HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/03/1991 777
City of Kent
City Counci Meeti n
g
Agenda
CITY OF
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Steve Dowell Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Jim White
September 3, 1991
Office of the city cierk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 3 , 1991
n3S�vII(C"S�
Summary Agenda
MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Steve Dowell Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White
City of Kent Council Chambers
Office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m.
NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of
this page.
V ALL TO ORDER
ALL
CALL
✓1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
✓A. Employee of the Month
�/2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Foster Industrial Park
✓3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
✓A. Minutes
✓B. Bills
✓C. Multi-Family Design Review
✓D. Kent 57 Appeal
✓E. 1992 Budget
✓F. 1991 Washington State Energy Code
✓G. 1991 Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality
Code - ( ^krrame -a
`,/H. Unfair Housing Practices - O_r4Vi a:aRVA8
✓I. Street Occupation - ovdlnanco `
✓J. Water Line Crossing - S. 222nd - f�+'f�°9r1"ce 1
-'I�. Bill of Sale - Northwest Business Park
V'L. Bill of Sale - Van Doren's Landing
,/M. 1992 Community Development Block Grant Program
N. Business License Revocation - U.S. Engine, Inc.
L t
0. Parkside Wetlands Purchase and Sales Agreement
re '/4 . OTHER BUSINESS
✓ LID 336 Bond owdfnance and Purchase Contract `�\}
Extension of Utility Services - Rea+elutien
✓C. East Hill Annexation
✓b. 196th Corridor
,/E. Wheelchair Basketball Challenge
f5. BIDS
✓A. Underground Storage Tank Removal and Above Ground Storage
Tank Installation
VB. Canyon Drive Left Turn Lanes and Guardrail Rehabilitation
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
✓7 . REPORTS
8 . ADJOURNMENT
Subject: AGENDA ITEMS NOT HAVING OPERATION COMMITTEE REVIEW
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY_6
KENT70/FN Dated: 08/29/91 at 0843 .
TC COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS AND COUNCILMEMBERS
AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE 196TH CORRIDOR TRANSFER AND THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANK WERE SCHEDULED FOR THE AUGUST 27TH OPERATION COMMITTEE MEETING WHICH
WAS CANCELLED DUE TO COUNCILMEMBER CONFLICTS . IN ADDITION, AS AN INFORMATION
ONLY ITEM, I HAD HOPED TO ADD LID 336 BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT, BUT SINCE I
WAS ON VACATION THE WEEK BEFORE, THE ITEM WASN'T ADDED TO THE OPERATION
COMMITTEE AGENDA.
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AS PART OF THE AGENDA PACKET SHOULD BE SELF EXPLANATORY
FOR THESE ROUTINE ITEMS.
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) Employee of the Month
r-�
^�
Kent City Council Meeting
nj��'
I U �� Y Date September 3 , 1991
�%^1fI�, Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 18 NO. SMP-91-91
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation of approval on a request to
amend the Kent Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Environment
from an existing conservancy environment to an urban environment.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, staff report, application and Planning
Commission minutes of July 22 , 1991
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(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,,14EARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE: HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmem moves, Councilmember R/ seconds
to accept/ber��4 the Planning Commission's recommendation
of approval on a request to amend the Kent Shoreline Master
Program Shoreline Environment from an existing conservancy
environment to an urban environment and direct the City Attorney
to prepare the resolution of intention to adopt the amendment as
required by the State Department of Ecology.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2AJ(
CITY OF �2�r!�2� Z
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
V7=rk MEMORANDUM
September 3 , 1991
TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND A SHORELINE
ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE KENT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM FOR
FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 18 , #SMP-91-1.
/On July 22 , 1991 the Planning Commission approved an amendment to
j the Kent Shoreline Master Program that would change an existing
Conservancy shoreline environment adjacent to the Green River to an
Urban environment. The Planning Commission is now recommending the
amendment to the Council for their action as provided for in
Appendix D, Section 4 of the Shoreline Master Program.
The subject property is lot 18 of the Foster Industrial Park which
abuts the Valley Freeway (SR 167) to the west, 74th Avenue S.to the
east and S. 259th Street (if extended) to the south. The southern
portion of the property is located within 200 feet of the Green
River. The shoreline area at this location of the Green River is
designated as a Conservancy environment. Commercial or industrial
activities are not permitted uses within this environment.
The owner of the subject property would like to utilize a portion
of the property located within the shoreline area to construct an
accessory parking lot for a warehouse/distribution facility. A
redesignation of the shoreline environment to Urban is necessary to
allow the proposed construction. The owner intends to provide
public parking and enhanced landscaping in order to meet local and
state requirements for redesignation of a shoreline environment.
On September 3 the council will consider the Planning Commission' s
recommendation and if you concur we are asking that your
concurrence be in the form of a RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT the
amendment. As required by state law, the Department of Ecology
must then approve the proposed amendment prior to final approval by
the Council as an ordinance.
Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Commission's meeting
minutes, the staff report and owners application for the proposal.
JPH/mp:a: smp9llcc.mmo
CITY OF
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
(206) 859-3390
pfiT®IIcC1SS'
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 22 , 1991
FILE NO: FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 18 #SMP-91-1
APPLICANT: FIRST AMERICAN, INC.
REQUEST: A request to amend the Kent Shoreline
Master Program shoreline environment from
an existing Conservancy designation to an
Urban designation.
PLANNER: CAROL PROUD
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
I , GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal consists of changing an approximately
. 38 acre shoreline area that is currently
designated as a Conservancy environment to an Urban
environment. The applicant intends to provide
accessory parking for a warehouse/distribution
facility within 100 feet of the Ordinary High Water
Mark of the Green River. The request for an
amendment of the shoreline designation is necessary
because the intended parking area is not a
permitted use in the Conservancy shoreline
environment. Only recreational uses or
developments are permitted in a Conservancy
shoreline environment.
B. Location
The affected property is lot 18 of the Foster
Industrial Park Subdivision which abuts SR 167 to
the west, 74th Avenue S. to the east and unimproved
S. 259th Street to the south. The subject
shoreline area is located entirely within lot 18 .
The western boundary abuts SR 167 , the southern
1
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
boundary abuts the northern edge of S. 259th Street
public right-of-way. The northern boundary extends
approximately 290 linear feet across the southern
portion of lot 18 .
C. Zoning Comprehensive Plan Mao and Shoreline
Designation
The subject property is currently zoned M2 , Limited
Industrial and is within a Conservancy shoreline
designation. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map
designates the site, including the shoreline area,
as I , Industrial . The shoreline area located
between the Green River and unimproved S. 259th
Street is designated as Open Space/Public Trail.
D. Land and Shoreline Use
Warehouse/distribution facilities located to the
east and north along 74th Avenue S . are the
predominate land uses in the vicinity. A recently
constructed City park that also serves as a storm
water detention facility for development in the
Foster Industrial Park abuts the subject shoreline
area to the east. The proposed Green River Trail
will be constructed along the river bank south of
the site and continue west under SR 167 .
Unimproved S. 259th Street is currently rutted with
a gravel and dirt surface and is used as an
informal parking lot for park and river activities.
E. Site and Area History
Originally all shoreline areas adjacent to the
Green River within the City of Kent were designated
as an Urban environment . Several Conservancy
environments including the subject site were
established through a Shoreline Master Program
amendment in 1978 . The Foster Industrial Park
Subdivision (#SU-79-6) received preliminary plat
approval from the City Council on April 7 , 1980 and
final plat approval on November 4 , 1985 . As a
condition of plat approval the applicant was
required to dedicate approximately 2 . 9 acres
adjacent to the Green River to the City for a
future park site. Since the applicant intended to
2
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
use the park as a storm detention facility,
shoreline substantial development approval was
necessary. The Hearing Examiner approved the
substantial development permit (#SMA-85-3)
August 21, 1985 subject to the applicant
landscaping the site and in effect constructing the
park.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
An environmental review 'of the proposed development
on lot 18 which included a review of any shoreline
considerations has been conducted pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . Potential
impacts that were identified included storm
drainage; transportation system and need for
sidewalks.
A Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) with three
mitigating conditions was issued on March 28, 1991
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The subject shoreline area is level ground
with no hydrological considerations
identified.
2 . Vegetation
The site is intermittently covered with
grasses. A large cottonwood tree is located
in the S. 259th right-of-way adjacent to the
subject property.
III . APPLICABLE LAWS PLANS AND POLICIES
The following laws, plans and policies apply to this
proposal.
3
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
A. Shoreline Management Act (Ch. 90. 58) . and related
state regulations
The State Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90. 58
RCW, and the implementing regulations adopted by
the Department of Ecology, contain state standards
and policies applicable to all uses within the
shoreline. Section 173-16-040 of the Washington
Administrative Code sets out the review criteria
for developing shoreline master programs. Any
amendment to a master program must also be
consistent with these criteria. (Please see
Appendix A of this report for the full text of
173-16 . 040) . Subsection (4) b. establishes the four
shoreline environments and provides a basis for
environment designation within the local
jurisdiction. Section 173-19-060 addresses the
amendment of master programs and provides that
master programs shall be periodically reviewed by
the local government and the Department of Ecology.
These criteria must be satisfied, in addition to
the criteria contained in the Kent Shoreline Master
Program.
B. Kent Shoreline Master Program
A resolution to adopt proposed text amendments to
the Kent Shoreline Master Program has recently been
approved by the City Council and is now at the time
of this report pending further action by the
Department of Ecology. It is anticipated that
approval of the amendments from the DOE will be
forwarded to the City by September, 1991. Final
City Council approval of the revised program is
tentatively scheduled for October, 1991.
1. Use Regulations
The Kent Shoreline Master Program use
regulations currently require in an Urban
environment that all commercial and industrial
uses including associated parking or
impervious surfaces observe a 200 foot setback
from the Green River. Any development within
4
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
the shoreline area would require a variance
from these standards .
The Conservancy environment only permits
recreational uses within the shoreline area.
variance relief is available from development
standards but not for the specific use itself.
2 . Shoreline of State-wide Significance
The Shoreline Management Act has designated
the shorelines of the Green River to be of
state-wide significance. These shorelines are
deemed to be of importance to the entire state
and because these shorelines are major
resources from which all people in the state
derive benefit, the shoreline master program
gives preference to uses which favor public
and long-range goals . Any amendment to a
shoreline environment are subject to the
criteria established in Appendix C (pursuant
to RCW 90 . 58 . 020 and WAC 173-16-040 (5) ) of the
Kent Shoreline Master Program (Please see
appendix B of this report for complete text) .
3 . Other Relevant Goals , Objectives , or Policies
of the Kent Shoreline Master Program
In order to determine whether the proposal
meets the above listed criteria, it is
necessary to examine other sections of the
Kent Shoreline Master Program.
The following provisions of the Master Program
are relevant to an amendment of the shoreline
environment and this proposal. The provisions
indicate that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the intent of the Master
Program:
Economic Development Element
Goal: Development of the shorelines shall be
limited to uses which are oriented to a
shoreline location, and are compatible with a
natural environment.
5
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
objective 1: Permit only development
of the shoreline that
e n h a n c e s t h e
environmental qualities.
Policy 2 : The City shall review all
building permits issued
for development along the
shorelines to assure that
they are not in conflict
with the other goals,
objectives and policies.
Objective 3 : Plan development of all
land contiguous to the
water' s edge so that
public access and use of
the shoreline is
enhanced.
Public Access Element
Goal: Make the river ' s edge available to the
public.
Objective 1: Provide improved public
access to the river' s
edge.
Policy 2 : Publicly-owned shoreline
areas shall provide
public access to the
water ' s edge where
feasible.
Recreational Element
Goal: Maximize public recreational
opportunities along the shoreline.
Objective 1: Provide . a regional,
riverfront park system
along the shoreline.
6
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
Policy 2 : The City' s Park and
recreation Department
shall take action to
interest State, Federal
and County government in
the City's Action Program
to acquire and develop a
regional riverfront park
system.
The application of these provisions to the
proposal is discussed in Section V below.
IV. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of
this application:
City Administrator Building Official
City Attorney Public Works Director
Fire Chief Chief of Police
In addition to the above, all persons owning property
within 300 feet of the site were notified of the
application and the public hearing.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the State Shoreline Management Act and State
shoreline regulations, and the Kent Shoreline Master
Program. The following is a listing of all state and
local amendment criteria, followed by a discussion of
whether the proposal meets those criteria.
A. State regulations. (Please refer to Appendix A. )
1. WAC 173-16-040 (4)b.
The Conservancy environment is for those areas
which are intended to maintain their existing
character. It is also considered the most suitable
designation for those areas which present too
severe biophysical limitations to be designated as
7
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot IS
#SMP-91-1
Policy 2 : The City' s Park and
recreation Department
shall take action to
interest State, ' Federal
and County government in
the City's Action Program
to acquire and develop a
regional riverfront park
system.
The application of these provisions to the
proposal is discussed in Section V below.
IV. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of
this application:
City Administrator Building Official
City Attorney Public Works Director
Fire Chief Chief of Police
In addition to the above, all persons owning property
within 300 feet of the site were notified of the
application and the public hearing.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the State Shoreline Management Act and State
shoreline regulations, and the Kent Shoreline Master
Program. The following is a listing of all state and
local amendment criteria, followed by a discussion of
whether the proposal meets those criteria.
A. State regulations. (Please refer to Appendix A. )
1. WAC 173-16-040 (4)b.
The Conservancy environment is for those areas
which are intended to maintain their existing
character. It is also considered the most suitable
designation for those areas which present too
severe biophysical limitations to be designated as
7
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
rural or Urban environments. The objective is to
protect, conserve and manage existing natural
resources to ensure recreational benefits for the
public and sustained resource utilization.
The Urban environment is appropriate for areas of
high intensity • land use including residential,
commercial, and industrial development. Areas
given this designation should present few
biophysical limitations for urban activities and
not have a high priority for designation as an
alternative environment. The objective of the
Urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization
of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing
for intensive public use and by managing
development so that it enhances and maintains
shorelines for a multiplicity of urban uses.
The requested change would more accurately reflect
the present zoning and land uses while still
protecting the shoreline. South 259th Street forms
a natural division between the shoreline area and
the upland development. At the present time
South 259th is unimproved right-of-way west of
74th Avenue S. The Department of Public Works does
not intend to improve the street. The applicant
has developed a park on the abutting property. The
Green River Trail Corridor proposal submitted by
the Parks Department is currently in the permit
review process and should be constructed by summer
of 1992 . Any development within the shoreline area
_ will be subject to shoreline substantial
development permit approval. Public improvements
including parking and enhanced landscaping will be
required as a condition of approval.
2 . AAC 173-19-060
This section states that local governments should
make amendments deemed necessary to reflect
changing local circumstances, new information, or
improved data. Amendments must be consistent with
Chapter 90 . 58 RCW. The need for the requested
amendment results from changed circumstances and
new information. The shoreline designation
precedes the subdivision of the subject property.
8
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
If the full effect of the shoreline designation had
been analyzed through the subdivision review
process, it is possible that the plat could have
been modified to eliminate the present conflict
with the restrictive Conservancy designation.
However, the subdivision was approved and has been
substantially developed. It is not anticipated
that the proposed shoreline amendment and resultant
development would be detrimental to the shoreline
environment.
The requested amendment is minor in nature and is
consistent with the criteria set forth in the
Shoreline Management Act. Lot 18 is not adjacent
to the Green River and is separated from the river
bank by S. 259th Street. Retention of the
Conservancy designation from S. 259th Street to the
river ensures full protection of the shoreline and
provides opportunity for continuation of the park
and pedestrian access .
B. Provisions of the Kent Shoreline Master Program
The proposal must also be consistent with the
following principles and the guidelines set forth
at page C-1 of the Master Program for shorelines of
statewide significance. (Please refer to Appendix B
for complete text. )
(1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest
over local interest.
As noted above, the proposal has been
forwarded for comment to several City
departments. Public notice requirements have
been met. Any comments from the public either
written or verbally presented at the Planning
Commission public hearing will be included in
the final recommendation forwarded to the City
Council. The Council will also conduct a
public hearing on the matter as required by
the Kent Shoreline Master Program. The
proposal will be forwarded to the Department
of Ecology for comment prior to final approval
by the City Council . Any statewide interest
that has not been included or considered for
9
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
the proposal will be duly noted and
conditioned as appropriate.
(2) Preserve the natural character of the
shoreline.
The proposed Urban shoreline designation takes
into consideration the least amount of
shoreline area needed for development of lot
18 and leaves unchanged the majority of the
Conservancy designation adjacent to the river
thereby minimizing intrusions into the
shoreline. Proposed public amenities will
upgrade the existing park edges and provide
needed improvements to S. 259th Street right-
of-way.
(3) Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
The goals, objectives and policies of the
Shoreline Master Program provide guidance for
determining long term benefit of the proposal
over the immediate benefit as in this case to
the proposed development on lot 18 . As noted
in the above referenced goals and policies,
any development must enhance the environmental
qualities and provide public access and
recreational opportunities in the shoreline
area.
The applicant as a result of subdivision
approval has developed and dedicated to the
public a park. In conjunction with shoreline
substantial development permit approval for
development of lot 18 , the applicant must
provide additional public amenities. These
improvements combined with the completed Green
River Trail Corridor will provide a greatly
enhanced recreation area that will benefit the
public for years to come.
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of
shorelines.
Proposed development of the subject property
must meet City standards for erosions and
10
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
sediment control. The applicant will be
required to construct a bio-filtration system
for storm water detention further protecting
the shoreline environment.
(5) Increase public access to publicly-owned areas
of the shorelines.
Public access will not be restricted as a
result of the proposed amendment. As
presented, the proposed warehouse building
will be located at the north end of lot 18
outside of the 200 foot shoreline area.
Proposed accessory parking and landscaping
will not impede access to the shoreline area,
as proposed.
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the
public on the shorelines.
Again as previously mentioned, the applicant
must provide a minimum three public parking
spaces for recreational users of the shoreline
area. Possible additional parking may be
provided as space warrants and approval is
obtained from the Department of Public Works.
VII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of this application and the applicable
criteria for granting an amendment to the Shoreline
Master Program, the City staff recommends APPROVAL of the
change in shoreline designation from a Conservancy
environment to an Urban environment. (Staff wishes to
note that the approval of this change in shoreline
designation does not authorize in any way the site and
development plans submitted for said application, which
is dependent on pending master program amendments or
obtaining a variance from current use regulations. A
separate shoreline substantial development permit will be
required in order to authorize eventual development of
the site) .
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
July 11, 1991
ch:c:smp911cpt
11
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
APPENDIX A
SEE ATTACHED
WAC 173-16 . 040 (4) B
WAC 173-19 . 060
12
173-16-040 Shorelines—Development of Master Programs
the use of citizen involvement and measurement on con- shoreline uses, systematically as belonging to these ge-
currence should be included. neric classes of activities, the policies and goals in the
(i) Public notice shall include: master programs can be clearly applied to different
ich the rule is
tN
(i) Reference to the authority under wh ino the tmaster s absence
programs, the appl cation of policy a of l and use
proposed.
(ii) A statement of either the terms or substance of regulations could be inconsistent and arbitrary.
the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and is- The plan elements are:
sues involved. (a) Economic development element for the location
(iii) The time, place and manner in which interested and design of industries, transportation facilities, port
persons may present their views thereon (as stated in facilities, tourist facilities, commercial and other devel-
RCW 30.04.025 (34.04.0251). opments that are particularly dependent on shoreland
(2) Policy statements. Each local government shall locations,
submit policy statements, developed through the citizen (b) Public access element for assessing the need for
involvement process, regarding shoreline development as providing public access to shoreline areas.
part of its master program. Because goal statements are (c) Circulation element for assessing the location and
often too general to be useful to very specific decision extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares,
problems, the policy statements are to provide a bridge transportation routes, terminals and other public facili-
for formulating and relating use regulations to the goals tics and correlating those facilities with the shoreline use
also developed through the citizen involvement process. elements.
In summary, the policy statements must reflect the in- (d) Recreational element for the preservation and ex-
tent of the act, the goals of the local citizens, and spe- pansion of recreational opportunities through programs
cifically relate the shoreline management goals to the of acquisition, development and various means of less—
master program use regulations. than—fee acquisition.
Clearly stated policies are essential to the viability of (d) Shoreline use element for considering:
the master programs. The policy statements will not only (i) The pattern of distribution and location require-
support the environmental designations explained below, meats of land uses on shorelines and adjacent areas, in-
but, also being more specific than goal statements, will eluding, but not limited to, housing, commerce, industry,
provide an indication of needed environmental designa- transportation, public buildings and utilities, agriculture,
tions and use regulations. education and natural resources.
The following methodology for developing policy (ii) The pattern of distribution and location require-
statements is recommended: merits of water uses including, but not limited to, aqua-
(a) Obtain a broad citizen input in developing policy culture, recreation and transportation.
by involving interested citizens and all private and public (1) Conservation element for the preservation of the
entities having interest or responsibilities relating to natural ihoreline resources, considering such character-
shorelines. Form a citizen advisory committee and con- istics as scenic vistas, parkways, estuarine areas for fish
duct public meetings as outlined in WAC 173-16— and wildlife protection, beaches and other valuable nat-
040(1) to encourage citizens to become involved in de- ural or aesthetic st alf cultural element for protection and
veloping a master program. (g)
(b) Analyze existing policies to identify those policies restoration of buildings, sites and areas having historic
that may be incorporated into the master program and cultural, educational or scientific values.
those which conflict with the intent of the act. Further, (h) In addition to the above—described elements, local
identify constraints to local planning and policy imple- governments are encouraged to include in their master
mentation which are a result of previous government ac- programs, an element concerned with the restoration of
tions, existing land—use patterns, actions of adjacent areas to a natural useful condition which are blighted by
jurisdictions or other factors not subject to local control abandoned and dilapidated structures. Local govern-
or influence. ments a;e also encouraged to include to their master
(c) Formulate goals for the use of shoreline areas and programs any other elements, which, because of present
develop policies to guide shoreland activities to achieve uses or future needs, are deemed appropriate and neces-
these goals. sary to effectuate the Shoreline Management Act.
