I.T.J ''I Kent City Council Meeting / Date July 18 . 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 327 BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT , 2. SUMMARY ST_ATEMEN�' As recommended by the Operations Commi ee at their Jun 30, 1989 meeting and�4nfi _med_ at their July 13, 1989 meetin �doption of Bond Ordinance 2859, and 'authorization for he Mayor to sign a purchase contract in the amount of $2 , 296, 074 . 47 for LID 327 bonds _ _ _-.- The funds will be used to reimburse the City for expenses incurred in the reconstruction of West Valley Highway from 212th to James. The final assessment roll on this LID has been adopted and the thirty day prepayment period has been provided. The purchase contract with Shearson-Lehman-Hutton is at a net interest cost of 7 . 68 percent and has a gross underwriting spread of $24 . 28 per thousand dollar bonds. 'd'i�cu�s.s�d•_�azth"--t#e Oge�atio�►s�. ,_i�"i -�-ew'g't'fi: e p pos I t t w s in ude on J y 5, 198 ge w 1 so ha h on ou d be u t e er a 2 y ' od s d t on al propose 12 ar pe iod. // 3 . EXHIBITS: bond ordinance, purchase contract, and other financing information. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K SHFARS'ON City of Kent, Washington LEH NIAN Local lmprovemeut District No. 327 HLTMN Comparison of Underwriting Spreads for Recent City of Kent Assessment Bonds June 28, 1989 Issue $2,296,074 (1) $1,070,606 $2,017,555 LID No. 327 CLID No. 322 CLID No. 297 (�I$ Sale Date July 5, 1989 Feb. 21, 1989 April 7, 1987 Average Interest Rate 7.18% (1) 7.40% 6.93% Net Interest Cost 7.55% (1) 7.76% 7.29% 1.3Z, Revenue Bond Index 7.42% 7.63% 7.54% Underwriting Spread Per Bond prop-0-0 (1) A��al Actual IS.69 Average Takedown $12.75 $12.50 $14.76 Z$0 Net to Underwriter 1.75 1.75 2.50 Z.09 Expenses 1.85 2.20 4.84 4.00 Management Fee 3.90 _aou -ZQQ Total $20.25 $21.50 $29.10 (1) Proposed, preliminary and subject to change. 0976k I N c ot(Af-0 foam etzeo3fo KMOJ rJrS a LC�rUSG kf-f'KeOf* f2.3M IZfa ZZ Yf,�CQS - L��( I'S �I�NOS A�� hIAYV7F+C fD SbI L A-,,D 'fVYO fb Y]1�� ILlffi l�rC�S 2J S A'V,�S rn� rftt0 TJ c-{tr�GLl C,o N f rflnwf-9 8Pss1�rY� �`1 DO�buC woiZK —4- 999 Third Avenue Suite 4000 Seattle WA 98104 Telephone 206 344 3598 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 2859 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to Local Improvement District No. 327; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates, maturity and denominations of the Local Improvement District No. 327 Bonds; providing for the sale and delivery thereof to Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. in Seattle, Washington; and fixing the interest rate on Local Improvement District No. 327 assessment in- stallments. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Authorization and Description of Bonds. The total amount of the assessment roll in Local Improvement District No. 327 in the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") , created under Ordinance No. 2761, passed December 22, 1987, was $2,462,730.67. The 30-day period for making cash payments of assessments without interest in, the. District expired on June 20, 1989, and the total amount of assessments paid in cash was $166,656.20, leaving a balance of assessments unpaid on the assessment roll in the sum of $2,296,074.47. Local Improvement District No. 327 Bonds (the "Bonds") shall, therefore, be issued in the total principal sum of $2,296,074.47. The Bonds shall be dated July 15, 1989, shall mature on July 15, -2-06-1�-and shall be numbered from 1 to 460, inclusive, in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar (collectively, the fiscal agencies of the State of Washington located in Seattle, Washington, and New York, New York) deems necessary for the purpose of identification. Bond No. 1 shall be in the denomi- nation of $1,074 .47 and Bonds Nos. 2 to 460, inclusive, shall be in the denomination of $5,000 .00 each. Interest shall be com- puted on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds shall bear interest, payable annually beginning July 15, 1990, in accordance with the following schedule: Bond Numbers Interest (Inclusive) Amounts Rates 1-1.U $501,074.47 7.50% 102-207 530,000. 00 7.30 208-257 250,000.00 7.25 258-281 120,000.00 7.30 282-304 115,000.00 7.35 305-327 115,000.00 7.40 328-349 110,000. 00 7.45 350-371 110,000.00 7.50 372-391 100,000. 00 7.55 392-411 100,000. 00 7.60 412-429 90,000.00 7.65 430-445 80,000.00 7.80 446-460 75,000.00 7.85 Section 2. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest on books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register") . The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner . Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar . The transfer of a Bond shall be by the Bond Registrar's receiving the Bond to be transferred, cancelling it and issuing a new certificate in the form of the Bonds to the transferee after registering the name and address of the transferee on the Bond Register. The new certificate shall bear the same Bond number as the transferred Bond but may have a different inventory reference number or control number. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the fifteen days preceding any principal payment or redemption date. Section 3. Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and inter- est on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 327 (the "Bond Fund"), and from - 2 - the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City, and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or drafts mailed on the interest payment date to the registered owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the last day of the month preceding the interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar at the option of the owners. Section 4. Optional Redemption. The City reserves the right to redeem the Bonds prior to their stated maturity on any interest payment date, in numerical order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest, whenever there shall be sufficient money in the Bond Fund to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier numbered Bonds over and above the amount required for M the payment of the interest on all unpaid Bonds. All Bonds redeemed under this section shall be cancelled. Section 5. Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause notice of any intended redemption of the Bonds to be given not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the regis— tered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the registered owner of any Bond. Interest on the Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid, to Moody' s Investors Service, — 3 — Inc. , and Standard & Poor's Corporation at their principal offices in New York, New York, or their successors, to Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. at its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or its successor, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the City Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condi- tion precedent to the redemption of Bonds. Section 6. Failure to Redeem Bonds . If any Bond is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund and the Bond has been called for pay- ment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of that Bond. Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed, lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law, shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be im- pressed or printed thereon. Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: 4 - CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This bond is one of the fully registered City of Kent, Washington, Local Improvement District No. 327 Bonds described in the Bond Ordinance. Washington State Fiscal Agency Bond Registrar By Authorized Officer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and are entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, delivered and issued and, when authenticated, issued and deliv- ered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bonds. Section 8. Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authen- ticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of - 5 - the Bond Registrar 's powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representa- tions contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authenti- cation on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depos- itory for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any com- mittee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners. Section 9. Bonds Negotiable. The Bonds shall be negoti- able instruments to the extent provided by RCW 62A.8-102 and 62A.8-105. Section 10 . Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions neces- sary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that, if all gross proceeds of the Bonds have not been spent within six months after the date of issuance of the Bonds, it will calcu- late, or cause to be calculated, and rebate to the United States all earnings from the investment of gross proceeds of the Bonds that are in excess of the amount that would have been earned had the yield on those investments been equal to the yield on the Bonds, plus all income derived from those excess earnings, to the extent and in the manner required by Section 148 of the 6 - United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code") , and applicable regulations. If the City fails to meet rebate requirements applicable to the Bonds under Section 148 of the Code, the City covenants that, to the extent permitted by that Section, it will pay the penalty provided in Subsection 148(f)(7)(C) if required to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. Section 11 . Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase contract dated July, 1989 (the "Purchase Contract") , to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in the Purchase Contract, which written Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and is incorpo- rated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that entering into the Purchase Contract is in the City's best inter- est and therefore accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by City officials. The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding the Bonds printed on each Bond. Except for those sections of the final official statement entitled "Authoriza- tion," "The Bonds, " "Tax Exemption" and "Certain Other Federal Tax Consequences" and the first, second, fourth, sixth and eighth paragraphs in the section entitled "Security, " bond counsel shall not be required to review and shall express no 7 - opinion concerning the completeness or accuracy of any official statement, offering circular or other sales material issued or used in connection with the Bonds, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state. The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser, including without limitation the execution of the Official Statement on behalf of the City, and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. Section 12 . Interest Rate on Assessment Installments. The interest rate on the installments and delinquent payments of the special assessments in Local Improvement District No. 327 is revised and fixed at the rate ofA7.98% per annum. Section 13 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, Mayor ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, City Attorney Passed the day of 1989. Approved the day of 1989. Published the day of 1989. I certify this is a true copy of Ordinance No. 285,,9 passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and ap- proved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, City Clerk 4257k 8 - S tTM171-y7ll SON 7�� j AN �T �� 4 $2,296,074.47 City of Kent, Washington Local Improvement District No. 327 Bonds BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT July 18, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. (the "Purchaser"), is pleased to offer to purchase from the City of Kent (the "Seller") all of its $2,296,074.47 principal amount of Local Improvement District No. 327 Bonds (the "Bonds"). This offer is based upon the terms and conditions set forth below and in Exhibit A attached, which when accepted by the Seller shall constitute the terms and conditions of our Bond Purchase Contract for the Bonds. Those terms and conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to the date of delivery and payment for the Bonds identified in paragraph j of Exhibit A ("Closing"), the Seller shall pass an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the 'Bond Ordinance") in form and substance acceptable to the Purchaser. 2. The Seller shall sell and deliver to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser shall purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the entire $2,296,074.47 principal amount of the Bonds, and only that amount. 3. The Seller consents to and ratifies the use by the Purchaser of the information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, a copy of which is attached to this Purchase Contract as Exhibit B (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), in marketing the Bonds, authorizes the preparation of a Final Official Statement (the "Final Official Statement") for the Bonds containing such revisions and additions to the Preliminary Official Statement as the Finance Director and the City Attorney of the Seller deem necessary, and further authorizes the use of the Final Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds. 4. The Seller represents and warrants to, and agrees with, the Purchaser, as of the date hereof and as of the date and time of Closing, that: a. The Seller has and will have at Closing full legal right, power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Purchase Contract and under the Bond Ordinance, to pass the Bond Ordinance and to sell and deliver the Bonds to the Purchaser; 999 Third Avenue Suite 4000 Seattle WA 98104 Telephone 206 344 3598 b. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds do not and will not conflict with or create a breach of or default under any existing law, regulation, judgment, order or decree or any agreement, lease or instrument to which the Seller is subject or by which it is bound; C. No governmental consent, approval or authorization other than the Bond Ordinance is required in connection with the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser; d. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds (when paid for by the Purchaser) are, and shall be at the time of Closing, legal, valid and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject only to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws affecting creditors' rights and principles of equity if equitable remedies are sought; e. The Bond Ordinance shall have been duly authorized by the Seller, shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended except with the written consent of the Purchaser at the time of Closing; f. The Preliminary Official Statement, except as to matters corrected in the Final Official Statement, shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date with respect to information obtained from or utilized by officers and employees of the Seller in the normal course of their duties, and the Final Official Statement shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date and as of the date of Closing, to the knowledge and belief of such officers and employees; and g. Any certificate or copy of any certificate signed by any official of the Seller and delivered to the Purchaser pursuant to or in connection with this Purchase Contract shall be deemed a representation by the Seller to the Purchaser as to the truth of the statements therein made and is delivered to the Purchaser for such purpose only. 5. As conditions to the Purchaser's obligations hereunder: a. From the date of the Seller's acceptance of this Purchase Contract to the date of Closing, there shall not have been any: (1) Material adverse change in the financial condition or general affairs of the Seller; (2) Event, court decision or proposed law, rule or regulation which may have the effect of changing the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on the Bonds or which may have the effect of impeding the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Contract or the Preliminary and Final Official Statements; (3) International or national crisis, suspension of stock exchange trading or banking moratorium materially affecting the marketability of the Bonds; or -2- (4) Material adverse event with respect to the Seller which in the reasonable judgment of the Purchaser requires or has required an amendment, modification or supplement to the Final Official Statement and such amendment, modification or supplement is not made. b. At or prior to Closing, the Purchaser shall have received the following: (1) The Bonds, in definitive form and duly executed and authenticated; (2) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller, in form and substance acceptable to the Seller and Purchaser, to the effect: (i) that the Seller's execution of the Final Official Statement is authorized; (ii) that, to the knowledge and belief of such officers, the Preliminary Official Statement did not as of its date and the Final Official Statement (collectively the "Official Statements") (including the financial, statistical and engineering data included therein) did not as of its date or as of the date of Closing contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make such statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (iii) that the representations of the Seller contained in this Purchase Contract are true and correct when made and as of Closing; (3) An approving opinion or opinions of the law firm identified in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A as bond counsel or from another nationally recognized firm of municipal bond lawyers (either or both of which shall be referred to as "Bond Counsel") satisfactory to the Purchaser and dated as of Closing, to the effect: (i) that the Seller is duly organized and legally existing as a non—charter code city under the laws of the State of Washington with full power and authority to pass the Bond Ordinance and to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser; (ii) that the Bonds are valid, legal and binding obligations of the Seller, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting creditors' rights and principles of equity, if equitable remedies are sought; (iii) the sections of the Final Official Statement entitled "AUTHORIZATION," "THE BONDS," "TAX EXEMPTION" and "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES", as