Dear Kenmore City Council Members,
I’m writing to respectfully ask that the Kenmore City Council (City) revise its plan to purchase the property
located at 7023 NE 175th Street, Kenmore, Washington 98028 (Property 1), that is subject to Ordinance
No. 20-0509 (Authorizing the Acquisition of Real Property Under Threat of Condemnation or by
Condemnation for Kenmore Public Works Operations). I am a Washington-licensed professional geologist
and have worked as an environmental consultant in the Seattle area for 30 years. I have read the
memorandum from the City dated February 5, 2020, and have some concerns regarding the scoring of
the properties considered for selection (Property 1, Property 2, and Properties 3a through 3c). I am only
going to compare the two top scored properties (Property 1 with a score of "80" and Property 2 with the
score of "77"), keeping in mind that the scoring on the City's Site Selection Worksheet was used by the
City to compare the properties objectively and fairly. I would like to bring to the attention of the City
the following:
Item 6 (Existing Building Reuse - 1 to 6 Points).
The criteria is to have "at least 13,700 sq ft". Property 1 was scored with "6" (existing building of 20,025
sq ft) and Property 2 was scored with "1" (existing building of 13,305 sq ft). Property 2 was scored the
same as Property 3c which has no existing building. There seems to be a discrepancy in the scoring
based on the implied scale of "1" (no building) and "6" (building greater than needed). There is an
existing building on Property 2 that can be used which is only slightly smaller than the criteria of 13,700
sq ft. A difference of 395 sq ft does not equal "no building"; the building on Property 2 can be used if
slightly modified. In making a more fair and accurate comparison of the properties, it is my opinion that a
more representative score for Property 2 is "2". It should not be scored the same as "no building".
Item 7 (Ownership - 1 to 4 Points).
Properties 2, and 3a-3c were each scored "4" due to the existence of a single owner/business (B Plywood
Supply) ("A higher number of owners/or businesses reduces the score"), but Property 1 was scored
"2". Property 1 currently has 8 tenants (7 businesses and one non-profit) associated with it and therefore,
would result in the displacement of 8 small businesses versus one. I would also call attention to the fact
the the owner of Property 2 also owns and operates Properties 3a -3c as part of the same
business (Plywood Supply). The owner of Property 2 can easily move, reorganize and accommodate
the operations on Property 2 onto the 3 adjacent parcels which are already a part of the same
business. The owner of Property 2 would not lose the business. There is far less impact to the
Property 2 business than those on Property 1. The acquisition of Property 1 would result in the
displacement of 8 separate tenants which could potentially result in the complete closure of 7 businesses
and one non-profit. I would argue that Property 1 should have been scored a "1" to reflect the
significantly greater impact to the businesses and tenants on that property compared to Property 2, which
would have little to no impact.
Item 8 (Time Frame - 1 to 4 Points).
Properties 2 and 3a-3c were scored "0" and Property 1 was scored "2". A score of "0" is not even a
choice as the scoring on the worksheet clearly states "1 to 4 Points"; therefore, Properties 2 and 3a-3c
should have their score corrected to "1". The seller of Property 1 is unwilling to sell in which case the
lowest score of "1" should have been assigned. In this case, it appears that all owners of the properties
are unwilling to sell and to be accurate, they should all be scored the same. All should be "1", or if the
scores for Properties 2 and 3a-3c are going to be scored "0", then in fairness, Property 1 should also be
scored "0".
Item 10 (Neighboring Properties - 1 to 4 Points).
Property 2 was scored "1" and Property 1 was scored "3". I am assuming the the higher the score the
lower the impact of neighboring properties because the City is going to select the property with the
highest score, meaning lowest impact. In this case, the scoring makes no sense and I am wondering if
this was an inadvertent error. Property 2 is surrounded by commercial properties. Property 1 is bound on
the east side by a residential area, which is considered a sensitive receptor. Property 1 also has more
wetlands on the south portion of the property. Property 1 clearly has more environmentally sensitive
receptors than Property 2, the biggest being the residences on the immediate east. Being an
environmental consultant, I know the risks involved with operating a vehicle maintenance facility as I have
assessed and cleaned-up many of those properties. Based on the information attached to the City
memorandum, the proposed Public Works Shop (PWS) will be storing and handling hazardous materials
and chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers) and petroleum products and solvents are often associated with
vehicle maintenance operations. These are considered a risk to human health and the environment and
to have such a facility immediately next to residential neighborhood has the potential to have a
significant environmental impact that should not be ignored. Based on the locations of both Properties
1 and 2, the proposed PWS on Property 1 has the highest environmental impact compared to the other
properties and therefore Property 1 should have a lowest score. I am not sure how Property 1 was
scored higher than Property 2. Property 1 should have been scored "1" and Property 2 should have been
scored "3".
Based on these observations alone, recalculating the scores would place Property 1 at "76" and Property
2 at "81"making Property 2 the top selection based on the City's own criteria. The scoring seems
arbitrary, but it should be fair when comparing the properties. I would ask the City to consider my
observations and re-visit the scoring worksheets. I believe the scoring does not fairly represent Property
1 when comparing with Property 2. I would also argue that if given an option, it is my opinion that the
residents that would be directly impacted by a PWS being located right next door to their homes would
choose to have the City select Property 2 instead of Property 1.
In Washington state, the condemning authority (in this case, the City) must prove the following about the
property:
1. The use is public;
2. The public interest requires it; and
3. The property appropriated is necessary for that purpose.
Reviewing Title 8 of the RCW (Eminent Domain), specifically RCW 8.12.030, I question whether any of
the properties meet these requirements; however, if these properties are the properties being considered,
condemning Property 1 would have the most adverse impact to the current tenant/business
owners, the neighboring residents, and to the environment. If scored fairly it would not even be the
highest scoring property, as I have demonstrated above.
Property 1 is owned by Chinese immigrants who have played an important part in the Kenmore
community for over 40 years. The owner supports the community by supporting local small business and
non-profits. The acquisition of Property 1 would result in the displacement and potential closure of 7
small business and one non-profit currently utilizing the property. Acquiring Property 2 would not affect
the business on that property. I understand the need for a PWS and a suitable property; however, I
would ask the City to reconsider the selection of Property 1. Based on the City's own scoring criteria, and
the potential impact to residences and the environment, of all the properties being considered for
selection for the PWS, Property 2 is clearly the best and most-responsible selection for all parties
involved.
I acknowledge the difficulty in this process, but I respectfully request that you vote NO for Ordinance No.
20-0509 Authorizing the Acquisition of Real Property Under Threat of Condemnation or by Condemnation
for Kenmore Public Works Operations.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Kim Vik