The policies should be consistent with RCW 90.58- (4) Environments. In order to plan and effectively
.020 and provide guidance and support to local govern- manage shoreline resources, a system of categorizing
ment actions regarding shoreline management. shoreline areas is required for use by local governments
Additionally, the policies should express the desires of in the preparation of master programs. The system is
local citizens and be based on principles of resource designed to provide a uniform basis for applying policies
management which reflect the state—wide public interest and use regulations within distinctively different shore-
in all shorelines of state—wide significance. line areas. To accomplish this, the environmental dcsig-
(3) Master program elements. Consistent with the nation to be given any specific area is to be based on the
general nature of master programs, the following land existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities
and water use elements are to be dealt with, when ap- and limitations of the shoreline being considered for de
propriate, in the local master programs. By dealing with velopment and the goals and aspirations of loc:
citizenr:
[Ch. 173-16 WAC-p 41 (4/15/85)
Shorelines--Development of Master Programs 173-16-040
cm classifies shorelines into the natural characteristics which make these areas
The recommended syst
four distinct environments (natural, conservancy, rural unique and valuable.and urban) which provide the framework for imple- The main emphasis regulation in these aquas should
an
menting shoreline policies and regulatory measures. on natural systems and resources which require intern
re
This system is designed to encourage uses in each en- restrictions of intensities and types uses to maintain
vironment which enhance the character of that environ- them In a natural state. Therefore, activities which m ay al or potential value of this environment
ment. At the same time, local government may place degrade the actu
reasonable standards and restrictions on development so should be strictly regulated. Any activity which would
that such development does not disrupt or destroy the bring about a change in the existing situation would be
character of the environment. desirable only if such a change would contribute to the
The basic intent of this system is to utilize perform- preservation of the existing character.
ance standards which regulate use activities in accord- The primary determinant for designating an area as a
ance with goals and objectives defined locally rather natural environment is the actual presence of sonic
than to exclude any use from any one environment. unique natural or cultural features considered valuable
Thus, the particular uses or type of developments placed in their natural or original condition which are relatively
in each environment must be designed and located so intolerant of intensive human use. Such features should
that there are no effects detrimental to achieving the be defined, identified and quantified in the shoreline in-
objectives of the environment designations and local de- ventory. The relative value of the resources is to be
velopment criteria. based on local citizen opinion and the needs and desires
This approach provides an "umbrella" environment of other people in the rest of the state.
class over local planning and zoning on the shorelines. (ii) Conservancy environment. The objective in desig-
Since every area is endowed with different resources, has nating a conservancy environment is to protect, conserve
different intensity of development and attaches different and manage existing natural resources and valuable his-
social values to these physical and economic characteris- tone and cultural areas in order to ensure a continuous
tics, the environment designations should not be re- flow of recreational benefits to the public and to achieve
garded as a substitute for local planning and land—use sustained resource utilization.
regulations. The conservancy environment is for those areas which
(a) The basic concept for using the system is for local are intended to maintain their existing character. The
governments to designate their shorelines into environ- preferred uses are those which are nonconsumptive of
ment categories that reflect the natural character of the the physical and biological resources of the area. Non-
shoreline areas and the goals for use of characteristically consumptive uses are those uses which can utilize re-
different shorelines. The determination as to which des- sources on a sustained yield basis while minimally
ignation should be given any specific area should be reducing opportunities for other future uses of the re-
made in the following manner: sources In the area. Activities and uses of a nonperman-
(i) The resources of the shoreline areas should be an- ent nature which do not substantially degrade the
alyzed for their opportunities and limitations for differ- existing character of an area are appropriate uses for a
ent uses. Completion of the comprehensive inventory of conservancy environment. Examples of uses that might
resources is a requisite to identifying resource attributes be predominant in a conservancy environment include
which determine these opportunities and limitations. diffuse outdoor recreation activities, timber harvesting
(ii) Each of the plan elements should be analyzed for on a sustained yield basis, passive agricultural uses such
their effect on the various resources throughout shoreline as pasture and range lands, and other related uses and
areas. Since shorelines are only a part of the system of activities.
resources within local jurisdiction, it is particularly im- The designation of conservancy' environments should
portant that planning for shorelines be considered an in- seek to satisfy the needs of the community as to the
tegral part of area—wide planning. Further, plans, present and future location of recreational areas proxi-
policies and regulations for lands adjacent to the shore- mate to concentrations of population, either existing or
lines of the state should be reviewed in accordance with projected. For example, a conservancy environment des-
RCW 90.58.340. ignation can be used to complement city, county or state
(iii) Public desires should be considered through the plans to legally acquire public access to the water.
citizen involvement process to determine which environ- The conservancy environment would also be the most
ment designations reflect local values and aspirations for suitable designation for those areas which present too
the development of different shoreline areas. sever biophysical limitations to be designated as rural or
(b) The management objectives and features which urban environments. Such limitations would include ar-
characterize each of the environments are given below to gas of steep slopes presenting erosion and slide hazards,
provide a basis for environment designation within local areas prone to flooding, and areas which cannot provide
jurisdictions. adequate water supply or sewage disposal.
(i) Natural environment. The natural environment is (iii) Rural environment. The rural environment is in-
intended to preserve and restore those natural resource tended to protect agricultural land from urban expan-
systems existing relatively free of human influence. Lo- sion, restrict intensive development along undeveloped
cal policies to achieve this objective should aim to regu- shorelines, function as a buffer between urban areas, and
late all potential developments degrading or changing
[Cit. 173-16 WAC-p 51
(4/15/85)
173-16-040 Shorelines--Development of Master Programs
maintain open spaces and opportunities for recreational access to the water in the urban environment should be
uses compatible with agricultural activities. accomplished in the master program. To enhance water-
The rural environment is intended for those areas front and ensure maximum public use, industrial an,'
characterized by intensive agricultural and recreational commercial facilities should be designed to permit pk
uses and those areas having a high capability to support destrian waterfront activities. Where practicable, various
active agricultural practices and intensive recreational access points ought to be linked to nonmotorized trans-
development. Hence, those areas that are already used portation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths.
for agricultural purposes, or which have agricultural po- (5) Shorelines of state—wide significance. The act des-
tential should be maintained for present and future agri- ignated certain shorelines as shorelines of state—wide
cultural needs. Designation of rural environments should significance. Shorelines thus designated are important to
also seek to alleviate pressures of urban expansion on the entire state. Because these shorelines are major re-
prime farming areas. sources from which all people in the state derive benefit.
New developments in a rural environment are to re- the guidelines and master programs must give preference
Elect the character of the surrounding area by limiting to uses which favor public and long—range goals.
residential density, providing permanent open space and Accordingly, the act established that local master
by maintaining adequate building setbacks from water programs shall give preference to uses which meet the
to prevent shoreline resources from being destroyed for principles outlined below in order of preference. Guide-
other rural types of uses. lines for ensuring that these principles are incorporated
Public recreation facilities for public use which can be into the master programs and adhered to in implement-
located and designed to minimize conflicts with agricul- ing the act follow each principle.
tural activities are recommended for the rural environ- (a) Recognize and protect the state—wide interest over
ment. Linear water access which will prevent local interest. Development guidelines:
overcrowding in any one area, trail systems for safe (i) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and
nonmotorized traffic along scenic corridors and provi- individuals representing state—wide interests by circular-
sions for recreational viewing of water areas illustrate ing proposed master programs for review and comment
some of the ways to ensure maximum enjoyment of rec- by state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions' citizen advisory
reational opportunities along shorelines without conflict- committees, and state—wide interest groups. (See .`\p-
ing with agricultural uses. In a similar fashion, pendix, Reference No. 32.)
agricultural activities should be conducted in a manner (ii) Recognize and take into account state agencies
which will enhance the opportunities for shoreline recre- policies, programs and recommendations in developing
ation. Farm management practices which prevent ero- use regulations. Reference to man)' of these agencie'
sion and subsequent siltation of water bodies and policies are provided in the appendix. This informatic
minimize the flow of waste material into water courses can also be obtained by contactine agencies listed in the
are to be encouraged by the master program for rural Shoreline Inventory Supplement Number One.
environments. (iii) Solicit comments, opinions and advice from indi-
(iv) Urban environment. The objective of the urban viduals with expertise in ecology, oceanography, ecology,
environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shore- lirnnology, aquaculture and other scientific fields perti-
lines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive nent to ;horeline management. Names of organizations
public use and by managing development so that it en- and individuals which can provide expert advice c;ui be
hances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of ur- obtained from the department's resource specialist
ban uses. listing.
The urban environment is an area of high—intensity (b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
land—use including residential, commercial, and indus- Development guidelines:
trial development. The environment does not necessarily (i) Designate environments and use regulations to
include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is minimize man—made intrusions on shorelines.
particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to (ii) Where intensive development already occurs, up-
extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas grade and redevelop those areas to reduce their adverse
planned to accommodate urban expansion. Shorelines impact on the environment and to accommodate future
planned for future urban expansion should present few growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to ex-
biophysical limitations for urban activities and not have tend into low intensity use or underdeveloped areas.
a high priority for designation as an alternative (iii) Ensure that where commercial timber—cutting is
environment. allowed as provided in RCW 90.58.150, reforestation
Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a lim- will be possible and accomplished as soon as practicable.
ited resource, emphasis should be given to development (c) Result in long—term over short—term benefit. De-
within already developed areas and particularly to wa- velopment guidelines:
ter—dependent industrial and commercial uses requiring (i) Prepare master programs on the basis of preserving
frontage on navigable waters. the shorelines for future generations. For example, ac-
In the master program, priority is also to be given to tions that would convert resources into irreversible uses
planning for public visual and physical access to water in or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic
the urban environment. Identifying needs and planning shorelines of state—wide significance, should be sever._
for the acquisition of urban land for permanent public limited.
ICh. 173-16 WAC—p 61 (4/I5/s5)
Shorelines—Development of Master Programs 173-16-050
(ii) Evaluate the short-term--economic gain or conve- the first three sources. Most beach material in Puget
nience of developments in relationship to long-term and Sound is eroded from the adjacent bluffs composed of
potentially costly impairments to the natural glacial till.
environment. The effect of wave action on the movement and dcpo-
(iii) Actively promote aesthetic considerations when sition of beach material varies-depending upon the size
contemplating new development, redevelopment of exist- of the material. Hence, in most cases, beaches composed
ing facilities or for the general enhancement of shoreline of different sized material are usually characterized by
different slopes and profiles. The entire process of beach
areas.
(d) Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. formation is a dynamic process resulting from the effect
Development guidelines: of wave action on material transport and deposition. Ini-
(i) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain a tially, wave action will establish currents which transport
unique or fragile natural resource. and deposit material in various patterns. However, once
(5) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would al- a particular beach form and profile is established it be-
ter the natural function of the water system. In areas gins to modify the effects of waves thus altering the ini-
where erosion and sediment control practices will not be tial patterns of material transport and deposition. Hence,
effective, excavations or other activities which increase in building beach structures such as groins, bulkheads or
erosion are to be severely limited. jetties, it is particularly important to recognize that sub-
(iii) Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas sequent changes in wave and current patterns will result
which cannot be maintained in a natural condition under in a series of changes in beach formation over time. (See
human uses. WAC 173-16460 (6), (11), (12) and (13).)
(e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of Ins the process uof beach beach formation,
sand
pathates ash re
tra the
the shorelines. Development guidelines: p p
(i) In master programs, give priority to developing onto the beach in a diagonal direction and retreat in a
paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear access along vertical direction. At the same time, longshore currents
the shorelines, and to developing upland parking. are created in the submerged intertidal area by the force
(ii) Locate development inland from the ordinary of diagonally approaching waves. Beach material sus-
high-water mark so that access is enhanced. pended by the force of the breaking waves is transported
(f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in one direction or another by the longshore current.
on the shorelines. Development guidelines: Longshore drifting of material often results in the net
(i) Plan for and encourage development of facilities transportation of beach material in one direction causing
for recreational use of the shorelines. the loss of material in some areas and gains in others.
(ii) Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on The profile of a beach at any time will be determined
uplands well away from the shorelines with provisions by the wave conditions during the preceding period. Se-
for nonmotorized access to the shorelines. [Order DE vere storms will erode or scour much material away
72-12, § 173-16-040, filed 6/20/72 and 7/20/72.] from the beaches due to the force of retreating waves.
During calm weather, however, the waves will construc-
WAC 173-16-050 Natural systems. This section tively move material back onto the beach. This destruc-
contains brief and general descriptions of the natural tive and constructive action, called cut and fill, is
geographic systems around which the shoreline manage- evidenced by the presence of beach ridges or berms.
merit program is designed. The intent of this section is to New ridges are built up in front of those that survive
define those natural systems to which the Shoreline storm conditions as sand is supplied to the beach in suc-
Management Act applies, to highlight some of the fea- ceeding phases of calmer weather. In time, the more
tures of those systems which are susceptible to damage stable landward ridges are colonized by successional
from human activity, and to provide a basis for the stages of vegetation. The vegetation stabilizes the ridges.
guidelines pertaining to human-use activities contained protects them from erosion and promotes the develop-
in WAC 173-16-060. ment of soil.
It is intended that this section will provide criteria to (b) Rocky beaches. Rocky beaches, composed of cob-
local governments in the development of their master bles, boulders and/or exposed bedrock are usually
programs, as required in RCW 90.58.030(a). steeper and more stable than sandy shores. Course ma-
(1) Marine beaches. Beaches are relatively level land terial is very permeable which allows attacking waves to
areas which are contiguous with the sea and are directly sink into the beach causing the backwash to be reduced
affected by the sea even to the point of origination. The correspondingly. On sandy shores a strong backwash
most common types of beaches in Washington marine distributes sand more evenly, thus creating a flatter
waters arc: slope.
(a) Sandy beaches. Waves, wind, tide and geological On rocky shores a zonal pattern in the distribution of
material are the principal factors involved in the forma- plants and animals is more evident than on muddy or
tion of beaches. The beach material can usually be sandy shores. The upper beach zone is frequently very
traced to one of four possible sources: The cliffs behind dry, limiting inhabitants to species which can tolerate a
the beach; from the land via rivers; offshore wind; and dry environment. The intertidal zone is a narrow area
finally from longshore drifting of material. Longshore- between mean low tide and mean high tide that experi-
drifting material must have been derived initially from ences uninterrupted covering and uncovering by tidal
(4/15/85) ICh. 173-16 WAC-p 71
Shoreline Management--Master Programs 173-19-061
(3) "Local government" means any county, incorpo- Washington state code reviser and the county auditor or
rated city or town which contains within its boundaries city clerk as appropriate. Copies of portions thereof, or
any lands or waters subject to this chapter; the complete set, will be provided by the department at
(4) "Master program" means the comprehensive use the expense of the party requesting the same. [Statutory
plan for a described area, and the use regulations, to- Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order 86-
gether with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive 06), § 173-19-050, filed 5/23/86; Order DE 74-23, §
material and text, a statement of desired goals and start- 173-19-050, filed 12/30/74.1
dards developed in accordance with the policies enuncia- WAC 173-19-060 Amendment of master programs.
ted in RCW 90.58.020; and
(5) "State master program" is the cumulative total of The department and each local government shall period-
all master programs adopted by the department of ically review any master program under its jurisdiction
ecology. and make amendments to the master program deemed
In addition, the definitions and concepts set forth in necessary to reflect changing local circumstances, new
RCW 90.58.030 shall also apply as used herein. [Statu- information, or improved data. When the amendment is
tory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW and its applicable
86-06), § 173-19-020, filed 5/23/86; Order DE 74-23, regulations, it may be approved by local government and
§ 173-19-020, filed 12/30/74.1 adopted by the department according to the procedures
established in this chapter. [Statutory Authority: Chap-
WAC 173-19-030 Master programs organized by ter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order 86-06), § 173-19-
county. The master programs have been assigned section 060, filed 5/923/86. Statutory
Authority:
RCW
(Order
numbers and are listed alphabetically by county. The .030 (3)(c), 20
master programs for incorporated cities and towns are DE 79-34), § 173-19--060, filed 1/30/80; 79-09-001
grouped alphabetically by section following the county (Order DE 79-6), § 173-19-060, filed 8/2/79; Order
sections. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.53.030 (3)(c), DE 74-23, § 173-19-060, filed 12/30/74.1
90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02-123 (Order DE 79-34),
§ 173-19-030, filed 1/30/80; Order DE 74-23, § 173- WAC 1ts by
Approval of master programs and
19-030, filed 12/30/74.1 amendments by local government. Prior to submission of
a new or amended master program to the department,
WAC 173-19-040 Date of adoption or approval. local government shall:
The date of adoption or approval of each master pro- (1) Conduct at least one public hearing to consider
gram by the department is set forth beside the name of the proposal;
the appropriate local government. [Order DE 74-23, § (2) Publish notice of the hearing a minimum of once
173-19-040, tiled 12/30/74.1 in each of the three weeks immediately preceding the
hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation
WAC 173-19-044 Local government change of ju- in the area in which the hearing is to be held. The notice
risdiction--Effect of annexation. In the event of annex- shall include:
ation of a shoreline area, the local government assuming (a) Reference to the authority under which the action
jurisdiction shall amend or develop a master program to is proposed;
include the annexed area. Such amendment or develop- (b) A statement or summary of the proposed changes
ment shall be in accordance with the procedures estab- to the master program;
lished in chapter 173-16 WAC and this chapter and (c) The date, time, and location of the hearing, and
shall be submitted to the department. Until a new or the manner in which interested persons may present
amended program is adopted by the department, any their views thereon; and
ruling on an application for permit in the annexed (d) Reference to the availability of the proposal for
shoreline area shall be based upon compliance with the public inspection at the local government office or upon
preexisting master program adopted for the area. [Stat- request;
utory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Or- (3) Consult with and solicit the comments of any red-
der 86-06), § 173-19-044, filed 5/23/86. Statutory eral, state, regional, or local agency, including tribes,
Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- having any special expertise with respect to any environ-
.58.200. 79-09-001 (Order DE 79-6), § 173-19-044, mental impact;
filed 8/2/79.1 (4) Where amendments are proposed to a county or
regional master program which has been adopted by cit-
WAC 173-19-050 Incorporation by reference. Due ies or towns, the county shall coordinate with those ju-
to the sheer bulk of the master programs adopted by the risdictions and verify concurrence with or denial of the
department, they are not included in the text of this proposal. The procedural requirements of this section
chapter, but rather are incorporated herein as an appcn- may be consolidated for concurring jurisdictions;
dix hereto, having full force and effect as published (5) Solicit comments from the department on the
herein. Copies of the appendix are available to the public propo;al;
at all reasonable times for inspection_ in the headquarters (6) ,Assure compliance with chapter 43.21C RCW,
of the department of ecology in Olympia, with the the S:atc Environmental Policy Act; and
11�22/89) 10. 173-19 WAC—p 31
(
APPENDIX B
(pages C-1 through C-3 , Kent Shoreline Master Program)
EXISTING POLICIES AND PLANS
As part of its master program, the City of Kent must submit policy
statements, developed through the citizen involvement process,
regarding shoreline development as part of its master program.
Naturally, one step in the methodology for developing these
policy statements is the identification and analysis of existing
policies by public agencies relevant to Kent's shorelines.
These existing policies should be reviewed and analyzed as follows:
Identify policies which can be incorporated into the Master Program.
Identify policies which cannot be incorporated into the Master
Program and actually conflict with the intent of the Shoreline
Management Act. Identify policies which act as constraints to
local planning and policy implementation and which are a result
of previous government actions, existing land use patterns, actions
of adjacent jurisdictions or other factors not subject to local
control or influence.
Existing policies relating to the Green River Shorelines have been
identified in the following areas: shoreline of state-wide signifi-
cance, zoning, open space and parks, drainage and flood control,
agriculture, and roads.
SIIORELINE OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE
The Shoreline Management Act has designated the shorelines of the
Green River to be of state-wide significance. These shorelines
are deemed to be of importance to the entire state and because
these shorelines are major resources from which all people in -the
state derive benefit, the guidelines and master programs must
give preference to uses which favor public and long-range goals.
Accordingly, the act established that local master programs shall
give preference to uses which meet the principles outlined below
in order of preference. Guidelines for ensuring that these prin-
ciples are incorporated into the master programs and adhered to
in implementing the act follow each principle.
(a) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over
local interest. Development guidelines:
(i) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and
individuals representing state-wide interests
by circulating proposed master programs for review
and comment by state agencies, adjacent jurisdic-
tions' citizen advisory committees, and state-
wide interest groups.
(ii) Recognize and take into account state agencies '
policies, programs and recommendations in
developing use regulations .
(iii) Solicit continents, opinions and advice from individ-
uals with expertise in ecology, oceanography, geo-
logy, limnology, aquacult-ure and other scientific
. fields pertinent to shoreline management.
11
(b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. Develop-
ment guidelines:
(i) Designate environments and use regulations to mini-
mize man-made intrusions on shorelines.
(ii) where intensive development already occurs, upgrade
and redevelop those areas to reduce their adverse
impact on the environment and to accommodate future
growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to
extend into low intensity use or underdeveloped
areas.
(iii) Ensure that where commercial timber-cutting is allowed
as provided in RCW 90.58.150, reforestation will
be possible and accomplished as soon as practicable.
(c) Result in long-term over short-tern benefit. Develop-
ment guidelines:
(i) Prepare master programs on the basis of preserving
the shorelines for future generations. For example,
actions that would convert resources into irre-
versible uses or detrimentally alter natural con-
ditions characteristic of shorelines of state-
wide significance, should be severely limited.
(ii) Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience
of developments in relationship to long-term and
potentially costly impairments to the natural
environment.
(iii) Actively promote aesthetic considerations when
contemplating new development, redevelopment of
existing facilities or for the general enhancement
of shoreline areas.
(d) Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. Develop-
ment guidelines:
(i) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain unique
or fragile natural resource.
(ii) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would alter
the natural function of the rater system. In areas
where erosion and sediment control practices will
not be effective, excavations or other activities
which increase erosion are tc t)e severely limited.
(iii) Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas
which cannot be maintained in a natural condi-
tion under human uses.
(e) Increase public access to publicly-owned areas of the
shorelines. Development guidel r.es:
(i) Increase public access to publicly-owned areas
of the shorelines.
(ii) Locate development inland from the ordinary high
water mark so that access is enhanced.
(f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public
on the shorelines. Development guidelines:
(i) Plan for and encourage development of facilities
for recreational use of the shorelines.
(ii) Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities
on uplands well away from the shorelines with
provisions for non-motorized accesss to the shore-
lines.-
12
City of Kent - Planning Department
^
N ^
co r
IC —
U) fcc
4J
Tcc
iLj
A
I
F�
SCALE: 1"= 100'
URBAN
EI] CONSERVANCY NORTH
PROPOSED URBAN
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION
City of Kent - Planning Department
D
Ie yJ TO .'YO t
n
I
I
yr
rr � P r r�nsz_8�-�ocv+ns -- --- ro-csrAnc ceN_f�,
�GGyr_[xlTXf L]MiYl�L9r+xlL�
APPLICATION NAME: Foster Industrial Park
NUMBER: #SMP-91 -1 DATE: July 22, 1991
REQUEST: Shoreline Master Program Ammendment
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
� I
j
� All
r �
IQ
aw
j
F
CITY OF KENT
Application Fee:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Acreage Fee:
(206) 859-3390
APPLICATION FOR A SHORELINE Environmental
MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL Checklist Fee:
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CONDITIONAL TOTAL FEE: '��
USE PERMIT OR VARIANCE PERMIT
TO THE APPLICANT: This is an application for a substantial development,
conditional use, or variance permit as authorized by the Shoreline Management
Act of 1971. It is suggested that you check with appropriate local, state,
or federal officials to determine whether your project falls within any other
permit systems.
TO BE FILLED OUT BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Type of Application:
Date Received: Received by:
Application No. :
(Applicant should not write above this line.)
NAME OF APPLICATION: FIRST AMERICAN; INC.
GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (GIVE STREET ADDRESS, IF KNOWN, AND LIST
SECTION TO THE NEAREST QUARTER SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE. ALSO NEAREST
CROSS STREETS) : LOT 18 FOSTER INDUSTRIAL_PARK, LOCATED ON 74th AVE SOUTH
AND SOUTH 259th -STREET KENT WASHINGTON.