well as the first, second, fourth, sixth and eighth paragraphs under the section entitled "SECURITY" conform to the Bonds and applicable laws; (iv) that assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under existing federal law, including the Code, except that interest on the Bonds received by corporations in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, may be subject to an alternative minimum tax and, in the case of certain corporations, an environmental and/or foreign branch profits tax, and interest on the Bonds received by certain S corporations may be subject to tax; and (v) that the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code; —3— (4) A letter of Bond Counsel, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Purchaser, to the effect that it may rely upon the opinion or opinions in subparagraph (3) above as if it or they were addressed to the Purchaser; (5) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that no litigation is pending, or to the knowledge of the Seller threatened, against the Seller in any court: (i) to restrain or enjoin the sale or delivery by the Seller of the Bonds; (ii) in any manner questioning the authority of the Seller to issue, or the issuance or validity of, the Bonds; (iii) questioning the constitutionality of any statute, ordinance or resolution, or the validity of any proceedings, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds; (iv) questioning the validity or enforceability of the Bond Ordinance; (v) contesting in any way the completeness, accuracy or fairness of the Official Statements; (vi) questioning the titles of any officers of the Seller to their respective offices or the legal existence of the Seller under the laws of the State of Washington; or (vii) which might in any material respect adversely affect the transactions contemplated herein and in the Official Statements to be undertaken by the Seller; (6) A certificate signed by authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the officers of the Seller who signed or whose facsimile signatures appear on the Bonds were on the date of execution of the Bonds the duly elected, qualified and acting officers of the Seller and that their signatures are genuine or accurate facsimiles; (7) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the Seller has not been and is not in default as to principal or interest payments on any of its bonds or other obligations, and has not failed to honor the provisions of any law providing for the restoring of a debt service reserve fund to required levels; (8) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that, from the respective dates of the Official Statements and up to and including the date of Closing, the Seller has not incurred any material liabilities, direct or contingent, nor has there been any material adverse change in the financial position, results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Seller, except as described in the Official Statements; (9) A certified copy of the Bond Ordinance; (10) A definitive copy of the Final Official Statement, signed on behalf of the Seller by the City Finance Director; (11) A non—arbitrage certificate signed by an authorized officer of the Seller; (12) A certified copy of this Purchase Contract; and —4— (13) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents as the Purchaser may reasonably request to evidence the truth, accuracy and completeness, as of the date hereof and as of the date of Closing, of the representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statements and the due performance by the Seller at or prior to Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the Seller. 6. The Seller shall pay the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel and the Seller's other consultants and advisors and the costs of preparing, printing and executing the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the cost of printing and distributing the Official Statements (except in the circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), and the Purchaser's expenses relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds and the Purchaser's travel expenses. 7. If, during the period ending on the earlier of August 15, 1989, or the date on which the Purchaser shall have completed the distribution and delivery to the public of all of the Bonds, any material adverse event affecting the Seller or the Bonds shall occur that results in the Final Official Statement containing any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state any material fact necessary to make the Final Official Statement, or the statements or information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Seller shall notify the Purchaser and, if in the opinion of the Seller and the Purchaser such event requires a supplement or amendment to the Final Official Statement, the party whose omission, misstatement or changed circumstance has resulted in the supplement or amendment will at its expense supplement or amend the Final Official Statement in a form and in a manner approved by the Seller and the Purchaser. 8. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Seller under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to its respective address set forth above. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Purchaser under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, Washington 98104 (Attention: Richard B. King, Vice President, Public Finance). 9. Upon acceptance of this Purchase Contract, this Purchase Contract shall be binding upon the Seller and the Purchaser. This Purchase Contract is intended to benefit only the parties hereto. The Seller's representations and warranties shall survive any investigation made by or for the Purchaser, delivery and payment for the Bonds, and the termination of this Purchase Contract. Should the Purchaser fail (other than for reasons permitted in this Purchase Contract) to pay for the Bonds at Closing, the amount set forth in paragraph i of Exhibit A shall be paid by the Purchaser as liquidated damages in full, and costs shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. Should the Seller fail to satisfy any of the foregoing conditions or covenants, or if Purchaser's obligations are terminated for any reason permitted under this Purchase Contract, then neither the Purchaser not the Seller shall have any further obligations under this Purchase Contract, except that any expenses incurred shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. -5- 10. This offer expires on the date set forth in paragraph h of Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON INC. Richard B. King Vice President Public Finance - Seattle ACCEPTED by the City of Kent, Washington, this eighteenth day of July, 1989. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON By Dan Kelleher, Mayor ATTEST: By Marie Jensen, City Clerk RBK:Imp0032C Enclosures -6- EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BONDS a Purchase Price: $98.00 per $100.00 par value (a total of $2,250,152.98), plus accrued interest from July 15, 1989, to the date of Closing. b. Denominations: $5,000, except for Bond No.• 1, which shall be in the denomination of $1,074.47. C. Dated Date: July 15, 1989. d. Form: Fully registered with privileges of exchange at the expense of the Seller. e. Interest Payable: Annually on July 15, commencing July 15, 1990. 7.50% for Bond Nos. 1-101 7.30% for Bond Nos. 102-207 7.25% for Bond Nos. 208-257 7.30% for Bond Nos. 258-281 7.35% for Bond Nos. 282-304 7.40% for Bond Nos. 305-327 7.45% for Bond Nos. 328-349 7.50% for Bond Nos. 350-371 7.55% for Bond Nos. 372-391 7.60% for Bond Nos. 392-411 7.65% for Bond Nos. 412-429 7.80% for Bond Nos. 430-445 7.85% for Bond Nos. 446-460 f. Maturity Schedule: Bonds shall mature on July 15; 2011. The Seller has reserved the right to redeem the Bonds prior to maturity on any interest payment date in chronological order, lowest numbers first. The estimated retirement schedule is as follows: Bond Bond Year Amount Nos. Year Amount Nos. 1990 $121,074.47 1 - 25 2000 $120,000 258 - 281 1991 125,000 26 - 50 2001 115,000 282 - 304 1992 125,000 51 - 75 2002 115,000 305 - 327 1993 130,000 76 - 101 2003 110,000 328 - 349 1994 135,000 102 - 128 2004 110,000 350 - 371 1995 135,000 129 - 155 2005 100,000 372 - 391 1996 135,000 156 - 182 2006 100,000 392 - 411 1997 125,000 183 - 207 2007 90,000 412 - 429 1998 125,000 208 - 232 2008 80,000 430 - 445 1999 125,000 233 - 257 2009 75,000 446 - 460 -7- g. Method of Payment: Federal Funds draft or wire. h. Offer Expires: July 18, 1989, midnight. i. Liquidated Damages: $2,000. j. Location and Estimated Closing Date: Seattle, Washington, July 27, 1989. k. Net Interest Cost: 7.68% Average Interest Rate: 7.48% 1. Bond Counsel: Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Seattle, Washington. —8— J Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18 , 1989 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE SUPPORT STRUCTURES PROJECT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of Riverbend Golf Course Support Structures Project as complete and release of retainage to Pease Construction upon receipt of state releases. Following is a financial breakdown: Original contract amount $1, 6001450. 00 Change orders 174 ,480.85 Subtotal $1,744,930. 85* Tax Total 122 , 556. 