A PORTION OF THE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach if lengthy) :
NW 1/4 OF SEC. 25 & SW 1/4 OF SEC. 24 , T 22 N, R 4 E WM
CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON 2
KING COUNTY TAX ID NUMBER (PARCEL NUMBER) �� a 1�
NAME OF APPLICANT: FIRST AMERICAN, INC.
MAILING ADDRESS: 40 LAKE BELLEVUE # 100 TELEPHONE: (206) 454-4105
BELLEVUE WA 98005
RELATION OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY: owner Lessee Purchaser Other X
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
NAME OF OWNER: FRONTAGE FREEWAY ASSOC. TELEPHONE: 454-0522
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1282, BELLEVUE WA 98009
NAME OF WATER AREA AND/OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED:
GREEN RIVER
CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: VACANT, M-2 ZONE
PARCEL. ALL OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS (ROAD, SEWER, STORM.SYSTEM, ETC) ARE IN
PLACE.
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) 28,750 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE%WAREHOUSE FACILITY (SEE. ATTACHED SITE, PLAN)
UiLL,L�;Ii t�
FEB 2 5 1991
p�pNM1I1NG OfPAR1MENi
!`Kent Planning Departme;,c
Shoreline Permit, etc.
Application Form
Page 3
11. If the development proposes septic tanks, does proposed
development comply with local health and state regulations.
4 12. Shoreline designation according to master program.
<<ha 13. Show which areas are shoreline and which are shorelines of
;r state-wide significance.
(b) VICINITY MAP
1. Indicate site location using natural points of reference
(roads, state highways, prominent landmarks, etc.) .
2. If the development involves the removal of any soils by
dredging or otherwise, please identify the proposed disposal
site on the- map. If the disposal site is beyond the confines
of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity map showing the
;i precise location of the disposal site and its distance to the
1'.' nearest city or town.
3. Give a brief narrative description of the general nature of
the improvements and land use within one thousand (1,000) feet
in all directions from the development site (i.e. residential
to the north, commercial to the south, etc.) .
I, f1z ST 4ri �� INKG , am the above-named applicant
for a Pe it to construe Mrio oreline management (substantial
development) (conditional use) ( eI ermit pursuant to the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, and hereby state that the foregoing statements,
answers, and information are, in all respects, true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
(Signatu e) (Date)
c:smaappfr
12/89
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 22 , 1991
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Faust at 7 : 00 P.M. , July 22 , 1991, in the Kent City Hall,
City Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Tracy Faust, Chair
Linda Martinez, Vice Chair
Christopher Grant
Edward Heineman, Jr.
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Gwen Dahle
Albert Haylor
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Greenstreet
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner
Carol Proud, Senior Planner
Janet Shull, Planner
Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF JUNE 24 , 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the June 24 , 1991
meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 18 - SMP-91-1
Carol Proud presented a request to amend the Shoreline Master
Program to change an approximate . 38 acre shoreline area that is
currently designated as a Conservancy environment to an Urban
environment. The applicant would like to develop an accessory
parking lot for a.warehouse distribution facility within 100 feet
of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River, which is not
permitted within a Conservancy designation. He will also have to
go to the Hearing Examiner for a Substantial Development Permit and
will have to obtain a variance.
Kent Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Ms. Proud pointed out that the amendment meets all State
regulations and the provisions of the Kent Shoreline Master
Program. Also, as a result of the subdivision approval, the
applicant has developed and dedicated a public park and in
conjunction with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
approval, he must also provide additional public amenities.
Upon review of the application and the applicable criteria, the
staff recommended approval of the change in shoreline designation.
Commissioner Heineman wondered about the possibility of setting a
precedent and would not like to open the door for allowing
encroachment of this kind on any piece of triangular property that
could not be otherwise developed. Ms. Proud said that staff looked
at that possibility and felt that in conjunction with the existing
parks that were dedicated with the Foster plat, this would be a
natural continuation. The additional public amenities that will be
provided, combined with the completed Green River Trail Corridor,
will provide a greatly enhanced recreation area that will benefit
the public for years to come.
Skip Fresn, 40 Lake Bellevue, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA, representing
First American, Inc. , stated that Lot 18 was platted in 1985, which
was prior to the establishment of the Shoreline Management Act. As
part of the development of the property, Foster Industrial Park
dedicated six acres of the total development into a park. Numerous
revisions have been made in response to the Planning Department' s
concerns of maintaining the natural environment. Drainage will be
controlled so it goes into a retention pond. In working with their
wetlands biologist, they intend to create a very strong natural
environment.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Planning Commission grant
approval of Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18 . Commissioner Ward
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW - ZCA-90-5
Janet Shull stated, for the record, that the contents of the
Multifamily Design Review report prepared by the Kent Planning
Department in July, 1991 were being discussed. A draft report was
discussed at the Planning Commission Workshop on July 8 . The
primary changes to that report were some additions in the
Background section where options were discussed. The three options
looked at were:
2
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action: 0
Councilmember I moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through O bey,approved
.
. (Y
Discussion
Action
3AJ Approval of Minutes.
r �Jv Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
August 20, 1991.
3B./ Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through August 30,
1991 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
rl at 4 : 45 p.m. on September 10, 1991.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
i
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 V-B
Kent, Washington
August 20, 1991
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, Orr and White, Assistant City Administra-
tor Hansen, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris,
Public Works Director Wickstrom, Information Services Director
Spang, Personnel Director Olson and Police Chief Crawford.
Councilmember Woods was excused from this meeting. City Adminis-
trator Chow, Finance Director McCarthy, Fire Chief Angelo and
Parks Director Wilson were not in attendance. Approximately 150
people were at the meeting.
CONSENT WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR P be approved, with the exception of Item 3C which
was removed by Councilmember White and Item 3F
which was removed at the request of Bill
Doolittle. Houser seconded and the motion
carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of August 6, 1991.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
SANITATION Rosemary Glen II. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale
submitted by Novastar Enterprises for continuous
operation and maintenance of approximately 238
feet of water main extension and 752 . 6 feet of
sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicin-
ity of 96th Place South and South 228th Street for
the Rosemary Glen II development and release of
cash bond after expiration of the one year mainte-
nance period.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
L I D 327 - West Valley Highway Improvements.
ACCEPT as complete the contract with Merlino Con-
struction for construction of LID 327 - West
Valley Highway Improvements and release of retain-
age after receipt of the state releases.
TRAFFIC (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
CONTROL Canyon Drive Left Turn Lanes and Guardrail Reha-
bilitation. Bid opening was held on August 19
with two bids received. Public Works Director
Wickstrom noted that both bids were over the bud-
get and asked for time to review them., The Mayor
ordered that this item be held over to the next
Council meeting.
1
August 20 , 1991
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
CONTROL Reith Road Guardrail. AUTHORIZATION to transfer
$10, 000 from the Frager Road Guardrail Project to
the Reith Road Guardrail Project for construction
of an additional section of guardrail on Reith
Road in the vicinity of 45th Place, as recommended
by the Public Works Committee and approved by IBC.
ALLEY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
VACATION Senior Housing Alley Vacation. ADOPTION of
Ordinance 2991 vacating an unopened alley lying
between Smith Street and Harrison Street and
Fourth and Fifth Avenue without compensation to
the City from the abutting property owners.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Kent Springs Transmission Main. ACCEPT as com-
plete the contract with Robison Construction for
the Kent Springs Transmission Main project and
release of retainage after receiving the state
releases.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Bishop Rezone. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2992 relat-
ing to land use and zoning, amending the official
zoning map of the City of Kent, rezoning certain
property in Lot 1 of Shinns Valley Home Addition
from GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M3 (general in-
dustrial) and accepting a property use and devel-
opment agreement in connection therewith.
SHORELINE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
MASTER Foster Industrial Park. AUTHORIZATION to set
PROGRAM - September 3 , 1991 as the date for a public hearing
AMENDMENT on a request to amend the Kent Shoreline Master
Program Shoreline Environment from an existing
conservancy designation to an urban environment.
MOBILE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
HOME PARK REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE
CODE Mobile Home Park Code. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2990
AMENDMENT amending the Mobile Home Park Code to add a new
section on nonconforming mobile home parks, and
additional revisions for the purpose of consis-
tency with adopted city code and policies, and
other minor text revisions to correct numbering
errors.
2
August 20, 1991
MOBILE Upon White ' s question, Harris noted the Planning
HOME PARK staff has not yet met with mobile home park
CODE owners, and suggested delaying this matter until a
AMENDMENT meeting has taken place. Orr stated it was her
understanding that, because of time constraints,
the ordinance was to be prepared for adoption at
this meeting and that after meetings with the
owners were held, amendments could be made to the
ordinance. Johnson and Lubovich concurred.
JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Item 3C. Orr seconded.
Johnson pointed out that the action taken at the
last Council meeting was to accept the revisions
to the Mobile Home Park Code and direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance, with
the understanding that people who have concerns
about certain provisions of the proposed ordinance
meet with the Planning Department and work them
out and that staff bring revising language back to
Council . White noted that this has not occurred.
Orr pointed out that Council had not asked that
the revising language be brought back to tonight' s
meeting. It was determined for White that a
meeting on this matter will be held on August 28th
at 7: 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers . Lubovich
pointed out for Doolittle that this does not meet
the qualifications necessary for an emergency
ordinance.
The motion then carried.
FINAL PLAT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Walnut Grove Final Plat No. SU-90-2 . This meeting
will consider the final plat map for Walnut Grove
Plat SU-90-2 . The property is approximately 6 . 1
acres in size and is located east of 94th Avenue
South, west of 96th Avenue South, south of South
241st Street, and north of South 243rd Street.
All conditions of the preliminary plat have been
met.
Claudia Otey voiced concern about speeding cars in
the vicinity and also requested that the graveled
walkways be made more level to encourage children
to stay on the walkway instead of walking on the
road. Wickstrom agreed to look at Ms. Otey' s con-
cerns.
3
August 20, 1991
FINAL PLAT WHITE MOVED to approve the staff' s recommended
approval for Walnut Grove Final Plat SU-90-2 and
that staff look into and address Ms. Otey' s con-
cerns. Dowell seconded and the motion carried.
HISTORICAL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
PRESERVATION Notification Actions to Historical Significant
Sites. This meeting will consider the Council
Planning Committee 's recommendation of approval of
the Historic Properties resolution. The Planning
Committee endorsed this resolution at its August 6
meeting. The resolution will enable staff to
review the potential demolition of structures that
are already listed on the City' s historic site in-
ventory.
JOHNSON MOVED for the adoption of Historical Prop-
erties Resolution No. 1291 . Houser seconded and
the motion carried.
SOOS CREEK (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
PLAN Soos Creek Resolution. A proposed resolution has
been reviewed by the Council ' s Planning and Public
Works Committees and by the Planning Commission.
The two committees and the Planning Commission
recommend different levels of service for roads
and arterials. The Commission recommends level of
service "D" while the two Council committees rec-
ommend level of service "E" .
Traffic Engineer Ed White explained that Level of
Service "D" is characterized by very slow speeds
and bumper to bumper traffic, and that Level of
Service "E" is near what is commonly called a
parking-lot situation. He said that Level of Ser-
vice "E" is the minimum tolerable by drivers and
that Level "F" is unacceptable to most drivers.
He noted for Jim White that he would recommend
Level of Service "E" since "D" would be an imprac-
tical goal to achieve . The Mayor clarified that
by adopting this resolution with the Level of Ser-
vice "E" , the City is telling the County not to
allow development on major east/west arterials
until after Level of Service "E" has been
achieved.
4
August 20, 1991
SOOS CREEK JOHNSON MOVED to approve the Soos Creek Resolution
PLAN No. 1290 with the Level of Service "E" . White
seconded and the motion carried.
PUGET SOUND (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4G)
REGIONAL ADDED ITEM
PLANNING Puget Sound Regional Council. Johnson distributed
COUNCIL a resolution reaffirming Council 's support for
dissolving the existing Puget Sound Council of
Governments and . forming a new regional government,
the Puget Sound Regional Council . He noted that
the purpose is to establish a new metropolitan
planning organization which will handle transpor-
tation funding for a four-county region and the
cities within those counties. He noted that
several months ago the City supported dissolving
the PSCOG and creating a new organization. He
noted that there had been problems with some of
the language and that a committee was formed to
handle the reorganization of PSCOG with new lan-
guage contained in this resolution. He noted that
Suburban Cities, Federal Way, Auburn, Renton and
other cities support the new language. He pointed
out that 75% participation by cities and counties
is required to dissolve the old organization and
create the new one.
JOHNSON MOVED for the adoption of Resolution 1293 .
Houser seconded. Johnson pointed out for White
that the changes in language are minor and that
this must be reviewed by the Governor' s Office and
the Department of Transportation soon. He ex-
plained that in order to continue to receive fund-
ing from the Federal Highway Administration, a new
organization must take over by October 1st. The
motion then carried. Johnson pointed out that by
this action, the 75% required for adoption has
been met.
JUST CAUSE (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
EVICTION Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. This date has been
set for a public hearing on an ordinance relating
to landlord-tenant law, requiring that a landlord
provide notice of just cause to evict a tenant,
providing an affirmative defense in a subsequent
unlawful detainer action, for tenants not given
such notice; providing enforcement mechanisms and
penalties for violation.
5
August 20, 1991
JUST CAUSE Carol Morris of the Legal Department gave a brief
EVICTION synopsis of the proposed ordinance and noted that
there is nothing which would pre-empt the City
from enacting any legislation on this subject.
She pointed out that the City of Seattle has a
just cause ordinance and that there has been very
little enforcement required. She noted that the
ordinance proposed for Kent is different than
Seattle's, but that she expects that even less
enforcement would be required in Kent. Upon
Dowell ' s question, Morris noted that if a tenant
objects to a rent increase, a Judge or Court
Commissioner would determine whether the increase
was necessary. She pointed out that the ordinance
only requires that a reason for eviction be given,
that proof is not required. She added that the
only way the City Attorney' s Office would be
involved is if the landlord or owner did not
provide a copy of the ordinance with the written
notice terminating the tenancy. She explained for
White that there would be very little expense
involved with enforcement. She noted that there
had been only two such cases in the City of
Seattle in the first six months of this year.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. James
Fearn noted that he had drafted and enforced
Seattle' s just cause ordinance, and that not a
single residential just cause eviction action went
to court in the previous 11 years. Mark McKay,
representing the Kent Chamber of Commerce, spoke
in opposition to the ordinance and suggested
allowing property managers, owners and tenants to
develop an alternative to the enforcement mecha-
nisms and penalties. David Girard, attorney for
Evergreen Legal Services, noted that this ordi-
nance would protect good tenants. He noted that
the expenses involved in moving are difficult for
low and moderate income people to come up with on
short notice. Joe Puckett stated that the State
Landlord-Tenant Act provides a balance between the
rights of landlords and tenants. He opined that
various cities should not have separate ordi-
nances. He also noted that the proposed ordinance
would make it more difficult and more expensive
for landlords to conduct evictions. Richard Dunn,
Director of Community Living, stated that develop-
6
August 20, 1991
JUST CAUSE mentally disabled people are subject to subtle
EVICTION discrimination and do not have the financial
resources to move in 20 days. He stated that he
feels a reason should be given for someone to lose
their home, and added that just cause should be
defined so that people are protected from poten-
tially arbitrary and unjust evictions. Mike
Spence, representing Seattle-King County Associa-
tion of Realtors, Puget Sound Multiple Listing
Association and the Commercial Investment Brokers
Association, spoke in opposition to the ordinance
because it would affect the affordability of
housing. He pointed out that the cost of attor-
neys, notices, etc. would result in an increase in
rents.
The following people spoke in favor of the pro-
posed ordinance, stating that there should be a
reason given for evictions and that the cost of
moving is very high: Sharon Atkin (South King
County Multi-Service Center and King County Coa-
lition for the Homeless) , Mary Kay Smithmeyer, Rod
Trueblood Sharon Trueblood, Linda Howe, Jami
Sullivan Garry Jackson, Carol McClintock, Lynn
Wallace . Linda Bennett (Church Council of Greater
Seattle Task Force on Housing and Homelessness) ,
Robert Nelson Marvin Eckfeldt James Romine
Gerald Hesseltine , Pauline Caldwell , Richard
Gamble (Executive Director, Tenants Union) and
Mrs. Cooper. Karen Donovon, Sheri Foster, and
Lynn Lewark were opposed to the ordinance, noting
that not all tenants follow the rules, including
eviction notices. They spoke of drug sales, loud
parties and physical threats to other tenants .
The following people spoke against the ordinance,
noting that good tenants are not evicted, that the
cost to landlords to repair, advertise and show
their units is high, and that a State law already
exists on this matter: Suzanne Reeder, Jakk
Roberson, Dawn Dube, Zoe Ann Matthews, Bill
Robbins , Loie Walman (Northwest Legal Foundation) ,
Willis Cole, Kirby Kilmurray, Ralph Armstrong, and
Paul Morford. Rick Marino, Manager of Kings Place
Apartments, agreed that people are not unjustly
evicted because it is an extremely competitive
7
August 20, 1991
JUST CAUSE market and landlords want to keep good tenants.
EVICTION He submitted petitions with 145 signatures op-
posing the just cause ordinance. Caroline
Patterson displayed photos of damage done to
apartments by tenants. Joe Martin, Boardmember of
the Seattle Tenants Union, spoke in favor of the
ordinance, noting that it would protect low in-
come, elderly and disabled tenants from unjust
evictions, and would prevent further homelessness.
Peggy Ganson, President of the Apartment Associa-
tion of Seattle and King County, and Treasurer for
the Washington State Apartment Association, stated
that this ordinance will cause trouble between
tenants and landlords, and will cost the City
money. Jim Flick spoke in opposition to the ordi-
nance, citing the expense of going to court, and
suggested having the Mayor appoint a Just Cause
Commission. Glen Ruth noted that there should be
responsibility on the part of both the landlord
and the tenant. He said that a landlord should be
able to evict a bad tenant quickly, but that a
tenant who feels unjustly evicted should have a
place to go to air his grievance and get a fair
decision. Paul Tollnar said his job as a property
manager is to provide the highest quality of life
possible for his tenants, and that includes
removing bad tenants promptly. Floyd Brown stated
that the ordinance as written would be unconstitu-
tional. Mary Tunasvik favored appointing a com-
mittee rather than passing the ordinance. Holly
Diamond questioned why the ordinance specifies
three 10-day periods rather than just one, noting
that she gives only one 10-day notice.
There were no further comments from the audience
and WHITE MOVED to accept all documents and ex-
hibits as part of the record. Orr seconded and
the motion carried. JOHNSON THEN MOVED to close
the public hearing. White seconded and the motion
carried.
Councilmember Mann stated that his purpose in pro-
posing this policy is to provide Kent citizens
residing in apartments a reasonable level of pro-
tection from unfair evictions. He noted that he
supports the rights of apartment owners to deal
8
August 20, 1991
JUST CAUSE with problems that affect their neighborhood, but
EVICTION that retaliatory evictions should not be allowed.
HE MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2989 . Orr seconded.
Dowell pointed out that the ordinance contains a
section which exempts agencies who house homeless
people, and that it contains contradictions. Orr
clarified that the exemption was sought for pro-
grams that assist homeless families, people in
transition and people in drug rehabilitation pro-
grams so that there would be a way to remove
people from the program if they did not comply
with the rules and regulations. Carol Morris
noted that the shelters do not have written rental
agreements and that in some cases people can stay
in homeless shelters for only three days.
Johnson stated that a landlord should be required
to give a reason for eviction but that the Council
should not be required to determine whether that
reason is just. white noted that since so few
cases have gone to court in the City of Seattle,
their just cause ordinance is not really neces-
sary. He stated that there will be expenses asso-
ciated with enforcing the ordinance, and that the
City does not need an added financial burden at
this time. Houser noted that she would prefer to
have a commission consisting of landlords and
tenants working together on this. The motion to
adopt Ordinance 2989 failed with only Mann and Orr
in favor.
JOHNSON MOVED that the Mayor appoint a committee
of tenants, landlords, property managers and
others to study the issue and make a recommenda-
tion to the Council within 90 days. Houser sec-
onded. Dowell spoke in opposition to having a
commission. Johnson responded that the issue must
be addressed. White stated that he cannot support
revisiting this issue. Dowell offered a friendly
amendment to Johnson' s motion: that there be an
equal number of members from each side on the com-
mission, that they make their recommendations
within 30 days, and that if there is not a major-
ity the issue be considered a dead issue. Johnson
accepted the equal number of members, but felt
that 30 days is too soon. The motion to amend
died for lack of a second. Houser noted that the
9
August 20, 1991
JUST CAUSE purpose of the commission is for the landlords and
EVICTION tenants to get together and work out some of these
problems. Mann spoke in favor of Johnson' s
motion. Dowell offered to amend Johnson' s motion
to 45 days instead of 90 days with an equal number
of tenants and landlords on the commission and
that the issue be dead if they were unable to come
to a decision. Mayor Kelleher suggested two land-
lords and two tenants be on the commission.
Johnson and Houser agreed with the terms. The
Mayor clarified for a lady in the audiences that
the purpose of the commission is to see if there
is another ordinance that could be agreed on, but
that unless there were three people out of the
four that were in favor in 45 days, the issue
would expire and not come back to the Council.
Paul Morford, 21264-132nd Avenue SE, opined that a
commission is not necessary. He suggested that
landlords and tenants lobby at the State level,
since there is already a State Landlord-Tenant
Law. Jim Flick suggested appointing a commission
to arbitrate landlord-tenant issues and render a
binding decision. A man from the audience sug-
gested that the two opposing parties meet with
Council to work problems out.
Upon a roll call vote, Dowell , Houser and White
were opposed to the motion as amended. Johnson,
Mann and Orr were in favor. Since there was not a
majority vote, the motion was defeated.
REGIONAL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E)
JUSTICE Regional Justice Center - Resolution. The King
CENTER County Council has determined that there is a need
to establish new regional justice center facili-
ties and has begun consideration for the develop-
ment of sites, including proposed sites in the
City of Kent. A resolution has been prepared
giving qualified endorsement to proposed sites in
Kent submitted by private owners for consideration
for selection of a regional justice center.
Lynda Anderson noted that the City of Kent does
not have any City-owned properties which are ap-
propriate, but that three other sites in Kent have
emerged which are consistent with the City ' s
vision for revitalizing the downtown area. She
10
August 20, 1991
REGIONAL added that other sites have been offered by pri-
JUSTICE vate developers which are not part of this propos-
CENTER al. She clarified that sites can be submitted
directly to the County or under the umbrella of
the City's proposal. She stated that one site is
not endorsed over the others in the proposal.
Anderson noted that the City reserves the right to
negotiate and that the County is expected to
follow all appropriate regulations under SEPA.
The Mayor explained that because of the reserva-
tion of the right to negotiate, the Council can
act positively with this qualified endorsement and
then either follow through or withdraw it at a
later date.
MANN MOVED for adoption of Resolution 1292 giving
qualified endorsement to certain sites for selec-
tion of a regional justice center. White second-
ed and the motion carried.
CABLE TV (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Closed Circuit TV System. ACCEPT as complete the
contract with Reliable Security Services for in-
stallation of a television security system at the
City Shops.
MANAGEMENT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
STUDY Code Amendments Regarding City Clerk and Other
City Departments. In response to the Warner
Group ' s Management Study, City Administration
proposes implementing a transfer of the City
Clerk' s Office from the Finance Department to the
"Office of the City Clerk" reporting to Adminis-
tration. The City Clerk' s Office is currently
categorized as a subordinate department to the
Director of Finance and Personnel .
The City has separate directors and departments
for Personnel and Finance. Additionally, Elec-
tronic Data Processing (now Information Services)
is also structured as a subordinate department
reporting to the Director. of Finance and Per-
sonnel . In implementing the transfer of the City
Clerk to an Office of the City Clerk reporting to
Administration, an ordinance was drafted estab-
lishing separate departments for Finance, Person-
nel (which is renamed Human Resources Department
11
August 20, 1991
MANAGEMENT pursuant to the Warner Group Study recommenda-
STUDY tions) , Information Services, and the Office of
the City Clerk to reflect the existing structure
as well as the changes proposed with regard to the
City Clerk' s office.
Lubovich noted that when preparing the ordinance
removing the City Clerk' s Office from the Finance
Department, he also implemented structure changes
which will be required for recodification of the
City Code. He explained that the reason the other
departments were addressed is that the present or-
dinance provides that all of those departments are
under the Finance Director. The Mayor clarified
that even though the Office of the City Clerk will
report to Administration, it will be a separate
office and not a part of Administration.
HOUSER MOVED for adoption of Ordinance 2993 re-
structuring the departments of Finance, Human
Resources, Information Services, and the Office of
the City Clerk. Orr seconded and the motion
carried.
ECONOMIC (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F)
DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Corporation (EDC) . The City
CORPORATION Attorney' s Office recently received a letter from
Preston Thorgrimson, bond counsel , along with an
Attorney General ' s Opinion regarding the EDC' s
appointment of directors. The Opinion states that
the City Council should not be in a position of
appointing its own members to serve on the Board,
but that Councilmembers may serve "ex-officio" on
the EDC as long as some mechanism for replacement .
of the Board is utilized rather than discretionary
appointments by the Council . An acceptable
mechanism suggested in the Attorney General ' s
Opinion was that the "most senior members" of the
Council be members of the Board. The proposed
ordinance and amended charter for the EDC incor-
porates this mechanism for appointment of
Councilmember directors.
The Operations Committee has reviewed and approved
the proposed ordinance with a modification that
the Mayor appoint non-Councilmember directors
12
August 20, 1991
ECONOMIC subject to Council confirmation rather than having
DEVELOPMENT the Council make the appointments. This suggested
CORPORATION modification has been incorporated into the pro-
posed ordinance.
Lubovich noted that currently there are three
Councilmembers on the EDC Board and two non-
Council members. He noted that he amended the
proposed ordinance to call for two or more non-
Councilmembers, in order to be consistent with the
charter. He added that this has been before the
EDC Board as well as the Operations Committee.
HOUSER MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance 2994
amending the appointment procedures of directors
of the EDC and amending the EDC charter to incor-
porate said amendments, and including the amend-
ments made by the City Attorney' s office. White
seconded and the motion carried.
HUMAN (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4H)
SERVICES ADDED ITEM
Sunset Motel Proposal. Elgin Jones, 25006 Pacific
Highway South, read a proposal offering the Sunset
Motel facilities to the City for the homeless
winter program, and requested a meeting with City
officials to discuss the matter. Assistant City
Administrator Hansen will schedule a meeting with
Mr. Jones.
CITY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
COUNCIL City Council Absence. APPROVAL of a request by
Council President Judy Woods for excused absences
from the August 20th and September 3rd City
Council meetings.
APPOINTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
Board of Adjustment Appointment CONFIRMATION of
the Mayor' s appointment of Berne Biteman to the
Kent Board of Adjustment. Mr. Biteman ' s term will
begin immediately and will continue through Febru-
ary, 1992 .
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
Drinking Driver Task Force Grant. AUTHORIZATION
to accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Grant of $45, 153 for the period July 1, 1991 to
June 30, 1992 , and authorization to amend the 1991
13
August 20, 1991
POLICE Budget by adding of the grant amount of $22 ,576 .
This amount will be a reimbursement for General
Fund salaries. The balance of $22 , 577 will be in-
cluded in the 1992 Budget.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
RECREATION (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF BILL DOOLITTLE)
Cultural Planning/Cultural Center Feasibility
Study. ACCEPTANCE of the Cultural Planning/Cul-
tural Center Feasibility Study as presented by the
Performing Arts Center Task Force to the City
Council at their workshop of July 16.
Upon a question from Bill Doolittle, Patrice
Thorell of the Parks Department explained that
credits to the Parks & Recreation Department and
their associated personnel previously listed on
the front of the study had been deleted at staff
request.
Doolittle pointed out that the study covers a
large area stretching west to the Puget Sound,
north to Burien and Renton, east to the Soos Creek
Plateau, and south to the Pierce County line, and
that 400 people in the area were interviewed. He
expressed interest in how many of those inter-
viewed were from Kent and asked for complete sum-
mary of the market research results, which Thorell
agreed to provide.
JOHNSON THEN MOVED to adopt Item 3F. Orr seconded
and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the
bills received through August 15, 1991 after au-
diting by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 4 : 45 p.m. on August 27 , 1991.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/1-8/15/91 108156-108763 $2 , 559, 405. 54
14
August 20, 1991
FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/20/91 01159464-01160252 $ 659, 352 . 52
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) Shelter
Funding. AUTHORIZATION to change the action taken
by the City Council on June 4 , 1991, where approv-
al was granted to fund DAWN' s confidential shelter
with a minimum of $10, 000. The June 4 action
stated the shelter would be in Kent. New informa-
tion has led the Council ' s Planning Committee to
recommend removal of the stipulation that the
shelter be in Kent. The new recommendation is
that a minimum of $10, 000 be allocated to the
Domestic Abuse Women' s Network (DAWN) to provide
for the development of a confidential shelter in
South King County.
REPORTS Planning Committee. Johnson noted that under the
Growth Management Act, the County is required to
meet with a representative from each city within
the county and that this meeting will be held on
September 5th at 7 : 00 p.m. at the Wyndham Garden
Hotel, 18118 Pacific Highway South. He asked that
one of the Councilmembers attend the meeting.
Parks Committee_ Dowell noted that the Parks
Committee will meet at 3 : 30 p.m. on August 27th.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11: 10 p.m.
Brenda Jacober, MC
Deputy City Clem
15
M J LLJS
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 , 1991
I Lul Category Consent Calendar
( 1. SUBJECT: MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW (ZCA-90-5)
4 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set September 17, 1991
as the date for a public hearing to consider the multi-family
design review.) as recommended by the Planning Commission.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planninq Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: N0�_ 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. 3C,X
n
4
Kent City Council Meeting
rIY Date September 3 1991
Category Consent Calendar
u 1. SUBJECT: KENT 57 NO. CE-91-3
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set September 17, 1991
for a public hearing to consider an appeal by the Casey Group
Architects on the Kent 57 No. CE-91-3 on a denial by the Hearing
Examiner on an application for a conditional use permit to
construct the 57 unit apartment complex. A public hearing on
the application for this conditional use permit was held on
April 3 , 1991 by the Hearing Examiner.
3 . EXHIBITS:
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner
(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. 3DX
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 , 1991
„f Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PROPOSED USE HEARING ON THE 1992 BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set September 17 for a
proposed use public hearing on the 1992 Budget. In addition,
Council is scheduled to hold a workshop at 6: 00 p.m. prior to
the Council meeting to discuss a preliminary budget balancing
scenario based on input received at the August 8 Council work
session.
3 . EXHIBITS: Calendar
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:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION'
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
CITY OF KENT
1992 COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDAR
COUNCIL RETREAT SESSION 2/28
Current Financial Status and Outlook
COUNCIL REGULAR 4/2
Review 1992 Budget & CIP Calendar/Process
Preliminary 1992 and beyond Financial Forecast
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5/7
1st Quarter Financial Report
Update 1992 Budget Process
COUNCIL COMMITTEES 6/4 - 7/16
Review Departmental programs, goals and 1992 Budget Objectives
DEPARTMENTS MEET WITH ADMINISTRATION (Council invited) 7/15 - 7/30
Review 1992 budget request
COUNCIL REGULAR 7/16
Public Hearing on 1992-1997 CIP
Proposed Public Use Hearing on 1992 Budget priorities
COUNCIL REGULAR
Adopt 1992-1997 CIP
COUNCIL WORK SESSION (8:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M. ) 8/8
2nd Quarter Financial Report
Updated Financial Forecast
Departmental Presentations of 1992 Budget Cuts
Council Prioritizes 1992 Budget Cuts
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AND MEETING SJZD
Results of Council Prioritization of Budget Cuts
Proposed Public Use Hearing on Budget
Receive Council Balancing Instructions IZ
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 9/17
Budget update on implementing 1992 Budget Objectives
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 10/15
Review 3rd Quarter Financial Report
Overview of 1992 Preliminary Budget
COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 10/15 - 11/12
Review 1992 Preliminary Budget
COUNCIL REGULAR 11/5
Public Hearing on 1992 Budget
COUNCIL REGULAR 11/19
Adoption of Budget and Tax Levy Ordinance
COUNCIL REGULAR 12/3
Adoption of the Final Adjustments for 1991
Kent City Council Meeting
--� t Date September 3 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1991 WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY CODE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. related
to the 1991 Washington State Energy Code. This code regulates
the heat loss in all new construction.
This ordinance will repeal Ordinance 2308 and adopt as written
the 1991 Washington State Energy Code as filed in Chapter 51-11
of the Washington Administrative Code.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee Chief Angelo,
Assistant Chief Berg Bob Hutchinson Building Official
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO / - YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
ORDINANCE NO.
Ii I
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, adopting the 1991 Washington State
Energy Code and repealing the prior Energy
Code, Ordinance 2308 .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
I
Section 1 . This ordinance adopts the 1991 Washington
State Energy Code, as written by the Washington State Building
i
Code Council and filed as Chapter 51-11 Washington Administrative
I
Code.
Section 2 . Ordinance No. 2308 , (Chapter 14 . 20 of the I
Kent City Code) entitled:
i
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, adopting that certain code known as
the State Energy Code, together with certain
additions thereto and providing penalties for
violations,
I
' I
j
is hereby repealed.
j Section 3 . Severability. If any section or provision in
this ordinance or the Energy Code or its application to any person )
or circumstance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any
reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
i
I
i
i
I
I
Section 4 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage, approval
and publication.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1991.
APPROVED the day of , 1991.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1991.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLE:
f
9620-340
2 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 1991
"( Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1991 WASHINGTON STATE VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR
QUALITY CODE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. related
to the 1991 Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality
Code. These codes regulate the ventilation and air quality in
all new construction.
This ordinance will adopt as written the 1991 Washington State
Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code as filed in
Chapter 51-13 of the Washington Administrative Code.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee Chief Angelo,
Assistant Chief Berg Bob Hutchinson Building Official
(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 Age a
Item No. 3G
I
l
i
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, adopting the Washington State
Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code.
i
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
, HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. This Ordinance adopts the Washington State
Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code, as written by the
Washington State Building Code Council and filed as Chapter 51-13
Washington Administrative Code.
Section 2 . Severability. If any section or provision of ',
this Ordinance or the Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code or
its application to any person or circumstance is declared
junconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall
Inot affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance.!I
jli I
"i Section 3 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall
; take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage,
lapproval and publication.
I
I
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
i
i
I
i
it
f
I
I
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER DEPUTY CITY CL
ERK
j I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I,
i
I
I
IIROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
Illi I
j
IIPASSED the day of , 1991•
APPROVED the day of , 1991•
I j
!! PUBLISHED the day of , 1991.
II
11 I
i
j I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance ;
IjNo. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated. I
� I
!
(SEAL),
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
I
1
i
i
!
i
9630-340
- 2 -
(' + Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 . 1991
4V Category Consent Calendar
,
1. SUBJECT: UNFAIR HOUSING PRACTICES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. repealing
Ordinance 1932 , relating to unfair housing practices Repeal5 (0-
Um. outdated ordinance on a subject adequately covered by Mate law,
containing enforcement provisions which require Ostate, not laity
implementation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance and memorandum from City
Attorney's Office
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3HO(
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Public Safety Committee
FROM: Carol Morris, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: July 26, 1991
RE: Unfair Housing Practices
As a result of the Kent City Code revision process, the City
Attorney' s Office is presently engaged in a review of our existing
ordinances. There is a chapter in the Code entitled "Unfair
Housing Practices (Ch. 9 . 10) , which prohibits discrimination in
housing. Enforcement of the chapter is through the State Human
Rights Commission, so neither the Kent City Attorney' s office or
any other office within the City is authorized to take complaints
or to otherwise enforce this law.
The chapter was enacted in 1975 and has become outdated in its
description of the classes of persons protected from
discrimination. (Compare language in Section 9 . 10. 04 regarding
discrimination against "all persons, regardless of sex, race,
color, religion, ancestry or national origin, . " with the
language of the statute on discrimination, Chapter 49 . 60, (Section
49 . 60. 010) prohibiting "discrimination against any of [the state ' s]
inhabitants because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex,
marital status, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental or
. physical handicap, . . . ")
Even if we chose to update this law, we may not be authorized
by state law to adopt an administrative enforcement procedure of
our own. (See, RCW 49 . 60. 330, which provides that "any cit
classified as a first class city under RCW 35 01 010 may enact
ordinances consistent with this chapter to provide administrative
remedies for any form of discrimination proscribed by this chapter:
. . . " (emphasis added) . ) However, this would not prevent us from
adopting penalties and requiring enforcement of violations in
court.
Given the above, it is my opinion that repeal of an outdated
ordinance on a subject currently governed by state law containing
redundant provisions on enforcement would have absolutely no effect
on any Kent resident. Our alternatives are: 1) revise the
ordinance to update it in a manner consistent with the statute,
providing for enforcement by a particular City department and then
the City Attorney ' s Office through the court system; or 2) repeal
the ordinance. I recommend that the Committee consider approval of
the attached ordinance repealing Ordinance 1932 (Chapter 9 . 10 of
the Kent city Code) .
I
I
ORDINANCE NO.
I _
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, repealing Ordinance 1932 , which
relates to unfair housing practices.
I
WHEREAS, Ordinance 1932 defines and prohibits unfair i
housing practices in the City of Kent, but provides direction for
I
the enforcement of these practices through the Washington State
Human Rights Commission rather than through any City department;
j and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 1932 is outdated since the revision c
Chapter 49. 60 of the Revised Code of Washington. That chapter notl
i
only describes and prohibits the same unfair practices in housing
and real estate transactions, but also unfair practices with
iirespect to employment, employment agencies, labor unions, credit
land insurance transactions in the State of Washington; and
I
I
WHEREAS, no additional protections are provided to the
citizens of Kent through Ordinance 1932 , since it is either less
restrictive or duplicates state law, both in its substance and
I
manner of enforcement; NOW, THEREFORE,
I� !
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
i
Section 1. Ordinance repealed. Ordinance 1932 , entitled:
I
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, defining and prohibiting unfair
housing practices in the sale and offering for
sale and in the rental and offering for rent
I
it
and in the financing of housing accommodations
within the City of Kent, Washington, defining
offenses and prescribing penalties and pro-
viding for the enforcement thereof under the
provisions of RCW 49. 60. 010, et al. , and
through the facilities of the "Washington State
Board Against Discrimination" and repealing
Ordinance 1521 .
i
is hereby repealed.
Section 2 . Effective date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
I
'I
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
I i
I' BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
I
i1APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I 1
it
( ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I �
I�
I
I1PASSED the day of 1991.
APPROVED the day of 1991.
I
PUBLISHED the day of 1991.
i
2 -
II
j�
J' Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: STREET OCCUPATION ORDINANCE
2 . BUP!MARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
(,Committees doption of Ordinance No. ? relating to the use
and-occupation of public streets, sidewalks and other public
places, requiring permits, defining offenses and providing
penalties.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, excerpt from Public Works Committee
minutes
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:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
Public Works Committee
August 20, 1991
Page 2
Street Occupation Ordinance
Wickstrom stated he had contacted the cities of Seattle, Auburn,
Tukwila and Renton whether they allowed sandwich board signs, their
standards, fees, etc. None of these cities allow these types of
signs in the public rights of way. Wickstrom stated he would like
to see sandwich board signs allowed on private property according
to the zoning code. " It was determined that the issue of signs on
private property is being addressed by the Planning Committee.
Wickstrom stated that at this time we have not developed any
standards or fees for signs in public rights of way. The ordinance
presented at the last Committee meeting could be moved ahead
without the standards and fees incorporated. White suggested an
annual permit, limiting the signs to a certain size and one per
business . Mr. Stringham added there should also be something about
minimum size, sign material and construction. Morris suggested the
criteria and fees be adopted in a separate ordinance so that the
fees can be adjusted as necessary without amending the original
ordinance. Jim White suggested that Mr. Rust and Mr. Stringham
work with the Public Works Department in developing the standards .
Mr. Stringham stated he has already submitted a list of suggestions
to the chair of the Planning Committee. Dowell was concerned about
the City' s liability if someone were to trip over one of the signs .
Carol Morris confirmed she had covered the liability issue in the
ordinance. Mr. Doolittle suggested the signs posted on trees and
utility poles be addressed as well . The Committee unanimously
recommended adoption of the street occupation ordinance.
Marty Nizlek Concerns - SR 516 and Reith/Meeker
S.W. 212th at Frager and Russell Roads
Nizlek addressed the Committee concerning the illegal right turns
that are being made from Reith to SR 516 . He was requesting that
a right turn lane be added at this intersection. White stated that
would eliminate the shoulder of the road and he would not recommend
doing so. Nizlek stated that about 40% of the green time of the
signal is given to Reith and Meeker and about 60% to SR 516 .
Nizlek indicated he felt that no further signal timing changes
would effect any improvement to the traffic backing up on Reith
Road. Ed White stated he is still working with the State on- the
signal timings as he feels the timing cycle length is too long. He
stated the backups are so spasmodic and short term that it is
difficult to determine if the changes to the signal timings are
effective. Nizlek concluded that he felt a minor modification
constructing a right turn lane, getting a variance from the State
to eliminate the shoulder, would eliminate the backup and reduce
the need for the amount of enforcement that is taking place. Mr.
DRAFT -- August 28, 1991
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
.Washington, relating to the use and occupa-
tion of public streets, sidewalks and other
public places; regulating the use and re-
quiring permits therefor; defining offenses ;
providing penalties; amending Ordinance 1733
on political signs and repealing Ordinance
2518 on building moving permits.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . Section 2 of Ordinance 1733 (Kent City Code
Section 9 . 06 . 080) is amended to read as follows :
Section 2 . PUBLIC PROPERTY- ( (PeTTTI TT l I TIGN) )
SIGNS PROHIBITED.
No person shall attach, place,
paint, write, stamp or paste any
sign, poster or bill upon any lamp
post, electric light , railway ,
telephone or telegraph pole, or
shade tree; on any bridge, pavement,
street, sidewalk or cross-walk,
public building or any ( (pr-e�) )
public place or anything belonging
to the City or within public
easements without obtaining a street
occupation permit as provided for in
Kent City Code Chapter 4 . 09 .
Section 2 . Section 6 of Ordinance 1733 (Kent City code
Section 9 . 06. 024) is amended to read as follows:
Section 6. PENALTIES .
Any person willfully violating ( (a--y
of the ) ) Sections
9 . 06. 012 , 9 . 06. 016 or 9 . 06. 200 of
the Kent City Code ( (this
o dinantee) ) shall be punished in
accordance with the general penalty
provisions of Kent City Code Section
1 . 02 . 080. ( (
.m hree A a it l l ($30G 09
thirty (39N, days in the
both such fine and-me n n ) )
Violations of Sections 9 . 06. 080
shall be enforced and punished in
accordance with the Street
Occupation Code, Kent City Code
Chapter 4 . 09 .
Section 3 . Ordinance 2518 , entitled:
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to building codes;
amending Chapter 14 . 08 of the Kent City
Code, to delete the requirement for a
performance bond, and amending the pro-
visions relating to house moving permits
is hereby repealed.
Section 4 . There 'shall be a new chapter added to the
Kent City Code, Chapter 4 . 09 , entitled the "Street Occupation
Permit Code, " which shall read as follows:
4 . 09 . 020 . TITLE. This chapter shall constitute the
Street Occupation Permit Code of the City of Kent.
2
4 . 09 . 040. EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER. This subtitle is
the City' s exercise of police power for the public safety, health
and welfare, and its provisions shall be liberally construed for
the accomplishment of that purpose.
4 . 09 .060 . DISCLAIMER OF CITY LIABILITY.
A. Issuance of any permit pursuant to this chapter does
not constitute the creation of a duty by the City to any person,
nor indemnify any person for any wrongful acts of a permit holder
against any person or the public, or to otherwise shift
responsibility from the permit holder to the City.
B. -Nothing contained in this chapter is intended to be
nor shall' be construed to create or form the basis for any
liability on the part of the City, its officers, officials,
employees, or agents for any injury or damage resulting from the
failure of a permit holder or permit applicant to comply with the
provisions of this chapter, or by reason or in consequence of any
act or omission in connection with the implementation or
enforcement of this chapter, on the part of the City.
C. It is expressly the purpose of this chapter to
provide for and promote the health, safety and welfare of the
general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or
designate any particular class or group of persons who will or
should be especially protected or benefitted by its terms .
D. It is the specific intent of this chapter to place
the obligation of complying with its requirements upon the permit
holder or permit applicant, and no provision of, nor term used in
this chapter, is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the
3
City or any of its officers, officials, employees, or agents, for
whom the enforcement of this chapter shall be discretionary and not
mandatory.
4 . 09 .080 . RIGHT TO PROSECUTE CIVIL ACTION. Nothing in
this chapter shall be construed to curtail or abridge the right of
anyone to prosecute a civil action for damages by reason of injury
to person or property resulting from the negligent use by any other
person of any public place or the space above or beneath the same.
Further, this chapter shall not be construed as relieving any
person from liability, nor from any damages accruing to or suffered
by anyone, which are caused by or result from the occupation,
obstruction or encroachment of any public place.
'4 .09 . 100 . DEFINITIONS.
A. Words and phrases, wherever used in this chapter
shall have the meaning ascribed to them except where otherwise
defined, and unless where the context shall clearly indicate to the
contrary.
1 . "Adjacent property" means and includes the
property abutting the margin of a public place contiguous and with
reference to said public place.
2 . "Areaway" means and includes a sunken space,
either covered or uncovered, or a court affording room, access or
light to a building.
3 . "Awning" means a temporary shelter supported
entirely from the exterior wall of a building.
4
4 . "Banner" means any pliable canvas or cloth sign
material stretched over or across any public place.
5. "Building" is any structure used or intended
for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.
6 . "Business property" means and includes all
properties not included in "residence property" defined in this
section.
7 . "Canopy" means a nonrigid, collapsible,
nonretractable, protective covering located at an entrance to a
building.
8 . "City Engineer" means the Kent City Engineer
and his authorized representatives .
9 . "Department" means the Public Works Department
of the City of Kent.
10 . "Director" means the Public Works Director and
his authorized representatives.