59 $1,867,487 .44 *$261,886. 50 tax exempt for bridge. 3 . EXHIB S• N/A 4. RECOMMEN ED BY: Golf Course S ort Structures Architect ORB Or anizat'on• Parks Devartwift Staff. (Commit e, Staff, Exa ner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FI C PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSO NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURY RE RED: N/A SOURCE OF UNDS: i, (existinq proiect budget) t 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: pp Councilmember i-'C� moves, Councilmember seconds that the Riverbend Golf Course support structures contract with Pease Construction be accepted as complete and retainage be released upon receipt of state releases. DISCUSSION• ACTION: -- , ---------- Council Agenda Item No. 4A rV 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 18 . 1989 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. ZCA-89-2 PUBLIC NOTICE BOARDS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider a recommendation by the Planning Commission to modify Kent City Code. requirements for providing on-site public notification of proposed land use actions and related public hearings. 3 . EXHIBITS: staff memo, letter from Linda Martinez, staff report, minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission June 19 , 1989 . (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $400.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Planning Department budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember Y1 moves, Councilmember seconds to4 ccect�reject/modify the Planning Commission recommendation to modify the Kent City Code for providing on site public notification of proposed land use actions and related public hearings. rr'' DISCUSSION• /A ACTION• "� b1((w� (� )0'k - u�P c Council Agenda J Item No. 4B ` KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 13, 1989 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE BOARDS As noted in the accompanying staff report, the Council asked that the Planning staff look into the possibility of providing a more visible public notice at development sites. After much research, the Planning Department developed three alternatives for these notice boards. The alternatives were presented to the Planning Commission at a workshop on April 24, 1989 and at a public hearing on June 19, 1989 . The Council Planning Committee also had earlier reviewed the concept. On June 19 the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that alternative "C" be the type of notice board used for public notices (see the attached drawing) . Staff will be available at the Council meeting of July 18 to discuss the Planning Commission' s recommendation. JPH:ca Attachment ALTERNATIVE C - 4 'x 41 GENERIC NOTICE BOARD CITY OF 25L�Lj�� rc NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR MORE INFORMATION PUBLIC COPIES or ' NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE IN 859-3390 VINYL (LAN IIIATEOI JACKET I r u�- Kent Planning Commission Kent City Hall Kent, WA 98031 June 20,1989 Dear Council Members: The modification of the Kent City Code requirements governing how the public is to be notified of proposed land use actions and other, related, public hearings has been considered carefully by the Planning Commission. The recommendations that you will see are based on the following criteria which we on the Commission feel is important to communicate to you. -The citizens of our City frequently feel uninformed about land uses proposed by the City and developers and as a result feel powerless to impact these actions or to exert influence in the decision-making process. -The current method of notification while visible to pedestrians is virtually inaccessible to people in cars or other vehicles. It is also easily vandalized, especially in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic. -The newly recommended practice would mandate large signs with a W telephone number visible from across a street. This telephone number can be used to obtain the details of the planned action. The cost of the sign, ultimately $15.00, will be an additional cost to the developer but we believe that that is more than off-set by the opportunity for the community to be informed and to know that an effort is being made to include them in the process. The Commission was pleased with the alternatives offered to us by the Planning Department and unanimously support the recommendation we have sent to you. We believe it will enhance the interactions between City, citizens and developers. Sincerely, Linda W. Martinez Chair, Kent Planning Commission KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 19 , 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, June 19, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez , Chair Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Carol Stoner Raymond Ward Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Carol Proud, Planner Ken Astrein, Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27 , 1989 Commissioner Ward MOVED that the minutes of the March 27 , 1989 Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairman Martinez asked for a member to join her at a meeting in Tukwila City Hall on June 29 at 7 p.m. regarding the regional transportation plan and development strategy which is being developed by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS AMENDED Chairman Martinez presented the current requirement that five Planning Commission members must be present at a meeting in order to constitute a quorum. She suggested that a majority of the members appointed and seated on the Commission would be a more workable requirement. Commissioner Forner MOVED that the bylaws be changed to state that the majority of the members who are appointed and seated on the Commission must be present to constitute a quorum. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Discussion followed. Kent Planning Commission Minutes June 19 , 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED that the amendment to the bylaws be reworded to state that the Commission could function with a majority of members present based on the actual number of appointed members, but a minimum of three commissioners must be in attendance to constitute a quorum. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. EAST VALLEY ZONING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CPA 88-3 Ken Astrein presented the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the East Valley Zoning Implementation. This is a written statement acknowledging the facts presented during the public hearings and stating the conclusions drawn by the Commission, including the Commission' s recommendations to Council. For the East Valley Zoning Implementation the City Council authorized the Planning Commission, rather than the Hearing Examiner, to conduct the hearings and make recommendations. The procedure was stated in Ordinance 2809 passed in October 1988 . This ordinance required the Commission to receive and examine available information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record, and enter findings of fact and conclusions based upon those facts together with a recommendation to the City Council . This is the format normally used by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to adopt the findings and conclusions presented by the Planning staff. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the public meeting be closed. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. PUBLIC NOTICE BOARDS--ZCA 89-2 Chairman Martinez opened the public hearing. Carol Proud presented the Council ' s request to research options for providing on-site posting of public notices which would be more visible to the community and less subject to vandalism than the present system. Council members also expressed a desire to increase the awareness of citizens regarding proposed land use actions without overburdening City staff or the development community. Kent land use codes require the posting of public notices for rezones, conditional use permits, variances, subdivisions, shoreline permits and planned unit developments. Currently the notice must be posted in three conspicuous places on or adjacent to the subject property at least ten days prior to the date of the 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes June 19 , 1989 public hearing. The codes do not specifically address the format or size of the notice. Ms. Proud presented the current notice board, compared these with the code requirements and procedures of six local jurisdictions, and showed slides and diagrams illustrating each. Ms. Proud presented three alternatives to the Commission. Each would be installed with two 4" x 4" x 8 ' posts. Alternative A - 4 ' x 8 ' plywood face custom notice board. The color and lettering would be consistent for all signs with prescribed content for each land use action. The applicant would be responsible for purchasing and installing the sign to City specifications at the applicant' s cost ($200-$500 plus installation cost) and would submit to the City a certificate of installation. This would be costly to the applicant and could create a hardship for smaller projects. In addition, these signs would create potential traffic hazards. Alternative B - 4 ' x 4 ' plywood face custom notice board. The color, lettering, and content would be consistent for all