11 . "Driveway" means and includes that portion of
a public place which provides access to an off-street vehicular
facility through a depression in the constructed curb or, when
there is no constructed curb, that area in front of such vehicular
facility as is well defined or as is designated by authorized signs
or markings.
5
12 . "Improved public place" means any public place,
as defined in this chapter, which contains overhead or underground
utilities or a driving or walking surface.
13 . "Marquee" means a permanent, roofed structure
attached to and supported by the building and projecting over
public property.
14 . "Marquee sign" means a sign placed on,
constructed in, or attached to a marquee.
15. "Newsstand" means any stand, box structure,
rack or other device which is designed or used for the sale and/or
distribution of newspapers, periodicals, magazines or other
publications, or any combination thereof.
16 . "Public place" means and includes streets,
avenues, ways, boulevards, drives, places, alleys, sidewalks,
planting (parking) strips, squares, triangles and other rights-of-
way open to the use of the public, and the space above or beneath
the surface of same. This definition specifically does not include
streets, alleys, ways, planting strips and sidewalks which have not
been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the
public for public use.
17 . "Sidewalk cafe" means a portion of sidewalk
area in which are placed tables and chairs for the use of the
public while consuming food and/or beverages, including alcoholic
beverages, served by a cafe or restaurant located on adjoining
property.
6
18 . "Sign" means any medium, including its
structure and component parts, which is used or intended to be used
out of doors to attract attention to the subject matter for
advertising purposes.
19 . "Sign, portable" means a sign which is not
permanently affixed and is designed for or capable of being moved,
except those signs explicitly designed for people to carry on their
persons or which are permanently affixed to motor vehicles .
20 . "Structure" means that which is built or
constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of
work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in
some definite manner.
21 . "Use" means and includes: to construct, store,
erect, place upon, or maintain, or operate in, upon, over or under
any public place, any areaway, marquee, awning, clock, newsstand,
sign, sidewalk elevator or door, fuel opening, sidewalk cafe or
restaurant, staging, swinging scaffold, elevator or other structure
or material, machinery or tools used or to be used in connection
with the erection, alteration, repair or painting of any building;
or to move any building across or along any public place; or to use
or occupy any public place for the storage or placement of any
material , equipment or thing; or to operate any cleated or tracked
vehicle in any public place; or to allow any vehicle to be in or
upon any public place other than that portion used as a roadway; or
to allow any vehicle to be upon that portion of roadway designated
as parking or curb space for purposes of selling or soliciting in
addition to merely parking; or to remove, injure, or destroy any
tree, flower, plant or shrub in any public place; or to open,
7
excavate, or in any manner disturb or break the surface or
foundation of any permanent pavement of a public place, or to alter
the established grade of any street, or to disturb the surface of,
dig up, cut, excavate or fill in any public place; or to construct,
reconstruct, maintain or remove any sidewalk or crosswalk,
pavement, sewers, water mains, grading, street lighting, or
appurtenances thereto, except when permitted by ordinance, or to do
any work in, or erect any structure tinder, along or over any public
place.
B. Words in the present tense shall include the future
tense, words in the masculine gender shall include the feminine and
neuter genders, and words in the singular shall include the plural
and plural words shall include the singular.
4 . 09 . 120 . SAFETY CODE, BUILDING CODE AND WASHINGTON
CLEAN ACT COMPLIANCE. All .work to be done under the authority of
this chapter shall be accomplished in compliance with all
applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes, including
the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City, the State Safety
Code, the Washington Clean Air Act and the rules and regulations of
the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, and shall diligently
proceed without undue delay or inconvenience to the public.
4 . 09 . 140 . OCCUPATION PERMIT REQUIRED. It shall be
unlawful for anyone to use any public place for private purposes,
without having first obtained a written permit from the Director,
and without complying with all the provisions of this chapter in
relation thereto; provided that nothing herein shall apply to
street, drainage, water or sewer maintenance work performed by the
City, including street, drainage, water or sewer installation and
8
improvement work authorized by ordinance, or street, drainage,
water or sewer improvement projects under contract with the City.
4 .09 . 160 . PERMIT APPLICATION. Applications for permits
under this chapter shall be filed with the Director, upon a form
furnished by the Department. Such applications shall contain:
A. An accurate description of the public place or
portion thereof desired to be used;
B. The use desired to be made of such public place by
the applicant;
C. The plans and specifications for any utility or
structure desired to be constructed, erected or maintained by the
applicant in or on a public place ;
D. Where it is desired to construct a fuel opening,
sidewalk elevator or door, a certificate from the City Property
Manager showing the applicant to be the record owner of the
premises abutting and in connection with which such fuel opening,
sidewalk elevator or door is to be constructed; and
E. If a building or structure is being moved from a
location in the City, the applicant shall verify that the sewer is
capped, the septic tank removed, or that the septic tank has been
filled within inert material . The applicant shall also verify that
all utility charges have been paid at the location from which the
building is to be moved. Complete plans and specifications showing
the method of travel , dimensions of the object to be moved, weight,
9
route of travel and the date and time of move shall be filed with
the permit application.
4 .09 . 180 . PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS.
A. The City Engineer shall examine each application
submitted to determine if it complies with the provisions of this
chapter. In order to ascertain any facts which may aid in
determining whether a permit shall be granted, the City Engineer or
his representative may inspect the premises which are desired to be
used under the permit. The City Engineer' s findings shall be
endorsed upon such application and transmitted to the Director.
B. Any application for a permit to construct, erect or
maintain any awning, marquee, sign, or any structure in a public
place shall be first transmitted to the Building Official of the
City, who shall ascertain if the plans and specifications conform
to the regulations pertaining to safety, material and design of the
Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City. The Building
Official shall then endorse his findings on the application and
transmit the same to the City Engineer.
C. _Any application to move a building or structure
shall be transmitted by the City Engineer to the Building, Fire and
Planning Departments of the City for review. No permit shall be
issued under this chapter until all other permits required by the
City have been issued.
D. If the Director finds that the application presented
to him for approval conforms to the requirements of this chapter,
and also that the proposed use of such public place will not unduly
interfere with the rights of the public, he may approve such
10
application. The Director shall then fix the period of time for
which the permit shall be granted, which shall in no case be longer
than one (1) year, and approve such permit for issuance, upon the
applicant' s compliance with the terms of this chapter.
4 . 09 .200 . INDEMNITY DEPOSIT -- SURETY BOND -- LIABILITY
INSURANCE.
A. If the Director determines that there is a
probability of injury, damage or expense to the City arising from
an applicant' s proposed use of any public place, the applicant
shall provide a cash indemnity deposit to the Public Works
Department. The amount of the cash indemnity deposit shall be
determined by the Director, be governed by the anticipated amount
and extent of injury, damage or expense to the City, and determined
at the time of application approval . such indemnity deposit shall
be used to pay the cost of inspections, surveys, plans and other
administrative services performed by the City, of restoring the
street and removing any earth or other debris from the street, the
replacement of any utility interrupted or damaged, or the
completion of any work left unfinished, the cost of filing of an
indemnity agreement with the Public Works Department, if such an
agreement is required with the permit, and any other expense the
City may sustain in conjunction with the permitted work. The
balance of the cash indemnity deposit, if any, after the foregoing
deductions, shall be returned to the applicant. If the indemnity
deposit be insufficient, the applicant will be liable for the
deficiency. If the City Engineer or Director determines that
engineering studies must be made prior to the approval of any
application for permit, the cost of such study shall be paid for by
the applicant, or deducted from his indemnity deposit.
11
B. The applicant may, in lieu of or in addition to the
cash indemnity deposit, file with the Department a surety bond
which has been approved as to surety and as to form by the City
Attorney; which shall meet all the requirements provided in Section
4 . 09 . 200 (A) above relative to a cash indemnity deposit; shall run
for the full period of the permit; and shall be in an amount to be
fixed by the Director and conditioned such that the applicant shall
faithfully comply with all the terms of the permit, all the
provisions of this chapter, all other ordinances of the City, and
indemnify and save the City free and harmless from any and all
claims, actions and damages of every kind and description which may
accrue to, or be suffered by, any person by reason of the use of
any public place .
C. An applicant for a permit shall maintain in full
force and effect public liability insurance in an amount sufficient
to cover potential claims for bodily injury, death or disability
and for property damage, which may arise from or in connection with
the permit. The Director shall establish the amount of such
insurance, and a copy of the policy shall be provided to the City
for review prior to issuance of the permit.
D. If the application is for the construction,
reconstruction, repair, maintenance or removal of any sidewalk,
pavement, sewers, water mains, grading, street lighting, or
appurtenances thereto, the applicant shall file with the
Department a surety bond approved as to surety and as to form by
the City Attorney, which bond shall run for the full period of the
permit plus one (1) year after the acceptance of the permitted work
by the City, and shall be in an amount fixed by the Director, and
conditioned such that the applicant shall faithfully complete all
12
portions of the work according to the Standard Plans and
Specifications of the City, and the specific plans for the work as
approved by the City Engineer.
E. The Director may require any permit holder to post
a surety bond in the calendar year following the period of a permit
when the extent of possible damage to a public place cannot be
completely determined.
4 . 09 . 220 . INDEMNITY TO SAVE CITY HARMLESS FROM CLAIMS.
In addition to the foregoing cash indemnity fund, the
applicant; owner of the premises in front of which, and in
connection with which, the permit is to be obtained; and any
existing lessee, sublessee, tenant and subtenant using or occupying
the basement of the premises in connection with which such
structure is to be used; shall be required to execute a written
agreement supplied by the City Attorney to forever hold and save
the City free and harmless from any and all claims, actions or
damages of every kind and description which may accrue to, or be
suffered by, any person by reason of the use of such public place,
or of the construction, existence, maintenance or use of any such
structure. Such agreement shall also contain a covenant on the
part of the persons or corporations executing the same, for
themselves and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors,
assigns, lessees, sublessees, tenants and subtenants, assuming the
duty of inspecting and maintaining all structures, services,
instrumentalities and facilities installed or to be constructed or
occupied under authority of such permit, and assuming all liability
for, and saving and holding the City harmless from any and all
loss, damage or injury that may result to his or their own person
or property, or the person or property of another, by reason of the
13
use or occupation of such structure, services, instrumentalities or
facilities on or in a public place pursuant to this chapter.
4 .09 .240 . PERMIT TO VEST NO PERMANENT RIGHT --
REVOCATION -- FEE SCHEDULE.
A. All permits authorized under this chapter shall be
of a temporary nature, shall vest no permanent right whatsoever,
and may in any case be revoked by the Director upon thirty (30)
day' s notice, posted on the premises, mailed to the permit holder,
or without notice in the case where any such use or occupation
shall become dangerous or any structure or obstruction permitted
shall become insecure or unsafe, or shall not be constructed,
maintained or used in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter.
B. If any such structure, obstruction, use or occupancy
is not discontinued on notice to do so by the Director, the City
Engineer may remove such structure or obstruction from such place,
or may make such repairs upon such structure or obstruction as may
be necessary to render the same secure and safe, at the expense of
the permit holder, or his successor, and such expense may be
collected in the manner provided by law; and the Director may
require a surety bond in such connection.
C. The Director is authorized to renew such permits
under the same procedures set forth in this chapter for initial
permit applications, and further directed to prepare and adopt a
schedule of fees applicable to all such permits heretofore or
hereafter issued commensurate with the cost of administration,
inspection and policing involved in the issuance and continuance of
14
ti
such permits and the use thereby granted, and any such schedule,
when approved by the city council by resolution, shall govern the
amount of the fee for any such permit, which shall be collected by
the Public Works Department as a condition to the issuance or
renewal of any such permit. In order to effectuate the collection
of such fees, the Public Works Department may notify holders of
outstanding permits previously issued as a reminder to pay the
applicable fee or the permit will be revoked.
D. When the use requiring a permit is made of any
street or public area, without a permit being first obtained, the
fee shall be double that provided in the schedule of fees . The
double fee shall apply only to the first tenure of the permit.
4 . 09 . 260 . ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. Upon approval of the
Director of an application for the use or occupation of a public
place, the Department shall issue a permit therefore. The original
permit shall remain in the Department' s files and a copy shall be
given to the grantee.
4 . 09 .280 . REFUND ON PERMIT FEE. Whenever the fee paid
for any street use or occupation permit shall be erroneous for any
reason, and application is made for refund, the Director shall
certify the facts justifying such refund, the amount thereof, and
his approval of such refund, and upon presentation of such
certificate to the Finance Department to pay a warrant therefore in
the amount of such refund.
4 . 09 . 300 PORTABLE SIGNS -- PERMIT -- REMOVAL. It is
unlawful for any person to place, erect or maintain a portable sign
upon any public place unless a permit has been obtained pursuant to
15
this chapter. Permitted signs which are ten feet (10 ' ) or less in
height as measured from street or driveway grade and which obscure
the vision of motorists shall be located at least twenty feet (201 )
from intersections or driveways, or at any other location on the
public place as determined by the Director. The existence of any
such portable sign which has not been specifically permitted under
this chapter shall be considered an obstruction existing unlawfully
upon the public place, and the Department may proceed to effect its
removal, and the removal thereof in no event constitutes a breach
of the peace or a trespass.
4 . 09 .320 . PORTABLE SIGNS -- IMPOUND -- DESTRUCTION.
Every portable sign removed under Section 4 . 09 . 300 of this chapter
by the Department shall be impounded and held on the Department ' s
premises for a period of ten (10) days . The owner or other person
responsible may redeem such sign upon presentation of a monetary
amount sufficient to cover the costs of removal and storage. Any
portable sign not redeemed after ten (10) days will be stored or
destroyed by the Department, at its option.
4 . 09 . 340 . ENFORCEMENT. The Director is authorized to
post notice on private property at or abutting the scene of any
violation of this ordinance calling for compliance with the terms
herewith.
4 . 09 . 360 . REMOVING OR DESTROYING NOTICES PROHIBITED. It
shall be unlawful for anyone to remove, mutilate, destroy or
conceal any notice issued or posted under the authority of the
Director pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
16
4. 09 . 380. VIOLATION -- PENALTY.
A. In addition to any other sanction or remedial
procedure which may be available, any person violating or failing
to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter shall be
subject to a cumulative penalty in the amount of seventy-five
dollars ($75 . 00) per day from the date the Director shall set in a
written notice for the removal of any obstruction or the
discontinuance of any use or occupancy of any public place, until
compliance with such notice.
B. The penalty imposed by this section shall be
collected in a civil action brought in the name of the City. The
Director shall notify the City Attorney in writing of the name of
any person subject to the penalty, and the City Attorney shall ,
with the assistance of the Director, take appropriate action to
collect the penalty.
4 . 09 . 400 . ADDITIONAL RELIEF. The Director may seek
legal or equitable relief to enjoin any acts or practices and abate
any condition which constitutes or will constitute a violation of
this chapter when civil or criminal penalties are inadequate to
effect compliance.
Section 5 Severability. The provisions of this
ordinance are declared to be separate and severable, the invalidity
of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion
of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to
any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to
other persons or circumstances.
17
Section 6 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final
approval and passage as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 1991.
APPROVED the day of 1991 .
PUBLISHED the day of , 1991 .
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
occupa. ord
18
'ki Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WATER LINE CROSSING SOUTH 222nd
2 . SUMMARY ST -EiM: As recommended by the Public Works
.,Committee, idoption of Ordinance No. authorizing staff to
proceed with condemnation procedures for right-of-way on
So. 222nd for a water line crossing, r.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and
vicinity map, ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X 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. 3A
Public Works Committee
August 20, 1991
Page 4
196th Corridor
Wickstrom explained we have been attempting to acquire a particular
parcel since 1989 and have had funds reserved since that time. It
appears we are now close to settlement and we are requesting
authorization to transfer the funds from the Street CIP to the
project. The Committee unanimously approved the request.
Water Crossing S. 222nd - Condemnation for Right of Way
Wickstrom explained we have a water main from North 4th going east
to the railroad tracks and a water main on 222nd going west to the
railroad tracks. We are proposing to tie the two together which
would eliminate a severe water hammer problem we have at Liquid Air
plant. We have been negotiating with the railroad but they are
only willing to give the City a permit which does not give us any
permanent rights . We are requesting authorization to proceed with
condemnation should we not be able to reach agreement with
Burlington Northern. The Committee unanimously approved the
request.
Underground Storage Tanks Removal and Installation of Above Ground
Tanks
Wickstrom explained we had previously awarded this project but the
contractor was unable to obtain the proper insurance. We rescinded
the bid and readvertised the project. The low bid received on the
second ad was $7 , 300 higher than previous. Wickstrom stated we are
mandated by Federal law to remove the tanks; thus, he requested
transferring the additional funds from the unencumbered water and
sewer utility funds and to award the project. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval.
I
N
�C b'M 77,1-11�
0
�P
r �I
U �. � I u •'� � .'Sf� it
aco +� ! LO
-r-:
co
r
10n
� � O
Ln �1
I � �
43-FT- lO F pos - 'v �hrl�f 'r
-
T
1,i1 ma
dol.fn. F-n
c7
J h-
i
j
ORDINANCE NO.
J
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, providing for the acquisition of
an easement for water line installation
purposes over certain property on So. 222nd
Street; providing for the payment thereof out
of any of the City' s Capital Improvement '
Funds; and providing for the condemnation of
such property rights as necessary therefor;
said properties located within Section 12 ,
Township 22 North, Range 4 East, in King j
j County, Washington.
i
� I
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
• HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
i
ji
i
Section 1 . The City of Kent ("City") authorizes the
acquisition by condemnation of a parcel of real property,
I
together with all rights, privileges and other property
pertaining thereto, located in King County, Washington and
legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated hereto by this reference (hereinafter, the
i
"Property") .
Section 2 . The public convenience, use and necessity
demand that the City condemn, appropriate, take and damage the
i
Property for water line installation purposes, which purposes
shall include all acts necessary to complete installation of a
water main and related improvements on So. 222nd Street in Kent,
Washington.
Section 3 . The City shall condemn the Property only
iafter just compensation has first been made or paid into court
for the owner or owners in the manner prescribed by law.
I
Section 4 . The City shall pay for the entire cost of
the acquisition by condemnation provided for in this Ordinance
i from the City's Capital Improvement Funds or, if necessary, any
of the City' s general funds, as may be provided by law.
I
i
Section 5. The City authorizes and directs the City
Attorney to commence those proceedings provided by law that are
necessary to condemn the Property. In conducting the
i
condemnation proceedings, the City authorizes the City Attorney
to enter into stipulations in order to minimize damages, which
stipulations may include, but not be limited to, size and
dimensions of the Property, construction easements and other
property interests.
i
Section 6. Any acts consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this Ordinance are ratified and
confirmed.
I
Section 7 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its !
final approval and passage as provided by law.
i
I �
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
i
ATTEST:
i
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
2 '
I �
,I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
i
i
j ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 1991.
APPROVED the day of 1991.
PUBLISHED the day of 1991.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy
of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the
� City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City
lof Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
'I I
1
I I
I
50222 . ord
3
EXHIBIT A
A strip of land lying within the southeast
quarter of Section 12 , Township 22 N,
Range 4 E, which strip is 25 . 00 feet in width
and the northerly line of said strip begins
at a point of intersection with the north
line of So. 222nd Street. and the east right-
of-way line of Burlington Northern Railroad
Company' s 100 . 00 foot wide right-of-way being
the True point of Beginning of line herein
described; thence N 8102014411 W a distance of
110. 00 feet more or less to a point on the
west line of said right-of-way being the
terminus of line herein described.
n P Kent City Council Meeting
[_ lV Date September 3 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: NORTHWEST BUSINESS PARK PLAT PHASE I
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Upland Industrial Development
Company for continuous operation and maintenance of approxi-
mately 6012 feet of water main extension, 1, 396 of sanitary
sewer extension, 51377 feet of street improvements and 5, 374 of
storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of South
226th Street and 58th Place South, South 228th Street and 54th
Avenue South and South 228th Street and 64th Avenue South for
the Northwest Business Park Plat Phase I and release of the cash
bond with waiver of the one-year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X _ 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. 3KX
i �.
srl 1�
j G
n Z
1
fD 'S 416TM ST - '
22.6TH 5T
z' s" 22aTM ST '
•LAG ®N:.. . �
y
n i
51,226TH'51
�LR-
—
ys 5 234TH SST, {1.
a
m -
S. R35TH 5T m 5T
i -y - MENOR t
SST .n z -
C 1190NS ¢ GE
5FH Sr /¢ tCNHONS PL F7FIFL IIW Q �,�_
NEER.. T ¢
NORTHWEST BUSINESS PARK PLAT PHASE I •�� � � � na,9K
IaS
-
-' SMITH Si
AFESER
w
( r I a
—STFlOW
X;�l>'NlSs .FIRE 111
1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: VAN DOREN'S LANDING SHORT PLAT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Upland Industrial Development
Company for continuous operation and maintenance of approxi-
mately 920 of storm sewer improvements constructed in the
vicinity of 64 Avenue South and South 226th for the Van Doren's
Landing Short Plat and release of the cash bond with waiver of
the one-year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
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:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L.X
rr
I
m
41
} 4 i
OTHST
�F � 2xo• sr
S 226TH-ST Ar
— o
I
.m 1 S'228TN ST "Mf�L
� MF,
i
H LDLE I(ENF
S. 236TH ST / .w iu ST
b �
S 238TH -5T
F C M;'lONS;c z � GE 'E
=fELfJ� � ] :
> 9
'JRMESST• z .. .
l - BOADEN u
VAN DORENS LANDING SHORT PLAT YFrA _ a VEER:
dlJ£ i his m
SMITH ST •� - z
u
z REm
J. I { HaHR N .. -tT. ;.
GORE S� ult
crrr a
-
S _
P �
cnoN. 51
K�448 XISm
5 '
"3�'. :I ! ! r',' i✓gam S i f I�I 1i 1 m� 's , . � � i e
�1 Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 . 1991
ly �` Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set September 17, 1991
for a public hearing to consider adoption of the 1992 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as recommended by the
City Council's Planning Committee.
3 . EXHIBITS:
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning 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 Age da
Item No. 3M
v
Kent City Council Meeting
6l Date September 3 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: BUSINESS LICENSE REVOCATION - U.S . ENGINE INC.
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set October 1, 1991, as
the date for a public hearing on the revocation of the business
license for U.S. Engine, Inc.
Kent City Code Section 5. 02 . 120 states that if the Council finds
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a business has
or is operating in violation of the laws of Kent, it shall order
the City Clerk to send a written notice to the license holder
that a hearing shall be held to determine whether the business
license will be revoked. The Planning Department has either
cited or informed U.S. Engine of violations of Kent City Code.
3 . EXHIBITS: Notice of Violation letter to U.S. Engine; copy of
citations
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X 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. 3N +(
CITY OFLJZSV Dan Kelleher, Mayor
( James P. Harris, Planning Director
August 5 , 1991
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Mr. Michael P. Crossan
U. S. Engine, Inc.
18403 East Valley Highway
Kent, WA 98032
RE: BUSINESS KNOWN AS U. S. ENGINE, INC. , AKA NW ENGINE EXCHANGE,
LOCATED AT 18403 EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY
BUSINESS LICENSE #8806353
Dear Mr. Crossan:
This will provide notice to you that the business known as U. S.
Engine, Inc. aka NW Engine Exchange, is subject to business license
revocation. The business has been served with two citations for
violations of the Kent Zoning Code, as shown on the attached
copies, both dated March 29 , 1991.
Kent City Code provides that the Kent City Council may revoke a
business license of any business operating in the City upon making
a finding that any of the following circumstances exist:
1. That the business has engaged in conduct which is a
nuisance, or is otherwise injurious to the public health,
safety or welfare of Kent; and
2 . That the business has or is operating in violation of the
laws of Kent, or other governmental authority. (Kent
City Code Section 5. 02 . 100)
This notice will be sent to the Kent City Clerk ' s office and the
City Council, in order that a public hearing will be set on the
revocation of Business License No. 8806353 , pursuant to KCC Section
5. 02 . 110 . You will be informed of the date set for the hearing.
In addition to business license revocation and the penalties
accruing under the individual citations attached to this notice,
Kent City Code allows additional penalties against a violator in
the amount of three hundred dollars ($300) . KCC 4 . 02 . 090.
220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206(859.3390/FAX#859-3334
COPY RECEIVED
Mr. Michael P. crossan AUG 05 1991
August S. 1991
Page 2 Kent City Attorney
Any communications regarding this Notice of Violation should be
addressed to Charlene Anderson, who may be reached at 859-3390.
Scheduling of the hearing will be done in the City Clerk' s office,
telephone number 859-3370 .
Sincerely,
4
harlene Anderson
I Planner
CA/slc:usrevoke. ltr
cc: Dan Kelleher, Mayor
Norm Angelo, Fire Chief
Kent City Clerk
Scott Garrison, Tax Discovery, Washington State Department of
Revenue, 301 Evergreen Plaza Building, Olympia, WA 98504
James Gooding, Attorney at Law, 909 W. Meeker Street, Kent, WA
98032-5795
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Robert Hutchinson, Building Official
Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
Carol Proud, Senior Planner
Russ Segner, Segner Park 184 , 4536 153rd SE, Bellevue, WA
98006
Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works
(bcc: Richard Chase, Kent Water Quality Engineer
Terri McCartin, Kent Fire Department.
Carol Morris, Assistant City Attorney
James Ratcliff, 3600 Meadow Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98056)
I❑ INFRACTION_ MOO I❑ TRAFFIC�NON;TRAFFIC K0134608
0 STATE OF WASHIN ON
O COUNTY OF KING ,PLAINTIFF VS.NAMED DEFENDANT
O CITY/TOWN OF KENT
IN THE ❑ DISTRICT ❑ COURT OF AUKEEN
W MUNICIPAL KENT WASHINGTON
STATEOF _.—.__......
ASHINGTON L.E A. COURT
couNrYOF. . KING Ncic WA 0170700 NCIC 617205
. - . THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES AND SAYS THAT IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DRIVER'S LICENSE STATE NO. � - -' ---------
iE%PIRES SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
' ........ .. ....__._.._ _.HIGH _ __ __ ...
NAME: LAST. FIRST INITIAL
❑INTERPRETER
/ NEEDED
_._.._...'__.__—..___.._._... .__._.. .
ADDRESS/ / - 1• 1 ! ,/ , / 0- .IF NEW ADDRESS
. .. .._._•_. HIGH .____ .. ._ YER
CO
HIGH__ PASSENGER O P SSE GER
CITY f . STATE ZIP DE EMPLO �—' -'---'
- —SE% (RACE (DATE OF BIRTH---- `HEIGHT WEIGHT EYES HAIR RESIDENTIAL PHONE NO..
-
VIOLATION DATE MONTH DAY rEAR TIME
ON OR ABOUT // 24 HOUR
AT LOCATION_..._......___._...—.„.•..t__.._ _. ._.__—_._.._._...____,.__...._.___.____�___._.
I M.P.I I CITY/COUNTY OF
FLICENSE
ATE THE FOLLOWING VEHICLE/MOTOR VEHICLE ON A__P_U__BLIC HIGHWAY AND
STATE E%PIRES VEH VR MAKE ODEL (STYLE _ COLOR
JI ENO SjSTTEEXPIRESTR.YRI � �OTHER THAN DRIVER ,ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
ACCIDENT PAC OMMERCIAI O YES HAZARD ❑VES E%EMPT ❑FARM ❑ FIRE
NO PO i F :READING VEHICLE ❑NO PLACARD ON VEHICLE ❑R.V. 0 OTHER
DID THEN AND THERE_ COMMIT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING OFFENSES/INFRACTIONS _
1.VIOLATION/STATUTE CODE DESCRIPTION VEHICLE SPEED IN A ZONE RADAR
____.....__ ..___.�_—____..• APACE
------------ AIRCRAFT
.... TI HIGH_._ .. .
2.VIOLATION/STATUTE CODE DESCRIPON .._.------
'"---'----
� -----� PENALTY/BAIL _
U.S. FUNDS
APPEARANCE MO. DY. YR. TIME A.M. BOOKING DATE NOTICE
I DATE P.M. DATE ISSUED
WITHOUT ADMITTING HAVING COMMITTED EACH OF I CERTIFY IOR DECLARE(UNOEPIFNALTY O/PERJIIRYUNDlR THl LAWS OF TN!THE ABOVE INFRACTIONS/OFFENSES I PROMISE TO ETATEOF WASHINGTON THAT I HAVE REASONABLE OROU1,100/PROBABLE CAUSE
RESPOND AS DIRECTED ON THIS NOTICE. TO BEueVE AND GO BELIEVE THE ABOVE NAMED PERSON COMEDTTEO THE
ABOVE INi RACTION101 ANO/ OIFENSEISI CONTRARY TO LAW.
OFFICER---- i NUMBER ,
I
--� -----"—"' DATE J —DEFENDANT'S SIGNATURE PLACE
' ,WA
OFFICER REMARKS
------- -----WWII__ _„
w
, .-__..._._...-_.__........--•-'-----_-_--__-'--'---_._.._..------------ 'WEE-WEE
d
co
WASHINGTON UNIFORM OFFICERS REPORT-LEA COPY
DISPLAY C I T A T I O N S 07/13/91 0135
Citation No. CI-91-134608 Type CN CRIME/NON-TRAF
Location: 18403 EAST VALLEY HY City: KENT RD: OC
Officer: 18490 HAENEL, DAVID CASST Occur Date: 032991 FRI Time: 1040
Speed Approx: PF/Max: Speed: Veh Limit: Radar: N Area:
Court: 17070 AUKEEN DISTRICT CT Appearance Date: Time:
Related Case No: - - Residence:
Type Charge Description Dispo Fine/Bail Suspended Subtotal Plea Find
CN KCC 502030 BUSINESS W/O C 100 . 00 0. 00 0.00
100 . 00 0. 00 100. 00
Other Costs: 0. 00 Total: 100. 00
Dates: Notice 910329 Booking Judge Abstract Mail
Days: Jail Suspended Credit License Surrender Date:
Receipt: 043091 Receipt:
DISPLAY P E R S O N 07/13/91 0135
Case No: CI-91-134608 - Involvement: CI O1 CITED: PERSON-OR-CAR
N. .a: last: CROSSAN first: MICHAEL mid: P suf:
Sex: M Race: DOB: Age: / Occ:
Ht: 0 / 0 Wt: / Build: Hair: Eyes:
DL#: WA SS# : FBI# : SID#:
Residence: Apartment:
Addr: 18403 Street: EAST VALLEY HY
City: KENT ST: WA RD: 0060 Zip: 98032 CT:
Phone: (206) -
Business Name: US ENGINE INC suite:
Addr: Street: US ENGINE INC
City: UNKNOWN ST: WA RD: 9990 Zip: Phone: (206) -
❑ INFRACTION CRIMIN—L ❑ TRAFFIC .NON-TRAFFIC Kfl134�4 1
O STATE OF WASHINGTON -
❑COUNTY OF KING ,PLAINTIFF VS..NAMED DEFENDANT
- O CITY/TOWN OF KENT - •'
IN THE ❑ DISTRICT ❑ MUNICIPAL COURT OF AUKEEN KENT,WASHINGTON
STATE OF
WASHINGTON TY OF KING NCIC WA 0170700 NC C T 617205
COUTHE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES AND SAYS THAT IN THE STATE OFWASHING I ON
DRIVER'S LICENSE NO. STATE E%PIRES SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
NAME: LAST FIRST INITIAL ❑INTERPRETER
1I.; 1.. J NEEDED
! - /t D IF NEW ADDRESS
ADDRESS _
/!II L +' 1/ �' ❑PASSENGER
CITY STATE ZIP Co DE EMPLOYE(i ! r.� �i� //!✓ .
SE% 1 RACE DATE OF BIRTH HEIGHT WEIGHT EYES HAIR RESIDENTIAL PHONE NO.
VIOLATION DATE MONTH onv YEAR TIME /
ON OR ABOUT 24 HOUR /,!
�.,t p QITY/COUNTY OF
AT LOCATION !.// ) /1.,7— 'Y
DID OPERATE THE FOLLOWING VEHICLE/MOTOR VEHICLE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND
VEHICLE LICENSE NO. S7ATE EXPIRES VEH.VR. MAKE- MODEL STYLE COLOR E
TRAILER N1 LICENSE NO.STATE EXPIRES TR.YR. RAILER N�J•IG6NSE'NQ STATE EXPIRES TR.YR.
OWNER/COMPANY IF OTHER THAN DRIYER" ADDRESS,, �CITY STATE ZIP CODE
ACCIDENT AC OMMERCIAL D YES HAZARD OYES EXEMPT O FARM ❑ FIRE
NO PD 1 F READING VEHICLE ❑NO PLACARD ❑NO I VEHICLE ❑R.V. O OTHER
DID THEN AND THERE COMMIT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING OFFENSES/INFRACTIONS
1 VIOLATION/STATUTE CODE DESCRIPTION VEHICLE SPEED IN A ZONE"— RADAR i
❑PACE
v r. f/ ( f ❑AIRCRAFT
--77 -ram ,
l:f .iJ! !.t1 + 1+1.1 ,.'/ .?
2.VI^ STATU RIPT N
I
I
PENALTY/BAIL
U.S. FUNDS
APPEAR A
NC`w 6•.'CD�.Y.A- T-YR M: DAT 1, DATE N OTICE
ISSUED
I
..
WITHOUT ADMITTING HAVING COMMITTED EACH OF I CERTIFY LOB DECLARE)UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE UWB OF THE
THE ABOVE INFRACTIONS/OFFENSES I PROMISE TO .0 BELIEVELIAAFNiD DO BELIEVE THE RABOVE NAMED PERSON COMMITTED THE I I'
RESPOND AS DIRECTED ON THIS NOTICE. ABOVE INFRACTICNIS)A.=R OFFENSEM CONTRARY TO LAW.
R I
OFF) E
c / a`7
X
DEFENDANT'S SIGNATURE DATE PLACEFWA .i {
OFFICER REMARKS .
w
WASHINGTON UNIFORM OFFICERS REPORT-LEA COPY
C I T A T I O N S 07/14/91 0157
DISPLAY
Citation No. CI-91-13460_ Type CN CRIME/NON-TRAF
HY City: KENT RD: 0060
_ ,cation: 18403 _ EAST VALLEY —
officer: 18490 Occur Date: 032991 FRI Time: 1040
Speed Approx: PF/Max: _ h Limit: Radar: N
Speed: Ve Time:
Court: 17070 Appearance Date:
Related Case No: _-- Residence:
Type Charge Description Dispo Fine/Bail Suspended Subtotal Plea Find
200. 00
CN KCC 1507040 FAIL PROVIDE L 200. 00 — — — — —
— 200 . 00 0. 00 200. 00
Other Cost — Total: 200. 00
s:
Dates: Notice 032991 Booking Judge Abstract Mail
Days: Jail Suspended Credit License Surrender Date:
Receipt: — Receipt: —
DISPLAY P E R S O N 07/14/91 0159
Case No: CI-91-134603 - Involvement: CI O1 CITED: PERSON-OR-CAR
Name: last: CROSSAN
first: MICHAEL mid: P suf:
Sex: M Race: DOB: Age: / Occ:
Ht: 0 / 0 Wt: / Build: Hair: Eyes:
DL# : WA
SS#: FBI# : SID#:
Residence: Apartment:
Addr: 18403 Street: EAST VALLEY HY
City: KENT ST: WA RD: 0060 Zip: 98032 CT:
Phone: (206) -
Business Name: US ENGINE INC Suite:
Addr: Street: US ENGINE INC Phone: (206) -
City: UNKNOWN ST: WA RD: 9990 Zip:
1fl Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PARKSIDE WETLANDS PURCHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the mayor to sign an
earnest money agreement in the amount of $118, 000 to purchase
Lots 1 through 6, Block 22 , Interurban Heights, 3rd Section as
part of the West Hill Parkside Wetlands project, as approved by
the Parks Committee.
3 . EXHIBITS: Earnest Money Agreement
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $118 , 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: $ 59, 000 West Hill C. I . P.
$ 59 , 000 King County Conservation Futures
Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
+ ! �3 ��
Councilmember � � .(,�^�- moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION: -
ACTION:—
Council Agenda
k. t Item No. 30'K
�, a
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
WITH EARNEST MONEY PROVISION
The undersigned Purchaser, City of Kent, agrees to purchase and the
undersigned Seller, Vicki R. Long, agrees to sell , on the following terms, the
property located at the southwest corner of South 246th Street and 26th Place
South in the City of Kent, King County, Washington, legally described as
follows:
Lots 1 through 6, inclusive, Block 22, Interurban
Heights, 3rd Section, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, Page 87,
in King County, Washington.
This offer, if accepted by Seller, is contingent upon approval by Kent
City Council . Should the Council not approve, all monies shall be returned
and the offer is null and void.
1 . Purchase Price. The total purchase price is one hundred eighteen
thousand and no/100 dollars ($118,000.00) .
2. Method of Payment. Cash upon closing.
3. Condition of Title. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement,
title to the property is to be free of all encumbrances or defects, except
that rights reserved in federal patents or state deeds, building or use
restrictions general to the area, other than platting and subdivision
requirements, and utility easements shall not be deemed encumbrances or
defects. Encumbrances to be discharged by the Seller shall be paid by the
Seller on or before closing.
4. Utilities. Seller warrants that the property is connected to
X A. public water main
B. well
C. public sewer main
X D. septic tank
E. none of the above
5. Leased Fixtures. Any leased fixtures are included in the sale and
Seller agrees to acquire title to the same prior to closing.
6. Closing of the Sale. This sale shall be closed on October 31, 1991
or sooner by written agreement of the parties. This sale shall be closed by
Curran, Kleweno & Johnson Escrow Service, 555 W. Smith, Kent, Washington
98032. Purchase and Seller shall , immediately upon demand, deposit with
closing agent all instruments and monies required to complete the purchase in
accordance with this Agreement.
7. Closing Costs dnd Proration. Purchaser shall each pay ail of the
escrow fees. Taxes for the current year and all rents, interest, utilities
and other liens and charges shall be prorated as of closing.
8. Possession. Purchaser shall be entitled to possession on closing.
"Closing" means the date upon which all documents are recorded and the sale
proceeds are available to Seller.
9. Default and Attorney's Fees. If the Seller defaults in his or her
contractual performance herein, the Purchaser may seek specific performance
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, damages, or recision. If the
Purchaser seeks damages or recision, the earnest money, upon demand, shall be
returned in full to the Purchaser. If the Purchaser defaults in its
contractual performance herein, the earnest money, upon demand, shall be
forfeited to the Seller and shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for default
available to the Seller. In the event of litigation to enforce any of the
terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and
attorney's fees.
10. Conveyance Warranty Deed. Title shall be conveyed by statutory
warranty deed.
11 . Performance. Time is of the essence to this Agreement.
- 2 -
12. Seller Representations and Warranties. Seller represents and
acknowledges that he/she has no knowledge of any hazardous materials on the
property or of any past uses of the property during which the property might
have become contaminated by dangerous or hazardous wastes. Seller further
represents and acknowledges that he/she has no knowledge of the presence of
underground storage tanks, either in use or abandoned, on the site. Nothing
in this paragraph shall be construed in any way to alter or otherwise affect
the rights and liabilities of Seller and Purchaser regarding hazardous or
dangerous wastes under applicable federal , state or local laws as now enacted
or hereafter amended.
�*Seiiet acknowiedges then.e cs a hea-ti.nq sto -.aae tang.
13. Earnest Money. The undersigned acknowledges receipt from Purchaser
of $10,000.00 in the form of a purchase order, as earnest money in partial
payment of the purchase price. Said purchase order will be converted to check
upon acceptance by Seller and approval by Kent City Council . This earnest
money shall be applied to the total purchase price.
14. Notices. Unless otherwise specified, any notice required or
permitted in or related to this Agreement, including any addenda thereto, must
be in writing, signed by the Purchaser or Seller and received by the Purchaser
or Seller, as applicable. Facsimile transmission of any signed original
document shall not be the same as transmission of an original .
15. Agreement to Purchase and Time Limit for Acceptance. Purchaser
offers to purchase the property on the terms and conditions set forth herein
and acknowledges that it has read all terms and conditions above. Seller
shall have until midnight of August 9, 1991 to accept this offer by delivery
of a signed copy hereof to the Purchaser. If this offer is not so accepted,
it shall lapse and the Seller shall immediately return the earnest money to
the Purchaser.
lb. Time of Essence. There are no verbal or other agreements that
modify or affect this Agreement. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
77 . Set.2e2 o(jl/ ens option to Putchaset to buy the wasnen,,
lVdnye,c and xe5negezato-� ' o-z the amount S500 . under a aepa-rate
pu.n.ehas e ag-n eement.
3
Dated this day of , 19_.
PURCHASER
By:
Address
Ig. Seller's Acceptance. Seller agrees to sell the property on the
terms and conditions herein. Seller acknowledges the receipt of a copy of
this Agreement, signed by both parties, having read the terms and conditions
above and agreeing thereto.
Dated this -,day of 1991 .
y J
I
SELLER
B
Address
� 9 •
1-9. Purchaser' s Receipt. Purchaser acknowledges receipt of a Seller' s
signed copy of this Agreement on 19 .
PURCHASER
By:
4093R-28R
- 4
w Kent City Council Meeting
r� Date September 3 1991
4' Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: L. I. D. 336 BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Finance Staff requests the adoption of
bond Ordinance'300C and authorization for the Mayor to sign a
purchase contract in the amount of $1, 888, 078 for LID 336
bonds. The bond proceeds will be used for the widening and
improvement of East Valley Highway from South 192nd Street to
South 180th Street. The final assessment roll for the LID has
been adopted and the 30-day prepayment period has elapsed. The
purchase contract with Lehman Brothers is at a net interest cost
of 7. 03 percent and has a gross underwriting spread of $19 per
thousand dollar bond. This results in an average coupon of
6. 80 percent and an assessment to property owners of 7 . 30 .
percent. !Ske Finance Director is
at
gesral, !)
r
3 . EXHIBITS: Le man Brothers pricing information, bond
ordinance, pu chase contract
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Staff
(Committee, S aff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Planned for Oper tions Committee of 8/27 which was cancelled.
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL OTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE RE UI D: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION'J
Councilmember ` moved se-a
adoption of Bond Ordinance authorizing the Mayor to sign
the purchase contract with Lehman Brothers.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
—
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
AUG 23 191 17:03 SHEARSON LEHMAPI
LEHMAN BROTHERS
RICHARD B.KING
sENTOR VICC PRESIDENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tony McCarthy
i
FROM: Richard B. Kin
DATE: August 27, 1991
RE: City of Kent, Washington
LID No. 336
Attached please find information regarding our proposal for the above-referenced
issue. Specifically, I have included a comparison of the proposed initial re-offering
yields with three other LID issues, as well as the components of our proposed
underwriting spread. Unfortunately, the LID comparisons are quite dated, so I have
included another very recent transaction for the Kent School District.
The average interest rate on this issue is 6.80%, which means that the property
owners' assessment rate would be 7.30%. Events in the Soviet Union have resulted in
market uncertainty that helped the short end of the municipal market. Interest
rates remain attractive for borrowers, however.
Please call me at 344-5838 with any questions.
RBK:kg1930k
Attachment
LEkLMAN ERarHERS D[V[SIOI;
SHEA&WN LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. AN AVERICAIq EXYRESS COMPANY
9�jDTHIRDAVEN12`8 iUITE 40W SESTTLE,WA 98104 206]445D� FAX:06)448073
AUG 29 191 09:57 SHEARSON LEHMAM
CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON
LID NO.336
pj-0posed Pricing lnformrrfon
August 27,1991
A. Comparison of Initial Re-Offering Yields
Issue:
$1 ggg,p7g $95,000 $122,656 $16,600,000
City Or Kent City of Spokane Clallam County Trent SD 415
LID No 336 CLID No.185 RID No.123 UTG+O Bonds
Sale Date: September 3 August 5 May 28 August 29
Underwriting Spread(5): $19.00 $19.16 $30.00 N/A
Net Interest Cost: 7.03% 7.10% 7.45% N/A
NIC/RBI(1): 100.00% 100,00% 104.1% N/A
AV:Assesstnents(2):
22.5:1 27.4:1 4.1:1 N/A
Proposed Initial Initial 'initial
Re-Offering Re-Offering Re-Offering Re-Offering
Year Yields(3) Yields(3) Yiolds(3) _yie (�_
1992 5.2.5% 5.50% 560%
1993 5.50 5.75 5.75 -
1994 5.75 6.00 6.00
1995 6.00 6.25 6.20
1996 6.20 6.50 6.40 _.
1997 6.40 6.70 6.60
1999 6.60 6.85 6.80
1999 6.70 7.00 7.00 6 200/0
2000 6.80 7.10 7.15 6.30
2001 6.90 7.10 7.30 6.40
2002 6.95 7.30 6.50
2003 7.00 7.40 6.60
2004 7.05 7.40 6.70
2005 7.10 7.50 6.75
2006 7.15 7,50 6.80
AI1inist-1- August-$- A t AL'
Revenue BondIndex(4) 7,10% 7.075c 7.03% 7.03%
(1) Not intorest cost divided by the Revenue Bond Index at the time of salt.
(2) Ratio of assessed valuation to assessments.
(3) Fsdmated rnaturitics.