land use actions. The City would be responsible for painting, screening, and installing new signs for each action at an approximate cost of $100 to $200. The boards and posts would be reusable. In addition to Planning staff time, this would require using either an in- house graphics shop or a commercial sign company. Alternative C - 4 ' x 4 ' plywood face generic notice board. The color and generic heading would be the same for all signs. The applicant would deposit $60 with the City and install the sign. Staff would post the laminated notice sheets and a vinyl packet and then refund $45 to the applicant. The $15 non-refundable fee would recover the City's cost of initial sign fabrication. The costs would be shared equitably by the City and the applicant and would require minimal staff time. The generic sign would be reusable and would be prominent and visible to the public. This plan would require the City to store the signs and establish a monetary deposit and refund system. Discussion followed. Ms. Proud suggested a yellow sign to differentiate from Engineering signs and those of other jurisdictions. Chairman Martinez presented the following petition: "The undersigned would like to urge the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendation of staff regarding the Public Notice Boards for rezoning and land development. " Signed by Leona Orr, Kathy Myers, Al Silva, Kevin Platt, Jim Flick, Jim Orr, Jeff Merganthol, Jacqueline D. Silva and Laurie Sundsted. 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED to accept the proposed Alternative C as presented by staff. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Forner commended staff for providing a much-improved notification plan for the public. Chairman Martinez emphasized that the timing rules and expectations of the applicant must be clearly stated at the beginning of the process so that the applicant would not experience delays in meetings resulting from inadequate posting of notices. Discussion continued regarding the time requirement for installation of signs. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner MOVED that the motion be amended to add that notice boards must be installed 14 days prior to the hearing date so that the public notice can be posted ten days prior to the hearing date. Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT Chairman Martinez presented Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner a Certificate of Appointment to Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Forner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James P. Harris, Secretary 4 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1989 REVISED PUBLIC NOTICE PROCEDURES ZCA-89-2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: To modify Kent City Code requirements for providing on site public notification of proposed land use actions and related public hearings. I . BACKGROUND In October, 1988 , the City Council requested that the Planning Department research options for providing public notice at development sites that is more visible to the community and less subject to vandalism than the system now in use. The staff conducted a preliminary survey of the methods used by three local jurisdictions and presented the information to the Planning Committee in a series of meetings beginning in November, 1988 . In its review of public notice boards, the Planning Committee expressed a desire to increase the awareness of citizens of proposed land use actions without overburdening City staff or the development community. In March 1989 the Planning Committee directed staff to present a code amendment to the Planning Commission which would achieve this objective. The topic was introduced to the Planning Commission at a workshop held April 24, 1989 . II. EXISTING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND CURRENT POSTING PROCEDURES Kent land use codes require the posting of public notices for rezones, conditional use permits, variances, subdivisions, shoreline permits and planned unit developments. The notice must be posted in three conspicuous places on or adjacent to the subject property at least ten days prior to the date of the public hearing. The codes do not specifically address the format or size of the notice. The current public notice format consists of an 8 1/2"x il" typed sheet of paper attached to a red, preprinted, 11"x 17" , cardboard public notice sign. The sign is plastic laminated to withstand the weather, stapled to a four-foot stake and posted by staff at appropriate locations. The format complies with minimum code requirements and is relatively easy to observe by pedestrian traffic. The signs are too small to be readily observed by occupants of passing 1 Revised Public Notice Procedures ZCA-89-2 June 19, 1989 motor vehicles. Finding a safe place to pull off the road and read the signs can be even more difficult. Vandalism is a problem in those areas with heavy pedestrian traffic, especially with children present. In addition to the on-site posting requirements, all property owners within either a 200 ' or 300' radius of an application site receive notification of a pending land use action or hearing. Public notification is also printed in the local newspaper. III . PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW Public notice boards used for land use actions like those used by the Cities of Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond require the applicant to provide and install a 4 ' X 8 ' plywood board mounted on two 4" x 4" x 8 ' posts. The boards have specific requirements as to lettering type, color and format. The cost of these signs is borne by the applicant and can run between $300 to $400 plus installation. This may be a heavy cost burden to the applicant, especially for those not used to having to pay for these notices. Some cities choose lighter, smaller signs for public notices and have City staff install them. The City of Lacey, for example, uses a 2 ' x 3 ' board with the site plan and notice attached. The boards and stakes can be reused, but Lacey staff attest that the stakes are often stolen and the notices often ruined by weather conditions within three days of installation since they are unprotected. For weather protection, Olympia uses a 4 ' x 4 ' metal (highway type) sign with "PUBLIC NOTICE" in bold type at the top. There is a plexi-glass cover on part of it to attach the notice and protect it from rain. Although the signs are very noticeable, effective and reusable, they are difficult to install due to the weight of the metal sign. The City of Kirkland offers a promising alternative, a 4 ' x 4 ' plywood board mounted on two 4" x 4" x 8 ' posts with a simple title block. Attached to the board are two vinyl covers for holding and protecting the public notice. One notice is stationary, and the other holds copies of the notice for passers-by to take. The City stores the signs and "leases" them to the applicant as needed for $50, the cost of the sign. The applicant must install the sign prior to the hearing, and the City staff staples the notice and vinyl covers to the erected sign one or two days later. This method 2 Revised Public Notice Procedures ZCA-89-2 June 19 , 1989 " saves the applicant money in ordering a new sign and merely requires a deposit plus installation. It also saves staff time normally used in installing the sign. An added benefit is that these signs can be used by other departments for public notices. A chart listing a comparison of code requirements and procedures of six local jurisdictions is included with the staff report. Three alternatives are presented for further review: Alternative A - 4 'x 8 ' Custom Notice Board Sign: 4 'x 8 ' plywood face, two 41'x 411x 8 ' posts. Format: Color and lettering consistent for all signs; prescribed content for each land use action. Cost: $200 - $500 plus installation cost. Installation: Applicant responsible for purchasing and installing sign to City specifications; submits certificate of installation to City. Advantages: Applicant purchases and installs sign at own cost; sign is very visible; consistent format for all land use actions; staff verifies installation and format only. Disadvantages: Costly to the applicant; creates hardship for smaller projects; potential traffic hazard. Alternative B - 4 'x 4 ' Custom Notice Board Sign: 4 'x 4 ' plywood face, two 4"x 4"x 8 ' posts. Format: Color and lettering consistent for all signs; prescribed content for each land use action. 3 Revised Public Notice Procedures ZCA-89-2 June 19, 1989 Cost: $100 - $200 (includes staff time) . Installation: City responsible for painting, screening and installing new sign for each action; boards and posts re- useable. Advantages: Relieves applicant of cost; sign very visible. Disadvantages: Considerable cost to the city both monetarily and staff time; requires either in-house graphic shop or retaining commercial sign company. Alternative C - 41x 4 ' Generic Notice Board Sign: 41x 4 ' plywood face, two 411x 411x 8 ' posts. Format: Color and generic heading same for all signs; laminated notice sheet and vinyl packet containing additional notice sheets stapled to board. Installation: Applicant installs generic sign, deposit required; staff posts laminated notice sheet and vinyl packet. Cost: $60 deposit by applicant with a $45 refund ($15 non-refundable fee to recover City's cost of initial sign fabrication) ; $60 per sign with bulk order. Advantages: Costs shared equitably by City and applicant; requires minimal staff time; generic sign is reusable and can be used by other departments; sign is prominent and visible to public. 4 Revised Public Notice Procedures ZCA-89-2 June 19, 1989 Disadvantages: Requires City to store signs and establish monetary deposit and refund system; additional staff time compared to present method; applicant must install sign and pay a minimal cost and deposit. IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends Alternative C as a convenient and cost-effective method for providing public notification of land use actions or hearings within the City of Kent. This alternative provides an equitable sharing of the responsibility to notify the public by both the applicant and the City. The cost of the sign is minimal to the applicant, and installation is relatively simple. Existing facilities, finance structure and staff are available within various City departments to accommodate this alternative. A preliminary graphic of Alternative C is included with the staff report. 5 ALTERNATIVE C - 41X 4 ' GENERIC NOTICE BOARD 1 CITY OF ��t1 v Cf NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR MORE INFORMATION PUBLIC COPIES OF NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE IN VINYL V 859-3390 VINYL (LANIIIATEBI ' 20 a f ALTERNATIVE A - 41X 8 ' CUSTOM NOTICE BOARD C PROPO'SED LAND USE ACTION ' (SITE IdAP !)1litttl I y Input N[nt 7 i 1 31U A(pnc IIIIIIfI l[Illt I I O e_ m Nluiq GIIJGnnuh G¢ TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ' LEAVES PLEASE CONTACT CITY OF REDMOND AT: � 8 z 11 INCHI Department of Planning and Community Development PLACARD' I F 15670 N.E. 051h Street POSTING o ;r N`.°+ Radmond,WA 98052 _ AREA I G O PHONE 802-6440 1 �A1 / i rn _ N � w.r.rcuv.LAC wtu.N .sNras j trnt J/ aNc C� w.1\rtvtlurtnta.Nc, y •[.Ca ON•wNill I.CaCaOvN / Tlir Tt Un Ot MIA \v'u4r1.N 1•IMIR Wt �� _ o 1 ` 1 ' J rt 7 0 7 rt 0 N N In � r; imp m a N rr p rt .0 0' 10 C c m y O rn rt w w r m 0 �• H K r <M a r Y w H y m ,0 N 7 m rt 7 m a m w ro a 9 0 rr a r-a a rr 3 7 0 m P. 5• r- m a n K 70 G m 0 N O rt rr a N 0 rr H In r. 7 ••• In-0 N a H S O 7roro rtrtr-0{p YJ 71-' ? m R H r O < O 0 7'r•m 7 rt W a p,m `� n H N 7 tT K r a, n cn ro Y ro n z O H w m = H m rt N 0 3 X a 0 N a a d m 7 rt ro a K N a t" 0 O' r p C C m Iy K x H r•rt O r•rr n K O R`C �,a H In a ro O O N '6 7 m 25 O a ;U Oro N rt CID 1-- -0 x In n W O O ro w N 7 G R rt r Y x 7 r- m a R 0 H rt O < I-rtw m w =1 M O rt w� N a r 0- rt I N m N X rt In 0 0 r•0 K'in r G n ' H a l 0 K. ro K Y In a O W\ ro 0 H m 10 N K orrA m < o m H m = H m 7 m r-< {n m H m w N 7 ' m N N 3 7 w Y N-O a K w = 7 7 7 0 A w,H m P. •O rt r-rt I H a w Ia to 7 a m In N O a Y O a I--'O rt` rt r, m 17 r- £ N w x r O H r m 0 0 H W.0 7 r• m N w N Y • Ip`G�0 m a H 7 p N IT, a 0 m m H 7 Y el w mrra7 a w N O m I m rt m < In Y aY M.O w� 0' a rr N N 6 c m O O m a H {n K to•O Y O H n H N Y' w w tDr M r N w w to n r W r• m N m =i m 7 R ro rt rtw H N a t° A G ro 7 M 1" O IN go III HNaro rt0ON :1 Mmart �� aro `G -� w R R H Y In a x 7 r• u-r Y 0 rK o . p . a r r• R n rr La 0 rr X m P.w I m rN 0 H Ira 7 I-- eM O a N a 0 r H r a m m 010\ m O H m n 0 Y a K rr go rn oa oma ma NC ma mN r•Hr- rt rt 1O rr KM E`0 p ,n rtr-rt rt rt m Rr•r 0- m 0•rt m m r'1" G r-•0 rt 0 I H a w�0 1- O O a 0 m r' O m 0 m 0 0 r-0 � r• r 0 H m rr r' 7 7 In w 7 H 0 r a � H 7 a 0 m N N a N rt rr Iv m I 7 O• m rr MN m ::1d m O Y rt H ro C H.+ a ii a m o p N m W H m f] 0 H In S' Urnr < 0. Kro m £ rn In 5ro N nr N m 0 rt"0 w H a m r•O 0 = m m r- O O rt 7 r•a r- m o H N w •0 n O In 0 H rr A m 7 0 d ro N '< O H < +4 N r m 3 rt In w < R O d m H p' y Y r•- rt�0 0 R X m r•X rt N 7 0 ro r-m m p rr X r 3 n Y-rr M O rt 0 d,r.w r-w m K a H. rr m N m O N K Y r r r•3`< K N N N 0.�0\ rn R H m H a a m a 7 0 p'a r m < m w a�0 N m a In 7 m N Y• r• O r rt ro In n ro 0 0 Y IT Z a m n �' ro 0 rt r-R R m a 7 r• r•r c r• m m m H tr = o 0 0 7 y Cl Y rt r H c r-n H a H N R a o a m H N N v 7 `< < 7 I,..G `J 1,. r-0 7 r- m m r N < N N 3 r- O ` m m'a In £ - m rt K 5 O m 0 H 0 - 7 N m a N O m =1IgIn O tr 7 m 7 n 0 rr rr a It In H 1-' O X K+K m 3 M 00 H and I rr rt a n` rr.a 7 xm K YIV K K rt < O O RKN m ar K a rr n N K P. 0 n a w q n m m rt N a ro n l< go n H 7 7 - % 7 IT rr O IV P) :zrt ' wo � roor�r oo ma � < aw c u- `G w r•'< r 0 rt m O rt 0 m L H tr a W N a(n N Z N m In I-,X D a m N H 1- 7uI KCY mx N r mw Hl rt` m NYW OGnr' 0 N H N ro rt r H H•`< I-m a`G rt r•a a w N rt rt K r-r£ H m 07m Nww HN 5tYaK�'•m ro r - rr m 0 K w m O o a wl�Q w r- tr In P. m`G G K 7 VI m x m r• O N w m ro O R w N r- - H Inam rt H 7ro O N !CN OroIyi a r r-rt rt m £ P.K• ro H i0 H rt ro Y rt r0 m n 1.. G O H rt 1.. 0) w rD N = £ N rt w Ip rt R V+ N rnr rr rr m H O N wHma7 N Imn3tn H Orowra rt � R' r- m FO' a.m ` m N S rt m 7 1 rt N LQ n 7 rt£ tYEft A cv q < •O rt r m N rt 00 0 Y I'.H - - m O 1-1 rt 10 G 00 IN+•o r m £ r•m 0 0 r-cr w m rt w rt P. .0 `< rt rt W G m w 0 In 4 r7 7 p• a O rn 1-,0 :r a s a O In r-G O ? H rn ro n O N W. O 0 5 £ m H N• N w rt W.Ill w.< R O m m 0 w ct - R m rt K rmma 1 7 NH rt Hy Gr K Orono oaIn Yrtw 0r0 a rt IQ r. N N N H rO m 7 rN O • N 7 m rr w w' O H ro G w rr rr IInn O a N ts K 3 0 1 m w ctm H r Rn a rro £ 1 Ir rt0 ft 0m 0.H m K m a o ` N O r rt O Y m K` a goo �� ArA nft> (n n K< ,N wa?r' wro {n0M O70CG r. 7In 0Oro.Oro7 < r mooin roamm Kolnwrt aK7 oam c0 - roP,'< roa K or•r•rtGGr mm mrHo ro Gw rtNo7w v. 1 m Rn0 r T a rt ?v P.w r H m m H a m rt rr K o £ P.x m IQ x R x 17'tmrn7o �< � � m w r-w HNmr-K Hk �• In m PIoRr-Ar•P roi° w << o NN Kr•x7i4 O Yw 7`< r (D K• m7 0'`0 mKiON Y•0 In rtOro7N NW NO =r - m N mNwO0H70 rnrt 0 art` 10 NrtNrtO rtS 7 RRxpN CA P. rY n r•7 m 0 m W 0 H.N {n m my rt rt r'P.w H m 0 ro O r r• R N 7 7 H W 7 ro O K x r H sy 0 rr R m £ N O K n G w rt m n r•` N C � O r m r N rt H H ro r _r•m 0.m m N px+ r•m rt K r-H 0 F,. £ N ` H m ri` a Q Y•rt n m G y m £ r,0 O O H �'O 0 H 0 ro � m ~•' 7 •. rt r 5 m 7 7 0 0 r< m O w N m N 7 N m m m R'x w x N a 0 0•b'.R r•ro O i0 m rr N.N rt H N 0' N O w rt'0 N S 0 y rt £ r•F K m in O H `< N r•r• N J w K O' Y m rt rt`< N O �7 m O d H M r- En I Y� rw{ ?r• K0 w i4 I a- rt m m 7 H R CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 71 1989 Councilman Mann will need to present feedback to the Roundtable on Kent's response to the content of the action agenda, the five problem areas and the recommended solutions. In addition, he will need feedback on whether Kent wishes to continue as a member of the Roundtable, whether the Roundtable should continue and in what form. If it is decided to go ahead with the action agenda, the Roundtable either can use staff from participating jurisdictions or can continue with the project management staff who will look at financing options and start work in the five problem areas. The Roundtable needs to know not only if it should continue, but at what level it can be supported. Lin Ball stated that the proposed level of continued participation by Kent is approximately $13, 800. This is based on Kent's percentage of participation last year times the costs identified for the project. Judy Clegg indicated project staff is continuing to refine the cost estimates. For example, the Local Initiative Support Corporation, an offshoot of the Ford Foundation, provides technical assistance to people looking at community development, at developing affordable housing. They are interested in working with the Roundtable and private developers at their cost to put together a strategy to address an equitable solution to siting affordable housing. This would save the project an estimated $45, 000. Chairwoman Woods appreciates the clear identification of five problem areas and the overall productivity of the Roundtable group. Lin Ball stated the Human Services Commission is planning a special meeting to address this issue and will bring forward a recommendation to the Planning Committee at the meeting of March 21. The Roundtable issue will be on the Council agenda that same evening. SPECIAL POPULATIONS KITCHEN REHAB. - BLOCK GRANT PROJECT Councilman Dowell MOVED and Councilman Johnson SECONDED the motion to approve the reallocation of Block Grant funds to rehabilitate the Resource Center kitchen. Motion carried. Cheryl Fraser stated that the kitchen rehabilitation will allow classes for the physically disabled as well as for the low-income citizens in the neighborhood. This item will be placed on the City Council agenda of March 21 under Other Business. Public notice will be given. ADDED ITEM Councilman Johnson MOVED and Councilman Dowell SECONDED the motion to present to the Planning Commission a code amendment related to public notice boards. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 5: 25 PM. 5 KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE January 3 , 1989 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Jon Johnson John Marchione - Finance Fred Satterstrom Assistant City Administrator Dan Stroh Jim Hansen Others Present Leona Orr Linda Van Nest REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS Fred Satterstrom noted that in August 1987 the process for considering requests for regulatory review was -changed to forward all such requests directly to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission denies a request, an appeal can be made to the Planning Committee. Although the Planning Department has not discouraged requests for regulatory review, the process has been less time-consuming than was the case previously. Staff believes the process is healthy, the requests have merit, and the Council has made changes to the regulations because of such requests. Chairwoman Woods and Councilman Johnson desire to continue with present procedures and requested another review of same in January of 1990. PUBLIC NOTICE BOARDS Fred Satterstrom reported that the City of Lacey makes 3 x 3 public notice signs in-house for posting on a stake. The signs take a staff planner 4 hours to make and 1 hour to post. Thurston County has a metal sign board with plexiglass cover under which is placed a brightly-painted sign with a generic heading in large print indicating "public notice. " The sign is very heavy and posting would need to be done by someone of reasonable strength, perhaps coordinated through the City Shops. Within the City of Kent there would need to be approximately 6 sign boards at any given time. Councilman Johnson suggested there could be standard signs for city use and the city could require developers to do their own sign for everything that requires a public hearing. Staff suggests a sign board that is not metal but that is rigid and resistant to vandalism. Councilwoman Woods requested that staff prepare suggestions including cost estimates for the January 19th committee meeting. FLICK FOLLOW-UP Fred Satterstrom related the Law Department's arguments against extending the waiting period for repeat applications for rezone: 1) Inflexibility (Not only the citizens/developers would be required to wait but City requests would also fall within the waiting period requirements, 2) An extended CITY Of M12HT 0 AGENDA PLANNING COMMITTEE Scheduled Meeting for January 3 , 1989 4 : 00 PM 2nd Floor Conference Room This is to inform you that the City Council Planning Committee will meet in the Second Floor Conference Room of Kent City Hall at 4 : 00 PM on Tuesday, January 3 , 1989 . Committee Members Judy Woods, Chair Steve Dowell Jon Johnson Agenda 1. Regulatory Review Process (Harris) 2 . Public Notice Boards - Continued (Satterstrom) 3 . Flick Follow-up (C. Lake) 4 . Ponnsen Mansion (Satterstrom) 5. Soos Creek Community Plan - For Information Only (Stroh) KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 27, 1988 TO: Judy Wo ds, Chair; Planning Committee FROM: Fred . Satterstrom, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Publi Notice Boards At the November 1, 1988 Planning Committee meeting, the Planning Department presented information on the public notice board requirements of Redmond, Bellevue, and Seattle. This information is attached. After some discussion about factors of cost and amount of labor and time involved, the Committee directed staff to conduct additional research. The Planning Department contacted two other jurisdictions which have public notice board requirements: Lacey and Olympia. The City of Lacey requires notice boards to be posted on all sites which are the subject of a land use permit application (requiring a public hearing) . The board is a simplified version of those required by Redmond, Bellevue, and Seattle. It is smaller, being only about 3 ' x 3 ' and is placed in the ground by a single 2" x 2" stake. When installed, it stands approximately five or six feet in height. The City designs, fabricates, and installs the sign. Each public notice board is individually prepared by the Planning Department. Lacey planners described the process as somewhat labor-intensive. The City of Olympia also posts public notice boards on sites of proposed land use actions. Unlike Lacey, Olympia's notice board is generic, carrying a banner titled "Public Hearing Notice" across the top of the sign. The sign board has a transparent plexiglass shield which can be raised and the typed notice inserted, protecting it from the weather. The sign is made of metal and may be used over and over. It is brightly painted like a highway sign to make it noticeable. The City Planning Department is responsible for erecting the sign on the site of the application. Olympia planners indicate that the sign is effective in terms of notifying the community, but the metal construction makes it heavy and cumbersome to handle. The requirements and experiences of Lacey, Olympia, and the three cities studied earlier are all valuable in trying to understand what Kent should do. The City Council should establish what the objectives are in trying to inform the public of land use actions, and then direct staff to develop the necessary procedures to accomplish this. Page 1 Comparison of Code Requirements Public Notice Boards Requirement City of Bellevue City of Seattle City of Redmond Required for: Rezones SEPA actions Rezones CUP and all land use CUP PUD applicationss Plats ADR subject to SEPA Short plats Plats Annexations Short plats Special dev. Comp plan amend permits Sign specs 4 ' x 8 ' size 4 ' x 8 ' size 4 ' x 8 ' size Lettering, color Lettering, color Lettering and and format are and format are format are specified specified specified _., Number and 1 sign/street 1 sign/street 1 sign/street Placement frontage - set frontage - set frontage - set back 10' back 10' or back 5' attached to bldg at street line Installation Applicant in- Applicant in- Applicant in- stalls sign. stalls sign. stalls sign. Installation Installation Installation cert, required cert. required cert. required Cost ? $300 ? (Guesstimate of C PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION Ir e—S-i-TE MAP Alrliu[t i hqud Ntnt I 1 lilt Albeit: , frtl+ttl Atlltt I p m Xnrinl tlddCtlennb Ott TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LEAVE PLEASE CONTACT CITY OF REDMOND AT: M1 LEA INCH ,.�°� ••o Department of Planning and Community Development 15670 N.E. 651hStreet Redmond,WA 98052 p p PHONE 882-6440 1 M 7 b c f L u..r•o a+r ros+s w•�-cr GLLv.lnG lO(13•rrwayN[IIS � j �ti �l•Ca D•+�w+•It[••CaGWVNe TA[ Till lt+l+'3 �� / o+N[w +r•c.n••r 1•(t)✓•'FII c.s[ y�yyy/� KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 27, 1988 TO: Judy Woods, Chair; Council Planning Committee FROM: Fre . Satterstrom, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Pon enn Mansion The owners of the historical Ponnsenn Mansion have expressed an interest in donating the home for public purposes. The mansion is located at S. 259th Street/S. Central Avenue. It is a three-story, turn-of-the-century dwelling originally built for a wealthy railroad executive. The zoning of the Ponnsenn site is CM-Commercial Manufacturing, which allows commercial retail use. The owners would like to develop their site and have the mansion relocated. Therefore, the cost of the Ponnsenn home would be the cost of moving. Linda VanNest, President of the Neeley Mansion Association, has approached the City about the prospect of moving the mansion to a City-owned site. Ms. VanNest will attend the January 3rd meeting of the. Planning Committee and will help answer questions and provide more information. The first issue the Committee should address is its interest in preserving this historical home. Based on that interest level, the staff could be directed to research the costs associated with moving such a dwelling and the availability of appropriate City- owned sites. When this information has been assembled, the staff could come back to the Committee (and the full Council) for final action. KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE November 1, 1988 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Lauri Anderson Jon Johnson Jim Hansen Jim Harris Carolyn Lake Alana McIalwain Fred Satterstrom Dan Stroh MOSS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT Dan Stroh identified the Moss and Elkins properties and presented staff' s proposal to expand the study area to include not only the Moss and Elkins properties but also the area south of the Green River. There is before the County Hearing Examiner at the present time a proposal to rezone the Bigford property south of the river to light manufacturing. This area is part of the City of Kent ' s 1982 Agricultural Lands study, the area was designated Agricultural in our Comprehensive Plan, and the area is in our potential annexation area. Staff is following closely the Bigford rezone and the City has the option to appeal an unfavorable decision by the Hearing Examiner. Also pending before the County Council is a proposal to zone the area as A- 10, a new class of agricultural production lands with 10-acre minimum lot size. In other words, not only is the Bigford rezone request not consistent with the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan land use designation, but there is internally within the county differences in perception of land use in the area in question. Discussion occurred on annexing the area and the effect of annexation on the proposals presently before the county. Councilman Dowell asked if there were ways the City could protect land within our potential annexation area from improper zoning. Dan Stroh responded the City has the option to appeal the Hearing Examiner' s decision to the County Council. Lauri Anderson described the land uses in the area. PUBLIC NOTICE BOARDS In response to Councilman Johnson' s request at a previous meeting, Fred Satterstrom distributed a comparison of Seattle's, Bellevue' s and Redmond' s requirements for public notice boards, and the size of the board. The requirements are similar with the essential difference that the City of Seattle requires signs to be put on site for any action requiring SEPA determination whereas the other two cities require signs for such things as rezones, conditional use permits, plats, PUD' s, etc. In Kent, signs for all SEPA actions would number in the hundreds whereas signs for other major activities would number approximately 24 . Mr. Satterstrom mentioned that Senior Planner Kathy McClung recently informed him the City of Lacey Planning CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1988 Department constructs 3x5 signs in-house as a cost-cutting measure. He added that the public notice boards seem to be effective in Seattle, Bellevue and Redmond; no longer do citizens complain about not being notified of pending actions. There were no opponents when Redmond recently adopted their requirements for public notice boards. Jim Hansen stated citizens would be interested in the cost factor of the posting. Mr. Satterstrom estimated the cost to be $300, plus installation. Jim Harris stated that at the November 15th Planning Committee meeting, staff will bring forward a proposal on the types of project which would require a public notice board, the cost, the size, and the method used by City of Lacey. ANNEXATIONS This item was deferred to the meeting of November 15, 1988 . ADDED ITEMS A brief discussion occurred on the Mayor's letter to Mr. Flick. For the November 15th meeting, Chairwoman Woods suggested staff draft a response to Mr. Flick outlining the process for rezones and inviting Mr. Flick to participate in the housing study which is underway. In response to -." Councilman Johnson, Jim Harris stated that the Planning Department' s staff reports are based on review of the relevant comprehensive plan and staff suggests review of the plan if it appears to be out of sync with land use. Mr. Harris was of the impression that the applicant' s representative was going to research the issue of the rezone and get back to Mr. Harris and City Attorney Driscoll. Chairwoman Woods asked how staff responds to the letters from the School District on effects of proposed developments. She suggested the City meet with the School District to let them know that if they can get a proposal through the State Legislature to allow cities to collect money for schools from developers, the City would be receptive to that idea. Mr. Harris confirmed for Chairwoman Woods that the City of Kent does not have adult mobile home parks in the City. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 5: 10 PM. The next meeting will be held November 15, 1988 at 4 : 00 PM in the Second Floor Conference Room. 2 66 RENT PARRS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 18, 1989 TO: Mayor, City Administrator, City Council FROM: Barney Wilson PREPARED BY: Helen Wickstrom SUBJECT: KIWANIS TOT LOT #2 BIDS ------------------------------------------------------------- Bids were opened on Thursday, July 13 for the Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 Rehabilitation project. One bid was received from: Golf Landscaping Base Bid: $27,823 . 00 Auburn, WA Tax: 2 ,253 . 00 $30, 076. 00 The Department recommends rejection of the bid, as it exceeds the $23, 975 block grant monies available for construction. We will be working with the architect to reduce the scope of work to fit within the budget. The City Attorney' s office has advised that we solicit a contractor rather than rebid the project. cc moves cc seconds that the bid of $27,823 from Golf Landscaping for the Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 Rehabilitation project be rejected, as it is over budget. Kent City Council Meeting �~ Date July 18 , 1989 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: KIWANIS TOT LOT #2 PROJECT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Parks Department advertised for bids for renovation of Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 (2nd and Cloudy) , which consists of site preparation, furnisY}�j,r�g�aend installing play equipment and sand surfacing. Bids - opened on Monday, July 17, 1989 . - at- tires Jule 38 eity Count-il--meet-trig-: 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tabulation and recommendation provided at City Council meeting. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Department Staff; Project Architect Colie Hough-Beck. (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the low bid of be accepted in the amount of $ for the Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 project. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5A R E P O R T /S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE L C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE f F. PARKS COMMITTEE i G. ADMINIJRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JULY 11, 1989 PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTY NIZLEK STEVE DOWELL JERRY MCCAUGHAN GARY GILL DAVID HADAWAY JIM HANSEN GREG WINGARD DON WICKSTROM LYLE PRICE SANDRA DRISCOLL CANYON PARK PLAZA (TARGET STORE) ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY Wickstrom explained that one of the SEPA mitigation conditions of the project is to construct the 256th Street bypass. *As such,. right of way acquisition may be required. This same project is also included in the City' s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program; thus it will benefit the city's transportation system as well as the development. The developer is asking whether the City would be willing to pursue condemnation for the right of way should they be unable to acquire same. Dowell asked who would pay the costs of condemnation. Wickstrom clarified that while there may be some City funds involved, the developer would be primarily responsible therefor. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the request. It was clarified this would not go before full council unless it is necessary to pursue condemnation after the developer has demonstrated every effort to obtain the right of way. JAMES STREET SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS Wickstrom stated the funds for this signal modification could be taken from the overlay budget of the 1989 Street Operating fund. Due to the good bids we received on the overlays there is some surplus in that fund. Wickstrom explained the modification would entail putting the signal at 94th and James in a rest-on-red mode east and west during the off-peak hours. This is being done in response to Ms. MacNamara ' s concerns about speeders. During the peak hours, the signal would remain on green in the east-west direction. It was clarified this expenditure would not be wasted as this type of work will be required when the signal is interconnected to the Master Signal Control computer. The Committee unanimously; recommended approval of transfer of the $8, 000 from the 1989 Street Operation fund (asphalt overlay budget) for this project. L.I.D. 330 - 64TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS Wickstrom explained the City has acquired all the necessary rights of way except for that on the parcel owned by the LDS Church. He requested authorization to proceed with condemnation in order to Public Works Committee July 11, 1989 Page 2 be able to proceed with the project. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the request. FRAGER AND 212TH Nizlek stated the signing has been modified as discussed at previous Committee meetings. He would like to also install an "Arterial Turn" -sign in the vicinity of 200th and Frager to attempt to reduce the volume of traffic going south on Frager. The location is actually in Tukwila and they have given approval as long as Kent owns and maintains the sign. Nizlek requested concurrence from the Committee to place this sign. The Committee unanimously recommended approval . WESTERN PROCESSING Greg Wingard inquired as to the status of the response to the issues he raised at the Operations Committee a couple of months ago. Driscoll stated that response to those issues was going to be brought back before the Operations Committee at their second meeting in August. There was discussion about Midway Landfill. Driscoll stated she would see that the Council members were placed on the mailing list for the newsletter which is published by Seattle. Dowell asked if the consultants make reports. Driscoll stated the consultants work with staff and they will be doing quarterly reports on Western Processing. Dowell requested the consultants be present at the Operation Committee meeting to give summary reports on these two sites. Wingard suggested that the Chem Central facility and the data on the groundwater pollution of the site be reviewed as to whether it affects the Western Processing site. PUBLIC WORKS STAFFING/BUDGET There was discussion concerning the use of consultants on City projects to relieve the work load on existing staff. Wickstrom indicated the use of consultants still requires staff time to manage their work. He responded he felt we could meet the proposed • time schedule for the upcoming projects. Hansen reiterated that- he and Ed Chow had met with Wickstrom this morning and were comfortable with Wickstrom' s management plan for projects.