(4) Calculated weekly by The Bond Buyer,this index provides a general indication of initial re-offering yields for 25-ycar rcvcnue bonds-
(5) Per$1,000 principul amount
CltyxenftPPddeM1\'9
ql l, 29 '91 09:55 SHEARSON LEHMPr i F•
B, Proposed Underwriting Discount
Proposed
City of Kent City of Kent City of Kent
LID No.336 CLID No.331/335 LID No.330
9/3/91 315191 9/4/90
Per Per , Per$ ,00
Principal _jQjg_ Principal Totai . Pr.,i xL — —
Average Takedown $12,85 $24,262 $11.32 $17,478 $12.67 $51,107
Net to Underwriting 2,00 3,776 2.00 3,088 1.80 7,261
Facpenses(1) 1.47 2,778 L68 2,594 1.45 5,846
Management Fee 2.68 5,060 4,00 6,176_ 4.08 16,458
Total S19.00 $35, 7 $19.Q0 29,33 20,00 $80,672
(1) Breakdown as of owS:
Fed Funds and Day Loan $367
Official Statement Preparation 944
Mailing and Overnight Delivery(a) 325
Clearance 944
Other 198
Total $2,778
(a) 105 x$ 2.56
14 x 14.50
42 x 0.29
AUG 28 '91 17:04 SHERRSON LEHMAH
Bond Buyer 20-Year G.O. Index
January 1,980 to August 1991 (Actual)
September 1991 to December 1991 (Projected)
14
13
Ctu
10
9
oiected
7
6
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jail Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
1980 1981 1982 1983 1994 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
AUG C-6 '91 17:
Bond Buyer 20-Year G.O. Index
January 1987 to August 1991 (Actual)
September 1991 to December 1991 (Projected)
9.00
&50
8.00 -- —-—--- --------------------
Actual T-
% 7.50
7.00
6.50
-----------------
Jai) 1987 Jan 1988 Jan 1989 Jim 1990 Jan 1991 Jan 1992
2&Yc GOAvVPij5yn\Rf3Y0kf
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington,
relating to Local Improvement District No . 336;
fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates ,
maturity and denominations of the Local Improvement
District No . 336 Bonds; providing for the sale and
delivery of those bonds to Lehman Brothers in
Seattle, Washington; and fixing the interest rate on
local improvement district assessment installments .
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 . 336 in the City of Kent , Washington (the "City" ) ,
created under Ordinance No . 2977, passed April 2 , 1991 , was
$2 ,280 , 637 . The thirty-day period for making cash payments of
assessments without interest in the District expired on
August 13 , 1991 , and the total amount of assessments paid in
cash was $392 , 559 , leaving a balance of assessments unpaid on
the assessment roll of $1 , 888 , 078 . Local Improvement District
No . 336 Bonds (the "Bonds" ) shall , therefore, be issued in the
total principal amount of $1 , 888 , 078 .
The Bonds shall be dated October 1 , 1991 , shall mature on
October 1 , 2008 , and shall be numbered from 1 to 378 , 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 denomination of $3 , 078 and Bonds Nos . 2 to
378, inclusive, shall be in the denomination of $5, 000 each.
Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of
twelve 30-day months . The Bonds shall bear interest at the
rates set forth below, payable annually beginning September 1 ,
1992 :
Bond Numbers Interest
( Inclusive) Amounts Rates
Section 2 . Registration and Transfer of Bonds . The Bonds
shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and
interest and recorded 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
- 2 -
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 transfer shall be
without cost to the owner or transferee . The Bond Registrar
shall not be obligated to transfer any Bond during the fifteen
days preceding any principal payment or redemption date .
Section 3 . Payment of Bonds . Both principal of and
interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the Local
Improvement Fund, District No . 336 (the "Bond Fund" ) , created by
Section 8 of Ordinance No . 2977 and from 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 by the Bond Registrar on the
interest payment date to the registered owners at the addresses
appearing on the Bond Register on the fifteenth day of the month
preceding the interest payment date . Principal of the Bonds
shall be payable on 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 of Bonds . The City
reserves the right and option to redeem the Bonds prior to their
stated maturity date on any interest payment date, in numerical
order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest to the
date fixed for redemption, whenever there is sufficient money in
the Bond Fund to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier
numbered Bonds over and above the amount required for the
payment of the interest on all unpaid Bonds .
3 -
All Bonds redeemed under this section shall be cancelled.
Section 5 . Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause
notice of any intended redemption of 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
registered 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 owner
of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall
cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond
or Bonds so 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 Lehman Brothers
Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc . ( "Lehman Brothers" ) at
its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or its successors ,
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 condition 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
- 4 -
deposit in the Bond Fund and the Bond has been called for
payment 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 Deputy City Clerk, either
or both of whose signatures shall be manual or in facsimile, and
the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall
be impressed or printed thereon .
Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the
following form, manually executed by the Bond Registrar, shall
be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the
benefits of this ordinance :
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This bond is one of the fully registered City of
Kent , Washington, Local Improvement District No . 336
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
- 5 -
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, delivered and
issued, 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 at all times be open to inspection by the City. The
Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to
authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred 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 the
Bond Registrar ' s powers and duties under this ordinance and
Ordinance No . 2418 establishing a system of registration of the
City' s bonds and obligations .
The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its
representations contained in the Bond Registrar ' s Certificate of
Authentication 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
- 6 -
as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to
act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any
committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners .
Section 9 . Bonds Negotiable . The Bonds shall be
negotiable 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
necessary 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 of
registered owners for federal income tax purposes . The City
also covenants that, to the extent arbitrage rebate requirements
of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 , as amended
(the "Code" ) , are applicable to the Bonds , it will take all
actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having
complied) with those requirements in connection with the Bonds,
including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the
City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating
rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if
required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on
the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income
tax purposes .
7 -
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 . Designation of Bonds as "Qualified Tax-Exempt
Obligations . " The City has determined and certifies that (a)
the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" within the meaning of
Section 141 of the Code; (b) the reasonably anticipated amount
of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds)
which the City and any entity subordinate to the City ( including
any entity which the City controls , which derives its authority
to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City or which issues
tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during
the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued will not exceed
$10 , 000 , 000 ; and ( c) the amount of tax-exempt obligations ,
including the Bonds , designated by the City as "qualified
tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b) (3) of
the Code during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued
does not exceed $10 , 000 , 000 . The City designates the Bonds as
"qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section
265(b) (3 ) of the Code .
Section 12 . Approval of Bond Purchase Contract . Lehman
Brothers of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase
contract (the "Bond Purchase Contract" ) to the City offering to
purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in
the Bond Purchase Contract , which written Bond Purchase Contract
is on file with the Deputy City Clerk and is incorporated herein
- 8 -
by this reference . The City Council finds that entering into
the Bond Purchase Contract is in the City' s best interest 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 Bond Purchase
Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper &
Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington,
regarding the Bonds printed on each Bond. Bond counsel shall
not be required to review and shall express no 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 City Council has been provided with copies of a
preliminary official statement dated August 20 , 1991 (the
"Preliminary Official Statement" ) , prepared in connection with
the sale of the Bonds . For the sole purpose of the purchaser ' s
compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
15c2-12(b) ( 1) , the City "deems final" that Preliminary Official
Statement as of its date , except for the omission of information
as to offering prices , interest rates , selling compensation,
delivery date, rating and other terms of the Bonds dependent on
such matters .
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
- 9 -
Official Statement on behalf of the City, and for the proper
application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof .
Section 13 . Interest Rate on Assessments . The interest
rate on the installments and delinquent payments of the special
assessments in Local Improvement District No . 336 is revised and
fixed at the rate of % per annum.
Section 14 . 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:
BRENDA JACOBER
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
0
ial Counsel 'and Bond
Counsel for the
Passed the day of 1991 ,
Approved the day of 1991 .
Published the day of 1991 .
I certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No .
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, and
approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER
Deputy City Clerk
SLH-950*
- 10 -
LEHMAN BROTHERS
RICHARD B.KING
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
August 27, 1991
Mr. L.A. McCarthy, Jr.
City Treasurer
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032-5895
Re: City of Kent, Washington
LID No. 336
Dear "Tony:
Enclosed please find a draft Bond Purchase Contract for the upcoming sale of
LID No. 336 Bonds. Please call me with any comments or questions.
Very truly yours,
Richard B. King
RBK:kgl929k
Enclosure—
As above
cc: Roger Lubovich
Don E. Wickstrom
Brenda Jacobsen
George Mack
Joni Ostergaard
LEHMAN BROTHERS DIVISION
SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. AN AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
999 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 4000 SEATTLE.WA 98104 206 344 5838 FAA 206 344 8073
LEHMAN BROTHERS
$1,888,078
City of Kent, Washington
Local Improvement District No. 336
Guaranty Fund Bonds, 1991
BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT
September 3, 1991
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:
Lehman Brothers, a Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. (the "Purchaser") is pleased
to offer to purchase from the City of Kent (the "Seller") all of its $1,888,078 principal
amount of Local Improvement District No. 336 Guaranty Fund 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
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 i 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 $1,888,078 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.
LEHMAN BROTHERS DIVISION
SHEARSON LEHMA.N BROTHERS INC. A.N AMERICA\\EXPRESS COMPANY
999 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 4000 SEATTLE,WA 98104 206 34.3592 FAX 206 344 8073
4. The Seller represents, 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;
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 issued and
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 generally 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 which shall be available within seven days of the
date this Purchase Contract is approved so that the Final Official Statement
is available to accompany confirmations that the Purchaser sends to its
customers in compliance with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12(b)(4) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and with the requirements of
Rule G-32 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, shall be accurate
and complete in all material aspects 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, which
will be available to Purchaser seven days after this Purchase Contract is
approved, 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.
-2-
S. 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 federal income tax exemption of the
interest on the Bonds or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase
Contract or the Preliminary and Final Official Statements;
(3) International and national crisis, suspension of stock exchange trading or
banking moratorium materially affecting the marketability of the
Bonds; or
(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 Final Official Statement
(collectively the Official Statements ) (including the financial and
statistical data contained 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-
(3) An approving opinion or opinions of the law firm identified in paragraph
k 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 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 enforceable in accordance with their terms,
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 Official Statement entitled "AUTHORIZATION," "SECURITY" (with
the exception of the third paragraph relating to Guaranty Fund
balances, the sixth paragraph in the subsection relating to Foreclosure
Proceedings and the final paragraph relating to additional LIDS), "THE
BONDS," "TAX EXEMPTION" and "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX
CONSEQUENCES", conform to the Bonds and applicable laws; and (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 of registered owners for federal income tax
purposes under existing federal law; except that interest on the Bonds
received by corporations 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;
(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;
-4-
(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 or appointed, 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
(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, executing and
registering the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the costs of preparing, printing
and distributing the Final and Preliminary Official Statements (except in the
circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), the fees and
disbursements of the Purchaser's counsel, if any, the printing and filing of blue
sky and legal investment surveys, where necessary, the Purchaser's expenses
relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds, and the Purchaser's travel
expenses.
-5-
7. If, during the period ending on the earlier of October 15, 1991, 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 which 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
Lehman Brothers, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, Washington 98104-4021
(Attention: Richard B. King, Senior 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, except that such
representations and warranties contained in the Official Statement shall not
survive if Purchaser becomes aware that the facts contained in the Official
Statement are incorrect or misleading and Purchaser fails to advise Seller of such
incorrect or misleading statements. 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 n 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.
-6-
10. This offer expires on the date set forth in paragraph m of Exhibit A.
Respectfully submitted,
LEHMAN BROTHERS
Richard B. King
Senior Vice President
Public Finance - Seattle
ACCEPTED by the City of Kent, Washington, this th day of
September, 1991.
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
By
Dan Kelleher, Mayor
ATTEST:
By
Marie Jensen
RBK:cs0084C
Enclosures
-7-
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF BONDS
a. Purchase Price: $_ per $_ par value, or $ which reflects an
underwriting discount of $ , plus accrued interest from October 1, 1991 to
the date of Closing.
b. Denominations: $5,000 except for Bond No. 1, which shall be in the
denomination of $3,078.
c. Dated Date: October 1, 1991.
d. Form: Fully registered with privileges of exchange at the expense of the Seller.
e. Interest Payable: Interest will be payable annually on each October 1,
beginning October 1, 1992.
f. Maturity Schedule: Bonds shall mature on October 1, 2008, and shall bear
interest at the rates set forth below:
Bond Interest Bond Interest
Nos. Amount Rate Nos_ Amount Rate
1-27 $133,078 % 179-203 $125,000 %
28-53 130,000 204-228 125,000
54-78 125,000 229-253 125,000
79-103 125,000 254-278 125,000
104-128 125,000 279-303 125,000
129-153 125,000 304-328 125,000
154-178 125,000 329-353 125,000
354-378 125,000
g. Net Interest Cost:
Average Interest Rate:
Assessment Rate:
h. Redemption: The Seller reserves the right to redeem the Bonds on any annual
principal and interest payment date at 100% of par plus accrued interest to the
date of redemption.
i. Location and Estimated Closing Date: Seattle, Washington, October 1, 1991.
j. Required Ratings of Bonds: None.
k. Bond Counsel: Foster Pepper & Shefelman.
1. Method of Payment: Federal Funds draft or wire.
In. Offer Expires: September 3, 1991, 11:59 p.m.
n. Liquidated Damages: $2,000.
RBK:cs0084C
� Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 , 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF UTILITY SERVICES
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Committee has
recommended that a resolution making a limited exception to the
moratorium imposed by Resolution No. 1275 on the Cify's
extension of sewer and water services to properties outside the
City limits be forwarded to Council without a recommendation.
This item is also scheduled for discussion by the Planning
Committee at their September 3 meeting.
j'
3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed resolution and excerpt from Public Works
Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
r
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4BX
Public Works Committee
August 20, 1991
Page 3
Milton from WSDOT stated he felt they have done what they could to
adjust the signal timing. He stated he didn't think it would be a
problem to use the shoulder for a right turn. After considerable
discussion, Don Wickstrom stated he would review the situation to
determine if further changes need . to be made.
Mr. Nizlek stated he was curious about the status of the
effectiveness of the turn restrictions at S.W. 212th at Frager and
Russell Roads. Ed White stated that a significant reduction in
accidents has . occurred. He stated he would like to monitor the
effectiveness of the turn restrictions a bit longer before having
to install the islands as recommended by Mr. Nizlek as those
islands do pose difficulties for emergency vehicles.
Extension of Utility Services
Copies of the proposed resolution were distributed to the
Committee. Jim White stated this proposal resulted from the
annexation proposal that was submitted to the Council a couple of
weeks ago. Orr stated she was still concerned about opening it up.
If we allow service for one project then we would have to allow for
others. There is no guarantee an annexation will go through.
Wickstrom stated that currently if there were a request for utility
service for anything greater than .a single family residence on an
existing lot in the Kent school district, the County would probably
deny the request based on their school capacity ordinance. The
school district would indicate they do not have the capacity; thus,
the development could not take place. This would apply to plats
and rezones. Orr asked what would happen if the property was
already zoned for multifamily. Wickstrom stated there is one 5-
acre parcel in this proposed annexation that is zoned for
multifamily. It was clarified that if the annexation is approved
that property would come into the City as R1-20, 000 until the City
sets the zoning. Dowell suggested this resolution be sent to the
Council without a recommendation. Morris pointed out that
paragraph C had been changed from the resolution presented at the
last Committee meeting. That change was an attempt to address the
concerns Leona Orr had expressed. Wickstrom stated it required the
property would have to have submitted a 10% petition and we would
have to have sufficient outstanding covenents representing 60% of
the valuation. Jim White suggested that Leona review the zoning
with the Planning Committee. The Committee unanimously recommended
sending this to the Council without a recommendation. Leona Orr
stated she would be adding this resolution to the Planning
Committee agenda.
RESOLUTION NO.-
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, making a limited
exception to the moratorium imposed by
Resolution No. 1275 on the City' s extension
of sewer and water services for develop-
ment purposes to property located outside
of the City' s corporate limits.
WHEREAS , the Growth Management Act requires King County
r c
;to- consult with .the City of Kent to ,designate the location of the
City' s "urban growth areas, " beyond which annexation by the City
may not occur (RCW 36 . 70A. 110) ; and
WHEREAS, although this process is not complete, King
County has preliminarily identified and designated " ' interim' urban
growth areas ; " and
WHEREAS, the City has also identified and designated
areas outside of its corporate limits that lie within the City ' s
potential "sphere of annexation, " and overlay the County' s
" ' interim' urban growth areas ; "
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1275 imposed a moratorium on the
City ' s extension of water and sewer services to property outside of
the City' s corporate limits for development purposes because, at
the time of adoption of that resolution, the City had no clear
direction on where the County would place the boundaries of the
urban growth areas; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . Effective immediately, the City of Kent will
accept applications from property owners for the extensions of
water and/or sewer service for the purpose of development,
platting, short platting and/or rezoning, to any property located
outside of the City' s corporate limits under the following limited
circumstances:
A. The property which will receive the water or sewer
service must be located within the area designated by the County to
be the interim urban growth area for the City of Kent; and
B. The property which will receive the water or sewer
service must be located within the area designated by the City of
Kent to be within its potential sphere of interest for annexation;
and
C. The owners of the property which will receive the
water or sewer service shall have submitted a ten percent (10%)
petition for annexation to the City prior to the time the
application for utility extension is made and further, such owners
must be included in -an area that has, by agreement, at least sixty
percent (60%) Support for the proposed annexation by the City of
Kent under terms and conditions established by the Public Works
Department, consistent with Kent City Code Chapter 4 . 22 .
Section 2 . The moratorium imposed on water and sewer
services in Resolution 1275 for circumstances and property not
described in Section 1 above shall remain in effect until such time
as the "urban growth areas" are designated by King County, and any
2
appeals of the City therefrom are resolved, pursuant to RCW
36 .70A. 110 .
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1991.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1991.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, 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 1991 .
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
sewer. res
3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 . 1991
Category Other Business
`0
1. SUBJECT: EAST HILL ANNEXATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The signatures on the 10 percent petition
have been verified. It is recommended that October 1 be set as
the date for a public meeting with the petitioners.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Public Works Director and
annexation area map
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:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember " moves, Councilmember L ti v _seconds
that October 1 be set as the date for a public meeting with
petitioners for East Hill annexation
and
;, that the matter be referred to the Public Works Committee for a
recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
.l
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C X
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 29, 1991
TO: Mayor Kelleher farad City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom� kj
RE: East Hill Annexation
On August 6th, the City Council was presented with an annexation
petition. The Public Works Department has verified that the
signatures thereon represent approximately 14% ($5,740, 165) of the
total assessed value ($40, 701,706) of the proposed annexation area.
In accordance with State law, the next step would be to hold a
public meeting with the petitioners. At the meeting, Council would
determine whether to accept, reject or geographically modify the
proposed annexation. Also, whether to require the assumption of
all or any portion of the City' s existing indebtedness. State law
requires that the public meeting be held within 60 days of receipt
of the annexation petition. As such, the Public Works Department
recommends that Council hold said public meeting at their regularly
scheduled October 1st Council meeting. This is the last Council
meeting by which Council action must occur on this matter. In the
interim period, Council may want to refer the matter to the Public
Works Committee for a recommendation thereon.
For Council ' s convenience, enclosed is the following pertinent
information:
a) Annexation Procedural Summary;
b) Map of proposed annexation area denoting proposed
boundary thereof, outstanding annexation agreements and
properties who have executed the 10% petition;
C) Map denoting existing County zoning for the area;
d) Tables 1-3 reflecting financial impact to the City;
e) Table 4 reflecting financial impact to residences within
the area.
ANNEXATION BY PETITION METHOD
Procedural Summary
1) Receipt of a petition for annexation signed by property owners
therein representing 10% of the assessed value thereof.
2) City verifies that the signatures represent 10% of the
assessed value of the proposed annexation area.
3) Within 60 .days of receipt of ,a petition, Council must hold a
public meeting with the petitioners. The purpose thereof is
to determine whether to accept, reject or geographically
modify the proposed annexation. Also, whether to require the
assumption of all or any portion of the City' s existing
indebtedness and, if so, the meeting minutes and the
authorized petition shall clearly denote same.
4) Upon Council approval of the proposed annexation boundary and
indebtedness issue, the petitioner' s circulate the 60%
petition for signatures.
5) Council receives the authorized annexation petition signed by
property owners therein representing 60% of the assessed value
thereof.
6) City validates that the signatures represent 60% of the
assessed value of the proposed annexation area.
7) Requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are
satisfied.
8) Proposed annexation is submitted to Boundary Review Board for
their review and approval.
9) After receipt of Boundary Review Board approval, Council holds
a public hearing on adoption of ordinance annexing the area to
the City.
sexing area is filed with King County.
0-2
e:
z
`f
TABLE 1
Proposed Annexation Estimated.Annual Revenue Impact
at Present Development Level
FUND/REVENUE
General:
General Property Tax @3 . 064491 $ 124 , 730
Elec. & Nat. Gas Util. Tax @3 . 5% 6, 542
Water Utility Tax @3 . 5% 11130
Sewer Utility Tax @3 . 5% 11133
Drainage Utility Tax @3 . 5% 1, 109
Phone Utility. Tax @3 . 5% 1, 349
Garbage Utility Tax @3 . 5% 759
Auto Excise 9 , 740
Liquor Excise 2 , 057
Liquor Profits 5 , 632
Total General Fund $ 153 , 181
Street:
Vehicle Registration Fee' $ 51720
Gas Tax @20. 24 Per Capita 4 , 065
Total Street Fund $ 9 , 785
Environmental:
Garbage Utility Tax @3 . 0$4 $ 707
Water:
Loss of Revenue Due to Rates $ (71089)
Storm Drainage:
Revenue Due to Annexation $ 3 , 122
Total Estimated Revenue Impact $ 169, 491
1) Includes City's Excess Levy
2) Can only be used for capital improvements on streets
3) Council has reserved about one-third for corridor improvements
and one-half the remaining balance is restricted for capital
improvements on the arterial system. The remainder is
available for M&O but traditionally Council utilized all the
gas tax money for street improvements.
4) Presently reserved for recycling expenses, consultant services
for landfill oversight and reserve for landfill remedial
action responsibility.
5) City' s outside water rate is 22% higher than rate for inside.
TABLE 2
Proposed Annexation Estimated Annual Expense
at Present Development Level
Area (acres) 608 . 5
Population (estimate) 982
Street (miles) 4 . 81
Assessed Value ($1, 000) 401701
Operational Cost Immediate Annual
Street
Paving/Oiling Program $ 62 , 400 $ 20, 0001
Road Maintenance 27 , 500
Signs & Pavement Marking 420 21050
Vegetation Management 2 , 500 91970
Street Lighting 240 5, 491 .
$ 65 , 560 $ 65, 011
Drainage $ 9 , 450
Recycling Program 402
Police' 48 , 034
Fire` 49 , 500
$ 65 , 560 $172 , 397
a) Projected that in 5 years $100, 000 (today' s cost) will be
needed for overlaying.
b) Based on a Police-developed cost estimate of $204 . 40 (1990 $)
per call for service.
C) Fire District #37 presently services the area. As such, these
figures reflect the replacement of the lost revenue to the
District and no service level change. The Fire Chief
estimated another $370, 000 would be required to deliver a more
appropriate level of service.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY
REVENUE VS EXPENSES
EXPENSE REVENUE NET
Annual
General Fund
Street $ 65, 011
Police 48, 034
Fire 49 , 500
$162, 545 $153 , 181 $ (91364)
Recycling Program $ 402 $ 707 $ 305
Drainage $ 9 , 450 $ 31122 $ (61238)
Water $ 0 $ (7 , 089) $ (7 , 089)
TOTAL $ (22 , 386)
One Time Only
Street $ 65, 560 $ 11355
Street Capital $ 8 ,430
TABLE 4
Approximate Tax Comparison for Annexation
East Hill Area
Actual 1991 Levy Rates Paid
City County
Property Taxes Total Total Difference
State 3.38348 3.38348 0
County 1.73030 1.73030 0
County Road District 1.48207 (1.48207)
City Regular Levy 2.52618 2.52618
City Voted Excess
Levy GO Bonds 0.41558 0.41558
Fire District #37 1.21540 (1.21540)
Library 0.48921 (0.48921)
Hospital 0.17485 0.17485 0
Kent SD f415 4.35283 4.35283 0
Port of Seattle 0.32332 0.32332 0
EMS 0119911 0.19911 0
SUBTOTAL 13.10565 13.35057 (0.24492)
Property Taxes
for $100,000 Home $ 1;310.-57 $ 1,335.06 $ (24.49)
Utility Taxes
Yearly Avg
Billing City Yrly County
Tax Yrly Tax Difference
Elec/Nat
Gas $ 924.00 $ 32.34 0 $ 32.34
Phone 186.36 6.52 0 6.52
Water 115.32 4.04 0 4.04
Sewer 230.40 8.06 0 8.06
Drainage 27.00 0.95 0 0.95
Garbage 108.00 7.02 0 7.02
T 0 t a 1
Aver.ag.e
Utility $1,591.08 $ 58.93 0 $ 58.93
DUE TO ANNEXATION
City County
Total Total Difference
Reduction in Water ( 32.89) ( 32.89)
Rates
Drainage Utility Charge 27.00 27.00
S u r f a c e W a t e r
Management Fee 29.89 ( 29.89)
Total Due to Annexation ( 5.89) 29.89 ( 35.78)
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX, UTILITY TAX
& OTHER 1,363.60 $1,364.95 ( 1.34)
Additional Savings
0 Drainage: County's rate is to increase to $86-100 per year.
Kent's rate is a function of the drainage basin.
As such, it will be between $21-53 per year.
Minimum savings $33-65 per year.
0 Free Residential Recycling Service
/ �' j% /.%�"%/ jj%/�%/!G/ 9,lrj��//j/��i�i./2%/ 1, r�!//f/ii//� ., u���%Y�%�//�/�1 - �., •� ~.'..�" C
! l
r; "V
/
AM- fff
"Wo • 1 '
•1 ::ilY a ; 1 r ��� i �i E I 1 1
r'
.�•rZ
MD
D I
RM
24
10,
SR (*,,2400)
SR 7200
RM A
_4
ft rA
T SR 9
IL
T
SR 7209- ; T_
%
SR (16,000) ... PT
co
0 T
F-T T_ A
A
4
4
u
Ls U u,
Cr
____q Q/Tspa
hA
5joQ0
00
-u�
oy
1.
T7.....
jRS — 15,000 Pkop'OSA�.BPUIN Affp, a i i
0 t
4 + —
A
-+r-4 o
9,�9 I �' .—..— - 6 .i�—..Lo�Q yT 7. +��IF�r��` 0+� J,IIb� 'cJ: - of ���
j".� +1 i Taj
L_21 -
PROPOSED ANNEXATION-
EXISTING KING COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATIONS
ZONING DESIGNRTION AREA (RCRES)
------------------ ------------
RD 3600 17.5
Fim Isoop 16.9
RM 2400 6.7
NORTH 135 - 15,000 118.9
EXISTING CITT LIMITS SO (15,000) 134.9
SA (RM 24001 33.5
SR 7200 160.6
SA 9600 100.7
.p
q Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3. 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 196TH CORRIDOR
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee and IBC, authorization for the budget change to
transfer $150, 000 from the Street CIP Fund to the 196th Corridor
Fund in order to proceed with acquisition of property.
3 . EXHIBITS: IBC note, excerpt form Public Works Committee
minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSO L IMPACT: NO YES _
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: ecommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:/' $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �'.2,[
Councilmember ��. move4, Coif4i3.I�er seconds(-{
�V'
to authorize the budget change to transfer $150, 000 from the
Street CIP Fund to the 196th Corridor Fund in order to proceed
with the acquisition of property.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Age da
Item No. 4Drx
MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Sr• j ect: 196TH CORRIDOR TRANSFER - FISCAL NOTE
C. Ltor: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/19/91 at 1611.
PUBLIC WORKS HAS REQUESTED AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER $150, 000 FROM THE
STREET FUND TO THE 196TH CORRIDOR PROJECT. THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN RESERVED
SINCE MARCH OF 1989 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT THE COMPLETE
COST, BUT THE OTHER FUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE 196TH PROJECT
BUDGET.
IBC RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET CHANGE TO TRANSFER $150, 000 FROM THE
STREET FUND TO THE 196TH CORRIDOR PROJECT. THE FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT
HAVE ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET ESTIMATES. THIS ALSO MEETS A TOP
COUNCIL & PUBLIC PRIORITY.
Public Works Committee
August 20, 1991
Page 4
196th Corridor
Wickstrom explained we have been attempting to acquire a particular
parcel since 1989 and have had funds reserved since that time. It
appears we are now close to settlement and we are requesting
authorization to transfer the funds from the Street CIP to the
project. The Committee unanimously approved the request.
Water Crossing S. 222nd - Condemnation for Right of Way
Wickstrom explained we have a water main from North 4th going east
to the railroad tracks and a water main on 222nd going west to the
railroad tracks. We are proposing to tie the two together which
would eliminate a severe water hammer problem we have at Liquid Air
plant. We have been negotiating with the railroad but they are
only wil:ling to give the City a permit which does not give us any
permanE�'& rights. We are requesting authorization to proceed with
condemnation should we not be able to reach agreement with
Burlington Northern. The Committee unanimously approved the
request.
Underground Storage Tanks Removal and Installation of Above Ground
Tanks
Wickstrom explained we had previously awarded this project but the
contractor was unable to obtain the proper insurance. We rescinded
the bid and readvertised the project. The low bid received on the
second ad was $7, 300 higher than previous. Wickstrom stated we are
mandated by Federal law to remove the tanks; thus, he requested
transferring the additional funds from the unencumbered water and
sewer utility funds and to award the project. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval .
1
4.i
x�1 Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 , 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: WHEELCHAIR BASKETBALL CHALLENGE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Kent Knightriders (wheelchair
basketball team) has challenged the Mayor and Kent City Council
to a wheelchair basketball game. Jim Hernandez, coach/player,
attended the August 27th Parks Committee meeting and presented
the challenge. Proceeds from the event will be divided among
three organizations. They are: Special Populations Scholarship
Fund, a youth club from Kent-Meridian High School and the Kent
Knightriders.
The game has been scheduled for Wednesday, October 23 at
Kent-Meridian High School, 7 p.m. A practice and photo session
will be scheduled one week before the game. Council will be
notified of the date and time after the gym usage has been
confirmed.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL ERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ></ YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL N E: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRE $
SOURCE OF FUNDS*
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACT ON:
r,J
Councilmember { moves, Councilmember CLbL1ti seconds
acceptance of the Knightriders vs. Mayor and City Council
Wheelchair Basketball Challenge. {1
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E X
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 3 . 1991
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF
ABOVE GROUND TANKS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held on August 8 with
three bids received. The low bid was subm�it�te;�d,., by CEcon
i4
Corporation in the amount of $61, 376.45. �" recommendQ4 and
that $3,212 be transferred from the unencumbered
sewer utility funds and $4, 088 from the unencumbered water
utility funds and the project be awarded to CEcon.
3 . EXHIBITS: IBC note, memorandum from Public Works Director and
bid summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommendedd a)N\ Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: "
j i ) 2
Councilmember_ I ' , �� moves, Councilmember (S( seconds
that $3 ,212 be transferred from the unencumbered sewer utility
and $4, 088 from the unencumbered water utility and the project
awarded to CEcon for the bid amount of $61, 376.45.
DISCUSSION•
i
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A J�
MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
S:?hject: UNDERGROUND TANK PROJECT - FISCAL NOTE
C itor: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/19/91 at 1600.
PUBLIC WORKS IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE THE UNDERGROUND
TANK PROJECT BY $7, 300. THE PROJECT WAS BID IN FEBRUARY & WAS RESCINDED
DUE TO INSURANCE COVERAGE. THEY WOULD LIKE TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
CECON AS THE LOW BID AT THE SECOND BID OPENING. WATER WOULD CONTRIBUTE
$4, 088 & SEWERAGE $3, 212 FROM UNENCUMBERED FUNDS.
IBC RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET CHANGE AS SUGGESTED SINCE THE TANK
REMOVAL IS MANDATED.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 29, 1991
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom__-atJ
RE: Underground Storage Tank Removal and Installation
of Above Ground Tanks
Bid opening was August 8 with the low bid . submitted by CEcon
Corporation in the amount of $61, 376. 45 .
This project will remove underground fuel storage tanks and install
aboveground fuel storage .tanks at. the Linda Heights Pump Station,
Meadow Hills Pump Station, Pump Station #5 and Pump Station #4A.
Replacement of these tanks is mandated by Federal law relating to
underground petroleum storage tanks. We had previously awarded
this project but the contractor was unable to obtain the necessary
insurance; thus, the award was rescinded and the project
readvertised. The low bid received at this bid opening is $7, 300
higher than previously received. Because of the need to proceed
with the project, we are recommending that $3 , 212 be transferred
from the unencumbered sewer utility funds and $4 , 088 transferred
from the unencumbered water utility funds to this project and that
we award to CEcon Corporation for the bid amount of $61, 376 . 45 .
BID SUMMARY
CEcon Corporation $ 61, 376. 45
Cope Construction $ 98 , 938 . 08
Burlington Environmental
Chempro Division $116, 094 . 28
Engineer' s Estimate $ 55, 000. 00
j Kent City Council Meeting
r " Date September 3 1991
✓(' - � Category Bids
i
1. SUBJECT: CANYON DRIVE LEFT TURN LANES AND GUARDRAIL
REHABILITATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid openirlig was held on August 19. Two
bids were submitted with a low/of $726, 074 submitted by D. A.
Zuluaga Construction. Upon review of the bids, it is
recommended that $154 , 000 be transferred from the 72nd Avenue
Advanced Acquisition Fund to this project and that the contract
be awarded to D. A. Zuluaga Construction.
3 . EXHIBITS: IBC note, memorandum from the Public Works Director
and bid summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examin6r, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSO EL IMPACT: NO YES _
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: ecommendedi/ Not Recommended
r
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS-
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:V
Councilmember moves, Councilmember 'LCIu seconds
that $154 , 000 be transferred fro the 72nd Avenue Advance
Acquisition Fund and the contract awarded to D. A. Zuluaga
Construction for the bid amount of $726, 074.
DISCUSSION•
1,�
ACTION•
1 Council Agenda
Item No. 5B x
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
S, v)ject: CANYON DRIVE TURN LANES & GUARDRAILS - FISCAL NOTE
C. itor: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/29/91 at 1701.
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO REALLOCATE
$154,000 FROM THE 72ND AVENUE ACQUISITION PROJECT TO THE CANYON DRIVE LEFT
TURN LANE & GUARDRAIL PROJECT. THE AUGUST 19TH LOW BID OF $726, 074 PLUS OTHER
PROJECT COSTS WILL REQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL $154, 000. THEY NOTED THAT ONLY
TWO BIDS WERE RECEIVED, BOTH WITHIN $10, 000 OF EACH OTHER SO IT IS NOT
EXPECTED THAT REBIDDING WOULD PRODUCE ANY LOWER BIDS. THE 72ND AVENUE PROJECT
HAS BEEN DELAYED AS THE SITE HAS BEEN DISCOVERED TO BE CONTAMINATED AND IS
SUBJECT TO CLEANUP. THE 72ND AVENUE PROJECT WILL BE REBUDGETED WITH THE
MIDDLE SECTION OF THE 196TH CORRIDOR PROJECT. A $7, 000, 000 GRANT WILL BE
RECEIVED IN OCTOBER FOR THE MIDDLE SECTION OF THE 196TH CORRIDOR. LID'S AND
MATCHING FUNDS ARE PLANNED TO BE USED FOR 72ND AVENUE.
IBC RECOMMENDS REALLOCATION OF $154, 000 FROM THE 72ND AVENUE PROJECT TO
THE CANYON DRIVE PROJECT SINCE THIS PROJECT IS READY AND IS ALSO A HIGH COUNCIL
PRIORITY. THEY NOTED THIS TRANSFER IS BEING RECOMMENDED WITH THE REASSURANCE
THAT THE 72ND AVENUE PROJECT WILL NOT BE JEOPARDIZED.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 29, 1991
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstroml'uuJ
RE: Canyon Drive Left Turn Lanes and Guardrail
Rehabilitation
D.A. Zuluaga Construction, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount
of $726, 074 . for this project at bid opening on August 19 .
The project will widen Canyon Drive and provide left turn lanes
from Hazel to Weiland and replace guardrail from the vicinity of
94th to 100th. Construction costs are estimated to be $798, 681.
Because the estimated construction cost exceeds the project budget,
we are proposing to transfer $154 , 000 from the 72nd Avenue Advanced
Acquisition fund to this project and to award the contract to D.A.
Zuluaga Construction for the bid amount of $726, 074 .
BID SUMMARY
D.A. Zuluaga Construction $726, 074 . 00
Klokstad Construction $735 , 714 . 80
Engineer' s Estimate $651, 606 .70
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT /
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
r
i
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 13, 1991
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser, Chair, Operations Committee
Jon Johnson, Operations Committeemember
STAFF PRESENT: Ed Chow
Alana McIalwain
Roger Lubovich
Mayene Miller
Brenda Jacober
Lynda Anderson
Jan Banister
Charlie Lindsay
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Doolittle
Paul Morford
The meeting was called to order at 4:50 p.m. by Chairperson Christi Houser.
Approval of Vouchers
All claims for the period ending July 31, 1991 were approved for payment in the amount of$2,396,977.88.
Puget Sound Regional Council Agreement Amendment
Roger Lubovich said the City recently received a proposed amendment to the interlocal agreement replacing
the Puget Sound Council of Governments with what is currently called the Puget Sound Regional Council.
The proposed amendment to the interlocal agreement would modify the voting structure, establishing a
weighted votes system which increases King County's votes on the Council and decreases somewhat the
suburban cities' votes.
Mr. Lubovich also mentioned that the amendment to the original interlocal agreement was complicated by
the fact that Mayor Kelleher did not sign that agreement.
Since Suburban Cities Association is scheduled to meet Aug. 14th, and more information will be available,
the Committee decided to postpone the item and bring it to the next Operations Committee meeting.
Code Amendment for City Clerk and Other Offices
Roger Lubovich reported that in an effort to implement a transfer of the City Clerk's Office from the
Finance Department to the"Office of the City Clerk" reporting to Administration (in response to the Warner
Group management study), it would be necessary to update City Code with an amendment to correct the
current structure of the City.
1
Mr. Lubovich recommended that in order to implement the transfer of the City Clerk to an "Office of the
City Clerk" reporting to Administration, that we amend the ordinance to include establishing the Director
of Finance and Personnel, formally establish the Human Resources Department, Finance Department, and
Information Services Department. contemplated with regard to the City Clerk's office.
After discussion, a motion was made and seconded and the Committee voted in favor of the amendment
and recommended that it be added to "other business" on the next City Council agenda.
Ordinance Amending Economic Development Council Board of Directors Appointments
Roger Lubovich reported that it has been brought to our attention that appointment of directors on the
board of the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) has been technically incorrect. According to the
Attorney General's opinion, councilmember directors of an Economic Development Corporation cannot be
appointed by the City Council through discretionary appointments. Councilmembers may serve as directors
on the EDC as long as some other mechanism for placement on the board is utilized rather than
discretionary appointments by the Council. One mechanism suggested to correct the situation was the
"most senior members" of the Council.
Mr. Lubovich presented a draft ordinance, presented at the recent EDC board meeting, which amends the
current ordinances establishing the EDC and utilizes the "three most senior" members of the Council for
its appointment to the board. The ordinance includes cleanup modifications and provides for a provision
updating the EDC's charter to reflect the amendments regarding the appointment process of
councilmembers.
Jon Johnson suggested that modifications to the document be made to direct the Mayor to make
appointments with confirmation by the Council.
A motion was made and seconded to accept the ordinance with the suggested modification and it passed
unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:56 p.m.
2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
AUGUST 20, 1991
PRESENT: Jim White Carol Morris
Leona Orr Gary Gill
Steve Dowell Ed White
Don Wickstrom Mayene Miller
Mr. and Mrs. Rust; Marty Nizlek; Russ Stringham; Don Rust; Norton
Posey; John Milton; Dennis Clark; John Shaw; Ethel Vodder; Delyte
Tharp; Ed Tharp; Bill Doolittle; Lyle Price
Dennis Clark Concerns - Flooding on Woodford
Mr. Clark addressed the Committee concerning the flooding from Mill
Creek in the Woodford Avenue area. He commented that when the
creek was dredged four years ago, the soil from the dredge was
moved up on the easterly side of the creek making it higher than
their side. Don Wickstrom presented a video of the flooding that
occurred in January of 1990 and in April of 1991 demonstrating the
effects that .the Upper Mill Creek Detention System has. He
explained that the recent improvements to this system increased the
storage from 15 acre feet to 90 acre feet. Wickstrom explained
that Mill Creek is maintained by Drainage District #1 and the City
has no authority or easement rights to do anything to that channel.
Gill stated that the City had met with the Drainage District last
week and the District is developing a long range plan for their
whole system trying to prioritize the maintenance. Difficulties
they are facing now are getting the permits from DOE and Fisheries,
disposing of the spoils, etc. Wickstrom reviewed the drainage
improvement programs that are proposed for the next six years and
the problems with permitting, spoil disposal, etc that are inherent
with them. Wickstrom expanded that the City' s standard is to
design for a 25-year storm and these last few storms have been
close to 100-year storms. White asked what could be done to give
some immediate relief to the problem. Wickstrom suggested they
contact the Drainage District to determine if they could possibly
remove some of the material on the east side and place it on the
west side to keep the water from coming onto the residential
properties.
Guiberson Street Reservoir
This item was tabled until the property owner could attend.
Public Works Committee
August 20, 1991
Page 2
Street Occupation Ordinance
Wickstrom stated he had contacted the cities of Seattle, Auburn,
Tukwila and Renton whether they allowed sandwich board signs, their
standards, fees, etc. None of these cities allow these types of
signs in the public rights of way. Wickstrom stated he would like
to see sandwich board signs allowed on private property according
to the zoning code. It was determined that the issue of signs on
private property is being addressed by the Planning Committee.
Wickstrom stated that at this time we have not developed any
standards or fees for signs in public rights of way. The ordinance
presented at the last Committee meeting could be moved ahead
without the standards and fees incorporated. White suggested an
annual permit, limiting the signs to a certain size and one per
business. Mr. Stringham added there should also be something about
minimum size, sign material and construction. Morris suggested the
criteria and fees be adopted in a separate ordinance so that the
fees can be adjusted as necessary without amending the original
ordinance. Jim White suggested that Mr. Rust and Mr. Stringham
work with the Public Works Department in developing the standards.
Mr. Stringham stated he has already submitted a list of suggestions
to the chair of the Planning Committee. Dowell was concerned about
the City' s liability if someone were to trip over one of the signs.
Carol Morris confirmed she had covered the liability issue in the
ordinance. Mr: Doolittle suggested the signs posted on trees and
utility poles be addressed as well. The Committee unanimously
recommended adoption of the street occupation ordinance.
Marty Nizlek Concerns - SR 516 and Reith/Meeker
- S.W. 212th at Fraaer and Russell Roads
Nizlek addressed the Committee concerning the illegal right turns
that are being made from Reith to SR 516 . He was requesting that
a right turn lane be added at this intersection. White stated that
would eliminate the shoulder of the road and he would not recommend
doing so. Nizlek stated that about 40% of the green time of the
signal is given to Reith and Meeker and about 60% to SR 516.
Nizlek indicated he felt that no further signal timing changes
would effect any improvement to the traffic backing up on Reith
Road. Ed White stated he is still working with the State on the
signal timings as he feels the timing cycle length is too long. He
stated the backups are so spasmodic and short term that it is
difficult to determine if the changes to the signal timings are
effective. Nizlek concluded that he felt a minor modification
constructing a right turn lane, getting a variance from the State
to eliminate the shoulder, would eliminate the backup and reduce
the need for the amount of enforcement that is taking place. Mr.
Public Works Committee
August 20, 1991
Page 3
Milton from WSDOT stated he felt they have done what they could to
adjust the signal timing. He stated he didn't think it would be a
problem to use the shoulder for a right turn. After considerable
discussion, Don Wickstrom stated he would review the situation to
determine if further changes need to be made.
Mr. Nizlek stated he was curious about the status of the
effectiveness of the turn restrictions at S.W. 212th at Frager and
Russell Roads. Ed White stated that a significant reduction in
accidents has occurred. He stated he would like to monitor the
effectiveness of the turn restrictions a bit longer before having
to install the islands as recommended by Mr. Nizlek as those
islands do pose difficulties for emergency vehicles.
Extension of Utility Services
Copies of the proposed resolution were distributed to the
Committee. Jim White stated this proposal resulted from the
annexation proposal that was submitted to the Council a couple of
weeks ago. Orr stated she was still concerned about opening it up.
If we allow service for one project then we would have to allow for
others. There is no guarantee an annexation will go through.
Wickstrom stated that currently if there were a request for utility
service for anything greater than a single family residence on an
existing lot in the Kent school district, the County would probably
deny the request based on their school capacity ordinance. The
school district would indicate they do not have the capacity; thus,
the development could not take place. This would apply to plats
and rezones. Orr asked what would happen if the property was
already zoned for multifamily. Wickstrom stated there is one 5-
acre parcel in this proposed annexation that is zoned for
multifamily. It was clarified that if the annexation is approved
that property would come into the City as R1-20, 000 until the city
sets the zoning. Dowell suggested this resolution be sent to the
Council without a recommendation. Morris pointed out that
paragraph C had been changed from the resolution presented at the
last Committee meeting. That change was an attempt to address the
concerns Leona Orr had expressed. Wickstrom stated it required the
property would have to have submitted a 10% petition and we would
have to have sufficient outstanding covenents representing 60% of
the valuation. Jim White suggested that Leona review the zoning
with the Planning Committee. The Committee unanimously recommended
sending this to the Council without a recommendation. Leona Orr
stated she would be adding this resolution to the Planning
Committee agenda.
Public Works Committee
August 20, 1991
Page 4
196th Corridor
Wickstrom explained we have been attempting to acquire a particular
parcel since 1989 and have had funds reserved since that time. It
appears we are now close to settlement and we are requesting
authorization to transfer the funds from the Street CIP to the
project. The Committee unanimously approved the request.
Water Crossing S. 222nd - Condemnation for Right of Way
Wickstrom explained we have a water main from North 4th going east
to the railroad tracks and a water main on 222nd going west to the
railroad tracks. We are proposing to tie the two together which
would eliminate a severe water hammer problem we have at Liquid Air
plant. We have been negotiating with the railroad but they are
only willing to give the City a permit which does not give us any
permaneirt rights. We are requesting authorization to proceed with
condemnation should we not be able to reach agreement with
Burlington Northern. The Committee unanimously approved the
request.
Underground Storage Tanks Removal and Installation of Above Ground
Tanks
Wickstrom explained we had previously awarded this project but the
contractor was unable to obtain the proper insurance. We rescinded
the bid and readvertised the project. The low bid received on the
second ad was $7 , 300 higher than previous . Wickstrom stated we are
mandated by Federal law to remove the tanks; thus, he requested
transferring the additional funds from the unencumbered water and
sewer utility funds and to award the project. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval.